Profile of Civil War Lt General Ulysses S. Grant

Hiram Ulysses Grant was born April 27, 1822, at Point Pleasant, Ohio. The son of Pennsylvania natives Jesse Grant and Hannah Simpson, he was educated locally as a young man. Electing to pursue a military career, Grant sought admission to West Point in 1839. This quest proved successful when Representative Thomas Hamer offered him an appointment. As part of the process, Hamer erred and officially nominated him as Ulysses S. Grant. Arriving at the academy, Grant elected to retain this new name, but stated that the S was an initial only (it is sometimes listed as Simpson in reference to his mothers maiden name). Since his new initials were U.S., Grants classmates nicknamed Sam in reference to Uncle Sam. The Mexican-American War Though a middling student, Grant proved an exceptional horseman while at West Point. Graduating in 1843, Grant placed 21st in a class of 39. Despite his equestrian skills, he received an assignment to serve as quartermaster of the 4th US Infantry as there were no vacancies in the dragoons. In 1846, Grant was part of Brigadier General Zachary Taylors Army of Occupation in southern Texas. With the outbreak of the Mexican-American War, he saw action at Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma. Though assigned as a quartermaster, Grant sought out action. After taking part in the Battle of Monterrey, he was transferred to Major General Winfield Scotts army. Landing in March 1847, Grant was present at the Siege of Veracruz and marched inland with Scotts army. Reaching the outskirts of Mexico City, he was brevetted for gallantry for his performance at the Battle of Molino del Rey on September 8. This was followed by a second brevet for his actions during the Battle of Chapultepec when he hoisted a howitzer to a church bell tower to cover the American advance on the San Cosmà © Gate. A student of war, Grant closely watched his superiors during his time in Mexico and learned key lessons that he would apply later. The Interwar Years After a brief postwar stint in Mexico, Grant returned to the United States and married Julia Boggs Dent on August 22, 1848. The couple ultimately had four children. Over the next four years, Grant held peacetime posts on the Great Lakes. In 1852, the he received orders to depart for the West Coast. With Julia pregnant and lacking funds to support a family on the frontier, Grant was forced to leave his wife in the care of her parents in St. Louis, MO. After enduring a harsh journey via Panama, Grant arrived at San Francisco before traveling north to Fort Vancouver. Deeply missing his family and the second child who he had never seen, Grant became discouraged by his prospects. Taking solace in alcohol, he attempted to find ways to supplement his income so that his family could come west. These proved unsuccessful and he began to contemplate resigning. Promoted to captain in April 1854 with orders to move to Fort Humboldt, CA, he instead elected to resign. His departure most likely was accelerated by rumors of his drinking and possible disciplinary action. Returning to Missouri, Grant and his family settled on land belonging to her parents. Dubbing his farm Hardscrabble, it proved financially unsuccessful despite the assistance of a slave provided by Julias father. After several failed business endeavors, Grant moved his family to Galena, IL in 1860 and became an assistant in his fathers tannery, Grant Perkins. Though his father was a prominent Republican in the area, Grant favored Stephen A. Douglas in the 1860 presidential election, but did not vote as he had not lived in Galena long enough to obtain Illinois residency. Early Days of the Civil War Through the winter and spring after Abraham Lincolns election sectional tensions heightened culminating with the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. With the beginning of the Civil War, Grant aided in recruiting a company of volunteers and led it to Springfield, IL. Once there, Governor Richard Yates seized on Grants military experience and set him to training newly arriving recruits. Proving highly effective in this role, Grant used his connections to Congressman Elihu B. Washburne to secure a promotion to colonel on June 14. Given command of the unruly 21st Illinois Infantry, he reformed the unit and made it an effective fighting force. On July 31, Grant was appointed a brigadier general of volunteers by Lincoln. This promotion led to Major General John C. Frà ©mont giving him command of the District of Southeast Missouri at the end of August. In November, Grant received orders from Frà ©mont to demonstrate against the Confederate positions at Columbus, KY. Moving down the Mississippi River, he landed 3,114 men on the opposite shore and attacked a Confederate force near Belmont, MO. In the resulting Battle of Belmont, Grant had initial success before Confederate reinforcements pushed him back to his boats. Despite this setback, the engagement greatly boosted Grants confidence and that of his men. Forts Henry and Donelson After several weeks of inaction, a reinforced Grant was ordered to move up the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers against Forts Henry and Donelson by the commander of the Department of Missouri, Major General Henry Halleck. Working with gunboats under Flag Officer Andrew H. Foote, Grant began his advance on February 2, 1862. Realizing that Fort Henry was located on a flood plain and open to naval attack, its commander, Brigadier General Lloyd Tilghman, withdrew most of his garrison to Fort Donelson before Grant arrived and captured the post on the 6th. After occupying Fort Henry, Grant immediately moved against Fort Donelson eleven miles to the east. Situated on high, dry ground, Fort Donelson proved near invulnerable to naval bombardment. After direct assaults failed, Grant invested the fort. On the 15th, Confederate forces under Brigadier General John B. Floyd attempted a breakout but were contained before creating an opening. With no options left, Brigadier General Simon B. Buckner asked Grant for surrender terms. Grants response was simply, No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted, which earned him the nickname Unconditional Surrender Grant. The Battle of Shiloh With the fall of Fort Donelson, over 12,000 Confederates were captured, nearly a third of  General Albert Sidney Johnstons Confederate forces in the region. As a result, he was forced to order the abandonment of Nashville, as well as a retreat from Columbus, KY. Following the victory, Grant was promoted to major general and began to experience problems with Halleck who had become professionally jealous of his successful subordinate. After surviving attempts to replace him, Grant received orders to push up the Tennessee River. Reaching Pittsburg Landing, he halted to await the arrival of  Major General Don Carlos Buells Army of the Ohio. Seeking to halt the string of reverses in his theater, Johnston and  General P.G.T. Beauregard  planned a massive attack on Grants position. Opening the  Battle of Shiloh  on April 6, they caught Grant by surprise. Though nearly driven into the river, Grant stabilized his lines and held. That evening, one of his division commanders,  Brigadier General William T. Sherman, commented Tough day today, Grant. Grant apparently responded, Yes, but well whip em tomorrow. Reinforced by Buell during the night, Grant launched a massive counterattack the next day and drove the Confederates from the field and sent them retreating to Corinth, MS. The bloodiest encounter to date with the Union suffering 13,047 casualties and the Confederates 10,699, the losses at Shiloh stunned the public. Though Grant came under criticism for being unprepared on April 6 and was falsely accused of being drunk, Lincoln refused to remove him stating, I cant spare this man; he fights. Corinth and Halleck After the victory at Shiloh, Halleck elected to take to the field in person and assembled a large force consisting of Grants Army of the Tennessee,  Major General John Popes Army of the Mississippi, and Buells Army of the Ohio at Pittsburg Landing. Continuing his issues with Grant, Halleck removed him from army command and made him the overall second-in-command with no troops under his direct control. Incensed, Grant contemplated leaving, but was talked into staying by Sherman who was quickly becoming a close friend. Enduring this arrangement through the Corinth and Iuka campaigns of the summer, Grant returned to independent command that October when he was made commander of the Department of the Tennessee and tasked with taking the Confederate stronghold of Vicksburg, MS. Taking Vicksburg Given free rein by Halleck, now general-in-chief in Washington, Grant designed a two-prong attack, with Sherman advancing down the river with 32,000 men, while he advanced south along Mississippi Central Railroad with 40,000 men. These movements were to be supported by an advance north from New Orleans by  Major General Nathaniel Banks. Establishing a supply base at Holly Springs, MS, Grant pressed south to Oxford, hoping to engage Confederate forces under  Major  General Earl Van Dorn  near Grenada. In December 1862, Van Dorn, badly outnumbered, launched a large cavalry raid around Grants army and destroyed the supply base at Holly Springs, halting the Union advance. Shermans situation was no better. Moving down the river with relative ease, he arrived just north of Vicksburg on Christmas Eve. After sailing up the Yazoo River, he disembarked his troops and began moving through the swamps and bayous toward the town before being badly defeated at  Chickasaw Bayou  on the 2 9th. Lacking support from Grant, Sherman opted to withdrawal. After Shermans men were drawn off to  attack Arkansas Post  in early January, Grant moved to the river to command his entire army in person. Based just north of Vicksburg on the west bank, Grant spent the winter of 1863 seeking a way to bypass Vicksburg with no success. He finally devised a bold plan for capturing the Confederate fortress. Grant proposed to move down the west bank of the Mississippi, then cut loose from his supply lines by crossing the river and attacking the city from the south and east. This risky move was to be supported by gunboats commanded by  Rear Admiral David D. Porter, which would run downstream past the Vicksburg batteries prior to Grant crossing the river. On the nights of April 16 and 22, Porter two groups of ships past the town. With a naval force established below the town, Grant began his march south. On April 30, Grants army crossed the river at Bruinsburg and moved northeast to cut the rail lines to Vicksburg before turning on the town itself. Turning Point in the West Conducting a brilliant campaign, Grant swiftly drove back Confederate forces on his front and captured Jackson, MS on May 14. Turning west towards Vicksburg, his troops repeatedly defeated  Lieutenant General John Pembertons forces and drove them back into the citys defense. Arriving at Vicksburg and wishing to avoid a siege, Grant launched assaults against the city on May 19 and 22 taking heavy losses in the process.  Settling into a siege, his army was reinforced and tightened the noose on Pembertons garrison. Waiting out the enemy, Grant forced a starving Pemberton to surrender Vicksburg and his 29,495-man garrison on July 4. The victory gave Union forces control of the entire Mississippi and was the turning point of the war in the West. Victory at Chattanooga In the wake of  Major General William Rosecranss defeat at  Chickamauga  in September 1863, Grant was given command of the Military Division of the Mississippi and control of all Union armies in the West. Moving to Chattanooga, he reopened a supply line to Rosecrans beleaguered Army of the Cumberland and replaced the defeated general with  Major General George H. Thomas. In an effort to turn the tables on  General Braxton Braggs Army of Tennessee, Grant captured Lookout Mountain on November 24 before directing his combined forces to a stunning victory at the  Battle of Chattanooga  the next day. In the fighting, Union troops drove the Confederates off Missionary Ridge and sent them reeling south. Coming East In March 1864, Lincoln promoted Grant to lieutenant general and gave him command of all Union armies. Grant elected to turn over operational control of the western armies to Sherman and shifted his headquarters east to travel with  Major General George G. Meades Army of the Potomac. Leaving Sherman with orders to press the Confederate Army of Tennessee and take Atlanta, Grant sought to engage  General Robert E. Lee  in a decisive battle to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia. In Grants mind, this was the key to ending the war, with the capture of Richmond of secondary importance. These initiatives were to be supported by smaller campaigns in the Shenandoah Valley, southern Alabama, and western Virginia. The Overland Campaign In early May 1864, Grant began marching south with 101,000 men. Lee, whose army numbered 60,000, moved to intercept and met Grant in a dense forest known as the  Wilderness. While Union attacks initially drove the Confederates back, they were blunted and forced back by the late arrival of  Lieutenant General James Longstreets corps. After three days of fighting, the battle turned into a stalemate with Grant having lost 18,400 men and Lee 11,400. While Grants army had suffered more casualties, they comprised a lesser proportion of his army than Lees. As the Grants goal was to destroy Lees army, this was an acceptable outcome. Unlike his predecessors in the East, Grant continued to press south after the bloody fight and the armies quickly met again at the  Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. After two weeks of fighting, another stalemate ensued. As before Union casualties were higher, but Grant understood that each battle cost Lee casualties that the Confederates could not replace. Again pushing south, Grant was unwilling to attack Lees strong position at  North Anna  and moved around the Confederate right. Meeting Lee at the  Battle of Cold Harbor  on May 31, Grant launched a series of bloody attacks against the Confederate fortifications three days later. The defeat would haunt Grant for years and he later wrote, I have always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made...no advantage whatever was gained to compensate for the heavy loss we sustained. Siege of Petersburg After pausing for nine days, Grant stole a march on Lee and raced south across the James River to capture Petersburg. A key rail center, the capture of the city would cut off supplies to Lee and Richmond. Initially blocked from the city by troops under Beauregard, Grant assaulted the Confederate lines between June 15 and 18 to no avail. As both armies arrived in full, a long series of trenches and fortifications were constructed that presaged the Western Front of  World War I. An attempt to break the deadlock occurred on July 30 when Union troops assaulted after the  detonation of a mine, but the attack failed.  Settling into a siege, Grant kept pushing his troops further south and east in an effort to cut the railroads into the city and stretch out Lees smaller army. As the situation at Petersburg became drawn out, Grant was criticized in the media for failing to achieve a decisive result and for being a butcher due to the heavy losses taken during the Overland Campaign. This was intensified when a small Confederate force under  Lieutenant General Jubal A. Early  threatened Washington, DC on July 12. Earlys actions necessitated Grant sending troops back north to deal with the danger. Eventually led by  Major General Philip H. Sheridan, the Union forces effectively destroyed Earlys command in a series of battles in the Shenandoah Valley later that year. While the situation at Petersburg remained stagnant, Grants broader strategy began to bear fruit as Sherman captured Atlanta in September. As the siege continued through the winter and into the spring, Grant continued to receive positive reports as Union troops had success on other fronts. These and a deteriorating situation at Petersburg led Lee to assault Grants lines on March 25. Though his troops had initial success, they were driven back by Union counterattacks. Seeking to exploit the victory, Grant pushed a large force west to capture the critical crossroads of Five Forks and threaten the Southside Railroad. At the  Battle of Five Forks  on April 1, Sheridan took the objective. This defeat placed Lees position at Petersburg, as well as Richmond, in jeopardy. Informing President Jefferson Davis that both would need to be evacuated, Lee came under heavy attack from Grant on April 2. These assauls drove the Confederates from the city and sent them retreating west. Appomattox After occupying Petersburg, Grant began chasing Lee across Virginia with Sheridans men in the lead. Moving west and harried by Union cavalry, Lee hoped to re-supply his army before heading south to link up with forces under  General Joseph Johnston  in North Carolina. On April 6, Sheridan was able to cut off approximately 8,000 Confederates under  Lieutenant General Richard Ewell  at  Saylers Creek. After some fighting the Confederates, including eight generals, surrendered. Lee, with fewer than 30,000 hungry men, hoped to reach supply trains that were waiting at Appomattox Station. This plan was dashed when Union cavalry under  Major General George A. Custer  arrived in the town and burned the trains. Lee next set his sights on reaching Lynchburg. On the morning of April 9, Lee ordered his men to break through the Union lines that blocked their path. They attacked but were stopped. Now surrounded on three sides, Lee accepted the inevitable stating, Then there is nothing left for me to do but to go and see General Grant, and I would rather die a thousand deaths. Later that day,  Grant met with Lee at the McLean House  in Appomattox Court House to discuss surrender terms. Grant, who had been suffering a bad headache, arrived late, wearing a worn privates uniform with only his shoulder straps denoting his rank. Overcome by the emotion of the meeting, Grant had difficulty getting to the point, but soon laid out generous terms which Lee accepted. Postwar Actions With the defeat of the Confederacy, Grant was required to immediately dispatch troops under Sheridan to Texas to serve as a deterrent to the French who had recently installed Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico. To assist the Mexicans, he also told Sheridan to aid the deposed Benito Juarez if possible. To this end, 60,000 rifles were provided to the Mexicans. The following year, Grant was required to close the Canadian border to prevent the Fenian Brotherhood from attacking Canada. In gratitude for his services during the war, Congress promoted Grant to the newly created rank of General of the Army on July 25, 1866. As general-in-chief, Grant oversaw the US Army role during the early years of Reconstruction in the South. Dividing the South into five military districts, he believed that a military occupation was necessary and the Freedmans Bureau was needed. Though he worked closely with President Andrew Johnson, Grants personal feelings were more in line with the Radical Republicans in Congress. Grant became increasing popular with this group when he refused to aid Johnson in deposing Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. U.S. President As a result of this relationship, Grant was nominated for president on the 1868 Republican ticket. Facing no significant opposition for the nomination, he easily defeated former New York Governor Horatio Seymour in the general election. At age 46, Grant was the youngest US president to date. Taking office, his two terms were dominated by Reconstruction and mending the wounds of the Civil War. Deeply interested in promoting the rights of former slaves, he secured passage of the 15th Amendment and signed laws promoting voting rights as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1875. During his first term the economy was booming and corruption became rampant. As a result, his administration became plagued by a variety of scandals. Despite these issues, he remained popular with the public and was re-elected in 1872. Economic growth came to an abrupt halt with the Panic of 1873 which keyed a five-year depression. Responding slowly to the panic, he later vetoed an inflation bill which would have released additional currency into the economy. As his time in office neared an end, his reputation was damaged by the Whiskey Ring scandal. Though Grant was not directly involved, his private secretary was and it became emblematic of Republican corruption. Leaving office in 1877, he spent two years touring the world with his wife. Warmly received at each stop, he aided in mediating a dispute between China and Japan. Later Life Returning home, Grant soon faced a severe financial crisis. Having been forced to cede his military pension to serve as president, he was soon swindled in 1884 by Ferdinand Ward, his Wall Street investor. Effectively bankrupted, Grant was forced to repay one of his creditors with his Civil War mementos. Grants situation soon worsened when he learned he was suffering from throat cancer. An avid cigar smoker since Fort Donelson, Grant had at times consumed 18-20 a day. In an effort generate revenue, Grant wrote a series of books and articles which were warmly received and aided in improving his reputation. Further support came from Congress which restored his military pension. In an effort to aid Grant, noted author Mark Twain offered him a generous contract for his memoirs. Settling at Mount McGregor, NY, Grant completed the work only days before his death on July 23, 1885.  Memoirs  proved both a critical and commercial success and provided the family with much-needed security. After lying in state, Grants body was transported south to New York City where it was placed in a temporary mausoleum in Riverside Park. His pallbearers included Sherman, Sheridan, Buckner, and Joseph Johnston. On April 17, Grants body was moved a short distance to the newly constructed Grants Tomb. He was joined by Julia following her death in 1902. Sources White House: Ulysses S. GrantCivil War: Ulysses S. GrantLibrary of Congress: Ulysses Grant

Jetblue Airways Starting from Scratch - 8436 Words

HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL 9-801-354 REV: OCTOBER 29. 2001 JODY HOPPER GITTELL CHARLES OREILL Y Where have you heard this before? Were starting tickets and go to the big cities. a new low-fare airline. Were going to offer low-fare -Financial If you want to be a millionaire, start with a billion dollars and launch a new airline: -Richard Branson, Founder, Virgin Analyst Atlantic Airways Keep an eye on ]etBlue. That could prove to be a successful operation.3 -Herb Kelleher, Co-founder, CEO, Southwest Airlines Ann Rhoades looked up from the stack of papers in front of her and gazed out the window. She watched with pride as a JetBlue plane lifted off from Kennedy Airport. She knew from the†¦show more content†¦In 2000,only 17 of theseremained in operation. Experts were mixed in their outlook for the company. One airline analyst who was positive, commented that When the big boys do as terrible a job as theyve been doing, of course guys like ]etBlue have a chance.1I another airline But observer was less sanguine. lIlts a really risky business to take on these eight-hundred pound gorillas. You have to be a little nuts to want to do thiS.IIS David Neeleman David Neeleman,the founder of JetBlue,had gotten his start in the airline businessin 1984when he partnered with June and Mitch Morris to run the Southwest Airlines look-alike, Morris Air. Neelemanraised $20 million in venture capital from Michael Lazarus of the Weston Presidio group, and in just over one year increasedthe value of Morris Air from approximately $59 million to $130 million. Herb Kelleher, CEO of Southwest Airlines, watched the growth of Morris Air and its route network centered in Salt Lake City, Utah, and made Southwests first and only acquisition to date. Southwest Airlines was the most prominent success story in the U.S. airline industry , and had always prided itself on growing from within at a steady rate of 12% to 18% per year. But Morris Air was so similar to Southwest, by design, that Kelleher believed the merger would be a success. Neeleman and the Morris family sold Morris Air to Southwest Airlines in 1993, and Neeleman joinedShow MoreRelatedEssay on Jetblue Airways: Starting from Scratch1994 Words   |  8 PagesAt the beginning, JetBlue management set the tone for themselves that they would be different then other airlines. To do that they set values for all employees from top to bottom to follow and they set up an attractive pay and a unique benefits package that would allow for successful recruitment and retention of employees, while sig nificantly reducing the chance of a union moving into the organization. Equal Employment Opportunity Laws There are certain Equal Employment Opportunity laws thatRead MoreJetblue Airways: Starting from Scratch - Case Analysis Essay1125 Words   |  5 PagesExecutive Summary JetBlue Airways, the latest entrant in the airlines industry has gone through the initial stages (entrepreneurial and collectivity) of the organizational life cycle rapidly under the successful leadership of David Neelman. JetBlue Airways is currently in the formalization stage of the life cycle where in it needs to create procedures and control systems to effectively manage its growth. Also as it proceeds to grow further to reach the elaboration stage, JetBlue needs to continueRead MoreJetblue Airways: Starting From Scratch - Case Analysis Essay1121 Words   |  5 PagesExecutive Summary JetBlue Airways, the latest entrant in the airlines industry has gone through the initial stages (entrepreneurial and collectivity) of the organizational life cycle rapidly under the successful leadership of David Neelman. JetBlue Airways is currently in the formalization stage of the life cycle where in it needs to create procedures and control systems to effectively manage its growth. Also as it proceeds to grow further to reach the elaboration stage, JetBlue needs to continueRead MoreJet Blue Case Study1906 Words   |  8 Pagesdeveloped by Ann Rhoades who was the Executive Vice President of People at JetBlue Airways. Ms. Rhoades was very innovative with the development of the new HR policies, which up to that time had never been implemented by any other startup airline organization. Along with the strategies, policies, and practices, there were ï ¬ ve core values that were also established. These values provided an overarching vision for JetBlue Airways in order to direct all organization activities whether internal or externalRead MoreCase Study : Jetblue Airlines Three National Employment Opportunities Laws1564 Words   |  7 Pages CASES: JETBLUE AIRWAYS ERICA YOUNG CASES IN ADVANCED HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY FEBRUARY 4, 2016 CASES: JETBLUE AIRWAYS Three National Employment Opportunities Laws JetBlue Airways was established to be built on five core values of safety, caring, integrity, fun and passion. â€Å"JetBlue is a value based company built on the principle that to be extraordinary on the outside you must first be extraordinary on the inside† (Gittel O’Reilly, 2001). Three nationalRead MoreJetblue Case Study3055 Words   |  13 Pages  MANAGEMENT   AT   JETBLUE          1       Human Resources Management Analysis JetBlue Airways Case Study: JetBlue Airways: Starting from Scratch (Gittell O’Reilly, 2001) Running   Head:   HUMAN   RESOURCES   MANAGEMENT   AT   JETBLUE 2                Abstract       This   paper   identifies   the   various   impacts   of   Equal   Employment   Opportunity    (EEO)   laws   on   JetBlue   Airways   and   the Read MoreJet Blue Case Study Essay2908 Words   |  12 Pagesoperating organizations. Through various examples from the research of company material, it demonstrates that all managers are necessarily involved with the human resources part of business, which is described here from Mondy (2008). HUMAN RESOURCE STRATEGIES, POLICIES PRACTICES 3 JetBlue Airways: Starting from Scratch In review of the case study of a newly developed start-up airline, JetBlue Airways (2001), it describes how the founderRead MoreThe Laws That Impact Hiring Practices2289 Words   |  10 PagesAfter reading â€Å"JetBlue Airways: Starting from Scratch† I considered different aspects of the case and realized there are certain employment laws that JetBlue should be aware of to guarantee that they are following state and government laws that were enacted to protect the rights of others. The three laws identified are the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and American with Disabilities Act. These detailed laws contain information to assist JetBlue tremulouslyRead MoreEssay on HMP1 000305944 Task 1 2 4624 Words   |  19 Pagesï » ¿ JetBlue Airways: Starting From Scratch Troy Thorpe WGU JetBlue Airways: Starting from Scratch Before David Neeleman’s non-compete agreement with Southwest Airlines expired, he envisioned the concept of starting a low-fare airline that would combine common sense, innovation, and technology and bring the humanity back into air travel (Gittel O’Reilly, 2001). In 1998, JetBlue was born. In order for David to fulfill his goal of a â€Å"do-it-right† kind of airline, he needed to recruit superior

“The Last 203 Days of Sarah’s Life” free essay sample

Sarah’s daughter Kaye expressed her feelings throughout the video, the frustration, the good and bad days her mother had, all of which affect the care givers state of being. Listening to the sadness in Kaye’s voice reached me. I was able to relate with her situation because I just recently heard the same from my own aunt who takes care of my grandmother. It’s the hardest thing to witness when the care giver is breaking down from built up frustration. Sarah and Kaye began the film with what turns out to be 203 days before Sarah’s death. Sarah is terminally ill and although she’s in great pain and discomfort, her state of mind is clear and defined. She wore a wig and cared about what she looked like, getting her nails done and all. Half way through the film you can see things are taking a turn for the worse. We will write a custom essay sample on â€Å"The Last 203 Days of Sarah’s Life† or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Sarah’s physical appearance changed quite a bit. She wore no make up, the wig was gone and she was slower and in much more visible and audible pain. Up until two weeks ago, I knew that a hospice was a place where the terminally ill go to die. I had no clue as to how the staff relates to the clients or what their primary focus would be. The staff members from the hospice in the film were primarily concerned with Sarah’s level of pain and how they could help alleviate it. They treated her with respect and did not patronize her in any shape or form. All of which was mentioned in the last chapter of our textbook. Kaye had mentioned three things her mother feared, dirtying herself, loosing her mind and being put in a nursing home, then she mentions how all of her fears came to fruition. Sarah herself said at one point â€Å"†¦I have no idea what it was all about†. My take on her comment was that although she came to accept her inevitable death, she did not have any philosophical answers to give anyone. The film began with hospice care being administered at Kaye’s home and it seems that by that time Sarah had gone through her stages of realization and had now accepted her death. I realize that witnessing all this makes me better aware of what happens, but knowing what to expect and going through it are definitely two different things. Eventually Kaye was not able to continue providing the care her mother required. Although the decision to move her mother to the hospice was difficult to accept, it was a welcomed event. Kaye had gotten to the point where she couldn’t cope physically. In the end, when Sarah died, Kaye seemed like having had her mother in the hospice was the best way to have conducted their affairs. Watching the film was definitely enlightening. It was an eye opener to the benefits of hospice care. Having been around for some time I have experienced the loss of a loved one but my case was different and did not require the use of hospice care. The film is definitely worth watching.

Risks Associated with Choosing a Superannuation Fund of financial

Question: What Is The Risks Associated With Choosing A Superannuation Fund? Answer: Introducation: Superannuation and encouraging people to consider saving and investing especially for their future after retirement have been a major focus of emphasis in Australia particularly in the past two or so decades(Bodie, Shoven, Wise, 1988). Superannuation refers to organizational pension schemes that are created within a company for the maximum benefit of the employees. Taking the lead in this has been the Australian government that has taken a pro-active approach to the issue and directed that minimum contributions should be made to demonstrate compliance to superannuation or retirement funds on behalf of the employees by their respective employers. This figure stood at 3.6% of the employees salary when it was introduced but it was later amended to 9% in 2005(Bodie, Shoven, Wise, 1988). The employees themselves were also required to allocate a share of their income to superannuation investment. It was hoped that by introducing these measures, the burden will be lifted from the social s ecurity system that provides retirement or pension payments to support retired individuals for the rest of their lives after retirement. The mandated requirements on superannuation and increased awareness by individuals on the significance of saving have resulted in billions of dollars worth of contributions going into superannuation funds and institutions of finance each year(Brown, Gallery, Gallery, 2002). The financial institutions and the superannuation funds in turn participate in profitable investment of these contributions and provide adequate income to finance the lives of the individuals after they retire. It is therefore, no surprise that superannuation and mutual funds are considered as one of the biggest investors in the financial markets in Australia especially in equity securities in both locally listed and internationally listed companies in the share markets(Bodie, Shoven, Wise, 1988). There are varied employer pension programs in terms of design and can be classified as define contribution and defined benefit programs. The defined contribution program allows an employee to have an account into which their employer will deposit regular contributions(Bodie, Shoven, Wise, 1988). If the account is a contributory account, the employee also makes regular contributions. The level of benefits that the employee will receive depend on the total contributions and earnings from investments that will have accumulated in the account. In this plan, the employee has a considerable say in the type of investment assets that the accumulation can be derived from and can also determine the value of investment at any time suitable to them. The defined contribution plan are thus tax-deferred and fully funded savings accounts in trust for an employee. These plans are effectively not open to government regulators(Bodie, Shoven, Wise, 1988). A defined benefit plan on the other hand, a formula is used to determine an employees pension benefit. The formula takes into account the years of service to an employer, their wages, and salaries(Dulebohn, Murray, Sun, 2000). Several of the defined benefits programs in existence today take into account the benefits of social security entitled to the employee. Both the defined benefit and defined contribution plans have characteristic features that set them apart from each other with regard to the risks that apply to the employee and the employers, the impact of inflation to the benefit, the flexibility of funding, and significance of governmental supervision(Dulebohn, Murray, Sun, 2000). In recent times, there has been a steady shift from defined benefit pension plans to accumulation plans in Australia(Princen, 2013). More than half of this change is attributable to the changes in employment arrangements from large unionized manufacturing firms to smaller firms that are not unionized in the service industries that provide accumulation plans. This shift is attributed to an increase in the administrative and regulatory costs that have made defined benefit plans more expensive to employers due to the heightened regulatory scrutiny(Dulebohn, Murray, Sun, 2000). High labour mobility also made the prospect of defined benefits programs less attractive to employees. Superannuation in Australia has grown to about 90% since its inception but the majority of funds that are being established are accumulation funds and not defined benefit plans(Dulebohn, Murray, Sun, 2000). Fewer employers are offering their staff superannuation based on defined benefit programs. Consequently, the number of defined benefit plans has reduced significantly or are simply not available to new employees in the organizations and instead these individuals are advised to enroll to accumulation plans. In an accumulation plan, an employer pays an agreed amount, usually a percentage of the employees current salary to the superannuation fund(Brown, Gallery, Gallery, 2002). The employers obligation to the employee is fully discharged once their contribution has been deposited into the superannuation fund. The employees benefit from that moment on depend on the accumulation of their contribution to the plan including their earnings. This is different from the defined benefit pac kage where an actuary regularly reviews the rate of contribution and the extent to which assets contained in the superannuation fund are sufficient to cover obligation of paying benefits(Brown, Gallery, Gallery, 2002). If the actuary determines that the assets are inadequate to do so, the employer is under obligation to make additional contributions to the fund to cover the deficit(Brealey Meyers, 2010). In a defined benefit program, the employer covers the risk that the plan will cost more than the expected amount alongside the risk that the investment plan will generate less returns as compared to the expected(Chew, 2008). This stems from the increased administrative and investment costs that are incurred in management of the fund. For this reason, most employers underwrite the plan. On the other hand, in the investment choice plan, the employer is not obligated to the plan after making their periodic contribution to it. Thus, the employees or members of the fund bear the actuarial and investment risk associated with the fund particularly with its administration or management(Dulebohn, Murray, Sun, 2000). The members in this arrangement have a range of investments to choose from and these investments expose them to varying degrees of risk(Dunphy, Benn, Griffiths, 2014). The merits of a DBP and an ICP plan are balanced. Looking at future expected returns, both plans offer similar expectations in common circumstances thus it cannot be said that one plan is the better option of the two. In terms of benefits, the differences arise due to factors such as the age of the member, years of membership and future increments of their salary. Differences between the two plans in terms of the benefits that are ultimately payable arise from individual factors such as the members age, years of SSAU membership and future salary increases. Stevens assessment suggests that there was no bias at the time of the offer in respect of the two types of benefits that might have induced members to select one plan over the other. Risks Associated with Choosing a Superannuation Fund To achieve the objective of maximizing an individuals retirement benefits relies heavily on making an informed choice. An individuals unwillingness or inability to be informed and the costs involved in acquiring information play a significant role in making a choice, often an informed one(Dunphy, Benn, Griffiths, 2014). Evidently being informed includes taking time to acquire, review, and interpret the reports and other investment material. It also includes attending training sessions, consulting professionals on financial matters among other forms of information. Making the wrong decision can be costly. When the costs significantly exceed the perceived benefits of the choice, then a person can avoid the program altogether(Bolton, 2015). The risk transfer costs is a factor that needs to be considered irrespective of the amount or intensity of education an individual can receive. These costs include the costs of becoming informed as aforementioned such as the time invested into the exercise, or consultation with a financial expert, and never-ending process of monitoring the ICP option(Dulebohn, Murray, Sun, 2000). These factors have made many individuals to remain in the defined benefits program and not switch to the investment choice plan. The manner in which the benefits under each plan are determined is another area to consider before making the switch. Under the DBP, the employees benefit in the plan is linked to their period of employment and the final salary they receive before retirement. An Investment Choice Plan is similar to a savings account in a bank in that ultimate benefit is a sum of the accumulated contributions and the net investment earnings from the point that the periodic contributions are made(Quiry, Fur, Salvi, Dallocchio, Vernimmen, 2011). Thus, the different ways in which value is determined should be a concern to the tertiary employee. For example, a DBP is based on a formula and accrues over a long period hence; it is not possible to establish their exact value at any point in future(Bodie, Shoven, Wise, 1988). ICP benefits, in contrast, can be determined from the cumulated contributions and earnings from an established point(Bodie, Shoven, Wise, 1988). The characteristics of work and the risks brought about by the employee are also noteworthy in this case. This is because these risks contribute to the differences in the expected value of the benefits derived from both plans(Princen, 2013). Characteristics of work are inclusive of the initial age of employment, years of service, level of salary during the period of employment and retirement, and the longevity after retirement(Dulebohn, Murray, Sun, 2000). The most significant of these risks are those that come from changing jobs and risks emanating from the financial market. Both worker characteristics and types of risks borne by employees are contributory factors to differences in the expected value of benefits derived from defined benefit and accumulation plans. Worker characteristics include age at initial employment, years of service, salary levels during employment and at retirement, and longevity post-retirement. The major risks that lead to differences in the expected values of defined benefit and accumulation plans are those associated with changing jobs and financial market risks. Financial market risk is the second major risk and the most relevant to our study. In accumulation plans members directly bear financial market risk, whereas members of defined benefit plans are only indirectly exposed to such risk. In accumulation plans that offer choice of investment strategy, it is essential that members have a certain level of financial literacy to evaluate and monitor performance of the alternatives. In choosing an investment option, members are f aced with the tasks of examining, comprehending, and evaluating an array of financial information to assess the relative merits of the differing superannuation plan options. This process includes considering the nature of the investment strategy for each option, allocation of assets within each option, and assessing the relative risks and returns of each option to determine which one best matches the members risk-return preferences. Superannuation fund members who are more comfortable with making such significant investment decisions and are more willing to accept the associated financial risks are more likely to choose an accumulation plan over a defined benefit plan The statement is false because there are some factors that need to be taken into account. First, the efficient market hypothesis does not mean that the selection of the portfolio is carried out using a pin. There are still three issues that the manager needs to address. Top on that list that the manager needs to ensure that the portfolio has been diversified satisfactorily(Chew, 2008). The logic behind this is simple. A huge number of stocks is simply not enough to secure diversification. Hence, the resulting portfolio may not be well diversified if large stocks are taken as the measure for diversification. The result is that this may leave the fund with a unique risk that will not be recognized or rewarded. The manager should thus make sure that the portfolio is diversified well because the large number of stocks could all be in similar industries, a factor that does not represent many returns(Brealey Meyers, 2010). Hurling pins at the stock page may create diversification of the p ortfolio but the expected return or risk from the resultant portfolio cannot be controlled. Second, the resulting portfolio may bear excessive amounts of systematic risk for the individuals(Quiry, Fur, Salvi, Dallocchio, Vernimmen, 2011). With additional wealth it may not be too big a concern for these individuals to invest in an asset without any risks. However, if there is no additional wealth, the portfolio presents a very high beta with respect to the individuals preferences of risk. The pension fund manager will need to ensure that the risks associated with the diversified portfolio augers well with the clients. For the pension fund, the manager should select the portfolio that represents a safe investment for the client, which in this case refers to the stocks or bonds or a combined portfolio that have a lower beta(Princen, 2013). It is also prudent to consider the presence of taxes in this imperfect world. An investors tax position is very critical in a matter such as this one. Some specific assets have the tendency to generate surpluses due to their high taxability nature emanating from the equilibrating process(Princen, 2013). For investors in the lower bracket, the after-tax returns on the assets is manageable and favorable. Therefore, the manager should take the status of the tax into account in this case. Thus, the pension fund manager should tailor the portfolio in a manner that takes advantage of the special tax legislature governing pension funds(Brealey Meyers, 2010). Such legal provisions make it possible to increase the returns expected from the portfolio without incurring extra risk on the venture. References Bodie, Z., Shoven, J. B., Wise, D. A. (1988). Defined Benefit versus Defined Contribution Pension Plans: What are the Real Trade-offs? In Pensions in the U.S. Economy (pp. 139-162). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bolton, B. (2015). Sustainable financial management investments: Maximizing corporate profits and long-term economic value creation. New York: Palgrave, Macmillan. Brealey, R. A., Meyers, S. C. (2010). Principles of corporate finance. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Brown, K., Gallery, G., Gallery, N. (2002). Informed superannuation choice: constraints and policy resolutions. Economic Analysis Policy, 32(1), 71-90. Chew, D. H. (2008). Corporate Risk Management. New York: Columbia University Press. Dulebohn, J., Murray, B., Sun, M. (2000). Selection among employer-sponsored pension plans: The role of individual differences. Personnel Psychology, 53, 405-432. Dunphy, D. C., Benn, S., Griffiths, A. (2014). Organizational change for corporate sustainability. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Princen, S. (2013). Determining the impact of taxation on corporate financial decision-making. Reflets perpectives de la vie economique, 161-170. Quiry, P., Fur, Y. L., Salvi, A., Dallocchio, M., Vernimmen, P. (2011). Corporate finance: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: John Wiley Sons Inc.