No question you recall a period whenever we wouldn’t tear off those tags on our mattresses, because to take action would violate the statutory laws! We were convinced that there is a particular agency (the Mattress Police) who, unannounced, would appear at the bedroom door to inspect your mattresses: God be with anyone who foolishly removed their tags. And the key reason why everyone behaved this way? Well, I liken this behavior to GIPS examinations: why do people get them done? By far, most U.S.
Global Investment Performance Standards undergoes examinations: but why? And because so many companies do, does that make this behavior correct? Our firm is, perhaps a little unusual in that when we meet with verification clients, especially ones that we won over from competitors, we ask them why they underwent examinations previously.
I remember one NYC customer who, at onetime, had All their composites examined (probably to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars). Then, a couple of years ago, they made the decision and then have their “marketed” composites analyzed. When we asked why they had this done, the essential answer was “well, we just have always; our verifier recommended it.” Okay, therefore how has this benefited them? Did potential customers or clients ask if they had their composites examined regularly?
Well, upon further review our client established that no, this work hadn’t been beneficial in any way to them. Therefore, they decided to stop having them done. Another client, who we won over a few years back from a “big 4” company, had undergone examinations previously; we encouraged them to believe twice about spending the amount of money (though it would mean money in our pockets). They decided to stop and have continued to avoid having them done; and, apparently this hasn’t cost them any business. Outside the continuing states, hardly anyone gets examined. And just why is this? Well, consider the history of examinations.
To place it simply, these are equal to the old, AIMR-PPS Level II verifications. Recall that the “big 8” (now “last 4”) wouldn’t do Level I (firm-wide) verifications but would do the particular level IIs. Therefore, if a firm wished to be confirmed by one of the “big boys,” they had to settle for Level IIs. When the GIPS draft out arrived, it only got firm wide verifications, but when the first version (1999) appeared, examinations were included. And so, U.S. companies who had always had Level IIs and in addition now got examinations done (and today the large CPA firms are willing to do GIPS verifications).
- Are usually covered out of a Capital Budget,
- 1st Usa 18 trillion,
- Why you’re interested in financing
- 6 #6 Give Back to Your Community
We know about at least one of our competition who is positively trying to encourage people to have examinations done. We will be happy to do examinations, too: we Certainly is a for profit company. But, we don’t want to take our client’s money if we don’t believe that it’s being well spent. We’d choose that they become convinced that yes, they’re necessary, and participate us to do them then. If the foundation for encouraging firms to endure examinations is because so many other companies do them, then that’s like saying “I will not remove the tag from my mattress because nobody else does.” Well, be considered a label puller!
Don’t be considered a lemming! Be confident that this costs truly is an investment and not simply an expense! As your mother no doubt asked you, could you jump off a bridge because friends and family did? We’re conducting a “mini-survey” to determine what people see in RFPs. We believe that it’s unusual to be asked if composites have been examined. The primary results suggest we’re right; we’ll provide additional information once they’re available.
Please, do not construe this post as an attack at verification companies offering, recommend, and carry out examinations. That is our opinion solely. I don’t feel that verifiers who conduct examinations are unethical, charlatans, self-serving, or anything like this. They offer a service which there is a market for clearly; we question its value just.
The taxes were computed based on the capital benefits, the difference between the assessed equity value for Alibaba and the publication value (from Yahoo’s 10K) for these stocks. 39.19, which makes it underappreciated by 14% at its current price. 3. Pricing break-even: There is a third twist you can use to value Yahoo’s collateral.
You can use the market pricing of Yahoo Japan and Alibaba to back again out the value that the marketplace is attaching to the parent company’s operating property. 150 billion for the base case), but Alibaba becomes a public company once, the prices will be the market value. 150 billion, the final outcome you arrive at is that the market must be attaching a negative value to the parent company’s operating assets. To the extent that this may just reflect the likelihood that we are misplacing the Alibaba IPO, I estimated the worthiness of Yahoo working resources as a function of the worthiness of Alibaba collateral after the IPO. The results are consistent with both the intrinsic and relative value assessments here.