MRP II (material requirements planning): one year later

This article addresses the continued need for the behavior change process that must be managed long after materiel requirements planning (MRP II) implementation. Mason & Hanger, Pantex Plant is the final assembly and dismantlement facility for all United States nuclear weapons. On October 1, 1990, Mason & Hanger implemented a full production cutover to MRP II. One year later, following class A certification, the MRP II implementation team is still actively managing the change process through education and training programs and overall continuous improvement initiatives. Actual behavior change problems are identified together with the proven solutions implemented in a government-owned, contractor-operated facility environment. Performance measurements ranging from senior management planning to shop floor accomplishments and cost variance reports are shown as normal management tools used to identify target improvement areas.     

Off‐farm wage returns to education: Evidence from Lesotho

This article presents estimates of off‐farm wage returns to education in rural areas of Lesotho. Results from a sample survey conducted in the northern Lowlands and Foothills of Lesotho indicate that returns to education are relatively higher for people wage‐employed in Lesotho than those wage‐employed as migrants in South Africa. For people working within Lesotho, education appears to have a significant and positive effect on off‐farm wages. Most people working within Lesotho are employed as teachers, nurses and civil servants and these job categories require an educated labour force. For people wage‐employed in South Africa, education appears not to have a significant effect on off‐farm wages. Most men working in South Africa are employed as labourers in mines while women working in South Africa are employed as domestic servants.     

University of Texas Roundtable on LP Perspectives on the State of Private Equity

In this wide‐ranging discussion among four limited partner investors in private equity, the LPs commented on the rates of return they expect from PE, the fees they pay their general partners, and the length of their time commitments to PE investments. After noting the enormous growth in the value of assets under private management, and the reduction in public equity investment by many large institutional investors, each of the four LPs said that their institutions expected to maintain or continue to increase their proportion of portfolio investment in PE. The LP panelists were virtually unanimous in expecting PE rates of return in the 9%‐11% range, as compared to 7%‐8% for public equities. The panelists also seemed to agree that although committing to PE investments for terms longer than the traditional seven to ten years could result in higher returns and lower costs, they were reluctant to make such commitments because they valued the financial flexibility afforded by shorter holding periods. Several LPs claimed that their institutions were scrutinizing the explicit and implicit fees charged by the GPs, and the level of fees was encouraging LPs to co‐invest in deals alongside the GPs. And in response to a closing suggestion that the recent flurry of IPOs could signify the beginning of a major reversal away from private capital, another LP expressed strong doubt, noting that “the private ownership model has clearly shown superior governance, and greater ability to manage leveraged capital structures and create value than public companies over the long term.”     

Pricing and the flat-maximum principle

Profit-maximizing price conditions are well established in economic theory. However, less attention has been directed to the effect on profits of deviations in price from the profit maximizing position. The conditions governing the emergence of a flat-maximum principle are established for both an absolute and relative concept of flatness.