'' Product liability is not my job,'' said Mark Conners,safety director for Richfield Toys Inc.''The safety of the toys we manufacture is a design problem.Leave it to the engineers''. ''Engineers have a role to play,of course,'' said Amanda Garner,CEO of Richfield Toys.''But they are more function-oriented than safety -oriented.We need all our products to be scrutinized from a safety perspective.'' Does the safety director have a role to play here?If so,what is it?if not ,why? what is your opinion.....Discuss

You are the recently hired CFO of MicroMash.  Bill Bates, the CEO wants your advice on the sale of a new spreadsheet software called Xcellent.  In conjuction with a two week promotion of at Office Depot stores, customers will be able to purchase the software and have the ability to return the item and receive a full refund up until 6 months from the purchase date.  Please discuss the proper accounting treatment for this transaction; 20,000 units were sold in the two week period with a cost of $120.

Lovemarks – The future beyond brands
Lovemarks is a marking concept that is intended to replace the idea of brands. The idea was first widely publicized in a book of the same name written by Kevin Roberts, CEO of the advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi.
Watch the video and the paper in the links below and provide your opinion in 300 words. Do you agree with Kevin about Lovemarks concept? If yes, why and if no, why not? You have to use the information from the links to support your discussion.
http://redrose.

Lincoln Corporation has accumulated a large amount of cash flow. The CEO proposes to fly all managers to a luxury resort in Hawaii at the end of the year for a one-week holiday using the corporate jet. Describe how the company’s capital structure could be changed to prevent managers from spending the company’s cash on the luxury holiday, but instead investing the cash in positive NPV projects. Explain why the proposed change to capital structure could help encourage investment in positive NPV projects.                                                                    

Corporate governance is referred to as mechanism, processes as well as relation which assist in controlling and directing the organizations. It is defined as set of systems, principles as well as procedure that makes sure that organization is governed in the best interest of stakeholders (Larcker, Richardson and Tuna, 2007).

What is the board’s role in corporate governance — and how does that differ from management’s role?
Describe the respective roles of the Chairman and the chief executive officer (CEO), and explain why it is important for good corporate governance that they should be able to work well together.

I need to make this answers longer thank you

-

Porter’s Five Forces Analysis Of Adidas

For the constant maintenance of profit of the organization and to analyze the competition of the business we use Porter’s five forces. This business model will help us to identify the exact causes of threat by keen analyzation of various categories. And it also helps us to make strategic decisions for the productive and efficient running of the organization. Porters five forces are listed as follows,

Five Forces

·       Barriers to entry

As Adidas is one of the biggest leading company, the threats of new entrants is considered to be very less as it requires a very large investment set up to bring in new technologies. Marketing and advertisement of products is also a money consuming task when we try to compete with big companies like Adidas. Building up of own brand literally requires a lot of efforts and cannot be acquired overnight.

Barriers to entry- Low to moderate

·       Intensity of rivalry

The level of competition in the industry is so intense because of the main competitors like Nike, Puma, Under Armour and there are several other small competitors also sharing their position in the market share. All competitors are spending billions of dollars in the marketing, advertising, etc., Even though the top brands are limited in number, still, the competition they are giving to Adidas is very tough.

Intensity of rivalry – High

Supplier power

Adidas has multi-layered supply chains from all over the world and as it is working with more than 1000 factories in 63 countries, most of its production is outsourced. It would be a major loss to the suppliers if the suppliers try to take the risk by making supply contract with other companies because it will lead to losing up of the business tie-up with Adidas and put their business in risk.

Supplier power – High

·       Buyer Power

There are some of the local competitors are also influencing the buyers to purchase their products. But Adidas has a strong built up customer loyalty base with its efficient marketing technique. Its mainly focusses on its design, brand, and quality. So, for these reasons the switching of buyers to other concerns products is very minimal in number.

Buyer Power – Low to moderate

·       Threats of Substitutes

The threats of substitutes for Adidas is normally at a moderate rate only because the local competitors are offering a wide range of substitute products at very low prices. But Adidas is mainly concentrating on providing quality products to its customers and nowadays started focusing more on metropolitan areas where it has more customer base.

Threat of Substitutes - low to moderate

Shown below is the stockholders' equity section of Flamingo Corporation's balance sheet at December 31, 2020:

Consider the following events in preparing a Statement of Stockholder’s Equity and earnings per share for the year 2021.

The company’s net income for 2021 is $1,235,000 -- BEFORE any of the above transactions.

Complete the following in EXCEL prepared in GOOD FORM and using formulas. Organize your analysis appropriately to:

• Prepare the company's Statement of Stockholder's Equity in good form

• Compute Earnings per Share

America’s Gilded Age in the late nineteenth century began with a raft of innovations – railroads, steel production, oil extraction – but culminated in mammoth trusts owned by “robber barons” who used their wealth and power to drive out competitors, and then to corrupt American politics. We are now in a second Gilded Age – ushered in by semiconductors, software, and the Internet – and a handful of technology giants are the new robber barons. Facebook and Google now dominate the online advertising market, while the advertising revenue going to newspapers, network television, and other newsgathering agencies continues to decline. Google also hosts two-thirds of all Internet searches in the United States, and is so dominant that “to google” has long since become a commonly used verb. In 2006, Google acquired the world’s largest video-hosting site, YouTube. And Facebook, for its part, has acquired more than 70 companies over roughly 15 years, including potential competitors like Instagram and WhatsApp. Amazon, meanwhile, has become the first stop for one-third of all US consumers seeking to buy anything, including more than half of new books. Amazon’s scale translates into bargains for consumers, but it undermines supplier industries, including author royalties and publisher earnings. This consolidation at the leading edge of the US economy has created three big problems. The first concerns economic power. Here, the issue is not the classic one of consumer prices being higher than they’d be under competitive conditions; it is that Big Tech is inhibiting innovation. The incumbents’ size, must-use platforms (owing to network effects), wall-to-wall patents and copyrights, and fleets of lawyers to litigate potential rivals into submission have allowed them to create formidable barriers to new entrants. To be sure, large platforms like Amazon, Google, and Facebook have enabled creators to showcase and introduce new apps, songs, books, videos, and other content. But because of these platforms’ overwhelming bargaining power, they can take a large share of the profits. Partly as a result, the rate at which new jobcreating businesses are formed in the US has fallen by half since 2004. The second problem concerns political influence: massive concentrations of economic power tend to generate political clout that is easily abused. Because of its increasing size, the technology sector provides significant campaign contributions and maintains platoons of lobbyists and lawyers in Washington, DC. Google’s parent company, Alphabet, for example, is the one of the biggest lobbyists in the city. All this power gets results: tax loopholes, subsidies, regulatory exemptions, and other forms of government largesse that is unavailable to smaller firms. Hence, in 2018, Amazon paid no federal taxes, even as it held an auction to extort billions of dollars from states and cities eager to host its second headquarters. The company has also forced Seattle, its main headquarters, to scrap a plan to tax big corporations. That revenue would have been used to pay for homeless shelters for a growing population that can’t afford sky-high rents caused, in part, by Amazon. Big Tech’s political power also buys impunity. Facebook executives withheld evidence of malign Russian activity on their platform far longer than previously disclosed, but suffered no consequences. Perhaps more troubling, they employed a political opposition-research firm to discredit their critics. How long will it be before Facebook uses its own data and platform against its opponents and competitors? Google, too, has used its power to fend off criticism. It has quietly funded hundreds of university professors to write research papers justifying its market dominance, and it has threatened to cut funding to nonprofit think tanks that have criticized its economic and political power. The third problem concerns social power: the control over the flows of communications on which people rely to understand the world. The most obvious example is the news itself. By refusing to take responsibility for the accuracy of what appears on their platforms, the Big Tech firms are actively enabling demagogues, hatemongers, and con artists to exert unprecedented influence over society – perverting political discourse, encouraging bigotry, and even endangering children. The tech companies’ defense is that they are not publishers, but merely the proprietors of platforms and algorithms. But this claim is belied by their platforms’ powerful network effects. The more people participate, the more necessary the platform becomes for everyone else. If people want to know what’s happening in the world, they increasingly have little choice but to engage with YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter. Another aspect of Big Tech’s social power is its increasing capacity to pool and analyze data about all aspects of our lives, choices, and movements. This not only undermines our privacy; it challenges our very autonomy. Targeted advertising doesn’t merely respond to consumer needs and wants. It shapes our understanding of ourselves, our communities, and of the world. These three forms of power – economic, political, and social – are rooted in Big Tech’s increasing dominance over markets, information, and communications. And that dominance is a function of these companies’ size and scope. America responded to abuses of corporate power in the Gilded Age with antitrust laws that allowed the government to break up concentrated economic power. It is time to use antitrust again. Where breaking up Big Tech companies is impractical, those firms should at least be required to make their proprietary technology and data publicly available, and to share their platforms with smaller competitors. Such measures would impose few costs on the economy, given that these giants rely on scale rather than innovation. Moreover, the benefits of reducing Big Tech’s concentrated power would be significant. More competition would reduce the major platforms’ market leverage and political clout. It would also give people more choice about how to receive reliable information, and greater control over which aspects of their personal lives they share. In the second Gilded Age, as in the first, giant firms at the center of the US economy are distorting its market and its politics. Just as the problem is the same, so is the solution.

QUESTIONS:

1. In what ways have Google and Facebook become dominant in the technology sector?

2. How have the Big Tech created barriers to entry and consolidated their market power?

3. What has been the impact of the bargaining power of large platforms on new job-creating businesses?

4. Define the network effects and the positive network externalities. Explain why people all over the world would rely increasingly on YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter to reach the information?

5. What would be the new ways of dealing with the monopoly power attained by the Big Tech?

A University found that 27% of its graduates have taken an introductory statistics course. Assume that a group of 15 graduates have been selected.

1. Compute the probability that from this group, there are exactly 2 graduates that have taken an introductory statistics course.
2. Compute the probability that from this group, there are at most 3 graduates that have taken an introductory statistics course.
3. Compute the probability that from this group, there are at least 4 graduates that have taken an introductory statistics course.
4. Compute the expected number, the variance and the standard deviation of graduates that have taken an introductory statistics course.

A University found that 27% of its graduates have taken an introductory statistics course. Assume that a group of 15 graduates have been selected.

1. Compute the probability that from this group, there are exactly 2 graduates that have taken an introductory statistics course.
2. Compute the probability that from this group, there are at most 3 graduates that have taken an introductory statistics course.
3. Compute the probability that from this group, there are at least 4 graduates that have taken an introductory statistics course.
4. Compute the expected number, the variance and the standard deviation of graduates that have taken an introductory statistics course.