Forecast Assumptions Mr. Joyner feels that the company wi.docx

Forecast Assumptions
Mr. Joyner feels that the company will continue to grow in the
foreseeable future. In order to
produce projected statements for 1991, he has provided some
support showing that you should
use the following assumptions:
1. Net sales will increase by 14% in 1991 from the 1990 levels.
Cost of sales and general &
administrative expenses will account for the same percentage of
sales as in 1990. Salaries and
wages and officers’ salaries are expected to increase by 4%
from 1990. The tax rate is estimated
at 35%. All other expenses, interest expense and other income
will continue to grow
proportionately to the first four months for the remaining eight
months of the year.
2. Cash will represent the same percent of sales as at the end of
1990.
3. The Accounts Receivable (Days) ratio will remain the same
as in 1990.
4. The Inventory Turnover vs. COGS (x) ratio will remain the
same as in 1990.
5. For net fixed assets use the formula:
Beginning Net Fixed Assets
– Sales of Fixed Assets

+ Purchases of Fixed Assets
– Depreciation Expense for the Year
= Ending Net Fixed Assets
There are no sales/purchases of fixed assets in the remaining
months of 1991.
6. The rest of the assets will maintain the same relationship
with sales as in 1990.
7. In order to take advantage of available discounts, the
Accounts Payable vs. COGS (Days) ratio is
estimated to be at 15 days in 1991.
8. Accrued expenses will maintain the same relationship with
sales as in 1990.
9. Other current liabilities will remain the same as at 4/30/91.
10. The lines long-term debt and current maturities of long term
debt should be used for the “notes
payable to banks and others” liability. Here, the forecasted
amounts remain unchanged from
4/30/91.
11. All the equity accounts with the exception of retained
earnings will remain unchanged from
4/30/91.
12. The line “Notes payable – banks” in the Excel file should be
used to balance the accounting
equation. In other words, leave the amount owed under this line
as the last item to forecast; once
you figure out the forecasted income statement and all other
accounts in the balance sheet, you
will most likely have total assets exceeding total liabilities and
equity (TA>TL+TE) at year end.

The difference will be the amount that you need to borrow if
you do not make any other
adjustments on the asset or equity sides.
The Pressure to Cover
ф nytimes.com/2006/01/15/magazine/the-pressure-to-cover.html
By KENJI YOSHINO
When I began teaching at Yale Law School in 1998, a friend
spoke to me frankly. "You'll have
a better chance at tenure," he said, "if you're a homosexual
professional than if you're a
professional homosexual." Out of the closet for six years at the
time, I knew what he meant. To
be a "homosexual professional" was to be a professor of
constitutional law who "happened" to
be gay. To be a "professional homosexual" was to be a gay
professor who made gay rights his
work. Others echoed the sentiment in less elegant formulations.
Be gay, my world seemed to
say. Be openly gay, if you want. But don't flaunt.
I didn't experience the advice as antigay. The law school is a
vigorously tolerant place,
embedded in a university famous for its gay student population.
(As the undergraduate jingle
goes: "One in four, maybe more/One in three, maybe me/One in
two, maybe you.") I took my
colleague's words as generic counsel to leave my personal life
at home. I could see that
research related to one's identity -- referred to in the academy
as "mesearch" -- could raise

legitimate questions about scholarly objectivity.
I also saw others playing down their outsider identities to blend
into the mainstream. Female
colleagues confided that they would avoid references to their
children at work, lest they be
seen as mothers first and scholars second. Conservative students
asked for advice about how
open they could be about their politics without suffering
repercussions at some imagined future
confirmation hearing. A religious student said he feared coming
out as a believer, as he
thought his intellect would be placed on a 25 percent discount.
Many of us, it seemed, had to
work our identities as well as our jobs.
It wasn't long before I found myself resisting the demand to
conform. What bothered me was
not that I had to engage in straight-acting behavior, much of
which felt natural to me. What
bothered me was the felt need to mute my passion for gay
subjects, people, culture. At a time
when the law was transforming gay rights, it seemed ludicrous
not to suit up and get in the
game.
"Mesearch" being what it is, I soon turned my scholarly
attention to the pressure to conform.
What puzzled me was that I felt that pressure so long after my
emergence from the closet.
When I stopped passing, I exulted that I could stop thinking
about my sexuality. This proved
naïve. Long after I came out, I still experienced the need to
assimilate to straight norms. But I
didn't have a word for this demand to tone down my known
gayness.

Then I found my word, in the sociologist Erving Goffman's
book "Stigma." Written in 1963, the
book describes how various groups -- including the disabled,
the elderly and the obese --
manage their "spoiled" identities. After discussing passing,
Goffman observes that "persons
who are ready to admit possession of a stigma. . .may
nonetheless make a great effort to keep
1/10
the stigma from looming large." He calls this behavior covering.
He distinguishes passing from
covering by noting that passing pertains to the visibility of a
characteristic, while covering
pertains to its obtrusiveness. He relates how F.D.R. stationed
himself behind a desk before his
advisers came in for meetings. Roosevelt was not passing, since
everyone knew he used a
wheelchair. He was covering, playing down his disability so
people would focus on his more
conventionally presidential qualities.
As is often the case when you learn a new idea, I began to
perceive covering everywhere.
Leafing through a magazine, I read that Helen Keller replaced
her natural eyes (one of which
protruded) with brilliant blue glass ones. On the radio, I heard
that Margaret Thatcher went to a
voice coach to lower the pitch of her voice. Friends began to
send me e-mail. Did I know that
Martin Sheen was Ramon Estevez on his birth certificate, that
Ben Kingsley was Krishna

Bhanji, that Kirk Douglas was Issur Danielovitch Demsky and
that Jon Stewart was Jonathan
Leibowitz?
In those days, spotting instances of covering felt like a parlor
game. It's hard to get worked up
about how celebrities and politicians have to manage their
public images. Jon Stewart joked
that he changed his name because Leibowitz was "too
Hollywood," and that seemed to get it
exactly right. My own experience with covering was also not
particularly difficult -- once I had
the courage to write from my passions, I was immediately
embraced.
It was only when I looked for instances of covering in the law
that I saw how lucky I had been.
Civil rights case law is peopled with plaintiffs who were
severely punished for daring to be
openly different. Workers were fired for lapsing into Spanish in
English-only workplaces,
women were fired for behaving in stereotypically "feminine"
ways and gay parents lost custody
of their children for engaging in displays of same-sex affection.
These cases revealed that far
from being a parlor game, covering was the civil rights issue of
our time.
The New Discrimination
In recent decades, discrimination in America has undergone a
generational shift.
Discrimination was once aimed at entire groups, resulting in the
exclusion of all racial
minorities, women, gays, religious minorities and people with
disabilities. A battery of civil

rights laws -- like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 --
sought to combat these forms of discrimination. The triumph of
American civil rights is that
such categorical exclusions by the state or employers are now
relatively rare.
Now a subtler form of discrimination has risen to take its place.
This discrimination does not
aim at groups as a whole. Rather, it aims at the subset of the
group that refuses to cover, that
is, to assimilate to dominant norms. And for the most part,
existing civil rights laws do not
protect individuals against such covering demands. The question
of our time is whether we
should understand this new discrimination to be a harm and, if
so, whether the remedy is legal
or social in nature.
Consider the following cases:
2/10
Renee Rogers, an African-American employee at American
Airlines, wore cornrows to work.
American had a grooming policy that prevented employees from
wearing an all-braided
hairstyle. When American sought to enforce this policy against
Rogers, she filed suit, alleging
race discrimination. In 1981, a federal district court rejected her
argument. It first observed that
cornrows were not distinctively associated with African-
Americans, noting that Rogers had
only adopted the hairstyle after it "had been popularized by a

white actress in the film '10.' " As
if recognizing the unpersuasiveness of what we might call the
Bo Derek defense, the court
further alleged that because hairstyle, unlike skin color, was a
mutable characteristic,
discrimination on the basis of grooming was not discrimination
on the basis of race. Renee
Rogers lost her case.
Lydia Mikus and Ismael Gonzalez were called for jury service
in a case involving a defendant
who was Latino. When the prosecutor asked them whether they
could speak Spanish, they
answered in the affirmative. The prosecutor struck them, and
the defense attorney then
brought suit on their behalf, claiming national-origin
discrimination. The prosecutor responded
that he had not removed the potential jurors for their ethnicity
but for their ability to speak
Spanish. His stated concern was that they would not defer to the
court translator in listening to
Spanish-language testimony. In 1991, the Supreme Court
credited this argument. Lydia Mikus
and Ismael Gonzalez lost their case.
Diana Piantanida had a child and took a maternity leave from
her job at the Wyman Center, a
charitable organization in Missouri. During her leave, she was
demoted, supposedly for
previously having handed in work late. The man who was then
the Wyman Center's executive
director, however, justified her demotion by saying the new
position would be easier "for a new
mom to handle." As it turned out, the new position had less
responsibility and half the pay of
the original one. But when Piantanida turned this position down,

her successor was paid
Piantanida's old salary. Piantanida brought suit, claiming she
had been discharged as a "new
mom." In 1997, a federal appellate court refused to analyze her
claim as a sex-discrimination
case, which would have led to comparing the treatment she
received to the treatment of "new
dads." Instead, it found that Piantanida's (admittedly vague)
pleadings raised claims only under
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which it correctly interpreted
to protect women only while
they are pregnant. Diana Piantanida lost her case.
Robin Shahar was a lesbian attorney who received a job offer
from the Georgia Department of
Law, where she had worked as a law student. The summer
before she started her new job,
Shahar had a religious same-sex commitment ceremony with her
partner. She asked a
supervisor for a late starting date because she was getting
married and wanted to go on a
celebratory trip to Greece. Believing Shahar was marrying a
man, the supervisor offered his
congratulations. Senior officials in the office soon learned,
however, that Shahar's partner was
a woman. This news caused a stir, reports of which reached
Michael Bowers, the attorney
general of Georgia who had successfully defended his state's
prohibition of sodomy before the
United States Supreme Court. After deliberating with his
lawyers, Bowers rescinded her job
offer. The staff member who informed her read from a script,
concluding, "Thanks again for
coming in, and have a nice day." Shahar brought suit, claiming
discrimination on the basis of

3/10
sexual orientation. In court, Bowers testified that he knew
Shahar was gay when he hired her,
and would never have terminated her for that reason. In 1997, a
federal appellate court
accepted that defense, maintaining that Bowers had terminated
Shahar on the basis of her
conduct, not her status. Robin Shahar lost her case.
Simcha Goldman, an Air Force officer who was also an
ordained rabbi, wore a yarmulke at all
times. Wearing a yarmulke is part of the Orthodox tradition of
covering one's head out of
deference to an omnipresent god. Goldman's religious
observance ran afoul of an Air Force
regulation that prohibited wearing headgear while indoors.
When he refused his commanding
officer's order to remove his yarmulke, Goldman was threatened
with a court martial. Fie
brought a First Amendment claim, alleging discrimination on
the basis of religion. In 1986, the
Supreme Court rejected his claim. It stated that the Air Force
had drawn a reasonable line
between "religious apparel that is visible and that which is not."
Simcha Goldman lost his case.
These five cases represent only a fraction of those in which
courts have refused to protect
plaintiffs from covering demands. In such cases, the courts
routinely distinguish between
immutable and mutable traits, between being a member of a
legally protected group and
behavior associated with that group. Under this rule, African-

Americans cannot be fired for
their skin color, but they could be fired for wearing cornrows.
Potential jurors cannot be struck
for their ethnicity but can be struck for speaking (or even for
admitting proficiency in) a foreign
language. Women cannot be discharged for having two X
chromosomes but can be penalized
(in some jurisdictions) for becoming mothers. Although the
weaker protections for sexual
orientation mean gays can sometimes be fired for their status
alone, they will be much more
vulnerable if they are perceived to "flaunt" their sexuality. Jews
cannot be separated from the
military for being Jewish but can be discharged for wearing
yarmulkes.
This distinction between being and doing reflects a bias toward
assimilation. Courts will protect
traits like skin color or chromosomes because such traits cannot
be changed. In contrast, the
courts will not protect mutable traits, because individuals can
alter them to fade into the
mainstream, thereby escaping discrimination. If individuals
choose not to engage in that form
of self-help, they must suffer the consequences.
The judicial bias toward assimilation will seem correct and just
to many Americans.
Assimilation, after all, is a precondition of civilization --
wearing clothes, having manners and
obeying the law are all acts of assimilation. Moreover, the tie
between assimilation and
American civilization may be particularly strong. At least since
Flector St. John de Crèvecoeur's
1782 "Letters from an American Farmer," this country has
promoted assimilation as the way

Americans of different backgrounds would be "melted into a
new race of men." By the time
Israel Zangwill's play "The Melting Pot" made its debut in
1908, the term had acquired the
burnish of an American ideal. Theodore Roosevelt, who
believed hyphenations like "Polish-
American" were a "moral treason," is reputed to have yelled,
"That's a great play!" from his box
when it was performed in Washington. (Fie was wrong -- it's no
accident the title has had a
longer run than the play.) And notwithstanding challenges
beginning in the 1960's to move
"beyond the melting pot" and to "celebrate diversity,"
assimilation has never lost its grip on the
American imagination.
4/10
If anything, recent years have seen a revival of the melting-pot
ideal. We are currently
experiencing a pluralism explosion in the United States.
Patterns of immigration since the late
1960's have made the United States the most religiously various
country in the history of the
world. Even when the demographics of a group -- like the
number of individuals with disabilities
-- are presumably constant, the number of individuals claiming
membership in that group may
grow exponentially. In 1970, there were 9 disability-related
associations listed in the
Encyclopedia of Associations; in 1980, there were 16; in 1990,
there were 211; and in 2000,
there were 799. The boom in identity politics has led many
thoughtful commentators to worry

that we are losing our common culture as Americans. Fearful
that we are breaking apart into
balkanized fiefs, even liberal lions like Arthur Schlesinger have
called for a recommitment to
the ethic of assimilation.
Beyond keeping pace with the culture, the judiciary has
institutional reasons for encouraging
assimilation. In the yarmulke case, the government argued that
ruling in favor of the rabbi's
yarmulke would immediately invite suits concerning the Sikh's
turban, the yogi's saffron robes
and the Rastafarian's dreadlocks. Because the courts must
articulate principled grounds for
their decisions, they are particularly ill equipped to protect
some groups but not others in an
increasingly diverse society. Seeking to avoid judgments about
the relative worth of groups,
the judiciary has decided instead to rely on the relatively
uncontroversial principle of protecting
immutable traits.
Viewed in this light, the judiciary's failure to protect
individuals against covering demands
seems eminently reasonable. Unfortunately, it also represents an
abdication of its
responsibility to protect civil rights.
The Case Against Assimilation
The flaw in the judiciary's analysis is that it casts assimilation
as an unadulterated good.
Assimilation is implicitly characterized as the way in which
groups can evade discrimination by
fading into the mainstream -- after all, the logic goes, if a bigot
cannot discriminate between

two individuals, he cannot discriminate against one of them. But
sometimes assimilation is not
an escape from discrimination, but precisely its effect. When a
Jew is forced to convert to
Protestantism, for instance, we do not celebrate that as an
evasion of anti-Semitism. We
should not blind ourselves to the dark underbelly of the
American melting pot.
Take the cornrows case. Initially, this case appears to be an
easy one for the employer, as
hairstyle seems like such a trivial thing. But if hair is so trivial,
we might ask why American
Airlines made it a condition of Renee Rogers's employment.
What's frustrating about the
employment discrimination jurisprudence is that courts often
don't force employers to answer
the critical question of why they are requiring employees to
cover. If we look to other sources,
the answers can be troubling.
John T. Molloy's perennially popular self-help manual "New
Dress for Success" also tells racial
minorities to cover. Molloy advises African-Americans to avoid
"Afro hairstyles" and to wear
"conservative pinstripe suits, preferably with vests,
accompanied by all the establishment
5/10
symbols, including the Ivy League tie." He urges Latinos to
"avoid pencil-line mustaches," "any
hair tonic that tends to give a greasy or shiny look to the hair,"
"any articles of clothing that

have Hispanic associations" and "anything that is very sharp or
precise."
Molloy is equally frank about why covering is required. The
"model of success," he says, is
"white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant." Those who do not possess
these traits "will elicit a
negative response to some degree, regardless of whether that
response is conscious or
subconscious." Indeed, Molloy says racial minorities must go
"somewhat overboard" to
compensate for immutable differences from the white
mainstream. After conducting research
on African-American corporate grooming, Molloy reports that
"blacks had not only to dress
more conservatively but also more expensively than their white
counterparts if they wanted to
have an equal impact."
Molloy's basic point is supported by social-science research.
The economists Marianne
Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan recently conducted a study
in which they sent out resumés
that were essentially identical except for the names at the top.
They discovered that resumés
with white-sounding names like Emily Walsh or Greg Baker
drew 50 percent more callbacks
than those with African-American-sounding names like Lakisha
Washington or Jamal Jones.
So it seems that even when Americans have collectively set our
faces against racism, we still
react negatively to cultural traits -- like hairstyles, clothes or
names -- that we associate with
historically disfavored races.
We can see a similar dynamic in the termination of Robin

Shahar. Michael Bowers, the state
attorney general, disavowed engaging in first-generation
discrimination when he said he had
no problem with gay employees. This raises the question of why
he fired Shahar for having a
religious same-sex commitment ceremony. Unlike American
Airlines, Bowers provided some
answers. He argued that retaining Shahar would compromise the
department's ability to deny
same-sex couples marriage licenses and to enforce sodomy
statutes.
Neither argument survives scrutiny. At no point did Shahar seek
to marry her partner legally,
nor did she agitate for the legalization of same-sex marriage.
The Georgia citizenry could not
fairly have assumed that Shahar's religious ceremony would
entitle the couple to a civil
license. Bowers's claim that Shahar's wedding would
compromise her ability to enforce
sodomy statutes is also off the mark. Georgia's sodomy statute
(which has since been struck
down) punished cross-sex as well as same-sex sodomy, meaning
that any heterosexual in the
department who had ever had oral sex was as compromised as
Shahar.
Stripped of these rationales, Bowers's termination of Shahar
looks more sinister. When she
told a supervisor she was getting married, he congratulated her.
When he discovered she was
marrying a woman, it wasn't long before she no longer had a
job. Shahar's religious ceremony
was not in itself indiscreet; cross-sex couples engage in such
ceremonies all the time. If
Shahar was flaunting anything, it was her belief in her own

equality: her belief that she, and
not the state, should determine what personal bonds are worthy
of celebration.
6/10
The demand to cover is anything but trivial. It is the symbolic
heartland of inequality -- what
reassures one group of its superiority to another. When
dominant groups ask subordinated
groups to cover, they are asking them to be small in the world,
to forgo prerogatives that the
dominant group has and therefore to forgo equality. If courts
make critical goods like
employment dependent on covering, they are legitimizing
second-class citizenship for the
subordinated group. In doing so, they are failing to vindicate
the promise of civil rights.
So the covering demand presents a conundrum. The courts are
right to be leery of intervening
in too brusque a manner here, as they cannot risk playing
favorites among groups. Yet they
also cannot ignore the fact that the covering demand is where
many forms of inequality
continue to have life. We need a paradigm that gives both these
concerns their due, adapting
the aspirations of the civil rights movement to an increasingly
pluralistic society.
The New Civil Rights
The new civil rights begins with the observation that everyone
covers. When I lecture on

covering, I often encounter what I think of as the "angry
straight white man" reaction. A
member of the audience, almost invariably a white man, almost
invariably angry, denies that
covering is a civil rights issue. Why shouldn't racial minorities
or women or gays have to cover?
These groups should receive legal protection against
discrimination for things they cannot
help. But why should they receive protection for behaviors
within their control -- wearing
cornrows, acting "feminine" or flaunting their sexuality? After
all, the questioner says, I have to
cover all the time. I have to mute my depression, or my obesity,
or my alcoholism, or my
shyness, or my working-class background or my nameless
anomie. I, too, am one of the mass
of men leading lives of quiet desperation. Why should legally
protected groups have a right to
self-expression I do not? Why should my struggle for an
authentic self matter less?
I surprise these individuals when I agree. Contemporary civil
rights has erred in focusing solely
on traditional civil rights groups -- racial minorities, women,
gays, religious minorities and
people with disabilities. This assumes those in the so-called
mainstream -- those straight white
men -- do not also cover. They are understood only as obstacles,
as people who prevent
others from expressing themselves, rather than as individuals
who are themselves struggling
for self-definition. No wonder they often respond to civil rights
advocates with hostility. They
experience us as asking for an entitlement they themselves have
been refused -- an
expression of their full humanity.

Civil rights must rise into a new, more inclusive register. That
ascent makes use of the
recognition that the mainstream is a myth. With respect to any
particular identity, the word
"mainstream" makes sense, as in the statement that straights are
more mainstream than gays.
Used generically, however, the word loses meaning. Because
human beings hold many
identities, the mainstream is a shifting coalition, and none of us
are entirely within it. It is not
normal to be completely normal.
7/10
This does not mean discrimination against racial minorities is
the same as discrimination
against poets. American civil rights law has correctly directed
its concern toward certain groups
and not others. But the aspiration of civil rights -- the aspiration
that we be free to develop our
human capacities without the impediment ofwitless conformity -
- is an aspiration that extends
beyond traditional civil rights groups.
To fulfill that aspiration, we must think differently both within
the law and outside it. With
respect to legal remedies, we must shift away from claims that
demand equality for particular
groups toward claims that demand liberty for us all. This is not
an exhortation that we strip
protections from currently recognized groups. Rather, it is a
prediction that future courts will be
unable to sustain a group-based vision of civil rights when

faced with the broad and irreversible
trend toward demographic pluralism. In an increasingly diverse
society, the courts must look to
what draws us together as citizens rather than to what drives us
apart.
As if in recognition of that fact, the Supreme Court has moved
in recent years away from
extending protections on the basis of group membership and
toward doing so on the basis of
liberties we all possess. In 2003, the court struck down a Texas
statute that prohibited same-
sex sodomy. It did not, however, frame the case as one
concerning the equality rights of gays.
Instead, it cast the case as one concerning the interest we all --
straight, gay or otherwise --
have in controlling our intimate lives. Similarly, in 2004, the
court held that a state could be
required by a Congressional statute to make its courthouses
wheelchair accessible. Again, the
court ruled in favor of the minority group without framing its
analysis in group-based equality
rhetoric. Rather, it held that all people -- disabled or otherwise -
- have a "right of access to the
courts," which had been denied in that instance.
In these cases, the court implicitly acknowledged the national
exhaustion with group-based
identity politics and quieted the anxiety about pluralism that is
driving us back toward the
assimilative ideal. By emphasizing the interest all individuals
have in our own liberty, the court
focused on what unites us rather than on what divides us. While
preserving the distinction
between being and doing, the court decided to protect doing in
its own right.

If the Supreme Court protects individuals against covering
demands in the future, I believe it
will do so by invoking the universal rights of people. I predict
that if the court ever recognizes
the right to speak a native language, it will protect that right as
a liberty to which we are all
entitled, rather than as a remedial concession granted to a
particular national-origin group. If
the court recognizes rights to grooming, like the right to wear
cornrows, I believe it will do so
under something akin to the German Constitution's right to
personality rather than as a right
attached to racial minorities. And I hope that if the court
protects the right of gays to marry, it
will do so by framing it as the right we all have to marry the
person we love, rather than
defending "gay marriage" as if it were a separate institution.
A liberty-based approach to civil rights, of course, brings its
own complications, beginning with
the question of where my liberty ends and yours begins. But the
ability of liberty analysis to
illuminate our common humanity should not be underestimated.
This virtue persuaded both
8/10
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X to argue for the
transition from civil rights to human
rights at the ends of their lives. It is time for American law to
follow suit.
While I have great hopes for this new legal paradigm, I also

believe law will play a relatively
small part in the new civil rights. A doctor friend told me that
in his first year of medical school,
his dean described how doctors were powerless to cure the vast
majority of human ills. People
would get better, or they would not, but it would not be doctors
who would cure them. Part of
becoming a doctor, the dean said, was to surrender a layperson's
awe for medical authority. I
wished then that someone would give an analogous lecture to
law students and to Americans
at large. My education in law has been in no small part an
education in its limitations.
As an initial matter, many covering demands are made by actors
the law does not -- and in my
view should not -- hold accountable, like friends, family,
neighbors, the "culture" or individuals
themselves. When I think of the covering demands I have
experienced, I can trace many of
them only to my own censorious consciousness. And while I am
often tempted to sue myself, I
recognize this is not my healthiest impulse.
Law is also an incomplete solution to coerced assimilation
because it has yet to recognize the
myriad groups that are subjected to covering demands even
though these groups cannot be
defined by traditional classifications like race, sex, orientation,
religion and disability. Whenever
I speak about covering, I receive new instances of identities that
can be covered. The law may
someday move to protect some of these identities. But it will
never protect them all.
For these and other reasons, I am troubled that Americans seem

increasingly inclined to turn
toward the law to do the work of civil rights precisely when
they should be turning away from it.
The primary solution lies in all of us as citizens, not in the tiny
subset of us who are lawyers.
People confronted with demands to cover should feel
emboldened to seek a reason for that
demand, even if the law does not reach the actors making the
demand or recognize the group
burdened by it. These reason-forcing conversations should
happen outside courtrooms -- in
public squares and prayer circles, in workplaces and on
playgrounds. They should occur
informally and intimately, in the everyday places where
tolerance is made and unmade.
What will constitute a good-enough reason to justify
assimilation will obviously be
controversial. We have come to some consensus that certain
reasons are illegitimate -- like
racism, sexism or religious intolerance. Beyond that, we should
expect conversations rather
than foreordained results -- what reasons count, and for what
purposes, will be for us all to
decide by facing one another as citizens. My personal
inclination is always to privilege the
claims of the individual against countervailing interests like
"neatness" or "workplace
harmony." But we should have that conversation.
Such conversations are the best -- and perhaps the only -- way
to give both assimilation and
authenticity their due. They will help us alleviate conservative
alarmists' fears of a balkanized
America and radical multiculturalists' fears of a monocultural
America. The aspiration of civil

rights has always been to permit people to pursue their human
flourishing without limitations
based on bias. Focusing on law prevents us from seeing the
revolutionary breadth ofthat
9/10
aspiration. It is only when we leave the law that civil rights
suddenly stops being about
particular agents of oppression and particular victimized groups
and starts to become a project
of human flourishing in which we all have a stake.
I don't teach classes on gay rights any more. I suspect many of
my students now experience
me as a homosexual professional rather than as a professional
homosexual, if they think of me
in such terms at all. But I don't experience myself as covering.
I've just moved on to other
interests, in the way scholars do. So the same behavior -- not
teaching gay rights -- has
changed in meaning overtime.
This just brings home to me that the only right I have wanted
with any consistency is the
freedom to be who I am. I'll be the first to admit that I owe
much of that freedom to group-
based equality movements, like the gay rights movement. But it
is now time for us as a nation
to shift the emphasis away from equality and toward liberty in
our debates about identity
politics. Only through such freedom can we live our lives as
works in progress, which is to say,
as the complex, changeful and contradictory creatures that we

are.
Kenji Yoshino is a professor at Yale Law School. This article is
adapted from his
book,"Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights,"
which will be published by Random
House later this month.
10/10
Poor teeth
□ aeon.co/essays/there-is-no-shame-worse-than-poor-teeth-in-a-
rich-world
I am bone of the bone of them that live in trailer homes. I grew
up next to Tiffany 'Pennsatucky' Doggett, the
hostile former drug addict from the prison TV drama Orange Is
the New Black. I know her by her teeth.
Pennsatucky - a scrappy slip of a woman menacing, beating and
proselytising to fellow inmates - stole the
show during the first season of the Netflix prison series. But
amid an ensemble cast of similarly riveting,
dangerous characters, it was her grey, jagged teeth that shocked
viewers into repulsed fixation. She was the
villain among villains, a monster that fans loved to hate;
'Pennsatucky teeth' became a pejorative in social
media.
Actress Taryn Manning's gnarly, prosthetic teeth startled
viewers because, by and large, poor characters in
TV and film are played by actors whose whitened, straightened,
veneered smiles aren't covered up. It's hard

to think of characters besides Pennsatucky through whom
heinous teeth convey rather than lampoon the
physicality of the poor. The first that comes to mind is the
derelict serial killer in a movie actually called
Monster (2003); as with Manning, Charlize Theron's Oscar-
winning transformation generated astonishment
with fake teeth.
In my life, Pennsatucky and her teeth are entirely familiar. She's
the slurring aunt who passed out in our
farm's swimming pool while babysitting me, and later stole my
mom's wedding band to buy the drugs that
dug grooves in her cheeks. She's the step-parent whose brain,
organs and teeth corroded over the years and
now lives in a mobile-home park with my construction-worker
dad.
But Pennsatucky's teeth aren't just 'meth teeth.' They are the
teeth of poor folk, of the young grandma who
helped to raise me and for decades worked from diner to factory
line to a desk job as a probation officer for
the county court system in Wichita, Kansas. She was just 35
when I was born, so I knew her as a radiant
thing; at the downtown courthouse, where I tagged along -
babysitters are expensive - attorneys turned
flirtatious near her green eyes, long limbs and shiny, natural-
blonde bob. Then at night, in her farmhouse or
the tiny brick house we fixed up in a rough Wichita
neighbourhood, I watched her take out her teeth, scrub
them with a rough brush, and drop them into a cup of water with
a fizzy tablet.
'Brush your teeth and don't eat too much candy,' she'd tell me.
'You don't want to end up like Grandma.' She'd
widen her eyes and pop her dentures forward so that they bulged
from her lips, sending me giggling. In the

early 1970s, a dentist had pried every one of her teeth, too far
gone or too expensive to save, from her 20-
something skull. She's 69 now and has worn false teeth for more
than 40 years.
'I had bad teeth all my life. They were straight and looked OK,
but I always had toothaches,' she tells me when
I ask how she ended up with dentures. As I was growing up, the
story fluctuated - she was in a car accident,
her natural teeth just fell out, and so on. 'I was excited to have
them, knowing I would never have another
toothache. Now I think it was pretty stupid, but at the time it
was really painful, and I thought I was doing the
right thing.'
More than 126 million people in the US - nearly half the
population - had no dental coverage in 2012,
according to the US National Association of Dental Plans. In
2007, the New York State Dental Journal reported
that while only one-tenth of general physician costs were paid
out of pocket, nearly half of all dental costs
were settled directly by patients. This reflects spending by the
uninsured but also those sharing costs with
coverage providers; most plans cover routine cleanings but
leave patients to pay for 20 to 50 per cent of
fillings, crowns and other big-ticket visits. For those who can't
afford to pay that difference, treatment is
1/6
delayed and teeth continue to degrade.
But expense isn't the only barrier to dental care. Those on
Medicaid find that few dentists participate in the

programme due to its low payout. And more than 45 million
people in the US live in areas, often rural or
impoverished, with dentist shortages, according to the US
Department of Health and Human Services.
Medicare, as a general rule, doesn't include dental.
In the past year, the Affordable Care Act, or 'ObamaCare', has
changed many lives for the better - mine
included. But its omission of dental coverage, a result of
political compromise, is a dangerous, absurd
compartmentalisation of health care, as though teeth are apart
from and less important than the rest of the
body.
it wasn't sugar that guided our dental fates. And it wasn't meth.
It was lack of insurance, lack of knowledge,
lack of good nutrition
About a decade ago, at the age of 50, my dad almost died when
infection from an abscessed tooth poisoned
his blood and nearly stopped his heart. He has never had dental
insurance and has seen a dentist only a
handful of times when some malady became unbearable. In
2009, according to the US Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, dental issues caused about 936,000
emergency-room visits and almost 13,000
inpatient hospital stays. Many of these patients had low incomes
and dental coverage that restricted care to
emergencies or wasn't accepted by accessible dentists.
'I notice people's teeth because mine are so bad,' Dad tells me
during a break from a side job renovating a
fraternity house. He has long been the handsome object of
crushes, but his teeth have become increasingly
askew with time, one of his eye teeth now ragged and long like
a rabbit's for lack of a carrot to file it down.

'Nutrition affects teeth, right?'
I point out that Gatorade, which he favours when he splurges on
a bottled beverage, is full of sugar. But it
wasn't sugar, heaps of which are sucked down daily by the
middle and upper classes, that guided his and my
grandma's dental fates. And it wasn't meth. It was lack of
insurance, lack of knowledge, lack of good nutrition
- poverties into which much of the country was born.
My family's distress over our teeth - what food might hurt or
save them, whether having them pulled was a
mistake - reveals the psychological hell of having poor teeth in
a rich, capitalist country: the underprivileged
are priced out of the dental-treatment system yet perversely held
responsible for their dental condition. It's a
familiar trick in the privatisation-happy US - like, say,
underfunding public education and then criticising the
institution for struggling. Often, bad teeth are blamed solely on
the habits and choices of their owners, and
for the poor therein lies an undue shaming.
'Don't get fooled by those mangled teeth she sports on camera!'
says the ABC News host introducing the
woman who plays Pennsatucky. 'Taryn Manning is one beautiful
and talented actress.' This suggestion that
bad teeth and talent, in particular, are mutually exclusive
betrays our broad, unexamined bigotry toward those
long known, tellingly, as 'white trash.' It's become less
acceptable in recent decades to make racist or sexist
statements, but blatant classism generally goes unchecked.
Seethe hugely successful blog People of
Walmart that, through submitted photographs, viciously
ridicules people who look like contemporary US
poverty: the elastic waistbands and jutting stomachs of diabetic
obesity, the wheelchairs and oxygen tanks

of gout and emphysema.
Upper-class supremacy is nothing new. A hundred years ago,
the US Eugenics Records Office not only
targeted racial minorities but 'sought to demonstrate
scientifically that large numbers of rural poor whites
were genetic defectives,' as the sociologist Matt Wray explains
in his book Not Quite White: White Trash and
the Boundaries of Whiteness (2006). The historian and civil
rights activist W E В du Bois, an African American,
2/6
wrote in his autobiography Dusk of Dawn (1940) that, growing
up in Massachusetts in the 1870s, 'the racial
angle was more clearly defined against the Irish than against
me. It was a matter of income and ancestry
more than colour.' Martin Luther King, Jr made similar
observations and was organising a poor-people's
march on Washington at the time of his murder in 1968.
Such marginalisation can make you either demonise the system
that shuns you or spurn it as something you
never needed anyway. When I was a kid and no one in the
family had medical or dental insurance, Dad
pointed out that those industries were criminal - a sweeping
analysis that, whether accurate or not,
suggested we were too principled to support the racket rather
than too poor to afford it.
My baby teeth were straight and white, and I wasn't obese - an
epidemic among poor kids that hadn't yet
taken hold in the 1980s - but I had plenty of 'tells': crooked
bangs, trimmed at home with sewing shears; a

paper grocery sack carrying my supplies on the first day of
school while other kids wore unicorn backpacks; a
near-constant case of ringworm infection (I kept a jar of
ointment on my nightstand year-round); the smell of
cigarette smoke on my clothes, just as cigarettes were falling
out of favour with the middle and upper
classes; sometimes, ill-fitting clothes, as when the second-grade
teacher I revered looked at my older
cousin's shirt sagging off my shoulder and said: 'Tell your
mother to send you to school in clothes that fit
you.' In fifth grade, a girl noticed my generic, plastic-smelling,
too-pointy boots - a Kmart version of the black
leather lace-ups that were in fashion - and for weeks hounded
me before and after school, kicking dirt on my
shins and calling me Pippi Longstocking.
I had moments of cool clothes and good haircuts, too, and I was
a confident child who earned friends and
accolades. But I still think of the boy who handed me a dessert
cup from his lunch box every day when a mix-
up in the free-lunch programme left me without a meal card for
months.
He pulled from my skull the greyed tooth, cracked perfectly
down the middle
Common throughout those years was a pulsing throb in my
gums, a shock wave up a root when biting down,
a headache that agitated me in classrooms. While they looked
OK, my baby teeth were cavity-ridden. Maybe
it was the soy formula in my bottle when they were growing in,
or the sugary cereals to which my brain later
turned for dopamine production in a difficult home. Maybe it
was because our water supply, whether from a
rural well or the Wichita municipal system, wasn't fluoridated.
But richer teeth faced the same challenges.

The primary reason my mouth hurt was lack of money.
Once, around third grade, an upper molar that had menaced
beyond all - the worst toothache I ever had -
finally rotted so thoroughly that it cracked in half while still in
my jaw. Mom took me to the dentist, somehow.
The pain was tremendous, he explained, because the pulpy
nerve at the tooth's centre was exposed. He
pulled from my skull the greyed tooth, cracked perfectly down
the middle, and let me take it home. For years, I
kept the two pieces in a tiny jewellery box, sometimes taking
them out and joining them like interlocking
sides of the heart-shaped friendship necklaces I coveted.
Around that time, I had my jaw X-rayed for the first time. The
results were grim.
'You might as well start saving for braces right now,' my mom
recalls the dentist saying. We were at the
outset of a post-divorce period that would include much moving
and a slew of partial-coverage dental
insurance plans: employer-based, which would be cancelled
with Mom's regular job switches, and variations
on state-funded, poor-kid programmes in between. Each time
the policy changed, Mom had to find a new
dentist who would accept our coverage. Then we'd ride out a
waiting period before scheduling a cleaning or
filling. My dental records were often lost in this shuffle, as was
the case with my general health files in
doctors' offices and school districts - I got a new round of shots
just about every year for lack of
immunisation records on file.
3/6

There would, of course, be no saving for braces.
It took years to find out whether the X-raying dentist's
pessimistic prediction would come true. My baby teeth
were slow to fall out, their replacements slow to grow in. But at
some point came the unequivocal, surprising
verdict: my teeth grew in straight.
I don't just mean straight enough. I mean 99th-percentile
straight. I mean dentists call hygienists over to take
a look.
'Doesn't she have pretty teeth?' they say, my mouth under hot
lamps. 'Are you sure you didn't have braces?
But you whiten them, right?'
I shake my head no and in the dentist's chair tingle with the
bliss of gratitude. That my environment and
genes somehow conspired to shake out a bright, orderly smile is
a blessing I can't explain. But I can tell you
what preserved the blessing: me.
When a health teacher said brush your teeth twice a day, I
brushed my teeth twice a day. When a TV
commercial imparted that dentists recommend flossing daily, I
flossed daily. A college room-mate once
remarked on the fervour of my dental regimen. After boozy
nights, when other kids were passing out, I held
on, stumbled to the bathroom and squeezed paste onto a brush.
However tired, however drunk, I scrubbed
every side of every tooth, uncoiled a waxed string and threaded
it into sacred spaces.
Privileged America judges harshly the mouths that chew orange
Doritos, drink yellow Mountain Dew, breathe

with a sawdust rattle
Poor teeth, I knew, beget not just shame but more poorness:
people with bad teeth have a harder time getting
jobs and other opportunities. People without jobs are poor. Poor
people can't access dentistry - and so goes
the cycle.
If Pennsatucky ever gets out of poverty, it will be thanks in part
to a prison-yard fight in the season-one finale,
when the upper-class protagonist knocks out her nasty grill;
early in the second season, her rotten gums
nearly toothless, she blackmails the warden into a new set of
teeth. Upon incarceration, Pennsatucky traded
meth for 'born-again' religious fanaticism, but her new teeth are
a harbinger of a more substantive rebirth. If
the eyes are the soul's windows, its door is the mouth - the
fence across which pass food, drink, words, our
very breath.
Privileged America, ever striving for organic purity, judges
harshly the mouths that chew orange Doritos, drink
yellow Mountain Dew, breathe with a sawdust rattle, carry a
lower lip's worth of brown chaw, use dirty words
and bad grammar. When Pennsatucky gets out of prison, she'll
need respect, rehabilitation, employment. To
that end, for all her praying and testifying, Pennsatucky's pearly
gates might be her pearly, albeit prosthetic,
whites. She cries with joy in a prison van on the way to get
them, and later shows off with an over-the-top
smile during laundry duty.
'You're acting a little, like, retarded,' an envious inmate tells
her.
'I'm not retarded,' she says. 'I got new teeth!'

When I was a young adult, I learnt I'd been born without
wisdom teeth. The dentist told me I was
'evolutionarily advanced' since human beings, no longer in the
business of tearing raw flesh from mastodon
bones, don't need so many teeth now. So many TV shows, bad
jokes and bucktoothed hillbilly costumes in
Halloween aisles had suggested that my place of origin made me
'backwards', primitive and uncivilised, that
the dentist's comment struck me deeply, just as in fourth grade
when I read the word 'genius' in a school
psychologist's evaluation notes to my mother and wept on the
sidewalk.
4/6
Having straddled a class divide and been wrongly stereotyped
on both sides of it, throughout my life I've
found peace in the places and things that don't evaluate my
status: nature, animals, art, books. 'I sit with
Shakespeare,' wrote du Bois in The Souls of Black Folk (1903),
'and he winces not.' Social disadvantage and
hazard engender what he called 'double consciousness', the
ever-present awareness of more than one self.
For du Bois, his most challenging two-ness in the wake of
slavery was to be educated and black - a tension
of socialisation still at work, to be sure, as President Barack
Obama's raw first memoir attests. Today, for me
and millions of people in the US living on one side of a historic
income gap, the defining double
consciousness is to be educated and poor.
The latter, for many of those who suffered losses after the
economic collapse of 2008, is a terrifying new

identity, its horror projected on to Pennsatucky's serrated mouth
and hard to reconcile with the Americans
they thought they were. But in my academic and professional
'climbing', I learnt early and often that one
doesn't leave a place, class or culture and enter another, but
rather holds the privilege and burden of many
narratives simultaneously.
Friends who know my background sometimes kid me when I'm
drunk and misconjugate a verb or slip into a
drawl, or when, thoroughly sober, I reveal a gross blind spot in
the realm of book-learning (if, say, the question
involves whatever one learns in sixth grade, most of which I
spent playing in red dirt outside a two-room
schoolhouse near the Oklahoma state line). They smile at the
pleasure I take in scoring solid furniture from
yard sales or, once, for expressing delight over a tiny cast-iron
skillet, a miniature version of the pan my
grandma once used to fight a drunken stepfather off her mother.
I enjoy the kidding and feel appreciated
when they recognise the true clichés that weave my story.
But here's the thing: wealthy people use cast-iron skillets and
bad grammar, too. It's just not their narrative
and thus passes without remark. I've observed fellow
journalists, the same ones who made trailer-park
tornado survivors famous for a loose grip on the past participle,
edit dumb-sounding quotes by city
commissioners to suit the speaker's stature. And while I took
the education I wasn't given through libraries,
encyclopedias and my former stepfather's New Yorker
subscription, plenty of members of the middle and
upper classes refuse or lack the ability to seize the opportunities
handed them. It can be useful to
acknowledge the cultural forces that carve us, or edifying to
indulge in the tropes of our assigned narratives,

but true distinctions of character, intelligence, talent and skill
exist at the level of the individual, not of the
class - or the ethnicity, the gender, the sexual orientation, the
religion and so on. To claim otherwise, as we've
discovered across time and countless persecutions of our own
doing, is at best an insult and at worst an
excuse for enslavement and genocide.
the liberal proponents of Occupy Wall Street are often the same
people who think Southerners are inbred and
Walmart shoppers slovenly miscreants
In Thomas Harris's best-selling crime-novel series, the FBI
consults the imprisoned serial killer and
mastermind psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter in its search for 'the
Tooth Fairy', a family-slayer who bites his
victims with dentures made from a mould of his grandmother's
distorted, razor-sharp teeth. Years after that
manhunt, the FBI again turns to Lecter for help; this time, the
refined sociopath - a former philharmonic
orchestra board member and mannerly purveyor of his victims'
flesh - finds it more interesting to analyse the
agent than the latest case.
'You know what you look like to me, with your good bag and
your cheap shoes?' he asks the young agent
Clarice Starling - who comes from the same place as
Pennsatucky but whose intellect, health, grit and
ambition, presumably, landed her on the right side of the prison
bars. 'You look like a rube. A well-scrubbed,
hustling rube with a little taste. Good nutrition's given you
some length of bone, but you're not more than one
generation from poor white trash, are you, Agent Starling? And
that accent you've tried so desperately to
shed: pure West Virginia. What is your father, dear? Is he a coal
miner?'

5/6
Lecter's condescending soliloquy from a cell decorated with
sketches of the Duomo cathedral in Florence - a
place Starling surely hadn't heard of when she left her family
sheep farm for the FBI Academy at Quantico -
hits home but doesn't derail her. His most famous line - the
aggressive posturing about fava beans and good
Italian wine - happens when Starling sends a psychological
evaluation through the glass and tells him to look
at his damn self. We should do the same in the US, where the
liberal proponents of Occupy Wall Street are
often the same people who think Southerners are inbred and
Walmart shoppers slovenly miscreants with no
social awareness.
A century ago, du Bois wrote: 'The problem of the 20th century
is the problem of the colour line.' The problem
of the 21 st century is that of the class line. For the American
Dream to put its money where its mouth is, we
need not just laws ensuring, say, universal dental care, but
individual awareness of the judgments we pass on
people whose teeth - or clothes, waist lines, grocery carts, or
limps - represent our worst nightmares.
Sarah Smarsh
is a journalist covering class in America. Her book In the Red,
on the working poor and her upbringing in rural
Kansas, is forthcoming from Scribner.
Syndicate this Essay

aeon.co
23 October, 2014
6/6
JJOOYYNNEERR LLUUMMBBEERR CCAASSEE
RREEQQUUIIRREEMMEENNTTSS
11.. BBaacckkggrroouunndd IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn..
BBaasseedd oonn tthhee iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn
pprroovviiddeedd ttoo yyoouu iinn tthhee
ccaassee,, wwrriittee aa ccoouuppllee ooff
ppaarraaggrraapphhss aabboouutt tthhee ccoommppaannyy,,
iittss mmaannaaggeemmeenntt aanndd
tthhee iinndduussttrryy iiddeennttiiffyyiinngg tthhee
mmaaiinn bbuussiinneessss aaccttiivviittiieess,, mmaajjoorr
ccoommppeettiittoorrss aanndd
aannyy ssiiggnniiffiiccaanntt
ddeevveellooppmmeennttss dduurriinngg tthhiiss
ppeerriioodd.. IInn ttwwoo ootthheerr ppaarraaggrraapphhss
bbrriieeffllyy ddeessccrriibbee tthhee pprriimmaarryy
ffaaccttoorrss tthhaatt aaffffeecctt tthhee iinndduussttrryy
iinn wwhhiicchh JJLLCC’’ss
ssaalleess aarree ccoonncceennttrraatteedd.. FFoorr
tthhiiss llaasstt ppaarrtt,, yyoouu ccaann uussee ttwwoo
ooff tthhee iinndduussttrryy
ppuubblliiccaattiioonnss tthhaatt aarree lliisstteedd
iinn cchhaapptteerr 55 ooff yyoouurr tteexxttbbooookk..
22.. SSpprreeaadd tthhee ffoouurr ffuullll yyeeaarrss ooff
ffiinnaanncciiaall ssttaatteemmeennttss aanndd tthhee

iinntteerriimm rreeppoorrtt.. TThhiiss
mmeeaannss tthhaatt yyoouu nneeeedd ttoo
ttrraannssffeerr tthhee ffiinnaanncciiaall ddaattaa ggiivveenn
ttoo yyoouu iinn tthhee ccaassee ttoo
tthhee EExxcceell ““SSpprreeaaddsshheeeett
JJooyynneerr LLuummbbeerr CCaassee”” tthhaatt iiss
bbeeeenn pprroovviiddeedd ttoo yyoouu..
TThhee sspprreeaaddss iinncclluuddee tthhee
ccoommmmoonn--ssiizzee iinnccoommee ssttaatteemmeenntt,,
tthhee ccoommmmoonn--ssiizzee
bbaallaannccee sshheeeett aanndd tthhee rraattiioo
wwoorrkksshheeeett.. AAss tthhee iinntteerriimm
rreeppoorrtt ccoovveerrss oonnllyy ffoouurr
mmoonntthhss,, aannyy rraattiioo
ccaallccuullaattiioonnss tthhaatt uuttiilliizzee iinnccoommee
ssttaatteemmeenntt iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn wwiillll
nneeeedd ttoo bbee aaddjjuusstteedd.. FFoorr
eexxaammppllee,, ttoo ccaallccuullaattee rreettuurrnn oonn
aasssseettss yyoouu nneeeedd ttoo
““aannnnuuaalliizzee”” nneett iinnccoommee ii..ee..
mmuullttiippllyy tthhee ffoouurr--mmoonntthh nneett
iinnccoommee bbyy tthhrreeee ttoo
hhaavvee aann aannnnuuaall ffiigguurree.. TThhee
bbaallaannccee sshheeeett ddaattaa ddoo nnoott nneeeedd
aannyy aaddjjuussttmmeennttss..
AA ccoouuppllee ooff tthhiinnggss tthhaatt yyoouu
nneeeedd ttoo ttaakkee iinnttoo aaccccoouunntt wwhheenn
ttrraannssffeerrrriinngg tthhee
ddaattaa::
aa.. NNootteess ppaayyaabbllee ttoo bbaannkkss aanndd
ootthheerrss rreepprreesseenntt mmoorrttggaaggee nnootteess
ppaayyaabbllee
wwhhiicchh ccaallll ffoorr $$1155,,000000 ooff
pprriinncciippaall ppaayymmeennttss aannnnuuaallllyy..

TThheerreeffoorree,, tthhiiss
aammoouunntt sshhoouulldd bbee sshhoowwnn aass
ccuurrrreenntt mmaattuurriittiieess aanndd tthhee
rreemmaaiinniinngg bbaallaannccee
aass lloonngg tteerrmm ddeebbtt..
bb.. IInncclluuddeedd iinn ggeenneerraall aanndd
aaddmmiinniissttrraattiivvee eexxppeennsseess aarree
ddeepprreecciiaattiioonn &&
aammoorrttiizzaattiioonn eexxppeennsseess ooff::
11998877 -- 7722,,113311 11998888 --
6644,,222200
11998899 -- 6644,,886677 11999900 --
8822,,881111 YYTTDD 9911 -- 2299,,005588
TTaakkee tthheessee aammoouunnttss oouutt ooff
ggeenneerraall aanndd aaddmmiinniissttrraattiivvee
eexxppeennsseess aanndd sshhooww
tthheemm iinn tthhee ddeepprreecciiaattiioonn &&
aammoorrttiizzaattiioonn lliinnee..
cc.. OOtthheerr iinnccoommee,, nneett iiss
ccoommppoosseedd ooff::
1987 1988 1989 1990 YTD1991
Gain on Sale of
Assets -
101,238 -
238,645 -
Interest Expense

3,055
3,039
3,627
4,644 1,713
Other Income
34,895
27,649
57,793
93,070 57,005
Total Other Income,
Net
31,840
125,848
54,166

327,071 55,292
IInnppuutt tthheessee aammoouunnttss
sseeppaarraatteellyy iinn tthhee ““IISS”” ttaabb iinn tthhee
tthhrreeee aassssoocciiaatteedd lliinneess,,
SSppeecciiffiiccaallllyy::
IInntteerreesstt EExxppeennssee
OOtthheerr IInnccoommee
GGaaiinn oonn SSaallee ooff AAsssseettss
33.. RReevviieeww tthhee hhiissttoorriiccaall
ffiinnaanncciiaall ppeerrffoorrmmaannccee ooff tthhee
ffiirrmm.. IInn oonnee ppaaggee,, ddiissccuussss
tthhee ccoommppaannyy’’ss pprrooffiittaabbiilliittyy,,
lliiqquuiiddiittyy aanndd lleevveerraaggee ppoossiittiioonnss..
UUssiinngg tthhee rraattiiooss
tthhaatt yyoouu ccaallccuullaatteedd aanndd tthhee
aassssoocciiaatteedd RRMMAA iinndduussttrryy
ssttaattiissttiiccss,, iiddeennttiiffyy tthhee
aarreeaass tthhaatt sshhooww
iimmpprroovveemmeenntt aanndd tthhee aarreeaass ooff
ppootteennttiiaall ccoonncceerrnn..
44.. DDeevveelloopp pprroo ffoorrmmaa
ssttaatteemmeennttss ffoorr 11999911 bbaasseedd oonn
tthhee ““JJLLCC AAssssuummppttiioonnss””
ddooccuummeenntt wwhhiicchh hhaass bbeeeenn
pprroovviiddeedd..

55.. IIddeennttiiffyy tthhee ccoommppaannyy’’ss
ssttrreennggtthhss aanndd wweeaakknneesssseess..
66.. SSuummmmaarryy//RReeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss..
BBaasseedd oonn tthhee aabboovvee aannaallyyssiiss,,
ssuummmmaarriizzee yyoouurr
ffiinnddiinnggss aanndd ddeessccrriibbee yyoouurr
rreeccoommmmeennddaattiioonnss ffoorr
iimmpprroovveemmeenntt..
77.. IIss tthhiiss CCoommppaannyy ccrreeddiittwwoorrtthhyy
ttoo jjuussttiiffyy eexxtteennddiinngg aa bbaannkk
llooaann?? FFoorr tthhiiss
ppuurrppoossee,, aassssuummee tthhaatt yyoouu
hhaavvee aa rreeqquueesstt ffoorr aa $$220000,,000000
lliinnee ooff ccrreeddiitt.. TToo
aannsswweerr tthhiiss qquueessttiioonn,,
ccoonnssiiddeerr tthhee vvaarriioouuss ccrriittiiccaall
ffaaccttoorrss wwhhiicchh aarree kknnoowwnn aass
tthhee CCss ooff CCrreeddiitt,,
ssppeecciiffiiccaallllyy::
aa.. CChhaarraacctteerr –– tthhiiss ffaaccttoorr rreeffeerrss
ttoo tthhee bboorrrroowweerr’’ss hhoonneessttyy aanndd
ttrruussttwwoorrtthhiinneessss..
WWhhaatt iiss tthhee aasssseessssmmeenntt ooff tthhee
bboorrrroowweerr’’ss iinntteeggrriittyy aanndd iinntteenntt
ttoo rreeppaayy?? AArree
tthheerree aannyy sseerriioouuss ddoouubbttss??
bb.. CCaappaacciittyy –– iitt iinnvvoollvveess bbootthh
tthhee bboorrrroowweerr’’ss lleeggaall ssttaannddiinngg
aanndd mmaannaaggeemmeenntt’’ss

eexxppeerrttiissee iinn mmaaiinnttaaiinniinngg
ooppeerraattiioonnss ssoo tthhee ffiirrmm oorr
iinnddiivviidduuaall ccaann rreeppaayy iittss ddeebbtt
oobblliiggaattiioonnss.. DDooeess tthhee ccoommppaannyy
hhaavvee iiddeennttiiffiiaabbllee ccaasshh ffllooww oorr
aalltteerrnnaattiivvee
ssoouurrcceess ooff ccaasshh ttoo rreeppaayy ddeebbtt??
cc.. CCaappiittaall –– iitt rreeffeerrss ttoo tthhee
bboorrrroowweerr’’ss wweeaalltthh ppoossiittiioonn
mmeeaassuurreedd bbyy ffiinnaanncciiaall
ssoouunnddnneessss aanndd mmaarrkkeett ssttaannddiinngg..
CCaann tthhee ffiirrmm oorr iinnddiivviidduuaall
wwiitthhssttaanndd aannyy
ddeetteerriioorraattiioonn iinn iittss ffiinnaanncciiaall
ppoossiittiioonn??
dd.. CCoollllaatteerraall –– TThhiiss iiss tthhee
lleennddeerr’’ss sseeccoonnddaarryy ssoouurrccee ooff
rreeppaayymmeenntt oorr sseeccuurriittyy
iinn tthhee ccaassee ooff ddeeffaauulltt.. DDooeess tthhee
bboorrrroowweerr ppoosssseessss aasssseettss ooff
ssuuffffiicciieenntt qquuaalliittyy
aanndd vvaalluuee ttoo pprroovviiddee aaddeeqquuaattee
ssuuppppoorrtt ffoorr aa llooaann??
ee.. CCoonnddiittiioonnss –– TThhiiss tteerrmm rreeffeerrss
ttoo tthhee eeccoonnoommiicc eennvviirroonnmmeenntt oorr
iinndduussttrryy ––
ssppeecciiffiicc ssuuppppllyy,, pprroodduuccttiioonn,, aanndd
ddiissttrriibbuuttiioonn ffaaccttoorrss iinnfflluueenncciinngg
aa ffiirrmm’’ss
ooppeerraattiioonnss.. DDooeess tthhee oouuttllooookk
ffoorr tthhee eeccoonnoommyy aanndd iinndduussttrryy

wwhheerree aa bboorrrroowweerr
iiss ssiittuuaatteedd aadddd ssttrreennggtthh ttoo aa
llooaann??
Fer
Highlight
88.. SSeeaarrcchh ssoommee ffiinnaanncciiaall
rreessoouurrcceess ssuucchh aass AAmmeerriiccaann
BBaannkkeerr,, TThhee RRMMAA
JJoouurrnnaall,, TThhee WWaallll SSttrreeeett
JJoouurrnnaall,, eettcc,, aanndd ttrryy ttoo llooccaattee
oonnee rreecceenntt aarrttiiccllee ppeerr
ggrroouupp mmeemmbbeerr ((ppaasstt ssiixx
mmoonntthhss)) tthhaatt ccaann pprroovviiddee uusseeffuull
iinnffoorrmmaattiioonn aabboouutt
lleennddiinngg aaccttiivviittiieess iinn ttooddaayy’’ss
eennvviirroonnmmeenntt tthhaatt ppeerrhhaappss mmiigghhtt
hhaavvee aaffffeecctteedd
yyoouurr pprreevviioouuss llooaann aannaallyyssiiss..
AAss tthheessee aarrttiicclleess wwiillll bbee
aasssseesssseedd ffoorr rreelleevvaannccee,,
ttrryy ttoo ffiinndd aarrttiicclleess tthhaatt
ddiissccuussss llooaannss ttoo ssppeecciiffiicc
iinndduussttrriieess,, llooaannss tthhaatt hhaavvee
ggoonnee bbaadd oorr aarrttiicclleess tthhaatt yyoouu
ccaann uussee aass lleessssoonnss lleeaarrnneedd..
PPrroovviiddee aa bbrriieeff ssuummmmaarryy ooff
eeaacchh aarrttiiccllee aanndd aa ffuullll ccooppyy.. AAnn
eexxaammppllee ooff aann
aarrttiiccllee ssuummmmaarryy ffoolllloowwss

bbeellooww::
CCRREEDDIITT RRIISSKK
MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT:: LLeessssoonnss ffoorr
SSuucccceessss
WWeesslleeyy,, DDaavviidd HH .. TThhee RRMMAA
JJoouurrnnaall 9955.. 33 ((NNoovv 22001122)):: 4488--
5533,,1111..
SSUUMMMMAARRYY:: BBeennjjaammiinn
FFrraannkklliinn oonnccee oobbsseerrvveedd,, ""AAnn
oouunnccee ooff pprreevveennttiioonn iiss
wwoorrtthh aa ppoouunndd ooff ccuurree.."" AAnndd
ssoo iitt iiss wwiitthh ccrreeddiitt rriisskk
mmaannaaggeemmeenntt.. BBootthh
bboorrrroowweerrss aanndd bbaannkkeerrss hhaavvee
bbeeeenn aaffffeecctteedd bbyy tthhee cchhaannggiinngg
rreegguullaattoorryy
eennvviirroonnmmeenntt,, tthhee eeccoonnoommyy,,
aanndd ccrreeddiitt ddiiffffiiccuullttiieess,, aanndd tthhee
ppaaccee ooff cchhaannggee
sseeeemmss ttoo bbee aacccceelleerraattiinngg..
GGiivveenn tthhee ccrreeddiitt ccyycclleess oovveerr tthhee
ppaasstt 3300 yyeeaarrss aanndd
tthhee rreessuullttiinngg aafftteerrmmaatthh iinn
tthhee ffiinnaanncciiaall aanndd ccrreeddiitt
mmaarrkkeettss,, tthhee aauutthhoorr iiss
ccoonnffiiddeenntt tthhaatt tthhee ddaayyss ooff
bboooommss aanndd bbuussttss iinn tthhee
ffiinnaanncciiaall iinndduussttrryy hhaavvee nnoott
bbeeeenn rreeppeeaalleedd aanndd wwiillll
ccoonnttiinnuuee.. HHee iiss eeqquuaallllyy
ccoonnffiiddeenntt tthhaatt ccrreeddiitt ccyycclleess wwiillll
ccoonnttiinnuuee ttoo ttuurrnn oonn yyoouu aatt
tthhee mmoosstt iinnooppppoorrttuunnee ttiimmeess,,
eessppeecciiaallllyy ffoorr tthhoossee

ffiinnaanncciiaall iinnssttiittuuttiioonnss llaacckkiinngg
aa wweellll--ddeevveellooppeedd aanndd bbaallaanncceedd
rriisskk ttaakkiinngg ccuullttuurree..
LLeett mmee kknnooww iiff yyoouu hhaavvee
aannyy qquueessttiioonnss..
Fer
Highlight
OBJObjectiveAnalysis of JLCStudent NameID Number
BSBalance SheetCompany Name: Joyner Lumber Company,
Inc.Amounts In: ($)Period:Statement
Type:ForecastDate:12/31/8712/31/8812/31/8912/31/904/30/911
2/31/91ASSETSCash & Cash EquivalentsMarketable
SecuritiesAccounts Receivable, netInventoriesOther Accounts
and Notes ReceivablePrepaid ExpensesOther Current
AssetsTotal Current Assets- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Net Fixed
AssetsInvestmentsIntangiblesOther AssetsTotal Assets- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITYAccounts
PayableNotes Payable - BanksCurrent Maturities of Long Term
DebtAccrued LiabilitiesOther Current LiabilitiesTotal Current
Liabilities- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Deferred Federal Income TaxesLong-
Term DebtSubordinated DebtTotal Liabilities- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0Common StockAdditional paid-in capitalRetained
EarningsTreasury Stock- 0- 0- 0- 0Total Stockholders' Equity-
0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Total Liabilities & Stockholders' Equity- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0
ISStatements of Earnings and Retained EarningsCompany
Name: Joyner Lumber Company, Inc.Amounts In:
($)Period:YTDForecastStatement Type:12 Mos12 Mos12 Mos12
Mos4 Mos12
MosDate:12/31/8712/31/8812/31/8912/31/904/30/9112/31/91Tot
al Sales - RevenuesCost of Goods SoldGross Profit- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0Gen & Adm ExpensesSalaries and WagesLease

PaymentsOfficers' SalariesBad Debt ExpenseDepreciation and
amortizationRepairs and maintenanceNet Operating Income
(Profit)- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Interest IncomeInterest ExpenseOther
IncomeGain on Sale of AssetsNet Income Before Taxes- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0Income TaxesNet Income Before Extra Items- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0Extraordinary IncomeExtraordinary ChargesNet Income
(Loss)- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Beginning Retained
Earnings736,587736,587736,587736,587736,587736,587Net
Profit- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Cash DividendsOther DeductionsOther
AdditionsEnding Retained
Earnings736,587736,587736,587736,587736,587736,587
CFStatement of Cash FlowCompany Name: Joyner Lumber
Company, Inc.Amounts In: ($)Period:YTDForecastStatement
Type:12 Mos12 Mos12 Mos4 Mos12
MosDate:3214212/31/8812/31/8912/31/904/30/9112/31/91Cash
Flows from OperationsNet Income- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Noncash
revenue and expense included in net incomeDepreciation and
amortization- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change in Deferred Income Taxes- 0-
0- 0- 0- 0Cash provided (used) by current assets and
liabilitiesChange in Accounts Receivable- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change
in Other Accounts and Notes Receivable- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change in
Inventory- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change in Prepaid Expenses- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0Change in Other Current Assets- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change in
Accounts Payable- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change in Accrued Liabilities-
0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change in Other Current Liabilities- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0Total Cash Flows from Operations- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Cash Flows
from InvestingChange in Fixed Assets- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change in
Investmet Securities- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change in Other Investing
Activities- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Total Cash Flows from Investing- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0- 0Cash Flows from FinancingChange in Short-term
Borrowings- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change in Long-term Borrowings- 0-
0- 0- 0- 0Cash Dividends Paid- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change in Treasury
Stock- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Change in Common Stock- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Total
Cash Flows from Financing- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Net Change in Cash
and Marketable Securities- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0
CSBSCommon Size Balance SheetCompany Name: Joyner

Lumber Company, Inc.Amounts In: ($)Period:Statement
Type:ForecastDate:12/31/8712/31/8812/31/8912/31/904/30/911
2/31/91ASSETSCash & Cash Equivalents- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0Marketable Securities- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Accounts Receivable,
net- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Inventories- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Other Accounts
and Notes Receivable- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Prepaid Expenses- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0- 0Other Current Assets- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Total Current
Assets- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Net Fixed Assets- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0Investments- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Intangibles- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Other Assets- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0Total Assets- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0LIABILITIES &
STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITYAccounts Payable- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0Notes Payable - Banks- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Current Maturities of
Long Term Debt- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Accrued Liabilities- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Other Current Liabilities-
0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Total Current Liabilities- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0Deferred Federal Income Taxes- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Long-Term
Debt- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Subordinated Debt- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0- 0Total Liabilities- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Common Stock- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0- 0Additional paid-in capital- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Retained
Earnings- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Treasury Stock- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0- 0Total Stockholders' Equity- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Total
Liabilities & Stockholders' Equity- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0
CSISCommon Size Income StatementCompany Name: Joyner
Lumber Company, Inc.Amounts In: ($)Period:ForecastStatement
Type:YTD12
MosDate:12/31/8712/31/8812/31/8912/31/904/30/9112/31/91Tot
al Sales - Revenues- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Cost of Goods Sold- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0Gross Profit- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Gen & Adm Expenses- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0- 0Salaries and Wages- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Lease Payments-
0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Officers' Salaries- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Bad Debt
Expense- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Depreciation and amortization- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0- 0Repairs and maintenance- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0Net Operating Income (Profit)- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Interest Income-
0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Interest Expense- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Other Income-
0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Gain on Sale of Assets- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Net

Income Before Taxes- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Income Taxes- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0- 0Net Income Before Extra Items- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0-
0Extraordinary Income- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Extraordinary Charges-
0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0Net Income (Loss)- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0- 0
FRFinancial Ratios - Trends and Comparisons with
IndustryCompany Name: Joyner Lumber Company, Inc.Amounts
In: ($ in Summary)ComparisonPeriod:of CompanyStatement
Type:ForecastRMARatios to
theDate:12/31/8712/31/8812/31/8912/31/904/30/9112/31/91Tren
dNormRMA NormsFinancial SummaryCurrent AssetsCurrent
LiabilitiesTotal AssetsTotal LiabilitiesTotal Net WorthNet
Working CapitalWorking AssetsWorking LiabilitiesWorking
InvestmentLong Term DebtTangible Net WorthAverage Annual
Long-term Debt MaturitiesCurrent Maturities of LTDOperating
Cash FlowNet SalesNet IncomeLiquidity/Activity RatiosCurrent
Ratio (x)Quick Ratio (x)Cash Flow Liquidity Ratio
(x)Sales/Working Capital (x)Accounts Receivable (x)Accounts
Receivable (Days)Inventory Turnover vs COGS (x)Inventory
Turnover vs Aver Sales (Days)Accounts Payable vs COGS
(Days)Accounts Payable vs Aver Sales (Days)Cash Conversion
Cycle (Days)Leverage RatiosDebt Ratio (%)Long-term Debt to
Total Capitalization (%)Debt to Worth (x)Debt to Tangible Net
Worth (x)(Net Profit+Depr/Depl/Amort)/CMLTD (x)Times
Interest Earned (x)Fixed Charge Coverage (x)Cash Flow
Adequacy (x)Performance RatiosFixed Asset Turnover (x)Total
Asset Turnover (x)Gross Profit Margin (%)Operating Profit
Margin (%)Net Profit Margin (%)Cash Flow Margin (%)Profit
Before Taxes/Total Assets (%)Return on Assets (%)Return on
Equity (%)Cash Return on Assets (%)Sales Growth (%)Earnings
Growth (%)Total Asset Growth (%)

Forecast Assumptions Mr. Joyner feels that the company wi.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Forecast Assumptions Mr. Joyner feels that the company wi.docx

Similar to Forecast Assumptions Mr. Joyner feels that the company wi.docx (11)

More from shericehewat

More from shericehewat (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Forecast Assumptions Mr. Joyner feels that the company wi.docx