Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

To illustrate your knowledge of portfolio construction, design two portfolios based on the following scenario:

Part 1:

John and Roberta Johnson are approaching retirement. They have accumulated $800,000 in funds. They would like to divide their funds into two equal portfolios, one conservative portfolio that will generate income, and one aggressive portfolio that is focused on growth where income generation is not a consideration.

Design two separate 400,000 portfolios based on the goals of each portfolio.

Each portfolio should contain 3 common stocks, one investment grade bond you researched at this site, and one ADR you researched at this site.
Be sure to choose stocks for each portfolio with appropriate dividend yields and betas based the goal of each portfolio. Explain why you believe each investment chosen is a good choice based on fundamental analysis. Explain what type of business each stock choice represents, and information about the financial position of each company. Be sure your portfolios are diversified and all your investments aren’t in the same type of business.
Finally, put all your investments for each portfolio into a table and in the table show the amount of money in each investment, the beta for each stock chosen, the dividend yield for each stock chosen, and the coupon rate for each bond chosen.
Be sure to discuss:

Reasons for your investment choices
Stock investment risk and return factors based on beta
Bond interest rate risk
Part 2:

Briefly discuss the concepts of the dividend discount model. Be sure to show the DDM formula.

Your response should contain 1800-2000 words and a table.

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

This is the capstone, and thus most important, assignment in the course. Presume that you work for an agency that organizes and manages major events. A local civic organization has asked four agencies, including the one for which you work, to submit competitive comprehensive proposals for an event. It should be prepared as if being presented to the chair of the selection committee that will select the agency that will plan, organize and implement this event. (YOU HAVE TO “SELL” YOUR AGENCY AS THE BEST CHOICE TO EXECUTIVE THIS EVENT.)
The reason of the event is to organize and manage an event to raise funds to cover the cost of examinations for the 250 varsity athletes in all sports at a high school of your choice. The medical exams are to identify undiagnosed heart conditions that could be fatal for a student athlete involved in intense conditioning, practice or competition. This service will be provided at cost (about $100 per student athlete) by a local hospital. Area physicians will donate their services.
Your proposal must identify the event on which your proposal will be based, including a justification as to why you are recommending this specific event as being appropriate to raise these funds. Include provisions for the five stages and considerations for
organizing and managing this event. (See lecture 8-attatched) Describe how you will create awareness of and support for the heart examination program and a community willingness and desire to support the program.

ORGANIZATION AND PRESENTATION
Organize and present this paper in sections, each clearly delineated.

Cover Page. Assignment number and topic, course number and name, your name, date submitted

Section I. Purpose of this paper

Section II. Cover letter to the selection committee, in which the special event is described and you explain why your agency should be selected to plan and implement this event proposal

Section III. Special event process (clearly delineate each phase THESE ARE ATTACHED). Using narrative explanation and illustrative specific details, identify issues and considerations associated with each stage of the process

Section IV. Describe what you learned while completing this assignment

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Protectionism

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Do travel apps influence the way holidaymakers book their holiday trips?

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

A reflective analysis of your group’s formation and operation along with a consideration of how the business decisions were reached and how well they were implemented. Specifically you are asked to consider how your group worked together and reacted to any difficulties or disappointments, and consider this is relation to theories of group work and strategy.
You should also consider how the use of strategic management models and theories in a dynamic environment such as the game worked. Did you learn anything more about the models? Did they help you to develop your thinking on strategy? How might you adjust the models to make them more appropriate and useful in such an environment?

As part of this reflection you should look back at your original post of what is strategy and reflect on and how you view strategy now, has it changed?

My original thoughts on what is strategy was "A simple common definition of strategy is the long term goals of the business."

More than 12 high quality references (Books and Journal Papers)

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Assignment Content

After a productive year with the medical waste management company, Justin has now been tasked with implementing a companywide policy change to require continuing education. Each employee will now be required to complete 2 hours of continuing education each year.

Justin’s supervisor has asked for an analysis and plan for the implementation of this companywide change. This analysis will be presented to company leadership as a tool for understanding and implementing this change.



Complete the Navigating Organizational Change worksheet.

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Technology is integral to successful implementation in many projects, through either support or integration or both. Name at least one technology that could improve the implementation process and the outcomes of your EBP project. Do you plan to use this technology? If not, what are the barriers that prevent its use?

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

The following questions require short answer responses. Keep your
answers concise. As a rough guide, the length of each of your
answers should be no more than 300 words. You can refer to the
lecture/tutorial notes and/or other reference sources. If you draw on
information from specific sources, you should provide appropriate
referencing.
Question 1
You are a member of the TfNSW business case team considering risk
allocation for Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport (formerly
Greater West). One of the main concerns is site condition risk relating
to uncertain geology. Can you explain how this risk should be
allocated and managed to satisfy the concerns of financiers?
Question 2
It has also been suggested by the financial adviser that the private
sector is best placed to manage refinancing risk. Can you explain
what refinancing risk relates to, why this risk is allocated to the
private sector and how the private sector can best manage this risk.
Question 3
There is a continued criticism of PPPs that Government is forced to
bail out the private sector in the event of project failure. Is this fair in
considering the NSW Government actions on Sydney Light Rail?
Question 4
If the NSW Government adopts collaborative contracting, what are
the implications for raising private financing for infrastructure?
Question 5
Sydney Metro Western Sydney Airport (formerly Greater West) is
expected to be extended in the future. What are the challenges in
structuring a Public Private Partnership to deal with this
requirement for flexibility?

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Start A Fire: Creating Value and Growth case by Sarit Markovich, Oded Golan, and Charlotte Snyder, Northwestern Kellogg School of Management, available in your Harvard Coursepack under “Required Supplemental Materials” in the syllabus.

General Guidelines
Your analysis should be no longer than 5 pages – double-spaced, 1-inch margins, and 12-size font. You can have up to two pages of exhibits as an appendix and one page for references. You may also include a cover sheet as an additional page if you want.  If you do not, include a cover sheet make sure your name is prominently displayed on the submission.

Assume the role of marketing consultant brought in to advise Star a Fire’s Oded Golan and his partners. Your analysis should be addressed to him.

To write your analysis, please follow the steps below:
1.    Skim the case quickly to get an overview of the situation it presents.
2.    Read the case thoroughly to digest the facts and circumstances.
3.    Carefully review all the information presented in the exhibits and take notes if necessary.
4.    Decide what are the key issue(s) that Start A Fire is facing.
5.    Conduct a situation analysis, secondary market research, buying behavior analysis, marketing strategies, and value offering analysis.
6.    Provide your recommendations for the key issue(s) that you identified.
7.    Support your diagnosis and opinions with reasons and evidence.
8.    Provide an appropriate action plan

The sections of your report should be the following:
1.    Executive summary (this comes first, but is written last)
2.    Key issue(s)
3.    Recommendations and Rationale
4.    Action Plan
5.    Appendices: SWOT analysis, secondary market research main findings, buying behavior analysis, marketing strategies, and value offering analysis. Any references should be in the current APA format.

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Please answer the following questions.  This is not an essay, just copy each question and provide your answer below it.  You should write approximately one paragraph per question.  Don't forget to paraphrase and cite your sources.


Did the Company Violate the Agreement When It Did Not Pay Holiday Pay?

Which party has the burden of proof in this case? Why?

Explain the union’s argument that, since George Washington’s birthday holiday had occurred before the agreement was ratified, employees were entitled to holiday pay.
Explain the company’s argument that the parties agreed to make the effective date retroactive.

Should the holiday pay be included in the category of wages and benefits? Why or why not?

Be the arbitrator.  Should you rule for the union or the company?  Give your reasons.





------------------------------------------------------------------------


Background info

During September 2005, the parties were negotiating the labor agreement due to expire on October 31, 2005. The union had proposed to add Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday and Memorial Day as nonwork holidays. The company countered with a proposal to “Swap George Washington’s birthday for Memorial Day.” On October 25, 2005, the parties agreed to a contingent agreement on contract extension, which stated:

It is understood by all parties that:

The current Labor Agreement expires at midnight on October 30, 2005;
The parties are negotiating in good faith to reach a new Agreement;
The parties wish to provide every opportunity for the bargaining unit’s voters to consider the negotiation proposals while work under the existing Agreement continues uninterrupted and without threat of interruptions; and
The parties do not wish for the current Agreement to expire without a new Agreement in place unless and until all reasonable efforts to avoid operating without an Agreement have been pursued.
As such, the parties agree as follows:

The current Agreement will remain in full force and effect until midnight November 15, 2005, unless a new Agreement is substituted for the current Agreement or the parties mutually agree in writing to end the Agreement earlier;
After November 15, 2005, either party may terminate the current Agreement’s extension by written notice to the other of at least seven (7) calendar days;
The parties agree to apply the terms of any wage or benefit change agreed upon during the extension of the current Agreement back to the expiration of that Agreement on October 30, 2005.
On November 10, 2005, a Negotiation Proposal Status and Counter Proposals Report was prepared. In regard to holidays, the union proposal was: “Add Memorial Day and MLK’s birthday as non-work holidays.” The company proposal was: “Exchange GW’s (George Washington) birthday for Memorial Day.”

On January 20, 2006, the company presented its final proposal. Article 6 Holiday, paragraph 12, included:

Article 6 Holidays
Paragraph 12
Exchange George Washington’s birthday for Memorial Day.

On February 14, 2006, Jim Fulgham, HR manager, posted the following notice:

Effective immediately, the company-paid George Washington’s birthday holiday has been swapped for the Memorial Day holiday, as agreed upon with the union.

This means beginning this year (actually next week), George Washington’s birthday will not be a company-paid holiday. Memorial Day, Monday, May 29, 2006, will be a company-paid holiday.

On February 15, 2006, Mr. Marty H. Stokes, company attorney, sent an e-mail to Mr. Jim McBride, the union’s staff representative. Mr. Stokes stated:

Holidays
Memorial Day will become a paid holiday in exchange for the current George Washington’s birthday holiday.

On February 23, 2006, Mr. Stokes sent a second e-mail message to Mr. McBride, which stated:

This is to confirm our discussions from yesterday:

The retro pay of $150 per person eligible will be paid no later than March 10, 2006, presuming a ratification by this weekend;
The $150 will be paid either in a separate check or noted in a single, regular check and programmed so as to note the additional amount and so as to avoid the extra taxes paid if the retro pay was combined as ordinary income with the regular check;
The “show up pay” will also be paid no later than 3/10/06. These amounts will be paid in a regular check with a notation of the additional amount, or in a separate check. Since this must be included in ordinary income, the amount will be paid at 100 percent [rather than 80 percent, with no deductions], and normal deductions will be made;
The terms and conditions offered for the final offer are as spelled out in our memo dated 2/14/06.
On February 24, 2006, Mr. Stokes sent an e-mail message to Mr. McBride, which contained the Labor Agreements Final Proposal. Included was:

Holidays
Memorial Day will become a paid holiday in exchange for the current George Washington’s Birthday holiday.

The company did not pay its employees holiday pay for George Washington’s birthday, and the following Grievance was filed by Jim McBride on March 6, 2006:

Statement of Grievance:

The company scheduled the bargaining unit employees to work on George Washington’s Birthday and did not pay them their proper holiday pay.

Articles & Sections of Contract Alleged Violated Including, But Not Limited To:

Article 6 Holidays, Paragraph 12 and Paragraph 14 of the extended Agreement.

Settlement Desired:

Make the bargaining unit employees whole by paying everyone who worked four (4) hours pay for working and eight (8) hours holiday pay. Employees who did not work the holiday to be paid eight (8) hours holiday pay only.

The company response was provided by Jim Fulgham, HR manager, who wrote:

Disposition of Grievance:

George Washington’s Birthday was paid in accordance with the ratified agreement.

The grievance was appealed to arbitration.



Issue:

Were the employees entitled to holiday pay for George Washington’s birthday, 2006?

If so, what is the remedy?

Relevant Provisions of the Agreement

Article 6, Section 12b: Holidays

Recognized Holidays–The holidays to be recognized are New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Birthday, and the employee’s birthday. The company retains the right to schedule work on the holidays enumerated above with the exception of Christmas and Thanksgiving. (When one of the named holidays falls on Saturday it shall be celebrated on the preceding Friday. Holidays falling on Sunday shall be celebrated on Monday.)

Article 22: Effective Dates of Agreement

In witness whereof, the parties hereto have signed and executed this Agreement effective this 1st day of November 2005.

Positions of the Parties

The Union:

The union stated that during the most recent contract negotiations, the company proposed eliminating George Washington’s birthday as a paid holiday and making Memorial Day a paid holiday instead. The union countered with a proposal to have both days as paid holidays. The parties were unable to conclude a new agreement prior to October 31, 2005, the expiration date of the previous agreement. On October 25, 2005, the parties entered into a contingent agreement that extended the previous agreement subject to termination by either party with seven days’ notice. The contingent agreement provided that the parties agreed “to apply the terms of any wage or benefit change agreed upon during the extension of the current Agreement back to the expiration of the Agreement on October 31, 2005.”

In January 2006, the company presented an offer that Memorial Day would be a paid holiday, but not Washington’s birthday. On January 15, 2006, the union membership voted and rejected that offer. One of the issues that especially concerned the membership was the loss of Washington’s birthday as a paid holiday. After several more negotiation sessions, the union scheduled a vote on the company’s final offer for Sunday, February 19, 2006. Because the company scheduled that day as a workday, the date for the union ratification vote was rescheduled to Sunday, February 26, 2006. On that day, the membership voted to ratify the agreement.

On February 14, 2006, the company had posted a notice which stated that the company and union had agreed to swap the holidays. The notice stated that “beginning this year (actually next week), George Washington’s birthday will not be a company-paid holiday.” When the notice was posted, union representative Jim McBride called HR manager Jim Fulgham and told him that the notice should not have been posted because the union had not ratified the labor agreement. As a result of that call, Mr. Fulgham took the notice down.

The company did not treat Washington’s birthday as a paid holiday, and a grievance was filed on March 6, 2006. Afterward, the company did treat Memorial Day as a paid holiday.

The union stated that the company’s position was that the contingent agreement provided that wages and benefits agreed to subsequent to the expiration of the prior agreement would be applied retroactively to the expiration date of the prior agreement, the holidays were swapped, and the employees were entitled to pay for Memorial Day, but not Washington’s birthday. That position, however, is unreasonable, is not supported by the facts, and should be rejected.

The union argued that the company’s position emphasized the wrong clause of the contingent agreement. The first enumerated item of the parties’ agreement provided that the previous agreement would remain in effect following its expiration. The agreement provided three methods for terminating the extension: (1) substitution of a new agreement, (2) a mutual agreement in writing to end the agreement, and (3) termination by either party on seven days written notice. By Washington’s birthday, February 22, 2006, none of those actions had occurred. The previous contract was still in effect, and there was no dispute that the previous agreement provided that Washington’s birthday would be a paid holiday. The right of the employees to have that day treated as a paid holiday vested on that day. Obviously, a retroactivity clause cannot erase events that have already occurred. Therefore, the only reasonable construction of the contingency agreement is that the retroactivity clause was not applicable to that event. The union claimed that in construing ambiguous contractual language, nonsensical results are to be avoided.

The union stated that the company will no doubt make the argument that it is unfair for the employees to receive pay for Washington’s birthday in 2006 in light of the fact that they were paid for Memorial Day in 2006. That argument should not carry any weight. It is well settled that clear and unambiguous contractual language should be construed according to its plain meaning. In this case, the company does not even contend that the prior agreement, which was extended and was in effect on February 22, 2006, did not clearly and unambiguously provide that Washington’s birthday was a paid holiday. That was the effective language on February 22, 2006, and it should be applied.

The union concluded:

Based upon the foregoing, the union urges that its grievance should be sustained and that as a remedy, the Arbitrator should award back pay plus interest.

The Company:

The company stated that the union demands that eligible employees be paid holiday pay for George Washington’s birthday of 2006. The company contended that the issue is whether the grievance should be granted or denied and, if granted, employees otherwise eligible for holiday pay for George Washington’s birthday would be compensated according to the previous labor agreement, which expired on October 30, 2005.

The company stated that it never offered to add a new holiday benefit; they just exchanged one for another, something agreed upon and ratified by the parties. For the past 15 years, the current and all preceding collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) provided eight paid holidays. The previous CBA, which expired on October 30, 2005, had provided for eight paid holidays, but included George Washington’s birthday. The current agreement exchanged that holiday for the current CBA’s Memorial Day. During the entire history of these last negotiations, the company never indicated a willingness nor offered to increase the number of paid holidays beyond eight in a year. Beginning on October 18, 2005, when the company substituted George Washington’s birthday for Memorial Day, all offers and the final agreement involved no increase in paid holidays, only this holiday exchange. There is no dispute that the final agreement ratified on February 26, 2006, was consistent with the company’s long-standing and unwavering offer as to eight paid holidays per year.

The company argued that the parties agreed to apply retroactively the terms and conditions of the new agreement’s wage or benefit change back to October 30, 2005. On October 25, 2005, the parties agreed to extend the expiring CBA until a new agreement could be negotiated. This practice is not unusual, especially in more long-standing relationships such as this one. This practice benefits all parties by stabilizing the labor relations scene while allowing for a less hectic conclusion to negotiations. In such extensions, it is common to provide for some retroactivity, especially as to wages and, sometimes, benefits. This practice stabilizes conditions and avoids the temptation of employers to “drag things out” for financial gain.

The negotiations at issue contained three significant “wage and benefit” issues which were implemented during the first year of the new agreement:

A $0.40 per hour wage increase and some wage classification changes
An $8.00 per week employee contribution for health insurance
A change in scheduled holidays
The retroactivity of any wage and benefits back to the expiration of the prior CBA’s expiration is clearly spelled out in the Contingent Agreement on Contract Extension signed on October 25, 2005. This contingent agreement assured both parties that the wage and benefit changes negotiated during any interim extension would be effective as of October 30, 2005, unless no new CBA was reached or either party terminated the contract extension with seven days written notice. No such nullification occurred and the ratified CBA was made retroactive, as agreed.

The company claimed that the parties did apply all the new nonholiday wage and benefit terms retroactively without dispute. The new CBA was ratified on February 26, 2006. Measuring from the expiration of the previous agreement, this was 17 pay weeks. If one assumes the normal 40-hour work week, the $0.40 per hour retroactive pay increase would have amounted to $272 per employee (17 × 0.40 × 40 hrs). Employees were paid approximately $150 in retroactive pay. This was to account for the CBA’s new $8 a week insurance payment of $136 (8 × 17 weeks), while allowing for possible additional hours worked and other pay changes. Employees were paid a slightly rounded up amount of $150 to deal with all retroactive pay and benefit changes under the new CBA. As such, all other wage and benefit items in the CBA were applied retroactively to October 30, 2005.

The company stated that the CBA ratification meeting was originally scheduled for February 19, 2006, prior to the George Washington holiday and the accident of a later meeting date must not have the unintended consequences sought in the grievance. The original ratification date was set for February 19, 2006, and was delayed a week for scheduling convenience. In the interim between February 19, 2006, and the ratification vote for February 26, 2006, there were no substantive changes to the proposal.

The later vote date did come after the holiday on February 22, 2006, but before the holiday was paid. While the actual pay date was not referenced, the arbitrator should take judicial notice of the fact that large companies do not pay employees for hours worked during the same work week; there is a delay of one or more weeks, as in this case. This was necessary to calculate overtime and to prepare and distribute checks. This time lag would have allowed the company to pay the George Washington holiday pay if there had been no ratification and no retroactivity.

The company explained that, in anticipation of the ratification vote on February 19, 2006, and so as to avoid any possible confusion, Mr. Fulgham posted a short notice to employees on February 14, 2006. This notice informed employees that the new CBA would not have George Washington’s birthday as a paid holiday but would have Memorial Day as a paid holiday instead. This notice was taken down later on the day it was posted. There was no dispute that this notice was accurate, only that the CBA had not yet been ratified. Since the vote was then scheduled for the February 19, 2006, ratification was anticipated at that time. With the later ratification vote, an intervening holiday, George Washington’s birthday, under the previous agreement had occurred. The union accepted that the current CBA became retroactive at the time of ratification vote on February 26, 2006, back to the old expiration date of October 30, 2005, by the time the obligation to pay for the prior week’s work had occurred. The CBA in effect did not include an obligation to provide holiday pay for February 22, 2006.

Under the totality of circumstances, granting the union’s grievance would have a harsh and unjust result. The cost of an additional paid holiday for the company approaches $100,000. This is far more than a token amount, even for a large plant. Consequently, it would be unreasonable and inequitable for the company to be saddled with this obligation absent an unambiguous intent and mandate to do so. The company contended that, furthermore, if the union really believed that the information in Mr. Fulgham’s posting was inaccurate, it should have clarified its position before all other retroactive payments were made. In this case, the company asserted that there is no such clear obligation as the Contingent Agreement on Contract Extension signed by the parties applies the wage and benefit terms of the new agreement retroactive to October 30, 2005. This eliminates any obligation to provide holiday pay for George Washington’s birthday in 2006.

The company argued that the union seeks to have it both ways by:

Allowing the retroactive application of other wages and benefits at considerable expense
The payment of an extra ninth holiday
Such a result is just too much of “having your cake and eating it, too.”

As noted in the sixth edition of How Arbitration Works by Elkouri and Elkouri (BNA, Washington, D.C.):

When an interpretation of an ambiguous contract would lead to harsh, absurd, or nonsensical results, while an alternative interpretation, equally plausible, would lead to just and reasonable results, the latter interpretation will be used. (pp. 470–471)

The company strongly contended that the terms of the Contingent Agreement on Contract Extension are unambiguous when read reasonably and nullify the George Washington’s birthday holiday for 2006. The equitable application of normal contract interpretation rules would not allow the double rewards sought by this grievance.

For the reasons stated previously, the company concluded that this grievance should be denied.


Holley, W. H., Jennings, K. M., & Wolters, R. S. (2012). The labor relations process (10th ed.) (pp. 521-525). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

Blockchain Technology and the impact in auditing

Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:

For this assignment, you will write a minimum 500-word essay (approximately two pages) on a particular disability experienced by people in today's workforce. 
First, describe the disability, and then explain some strategies that you could
use as a leader to accommodate employees with that disability.