I(t)=? the average inventory quantity to obtain holding

I(t)=? I?_0 (t) ?_t^(t_1)??(P-D) e^(?+?)u=? (P-D)/(?+?) (e^(?+?)(t_1-t) -1),?I(t)?_0=e^(-(?+?)t)

I(t)=? I?_0 (t) ?_t^(t_1)??(P-D)e^(?+?)u=? (P-D)/(?+?) (e^(?+?)(t_1-t) -1),?I(t)?_0=e^(-(?+?)t) (2)

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

According to Eq.2 the maximum inventory quantity at the begin each period is given as

Q=(P-D)/(?+?) (e^((?+?) t_1 )-1),t_1=Fb/N (3)

3.1. Fixed ordering cost
We assumed the number of replenishment is N so that the fixed ordering cost over the planning horizon under the inflation consideration is:

?TC?_A=?_(j=0)^N??A_j T=?_(j=0)^N?A? e^(-RT)=A((e^(-(N+1)RT)-1)/(e^(-RT)-1)),T=Fb/N (4)

Then
?TC?_A=?_(j=0)^N??A_j T=?_(j=0)^N?A? e^(-RT)=A((e^((-(N+1)Rb)/N)-1)/(e^((-Rb)/N)-1)),T=Fb/N (5)

3.2. Holding cost excluding interest cost
We find the average inventory quantity to obtain holding cost
I ?=?_0^(t_1)??I(t)dt=?_0^(t_1)??(P-D)/(?+?)(e^(?+?)(t_1-t) dt= (P-D)/(?+?)^2 (e^((?+?) t_1 )-(?+?) t_1-1) ?? (6)
By using Eq. 7 we have obtained holding cost is as follows

?TC?_h=?_(j=0)^(N-1)??I_h C_j I ?=?_(j=0)^(N-1)??I_h Ce^(-R_j T)=(I_h C(P-D))/(?+?)^2 (e^((?+?) t_1 )-(?+?)?? t_1-1) (7)
Since T=b/N then equation number (8) it will be as
?TC?_h=(I_h C(P-D))/(?+?)^2 (e^((?+?) t_1 )-(?+?) t_1-1)(e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^(-Rb/N)-1) (8)

3.3. Purchasing cost

According to fig.1 of inventory level the purchasing cost of j^th cycle is calculated as
?CP?_j=C_j I_m=C_j (P-D)/(?+?)(e^((?+?) Fb/N)-1) (9)
The total purchasing cost over the planning horizon can be obtained as
Special case for total purchasing cost when
?TC?_P=?_(j=0)^(N-1)???CP?_j=C(P-D)/(?+?)(e^((?+?) Fb/N)-1)(? (e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^(-Rb/N)-1)) (10)

TC=?TC?_A+?TC?_h+?TC?_P

Then,
TC=A(e^(-(N+1)Rb/N)-1)/(e^(-Rb/N)-1)+ ?((C(P-D)+)/(?+?) (e^((?+?) t_1 )-1)[email protected]((P-D)I_h)/(?+?)^2 (e^((?+?) t_1 )-(?+?) t_1-1) )(e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^(- Rb/N)-1) (11)

3.5. Economic order quantity
3.5. 1.Economic order quantity
To find EOQ by minimizing the total cost function as the following

TC=A(e^(-(N+1)Rb/N)-1)/(e^(-Rb/N)-1)
+(C(P-D)(e^((?+?) t_1 )-1))/(?+?)+((P-D)I_h)/((??+?)?^2 ) (e^(((?+?) t_1)/N)-(?+?) t_1-1) (e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^((-Rb)/N)-1) (12)
Since t_1=Fb/N
Q=((P-D))/(?+?) (e^((?+?) t_1 )-1) (13)
By substituting the Eq.13 in the equation Eq.12, then it can be rewritten as

TC=A(e^(-(N+1)Rb/N)-1)/(e^(-Rb/N)-1) +CQ+(I_h Q)/(?+?)-(I_h (P-D))/(?+?)^2 ln?((?+?)Q/(P-D)+1)(e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^(- Rb/N)-1) (14)
By taking derivate the Eq.14 With respect to to find out the minimum value of total cost function then
dTC/dQ=(C+I_h/(?+?)-((P-D)I_h)/(P-D+(?+?)Q))(e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^(- Rb/N)-1) =0

Here there two cases.

If Q>(P-D)/(?+?)

Here
Q^*=(P-D)/(?+?)(I_h (?+?))/(I_h+(?+?)C)-1
This is an infeasible solution as economic order quantity.

(ii) If Q0
Since P > D, Q>0, ?+?>0
So that the total cost function has a minimum value at the point Q^*
The period of the first time run.
?t_1?^* =1/(?+?) ln?(((?+?)Q^*)/(P-D)+1) (17)

I(t)=? I?_0 (t) ?_t^(t_1)??(P-D) e^(?+?)u=? (P-D)/(?+?) (e^(?+?)(t_1-t) -1),?I(t)?_0=e^(-(?+?)t)

I(t)=? I?_0 (t) ?_t^(t_1)??(P-D)e^(?+?)u=? (P-D)/(?+?) (e^(?+?)(t_1-t) -1),?I(t)?_0=e^(-(?+?)t) (2)

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

According to Eq.2 the maximum inventory quantity at the begin each period is given as

Q=(P-D)/(?+?) (e^((?+?) t_1 )-1),t_1=Fb/N (3)

3.1. Fixed ordering cost
We assumed the number of replenishment is N so that the fixed ordering cost over the planning horizon under the inflation consideration is:

?TC?_A=?_(j=0)^N??A_j T=?_(j=0)^N?A? e^(-RT)=A((e^(-(N+1)RT)-1)/(e^(-RT)-1)),T=Fb/N (4)

Then
?TC?_A=?_(j=0)^N??A_j T=?_(j=0)^N?A? e^(-RT)=A((e^((-(N+1)Rb)/N)-1)/(e^((-Rb)/N)-1)),T=Fb/N (5)

3.2. Holding cost excluding interest cost
We find the average inventory quantity to obtain holding cost
I ?=?_0^(t_1)??I(t)dt=?_0^(t_1)??(P-D)/(?+?)(e^(?+?)(t_1-t) dt= (P-D)/(?+?)^2 (e^((?+?) t_1 )-(?+?) t_1-1) ?? (6)
By using Eq. 7 we have obtained holding cost is as follows

?TC?_h=?_(j=0)^(N-1)??I_h C_j I ?=?_(j=0)^(N-1)??I_h Ce^(-R_j T)=(I_h C(P-D))/(?+?)^2 (e^((?+?) t_1 )-(?+?)?? t_1-1) (7)
Since T=b/N then equation number (8) it will be as
?TC?_h=(I_h C(P-D))/(?+?)^2 (e^((?+?) t_1 )-(?+?) t_1-1)(e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^(-Rb/N)-1) (8)

3.3. Purchasing cost

According to fig.1 of inventory level the purchasing cost of j^th cycle is calculated as
?CP?_j=C_j I_m=C_j (P-D)/(?+?)(e^((?+?) Fb/N)-1) (9)
The total purchasing cost over the planning horizon can be obtained as
Special case for total purchasing cost when
?TC?_P=?_(j=0)^(N-1)???CP?_j=C(P-D)/(?+?)(e^((?+?) Fb/N)-1)(? (e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^(-Rb/N)-1)) (10)

TC=?TC?_A+?TC?_h+?TC?_P

Then,
TC=A(e^(-(N+1)Rb/N)-1)/(e^(-Rb/N)-1)+ ?((C(P-D)+)/(?+?) (e^((?+?) t_1 )-1)[email protected]((P-D)I_h)/(?+?)^2 (e^((?+?) t_1 )-(?+?) t_1-1) )(e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^(- Rb/N)-1) (11)

3.5. Economic order quantity
3.5. 1.Economic order quantity
To find EOQ by minimizing the total cost function as the following

TC=A(e^(-(N+1)Rb/N)-1)/(e^(-Rb/N)-1)
+(C(P-D)(e^((?+?) t_1 )-1))/(?+?)+((P-D)I_h)/((??+?)?^2 ) (e^(((?+?) t_1)/N)-(?+?) t_1-1) (e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^((-Rb)/N)-1) (12)
Since t_1=Fb/N
Q=((P-D))/(?+?) (e^((?+?) t_1 )-1) (13)
By substituting the Eq.13 in the equation Eq.12, then it can be rewritten as

TC=A(e^(-(N+1)Rb/N)-1)/(e^(-Rb/N)-1) +CQ+(I_h Q)/(?+?)-(I_h (P-D))/(?+?)^2 ln?((?+?)Q/(P-D)+1)(e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^(- Rb/N)-1) (14)
By taking derivate the Eq.14 With respect to to find out the minimum value of total cost function then
dTC/dQ=(C+I_h/(?+?)-((P-D)I_h)/(P-D+(?+?)Q))(e^(-Rb)-1)/(e^(- Rb/N)-1) =0

Here there two cases.

If Q>(P-D)/(?+?)

Here
Q^*=(P-D)/(?+?)(I_h (?+?))/(I_h+(?+?)C)-1
This is an infeasible solution as economic order quantity.

(ii) If Q0
Since P > D, Q>0, ?+?>0
So that the total cost function has a minimum value at the point Q^*
The period of the first time run.
?t_1?^* =1/(?+?) ln?(((?+?)Q^*)/(P-D)+1) (17)

I. Introduction and Thesis
Fingers deformed, ears missing, skin hanging and patches of burnt skin- This was how the hibakusha (survivors) of the Japanese Cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were seen. Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki devastated not only the cities but also left its people in horrific and terrible condition. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justifiable because it was inhumane, it did not really end the war, and Japan would have surrendered anyways.

II. Background
During World War 2, an American B-29 dropped the world’s first Atomic bomb called “Little Man” over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945,killing over 90 percent of the city and about 80,000 people and more died later of radiation exposure. After 3 days, a second B-29 dropped another Atomic bomb named “Fat Man” on Nagasaki, taking the lives of 40,000 people. The United States purpose to use the bombing was to force Japan to unconditionally surrender. Furthermore, the US needed to use the A- bomb before the Soviet Union entered the war to establish US dominance. They wanted to use the world’s first atomic bomb for an actual attack and observe its effect.
In a radio address, Hirohito, announced Japan’s unconditional surrender in World War II, citing the deadly power of “a new and most cruel bomb.”
A group of American scientists became concerned with nuclear weapons research being conducted in Nazi Germany. The government of the United States funded its own weapons development program, which came under the responsibility of both the Office of Scientific Research and Development and the War Department after the U.S. entry into World War II. “The Manhattan Project ” was the codename for the A-bomb project at the Columbia University, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were given the task of leading the construction of the vast facilities necessary for this top-secret program.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Arguments

To begin with, the bombings done in Hiroshima followed by Nagasaki was not necessary. The United States should have not bombed the populated cities of Japan, Little Boy and Fat Man probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians. Such mass destruction of life of civilians is sorrowful. Rather, Tokyo Bay could have been the best place to drop the bomb, where no civilians could get hurt and they could impose a warning to Japan. Such a warning could have persuaded Japan to end the war, and its humane nature would have enhanced the US’s moral standing.
According to Google, a bomb is a container filled with explosive, incendiary material, smoke, gas, or other destructive substance. But what America dropped on Japan was not a bomb, it was a poisonous material which ate up lives by radiation. Chairman of the wartime Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William D. Leahy said that “The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender”. (“We Shouldn’t Have Bombed Hiroshima”, 1996?)
Furthermore, the atomic bomb was developed from a new technology and there was no way that Japan could have been ready for such kind of attack as the world hadn’t seen such type of explosive until it was dropped. So, the dropping of the atomic bomb was pretty much unfair.

Also, Truman could have waited for the Soviet Union to enter the war but he did not want the USSR to participate for Japan. Another alternative, which the US secretary of war, Stimson, recommended, was that the emperor would not be held responsible for the war under the policy of unconditional surrender. But the secretary of state, James Byrnes, much closer to Truman that time, turned it down.
Instead of dropping the A-bombs, the United States signalled to the world that it considered nuclear weapons “legitimate weapons of war”. Furthermore, Americans have been taught that the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because the bombings ended the Pacific War. This false information is found in high school textbooks even today. Moreover, it also influences the thinking of government officials and military planners working in a world that still has more than 15,000, nuclear weapons out there.
Moreover, It was not the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended the Pacific war. Instead, it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and other Japanese colonies that began on midnight Aug. 8, 1945. (“Bombing Hiroshima changed the world, but it didn’t end WWII”)
Therefore, The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justifiable because it was inhumane, it did not really end the war, and Japan would have surrendered anyways.
IV. Rebuttal(s) of Counterpoint(s)
As the Japanese had struck the Pearl Harbors with bombs and explosives, the US definitely had the right to fight back but not in such an inhumane and destructing way. Pearl Harbor was a military based ship harbor, so no innocent civilians were killed during that bombing. The United States, instead of bombing a Japanese military base, bombed two Japanese cities that were not even under the Japanese military. The two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely destructed, leaving it lifeless. Children, men , women, elderly-aged people were killed by the bombs. The temples, schools, hospitals, living quarters, etc were also burnt down.
It is clear that these bombs took away the lives of those innocents, who had nothing to do with the war and the US should not have used these kind of explosives.

Conclusion

In Conclusion, The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justifiable because it was inhumane, it did not really end the war, and Japan would have surrendered. The killing of innocent people was unnecessary and unethical, it was no less than a mass murder and murder is never justifiable. Just as one would not justify mass killings like the Holocaust, it is crucial to understand how immoral it is to justify the critical and awful loss of human life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Works Cited

Beschloss, Michael R. “Did We Need to Drop It?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 July 1995, www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html.

Staff, History.com. “Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009, www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki.

“We Shouldn’t Have Bombed Hiroshima.” A Proposal To Change The Death Penalty, June 1996, www.spectacle.org/696/hiroshi.html.

Japan?, W. (2012). Was the U.S. Right to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan? | Academic. online Teenink.com. Available at: http://www.teenink.com/nonfiction/academic/article/472162/Was-the-US-Right-to-Drop-the-Atomic-Bomb-on-Japan/ Accessed 10 May 2018.

“Face To Face: Was The Dropping Of The Atomic Bomb On Japan Justified? | Legion Magazine.” Legion Magazine Face To Face Was The Dropping Of The Atomic Bomb On Japan Justified Comments, 1 Sept. 2014, legionmagazine.com/en/2014/09/face-to-face-was-the-dropping-of-the-atomic-bomb-on-japan-justified/.

“Should America Have Dropped Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?” History Extra, 25 Apr. 2018, www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/should-america-have-dropped-atomic-bombs-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/.
Kuznick, Oliver Stone and Peter. “Bombing Hiroshima Changed the World, but It Didn’t End WWII.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 26 May 2016, www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stone-kuznick-hiroshima-obama-20160524-snap-story.html.
McLaughlin, John J. “The Bomb Was Not Necessary.” History News Network, 10 August 2010 historynewsnetwork.org/article/129964.

Carney, Timothy P. “‘It Wasn’t Necessary to Hit Them with That Awful Thing’ .” Washington Examiner, 8 Aug. 2013, www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-wasnt-necessary-to-hit-them-with-that-awful-thing-why-dropping-the-a-bombs-was-wrong.

Commentary. “It’s Clear the US Should Not Have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Quartz, Quartz, 6 Aug. 2015, qz.com/472146/its-clear-the-us-should-not-have-bombed-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/.

I. Introduction and Thesis
Fingers deformed, ears missing, skin hanging and patches of burnt skin- This was how the hibakusha (survivors) of the Japanese Cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were seen. Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki devastated not only the cities but also left its people in horrific and terrible condition. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justifiable because it was inhumane, it did not really end the war, and Japan would have surrendered anyways.

II. Background
During World War 2, an American B-29 dropped the world’s first Atomic bomb called “Little Man” over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945,killing over 90 percent of the city and about 80,000 people and more died later of radiation exposure. After 3 days, a second B-29 dropped another Atomic bomb named “Fat Man” on Nagasaki, taking the lives of 40,000 people. The United States purpose to use the bombing was to force Japan to unconditionally surrender. Furthermore, the US needed to use the A- bomb before the Soviet Union entered the war to establish US dominance. They wanted to use the world’s first atomic bomb for an actual attack and observe its effect.
In a radio address, Hirohito, announced Japan’s unconditional surrender in World War II, citing the deadly power of “a new and most cruel bomb.”
A group of American scientists became concerned with nuclear weapons research being conducted in Nazi Germany. The government of the United States funded its own weapons development program, which came under the responsibility of both the Office of Scientific Research and Development and the War Department after the U.S. entry into World War II. “The Manhattan Project ” was the codename for the A-bomb project at the Columbia University, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were given the task of leading the construction of the vast facilities necessary for this top-secret program.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Arguments

To begin with, the bombings done in Hiroshima followed by Nagasaki was not necessary. The United States should have not bombed the populated cities of Japan, Little Boy and Fat Man probably killed more than 200,000 Japanese civilians. Such mass destruction of life of civilians is sorrowful. Rather, Tokyo Bay could have been the best place to drop the bomb, where no civilians could get hurt and they could impose a warning to Japan. Such a warning could have persuaded Japan to end the war, and its humane nature would have enhanced the US’s moral standing.
According to Google, a bomb is a container filled with explosive, incendiary material, smoke, gas, or other destructive substance. But what America dropped on Japan was not a bomb, it was a poisonous material which ate up lives by radiation. Chairman of the wartime Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William D. Leahy said that “The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender”. (“We Shouldn’t Have Bombed Hiroshima”, 1996?)
Furthermore, the atomic bomb was developed from a new technology and there was no way that Japan could have been ready for such kind of attack as the world hadn’t seen such type of explosive until it was dropped. So, the dropping of the atomic bomb was pretty much unfair.

Also, Truman could have waited for the Soviet Union to enter the war but he did not want the USSR to participate for Japan. Another alternative, which the US secretary of war, Stimson, recommended, was that the emperor would not be held responsible for the war under the policy of unconditional surrender. But the secretary of state, James Byrnes, much closer to Truman that time, turned it down.
Instead of dropping the A-bombs, the United States signalled to the world that it considered nuclear weapons “legitimate weapons of war”. Furthermore, Americans have been taught that the bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified because the bombings ended the Pacific War. This false information is found in high school textbooks even today. Moreover, it also influences the thinking of government officials and military planners working in a world that still has more than 15,000, nuclear weapons out there.
Moreover, It was not the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended the Pacific war. Instead, it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and other Japanese colonies that began on midnight Aug. 8, 1945. (“Bombing Hiroshima changed the world, but it didn’t end WWII”)
Therefore, The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justifiable because it was inhumane, it did not really end the war, and Japan would have surrendered anyways.
IV. Rebuttal(s) of Counterpoint(s)
As the Japanese had struck the Pearl Harbors with bombs and explosives, the US definitely had the right to fight back but not in such an inhumane and destructing way. Pearl Harbor was a military based ship harbor, so no innocent civilians were killed during that bombing. The United States, instead of bombing a Japanese military base, bombed two Japanese cities that were not even under the Japanese military. The two cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely destructed, leaving it lifeless. Children, men , women, elderly-aged people were killed by the bombs. The temples, schools, hospitals, living quarters, etc were also burnt down.
It is clear that these bombs took away the lives of those innocents, who had nothing to do with the war and the US should not have used these kind of explosives.

Conclusion

In Conclusion, The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not justifiable because it was inhumane, it did not really end the war, and Japan would have surrendered. The killing of innocent people was unnecessary and unethical, it was no less than a mass murder and murder is never justifiable. Just as one would not justify mass killings like the Holocaust, it is crucial to understand how immoral it is to justify the critical and awful loss of human life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Works Cited

Beschloss, Michael R. “Did We Need to Drop It?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 30 July 1995, www.nytimes.com/1995/07/30/books/did-we-need-to-drop-it.html.

Staff, History.com. “Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009, www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki.

“We Shouldn’t Have Bombed Hiroshima.” A Proposal To Change The Death Penalty, June 1996, www.spectacle.org/696/hiroshi.html.

Japan?, W. (2012). Was the U.S. Right to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan? | Academic. online Teenink.com. Available at: http://www.teenink.com/nonfiction/academic/article/472162/Was-the-US-Right-to-Drop-the-Atomic-Bomb-on-Japan/ Accessed 10 May 2018.

“Face To Face: Was The Dropping Of The Atomic Bomb On Japan Justified? | Legion Magazine.” Legion Magazine Face To Face Was The Dropping Of The Atomic Bomb On Japan Justified Comments, 1 Sept. 2014, legionmagazine.com/en/2014/09/face-to-face-was-the-dropping-of-the-atomic-bomb-on-japan-justified/.

“Should America Have Dropped Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?” History Extra, 25 Apr. 2018, www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/should-america-have-dropped-atomic-bombs-on-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/.
Kuznick, Oliver Stone and Peter. “Bombing Hiroshima Changed the World, but It Didn’t End WWII.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 26 May 2016, www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stone-kuznick-hiroshima-obama-20160524-snap-story.html.
McLaughlin, John J. “The Bomb Was Not Necessary.” History News Network, 10 August 2010 historynewsnetwork.org/article/129964.

Carney, Timothy P. “‘It Wasn’t Necessary to Hit Them with That Awful Thing’ .” Washington Examiner, 8 Aug. 2013, www.washingtonexaminer.com/it-wasnt-necessary-to-hit-them-with-that-awful-thing-why-dropping-the-a-bombs-was-wrong.

Commentary. “It’s Clear the US Should Not Have Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Quartz, Quartz, 6 Aug. 2015, qz.com/472146/its-clear-the-us-should-not-have-bombed-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/.

i. The concept of systematic risk and how it is related to other types of risk such as common risk, idiosyncratic risk or independent risks.

There is different type of risk in evaluating an investment that are commonly used by decision makers in both private corporations and public agencies. Each of these types when used properly, a manager can increase portfolio returns or reduce risk to optimize an investment portfolio. However, it is important to define these types of risk precisely.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Systematic Risk
Systematic risk, This type of risk is also called common risk, undiversifiable risk, or market risk. This risk is associated with market returns, which can be attributed to broad factors. It is risk to your investment portfolio that cannot be attributed to the specific risk of individual investments. This risk is perfectly correlated
Fluctuations of a stock’s return that are due to market-wide news represent common
risk. As with earthquakes, all stocks are affected simultaneously by the news. Sources of systematic risk is due to market wide news which could be macroeconomic factors such as changes in interest rates, inflation, fluctuations in currencies, wars, recessions, etc.
Macro factors which influence the direction and volatility of the entire market would be systematic risk. An individual organization cannot control systematic risk. systematic risks are not diversified in a large portfolio and can be partially mitigated by asset allocation. Owning different asset classes with low correlation can smooth portfolio volatility because asset classes react differently to macroeconomic factors. When some asset categories (i.e. domestic equities, international stocks, bonds, cash, etc.) are increasing others may be falling and vice versa.
To further reduce risk, asset allocation investment decisions should be based on valuation. I want to adjust my asset allocation target according to valuations. I want to overweight those asset classes that are bargains and own less or avoid investments which are overpriced. When mitigating systematic risk within a diversified portfolio, cash may be the most important and under appreciated asset category.

Unsystematic Risk
Unsystematic risk, This type of risk is also called idiosyncratic risk or independent risk. This is risk attributable or specific to the individual investment or small group of investments. It is uncorrelated with stock market returns. Other names used to describe unsystematic risk are specific risk, diversifiable risk, idiosyncratic risk, and residual risk.
Examples of risk that might be specific to individual companies or industries are business risk, financing risk, credit risk, product risk, legal risk, liquidity risk, political risk, operational risk, etc. Unsystematic risks share no correlation and are considered governable by the company or industry.
Unsystematic risks are diversified in a large portfolio. Proper diversification can nearly eliminate unsystematic risk. If an investor owns just one stock or bond and something negative happens to that company the investor suffers great harm. But if an investor owns a diversified portfolio of 20, 30, or 40 individual investments, the damage done to the portfolio is minimized.
The important concept of unsystematic risk is that it is not correlated to market risk and can be nearly eliminated by diversification.

Symetric Risk or Common risk Unsymetric Risk or Independent Risk
Its Undiversifiable Its diversifiable
Caused due to markrt wide news Caused due to specific news
Not diversifiable in large portofolios Its diversifiable in large portofolios
Its perfectly correlated Its not correlated

Conclusion
Systematic and unsystematic risks can be partially mitigated with risk management solutions such as asset allocation, diversification, and valuation timing. Used properly, a manager can increase portfolio returns and/or reduce risk to optimize an investment portfolio.

x

Hi!
I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out