Week 2 application 6330 Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Week 2 application 6330 - Assignment Example A Family nurse practitioner pays special care towards family dynamic and generally assesses how illness affects families (University of Cincinnati, 2013). As Nurse practitioners FNP, nurses dedicate a great amount of time in providing medical services to the community. It is their duty to get directly involved in carrying out treatment and diagnosis procedures making them a fundamental part of care and recovery. Their direct linkage to patients by diagnosing, treating, and prescribing drugs is what makes it very important for them to be proficient in pharmacology. I studied the efficiency of the FNP curriculum by using the table 13.1 provided by Keating (2011) as the baseline and the analysis was as below. The nursing college at University of Cincinnati offers post graduate programs such as the FNP at the campus and online. One can choose to either enroll to the online classes or can visit the institution and carryout a face-to-face registration with the admissions team. In this report, I am mainly going to focus on the online FNP program, which has six semesters done in autumn, summer, and spring for two years. The seventeen courses included in the curriculum include courses such as Advanced Physiology and Pathophysiology, pharmacology for advanced nursing practice, and theoretical basis for clinical reasoning. There are also three seminars and three practicum courses, which are taken within the final two years of pursuing the program. The curriculum itself has The curriculum offered by University of Cincinnati (UC) nursing college recognizes that as a nurse earning an MSN is supposed to be an enhancing process rather than a rebuilding process. The curriculum at UC nursing college is designed to enhance nurses’ skills and prepare them for greater roles in their medical field. The Institution understands that the preparation is key towards a successful and intuitive curriculum. This

Ikea Essay Example for Free

Ikea Essay Ltd. is a furniture operations company that offers â€Å"quick assembly† furniture with 15% lower price than its competitors. IKEA’s success brought imitators, such as Sears. In order to analyze IKEA’s competitive position in the Canadian Furniture Industry as well as Sears competitive threat, a model of competitive rivalry was used. IKEA and Sears both compete against each other in multiple markets across Canada, they both have market commonality and resource similarity. The Sears catalogue has almost the same format of an IKEA catalogue, and they both offer knock-down, self-assembled line products which allows the customers to create particular designs. In addition, the price for Elements’ products in Sears seemed almost identical to IKEA prices. They both go closely to the supplier in marketing, research, design and development, production standards and production planning. Some of the suppliers of the Elements line for Sears were from Sweden, which is the same as IKEA, but it didn’t show that they had any suppliers in common. It’s evidently that both of the market commonality and resource similarity are very high between those two companies. The market commonality and resource similarity can influence the drivers of competitive behaviour. The awareness of IKEA to recognize the degree of imitation by Sears is very high. High awareness enables IKEA to understand the consequences of Sears’ actions and responses. IKEA has a high motivation to respond Sears’s imitation. In order to protect IKEA’s position in the furniture market, IKEA has a philosophy to dealing with the copyright. IKEA would like to make a new model to replace the stole one rather than bring a lawsuit. Furthermore, IKEA has the ability to attack or respond to Sears’ actions. Since they both hold the similar resources, the ability to attack and respond is similar. IKEA should consider all important issues before taking action or respond to Sears. First-mover incentives, organizational size, and quality are the three factors that IKEA may take action to its competitors. As a first mover, IKEA’s business approach was fundamentally different from the traditional Canadian retailers. IKEA focus on â€Å"quick assembly† furniture and allow the customers assembled at home. Due to this reason, its price is 15% below the lowest prices for traditional furniture. The size of IKEA Canada is relatively small than Sears. The smaller size enables IKEA to launch competitive actions to defend their market position. The quality of IKEA’s product can be guaranteed. As one of the competitive strategy, IKEA had nearly 100 production engineers to assist suppliers in every way to low costs, introduce new technology, and design. The company has a philosophy to â€Å"create a better everyday life for the majority of people. † In order to defend its market position, IKEA may response Sears’ imitation in the following ways. IKEA may implement some strategic action, such as new innovation, to replace the stolen model from Sears. IKEA may lower its price, always by 10 to 15 percent on a particular item, than Sears. If IKEA can’t do it, IKEA may just drop the item and select some other one, to compete against Sears. Sears is one of Canada’s largest merchandising operations, and offering a wide range of medium price and quality goods. IKEA can predict that Sears with relatively lower market dependence are less likely to respond strongly to attacks threatening their market position.

The Bush Stimulus Package :: Essays Papers

The Bush Stimulus Package President Bush has just unveiled his new $674 billion economic stimulus package. The Democrats, although they have little chance of getting it passed in the GOP-controlled Senate, have countered with a plan of their own, with a much lower tab of $136 billion. The centerpiece of the Bush plan is arguably the elimination of the tax on dividends paid by shareholders, which makes up a hefty $364 billion of the entire sum. The reasoning is that it is unfair to tax corporate earnings once and then again tax them when they are paid out as dividends to shareholders. However, the president’s logic is faulty in that there are many instances of so-called double taxation in our society. For example, when one earns a dollar as part of one’s income, it is taxed and then it is taxed again in the form of sales tax when the dollar is spent. Another criticism lodged at the White House is that the repeal of the dividends tax benefits the wealthy in a disproportionate manner. Democrats charge that the wealthiest one percent of Americans would stand to gain over forty percent of the benefits. This is partly due to the fact that the wealthiest generally receive the greatest percentage of their income from dividends. Analysts say Mr. Bush is trying to appeal to the new â€Å"investor class†, which now includes the majority of Americans. Interestingly enough, senior citizens and retirees comprise a significant portion of stockholders who collect on dividends. That is what allows George W. Bush to claim that repeal of dividends tax is designed to benefit seniors, when wealthy investors will reap the most reward. The purpose, in theory at least, of ending double taxation is to put more money in the hands of investors, and to encourage more Americans to invest in the ailing stock market, which is now near an all-time low. Another beneficial effect will be to encourage large corporations to pay dividends, thus giving more money to Americans. If this money goes towards consumption and private and capital investment, the economy will inevitably get a much-needed boost, since GDP=C+I+G+X. In addition to elimination of dividend taxation, the Bush plan proposes to make the 2001 tax cuts permanent. Again, one can argue that the wealthy are the primary beneficiaries of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts. But part of the problem stems from inherent inequities in the tax code.

Marriott Case

Marriott Corporation: The Cost of Capital Executive Summary J. Willard Marriott started Marriott Corporation in 1927 with a root beer stand, expanding it into a leading lodging and food service company with sales of over $6 billion by 1987. At the time, Marriott had three main lines of business, lodging, contract services and restaurants, with lodging generating about 51% of company’s profits. The four key elements of Marriott’s financial strategy were managing hotel assets rather than owning, investing in projects with the goal of increasing shareholder value, optimizing the use of debt, and repurchasing their undervalued shares.Marriott Corporation relied on measuring the opportunity cost of capital for investments by utilizing the concept of Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). In April 1988, VP of project finance, Dan Cohrs suggested that the divisional hurdle rates at the company would have a key impact on their future financial and operating strategies. Marrio tt intended to continue its growth at a fast pace by relying on the best opportunities arising from their lodging, contract services and restaurants lines of businesses.To make the company managers more involved in its financial strategies, Marriott also considered using the hurdle rates for determining the incentive compensations. What is the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for Marriott Corporation? WACC = (1 – ? )rD(D/V) + rE(E/V) D = market value of debt E = market value of equity V = value of the firm = D + E rD = pretax cost of debt rE = after tax cost of debt ? = tax rate = 175. 9/398. 9 = 44% Cost of Equity Target debt ratio is 60%; actual is 41% [Exhibit 1] ?s = 1. 11 ?u = ? s / (1 + (1 – ? ) D/E) = 1. 11/(1 + (1 – . 44) (. 41)) = 0. 80 Using the target debt ratio of 60%: Ts = ? u (1 + (1 – ? ) D/E) = . 8(1 + (1 – . 44) (. 6/. 4)) ?Ts =1. 47 Using CAPM: rf = 8. 95% long-term rate on U. S. government bonds (rm – rf) = 7. 43% a verage 1926-1987 rE = rf + ? Ts (rm – rf) = 8. 95% + (1. 47)(7. 43%) = 19. 87% Cost of Debt rD = government bond rate + credit spread = 8. 95% + 1. 30% = 10. 25% WACC = (1 – ? )rD(D/V) + rE(1 – D/V) = (1 – . 44) (. 1025)(. 6) + (. 1987)(. 4) = 11. 39% If Marriott used a single corporate hurdle rate for evaluating investment opportunities in each of its line of business, what would happen to the company over time? WACC for Marriott= 11. 39%WACC for lodging division = 9. 25% WACC for restaurant division = 13. 84% WACC for Marriott’s contract division = 23. 07% The main use of the hurdle rates is to assess investment decision in order to determine if it’s reasonable. Using different rates for different division is also good, but one has to be careful when applying a single cost of capital across the various departments. Based on the WACCs stated above for the company and its various departments it’s obvious that the values are different. The cost of capital for lodging is lower than for the entire company, while that of the other departments are higher.We can equate the cost of capital with risk, so therefore the risk in the lodging department is lower when compared with other departments that have a higher WACC. If Marriott was to use a single corporate hurdle rate then they will be using the 11. 39% rate which is for the entire company. By Marriott using this rate, then any project that arises out of the lodging division will be rejected since its cost of capital of 9. 25% is lower than the cost of capital for the company. Using a higher rate will result in a negative NPV as well as a reduced cash flow.Projects from the restaurant and contract service division will be approved since they are evaluated at a lower rate than the determined cost of these various divisions. Over time, Marriott will be approving more high risk project from the restaurant and contract service division by evaluating them at a lower rate, while they will be rejecting lower risk projects from the lodging division because they are using a higher rate. In summary, the risk that Marriott will be assuming will increase over time as it continues to approve high risk projects. What is the WACC for the lodging division of Marriott? |Market Value Leverage | | |Unlevered | | |D/V |Beta |Tax Rate |Beta | | | |? s |? |= ? s / (1 + (1 – ? ) D/E) | |Hilton |14. 00 |0. 76 |44. 00 |0. 70 | |Holiday |79. 00 |1. 35 |44. 00 |0. 43 | |La Quinta |69. 00 |0. 9 |44. 00 |0. 40 | |Ramada |65. 00 |1. 36 |44. 00 |0. 67 | |Total | | | | | |Average Unlevered Beta |0. 55 | | | ?u = 0. 55 Cost of Equity Using the target debt ratio of 74%: ?Ts = ? u (1 + (1 – ? ) D/E) ?Ts = . 55 (1 + (1 – . 44)(. 74/. 26)) ?Ts = 1. 427 Using CAPM: rE = rf + ? Ts (rm – rf) = 8. 5% + 1. 427(7. 43%) = 19. 55% Cost of Debt rD = government bond rate + credit spread = 8. 95% + 1. 10% = 10. 05% WACC = (1 – ? )rD(D/V) + rE(E/V) = (1 â⠂¬â€œ . 44)(. 1005)(. 74) + (. 1955)(. 26) = 9. 25% What is the WACC for the restaurant division Marriott? | |Market Value Leverage | | |Unlevered | | |D/V |Beta |Tax Rate |Beta | | | |? s |? |= ? s / (1 + (1 – ? ) D/E) | |Church’s |4. 0 |1. 45 |44. 00 |1. 42 | |Collins Foods |10. 00 |1. 45 |44. 00 |1. 37 | |Frisch’s |6. 00 |0. 57 |44. 00 |0. 55 | |Luby’s |1. 00 |0. 76 |44. 00 |0. 76 | |McDonald’s |23. 00 |0. 94 |44. 00 |0. 81 | |Wendy’s |21. 0 |1. 32 |44. 00 |1. 15 | |Total | | | | | |Average Unlevered Beta |1. 01 | | | ?u = 1. 01 Cost of Equity Using the target debt ratio of 42%: ?Ts = ? u (1 + (1 – ? ) D/E) =1. 01(1 + (1 – . 44)*. 42/. 58) = 1. 420 Using CAPM: rE = rf + ? Ts (rm – rf) = 8. 95% + 1. 42(7. 43%) = 19. 50% Cost of Debt rD = government bond rate + credit spread 8. 95% + 1. 80% = 10. 75% WACC = (1 – ? )rD(D/V) + rE(1 – D/V) = (1 – . 44)(. 1075)(. 42) + (. 1950)(. 58) = 13. 84% What is the WACC for Marriott’s contract services division? ?u for Marriott is the weighted average of the Divisional ? u’s: | |Identifiable Assets |Ratio |Beta Unlevered | |Lodging |$2,777. 4 |0. 61 |0. 55 | |Restaurants |$567. 60 |0. 12 |1. 01 | |Contract Services |$1,237. 0 |0. 27 | | | |$4,582. 70 | |0. 80 | .61(. 55) + . 12(1. 01) + . 27(? u) = . 80 ?u = 2. 514 Cost of Equity Using the target debt ratio of 40%: ?Ts = ? u (1 + (1 – ? ) D/E) = 2. 514 (1 + (1 – . 44) (. 4/. 6)) = 3. 45 Using CAPM: rE = rf + ? Ts (rm – rf) = 8. 95% + 3. 45(7. 43%) = 34. 58% Cost of Debt rD = government bond rate + credit spread rD = 8. 95% + 1. 40% = 10. 35% WACC = (1 – ? )rD(D/V) + rE(E/V) = (1 – . 44)(. 1035)(. 4) + (. 3458)(. 6) = 23. 07%

Others vs. leaders Essay

To further test why there was a difference in the above results, t-test was further conducted between the two groups to identify the items where there are possible differences between the two groups under study. B. 1. Leadership, Item 1: There was no significant difference between the Leadership mean scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group. This means that as far as the Leadership indicators were concerned the two groups could be considered as belonging to the same population, Table 4. Table 4. T-Test Results of Leadership Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance. Leadership 3. 805 4. 186 -1. 68 p=0. 10n. s. n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis: mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) This implied that although the respondents belonged to different echelons in the organization studied, as far as the Leadership, Item 1, measures are concerned; the Junior Officers and the Senior Officers perform at the same level. B. 2. Strategic Planning, Item 2: The t-test showed there was no significant difference between mean scores of the two groups suggesting uniformity in perception as far as the indicators of strategic planning were concerned, Table 5. Table 5. T-Test Results of Strategic Planning Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance Strategic Planning 3. 852 4. 19 -1. 13 p=0. 265n. s. n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis: mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 3. Customer and Market Focus, Item 3: The t-test on comparing the mean scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group showed a significant difference between the two groups with the Leaders Group considerably had higher mean score, Table 6. Table 6. T-Test Results of Customer and Market Focus Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance Customer and Market Focus 2. 708 3. 143 -2. 09 p=0. 043 * n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis: mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 4. Measurement, Analyses and Knowledge Management, Item 4: There is no significant difference between the Measurement, Analyses, and Knowledge Management mean scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group, Table 7. Table 7. T-Test Results of Measurement, Analyses, and Knowledge Management Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance Measurement, Analyses, and Knowledge Management 3. 795 3. 531 0. 64 p=0. 527n. s. n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis: mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 5. Human Resource Focus, Item 5: There is no significant difference between the Human Resource Focus mean scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group, Table 8. Table 8. T-Test Results of Human Resource Focus Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance Human Resource Focus 3. 217 3. 35 -0. 55 p=0. 587n. s. n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis: mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 6. Process Management, Item 6: There is no significant difference between the Process Management mean scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group. Table 9. T-Test Results of Process Management Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance. Process Management 3. 772 3. 819 -0. 24 p=0. 813n. s. n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis: mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 7. Business Results, Item 7: There is significant difference between the Business Results mean scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group. The Others and the Leaders Group differed in their responses for Business Results. The Leaders Group had higher responses for these types of questions, Table 10. Table 10. T-Test Results of Business Results Mean Scores of the Others Group and the Leaders Group. Variables Others Leaders t-test Significance Business Results 2. 245 2. 926 -2. 23 p=0. 031* n. s. = not significant (accept hypothesis: mean scores of others = leaders) * significant at 1% level (reject null hypothesis) B. 8. Implications of the t-test Results The t-test conducted revealed significant difference between the two groups on two items, namely Customer and Market Focus, Item 3 and Business Results, Item 7. According to the Baldrige Criteria, the Customer and Market Focus Category, Item 3, â€Å"examines how the organization determines requirements, needs, expectations, and preferences of customers and markets. Also examined is how the organization builds relationships with customers and determines the Key Factors that lead to customer acquisition and satisfaction, loyalty and retention, and to business expansion and sustainability. † We take note that this concern is a concern essentially external to the organization but defines the rationale or importance of the organization to the bigger society through which the organization was dedicated in serving. In the military service, the â€Å"customer and market† are presumably not only the men and women in the service but the public at large and all its agencies. It could be expected that the top echelon of the military leadership surveyed in the study were concerned not only with how the organization works but whether the expectations of its function to serve the public at large were being met. Another item which showed significant difference with the Leaders Group scoring higher than the Others Groups is Business Results, Item 7. Based from the Baldrige indicators, this item is customer-oriented and measures performance geared at satisfying the â€Å"customer† as well as performance in the â€Å"marketplace†. In other words, this item is concerned with results which would accomplish the mandate or mission of the organization. Again, we take note that this item is external to the organization which leads us to a possible explanation for such a result. The differences between the two groups suggested that there was a sort of a transformation in perception of officers as they go up in the hierarchy. This support the earlier observation that positions in the organization may have its own requirements given its functions which shape the perception or point of view of those occupying such positions. C. Excerpt from the Correlation Matrix for the Leaders Group To further probe into the nature of the difference of point of views or priorities between the two groups, cross-correlation between the items were conducted on the Leader Group. The results revealed a negative or inverse correlation between Strategic Planning, Item 2, and Customer Market Focus, Item 3; whereas, a positive correlation between Strategic Planning, Item 2 and Process Management, Item 6, Table 11. Table 11. Excerpt from the Correlation Matrix for Leaders Strategic Planning Item 2. Customer and Market Focus, Item 3 -0. 811 0. 027 Process Management, Item 6 0. 955 0. 001 Cell Contents: Pearson correlation p-Value These results further showed us some trends which were not shown in the cross correlation test conducted for the Others Group. That is, for leaders in key positions, the concern is satisfying the goals and achieving the results and the details like strategy become a lesser concern. Arguably, the top echelon of the military leadership has the whole organization working under its wings which would deliver and perform. Specifics, then have to be largely delegated to the Junior Officers. The positive correlation between strategy and process management suggested that top leadership in the case of the respondents surveyed in this study, likewise did not bother much with the details of certain processes possibly as in the case of strategy relegating the meticulous tasks to Junior Officers. Again, this supported the previous trend of position based perspectives suggesting opposing point views may be due to position occupied.