Standards Presentation Attachment No 1 Page 1 Of 3: Fill & Download for Free

I am currently putting together a small primer for the same on the UoQ blog. 3 chapters have been complete; more in the coming days.Structure:Chapter 1: The "risk-return tradeoff", and the need for diversificationChapter 2: The time value of moneyChapter 3: Investment criteria (NPV, IRR, Payback), and Capital rationing1. Chapter 1: The "risk-return" tradeoffFour of the most common words/phrases in Finance are interlinked. You will find people from all walks of the Financial world - be it traders, brokers, investment analysts, wealth managers, insurance agents - talking about risk, return, risk-return tradefoff, and diversification.Basic definitionsRisk: Risk is negative. It is the potential loss that can occur when you undertake any initiative. It is the uncertainty in the expected outcome of your initiative.Risk is everywhere - you risk losing all your savings if the bank goes bankrupt, or if the price of your property suddenly plummets due to a bubble burst, or your startup fails costing you your entire capital and time invested till date.Usually, instruments backed by governments (bonds, T-bills) or by large corporations (like stocks, savings accounts) are low on risk.Risk is usually measure using Standard deviation of the portfolio return.Return: Return is positive. It is the reward you get for your efforts.It can be the interest you earn from your deposits in a savings account, the dividend from a stock, the capital gain from selling a property at a price higher than you purchased it for.Risk-return trade-off: The relationship between risk and return is a fairly simple direct relationship.The higher the return desired, the higher should be the risk appetite. If there was an option where the risk was low for a high-return investment opportunity, everyone would flock to it, thus driving up its demand and lowering the return.(For relationship between supply, demand, and price, see: Supply and Demand)Basically, "no pain, no gain".Diversification: Diversification is the finance way of saying "Do not put all your eggs in the same basket".If you invest in a single financial instrument (security, stock, bond, derivative), you risk losing all your investment. However, with judicious selection of different investment vehicles and allocating your funds in an optimal manner, you can maximize your returns without increasing your risk or exposure.Portfolio: A portfolio is nothing but a collection of your various investments.So if you have $100 and you put $40 in your savings account, buy $30 worth of a 10-year bond, and buy Google stocks worth the remaining $30, those 3 will comprise your portfolio.Measuring riskLet's play a game. You invest $100. You roll a dice; based on the outcome, you get/lose some money.Roll 1: Lose 10%Roll 2: Get 20%Roll 3: Lose 30%Roll 4: Get 40%Roll 5: Lose 50%Roll 6: Get 60%Since the chances of each are equal (=1/6), the expected return (or payoff) is just a probability-weighted average.= [math] 1/6*(-10+20-30+40-50+60) [/math]= 5%However, the risk is the standard deviation,= [math] \sigma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{6} {\sum(r(e)-r(i))^2}} [/math]= [math] 38.62% [/math]The same method can be used for calculating the return and risk of any asset.Consider you invested 100 rupees in a stock on Jan 1, 2010. The value of the stock now (as of Jan 1, 2015; 5 year period) is 150. Moreover, the below is the returns on the 1st of January each year starting 2010.Jan 1, 2010: 100Jan 1, 2011: 110Jan 1, 2012: 115Jan 1, 2013: 130Jan 1, 2014: 145Jan 1, 2015: 150Since returns are compounded, you can use the formula to calculate the rate of return:[math] a*(1+r)^n = A [/math]where,a = initial investment = 100r = rate of returnn = number of years (or time periods)A = final value = 150[math] 100*(1+r)^5 = 150 [/math][math] (1+r) = \frac{150}{100}^\frac{1}{5} [/math][math] (1+r) = 1.0844 [/math][math] r = 0.0844 = 8.44% [/math]This is the average rate of return. However, the individual rates are not the same.2011: 110/100 = 10%2012: 115/110 = 4.55%2013: 130/115 = 13.04%2014: 145/130 = 11.54%2015: 150/145 = 3.45%The risk (variance) is:= [math] \sigma = \sqrt{\frac{1}{5} {\sum(8.44-r(i))^2}} [/math]= [math] 3.83% [/math]Note: Until you invest in an asset that guarantees a fixed return (fixed deposit etc), the return is never guaranteed. Most of the times, it is derived by extrapolating the historical data, and correcting it with intelligent assumptions regarding the future trajectory.Calculating the return risk of a portfolioIn the earlier section, we learnt how to calculate the risk of a single financial asset. Calculation of the risk of a portfolio containing multiple assets is slightly more complicated.Consider the following portfolio:Total = $100$30 - Facebook stocks - (expected return, risk) = (15%, 25%)$70 - Google stocks - (expected return, risk) = (12%, 20%)The expected return of the portfolio is simply a weighted average of the expected returns of the two investments.= [math] 0.3*15% + 0.7*12% [/math]= [math] 12.9% [/math]The risk however, is again slightly more complicated and is given by the formula:[math] \sqrt{(x^2*A^2) + (y^2*B^2) + 2*(x*A*y*B*{\rho})} [/math]where,x and y are the percentage share of the two stocks in the portfolioA and B are their respective risksand [math]\rho[/math] is a variable called covariance coefficient.Covariance coefficient is nothing but the degree of interdependence between the two assets. For example, if you buy stocks in 2 oil companies, there will be a high degree of covariance as they are both in the same industry and their prices might move in tandem (to the degree to which the prices are influenced by external factors, which will remain more or less same for both the companies).Covariance coefficient lies between -1 and 1. -1 for assets whose prices move completely in opposite directions (increase in 10% in one leads to decrease in 10% for another), 0 for assets whose prices are independent, and 1 for assets whose prices move in tandem in the same direction.Since Facebook and Google are both in the technology space, there covariance coefficient will be between 0 and 1 (let us say 0.4).Risk of portfolio:= [math] \sqrt{(0.3^2*25^2) + (0.7^2*20^2) + 2*(0.3*25*0.7*20*0.4)} [/math]= [math] \sqrt {336.25} [/math]= [math] 18.33% [/math]Modern portfolio theoryJust because you are willing to take more risk, does not mean that you will get higher returns. You can make a really stupid choice and invest in send money to The Nigerian Prince in hopes of receiving a multi-million dollar inheritance or promise of royalty, but that would not be a sound business decision.Modern Portfolio Theory attempts to maximize your returns for a certain level of risk you are willing to undertake.Consider the following portfolios (each dot represents one portfolio, and can be identified using just 2 parameters (expected return (y-axis), and risk (x-axis)).As you can see, the ones in the red represent sort of a boundary, or a limit. All the portfolios in red are Pareto-optimal portfolios. That means, for that amount of risk, they give you the best return.(to see this, just draw any line perpendicular to the x-axis, and see that the highest point it touches along the y-axis is the pareto optimal portfolio (highest return).A broader discussion is out of the scope of the current exercise.Diversification - what it means, and why is it needed.Diversification is nothing but spreading your investments across asset classes, industries and geographies, to disperse your risk.If you invest in a Saudi oil company, a US tech company, and a Japanese bank, you have shielded your investments both in terms of industry and geography. Political turbulence in Saudi won't affect the other two stocks; similarly a tech bubble burst will have little effect on the other two.To diversify, you will need to create a portfolio of stocks with 0 or negative covariance coefficient. Also, using the Modern Portfolio Theory, you can optimize your portfolio to get the best return.Example (from: Investing 101: How Diversification Reduces Risk)Let’s look at the returns of three mutual funds from 30 June 1989 to 30 June 2009: The Fidelity Intermediate Bond Fund (FTHRX), which holds bonds that mature in five or so years; the Vanguard 500 (VFINX), which very closely mimics the performance of the Standard & Poor’s 500 index of large U.S. stocks; and the T. Rowe Price International Discovery Fund (PRIDX), which invests in small companies from all over the world.We can make a few observations about these returns:Compounding is cool. Even by just earning approximately 6% a year, the initial investment more than tripled over two decades. Earn a bit over 9%, and you could almost sextuple your investment (and have fun saying “sextuple” to your friends).Higher return comes with higher risk. Yes, the T. Rowe Price fund posted the best long-term performance, but its worst years were really worse.You don’t always get that higher return. While the Vanguard 500 beat the Fidelity bond fund, that was due to the extraordinary returns of stocks in the 1990s. Over the past decade, U.S. large-company stocks actually have lost to bonds. (In fact, as I wrote over at The Motley Fool, the return on such stocks from 1999-2008 was even worse than the 10-year returns during the Depression.)Earning a little bit more can lead to big bucks. The annualized return of the Vanguard 500 was just 1.52% more than the annualized return on the Fidelity bond fund. Yet the difference in the amount $100,000 grew to after 20 years was huge; the Vanguard 500 earned an extra $108,568, 33% more than what an investor earned in the bond fund. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: That’s the power of earning a little bit more — or paying a little bit less — over the long term. (It is pure coincidence that the difference between the returns of the two funds, or 1.52%, is very close to the average expense ratio charged by actively managed mutual funds. But it’s a telling illustration: If you’re paying that much annually to invest in a mutual fund, but not getting superior results in return, you could be giving up tens of thousands of dollars.)Investing one-third of the portfolio into each of those funds and rebalancing annually. What do you think the annual return would be?You might pick a number that is the average of the annualized returns on those funds, which would be 7.67%. But here are the actual numbers:Well, looky there. You got a return that beat the arithmetic average of the three returns. It significantly outperformed the S&P 500, and it did so with a lot less volatility (as indicated by its worst years not being as bad). By owning assets that move in different directions at different degrees and at different times, along with some regular rebalancing, you get a return that beats the average returns of the investments in the portfolio. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.2. Chapter 2: The time value of money"A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow"The above statement portrays one of the basic sentiments of Finance, also called the "Time value of money".It basically has to do with the Opportunity cost of investment. If given the choice to take $100 now vs $100 a year later, you should always go for the 1st option. Because then you can invest the $100 for a year in your bank account which pays 5% interest per year, and the end of 1st year, you will have $105.Basically, even if offered a choice between $100 now vs $104.99 a year later, go for the 1st option (given that the Risk-free interest rate is at least 5%).A. Future value (FV)Suppose you have [math] $X [/math] right now. What will be the value of your investment [math] n [/math] years later?Assume that the risk-free interest rate is [math] r% [/math] (and is constant). The FV of your investment after [math] n [/math] years is [math] $Y [/math].Taking the compound interest formula,[math] Y = X(1+r)^n [/math]A general formula will be:[math] Y = X(1+r_1)(1+r_2)(1+r_3)..(1+r_n)[/math]where [math](1+r_i)[/math] is the risk free interest rate in the [math]i^{th} [/math] year.All of the above is obviously assuming annual compounding.If interest is compounded continuously, the formula becomes,[math] Y = Xe^{(nt)} [/math]B. Present value (PV)The same formula can be tweaked to get the PV of any future cash flows from investments.B.1. Single cash flow in future:Taking the same example as above, suppose you get [math] $Y [/math], [math] n [/math] years from now, and [math] r [/math] is the risk-free interest rate, the PV of the cash flow is:[math] X = \frac{Y}{(1+r)^n} [/math]B.2. Series of equal cash flows:Suppose you have leased your house for [math] n [/math] years and you will be getting [math] $Y [/math] per year. The PV of the total [math] n [/math] cash flows will be:[math] X = \frac{Y}{(1+r)} + \frac{Y}{(1+r)^2} + \frac{Y}{(1+r)^3} + ... + \frac{Y}{(1+r)^n} [/math]Which is nothing but an geometric progression with multiplier = [math] \frac{1}{1+r} [/math][math] X = \frac{Y}{(1+r)} \frac{(1-\frac{1}{(1+r)^n})}{1-\frac{1}{(1+r)}} [/math][math] X = Y(\frac{1}{r} - \frac{1}{r(1+r)^n}) [/math]B.3. Series of cashflows (not equal):A more general formula that considers different cashflows, [math]C_1[/math], [math]C_2[/math], ... , [math]C_n[/math] and different rates of return [math]r_1[/math], [math]r_2[/math], ... , [math]r_n[/math] for the n periods is:[math] X = \frac{Y_1}{(1+r_1)} + \frac{Y_2}{(1+r_2)^2} + \frac{Y_3}{(1+r_3)^3} + ... + \frac{Y_n}{(1+r_n)^n} [/math]C. Perpetuities and annuitiesThe example in B.2. is what is called an annuity.A perpetuity is a special case of an annuity that pays a fixed sum every year for eternity.which is nothing but,[math] X = Y(\frac{1}{r} - \frac{1}{r(1+r)^n}) [/math][math] X = \frac{Y}{r}(1 - \frac{1}{(1+r)^n}) [/math]with n [math] \rightarrow \infty [/math]Now as n [math] \rightarrow \infty [/math] , [math]\frac{1}{(1+r)^n}[/math] [math] \rightarrow [/math] [math] 0 [/math]So, we get[math] X = \frac{Y}{r} [/math]Interesting observation: An n-year annuity is nothing but the difference between two perpetuities, one starting right away, and one starting from [math](n+1)^{th}[/math] year.Proof: A perpetuity starting from year 1 is given by:[math] X = \frac{Y}{r} [/math]So a perpetuity starting from year (n+1) is given by.[math] X = \frac{Y}{r(1+r)^n} [/math]Diff of the two is:[math] X = \frac{Y}{r} - \frac{Y}{r(1+r)^n} [/math]which is nothing but the annuity formula from B.2.For more details, check out: Present value, Future value, Principle of value additivity, Net present value, Perpetuities and annuitiesD. Growing PerpetuitiesTakingthe same example as in B.2, with one exception:The payout increases at the rate [math] g [/math], where [math] g. The formula for this perpetuity is: [math] X = Y\frac{(1+g)}{(1+r)} + Y\frac{(1+g)^2}{(1+r)^2} + Y\frac{(1+g)^3}{(1+r)^3} + ... [/math]or, [math] X = \frac{Y}{(r-g)} [/math]Of course, if [math]g=r[/math], or [math]g>r[/math], the series is an infinite, non-converging series, that does not have a sum.E. Problems and other resourcesPage on westga.eduPage on econ.yorku.caPage on jmu.eduPage on uncw.eduPage on csun.edu3. Chapter 3: Investment Criteria and Capital RationingThis chapter will deal with investment decisions, i.e., how and when to say YES or NO to a proposal. There are many ways to evaluate the same.A. NPV (Net Present Value)In the previous chapter, we saw that the PV of a series of cashflows is given by:[math] X = \frac{Y_1}{(1+r_1)} + \frac{Y_2}{(1+r_2)^2} + \frac{Y_3}{(1+r_3)^3} + ... + \frac{Y_n}{(1+r_n)^n} [/math]While investing, you will have to put in money at the beginning of the venture. This is a 'negative' cash flow for you.So,[math] NPV = Y_0 + \frac{Y_1}{(1+r_1)} + \frac{Y_2}{(1+r_2)^2} + \frac{Y_3}{(1+r_3)^3} + ... + \frac{Y_n}{(1+r_n)^n} [/math]Where [math]Y_0[/math] is the initial investment that you need to make, and will be negative.Investment criteria:[math] NPV > 0 [/math]Example: (from: Net present value (NPV) method)The management of Fine Electronics Company is considering to purchase an equipment to be attached with the main manufacturing machine. The equipment will cost $6,000 and will increase annual cash inflow by $2,200. The useful life of the equipment is 6 years. After 6 years it will have no salvage value. The management wants a 20% return on all investments.We have:[math] Y_0 = -$6000 [/math][math] Y_i = $2200 [/math][math] n = 6 [/math][math] r = 20% [/math][math] \therefore NPV = -6000 + \frac{2200}{1+0.20} + \frac{2200}{(1+0.20)^2} + ... + \frac{2200}{(1+0.20)^6} [/math]= [math] 1,317 [/math]which is [math] >0 [/math]Hence, the investment is a sound decision.Notice the term, salvage value. In this case it was 0; however, in most normal day cases, you can salvage some amount by selling the equipment at the end of its lifecycle.In this case, the NPV will increase by an amount,[math] \frac{Y_s}{(1+r)^n} [/math]where, [math] Y_s[/math] is the salvage value.B. IRR (Internal rate of return)Definition: IRR or The DCF (Discounted Cash Flow) rate of return is the rate at which the NPV of the project becomes zero, i.e.[math] NPV = Y_0 + \frac{Y_1}{(1+r_1)} + \frac{Y_2}{(1+r_2)^2} + \frac{Y_3}{(1+r_3)^3} + ... + \frac{Y_n}{(1+r_n)^n} =0 [/math]Calculation of NPV is a slightly tricky method. It is usually done by trial and error. You have the cashflows, you take a good guess for the IRR and calculate the NPV. If the NPV > 0, the actual IRR should be greater than your guess (and vice-versa). Repeating this process will narrow down the range of your IRR.Investment criteria:[math] IRR > (Opportunity cost [/math][math]of[/math][math] capital) [/math]However, IRR, as a method also has some drawbacks:#1. It can give results that directly conflict with the NPV method.From: Advantages and Disadvantages of the NPV and IRR MethodsAssume once again that Newco needs to purchase a new machine for its manufacturing plant. Newco has narrowed it down to two machines that meet its criteria (Machine A and Machine B), and now it has to choose one of the machines to purchase. Further, Newco has assumed the following analysis on which to base its decision:Figure 11.6: Potential Machines for NewcoAnswer:We first determine the NPV for each machine as follows:NPVA = ($5,000) + $2,768 + $2.553 = $321NPVB = ($10,000) + $5,350 + $5,106 = $456According to the NPV analysis alone, Machine B is the most appropriate choice for Newco to purchase.The next step is to determine the IRR for each machine using our financial calculator. The IRR for Machine A is equal to 13%, whereas the IRR for Machine B is equal to 11%.According to the IRR analysis alone, Machine A is the most appropriate choice for Newco to purchase.The NPV and IRR analysis for these two projects give us conflicting results. This is most likely due to the timing of the cash flows for each project as well as the size differential between the two projects.#2: There can be multiple rates of return for a single project.This happens when there is a combination of outflows and inflows during the lifetime of the project (a common scenario).From: Internal Rate Of Return Unconventional cash flows are common in capital budgeting since many projects require future capital outlays for maintenance and repairs. In such a scenario, an IRR might not exist, or there might be multiple internal rates of return. In the example below two IRRs exist - 12.7% and 787.3%.This is due to the fact that there are more than 1 sign change (once from -ve to +ve (Year 0 - Year 1) and then from +ve to -ve (Year 1 - Year 2).As a rule of thumb,total number of sign changes = number of rates of returnFurther reading: Internal rate of return: A cautionary taleC. Payback PeriodPayback period is the number of years in which the initial investment is recovered via the cash flows from the project.It is fairly simple to calculate.Consider the example above:[math] Y_0 = -$6000 [/math][math] Y_i = $2200 [/math]The cash flow after year 3 will be [math] 2200*3 = 6,600 [/math], which is greater than the initial investment of [math] 6000 [/math].Hence [/math] Payback_period = 3 [/math]which is [math] <4 [/math], and hence the investment is a sound one.Investment criteria:[math] Payback\:Period < N [/math]where [math] N [/math] is the cutoff decided by the firm or the individual. For example, if a company wants all of its investments to breakeven before 4 years,[math] N = 4 [/math]Discounted payback:In calculating payback period, we only considered the cash flows; however, we must discount them at the appropriate rate of return. Since the company decided on 20%, we will use that:The discounted cashflows are:[math] Y_i = \frac{2200}{(1+0.20)^i} [/math]or [math] 1833.33, 1527.78, 1273.15, 1060.96, 884.13, 736.77 [/math]Now after year 3, total discounted cash flow is [math] 4634.26 [/math] which is [math] < 6000 [/math]After year 4, it is [math] 5695.22 [/math], still less than the initial investment. Only after year 5, does it exceed [math] 6000 [/math] ( [math] 6579.35 [/math]).So, [math] Discounted\:Payback\:Period = 5 [/math], which is [math] >4 [math].Hence, the investment should not go forward.D. Capital rationingYou always do not have enough money to invest everywhere. The same is the case with companies.Definition: Capital rationing is the process of allocating your limited resources in a way to maximize the return (optimal allocation problem).From: Capital Rationing ExampleAn Example: (Firm’s Cost of Capital = 12%)Independent projects ranked according to their IRRs:Project Project Size→ IRRE $20,000→ 21.0%B 25,000 →19.0G 25,000→ 18.0H 10,000→ 17.5D 25,000 →16.5A 15,000→ 14.0F 15,000 →11.0C 30,000 →10.0No Capital Rationing - Only projects F and C would be rejected. The firm’s capital budget would be $120,000.Existence of Capital Rationing - Suppose the capital budget is constrained to be $80,000. Using the IRR criterion, only projects E, B, G, and H, would be accepted, even though projects D and A's IRR is higher than our cost of capital but we can not include because of our capital budget is limited upto $ 80000.However, this is not the best method. Ordering the options in decreasing order of return might not always give the optimal allocation. For that, you will need to construct all possible combinations of investments (investment portfolios) and check their total return.Let's say you have 7 optionsOption 1: Investment $5, NPV $10Option 2: Investment $5, NPV $9Option 3: Investment $1, NPV $6Option 4: Investment $1, NPV $5Option 5: Investment $1, NPV $4Option 6: Investment $1, NPV $3Option 7: Investment $1, NPV $2Now if your total budget is $10, and you see the ranked list of investment options, you will select {Option 1 + Option 2}, for a total NPV of $19.However, you could have done better by selecting {Option 1 + Option 3 + Option 4 + Option 5 + Option 6 + Option 7}. In this case your total NPV is $30.Further reading:Page on university.akelius.dePage on kfupm.edu.saPage on www.economics-sociology.euhttp://wps.aw.com/wps/media/objects/222/227412/ebook/ch09/chapter09.pdfExtra. Reading materialFinancial Markets (2011) with Robert Shiller (23 part lecture series from Nobel-prize winning economist)Financial Theory with John GeanakoplosTutorials | InvestopediaFinancial Concepts: Introduction | Investopedia

The B-41 thermonuclear bomb. The device had a maximum yield of 25 megatons, making it the single most powerful nuclear weapon ever produced by the United States.[1]Photo Source: The B-41 BombFive hundred of the 12′4″ bombs were produced from 1960–1962, and fully retired from the nuclear arsenal by 1976.[2] The five-ton bombs were too heavy for missile launches.[3] B-52G bombers carried one per flight, with the bombs “air dropped by attaching with two parachutes for delayed detonation.”[4]This bomb, if detonated in the center of New York City, would produce a fireball and radiation radius between 4–5 kilometers in diameter. This area is shown in green (with yellow border) below.[5]Image and information source: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/Pink circle: Air blast radius (20 psi): 6.36 kmAt 20 psi overpressure, heavily built concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished; fatalities approach 100%. Often used as a standard benchmark for heavy damage in cities.Dark Gray circle: Air blast radius (5 psi): 13.4 kmAt 5 psi overpressure, most residential buildings collapse, injuries are universal, fatalities are widespread. Often used as a standard benchmark for medium damage in cities.Lighty Gray circle: Air blast radius (1 psi): 34.4 kmAt a around 1 psi overpressure, glass windows can be expected to break. This can cause many injuries in a surrounding population who comes to a window after seeing the flash of a nuclear explosion (which travels faster than the pressure wave). Often used as a standard benchmark for light damage in cities.Orange circle: Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns): 41.2 kmThird degree burns extend throughout the layers of skin, and are often painless because they destroy the pain nerves. They can cause severe scarring or disablement, and can require amputation.[6]Estimated fatalities from the blast and fallout, if detonated in New York City: six million dead, more than five million injured.NOTE: The NUKEMAP site (NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein) was created by nuclear weapons historian Alex Wellerstein. The interactive page presents various maps and damage estimates, similar to the one above, for multiple types of nuclear weapons.Footnotes[1] The biggest and most powerful nuclear weapons ever built[2] The B-41 Bomb[3] The 9 most devastating nuclear weapons in the world[4] The biggest and most powerful nuclear weapons ever built[5] NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein[6] NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

Well I thought this would be short but apparently it takes a bit of doing… including demonstrating that Origen didn’t actually support it as Scripture, Tertullian had fallen into heresy by the time he supported it, the apparent citation in Jude has a lot of asterisks attached, and it says things which are contrary to the actual Scriptures, among other problems. I’ll also describe the book of Enoch so you can see a bit of what’s in there.In this answer, I give a reasonable overview of why various books are not in the bible, and a history of the canon:Dane Walters's answer to How did we compile the holy Bible and who decided what stayed and what was omitted?But let’s figure out how the Book of Enoch fits into that. The first main problem with the book of Enoch is that there are zero manuscripts of it from the time it was supposedly written, or indeed before the 2nd century BC. I’ll go through some info about it and then towards the bottom describe some doctrinal issues it presents. This is perhaps the main reason that it is not included; it says things which go against the rest of scripture. But first, some say that Jude 14–15 quotes Enoch, so let’s see if that’s the case.Here’s 1 Enoch 1:9:And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgment upon all, and to destroy all the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.And then Jude:Jude 1:14-15:Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”This appears at first glance to be fairly convincing, yes? Three problems.One, plenty of texts are quoted in the bible that are not canonical in their totality, such as the references to the Book of Jasher recorded in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18; their inclusion means that the part references and quoted is Scripture, but the rest of the work is not. So the mere quotation of a work does not, in and of itself, make a whole work Scripture.As for the second reason, the word used in Jude, that ‘prophesied’ there, is prophéteuó. Its cognate, prophetes, was used in Titus 1:12 to refer to a heathen poet, and the word itself is only used as a citation once in Matthew 15:7 to cite Isaiah 29. Indeed, in that same section of Titus, Paul asserts that the pagan he is quoting is correct, even; yet this does not mean the poet’s words in total bear inclusion in the bible.Third, it is entirely possible that Jude is referring to a real prophecy by Enoch… that is not from this book of Enoch. Oral traditions are powerful, and considering the care with which the Jews recorded information, it is plausible it survived. Notice the curious differences between the two. The book of Enoch says that the righteous were destroyed whereas Jude says they were judged. I don’t know of any New Testament citation of scripture that misquotes its source material. Also, Jude is careful to say that Enoch prophesied; the book does not quote the book of Enoch.Given those bits of information, there is no evidence that Jude is referring to the work as inspired. But let’s continue. At best, assuming it was written pre-Jude, the Book of Enoch is inter-testamental. It would have been written down between the conclusion of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament, and therefore could not be an inspired work.Note that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Noah’s great-grandfather Enoch actually wrote this, or that it was passed down to be written inter-testamental as Oral Tradition. Absolutely none, especially considering the Jews stopped only orally transmitting things as important as prophetic words literally thousands of years before. Likewise, they never included it in their canon. Some argue that certain Aramaic sections of the fragments we have ‘seem’ quite old, but something ‘seeming’ a certain way isn’t even good enough for a traffic ticket, so it certainly isn’t a standard I will use here.I will quote a scholar on it here as well:"This pseudepigraph has evoked divergent opinions; but today there is a consensus that the book is a composite, portions of which are clearly pre-Christian as demonstrated by the discovery of Aramaic and Hebrew fragments from four of the five sections of the book among the Dead Sea Scrolls. One of these fragments, moreover, was copied in the second half of the second century B.C. The main question concerns the date of the second section, chapters 37-71, which contains the Son of Man sayings. J. T. Milik (esp. no. 755) has shown that this section, which is not represented among the early fragments, is probably a later addition to 1 Enoch; but his contention that it was composed around A.D. 270 (no. 755, p. 377) is very speculative. If, as most specialists concur, the early portions of 1 Enoch date from the first half of the second century B.C., chapters 37-71 could have been added in the first century B.C. or first century A.D. The original language of 1 Enoch appears to be Aramaic, except for the Noah traditions, which were probably composed in Hebrew.(The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, p. 98)That about sums it up. The Book of Enoch has multiple authors, is from multiple time periods, and is of dubious at best providence. It was certainly not written by Enoch, and often, when a book claims some well-known and ancient personage as its author in order to lend itself legitimacy… one finds that it is the precise opposite of legitimate.Also, just go read the thing and it will become immediately apparent why it is not worthy of inclusion. Here’s an overview of Enoch. (Introduction to the Intertestamental Period, pp. 142-143):The book was arranged by its last editor in five sections, as in the Psalms and other Jewish Books.Section I (1-36) is mainly concerned with pronouncing God's judgment by Enoch on the angels, or watchers who fell through their love for the daughters of men (Gen. 6:1-4), and Enoch's intercession for them. A weird description of Hades is found in this portion of 1 Enoch.Section II (37-71) has three "parables," or apocalyptic revelations, together with the story of Enoch's translation into heaven.Section III (72-87) is primarily concerned with furnishing a treatise on astronomy, the secrets of the movement of the stars as revealed to Enoch, who sees with his own eyes their very course, even the portals through which they enter and issue forth, for the purpose of transmitting the information to future generations.Section IV runs along lines laid down in the first two portions dealing with the problem of sin and suffering of Israel. Enoch relates to Methuselah his visions of the deluge, the fall of the angels, and their punishment in the underworld, the deliverance of Noah, the Exodus, the giving of the Law, the conquest of Canaan, the time of the judges, the establishment of the united kingdom, the building of the temple, the story of the two kingdoms, the fall of the Northern Kingdom, and the Exile. This is followed by four periods of angelic rule up to the time of the Maccabean Revolt, the last assault of the Gentiles, and the great Judgment. The last part of Section IV contains the prediction of the foundation of the new Jerusalem, the conversion of the Gentiles, the resurrection of the righteous, and the coming of the Messiah.Section V is without any account of the origin of sin but seems to be mainly devoted to the problem of suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the oppressing sinners. It denounces evil and utters woes on sinners and promises blessings to the righteous. Within Section V is an older work "The Apocalypse of Weeks" (93:1-10; 91:12-19). It concludes (105): "In those days the Lord bade to summon and testify to the children of the earth concerning their wisdom: show (it) unto them; for ye are their guides, and a recompense over the world. For I and My Son will be united with them forever in the paths of uprightness and in their lives; and ye shall have peace; rejoice, ye children of uprightness. Amen."As you can see, the book offers ‘visions’ of history with great accuracy; considering my own work detailing the prophecies in Daniel (predicting the month Jesus died and then also the prophecy concerning Alexander the Great), I know the bible is capable of such, but. The book overdoes it. If it were truly of Enoch, if it were truly that old, a New Testament author would have quoted such a monumental prophecy, or it would have been mentioned elsewhere, as it presents a detailed road-map of Israel’s history. There is also the issue of the periods of Angelic Rule listed there (68-71, and elsewhere), which does not mesh with the history laid out in the rest of the Old Testament. Read this section:https://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe093.htmFrom 28 on down, and think about it really hard. Really, just read any of it. It’s more like a poetic version of the Old Testament than a prophetic vision.And now on to some of the things it says which are not scriptural.10:15 on to about chapter 11 details that after the deluge then righteousness would be restored and evil would be eliminated. This contradicts the Old Testament, it contradicts the New Testament… really everything.Enoch 2:2-3 contradicts 2 Pet 3:3-7; it says that things have been going on in the same way since the beginning of creation, which is literally an argument 2 Peter warns about.In 10:2, it condemns itself by having Enoch talk about someone saying something to Noah; Enoch was taken up before Noah was born, and this is not given in a prophetic form, so…10:8 places the blame for all the fallen angels on some angel named Azazel, which is not scriptural.Chapter 20 incorrectly assigns the roles of both Gabriel and Michael.41 calls the Kingdom of God divided. Contradicts Jesus and the rest of Scripture.47:4 says God requires the blood of the righteous, which is… hmm… wrong. It isn’t discussing the blood of the righteous one, mind, but all righteous, but an offering of a ‘number’ of them.In general, Enoch details, well, Enoch going down to Earth after being taken up by God, and that’s not supported by the rest of Scripture. It’s not precisely rejected, but no one else that God took made a habit of coming back.Seriously just go read it for yourself. It’s very odd, and not in an Ezekiel kind of way: Ezekiel is odd because he’s describing with words things neither he nor we understand. It’s like a blind man trying to describe color. Enoch is odd for the same reason some of the gnostic works talking about Jesus are odd; it tries too hard to mimic that which it is not. I hear frequently that the Early Church Fathers supported Enoch. The list is always very impressive; they cite Tertullian and Origen most often.Tertullian was a fan, calling it Scripture in Book 1, Chapter 3 of On the Apparel of Women (On the Apparel of Women. Book I). However, we must take care to remember that the Early Church Fathers are not the authority on what is Scripture and what is not, and they were fallible. Tertullian fell, in his later life, to Montanism, a heretical branch of Christianity, and On the Apparel of Women was most likely written after this fall; so one should treat the words within with great suspicion.So what about Origen? Origen cites it in the same breath as the Psalms (although he mis-translates the Psalm he’s quoting…) in De Principiis IV. However, the passages from Enoch he cites do not appear in the version we have. Origen mentions the Book of Enoch another time, in Contra Celsus, LIV. He doesn’t quote it there, however, nor does he call it Scripture. It would appear that he considered it a useful book, but there is no evidence that he thought it was Scripture. Especially when you consider what I am about to relate.Be very careful when reading articles claiming what the Early Church Fathers did or did not say. I all too often see people butcher their quotes, cut out entire blocks of text, or outright lie about the content of their works or what they support. I found at least three different articles about Origen on Enoch that completely lied about the contents of De Principiis or Contra Celsus in an effort to support Enoch. If someone does not give you at the very least the book and chapter to go find it yourself, assume their quotation is a lie. For instance, I read several times people quoting De Principiis 3:3, saying that it supported the Book of Enoch as Scripture. Do you know what Origen was doing in that section? He was discussing heretics who said God created the Holy Spirit, and that it did not exist eternally as God. But because he said the word “Scripture” within the same paragraph as “book of Enoch,” he must therefore be discussing it as Scripture. Absolute nonsense. The paragraph, if anything, supports the notion that Origen separated Enoch from Scripture. See here:And in the book of Enoch also we have similar descriptions. But up to the present time we have been able to find no statement in holy Scripture in which the Holy Spirit could be said to be made or created…You tell me. Is Origen supporting Enoch as Scripture? No. He’s intentionally separating it. Here, go read it for yourself:http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0185-0254,_Origenes,_De_principiis_[Schaff],_EN.pdfIt’s on the work page 444, PDF page 26. He puts Enoch closer to something written by Hermas than Scripture (which was recognized even as early as the Muratorian Fragment, which if you read my other answer is the oldest canon we have, as non-scriptural). The Muratorian Canon refutation is noted in Bart Ehrman, Lost Scriptures (Oxford University Press, 2003) page 333.So, to summarize, the Book of Enoch is not Scripture, and there is no evidence it is Scripture.If you care to know about 2 and 3 Enoch, they almost certainly post-date Jesus, although 2 Enoch is probably pre-70 AD since it assumes the temple is standing. This is said of 3 Enoch:It is impossible to reach a very firm conclusion as to the date of 3 Enoch. The main problem is the literary character of the work: it is not the total product of a single author at a particular point in time, but the deposit of a 'school tradition' which incorporates elements from widely different periods. Certain rough chronological limits can, however, be established. 3 Enoch can hardly have been written later than the tenth century A.D…The fact that the tenth century is being tossed around for this is telling enough.I can’t think of anything else to say on the matter, and frankly, that’s more time than I ever wanted to spend on the book of Enoch, but it should suffice to thoroughly explain why it is not Scripture. Questions are welcome.