Monthly Archives: November 2014

https://blogs.ubc.ca/12huangfw1/2014/11/09/the-9-billion-dollar-witness/

In Felix’s blog, it is used as an example that the world’s largest multinational bank, JP Morgan Chase, gave sub-prime mortgages and bad mortgages and gave money to a lawyer who witnessed this illegal behavior to prevent her from speaking out.

From my perspective, what JP Morgan did is both harmful and unethical. The reason why it it harmful is that JP Morgan give mortgages and loans to people who have low credit and who don’t have enough power to pay back. This is the reason of the financial crisis in 2008, which means what it did will potentially cause another financial crisis and is harmful to the global economy. On the other hand, it is unethical. In order to make more profit, JP Morgan did something illegal that would trigger a financial crisis. In a crises, ordinary people lose their jobs; it is harder for them to make a living. Their entire life can be ruined. And some countries would go bankrupt and in the end it is civilians who take the aftermath.

To conclude, JP Morgan’s behavior is dangerous to the world and detrimental to the people all over the world.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/wczhu/2014/10/05/what-are-brands-for/

In his blog, Wenchuan Zhu agreed with the experts in the original article  that the brand is important to a company. There are two main reasons in the blog: the customers usually don’t have the time to carefully evaluate and compare goods they want to buy; consumers can only judge products by their brands when there is not enough information about the goods themselves.

I consider this point of view reasonable. A brand is indeed significant to a company. From the perspective of the company itself, a good brand name is the proof of the success of the company. It aquires a good and wide-spread reputation is the result of its strong profitability and its favourable business ethics.  Only if a company has these two “qualities” above can it have a good brand name. When it comes to consumers, as mentioned above, when they want to buy a certain category of good that they have never consumed before, they don’t know which brand to choose. It is the time when they would make their choices based on brands.

In conclusion, having a good and wide-spread brand name is benefcial to a company. It helps the company make more profit and make it renowned. It’s a virtuous circle.

https://blogs.ubc.ca/jkchen/2014/10/05/ikea-will-never-ipo/

In this blog, it is stated that some companies like Ikea don’t offer their IPOs. According to Shuhong, there are two main reason: if they offer the IPOs, the manager will under great pressure so that they are pushed to do something that is pernicious to the future of the companies; the cash for emergency have to turn to shareholders’ benefit.

In my opinion, there are both advantages and disadvantages to offer IPOs. IPO is actually offering the control of a company to the public in return for money, or, to be specific, capital. So there are basicly two aspects: lost (share) of control, gain of money. If the right of control is shared, the decision-making will be decentralized. This can make a decision more reasonable, whereas a decision is hard to make because everyone’s idea has to be taken in to consideration. On the other hand, money is raised, which means a company has more “power” to produce and make profit. Therefore, in the long run, IPO is beneficial to the future development.

To conclude, the advantages of IPO outweigh the disadvantages. And that’s why there are numerous companies and enterprises offer their IPO instead of not. When it comes to Ikea’s not offering, there must be some other reasons of Ikea itself that weigh the advantages.