B-school trends come and go, but one that seems to have legs is the creation of specialized MBA programs, particularly by second-tier schools. The schools find them useful for attracting students and cementing their brand identities at a time when competition among schools for the best students is intense. In recent years, they’ve becoming increasingly common (BusinessWeek.com, 7/19/07) even at high-profile schools. Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley, Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management, and the Wharton School now offer specialized MBAs, majors, or dual degree programs in areas like real estate, sports management, biosciences, electronic commerce, and health care.

But is a specialized program always a good choice for an MBA student?

Not necessarily. While established programs have placement records on par with those of their general MBAs, many newer programs have not yet established the kind of recruiting relationships that guarantee students high-paying jobs at graduation. And graduates always run the risk of getting hamstrung by their specialties later in their careers, when an industry downturn forces them to look outside their specialties for opportunities.
Chart Your Own Path

Some who have gone through the specialized programs say they are best for those with a firm idea of their future goals, and who are keen to chart their own path. “I knew what I wanted to do,” said Carrie Stern Rathod, who received her MBA from Wisconsin’s Brand ‐ Product Management Center in 2005 and now works for Procter & Gamble (PG), which recruits regularly from the program. “There’s a range of people for whom this program is ideal. If you have an entrepreneurial bent but are not sure you’re ready to take the leap yet, the program might be right.” But, she added, “I think it would be tough if you wanted to go into consulting or something like that.”

For students who aren’t comfortable breaking away from the pack or seeking out professional contacts in unconventional ways, a specialized MBA might not be the best choice. This is especially true at less well-known schools, where big companies often don’t recruit. Students in these programs agree that making industry connections can require a lot of initiative from the student. “If you have a very specific company in mind, you might need to be a trailblazer in making relationships with those companies,” says Rathod.

More : businessweek.com

Under pressure from local industrialists who fear they are losing out to foreign competition, the Indian government is reviewing a number of free-trade pacts, including those pending with Thailand and Asean.

“Bilateral agreements having divergent standards with different countries may not help India remain competitive in the international market,” said R.V. Kanoria, a international trade expert with the Confederation of Indian Industry, a New Dehli-based trade group.

“Liberalisation of tariffs by the Indian government should be calibrated with internal reforms in labour, infrastructure and agriculture,” he said in an interview with the Bangkok Post.

In October 2003, India signed a signed a limited trade deal with Thailand that came into effect in September 2004. Under the so-called “early-harvest” agreement, which expires in 2008, Indian and Thai firms can freely import and export 82 items. The deal calls for tariffs to be reduced by 50 percent in 2004-05, 75 percent in 2005 and 100 percent in 2006.

Bilateral trade in these 82 items consequently doubled to US$430 million in 2005 from $217 million in 2004, with Thailand recording a trade surplus of $253 million.

The lopsided numbers soured the Indian business community, particularly the automotive components makers, and talks on a more comprehensive deal that would cover thousands of items has since stalled. Recently CII said it was working to modify existing FTAs and implement a new set of industry recommendations for future trade deals, while claiming that multilateral agreements under the World Trade Organisation would benefit the country more than bilateral agreements.

“Toyota, Honda and Procter & Gamble are the three multinational corporations that have benefited the most from the Indo-Thai FTA,” said Sharif D. Rangnekar, an economic analyst and editor of the Indiabiznews.com website.

He added that “these three companies find the logistics of doing business with India rather attractive because they have major manufacturing units in Thailand and find it easy to launch their products in India”.

Indian products, on the other hand, “don’t have a large market in Thailand even if they have the required certification,” Mr Rangnekar said, explaining that this is partly due to the fact that India’s population of 1.1 billion dwarfs that of Thailand.

Criticism of the India-Thai FTA has come from a wide range of sources, including industry groups, independent research think-tanks and columnists. In 2004, the National Council of Applied Economic Research slammed the pact, primarily because of the complicated issue of “rules of origin”. It also questioned if the “early-harvest” agreement is compatible with WTO rules.

Last year, India’s Ministry of Commerce undertook an impact assessment study of the limited trade scheme with Thailand, which analysed trade flows and drew inferences for the future. The Tariff Commission also submitted a similar study to the federal Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion in New Delhi.

The CII committee headed by Mr Kanoria will soon come up with guidelines for the Indian government to consider before negotiating FTAs. These are expected to include guidelines relating to negative list, common floor prices and rules of origin.

A survey by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), one of the largest apex industry associations in India together with the CII, found in 2005 that imports from Thailand rose phenomenally under the limited FTA, while exports from India to Thailand actually declined.

Hugh Mullin is the bet that in three of the largest this year, the acquisitions is to contribute to its Putnam funds for growth and income outperformance of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index for a sixth year right.

Procter & Gamble, Bank of America and Johnson & Johnson 7.6 percent of $ 17 billion Putnam fund’s biggest.

Mullin this year on its three plants the company, the purchase of Gillette, MBNA and Guidant, respectively.

“The resumption of mergers and acquisitions shows a little more confidence on the part of Chief Executive and it’s good for the market,” Mullin said in an interview from his office in Boston.

Putnam’s growth and profits funds was 2.3 per cent this year, Stand August 31, more than 1.9 percent before the S & P 500, including reinvested dividends. Mullin’s Fund rose at an annual rate of 2.9 percent from 1999 to 2004, compared to 2.3 per cent decline in the S & P-500.

Over the past five years, funds up to 50 competitors in the seventh Fund invests in a combination of U.S. companies above average dividends and above the average growth, according to data from Bloomberg. The Scudder Large Cap Value Fund, managed by Thomas Sassi, the top performer, rising at an average rate of 7.5 per cent.

Mullin, stocks, is about 3 ½ years, on average, try not deliberately companies operating in acquisitions. It tends to invest in companies whose shares provide low prices compared to turnover or profits projected.

P & G’s purchase of Boston-based Gillette, valued at $ 57.1 billion this year, office on the list of business acquisitions. American companies have announced, it is worth $ 687 billion, which is most strongly affected by year for acquisitions since 2000, Bloomberg data.

“These two companies really a powerhouse on a global scale, and they complement each other very well,” said Mullin, whose funds are 5.46 million shares of P & G on June 30.

Robert Bruner, author of “Deals From Hell: M & A lessons Rise Above the Ashes,” two aspects of the transaction increases concern. Payment of the reserve and the fact that the transaction comes at a time of renewed acquisitions increase the likelihood that P & G too much for Gillette, said Bruner, Dean of the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business Administration.

“The mass of research suggests, mergers and acquisitions afford, but this is not pumping money,” said Bruner. “It is not guaranteed through the creation of value.”

Bank nation’s $ 42 billion purchase of Bank America in 1998, the train, what is now Bank of America, was a waste of money Deal for investors.

Enjoy yourself fallen in three of first four quarters after the agreement was concluded, since the company wrote off bad loans. The action has fallen by 25 per cent for three years until 2000, the S & P 500 has gained 36 percent.