If bonds are supposedly safer since the returns are known, and the odds of a country going bankrupt is not as great as that of a corporation, then what is going on in Europe?

Greece has been over-spending, and with bonds due soon they realize that they are unable to pay them back.  Infused in urgency, the Prime Minister made the mistake of calling a referendum after successful negotiations to lower return rate of bonds with other countries.  This led to an immediate huge drop in the stock market.

Italy, with five times the debt of Greece, rushes to sell bonds in order to get an influx of cash to pay back past bonds.  However, the inevitable increase in bond rate to attract higher-risk takers only makes it harder.  This vicious cycle continues and the level of difficulty to sell the bond will only accelerate.

Debt crisis, an everyday term today, was unheard of before – that a whole entire country’s financial system would fail, and Europe too.  As news stories compile, I am not optimistic about the situation.  Does anyone actually know what to do?

With no solution in view, what does this mean for the countries involved and the Euro?

Reference:
–LA Times: Stocks tumble worldwide on fears of Eurozone blow-up
–The New York Times: Italy and Greece act with more force on the debt crisis

The class on stocks left me hanging, especially with all this talk in the news about bonds and the debt crisis.  What are these again?

Stocks

The stock market is the trading of capital.  The buying of a stock gives out ownership of the company; earnings reflect their profitability.  Returns are unknown since much of the stock market is based on speculation, but they are always proportional to risk.

Bonds

On the other hand, bonds can be regarded as loans to a corporation or government, in which the institution does not want to give up any control or profit.  Rather, an interest rate and maturity time is set.  Having fixed returns makes bonds safer than stocks, in which it is possible for investments to become completely worthless.

Which would you choose to invest (risk) in?

Considering the time value of money, people are pushed to invest because money left stagnant will surely depreciate.  Even though earnings would be minimized by high inflation rates, I would buy bonds to ensure that the worth of my savings stays atop.  Of course, confidence in a company’s potential would motivate me to buy their stocks for a chance to earn big.

All things apart, invest intelligibly.  Like gambling, stay within your limit.  It’s always better to be on the safe side.

References:
–Stocks and Bonds: How to choose the right option 

This holiday season, traditional red coca-cola cans will turn white, as part of the new Coca-Cola campaign – Arctic Home.

With a commitment of up to $3 million to raise funds for polar bears and their habitats, this campaign is Coca-Cola’s biggest yet in cooperation with World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

While the special cans are especially attractive and the cause is very appealing, I question Coca-Cola’s intent.  Is it out of concern for corporate social responsibility or merely a marketing gimmick?

        VS 

It could be a mix of both, but I am leaning towards the marketing side.

Yes, the company is making effort to help the iconic animal associated with their ads since 1922, but its donations are incomparable to its revenues.  In the third quarter of 2011, Coca-Cola reported net revenue of $12.2 billion, which implies that the $3 million devoted to the initiative is not even a slight percentage of its earnings per quarter.

If Coca-Cola truly cared about the Arctic environment, they would donate more in conservation efforts.  But at this stage, the project seems to be a marketing tactic that uses WWF’s efforts in the conservation of polar bears to attract attention to the brand.

Maybe Coca-cola has good will, but if one of the corporation’s missions is “to create value and make a difference,” much more could be done to better-reflect their values.

References:
–Arctic Home
–Coca-Cola: Iconic Red Cans Turn White
–Coca-Cola: Press Release Third Quarter Results
–Coca-Cola: Mission Statement & Vision

The death of Steve Jobs was shocking on October 5, 2011, just one day after the release of the iPhone 4S.  Apple’s stocks fell sharply on the 4th, but today, stocks have rebounded to even higher than before.  As one may observe, Steve Jobs’ death has indirectly impacted the sales of the iPhone – many more people are willing to buy it, which caused the stocks to rebound.

What is in-store for Apple’s future in the absence of its legendary CEO?

The company failed drastically when he was kicked out in the 80’s, and excelled shortly after his return.  Would the downfall occur again?  Is this the end of the era of Apple’s revolutionary products?  What does this mean for competitors and investors?

It is too early to conclude.

Obviously there will never be a replacement for Steve Jobs, but his absence does not directly correlate to the failure of the corporation.  People question if Tim Cooks, his appointed CEO, can live up to the standard that the general public holds for Apple, but nobody should judge yet.  The company’s growth over the years was through contributions of numerous employees who still work in their expertise; the fundamentals are still intact.  Therefore, one could argue that Apple still stands a chance for more breakthroughs in the future.

What is your opinion?

References:
–allaboutstevejobs.com
–The impact of Steve Jobs’ death on its stakeholders

Europe’s debt crisis has not improved since its beginning nearly two years ago.  Efforts from the government, such as tax increases, wage cuts, price increases, and pension drops, were highly unpopular.  This was especially true when an emergency property tax was announced in Greece, as well as the suspension of 30,000 public sector staff.

This worsens the case for the lower- and middle-class.  Believing that these matters should be taken to the rich who are able to pay, Greek citizens went on strike on October 5, 2011 causing all public sectors to close.

Obviously, they are in a critical state.  Who are they to resort to?

When businesses see their employees in such a terrible state, would they be able to help?

The protestors’ repeated extreme behaviour such as blocking roads, throwing marble paving slabs at the police, and violating legislations is halting the day-to-day lives of Greeks.  Striking is obviously unhelpful to the economy.

Also, in these days, tourism is the only means that keeps the country from bankruptcy since only tourists have money to spend.  Strikes would negatively impact this industry, which would in turn affect the companies’ sales.  So if people keep striking, and tourists stop coming to buy goods and services, will businesses still keep business as business?

Where do you draw the line between business and politics?

References:
–General strike brings Greece to a standstill as public sector closes down
–Greece strike: Police and protesters clash in Athens
–An ugly Greek tradition

Statistics from the video are displays of the effects that social media has on our lives.  We not only spend hours connecting with people via social networking sites, news stories now come to us this way.

Growth in social media calls for an increased rate at which information is travelled around the world, whether it be about success, embarrassments, or failures.  Is that a good thing?  What about for businesses?

Many companies can now use social networking sites for promotion.  SEO Companies such as PR Design specialize in helping companies move up the list on search engines.  Instantaneous interaction allows updates to be passed on to numerous consumers almost immediately.

Unfortunately, there is always a flip side.  Don’t forget that bad news spreads too, and they attract even more people!  Gossiping is apparent, and reaches even farther.  When this happens, the only thing to do is to wait for the story to die down.

In the context of the business world, little mistakes are easily exaggerated and reproduced; business images are easily affected by rumours and sole opinions.  Businesses can also make up “facts” anonymously to improve their own reputation or to destroy that of others.

Taking these into account, is the use of social media in business beneficial or harmful?  Would SEO be a good tool?

References:
–PR Design