The Role of RNA Polymerase and the Death Cap Mushroom Essay Example for Free

The Role of RNA Polymerase and the Death Cap Mushroom Essay Being a health care worker, the role of how substances affect the body are always fascinating and intriguing. The role of the Death Cap Mushroom, which is appropriately named, is one that is simple but can have fatal implications. In Britain, the Death Cap Mushroom is attributed to 75% of all fatalities that are caused by ingesting mushrooms (Kibby, 2006). These are deaths that are certainly avoidable, but yet continue to happen. The Death Cap Mushroom scientific name is the Amanita phallodes. When it is ingested, it causes a deadly reaction in the human body. The major toxin mechanism is the inhibition of RNA polymerase II in DNA reproduction. The reason this becomes deadly is that this is a vital enzyme in the synthesis of the messenger RNA and without it, protein synthesis cannot happen and new cell production ceases. (Karlson-Stiber C, Persson, H (2003). When the human body is no longer able to recreate the template for new cell reproduction, the old cells die and new ones can no longer be reproduced and this quickly causes system failure in the body and the organs begin to fail rapidly. Due to the onset of symptoms taking between 12 and 30 hours to be visible, the damage has already taken place and is irreparable and can quickly lead to death. (Elpel, T (2011). The two vital organs that are affected first are usually the liver and the kidneys. This can quickly become a life threatening process. Although there is no cure for the toxicity, it has been treated with large doses of penicillin and Vitamin C, but there this is not a proven treatment and the only prevention of the ingestion of these mushrooms is safe. In most cases, if the person actually survives, a liver transplant would be needed to allow the person to live. Education on how deadly ingesting the Death Cap mushroom is sorely needed to prevent the unnecessary deaths that it causes each year. References 1.Kibby, Guide to mushrooms of Britain and Europe, Octopus Publishing, (2006) 2.Karlson-Striber C, Persson, H, (2003)Cyto toxic fungi overview-Toxic 3.Elpel, T (2011) Amanitaeac: The Deadly Amanita Family

An Analysis on Information Technologies: Fahrenheit 451 :: essays research papers

The idea of a controlling society set in the future is not a foreign concept to the realms of science-fiction. Technology is often utilized in these stories to control the populace under one vision of a perfect world. In George Orwell’s acclaimed novel 1984, the government of Oceania used “telescreens'; that displayed propaganda and censored news in addition to their role as cameras which relayed information back to the Ministry of Love. This constant surveillance provided assurance that the citizens put the needs of the state before themselves. In Phillip K. Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the police precinct of Los Angeles utilized retinal scanning machines to determine the sincerity of the person’s thoughts during routine lie detector tests. These measures perpetuated that the dream of only socially accepted, pure humans holding high statuses. Even in Oshii Mamoru’s Jin-Roh, the National Security Division utilized high-tech heavily armed and armored Capital Police to annihilate non-conformists. The aid of technology assisted all of these fictitious societies in their pursuit of utopia. Ray Bradbury chose for Fahrenheit 451 to have a futuristic and technologically advanced setting to speak in outrage against the possible corruption of technology due to totalitarian abuse. Perhaps science fiction writers speak of one of the greatest fears humans possess, the masking of the truth. The ideology of the control society, deviant thought hinders progression towards a flawless civilization, supports the growth of information concealing technologies to eradicate such “dangerous thought';. The flamethrower, the instrument of terror wielded by the firemen, played the role of such a thought-concealing apparatus. Truly a device with dreaded applications, the flamethrower makes it initially appearance with: With the brass nozzle in [Montag’s] fists, with this great python spitting its venomous kerosene upon the world, the blood pounded in his head, and his hands were the hands of some amazing conductor playing all the symphonies of blazing and burning to bring down the tatters and charcoal ruins of history. (3) As Bradbury writes, in one transient moment, years of recorded chronicles can go up in flames. This single sentence embodies the principle of how the rich heritage that humanity took eras to forge can end in a foul moment because of the wicked applications of technology. In a fictional environment where this deviant practice is viewed commonplace, the citizens of adopt a similar mentality. As the fireman Captain Beatty states, “[Fire’s] real beauty is that it destroys responsibility and consequences.

Financial Statement Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in Pakistan

Final Project Profitability Ratios’ Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in same industry for FY 2008-10 Sanofi-Aventis Ferozsons Abbott A REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES, VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY OF PAKISTAN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Submitted By Mc080402262 Sheikh Khurum Akram Department of Management Sciences, Virtual University of Pakistan Acknowledgement In the name of ALLAH, the most Gracious, the most Merciful Firstly I am thankful to ALLAH ALMIGHTY, WHO is sprinkling HIS blessings upon me and my family.HE has bestowed me with sound health and determination to perform this task. I really acknowledge guidelines from my course tutor who taught me the techniques of research. This project is my own effort. Executive Summary I will evaluate three leading pharmaceuticals of Pakistan for profitability ratio analysis of Abbott, Ferozsons and Sanofi-Aventis. I will assess them on the basis of facts and figures provided in their financial statements. My objective is to figure out their flaws and potencies. Outcomes of profitability analysis are worthy for management in making effective decisions.My findings will make easy for all related parties to have impartial analysis. This project will also make available a snapshot of pharmaceuticals’ capability in managing their resource for yielding profits. The main purpose behind this analysis is to conduct a quantitative study of raw data. Outcomes of my project will assist the title-holders and decision-makers to keep an eye on improvement in their businesses. I will perform profitability ratio analysis of Abbott, Ferozsons and Sanofi-Aventis. I will cite my sources each time if exact quote is copied of an author or paraphrasing of the same is drafted in my own words.I will provide reference if I copy a table, chart, diagram, or graph wholly or partly. Microsoft word and excel will be used to evaluate ratio analysis. APA styl e of referencing will be used. Ferozsons and Abbott have yielded sufficient net profits to recover all operating, non-operating expenses and taxation charges and to build up reserves after paying all fixed interest charges and dividends. Sanofi-Aventis has yielded very low net profit despite reasonable sales volume due to escalating cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating charges. Abbott laboratory and Ferozsons are efficiently managing its assets to generate profit.Sanofi-Aventis is not utilizing its assets properly to generate profit. Abbott laboratory and Ferozsons have higher generating rate of their wealth. Sanofi-Aventis has lower generating rate of its wealth. Ferozsons has better pricing approach and operating competence. On the contrary Sanofi-Aventis has flaws in pricing tactic. Abbott has shown adequate operating profits to meet its fixed cost. Sanofi-Aventis has shown its efficiency at its best in managing significant assets like Property, Plant & Equipment, Stoc k in Trade and Cash with bank balances.Ferozsons has utilized its revenue producing assets exceptionally well. Abbott has produced bulk sales volume with a relatively small amount of fixed assets. Sanofi-Aventis has shown effective job by producing better sales volume turnover with minute amount of property, plant and equipment. Sanofi-Aventis has produced insufficient returns to satisfy its investors. Ferozsons has generated sufficient gross profit volumes to face unfavorable financial circumstances such as low demanding and price competition. Ferozsons and Abbott need to keep scheming in the same way for curtailing cost of goods sold, operating and on-operating expenses. They need to retain effective management policies by utilizing more assets for the generation of higher profits in future. They need to keep strengthening better pricing approach and operating competence. They need to utilize operating assets more effectively to improve their turnover as per sales volume. Ferozson s needs to downsize overinvested in fixed assets. Abbott and Sanofi-Aventis should improve their turnover of fixed assets in terms of sales volume. They can increase gross profits by implementing more effective management policies.Sanofi-Aventis really needs to look its profit yielding capacity. It should review and improve its products range. Furthermore effective management policies can produce the desirable results. It requires implementing improved pricing tactic to attain better operating proficiency. It needs to watch over its policies for better return on owner’s equity to retain its investor confidence. It has shown better operating assets turnover, it should keep utilizing them in the same manner. It needs to improve its selling and marketing strategies to improve profit margins.Table of contents Acknowledgement Executive Summary Section IPage # 1. Chapter 1) Introduction8 Financial Period Under-Consideration for Analysis:10 Objectives10 Significance11 2. Chapter 2) Data Processing and Analysis 11 * Data Collection Sources:12 * Data Processing and Analysis Tools: 12 3. Chapter 3) Data Analysis12 Profitability Ratio Analysis Project12 †¢ Net Profit Margin 12 †¢ Return on Assets 14 †¢ DuPont Return on Assets 17 †¢ Operating Income Margin 20 †¢ Operating Assets Turnover 23 †¢ Return on Operating Assets 26 †¢ Sales to Fixed Assets 29 Return on Total Equity 31 †¢ Gross Profit Margin 34 4. Chapter 4) Summary, Conclusion, Recommendations & Limitations: 5. 2 Conclusion36 5. 3 Recommendations38 Section II a) Introduction of the student39 b) Bibliography39 Section I Chapter 1) Introduction to the Project: My project is about the financial standings and performance interpretations of three leading pharmaceuticals of Pakistan. I am willing to conduct this project to analyze the potentials and flaws of the same sort of business. My findings will facilitate all related parties to have impartial analysis.This project wi ll also provide a snapshot of pharmaceuticals’ competence in handling their resource for generating profits. Profitability ratio analysis helps to conduct a quantitative scrutiny of raw data. It assists the title-holders and decision-makers to monitor improvement in their businesses and endow with qualified analysis. It also helps to analyze and interpret for future prospects. My project will help all the stakeholders to have impartial comparative performance analysis. Reliable analysis of financial statements has got enormous importance in the current economic scenario.Investors, debtors, creditors and customers demand concrete, credible and result-oriented approach on which they can rely. This sort of project is always needed to have impartial analysis that encourages financier to invest in more profitable venture. It will also help the relevant pharmaceuticals to overcome their loopholes. The pharmaceutical concerns have shown high sales in the current era. It is justifiab le to call it the most developed technological segment in the country's financial system. This business is presently experiencing a phase of considerable transformation in under developed countries.Well-established pharmaceuticals can allow investments in more R ; D that expand their potential drugs range. Abbott Laboratories: They are a global, broad-based health care company devoted to discovering new medicines, new technologies and new ways to manage health. Their products span the continuum of care, from nutritional products and laboratory diagnostics through medical devices and pharmaceutical therapies. Their comprehensive line of products encircles life itself – addressing important health needs from infancy to the golden years.They have over 70,000 employees worldwide and a global presence in more than 130 countries, Abbott Pakistan is part of the global healthcare corporation of Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, USA. Abbott started operations in Pakistan as a marketing af filiate in 1948; the company has steadily expanded to comprise a work force of over 1500 employees. Currently two manufacturing facilities located at Landhi and Korangi in Karachi continue to use innovative technology to produce top quality pharmaceutical products. Abbott Pakistan has leadership in the field of Pain Management, Anesthesia * Medical Nutrition * Anti-Infective Ferozsons Laboratories Limited: It is one of the leading pharmaceuticals in Pakistan. It was incorporated as a Private Limited Company in 1954; Ferozsons Laboratories Limited became Pakistan's first local pharmaceutical company to be listed on the country's stock exchanges (1960). Commencing production in 1956, they made their beginnings primarily as manufacturers of fine chemicals and galenicals, and as toll-manufacturers for multinational pharmaceutical corporations today, heir core strength lies in their own range of branded generics, which cover products in the following segments:   * Anti-infective * Gast rointestinal * Cardiovascular * Dermatology Their marketing force consists of over 230 representatives and managers covering the territories of Pakistan. They have a  consistent prescription growth rate of over 20% per annum  in their promoted products; they provide a solid platform for creating and establishing brands in the Pakistani market. Sanofi-Aventis:Sanofi-Aventis is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies serving the cause of improving health and wellbeing. It is present in more than  100 countries, with around  11,000 scientists. They have around 100, 000 employees  working to improve health and wellbeing. Their Global headquarters are in Paris, France. Sanofi-Aventis focuses its activities on 7 major therapeutic areas: * Cardiovascular * Thrombosis * Oncology * Central Nervous System * Metabolic Disorders * Internal Medicine * VaccinesI have selected this project to have broad based comparative analysis between pharmaceuticals operating in Pa kistan with different origins. It is desirable for me to know how these pharmaceuticals utilizing their resources to yield high profits effectively. 1. 1 Financial Period Under-Consideration for Analysis: Financial years under consideration for analysis are 2008 to 2010 of Abbott, Ferozsons and Sanofi-Aventis. 1. 2 Objectives: The core objectives of the project will be to observe the operations of pharmaceuticals, their financial emergence and potencies along with flaws. To analyze the ability of selected pharmaceuticals to earn profit over a period of time * To analyze the selected pharmaceuticals efficiency in managing their resource for generating profit * To find out the reasons for generating profit over the years for selected pharmaceuticals * To find out that how effectively selected pharmaceuticals are maximizing their profits by controlling their costs/expenses * Trend Analysis will help to study the financial history of pharmaceuticals for comparison. * I would justify my findings about the financial capability of the pharmaceuticals to satisfy the stakeholders. . 3 Significance of the Project: Profitability ratio analysis would provide thorough information about the credibility and current standings of pharmaceuticals. My project will help creditors to know the liquidity position of pharmaceuticals, its relation with profitability and help to settle their priorities. Liquidity determines a company’s capability to meet up its obligations. If a company is facing troubles in meeting its urgent monetary commitments, it can affect its business functions and profitability.Concisely a pharmaceutical with better profitability will be enjoying improved liquidity position. It can help debtors to assess how pharmaceuticals are extending credits, effectiveness of collecting debts and its impact on profit. I want to carry out this type of project to help the investors for settling their decisions in making investments in such a pharmaceutical that would b est value their wealth. It will assist the customers to select such pharmaceutical that is yielding better profits and more reliable. It would help the management to have an independent analysis in identifying their loopholes.Profitability Ratio Analysis, Trend analysis and comparisons of results with other type of data will be judged against the pharmaceuticals within the industry. In short my analysis will help all stakeholders to have relevant and reliable information to ease their decision making process. Chapter 2) Data Processing and analysis: I will disclose and acknowledge all references for all materials that are used from all sources. I will cite my sources each time if exact quote is copied of an author or paraphrasing of the same is drafted in my own words.I will provide reference if I copy a table, chart, diagram, or graph wholly or partly. APA style of referencing will be used. 2. 1 Data Collection Sources may be: Primary Sources: This first hand data will be the conte nts I am investigating through financial statements of my relevant pharmaceuticals. Study of current data is my primary source. Secondary Sources may be: It will be collected through financial statements of my selected pharmaceuticals and internet. 2. 2 Data Processing and Analysis Tools: Microsoft word and excel will be used to evaluate ratio analysis. Chapter 3) Data AnalysisProfitability Ratio Analysis Project I have taken into consideration three recent Financial Years 2008, 2009 and 2010 for analysis of Abbott, Ferozsons and Sanofi-Aventis. 1- Net profit margin Introduction: The net profit margin formula reveals that how much of a company's revenues are reserved as net income. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing net profit with sales revenue for a given year. Formula: Net profit margin= Net Profit / Sales Revenue * 100 Net profit margin= (Answer) %age Calculation: Net profit margin| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| =343,980/7,089,163= 4. 5%| =609,072/8,450,118=7. 21%| =1,176,944/10,995,701=10. 70% | Ferozsons| =217,023. 829/932,297. 994=23. 28%| =182,757. 453/1,085,393. 578=16. 84%| =317,542. 675/1,273,374. 822=24. 94%| Sanofi-Aventis | =38,269/4,346,528=0. 88%| =167,371/6,725,708=2. 49%| =224,024/6,158,295=3. 64%| Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of net profit (numerator) and sales revenue (denominator) as these figures are mentioned in Profit and loss account. Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison Ferozsons has yielded highest net profit ratio (24. 4% in 2010) whereas Abbott laboratory has the maximum sales volume with compare to other two. Ferozsons and Abbott have yielded sufficient net profits to recover all operating, non-operating expenses and taxation charges. They have the tendency to build up reserves after paying all fixed interest charges and dividends. Sanofi-Aventis has yielded very low net profit (0. 8 8% in 2008) despite reasonable sales volume. Abbott has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 by producing the highest sales volume and by curtailing cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating expenses.Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to the increase in cost of goods sold. It has revived in FY 2010 by yielding the highest net profit percentage by controlling its cost of goods sold. Sanofi-Aventis has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 but insufficient net profit to keep any reserves. It has shown the lowest profit percentage in FY 2008 due to very high cost of goods sold and operating expenses along with finance charges. Abbott has changed its financial year from November to December in 2010 (13 months) that has also given it edge in producing better sales volume.Ferozsons has been leading and surpassed other pharmaceuticals with high profit margins by curtailing its cost of goods sold and operating expenses as compared to others . On the other hand Abbott has shown the highest volume of sales as compared to others but profit yielding capacity has seemed to be been on the way out. Sanofi-Aventis has yielded very low profits due to escalating cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating charges. 2- Return on Assets Introduction: Return on average total assets is a profitability gauge of a company with relation to its total assets.It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing net profit with average total assets for a given year. Formula: Return on Assets= Net Profit / Average Total Assets * 100 Return on Assets = (Answer) %age Calculation: Return on Assets= Net Profit / Average Total Assets * 100| | Return on Assets| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 343980/4865539*100=7. 07%| 609072/5007143*100=12. 16%| 1176944/5377499*100=21. 89%| Ferozsons| 217023. 829/1349994. 951*100=16. 08%| 182757. 453/1530769. 165*100=11. 94%| 317542. 675/1724423. 948*100=18. 41%| | | | | Sanofi-Ave ntis | 38269/2706204*100=1. 1%| 167371/3211724*100=5. 21%| 224024/3393760*100=6. 60%| | | | | Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of net profit (numerator) as it is mentioned in profit & loss account. | Total Assets| | | | Total Assets| Year 2007| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 4681368| 5049710| 4964576| 5790421| Ferozsons| 1218361. 366| 1481628. 536| 1579909. 793| 1868938. 102| | | | | | Sanofi-Aventis | 2428053| 2984355| 3439093| 3348427| | | | | | | Average Total Assets=(Current Year + Preceding Year)/2| | Average Total Assets| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010|Abbott| (4681368+5049710)/2=4865539| (5049710+4964576)/2=5007143| (4964576+5790421)/2=5377499| Ferozsons| (1218361. 366+1481628. 536)/2=1349994. 951| (1481628. 536+1579909. 793)/2=1530769. 165| (1579909. 793+1868938. 102)/2=1724423. 948| | | | | Sanofi-Aventis | (2428053+2984355)/2=2706204| (2984355+3439093)/2=3211724| (3439093+3348427)/2=3393760| | | | | Gr aphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Abbott Laboratory has yielded better percentage of return on assets due to reasonable net profit.The better ratio of Abbott laboratory depict that the pharmaceutical is able to manage its assets efficiently to generate profit. Ferozsons has also reasonable percentage of ROA that depicts its effective management of assets to generate profit. Sanofi-Aventis has low volumes of net profit with higher size of average total assets that depicts its inability in utilizing its assets properly to generate profit. Abbott has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 due to better profit margin as compared to previous years. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to decline in net rofit volume. It has also revived in FY 2010 by yielding the higher net profit against average total assets. Sanofi-Aventis has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 but inadequate net profit to utilize total assets effectively. It has shown the lowest ROA in FY 2008 due to very low net profit. Ferozsons has the highest ROA on the whole. It has outclassed other pharmaceuticals. In contrast Sanofi-Aventis has shown the lowest volume of net profits but considerable magnitude of average total assets that depict inefficient management policies to utilize total assets.Abbott has shown considerably well managed performance in utilizing total assets for producing profit. 3- Dupont Return on Assets Introduction: Dupont return on total assets is used to evaluate how productively assets are used. It measures the mutual effects of profit margins and asset turnover. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by multiplying net profit margin and total asset turnover for a given year. Formula: DuPont Return on Assets= (Net income / Sales) x (Sales / Total Assets) DuPont Return on Assets = Net profit margin x Total asset turnover DuPont Return on Assets = (Answer) %ageCalculation: Dupo nt return on Assets = net profit margin x total asset turnover Dupont return on Assets| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 4. 85%*1. 41=6. 84%| 7. 22%*1. 70=12. 27%| 10. 70%*1. 90=20. 33%| Ferozsons| 23. 28%*0. 63=14. 65%| 16. 84%*0. 69=11. 57%| 24. 94%*0. 68=16. 99%| Sanofi-Aventis | 0. 88%*1. 46=1. 28%| 2. 49%*1. 96=4. 87%| 3. 64%*1. 84=6. 69%| | | | | Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: Net profit margin= (Net income / Sales)*100 | Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| =343980/7089163*100=4. 85%| =609,072/8,431,080*100=7. 22%| =1,176,944/10,995,701*100=10. 0% | Ferozsons| =217,023. 829/932,297. 994*100=23. 28%| =182,757. 453/1,085,393. 578*100=16. 84%| =317,542. 675/1,273,374. 822*100=24. 94%| Sanofi-Aventis | =38,269/4,346,528*100=0. 88%| =167,371/6,725,708*100=2. 49%| =224,024/6,158,295*100=3. 64%| Total assets Turnover= (Sales / Total Assets) Abbott| 7089163/5049710=1. 41 Times| =8450118/4964576=1. 70 Times| =10995701/5790421=1. 90 Times | Ferozsons| =932297. 994/1481628. 536=0. 63 Times| =1085393. 578/1579909. 793=0. 69 Times| =1273374. 822/1868938. 102=0. 68 Times| Sanofi-Aventis | =4346528/2984355=1. 46 Times| =6725708/3439093=1. 6 Times| =6158295/3348427=1. 84 Times|   | Dupont Return on Assets|   | | Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Average| Abbott| 6. 84%| 12. 27%| 20. 33%| 13. 15%| Ferozsons| 14. 65%| 11. 57%| 16. 99%| 14. 40%| Sanofi-Aventis | 1. 28%| 4. 87%| 6. 69%| 4. 30%| Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: We can analyze the sales comparisons with net income and assets of Abbott laboratory; it has yielded better volume of profits along with an increase in its total assets and sales volume over the years. Its higher ratio depicts the higher generating rate of its wealth.Ferozsons has yielded higher profit margins by controlling its cost of goods sold but lower total assets turnover rate due to less sales volumes. Sanofi-Aventis has very low net profit margins bu t reasonably well total assets turnover rate that depicts lower generating rate of its wealth. Abbott has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 due to better net profit margin and sales volumes. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to comparatively low profit margin. It has also revived in FY 2010 by yielding higher profit margins, increase in total assets and sales volume.Sanofi-Aventis has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 but insufficient net profit margins has overlooked better total assets turnover rate. Ferozsons has the highest Dupont return on assets. It outshines other pharmaceuticals in better performance on the basis of relevant FY’s average. On the contrary Sanofi-Aventis has shown the lowest volume of Dupont return on assets but reasonable magnitude of total assets and sales volume. Abbott has shown fair performance in utilizing total assets with sales spectrum. Its average is near to Ferozsons’. 4- Operating i ncome margin Introduction:This ratio is used to compute the price policies and operational competence. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing operating profit with net sales for a given year. Formula: Operating income margin = Operating Profit / Net Sales*100 Operating income margin = (Answer) %age Calculation: Operating income margin| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 547526/7089163*100=7. 72%| 878503/8450118*100=10. 42%| 1744787/10995701*100=15. 87%| Ferozsons| 280330. 464/932297. 994*100=30. 07%| 238019. 515/1085393. 578*100=21. 93%| 330518. 449/1273374. 822*100=25. 6%| Sanofi-Aventis | 171478/4346528*100=3. 95%| 384071/6725708*100=5. 71%| 531682/6158295*100=8. 63%| Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: Operating Profit (Numerator) = Gross Profit + Other Operating Income – Admin Expenses – Selling & Distribution Expenses – Other Charges Operating Income Break-up GP+OTHER OPERATING INCOME-ADM IN EXP-SELLING & DISTRIBUTION EXP-OTHER CHARGES|   | 2008| | Abbott| 2097653+105545-255737-1334884-65051=547526| | | | | Ferozsons| 540738. 562+20809. 63-60719. 276-199424. 66-21073. 792=280330. 464| | | | | Sanofi- Aventis | 1055823+52809-122627-757135-57392=171478| | | GP+OTHER OPERATING INCOME-ADMIN EXP-SELLING & DISTRIBUTION EXP-OTHER CHARGES|   | 2009| 2010| | Abbott| 2321131+141890-201943-1252810-129765=878503| 3687038+109079-267915-1601101-182314=1744787| | | | | | Ferozsons| 584211. 298+23954. 076-80995. 604-261185. 939-27964. 316=238019. 515| 633242. 518+43434. 507-83262. 197-234076. 533-28819. 846=330518. 449| | | | | | Sanofi- Aventis | 1626599+101126-152707-1048283-142664=384071| 1753544+102220-175580-1094063-54439=531682| | | | | No need to provide breakup of Net Sales (denominator) are mentioned in profit and loss account of respective pharmaceutical.Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Abbott laboratory has yielded comparativ ely low operating income margins as compared to Ferozsons due to an increase in business cost and its expenses. Abbott has lower volume of operating profit in 2008 with increased net sales. Ferozsons has optimum capacity to pay for its fixed cost. Sanofi-Aventis has low operating income margin that depicts its poor pricing strategy and operating efficiency. It has minimal operating profits over the years but reasonable net sales volumes. Abbott has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010.The pharmaceutical should manage its expenses to reduce this decline. It has done better in FY 2010 by producing highest operating profit. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to comparatively low operating profit with comparatively better sales volume. It has also revived in FY 2010 by yielding higher operating profit. Sanofi-Aventis has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 but insufficient operating profit margins has caused inadequate margins to meet its f ixed costs. The aforementioned ratio provides an insight to determine the quality of a company.Ferozsons has the highest operating income margins. It has left behind other pharmaceuticals by yielding sufficient operating income that depicts better pricing approach and operating competence. On the contrary Sanofi-Aventis has shown the lowest volume of operating profit margins that shows its flaws in pricing tactic. Abbott has shown adequate operating profits to meets its fixed costs but comparatively low as compared with Ferozsons. 5- Operating Assets Turnover Introduction: This is a financial ratio that indicates the effectiveness with which a firm's management uses its operating assets to generate sales.It is generally expressed in times. It is calculated by dividing net sales with average operating assets for a given year. Formula: Operating Assets Turnover= Net sales/ Operating assets Operating Assets Turnover = (Answer) Times Calculation: Operating Assets Turnover| Year 2008| Ye ar 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 7089163/5168443=1. 37 Times| 8431080/4684635=1. 80 Times| 10995701/4740615= 2. 32 Times| | | | | Ferozsons| 932297. 994/1055296. 397=0. 88 Times| 1085393. 578/652061. 759=1. 66 Times| 1273374. 822/865565= 1. 47 Times| | | | | Sanofi- Aventis | 4346528/33338090= 0. 13 Times| 6725708/2785713= 2. 1 Times| 6158295/2399541= 2. 57 Times| | | | | Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of Net Sales (numerator) are mentioned in profit and loss account of respective pharmaceutical. Operating Assets = Total Assets – (Intangible Assets + Capital work in progress+ Loans and Advances + Investments + other assets) Break-up of operating Assets Operating Assets Turnover| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 5790421-(0+392954+170071+2801+56152)=5168443 | 4964576-(0+159886+73056+4393+42606)=4684635 | 5049710-(0+202480+23580+44896+4393+33746)=4740615 | Ferozsons| 1868938. 02-(0+141831. 157 +223867. 236+438228. 405+9714. 907)=1055296. 397 | 1579909. 793-(0+171010. 120+215775. 559+205992. 988+35069. 367)=952061. 759 | 1481628. 536-(0+0204216. 826+217372. 560+194474. 564)=865565 | Sanofi- Aventis | 33484287-(339+ 119,808+21381+4669)=33338090 | 3439093-(114+ 618,974+29683+4609)=2785713 | 2984535-(729+550391+30549+3325)=2399541 | Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Operating assets turnover of Abbott laboratory has improved over the years as operating assets are slightly decreasing with respect to better net sales.Ferozsons has comparatively improved turnover due to substantial increase in net sales with respect to operating assets. Sanofi-Aventis has reasonably well sales volume but operating assets haven’t grown in proportion. Abbott has shown increasing trend from 2008 to 2010 due to improved sales volume and minor change in operating assets. Ferozsons has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to comparatively decrease in operatin g assets as compared to net sales. Sanofi-Aventis has shown an increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 due to better sales with respect to operating assets.Sanofi-Aventis has represented its efficiency at its best in managing significant assets like Property, Plant ; Equipment, Stock in Trade and Cash with bank balances. It has surpassed others during FY 2009-10. On the other hand Ferozsons has shown comparatively low operating Assets Turnover with respect to other two. Abbott has shown rather better performance on the whole. 6- Return on Operating Assets Introduction: This is a financial ratio that gives an idea  as how efficient  management is  at using its assets to generate earnings. It is generally expressed as a percentage.It is calculated by dividing net profit with average operating assets for a given year. Formula: Return on operating Assets = Net profit / Operating assets*100 Return on operating Assets = (Answer) %age Calculation: Return on operating Assets| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 343980/5168443=6. 66%| 609072/4684635=13%| 1176944/4740615=24. 83%| | | | | Ferozsons| 217023. 829/1055296. 397=20. 57%| 182757. 453/952061. 759=19. 20%| 317542. 675/865565=36. 69%| | | | | Sanofi-Aventis | 38269/33338090=0. 11%| 167371/2785713=6. 01%| 224024/2399541=9. 34%| | | | |Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of Net Profit (Numerator) are mentioned in profit and loss account of respective pharmaceutical. Operating Assets = Total Assets – (Intangible Assets + Capital work in progress+ Loans and Advances + Investments + other assets) Break-up of operating Assets Operating Assets Turnover| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 5790421-(0+392954+170071+2801+56152)=5168443 | 4964576-(0+159886+73056+4393+42606)=4684635 | 5049710-(0+202480+23580+44896+4393+33746)=4740615 | Ferozsons| 1868938. 102-(0+141831. 157 +223867. 36+438228. 405+9714. 907)=1055296. 397 | 1579909. 793-(0+171010. 120+215775. 559+205992. 988+35069. 367)=952061. 759 | 1481628. 536-(0+0204216. 826+217372. 560+194474. 564)=865565 | Sanofi- Aventis | 33484287-(339+ 119,808+21381+4669)=33338090 | 3439093-(114+ 618,974+29683+4609)=2785713 | 2984535-(729+550391+30549+3325)=2399541 | Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Percentages of return on assets actively used to create profit of Abbott laboratory have been reasonable. Net profit has declined during 2008 that has caused comparatively low ratio.Ferozsons has also utilized its assets actually required to run the business. Its operating assets have improved over the years with reasonable net profit volumes. Sanofi-Aventis has not utilized it’s actively used assets efficiently to create revenue, consequently very low returns. Abbott has shown increasing trend from 2008 to 2010 due to comparatively high net profit. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to decline in net profit an d increased volume of operating assets. It has the highest percentage of 36. 69% in FY 2010 due to rapid increase in net profit.Sanofi-Aventis has shown increasing trend over the years due to substantial increase in the volumes of net profit but these percentages have been below average. It needs to improve its net profit. Ferozsons has utilized its revenue producing assets exceptionally well. It has been leading other two. On the other hand Sanofi-Aventis has shown very low percentages of return on operating assets and it has been unable to actively use its assets to create revenue. Abbott has shown noticeably improved performance but has not performed better than Sanofi-Aventis. 7- Sales to Fixed AssetsIntroduction: The fixed-asset turnover ratio measures a company's ability to generate net sales from fixed-asset investments –  specifically property, plant and equipment (PP&E) – net  of depreciation. It is generally expressed in times. It is calculated by dividin g net sales with fixed assets for a given year. Formula: Sales to fixed Assets = Net sales / Fixed assets Sales to fixed Assets = (Answer) Times Calculation: Sales to fixed Assets| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 7089163/1560835= 4. 54 Times| 8450118/1662785=5. 07 Times| 10995701/1877596= 5. 6 Times| Ferozsons| 932297. 994/610987. 413=1. 53 Times| 1085393. 578/735614. 952=1. 48 Times| 1273374. 822/742280. 446=1. 72 Times| Sanofi-Aventis | 4346528/1195978= 3. 63 Times| 6725708/1393461=4. 83 Times| 6158295/1409260=4. 37 Times| Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of Net Sales (Numerator) are mentioned in profit and loss account of respective pharmaceutical. Fixed assets breakup (Denominator) = Property, Plant and Equipment-net  of depreciation, the said figure has been given in the balance Sheet.Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Abbott laboratory’s performance is better as it is generating almost more than 5 times (on average) sales turnover as compared to its small amount of property, plant and equipment. Ferozsons seems to be lenient in producing sales as per the volume of Property, plant and equipment. It has overinvested in fixed assets. It needs to revive its sales by introducing new product’s range. Sanofi-Aventis has also done reasonably well to generate sufficient sales volume as compared to its small amounts of fixed assets.Abbott has shown increasing trend from 2008 to 2010 due to increased sales volume and comparatively small amount of fixed assets. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to overinvestment in property, plant and equipment. It has improved its ratio in FY 2010 by sufficient increase in sales volume. Sanofi-Aventis has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to adequate increase in sales volume. It has declined in FY 2010 due to decrease in sales. Abbott has surpassed others by produ cing bulk sales volume with a relatively small mount of fixed assets. On the other hand Ferozsons has shown very low turnover that means it has overinvested in fixed assets. Sanofi-Aventis has shown effective job by producing better sales volume with minute amount of property, plant and equipment.. 8- Return on total equity Introduction: Return on equity  measures a corporation's profitability  by revealing how much  profit a company generates  with the  money  shareholders have invested. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing net profit with share holder’s equity for a given year. Formula:Return on total equity = Net profit / Share holder’s equity*100 Return on total equity = (Answer) %age Calculation: Return on total equity| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Average| Abbott| 343980/3568512*100=9. 64%| 609072/3238460*100 =18. 81%| 1176944/3912539*100 =30. 08%| 19. 51%| Ferozsons| 217023. 829/826236. 891*100 =26. 27%| 182757. 453/970129. 401*100 =18. 84%| 317542. 675/1275765. 058*100 =24. 89%| 23. 33%| Sanofi- Aventis | 38269/1116612*100=3. 43%| 167371/1292449*100=12. 95%| 224024/1461403*100=15. 33%| 10. 57%| Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working:No need to provide breakup of Net Profit (Numerator) are mentioned in profit and loss account of respective pharmaceutical. Share holder’s Equity breakup (Denominator) = Issued, subscribed ; paid-up capital + Reserves – capital + Reserves – revenue Issued, subscribed ; paid-up capital + (Capital Reserves + Revenue Reserves)|   | 2008| 2009| | Abbott| 979003+154777+2434732=3568512| 979003+173853+2085604=3238460| | | | | | Ferozsons| 144672. 768+321. 843+681242. 280=826236. 891| 173607. 322+321. 843+796200. 236=970129. 401| | | | | | Sanofi- Aventis | 96448+1020164=1116612| 96448+1196001=1292449| | | | Issued, subscribed ; paid-up capital + Reserves – capital + Reserves – revenue|   | 2010| | Abbo tt| 979003+197167+2736369=3912539| | | | | Ferozsons| 208328. 786+321. 843+1067114. 429=1275765. 058| | | | | Sanofi- Aventis | 96448+1364955=1461403| | | | Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Abbott laboratory has yielded better profits on owner’s equity that is a positive sign for investors and lenders. Its return on owner’s equity falls in FY 2008 due to decline in net profit. Ferozsons has also done considerably better by yielding sufficient returns.It has also decline in returns during FY 2009 due to rapid decrease in net profit. Its owner’s equity has also improved over the years. Sanofi-Aventis has also slightly improved over the years as it has yielded nominal returns on investment in FY 2009 and 2010. It has very low returns in FY 2008 that should be a matter of concern for the management. Abbott has shown increasing trend from 2008 to 2010 due to increase in net profit volume over the years. Ferozsons has shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to substantial decrease in net profit.It has improved its ratio in FY 2010 by sufficient increase in net profit. Sanofi-Aventis has shown increasing trend from FY 2008 to 2010 due to slightly noticeable increase in net profit volumes but these are not attractive from investors’ point of view. Ferozsons has surpassed others by producing overall better average return that is 23. 33%. It has generated sufficient net profit volumes. Sanofi-Aventis has produced insufficient returns to satisfy its investors. It needs to watch over its policies for better performance. Abbott has also produced reasonable returns on owner’s equity. 9- Gross Profit Margin Introduction:It is used to assess  a firm's financial health by revealing the  proportion of money left over from revenues after accounting for the cost of goods sold. It is generally expressed as a percentage. It is calculated by dividing gross profit with net sales for a given ye ar. Formula: Gross profit Margin = Gross profit / Net sales*100 Gross profit Margin = (Answer) %age Calculation: Gross profit Margin| Year 2008| Year 2009| Year 2010| Abbott| 2097653/7089163*100= 29. 6%| 2321131/8450118*100=27. 53%| 3687038/10995701*100=33. 53%| Ferozsons| 540738. 562/932297. 994*100=58%| 584211. 298/1085393. 578*100=53. 82%| 633242. 518/1273374. 22*100=49. 73%| Sanofi- Aventis | 1055823/4346528*100=24. 29%| 1626599/6725708*100=24. 18%| 1753544/6158295*100=28. 47%| Note: Numeric Figures are mentioned in ‘000’ Working: No need to provide breakup of Gross Profit (Numerator) and Net Sales (Denominator) as these figures are mentioned in profit and loss account of respective pharmaceutical. Graphical Representation and Trend Analysis: Interpretation and Comparison: Abbott laboratory has reasonable overall gross profit margins. That’s why it has yielded sufficient returns on equity. Its net sale has increased over the years. It has a decline in gross p rofit in FY 2009.Ferozsons has also done exceptionally well by yielding the highest gross profit margins. It has the tendency to face adverse economic condition such as low demanding and price competition. Sanofi-Aventis has undermined overall gross profit margins. Its gross profit margins are not sufficiently enough to bear operating and non-operating expenses. Abbott has shown decreasing trend from 2008 to 2009 due to decrease in gross profit. It has revived in FY 2010 by yielding higher gross profit. Ferozsons has also shown a decreasing trend from FY 2008 to 2009 due to significant decrease in gross profit.It has decreased further in FY 2010 due to bulk net sales volumes. Sanofi-Aventis has shown almost same trend in FY 2008 and 2009 but an increase in FY 2010 due to higher gross profit. Ferozsons has left behind others by producing overall excellent gross profit margins. It has generated sufficient gross profit volumes to face unfavorable financial circumstances such as low dem anding and price competition. Sanofi-Aventis has produced insufficient gross profit returns to satisfy any stakeholder. Abbott has produced adequate gross profit margins to absorb operating and non-operating expenses.Chapter 4) Summary, Conclusion, Recommendations & Limitations: 4. 2) Conclusions * Ferozsons and Abbott have yielded sufficient net profits to recover all operating, non-operating expenses and taxation charges. They have the tendency to build up reserves after paying all fixed interest charges and dividends. Sanofi-Aventis has yielded very low net profit despite reasonable sales volume due to escalating cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating charges. * Abbott laboratory and Ferozsons are efficiently managing its assets to generate profit.Sanofi-Aventis has low volumes of net profit with higher size of total assets that depicts its not utilizing its assets properly to generate profit. * Abbott laboratory and Ferozsons have yielded greater volume of profits along with an increase in its total assets and sales volume over the years. Its higher ratio depicts the higher generating rate of its wealth. Sanofi-Aventis has very low net profit margins but reasonably well total assets turnover rate that depicts lower generating rate of its wealth. * Ferozsons has the highest operating income margins that depict better pricing approach and operating competence.On the contrary Sanofi-Aventis has shown the lowest volume of operating profit margins that shows its flaws in pricing tactic. Abbott has shown adequate operating profits to meets its fixed costs. * Sanofi-Aventis has shown its efficiency at its best in managing significant assets like Property, Plant & Equipment, Stock in Trade and Cash with bank balances. On the other hand Ferozsons and Abbott have shown comparatively low Operating Assets Turnover in utilizing operating assets for generating sales. * Ferozsons has utilized its revenue producing assets exceptionally well.On the other hand Sano fi-Aventis has shown very low percentages of return on operating assets. Abbott has shown noticeably improved performance on the whole. * Abbott has produced bulk sales volume with a relatively small amount of fixed assets. Ferozsons has shown very low turnover that means it has overinvested in fixed assets. Sanofi-Aventis has shown effective job by producing better sales volume turnover with minute amount of property, plant and equipment. * Sanofi-Aventis has produced insufficient returns to satisfy its investors. Ferozsons has produced enough returns on owner’s equity whereas Abbott has also yielded reasonable returns.It is a good sign for prospect investors. * Ferozsons has generated sufficient gross profit volumes to face unfavorable financial circumstances such as low demanding and price competition. Sanofi-Aventis has produced insufficient gross profit returns to satisfy any stakeholder. Abbott has produced adequate gross profit margins to absorb operating and non-opera ting expenses. 4. 3) Recommendations * Ferozsons and Abbott need to keep scheming in the same way to keep curtailing cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating expenses. Sanofi-Aventis really need to look its profit yielding capacity.It should review and improve its product range. Furthermore effective management policies can produce the required results. * Ferozsons and Abbott need to retain effective management policies by utilizing more assets for the generation of higher profits in future. Sanofi-Aventis can yield better profit by utilizing its assets proficiently through effective management role. * Ferozsons and Abbott have reasonable Dupont return on Assets with sales spectrum. Sanofi-Aventis needs to improve it by curtailing its cost of goods sold, operating and non-operating expenses. Better profits always enhance investors’ confidence and it matters in the end. Ferozsons and Abbott have reasonable operating income margin and they need to keep strengthening bett er pricing approach and operating competence. Sanofi-Aventis requires implementing improved pricing tactic to attain better operating proficiency. * Abbott and Ferozsons need to utilize operating assets more effectively to improve their turnover as per sales volume. Sanofi-Aventis has unexpectedly better turnover, it should keep utilizing operating assets in the same manner. * Sanofi-Aventis needs to utilize its revenue producing assets in a better way. Abbott and Ferozsons should retain their current line of action. Ferozsons needs to downsize overinvested in fixed assets. Abbott and Sanofi-Aventis should keep their approach towards utilizing its fixed assets in terms of sales volume. * Sanofi-Aventis needs to watch over its policies for better return on owner’s equity to retain its investor confidence. Ferozsons and Abbott have to retain their pace in retaining current returns on owner’s equity. * Sanofi-Aventis needs to improve their selling strategies to improve pr ofit margins. Abbott and Ferozsons can increase gross profits by implementing more effective management policies. Section II a) Introduction of the student Last degree Obtained: B. ComOrganization’s Name: Wisdomhouse School Designation: Owner/Principal Experience: 7 Years b) Bibliography †¢Vu hand Outs †¢Internet sources †¢www. investopedia. com †¢http://www. accountingtools. com/fixed-asset-turnover-ratio †¢http://www. abbott. com. pk/11_Financial. htm †¢http://www. pakistaneconomist. com/database2/pdffiles/Pharmaceutical/Abbot/Year%202008/ALAnnual-%20Y08. pdf †¢http://www. ferozsons-labs. com/investor. htm †¢http://www. sanofi-aventis. com. pk/l/pk/en/layout. jsp? scat=59A5026C-701D-4C54-B1EC-E7788EA00832 †¢Ross, S. A. , R. W. Westerfield and B. D. Jordan. Essentials of Corporate Finance (1999), 2nd Edition, Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Self Assessment Reflection Paper - 1684 Words

The presentation indicates the results of PAMS, which reflects to my own, and others’ perceptions towards my management skills. To be honest, before attending this class, I am very proud of my past performance and even self-definite to be a manager at the age of twenty-three, and as my boss/father would say, that I am being the right person doing right things and in right ways, though most often trying to be as humble as possible while wearing workout clothes to our small office in DTC. However, after finishing the Personal Assessment of Management Skills (PAMS), as well as comparing the result with the reports from the PAMS Associates (one current employee and one past coworker/good friend for the survey) and with the average of the†¦show more content†¦Rather, there is a lot of hidden advising, driving and advising that goes on. As illustrated below, it seems that managing stress and solving problems creatively are my weaknesses. It is also true as perceived by other people. On the other hand, I’ve viewed my self as a person who is good at taking negative feedback and motivating people. As a shock, the other two people that I asked to assess me viewed it as my strength even though their agreement on this item is somewhat lower than personal assessment. It seems that almost of the given categories are not really strengths or weaknesses, it seemed, for me, that the results shifted depending on the situation. If I put myself in a situation where something bad happens, then it’s out of my control, but when if the situation is where something good things happen, I feel like I had an influence on it. I’m not sure how true that really is though. I had difficulty answering a lot of these, and so did my coworkers, because I think most of us realized that not everything could be influenced by my actions or will. On average, my scores came about 1-2 points away from what my associates thought of me. The areas in which I thought myself lower, they actually perceived me as higher 1-2 points, for example, managing stress, empowering and delegating, and building effective teams and teamwork. The areas in which I thought I was higher, they perceived me as lower 1-2 points, like solving problems creatively, gaining power andShow MoreRelatedSelf Assessment Reflection Paper632 Words   |  3 PagesSelf Assessment Reflection Paper Yvonne Johnson-Cane Wilmington University Self Assessment Reflection Paper In the Tests and Measurements class we were given an assignment to complete several assessment tests. These tests included: 1) The Simple Rathus Assertiveness Schedule, 2) Barsch Learning Style Inventory, 3) Career Decision Profile, and 4) Winward Community College Trio Program Study Habits Inventory. As I proceeded to respond to the questions on the tests I kept a few things in mindRead MoreReflection On Self Assessment Reflection Paper961 Words   |  4 PagesSelf-Assessment Reflection Paper I have used the feedback to deepen my learning and improved the learning product I submitted by listing and understanding what my instructor have given me through our discussion about the homework assignments. I have taken that information constructively to make sure that the paper I will be submitting is concise and sound conveying the information properly in the APA format making the submitting assignment free from grammatical errors to best of my ability. ForRead MoreSelf-Assessment and Reflection of a Visual Learner1693 Words   |  7 PagesSelf-Assessment and Reflection of a Visual Learner Marcia Weaver COM/516 May 6, 2012 Denise Corso Abstract In this paper, I take the reader through my search and the processes I went through as a visual learner to decide on my choice of instruction, online or traditional. I identify my strengths and highlight how I have used them in this course; uncover my weaknesses, and present strategies on what to adjust to accommodate them. I also analyze the sources of my preconceived notions aboutRead MoreThe Assessment Of Learning Objectives1182 Words   |  5 PagesAssessment of learning objectives is a process by which student mastery of program level objectives are assessed. The assessment involves examining the overall functioning through a study of administrative data, outcomes of the student as well as other effectiveness measures. Moreover, it provides an opportunity for the program to scrutinize the data collected from the objectives through learning objectives assessment. Assessment of learning objectives is beneficial to both the student and the institutionRead MoreThe Negotiations : Strategy And Practice Coursework1630 Words   |  7 PagesScope of the Essay This paper presents my reflections on the Negotiations: Strategy and practice coursework in the MBA program at Said Business School, University of Oxford. My paper will present various reflections on different themes of negotiation simulation undertaken by me during the course. This course has allowed investigating and reflecting on key drivers of negotiation techniques for me. I have learned that transparency and coalition are the core tenet of negotiation for me. For the purposeRead MoreAssessment And The Myers Briggs Indicator Essay1148 Words   |  5 PagesThere are four specific assessments that we will be discussed in this paper. These include Campbell Interest Skill Survey, Strong Interest Skill Survey, Self-Directed Search, and the Myers-Briggs Indicator. In order to understand the applicability of each assessment and the positive and negative attributes, including cost, it is important to research your options and determine what is a good fit your you. Campbell Interest Skill Survey is an assessment published by Pearson meant to measureRead MoreWhat I Learned This Week955 Words   |  4 Pagesweek (required) Paper 1 when grading paper 1 aspect 1, reflection, in this paper I felt it exhibited a high degree of self-reflection, the writer had thought again about what their MTBI profile was and actually retaken the quiz, in my opinion it was very well done, the English used was again exceptional in my opinion and so I marked aspect 1 excellent. Aspect 2 was about originality, I used paper rater and it claimed this paper was only 80% original, I checked all the links paper rater providedRead MorePersonal Reflection On The Social Work Profession847 Words   |  4 PagesMy paper is a personal reflection on my understanding of the social work profession, as I get ready for my field placement. I will reflect on my evolving sense of professional identity, and will discuss my growth in terms of self-awareness. I will further deliberate about my knowledge of the Social Work profession. My current understanding of the profession, and activities, tasks and roles that I may undertake in a placement situation The Social Work profession in Ontario is a complete, accreditedRead MoreA Research On Self Assessment Essay988 Words   |  4 Pagesmechanisms, an established self-concept, the level of motivation necessary to pursue such an exercise, etc that hamper completing this task, a sincere effort cannot be undertaken without first addressing the issue of assessment. Therefore, the need for self-assessment stands out as the first action to be taken, and perhaps the most crucial, insofar as it establishes not only the desired outcome, but also the nature of the means by which it will be realized. This paper attempts to analyse variousRead MorePersonality Reflection976 Words   |  4 PagesDelawrence Reed Psy/250 Version 6 Professor Wilkerson Personality Reflection Personality cares for the important, strong measures of a human being’s psychological vitality. Traits relates to an individual being merry or depressed, active or care less, brilliant or ignorant. There are many different definitions about personality. Most definitions are on mental system which is a cluster of mental pieces implicating purposes, feelings, and thinking patterns. The meanings alternate a little