Latest Activity In Study Groups

Join Your Study Groups

VU Past Papers, MCQs and More

Discussion Question

Question:

 

During the “bubble years” of 1999-2001, the top executives of many companies made millions of dollars from the sale of stock. Among them were Cisco, Sun Microsystems, Time Warner, and Microsoft. When the bubble of stock market burst, an ordinary investor lost 80 to 90 % of his holdings. From an ethical standpoint, do you see anything wrong with this picture?

 

Total Marks 20

Closing Date Friday, December 16, 2011

MGMT 628 Organization Developments MBA 4th GDB Required.


Views: 715

Replies to This Discussion

Please Discuss here about this GDB.Thanks

plz koi to solution send ker dy

rank and file dot commers with stock options made millions. Some of those companies no longer exist. (The millionaires do, though)

for publically traded companies the SEC 10-K discloses officer pay and excercise of stock options. Dont' know where to find info for lower ranking employees

 

Nothing wrong with this picture - against all advice, those ordinary investors were not doing their homework. Experts in analyzing stocks were all saying that the stocks were overpriced based upon the basic financials. Investors were looking for the quick score and couldn't be bothered to check out the simplest ratios such as price to earnings, earnings per share, etc. Perfect example of Caveat Emptor.

 

 

obs are outsourced because American companies are increasingly competing in a global marketplace, and that situation is not going to change. Things will never go back to the way they were. Advances in comuunications technology make even the outsourcing of knowledge jobs. US labor unions won benefits for workers, but that increased the cost of manufacturing here. We had it very good for a very long time.
Now we must innovate.

 

 

Why don't YOU study how the wealthiest people living aquired their wealth before you speak?

Inheritance of wealth is not a model most of us can successfully follow.And that is how the richest families acquire wealth.

Look, I know plenty of the "millionaires next door", some of them blue collar guys.They are NOT the 1%.And they did NOT aquire their wealth in an economy like ours, but in the days of the labor union and the locally owned business.They acquired their wealth in the days when the very rich paid much more in taxes than they do today.

The free market system is neither good nor bad.It's workable.I think it worked better when the very rich paid more in taxes.

You have to ask yourself one other thing.What would happen if everyone were as "successful" at acquiring wealth as the 1%?What would be the point of being super rich if everyone were super rich?Most of us want a little more than we have, because it improves our lives.A little more garden space, a little more vacation time, etc.If we happen to have a lot more than what we need, we may do things for ourselves like build extravagant houses or travel to exotic places, but eventually we start thinking about the use of money, and what good things it can do for others, and we contribute to schools and hospitals and scholarship funds.But there is a point where if we were given "unlimited" wealth, or if we had been born to "unlimited" wealth, where we would not have much sense of the value of money to normal people who must work at some point in their life, if not their whole life.Then money becomes like Monopoly money.And the use it is put to is not necessarily to improve our own lives or the lives of others.It is just a game.

A good society cannot have an economy in which most of the money is played as a game.In a good society everyone has a chance to live decently.

 

gdb solution send kery plzz

 

Fall2011 MGMT/HRM628 GDB No.02 Idea Solution 


MGMT628 GDB No.02 Idea Solution:

From 1999 to 2001, we had a split stock market. Inflation was stable, interest rates were fair, but all the long-term economic indicators were overrun for a time by an investing fad. Tech stocks climbed dramatically, and then fell. Other stocks weathered the storm. The fad went roundtrip in three years. The repercussions will be felt on two levels. For the individual stocks involved in the fad, tracking for the next several years will be affected by the tax losses generated. For the individual people involved, if the experience of 1968 is any guide, it will take a long time, maybe a decade, before they trust the stock market. They may, however, be susceptible to alternatives of various promise. this is the time when the world economy was going down all over and all firms were losing their assets now, all firms lost 80-90% assets and investments here come the ethical part. why they should be ethically bound? All firms since work individually and can not control external environments or their factors, thus the responsibilities can be just thrown to them. however, world tools and characters are the one who could work out at correct time, and correct assets throwning and making correct policies could have saved the world

Fall2011 MGMT/HRM628 GDB No.02 Idea Solution 


MGMT628 GDB No.02 Idea Solution:

From 1999 to 2001, we had a split stock market. Inflation was stable, interest rates were fair, but all the long-term economic indicators were overrun for a time by an investing fad. Tech stocks climbed dramatically, and then fell. Other stocks weathered the storm. The fad went roundtrip in three years. The repercussions will be felt on two levels. For the individual stocks involved in the fad, tracking for the next several years will be affected by the tax losses generated. For the individual people involved, if the experience of 1968 is any guide, it will take a long time, maybe a decade, before they trust the stock market. They may, however, be susceptible to alternatives of various promise. this is the time when the world economy was going down all over and all firms were losing their assets now, all firms lost 80-90% assets and investments here come the ethical part. why they should be ethically bound? All firms since work individually and can not control external environments or their factors, thus the responsibilities can be just thrown to them. however, world tools and characters are the one who could work out at correct time, and correct assets throwning and making correct policies could have saved the world

IS DS NEED ANY correction

 

Question:

During the “bubble years” of 1999-2001, the top executives of many companies made millions of dollars from the sale of stock. Among them were Cisco, Sun Microsystems, Time Warner, and Microsoft. When the bubble of stock market burst, an ordinary investor lost 80 to 90 % of his holdings. From an ethical standpoint, do you see anything wrong with this picture?

SOLUTION:

Bubbles are persistent and expanding gaps between actual stock prices and those warranted by the Fundamentals.

 These bubbles inevitably burst, creating crashes.

 They affect all of us because they distort the economic decisions companies and consumers make

 If bubbles result in real investment that is both excessive and inefficiently distributed, crashes do the opposite; the shift to excessive pessimism causes a collapse in investment and economic growth

 When bubbles grow large enough and result in crashes the stock market can destabilize the real economy

RSS

© 2021   Created by + M.Tariq Malik.   Powered by

Promote Us  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service