Title: Too much defense is a bad thing

By: Adam Shell, USA TODAY, USA Today, 07347456, AUG 13, 2012.Database: Academic
Search Premier.
Select: American Accent Australian Accent British Accent
Wall Street waits for offensive rebound
Section: Money, Pg. 01b
If the stock rally -- which has flashed signs of fatigue in recent days -- is to keep chugging along,
investors must elevate their risk-taking and animal spirits.
A strong defense may be key to winning an NFL title, but a defense-first game plan executed by
Wall Street can act as an impediment to a bull market.
Source: USA Today, AUG 13, 2012
Item: J0E111620083612
Reference List
Adam S, USA T. Too much defense is a bad thing. USA Today [serial online]. n.d.:Available
from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 28, 2014.

Too much of a bad thing

The article presents information on ways by which Great Britain could spend more money
getting people jobs and less on the long-term unemployed. Of the 2.75m people now out of work
in Britain, nearly 1m have been unemployed for more than a year-one-third of the total,
compared with one-quarter a year ago. This is not only a prime cause of poverty. It is confidence
sapping for the unemployed and costly for taxpayers, with each jobless person costing the
Treasury some 8,000 pounds a year in social-security benefits and forgone tax revenue. It is also
likely to cause lasting damage. With rusty skills and poor work experience, few of the long-term
unemployed can compete seriously for anything but the most menial of jobs..
Source:Economist. 9/12/1992, Vol. 324 Issue 7776, p16-17. 2p. 1 Graph. .
Database: Academic Search Premier.
Reference List
Too much of a bad thing. Economist [serial online]. September 12, 1992;324(7776):16-17.
Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 28, 2014.

Title: Money fund surprises are rarely good ones

By: John Waggoner, jwaggoner@usatoday.com, USA TODAY, USA Today, 07347456, JUL 11,
2014.
Database: Academic Search Premier.
Money funds aren't insured, and they never have been. The potential loss from a money fund is
small -- the Reserve Fund's share price fell to 97 cents, a 3% loss -- but it does exist.
If you can't stand the possibility of a loss, invest in a federally insured bank account, and mind
the limits on Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. coverage. Banks fail, too.
Some day, short-term interest rates will rise again, and money market funds will look more
appealing than they currently do. But they're still a short-term investment, and will rarely, if ever,
beat inflation over the long term.
Life is full of little surprises. But getting a surprise from your money fund is like discovering a
skunk in your gym bag. You just don't want that. A few new rules to ensure investor safety won't
hurt anyone.
Source: USA Today, JUL 11, 2014
Reference List
John W, jwaggoner@usatoday.com, USA T. Money fund surprises are rarely good ones. USA
Today [serial online]. n.d.:Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed
September 28, 2014.

Good Money and Bad Money: Do Funding Sources Affect Electoral Outcomes? .
There is lively public debate about the normative impact of different kinds of money in elections.
However, there is surprisingly little examination of the practical impact that funding sources
have on election outcomes. Even if we assume that voters do not care directly about campaign
finance, there may still be incentives built into the system to discourage fundraising from some
sources and encourage it from others. Therefore, I examine the actual impact of out-of-state
donations, PAC donations, and self-financing on election outcomes in open seat House elections
in the 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002 cycles. I find that some kinds of fundraising are correlated
with success, while others are correlated with failure, although at a lesser level than district
partisanship or total campaign spending. These results offer promise for addressing some
measurement issues in the congressional election field, as well as possible directions for future
research.
Database: Academic Search Premier.
Source:Political Research Quarterly. Jun2005, Vol. 58 Issue 2, p353-358. 6p.

Reference List
Alexander B. Good Money and Bad Money: Do Funding Sources Affect Electoral Outcomes?.
Political Research Quarterly [serial online]. June 2005;58(2):353-358. Available from: Academic
Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 28, 2014

Using strangers for money: a discussion on money-launderers in organized crime.

In a recent study of Malm and Bichler (Trends in Organized Crime 16:365-381, ) it was found
that very little professional laundering occurs in illicit markets. That is to be expected because
not every criminal will make enough money to have a need for the services of professional
money launderers. However, it is less clear to what extent the same outcome applies to those
criminals who do make a lot of criminal money. In order to find out, 31 case studies were
examined that deal with large scale importation of cocaine in Europe. It appears that
professionals are often engaged, as almost half of the files indicate the presence of such
specialists. However, that doesn't imply that such specialists are absent in the other half of the
files. After examination of the investigative strategy of each police investigation, it turns out that
there is a strong correlation between a focus on financial matters at the beginning of an
investigation and the finding of professional launderers. This has important implications for the
use of Social Network Analysis and qualitative case file research. The nonappearance of certain
types of people in the police investigations has as much to do with the investigative strategy as
with their real absence.
Source:Trends in Organized Crime. Sep2014, Vol. 17 Issue 3, p199-217. 19p.
Reference List
Soudijn M. Using strangers for money: a discussion on money-launderers in organized crime.
Trends In Organized Crime [serial online]. September 2014;17(3):199-217. Available from:
Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 28, 2014.