Good cash management is an essential job of the financial manager! You own a small auto sales business called King Kars. You stock up on inventory in February, April, June, and September. Your annual cash budget indicates that your MONTHLY NET CASH for the year will be the following:
JAN $5,000 FEB -$30,000 MAR $20,000 APRIL -$35,000 MAY $25,000 JUNE -$10,000 JULY $25,000 AUG $25,000 SEPT -$30,000 OCT $15,000 NOV $15,000 DEC $25,000
You begin the year with a cash balance of $50,000, and the minimum cash balance desired must be $50,000 every month. Prepare a cash flow summary and external financing summary as noted in the Excel spreadsheet assigned to this course. Do you believe that the company needs outside financing? What is the minimum line of credit to request from a lender? Do you think you are a good candidate for the line of credit? Why? An Excel template is attached with the columns and rows you need to complete this assignment. Please also provide a 1-page Word document with the answers to the questions.
Positivism is a hypothetical and methodological approach in contemporary criminology. Positivists trust that human conduct is formed by organic, mental or social factors and powers. These components and powers are called singular pathology which prevent the basic leadership and control capacity of an individual and results in conduct issues (White and Haines, 2003). To stretch out to lawful definition, wrongdoing is characterized as individual pathology to obey law and to fit in with moral agreement of the general public. Positivism approach in criminology looks at the quality refinements between guilty parties, instead of on the criminal goes about as the focal point of examination. Likewise, positivism decides how these distinctions incline a man towards guiltiness (White and Haines, 2003). Positivists trusted that these attributes watched can be determined and treated by managing to have and evacuating the variables and powers that reason the culpable conduct to happen. In a positivist perspective of the world, science was viewed as the best approach to get at truth, to comprehend the world alright so we may anticipate and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic - they worked by laws of circumstances and end results that we could recognize on the off chance that we connected the one of a kind approach of the logical technique. Science was to a great extent a robotic or mechanical undertaking. We utilize deductive thinking to propose hypotheses that we can test. In view of the aftereffects of our examinations, we may discover that our hypothesis doesn't fit the certainties well thus we have to reconsider our hypothesis to better anticipate reality. The positivist had confidence in induction - the possibility that perception and estimation was the center of the logical undertaking. The key approach of the logical strategy is the investigation, the endeavor to recognize normal laws through direct control and perception. Worldview of social research speak to worldview by following the possibility of Thomas Kuhn who is the main mastermind of worldview that was appeared in the book named "structure of logical revolutions"in 1962. In sociology has two imperative worldview that utilized for inquire about society and occasion which occur in social that are positivism and interpretivism Basic Positivism and Post-Positivism We should begin our extremely short exchange of theory of science with a basic qualification amongst epistemology and strategy. The term epistemology originates from the Greek word epistêmê, their term for information. In basic terms, epistemology is the reasoning of information or of how we come to know. Technique is likewise worried about how we come to know, however is significantly more pragmatic in nature. Procedure is centered around the particular ways - the techniques - that we can use to endeavor to comprehend our reality better. Epistemology and procedure are personally related: the previous includes the rationality of how we come to know the world and the last includes the training. At the point when a great many people in our general public consider science, they consider some person in a white laboratory garment working at a lab seat stirring up synthetic substances. They consider science exhausting, simple, and they think about the researcher as biased and elusive (a definitive geek - think about the entertaining yet in any case frantic researcher in the Back to the Future films, for example). A considerable measure of our generalizations about science originate from a period where science was ruled by a specific rationality - positivism - that tended to help a portion of these perspectives. Here, I need to recommend (regardless of what the motion picture industry may think) that science has proceeded onward in its reasoning into a time of post-positivism where huge numbers of those generalizations of the researcher never again hold up. How about we start by considering what positivism is. In its broadest sense, positivism is a dismissal of power (I abandon it you to look into that term in case you're not comfortable with it). It is a position that holds that the objective of information is basically to portray the wonders that we encounter. The motivation behind science is basically to stick to what we can watch and measure. Learning of anything past that, a positivist would hold, is unimaginable. When I consider positivism (and the related reasoning of sensible positivism) I think about the behaviorists in mid-twentieth Century brain science. These were the legendary 'rodent sprinters' who trusted that brain research could just examination what could be straightforwardly watched and estimated. Since we can't straightforwardly watch feelings, considerations, and so on (despite the fact that we might have the capacity to quantify a portion of the physical and physiological backups), these were not true blue themes for a logical brain science. B.F. Skinner contended that brain research expected to focus just on the constructive and pessimistic reinforcers of conduct keeping in mind the end goal to foresee how individuals will carry on - everything else in the middle of (like what the individual is considering) is unimportant in light of the fact that it can't be estimated. In a positivist perspective of the world, science was viewed as the best approach to get at truth, to comprehend the world all around ok with the goal that we may anticipate and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic - they worked by laws of circumstances and end results that we could perceive on the off chance that we connected the special approach of the logical technique. Science was generally a robotic or mechanical issue. We utilize deductive thinking to hypothesize speculations that we can test. In view of the aftereffects of our investigations, we may discover that our hypothesis doesn't fit the certainties well thus we have to reexamine our hypothesis to better anticipate reality. The positivist trusted in induction - the possibility that perception and estimation was the center of the logical undertaking. The key approach of the logical technique is the examination, the endeavor to perceive characteristic laws through direct control and perception. Alright, I am overstating the positivist position (in spite of the fact that you might be astonished at how near this some of them really came) keeping in mind the end goal to make a point. Things have changed in our perspectives of science since the center piece of the twentieth century. Presumably the most essential has been our work day from positivism into what we term post-positivism. By post-positivism, I don't mean a slight change in accordance with or amendment of the positivist position - post-positivism is a discount dismissal of the focal precepts of positivism. A post-positivist may start by perceiving that the way researchers think and work and the way we think in our regular day to day existence are not unmistakably extraordinary. Logical thinking and sound judgment thinking are basically a similar procedure. There is no distinction in kind between the two, just a distinction in degree. Researchers, for instance, take after particular techniques to guarantee that perceptions are irrefutable, precise and reliable. In regular thinking, we don't generally continue so deliberately (in spite of the fact that, looking at the situation objectively, when a lot is on the line, even in regular daily existence we turn out to be significantly more mindful about estimation. Think about the way most capable guardians keep ceaseless watch over their newborn children, seeing points of interest that non-guardians could never recognize). A standout amongst the most widely recognized types of post-positivism is a reasoning called basic authenticity. A basic pragmatist trusts that there is a reality autonomous of our reasoning about it that science can examine. (This is conversely with a subjectivist who might hold that there is no outside reality - we're each influencing this all to up!). Positivists were additionally pragmatists. The distinction is that the post-positivist basic pragmatist perceives that all perception is unsteady and has mistake and that all hypothesis is revisable. At the end of the day, the basic pragmatist is reproachful of our capacity to know reality with assurance. Where the positivist trusted that the objective of science was to reveal reality, the post-positivist basic pragmatist trusts that the objective of science is to hold unflinchingly to the objective of taking care of business about the real world, despite the fact that we can never accomplish that objective! Since all estimation is untrustworthy, the post-positivist underlines the significance of various measures and perceptions, every one of which may have diverse kinds of blunder, and the need to utilize triangulation over these different errorful sources to endeavor to show signs of improvement globule on what's occurring in actuality. The post-positivist additionally trusts that all perceptions are hypothesis loaded and that researchers (and every other person, besides) are innately one-sided by their social encounters, world perspectives, et cetera. This isn't cause to surrender in give up, in any case. Because I have my reality see in light of my encounters and you have yours doesn't imply that we can't would like to interpret from each other's encounters or see each other. That is, post-positivism rejects the relativist thought of the incommensurability of alternate points of view, the possibility that we can never see each other on the grounds that we originate from various encounters and societies. Most post-positivists are constructivists who trust that we each develop our perspective of the world in view of our impression of it. Since discernment and perception is untrustworthy, our developments must be blemished. So what is implied by objectivity in a post-positivist world? Positivists trusted that objectivity was a trademark that dwelled in the individual researcher. Researchers are in charge of setting aside their predispositions and convictions and seeing the world as it 'truly' is. Post-positivists dismiss the possibility that any individual can see the world impeccably as it truly seems to be. We are altogether one-sided and the majority of our perceptions are influenced (hypothesis loaded). Our best seek after accomplishing objectivity is to triangulate over various error prone viewpoints! Accordingly, objectivity isn't the normal for an individual, it is inalienably a social wonder. It is the thing that various people are endeavoring to accomplish when they scrutinize each other's work. We never accomplish objectivity flawlessly, yet we can approach it. The most ideal route for us to enhance the objectivity of what we do is to do it inside the setting of a more extensive argumentative network of truth-searchers (in>GET ANSWER