The Properties Of Foreigner Talk

The Properties Of Foreigner Talk Describe the properties of â€Å"foreigner talk† and discuss its role in L2 learning. In your discussion, be sure to include supporting examples for foreigner talk and discuss them in light of Krashens Input Hypothesis (1985) and Longs Interaction Hypothesis (1981, 1983a, 1996). Particular over the past two decades, related work on input comprehensibility has focused on the nature of the linguistic environment available to learners and its relationship to Second Language Acquisition (SLA). Recent work has taken as basic the notion that conversational interaction in a second language (L2) forms the basis for L2 development rather than being only a forum for practice of specific language features (Wagner-Gouch Hatch, 1975; cited in Schorkhuber, 2007). In fact, some contemporary studies have shifted the focus to an examination of the learners linguistic environment which is the target language available to the learner and how it affects the learning process. It has been observed that native speakers (NSs) adjust their speech in conversation with non-native speakers (NNSs) in multiple ways. This modified register has been termed ‘foreigner talk (FT) by Charles Ferguson (1975). He (1975) asserts that foreigner talk is the reduced and simplified version of a language that native speakers use to address other speakers for whom the language is not a native one, especially speakers who do not know the language at all. Due to the similarities between this type of speech and the speech that is usually directed at children, it is also sometimes called baby talk (e.g., Ferguson 1971). According to him, foreigner talk is the basis of the emergence of pidgin and Creole. It is also suggested that foreigner talk promotes learning as well as communication with the learner. In general, foreigner talk adjustments reveal speech patterns that would not ordinarily be used in conversations with NSs (Gass Selinker, 2001:261). Instead, Gass and Selinker (2001) claim that foreigner talk shares features in common with young children speech. According to Ferguson (1975), in phonology, it is characterise by a slow rate of delivery, loudness, clear articulation, pauses, emphatic stress and exaggerated pronunciation. In lexis, it is characterised by occasional use of words from other languages, substitutions of items by synonyms, or paraphrases, use of high frequency words and few idioms (Chaudron, 1979; cited in Tarone, 1980 ). In syntax, modification is presented through repetitions, elaborations, omissions and fill in the blank for learners incomplete utterances. In discourse, foreigner talk involves restating wh-questions as yes-no or or-choice questions, and so on (Hatch, 1979; cited in Tarone, 1980). Examples (1) and (2) show some of the characteristics of fo reigner talk: (1) NNS: How have increasing food costs changed your eating habits? NS : Well, we dont eat as much beef as we used to. We eat more chicken, and uh, pork and uh, fish, things like that. NNS: Pardon me? NS : We dont eat as much beef as we used to. We eat more chicken and uh, uh pork and fishWe dont eat beef very often. We dont have steak like weused to. NNS: Oh, okay. (2) NS : What classes are you taking at 10 oclock? NNS: Sorry? 10 clock? NS : What classes at 10 oclock? NNS: 10 oclock, classes, uhScience. From the examples above, the functions of foreigner talk can be detected quite effortlessly where in example (1), NS repeated and elaborated more fully the statement once the NNS indicated a lack of understanding in order to provide the NNS a comprehensible input. Likewise, NS practiced repetition in example (2) but in a more simplified form. Moreover, clue was provided to the NNS that 10 clock supposedly should be said as 10 oclock. Therefore, the comprehension of the NNS was again aided. Essentially, input is seen as a highly important factor in acquisition in many approaches to SLA. Krashens Input Hypothesis, which largely predated Universal Grammar approaches to SLA research, continues to make the strongest claim about the role of the linguistic environment in SLA. It states that L2 input must both be comprehensible and be at a stage slightly beyond the learners previously acquired linguistic competence (i+1) in order to be acquired (Krashen, 1982; cited in Schorkhuber, 2007). In brief, within Krashens framework, if input is understood, the necessary grammar is automatically provided; however, if input is not comprehensible, it cannot serve acquisition at all. That is to say, comprehensible input that occurred in the examples above, delivered in affective filter situation, is held to be not only a necessary condition for acquisition, but actually causing acquisition to the NNS. On top of that, the line of research that focuses on interactional structure of conversation, such as foreigner talk was developed in many years by several researchers (e.g., Gass and Varonis, 1985, 1989; Long, 1981, 1983; Pica, 1987, 1988; cited in Gass, 2007:234). The emphasis is on the role which negotiated interaction between NSs and NSSs and between two NNSs plays in the development of L2. According to Gass (2007:234), conversational interaction in a L2 like foreigner talk discourse also forms the foundation for the development of L2 rather than being only a platform for practice of particular language features, more specifically when it comes to the negotiation of meaning. In fact, this claim has been proposed by Michael Long (1996: 451-2) as the Interaction Hypothesis. In the similar situation like which Long (1996: 451-2) has stated, foreigner talk posits interaction between NNSs and NSs, creates a naturalistic Second Language Acquisition environment where the NNSs learn through negotiation of meaning and attention is focussed (Mackey, 1999; cited in Gass, 2007) on gaps in their target language knowledge. Therefore, the acquisition of L2 could be facilitated well because foreigner talk connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways (Long, 1996). One of the examples of conversation of foreigner talk is as follow: (3) NS : Theres.. theres a drinking bottle on the table. NNS: A what? NS : Bottle, drinking bottle to drink water? NNS: Boar? NS : You drink water from it, if you are thirsty. Drinking bottle. NNS: Ahh, ahh, bottle to drink, you say drinking bottle! NS : Yes. Throughout the conversation of foreigner talk, the NNS acknowledges the fact that the new word drinking bottle came from the interaction and especially as a consequence of the negotiation work. The Interaction Hypothesis has been proven where it establishes that when a learner or NNS is attempting to negotiate conversation in the target language, the gaps in his/her abilities are revealed to him/herself. Generally, these abilities include pronunciation, syntax, grammar and vocabulary. Subsequently, the Interaction Hypothesis concludes that this self-realisation, brought about by authentic interaction, will encourage the NNS to produce target language output to negotiate meaning and seek out the knowledge they lack. Also, the interaction between the learner who is a NNS and other NNSs or NSs, results in language acquisition on the part of him/herself, meaning he/she has internalised and modified that chunk of language and will be able to produce correct output later when necessary. In the meantime, Interaction Hypothesis reveals that checks are the key to the SLA process (Long, 1983b; cited in Brulhart, 1986). One way the learner realises the gaps in their knowledge is by checking with the person they are having a conversation with during foreigner talk. The simplest of which are known as modification checks. There are several different types of interaction modification checks that take place during a natural conversation which assist the learner advance in the target language. The first one is clarification requests which the learner recognises a word that they are strange with and they ask for clarification. In general, clarification requests are formed by questions but may consist of wh- or yes-no questions, as well as tag questions. For example, â€Å"What did u mean?† After this, the interlocutor (NS) is required either to furnish new information or to recode information previously given. Secondly, it is confirmation check which the learner reacts t o a sentence uttered by the other speaker and uses the L2 to confirm that they understood correctly. They always involve repetition of all part of the interlocutors preceding utterance (Long, 1980: 81-2, cited in Hasan, 2008: 41). The example is as below: (4) NNS : Do you want to come over and study tonight? NS : Sorry, I have to do my landry. NNS : Your..laundry? (comfirmation check) NS : Yeah, my laundry. My clothes dirty. The third modification check is comprehension check (Long, 1980; cited in Hasan, 2008). The learner asks a question to the other person in the conversation to confirm that they understood the meaning of the learners sentences. For instance, â€Å"Do you understand?† In effect, this production of checks could provide the learner with opportunities, builds positive affective feelings of confidence and learning opportunities. Also, conversational breakdown could also be avoided. In conclusion, foreigner talk has meant a focus on the linguistic and discourse structure of the NSs input to the learner (NNS), with a view to eventually determining the influence of that structure on L2 learning. Besides, the modification checks which are carried out during foreigner talk could assure that comprehension of the learners is checked explicitly, and utterances which are unclear are clarified and understood. Therefore, as Foster (1998; cited in Hasan, 2008: 42) claims that checking and clarifying problem utterances (negotiating for meaning) ensures the learners receive comprehensible input and generate comprehensible output, it should be noted that foreigner talk is truly helpful and crucial to SLA.

Burger King Case Study Essay

Burger King or McDonalds? In the United States, these two companies equally compete for consumers. Americans usually favor one company over the other or just choose to eat at whichever is more convenient to them. For the American people, Burger King is as common of a household name as McDonalds. However, in Japan, the Burger King brand is one that is not very well known. Burger King has been trying to tap into the Japanese market for some time now. McDonalds, KFC, and Pizza Hut are the leading fast food market chains as of today, but Burger King is trying to make it into this region of the world. With U.S. markets saturated, and the mad cow disease scare slowing sales of Burger King in Europe, it is so important for Burger King to saturate another market, Japan. Much research has been done to think of new and effective ways to penetrate the Japanese market through marketing. Our group of researchers have put together an in depth report on the issues within the marketing of Burger Kin g in Japan. They have discovered the main cause for this need in marketing and what needs to be done to solve Burger King’s marketing issues. Situation Analysis There are many differences between eastern and western culture regarding the restaurant industry. In Western Culture space is more easily attainable. It is easier for new companies to enter the market in the restaurant industry because it is more accepting of diversity. Food trends in this culture differ dramatically from eastern culture. In the western culture, significance of food is not greatly valued and is offered in access creating more waste. The western culture is vast and heterogeneous. Many cultures are accepted creating a vast variety of fusion food sold here in the west culture. In restaurants a bigger variety of different food can be found on the menu. In the Eastern culture, food defines the culture. Each country has it’s own unique and cultural dishes that signifies the past. The middle easts favorite top meat ingredient is lamb and it is substituted for beef. Also most of the Middle East is Islamic so that means that many of the of their dietary rules are obser ved because of religious factors. In Asia, food and culture is divided into three main regions: southwest (India), southeast (Vietnam) and northeast (Japan). India uses more vegetarian ingredients such as beans, rice, and spices. Vietnam focuses on stir-frying, steaming, or  boiling when preparing their food. In Japan, many use the spices they used for their for religious ceremonies. Also in Japan, space is very limited due to overpopulation of people. The Japanese market is maxed out making it very challenging for new companies such as restaurants to enter the restaurant industry. To the Japanese consumer, the significance of food is valued and they feel it is important to not waste it. The norm of their culture is to conserve and not let anything go to waste. Food is offered in small portions for this particular reason. Japan has a very homogeneous culture. They are set in the ways that they do things and don’t deviate from their way of life. In Japan’s restaurant industry, it is more common to see rice and vegetables on the menu. In the case study one of the reasons why Burger King is unsuccessful in Japan is because they are trying to push western culture in an eastern market. Burger King doesn’t understand that they have to tailor their menu to meet the needs of the eastern pallet. They are not offering the foods that appeal to the people of Japan. There are number of other reasons why BK has not become successful in Japan: Weak advertising. Upon researching commercials for Burger King in Japan, it is apparent that their advertising doesn’t appeal to their consumer market. Forcing higher prices than their competitor (McDonalds). McDonalds has been established for more than 25 years and is the most popular hamburger restaurant. Most consumers are price conscious There is no market place for them because they haven’t completely established their brand. BK in Japan does not look like they have established any goals as to how they want to present their brand No differentiation among competitors They haven’t fully achieved brand recognition They’re trying to be an upscale restaurant which doesn’t fit the market. Targeted market is too narrow only catering to a younger crowd They need to reach out to the older population.  The cost of having flame broil grills is not cost effective.  BK is hiding the most unique characteristics because it’s too expensive to build it in front of the restaurant. The budget promotion costs are being  overlooked while opening too many stores. BK is just wants to try to take over the competitor market when in reality they are failing. Problem Definition The problem with Japan is brand image. Burger King wants to expand without building a brand that the Japanese consumers are willing to spend extra money for a burger. Analysis of Alternatives Focus on â€Å"freshness† Burger King has stated that its main focus is producing traditional burgers. Instead of the typical two pickles and some ketchup, focus on the nutritional value such as fresh lettuce, tomatoes, onions, and pickles. Fix branding image Differentiate themselves as a more upscale restaurant A example, better training of the staff and cleaner facilities. This may avoid burger wars. Appeal to younger generation Studies have shown that the younger generation is willing to spend more money on nice things. Burger King should try to target this market by becoming an upscale burger restaurant. Also, anime commercials may attract a younger crowd. Place flame broiled grills in front of store. With the gas restrictions are becoming more lenient, having customers visibly see how burgers are made will attract more customers and provide free advertisement just by word of mouth. Attract customers by smell. Venting the exhaust from the grill will release the smell of burgers cooking into the public. This could reach the customers 5 sense of smell, touch, see, taste, and hear. All of this elements could attract more customers to a delicious flame broiled Whopper. Continue integrating Burger King into existing stores Building â€Å"stand-alone† restaurants is expensive. By adding small restaurants into high traffic areas (train/gas stations) it will be a great selling location because of the high volume of customers stopping and waiting. Also, land is so scarce in Japan, partnering will help minimize costs and provides  a definite location for the restaurant. Adding Japanese influence into store. May become more relatable to the culture so customers will be dining in a comfortable environment. Sponsor shows Sponsor physical challenge show comparable to MXC (Most Extreme Elimination). Making the obstacle courses resemble Burger King. Example: have some customers jump on Whoppers or placing the Burger King Emblem to help positively advertise working out with burgers. Themes in restaurant The rock and roll theme is creative but the drawbacks are that they’ll only be known as the rock and roll themed restaurant. A Burger King could be known as a themed restaurant by having different themes in each restaurant. One themed restaurant can have revolving carts where the consumers can sit down and just pick their order off a conveyor belt right by their table. Recommendation Top Recommendation Ranking 1. Fixing brand image 2. Promote freshness of ingredients 3. Adding flame broil grills in front of restaurants 4. Integrate Burger King into existing stores such as gas station or train station 5. Focus on Millennial demographic 6. Promote Japanese culture in restaurants 7. Spend more on promotional advertising 8. Attract customers by smell 9. Sponsor Shows 10. Theme in different restaurants SWOT Analysis During the research it can be said that Burger King in Japan is trying their best to become a real competitor in the fast food industry. I believe that Burger King has the ability to succeed if only better decisions are made. It is evident that many BK restaurants are being developed in a rapid amount of  time. A Japanese proverb â€Å"wishing to eat the fugu, but wishing to live too† states that â€Å"Fugu is a delicious fish which has a poison in it which leads to death if eaten, so in order to eat it has to be prepared by a skillful cook who knows how to properly get rid of the poison. This proverb illustrates situation when there is a bit of risk in taking the action and expresses concern about the outcome†. In all seriousness, it is a risk to rapidly open BK restaurants without the concern of not reaching its potential goal of succeeding. Burger King Japan needs to sit down and focus on how they want to show the consumer what the BK industry is about. Next, corpo rate should consider thinking outside of the box and adding more cultural options instead of buns and beef. I have discovered that a black bun burger â€Å"Kuno Burger† has made it’s way to Japan. Further research on the success needs to be analyzed. Did the consumers like it? Did they know it existed? How did you advertise the sandwich? What will happen if you add rice dishes on the menu? Or fish sandwiches? Also, I believe a way to help Burger King find its target market is by asking individuals what they would like to see, taste, hear, smell, and touch. Maybe have more events and a taste testing between two competing burger restaurants. One target market can be tourists visiting Japan. Some tourists are thrilled to see that their comfort zone is all of a sudden changed because of cultural influences. McDonalds has successfully changed its menu to fit more of the consumer needs which has proved to be the top restaurant to beat. Burger King needs to be more aware of their tactics and build a better team to figure out how to attend to all customers from all around the world (whether the want something familiar or something new). In conclusion, Burger King has to reconsider its standpoint in Japan. It has proved to establish itself successfully in other countries. In the maxed out market economy of Japan, Burger King can has potential to grow. Corporate needs to band together to better figure out the brand image before expanding itself too thin.

Boeing Bond Analysis

Boeing Bond Analysis Presented to Dr. —– Prepared by Filipe Ferro October 9, 2012 Table of Contents Boeing Company3 Bond Issue3 Unsystematic Risk4 Principal Repayment4 Debt to Invested Capital4 Debt to Equity4 Current & Quick Ratios5 Interest Repayment5 Times Interest Earned5 Credit Position6 Competitor Analysis6 General Dynamics6 Northrop Grumman7 Systematic Risk7 Market Responsiveness7 Duration8 Modified Duration9 Accuracy of Rating9 Interest Rate Expectations9 Summary10 Appendix11 Descriptive Statistics11 Regression Analysis11 Duration & Modified Duration12References13 Boeing Company Boeing is a manufacturer of aircrafts and national defense equipment making it a member of the Aerospace & Defense industry. It was founded in Seattle, Washington on July 15, 1916. It is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, USA. Commercial aircraft include the 737, 747, 777, and very recently, the 787. Military products consist of high-dexterity and stealthy aircraft such as a the A-10 Th underbolt II and highly-efficient and powerful satellites such as the Boeing 601. 1 Its biggest competitors are Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Airbus.According to Morningstar, Boeing employed 171,700 people and revenue reached $69 billion in 2012. 2 Bond Issue The bond I have chosen to analyze is a debenture with a maturity date of August 15, 2021. Morningstar shows this bond issue consists of 400 million $1,000 par value bonds with 398 of them outstanding. The bond is a semi-annual fixed coupon bond with an annual rate of 8. 75%. The accrual start date was August 15, 1991. The original life of the bond was 30 years and the remaining life as of October 2012 is a little over 8 years and 10 months.This bond issue is non-callable, non-putable, non-convertible, and it is not subject to Rule 144A. These bonds are currently selling at 135. 20% of par value as of September 29, 2012, making their price $1,352. Standard & Poor’s NetAdvantage rates this issue as an A. Its curr ent yield ratio is 6. 47. I have always been enthusiastic about airplanes. My first experiences in flight were in Boeing aircrafts. I also chose this bond issue because of Boeing’s large size, reputation, and financial security.Selecting a debenture is risky and requires strong financial security since the only security backing it is the issuing company’s credit rating. With a current yield of 6. 47 resulting from the relatively high coupon rate of 8. 75%, this is a great bond for a fixed income (coupon pays $87. 50 annually). Unsystematic Risk Principal Repayment Debt to Invested Capital In recent years, Boeing’s debt to capital ratios have been 42% for 2007, 112. 9% for 2008, 85. 2% for 2009, 80. 6% for 2010, and 74. 0% for the end of 2011. Boeing’s total debt to invested capital ratio is 65. 3% (as of June 2012)3. Standard & Poor’s calculates this as (total debt)/(total equity + total debt), 2,466,000+8,735,0005,892,000+11,201,000. This means th at debt makes up about 65% of all invested capital. Boeing still has 35% of capital that is not tied to debt. This is good compared to the last few years. This ratio is on a downward trend. Debt to Equity Boeing’s total debt to equity ratio is 1. 51 (as of June 2012) 3, meaning that for every $1 in equity there is $1. 51 of debt. This is calculated as 8,735,0005,804,000 on the balance sheet.According to Standard & Poor’s Industry Survey, Boeing’s debt to equity ratio at the end of 2011 was 2. 85. The Aerospace & Defense industry average from 1981 to 2011 was 0. 90. 4 The industry survey states that Boeing’s high debt to equity ratio is due to its â€Å"financial arms† since it has a large financing department. It is also probably due to its new model plane, the 787 Dreamliner, which requires a relatively expensive manufacturing processes – unibody parts made up of composite carbon fiber materials – and advanced electronics and sensors . These higher costs require raising more capital than the average model plane.While debt has priority over equity in being repaid, debentures are at the bottom of the list, which is why this high ratio may be a concern for holders of Boeing’s bond issues. If bankruptcy occurs, debentures will be the last of debt holders to get paid. Although it is not exactly good to have this somewhat high ratio, knowing that Boeing has a brand new and appealing aircraft reassures that positive future cash flows will cover this financial leverage. S&P’s NetAdvantage highlights the potential sales to emerging airlines from China and airlines with old worn out planes in the U. S. and Europe.S&P’s industry survey states â€Å"China, India, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Latin America, will drive growth in global air travel and demand for new aircraft. †4 The market for aircraft purchases looks like it will grow in the coming years, thus Boeing will have greater oppor tunities for sales. Current & Quick Ratios The current assets to current liabilities ratio was 1. 22 for the 4th quarter of 2011, which means every $1 in current liabilities is covered by $1. 22 in current assets. Boeing has enough current assets to pay off all its current liabilities if it needed to do so. The current ratio has been 0. for 2007, 0. 8 for 2008, 1. 1 for 2009, and 1. 1 for 2010. The current ratio has been on an upward trend since 2008 which would imply added financial security in forecasts. But the current ratio assumes that a company’s current assets are highly liquid. This might not be the case with Boeing, whose inventory is made up of large and expensive aircraft and is not as highly traded as smaller inventory such as food in a grocery store. The quick-ratio would be more accurate for Boeing, which is 0. 39. Boeing – using only its instantly liquid assets – would not be able to pay off all of its short-term liabilities if it was required to. Interest Repayment Times Interest Earned As of December 31, 2011, Boeing had a net income of $4 billion and an interest expense of $498 million. Its times interest earned for the year of 2011 was 4,011+498498=9. 05. From 2006 to 2010, times interest earned has been 4. 72, 21. 7, 6. 12, 4. 94, and 7. 42 respectively. From these figures, it seems that Boeing’s TIE ratio has been on an upward trend since the 2009 ratio of 4. 94. The most recent ratio of 9. 05 suggests that Boeing is capable of paying its interest expense since its profit is over 9 times greater than its interest expense. Credit PositionAccording to Mergent Online, Boeing has never had a bankruptcy proceeding of any type (chapter 11 restructuring, etc), which implies that it has never defaulted on any of its debts. Mergent also states Boeing â€Å"had $4,600,000,000 available under credit line agreements†5. Considering Boeing already has $12,371,000,000 in long-term debt, $4,600,000,000 is still considerab le amount. Boeing is still within reasonably comfortable limits within its credit line usage. In addition, Standard & Poor’s Bond Guides shows that it has rated this issue of Boeing’s bonds in the A range for the last 4 years.Overall, Boeing seems to have good character. Many of Boeing’s bond issues have been rated as A+ over the last 4 years. Competitor Analysis General Dynamics General Dynamics currently has 2 outstanding bond issues, both rated A by Standard & Poor’s. Its debt to invested capital ratio in the 4th quarter of 2011 was 22. 6% compared to 74% for Boeing6. General Dynamics’ assets are tied to a much lower amount of debt than Boeing. The current ratio for General Dynamics is 1. 4 as of 2011 while Boeing’s was 1. 2. In addition to its low debt to capital ratio, its debt to equity ratio is also low at 3,930,00013,232,000=0. 0. Boeing’s debt to equity ratio is a little higher at 1. 51. With a higher debt to equity ratio, Bo eing’s leverage is slightly larger. Boeing’s bond issue may have a little more risk of being subordinated by other bonds. A low debt to equity ratio reflects a financial healthy company because it means that it needs a relatively small amount of financial leverage. Times interest earned for the year of 2011 was 2,252+155155=15. 53. Again, this makes General Dynamics’ bonds less risky. In contrast, Boeing has more liquidity in its stock at an average trading volume of 4,344,230.General Dynamics’ average trading volume is only 1,642,0007 which means General Dynamics’ ratios are subject to more volatility. With a higher trading volume and a new, cutting edge plane, this may offset Boeing’s higher risk compared to General Dynamics. Northrop Grumman The current ratio as of the 4th quarter of 2011 for Northrop Grumman was 1. 4. Its debt to equity ratio was 3,948,00010,715,000=0. 37. Times interest earned was 2,086+221221=10. 44. 8 Like General Dyn amics, Northrop Grumman’s ratios also suggest lower unsystematic risk compared to Boeing.Although the bonds may also be more volatile because just like General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman has a much lower average trading volume (at 1,533,070) than Boeing does. Systematic Risk Market Responsiveness Date| YTM-Boeing| YTM-Avg. A Rated Market| Mar-08| 5. 28%| 6. 24%| Jun-08| 6. 09%| 6. 43%| Sep-08| 6. 01%| 6. 55%| Dec-08| 7. 16%| 6. 70%| Mar-09| 6. 50%| 6. 66%| Jun-09| 5. 92%| 6. 39%| Sep-09| 4. 96%| 5. 56%| Dec-09| 4. 69%| 5. 77%| Mar-10| 5. 13%| 5. 80%| Jun-10| 4. 69%| 5. 44%| Sep-10| 3. 67%| 5. 01%| Dec-10| 3. 89%| 5. 52%| Mar-11| 4. 56%| 5. 52%| Jun-11| 3. 93%| 5. 26%| Sep-11| 3. 66%| 4. 54%| Dec-11| 3. 0%| 4. 40%| Mar-12| 3. 32%| 4. 51%| Jun-12| 2. 63%| 4. 14%| Sep-12| 2. 56%| –. –| Below is a list of Boeing’s yields to maturity and the AA-rated bond market yields to maturity according to the S&P Bond Guide: Yield to maturity has been on a downward trend since December 2008 for both Boeing and the rest of the AA-rated bond market. It seems like the YTMs for Boeing and the rest of the market move together. The null hypothesis for this situation would be that the market movement has no correlation to Boeing’s movement in YTMs; therefore the slope would be 0 for a linear regression of the scatter plot below.The alternative hypothesis is that the market does have some influence. The null hypothesis can be tested with some calculations. The test statistic is calculated by taking the value of the beta 0. 96 and dividing it by the standard error of 0. 11132, we get 8. 62. Using the test statistic and a level of significance of 10%, the corresponding P-Value is 0. 0000000007. Anything to the left of the 10% level of significance is a rejection of the null hypothesis. The P-Value is well below the level of significance of 10% and therefore the null hypothesis should be rejected.This means that the population coefficient of determinati on is not equal to 0 according to our sample of 18 periods. The sample yields a coefficient of determination of 0. 91. Boeing’s movement in YTM can be explained by a movement in market YTM 91% of the time. Boeing’s YTMs have a strong positive correlation with the market’s YTMs and makes its bond issues just slightly less volatile to movements in the market. Duration This bond issue has a par value of $1,000 and a coupon payment of 8. 75% semi-annually. The coupon payment is $87. 50 and the latest rate for the AA bond class, according to the Wall Street Journal, is 1. 3%9 as of October 2, 2012. The present value of this bond is $1,569. 44. The weighted present value of this bond is $11,157. 82. The current duration for this bond issue is 7. 11 years. It will take a little over 7 years for this bond to cover the initial investment. Modified Duration The modified current duration is calculated as the current duration divided by 1 + (bond class interest rate). In th is case it is 7. 111+0. 0183=6. 98. This means that for every 1% increase in market interest rates, this bond issue will go down 6. 98% in value. Accuracy of RatingStandard & Poor’s definition for an A rating is defined as a â€Å"strong capacity to meet financial commitments, but somewhat susceptible to adverse economic conditions and changes in circumstances. With a beta of 0. 63 and a current duration of 6. 98%, it seems like the rating of A is accurate according to the â€Å"somewhat susceptible to adverse economic conditions† part of the definition. For the â€Å"strong capacity to meet financial commitments†, I also feel like this fits Boeing since it has a times interest earned ratio of 9. 05 and a current ratio of 1. 22. Interest Rate ExpectationsAccording to the Federal Reserve Board press release of September 13, 2012, the announced quantitative easing program will keep bond prices high and interest rates low, at least for the short-term (next year). Also, the economy has expanded somewhat in recent months, but still at a lower than expected rate10. This suggests that interest rates will remain mostly unchanged since there is not a lot of spending. The Washington Post’s front-page article on October 2, 2012, stated that Americans â€Å"do not want to take any risks with their money – even as the government is encouraging risk-taking†11.According to the Fisher Effect, when expected inflation rises, interest rates will rise12. With low inflation expectations, we can expect a continuation of low interest rates. Instead of trending they will be â€Å"ranging†. As of October 2, 2012, a 10-year Treasury bond had a yield of 1. 64% while AA-Rated bonds had a yield of 1. 83%. The spread is 0. 19. The present value of a single bond from this issue is $1,569. 44. With interest rates rising only 10 basis points by the end of this year and with a modified duration of 6. 98, the present value will drop by 0. 698%. $1,569. 44(1 – 0. 00698) = $1,558. 9. The estimated yield to maturity for Boeing one year from now with a 20 basis point increase is YTM-BA = -3. 2949 + 1. 4426(4. 34) + 0. 001 = 2. 97% for Boeing, up from 2. 63%. 4. 34% is 20 basis points above the last market YTM data point of 4. 14%. This small rise in interest rates means Boeing’s bond issue is going to drop slightly in price. Summary I would definitely buy this bond despite some of its shortcomings. Boeing may be heavily leveraged at the moment, but it still has other ratios that show its financial health, such as market capitalization, the debt to equity ratio of 1. 1 and the current ratio of 1. 22. Additionally, Boeing’s new model airplane, the 787 Dreamliner, is a positive prospect for future financial health. According to Mergent’s records, Boeing has never defaulted on its loans before and with 96 years of history I wouldn’t expect a default any time soon. Appendix Descriptive Statistics YTM-BA%|   | YTM-A%|   | |   |   |   | Mean| 4. 755| Mean| 5. 58| Standard Error| 0. 291509762| Standard Error| 0. 193077925| Median| 4. 69| Median| 5. 54| Mode| 4. 69| Mode| 5. 52| Standard Deviation| 1. 236771176| Standard Deviation| 0. 19160259| Sample Variance| 1. 529602941| Sample Variance| 0. 671023529| Kurtosis| -0. 700358347| Kurtosis| -1. 043305373| Skewness| 0. 246024371| Skewness| -0. 261513425| Range| 4. 53| Range| 2. 56| Minimum| 2. 63| Minimum| 4. 14| Maximum| 7. 16| Maximum| 6. 7| Sum| 85. 59| Sum| 100. 44| Count| 18| Count| 18| Regression Analysis Duration & Modified Duration References 1Boeing. (1995). A-10 Thunderbolt II. Retrieved 2012 05-October from http://www. boeing. com/defense-space/support/maintenance/a10/index. html 2Morningstar. (2012, September 28). Boeing Co BA. (N.Dihora, Editor) Retrieved September 29, 2012, from Morningstar: http://www. morningstar. com 3Standard&Poor's. (2012, October 02). Boeing. Retrieved October 02, 2012, from Standard ;Poor's NetAdvantage: http://www. netadvantage. standardandpoors. com 4Tortoriello, R. (2012 26-July). Industry Surveys: Aerospace & Defense. Retrieved 2012 05-October from Standard&Poor's: http://www. netadvantage. standardandpoors. com. proxymu. wrlc. org/NASApp/NetAdvantage/showIndustrySurveyPDF. do? loadIndSurFromMenu=pdf 5Mergent Online. (2011, December 31). Boeing Co. (The) (NYS:BA): Long Term Debt.Retrieved October 1, 2012, from Mergent Online : www. new. mergentonline. com. proxymu. wrlc. org/companydetail. php? pagetype=longtermdebt;compnumber=1048 6Standard;Poor's. (2011, 12 31). Genl Dynamics. Retrieved 10 02, 2012, from NetAdvantage: http://www. netadvantage. standardandpoors. com. proxymu. wrlc. org/NASApp/NetAdvantage/cp/companyFinancials. do 7Yahoo! (2012, October 03). General Dynamics (GD). Retrieved October 03, 2012, from Yahoo! Finance: http://www. finance. yahoo. com/q? s=GD 8Yahoo! (2012, October 03). Northrop Grumman Corportation (NOC). Retrieved October 03, 2 012, from

Mary Tyler Moore Show Feminism and Inspiration

The Mary Tyler Moore Show depicted a single career woman in Minneapolis who famously â€Å"made it on her own,† as described in the show’s opening theme song. The feminism of Mary Tyler Moore is seen both in specific moments as well as the overall premise and theme of an independent woman’s success. Fast Facts: Mary Tyler Moore Show Sitcom Title: The Mary Tyler Moore Show, aka Mary Tyler MooreYears Aired: 1970-1977Stars: Mary Tyler Moore, Ed Asner, Gavin MacLeod, Ted Knight, Valerie Harper, Cloris Leachman, Betty White, Georgia EngelFeminist Focus: A single woman in her 30s has a successful career and a fulfilling life. Starring Mary as...a Single Woman? One aspect of the feminism of Mary Tyler Moore is the central character. Mary Tyler Moore is Mary Richards, a single woman in her early 30s who moves to the big city and launches a television news career. It was a bold move for a sitcom’s main character to be a single woman, not just because of the many family oriented shows of the 1950s and 1960s, but because of the statement it made about a significant question of the Women’s Liberation Movement: why couldn’t a woman define her happiness and success by things other than husband and children? Single Woman Fictions The original premise of The Mary Tyler Moore Show called for Mary Richards to move to Minneapolis after a divorce. CBS executives resisted this idea. Mary Tyler Moore had starred in the well-regarded Dick Van Dyke Show during the 1960s as the wife of Dick Van Dyke’s character. There was concern that viewers would perceive Mary as having divorced Dick Van Dyke, because they were so popularly associated in the public’s mind, even though this was a new show with a new character in a new setting. This legendary story of The Mary Tyler Moore Show’s beginnings shows just how linked an actress could be to her male co-stars. However, the fact that Mary Richards was single and had never married worked out better for the show and may have made an even stronger feminist statement than if she were divorced. Taking Care of Herself The Mary Tyler Moore Show deals with Mary’s marriage or lack thereof in the first episode. In that debut, Mary Richards moves into her new apartment and begins her new job. She has recently ended a relationship with a man she helped financially support through medical school, only to then find him still not ready to get married. The ex visits her in Minneapolis, expecting her to fall happily back into his arms, even though he is revealed to be less than thoughtful by bringing her flowers swiped from a hospital patient. As he leaves her apartment after she tells him goodbye, he tells her to take care of herself. She answers, â€Å"I think I just did.†Ã‚   Friends, Co-Workers, and Assorted Guests From day one in her new home, Mary interacts with neighbors Rhoda and Phyllis. Rhoda, played by Valerie Harper, is another unmarried thirty-something who contributes sarcastic wit and an ongoing search for good dates and a husband. Phyllis, played by Cloris Leachman, is a quirky, self-righteous type, married and raising a strong-willed pre-teen daughter, with unconventional behaviors that touch on many 1960s social issues and political themes, including support of Women’s Liberation. One of The Mary Tyler Moore Show’s writers, Treva Silverman, pointed out that Rhoda’s character arc over the years mirrors the feminism of the Women’s Liberation Movement. She goes from being self-deprecating and insecure to more confident and successful. (Quoted in Women Who Run the Show by Mollie Gregory, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2002.) Both Rhoda and Phyllis became spinoffs from The Mary Tyler Moore Show.   Other Glimpses of Feminism Over the years, the feminism of The Mary Tyler Moore Show was seen in episodes dealing with equal pay, divorce, â€Å"career vs. family,† sexuality and a woman’s reputation. The real strength of the show was that it realistically portrayed a variety of characters, including women, who were fully defined individuals apart from their encounters with topical issues of the 1970s. Part of what made Mary special was that she was normal: interacting with co-workers and friends, dating, encountering troubles in life, being likable and easygoing. In addition to the successful feminism of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, the program won a then-record number of Emmys and a Peabody Award. The Peabody summary said it â€Å"established the benchmark by which all situation comedies must be judged.† The Mary Tyler Moore Show contributed multiple iconic moments to television history, including Mary’s joyfully free hat toss in the opening credits, and it is remembered as one of the best sitcoms in television history.