Amway Japan

Amway Japan Limited Executive Summary In 1996 Amway Japan Limited (AJL) was the leader in direct selling market, and the most successful company within the entire Amway group. In the first half of  1997, AJL experienced a net sales decline of 11. 6% and net income to 27. 6% from the first half of the previous year. The Japanese economy and declining value of  the Yen relative to the U. S. Dollar has decreased AJL’s sales volume and profit margin. The Japanese government recently passed laws that confused AJL’s distributors and discouraged potential consumers from buying certain product lines. Furthermore, AJL suffers from a negative public image with over 70% of their customer base having either a neutral or negative opinion of the company. In order to rebuild growth in the second half of 1997 and achieve AJL’s long-term sales goal of ? 300 billion by FY2000, the following strategies must be implemented. AJL must strengthen the overall Amway brand image in Japan by promoting high quality products with a competitively fair price. In addition, AJL needs to target their public-relations campaigns to specific groups by promoting individual products and product lines to build upon their brand equity. AJL will undertake a focused extensive distributor training program which emphasizes distributor ethics, techniques on building correspondent down-line relations, and a greater understanding of Japan’s door-to-door sales laws and regulations. AJL will improve  the internal marketing strategy by extending target-marketing initiatives toward specific demographic distributor groups to add upon their success with the Artistry cosmetic brands. AJL will successfully capture their momentum to reach their target revenue goals by implementing the solutions offered above.

Answer the 5 questions of investment portfolio management Essay

Answer the 5 questions of investment portfolio management - Essay Example Present value of Dividends employs the cost of equity as the discount figure. Operating free cash flow is the cash residue after eliminating direct costs, working capital and capital expenditure needed for future growth, but before any payments to suppliers of capital. The firm’s weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is the discount rate employed in determining operating free cash flow. Free cash flow to equity refers to operating free cash flow less payment to debt holders (Strong, 2008). The firm’s cost of equity is used as the discount rate. Present value of Cash flow allows a degree of flexibility for changes in sales and expenses, which implies varying rates of growth over time. However, present value of cashflow valuation approach has a weakness in that it is heavily dependent on growth rates of cash flows and the discount rate estimates. Relative valuation approach to security valuation offers information on how the market is presently valuing the stock. Compon ents measured using the relative valuation technique include the price earning ratio, price to sales ratio, price to book value and the price to cash flow. Unlike the present value of security valuation, relative valuation approach does not offer insights as to whether current valuations are appropriate. Thus, valuations could be too low or high at a certain point in time. As such, Relative valuation is suitable when there are comparable firms in terms of the risk, industry and size in the market. It is also appropriate when the aggregate market and the entity’s industry are not under valuation extreme. That is to mean that the collective market and the firm’s industry should not be acutely overvalued or undervalued (Strong, 2008). Both cash flow approach and relative valuation approach have several factors in common. One is that they are both affected by the investor’s required return on the stock since this return rate becomes a significant element of the disc ount rate. Secondly, the two valuation approaches are affected by the growth rate estimation employed in the valuation technique such as dividends, sales or earnings. Therefore, the two approaches may be considered as complementary. 2. The concepts of systematic and unsystematic risk, variance, covariance, standard deviation and beta as each of these relate to investment management. Unsystematic risks refer to the kind of uncertainty that is associated with the industry in which a company operates. Unsystematic risks are also referred to as specific risks or diversifiable risks for they are specific in each industry, and they are reduced through diversification. Unsystematic risks arise as a result of factors particular to an industry or the firm such product category, marketing, research and development and pricing. Systematic risks refer to the kind of uncertainty that is inherent in the whole market segment. They are also referred to as market risks or non-diversifiable risks bec ause they are inherent in the entire market and diversification do not result in their reduction. Systematic risks are such as war, inflation, change in taxation, global security perils and political instability that affect the functioning of firms in all industries. Total risk is a combination of systematic and unsystematic risks. Variance is the measure of volatility from the mean. Variance helps an investor to establish the risk involved in purchasing a certain security. A higher variance indicates greater variability and thus greater risk. A greater variance also

Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Ending Global Hunger Term Paper

Is Genetic Engineering the Answer to Ending Global Hunger - Term Paper Example The United Nations approximated that global human population will increase by â€Å"more than 40 percent, from 6.3 billion people today to 8.9 billion in 2050† (Rauch, 2003, p.104). While populations are expanding, the land devoted to planting food is not sufficient to respond to this increase. The pressure to improve agricultural production with limited land supplies results to discussion on different ways of responding to global hunger. Scientists and supporters of genetic engineering asserted that it can be a sustainable solution to global hunger. This paper explores the debate surrounding this issue. It argues that yes, genetic engineering can end global hunger, but if it can do so in a sustainable manner requires further independent studies, so governments all over the world should actively monitor genetic engineering’s operations and effects on human, animal, and plant life. For and Against Genetic Engineering Genetic engineering can end global hunger, because it can produce plants that resist diseases and unruly weather conditions. In the article, â€Å"Will Frankenfood Save the Planet?† Rauch (2003) argued that only genetically modified plants can ensure the benefits of no-till farming, which is a sustainable way of farming. He explained that no-till farming reduces runoff, which pollutes rivers and lakes, since worms and other organisms stay on the top soil and turn agricultural land into a huge â€Å"sponge† for heavy rains (p.104). Genetic engineering essentially makes organic farming possible without the need for manure, which pollutes water systems. Rauch (2003) added that during the 1990s, the agricultural company Monsanto designed a transgenic soybean specimen that it called â€Å"Roundup Ready† (Rauch, 2003, p.105). It tolerates the herbicide Roundup, which kills numerous kinds of weeds and disintegrates the latter into nontoxic ingredients (Rauch, 2003, p.105). Many farmers use Roundup Ready crops, instead of using a cocktail of expensive chemicals (Rauch, 2003, p.105). At present, more than 30% of American soybeans are harvested without plowing fields (Rauch, 2003, p.105). This can have large positive effects on farm areas with poor soil conditions, particularly those in the developing countries. Farmers can convert unused areas that are used to be not good for planting into productive agricultural plots. In â€Å"Food: How Altered?† Ackerman (2002) explored the benefits and drawbacks of genetic engineering. One of the benefits of genetic engineering is designing plants that can withstand rough weather and soil conditions. Hence, it can improve agricultural yield and expand agricultural opportunities. Genetically modified foods can fight other plant and human diseases. Farmers use herbicides to destroy weeds. Biotech crops can offer â€Å"tolerance† genes that help them endure the spraying of chemicals that eradicate almost all kinds of plants (Ackerman, 2002, p.32). Some types of biotech plants produce insecticide, because of gene taken from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt for short (Ackerman, 2002, p.32). Bt genes produce toxins that are seen as nontoxic to humans, but deadly to several insects, such as the European corn borer, an insect that eats cornstalks and ears (Ackerman, 2002, p.32). Bt is so effective that organic farmers have treated it as a natural insecticide for many