Your Questions About Profitable Trading Plan

Mandy asks…

GM: Has anybody heard if these GOP fearmongers have anything else to say now?

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH): “Does anyone really believe that politicians and bureaucrats in Washington can successfully steer a multi-national corporation to economic viability?” [6/1/09]

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): “It’s basically going to be a government-owned, government-run company. …It’s the road toward socialism.” [5/29/09]

RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “No matter how much the President spins GM’s bankruptcy as good for the economy, it is nothing more than another government grab of a private company and another handout to the union cronies who helped bankroll his presidential campaign.” [6/1/2009]

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): “Now the government has forced taxpayers to buy these failing companies without any plausible plan for profitability. Does anyone think the same government that plans to double the national debt in five years will turn GM around in the same time?” [6/2/09]

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA): “Unfortunately, this is just another sad chapter in President Obama’s eager campaign to interject his administration in the private sector’s business dealings.” [6/2/09]

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): The auto company rescues “have been the leading edge of the Obama administration’s war on capitalism.” [7/22/09]

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ): When government gets involved in a company, “the disaster that follows is predictable.” [7/22/09]

G.M. Reports an Annual Profit, Its First Since 2004
DETROIT — General Motors, which nearly collapsed from the weight of its debts two years ago before reorganizing in a government-sponsored bankruptcy, said Thursday that it earned $4.7 billion in 2010, the most in more than a decade.
It was the first profitable year since 2004 for G.M., which became publicly traded in November, ending a streak of losses totaling about $90 billion.

In addition, G.M. said 45,000 union workers would receive profit-sharing checks averaging $4,300, the most in the company’s history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/business/25auto.html?_r=2&hp

I bet the GM workers would welcome some more ‘predictable disasters’.

John answers:

Obviously you are an Obama supporter (and no I’m not a Republican or Tea Party member) but the fact remains that when government has a vested interest in something, they are involved. When people get any type of government aid, the government is involved in their daily lives. The same applies to business. This is only common sense. Sounds like they had every right to fear. If it was a Republican that had done the same action, I’m more than positive that the Democrats would have had similar things to say. Democrats are usually worse than Republicans when it comes to name calling. If you actually do your research, the reorganization of GM was done because the government ordered the reorganization of GM if GM wanted the loan. That’s great that GM is showing some improvement but they are still in the hole. The government is still pouring money into GM as we speak. Therefore it’s not really a profit since they can’t walk on their own yet.

Let’s not be typical Americans and celebrate the journey after just leaving the station when we haven’t even arrived to the destination. Heck, the train isn’t even close to the destination. $4.7 billion on $90 billion in losses is still a long way. Let’s hope for the best for them that they continue to improve for years to come.

Thomas asks…

i got the following email today. is it scam? anyone else got it?

FROM THE DESK OF MR SALIF DIALLO,
AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING UNIT.
BANK OF AFRICA (BOA).
OUAGADOUGOU BURKINA-FASO.
{WEST AFRICA}

ATTENTION REQUIRED: DEAR FRIEND,

I MR SALIF DIALLO, THE DIRECTOR IN CHARGE OF AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING
SECTION IN BANK OF AFRICA OUAGADOUGOU-BURKINA FASO IN WEST AFRICA WITH
DUE RESPECT AND REGARDS I HAVE DECIDED TO CONTACT YOU ON THIS BUSINESS
TRANSACTION THAT WILL BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO BOTH OF US AT THE END OF THE
TRANSACTION.

DURING MY INVESTIGATION AND AUDITING IN THE BANK, MY DEPARTMENT CAME
ACROSS A VERY HUGE SUM OF MONEY BELONGING TO A DECEASED CUSTOMER, A
FORIEGNER WHO DIED ON NOVEMBER 11, 2002 IN PLANE CRASH AND, THE FUND HAS
BEEN DORMANT IN HIS ACCOUNT WITH THE BANK WITHOUT ANY CLAIM OF THE FUND IN
OUR CUSTODY EITHER FROM HIS FAMILY OR RELATION BEFORE MY DISCOVERY TO
THIS DEVELOPMENT. ACTUALLY, THE LATE CUSTOMER WAS A BIG MERCHANT WHO
TRADES ON GOLD, DIAMOND, ELEPHANT TUSKS AND CRUDE OIL FROM AFRICA TO ASIA
AND EUROPE AND THIS MONEY HE DEPOSITES IN OUR BANK TO PAY FOR HIS
PURCHASES.

ALTHOUGH PERSONALLY, I KEPT THIS INFORMATION SECRET WITHIN MYSELF TO
ENABLE THE WHOLE PLANS AND IDEA BE PROFITABLE AND DURING THE TIME OF
EXECUTION ( TWO IS SECRET). THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS $14 MILLION USD
(FOURTEEN MILLION UNITED STATES DOLLARS).MEANWHILE ALL THE WHOLE ARRANGEMENT
AND DIRECTIVES NEEDED TO PUT CLAIM OVER THIS FUND AS THE BONAFIDE NEXT OF
KIN TO THE DECEASED, WILL BE FORWARD TO YOU UPON YOUR ACCEPTANCE.
INFORMATION WILL BE RELAYED TO YOU AS SOON AS YOU INDICATE YOUR INTEREST AND
WILLINGNESS TO ASSIST ME AND ALSO BENEFIT YOUR SELF TO THIS GREAT
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY.

IN FACT I COULD HAVE DONE THIS DEAL ALONE BUT BECAUSE OF MY POSITION IN
THIS COUNTRY AS A CIVIL SERVANT,WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OPERATE A FORIEGN
ACCOUNT AND WOULD EVENTUALLY RAISE EYE BROW ON MY SIDE DURING THE TIME
OF TRANSFER BECAUSE I WORK IN THIS BANK. THIS IS THE ACTUAL REASON WHY
IT WILL REQUIRE A SECOND PARTY OR FELLOW FROM A FOREIGN NATION WHO WILL
FORWARD CLAIMS AS THE NEXT OF KIN WITH AFFIDAVIT OF TRUST OF OATH TO
THE BANK AND ALSO PRESENT A FORIEGN ACCOUNT WHERE HE WILL NEED THE MONEY
TO BE RETRANSFERED INTO ON HIS REQUEST AS IT MAY BE, AFTER DUE
VERIFICATION AND CLARIFICATION TO DESIGNATED BANK ACCOUNT.

I WILL NOT FAIL TO INFORM YOU THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% RISK FREE.
ON SMOOTH CONCLUSION OF THIS TRANSACTION, YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO 30%
OF THE TOTAL SUM AS GRATIFICATION, WHILE 10% WILL BE SET ASIDE TO TAKE
CARE OF EXPENSES THAT MAY ARISE DURING THE TIME OF TRANSFER SUCH AS
TELEPHONE BILLS ETC, WHILE 60% WILL BE FOR ME. PLEASE,YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED
TO KEEP TOP SECRET AS I AM STILL IN SERVICE AND INTEND TO RETIRE FROM
SERVICE AFTER I HAVE CONCLUDED THIS DEAL WITH YOU.

I WILL BE MONITORING THE WHOLE SITUATION HERE IN THE BANK UNTIL YOU
CONFIRM THE MONEY IN YOUR ACCOUNT AND ASK ME TO COME DOWN TO YOUR COUNTRY
FOR SUBSEQUENT SHARING OF THE FUND ACCORDING TO PERCENTAGES PREVIOUSLY
INDICATED AND FURTHER INVESTMENT, EITHER IN YOUR COUNTRY OR ANY OTHER
COUNTRY YOU MAY ADVISE ME TO INVEST IN. ALL OTHER NECESSARY INFORMATION
WILL BE SENT TO YOU WHEN I HEAR FROM YOU. I SUGGEST YOU GET BACK TO ME
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE STATING YOUR WISH IN THIS DEAL AND ASKING ANY
QUESTIONS THAT ARE NOT CLEARED BY YOU FOR A GOOD FOLLOW-UP.

BEST REGARDS,

MR SALIF DIALLO,
CONTACT ME VIA THIS EMAIL ADDRESS FOR MORE PRIVACY(salifd1@caramail.com

John answers:

I got one like it from:

HOLY TRINITY CATHOLIC CHURCH,c/o
CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA(CBN)
FOREIGN /CONTRACT PAYMENT DEPARTMENT
PROF.CHARLES SOLUDO

it’s a scam. Don’t reply with any personal info.

Joseph asks…

ap american history help? (colonial)?

-Which English tradition or practice was least acceptable to most of the thirteen colonies?

1. trial by a jury of one’s peers
2. feudal patterns of land ownership
3. civil liberties
4. importance of common law
5. merchant capitalism

-The growth of the plantation system in New England in the 18th century tended to be prevented by

1. climatic conditions which severely restricted the number of harvests.
2. a labor force made up chiefly of itinerant workers.
3. the Northern landowner who was more likely to invest profits in commercial enterprises than in more land.
4. colonial laws which made it difficult to acquire more land.
5. a surplus of skilled labor which made manufacturing more profitable than agriculture.

-The primary reason for the failure of the Albany Congress plan of union was that

1. the end of the French and Indian War eliminated the need for union.
2. colonial governors feared a reduction of loyalty to the crown if unity was established.
3. the Iroquois threatened war if colonial unity was accomplished.
4. colonial legislatures feared a reduction in their own authority if a pan-colonial Congress were created.
5. the French evacuation of Fort Duquesne reduced the impetus toward unity.

-An important cultural achievement of the Colonial period was the

1. development of a distinctive style of American music.
2. widespread printing of newspapers and periodicals.
3. advancement of medical science that eliminated the superstitions still common in Europe.
4. establishment of apprenticeship schools for children of factory workers.
5. abolition of slavery in all but the deep southern colonies.

-A major purpose behind the convention of the Albany Congress of 1754, besides attempting to establish colonial unity, was to

1. assess the readiness of the colonies to defend themselves against the French.
2. ratify a formal declaration of war against France.
3. make possible an alliance between the colonies and the Iroquois Confederation.
4. elect a President-General for the colonies.
5. raise funds for the defense of the colonies.

-Which of the following names is associated with the leadership of the Indians in the French and Indian War of 1754-1763?

1. Pontiac
2. Tecumseh
3. Hiawatha
4. Red Cloud
5. Wovoka

-Britain’s policy of “salutary neglect” toward her colonies was chiefly a result of her

1. involvement in European wars and civil wars.
2. explorations of the New World.
3. rejection of mercantilism.
4. victory over the power of the monarch in 1689.
5. fear of revolution in the colonies.

-Prior to 1763, the British government generally followed a policy of salutary neglect toward the American colonies because it

1. wished to secure the loyalty of the colonies.
2. lacked a well-organized imperial system.
3. lacked the legal power to make colonial laws.
4. carried on little trade with the colonies.
5. rejected the idea of mercantilism.

-When did American economic institutions begin to be shaped in a capitalist framework?

1. during the colonial period
2. during the Federalist Era
3. during the Jacksonian Era
4. during the Civil War
5. during the late 1890’s

By 1760, which area consumed more agricultural products than it produced?

1. The Carolinas
2. The Tidewater Region
3. The Middle Atlantic colonies
4. The far Southern colonies
5. New England

-All of the following tribes were members of the Iroquois Confederation except the

1. Mohawk.
2. Cayuga.
3. Mohican.
4. Onondaga.
5. Seneca.

-One reason for the development of indenture employed in the early colonial period was

1. a desire to reduce the traffic in slaves.
2. Parliament’s refusal to allow skilled craftsmen to emigrate.
3. the lack of trained domestic help on the large Patroon estates along the Hudson Valley.
4. the desire to assist religious refugees.
5. the scarcity of labor in the colonies.

-One condition which all 17th century European colonies in the Americas shared was

1. some degree of self-government.
2. the presence of African slavery.
3. encouragement and subsidization of immigration.
4. economies influenced by mercantilist policies.
5. good relations with the Native American peoples.

-With respect to the modern use of the term “labor relations,” there were no labor relations issues in the colonies because

1. there was no wage earning class as such.
2. wages and benefits were much higher than in Europe.
3. skilled workers came to the colonies in great number.
4. a steady stream of cheap immigrant labor was available.
5. the presence of slavery throughout the colonies, even in the North, eliminated any concern for labor.

John answers:

Or you know, you could do your own homework for Ms. Goulding’s class. Ahah.

Mary asks…

Can you check my compare and contrast essay please?

Business owners and employees make up most of the people we see around us. Both spend money and pay the required taxes to the government and they are key elements to our economy. There is a point in ones life where they are faced with a choice of whether to work a job, or have the others work the job for you. Perhaps most people do choose to become an employee for their lives. It is the most secure way to provide an income isn’t it? Some may believe the answer to the question is yes. Were we really born to live for unyielding security? The risks involved in being a business owner are not too different from being an employee.

The United States government gives income tax benefits to the owners of businesses. They do this because businesses are a very important factor in our economy. Businesses are what create jobs to provide many people with a source of income therefore fueling our economy. Small businesses alone make up 50 percent of the private sector workforce in the United States. This, in turn, is what our government depends on for the collection of taxes.

Employees receive benefits from the government too. The government provides economic security to individuals also known as Social Security. As one works a job, social security is then collected from their paycheck to be given back starting at the age of 62. The government does offer the option of waiting more years before collecting so

one could receive more money. Some may ignore this benefit because of recent problems with this government program, but employees will still get some money.

Business owners are able to expand their businesses, therefore increase profits. If a business owner decides to do so, they can design a plan. Owners do not have a set salary or hourly wage like employees do. The business as a whole has its income measured accurately, and then the employees and taxes are paid. The owner keeps left over profits for his/herself. This can generate much more of an income because it was in their control. Owners do not have to ask a boss for a raise, they simply ask themselves, how can I be more profitable?

On the other hand, employees do not have much of a choice as to how much they make. Some rarely argue with an employer when an offer is made. The employee has the choice to search more jobs or take what is available to them. They are paid what the employer believes is just enough for them to stay, and just enough so they don’t quit.

Employers are the ones in control at the workplace. They can terminate an employee from the business at any time. Even if one has been working for a business for many years, one can still lose his/her job. It is beneficial for employers to do this because other prospective employees for the same job may want lower pay. This in turn puts more profit in the owner’s pocket. Though employers can do this at any time, employees are given the right to withdraw from a job at any time and may also sue for unlawful practices in the workplace.

Both businesses and employees are very important to our economy. Without employees, a business would not be able to function to its best and most profitable abilities. Without businesses, people would be limited to jobs and therefore would decrease the United States’ economic status. Risk and security are the two main factors of why some may decide to work as employees. But, the desire for security in some people’s lives tends to blind them from the many opportunities that pass before their eyes. “Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.”

John answers:

If I was the person grading this assignment I would tell you to give it a more grasping opening and then keep my attention. You make some good points, however you often stop short of what it is you want to say. I think you need to give stronger support for employers because you pay quite a bit of attention to employees. Overall this is a good start, but look it over again befor handing it in as a final.

Sharon asks…

new post regarding equal pay law?

Hi, I have read a previous post regarding equal pay and law based on age but mine is a bit different – I was part of a team of two running a shop – I was shop sales and there was a manager too. 4 months ago the manager left and I was offered his position – or to put it another way, I either took over running of the shop single handed or close it down and be out of a job as the owner is a builder (it’s a small builders merchants) and has no idea how to run it – unbeleiveble as that sounds, which meant incorporating all managerial duties into my own. I know at the time he was being paid £10.50 per hour and he was working an average of 20-25 hours per week, to quote him “Rob (the owner) says as long as I do what I need to do I can leave when I want” so he did, usually at lunchtime, often earlier – however the shop is open from 8-4.30 everyday, half day on saturday till noon & closed sunday. Long story short he was paid £10.50 per hour for a 35 hour week (verifiable in the company pay accounts) but working 20 – the owner when I took over only offered me £7.80 per hour and I work for the entire duration the shop is open 46.5 hours – as you can see there is a MASSIVE discrepancy in the take home pay at the end of each week – he claims it is irrelevant what Paul was being paid BUT, I am doing all of his previous managerial duties (accounts, stock control, banking – basically everything a shop needs to do to function on a daily basis) as well as the ones he didn’t do, as when we were both in the shop I did the majority of the selling.

I have asked the owner for £10.50 per hour for the hours I work but when he did the calculation and saw it was £488 per week he basically said that it was too much, I reminded him that even at that level he was still saving £7k from the previous combined wage bill to the shop, he said “I don’t care, it’s too much” – and he made it very clear there was no negotiation available. Since I have taken over other issues have arisen such as lunch breaks etc but my main concern is the pay difference.

I am seriously considering applying to acas for a hearing for equality of pay under the “like work, like pay” and using the argument that the position of shop manager has an established pay rate (Paul was paid that rate and did those hours for approx 9 years) which I feel I should get, but I would like a second opinion or third.. as to whether it has any weight – I have read that acas can charge a fee upwards of £500 for hearings if they think it should not have been brought forward.

oh and the material value of employees argument is virtually null as the manager was only at the shop for a year longer than I and I have made just as large a contribution (more some might argue based on sales) to the ongoing trading and value of the business.

Lastly I have thought about calling his bluff and tending my resignation but he has planning permission for the premises to turn them into maisonettes, so even though there are loans and debts against the total value of the business and property – I don’t really have a trump card to play, and to be blunt he has quite a lot of the F* you attitude.

Sorry to make it so long but I wanted to make all the relevant points I thought should be mentioned.

Any answers or suggestions will be read and gratefully received, but please no “just quit” as that is a last resort, now I’m manager I feel I can make it a much more profitable outlet, I’m just hoping arbitration might make him see my value and that its better to keep it running and profitable than shut it.

John answers:

I do not think that in your case the equal pay regulations are applicable. You are a sole employee and are not doing exactly the same job as another EXISTING employee. Effectively, if you take on the managers job, you are a new hire in that position and the shop owner is under no obligation to pay you at the same rate as the previous manager. You make a lot of the hours the last manager worked but despite what he said to you, it is highly unlikely that the owner realised just what hours he was working.

Now at the moment you are up in arms – and i do not blame you at all, i am on your side – but many many years ago i was in a fairly similar situation than yours but took a different viewpoint. At the moment money is your sole concern, but there are other aspects that you should carefully consider. This particular cloud has a solid silver lining you know.

You obviously have the work ethic, the get up and go and the ability to have the prospects of a management career in the retail sector. THE hardest management job to get is that first one, the first jump from just another worker, no matter how valued, to management. Just how many people you manage is neither here nor there. The important bit is to get the title ‘Manager’ onto your CV. Once you get that, unless you are a total idiot, every job you get from now on will be in management. You will have made the transition that 90% of people never get to make!

In your shoes i would look to the long term gain, not the short term one. Go back to the owner and negotiate – tell him that you will do the Managers job for one year on the salary he has offered you providing – (a) He issues you with a contract of employment that names your job as ‘Store Manager’.
(b) That he agree’s to review your salary 12 months from now when you have had a chance to prove yourself to him.

My guess is he will jump at that – in his book he will have won. Actually in the longer term you will be the winner. Believe me! This is your chance to kickstart yourself onto better things in future.

I am near retiring now, had my first management job at 23 and never looked back. In 11 separate management positions i was never once asked how many people reported directly to me! In my last salaried position in commerce (I am using the last 5 years of my working life doing something totally different to anything i have ever done) i had nearly 400 people reporting to me.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Your Questions About Profitable Trading Plan

  1. Pingback: Your Questions About Profitable Trading Plan « tradingsecrets1

Comments are closed.