This dissertation is about the tension produced by competing value orientations in the nonprofit and voluntary sector (NVPS). Historically, American nonprofit organizations (NPOs) were imbued with an ideological privilege rooted in the utopian, religious beginnings of the sector and premised on existence of the NPVS as a “special set-apart place,” an arena of human action uncontaminated by both government and the market. Today, major financial, institutional, and cultural forces exert tremendous pressure on NPOs and, as a result, these groups have been thrust into a more competitive social system. How might nonprofits cope with these new challenges? In a review of the NPVS literature, I identify two suggestions commonly advocated by researchers and practitioners: (1) That NPOs remain true to the traditional, societal value orientation, or that (2) NPOs adopt a more market-oriented approach. The values and related assumptions of these orientations are detailed and this conceptual model is applied to the newsletters of twenty-one diverse nonprofit organizations. In what follows, I describe the clash of societal values and market values, explain the effects of the struggle between these combatants on contemporary NPOs, and demonstrate that this battle left rhetorical scars now evident in how nonprofits discuss four common organizational concerns—identity, trust, hierarchy, and mission. My overall finding is that nonprofit organizations have lost their presumptive ideological privilege as a result of the constant strain between societal and market values. In examining the implications of this thesis, I hold that the halcyon days of NPOs are not forever gone and, to that end, five communication strategies for modern nonprofit and voluntary organizations are offered. / text

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the differences between accounting for fixed assets under IFRS and U.S. GAAP. Primarily the discussion will be driven by the question: which standard should the FASB lobby for in its joint effort with the IASB to converge U.S. GAAP with IFRS? The paper will start by establishing that financial reporting, as it has evolved in the United States, was developed primarily to assist in the accountability relationships between management and both credit and equity investors. From there the paper will look at which standard is better suited to fulfill this goal and enhance financial reporting. It will first discuss the differences of historical cost accounting versus market values in the income statement. Next, the paper will look at the differences created in the balance sheet by the two methods. Finally, the paper will consider additional implications of switching to a market value standard. This paper will attempt to prove that historical cost accounting is the more reliable method of the two, provides an equally if not more relevant income measure, and that market values do not enhance the financial statements in any clear way. Particularly in any fashion that justifies the additional costs to the firm and to investors in debt and equity that market values would create.

No description available.

大型股過去一直被認為平均報酬率低於小型股，但如果從個股來看，不少大型股的績效並不會比指數差。考慮到一般非專業投資人在投資股票時，選擇大型股還是比小型股容易，本論文試圖建構一套在實務上較可行的大型個股選股策略—選擇市值第二大的股票，並定期調整個股。我們以美股標準普爾500指數中前兩大市值的股票，分為兩種投資組合做比較，結果發現，市值最大的股票不容易創造超額報酬，市值第二大的股票，反而締造極佳的超額報酬，此現象在過去3年、5年、10年，尤其較過去20年更為明顯。原因在於市值排名第二的股票，多半屬於排名仍在持續上升的成長股，這些個股基本面尚未到達頂點，故股價還會反應一段時間的基本面利多，採取類似動能策略(Momentum Strategy)的方法，報酬率容易超越指數；市值最大者則因為基本面普遍伴隨市值排名已經到頂，加上投資人對於排名第一的股票，多半易產生定錨效應(Anchoring Effect)，即認為股價可能已經反應其該有的價值，較難創造超額報酬，傾向賣出。故同樣投資大型股，選擇市值第二名的股票會優於第一名。 / According to The Size Effect Theory, small cap securities generally generate greater returns than those of large cap companies. However, this trend has involved into the difficulties of stock picking due to the large number of small caps. In this paper I propose a strategy against the size effect theory, “Second is Better”, to pick the second largest market value security as the single stock investment. I examine the performances of the No.1 and the No.2 largest market cap stocks in the S&P500 and apply a 6-month rebalance to construct two different portfolios, which is similar to the concept of Momentum Strategy that buy the past winners and sell the past losers. I find the No.2 stock outperforms than No.1 stock and generate amazing excess returns in the near mid-to-long-term periods. Because No.1 stocks are more likely to experience Momentum Crash than No.2 stocks due to investor’s anchoring bias as they believe the No.1 stock might have been peaked. No.2 stocks are usually in the growing stages that many investors believe the 2nd largest caps still yet to peak during market value expansion.