BUCKET CLIPS 3 | A FLINTA Ski Mixtape

Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Business Analytics Concentration

profile picture
first_rodeo
Posts: 2385 - Karma: 7,781
Wondering if anyone else on NS is studying in a Business Analytics or applied management analysis. 
The field is projected to grow 20% in the next few years and the skills are applicable to anything from various business fields to even working with IRS FBI white collar crime.


http://www.lemoyne.edu/Academics/SchoolofBusiness/BusinessAnalytics/tabid/715/Default.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_analytics


I'm currently in my junior year of Business Analysis // Finance dual major
Nov 20 2013 8:45AM
8 2
profile picture
slav_slayer
Posts: 476 - Karma: 1,821
Sound interesting, but i dont think i would ever want to land a job with the FBI or the IRS
Nov 20 2013 8:54AM
0 0
profile picture
Sharknuts.
Posts: 339 - Karma: 953
working with the IRS or the FBI in acct would blow in my opinion. its the definition of a desk job. you push paper. if thats for you then i'd go for it. not for me so im out.
Nov 20 2013 9:26AM
0 0
profile picture
KravtZ
Posts: 6637 - Karma: 2,629
If you like analytics that much your better off doing something like finance major and math minor or accounting major and finance minor.
Nov 20 2013 9:27AM
0 0
profile picture
TechnoPotamus
Posts: 11626 - Karma: 3,522
idk why everybody is focusing on the FBI/IRS thing...it's just one avenue of MANY that you go pursue, as you know OP.



it's a strong dual major to have
Nov 20 2013 9:30AM
1 0
profile picture
SkiThe603
Posts: 5376 - Karma: 498
in all truth any field in the business sector will not grow in the current economy. Until the debt issue is resolved the US has no growth possability.
Nov 20 2013 9:51AM
0 1
profile picture
TechnoPotamus
Posts: 11626 - Karma: 3,522
Yeah I'd listen to this guy, he sounds like he has a clue about what he's talking about.


Click for larger image
Click for larger image


Keep using those buzzwords you see in the newspaper bro, but learn how to spell first
Nov 20 2013 10:20AM
3 0
profile picture
first_rodeo
Posts: 2385 - Karma: 7,781
just died
Nov 26 2013 7:09AM
0 0
profile picture
TechnoPotamus
Posts: 11626 - Karma: 3,522
the top picture is a GIF but it won't run unless you click it. it was so perfect haha
Nov 26 2013 8:36AM
1 0
profile picture
cool_name
Posts: 4295 - Karma: 3,131
you are right, the s&p 500 isn't up almost 30% this year
Nov 27 2013 11:00PM
0 0
profile picture
.MASSHOLE.
Posts: 7491 - Karma: 11,554
I would rather look at unemployment than S&P. The biggest of the big companies will always perform better than the little guys, which isn't a great indication of how the economy as a whole is doing. They will find ways to make profits and make themselves look like theyre doing well.


But the business sector will do well, but it will take time.
Nov 28 2013 8:23AM
0 0
profile picture
KravtZ
Posts: 6637 - Karma: 2,629
Unemployment is so rigged. The real unemployment rate is way higher than obummers actual numbers he reports. They also changed the GDP calculation recently so it look like we have more growth than we cactually do
Nov 28 2013 12:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Blurst
Posts: 13577 - Karma: 10,169
How do you know unemployment is higher where are those numbers?
Nov 28 2013 12:46PM
0 0
profile picture
cool_name
Posts: 4295 - Karma: 3,131
fuck i had nice response all written and deleted it by mistake, i don't feel like rewriting it so here is the condensed version.

unemployment is down 30% from its peak in 2010 and down 10% this year

The Russell 2000 has a one year return of 42% currently which is roughly 10% higher than the Russell 3000

how about instead of just reading the headlines of newspaper articles you actually look at the facts yourself and come to your own opinion

Quoting KravtZ$:
Unemployment is so rigged. The real unemployment rate is way higher than obummers actual numbers he reports.

i hate when people try and use this to show how much higher the unemployment rate is right now then ever before by comparing the"correct" unemployment rate now with the "rigged" unemployment rate from before. That is like trying to say Michael Jordan was a better athlete than Gretzky look at how many more points he scored every game! Yes, Jordan did score more points but it was a completely different game.

i am going to presume you are referring to the u6 rate which is at a staggering 13% right now almost double the current unemployment rate, but what you also need to consider is back in may 2007 when the official unemployment rate was 4.4% the u6 rate was 8.3%, higher than the official rate today.

There is nothing wrong with using the u6 rate, there are many strong arguments showing how t it better portrays unemployment, but if you going to use you cant compare it back the current official rate and act like the sky is falling

Nov 28 2013 8:48PM
1 0
profile picture
.MASSHOLE.
Posts: 7491 - Karma: 11,554
Look I am not saying anything about the current state of the economy, I am just stating I would trust unemployment over S&P. Regardless, there will be statistics and facts from both sides of the political system trying to prove certain points. I just dont trust S&P
Nov 28 2013 9:01PM
0 0
profile picture
cool_name
Posts: 4295 - Karma: 3,131
please give me one reason why the s&p is not trust worthy? Do you think it is just chance that it is considered to be the most accurate representation of the economy?

Nov 28 2013 9:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Bumblesteeze
Posts: 3092 - Karma: 748
The reason why the S&P 500 isn't the most accurate economic indicator, is because all it shows is an increase or decrease in stock prices. Sure, an increase shows high expectations for the future of the economy. But that's about it.. Low interest rates allow and greater and risker speculations to go on.

In this current environment, I don't think it's a good indicator. Why wouldn't the Federal Reserve taper if it believed that the economy is strong enough? It's because it's looking at unemployment and the labour participation rate.
Nov 28 2013 10:17PM
1 0
profile picture
.MASSHOLE.
Posts: 7491 - Karma: 11,554
There is this, and it is only involving the top 500 companies. The US economy is much more than 500 companies. These 500 companies may have felt SOME of the effects of the 2008 Crisis, but to believe that they were deeply affected like other smaller corporations is naive. Many have the power to bounce back quite quickly because many of these companies are multinational and have more than just the US as their consumers. Yes they may help drive the economy, but thats like saying the engine is the only important component of a car. You need much more for it to actually run. You need axels, wheels, gas, etc. Is it a helpful indicator? Sure. Is it the best? I would say in todays economy, no. You cannot look at one sole factor to judge the current economic state.

Nov 28 2013 11:27PM
0 0
profile picture
cool_name
Posts: 4295 - Karma: 3,131
The entire economy is based on what people expect the future to be. Whenever someone hires an employee, builds a new factory, designs a new product, or invest in a company it is the belief that their will be demand for that product or service tomorrow.

Also the fed has started talks about tapering, they cant just start tapering at the first sign of recovery because the market doesnt like surprises and what they are doing right is making it so when they do start the taper it is as little of a shock as possible
Nov 28 2013 11:29PM
0 0
profile picture
cool_name
Posts: 4295 - Karma: 3,131
I guess you just choose not to read the how Russell 2000 was up over 40%
Nov 28 2013 11:32PM
0 0
profile picture
.MASSHOLE.
Posts: 7491 - Karma: 11,554
Uhh...they didnt just have talks about tapering. They had talks about staving off tapering I believe. They dont want people to panic again. Could be wrong but this is what I recall from the October Fed Minutes.
Nov 28 2013 11:34PM
0 0
profile picture
cool_name
Posts: 4295 - Karma: 3,131
the topic of the talks would be tapering then correct?
Nov 28 2013 11:36PM
0 0
profile picture
.MASSHOLE.
Posts: 7491 - Karma: 11,554
Excuse me but is that english?

I believe Bernanke said he would not taper the monetary expansion. If you meant in your original post to say they discussed what to do, then yes. If you meant that they discussed tapering the monetary expansion, then I believe you are wrong. But please, if you want to listen to 40 minutes of them talking or read the 60? pages then be my guest.
Nov 28 2013 11:38PM
0 0
profile picture
cool_name
Posts: 4295 - Karma: 3,131
They did say they will hold off currently.

"Also the fed has started talks about tapering,"

No where in that did i say they will be tapering simply that they have started talking about it. If they didn't discuss tapering monetary policy how would they come to conclusion to hold off temporarily?

Nov 28 2013 11:49PM
0 0
profile picture
.MASSHOLE.
Posts: 7491 - Karma: 11,554
I missed the Russell 2000 remarks earlier and I read too much into your statement about tapering. My mistake.

Still, I dont think two indications are indicative of how the general public feels. Remember, only a certain portion of the US can hold stocks due to monetary constraints.
Nov 29 2013 12:01AM
0 0
profile picture
cool_name
Posts: 4295 - Karma: 3,131
only a certain portion of people can create jobs as well, and that portion is far more likely to hold stocks
Nov 29 2013 12:21AM
0 0
profile picture
gotti
Posts: 4269 - Karma: 4,550
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

this is the most absurd thing I have read in a long time.

most of our debt is owned by the us itself anyways


Nov 29 2013 12:39AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)