Google pioneered a change wave from traditional advertising techniques to an era of measurable marketing with its Adwords product. Google possesses one of the best tools marketers of any size can use to measure immediate return on investment (ROI). ROI has been difficult to tie to the effectiveness of marketing efforts in the past due to poor measuring tools.
Adwords created an opportunity to reach more specific groups of people. By piggybacking advertising to customer intent through search queries Google was able to establish a lucrative business model enabling advertisers to engage directly with the buying process. The result of Google in advertising has been nothing less than a change wave for the industry. Complicated areas of marketing, such as consumer behavior and psychology, are now being considered by even the smallest marketers. Not to mention a more even playing field for smaller businesses in areas traditionally dominated by larger corporations.
Google will have a strong influence in advertising for the foreseeable future. The company is constantly developing new products and pushing the limits of technology. Moving into the mobile space is an obvious goal of the organization and one they are pursuing at all costs. The company has a vast array of mobile products and partnerships.

Google is masterful at data mining user data and behavior. If the premise of
behavior based advertising is true, tying offerings to the intent of the consumer will lead to profitability, then Google’s destiny is secure. They closely hold more valuable behavior data then any company in the history of the world.

Introduction
The stock chosen for analysis is J. P. Morgan Chase (ticker:JPM).  JPM stock price closed at $39.60 on August 3, 2009.  The closing value of the S&P 500 on the same date was 1002.63.  The daily trend of the stock and the index did not consistently correlate over the analysis period, as the stock and index performed inversely 30 percent of the time during the analysis period.  Both the stock and the index prices were higher on the date the analysis ended.  The closing price for JPM increased on December 4, 2009 representing a 5% change in the stock price, whereas the S&P 500 increased 10.31%.  The stock price only increased by half the percentage of the S&P 500, indicating that the JPM stock is less risky than the index because the price is more stable therefore, meaning the beta for the JPM stock is less than 1.0.
Beta
The current 10-YR yield on a treasury bond is 3.08% (Bloomberg, 2009).  Using 3.08% as the real risk free rate of return and an expected market return of 10%, the calculated expected rate of return for JPM stock using CAPM is 8.94%.  The market premium is 5.86% for investors over the risk free rate.
Using two random dates for comparison is not an accurate representation of performance.  Considering more data about the stock and index provides a more relevant and interesting picture  of stock performance because common trends are more evident.  Using a full 52-week sample set, the beta for JPM is currently 1.18 (Yahoo, 2009).  The growth of the stock over the same period shows it is closer to 25%, which significantly outpaces the S&P 500 Index (Yahoo, 2009).  Although the data initially gathered indicates the actual beta should be less than 1, further study and examination shows that the beta is higher because indexes typically carry more diversification and therefore pose less risk to investors.
Bond Analysis
The 10 yr bond chosen for analysis was issued by JPM and matures on Jan. 15, 2018.  The closing price on December 4, 2009 was $100.51.  The coupon rate is 6%, payments are semi-annual and the bond is not callable.  The price on August 8 was $100.41.  The change in bond price was negligible.  Bonds are typically considered less risky than stock, but an insignificant change over a three month period seemed suspect.  Further inspection into the bond revealed more insight into the actual price of the bond.  The original data was taken from Yahoo Finance.  Finding the CUSPID ID (46625HGY0) for the bond and searching a historical database of sales records (Investinginbonds.com, 2009) revealed quite a bit more volatility surrounding the bond.  The last trade captured at the time of analysis for this bond happened happened on December 4, 2009 at a price of $108.767 and a yield of 4.685.
More volatility would be expected in a bond price than a $.10 change over 4 months of tracking.  Bonds are traditionally more stable than individual stocks because they inherently carry less risk, but the price is still subject to investors required rate of return.  The required rate of return is influenced by the market.  If the market is extremely volatile then bond prices would have fluctuated as well, more than the .1% evident in the data.
The maturity date for the bond is January 15, 2018 which makes the bond a 9 yr bond  paying semi-annually (N = 18, P/Y = 2).  The bond pays a coupon of 6% (PMT = 30).    The current yield is 5.970 (I/Y).  The bonds present value (PV) is $1002.07.  The bond is still selling at a slight premium indicating interest rates have decreased.  Purchasing this bond would be a good value for an investor.
Stock Analysis
JPM’s stock closed at $41.74 on December 4, 2009.  The stock’s price stayed fairly constant over the analysis period.  The stock paid a $.05 dividend (D0) (JP Morgan Chase, 2009).  The expected growth for JPM is 8%.  The next expected dividend payment is $.054 (D1 = (.05*.08)+.05).  The expected rate of return is equal to 8.12% (.05/41.74+8%=.0812).
Considering the dividend is so low in relation the stock price, using a zero growth stock valuation method the price of the stock should be $.625 (P0=.05/.08).  Using the Gordon model we find the stock price should be .054 (D1) / (.0812 (rs) – .08 (g)) = $45.00.  The market obviously considers factors not taken into account with the zero growth method.  Considering the price is under $45, the stock is undervalued and it is recommended that it be purchased.
Conclusion
The stock is undervalued.  Because of the current economic climate and the trouble commercial banks experienced undervaluation is to be expected.  The current price undervalues the asset and the future potential of the stock.  The bond is currently selling at a premium.  Both the stock and bond represent a decent opportunity for a wise investor.  Although the premium on the bond is not significant in terms of dollars, when comparing the yield on the bond to the 10 yr Treasure bond shows the bond is a better investment.  Appendix A shows three graphs.  The stock, the bond, and the S&P 500 tracked over a three month period.  The following graph helps illustrate the correlation between the stock and index volatility.  The data clearly shows the stock and index track in similar fashion over a longer period of time, although they are independent on a daily basis.

A young accountant establishes himself in a new location and starts interacting with clients based on his father’s relationships. The exposure to sensitive information gained from a particular client offered inside information as to the intention of a business deal which would have lasting effects for shareholders.
The accountant was presented with the situation of personal gain at the expense of challenging insider trading laws. The ethical question raised was whether or not the accountant had the right to use the information for personal gain as the laws, although strict, were ambiguous.
The view of the accountant is understandable, as he was not at ease and clear closure to the case was not defined. Moving forward with a purchase of stock would be unethical. The information he received was in a professional setting where his personal situation was not being considered. He owed the advice, interpretation of the law, and objectivity only a non-participant could give. By violating the word of his client he violates the nature of the contract. There are many scenarios where the decision to participate would simply jeopardize the clients integrity and standing, not to mention his own.
The same scenario, if the accountant had asked the banker as a friend for some advice and the banker offered up the situation, would not have been unethical in the same way. But the constraints on the two individuals are based on the roles they play in society. If the rules of society are predicated on the relationships with have with one another based on our position in society and not to us all, then we are simply building injustice into our culture from the top down.

Acid rain is a by product of pollution that affects the northern areas of the US and Canada signficantly. The affects can be devastating on the natural wild life. The long term problems persist because it is difficult to prevent once the pollution is in the air.
Even though the science supported the concept, there was much doubt as to the true affects. Because the was interest in being allowed to pollute, the opposition caused delay in reaching a solution. The EPA eventually produced a program that created commerce around pollution in an effort to make it profitable to not pollute.
Is it ethical to legislate complex problems that may not have accurate science attached? The difficulty is having long term vision while maintaining a responsibility to the community and business. If the economics of progress in technology and energy do not support a reasonable path towards success, then it won’t matter if it is right or wrong. The ethics involved in global warming and greenhouse gasses is very complicated. These issues are the bleeding edge of ethics and how to balance questionable behavior with the greater good of society.

An American bank moves to Italy and tries to take American values with it. The branch manager chooses to simply pay the Italian taxes versus engaging in a conversation which would have been culturally correct to do. The end result is the Italian government forcing the company to adhere to its cultural standards in a creative, yet effective way.
The ethical issue questions what is the best approach to solving cultural problems on non-native soil. Is the American bank correct in trying to adhere to policies governed by American law? In this case, no, the American bank would have been better off and more ethical in learning the culture of the country they moved into.
It is not ethical to simply move to a new place and not participate in the process established by the citizens and government of the host country. The rules of America are not true everywhere and maybe the American bank could learn an insight or efficiency in participating in business in a new way. The arrogance of one group of people to think they know the best for another sets the premise for an unethical relationship.

Lockheed Martin routinely donated large sums of money as a catalyst to building relationships with politicians who set policy. The goal of the generous donations were clearly stated, the company wanted to dialogue with individuals who supported its position on matters affected by the government.
Lockheed wanted to acquire Comsat, another company that required government help in purchasing. The company aimed its political force at achieving this goal. The ethical question outlined questions whether or not a company such as Lockheed should be able to pour so many resources at the political community.
With so much power at stake, will the American political system ever be able to truly reform campaign finance. Unless the taxpayer is willing to share the burden of their representatives, the likelihood is not good.
For better or worse, companies have the right to influence government through these channels. More important than outlawing influence is keeping such influence out in the open and transparent. Technology and access to politicians is one way to combat such inequities. Individuals will never be able to compete with large businesses in contributions and mandating money will never work. Controlling the most valuable resource a politician has might, which is their time. It seems making rules surrounding the use of the politicians time would be a way to level the playing field with politicians and the effects of money.

Napster was a file sharing product that became famous for enabling users to trade files from one computer to another with unprecedented efficiency. The main use of the product was used for trading files that contained music. Most of the music traded still held copyright claims by the original owner. Trading from one user to another was claimed to violate US copyright law.
Although Napster wasn’t technically providing the files, the company was accused of being responsible for enabling illegal activity because the relationships between potential copyright violators was established through its system. With out sufficiently putting barriers in place to prevent theft the company eventually lost lawsuits holding it in breach of copyright law.
The ethical questions are numerous with this case. For example, are the file sharers ethical for giving away music they may or may not have purchased? Is Napster ethical for profiting by enabling illegal behavior inside of its brand? Is it ethical to allow such flagrant channels of illegal behavior to run rampant in society or should the government regulate?
Ultimately Napster settled the cases against it and was sold to another company hoping to leverage the brand to engage in new business and profitability. Everyone involved in the case lost, the original owners of the company, the music industry and the users of the system.
Napster highlights several issues grounded in reality. Under our current system of economics, law, and societal norms this case seems outright unethical. Clearly the users of the system are breaking the law, the company is profiting from it, and there is harm to society as laws are being broken. However, further analysis provides more grey area than clear cut rules to be worked out.
For example, is it ethical to slow down the progress of technology simply because the potential to break the law exists? Has there ever been a successful suppression of technology in the world simply because it was deemed harmful, although innately the technology is not harmful? In order for the current state of copyright law to hold its value the world must embrace these laws as fair.
The biggest issue with this case and the aftermath is that laws and regulations not grounded in reality can have serious detriments to our freedoms. The risk of infringing on our rights is far greater than the harm to the victims. The behavior of sharing files is not illegal. Most music shared originated from a purchased copy. Implying terms to a business deal in the past, which was not in writing, doesn’t seem ethical either.

An American company found a way to profit from selling a controversial product from France. The company imported paté which was created from a process some would say abused the animals. The company did not intend to disclose that it made money off of the product until a shareholder took specific interest in full disclosure.
The ethical issue outlined brings to light what responsibilities companies have in disclosing where profits come from, especially if the profits are created from abusive practices. The company has an ethical obligation to all of its shareholders to maximize profits. If a process is legal does it possess the ability to be unethical?
Although the shareholder pushed for full disclosure, the issue never resolved. The company stopped selling the product before any lasting change could be implemented to its internal policy. Still, the issue remains as to whether or not the company should disclose questionable behaviors.
The company was not unethical in not disclosing the practice. Had the company built its reputation on stating it wouldn’t use such practices, then it crossed the line. There are differing views of what is proper and improper, trying to please every view is simply not possible.

A mining company was mining a product that required waste to be dumped somewhere. The company built a plant next to a lake and used the water to flush the excess taconite out. The product was supposed to settle on the bottom of the lake, although after several years of producing the waste the environment has sustained serious damage.
After several attempts at resolving the environmental issues with producing such waste, the plant was finally shut down. The company then pursued on land efforts. After much debate the on land disposal unit was built.
Economics change significantly and in this case the market for steel went overseas. During this time most companies in the business shut down. This caused significant issues with the environmental project.
The ethical issues raised questioned whether the environment could be protected through so much turmoil in the political system, economy and business environment necessary to remain competitive. It is possible to remain ethical, but every organization must work together.
The plant went through several ups and downs, but overall it emerged as a responsible citizen of the community. Technology has a funny way of working issues to the next phase when sufficient demand is placed in the right place. In this case, it took the spurring of the government and its eventual protection through tariffs to get it right.

A horrible crime was committed by three young boys to another young girl. The motivation for the crime was identified as violent music the young boys purchased and listened to constantly. The crime centered around the messaging of the music, although there were several inconsistencies between the two.
The ethical question asks whether or not creators of questionable material, the distribution and profiteering of such material, and the ability of young people to obtain copies is a legal issue of responsibility. If a person or company make available a message are they responsible for the actions the people who heed the message take? Regardless of the position, should questionable content be regulated by a third party or should groups be allowed to self-regulate.
Influencing the minds of young people is a position of great responsibility. Parents bare the burden of said responsibility, not the creators of questionable content. The exposure to ideas does not inherently make an individual a certain way. If the content was created using scientific studies to mold the mind into a certain reality, then the line would be crossed. Simply expressing an idea is not grounds for regulation or an authoritative body to be involved. That being said, it is crucial the minds of young people are protected and given proper time to develop.