First Quarter: the Losers employed the strategy of owning the means of production and holding their competitors' business operations to account which paid a dividend despite the inaccurate records registered by the board and the due diligence of the Winners, who managed to record modest returns for their industry and insecure property management.

Second Quarter: counting the cost of their cautious attempts to manufacture records at the board-level through their fraudulent practices, the Losers forced creditors into instability bought on by the Winners monopolising the means of production and centralising control of their ownership of property, once the disputes had been managed successfully.

Third Quarter: the Losers negotiated the terms of their deficit, despite their competitors' interest in giving them credit, through industry and ownership of the means but failed to capitalise which accounted for the Winners managing to negotiate their deteriorating productivity due to costly inaccuracies and the extent of their existing margin.

Fourth Quarter: co-operating with their competitors, the Losers allowed their deficit to increase through their failure to own disputed property but slashed the margin when their competitors, the Winners, delivered on their earlier promise to relax any accounting for their competitors' interest and place the credit for their value on their collective individualism.

Fifth Quarter: the Losers managed to negotiate any credit observers' interest raised through observing the value of the class in their structure and transferring large amounts to the Winners, who recounted to analysts the influence the last recession had on reinforcing the value they place in manufacturing a structure that works because of class.