Dakota Office Productsgmo: the Value Versus Growth Dilemma

GMOs, (genetically modified organisms) have been a topic of interest in the social eyes for years. Since they’ve been created, many people have voiced and written about their opinions on GMOs, and whether they are dangerous or not. Created to expand the genetic diversity of crops and animals, many don’t know whether GMOs are good or bad, and neither do researchers. Though there hasn’t been any evidence claiming whether GMOs are good or bad, it has certainly not stopped the public from creating their own opinions. Since no one knows the truth behind GMO, it has opened a window of opportunities for companies including Monsanto to voice their support of GMO, while other companies like the Non-GMO Project voice their

“Should We Care About Genetically Modified Foods?” by John N. Shaw appeared in Food Safety News issue of February 1, 2010, as a feature under the health section on the controversy between the pros and cons of genetically modified foods (Also known as GMO, genetically modified organisms). The main idea of this article is to inform people of the benefits of GMOs . The author, John Shaw received his Bachelor of Science degree in Finance with a minor in Marketing from the University of Arkansas in 2007, where he was a “leadership scholar.” In addition to his studies, he has worked as a research assistant with Food Law LL.M. Director Susan Schneider, interned with Wal-Mart Government and Corporate Affairs division, the Arkansas Attorney General Public Protection Division, and with United States Senator Blanche Lincoln. John has a passion for Food Law, sports, and outdoors. In the article, he states, “ I submit that I am no scientist; merely an interested student.” According to the article, he is passionate and has done sufficient research about the topic to support his argument.

Monsanto produces a good that isn’t exactly the best for the environment. Genetically Modified Organisms, more commonly known as GMO’s, are the latest scientific breakthrough. Many studies have shown how GMO’s are bad for genetic diversity and even worse for the health of those that consume them. So why do we buy GMO’s? One reason is that GMO’s allow farmers to grow more crops at a faster rate with greater

• Managed growth or capital growth funds—structured to maximise the return from capital growth, that is, an appreciation in the value of the assets held. Less emphasis on income receipts. Higher risk profiles within an investment portfolio; therefore, will usually hold a higher percentage of funds in equity investments and a much smaller portfolio of fixed interest investments.

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most

Some consumers claim GMO’s do not increase yields or even result in lower yields. Arguing these statements Monsanto, an agricultural company, states, “In agriculture, desirable crop characteristics are known as traits. One of the most important traits is yield. Improving crop yield can be accomplished through both breeding and biotechnology. GM crops generally have higher yields due to both breeding and biotechnology”. The statements revolving around the anti-GMO myths are continuously being revoked as further research comes out. By increasing yields, farmers are able to sell more crops which in return can have a positive effect on the economy. Geoffrey Lean, who published a story in the UK newspaper later, claimed his article on GMO reduced yields based on Dr. Barney Gordon of Kansas State University’s manganese research was given a rebuking response. Dr. Gordon himself claimed Geoffrey Lean’s work was “a gross misrepresentation of my research and a good example of irresponsible journalism”. While the yields were more relevant in

Mohr showed focused attention to the public’s values and beliefs by presenting Monsanto’s interests in protecting its consumers and the earth through spending millions of dollars to stop GMO labeling. He offered one side of the story and not the other, which is a good strategy in an argument if the other story outweighs Mohr’s claim. What Mohr omitted are the facts regarding the benefits to be harbored in labeling GMO products in the future. Mohr was focused on the present state of the matter without due consideration of the future, hence making his appeal to Pathos

These stocks are considered risky. You could do well, or you could lose your investment. These stocks belong to unproven companies. Often those that are just starting out. There is always the chance that a company will be the next great thing, or that it will fold. This

Miller is an adherent of fundamental analysis, an approach to equity investing he had gleaned from a number of sources. Miller’s approach was research-intensive and highly concentrated. Nearly 50% of Value Trust’s assets were invested in just 10 large-capitalization companies. While most of Miller’s investments were value stocks, he was not averse to taking large positions in the stocks of growth companies. Overall, Miller’s style was eclectic and difficult to distill.

These changes in prices imply the power of growth rate’s assumption over stock price because “It was growth that drew attention to the brand. It was growth that propelled the stock offering. It was growth that drove the stock price to ever greater heights.” When the growth rate is expected to increase significantly, value of the firm is increased tremendously and so is its stock price. Both the enterprise value of the firm and its stock price change in the same direction with the change in growth rate estimates.

The valuation process, in this case, requires us to estimate the short-run non-constant growth rate and predict future dividends. Then, we must estimate a constant long-term growth rate at which the firm is expected to grow. Generally, we assume that after a certain point of time, all firms begin to grow at a rather constant rate. Of course, the difficulty in this framework is estimating the short-term growth rate, how long the short-term growth will hold, and the long-term growth rate.

Value investing is a way of investing in company stocks that are considered either undervalued or out-of-favor by the market. In other word, a value investment is one where the intrinsic value of the stock is not accurately reflected in the current market valuation. The underlying reason of too much decreasing in the stock price is that the company may be losing market shares or even in trouble due to market’s panic attributed to negative rumors as well as having management problems. Since the market price

Value funds seek stocks that are cheap by fundamental standards while growth funds seek stocks with high current earnings.

An investor who instead believed that it was Bill Miller’s skill and strategy which allowed Value Trust to achieve an average annual return of 14.6% over 14 years would still not rationally invest in Value Trust as of the middle of 2005. By analyzing the key elements of Miller’s contrarian investment strategy, one can better understand if investing in shares of Value Trust at this time would be a rational choice. One should view the potential investment in Value Trust with the same mindset that Miller has when he analyzes potential investments to be made on behalf of the fund. In other words, the question that should be asked is, “would Bill Miller invest in Value Trust had he not been its fund manager or affiliated with Legg Mason?” Miller’s emphasis on investing in pessimistic markets and in businesses everybody is fleeing wouldn’t hold up here. By 2005, he is a superstar fund manager whose halo effect attracts more investors with expectations that continued abnormal returns are on the horizon. Further, even if investors weren’t buying shares of Value Trust, it is reasonable to assume that by 2005 they were closely watching its

It is true that cap size tends to correlate with risk and return but as evidenced by Amazon’s recent run, this assumption does not always hold. Shares of the retail giant increased by 27 percent year to date and nearly 300% in the past 5 years, compared to an 83% jump by the Russell 200—the de facto index for tracking small cap companies. In spite of the aggressive movement, investors can still look at large stocks as a safe bet when volatility emerges. Large companies are better equipped to weather market turbulence or an economic downturn that slows down fundamental performance. They often generate revenue from multiple different sources whereas smaller companies are built on a single product.