Financial managers make three main decisions:
Which products or services to offer?
How to acquire the funds necessary to offer the products and services, such as using cash on hand, borrowing, or selling shares in the firm?
What to do with the cash flow generated by the firm, such as pay dividends, repurchase shares, reinvest it in the business, or hold on to it?
Which of these decisions do you think is the most important for creating value for the corporation’s owners? Why? (Note: Your response for this question should be no more than 50 words)
A guest speaker in class states “managers should only focus their attention on what shareholders want because they are the owners of the firm and the managers work for the shareholders”. Offer your view on this statement based on your readings, life experiences, and ethics.
Sample Solution
sts Frowe looks for a fair, simply battle between two members staying away from non-warrior passings, yet couldn’t this prompt higher demise rate for soldiers, as the two sides have moderately equivalent opportunity to win since both utilize comparable strategies? By and by, seemingly Frowe will contend that warrior can legitimately kill one another, showing this is simply, which is likewise upheld by Vittola, who states: ‘it is legitimate to draw the sword and use it against criminals (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ what’s more, Vittola communicates the degree of military strategies utilized, yet never arrives at a resolution regardless of whether it’s legal to continue these activities, as he continually tracked down a center ground, where it very well may be legitimate to do things like this yet never consistently (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is upheld by Frowe, who estimates the authentic strategies as per proportionality and military need. It relies upon the extent of how much harm done to each other, to pass judgment on the activities after a conflict. For instance, one can’t just nuke the fear monger bunches all through the center east, since it isn’t just relative, it will harm the entire populace, a potentially negative result. All the more significantly, the warriors should have the right expectation in the thing they will accomplish, forfeiting the expenses for their activities. For instance: if fighters have any desire to execute all detainees of war, they should do it for the right aim and for a worthwhile motivation, relative to the damage done to them. This is upheld by Vittola: ‘not generally legal to execute all soldiers… we should consider… size of the injury incurred by the foe.’ This is additionally upheld by Frowe approach, which is significantly more upright than Vittola’s view however infers similar plans: ‘can’t be rebuffed basically for battling.’ This implies one can’t just rebuff another in light of the fact that they have been a warrior. They should be treated as empathetically as could really be expected. Be that as it may, the circumstance is raised on the off chance that killing them can prompt harmony and security, inside the interests, everything being equal. Generally, jus in bello proposes in wars, mischief must be utilized against warriors, never against the blameless. In any case, eventually, the point is to lay out harmony and security inside the federation. As Vittola’s decision: ‘the quest for equity for which he battles and the guard of his country’ is the thing countries ought to be battling for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Subsequently, albeit the present world has created, we can see not entirely different from the innovator accounts on fighting and the traditionists, giving one more part of the hypothesis of the simply war. By and by, we can in any case presume that there can’t be one definit>
