The Performance Of 16 Small Group Of Reits - 1525 Words

Smith and Shulman (1976) analyzed and compared the performance of 16 small group of REITs to the SP 500 index, saving accounts, and 15 closed-end funds over the twelve-year periods from 1963 to 1974. They found that on average, REITs provide higher returns than the SP index and saving accounts over 1963-1973 periods. However, the performance of REIT stocks was extremely poor (underperformed) in 1974 that their REITs underperformed the SP 500 index over 1963-1974 periods if the recession year of 1974 is included. Kuhle et al. (1986) also discovered that REITs underperformed the SP 500 in 1973-1976 period and outperformed the SP index in 1977-1984 period. Titman and Warga (1986) concluded that the risk-adjusted return performance of†¦show more content†¦With the use of standard risk-adjusted performance measures of Sharpe (1966), Treynor (1965) and Jensen (1968), Benefield et al. (2009) examined the differences in performance between diversified and specialized REITs. They found significant differences in risk-adjusted performance between diversified and specialized REITs and the difference is depend on the overall market condition. Diversified property type REITs have outperformed during good market conditions than those specialized property type REITs. They did not reject that during less favourable market conditions, specialized REITs have better performance than those diversified REITs. Kim et al. (2002) conducted a comparative analysis of Jensen’s alphas to examine the performance of hotel REITs with those of the overall market and six other REIT sectors using Jensen Index over the 1993–1999 period. The results show that while risk-adjusted return of hotel REITs was in line with that of the overall market, the hotel REIT sector as a portfolio underperformed office, industrial, and diversified REIT sector. Studies in Singapore and Malaysia Liow (1997) examined the historical performance of Singapore property share returns in 1975-1995 and found that the propertyShow MoreRelatedDividend Policy and Firm Performance: Hotel Reits vs. Non-Reit Hotel Companies5345 Words   |  22 PagesDividend Policy and Firm Performance: Hotel REITs vs. Non-REIT Hotel Companies Executive Summary. This article investigates whether the greater reliance of real estate investment trusts (REITs) relative to non-REIT corporations on external equity ï ¬ nancing suggests greater capital market discipline of REIT management, or greater access to capital, overpaying for assets, overbuilding and overinvestment. Our analysis is based on a sample of sixteen hotel REITs and ï ¬ fty-one non-REIT hotel corporations fromRead MoreSummary: Commercial Real Estate Analysis and Investment18572 Words   |  75 Pages | | |Equity assets |Stocks |Real property | | |REITs |Private equity | | |Mutual funds |Hedge funds | | Read MoreSummary: Commercial Real Estate Analysis and Investment18579 Words   |  75 Pages| | |Equity assets |Stocks |Real property | | |REITs |Private equity | | |Mutual funds |Hedge funds | | Read MoreIt Strategy - Case Study8329 Words   |  34 Pages....................................................................... 6 1.3 DELIMITATION .............................................................................................................................................. 6 1.4 TARGET GROUP............................................................................................................................................. 7 1.5 DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................Read Morechoosing strategies for change6285 Words   |  26 Pagesset of beliefs – such as â€Å"engineers will probably resist the change because they are independent and suspicious of top management.† This limited approach can create serious problems. Because of the many different ways in which individuals and groups can react to change, correct assessments are often not intuitively obvious and require careful thought. Of course, all people who are affected by change experience some emotional turmoil. Even changes that appear to be â€Å"positive† or â€Å"rational†Read Moretoys R us lbo6421 Words   |  26 Pagesprivate equity firms, club deals reduced competition and increased potential returns. Although there was competition between consortia—for example, more than one club chasing an asset—this competition was below the level observed in the traditional small/middle private equity market. Chasing bigger assets through club deals allowed the largest funds to more efficiently allocate their time (the industry’s most precious resource) as they put money to work. Club deals offered the following advantages: Read More13027957 Words   |  32 Pagesmore than a dozen midscale and upscale hotels and three trendy, upscale restaurants. The hotel group was gathered for one of its irregular, informal celebrations of success. As Green, the executive vice president of operations, raised his glass to join in the merriment, he wondered whether his facial expression gave away the feelings he was suppressing. Green was torn-earlier in the day this same group discussed the possibility that the Westward Hilton and Towers, the only property in the HillerRead More13027943 Words   |  32 Pagesmore than a dozen midscale and upscale hotels and three trendy, upscale restaurants. The hotel group was gathered for one of its irregular, informal celebrations of success. As Green, the executive vice president of operations, raised his glass to join in the merriment, he wondered whether his facial expression gave away the feelings he was suppressing. Green was torn- earlier in the day this same group discussed the possibility that the Westward Hilton and Towers, the only property in the HillerRead MoreMaking A Binding Contract For Exclusive Negotiating Rights2458 Words   |  10 Pagesall or substantially all of Seller (e.g., a sale of a division or subsidiary), it is critically important that the scope of the exclusivity be restricted to the scope of the Transaction. In other words, if Seller is negotiating with Buyer to sell a small division, the Exclusivity Agreement usually should not restrict Seller from engaging in discussions regarding a sale of the whole company or other divisions. Seller and Buyer should consider carefully whether Seller is required to â€Å"turn off† its virtualRead MoreTqm in Starwood9288 Words   |  38 PagesW, Le Mà ©ridien, Aloft and Element. It also owns one of the premier developers and operators of high-quality vacation interval ownership resorts, Starwood Vacation Ownership Resorts, Inc. The company began as a small investment firm and then became a real estate investment trust (REIT). In 1998, Starwood acquired ITT Corporation, a company seven times its size, in which during that time, the worlds largest lodging and gaming company. Founded by Barry Sternlicht, Starwood Hotels and Resorts has

Franz Kafka and Ismail Kadare - 861 Words

Franz Kafka and Ismail Kadare were two of the most extravagant storytellers of modern times. Franz Kafka wrote the short story, The Metamorphosis and Ismail Kadare wrote the novel, Broken April. In these two stories, there is a sense of sadness and darkness that both author’s portrayed in them. The characterization between Gregor (from The Metamorphosis) and Gjorg (from Broken April) were actually similar in comparison. The similarities are isolation, loneliness, and their father figures. Nevertheless, both stories are magnificent to read during spare time. In The Metamorphosis, Gregor lives a melancholy life with his parents and sister. One day Gregor awakes to find that he has been transformed into a bug. A jump through the story,†¦show more content†¦Isolation intertwine the characters, Gregor and Gjorg with each other in the same way but it has different outcomes. In addition, Gregor and Gjorg both contribute from being lonely. This is said because in The Metamorp hosis, Gregor feels like his parents don’t even want to be around him. â€Å"†¦he (Gregor) would not be in the mood to bother about his family, he was only filled with rage at the way they were neglecting him†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (pg. 846, Literature Across Cultures: Fourth Edition). In the story, Gregor’s father felt despondent when his son went through a metamorphosis because slowly he was getting a mind set that Grgor would never be normal again. Gregor would be left in his room ,deteriorating, feeling lonely because his family do not want to be around him. Not only does he feel lonely about being trapped in his room but he is afraid to go outside because of the dangers that prowls around out there. Thus, in Broken April, Gjorg found himself alone on the highroad; he felt all hope of ever accomplishing his journey failed within him. This shows that Gjorg is suffering from a lack of hope which is most likely caused by suffering from being alone walking all day. Next, â€Å"The emptiness of the road of either side seemed emptier still†¦Ã¢â‚¬ . (pg.53, Kadare). This is a revelation that emptiness is only a symbol of loneliness that the author portrays. Loneliness is defined as simply a feeling that cause depression or other emotional sickness. Gregor and Gjorg

Food Adulteration Free Essays

Effect of food adulteration on the health of people Abstract of the report: Introduction to Food Adulteration: Adulteration – is a term legally used to define any kind of food product that does not meet the standards set by the centre or the state. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act states that any substance that may be used for adulteration can be called as an adulterant. †¢ Adulteration could mean any of the below: Substitution with a cheaper or inferior quality substance – in part or whole †¢ Articles being packaged and kept under conditions that are classified as insanitary †¢ Any food article infested with insects, or consisting of decomposed , rotten or filthy stuff †¢ Substance being obtained from an animal affected from disease †¢ Articles containing poisonous materials †¢ Articles that contain coloring substance that has not been prescribes for use or contains a prescribed coloring substance beyond the prescribed limits †¢ The above point is true for preservatives as well Quality of an article is not up to the prescribed standards As a part of this report, we intend to explore the effects that food adulteration has on the health and lives of the victims, look at some of the most common forms of food adulteration that takes place in our country as well as around the globe. We will write a custom essay sample on Food Adulteration or any similar topic only for you Order Now We will also briefly look at the laws that are in place to protect us from food adulteration and their implications on controlling food adulteration. Another major focus point of our report will be to identify ways that enable people to identify whether a food product is adulterated or not. How to cite Food Adulteration, Essays

The Knowledge of the Founders free essay sample

The Founders studied Polybius, whose written works provided a theoretical account of the development of society and government. Polybius saw the history of government as falling into a recurring cycle by which kingship inevitably gave way to successive stages of tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and anarchy, at which point a strong leader would merge and establish himself as king, thus starting the cycle over again. The only hope of breaking the cycle, Polybius maintained, lay in a mixed form of government (mixed elements) and certainly not in a pure democracy. The Founders read Adam Smiths groundbreaking and insightful work The Wealth of Nations, which was published in 1776, and which influenced their decision to embrace and implement capitalism as a means to distribute goods and services within our nation. The Founders also were well-read in the books of the Old Testament. Even though some Founders didnt subscribe to any Christian denomination, the teachings of Jesus and the works of the Old Testament were very held in high regard and with great respect by all. In fact, even though their backgrounds were widely diverse, the fundamental beliefs of the Founders were virtually identical. What are the principles embedded in the Constitution? Basically our founding principles can be summarized as follows: A free people living in a civil society, working in self-interested cooperatives, and a government operating within the limits of its authority, promote more prosperity, opportunity and happiness for more people than any alternative ever devised by man. 1. Natural Law The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 believed that certain human liberties are so fundamental to ones existence that they must come from our Creator. If that is the case, then no government can take them away. This is the foundation for the Bill of Rights. 2. Individual Liberty Remembering the injustices that the King of Great Britain had imposed upon them, the colonists were adamant about protecting the individual rights of the people. They added the Bill of Rights as the first ten amendments to the Constitution in order to protect those God-given rights from any constraints or denial by the government. 3. Federalism Most of the delegates to the convention were reluctant to form a national government that would take power from the states. At the same time, they recognized a need for a stronger national government that would provide defense against foreign aggressors and resolve disputes between the states; therefore, they instituted a government structure called federalism that assigned specific powers to the national government and left all remaining powers with the states. The system drafted at the Convention and adopted and ratified by the States (after the addition of the Bill of Rights, and specifically here, the Tenth Amendment) left the bulk of jurisdictional power to the individual states. . Limited Government The careful drafting of the Constitution reflected the Framers intent to limit the ability of the federal government to exercise any more power than the citizens (aka, the States) agreed to give it. With the powers of government strictly limited, citizens could be free to pursue their individual visions of happiness. The Founding Fathers shared Thomas Jeffersons vision for the new nation unburdened ind ividual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government. According to Jeffersons own Declaration of Independence, the main purpose of government is to secure the rights of its citizens to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. As the Founders believed, a small government with limited powers would be best to safeguard its citizens liberties over a government with unlimited powers because the latter would have the tendency to misuse those powers. The Founders wanted to prevent any opportunity for government tyranny and oppression. They wanted the people to be the master and the government to be the servant. The government was to serve the people. As Patrick Henry warned: The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government lest it come to dominate our lives and interests? Its simply our duty as Americans and as guardians of the very safeguards of Democracy and Freedom to know our History. The American people are the final check in our system of checks and balances. It is only with an educated populace that we can perform this great task. 5. Separation of Powers The delegates were extremely concerned with the balance of power between the three branches of the national government. They had fled from Britain to escape the clutches of a brutal monarch and wanted no such ruler to obtain power here. They were also concerned with factions, or interest groups, gaining too much power. They organized a system of checks and balances that provided a separation and delicate balance of national powers among the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches so as to protect and preserve the integrity of the Constitution and to prevent the government from overstepping its reach and trampling the powers of the States and intruding on the rights of the individual. 6. Free Markets The Founders embraced the economic philosophy put forth by Adam Smith (in his book Wealth of Nations published in 1776) which is the capitalism system we have today. Smith wrote that the most efficient economic system is driven by supply and demand and by pure competition. Smith believed that the free market system would work most effectively in the absence of government interference. Such a laissez-faire (a term popularized by Wealth of Nations meaning leave alone or allow to be) policy would, in his opinion, encourage the most efficient operation of private and commercial enterprises. He was not against government involvement in public projects too large for private investment, but rather objected to its meddling in the market mechanism. He also held that individuals acting in their own self-interest would naturally seek out economic activities that provided the greatest financial rewards. Smith was convinced that this self-interest would in turn maximize the economic well-being of society as a whole. Finally, he argued that true wealth did not lay in gold but rather in the productive capacity of all people, who are properly motivated (rewards of risktaking and investment) and through hard work and worth ethic, each seeking to benefit from his or her own labors. The bottom line is that the Constitution was crafted with two very important principles in mind that the individual states retain as much sovereign power as possible and that our government have only limited and clearly-defined responsibilities and limited authority. The majority of power was to remain in the hands of the local population. The principles of federalism, limited and clearly-enumerated powers, separation of powers, and checks and balances are all important Constitutionally-imposed limits on the power of government, which was the vision of our Founders (especially Jefferson). The principles of Federalism and limited government were the foundation of our system of government to ensure that the federal government would not become large, would not become intrusive, would not become powerful, and would not encroach on the rights of the states to maintain their own character and to solve their own problems. This was the clear intent in the drafting of our Constitution. As mentioned earlier, in writing the Constitution, the Founders were guided, in principle, by the Declaration of Independence, which listed the reasons the colonies were declaring their separation from England and listed the principles on which the newly independent states would define their reason for existence. The Declaration was the set of values that would define our new nation. The arrangement of the statement We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness reveals the Founders belief that individual rights pre-exist the establishment of a government, which was a radical notion at the time (but proposed by philosophers who believed in Natural Law). The Declaration begins, We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . which indicates clearly that the Founders did not intend merely to apply the concept of unalienable rights to colonists, but rather to hold out that it is universal. Included in these universal truths is the idea, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. This bold assertion insists that no one life is more valuable than the next, and that by virtue of shari ng the same rights no individual has the authority to rule over or oppress another. Moreover, the equal rights shared by all humans are unalienable. They cannot be taken away. This is because they are granted not by any man or institution but rather they are endowed upon individuals by their Creator. Only the one who grants rights has the authority to take them away. Although the founders believed in the unalienable rights of every person, they also understood that there will always be forces in this world that seek to oppress. Thus, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. Put simply, government possesses no rights. Its sole purpose is to protect the rights of its citizenry from outside forces. If it fails in this duty, it is the responsibility of individuals to abolish it. The writers of the Declaration and subsequently the writers of the Constitution believed that governments power comes out of its ability to protect the rights of its people. Individuals do not receive natural rights from government and thus government does not have the authority to take rights away. To the extent that it protects individual rights, government operates legitimately. However, when it fails to protect such rights or when it imposes upon them, it becomes an illegitimate ruler over what would otherwise be free people. When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia in 1776, they did not merely declare the independence of the colonies from their British oppressors and declare their intention to create a free nation that would stand the test of time. They also declared the independence of all individuals from the unlawful intrusion of overreaching government. And that declaration forever altered the course of human history. The first task before the Founders was establishing the foundation on which we derive our basic and most fundamental freedoms. They embraced the Natural Law philosophy proposed by Marcus Tullius Cicero of ancient Rome and of later philosophers such as John Locke, Sir William Blackstone, and Thomas Hooker, and even of Jesus himself. It is worth looking at Ciceros concept of Natural Law. Cicero came to be enlightened one day while he was walking and trying to imagine what an ideal Rome would be like. As the foremost lawyer of his day, he was concerned with law. He wondered where laws came from. He came to conclude that law, that which distinguishes good from bad and which discourages and punishes the latter, did not originate from man alone. That is, law was not a matter of written statutes but was a matter deeply and fundamentally ingrained in the human spirit. Ciceros reasoned as follows: 1. Humans, like the Earth and the universe itself, were created by a higher power (God) 2. This higher power which created the universe also endowed humans with a bit of its own divinity (meaning that the Creator gave humans the higher powers of speech, intelligent thought, reason, and wisdom). 3. As a result of this spark of divinity, humans must be (forever) linked or related in some way to their Creator. . Because humans share reason with this higher power, and because this higher power is presumed to be benevolent, it follows that humans, when employing reason correctly, will also be benevolent. 5. Reason and benevolence (termed right reason) is the foundation of law. As Cicero explained in his many writings (which were read by our Founders), law is whatever promotes good and forbids evil. What corrupts good law are the age-old hu man failings of wealth, greed, desire for status, lust, and other inconsequentials outside of virtue and honor. In short, according to Cicero, the only intelligent approach to government, justice and human relations is in terms of the laws which the Supreme Creator had already established. The Founders took from Cicero an idea that was revolutionary in terms of a governing a body and that idea was that the glue which binds human beings together in any commonwealth of a just society is love love of God, love of Gods great law of justice, and love of ones fellow man which provides the desire to promote true justice among mankind. In order to eliminate depravity of society it was necessary to respect this natural order and to love God, oneself, and one another. If man could do this, then his ability to reason and rule would be done justly and in a benevolent manner, and he would therefore be guided right reason. It is from the thinking of men like Cicero, as well as the teachings of the Bible, and including the teachings of Jesus himself, that the Founders had the vision to ground our fundamental freedoms in Natural Law. It is easy to see how strongly our Founders were influenced by Ciceros writings. Our nation wasnt influenced by atheist principles, but rather by principles grounded in a belief in God. The Declaration of Independence proudly proclaims that we as a nation believe in a Creator who has endowed us with our fundamental rights. Let us note that while our Constitution establishes and defines our government, it is the Declaration of Independence which establishes our nations value system. While the concept of Natural Law has clearly been around for a long time, the US Constitution was the first constitution to be based on this principle. What this means is that since our rights come from our Creator, these rights are beyond the reach of the government. The government cannot take these rights away or burden them in any meaningful way. Just as the Creator is more powerful and more significant than any nation or any government, our rights are paramount over any law that the government tries to enact to subordinate its people. Governments who do not acknowledge this supreme order of rights have no duty to recognize them. Consequently, peoples rights are subject to the whim and pleasure of the government. ie, Nazi Germany). The next task before the Founders was what kind of system to create. They knew what kinds of liberties had to be secured and protected, but what was the best system to protect them ? The Founders understood that throughout history, people have been ruled by systems that range anywhere from Kings Rule (tyranny) at one far end to complete Anarchy at the other far end (which is the absence of law). The Fo unders recognized the bad in both. Tyranny was oppressive and people alone, without laws, would become a mob and would resort to the lowest forms of human behavior. Consequently, they wanted to establish a system of Peoples Law, which is someplace halfway between Kings Rule and Anarchy halfway between tyranny and mob rule. Under Peoples Law, the government is kept under the control of the people and political power is maintained at the balanced center with enough government to maintain security, justice and good order, but not enough government to abuse the people and intrude in their lives. Peoples Law is in the middle between Rulers Law (King, or other tyrant is the rules; tyranny) and Anarchy (where there is no law at all). They embraced the system of Peoples Law, which derived from the Israelites and Anglo-Saxon common law and includes the concepts of government by consensus, natural or God-given rights for the people, power dispersed among the people, individual responsibility, rights being unalienable, a system of justice including reparations for wrongs, and a system to solve problems on the level on which they were created. The Founders, especially Thomas Jefferson, admired the institutes of freedom under Peoples Law. In fact, our system was strongly influenced after the system of government and the rules established by Moses after the Israelites were freed from their bondage in Egypt. In the Federalist Papers, No. 9, Alexander Hamilton refers to the sensations of horror and disgust which arise when a person studies the histories of those nations that are always in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. The Founders task was to somehow solve the enigma of the h uman tendency to rush headlong from anarchy to tyranny the very thing which later happened in the French Revolution. How could the American people be constitutionally structured so that they would take a fixed position at the balanced center of the political spectrum and forever maintain a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, which would not perish from the earth? The answer, the Founders believed, was minimal government with maximum individual liberty. And the way to achieve this was twofold: First, the Founders realized that most of the peoples power would have to remain within the State and relegated to the individual State. Limited power would be ceded by the States to the federal government on matters that would relate on matters touching on the nation as a whole, such as national security, conducting relations with foreign nations, raising an army, entering into treaties, establishing policy with the Native Indians, regulating commerce among states so that certain states dont have too much of an advantage in trade compared to others. And second, the powers delegated to the government would have to be limited and clearly-defined. James Madison described the division of labor between the states and the federal government as follows: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state. [The Federalist No. 45]. The fixing of the American eagle in the center of the spectrum was designed to maintain this political equilibrium between people in the states and the federal government. The idea was to keep the power base close to the people. The emphasis was on strong local self-government. The states would be responsible for internal affairs and the federal government would confine itself to those areas which could not be fairly or effectively handled by the states. The term, or concept, that relates to this division or sharing of power between the states and government is called Federalism. The concept of federalism makes sense when you consider the position of the individual states. Prior to the Constitutional Convention, the states were sovereign powers who viewed the idea of a strong centralized government with absolute distrust. They didnt want any entity exerting power over them, especially since theyd managed to exist for over 150 years successfully and independently. The colonies were es tablished to allow the settlers in each state to worship and practice as they desired and to establish communities which embraced their religious principles. The colonists were people who came from England and other European countries where they were repressed religiously or persecuted for their beliefs. The states took their sovereignty and their local laws and customs very seriously. At the time of our independence from England, each state was a sovereign little nation. [We refer to them as colonies which denotes something relatively unstructured, but the fact is that they were basically independent nations. They each had their own government and they had no legal ties to the other states, except through any arrangements they may have made for trade and commerce]. The states (colonies) fought long and hard for their independence from Britain, a nation with a tyrannical government. They wanted to make sure that they did not create a new tyrannical government in its place. They didnt want to give up their rights as sovereign states and they certainly didnt want a federal government that was more powerful than them. They didnt want a federal government to tell them what they can and cannot due within their boundaries. In Article II of the Articles of Confederation, the Founders attempted to make this guarantee by preventing the federal government from taking too much power from the states. In Article II, our Founders provided: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. (The Articles of Confederation failed because the states retained too much power and consequently, the central government lacked any meaningful enforcement power over them). At the Convention of 1787, the topic of states rights versus government powers again dominated the discussion. One of the predominant arguments was over which rights the federal government would have and which rights the states would retain. It was this heated debate that eventually would cause the st ates to approach the Constitution with caution and take four years plus ten amendments (Bill of Rights) before they would ratify it. There were the Federalists (who argued for a strong central government at the expense of the states) and the Anti-Federalists (who already thought the states had surrendered more than enough of their power). But most people at the time, as reflected by the delegates, wanted the majority of power to stay in the hands of local people and not in the hands of an insensitive central government. In order to form a more perfect union, the states realized they would have to surrender some of this power in order to create an effective federal government that could protect all the states. If we study the back and forth between the state representatives who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the only way the states delegates would sign the Constitution was if they were given assurances that they would only have to give up minimum jurisdiction and power. They only intended to give up just enough sovereign power to overcome the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation and no more. On September 17, 1787, the final draft of the Constitution was signed. Of the 55 people who attended the Convention, 39 actually signed. Some, such as Oliver Ellsworth, left as the Convention progressed, while others refused to sign in protest, such as George Mason, Edmund Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry. But nevertheless, the delegates succeeded in the work they set out to do and the task of the Convention was complete. The Constitution was created. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 produced the most enduring written Constitution ever created by human hands. As Ben Franklin noted in a speech on that final day urging all delegates to sign the document and to do so immediately, the Constitution may have its faults, but it is possible that