Black and Scholes [1] derived the pricing equation for a European put when the stock price follows geometric Brownian motion. For this same case, Merton [5] derived the pricing equation for an American put with infinite time to maturity. Brennan and Schwartz [2], Rubinstein and Cox [7], and Parkinson [6] have developed numerical solutions for the price of an American put. Numerical solutions are expensive and do not provide much intuition. Naturally, an analytic solution would be much preferred; unfortunately, pricing the American put requires solving a formidable and presumably intractable boundary value problem.

The recent move by the treasury department in furnishing high schools with materials designed to provide students with a rudimentary knowledge of the vagaries of Form 1040 seems a wise if belated recognition of the fact that the ability to determine his annual income tax has become the duty of almost every U. S. citizen. Despite most television comedians to the contrary, the ability to make a self determination of personal income tax due is a task which the avenge literate citizen can perform in an evening's sitting with the aid of an instruction booklet. It is true that an evaluation of some of the major provisions of income tax laws is covered in courses in public finance, and the effect of certain income tax provisions is treated in varying degree in other business administration courses. In developing a course in income taxation to fit the needs of potential business administrators there will be the inevitable temptation to title the course "Tax Management" and to describe it in terms of a study of tax minimization through planning business activities.

Reviews the book "Profit Measurement and Price Changes," by K. Lacey.

Most of the everyday problems which plague practicing accountants in the realm of inventory accounting are somewhat divorced from the theory of inventory valuation and its inevitable relationship to income determination. Any accountant worth his salt has learned long ago to shy away from the word "value." The "value" of something implies its worth, and one doesn't have to be a timid soul to shudder at the insuperable problems which surround an attempt to determine the worth of anything. Value theory tells that such inventories must be worth the present discounted amount of the net receipts which will ultimately flow into the business as a result of their sale. The barrier which stands between value theory and the accounting treatment of inventories is essentially the realization convention. When a sale takes place, or where production under a fixed contract occurs, or where production of goods which sell on an organized market at given prices is completed in all these cases the accountant is willing to grant that the evidence is satisfactory.

This article has attempted to establish the position that the significance of business income for corporate reporting lies primarily in its usefulness as a measure of corporate performance in diverting a stream of resources from the economy, and that it should be developed primarily to serve this function. It has been shown that concepts of income which will best serve as a tax base, as a factor in rate regulation, as an element of national income estimates, and as a basis for managerial decisions are all dependent upon specialized and divergent factors which are related to a variety of objectives. Each of these uses constitutes a special purpose problem by itself. As was suggested at the beginning of the discussion, an acceptance of this thesis is merely a prelude to the major work of deciding upon the business income concept and the means of measuring income so conceived which will best serve this basic need. The prelude in this case, however, should not be written after the major score is completed. Until an area of agreement is reached as to the purpose to be served by the measurement of business income the discussion of the business income problem proceeds in a vacuum.

Reviews the book "Accounting for Inflation."

Geske derived in [1] expressions for the values of junior and senior debt and equity. In this paper, some confusion about these expressions is cleared up, and an error is corrected. We use the same notation as in [1].

This article examines a model of "semiefficient" bargaining in which the union and the firm bargain over wages and various types of work rules. The results are compared to the outcomes that are associated with fully efficient bargaining (i.e., over wages and the level of employment) and bargaining solely over wages.