Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
213
views

Risk management in command economies:
 
(i) tends to be done poorly because government officials do not understand risk.
(ii) tends to be done poorly because decision-makers are insulated from the risk of making a poor decision.
(iii) is easy because the government controls most activity and can eliminate risk.
(iv) is easy because there is no risk.

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
213
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Tod Thiel
Tod ThielLv2
2 Apr 2020

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

Market Analysis Market Participants Market participants act as if they are rational, self-interested, and forward-looking. For example, financial managers try to maximize the present value of profits for their particular companies, rather than ignore future values. Companies pursue many goals, but it is a financial mistake for managers to pursue any goal that conflicts with the primary goal of maximizing their firm's profits. Decentralized decision making by individual market participants is more economically efficient that centralized decision making by government policymakers. For example, it is more economically efficient to have financial managers obtain financing for their particular companies than to have government obtain it. A high degree of competition among market participants is the most economically efficient disciplining mechanism. For example, highly competitive financial markets discipline financial managers to pay fair market interest rates on the debt securities issued by their particular companies. The market system of prices is the most economically efficient allocative mechanism. For example, it is more economically efficient to distribute a firm's corporate stock to those buyers who are willing and able to pay the market price of the stock than to have the government distribute the stock. It is economically efficient for market participants to buy low and sell high globally. For example, it is economically efficient for U.S. firms to sell their financial securities to the highest bidders, no matter where they live in the world economy. Market imperfections can create considerable risk to market participants. For example, because of market imperfections, firms operating in the international financial markets encounter foreign exchange rate risk, political risk, interest rate risk, and default risk. Consumer Sovereignty The principle of consumer sovereignty tells us that by making their dollar votes, consumers indirectly determine the quantity and quality of products that firms will produce. For example, it is not economically efficient for financial managers to obtain more financing for their particular firms than is needed for their firms to produce the profit-maximizing level of output demanded by consumers. Market Economy A highly competitive market economy is largely self-regulating, in the absence of substantial market imperfections, in that economic conditions cannot be substantially improved by government regulation or other types of government intervention beyond laissez-faire policies. For example, if a firm's corporate stock is overvalued by a market economy, market forces will tend to drive down the value of the stock to a market price at which it is neither overvalued nor undervalued. As if by an invisible hand, highly competitive market forces will tend to create a harmony of interests among individual market participants, in the absence of substantial market imperfections. Consequently, the interests of shareholders and other stakeholders are compatible. For example, in trying to maximize profits, firms produce employment, income, consumer products, and wealth for households, as well as tax revenue for government, which helps maximize consumer utility and maximize social welfare. In a market economy, resources, products, and assets flow to their highest valued uses among alternative uses. For example, the shares of firms' corporate stocks will be acquired by those market participants who most highly value them, as indicated by the fact that they are willing to pay the most to acquire them. The efficient economic role of government is limited to Laissez-Faire ("hands off") policies, which create very little intervention in a market economy. For example, government regulations of banking and securities industries to maintain healthy, reasonably profitable, consumer-oriented financial markets would not be needed in a highly competitive market economy in the absence of substantial market imperfections. In a market economy, it is economically efficient for each market participant to specialize according to comparative advantage in producing what they can produce relatively better than other market participants, rather than produce all the outputs they can produce absolutely better than others. For example, it is economically efficient for people who are relatively better at being financial managers than others, to specialize in financial management even if they are absolutely better than others in doing many other types of work. If all labor were allocated to its comparative advantage, then no possible reallocation of labor would exist that could increase the rate of return to labor (i.e., the wage). There is no such thing as a free lunch, because all resources, products, and assets in a market economy are scarce. For example, current federal government budget deficits are not free to current market participants in that the deficits must be financed by future tax increases and/or future decreases in government spending and/or future inflation. For additional information on the Market Economy click here. Marks, R. E. (2006, December). There Is No Such Thing As Free Lunch. Australian Journal of Management. 31(2). 1-7. Financial Decisions An efficient financial decision, practice, transaction, or condition is one that is optimal -- meaning best; it cannot be improved, from society's perspective. If there is some profitable way to improve some business practice that would benefit society, that practice is somewhat inefficient. Any change in a financial decision, practice, transaction, or condition that improves society is an efficiency improvement. For example, it is an efficiency improvement for a business to cut production costs by reducing waste (e.g., by reducing spending on unprofitable activity. A financial decision, practice, transaction, or condition is fair-- meaning just or equitable, if the financial benefits are distributed to those involved in proportion to how much they each voluntarily contributed to produce those benefits. For example, a financial practice that discriminates against some people on the basis of race, age, gender, nationality, or religion is unfair. For example, an unethical business practice is unfair. For additional information relating to Market Analysis and fair financial decisions, click on the following: Teaching Ethical Economic Practices to Business Managers. Johnston, C. (2009, October). The Proceedings of the Annual Conference of The International Academy of Business and Economics. Fairness is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition, for efficiency. All efficient financial practices are fair, but some fair practices may still fail to be efficient. For example, embezzling company funds is an unfair and inefficient, criminal financial activity. As another example, an ethical business practice that could be improved is fair but not efficient. Opportunity Cost Principle Opportunity cost principle: The efficient measure of the cost of any allocation of resources, products, money income, wealth, or time is its opportunity cost -- the value of the next best use. The opportunity cost of how one uses his or her resources is the value of the highest valued alternative use. The opportunity cost of one investment is the expected return on the next best investment available to the firm. For example, the opportunity cost of a firm using some of its profits to pay dividends to its stockholders would be the present value of future income those profits could have earned if invested in the firm's highest valued investment project.

Discussion Questions These questions stem from the Class Discussion Questions you will be anwering in the Discussion Board. Think about the questions and how they relate to the financial management principles above.

2. Applications: State the financial management principle that appears to be violated in each of the following cases and explain how it is violated:

(a) A corporation is maximizing sales growth and the price of its corporate stock is falling.

(b) A highly paid financial manager in the auto industry quit his job to set up his own small auto repair shop, which is expected to incur a loss for the first three years then earn normal profits.

Entrepreneurship

1. Discuss what steps Craig took to develop and grow his business. (7 marks)

2. Illustrate the role Craig played in contributing towards the economy (8 marks)

clearrisk | craig rowe

Business is risky, but that is Craig Rowe’s business - risk management to be precise. Craig,

the President of ClearRisk Inc., becomes animated and energized as he explains his line of

work. “Risk,” he says, “is not negative. It is when there is opportunity for a downside or an

upside.” Risk management is about formalizing the decision making process. People are

constantly assessing risks, whether it is instinctively in crossing the street or deliberately in

weighing the pros and cons of buying a car. “Business people,” he says, “engage in the same

process whether in deciding where to build a head office or whether to buy another company.”

the entrepreneur

Craig spent almost 20 years in the insurance industry, where he started right out of high

school. Over the years, he attained various insurance designations and completed many

business courses and ample on-the-job training. Craig is naturally entrepreneurial and also

operated his own consulting company and became involved in several insurance industry

associations. This allowed him to develop a large network of connections.

Craig found himself thinking and talking more and more about risk management. He realized

that if businesses did some basic things to manage risk they would save money. In 2001 he

wrote a book on the topic and later adapted the ideas in to a workshop which he presented

throughout Canada and the United States. Insurance industry professionals and other business

people noticed Craig and saw the logic in his message. Soon he was being invited to speak to

various associations and was asked to assist in writing material on risk management. When

dealing with clients of his consulting business, he noticed the same set of steps and questions

could be applied to different realities in different types of companies. He was sure that there

was something that could be packaged and sold to assist these companies.

He went in search of risk management software. He found some, but none applicable to small

and mid-sized companies and organizations. So he decided to build it. He teamed with David

d’Entremont who had the background provide technical expertise. Together they founded

ClearRisk. They developed a business plan which became their roadmap, even though it was

constantly being adapted to take into account new realities, circumstances and goals. Craig estimates they are on version 30 by now!

Craig decided to leave his job and pursue ClearRisk full-time. It was not an easy decision to

make as Craig had a young family at the time. He had to engage in his own risk management

process and weigh his options. He had almost 20 years of solid insurance industry experience.

He had an extensive network of contacts. He had entrepreneurial experience through his

consulting business. He knew the market. He knew what his customers needed and he knew

that he could develop a product to meet that need. He found a solid business partner to

complement his skills. So the timing was right and after 10 years of thinking, dreaming and

percolating ideas, Craig made the leap in 2006.

Craig says that the biggest challenge facing ClearRisk and any business, whether it is in

starting, sustaining or growing the business, is cash. ClearRisk needed capital to develop its

product. For any business to have credibility with lenders and investors, that initial money has

to come from the business owner. Craig and David secured an operating line of credit from the

bank based on personal guarantees.

Step 2 was to seek more financing to start implementing the business. Craig says that it is

important to look for money before you need it because you are building relationships and

confidence and convincing people that you are creditworthy. A business plan is a necessity but

“everyone invests in people.” This applies to accessing financing from Business Development

Bank of Canada (BDC), Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), or any government

organization, as well as private lenders and investors. It is necessary to raise private money to

leverage government money.

Another important factor in developing ClearRisk was being accepted by Memorial University’s

Genesis Centre, a facility which provides business and technical support to new and emerging

technology businesses. This added to their credibility and attracted the attention of angel

investors. Angel investors are business people with financial resources available to invest in

new promising businesses.

Technological businesses are expensive to grow and ClearRisk’s growth has been made

possible by private investors and organizations such as Growth Works (a venture capital

company). Ownership of the company is now shared with these investors and ClearRisk is a

corporation with multiple shareholders. One of the tradeoffs in taking money from investors is

that ownership becomes shared. Craig says, “You can have a big piece of something small or

a small piece of something big.” He chose the latter.

Craig’s idea has grown immensely. He keeps the numbers to himself, but says sales have

grown exponentially. His primary market is North America and the ClearRisk software has been

launched in French and Spanish. Customers do not pay an upfront fee; instead, they pay an

annual fee for the software and support. ClearRisk is constantly improving its products. The

team is always enhancing features and improving functionality. Currently, they offer three

programs to consumers: ClearRisk™ Manager, which enables an organization to build and

implement a risk management plan; ClearRisk™ Tracker, which facilitates tracking insurance

claims; and ClearRisk™ Trainer, an online instructional program which increases awareness of

risk and its management. The latter two products are offered in partnership with other

organizations.

ClearRisk’s web-based business is global; however, Craig is cautious about expanding beyond

North America. The insurance industries in the USA and Canada are relatively interconnected

and homogeneous. It would be very difficult to provide support to countries with different

regulations and different languages. ClearRisk offers a web-based software service so they

use web-based marketing, rarely using traditional media. They access all forms of social media

such as Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and blogs and find the approach cost effective and high

impact. Social media facilitates the use of in-bound marketing.

In addition to web-based marketing, ClearRisk is now getting calls from referrals. Clients are

spreading the word to other businesses seeking a similar product. The demand for ClearRisk’s

product is expanding but Craig resists growing the team too quickly. Craig prefers a small team

and likes the dynamics of small groups. However, more sales people are needed and they will co-op

and computer science students to his company. He likes to hire young people. It is

rewarding to see them take shape and become leaders.

Craig speaks favorably about starting a new business in Newfoundland and Labrador. He

says that the provincial climate is positive. In addition to the practical and financial support

available, the provincial government has done a lot to assist business in recent years, including

reducing taxes and red tape and increasing funding.

When Craig reflects on the path his career has taken, he gives special acknowledgement to

Paul Johnson of Johnson Insurance as a business icon and an inspiration. Mr. Johnson

inherited his father’s small insurance office and built it into an innovative, billion-dollar

Company. Not only was Mr. Johnson a great businessman, he was a community-minded

Philanthropist. This is evident today throughout the capital city in the parks, trail ways, and the

Johnson Geo on Signal Hill. Mr. Johnson has influenced Craig’s professional and

Community life. In addition to Craig’s entrepreneurial success he is firmly rooted in his

Community; he currently serves as Chair of the YM/YWCA.

Craig has advice for young people who dream of starting their own businesses. He says to be

Informed, to go in with open eyes and to seek honest opinions from knowledgeable people. He

advises that an entrepreneur should realize that “the odds are against you, but you need the

tenacity and perseverance to stick with it. It is important to understand your industry, to

understand the need for your product or service and ultimately to understand the risks before

you make the leap.” In business, managing risk is everyone’s business!

1. Discuss what steps Craig took to develop and grow his business.

2. Illustrate the role Craig played in contributing towards the economy

Let's change it up a little. You may have to dig a little for this one. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are two banking giants that have been in news because of their role in the 2008 financial crisis. Due to this many in the government believe that the two companies should be put out of business. On the other hand, there are many who believe the companies should remain as they are. See The Case For Keeping Fannie and Freddie Alive. The argument both ways is in a sales pitch for the two contrary opinions. how would you convince someone either way on the issue of Fannie and Freddie? A reference is required to support your post

On just one major piece of economic policy, President Obama and House Republicans share the same basic opinion: kill off government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This rare bit of consensus might also prove to be a devastating mistake.

Fannie and Freddie which guarantee mortgages were placed under federal conservatorship in 2008 as the housing bust reached its apex. The firms are roughly within $42 billion of repaying the $187.5 billion they received from taxpayers, but Obama and much of Congress plan to wind them down in the belief that another federal bailout will never again be necessary.

We can't leave taxpayers on the hook for irresponsibility or bad decisions by some of these lenders or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac,€ Obama said in a speech this month. We've got to encourage the pursuit of profit, but the era of expecting a bailout after you pursue your profit and you don't manage your risk well, that puts the whole country at risk. And we're ending those days. We're not going to do that anymore.€

But the political debate has been lopsided thus far focused on putting Fannie and Freddie into the grave, while largely ignoring what their demise could mean for homebuyers and the economy a sharp jump in interest rates, and a drop in the availability of mortgages.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has objected to plans to end both companies.

These are the government organizations that have made homeownership so easy, Reid recently told Nevada Public Radio. I don't agree with the president. He says he wants to get rid of them. I'm going to look closely at his recommendations because on their face, I don't like them.

Mostly, economists and investors are framing the issue in the same way as Reid.

It boils down to a tradeoff between shifting risk away from the government and taxpayers, versus keeping mortgages inexpensive and widely available, said Jed Kolko, the chief economist at the real estate firm Trulia. When push comes to shove, it's hard to do both.

Their executives received outlandish bonuses during the boom, only to foist the eventual losses caused by years of mismanagement onto the public. It rightfully enables sucker punches from Capitol Hill that voters approve of, even though the rescue kept the entire housing sector alive. Of the $1.75 trillion worth of mortgages originated last year, about 90 percent were made through the federal government.

This point matters because Fannie and Freddie ensure that the housing market does not seize up during a recession, said Ken Fears, an economist for the National Association of Realtors. Even if more private capital is needed in the mortgage industry, having the government participation creates liquidity€ that keeps the entire sector operating during tough economic times, Fears said.

Lawmakers tend to assume that the markets can transition over five or 10 years to a mortgage industry with a modest government backstop, or no taxpayer support at all. Before retiring at the end of May as a managing director for bond investor PIMCO, Scott Simon said that this amounted to a fantasy.

The private market can make mortgages, but they would trade at much higher yields and the down payments would be much higher because the private market cannot make competitive, fixed-rate mortgages with 20% or less of a down payment on the loans, Simon told National Mortgage News. Most of the people who think we should shut [the GSEs] down have a pure philosophical belief and they don't care what the outcome is. Or they simply don't understand anything about how housing finance works.

Fannie and Freddie help the economy with their guarantees, Simon reasoned but exposed taxpayers to their risks by having their own investment portfolios.

As of now, all profits from both companies go to the Treasury Department, per changes made last year to the terms of the conservatorship. In the original terms, Treasury received a 10 percent dividend from Fannie and Freddie. But Fannie and Freddie are now required to fork over all of their earnings forever to Treasury, a windfall that suddenly reduced the budget deficit.

A group of investors led by the hedge fund Perry Capital challenged this arrangement in a U.S. District Court lawsuit filed last month, claiming that they deserve a share of the proceeds after taxpayers have been repaid.

Because Fannie and Freddie are now generating cash, it would in theory be possible for the government to use these profits to create a capital cushion that prevents the need for a future taxpayer bailout.

By keeping the two companies under government control, taxpayers would benefit from the sale of about $200 billion worth of equity, investors in Fannie, Freddie, and other real estate assets explained in the background. The profits would be enough to create a capital cushion to insulate against a future downturn, without having to seek capital in the private market that could push mortgage interest rates higher.

But this requires Obama and GOP lawmakers to save Fannie and Freddie, precisely what they have vowed not to do. Obama wants a government insurance fund to replace them, while Republican congressmen favor an end to any Washington involvement with guarantees.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) would eliminate almost all federal involvement in the mortgage market. His policy assumes that the rusty tin standard of 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages would soon fade away, as more homebuyers would settle for variable-rate mortgages. Interest rates on a 30-year, fixed mortgage currently average 4.4 percent, a figure that could instead swing violently over time depending on inflation and the Federal Reserve. When the Fed attempted to tamp down inflation between 1980 and 1982, rates soared above 16 percent with the government backstop in place.

Obama would like to preserve the 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage. He has endorsed adopting a more limited government backstop as outlined in a bipartisan Senate bill co-sponsored by Tennessee Republican Bob Corker and Virginia Democrat Mark Warner.

The Corker-Warner bill would also unwind Fannie and Freddie, bringing their dominance to an end. In their place would be private financial institutions that would pay into a government insurance fund. Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody's Analytics, estimated that the plan would cause mortgage rates to increase by as much as 1.25 percent in the near-term. This estimate assumes a 20 percent down payment and a credit score of 750, slightly above the current U.S. average.

But of course, lawmakers have not discussed the potential tradeoffs in the early stages of mortgage reform. Unless voters have a clearer picture of the consequences, some say it could produce the same kind of boondoggle caused by Obamacare in 2010.

I don't think there has been much of a sales job to the public on what a new mortgage finance system looks like,€ said Brian Gardner, senior vice president of Washington research at the investment bank Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. I don't think you shove this down the throat of the electorate, as we saw with the health care overhaul.

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in