Neighbourhoods and Community Comparative Studies Essay

Neighbourhoods and Community Comparative Studies - Essay Example This article authored by DeFillipis and his colleagues handles a critical aspect of reconsidering the significance of the community in the contemporary setting. Evidently, this article serves to place emphasis on the attention the community has received from different scholars. This article undertakes an in-depth analysis of the relevance of the community in the contemporary setting where many nations in the globe have adopted the neoliberalism ideology. Neoliberalism has contributed immensely new roles of the state, and altered the hierarchy of public service provision (DeFillipis, Fischer, and Schrage 2006, p. 686). This has served to introduce a critical significance of the concerted efforts of communities and collaborations with the private sector. Evidently, the globe is moving towards a restructured market and economic policies as the authors explain, factors that have altered the functions of community efforts. The authors place focus on the romanticized view of communitariani sm, as well as two types of sceptical and critical views highlighted by different theorists and scholars. After such analysis of the views exhibited by different scholars, the article reveals certain progressive promoters. This article authored by DeFillipis and his colleagues handles a critical aspect of reconsidering the significance of the community in the contemporary setting. Evidently, this article serves to place emphasis on the attention the community has received from different scholars. This article undertakes an in-depth analysis of the relevance of the community in the contemporary setting where many nations in the globe have adopted the neoliberalism ideology. Neoliberalism has contributed immensely new roles of the state, and altered the hierarchy of public service provision. This has served to introduce a critical significance of the concerted efforts of communities

Psychological Association Essay Example for Free

Psychological Association Essay The code, first published in 1953, is applicable to psychologists of all categories though various principles are mostly relevant to clinical psychologists in their activities of research, teaching, assessment and therapy. The objective of these codes is to instill ethical behavior among psychologists. The code is categorized into two groups namely: Ethical standards; It encompasses rules that are enforceable and specific covering a great deal of activities performed by psychologists. Ethical standards are further categorized into 10 groups with a sum total of 89 standards. They include; Impact of the APA code of ethics to psychology The field has mostly committed people who have a far greater motivation for doing their work other than material wellbeing. This stems from observing the virtue that proclaims that psychologists should not harm clients but strive to benefit them. Keenness and high levels of professionalism are more pronounced in the field due to the fact that accuracy and truthfulness is one of the guiding principles for psychologists. The principle stressing for forging of close friendships between psychologists and their clients has the likely effect of speeding up the recovery of clients. This is because one major reason why clients see psychologists is due to problems associated with neglect and loneliness (Lane, Meisels, 1994, p. 34). The public has more trust in psychologists because they are assured of the fact that their confidential information is safely guarded. The chances of a client opening up to a psychologist are therefore high. This in turn makes diagnosis and therapy more effective due to the availability of accurate information. The fact that psychologists happen to be calm and composed people makes the atmosphere around an examination room relaxing. This in turn makes the client who might be inclined to overexcitement also composed. Therapy and examination is thus greatly simplified. The existence of a universally accepted code for the discipline makes it easier to compare notes among scholars from different backgrounds. This in turn makes the synchronization of activities easier and hence connecting of scholars from different parts of the globe. Sharing of ideas is thus enhanced with the ultimate result of improving the quality of content in the discipline (Lane, Meisels, 1994, p. 56) Reference MchWhirter Darien (1995) Equal Protection. New York: Oryx Press, pp. 23, 78 Lane Robert Meisels Murray (1994) A History of the Division of Psychoanalysis of the American Psychological Association. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 34, 56 .

All Quiet On The Western Front Themes :: essays research papers

1) The Destructiveness of War A major theme, not only on lives and property, but also on the human spirit. Men are subject to physical torment-eyes are blinded, limbs are blown off, blood flows everywhere, and innocent men die in agony. When soldiers take shelter in the graveyard, bombs explode all around them, the living hide in coffins and the dead are thrown from their graves. The destructive power is so great that even the fundamental differences between life and death become blurred. The impact of war on the spirit is subtle. They find themselves less able to returrn to civilian life- friends die all around them. 2) The Lost Generation This theme is an offshoot of the destructiveness of war. Paul's generation grew up too fast, its perceptins of life grossly distorted by the horror or war. The youthful idealism that might someday have blossomed into constructive maturity has been nipped in the bud. Unlike earlier generations, Paul can never again hope to find comfort and inspiration in the hollow rhetoric of politicians and generals. The war has shattered their illusions. Their innocence is gone, and only in aimless skepticism is left to fill the void. 3) Comraderie The theme of comraderie occurs constantly in the novel. The comraderie that exists in Paul's company keeps them from being driven insane by the horrors all around them. In a sense, the comraderie among Paul's friends can be seen as a last desperate clinging to the innocence of youth. These young men were transported almost directly to the battlefield from the schoolyard. The adolescent pranks of Paul and his classmates can be seen in their "adult" behavior, as in their attack on Himmelstoss. If the social responses of Paul adn his friends seem at time childish, it is essential to remember that these are young men whose experience of life took them directly to the barracks from the classroom. If they seem immature, it may be because they weren't given the chance to grow up normally. The best example of this theme os when Kat and Paul shared their roasted goose with Kropp and Tjaden. They were taking care of each other. 4) Alienation The theme of alienation develops as the novel progresses. At first, Paul and his friends still behave as if their lives will someday return to normal. In the middle of the book, Paul goes home on leave, only to discover that his real home is now with his friends on the front.

Pifzer Inc.’s Cost of Capital and Capital Structure

Pfizer Inc. ’S Cost of Capital and Capital structure – Xiaoyue Shi The costs of capital and capital structures for Pfizer Inc. and its two competitors Merck & Co. 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 S&P 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. Pfizer’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 companies’ judgmental risk premium estimated as 3. , 3. 4, and 3, respectively. According to the bond yield plus risk premium method, the estimated costs of e quity 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 Moody’s, S&P, the three companies’ 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 i s the market value of equity, and the book value of company’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, Pfizer’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%. Pfizer’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 companies’ assets are financed with around 50% equity, and their risks of bankruptcy are low. Because involved in the pharmaceutical industry, the three companies are focusing on R&D, 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 – 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 R&D 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 s tock Appendix C: Cost of debt Appendix D: Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) Appendix E: Capital Structure Appendix F: Depreciation 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=Company’s own bond yield + Judgmental risk premium Figure 1 CAPM Equation Variables| Â  | Â  | Â  | | Pfizer| Merck| J&J| 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| Â  | | Pfizer| Merck| J&J| | 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| | | Â  | 2010| 0. 72| | | Â  | 2009| 0. 8| | | Â  | 2008| 1. 28| | | Â  | 2007| 1. 16| | | Â  | 2006| 0. 96| | | Â  | 2005| 0. 76| | | Â  | 2004| 0. 68| | | Â  | 2003| 0. 6| | | Â  | 2002| 0. 52| | | Â  | 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| | | Â  | 2010| 1. 52| | | Â  | 2009| 1. 52| | | Â  | 2008| 1. 52| | | Â  | 2007| 1. 52| | | Â  | 2006| 1. 52| | | Â  | 2005| 1. 52| | | Â  | 2004| 1. 5| | | Â  | 2003| 3. 976| | | Â  | 2002| 1. 3| | | Â  | 2001| 1. 39| 0. 122302158| 1. 16%| $1. 58 | | J&J| Year| Sum dividend| Total growth over 10 years| Annualized growth rate (g)| Next expected dividend| 2011| 2. 25| | | Â  | 2010| 2. 11| | | Â  | 2009| 1. 93| | | Â  | 2008| 1. 795| | | Â  | 2007| 1. 62| | | Â  | 2006| 1. 455| | | Â  | 2005| 1. 275| | | Â  | 2004| 1. 095| | | Â  | 2003| 0. 925| | | Â  | 2002| 0. 795| | | Â  | 2001| 0. 7| 2. 214285714| 12. 39%| $2. 53 | Figure 3 CAPM | CAPM| Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | | 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| J&J| 1. 66| 8. 00| 6. 34| 0. 48| 4. 697| | | | | | | Figure 4 DCF | DCF| Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | | | 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| | J&J| 67. 97| $2. 53 | 12. 39| 12. 427| | | | | | | | Figure 5| | | | | | Bond Yield plus Risk Premium| Â  | Â  | | | | Company’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| | | | | J&J| 7. 36| | | | | Figure 7 Bond Data| Bond Data| Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | Bond Symbol| Issuer Name| Coupon| Maturity| Callable| Moody'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. 14| 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 MT N 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| Â  | Â  | Â  | | 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| Â  | | 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| Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | % 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 | – | – | 4. 85%| 5. 83 | 1. 86 | Merck| 92. 50%| 1. 99 | – | – | 7. 50%| 4. 44 | 2. 17 | J;J| 89. 26%| 1. 53 | – | – | 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| Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | | 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*| – | – | – | – | 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 Preferred 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*| – | – | – | – | 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%| | Average/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| Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | Â  | | USEFUL LIVES| Pfizer| | (YEARS)| Â  | | | 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Type| | Accelerated depreciation methods|Classes of Assets and Depreciation Ranges | | | | | | Land | – | | | | | Buildings| 33 1/3-50| | | | | Machinery and equipment| 8-20| | | | | Furniture, fixtures and other| 3-12 1/2| | | | | Construction in progress| – | | | | | | | | | | | Depreciation ; Amortization**| | 9,026 | 8,487 | 4,757 | 5,090 | | | | | | | | | Merck| | USEFUL LIVES| Â  | | (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| – | | | | |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| Â  | | (YEARS)| 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Type| | Straight- line methods| Classes of Assets and Depreciation Ranges | | | | | | Building and building equipment| 20–40| | | | | Land and leasehold improvements| 10–20| | | | | Machinery and equipment| 2–13| | | | | 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| Â  | Â  | Â  | | 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 ($)| 2. 25| 2. 11| 1. 93| 1. 795| | | | | | Number of Shares (Thousands)| | | | | | | | | | Figure 16 Stock repurchase (in U. S. dollars) and dividends| Stock Repurchaces and Dividends| Â  | Â  | Â  | | Pfizer| | 2011| 2010| 2009| 2008| Stock Repurchaces*| N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Dividends ($)| 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

European History Essay

During the time period of the late sixteenth century to the late eighteenth century the concept of what nobility is and what it was conceived to be varied greatly as more modern thoughts developed and desperation of monarchs grew to meet such demand. The arguments related to nobility differed greatly, but these were the most crucial; the difference between the sword and the robe and the right to even hold such a position at all. The nobles from military decent (the sword) have an extensive lineage that allows them to perform certain tasks as described by Jean de La Taille in the poem â€Å"The Retired Courtier,† the words speak of the need to be a noble, to be a pure noble, to hold the position of a courtier [Doc 1]. King Louis XIII has proclaimed in the Declaration of Duels and Affairs of Honor that nobles bought into the nobility are wasting time fighting with the nobles of military decent should rather have spent that energy defending the country that gives them such authority in the first place [Doc 6]. King Louis XIII only wants the political emancipation from such a minor distraction as this controversy caused such a up roar of the masses. Gilles Andre de La Roque said, â€Å"You can’t just earn the title of nobility because you lack the family necessary for it† [Doc 9]. On that note, note everyone had the exact same idea as to what makes a noble, a noble. Marc-Antoine Millotet supported the rights of being a robe nobleman being that it was acquired by law, so as to make it just [Doc 7]. This belief was most likely due to the fact that he was a Judge thus, influencing the idea of law. Moliere created the scene in â€Å"Dom Juan† that nobility is not earned through birth, but by the actions of ced person [Doc 8]. He could have possibly thought that this because of his non-nobility status and his role thespianism, meaning only nobles would watch plays anyways. King Louis XVI changed the way the monarchy viewed the rights to nobility by stating you don’t have to fight in war to gain noble recognition any nobility involvement will do [Doc 10]. Although, people feuded about which noble was the right noble some didn’t even believe it should exist. Pierre de La Primaudaye thought nobility needed self-worth before such nobility were to even be inherited; he said you need to contribute to the family name [Doc 2]. Villagers of Mondeville in a testimony to the Parlement that nobility isn’t a perfect breed they shouldn’t hold such prestige over other people, saying that Pierre Morin believed his noble status gives him the right to mistreat anyone who is not royal or noble [Doc 3]. Henry, Prince of Conde spoke about the current nobility buying their way into offices, saying that there is no reward for virtue or tradition of family since all power now belongs to favors, alliances, kinship, and money [Doc 4]. Henry perhaps felt a need to say what was on his mind as he saw the immediate nobility change in the court around him causing much stress and indifference. Over the period of the late sixteenth century to the late eighteenth century nobility changed its influences on the public and the royal court this led to arguments such as the difference of the sword and robe nobles to the idea of not having nobles at all. This controversy will continue as the struggle for power continues in the higher classes in European governments or when the idea of monarchy ends entirely.