Essay Instructions: There are six questions all together please limit each to a page . Resources have been attached
1.. In looking at the Flow of Funds diagram on page 12 noting a health care organizations key stakeholders, identify the financial pressure points faced by health care organizations today. Comment on each stakeholder by noting whether there is pressure for the organization to either pay out more funds, or pressure to receive less funds.
2). After reading Joan Magretta's article, comment on how numbers are used in your life in achieving financial goals.
3). What type of financial information should be routinely provided to board members?
4). Teaching hospitals receive an additional payment to recognize the indirect costs of medical education. What rationale might be used to justify this extra payment?
5. Using information found in resource file skill building . find out about two companies of your choice. Using what you have learned, find the 10-K of one for-profit health care organization, and one 990 for a not-for-profit healthcare organization.
Note the name of the organizations that you selected, their main business, and reflect on your experience in finding this information( Please use resource file skill building )
6. Take the 10-K of a for-profit company of your choice, the one selected in the Skill Building section of this module will do fine. Scan it noting the customers, cash flows, and context (regulations, risks, and returns) for that company. The SEC wants you to be an intelligent reader of the 10-K, and as such has published valuable learning material on their web-site. You may find it helpful to review this material before reading the 10-K. Start at the SEC homepage at http://sec.gov. Then, select "Investor.gov". Select "Researching and Managing Investments", then "Research Public Companies", then "How to Read a 10-K". Take a look at other material from the SEC and follow (please use resource file practicing art )
Excerpt From Essay:
Essay Instructions: Paper on the evaluation of Google Inc.(Company) corporate governance structure based on the topics below:
So Google is the company used for the paper
1. What is Corporate Governance (January 7)
1) We will begin by first defining what is meant by corporate governance and who the parties are.
2) Next, we will review the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 and how it might change the traditional view of corporate governance.
Here, the role of the Board will be discussed against the current business environment and potential for further regulation.
2. The Role of the Outside Counsel (January 14)
In this session, we will hear from a legal expert about the current and changing role of both internal and external counsel. We will address issues such as the responsibilities of counsel to address weaknesses in the process, why the Board of Directors may now need its own legal counsel, and what impact recently enacted legislation might have on shareholder suits.
3. Further defining the Role of the CEO and Board of Directors (January 18 - Friday)
We will discuss how to balance the company’s and the Board’s responsibilities to Labor, Management, Itself, The Community, and the Government (Local, State, and Federal). Criteria for Board membership, internal vs. external membership, balance, etc. will be examined in depth. Discussion will focus on the role of the Board’s Audit, Compensation, and Nominating Committees.
4. The Use of Financial Statements to Identify “Red Flags” (January 28)
In this session, we will discuss the issues that have led to failures in the financial accounting and reporting processes of publicly traded firms. We will test our knowledge of our abilities to recognize the warning signs before they manifest into a required restatement by reviewing a filing by a public company.
5. Compensation and the Role of the Board (February 4)
In this session, we will hear from an expert in compensation on how compensation is set and other issues related to compensation. We will also discuss the form and amount of Board member compensation.
6. The Production of Financial Information (February 11)
Issues addressed include who is responsible for responsible for the financial statements, the role of the board in determining accuracy of the data, the documentation of a company’s internal corporate policies, and how the changes in Sarbanes Oxley will impact the timeliness and transparency of financial statements. Finally, we will hear from an expert on the impact of Sarbanes Oxley on internal control issues.
7. Monitoring Internal Control and Ethics Within the Corporation (February 18)
In this session, we will examine the responsibilities and constraints placed by Sarbanes Oxley on the management of a corporation to monitor their internal control system and the implementation and operation of the code of ethics for their senior financial officers. We will hear from a senior member of management of a publicly traded corporation who has primary responsibilities for these activities.
Excerpt From Essay:
Total Pages: 7 Words: 2492 Sources: 5 Citation Style: APA Document Type: Essay
Essay Instructions: It's a group project and I am responsible for sections 1 , 2 and 6. I have uploaded the whole template for you to have an idea what the final writing should be. Please write 4 pages for Section 1 and 2 and 3 pages for section 6
Strategic Audit of a Corporation1
I. Current Situation
A. Current Performance
How did the corporation perform the past year overall in terms of return on investment,
market share and profitability?
B. Strategic Posture
What are the corporation?s current mission, objectives, strategies and policies?
1. Are they clearly stated or are they merely implied from performance ?
2. Mission: What business(es) is the corporation in? Why?
3. Objectives: What are the corporate, business, and functional objectives?
Are they consistent with each other, with the mission and with the internal and
4. Strategies: What strategy or mix of strategies is the corporation following?
Are they consistent with each other, with the mission, objectives, and
strategies, and with the internal and external environments?
5. Policies: What are they? Are they consistent with each other, with the
mission, objectives and strategies and with the internal and external
6. Do the current mission, objectives, strategies and policies reflect the
corporation?s international operations, whether global or multidomestic?
II. Corporate Governance
A. Board of Directors
1. Who are they? Are they internal or external?
2. Do they own significant shares of stock?
3. Is the stock privately held or publicly traded? Are there different classes of
stock with different voting rights?
4. What do they contribute to the corporation in terms of knowledge, skills,
background, and connections? If the corporation has international operations,
do board members have international experience?
5. How long have they served on the board?
6. What is their level of involvement in strategic management? Do they merely
rubberstamp top management?s proposals or do they actively participate and
suggest future directions?
B. Top Management
1. What person or group constitutes top management?
2. What are top management?s chief characteristics in terms of knowledge, skills,
background and style? If the corporation has international operations, does top
management have international experience? Are executives from acquired
companies considered part of the top management team?
3. Has top management been responsible for the corporation?s performance over
the past few years? How many managers have been on their current position
for less than three years? Were they internal promotions or external hires?
4. Has it established a systematic approach to strategic management?
5. What is its level of involvement in the strategic management process?
6. How well does top management interact with lower-level managers and with
the board of directors?
7. Are strategic decisions made ethically in a socially responsible manner?
8. What role so stock options play in executive compensation?
9. Is top management sufficiently skilled to cope with likely future challenges?
VI. Strategic alternatives and Recommended Strategy
A. Strategic Alternatives (See Towns Matrix)
1. Can the current or revised objectives be met by the simple, more careful
implementing of current strategies? (for example, fine-tuning them?)
2. What are the major feasible alternative strategies available to this corporation?
What are the pros and cons of each? Can corporate scenarios be developed
and agreed upon? (Alternatives must fit societal environment, industry and
company for next 3 to 5 years,)
a. Consider stability, growth, and retrenchment as corporate strategies.
b. Consider cost leadership and differentiation as business strategies.
c. Consider any functional strategic alternatives that might be needed to
reinforce an important corporate or business strategic alternative.
B. Recommended Strategy
1. Specify which of the strategic alternatives you recommend for the corporate,
business and functional levels of the corporation. Do you recommend
different business or functional strategies for different units of the corporation?
2. Justify your recommendation in terms of its ability to resolve both long- and
short-term problems and effectively deal with the strategic factors.
3. What policies should be developed/ revised to guide effective implementation?
4. What is the impact of your recommended strategy on the company?s core and
Excerpt From Essay:
Essay Instructions: Instructions: You are to write a 4-page paper, APA format, Times New Roman and double-spaced. After you read the Case Study “Vying for Control of Molson Inc.” **You are to answer 3-questions and write Full Page Response**. You Are to State the Question First and then Continue with Response
to the question that is being asked. “The Maximum for Outside Sources is 2.”The reference page will be separate from paper. Lastly, I have included a list of Key Terms that may aid you in answering or a starting point in answering questions for the Molson case study.
Case Study: Vying for Control of Molson Inc.
Molson Inc., the Canadian brewing company, was founded in 1786 by John Molson and has remained family controlled for all but a few years since then. After era of extensive diversification into such businesses as lumbering, furniture making, and pipe and furnace manufacturing, Molson sold control of its brewing operations to Australia’s Foster's Group Ltd. in the mid-1990s. The sale was made in part in anticipation of “tough competition from US beer makers as trade barriers fell.” At about the same time a dispute began brewing between rival factions of the Molson family for control of the Molson business empire. Eric Molson and Ian Molson were pitted against one another in the struggle for control.
Family Relationship as a Backdrop for the Struggle
John Molson passed the ownership of the company to the family’s eldest sons, whereas the top management positions at the company were given to outsiders or Molson relatives with business acumen. This long-established tradition eventually create a rift in the family—“ the shareholders considered themselves ‘real’ or ‘brewery’ Molson’s and viewed other family members as hired help.”
Eric Molson’s side of the family held the majority of shares and controlled the top operating positions throughout the latter half of the 20th century. In 1988, Eric became the company’s chairman and inherited his father's voting shares in the company. Eric is a shy man who was uncomfortable with public speaking. Eric's supporters say that he deserves more credit for his business competence than he has received.
Eric's younger cousin Ian eventually became an aspirant for the chairman's job. Ian’s branch of the Molson family, which was not viewed as being “brewing line,” fell into disfavor after it sold the Montréal Canadiens hockey team in 1971. Ian began working at the brewery during the summer when he was a teenager in the early 1970s and then went on to become a Harvard educated international banker. In 1996, Ian joined the Molson board of directors. “Ian used his deal-making skills to sell non-core business and buying back control of Molson’s beer operations.” Ian also was primarily responsible for the acquisition of a Brazilian brewer, which turned out to be a poor investment decision. Further, Ian increased his holdings of Molson's voting stock.
The Evolving Conflict
Ian maintains that Eric endangered the company’s future due to his lack of business acumen. Ian charged that Eric's refusal to work with him had destabilized the company. Eric's supporters, however, stress that Ian has destabilized the company through his impatience and aggressiveness.
Eric and Ian clashed at board meetings, with Ian often interrupting Eric. Their differences became increasingly intense and embittered. At a January 2003 board meeting, Eric announced a review of Molson's corporate governance. While a surprise to the board, the review was nonetheless conducted. The governance report recommended eliminating Ian’s position as deputy chairman. Ian confronted Eric, but nothing was resolved. At the end of November board meeting, the recommendation to eliminate Ian’s position was defeated. At the May 2004 meeting, three board members, including Ian, resigned in protest over Eric's leadership of the company. The remainder of the board chose to reaffirm Eric's status as chairman. At the company’s annual meeting the following month, Ian and four other members of the family-controlled board refused to stand for reelection.
In an effort to wrest control of the company from Eric after the May board meeting, Ian began “lobbying family members to pool votes and blunt Eric's voting control.” Some members of the Molson extended family were quietly questioning Eric's leadership of the company. At the company’s annual meeting, Ian’s brother William openly challenged Eric, pointing out that “Ian’s involvement has been good for the company and the shareholders.” Eric denied that the feud with Ian was having a negative effect on the board and the company. He insisted that the board was being pared down for governance reasons.
Meanwhile, Molson Inc. and Adolph Coors Co. initiated merger talks. The two companies had been working together since 1998 with each company distributing the other’s products in its home territory. The major hurdle to the proposed merger was the feud between the two factions of the Molson family. Eric, who along with allied family members controlled more than half of voting shares, favored the merger. Ian, with approximately 10 percent of the voting shares, was against the merge. A shareholder agreement between Ian and Eric prevented either one from transferring or selling his voting shares without the consent of the other. Eric maintained that he had found a legal way to circumvent the agreemen t. Ian, on the other hand, was preparing to offer as much as $ 4 billion to acquire Molson Inc. in order to prevent the merge with Coors.
On July 22, 2004, the two companies jointly announced the merge of Molson and Coors. The merged company would be known as Molson Coors Brewing Company and would have established brands in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. The merger would make Molson Coors Brewing Company the world's fifth largest brewer and is expected to deliver substantial value to shareholders.
1.From your perspective, were the consequences of the conflict between Eric Molson and Ian Molson positive or negative?
2. What structural factors and personal factors were likely causes of the conflict between Eric Molson and Ian Molson?
3. What conflict management styles do Eric Molson and Ian Molson seem to be using?
Functional conflict: a healthy, constructive disagreement between two or more people.
Dysfunctional conflict: an unhealthy destructive disagreement between two more people.
Jurisdictional ambiguity: the presence of unclear lines of responsibility within an organization.
Interorganizational conflict: conflict that occurs between two or more organizations.
Intergroup conflict: conflict that occurs between groups or teams in an organization.
Intragroup conflict: conflict that occurs within groups or teams.
Interpersonal conflict: conflict that occurs between two or more individuals.
Intrapersonal conflict: conflict that occurs within an individual.
Interrole conflict: a person's experience of conflict among the multiple roles in his or her life.
Intrarole conflict: conflict that occurs within a single role, such as when a person receives conflicting messages from role senders about how to perform a certain role.
Person-role conflict: conflict that occurs when an individual is expected to perform behaviors in a certain role that conflict with his or her personal values.
Fixation: an aggressive mechanism in which an individual keeps up a dysfunctional behavior that obviously will not solve the conflict
Displacement: an aggressive mechanism in which an individual directs his or her anger toward someone who is not the source of the conflict.
Negativism: an aggressive mechanism in which a person responds with pessimism to any attempt at solving a problem.
Compensation: a compromise mechanism in which an individual attempts to make up for a negative situation by devoting himself or herself to another pursuit with increased vigor.
Identification: a compromise mechanism whereby an individual patterns his or her behavior after another's.
Rationalization: a compromise mechanism characterized by trying to justify one's behavior by constructing bogus reasons for it.
Flight/withdrawal: a withdrawal mechanism that entails physically escaping a conflict (flight) or psychologically escaping (withdrawal).
Conversion: a withdrawal mechanism in which emotional conflicts are expressed in physical symptoms.
Fantasy: a withdrawal mechanism that provides an escape from a conflict through daydreaming.
Nonaction: doing nothing in hopes that a conflict will disappear.
Secrecy: attempting to hide a conflict or an issue that has the potential to create conflict.
Administrative orbiting: delaying action on a conflict by buying time.
Due process nonaction: a procedure set up to address conflicts that is so costly, time-consuming, or personally risky that no one will use it.
Character assassination: an attempt to label or discredit an opponent.
Superordinate goal: an organizational goal that is more important both parties in a conflict than their individual or group goals.
Distributive bargaining: a negotiation approach in which the goals of the parties are in conflict and each part y seeks to maximize its resources.
Integrative negotiation: a negotiation approach that focuses on the merits of the issues and seeks a win-win solution.
Conflict: any situation in which incompatible goals, attitudes, emotions, or behaviors lead to disagreement or opposition between two or more parties.
Excerpt From Essay:
I really do appreciate HelpMyEssay.com. I'm not a good writer and the service really gets me going in the right direction. The staff gets back to me quickly with any concerns that I might have and they are always on time.
I have had all positive experiences with HelpMyEssay.com. I will recommend your service to everyone I know. Thank you!
I am finished with school thanks to HelpMyEssay.com. They really did help me graduate college..