How to select the best SAT Tutor

Many students prefer private tutors for SAT preparation. If you are also in that bunch, then you need to make sure that you select the best SAT tutor among those available. Do not get swayed by charismatic or authoritative tutors. Before you invest your time and money in private tutors, you need to consider the following factors: The test score of the SAT tutor: What good is a tutor who has himself not done well in the exam? You need to know whether the person teaching you understand the exam well. A smart tutor who has aced one of the more recently administered SATs is in a much better position to guide you through the preparation stage. Preparation approach: Before zeroing in on a tutor, you need to figure out the approach of the tutor. What will be their teaching style? Does he have his own notes or teaches through established study material? You need to make sure that the tutor fits in with your own style of preparation. Understanding: A good tutor is the one who asks questions about you and tries to understand your own abilities. He/she should be able to customize the study plan based on your own unique needs. Reccos: Related articles #SAT College Board,#SAT Score #RefundAugustSAT | Have my SAT Scores Been Compromised? 0 1044 #SAT College Board New SAT 2018-2019 - Dates and Deadlines 0 9115 # Meet Our SAT Leaderboard Toppers! 0 2298 #SAT Score Average SAT Scores At 10 Top Universities   0 0 #SAT College Board Where to find answer explanations for SAT Blue Book? 0 5535 Yes, recommendations matter. A good tutor will be able to share a list of previous clients. You can speak to these people and take feedback on the tutor. You can also speak to the clients who are currently preparing with the tutor. Apart from these four factors you need to take into account the number of students in the class, frequency of sessions, teaching location, cost of the program and makeup sessions, among others. Connect with a tutor on LEAP.

The 2007 to 2011 Financial Crisis - 1925 Words

The 2007 to 2011 Financial Crisis Causes, Effects and Lessons (Essay Sample) Content:  HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/" \o "Permanent Link to The 2007 to 2011 Financial Crisis Causes, Effects and Lessons" The 2007 to 2011 Financial Crisis Causes, Effects and LessonsTable of Contents  HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/" \l "Abstract" Abstract HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/" \l "Introduction" Introduction HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/" \l "1_Regulation_destabilized_the_financial_system" 1. Regulation destabilized the financial system HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/" \l "11_Residential_mortgage_boom_and_bust" 1.1 Residential mortgage boom and bust HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/" \l "2_Financial_collapse_and_economic_downturn" 2. Financial collapse and economic downturn HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/" \l "4_Lessons" 4. Lessons HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/" \l "Conclusion" Conclusion HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/" \l "Bibliography" Bibliography HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/" \l "Appendex" AppendixAbstractThis paper provides a brief examination of the immediate causes and effects of the 2007 financial crisis, as well as an overview of lessons learned from it. I conclude that failure to properly regulate and supervise financial insti tutions set the stage for the crisis, while the US residential mortgage boom and bust triggered it. A credit freeze, bankruptcies, and hundreds of billions in government rescue ensued, resulting in a general economic downturn. The legacy of the crisis should be seen as an opportunity to revise the financial system as a whole.  IntroductionThe financial crisis that started in 2007 is the result of complex, interconnected, and simultaneous developments. As such, I focus my analysis on the United States  and two distinct direct causes: (1) erroneous bank regulation – which destabilized the financial system – and (2) the pre-crisis real estate boom and bust. Whereas the former conditioned the crisis, the latter was its catalyst. In this brief essay, I discuss only the most important and immediate effects of the crisis – those that emerged between 2007 and 2012 – and discuss the conclusions that can be drawn accordingly.1. Regulation destabilized the finan cial systemRegulation of US banks by the Fed, SEC, and FDIC,  as well as other regulatory agencies, contributed significantly to the erosion of financial system stability (Barth, Caprio and Levine, 2012, p.86). For example, in 1996, the Fed legitimized the use of Credit Default Swaps (CDS) as risk-hedging instruments (Levine 2010, p. 202, Appendix 1) and as a result many banks developed massive exposures (Figure 1) – AIG held over $500 billion in 2007 – while others were able to reduce their capital reserves by up to half in percentage terms (Barth, Caprio and Levine, 2012, p.92).Figure 1: CDS market volume Q1 2001 to Q2 2007, trillion US$ HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/cds-market-volume-q1-2001-to-q2-2007-trillion-us/" 
  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   (International Securities and Derivatives Association cited in Baily, Litan and Johnson, 2008)Another example is the SEC’s use of the â€Å"NRSRO† designation,  which led to a serious misalignment of credit rating agencies’ business incentives and resulted in inflationary provisions of investment-grade ratings for risky securities. This further deteriorated the viability of banks’ balance sheets (see Appendix 2).1.1 Residential mortgage boom and bustSimultaneously, the US residential real estate bubble (inspired by the assumption that housing prices would only go up) fueled excessive issuance of home mortgages (Figure 2). In turn, unsound lending practices, especially in sub-prime mortgage lending, bolstered housing prices by pushing demand, while filling institutions’ balance sheets with unrecognized risk (Barth 2009, p.92). The attractiveness of mortgages as â€Å"fail-safe† investments prompted many banks to shift their business model from â€Å"originate-to-hold† to â€Å"originate-to-sell†; instead of buying mortgages as an investment that generated a stea dy cash flow, banks securitized and sold them (Barth 2009, p.22). This effectively removed any incentive to analyze and control risk. However, this â€Å"out-of-sight-out-of-mind† mentality did not account for the fact that banks that securitized mortgages and invested in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) were often identical. Thus, risk was absent from balance sheets, but implicitly present in securities holdings (Appendix 3).Figure 2: SP-Shiller housing prices index (monthly), January 2001 to August 2012 HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/sp-shiller-housing-prices-index-monthly-january-2001-to-august-2012/" 
(Standard Poor’s Financial Services LLC, 2012)The convoluted system of securitization faltered when housing prices started to decline and mortgage borrowers defaulted (Figure 3). This dried up the cash flow of mortgage-backed securities and made them virtually worthless; banks that relie d on them to meet their obligations encountered trouble. Moreover, complex securitization practices made the extent of any one institution’s exposure anyone’s guess. Since, no one could be certain which banks would live to see another day, interbank lending froze. In short, not only did financial institutions possess worthless assets, but they were also unable to bridge shortages in cash (Figure 4).  In addition, mass defaults activated billions of dollars in CDS obligations and bankrupted all who were over-exposed.Figure 3: Increase of delinquency rates (percent) of subprime loans between 2003 and 2007 HYPERLINK "http://writepass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/increase-of-delinquency-rates-percent-of-subprime-loans-between-2003-and-2007/" 
(Arentsen, Mauer, Rosenlund, Zhang and Zhao, 2012, p.39)Figure 4: Increase of the Federal Funds rate (percent, monthly) indicates interbank lending crisis HYPERLINK "http://writ epass.com/journal/2013/01/the-2007-to-2011-financial-crisis-causes-effects-and-lessons/increase-of-the-federal-funds-rate-percent-monthly-indicates-interbank-lending-crisis/" 
(Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2012)2. Financial collapse and economic downturnThe immediate effects of the crisis are well known. Banks previously considered untouchable filed for bankruptcy (e.g. Lehmann Brothers), while others were acquired (Merrill Lynch by Bank of America), bailed-out, or taken over by the government (AIG and the GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Soon, the credit freeze affected the remaining economy as financing investments and borrowing became increasingly difficult. For example, between 2007 and 2009, approximately 8.8 million American jobs disappeared, U.S. GDP fell by more than five percent from its pre-recession peak (Treasury 2012), and the SP 500 lost about 57 percent of its value (Lleo and Ziemba, 2011). Perhaps most famously, without governmental assistance, American auto mobile manufacturers GM and Chrysler would have become insolvent (Stewart 2012). Yet another legacy cost is the enormous government debt that resulted from rescues and other economic resuscitation programs (Barth 2009).The crisis spread internationally (and most damagingly to Europe) because substantial loan derivatives were sold abroad. This does not imply that the U.S. is to blame for the crisis; every government had access to the same information as Fed, SEC, and FDIC, yet nearly all failed to recognize and address the systemic problem (Cox, Faucette and Lickstein, 2010).4. LessonsMostly importantly, the crisis exposed the colossal failure of bank regulators,  and prompted a fundamental restructuring of banking regulation (such as the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act). In addition, the excessive complexity and behemoth size of the financial system have come under intense scrutiny. An important question has emerged from this examination, which asks, considering TARP, are some financial insti tutions â€Å"too big to fail?† (Greeley 2012). Moreover, the crisis has spawned a reexamination of the desirability of â€Å"laissez-faire† within the financial markets – that is, to what degree can market forces be relied upon to avert crises (Barth, Caprio and Levine, 2012, p.90)?  ConclusionThe financial crisis that began in 2007 still troubles us today. While some financial institutions have collapsed, those that remain have had to fundamentally rethink their role as credit providers. Governments were left with tremendous financial commitments, tasked with deconstructing the moral hazard of bank bailouts, and with regulating and supervising the financial system more efficiently. History has shown us that financial crises are a cyclical occurrence. Thus the question must be, can the cycle be broken, or is the next crisis waiting in the wings?  BibliographyArentsen, E., Mauer, D.C., Rosenlund, B., Zhang, H.H., Zhao, F., 2012. Subprime Mortgage Defaults an d Credit D...