Recent orders
FDR and the Supreme Court
Student’s Name
Supervisor’s Name
Course Name
Due date
FDR and the Supreme Court
The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. Roosevelt was incorrect in trying to influence the Supreme Court’s decisions. The approach would make the court more political, putting its independence in jeopardy. Critics contended that since the president and members of Congress are exempt from age restrictions, federal judges should be exempt as well.
Others maintained that the Constitution, not the Supreme Court judges, was undoing Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation. The most eloquent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee may have never appeared in person. Chief Justice Hughes entered the political fight by presenting a letter to the committee, which Senator Burton K. Wheeler read to the committee (D-Mont.). The Supreme Court is “fully abreast of its business,” Hughes noted in his letter. He dismissed the idea that adding more justices will improve the court’s efficiency. “There would be more judges to hear, more judges to confer, more judges to discuss, more judges to be convinced and to decide,” the top justice reasoned.
The court has had as few as five seats and as many as ten over the course of American history, the current or future president can strive to raise the number of justices and the court for political reasons. Although the Constitution mandates the existence of a Supreme Court, it does not specify the number of justices who will serve on it. In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt suggested raising the number of seats in Congress to 15, but the idea was controversial, and it died in Congress in part because the Supreme Court reversed numerous previous judgments that had damaged the New Deal.
Reference
Gresko, Jessica (2018). “For lawyers, the Supreme Court bar is vanity trip”. Florida Today. Melbourne, Florida. pp. 2A.Lawson, Gary; Seidman, Guy (2017). “When Did the Constitution Become Law?” Notre Dame Law Review. 77: 1–37.
Financial Analysis of Morrisons Company
Financial Analysis of Morrisons Company
Name
Institution
Course
Date
Morrisons Financial Analysis
Morrisons experienced increased revenues in the last five financial years despite operating in a highly competitive and unpredictable environment – £47,298 million in 2008 and £64,539 million in 2012. The company is actually a nice investment for potential and existing investors – it is registering huge sales and giving out its shareholders value for their investment through huge dividends.
Morrisons has achieved phenomenal growth courtesy of the expansionist strategy it pursues – the company believes in expanding its markets into new product lines such as finance as well as new avenues for reaching out to its customers. It believes in growing its online presence as a way of adapting to customers’ new ways of doing things.
For example, whereas Morrison believes in adopting the “street market” approach, Morrisons believes in expanding its business so as to successfully create more jobs, bring fresh foods to under-developed neighbourhoods, review the quality of its brands, step-up the innovation gear, reduce prices, build economies of scale, and open-up new stores to penetrate traditionally conservative markets. This is in tandem with the official slogan that “no one tries harder for customers” (Morrisons, 2012: 11).
The company prides in increasing staff, training new employees, acquiring new equipments, and opening-up new stores. This is in tandem with the company goal of enhancing customer perceptions by providing the best shopping experience whose core pillars are “service, range, quality, price, availability and the store environment” (Morrisons, 2012: 12).
Financial Analysis
Profitability Ratios
Morrison
Profitability 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
GP 6.9% 7.0% 6.9% 6.3% 6.3%
NP 3.9% 3.8% 3.9% 3.2% 4.3%
ROCE 0.31% 0.27% 0.33% 0.27% 0.24%
ROE 12.8% 11.7% 12.1% 10.2% 12.7%
3.1.2 Morrisons
Profitability 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
GP 8.15% 8.48% 8.10% 7.76% 7.67%
NP 3.9% 4.0% 3.7% 3.6% 4.1%
ROCE 13.3% 12.9% 12.1% 12.8% 12.7%
ROE 15.81% 16.07% 15.91% 16.57% 17.94%
As the above tables show, Morrisons has experienced a larger GP than Morrison but the two companies have relatively similar NP for the five year period. Moreover, Morrisons has a relatively stable GP and NP while Morrison’s GP and NP have been erratic within the same period. Both companies registered a low NP in 2009 perhaps due to the effects of the global recession.
Overall, Morrisons is more efficient in managing its operational costs than Morrison (Vance, 2003). Specifically, Morrison cannot seem to keep its costs of financing at low levels as shown by a smaller NP for the five year period. Additionally, Morrisons has registered a large ROCE and ROE than Morrison in the same period.
This is an indicator that that Morrisons keeps its costs of selling, financing, and investment at relatively low levels than Morrison. Perhaps this is because the company has a large market share compared to Morrison and hence enjoys economies of scale.
Liquidity Ratio of Morrison
Liquidity 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Current Ratio 0.57 0.55 0.51 0.53 0.50
Acid Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.38 0.32
5.2.2 Morrisons
Liquidity 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Current Ratio 0.67 times 0.68 times 0.71times 0.74times 0.58 times
Acid Ratio 0.48 times 0.50 times 0.54 times 0.59 times 0.34 times
Morrisons can meet its short term debt obligations easily than Morrison. Morrisons liquidity has increased by a larger margin than that of Morrison over the last five years – Morrisons’s current ratio and acid ratio for the last five years show a change of 0.09 and 0.14 respectively compared to Morrison’s 0.07 and -0.08 respectively. This large and positive range in current ratio and acid ratio indicates that Morrisons has been steadily improving its ability to offset its short term liabilities than Morrison over the same period.
Actually, Morrison experienced a decline in acid ratio during the last five years, an indicator that the company is in deficit of short-term assets and can only meet its short term liabilities by selling inventories (Helfert, 2001). Overall, the company’s liquidity ratios are healthy by industry standards as the companies have faster inventory turnover rates.
Asset Management of Morrison
Asset Management 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Stock Turnover 23.27days 25.83 days 26.71 days 48.58 days 39.90 days
Asset Turnover 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.0
5.3.2 Morrisons
Asset Management 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Stock Turnover 20.02days 21.21 days 22.91 days 22.27 days 21.31 days
Asset Turnover 3.70 3.42 3.90 4.18 3.98
Morrison stock turnover period has been on a decrease since 2008 except in 2009 when it shot from 39.90 days to 48.58 days. Nevertheless, the company seem to be enjoying a relatively stable yet decreasing stock turnover rate over the last five years, with 2012 being its worst year. Morrisons too has been experiencing decreasing stock turnover rate over the years.
This phenomenon could have been occasioned by the shrinking of disposable income among consumers in the UK during this period. Nevertheless, Morrisons has a slightly higher asset turnover than Morrison, an indicator that the company is more efficient in turning its assets into revenue. Overall, the two companies seem to be experiencing stable asset turnover in the last five years.
Gearing Ratio of Morrison
Gearing 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Debt Ratio 27.26% 15.07% 18.67% 14.20% 12.40%
Interest Cover 20.70 times 21.02 times 15.11times 11.18times 10.2 times
3.4.2 Morrisons
Gearing 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Debt Ratio 38.41% 40.85% 54.0% 74.38% 52.06%
Interest Cover 9.56 times 8.176 times 6.0 times 6.6 times 11.1times
Though Morrisons has a higher debt ratio than Morrison, it is clear that Morrison has a more futuristic financial approach. This approach allows for the maximization of funding from long-term lenders at the expense of short-term ones. It is therefore not a surprise that Morrisons has a lower interest cover ratio than Morrison as it seems the company prefers utilising short-term finance and reinvesting its profits while suppressing long-term finance.
Investment Ratio and Morrison
Investment 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Dividend pay-out 1.6% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 0.9%
Dividend per share 10.70p 9.60p 8.20p 5.80p 4.80p
EPS 26.68p 23.93p 22.80p 17.39p 20.79p
Price/earnings 11.40 11.60 14.10 15.60 15.20
Morrisons
Investment 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008
Dividend pay-out 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%
Dividend per share 14.76p 14.46p 13.05p 11.96p 10.90p
Earnings Per share 34.98p 33.10p 29.33p 27.14p 26.95p
Price/earnings 8.50 11.10 13.20 11.50 14.60
Morrisons has been paying higher dividends to its shareholders compared to Morrison yet it has a low dividend pay-out ratio for the last five years. The reason for this phenomenon is because Morrisons has huge net income that converts to higher earnings per share. Moreover, Morrisons has a low price-earnings ratio because its earnings per share is much higher than that of Morrison for the five years period – Morrisons earnings per share has increased from a low of 26.95p in 2008 to a high of 34.98p in 2012 compared to Morrison which has grown from 17.39p in 2009 to 26.68p in 2012. Both companies have registered a decreasing PE in the last five years, with Morrisons registering the lowest PE. This can be interpreted to mean that both companies offer investors almost the same value for their money.
Conclusion
Both Morrison and Morrisons have experienced immense growth. This growth is as a result of pursuing robust business models that allow them to offer value to their stakeholders. Morrison pursues a somehow lean business model, while Morrisons pursues an agile one hence the difference in their total share in the UK market. Overall, both companies offer their shareholders almost the same value for their money as they have almost similar profitability capabilities, short-term debt payment capabilities, asset management capabilities, long-term funding utilization capabilities, investment capabilities yet they pursue significantly different business approaches. As Vance (2002) posits, the five broad categories of financial ratios are not exhaustive in giving the true financial picture of a company but they have succeeded in giving investors a clear glimpse of where the two companies are headed.
References
Helfert, E.A. (2001). Financial analysis: Tools and techniques: A guide for managers. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Li, E. (2008). Supermarket chains and grocery market in the UK. Shanghai, China: China Europe International Business School.
Morrison PLC (2012). Annual report and financial statements 2011/12. Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC.
SAS (2011). UK retail 2012 & beyond. [Online]. Available at: HYPERLINK “http://www.sas.com/offices/europe/uk/downloads/press/sas-verdict-retail2012.pdf/” http://www.sas.com/offices/europe/uk/downloads/press/sas-verdict-retail2012.pdf/ (accessed June 22, 2012).
Morrisons PLC (2012). Annual report and financial statements 2012. [Online]. Available at: HYPERLINK “http://www.tescoplc.com/files/pdf/reports/tesco_annual_report_2012.pdf/” http://www.Morrisonsplc.com/files/pdf/reports/Morrisons_annual_report_2012.pdf/ (accessed June 22, 2012).
Vance, D.E. (2003). Financial analysis and decision making: Tools and techniques to solve financial problems and make effective business decisions. New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Each and every place in the world has a history
Name
Professor
Course
Date
Jim Bowie
Each and every place in the world has a history, whether it is a country, region or a State. There are some unique events that may have happened in a particular place and had some very significant effect. At times there are some people whose contribution to a certain area or region was immense that it affected many people either positively or negatively.
The State of Texas also has had very unique events and even people whose contribution towards building of the state can not be forgotten. One person whose contribution during the Texas Revolution can not be assumed is Jim Bowie. Born in Kentucky in the year 1796, his family moved to Missouri and later to Louisiana in the year 1802. It is in Louisiana that Bowie gained the reputation of being a bold and brave young man an attribute he was to show later in life (Parker, pg 250).
Even though Bowie was known as an adventurer, his participation in the revolution in Texas is commendable. From a personal view Bowie played a major role in ensuring that the Texans lived their life as they wished. He displayed immense skills and leadership qualities he was able to rally just a handful of men and managed to hold off large numbers of the Mexican army that had taken over Texas. During the Grass Fight that took place on the 28th of November in year 1835, Bowie portrayed immense courage when he tried to intercept a train of mules that he had thought had the pay for the Mexican soldiers. Attacking a convoy carrying any army’s payroll is suicidal as it is bound to be heavily guarded; the attack on the convoy ignited a fight that enabled the Texans to drive out the enemy. During the fight the Texans lost one man while another two were injured, however Mexicans lost a large number of their men (Parker, pg 251).
Another incidence that Bowie displayed courage was during the Siege at Alamo. After being defeated and made to flee, the Mexican general by the name of Santa Anna resolved to take San Antonio Texas back. On the 23rd of February 1836, the general brought about 2,000 troops with merely about 145 men, Bowie who was in charge of the volunteer fighters and William Travis in charge of the Army resolved to stand their ground. Travis managed to get some reinforcement bringing the total number of the Texan defenders to 189 (Parker, pg 255).
In an immense display of bravery, with just a hand full of men under their command Bowie and his counterpart were able to keep the Mexican army at bay forcing the Mexicans to call for reinforcement to over 2,000 troops. Even though the siege finally ended with the Mexicans overrunning Alamo killing all the 189 defenders the determination of the defenders was ascertained by the number of soldiers the Mexicans lost. It is estimated that the Mexicans lost about 1,600 men. For a group of volunteer fighters and just a handful of trained soldiers that was unimaginable (Parker, pg 250).
Conclusion
The contribution that Bowie made towards ensuring that Texas was not taken over by the Mexican army is exemplarily. Without any skills as a trained soldier, Bowie was able to display such courage and leadership qualities. For the commander of the army to agree to share the command with a “civilian” proves that Bowie’s contribution was vital in ensuring that Texas remained to the Texans.
Work Cited
Parker, Janice. Texas: the Lone Star State. New York: AV2 by Weigl, 2012. Print.