Pes 2016 Euro Edition

[Heberto Calderon]

LinkedInand 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.

It's time for your favorite part of the week. Let's be honest, LinkedIn just wouldn't be as awesome without TripMe . We've got a special edition for you today as we continue to explore Europe's finest dishes at some of the most incredible spots. So, let's not waste any time and dive right in!

This will probably stir into a lawsuit of sorts. Saying EoD was the limited edition of this game and now making it pretty much irrelevant with the perks of "Unheard Edition", not to mention the cost to upgrade from EoD to this unbelivable cash grab will cause a stir and a half..

Unless they make it 20$ for EOD owners its still a ripoff and spitting in the face of all those who supported them for years. We shouldnt have to give them an extra cent after supporting the game in its worst times and what do we get in return, Nikita holding his hand out for more cash like a begger. We payed enough money already for broken promises. Make it free for EOD!

BSG bunch of liars. Bought EOD on the promise of all future content and not spending any more with them. If I don't inherit the promised DLC then they can suck a big fat one and any legal action people are bound to take.

As an EOD buyer i feel massively deceived and kicked in the ass. Years ago i bought the overpriced EOD to support the development of EFT and in the belief that i would receive all current and future game content. Now i have to pay a horrendous price again to have access to the full scope of the game. I will not do that! You are kicking the asses of the early supporters who have already paid significantly more for an unfinished, early alpha/beta version than the final release of a triple A game costs on the market. Anyone who treats their customers like this has lost trust and should not receive a single cent more. shame on you.

I'm absolutely done with this game. EoD was supposed to give us all the future DLC but now they are saying that it's not DLC under the guise of "Additional Content". BSG has gone the route of too many other game studios and it's just dirty.

BSG needs money...they are bigger and their had some losses, mostly servers I guess. And also because the development takes almost decade, and you buy the game only ONCE!. so to fund this journey, they need to get money somewhere...and now they find a way to gain some funds. I get it, that's how progress works! Good for them!

Unless some pressure comes from some lawyers, you have few choices.

1 - buy it and support it for-ever???:D,

2 - you don't support it anymore and hope for the best with what you have,

3 - leave and never come back !

For me, I need to first find out exactly what is the exact change from buying this caschBomb from EOD, to this Unheard ver. Presentation didn't mentioned if you keep Gama/Stash as is in EOD by default? Many other things...so. I'm gonna wait for the judgment day for a while yet I really like what I have in EOD so, add to it is OK, rewrite it is sad option for me.

But anyway, in all that, I'm writing this, because I still LOVE the game....lets see...

I almost never write here, i made a Reddit post about what they probably should have done, but really all it amounts to is

A. The Unheard edition should have only been hardlocking the following things

If they had sold the Big pack for say 50 Euro and then the smaller upgrades for 10-15 or whatever sum this might have been a easy way to get the money they need and NOT piss off everyone

The grim reality is that BSG is losing money and with the things going on with russia, they cant attract foreign investors, so Money will be getting more and more tight and they need to monetize their game, their 22 and 23 earnings show them losing money.

ARP strategies have exhibited low correlations to traditional asset classes and demonstrated reasonable resilience in times of equity market stress, particularly relative to other diversifying assets. Although live track records are short and any conclusions drawn from back-tested data should be viewed skeptically, investors may find that these liquid and cost-effective strategies deliver diversifying characteristics comparable to traditional safe haven assets. In this paper, we assess the euro-denominated universe of ARP funds, their diversifying role in portfolios, and the issues investors should be aware of when considering this space.

ARP funds extend the approach of factor investing across multiple factors and asset classes. This extension means these funds are less exposed to any one individual risk factor. Individual factor performance can be cyclical and difficult, if not impossible, to time. However, correlations across factors have historically been low, meaning factor combinations within a single portfolio may produce a smoother return profile.

Some factors are more prevalent in certain asset classes than others, but most ARP funds apply multiple factor approaches across equities, commodities, fixed income, and currencies. Typically, these funds target four main factors: value, momentum, carry, and quality (Figure 1), but they may incorporate other risk premia or market anomalies into their strategies. 1 Although the number of potential factors is enormous (academic literature highlights more than 300), the vast majority are not statistically significant and, therefore, not harvested. Investors should seek products that target factors that have been proven across multiple academic studies and that have persisted over the long term.

With these criteria, we constructed the Cambridge Associates (CA) ARP fund Composite (EUR) to better understand performance. The CA ARP Composite (EUR) includes eight ARP funds with total assets of US$24.4 billion. The selected share classes of these funds are all denominated in EUR to avoid the distorting nature of converting return streams from other currencies. Funds included in this composite have audited track records in excess of five years and are net of fees. Results may vary for alternative composites denominated in different currencies.

Including allocations of trend followers or absolute return DGF in a balanced portfolio produced lower levels of return and in the case of trend followers, the lower return came with higher volatility. Over the five-year time period, which was characterised by low volatility and strong equity markets, ARP funds performed moderately well. However, a balanced portfolio without diversifiers performed better on both an absolute and risk-adjusted basis than a portfolio including diversifiers. This outperformance is unsurprising, considering the bull market conditions of the period in question. Yet a diversified portfolio would be expected to generate better value on the downside.

Figure 3 highlights the cumulative returns generated by a balanced portfolio with the inclusion of various liquid diversifiers. In this instance, an allocation to ARP strategies would have returned more than an equivalent allocation to trend followers and DGF funds, but lagged gold and safe-haven currencies. For instance, a EUR100 million portfolio would have appreciated by EUR39 million with an ARP allocation, exceeding the EUR35 million gain from a portfolio including trend followers and EUR31 million from DGF funds. The portfolio incorporating gold, however, would have appreciated by EUR45 million.

To better understand the capital protection benefits of adding ARP funds to a portfolio, we examined performance during the recent market volatility of fourth quarter 2018 and first quarter 2019 (Figure 5). In this instance, the returns of a balanced portfolio with and without ARP are relatively similar. A EUR100 million 60% equity/40% bond portfolio would have outperformed a balanced portfolio including ARP by EUR1.4 million. The outperformance of a balanced 60/40 portfolio widened to EUR4.7 million when including all of 2018. During the first nine months of the year, many ARP strategies lagged as models showed higher-than-normal downside correlation. The year 2018 was somewhat anomalous in that correlations rose across risk premia; the value risk premia, which was a large allocation in many ARP funds, underperformed and was a large drag on performance. However, it is reasonable to expect risk premias to display higher-than-average correlations from time to time. The cross-asset correlations should return to more normal ranges over the long term.

When considering an allocation to ARP strategies as a portfolio diversifier, the beta persistence of the underlying fund is very important. For a fund to be a good diversifier, a low or negative beta to other asset classes would be necessary, especially in times of market stress. A fund with a wide beta range may be sub-optimal in providing diversified returns at the most important times. Considering rolling 36-month time periods, the ARP Composite (EUR) produces a satisfactory beta to the MSCI World Index range of 0.06 to 0.23, with an average beta of 0.12, indicating acceptable diversifying characteristics. However, an interesting observation is that there has been a slow but steady increase of rolling 36-month betas of the ARP Composite (EUR) over the time period. The 36-month beta of the ARP Composite (EUR) across most of 2017 averaged 0.08. By the end of first quarter 2019, this average 36-month beta had risen to 0.23, which may partly explain the disappointing results at the end of 2018.

3a8082e126