I think that the error in decision making came because the CEO didn't know the terrible status of the company. I think that he thought he was alright to do what he did financially, even though spending that kind of money just to upgrade your office is absolutely ridiculous. The only thing that could've prevented that situation is for the CEO to have some common sense about how to spend your money or even know the company's standing. 3. I think that both CEO's should've let their employees know the status of what was going on, because it seemed that they had no idea of the things that were occurring.
9. The Wall Street Journal did not publish the evidence by Markopolos because then people would take it out on them because they did not do the investigation and its because of them they lost there money. 10. I feel that the SEC did not do their job because they should have at least see these transactions and they should have caught him before everyone lost their money. Just because Madoff had good connections with the SEC they still have done some sort of an investigation and at least say they did not see anything than just ignore it because now people are mad at the
Jack Welch is an example of the kind of person to blame. As CEO of General Electric, he laid off workers and profited greatly from doing so. He became famous for his large income, but the media did not show the sad stories of the workers he fired to reach his success. The government is criticized as well. Presidential candidates do not talk about the issues regarding of bad treatment of workers, but instead talk only about topics of creating jobs, benefits, and minimum wages.
Some companies make an decision that stop providing the service to these unprofitable customers. It can be considered as a customer divestment strategy. In fact, divesting unprofitable customers is risky in some situations. To make right decisions, managers need to analyse the major characteristics of unprofitable customers then find the risks of divesting unprofitable customers. Unprofitable customers can be understood simply as people who bring nothing and even make bad debt for your company.
In September Apple were ordered to pay compensation to a Chinese encylopedia publisher for copyright allegation. They were payed 520000 yuan. Apple have also had other legal problems in China. A Chinese firm which name is Proview claimed to own the rights to the name iPad in the Chinese market after registering it in 2000. Apple claimed that they had purchased global rights to the name iPad from Provieww for £35,000.
So when these domestic companies are getting a steady flow of customers and income, they no longer have any need or incentive for improving the quality of their products. Even if the companies wanted to improve upon their product, the only way they would be able to do so, is by removing taxes on foreign products. But by not doing so, they are rejecting new ideas into their companies and are basically just promoting isolationism since they are refusing to work with other countries and allow them to ship and sell their products freely in the States. This isolationism will cause things like unemployment because when we are refusing to work with other countries, anything related to foreign business is negatively affected. It is also necessary to allow foreign products to come in so competition will increase.
The problem of ‘panic ordering’ can also be eliminated as the company should have enough inventory to serve its customers and thus panic ordering will stop even if they were to take place the first time the customer’s order. The reason the problem is caused is because the customer service actually determines the transfer amount. The department has little knowledge over optimal level of inventory and they actually determine the whole production plan as it is directly related to the transfer amount. Mr.Charles Scout should be allowed to manage
However, if everything came together appropriately, Goldstein could forcibly close the discount and earn an exceptional return wen he has free reign over the fund's strategy. Getting into this position is very difficult for an activist investor such as Goldstein because it required pleasing many parties with conflicting interests. Management of the funds would be reluctant to reduce the fund size in any way as it would cut into their annual fees. Shareholders were most interested in an effective return on their investments. And, investors in OP would expect Goldstein to maintain his strategy and direction for the OP fund.
For many businesses and companies one of the easiest ways to save money has been by reducing the number of employees. By doing so, companies can continue to provide the same service, with less people, which also means less expenses. Although this sounds like an amazing idea, stop and think of the people who were laid off. These individuals were not only forced out of their job, but it’s practically impossible to find another job. Economists believe that joblessness
He should have consulted with a financial adviser or an independent academic expert first. He also should have directly taken into account what the workers thought, because they were the ones most affected by the plant, as it was their source of income. The workers had a first hand account of everything happening at the plants, while Roger Smith and the other high ranking workers couldn’t fully grasp what was happening at the plants. Smith could have changed his tactics by decreasing some jobs at the plants rather than shutting them down completely. Had this happened, the company would have experienced a marginal profit increase because they would have fewer workers to pay.