Essays on The Impact of Globalization Assignment

Download free paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper 'The Impact of Globalization' is a great example of a Finance and Accounting Assignment. There was a steady rise in the housing prices ten years to 2006 before it dropped by around 30% from 2006 to 2008. The rapid rise in house prices was prompted by the high demand of the late 1990s. Then there was a decrease in interest rate early years of 2000. Because of this, prices shot up by constant number 3 for almost ten years since 1996 (Bernanke 2010). Large gains were realized during this period by many markets that were on the coast such as New York.

Terrifyingly, the housing price’ national index in the United States dropped by 31.6 percent from the middle of 2006 to early 2009. Monetary Policy The steady rise in the commodity price between 2003 and 2006 created concern on the inflation that altered the monetary policy in the US (Bernanke 2010). The sharp reversal in the monetary policy coupled with the failures of the financial regulations significantly led to the 2008-09 financial problems. There was a loose and unsupervised interest rate. Wrong Perception of risk Finally, the wrong perception of risk led to poor management.

When the financial was good, people thought and behaved like it would remain the same all time. This happened during the rise in house prices (Rodrik 2008). When the reversal trend came in mid-2006, risk aversion rose so high. The level of risk aversion rose more than the normal one before leading to a global financial crisis. Two major consequences Global Financial Crisis include the following: Rise in risk The most common one is the consequences that have emerged because of the continual increase in risk in the economy.

A continuous increase in risk aversion is very risky as it might affect severely the macroeconomic factors. Businesses thrive well when there is confidence. Confidence gives managers humble time to make rightful decisions that managers assume when under undue pressure from the possible uncertainties (Rodrik 2008). Customers and even firms are only free to spend when the environment risk-free. This means that they would pull out when the environment is risky. The same also applies to financial institutions and banks. When the environment does not feel confident the banks decide to withhold landings or do it cautiously.

Risky environment causes the projects that were initially potential to seem so risky and investors shy away from them (Rodrik 2008). The rise in risk because of the global financial crisis has led to the rise in the bad debts. The banks that hit by the crisis find it so hard when facing bad debts. To the banks and financial institutions, the current environment leads to downsloping profits of the firm. Since the right cause of the global financial crisis was not very clear, almost everything seemed so risky.

Consumers did not know what was going to happen the following day and therefore they pulled out their spending habits with the intention of being secure. Generally, financial problems are first attributed to finances (Rodrik 2008). Banks and other money lending institutions stopped lending money which led to a slow investment during the crisis period and the effect can still be felt even in the present times. Savings by individuals and larger institutions slowed downed for fear that the banking sector would go bankrupt with their money.

A sharp change in the money supply in the financial market was the result even without government interference. Main causes of the global financial crisis because of market failure. Market participants have therefore remained too cautious resulting in more complex and inflexible rules in the financial markets. Enforced regulations that are meant to prevent and reduce the possible financial crisis are becoming unrealistic and therefore has made financial transactions very hectic. Political advantages have been taken to influence the financial market in a way that will be beneficial to a given state or another.

The policy intended to control the problem of the financial crisis has become the greatest hindrance to the financial performance. The emergence of regulatory responses The second most important consequence of the global financial crisis was the emergence of various proposals of the regulatory responses towards the financial crisis. Many responses are in place for implementation (Nissanke and Thorbecke 2006). A few of the regulatory proposal include the regulatory plan by Obama to regulate financial transaction that was proposed in 2009, regulatory responses to control on the subprime crisis, there was also a debate on the crisis of the subprime mortgage solutions.

Prominent advisers and president Obama introduced multiples of regulatory responses in 2009. Financial regulations on banking sectors are to bring transparency to the financial market. Since most blame on the cause of the financial crisis was on the failure of regulations in the banking sector, improvement and new regulations proposed to help solve the problem and prevent the possible repeat of the same (Nissanke and Thorbecke 2006).

The proposed convergence of the international regulations was meant to help the deepening market. Most of the proposals were addressing consumer protection, capital requirement, and many other areas. The financial crisis affected the world economy and any effort to prevent the repeat and to reduce the current effect is positively embraced.   The global financial crisis had a massive effect on the banking sector in the whole world. The most common effect that was felt was the rush withdrawal of savings by the clients. Banks rely mostly on the money being saved by their clients to pay those that need withdrawals.

The sudden and large demand for withdrawal becomes very impartibly. With the same situation becoming persistent, the bank may close down due to bankruptcy and that will mean that the customers will lose their deposits. This led to banking panic, especially in the US and Australia.   Amongst the most developed economies in all world, Australia successfully went through the Global Financial Crisis with the least effect on its financial economy. Their banks also were least affected. One of the significant effects of the crisis was how it affected the funding mix of the Australian banks (Asian Development Bank 2008).

It leads to a reduction in the deposit with wholesale debt going up by 6 percent from 2007 to 2009. While the long-term debt increased, there was a significant decrease in the short-term debts from around 30% to 24% within 2007 and 2009. Another consequence of the Global Financial Crisis in the Australian banking sector was the increase in the concentration in the banking industry (Asian Development Bank 2008). The industry experienced several mergers while some foreign companies left the market because of the scaling factor.

It is in this period that Westpac Bank took over St George Bank. It is possible to conclude that the Australian banks were profit efficient as compared to cost efficiency which implies that the sources of efficiency were more from the costing side compared to the side of revenue. Global Financial Crisis significantly weakened the U. S. banking sector. Because of the crisis, banking failures have been on the rise. The US has been experiencing economic recession and the general condition of the banking sector (Reinhart and Rogoff 2008).

To help correct this situation, the lending standards and terms tightened. The step could possibly discourage economic recovery. Stronger regulations suggested ensuring smooth operations of the business. Regulations meant to help create a conducive environment for the banking industry in the US and not to suppress them so many reforms have been witnessed in the banking industry that has seen the banking system in the US show the positive change (Reinhart and Rogoff 2008).   Present value of the bond (PV) = Future value (FV) × (1+ coupon rate (rcp)/period of maturity (n)                                                                                             =        (500× $1000) × (1 + 0.06)/5                                                                                             = 500000 × 0.212                                                                                             = $ 106 000 Yearly Interest on the bond after = (500× $1000) × 0.06                                                                                             = $30000 Coupon payment =3000(1+0.06)-1+3000(1+0.06)-2+3000(1+0.006)-3+3000(1+0.06)-4                                          +3000(1+0.06)-5                                               = 10090.67 Total financing = $106000+10090.67                                               = $ 116090.67 ii) Increasing the credit rating from AA to AAA with the coupon remaining at 6 percent will have no effect on the amount of financing.

This is because credit rating of AA to AAA is having the same coupon rating. 5) a.

Financing is given by  50000000       1+ 0.05(180/365)   = $2027780594.14 the commercial paper would be much preferable to the bills. The reason is, commercial papers save on the legal charges by the banks. The company will also save on the interests that are charged even without withdrawals. Low costs are associated with commercial paper unlike in the bills Calculation of the cost of equity= 0.06+ 0.09/0.91                                                                                                                     = 0.1589s                                                                                                                     = 15.89% Going by the calculation shown above, buying the share will be very expensive. The cost of shares is greater than the expected return on shares by 6.89 percent.

The difference is so big implying that the shares are likely to result in losses and not pay dividends.

References

Asian Development Bank (2008), Asian Economic Monitor 2008, December 2008, Manila

Bernanke Ben (2010) “The Global Savings Glut and the U.S. Current Deficit”, Sandridge Lecture, Virginia Association of Economics, Richmond, Virginia.

International Finance (2009), “Capital Flows Market Economies,”27 January 2009, Institute of International Finance, Inc, Washington.

Nissanke, M. and Thorbecke E. (2006). ‘The Impact of Globalization on the World’s Poor’. World Development, Special Issue, 34 (8).pp 236.

Reinhart, C. & Rogoff, K. (2008). Is the 2007 US financial crisis so different? An international historical comparison. American Economic Review, 98 (2): 339–344.

Rodrik, D. (2008). Why we need to Curb Global Flows of Capital. Financial Times, 26 February.

Download free paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us