Georgia Movie Company has a capital structure with 50.00% debt and 50.00% equity. The cost of debt for the firm is 9.00%, while the cost of equity is 12.00%. The tax rate facing the firm is 35.00%. The firm is considering opening a new theater chain in a local college town. The project is expected to cost $12.00 million to initiate in year 0. Georgia Movie expects cash flows in the first year to be $2.62 million, and it also expects cash flows from the movie operation to increase by 4.00% each year going forward. The company wants to examine the project over a 11.00-year period.

What is the WACC for this project?

What is the NPV of this project? (express answer in millions, so 1,000,000 would be 1.00)

For each of the following businesses, what are four nonfinancial measures that might be useful for helping management evaluate the success of its strategies?

__ Grocery store

__ Hospital

__   Auto manufacturer

Law office

_   Coffee shop

__   Movie theater

YOUR TASKS

1.       YOU HAVE TO PICK UP ANY ONE BUSINESS FROM ABOVE AND DRAW UP A BALANCE SCORE CARD AS SHOWN BELOW.ANY EFFORT TO COPY FROM OTHER WORK WOULD RESULT IN CHEATING OUR OWN SELVES AND LIMITING GROWTH OF MIND. (5)

2.       YOU HAVE TO MAKE ATLEAST TWO COMMENTS ON BALANCE SCORE CARD MADE BY OTHERS IN THE DISCUSSION TRAIL.DO NOT CRITICISE BUT RATHER SUGGEST WAYS TO IMPROVE. (5)

For each of the following businesses, what are four nonfinancial measures that might be useful for helping management evaluate the success of its strategies?

__ Grocery store

__ Hospital

__   Auto manufacturer

Law office

_   Coffee shop

__   Movie theater

YOUR TASKS

1.       YOU HAVE TO PICK UP ANY ONE BUSINESS FROM ABOVE AND DRAW UP A BALANCE SCORE CARD AS SHOWN BELOW.ANY EFFORT TO COPY FROM OTHER WORK WOULD RESULT IN CHEATING OUR OWN SELVES AND LIMITING GROWTH OF MIND. (5)

2.       YOU HAVE TO MAKE ATLEAST TWO COMMENTS ON BALANCE SCORE CARD MADE BY OTHERS IN THE DISCUSSION TRAIL.DO NOT CRITICISE BUT RATHER SUGGEST WAYS TO IMPROVE. (5)

In a recent analysis, we highlighted the higher risks COVID-19 poses for communities of color due to underlying health, social, and economic disparities. When we released that analysis, only a handful of states were reporting racial and ethnic data for confirmed coronavirus cases and deaths, but those data were already showing stark, disproportionate impacts for some groups of color. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began reporting national data on confirmed coronavirus cases by race and ethnicity as of April 17, 2020. Similar to earlier state data, they suggest that the virus is having disproportionate effects, with Black people accounting for 34% of confirmed cases with known race/ethnicity compared to 13% of the total population as of April 20, 2020. However, race and ethnicity is missing or unspecified for nearly two-thirds (65%) of the CDC-reported cases, limiting the ability to interpret the data. In addition to the CDC data, a growing number of states have started reporting racial and ethnic data for cases and deaths, which provide further insight into how the virus is affecting communities across the country: As of April 15, 2020, 33 states, including DC, were reporting data on distribution of confirmed coronavirus cases and/or deaths by race/ethnicity. Our analysis of these data finds that they continue to paint a sobering picture of how the virus is disproportionately affecting communities of color, as described and illustrated below (Figure 1). These data will continue to evolve as states update their data and additional states begin reporting data by race and ethnicity. Going forward, we will update these data on a regular basis and add them to our State Data and Policy Actions to Address Coronavirus dashboard. n the majority of states reporting data, Black people accounted for a higher share of confirmed cases (in 20 of 31 states) and deaths (in 19 of 24 states) compared to their share of the total population. These disparities were particularly large in Wisconsin, where Black people made up a four-times higher share of confirmed cases (25% vs. 6%) and an over six-times higher share of deaths (39% vs. 6%) compared to their share of the total population. Similarly, in Kansas, Black people accounted for a three-times higher share of cases (17% vs. 6%) and an over five times higher share of deaths (33% vs. 6%) than their share of the total population. Other states where the share of deaths among Black people was at least twice as high as their share of the total population included Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Arkansas and Indiana. Moreover, Black people accounted for over half of all deaths in DC (75%), Mississippi (66%), Louisiana (59%), Alabama (52%), and Georgia (51%). We also observed disparate impacts for Hispanic and Asian individuals in some states. In 6 of 26 states reporting data, Hispanic individuals made up a greater share of confirmed cases compared to their share of the total population, with the largest relative differences in Iowa (17% vs. 6%) and Wisconsin (12% vs. 7%). ). Asian people made up a higher share of cases or deaths relative to their share of the total population in a few states, although the differences generally are small. In Alabama, Asian people accounted for 4% of deaths compared to 1% of the total population. Although we identified fewer disparities for these groups compared to Black people, less states report data for these groups and states differ in how they report these data. For example, states vary in whether they include or exclude Hispanic individuals from racial categories and some report data for Asian people alone, while others combine Asian people with another racial group. Moreover, states do not provide data for subgroups of Asian people, which can mask disparities for subgroups who are at higher risk. Data remain largely unavailable for smaller groups, including people who are American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (NHOPI), limiting the ability to identify impacts for them. These groups are at high risk given large pre-existing disparities in health, social, and economic factors, and there are large disparities in some of the states where data are available. For example, AIAN people make up a larger share of confirmed cases compared to their share of the total population in New Mexico (37% vs. 9%), and AIAN individuals make up five times more deaths compared to their share of the total population in Arizona (21% vs. 4%). The Indian Health Service (IHS) also reports confirmed cases among IHS patients. However, not all AIAN people are able to access services through IHS, and IHS has historically been underfunded to meet the needs of AIAN people, so these data do not provide for a complete understanding of impacts for this group. Comprehensive nationwide data by race and ethnicity will be key to understanding how COVID-19 is affecting communities as well as shaping and targeting response efforts. While the majority of states are reporting racial and ethnic data, in many states, race and/or ethnicity is unknown for a significant share of cases and deaths. The unknown race share exceeds 20% for cases in 14 states and for deaths in 4 states. Moreover, as noted earlier, there are inconsistencies in how states report data that limit comparability across states. As such, the availability of comprehensive, consistent nationwide data disaggregated by race and ethnicity remains important for understanding the impact of COVID-19 across communities. Moreover, going forward, these data will be important to broader efforts to advance equity and address disparities that existed prior to COVID-19 and that will likely widen due to COVID-19.

IN 3 TO 4 SINGLE SPACED TYPED PARAGRAPHS 1. WHAT ARE THE KEY POINTS OF THIS ARTICLE, 2. IN YOUR OPINION WHAT ARE THE ROOT CAUSES OF THIS DISPARITY--BE SPECIFIC AND 3. WHAT STEPS WOULD YOU RECOMMEND TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO CLOSE THE GAP.

TOXIC RECREATIONAL CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM?

The growing concern for the environment has increased public interest in the need for eco-friendly cities.  Baltimore City residents and policymakers are, therefore, becoming more environmentally conscious in the development and rehabilitation of  the city. The management of Baltimore City is becoming increasingly more complex as city is experiencing, crime including political corruption,  socio-economic divisiveness, racial segregation, dwindling tax base and stalled physical and economic growth. Remembering you are the Assistant Director of Recreation and Parks for the City of Baltimore. You are the trouble shooter and problem solver for the city residents and the parks department. When something happens in this city you are the go-to person they  (The Director of Recreation and Parks, The Mayor and, The City Council) turn to you, you are respected, experienced and well educated so your decisions actual become departmental policy.

Urban growth in East Baltimore has led to an increase in land values; thus, leading to competition between land uses including the demarcation of land for urban parks. The indirect economic benefits of urban parks make it difficult to place an economic value on them; thus, affecting the ability for policymakers to assess their true cost and benefits. This adversely affects the level of investment in the development of parks which limits the sustainable management of parks. Strigl (2003) describes the sustainable management of parks as the efficient and effective organization of park use through negotiations, comprises, and consensus building among stakeholders. However, recent news reports and complaints by residents in the city, especially West Baltimore and its residents who have been severely neglected in terms of  overall development and improvements because of crime, abject poverty and socio-economic demographics which prevented the private sector developers from investing in the area. In addition, the West Baltimore area houses some of the poorest areas of the city and some of the worst areas in terms of city services according to residents and outside observers. This is especially true regarding parks and recreation facilities in the West Baltimore area. Recently a park refurbishment in the Harlem Park section of West Baltimore was halted due to concerns by environmentalist that the grounds where the park was being built were contaminate decades ago during early part of the 19^th century by an automobile battery factory owned by General Motors. The environmentalist have determined through studies that the company upon closing the factory have buried thousands of tons of automobile batteries and chemicals underground which have been slowly leeching out into the grounds of the park.  However, during the initial development of the park several soil samples have been taken by several different groups including the Federal government through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The State of Maryland Department of Environment and The Baltimore City Department of Environmental control all signed off on the project. government indicating that the grounds under park were safe and free from harmful levels of contamination and the project was greenlighted by the Mayor, The City Council, and numerous other elected officials, neighborhood association leaders, celebrities and the surrounding community. The project was viewed as a resounding success and the park was expanded into a neighborhood recreational facility complete with a food bank, job training center, daycare and senior center  and numerous sports programs and activities for the community. The facility is currently viewed as model for urban revitalization of impoverished communities nationwide. It has evolved from a simple clearing of abandoned homes to a large recreational center with the possibility of further expansion. It has attracted numerous volunteers, donors throughout the country

In spite of the success of the facility and its effects on the neighborhood a recent Netflix Documentary/investigation about the extremely high cancer rate amongst residents  in the West Baltimore, Maryland 21215-area code surrounding the facility and neighborhood. After the documentary investigation more samples were taken of the soil and investigation of the processes undertaken to complete the project. In addition , the Maryland Department of Health, Johns Hopkins University, and several other public and private hospitals and concerned citizens formed a consortium to investigate the allegations outlined in the documentary. The consortiums findings revealed that the facility should have never been built on the site and it was highly likely that the site and the underground contamination were possibly the root causes in the high levels of cancer, asthma, skin rashes, COPD, suffered by the residents and patrons on the facility. In the mad rush to open the facility and under pressure by the constituents and the media someone signed off on the project. Further investigation has found that the culprits who were involved in green lighting the project are either deceased or retired so there would be one alive to held accountable, no criminal convictions, arrests, indictments but there will be a Class Action Lawsuit by the residents. Currently the facility has been ordered closed temporarily by the city effective April 20, 2020  based on recommendations by the consortium researching the situation while further tests and a solution to correct the problem is discovered. However, the summer months are coming up and the need by all stakeholders is to get out in front of this issue ASAP by coming up with a plan.

The Mayor of the City of Baltimore has ordered an Emergency Action Plan to be developed by the Department of Recreation & Parks. The Director of Recreation and Parks has asked you to come up with a plan to determine what are the essential programs and how to transfer/ temporarily move those services to other organizations in the area to keep the programs operating. Because many of the programs utilize separate funding specifically for their programs based upon participation it is essential that there be no disruption of their program or they would lose funding for the program  Your directives coming from the Mayor, the Director of Parks & Recreation, and other city leaders is to first address the community in a Town Hall Meeting at a local church in the area.

In order to address the conflicts between the environmental and economic use of land; planners, park administrators and advocates need to combine their procedural and substantive skills and become central players in dealing with the conflict between growth, environment and social justice (Campbell 2011). The Baltimore City government and the Baltimore City Recreation & Parks authorities are also confronted and pressured with the problem of gentrification, budget challenges, appeasing various ethnic and cultural groups, socio-economic challenges, funding, creation, management and maintenance of urban parks and recreation. Despite their social and ecological benefits some of these projects will continue to move forward in an effort to appease constituents and the public. These competing interests make dealing with most urban issues such as the management of parks complex and costly; thus, the need to study some of the factors that influence the urban park development. The ability of recreation and park professional to conduct critical analysis, make strategic decisions make it imperative that leadership in the field be knowledgeable and taken seriously because the importance of recreation and parks cannot and should not be underestimated.

QUESTIONS:

1. You will write a statement( 1 page) on behalf of the Department of Parks & Recreation position of the issue, addressing the constituents, parents/children, vendors, staff, and all members of the community regarding the Recreation Center current status and what will be done to continue the programs and services offered be the community.
2. You will develop an emergency action plan to move the essential programs and services to other organizations, and entities in the community and determine the best way to notify the community of these changes.
3. You will develop a table outlining where the essential programs will be moved to and held.
4. Create a list of who you should approach and address with moving the programs and explaining the departments position. (simply cite the place where you obtain you references).

CASE: Boeing and Airbus Are in a Dogfight over Illegal Subsides

            Boeing and Airbus are the dominant players in the global market for large commercial jet aircraft of 100 seats or more. The two companies are locked in a rent less battle for market share. For decades, these two companies have been accusing each other of benefitting from the government subsidies. In its early years, Airbus received 100 percent of the funds it needed to develop new aircraft from the governments of four European countries where Airbus’ operations were based: Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These funds were provided in the form of loans at below-market interest rates. For its part, Airbus claimed the Boeing has long been the recipient of R&D grants form the U.S. Department of Defense and NASA, which amount to indirect subsides. The two companies reached an agreement on phasing out subsidies back in 1992, but Boeing walked away from that deal in 2004, claiming that Airbus was still benefiting from billions in illegal development subsidies.

            In 2006, the U.S. government filed a case with the World Trade Organization (WTO) alleging that Airbus had received $25 billion in illegal subsidies, mostly in the form of launch aid for developing new aircraft. In 2010, the WTO ruled that Airbus had benefited from $18 billion in illegal government subsidies, including $15 billion in launch aid. The WTO gave the European governments until December 2011 to remove the harmful effects of the subsidies.

            In September 2016, the WTO issued another ruling criticizing the Europeans for failing to comply with its 2010 ruling and, moreover, for giving another $5 billion to Airbus in the form of noncommercial loans to help develop its latest aircraft, the A350. In this latest ruling, the WTO stated that “it is apparent that the A350 could not have been launched and brought market in the absence of launch aid.” In total, the WTO calculated that Boeing had lost 104 wide-bodied jet orders and 271 narrow-bodied jet orders as a result of Airbus launch subsidies. This latest ruling opens the door for the United States to apply retaliatory trade sanctions against noncompliant European governments.

            However, it seems unlikely that the United States will apply retaliatory sanctions anytime soon. Part of the reason is the United States itself has been countersued by the EU through the WTO for providing illegal subsidies to Boeing. In November 2016, the WTO ruled that Boeing would receive around $5.7 billion in illegal tax breaks from Washington State, where Boeing’s main production facilities are located. The state of Washington had promised to give Boeing these tax breaks between 2020 and 2040 on the condition that the company kept to production of the wings for the wide-bodied 777X aircraft in the state. According to Airbus, these tax breaks give 777X an unfair advantage against its rival aircraft, an assessment that the WTO seems to agree with.

            It remains to be seen what the final outcome will be. The WTO has yet to rule on how much damage Boeing’s tax breaks might impose upon Airbus. For its part, Boeing claims that the benefits from the subsidies to the 777X program only amount to $50 million a year, an assessment that Airbus vigorously disagrees with. The EU appealed this decision. A final ruling isn’t expected until at least 2018.

Analyze the case and answer the following questions:

QUESTION 1: According to WTO rulings, both Airbus and Boeing have been recipients of government assistance at one point or another. Discuss the nature of aircraft manufacturing and why subsidies are seemingly part of the industry practice.

QUESTION 2: In its early years, Airbus received subsidies for 100 percent of its development costs. Discuss this situation. Is there a time when subsidies should be considered acceptable? Why or why not?

QUESTION 3: Boeing is expected to benefit from some $5.7 billion in tax breaks from the state of Washington. Why is the state of Washington willing to provide these tax breaks to Boeing?

Insomnia has become an epidemic in the United States. Much research has been done in the development of new pharmaceuticals to aide those who suffer from insomnia. Alternatives to the pharmaceuticals are being sought by sufferers. A new relaxation technique has been tested to see if it is effective in treating the disorder. Sixty insomnia sufferers between the ages of 18 to 40 with no underlying health conditions volunteered to participate in a clinical trial. They were randomly assigned to either receive the relaxation treatment or a proven pharmaceutical treatment. Thirty were assigned to each group. The amount of time it took each of them to fall asleep was measured and recorded. The data is shown below. Use the appropriate t-test to determine if the relaxation treatment is more effective than the pharmaceutical treatment at a level of significance of 0.05.

Blue Apron IPO Leaves a Bad Taste Founded in 2012, Blue Apron is one of the top meal-kit delivery services doing business in the United States. Started by three co-founders—Matt Salzberg, Matt Wadiak, and Ilia Pappas—Blue Apron provides pre-portioned ingredients (and recipes) for a meal, delivered to consumers’ front doors. According to recent research, the U.S. meal-kit delivery industry is an $800 million business with the potential to scale up quickly, as more and more consumers struggle to find time to go grocery shopping, make meals, and spend time with family and friends in their hectic daily lives. As word spread among foodies about the quality and innovative meals put together by Blue Apron, the company’s popularity took off, supported by millions in start-up funding. Costs to scale the business have not been cheap—estimates suggest that Blue Apron’s marketing costs have been high. Despite the challenges, by early 2017 the company was selling more than 8 million meal kits a month and decided to go public in an effort to raise more money and scale its operations, including a new fulfillment facility in New Jersey. According to the IPO paperwork filed with the SEC, the company had net revenues of $84 million in 2014, which increased to $795 million in 2016. However, those ambitious numbers were not without warnings: company losses increased in the same time period from $33 million to $55 million. Even with those larges losses on its balance sheet, Blue Apron decided to go ahead with the IPO and hired Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, two top stock underwriters, to figure out the right price for the initial offering. While Blue Apron and its underwriters were finalizing stock prices, Amazon announced plans to acquire Whole Foods—a move that could negatively affect Blue Apron’s business going forward. Even after Amazon’s announcement, Blue Apron and its financial advisors priced the initial offering at $15 to $17 a share and met with investors across the country to inform them about the IPO, which would value the company on paper at more than $3 billion. As part of the IPO strategy, Blue Apron executives needed to communicate a strong financial picture while providing potential investors with an honest assessment of investor demand, especially for institutional investors, who typically are repeat buyers when it comes to IPOs. According to sources close to the IPO experience, Blue Apron’s bankers told investors late in the IPO pricing process that they were “closing their order books early,” which meant there was a heightened demand for the stock—a signal that the stock would be priced in the original $15–$17 range. A day later, however, Blue Apron amended its prospectus with a price range between $10 and $11 a share, which shocked potential investors—a move greeted with criticism that Blue Apron’s messaging now lacked credibility in the eyes of the investment community if the company priced the IPO $5 lower per share than originally estimated. With that sudden change in the IPO offering, investors walked away, and the $10 initial offering for Blue Apron stock actually declined on its first day of trading. As of this writing, the stock has lost close to 40 percent from the original $10-per-share price. With continued consolidation in the meal-kit delivery sector inevitable, Blue Apron is at a crossroads when it comes to generating revenue and stabilizing costs while trying to sign up more subscribers. One of its competitors, Plated, was recently acquired by the Alberstons grocery chain, and Amazon has already trademarked the phrase, “We do the prep. You be the chef,” as it relates to prepared food kits. Critical Thinking Questions What issues should executives of a company such as Blue Apron consider before deciding to go public? In your opinion, was the company ready for an IPO? Why or why not? How else could Blue Apron have raised funds to continue to grow? Compare the risks of raising private funding to going public. Use a search engine and a site such as Yahoo! Finance to learn about Blue Apron’s current Prepare a brief summary, including the company’s current financial situation. Is it still a public company, and how has its stock fared? Would you invest in it? Explain your reasoning.

Problem 2. The US National Park Service (NPS) believes that airborne sulfur pollution and acid rain has significantly reducing the water quality in several lakes and streams in the Adirondacks State Park in NY. Many of these water bodies are considered biologically ‘dead.’ Coal fired power plants in the Midwest contribute most of the pollution. If 70% of the sulfur pollution was removed, the NPS believes that many of the lakes and streams would return to their natural biological state. The costs and benefits associated with this project are as follows:

1. Construction cost for sulfur removal equipment = $300 million for each of the first three years of the project. (During these three years there are no other costs associated with the project.)

2. Operation and maintenance costs = $ 85 million per year (These costs begin to accrue once the project comes on-line in the fourth year. They continue to accrue over the entire life of the equipment, i.e., through the 20th year.)

3. Estimated increase in revenues earned by the Adirondacks State Park = $ 150 million per year (These additional revenues accrue so long as the sulfur reduction equipment is operating.)

4. Reduced incidence of acid rain in the Adirondacks Park area valued at: = $ 2 million per year. (These benefits begin accruing once the project comes on-line and are assumed to continue over an infinitely long time period.) Assume that the discount rate is 3% per year.

Sensitivity analysis: To determine the sensitivity of your conclusion regarding whether the project makes economic sense or not, (a) evaluate the project at a discount rate of 5% per year, and (b) assume that the estimated increase in Park revenues is $130 million per year instead of $150 million per year. You can assume a discount rate of 3% per year for this. What is your conclusion now?

Policy recommendation: Based on all your calculations, what is your overall recommendation regarding this project?

PROBLEM IV Binghamton University is building a recreation center. The estimated construction cost is $12 million with annual staffing and maintenance costs of $750,000 over the 20-year life of the project (ie, t = 0, 1, 2, …, 19). At the end of the life of the project (ie, at t = 19), Binghamton expects to be able to sell the land for $4 million, though the amount could be as low as $2 million and as high as $5 million. Analysts estimate the first-year benefits (accruing at the end of the year of the first year, ie at t =1) to be $1.2 million. They expect the annual benefit to grow in real terms due to increases in population and income. Their prediction is an annual growth rate of 4 percent, but it could be as low as 1 percent or as high as 6 percent. Analysts also estimate the real discount rate for Binghamton to be 6 percent per year, though it could be a percentage point lower or higher.

1. Calculate the present value of net benefits for this project using the analysts’ predictions.

2. Investigate the sensitivity of the present value of net benefits to alternative projections within the ranges given by the analysts. Change only one assumption at a time, and try all possible combinations of assumptions (there are 27 possible combinations).

3. Based on your analysis on parts 1 and 2 of this problem, do you think Binghamton University should build the recreation center?