🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Finance
2
answers
0
watching
280
views
1 Jul 2019

Assume you are the top HR manager for a large international firm. The head of your company’s operation in Japan has just resigned to take a job with another firm. You must decide on a replacement as quickly as possible. Look at the four candidates below. List each one’s strengths and weaknesses and then rank them in order of preferences with a brief explanation of why the deserve each rank. Remember job specific as well as cultural specific factors.

1) Jack Henderson: a senior vice president based in your Chicago headquarters. Jack has a long and distinguished career with your firm, is well regarded by everyone, and plans to retire in three years. He has never worked outside the US but is strongly and visibly lobbying for the job in Japan. Because you and your spouse socialize with Jack and his wife outside of work, you know she doesn’t want to move from Chicago.

2) Takeo Takahashi: is the number two manager in your Japanese operation, although he has served in that role for only 3 months. He was born and raised in Japan. After attending college in the US, he returned to Japan and went to work for your firm. Takeo is considered an emerging star in the company but is also relatively young and inexperienced. Your CEO prefers to appoint someone for the Japanese position with at least 15 years of experience and Takeo only has 8. He was being groomed to eventually take over the operation, but the just-departed top executive had been expected to serve until he reached retirement age in another 7 years.

3) Jane Yamaguchi: a Hawaiian born manager currently heading up a major division for your company in the US. She was a dual economics and Asian studies major at the University of Hawaii. For the last several years she has been studying the Japanese market and has become a true expert on that country. She enjoys traveling and spends as much time in Asia as possible. You know she would be very interested in this job if it were offered, although you are concerned that her husband and two high school aged children may not share her enthusiasm about living in Japan. In addition, you worry that if she is not offered a new challenge soon, she might start looking for another position.

4) Jacques Moine: is your most experienced international manager. Originally from France, Jacques has held senior management positions in your firm’s operations in Germany, Spain, Canada, Argentina, and Mexico. Moine appears to be quite satisfied with his current posting in Mexico. Because that operation is both stable and efficient, it likely could be run with someone with less experience.

Watch
2
answers
0
watching
280
views

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

Avatar image
Read by 1 person

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Patrina Schowalter
Patrina SchowalterLv2
3 Jul 2019
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related questions

HOME CARE Scenario Type of care provided Scenario Question 1 Question 2 Care in this capacity can range from a short-term to long-term based upon the changing needs of the patient. Patient age can range from pediatric to elderly. Care can be provided in the patient’s private home, group home, or assisted living setting. Medical homes fall into this category and are a new focus of Accountable Care Organizations through the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Review your current budget. Taking this information into account, what are some strategies you would use to identify resources to focus on improving efficiency and meeting customer expectations during this time? What do you see as the biggest financial issues of your organization? Hint: You are a nonprofit organization—so look at your means of funding and the relationship this has on your ability to treat patients and hire new staff. How will you address this financial issue? In home care, a patient is visited at home by a nurse or nursing assistants with activities of daily living (ADL), wound care, IV therapy, etc. These organizations can be nonprofit or for-profit. A physician supervises the care with the assistance of RNs or LPNs and certified nursing assistants (CNAs). You are a new administrator for a home health agency that is a national nonprofit organization that serves the surrounding Phoenix community. The agency has been recognized for the delivery of on-time quality services for a number of years. It is known to employ only the top staff within the community, but in recent months staffing numbers have dropped dramatically and you, as the agency’s administrator, have found yourself in a position where your facility is short staffed. You are unable to admit any additional patients unless you are able to have your staff work over time. Budget Considerations Operational Budget – This budget focuses on a broader view of the total operations of the organization in which all departments are reviewed for both their income potential and the costs associated with the work activities used to generate projected revenues. Each department will have its own budget for the managers to follow and on which to base the activities of the department in order to meet its contribution to the total revenues and the associated costs of the organization. Dietary Services – This is a departmental budget focused on the costs and potential reimbursement for the organization. The operation is overseen by a dietitian or nutritionist who is responsible for supplying the nutritional needs of the patients within their care. This department may utilize the services of several consultants or contract this service to an outside organization. Medical Supplies – This budget is focused specifically on the requirement-based services being delivered by the hospital professional, which are often referred to as nondurable disposable items. This budget includes specific items for the surgeon or professional performing the services. These may include such things as oxygen supplies, diabetic supplies, ostomy supplies, bandages, and related supportive items. These items are generally manufactured for one-time use. They are not reused due the inability to sterilize them. The items that are reusable are classified under capital assets and have a use-time identified with the specific piece of equipment. Human Resources – This budget indicates the finances needed to support the organization’s objectives, from a personnel perspective. Full-time equivalent (FTE) calculations are used to project the personnel budget. These individuals could include nonskilled labors to professional licensed physicians and various job descriptions within the categories. In addition to listing the FTEs, the associated benefits of the FTEs would be projected within this department for each FTE within the organization. This will generally include line items for consultants and temporary positions based on the needs of the organization. Departmental Costs – This budget focuses on the specific department and its overall needs, costs, and potential revenue in relation to the overall goals of the organization’s strategic plan. The manager’s primary responsibility is to monitor the operational efficiency of the department, including all areas that directly impact and support the generating of revenue for the organization. Managers may be required to present an analysis of the weekly or monthly operational analysis to the Chief Financial Officer of the organization or a lead manager. Vendor/External Suppliers – Health service organizations have special needs and may require certain external items and/or services. Most organizations have projected budgets to include the purchase of supplies and services for outside contractors (vendors) who specialize in installation, monitoring, and the repair of specialized equipment or technology being utilized by the specific health care delivery system. Maintenance/Facility Operations – This departmental budget focuses on the overall upkeep of the building and the related equipment and machines to provide a safe and comfortable environment for both the patients and workers. This budget includes all FTEs and may also include line items for consultants and outside sources based on needs of the facility.

Revenue 2011 2012 2013

Donations 50,000 55,000 75,200

Grants and Foundations 100,000 80,500 125,780

Government Grants 947,280 878,000 695,120

Interest Expense 6,050 8,000 10,000

Total 1,103,330 1,021,500 906,100

Expenses 2011 2012 2013

Health Center 2,482,845 2,558,265 2,668,951

Administrative Staff 100,000 110,000 125,000

Professional Staff 80,000 100,000 150,000

Family/Youth Services 214,888 210,987 230,985

General Management/Admin140,000 152,000 159,000

Total 3,017,733 3,131,252 3,333,936

Budget Spreadsheet

Short Story
“The Bet” (or how your money finds its way to Wall Street)

Long Bets was seeded by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and operates as a non-profit organization that administers just what you’d guess: long-term bets. To participate, “proposers” post a proposition at Longbets.org that will be proved right or wrong at a distant date. They then wait for a contrary-minded party to take the other side of the bet. When a “doubter” steps forward, each side names a charity that will be the beneficiary if its side wins; parks its wager with Long Bets; and posts a short essay defending its position on the Long Bets website. When the bet is concluded, Long Bets pays off the winning charity.

Here are examples of what you will find on Long Bets’ very interesting site:

In 2002, entrepreneur Mitch Kapor asserted that “By 2029 no computer – or ‘machine intelligence’ – will have passed the Turing Test,” which deals with whether a computer can successfully impersonate a human being. Inventor Ray Kurzweil took the opposing view. Each backed up his opinion with $10,000. I don’t know who will win this bet, but I will confidently wager that no computer will ever replicate Charlie.

That same year, Craig Mundie of Microsoft asserted that pilotless planes would routinely fly passengers by 2030, while Eric Schmidt of Google argued otherwise. The stakes were $1,000 each. To ease any heartburn Eric might be experiencing from his outsized exposure, I recently offered to take a piece of his action. He promptly laid off $500 with me. (I like his assumption that I’ll be around in 2030 to contribute my payment, should we lose.)

Now, to my bet and its history. In Berkshire’s 2005 annual report, I argued that active investment management by professionals – in aggregate – would over a period of years underperform the returns achieved by rank amateurs who simply sat still. I explained that the massive fees levied by a variety of “helpers” would leave their clients – again in aggregate – worse off than if the amateurs simply invested in an unmanaged low-cost index fund.

Subsequently, I publicly offered to wager $500,000 that no investment pro could select a set of at least five hedge funds – wildly-popular and high-fee investing vehicles – that would over an extended period match the performance of an unmanaged S&P-500 index fund charging only token fees. I suggested a ten-year bet and named a low-cost Vanguard S&P fund as my contender. I then sat back and waited expectantly for a parade of fund managers – who could include their own fund as one of the five – to come forth and defend their occupation. After all, these managers urged others to bet billions on their abilities. Why should they fear putting a little of their own money on the line?

If Group A (active investors) and Group B (do-nothing investors) comprise the total investing universe, and B is destined to achieve average results before costs, so, too, must A. Whichever group has the lower costs will win. (The academic in me requires me to mention that there is a very minor point – not worth detailing – that slightly modifies this formulation.) And if Group A has exorbitant costs, its shortfall will be substantial. There are, of course, some skilled individuals who are highly likely to out-perform the S&P over long stretches.

In my lifetime, though, I’ve identified – early on – only ten or so professionals that I expected would accomplish this feat. There are no doubt many hundreds of people – perhaps thousands – whom I have never met and whose abilities would equal those of the people I’ve identified. The job, after all, is not impossible. The problem simply is that the great majority of managers who attempt to over-perform will fail. The probability is also very high that the person soliciting your funds will not be the exception who does well. Bill Ruane – a truly wonderful human being and a man whom I identified 60 years ago as almost certain to deliver superior investment returns over the long haul – said it well: “In investment management, the progression is from the innovators to the imitators to the swarming incompetents.”

Further complicating the search for the rare high-fee manager who is worth his or her pay is the fact that some investment professionals, just as some amateurs, will be lucky over short periods. If 1,000 managers make a market prediction at the beginning of a year, it’s very likely that the calls of at least one will be correct for nine consecutive years. Of course, 1,000 monkeys would be just as likely to produce a seemingly all-wise prophet.

But there would remain a difference: The lucky monkey would not find people standing in line to invest with him. Finally, there are three connected realities that cause investing success to breed failure. First, a good record quickly attracts a torrent of money. Second, huge sums invariably act as an anchor on investment performance: What is easy with millions, struggles with billions (sob!). Third, most managers will nevertheless seek new money because of their personal equation – namely, the more funds they have under management, the more their fees. These three points are hardly new ground for me: In January 1966, when I was managing $44 million, I wrote my limited partners: “I feel substantially greater size is more likely to harm future results than to help them. This might not be true for my own personal results, but it is likely to be true for your results. Therefore, I intend to admit no additional partners to BPL. I have notified Susie that if we have any more children, it is up to her to find some other partnership for them.”

The bottom line: When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost index funds.

In many aspects of life, indeed, wealth does command top-grade products or services. For that reason, the financial “elites” – wealthy individuals, pension funds, college endowments and the like – have great trouble meekly signing up for a financial product or service that is available as well to people investing only a few thousand dollars. This reluctance of the rich normally prevails even though the product at issue is –on an expectancy basis – clearly the best choice. My calculation, admittedly very rough, is that the search by the elite for superior investment advice has caused it, in aggregate, to waste more than $100 billion over the past decade. Figure it out: Even a 1% fee on a few trillion dollars adds up. Of course, not every investor who put money in hedge funds ten years ago lagged S&P returns. But I believe my calculation of the aggregate shortfall is conservative.

Much of the financial damage befell pension funds for public employees. Many of these funds are woefully underfunded, in part because they have suffered a double whammy: poor investment performance accompanied by huge fees. The resulting shortfalls in their assets will for decades have to be made up by local taxpayers.

Human behavior won’t change. Wealthy individuals, pension funds, endowments and the like will continue to feel they deserve something “extra” in investment advice. Those advisors who cleverly play to this expectation will get very rich. This year the magic potion may be hedge funds, next year something else. The likely result from this parade of promises is predicted in an adage: “When a person with money meets a person with experience, the one with experience ends up with the money and the one with money leaves with experience.”

Question:
Summarize Buffett’s views on “The Bet” and passive investment management

Related Documents

L48 Anthro 3283 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Japanese Diaspora, Ethnography, Coronary Artery Disease
limebee41
FIN 3636 Chapter : Finance 2
azuremammoth471
History 2950 Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: Social Ownership, Strength Through Joy, Triumph Of The Will
rubyeel675

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Finance 370,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in