1) Compare and contrast the United Way and Red Cross financial statements. What general observations can
you make about each of them? For example, How are they similar? How are they different?
2) Find an organization of your own. Review their financial statements & post the website link here for me to
access, as well. How does the format and content compare with the United Way and Red Cross?
3) On page 56 of the textbook, two very important financial ratios are presented. Calculate both the “Current
Ratio” and the “Acid Test Ratio” for all 3 of the organizations you have studied. What are the ratios values and
what do they mean?
4) Which organization would you suggest is in the best financial condition, based solely on these 2 ratios?
(Remember, this is just the beginning of our quest to understand how financial ratios reveal the financial health
of an organization. We will incorporate more ratios as we go forward in the course. As we do so, we may have
to adjust our assessment of which organization is actually in the best financial shape, based on other ratios).
5) Briefly summarize the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). In your summary, you need to state whether or
not SOX applies to NFP’s. If it does, in what way does SOX directly affect NFP’s? Are there any indirect
implications for NFP’s? If you locate any web sources that support your answer for this information, share them
6) Locate at least one NFP organization that has voluntarily adopted the provisions of SOX. (I suppose this
gives away at least a part of the answer for # 5 above).
Thirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed. Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).>GET ANSWER