Search results

The colonial history of Australia has been a struggle between Indigenous peoples and the colonisers over Country. This is often represented as a struggle over land – it's control and use. Yet, for Indigenous people, land was never simply an economic commodity to be exploited. It was and is ‘Country’ in a deeper sense of the word, a fundamental part of Indigenous cosmology and a necessary foundation to a person's and group's ontology or being in the world. Country, then, can be conceptualised as both a physical and metaphysical domain. Indeed, both domains are inseparably intertwined. The struggle over Country remains core to understanding the social and political place of Indigenous people within Aboriginal law and within the criminal law and institutions of the coloniser. Further, this ongoing struggle goes to the heart of understanding why Indigenous people start their discussions on reform and change within the criminal justice system with a demand for recognition, negotiation and respect for Indigenous self-determination and a demand to see Indigenous people as colonised peoples.

Scrip dividends have become increasingly popular in South Africa since the introduction of secondary tax on companies (STC) in the 1993 budget. To date there is no accounting standard in South Africa that prescribes a particular accounting treatment for scrip dividends; therefore, different accounting approaches are used in South Africa to account for scrip dividends. These different approaches do not always meet the substance over form principle, as required by Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP). The result is that the information disclosed to the users of the financial statements differs from company to company. This study proposes an accounting treatment for scrip dividend schemes in South Africa. It concludes that the reinvestment approach is the most acceptable accounting treatment for scrip dividend schemes in South Africa.

Over the past several years, the term “Player Reinvestment” been used more frequently when describing the money and effort casinos expend in retaining profitable gaming customers. Most often, player reinvestment refers to the suite of benefits and offers that casinos give to various segments of their databases. The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of player reinvestment.

The paper draws on the author's experience in the gaming industry as well as studies that have been done by his organization, Gaming Market Advisors.

This paper provides definitions for the components that make up player reinvestment, and how casinos measure those costs and the benefits that these investments contribute to their revenue streams. Further, the paper shows the range of expenditures that casinos in the US gaming market expend on fostering customer loyalty.

This paper is written by a gaming industry executive for gaming industry managers. It contains conceptual as well as specific information on how to manage a player reinvestment program.

The player clubs in casinos have to be looked at as an investment to bring existing players back to the casino. This paper explains the concept of player reinvestment, an emerging practice in casino management.

Use of the internal rate of return (IRR) and the net present value (NPV) techniques in evaluating capital investments has been advocated by many financial writers. They almost always assert that these methods are superior to the more widely used payback and accounting rate of return techniques. The usual reason given centres around the concept of the time value of money, a factor that is absent in the latter method. Without doubt there is merit in this reasoning.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to financial managers’ capital budgeting decision-making processes by proposing a new paradigm of capital investment appraisal. The expected return, required return structure of the proposed purchasing power return (PPR) methodology eliminates the many flaws associated with the competing internal rate of return (IRR) and modified IRR (MIRR) techniques.

The authors provide a new framework for examining long-term investment projects through a percentage return prism. Unlike that of IRR and MIRR, mathematical consistency with net present value (NPV) is a design requirement.

PPR eliminates the many flaws found in the IRR and MIRR methodologies, is mathematically consistent with NPV, and identifies positive-NPV investments forecasted to reduce the company’s purchasing power. These projects are acceptable under NPV, but flagged for additional review and potential rejection. Created to examine projects on a percentage return basis, PPR employs market-based inflation rates to convert all cash flows into constant purchasing power units of measure. From these units, an expected real return is estimated and compared to the project’s inflation-adjusted required return, resulting in an accept/reject decision consistent with that of NPV.

The proposed PPR is a new paradigm of capital investment appraisal that eliminates the many problems found in the IRR and MIRR techniques, is mathematically consistent with the NPV method, and helps financial decision makers examine investment projects on an expected percentage return basis. PPR also flags for further review projects expected to actually reduce the company’s purchasing power.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the process of family equity creation and its role for transgenerational entrepreneurship.

This paper combines a systematic literature review on family equity with conceptual theory building, resulting in a model of family equity creation.

The proposed model contains three phases of equity creation that ulitmately leads to transgenerational entrepreneurship: harvesting, institutionalization (via a single family office) and reinvestment.

This paper conceptually introduces the family equity creation model, which may serve as integrative framework for future research on transgenerational value creation by entrepreneurial families. The presented findings are of relevance for family entrepreneurship scholars, entrepreneurial families, as well as for practitioners.

This chapter provides a brief overview of community sanctions in Australia and examines the extent to which McNeill’s analysis in Pervasive Punishment (2019) is applicable in the Australian context. Two key issues in the Australian context are, firstly, state and territory-level variations within a federal political structure, and secondly, disproportionate Indigenous imprisonment and community sanction rates and the generally destructive impact of the criminal legal system on Indigenous communities and peoples. The chapter argues that developing a better agonistic politics around community sanctions requires descending from the broad level of historical and sociological analysis to examine state and territory-level variations in judicial and correctional structures, histories and cultures. Further, that Australian community sanctions cannot be understood without a primary focus on the differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous rates, experiences and meaning. The key to addressing the destructive impact of criminal legal processes and practices on Indigenous peoples lies in developing Indigenous governance, empowerment, self-determination, sovereignty and nation-building. Two recent developments promoting Indigenous governance are examined: the Uluru Statement from the Heart and Justice Reinvestment projects initiated by First Nations communities, highlighting the importance of activism, contest and struggle by community organisations.

The prison population in England and Wales has risen dramatically in recent years and rates of reoffending following release are, at best, disappointing. This article considers some of the evidence in relation to what is going wrong and how resettlement for prisoners might be made more effective. Ultimately, however, the expansion in the custodial population mitigates the potential to reduce recidivism. An argument is made for a justice reinvestment approach similar to that advocated by the House of Commons Justice Committee.

From a strategic point of view, focusing on dividends is putting the cart before the horse. What directly affects the long‐term economic performance of a firm is how much of its cash it plows back into the business. Dividends should be a potential use for funds remaining after key reinvestment decisions are made, rather than the other way around.