Bolsheviks and Britain in World War One :: World History Regeneration Barker Essays

"Bolsheviks and Britain in World War One" During one of the therapy and wit sessions between Rivers and Prior at Craiglockhart, we discover that class struggle is an issue plaguing Prior. Pat Barker introduces the reference to Bolsheviks on page 135 in order to have her readers strictly denounce the caste system of British society, both for the soldiers returning home, and also the women who continued to be victims of the same system in Britain during World War One. Understanding the role Bolsheviks play in affecting Britain's soldiers and citizens during World War One first requires background information on both Russian interests and Russia's relationship to Germany. Russia entered World War One after Germany declared war against Russia due to an alliance system between Germany and Austria. The Russians had little success in repelling the Germans, illustrated by the disaster at Tannenberg where more than 30,000 Russians soldiers died (Sherow). Germany subsequently made large gains into Russian territories. Tsar Nicholas II had no choice but to abdicate the throne in March 1917, allowing the Bolsheviks to take power (Sherow). It is very important to note that the Germans allowed "prominent Bolsheviks like Lenin and Trotsky" to pass by rail through their country "to start a revolution and knock Russia out of the war" (Simpson). Due to the Bolshevik revolution not completely coming from a democratic mandate from the people, Britain shows extreme suspicion towards Russian motives henceforth. Distrust and skepticism within Britain toward the new Bolshevik government led to Britain's reluctance to support it and a hands off diplomatic approach to Russian problems. By 1917 it was evident that the "question of peace and war would be a bitter source of controversy within the Bolshevik party" (Kowalski 11). Lenin had uncompromisingly defended his position not to continue the war, a decision that was leading to a split in the upper ranks of the party (Kowalski 33). His reasoning was that any imperialist states should not be negotiated for peace, instead calling "for an international civil war against world capitalism" (Kowalski 11). Lenin’s statements are quite a shock for the newly opened spheres of investments that had led to a great interest in Eastern Europe industries (Sherow). France and even Britain had loaned out much money to facilitate the growth --and, hopefully, returns-- in Eastern Europe; any resort to war at this point would cost both countries dearly (She row).

Wal Mart Annual Report Analysis

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS Eduardo Castro-Wright Vice Chairman, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. M. Susan Chambers Executive Vice President, Global People Brian C. Cornell Executive Vice President, President and Chief Executive Officer, Sam’s Club 2 010 Financial Report 15 Five-Year Financial Summary 16 Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations 30 Consolidated Statements of Income 31 Consolidated Balance Sheets 32 Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity 33 Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows 34 Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements 52 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 3 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Thomas M. Schoewe Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 54 Management’s Report to Our Shareholders 55 Fiscal 2010 End-of-Year Store Count H. Lee Scott, Jr. Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directo rs 56 Corporate and Stock Information Leslie A. Dach Executive Vice President, Corporate Affairs and Government Relations Michael T. Duke President and Chief Executive Officer Rollin L. Ford Executive Vice President, Chief Information Officer Thomas D. Hyde Executive Vice President, Legal, Ethics, nd Corporate Secretary C. Douglas McMillon Executive Vice President, President and Chief Executive Officer, Walmart International S. Robson Walton Chairman of the Board of Directors Steven P. Whaley Senior Vice President and Controller 14 Walmart 2010 Annual Report 107077_L01_FIN_02. indd 14 4/6/10 12:10:45 AM 2010 FINANCIAL REVIEW Five-Year Financial Summary (Amounts in millions except per share and unit count data) As of and for the Fiscal Years Ended January 31, 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 (1) Operating Results Net sales Net sales increase Comparable store sales in the United States (2) Walmart U. S.Sam’s Club Gross pro? t margin Operating, selling, general and administrative expens es, as a percentage of net sales Operating income Income from continuing operations attributable to Walmart Per share of common stock: Income from continuing operations attributable to Walmart, diluted Dividends $405,046 1. 0% -0. 8% -0. 7% -1. 4% 24. 8% $401,087 7. 3% 3. 5% 3. 2% 4. 9% 24. 2% $373,821 8. 4% 1. 6% 1. 0% 4. 9% 24. 0% $344,759 11. 6% 2. 0% 1. 9% 2. 5% 23. 4% $308,945 9. 8% 3. 4% 3. 0% 5. 0% 23. 1% 19. 7% $ 23,950 14,414 19. 3% $ 22,798 13,254 19. 0% $ 21,952 12,863 18. 5% $ 20,497 12,189 18. 0% $ 18,693 1,386 3. 72 1. 09 $3. 35 0. 95 $3. 16 0. 88 $2. 92 0. 67 $2. 72 0. 60 $ 33,160 102,307 170,706 36,401 70,749 $ 34,511 95,653 163,429 34,549 65,285 $ 35,159 96,867 163,514 33,402 64,608 $ 33,667 88,287 151,587 30,735 61,573 $ 31,910 77,863 138,793 30,096 53,171 Unit Counts Walmart U. S. Segment International Segment Sam’s Club Segment 3,708 4,112 596 3,656 3,605 602 3,550 3,098 591 3,443 2,734 579 3,289 2,158 567 Total units 8,416 7,863 7,239 6,756 6,014 Financia l Position Inventories Property, equipment and capital lease assets, net Total assets Long-term debt, including obligations under capital leasesTotal Walmart shareholders’ equity $ (1) In connection with the company’s ? nance transformation project, we reviewed and adjusted the classi? cation of certain revenue and expense items within our Consolidated Statements of Income for ? nancial reporting purposes. Although the reclassi? cations impacted net sales, gross margin and operating, selling, general and administrative expenses, they did not impact operating income or income from continuing operations attributable to Walmart. The changes were effective February 1, 2009 and have been re? ected for ? scal years 2010, 2009 and 2008. 2) Comparable store and club sales include fuel. For ? scal 2006, we considered comparable sales to be sales at stores and clubs that were open as of February 1st of the prior ? scal year and which had not been converted, expanded or relocated since that date. Fiscal 2008 and ? scal 2007 comparable sales includes all stores and clubs that have been open for at least the previous 12 months. Additionally, for those ? scal years, stores and clubs that are relocated, expanded or converted are excluded from comparable sales for the ? rst 12 months following the relocation, expansion or conversion.Fiscal 2010 and 2009 comparable sales include sales from stores and clubs open for the previous 12 months, including remodels, relocations and expansions. Fiscal 2008 and prior ? scal years’ comparable sales do not re? ect reclassi? cations effective February 1, 2009, as noted above. Walmart 2010 Annual Report 15 107077_L01_FIN_02. indd 15 4/6/10 12:10:45 AM Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Overview Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (â€Å"Walmart,† the â€Å"company† or â€Å"we†) operates retail stores in various formats around the world and is committed to saving people money so they can live better.We earn the trust of our customers every day by providing a broad assortment of quality merchandise and services at every day low prices (â€Å"EDLP†), while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual respect, integrity and diversity. EDLP is our pricing philosophy under which we price items at a low price every day so that our customers trust that our prices will not change under frequent promotional activity. Our focus for Sam’s Club is to provide exceptional value on brand name merchandise at â€Å"members only† prices for both business and personal use.Internationally, we operate with similar philosophies. Our ? scal year ends on January 31 for our U. S. , Canada and Puerto Rico operations. Our ? scal year ends on December 31 for all other operations. We intend for this discussion to provide the reader with information that will assist in understanding our ? nancial statements, the changes in certain key items in those ? nancial statements from year to year, and the primary factors that accounted for those changes, as well as how certain accounting principles affect our ? nancial statements.We also discuss certain performance metrics that management uses to assess our performance. The discussion also provides information about the ? nancial results of the various segments of our business to provide a better understanding of how those segments and their results affect the ? nancial condition and results of operations of the company as a whole. This discussion should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements as of January 31, 2010, and the year then ended, and accompanying notes. Our operations comprise three business segments: Walmart U.S. , International and Sam’s Club. The Walmart U. S. segment includes the company’s mass merchant concept in the United States, operating under the â€Å"Walmart† or â€Å"Wal-Mart† brand, as well a s walmart. com. The International segment consists of the company’s operations outside of the 50 United States. The Sam’s Club segment includes the warehouse membership clubs in the United States, as well as samsclub. com. Sales By Segment Net sales in ? scal 2010 were a record $405. 0 billion, up 1. 0% from ? scal 2009. Sam’s Club 11. 5% International 24. 7%Throughout this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, we discuss segment operating income and comparable store sales. The company measures the results of its segments using, among other measures, each segment’s operating income which includes certain corporate overhead allocations. From time to time, we revise the measurement of each segment’s operating income, including any corporate overhead allocations, as dictated by the information regularly reviewed by our chief operating decision maker.When we do so, the segment operating income for each segment affected by the revisions is restated for all periods presented to maintain comparability. In connection with the company’s ? nance transformation project, we reviewed and adjusted the classi? cation of certain revenue and expense items within our Consolidated Statements of Income for ? nancial reporting purposes. The reclassi? cations did not impact operating income or consolidated net income attributable to Walmart. The changes were effective February 1, 2009 and have been re? ected in all periods presented.Comparable store sales is a measure which indicates the performance of our existing U. S. stores and clubs by measuring the growth in sales for such stores for a particular period over the corresponding period in the prior year. In ? scal 2008, our method of calculating comparable store sales included all stores and clubs that were open for at least the previous 12 months. Additionally, stores and clubs that were relocated, expanded or converted were exclud ed from comparable store sales for the ? rst 12 months following the relocation, expansion or conversion. During ? scal year 2008, the company reviewed its de? ition of comparable store sales for consistency with other retailers. As a result of that review, since February 1, 2008, Walmart’s de? nition of comparable store sales includes sales from stores and clubs open for the previous 12 months, including remodels, relocations and expansions. Changes in format continue to be excluded from comparable store sales when the conversion is accompanied by a relocation or expansion that results in a change in square footage of more than ? ve percent. Since the impact of this revision is inconsequential, the company will not restate comparable store sales results for previously reported years.Comparable store sales are also referred to as â€Å"same-store† sales by others within the retail industry. The method of calculating comparable store sales varies across the retail indus try. As a result, our calculation of comparable store sales is not necessarily comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies. In discussions of our consolidated results and the operating results of our International segment, we sometimes refer to the impact of changes in currency exchange rates. When we refer to changes in currency exchange rates or currency exchange rate ? ctuations, we are referring to the differences between the currency exchange rates we use to convert the International segment’s operating results from local currencies into U. S. dollars for reporting purposes. The impacts of currency exchange rate ? uctuations are typically calculated as the difference between current period activity translated using the current period’s currency exchange rates and the comparable prior year period’s currency exchange rates, respectively. We use this method for all countries where the functional currency is not U. S. denominated. Walmar t U. S. 63. 8% 16 Walmart 2010 Annual Report 107077_L01_FIN. ndd 16 4/6/10 8:25:50 PM Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations The Retail Industry We operate in the highly competitive retail industry in both the United States and the countries we serve internationally. We face strong sales competition from other discount, department, drug, variety and specialty stores, warehouse clubs, and supermarkets, many of which are national, regional or international chains, as well as internet-based retailers and catalog businesses. We compete with a number of companies for prime retail site locations, as well as in attracting and retaining quality employees whom we call â€Å"associates†). We, along with other retail companies, are in? uenced by a number of factors including, but not limited to: general economic conditions, cost of goods, consumer disposable income, consumer debt levels and buying patterns, consumer credit availabili ty, interest rates, customer preferences, unemployment, labor costs, in? ation, de? ation, currency exchange ? uctuations, fuel and energy prices, weather patterns, climate change, catastrophic events, competitive pressures and insurance costs. Further information on risks to our company can be located in â€Å"Item 1A.Risk Factors† in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the ? scal year ended January 31, 2010. Company Performance Metrics The company’s performance metrics emphasize three priorities for improving shareholder value: growth, leverage and returns. The company’s priority of growth focuses on sales growth; the priority of leverage encompasses the company’s metric to increase our operating income at a faster rate than the growth in net sales by growing our operating, selling, general and administrative expenses (â€Å"operating expenses†) at a slower rate than the growth of our net sales; and the priority of returns focuses on how ef? ientl y the company employs our assets through return on investment (â€Å"ROI†) and how effectively the company manages working capital through free cash ? ow. Growth Net Sales Fiscal Years Ended January 31, (Dollar amounts in millions) 2009 2010 Percent increase Net sales Percent of total 2008 Percent increase Net sales Percent of total Net sales Percent of total Walmart U. S. International Sam’s Club $258,229 100,107 46,710 63. 8% 24. 7% 11. 5% 1. 1% 1. 3% -0. 4% $255,348 98,840 46,899 63. 7% 24. 6% 11. 7% 6. 9% 9. 1% 5. 8% $238,915 90,570 44,336 63. 9% 24. 2% 11. 9% Net Sales $405,046 00. 0% 1. 0% $401,087 100. 0% 7. 3% $373,821 100. 0% O ur net sales increased by 1. 0% and 7. 3% in ? scal 2010 and 2009, respectively, when compared to the previous ? scal year. Net sales in ? scal 2010 increased due to increased customer traf? c, continued global expansion activities and the acquisition of our Chilean subsidiary, Distribucion y Servicio (â€Å"D&S†) in January 2009 , offset primarily by a $9. 8 billion unfavorable currency exchange rate impact in our International segment and price de? ation in certain merchandise categories in our Walmart U. S. segment. Net sales in ? cal 2009 increased due to our global expansion activities and comparable store sales increases, offset by a $2. 3 billion unfavorable currency exchange rate impact. Despite the unfavorable impact of currency exchanges rates, the International segment’s net sales as a percentage of total company net sales increased in ? scal 2010 and 2009, respectively. Volatility in currency exchange rates may continue to impact the International segment’s net sales in the future. Comparable Store Sales Comparable store sales is a measure which indicates the performance of our existing U. S. tores by measuring the growth in sales for such stores for a particular period over the corresponding period in the prior year. Comparable store sales in the United States decreased 0. 8% in ? scal 2010 and increased 3. 5% in ? scal 2009. Although customer traf? c increased in ? scal 2010, comparable store sales in the United States were lower than ? scal 2009 due to de? ation in certain merchandise categories and lower fuel prices. Comparable store sales in the United States in ? scal 2009 were higher than ? scal 2008 due to an increase in customer traf? c, as well as an increase in average transaction size per customer.As we continue to add new stores in the United States, we do so with an understanding that additional stores may take sales away from existing units. We estimate the negative impact on comparable store sales as a result of opening new stores was approximately 0. 6% in ? scal 2010 and 1. 1% in ? scal 2009. With our planned slower new store growth, we expect the impact of new stores on comparable store sales to stabilize over time. Fiscal Years Ended January 31, 2010 2009 2008 Walmart U. S. Sam’s Club (1) -0. 7% -1. 4% 3. 2% 4. 9% 1. 0% 4. 9% Total U . S. -0. 8% 3. 5% 1. 6% (1) Sam’s Club comparable club sales include fuel.Fuel sales had a negative impact of 2. 1 percentage points in ? scal year 2010, and positive impact of 1. 2 and 0. 7 percentage points in ? scal years 2009 and 2008, respectively, on comparable club sales. Walmart 2010 Annual Report 17 107077_L01_FIN_02. indd 17 4/6/10 12:10:46 AM Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Leverage Fiscal Years Ended January 31, (Dollar amounts in millions) 2009 2010 Operating income Percent of total Percent increase Operating income 2008 Percent of total Percent increase Operating income Percent of total Walmart U.S. International Sam’s Club Other $19,522 5,033 1,512 (2,117) 81. 5% 21. 0% 6. 3% -8. 8% 5. 2% 1. 9% -8. 1% -9. 9% $18,562 4,940 1,646 (2,350) 81. 4% 21. 7% 7. 2% -10. 3% 6. 8% 4. 6% -0. 1% 30. 3% $17,383 4,725 1,648 (1,804) 79. 2% 21. 5% 7. 5% -8. 2% Total operating income $23,950 100. 0% 5. 1% $22,798 100. 0% 3. 9% $21,952 100. 0% We believe growing operating income at a faster rate than net sales growth is a meaningful measure because it indicates how effectively we manage costs and leverage operating expenses. Our objective is to grow operating expenses at a slower rate than net sales. nd ending total assets of continuing operations plus accumulated depreciation and amortization less accounts payable and accrued liabilities for that period, plus a rent factor equal to the rent for the ? scal year multiplied by a factor of eight. Operating Expenses In ? scal 2010, operating expenses increased 2. 7% when compared to ? scal 2009, while net sales increased 1. 0% over the same period. Operating expenses grew at a faster rate than net sales due to higher health bene? t costs, restructuring charges and higher advertising expenses. In ? scal 2009, operating expenses increased 9. % compared to ? scal 2008 while net sales increased 7. 3% over the same period. Operating expenses grew at a faster rate than net sales in ? scal 2009 primarily due to higher utility costs, legal matters, higher health bene? t costs and increased corporate expenses. ROI is considered a non-GAAP ? nancial measure under the SEC’s rules. We consider return on assets (â€Å"ROA†) to be the ? nancial measure computed in accordance with GAAP that is the most directly comparable ? nancial measure to ROI as we calculate that ? nancial measure. ROI differs from ROA (which is income from continuing operations for the ? cal year divided by average total assets of continuing operations for the period) because ROI: adjusts operating income to exclude certain expense items and adds interest income; adjusts total assets from continuing operations for the impact of accumulated depreciation and amortization, accounts payable and accrued liabilities; and incorporates a factor of rent to arrive at total invested capital. Operating Income For ? scal 2010, we met our objective of growing operat ing income at a faster rate than net sales. Our operating income increased by 5. 1% when compared to ? cal 2009, while net sales increased by 1. 0% over the same period. Our Walmart U. S. and International segments met this objective. Our Sam’s Club segment fell short of this objective primarily due to a $174 million charge to restructure its operations, including the closure of 10 clubs. For ? scal 2009, we did not meet our objective because our operating income increased by 3. 9% when compared to ? scal 2008, while net sales increased by 7. 3% over the same period. The Walmart U. S. and Sam’s Club segments fell short of this objective due to increases in operating expenses.The International segment fell short of this objective due to accruals for certain legal matters and ? uctuations in currency exchange rates. Although ROI is a standard ? nancial metric, numerous methods exist for calculating a company’s ROI. As a result, the method used by management to cal culate ROI may differ from the methods other companies use to calculate their ROI. We urge you to understand the methods used by another company to calculate its ROI before comparing our ROI to that of such other company. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Operating Income (Amounts in millions) 24,000 Returns Return on Investment Management believes return on investment is a meaningful metric to share with investors because it helps investors assess how effectively Walmart is employing its assets. Trends in ROI can ? uctuate over time as management balances long-term potential strategic initiatives with any possible short-term impacts. ROI was 19. 3 percent for both ? scal years ended January 31, 2010 and 2009. $18,000 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operating income increased 5. 1% in ? scal 2010, driven by a 5. 2% increase in Walmart U. S. $12,000 $ 6,000 We de? e ROI as adjusted operating income (operating income plus interest income, depreciation and amortization and rent expense) for the ? scal year divided by average invested capital during that period. We consider average invested capital to be the average of our beginning 0 08 09 10 Fiscal Years 18 Walmart 2010 Annual Report 107077_L01_FIN. indd 18 4/6/10 10:19:20 PM Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations The calculation of ROI along with a reconciliation to the calculation of ROA, the most comparable GAAP ? nancial measurement, is as follows: For the Years Ended January 31, Dollar amounts in millions) 2010 2009 Numerator Operating income (1) + Interest income (1) + Depreciation and amortization (1) + Rent (1) $ 23,950 181 7,157 1,808 $ 22,798 284 6,739 1,751 = Adjusted operating income $ 33,096 $ 31,572 Denominator Average total assets of continuing operations (2) + Average accumulated depreciation and amortization (2) – Average accounts payable (2) – Average accrued liabilities (2) + Rent x 8 $166,900 38,359 29,650 18,423 14,464 $162,891 33,317 29,597 16,9 19 14,008 = Average invested capital $171,650 $163,700 CALCULATION OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT Return on investment (ROI) 19. 3% 19. 3%CALCULATION OF RETURN ON ASSETS Numerator Income from continuing operations (1) $ 14,927 $ 13,753 Denominator Average total assets of continuing operations (2) $166,900 $162,891 Return on assets (ROA) 8. 9% 8. 4% As of January 31, 2010 Certain Balance Sheet Data (1) Total assets of continuing operations Accumulated depreciation and amortization Accounts payable Accrued liabilities 2009 2008 $170,566 41,210 30,451 18,734 $163,234 35,508 28,849 18,112 $162,547 31,125 30,344 15,725 (1) Based on continuing operations only and therefore excludes the impact of closing 23 stores and the divesture of other properties of The Seiyu, Ltd. now Walmart Japan) pursuant to a restructuring program adopted during the third quarter of ? scal 2009. All of these activities have been disclosed as discontinued operations. Total assets as of January 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 in the table above exclude assets of discontinued operations that are re? ected in the Consolidated Balance Sheets of $140 million, $195 million and $967 million, respectively. (2) The average is based on the addition of the account balance at the end of the current period to the account balance at the end of the prior period and dividing by 2. Walmart 2010 Annual Report 19 107077_L01_FIN_02. indd 19 /6/10 12:10:47 AM Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Free Cash Flow We de? ne free cash ? ow as net cash provided by operating activities of continuing operations in a period minus payments for property and equipment made in that period. We generated positive free cash ? ow of $14. 1 billion, $11. 6 billion and $5. 7 billion for the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The increase in our free cash ? ow is primarily the result of improved operating results and inventory management. The following table sets fort h a reconciliation of free cash ? w, a nonGAAP ? nancial measure, to net cash provided by operating activities of continuing operations, a GAAP measure, which we believe to be the GAAP ? nancial measure most directly comparable to free cash ? ow, as well as information regarding net cash used in investing activities and net cash used in ? nancing activities. Fiscal Years Ended January 31, (Amounts in millions) Free cash ? ow is considered a non-GAAP ? nancial measure under the SEC’s rules. Management believes, however, that free cash ? ow, which measures our ability to generate additional cash from our business operations, is an important ? ancial measure for use in evaluating the company’s ? nancial performance. Free cash ? ow should be considered in addition to, rather than as a substitute for, income from continuing operations as a measure of our performance and net cash provided by operating activities as a measure of our liquidity. Additionally, our de? nition of free cash ? ow is limited, in that it does not represent residual cash ? ows available for discretionary expenditures due to the fact that the measure does not deduct the payments required for debt service and other contractual obligations or payments made for business acquisitions.Therefore, we believe it is important to view free cash ? ow as a measure that provides supplemental information to our entire statement of cash ? ows. Although other companies report their free cash ? ow, numerous methods may exist for calculating a company’s free cash ? ow. As a result, the method used by our management to calculate free cash ? ow may differ from the methods other companies use to calculate their free cash ? ow. We urge you to understand the methods used by another company to calculate its free cash ? ow before comparing our free cash ? ow to that of such other company.We generated positive free cash flow of $14. 1 billion, $11. 6 billion and $5. 7 billion for the years ended Jan uary 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The increase in our free cash flow is primarily the result of improved operating results and inventory management. Net cash provided by operating activities Payments for property and equipment Free cash ? ow Net cash used in investing activities Net cash used in ?nancing activities 2010 $26,249 (12,184) $ 14,065 2009 2008 $ 23,147 $ 20,642 (11,499) (14,937) $ 11,648 $ 5,705 $(11,620) $(10,742) $(15,670) $(14,191) $ (9,918) $ (7,422)Results of Operations The following discussion of our Results of Operations is based on our continuing operations and excludes any results or discussion of our discontinued operations. Unusual or infrequent items that impacted our income from continuing operations during the ? scal years ended 2010, 2009 and 2008 were as follows: †¢ In ? scal 2010, the company announced several organizational changes, including the closure of 10 Sam’s Clubs, designed to strengthen and streamline our operations. As a result, we recorded $260 million in pre-tax restructuring charges. †¢ In ? cal 2010, we recorded $372 million in net tax bene? ts primarily from the repatriation of certain non-U. S. earnings that increased U. S. foreign tax credits. †¢ In ? scal 2009, the company settled 63 wage-and-hour class action lawsuits. As a result of the settlement, the company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $382 million during the fourth quarter of ? scal 2009. †¢ In ? scal 2008, we reduced our accrued liabilities for our general liability and worker’s compensation claims. As a result, operating expenses were reduced by a pre-tax amount of $298 million. 20 Walmart 2010 Annual Report 07077_L01_FIN. indd 20 4/7/10 12:14:15 AM Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Consolidated Results of Operations Fiscal Year Net Sales (1) % Change from Prior Fiscal Year 2010 2009 2008 $405,046 401,087 373,821 1. 0% 7. 3% 8. 4% Operating Income (1) Operating Income as a Percentage of Net Sales Comp Sales Unit Counts Square Footage (2) $23,950 22,798 21,952 5. 9% 5. 7% 5. 9% -0. 8% 3. 5% 1. 6% 8,416 7,863 7,239 952,204 918,008 867,448 (1) Amounts in millions (2) Amounts in thousands Our consolidated net sales increased by 1. 0% and 7. 3% in ? cal 2010 and 2009, respectively, when compared to the previous ? scal year. Net sales in ? scal 2010 increased due to increased customer traf? c, continued global expansion activities and the acquisition of D&S in January 2009, offset primarily by a $9. 8 billion unfavorable currency exchange rate impact in our International segment and price de? ation in certain merchandise categories in our Walmart U. S. segment. Net sales in ? scal 2009 increased due to our global store expansion activities, comparable store sales increases, offset by a $2. 3 billion unfavorable currency exchange rate impact.Volatility in currency exchange rates may continue to impact the International segme nt’s net sales in the future. Our gross pro? t, as a percentage of net sales, (our â€Å"gross pro? t margin†) was 24. 8%, 24. 2% and 24. 0% in ? scal 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Our Walmart U. S. and International segment sales yield higher gross pro? t margins than our Sam’s Club segment. In ? scal 2010, gross pro? t margin increased primarily due to the continued focus on enhanced merchandising strategies and better inventory management in our Walmart U. S. and Sam’s Club segments. The gross pro? margin increase in ? scal 2009 compared to ? scal 2008 was primarily due to lower inventory shrinkage and less markdown activity as a result of more effective merchandising in the Walmart U. S. segment. Operating expenses, as a percentage of net sales, were 19. 7%, 19. 3% and 19. 0% for ? scal 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. In ? scal 2010, operating expenses increased primarily due to higher health bene? t costs, a pre-tax charge of $260 million rel ating to the restructuring of U. S. operations and higher advertising expenses. In ? scal 2009, operating expenses increased rimarily due to higher utility costs, a pre-tax charge of approximately $382 million resulting from the settlement of 63 wage-and-hour class action lawsuits, higher health bene? t costs and increased corporate expenses compared to ? scal 2008. Our effective income tax rate was 32. 4% for ? scal year 2010 and 34. 2% for ? scal years 2009 and 2008. The ? scal 2010 effective tax rate decreased compared to ? scal 2009 due to $372 million in net tax bene? ts that primarily resulted from the repatriation of certain non-U. S. earnings that increased our utilization of U. S. foreign tax credits.As a result of the factors discussed above, we reported $14. 9 billion, $13. 8 billion and $13. 3 billion of income from continuing operations for the ? scal years ended January 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Walmart U. S. Segment Fiscal Year Net Sales (1) % Change from Prior Fiscal Year 2010 2009 2008 $258,229 255,348 238,915 1. 1% 6. 9% 5. 6% Operating Income (1) Operating Income as a Percentage of Net Sales Comp Sales Unit Counts Square Footage (2) $19,522 18,562 17,383 7. 6% 7. 3% 7. 3% -0. 7% 3. 2% 1. 0% 3,708 3,656 3,550 602,908 589,299 566,629 (1) Amounts in millions (2) Amounts in thousands The segment net sales growth in ? cal 2010 resulted from an increase in customer traf? c and strength in our grocery and health and wellness categories, as well as our continued expansion activities. In ? scal 2009, the segment net sales growth resulted from a comparable store sales increase of 3. 2%, in addition to our expansion activities. Strength in the grocery, health and wellness and entertainment categories, as well as strong seasonal sales throughout the year also contributed to the ? scal 2009 net sales increase. The segment net sales growth in fiscal 2010 resulted from an increase in customer traffic and strength in our grocery and health and ellness categories, as well as our continued expansion activities. Walmart 2010 Annual Report 21 107077_L01_FIN. indd 107077_L01_FIN. indd 21 4/6/10 8:25:51 PM Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Comparable store sales were lower in ? scal 2010, despite increased customer traf? c, due to a decrease in average transaction size per customer driven by price de? ation in certain merchandise categories. Comparable store sales were higher in ? scal 2009 due to an increase in customer traf? c, as well as an increase in average transaction size per customer. In ? scal 2010, gross pro? margin increased 0. 7 percentage points compared to the prior year due to more effective merchandising, better inventory management and lower inventory shrinkage. In ? scal 2009, gross pro? t margin increased 0. 4 percentage points compared to the prior year primarily due to decreased markdown activity and lower inventory shrinkage. The improvements in b oth years were attributable to merchandising initiatives that have improved space allocation, enhanced our price leadership and increased supply chain ef? ciencies. Segment operating expenses, as a percentage of segment net sales, increased by 0. 4 percentage points in ? cal 2010 compared to ? scal 2009 due to lower segment net sales increases compared to the prior year, higher health bene? t costs, higher advertising expenses and a pre-tax charge of $73 million relating to the restructuring of Walmart U. S. operations. Segment operating expenses, as a percentage of segment net sales, increased 0. 4 percentage points in ? scal 2009 compared to the prior year due to hurricane-related expenses, higher bonus payments for store associates, higher utility costs and an increase in health bene? t costs. International Segment Net Sales (1) 2010 2009 2008 Operating Income (1) Operating Income a s a Percentage f Net Sales Unit Counts Square Footage (2 ) $100,107 98,840 90,570 Fiscal Year % Ch ange from Prior Fiscal Year 1. 3% 9. 1% 17. 8% $5,033 4,940 4,725 5. 0% 5. 0% 5. 2% 4,112 3,605 3,098 269,894 248,803 222,583 (1) Amounts in millions (2) Amounts in thousands At January 31, 2010, our International segment was comprised of our wholly-owned subsidiaries operating in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom, our majority-owned subsidiaries operating in ? ve countries in Central America, and in Chile and Mexico, our joint ventures in India and China and our other controlled subsidiaries in China.The ? scal 2010 increase in the International segment’s net sales primarily resulted from our expansion activities and the inclusion of the results of D&S, acquired in January 2009, offset by the unfavorable impact of changes in currency exchange rates of $9. 8 billion. For additional information regarding our acquisitions, refer to Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The ? scal 2009 increase in the International segment’s n et sales was primarily due to net sales growth from existing units and our international expansion program, offset by the unfavorable impact of changes in currency exchange rates of $2. billion. The fiscal 2010 increase in the International segment’s net sales primarily resulted from our expansion activities and the inclusion of the results of D&S, acquired in January 2009, offset by the unfavorable impact of changes in currency exchange rates of $9. 8 billion. In ? scal 2010, the International segment’s gross pro? t margin increased 0. 2 percentage points compared to the prior year. The increase was primarily driven by currency exchange rate ? uctuations and the inclusion of D&S. In ? scal 2009, the International segment’s gross pro? t margin decreased 0. percentage points compared to the prior year. The decrease was primarily driven by growth in lower margin fuel sales in the United Kingdom and the transition to EDLP as a strategy in Japan. Segment operating e xpenses, as a percentage of segment net sales, increased 0. 3 percentage points in ? scal 2010 compared to the prior year primarily as a result of the inclusion of D&S, acquired in January 2009. Segment operating expenses, as a percentage of segment net sales, in ? scal 2009 were consistent with ? scal 2008. In ? scal 2010, currency exchange rate changes unfavorably impacted operating income by $540 million.In ? scal 2009, currency exchange rate changes unfavorably impacted operating income by $266 million. Volatility in currency exchange rates may continue to impact the International segment’s operating results in the future. 22 Walmart 2010 Annual Report 107077_L01_FIN. indd 107077_L01_FIN. indd 22 4/6/10 8:25:51 PM Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Sam’s Club Segment Fiscal Year Net Sales (1) % Change from Prior Fiscal Year Operating Income (1) Operating Income a s a Percentage of Net Sales Comp Sales Unit C ounts Square Footage (2 ) $46,710 46,899 44,336 0. 4% 5. 8% 6. 6% $1,512 1,646 1,648 3. 2% 3. 5% 3. 7% -1. 4% 4. 9% 4. 9% 596 602 591 79,401 79,906 78,236 2010 2009 2008 (1) Amounts in millions (2) Amounts in thousands The decrease in net sales for the Sam’s Club segment in ? scal 2010 primarily resulted from lower fuel prices compared to the previous ? scal year. In ? scal 2009, the segment net sales growth resulted from a comparable club sales increase, including fuel, of 4. 9% and continued club expansion activities. Membership and other income, as a percentage of segment net sales, decreased slightly for ? scal 2010 when compared to ? scal 2009.Membership and other income, as a percentage of segment net sales, decreased slightly for ? scal 2009 when compared to ? scal 2008. Liquidity and Capital Resources Comparable club sales decreased during ? scal 2010 due to the negative impact of 2. 1 percentage points from lower fuel prices when compared to the previous ? scal year, partially offset by sales increases in fresh food, consumables and certain health and wellness categories. In ? scal 2009, comparable club sales increased due to growth in food, pharmacy, electronics and certain consumables categories, as well as an increase in both member traf? and average transaction size per member. Fuel sales had a positive impact of 1. 2 percentage points in ? scal 2009 on comparable club sales. Gross pro? t margin increased 0. 6 percentage points during ? scal 2010 compared to the prior year due to continued strength in sales of consumable, fresh food and other food-related categories. Gross pro? t margin increased 0. 1 percentage points during ? scal 2009 compared to the prior year due to strong sales in fresh food and other food-related categories, consumable categories and the positive impact of a higher fuel gross pro? t rate.Segment operating expenses, as a percentage of segment net sales, increased 0. 8 percentage points in ? scal 2010 compared to the p rior year due primarily to a pre-tax charge of $174 million related to the restructuring of Sam’s Club operations, including the closure of 10 clubs. Segment operating expenses, as a percentage of segment net sales, increased 0. 2 percentage points in ? scal 2009 compared to the prior year. In ? scal 2009, operating expense increases were impacted by higher utility and health bene? t costs and hurricane-related expenses. Cash flows provided by operating activities upply us with a significant source of liquidity. We use these cash flows, supplemented with long-term debt and short-term borrowings, to fund our operations and global expansion activities. Generally, some or all of the remaining free cash flow funds the dividends on our common stock and share repurchases. Cash ? ows provided by operating activities supply us with a signi? cant source of liquidity. We use these cash ? ows, supplemented with long-term debt and short-term borrowings, to fund our operations and global expansion activities. Generally, some or all of the remaining free cash ? w funds the dividends on our common stock and share repurchases. Fiscal Years Ended January 31, (Amounts in millions) 2010 Net cash provided by operating activities Payments for property and equipment Free cash ? ow 2009 2008 $ 26,249 $ 23,147 $ 20,642 (12,184) (11,499) (14,937) $ 14,065 $ 11,648 $ 5,705 Net cash used in investing activities Net cash used in ?nancing activities $(11,620) $(10,742) $(15,670) $(14,191) $ (9,918) $ (7,422) Cash ? ow provided by operating activities was $26. 2 billion, $23. 1 billion and $20. 6 billion for the years ended January 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The increases in cash ? ws provided by operating activities for each ? scal year were primarily attributable to an increase in income from continuing operations and improved working capital management. Working Capital Current liabilities exceeded current assets at January 31, 2010, by $7. 2 billion, an increase of $7 89 million from January 31, 2009. Our ratio of current assets to current liabilities was 0. 9 at January 31, 2010 and 2009. We generally have a working capital de? cit due to our ef? cient use of cash in funding operations and in providing returns to shareholders in the form of stock repurchases and payment of dividends.Walmart 2010 Annual Report 23 107077_L01_FIN. indd 107077_L01_FIN. indd 23 4/7/10 1:06:36 AM Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Capital Resources During ? scal 2010, we issued $5. 5 billion of long-term debt. The net proceeds from the issuance of such long-term debt were used for general corporate purposes. During ? scal 2009, we issued $6. 6 billion of long-term debt. Those net proceeds were used to repay outstanding commercial paper indebtedness and for other general corporate purposes. Management believes that cash ? ws from continuing operations and proceeds from the issuance of short-term borrowings will be suf? cient to ? nance seasonal buildups in merchandise inventories and meet other cash requirements. If our operating cash ? ows are not suf? cient to pay dividends and to fund our capital expenditures, we anticipate funding any shortfall in these expenditures with a combination of short-term borrowings and long-term debt. We plan to re? nance existing long-term debt as it matures and may desire to obtain additional long-term ? nancing for other corporate purposes. We anticipate no dif? culty in obtaining long-term ? ancing in view of our credit ratings and favorable experiences in the debt market in the recent past. The following table details the ratings of the credit rating agencies that rated our outstanding indebtedness at January 31, 2010. The rating agency ratings are not recommendations to buy, sell or hold our commercial paper or debt securities. Each rating may be subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the assigning rating organization and should be evaluated independently of any other rating. Global Expansion Activities Cash paid for property and equipment was $12. 2 billion, $11. 5 billion and $14. billion during the ? scal years ended January 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. These expenditures primarily relate to new store growth, as well as remodeling costs for existing stores. We expect to incur capital expenditures of approximately $13. 0 billion to $15. 0 billion in ? scal 2011. We plan to ? nance this expansion and any acquisitions of other operations that we may make during ? scal 2011 primarily from cash ? ows from operations. Fiscal 2011 capital expenditures will include the addition of the following new, relocated and expanded units in the U. S. : Fiscal Year 2011 Projected Unit Growth Walmart U.S. Segment Sam’s Club Segment 145-160 5-10 150-170 Total U. S. Additionally, the International segment expects to add more than 600 units during ? scal year 2011. The following represents an allocation of our capital expe nditures: Rating Agency Commercial Paper Standard & Poor’s Moody’s Investors Service Fitch Ratings DBRS Limited Long-term Debt A-1+ P-1 F1+ R-1(middle) AA Aa2 AA AA To monitor our credit ratings and our capacity for long-term ? nancing, we consider various qualitative and quantitative factors. We monitor the ratio of our debt to our total capitalization as support for our long-term ? nancing decisions.At January 31, 2010 and January 31, 2009, the ratio of our debt to total capitalization was 36. 9% and 39. 3%, respectively. For the purpose of this calculation, debt is de? ned as the sum of short-term borrowings, long-term debt due within one year, obligations under capital leases due in one year, long-term debt and long-term obligations under capital leases. Total capitalization is de? ned as debt plus total Walmart shareholders’ equity. Our ratio of debt to our total capitalization decreased in ? scal 2010 primarily due to a decrease in short-term borrowings. W e expect to incur capital expenditures of approximately $13. 0 billion to $15. billion in fiscal 2011. We plan to finance this expansion and any acquisitions of other operations that we may make during fiscal 2011 primarily from cash flows from operations. Allocation of Capital Expenditures Projected Capital Expenditures New stores, including expansions and relocations Remodels Information systems, distribution and other Total U. S. International Total Capital Expenditures Actual Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2010 2009 31% 15% 29% 17% 34% 10% 21% 23% 20% 67% 69% 64% 33% 31% 36% 100% 100% 100% Common Stock Dividends We paid dividends of $1. 09 per share in ? scal 2010, representing a 15% increase over ? cal 2009. The ? scal 2009 dividend of $0. 95 per share represented an 8% increase over ? scal 2008. We have increased our dividend every year since the ? rst dividend was declared in March 1974. On March 4, 2010, the company’s Board of Directors approved an increase in the annual dividend for ? scal 2011 to $1. 21 per share, an increase of 11% over the dividends paid in ? scal 2010. The annual dividend will be paid in four quarterly installments on April 5, 2010, June 1, 2010, September 7, 2010 and January 3, 2011 to holders of record on March 12, May 14, August 13 and December 10, 2010, respectively. 4 Walmart 2010 Annual Report 107077_L01_FIN. indd 107077_L01_FIN. indd 24 4/6/10 8:25:52 PM Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations Company Share Repurchase Program From time to time, we have repurchased shares of our common stock under a $15. 0 billion share repurchase program authorized by our Board of Directors on June 4, 2009 and announced on June 5, 2009, which replaced and terminated a $15. 0 billion share repurchase program approved by our Board of Directors on May 31, 2007 and announced on June 1, 2007.As was the case with the replaced share repurchase program, the new program has no exp iration date or other restrictions limiting the period over which we can make our share repurchases, and will expire only when and if we have repurchased $15. 0 billion of our shares under the program or we terminate or replace the program. Any repurchased shares are constructively retired and returned to unissued status. We spent $7. 3 billion, $3. 5 billion and $7. 7 billion in share repurchases during ? scal year 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.We consider several factors in determining when to execute the share repurchases, including among other things, our current cash needs, our capacity for leverage, our cost of borrowings and the market price of our common stock. As of January 31, 2010, the program had approximately $9. 2 billion remaining authorization for share repurchases. Contractual Obligations and Other Commercial Commitments The following table sets forth certain information concerning our obligations and commitments to make contractual future payments, such as debt and lease agreements, and contingent commitments:Payments Due During Fiscal Years Ending January 31, (Amounts in millions) Recorded contractual obligations: Long-term debt Short-term borrowings Capital lease obligations Unrecorded contractual obligations: Non-cancelable operating leases Interest on long-term debt Trade letters of credit Purchase obligations Total commercial commitments Additionally, the company has approximately $11. 2 billion in undrawn lines of credit and standby letters of credit which, if drawn upon, would be included in the liabilities section of the Consolidated Balance Sheets.Purchase obligations include legally binding contracts such as ? rm commitments for inventory and utility purchases, as well as commitments to make capital expenditures, software acquisition/license commitments and legally binding service contracts. Purchase orders for the purchase of inventory and other services are not included in the table above. Purchase orders represent authorizati ons to purchase rather than binding agreements. For the purposes of this table, contractual obligations for purchase of goods or services are de? ned as agreements that are enforceable and legally binding and that specify all signi? ant terms, including: ? xed or minimum quantities to be purchased; ? xed, minimum or variable price provisions; and the approximate timing of the transaction. Our purchase orders are based on our current inventory needs and are ful? lled by our suppliers within short time periods. We also enter into contracts for outsourced services; however, the obligations under these contracts are not signi? cant and the contracts generally contain clauses allowing for cancellation without signi? cant penalty. Total 2011 2012-2013 2014-2015 Thereafter $37,281 523 5,584 $ 4,050

Should Economic Efficiency Be the Primary Consideration for Competition Law - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2384 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Economics Essay Type Analytical essay Level High school Did you like this example? Q.3 should economic efficiency be the primary consideration and priority for the enforcement of competition law? It is widely accepted that economic efficiency is the primary consideration and legitimate doctrine when contemplating the goal of competition law. This is agreed upon by both legal and economist scholars. [1] Economic efficiency brings about monumental benefits; it stimulates the economy, reduces the prices of products, and improves development innovation and creativity, creating new sources of capital.[2] Schweitzer has argued that competition law can never stand alone with just economic efficiency in a democratic society. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Should Economic Efficiency Be the Primary Consideration for Competition Law?" essay for you Create order The inclusion of public policy choices is inevitable.[3] This implements an idea that competition law is a myriad of broader national and public policies, strategies, priorities and interests. This suggests that it may not be such a good idea to place economic efficiency as the prime consideration of competition law. Merger regulations provide a good example to foster the idea that the governmentsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ goal for competition law goes beyond the maintenance of market competitiveness and towards a more social one.[4] Governments may find themselves inclined to prefer non-efficiency motivators due to pressure by interest groups accounting for their social needs.[5] Since there is influence from these non-economic objectives then it would seem that suggesting a framework to accommodate for these objectives would be necessary. However, although this would seem to show that non-efficiency objectives are indeed integrated into the internal part of competition law, this doesnà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t mean that such objectives are followed by the judiciary or the competition law enforcement bodies.[6] This idea brings to life the understanding that although non-efficiency objectives are mentioned and voiced, it may only be done to please the many voices for it, as at the end of the day the enforcers have the discretion to pursue the objective which they see more suitable. More often than most being an economic one. In order to be able to appreciate the objectives of competition law, it is important to look at the specific legal system in question, as different systems have different priorities.[7] In less developed countries the focus of competition law policy falls on mostly social objectives. They usually have a liking in the protection of small businesses and decentralization of political economic power. [8] This would mean then that the idea of economic efficiency being the prime focus of competition law is frustrated. With that being said the questio n over the objective of competition law policy would be whether to achieve moral goals or to insure that the promotion of competition and economic efficiency is maximised.[9] Government intervention also has an important role to play in indentifying the priority of competition law policy in a country. Conservative and libertarian views are in favour of minimal government intervention and thus would opt for the objective of competition law to be based on economic efficiency.[10] Contrary to that, the more liberal views are more prone to support non-efficiency objectives such as the welfare of small businesses and the dispersion of power, in consequence, they are suspicious of corporate power.[11] When focusing on the economic efficiency, there is a usual disregard for the distribution or equity implications involved.[12] This is why we have the liberals who endeavour to protect those rights. There appears to have been a shift and focus on the objectives taken by different ju risdiction. This change has been towards a more economic efficiency base.[13] This was demonstrated by the UN conference of Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which indicated, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"the trend is towards relatively greater emphasis upon competition, efficiency and competitiveness objectives.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[14] It has been stated that the allure of economic efficiency may have taken a global turn by different jurisdictions following under the same steps but this does not mean that other non-economic objectives donà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢t need to be considered.[15] Michael Porter argues that construing an entire body of law solely on consumer welfare theory could result in the overlooking important benefits for society. Competition law would not perform at its best and to its full promise if it did not account for societyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s benefit.[16] Porter is not the only believer that a solely economic efficient objective would not be appropriate for competition law p olicy. Professor Robert Pitofsky, supports this stance and adds that an entirely economic approach would lead to market domination by few corporate giants.[17] As a soltution, Maurice Stucke suggests that different objectives of competition law should be accepted à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"because these multiple goals reflect the various stakeholdersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[18] interests and concerns, which they want addressed.[19] It must be noted that judicial and legislative approaches towards non-efficiency goals are troubling. We have mentioned that economic efficiency is the preferred objective. However, it must also be determined that if the judicial and legislative bodies where against non-economic efficiency all together, they would enact or amend so as to provide primacy to economic analysis. This demonstrates that non-economic considerations should play a role within competition law.[20] On top of that, it is maintained by John Flynn that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"although economic analysis provides valuable insights into business dynamics and the probable effects of a commercial practice in the market place, economics is not law.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[21] The competition policies are passed by politician and not by economists. In order to fulfil the aspiration of the people competition law ought to take into account all the peoples aspirations.[22] Professor Harry First also states that in pursing consumer welfare we inevitably satisfy the desire of citizens as a consumer only and that we ignore the inclination registered politically which consequently does not show up in the analysis of market place efficiency.[23] In focusing on economic efficiency or the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"market efficiencyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ there is the issue that there is a failure to express peopleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s preference beyond their dollars.[24] So a preference for more expansive opportunities for a small business or preventing concentrations of economic power in private hands cannot be pr evented.[25] It does not make sense to ignore these preferences as the politics would point out that the public places value on these objectives.[26] The disregard of the peoples voice means that democracy is being forgone and in the process people may lose faith in competition law policies.[27] So many people are affected by competition law policies, therefore it would make sense that the consideration of both economic and non-economic objectives are accounted for in order to promote fairness. Stucke comments that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"competition policy in democracy will never be captured by a single economic goal.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[28] The best way to overcome this once again to accommodate the self-interest of the people and lodge their hopes and fears I regards to competition.[29] By looking at what different jurisdiction have adapted we can have an idea of what has been working best. And by understanding what works best then we can determine whether we should focus on economic efficiencies. We can do this by using the merger control analysis.[30] The US courts have proven to focus their objectives on economic efficiency in their merger policies. The merger guidelines of 1992, demonstrate this as it has lowered the standard of proof for efficiency arguments.[31] Canada also provides an efficiency defence in their competition Act under Section 96. In the Act they set out a test to check the effects of the merger and balance it against the efficiency gains.[32] The producer and consumerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s losses and gains are reviewed.[33] The Canadians approach factor non-economic considerations and consider the protection of small and medium enterprises, and the balancing of such mergers against efficiency gains of the merger.[34] In the UK, the objective is on the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"increase rivalry in the market into account in assessing whether a merger gives rise to any risk of a substantial lessening of competition.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢[35] The Offi ce of fair trading which deals with the matter is allowed to use its discretion into these cases. The US holds the leading role of promoting the economic-efficiency objective whereas the European countries demonstrate a state of the mergers of both economic and non-economic efficiency objectives.[36] There has been a rise in the Chicago school of thought, which are fervent believer on the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"economic approach.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ The Canadian competition law is like Europe in that it has managed to find a relative balance between the two objectives within a statutory framework. However, there is a penchant towards the economic efficient objective in practice.[37] The UK has shown to have preferred the economic efficient approach and has in consequence slowly give less weight to the importance attributed by statute to public interests concerns.[38] The task for a jurisdiction to accommodate non-economic efficiency is extremely difficult. Countries such as Israel are still in quest of a method to implement non-efficiency concerns in the Israeli competition law.[39] It has been found by Areeda and Hovenkamp that two approaches should be followed if economic-efficiency objectives should be applied. a) absence of collision with ambiguous statutory language.[40] b) institutional capability of à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"managing the information and decision-making process necessaryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ to implement such approach.[41] It has been pointed out however, that if too much attention is given to non-economic efficiency objectives when decisions are made then in the long run the economy will become less efficient, which will eventually affect the consumers negatively.[42] There seems to be a great need to combine both economic and non-economic efficient objective together. Blake and Jones have cited that the same rule of law may promote both objectives.[43] It is believed that non-efficiency objectives may be reached by ensuring market efficie ncy. In fact, what is believed is that economic efficiency is the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"direct goalà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ of competition, while the socio-political and other non-economic concerns are considered à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"ultimate goalsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢.[44] The concern which many have with the Chicago school of thought is that the economic approach they eagerly defend brings about short term benefits. The merger guidelines that defend such thought[45] fails to take into account the social and political impact of mergers , which in the long run may lead to loss or transfer of jobs or an increasing political influence.[46] [1] Organisation for economic co-orperation development COECD, competition policy efficiency claims in horizontal agreements (Paris,) 1996), p.5. [2]O. Green.(2008). Integration of non-efficiency objectives in competition Law. LL.M.Thesis.Faculty of Toronto: Canada. P2 [3] H. Schweitzer. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Competition law and public policy reconsidering an uneasy relationship: the example of Art. 81à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (2007), p. 13. Available at SSRN : https://ssrn.com/abstract=1092883. [4] A. Ezrachi, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The role of voluntary frameworks in multinational cooperation over merger controlà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , 36 Geo. Wash. Int. L. Rev. 433, 438, n. 16 (2004). [5] O. Green.(2008). Integration of non-efficiency objectives in competition Law. LL.M.Thesis.Faculty of Toronto: Canada. P.3. [6] K.G Elzinga, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The goals of antitrust: other than competition and efficiencies, what else counts?à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ,125 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1182, 1203 (1977). [7] 6 ICN, Advocacy Working Group, Advocacy and Competition Policy (2002), p. 32; available at: https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/media/library/conference_1st_naples_2002/advocacyfinal.pdf. [8] M. Trebilcock et al., The Law and Economics of Canadian Competition Policy (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2nd ed., 2003), p. 39. [9] P. Slot A. Johnson, An Introduction to Competition Law (Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 2006), p. 4. 35 Gal, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Reality bites (or bits): the political economy of antitrust enforcementà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , in: Hawk, ed., International Antitrust Law and Policy (Huntington, NY: Juris Publishing, 2001), p. 605, Part IV; available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=901756. [10] Fox, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The modernization of antitrust: a new equilibriumà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , 66 Cornell L.R.. 1140, 1155 (1981). P.1156 [11] E. Sullivan J. Harrison, Understanding Antitrust and Its Economic Implications (Newark, NJ: Bender Co.: 4th ed., 2003), p. 2-3. [12] O. Green.(2008). Integration of non-efficiency objectives in competition Law. LL.M.Thesis.Faculty of Toronto: Canada. P.19. [13] C. Ehlermann L. Laudati, eds., European Competition Law Annual: The Objectives of Competition Law (Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 1998), p. ix [14] UNCTAD, The Basic Objectives and Main Provisions of Competition Laws and Policies (1995), p. 2; available at: https://www.unctad.org/en/docs/poitd_15.en.pdf. [15] O. Green.(2008). Integration of non-efficiency objectives in competition Law. LL.M.Thesis.Faculty of Toronto: Canada. P.21. [16] 6 M.E. Porter, Competition and Antitrust: A Productivity-Based Approach (2002), p. 2; available at: https://www.isc.hbs.edu/053002antitrust.pdf. [17] R. Pitofsky, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The political content of antitrustà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , 127 U. Pa. L.R 1051, 1056ff (1979) [18] M. Stucke, Better Competition Advocacy (2007), p. 51; available at: https://works.bepress.com/maurice_stucke /1. [19] O. Green.(2008). Integration of non-efficiency objectives in competition Law. LL.M.Thesis.Faculty of Toronto: Canada. P.22. [20] Id., p.23. [21] 1 Khemani, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Objectives of Competition Lawà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , in: World Bank-OECD, A Framework for the Design and Implementation of Competition Law and Policy (Paris, 1997), p. 5; available at: https://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/9/27122227.pdf. [22] J. Flynn, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Antitrust jurisprudence: a symposium on the economic, political and social goals of antitrust policyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , 125 U. Pa. L.R. 1182, 1186 (1977).p.1186. [23] H. First, Book review of Posner, Antitrust Law: An Economic Perspective, 52 NYU L. Rev. 947, 947 (1977).p.966. [24] O. Green.(2008). Integration of non-efficiency objectives in competition Law. LL.M.Thesis.Faculty of Toronto: Canada. P.25. [25] H. Hovenkamp, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Antitrust policy after Chicagoà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , 84 Mich. L. Rev. 213, 242 (1985).p.241. [26] Ibid.,p242. [27] J. Burns, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Vertical restraints, efficiency and the real worldà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , 62 Fordham L. Rev. 597, 628 (1993) [28] M. Stucke, Better Competition Advocacy (2007), p. 26. [29] D. Dewey, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Antitrust and economic theory: an uneasy friendshipà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , 87 Yale L.J. 1516, 1525 (1978) [30] Competition Bureau (Canada), Treatment of Efficiencies in the Competition Act: Consultation Paper (2004), Appendix C. [31] W. Kolasky A. Dick, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The Merger Guidelines and the integration of efficiencies into antitrust review of horizontal mergersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , 71 Antitrust L.J. 207, 208 (2003),p.209. [32] O. Green.(2008). Integration of non-efficiency objectives in competition Law. LL.M.Thesis.Faculty of Toronto: Canada. P.29. [33] J. Holsten, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The Commissioner of Competition v. Superior Propane à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" the Tribunal strikes backà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , 2002 Canadian Competition Recor d 26, 31 (2002). [34] 1 Economic Council of Canada, Interim Report on Competition Policy (Ottawa: Queenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Printer, 1969), p. 22. See Competition Bureau (Canada), Merger Enforcement Guidelines (2004), 8.19 [35] Office of Fair Trading, Mergers substantive assessment guidance (OFT 561, 2003), par. 4.30 [36] O. Green.(2008). Integration of non-efficiency objectives in competition Law. LL.M.Thesis.Faculty of Toronto: Canada. P.43. [37] Ibid., p.43. [38] Ibid.,p.43. [39] Ibid.,p.43. [40] P. Areeda H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law (New York, NY: Aspen Law and Business, 2002), vol. I (rev. ed.), p. 127. [41] Id., p.119. [42] B. Foer, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The goals of antitrust: thoughts on consumer welfare in the U.S.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (American Antitrust Institute, Working Paper 05-09), p. 24 [43] H. Blake W. Jones, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Toward a three-dimensional antitrust policyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , 65 Colum. L. Rev. 422, 424 (1965). [44] C. Ehler mann L. Laudati, eds., European Competition Law Annual: The Objectives of Competition Law (Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 1998), p. 30. [45] U.S. Department of Justice, Merger Guidelines (1984), reprinted in 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH)  ¶13,103 [46] Sullivan, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Post-Chicago economics: economists, lawyers, judges, and enforcement officials in a less determinate theoretical worldà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , 63 Antitrust L.J. 669 (1995)