How to write law essays and exams

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Contemporary Canadian Business Law Essay

A minor named Alice entered into a contract with Silver Flatware Ltd. for purchasing silverware on a long-term credit contract. The goods was delivered but the payment was not yet been fully made by Alice. Before she attain the age of majority, Alice repudiated the contract and refused to return the silverware. The company demanded a return of the silverware and refused to refund. The company sued Alice for the balance of purchase price. The legal issues in this case are whether Alice has the legal capacity to the contract and whether Alice has the right to repudiate the contract. If the second question is answered affirmative, what the effect of repudiation will occur in this case? Should Alice return the silverware and should she be liable to the lost of teaspoons? Finally, should the Silver Flatware Ltd. Refund the money had been paid by Alice? The plaintiffÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s argument would be that the defendant must return the goods if she wants to repudiate the contract. The lost of teaspoons should be counted as damage to the goods and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the loss by charging compensation from the defendant. The defendantÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s argument would be that she has the right to repudiate the contract since she was a minor while entering into the contract and she repudiated the contract before her attaining of the age of majority. The defendant has the option to repudiate the contract because the contract has not been fully performed and it was signed for purchasing non-necessary goods. The defendant was entitled to a return of the payment as she was a minor at the time she entered into the contract. The defendant was not liable to the lost of teaspoons since it was not a direct result of the minorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s deliberate act and it was not recoverable by the merchant. In my opinion, the probable decision of the court would be that the defendant must return the goods and the plaintiff must refund all the monies paid by the defendant. The defendant must return the goods before the plaintiff is obliged to return the monies paid. The defendant is not liable to the lost parts of the goods. The reasons for the probable decisions are as follows. Firstly, public policy dictates that minors should not be bound by their promises. The defendant did not have the legal capacity to a contract since she entered into the contract and repudiated the contract before her attaining of the age of majority. Secondly, the contract has not been fully performed as the defendant has not made full payment of the goods, so the contract is voidable at the defendantÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s option. Thirdly, the goods purchased was a non-necessary goods since the silverwork is commonly considered as luxury but not necessary. Therefore, the plaintiff is not liable on such contract. According to the reasons stated above, the defendant who is a minor has the right to repudiate the contract at any time and at her option, for the reason of the contract has not been fully performed and it was for purchasing non-necessary goods. Additionally, once the contract has been repudiated, the minor is entitled to a return of any deposit paid to the adult contractor. Since the minor has purchased the goods on credit and taken delivery, the minor must return the goods before the merchant is obliged to return any monies paid. Finally, the loss of loosing teaspoons is not recoverable by the merchant because there is no evidence provided to proof that the loss is a direct result of the minorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s deliberate act.

Friday, January 10, 2020

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Modern Racism And Sexism - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 10 Words: 2925 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2019/06/20 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Racism Essay Sexism Essay Did you like this example? Modern Racism and Sexism If the United States truly had racial justice, all people would receive fair treatment; there would be equal opportunities for all people. There would not be inequity in the opportunities and outcomes of races. Racial justice would occur in daily life and on television. DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Modern Racism And Sexism" essay for you Create order Unfortunately, racism still exists today. As Garner (2017) reported, racism has become ingrained in social practices as well as institutions, and it results in an imbalance of power. Often, misperceptions cause people to believe that racism must be accompanied by abuse, violence, and segregation; however, Garner (2017) asserts the absence of such drastic measures does not prevent actions and behaviors from being examples of racism. Racism can actually be seen throughout the entire social continuum. Some argue that racism only becomes an issue when academics and activists invoke the issue; for example, Adams (2006) argues that some people simply change the definition of racism at will. Specifically, people redefine the word to support the ideas and plans they are supporting at the time (Adams, 2016). While Garner (2017) concedes that there is a lack of consensus about the meaning of racism, he defines racism as a belief system or doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various human races or ethnic groups (page 16). As a social phenomenon, people may engage in racism through their thoughts, attitudes, actions, and behaviors. Racism can be seen as people go about their daily lives. In fact, people do not even need to leave home to see racism in action. All one has to do is turn on the television, and racism can be seen front and center. For more than a decade, fans have tuned their televisions to The Bachelorette on Monday nights as they watch a single woman as she dates a couple dozen men in hopes of finding love and ultimately a husband. Last summer, fans watched Rachel Lindsay, an attorney from Dallas, Texas, as she starred in the shows leading role. In an interview prior to the start of her season of The Bachelorette, Lindsay admitted to feeling a variety of emotions. Knowing that all eyes would be on her, she explained that she was scared. Although her goal was to find love on the show, she knew that people would be judging her. Then, she decided to focus on the positives of the experience. She recognized and openly discussed being the first black bachelorette in the shows history. Despite this recognition, she described her search of love would be just like all of the previous leading ladies in the shows history. In describing her ideal partner, she wanted a soul mate that has a sense of humor, enjoys sports, is self-aware, has a large heart, and displays good morals (Barnes, 2017). During the last week of June, The Bachelorette was aired two nights that week. When Lindsay was cast as the shows first black female lead, nobody would have guessed that racism would have become a plotline as she tried to find love. One of the men chosen to compete for Lindsays love was Lee Garrett, a 30 year-old singer and songwriter from Nashville, Tennessee. Throughout the season, it could be argued that he got more joy from fighting with and playing mind games with Kenny King, a black wrestler from Las Vegas, also competing for Lindsays love. While Garrett continuously engaged in conversations about King during the shows first four weeks, everything came to a head during the shows fifth week. As the season unfolded, Garrett spent the majority of his time talking about King instead of promoting himself. Various instances of Garretts behaviors and racism can be seen at the following URL: https://abc.go.com/shows/the-bachelorette/episode-guide/season-13 As the show aired on Monday, June 26, 2017, viewers witnessed Garrett referring to King as being aggressive; the URL for this episode follows: https://abc.go.com/shows/the-bachelorette/episode-guide/season-13/5-week-5-part-1. Viewers watched as Garrett continued to refer to King as aggressive; meanwhile, King responded by calling Garrett a snake. Eventually, Will Gaskins, another one of Lindsays potential soul mates joined the conversation. Gaskins provided Garrett with a historical analysis of the word aggressive and what it meant to the black community. Gaskins conveyed the manner in which the word aggressive had long been used negatively against black men over the years in order for other people to justify their actions against black men. Garrett accused King of resorting to the race card. Gaskins, another white contestant, strongly disagreed with Garretts assessment; instead, he told Garrett that he truly believed that King was offended by his actions. Specifically, King took off ense with Garretts choice of words. Clearly, King interpreted that word very negatively; for him, the word has a racial connotation. As Garrett was further portrayed in the scene, he did not hesitate to say that his actions were intentional; in fact, he described that his actions were calculated. After his conversation with Gaskins, Garrett blamed the incident on King and Kings worldview. He further asserted that he did not comprehend the race card. Taking no accountability for his actions, Garrett tried to portray the problem with the scene resting with King; in fact, he maintained that King has issues (The Bachelorette Video Clips, 2018). In episodes earlier during the month, Garretts racist views were first revealed. In fact, he had compared The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a civil rights organization in the United States, with the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), a well-known racist organization; he described both organizations as racists and explained that one of the groups has enough sense to know to cover their faces. Although the shows producers claimed that they had no knowledge of Garretts tweets when he was cast, he had a history of posting racist remarks. Additionally, during the episode of The Bachelorette that aired on June 5, Garrett was antagonizing Eric Bigger, another black gentleman vying for Lindsays affections. Upon hearing of the argument, Lindsay listened to both of the men show was dating; however, she eventually took Kings side. Garrett was sent up during the two-on-one date between Lindsay, him and King. In explaining her actions, Lindsay said it was an easy decision; she explained that she was not able to trust Garrett (The Bachelorette Video Clips, 2018). Clearly, the definition of racism promoted by Garner (2017) came into play in the June 16, 2017, episode of The Bachelorette. Viewers watched Garrett display the social phenomenon of racism in his thoughts, words, and actions. Garrett had always been careful to make sure that his badgering of King and the other black men did not happen where Lindsay could hear him. As the show demonstrated, Garrett clearly was intolerant and displayed racist behaviors. Sexism refers to a form of discrimination or prejudice that finds its basis in a persons gender or sex. While sexism can impact anyone, it predominantly impacts girls and women (Matsumoto, 2001). Sexism has been linked to gender roles as well as stereotypes (Nakdiment, 1984). Last December, an episode of Teachers aired a perfect example of sexism (Funk, 2017). The URL for the specific episode was the following: https://www.tvland.com/video-clips/032bia/teachers-teachers-clipwho-gave-me-sexism- In the episode of Teachers, two teachers are talking as two other teachers approach. Three of the four teachers are females. One of the female teachers looks at the other female teacher and says, Linda, you are back from maternity leave so soon. Isnt it hard to be away from your baby? In disgust, Linda looks at the other teacher and responds, Why dont you ask, Dan, that. He and his wife just had a babyÃ¢â‚¬ a week ago! The teacher who asked the question suddenly exclaims, Oh my God! Its a scientific law; Im sexist! Who made me this way because I did not do this to myself! Seriously, who gave me sexism? Her friend explains that somebody probably engrained it into her when she was little. Suddenly, the sexist teacher blames in on Mrs. Wyatt, her elementary teacher. She continues to explain that she loved science as a young student, but she tells her friend that Mrs. Wyatt only encouraged her in penmanship and said she would eventually write beautiful love letters. She continues and re ports that she could have been a rocket scientist for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Funk, 2017). There are two different types of sexism; it can be described as benevolent sexism or hostile sexism. The two different forms of sexism hold different stereotypes of women. Benevolent sexism looks at women through positive stereotypes; hostile sexism views women through negative stereotypes. With benevolent sexism, women are viewed as more empathetic and kinder. With hostile sexism, women are seen as less brave and less competent (Glick Fiske, 2001). In the episode of Teachers, the teacher displayed sexism toward Linda when she expressed shock that she was already back at school; instead, she thought she should be at home taking care of her baby. In this instance, she was viewing Linda through benevolent sexism because she is viewing women as more nurturing. On the other hand, the teacher also illustrates another example of sexism; she explains the sexism that Mrs. Wyatt displayed during her days as a student in elementary school. The current teacher reported being very good at scien ce and dreaming of being a rocket scientist; however, she explained that Mrs. Wyatt discouraged her love of science. Instead, Mrs. Wyatt promoted penmanship and love to her. Clearly, Mrs. Wyatt was also displaying sexism. In this particular instance of sexism, Mrs. Wyatt was displaying hostile sexism. She was suggesting that her young female student should not consider science as a career because girls are less intelligent than boys; she was suggesting that boys do science and girls write. In looking at all of this, it is important to consider prejudice. First, it is important to recognize that prejudice is an attitude. As with all attitudes, there are three components that comprise the attitude; the components include affective, behavioral, and cognitive. When someone displays that they are prejudice, they exhibit a negative or hostile attitude toward people toward people simply because they are part of a particular group. Once a behavior accompanies the attitude, it results in discrimination. It is possible for a person to hold certain stereotypes about a group without engaging in discrimination (Aronson, Wilson, Akert Sommers, 2016). In looking at these examples from the television shows, elements of prejudice are apparent. For example, going back to The Bachelorette, Garrett was prejudiced against black people. Garrett held an attitude in which he believed that all black people were the same. He was constantly demonstrating hostile behavior toward the black male contestants. He assigned negative characteristics to all of the black men on the show, and it was clear that he also applied these same beliefs to all black people when his racist tweets were revealed. For instance, he compared the NAACP with the KKK; in fact, he called both groups racist. He went so far to say that only one of these two racist groups knows enough to hide their faces. Meanwhile, in the episode of Teachers, we saw the one teacher display prejudiced behavior when she told Linda that she was so surprised to see her back at school already because it was so soon for her to be back at school. Meanwhile, Linda explained that Dan, her male colle ague, and his wife just had a baby a week so the other teacher should ask Dan that question; however, the teacher did not ask Dan that. Even though she was a woman, she was suggesting that mothers should be staying at home with their babies. Then, we learn about the teachers elementary teacher, Mrs. Wyatt. We also saw that Mrs. Wyatt had prejudiced ideas. Specifically, Mrs. Wyatt had a negative attitude toward girls; she did not think that they were as smart as boys. Because science is typically considered a more difficult subject, Mrs. Wyatt suggested that science was for boys. She believed that boys were more intelligent and could do science. She thought girls should write and think about love. At times, we hear racism and sexism referred to as being institutionalized. Institutional racism refers to racist attitudes that held against a minority by the majority in a society; the discrimination may be in a legal form or illegal form. Discrimination and stereotypes are part of the norm in institutional racism. Meanwhile, institutional sexism refers to majority held attitudes that are part of a society that accepts stereotypes and discrimination as the norm. I do not think Garretts discrimination represented institutionalized racism. His attitudes do not represent attitudes held by the majority in society. In fact, the other white men in the house with Garrett did not sit by quietly. Instead, they pointed out his problems and took him to task for his behavior. In fact, by the end of the season, when the men return to talk about the entire season, the entire cast held him accountable for his behavior. As for the instance of the teacher asking the other teacher about being back at work so soon, her behavior was not institutional sexism. That may have been a form of sexism back in the 1950s when women were expected to stay home, cook, clean, and take care of their children. However, today, our society is much more accepting of women having careers and a family. Most people hold the belief that it is up to each woman to decide whether she will have a career or stay home and have a career. When women have careers and choose to have a child, most employers will now offer women time away from work for their maternity leave. Under the Family Medical Leave Act, women can take 12 weeks off from work and have their jobs protected; some companies have gone beyond that and allow women to stay home longer when they have a baby. Thus, that instance of sexism was held by the teacher and does not meet the definition of institutional sexism. As for Mrs. Wyatt, her issue of sexism has also changed over the years. Many years ago, there was a belief that boys did better at math and science; girls did better with verbal abilities. Many teachers thought like Mrs. Wyatt did at one time. However, now, girls are encouraged to take whatever classes they want. In fact, Ive seen some of the physics and calculus classes at my school that now have more girls than guys in the class. Also, women often enter careers in the sciences now. In fact, I just read a study last week that actually showed there are more women majoring in the sciences than men. Thus, Mrs. Wyatts example of sexism does not meet the definition of institutional racism in todays society. In trying to understand racism and sexism, it is important to think about society and how people learn such behaviors. According to the social learning theory, social behavior is learned; in fact, the theory asserts that people learn everything from altruism to aggression by watching those around them. Most social behavior is developed after watching and emulating others. Observation alone does not fully explain the learning that takes place; thus, there is also a cognitive component to the theory. Through the cognitive component, people their thought processes to what they have observed. The theory maintains that there are consequences when young people are exposed to racism and sexism. Because young people often learn from observing and mimicking the behavior of those around them, there is definitely a concern that young children will come to think that such behaviors are acceptable. They will think that it is appropriate to talk to people inappropriately. They will think that it i s okay to think they are better than other groups. They will think it is okay to have prejudice attitudes. Then, they will think they can go a step further and actually engage in discrimination. When children see any aggressive behavior, social learning theory suggests that they will then engage in the behavior. One of the best ways to minimize the chance of young people becoming racist or sexist is to control their exposure to racism and sexism. If they do see racism and sexism, it is important to talk to them and explain why they are not acceptable. When children have seen aggressive role models, it is important to make sure that they later see nonaggressive behavior modeled. Likewise, if they see racism or sexism, it is important to make sure they are then exposed to appropriate behavior and non-racism and non-sexism (Aronson, Wilson, Akert Sommers, 2016). References: Adams, M. (2006, April 10). Mike Adams A new definition of racism. Retrieved September 18, 2018, from https://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2006/04/10/a-new-definition-of-racism-n1161192 Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., Sommers, S. R. (2016). Social psychology. Boston: Pearson. The Bachelorette Video Clips. (2018). Retrieved September 15, 2018, from https://abc.go.com/-shows/the-bachelorette/episode-guide/season-13 Barnes, K. (2017, May 22). QA with Rachel Lindsay, the first African-American Bachelorette. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.espn.com/espnw/culture/- article/19435659/qa-rachel-lindsay-first-african-american-bachelorette Funk, J. (2017, December 6). Teachers Clip: Who Gave Me Sexism? Teachers (Video Clip) | TV Land. Retrieved September 21, 2018, from https://www.tvland.com/video-clips/032bia/teachers-teachers-clipwho-gave-me-sexism- Garner, S. (2017). Racisms: An introduction. Los Angeles: SAGE. Matsumoto, D. R. (2001). The handbook of culture and psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Glick, P. Fiske, S. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118. Nakdimen, K. A. (1984). The physiognomic basis of sexual stereotyping. American Journal ofPsychiatry, 141(4), 499-503.

Tuesday, December 24, 2019

The Bombing Of Pearl Harbor Was Avoidable Or Not - 1382 Words

Many can argue whether the bombing of Pearl Harbor was avoidable or not. There was different importance for the U.S. and Japan when it came to foreign and domestic policies. They both assumed so much negative assets about each other, they made themselves believe their intentions were no good and therefore it was not possible to avoid the attack made upon the United States. Even though they started as allies they both wanted different things and never had an agreement. The one thing that they both wanted was control and dominance in the Pacific. Japan was thirsty for power after the First World War. If they had power in the Pacific they would have ownership of raw materials, which means they would not have to pay anything to have access to them. The Japanese were determined to make this an accomplished goal. The beginning of Japans and Chinas problems can be traced back to the invasion of Manchuria. In 1931the Japanese invaded Manchuria which part of China and rename d it Manchukuo. This was the start of it all and the reason for the Sino-Japanese War. The Sino-Japanese was lasted until the end of the Second World War (Iriye 4). When China made the decision to take on Japan, other countries got involved, the United States being one of them, who took the Chinese side under Chiang Kai-shek. The Japanese had a slogan: Ã¢â‚¬Å"the Great East Asian Co-Prosperity SphereÃ¢â‚¬ which frightened the United States (Iriye 7). Just because the U.S. was known to be theShow MoreRelatedDropping The Bombs On Hiroshima And Nagasaki1073 Words Ã‚ |Ã‚ 5 PagesHiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary. In a brief summary, World War II (WWII) was viewed as one of the bloodiest wars to date. The Japanese belief of fighting to the last man and not surrendering played a large role in the decisions made in warfare (Dietrich). After Japan kamikaze-bombed Pearl Harbor, WWII was officially in place and the U.S. was prepared to retaliate to the fullest extent. The first bomb to be dropped on Japan, also the first atomic bomb ever to be used, was the Ã¢â‚¬Å"Little BoyÃ¢â‚¬ whichRead MoreThe Atomic Bombs in Japan1373 Words Ã‚ |Ã‚ 6 Pages000. (Weber, Ã¢â‚¬Å"Was Hiroshima Necessary?Ã¢â‚¬ ) Three days later, a second atomic bomb stroked the city of Nagasaki which killed approximately 37,000 people and injured 43,000 (Weber, Ã¢â‚¬Å"Was Hiroshima Necessary?Ã¢â‚¬ ). These actions of the United States still remain controversial today and the United StatesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ abuse of power and morality can be questioned. Ã¢â‚¬ËœWere the dropping of atomic bombs in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a j ustified way to end World War Two?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢. The answer is no, the bombings were not justifiedRead MoreWar I And World War II1392 Words Ã‚ |Ã‚ 6 PagesWar 2. I will explain how they started, what happened or changed during both, and how they ended. War begins with a conflict, sometimes it can be avoidable but for both of the World Wars, I think they were unstoppable. Ã¢â‚¬Å"Though it was not the bloodiest nor most prolonged war in history, nor strictly, as it was later termed, the Ã¢â‚¬ËœfirstÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ World War, it was the most intensely fought struggle and the greatest in geographical extent to have occurred down to that timeÃ¢â‚¬ (Roberts Westad, pg. 886). The FirstRead MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words Ã‚ |Ã‚ 1573 PagesSaddle River, New Jersey 07458, or you may fax your request to 201-236-3290. Many of the designations by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim, the designations have been printed in initial caps or all caps. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Robbins, Stephen P. Organizational behavior / Stephen P. Robbins, Timothy A. Judge. Ã¢â‚¬â€ 15th ed. p. cm. Includes

Monday, December 16, 2019

Pifzer Inc.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s Cost of Capital and Capital Structure Free Essays

Pfizer Inc. Ã¢â‚¬â„¢S Cost of Capital and Capital structure Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Xiaoyue Shi The costs of capital and capital structures for Pfizer Inc. and its two competitors Merck Co. We will write a custom essay sample on Pifzer Inc.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s Cost of Capital and Capital Structure or any similar topic only for you Order Now Inc. and Johnson Johnson in the pharmaceutical industry are analyzed in this memo. When calculating the cost of common stock for the three companies, three different approaches including Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) and the bond yield plus risk premium are applied (Appendix A). For CAPM approach (Figure 1 3), the risk-free rate (rRF) used is the rate on the U. S. 10-year Treasury bonds, which is 1. 66. The market risk premium (RPM) is the required return on the stock market minus rRF. The required market return used here is the average 20 years rates of return on SP 500. With highest beta (0. 71), Merck has the higher estimated cost of equity (6. 167). Pfizer has lower estimated cost of equity (5. 910) with lower beta (0. 67). Because of the lowest beta (0. 48), Johnson Johnson has the lowest estimated cost of equity (4. 697). For DCF approach (Figure 2 4), the stock price used is the current stock price. The expected growth rate (g) is the annualized growth rate based on the dividend growth over the past 10 years. Among the three companies, Johnson Johnson has the highest estimated cost of equity due to its highest expected growth rate in dividends. PfizerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s estimated cost of equity is much lower than Johnson Johnson. Having the lowest expected growth rate in dividends, Merck has the lowest cost of equity. For bond yield plus risk premium approach (Figure 5), the bond yield (Figure 7) for Pfizer, Merck and Johnson Johnson are 2. 0724, 2. 5553, and 1. 9629 respectively. Since their betas are Pfizer 0. 67, Merck 0. 71 and Johnson Johnson 0. 48, and all below 1, the three companiesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ judgmental risk premium estimated as 3. , 3. 4, and 3, respectively. According to the bond yield plus risk premium method, the estimated costs of equity are Pfizer 5. 3724, Merck 5. 9553, Johnson Johnson 4. 9629. The final estimated costs of equity for the three companies in this memo are the averages of the three approaches (Figure 6), and they are Pfizer 5. 83, Merck 4. 44, Johnson Johnson 7. 36. The three companies do not offer preferred stocks in public (Appendix B). Their costs of preferred stock would be zero. Although Pfizer offer Preferred stock for their employees, its costs of preferred stock still estimated as zero. According to the debt-rating organizations such as MoodyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s, SP, the three companiesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ bond ratings are very high (Figure 7). The tax rates used for calculating the costs of debt are the average tax rates for the last four years (Appendix C, Figure 10). And their after-tax cost of debts are similarly low, for example, Pfizer 1. 657, Merck 1. 991, Johnson Johnson 1. 528 (Figure 9). When calculating the percentage of debt and common equity (Appendix D, Figure 12), the common equity used is the market value of equity, and the book value of companyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s debt is used as a proxy of the market value of debt. According to the formula in Appendix D, the weighted average costs of capital (WACC) for the three companies are Pfizer 1. 86, Merck 2. 17, Johnson Johnson 2. 15. The WACCs are quit low for the three companies as pharmaceutical giants. The debt ratios for last four years for the three companies were all around 50% (Appendix E, Figure 13). For example, in 2008, PfizerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s debt ratio was 48. 1%, Merck was 55. 2%, Johnson Johnson was 49. 9%; in 2009, Pfizer was 57. 5%, Merck was 45. 5%, Johnson Johnson was 46. 6%; in 2010, Pfizer was 54. 7%, Merck was 46. 3%, Johnson Johnson was 45%; in 2011, Pfizer was 56. %, Merck was 45. 8%, Johnson Johnson was 49. 8%. PfizerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s debt ratios were a little higher than its two competitors. But they all have quite similar capital structures with similar borrowing capacities. The three companiesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ assets are financed with around 50% equity, and their risks of bankruptcy are low. Because involved in the pharmaceutical industry, the th ree companies are focusing on RD, innovation and raise productivity, which are very costly for them. The three companies all have a lot borrowings. Drug development needs a lot of resources and quite inefficient. High failure rates cause a lot pharmaceutical companies unable to make profit and went bankruptcy. Based on the circumstances, the three companies all have very good capital structures in the pharmaceutical industry. They may have to figure out a way to cut their costs, and have even better capital structures. Pfizer used accelerated depreciation methods for tax purpose. Its depreciation amortization increased a lot since 2009 (Appendix F, Figure 14). For example, it was $5,090 million in 2008, and $4,757 million in 2009, but it was $8487 million in 2010, and $9026 million in 2011. The huge increase in depreciation was mainly because of the merger with Wyeth in 2009. Merck mainly used accelerated depreciation methods for tax purpose except that its depreciation on intangibles was applied with primarily straight-line methods. Its depreciation amortization also increased since 2009. For instance, it was $1,631. 2 million in 2008, and $2,576 million in 2009, but it was $7,381 million in 2010, and $7,427 million in 2011. The increase in depreciation was also because of the merger. Merck was also involved in a merger with another pharmaceutical company Schering-Plough in 2009. Johnson Johnson had quite stable depreciations. And the straight-line methods were applied in this company. The three companies all paid stable dividends in last four years (Appendix G). Pfizer paid lowest dividends among them. Johnson Johnson paid highest dividends. Only Johnson Johnson performed stock repurchases (Figure 15 16). They (in shares) were 100,970 thousands in 2008, 37,114 thousands in 2009, 45,090 thousands in 2010, 39,741 thousands in 2011. And the money (in millions) used for stock repurchases was $6,651 in 2008, $2,130 in 2009, $2,797 in 2010, $2,525 in 2011. In my point of view, Pfizer and its two competitors Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Merck and Johnson Johnson all have low cost of capital. Although they all involved in a lot borrowings , they all have very good capital structures as pharmaceutical companies. The reason is that the costs in RD and innovation are extremely high in the pharmaceutical industry. Reference: 1. Brigham, Eugene F. and Michael C. Ehrhardt. Financial Management Theory and Practice, 13th Edition, Thompson South-Western, ISBN-13# 978-14390-7809-9, ISBN-10#1-4390-7809-2 2. http://www. mergentonline. com/login. php 3. http://www. how. com/how_5833592_determine-target-debt-equity. html 4. http://cxa. gtm. idmanagedsolutions. com/finra/BondCenter/Watchlist. aspx 5. ww. finra. org 6. http://www3. valueline. com/vlquotes/quote. aspx Appendices: Appendix A: Cost of common stock Appendix B: Cost of preferred stock Appendix C: Cost of debt Appendix D: Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) Appendix E: Capital Structure Appendix F: Deprecia tion Appendix G: Yearly dividend and share repurchase Appendix H: Value Line reports Appendix A: Cost of common stock Equations used for calculating cost of common stock: CAPM approach: rS=rRF+(RPM)bi DCF approach: The bond yield plus risk premium approach: rS=CompanyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s own bond yield + Judgmental risk premium Figure 1 CAPM Equation Variables| Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | | Pfizer| Merck| JJ| Risk Free Rate| 1. 66| 1. 66| 1. 66| Required Rate of Return| 8. 00| 8. 00| 8. 00| Beta| 0. 67| 0. 71| 0. 48| Required Return on Stock| 5. 91| 6. 17| 4. 70| | | | | | | | | | Required Return on Stock| Ã‚ | | Pfizer| Merck| JJ| | 5. 91| 6. 17| 4. 70| Figure 2 Annualized dividend growth rate (g) | Pfizer| Year| Sum dividend| Total growth over 10 years| Annualized growth rate (g)| Next expected dividend| 2011| 0. 8| | | Ã‚ | 2010| 0. 72| | | Ã‚ | 2009| 0. 8| | | Ã‚ | 2008| 1. 28| | | Ã‚ | 2007| 1. 16| | | Ã‚ | 2006| 0. 96| | | Ã‚ | 2005| 0. 76| | | Ã‚ | 2004| 0. 68| | | Ã‚ | 2003| 0. 6| | | Ã‚ | 2002| 0. 52| | | Ã‚ | 2001| 0. 44| 0. 818181818| 6. 16%| $0. 85 | | Merck| Year| Sum dividend| Total growth over 10 years| Annualized growth rate (g)| Next expected dividend| 2011| 1. 56| | | Ã‚ | 2010| 1. 52| | | Ã‚ | 2009| 1. 52| | | Ã‚ | 2008| 1. 52| | | Ã‚ | 2007| 1. 52| | | Ã‚ | 2006| 1. 52| | | Ã‚ | 2005| 1. 52| | | Ã‚ | 2004| 1. 5| | | Ã‚ | 2003| 3. 976| | | Ã‚ | 2002| 1. 3| | | Ã‚ | 2001| 1. 39| 0. 122302158| 1. 16%| $1. 58 | | JJ| Year| Sum dividend| Total growth over 10 years| Annualized growth rate (g)| Next expected dividend| 2011| 2. 25| | | Ã‚ | 2010| 2. 11| | | Ã‚ | 2009| 1. 93| | | Ã‚ | 2008| 1. 795| | | Ã‚ | 2007| 1. 62| | | Ã‚ | 2006| 1. 455| | | Ã‚ | 2005| 1. 275| | | Ã‚ | 2004| 1. 095| | | Ã‚ | 2003| 0. 925| | | Ã‚ | 2002| 0. 795| | | Ã‚ | 2001| 0. 7| 2. 214285714| 12. 39%| $2. 53 | Figure 3 CAPM | CAPM| Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | | Risk Free Rate (1)| Required Market Return (2)| Market Risk Premium (3)=(2)-(1)| Beta (4)| Estimated cost of Equity (1)+(3)? (4)| Pfizer| 1. 66| 8. 00| 6. 34| 0. 67| 5. 10| Merck| 1. 66| 8. 00| 6. 34| 0. 71| 6. 167| JJ| 1. 66| 8. 00| 6. 34| 0. 48| 4. 697| | | | | | | Figure 4 DCF | DCF| Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | | | Stock Price (1)| Next Expected Dividend (2)| Expected Growth Rate (3)| Estimated cost of Equity (2)/(1)+(3)| | Pfizer| 25. 12| $0. 85 | 6. 16| 6. 194| | Merck| 45. 62| $1. 58 | 1. 16| 1. 195| | JJ| 67. 97| $2. 53 | 12. 39| 12. 427| | | | | | | | Figure 5| | | | | | Bond Yield plus Risk Premium| Ã‚ | Ã‚ | | | | CompanyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Bond Yield (1)| Judgmental Risk Premium (2)| Estimated cost of Equity (1)+(2)| | | Pfizer| 2. 0724| 3. 3| 5. 3724| | | Merck| 2. 5553| 3. 4| 5. 9553| | | J J| 1. 629| 3| 4. 9629| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Figure 6 Estimated Cost of Equity| Estimated Cost of Equity| | | | | Pfizer| 5. 83| | | | | Merck| 4. 44| | | | | JJ| 7. 36| | | | | Figure 7 Bond Data| Bond Data| Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Bond Symbol| Issuer Name| Coupon| Maturity| Callable| MoodyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s| S;P| Fitch| Price| Yield| PFE. GF| PFIZER INC| 4. 65| 3/1/18| No| A1| AA| A+| 116. 189| 1. 501| PFE. GI| PFIZER INC| 4. 5| 2/15/14| No| A1| AA| A+| 105. 468| 0. 367| PFE. GM| PFIZER INC| 7. 2| 3/15/39| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 159. 019| 3. 685| PFE. GO| PFIZER INC| 6. 2| 3/15/19| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 127. 5| 1. 66| PFE. GQ| PFIZER INC| 5. 5| 3/15/15| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 111. 554| 0. 521| PFE3666215| AMERICAN HOME PRODS CORP| 7. 25| 3/1/23| No| A1| AA| A+| 139. 65| 2. 819| PFE3667744| WYETH| 5. 5| 2/15/16| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 115. 705| 0. 715| PFE3667745| WYETH| 6| 2/15/36| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 134| 3. 791| PFE3667909| PHARMACIA CORP| 6. 5| 12/1/18| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 128. 1 4| 1. 677| PFE3667915| PHARMACIA CORP| 6. 75| 12/15/27| No| A1| AA| A+| 137. 221| 3. 552| PFE3667927| PHARMACIA CORP| 6. 6| 12/1/28| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 138. 179| 3. 484| PFE3670301| WYETH| 5. 45| 4/1/17| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 119. 153| 1. 044| PFE3670315| WYETH| 5. 95| 4/1/37| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 135| 3. 5| PFE3702946| WYETH| 5. 5| 3/15/13| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 101. 977| 0. 706| PFE3703979| PHARMACIA CORP| 8. 7| 10/15/21| No| A1| AA| A+| 142. 03| -| PFE3704635| WYETH| 5. 5| 2/1/14| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 106. 52| 0. 421| PFE3704636| WYETH| 6. 45| 2/1/24| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 138. 004| 2. 553| PFE3704637| WYETH| 6. 5| 2/1/34| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 139. 025| 3. 807| PFE3706578| PHARMACIA CORP| 8. 2| 4/15/25| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 101. 5| -| PFE3739069| KING PHARMACEUTICALS INC| 1. 25| 4/1/26| Yes| NR| NR| NR| 99. 99| 1. 25| | | | | | | | | Average| 2. 072388889| MRK. GA| MERCK ; CO INC| 6. 3| 1/1/26| No| Aa3| AA| A+| 138. 945| 2. 76| MRK. GB| MERCK ; CO INC| 6. 4| 3/1/28| Yes| Aa3| AA| A+| 137. 464| 3. 278| MRK. GC| MERCK ; CO INC| 5. 95| 12/1/28| Yes| Aa3| AA| A+| 133. 211| 3. 28| MRK. GF| MERCK ; CO INC MTN BE| 5. 76| 5/3/37| No| Aa3| AA| A+| 131| 3. 808| MRK. GG| MERCK ; CO INC MTN BE| -| 11/27/40| No| Aa3| AA| A+| 98. 25| -| MRK. GH| MERCK ; CO INC MTN BE| -| 12/21/40| Yes| Aa3| AA| A+| 98| -| MRK. GI| MERCK ; CO INC MTN BE| -| 12/27/40| No| Aa3| AA| A+| 98. 5| -| MRK. GJ| MERCK ; CO INC MTN BE| -| 2/6/41| No| Aa3| AA| A+| 98| -| MRK. GK| MERCK ; CO INC MTN BE| -| 6/21/41| Yes| Aa3| AA| A+| 100| -| MRK. GL| MERCK amp; CO INC MTN BE| -| 7/18/41| No| Aa3| AA| A+| 97. 75| -| MRK. GM| MERCK ; CO INC MTN BE| -| 12/21/41| Yes| Aa3| AA| A+| 100| -| MRK. GN| MERCK ; CO INC MTN BE| -| 11/28/41| No| Aa3| AA| A+| 98. 25| -| MRK. GQ| MERCK ; CO INC MTN BE| -| 8/22/42| Yes| Aa3| AA| A+| 98. 275| -| MRK. GR| MERCK ; CO INC MTN BE| -| 2/18/43| Yes| Aa3| AA| A+| 99. 875| -| MRK. GT| MERCK ; CO INC MTN BE| -| 2/12/44| Yes| Aa3| AA | A+| 100| -| MRK. GU| MERCK ; CO INC| 4. 75| 3/1/15| Yes| Aa3| AA| A+| 109. 512| 0. 699| MRK. GV| MERCK ; CO INC| 5. 75| 11/15/36| Yes| Aa3| AA| A+| 135. 683| 3. 536| MRK. GW| MERCK ; CO INC| 4. 8| 2/15/13| No| Aa3| AA| A+| 101. 369| 0. 194| MRK. GX| MERCK ; CO INC NEW| 3. 88| 1/15/21| Yes| A1| AA| A+| 114. 717| 1. 883| MRK3671638| SCHERING PLOUGH CORP| 6. 55| 9/15/37| Yes| Aa3| AA| A+| 149. 11| 3. 56| | | | | | | | | Average| 2. 555333333| JNJ. GA| ALZA CORP DEL| -| 7/14/14| Yes| Aa1| AAA| AAA| 152. 8| -| JNJ. GC| ALZA CORP| -| 7/28/20| Yes| Aa1| AAA| AAA| 98. 75| -| JNJ. GH| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 6. 73| 11/15/23| No| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 145. 758| 2. 083| JNJ. GI| -| | 11/1/24| No| NR| NR| NR| 104. 36| -| JNJ. GJ| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 6. 95| 9/1/29| No| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 144. 925| 3. 422| JNJ. GL| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 3. | 5/15/13| No| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 102. 04| 0. 263| JNJ. GM| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 4. 95| 5/15/33| No| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 121. 154| 3. 499| JNJ. GO| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 5. 55| 8/15/17| Yes| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 121. 81| 0. 932| JNJ. GP| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 5. 95| 8/15/37| Yes| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 143. 163| 3. 369| JNJ. GQ| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 5. 15| 7/15/18| Yes| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 123. 223| 0. 982| JNJ. GR| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 5. 85| 7/15/38| Yes| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 143. 093| 3. 341| JNJ. GS| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 2. 95| 9/1/20| Yes| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 107. 12| 1. 969| JNJ. GT| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 4. 5| 9/1/40| Yes| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 123. 32| 3. 229| JNJ. GU| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| -| 5/15/13| No| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 100. 154| -| JNJ. GV| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| -| 5/15/14| No| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 100. 322| -| JNJ. GW| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 2. 15| 5/15/16| Yes| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 105. 523| 0. 588| JNJ. GX| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 4. 85| 5/15/41| Yes| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 125. 764| 3. 428| JNJ. GY| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 1. 2| 5/15/14| Yes| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 101. 399| 0. 311| JNJ. GZ| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 3. 55| 5/15/21| Yes| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 113. 786| 1. 807| JNJ. HA| JOHNSON ; JOHNSON| 0. 7| 5/15/13| No| Aaa| AAA| AAA| 100. 278| 0. 22| | | | | | | | | Average| 1. 62866667| Appendix B: Cost of preferred stock Figure 8 Cost of Preferred Stock| Cost of Preferred Stock| Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | | Preferred Dividend (1)| Preferred Stock Price (2)| Floatation Cost (3)| Component cost of Preferred Stock(1)/[(2)*(1-(3))]| Pfizer| N/A| N/A| N/A| #VALUE! | Merk| N/A| N/A| N/A| #VALUE! | J;J| N/A| N/A| N/A| #VALUE! | Appendix C: Cost of debt After-tax cost of debt=rd(1-T) Figure 9 After-tax cost of debt| After Tax Component Cost of Debt| Ã‚ | | Interest Rate| Tax Rate| Cost of Debt| Pfizer| 2. 072388889| 0. 2003| 1. 657289394| Merck| 2. 555333333| 0. 221| 1. 990604667| J;J| 1. 962866667| 0. 2218| 1. 2750284| Figure 10 Marginal tax rate Company| Pfizer| Merck| J;J| Year| 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Income before tax| 12,764| 9,282| 10,674| 9,694| 7,334| 1,653| 15,290| 9,931| 12,361| 16,947| 15,755| 16,929| Provision for tax| 4,023| 1,071| 2,145| 1,645| 942| 671| 2,268| 1,999| 2,689| 3,613| 3,489| 3 ,980| Tax rate| 0. 3152| 0. 1154| 0. 2010| 0. 1697| 0. 1284| 0. 4059| 0. 1483| 0. 2013| 0. 2175| 0. 2132| 0. 2215| 0. 2351| Average tax rate| 0. 2003| 0. 2210| 0. 2218| Appendix D: Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) Figure 11 WACC| | | | | | | | WACC| Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | % of Debt| Cost of Debt| % of Preferred Stock| Cost of Preferred Stock| % of Common Equity| Cost of Common Equity| WACC| Pfizer| 95. 15%| 1. 66 | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | 4. 85%| 5. 83 | 1. 86 | Merck| 92. 50%| 1. 99 | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | 7. 50%| 4. 44 | 2. 17 | J;J| 89. 26%| 1. 53 | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | 10. 74%| 7. 36 | 2. 15 | % of Debt, and % of Common Equity are the target proportions. Figure 12 Calculating the percentage of debt and common equity | | | | Pfizer| Merck| J;J| Shares outstanding (million)| 7,470| 3,050| 2,750| Market value per share | | 26. 03| 47. 96| 72. 52| Market value of equity ($ million), E| 194,444. | 146,278. 0 | 199,430. 0 | | | | | | | Book value of equity per share| 10. 64| 18. 16| 20. 95| Total book value of equity| | 79,480. 8 | 55,388. 0 | 57,612. 5 | Debt/Equity ratio| | 48. 26| 32. 91| 29. 07| Book value of debt| | 3,835,743. 41 | 1,822,819. 08 | 1,674,795. 38 | Cash on hand| | 24,340| 17,450| 16,920| Net debt ($ million), D| | 3,811,403| 1,805,369| 1,657,875| | | | | | | Percentage of debt, D/(E+D)| | 95. 15%| 92. 50%| 89. 26%| Percentage of equity, E/(E+D)| 4. 85%| 7. 50%| 10. 74%| Appendix E: Capital Structure Figure 13 Capital Structure| | | | | Capital Structure| Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | | Pfizer| 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Long Term Debt*| 34,931,000. 00 | 38,410,000| 43,193,000| 7,963,000| Common Stock*| 445,000| 444,000| 443,000| 443,000| Retained Earnings*| 46,210,000| 42,716,000| 40,426,000| 49,142,000| Redeemable Preferred Stock*| 45,000| 52,000| 61,000| 73,000| Total| 81,631,000. 00 | 81,622,000. 00 | 84,123,000. 00 | 57,621,000. 00 | | | | | | % of Debt| 42. 79%| 47. 06%| 51. 35%| 13. 82%| % of Preferred Stock| 0. 06%| 0. 06%| 0. 07%| 0. 13%| % of Common Equity| 57. 15%| 52. 88%| 48. 58%| 86. 05%| Total %| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| | | | | | Average/Target % of Debt| | 38. 75%| 95. 15%| | Average/Target % of Preferred Stock| | 0. 08%| 0. 00%| | Average/Target % of Common Equity| | 61. 17%| 4. 85%| | | | | | | Total Debt*| 105,381,000| 106,749,000| 122,503,000| 53,408,000| Total Assets*| 188,002,000| 195,014,000| 212,949,000| 111,148,000| Total Debt/Total Assets| 56. 1%| 54. 7%| 57. 5%| 48. 1%| | | | | | | | | | | | Merck| | 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Long Term Debt*| 15,525,000| 15,482,000| 16,074,900| 3,943,300| Common Stock*| 1,788,000| 1,788,000| 1,781,300| 29,800| Retained Earnings*| 38,990,000| 37,536,000| 41,404,900| 43,698,800| Redeemable Preferred Stock*| Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | Total| 56,303,000. 0 | 54,806,000. 00 | 59,261,100. 00 | 47,671,900. 00 | | | | | | % of Debt| 27. 57%| 28. 25%| 27. 13%| 8. 27%| % of Preferred Stock| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| % of Common Equity| 72. 43%| 71. 75%| 72. 87%| 91. 73%| Total %| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| | | | | | Average/Target % of Debt| | 22. 81%| 92. 50%| | Average/Target % of Pref erred Stock| | 0. 00%| 0%| | Average/Target % of Common Equity| | 77. 19%| 7. 50%| | | | | | | Total Debt*| 48,185,000| 48,976,000| 50,597,100| 26,028,600| Total Assets*| 105,128,000| 105,781,000| 112,089,700| 47,195,700| Total Debt/Total Assets| 45. %| 46. 3%| 45. 1%| 55. 2%| | | | | | | | | | | | J;J| | 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Long Term Debt*| 12,969,000| 9,156,000| 8,223,000| 8,120,000| Common Stock*| 3,120,000| 3,120,000| 3,120,000| 3,120,000| Retained Earnings*| 81,251,000| 77,773,000| 70,306,000| 63,379,000| Redeemable Preferred Stock*| Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | Total| 97,340,000. 00 | 90,049,000. 00 | 81,649,000. 00 | 74,619,000. 00 | | | | | | % of Debt| 13. 32%| 10. 17%| 10. 07%| 10. 88%| % of Preferred Stock| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| 0. 00%| % of Common Equity| 86. 68%| 89. 83%| 89. 93%| 89. 12%| Total %| 100. 00%| 100. 0%| 100. 00%| 100. 00%| | | | | | Average/Target % of Debt| | 11. 11%| 89. 26%| | Average/Target % of Preferred Stock| | 0. 00%| 0%| | Ave rage/Target % of Common Equity| | 88. 89%| 10. 74%| | | | | | | Total Debt*| 56,564,000| 46,329,000| 44,094,000| 42,401,000| Total Assets*| 113,644,000| 102,908,000| 94,682,000| 84,912,000| Total Debt/Total Assets| 49. 8%| 45. 0%| 46. 6%| 49. 9%| * $ in thousands Appendix F: Depreciation Figure 14 Depreciation | | | | | | Depreciation| Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | | USEFUL LIVES| Pfizer| | (YEARS)| Ã‚ | | | 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Type| | Accelerated depreciation methods| Classes of Assets and Depreciation Ranges | | | | | | Land | Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | | | | | Buildings| 33 1/3-50| | | | | Machinery and equipment| 8-20| | | | | Furniture, fixtures and other| 3-12 1/2| | | | | Construction in progress| Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | | | | | | | | | | | Depreciation ; Amortization**| | 9,026 | 8,487 | 4,757 | 5,090 | | | | | | | | | Merck| | USEFUL LIVES| Ã‚ | | (YEARS)| 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Type| | Accelerated depreciation methods| Classes of Assets and Depreciation Ranges | | | | | | Buildings| 10-50| | | | | Machinery ; Equipment| 3-15| | | | | Capitalized software| 3-5| | | | | Construction in progress| Ã¢â‚¬â€œ | | | | | Products and product rights, trade names and patents| 3-40| Primarily straight- line methods| | | | | | | Depreciation ; Amortization**| | 7,427| 7,381| 2,576| 1,631. 2| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | J;J| | USEFUL LIVES| Ã‚ | | (YEARS)| 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Type| | Straight- line methods| Classes of Assets and Depreciation Ranges | | | | | | Building and building equipment| 20Ã¢â‚¬â€œ40| | | | | Land and leasehold improvements| 10Ã¢â‚¬â€œ20| | | | | Machinery and equipment| 2Ã¢â‚¬â€œ13| | | | | Capitalized software| 3-8| | | | | | | | | | | Depreciation ; Amortization**| | 3,158| 2,939| 2,774| 2,832| | | | | | | | | | | | ** $ in millions| | | | | | Appendix G: Yearly dividend and share repurchase Figure 15 Stock repurchase (in shares) and dividends| Stock Repurchaces and Dividends| Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | | Pfizer| | 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Stock Repurchaces*| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Dividends ($)| 0. 8| 0. 72| 0. 8| 1. 28| | | | | | | Merck| | 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Stock Repurchaces* | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Dividends ($)| 1. 56| 1. 52| 1. 52| 1. 52| | | | | | | J;J| | 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Stock Repurchaces*| 39,741 | 45,090 | 37,114 | 100,970| Dividends ($)| 2. 25| 2. 11| 1. 93| 1. 795| | | | | | Number of Shares (Thousands)| | | | | | | | | | Figure 16 Stock repurchase (in U. S. dollars) and dividends| Stock Repurchaces and Dividends| Ã‚ | Ã‚ | Ã‚ | | Pfizer| | 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Stock Repurchaces*| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Dividends ($)| 0. 8| 0. 72| 0. 8| 1. 28| | | | | | | Merck| | 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Stock Repurchaces*| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Dividends ($)| 1. 56| 1. 52| 1. 52| 1. 52| | | | | | | J;J| | 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Stock Repurchaces*| (2,525)| (2,797)| (2,130)| (6,651)| Dividends ($)| 2. 25| 2. 11| 1. 93| 1. 795| | | | | | * $ in millions| | | | | Appendix H: Value Line reports How to cite Pifzer Inc.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s Cost of Capital and Capital Structure, Essay examples

Sunday, December 8, 2019

My Personal Philosophy free essay sample

My Personal Philosopy My Personal Philosophy A teachers personal philosophy of education is a critical element in his or her approach to guiding children along the path of enlightenment. Ã¢â‚¬ Barbara Wilt Opportunity abounds for elementary education in the twenty-first century, given the multitude of academic theorists who pioneered a number of indispensable approaches. The extent to which elementary education must be tailored to a combination of ones cultural and social environment is both grand and far-reaching; hat no single teaching method can purport to reach each and every child speaks to the need for incorporating the benefits of more than one approach in any given classroom environment. My lifelong desire is to teach all levels at some point in my career. To me, teaching has no age limits, as we all need to learn and grow. In the beginning I would always focus on early childhood education because I felt that this stage in life was the most important due to the developing growth of the brain. We will write a custom essay sample on My Personal Philosophy or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page But this course has definitely given me a better outlook on education in its entirety. To better understand ones philosophy of education, one must first understand the meaning of philosophy itself. Philosophy is the love of wisdom and the search for it (Webb, Metha, Jordan, 2010, pg. 50). I adapted to my personal philosophy by recognizing educational principles that rests upon the learner, the school, and myself as the teacher. In this essay I will explain the purpose of education, examine the educational philosophy that matches my belief, show the roles of the student as well as the teacher, and discuss my ideal curriculum. Education is a means of reaching out to individuals and instilling them with the love of learning. It is striving to delight excitement in the minds of students, by making their learning experience both fun and engaging. This enthusiasm about learning will drive students to develop an intellectual curiosity and to become lifelong learners. I truly believe that the overall purpose of education is to create productive and balanced members of society. Education consists of acquiring knowledge, learning skills and imparting culture through socialization.

Saturday, November 30, 2019

Tension In The Twenties Essays - American Culture, Canadian Culture

Tension In The Twenties All major societies throughout our worlds history have experienced periods of major change. Tension inevitably arises as a result of the new environments in which the people live. Our country is no exception, especially through the era known as the Roaring Twenties. Just being another decade on the timeline was not good enough for the 1920s. When its brief turn came, it had to be the biggest, the loudest, and the brightest. A calamity gave it birth, and a calamity ended it. As a result of World War I, major economic, social, and political alterations were born; yet more importantly, the tension that arouse due to these results would change America forever. One of the most important factors that led to the Roaring Twenties was the fact that America had just been subjected to a grueling war. During the war, much melancholy and anguish was built up by both the soldiers in Europe, and their families back home. With all this misery being built up, an explosion of patriotism and the need to let loose, relax and have as much fun as possible erupted. During the time period, many aspects of American culture were changing, which in turn helped to mount the increasing tension. As a result of the industrialization and mass-production techniques, the lifestyles of many citizens changed. More and more people left their rural dwellings for an increased chance of happiness in the big cities that were arising everywhere. This new rapid lifestyle began to deteriorate many traditional values that the more old-fashioned populace held valuable. More and more impressive inventions that made incredible impacts on the society also occurred during this time. The automobile gave teens greater freedom and enabled them to be without the constant supervision of their parents. The radio gave America a common ground, thereby allowing everyone from every class to enjoy the same entertainment or information. Many of the new creations had become so common, that it became rare not to have them. This idea is expressed in Sinclair Lewiss Babbitt, in which he writes, These standard advertised wares toothpastes, socks, tires, cameras, instantaneous hot-water heaterswere his symbols and proofs of excellence [DOC A]. It is shown here that people also became ranked on not only how much money they had, but their attitude towards these advancements. Tension between the old and new not only occurred on an economic level, but as well as a religious level. As people began to turn more and more towards science to answer their questions, unbelievable amounts of strain arouse. One of these great conflicts was the Scopes Monkey Trial, also known as The Worlds Most Famous Trial. There were basically two conflicts present within this trial: that of the fundamentalists and the Darwinists, and that between the accepted beliefs of the time, and the new ones that challenged them. The standard belief was to accept what society and the Bible dictated. The difference in mentalities between the prosecutor, William Jennings Bryan and the defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, is seen when Bryan states that he himself believe[s] everything in the Bible should be accepted as it is given there, and that some of the Bible is given illustratively [DOC C]. Another important source of tension came in the Negro community. This is seen in Langston Hughes The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain, where he writes of the revolt against weariness in a white world [DOC E]. He stresses the tension that is building up between the new artists and those who stay with the old values. In contrast to the Negro movement was the Ku Klux Klan, who were the perfect example of those who did not want to accept the new ways of life. In Hiram Wesley Evans The Klans Fight for Americanism, this idea is expressed clearly when he states that the Klan demand[s], and expect[s] to win, a return of power into the hands of the everyday, not highly cultured, not overly intellectualized, but entirely unspoiled and not de-Americanized, average citizen of the old stock[DOC D]. The KKK would have done anything to go back to the old times of oppressed minorities. They look out for themselves, who they describe as being unspoiled.