Uni Dissertation Survey Help

Status
Not open for further replies.
I signed up to 'banc de binary' a couple of years ago which are a trading company, they basically tell you what to buy and sell etc and you make money. To get started I had to put some money in my account and after agreeing to £250 they TOOK £10,000 leaving me £8k overdrawn. It was a massively worrying time thinking Id never get it back but I finally did after over a month, lots of phone calls, a very annoyed wife, sleepless nights. At first the said I had to trade it once over (ie £10k worth of trades b4 I could withdraw)Absolute bar stewards, hate them with a passion. About 3 months later they went into partnership with....you guessed it ...Liverpool FC. Never have a company been more fitting for a sponsor IMO, I did have to chuckle when I saw that
 
My strategic analysis lecturers wouldn't be a fan of your survey questions.
Why ask "do you follow everton 4-5 times on traditional media", then immediately afterwards ask the same but 2-3 times?

Answered though, so at least you have some data.

Oddly structured isn't it? Someone's definitely not getting a first.
 
I feel obligated to boycott any products related to companies that sponsor them.

The only one of particular relevance is Nivea. I once had a rather animated conversation with a nice lady working in a pharmacy who eventually understood the reason why I could not purchase Nivea deordorant or any other product in their line, regardless of price or quality.

Indeed.

I still wouldn't buy Crown Paint!
 
Done.

Hard to see what useful data could be gained from that survey though.

Where was the 'I hadnt paid any attention to them?' Option, or 'standard who?'

Universities these days eh?

I presume the exercise is oriented more towards generating, analyzing, and reporting the data than in providing useful results. It's not like it's graduate or postgrad research.
 
none of the answers for fan identification apply to me, i love the blues and sometimes attend matches, i'd call myself archair in comparison to others because of my location, but the rest of it "i.e. never been to goodison" doesn't apply.
 
i answered the questions thinking they were a charity so i said that they didn't fit the RS at all.

Oh they fit the vermin perfectly.



On 6 August 2012, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS), led by Benjamin Lawsky, accused Standard Chartered of hiding $250 billion in transactions involving Iran, labelling it a "rogue institution". The bank was ordered to appear and defend its actions, or risk losing its license to operate in the state of New York. The DFS said it had documents showing a cover up of transactions allegedly used to fund terrorist groups in the Middle East.[47]

On 14 August 2012, Lawsky announced that the DFS and Standard Chartered reached a settlement that allows the bank to keep its licence to operate in New York. According to the terms of the settlement, the bank agreed to pay a $ 340 million fine.[48]

The bank agreed to install a monitor to oversee the bank's money laundering controls for at least two years, and appoint "permanent officials who will audit the bank's internal procedures to prevent offshore money laundering".[48] The monitor will report directly to the DFS.[49] Lawsky's statement said "the parties have agreed that the conduct at issue involved transactions of at least $250bn."[50] The bank issued a statement confirming that a settlement with the DFS had been reached and that "a formal agreement containing the detailed terms of the settlement is expected to be concluded shortly".[50]

Other US agencies—including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Treasury Department, and the Justice Department—had also begun investigations into the laundering allegations and were reportedly taken off guard by the speed of the settlement.[48]

The Treasury stated that its own investigation of Standard Chartered will continue.[51] Several financial analysts predicted that, due to its strong financial position, the bank would be able to easily cover the $900 million fine without having to raise extra capital.[51]

On 6 August 2014 Lawsky was reported to be preparing a new action against Standard Chartered over computer system breakdowns and was "discussing a potential settlement".[52]

On 19 August 2014, the bank was fined $300 million by the New York Department of Financial Services for breach of money-laundering compliance related to potentially high-risk transactions involving Standard Chartered clients in Hong Kong and the UAE. The bank issued a statement accepting responsibility and regretting the deficiencies, at the same time noting the ruling would not jeopardize its U.S. licenses.
 
Oh they fit the vermin perfectly.



On 6 August 2012, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS), led by Benjamin Lawsky, accused Standard Chartered of hiding $250 billion in transactions involving Iran, labelling it a "rogue institution". The bank was ordered to appear and defend its actions, or risk losing its license to operate in the state of New York. The DFS said it had documents showing a cover up of transactions allegedly used to fund terrorist groups in the Middle East.[47]

On 14 August 2012, Lawsky announced that the DFS and Standard Chartered reached a settlement that allows the bank to keep its licence to operate in New York. According to the terms of the settlement, the bank agreed to pay a $ 340 million fine.[48]

The bank agreed to install a monitor to oversee the bank's money laundering controls for at least two years, and appoint "permanent officials who will audit the bank's internal procedures to prevent offshore money laundering".[48] The monitor will report directly to the DFS.[49] Lawsky's statement said "the parties have agreed that the conduct at issue involved transactions of at least $250bn."[50] The bank issued a statement confirming that a settlement with the DFS had been reached and that "a formal agreement containing the detailed terms of the settlement is expected to be concluded shortly".[50]

Other US agencies—including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Treasury Department, and the Justice Department—had also begun investigations into the laundering allegations and were reportedly taken off guard by the speed of the settlement.[48]

The Treasury stated that its own investigation of Standard Chartered will continue.[51] Several financial analysts predicted that, due to its strong financial position, the bank would be able to easily cover the $900 million fine without having to raise extra capital.[51]

On 6 August 2014 Lawsky was reported to be preparing a new action against Standard Chartered over computer system breakdowns and was "discussing a potential settlement".[52]

On 19 August 2014, the bank was fined $300 million by the New York Department of Financial Services for breach of money-laundering compliance related to potentially high-risk transactions involving Standard Chartered clients in Hong Kong and the UAE. The bank issued a statement accepting responsibility and regretting the deficiencies, at the same time noting the ruling would not jeopardize its U.S. licenses.

so i got the answer right? back of the net
 
I would actually wholeheartedly and with all respect suggest that he re-do the survey. The way its structures, he could get a lot of meaningless data (you can very easily give conflicting answers). It could render him unable to do a paper.

He needs to have frequency options and a single question in many areas instead of frequency questions and rating answers.

(FWIW, I work for a firm that does surveys, the data from that survey will be a disaster)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top