Kelsey, a newly minted MBA hired by a firm that provides analysis of companies, has been given a task to present an assessment of six very different firms described by her manager as “retailers.” She has been given the performance details of these companies and is expected to quickly analyze the metrics related to the firms’ performance, such as return on assets, inventory turns and staff productivity. Her manager also wants her to assess and compare the six firms more broadly. Which firm should Kelsey recommend investing in?
This case describes the challenges faced by Jerry Richardson, the owner of the Carolina Panthers National Football League (NFL) team, following the arrest of one of the team's star players on domestic violence charges. Domestic violence suddenly was a major issue in the NFL after a video became public depicting domestic violence by another famous NFL player. Richardson needs to decide how to deal with the Panther's star player. His considerations include competing stakeholder interests, financial and performance consequences for the team, as well as consequences for his own legacy. The case allows for discussion of challenging trade-offs between financial performance and tackling necessary but difficult change.
As Box continued to mature as a company, the firm fought through the ups and downs of being a highly visible hyper-growth Silicon Valley firm. Box struggled to get its IPO completed, having to deal simultaneously with a volatile stock market and increased scrutiny of its SaaS business model. In parallel, the company worked to aggressively expand its business into large enterprises through a key partnership with IBM, all while working to grow its top line, keep costs in line with targets and retain top talent.
Paez, an Argentine start-up fashion brand, sold traditional alpargatas, a sleepy shoe category that suddenly woke up when U.S. company TOMS borrowed the traditional alpargata design, covered it with fashionable colors and prints, and tied it to a social cause. Paez's founders were keenly aware of the present and future challenges they faced due to the resources and capabilities of their well-capitalized and marketing-savvy competitor. How could a small brand compete against a company that had captured the hearts and minds of consumers? Which brand positioning concept should Paez choose to best capture consumers' attention and interest and compete against TOMS? How would the choice of positioning affect the rollout of Paez' distribution strategy and its product line strategy?
In March 2012, the CEO of Fairbridge Capital considered the pros and cons of the potential acquisition of Thomas Cook India. He believed that Thomas Cook India's two business segments (travel/related services and financial services) had different potential in terms of growth and cash flow generation. Analysts predicted tremendous growth potential in the travel business (although it would require additional investment), while the foreign exchange segment had limited growth potential but generated significant cash flow. Thomas Cook India had changed ownership several times in a short time period, and the stock price had fallen substantially. Would acquiring Thomas Cook India fit the value-investing philosophy rigorously followed by Fairbridge Capital and its parent company, Fairfax Financial? If so, how much should Fairbridge bid? Was Thomas Cook India worth more with two segments or was it better off split into two? Finally, should Fairbridge delist Thomas Cook India or keep it public?
Chair of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Beverly Jones Heydinger has to decide on the right formula for the Minnesota Value of Solar Tariff (VOST). The calculation is a replacement for net energy metering. If the VOST is too low, then installing solar will become too costly for many. If the VOST is too high, then it will become a subsidy for the solar industry and customers who can already afford solar projects. Students are asked to put themselves in the shoes of the protagonist and find the right balance.
The Healthy Buildings case profiles Janet Rodriguez, CEO and founder of Healthy Buildings, a green building materials supplier. In her role as CEO, Rodriguez faces two difficult issues involving her employees. The first issue deals with Fred Payton, Healthy Buildings's COO, and Marcia Vannis, the company's vice president of marketing. It soon becomes apparent that Payton and Vannis have a tumultuous relationship, with Payton frequently undermining her in front of other employees within the organization, and complaining that Vannis was Rodriguez's "teacher's pet." Rodriguez invites both employees to lunch to talk out their differences, but the result is underwhelming. She must now decide how to help them repair their relationship so that they can all move on with the business of the company. In the second vignette, Rodriguez reads in the weekend paper's police blotter that her vice president of business development, Leslie Dorrin, had been arrested for a DUI on Friday evening. That same morning, Rodriguez receives a call from Dorrin letting her know what happened, at which point Rodriguez must determine how to proceed with the news that one of her valued employees has been charged with a serious offense.
Just Dial was the largest phone and Internet based local search provider in India. The company started providing services in 1996, but the revenues of the company shot up in 2004 with the penetration of telecoms in the Indian market. Several private equity investors funded the growth of Just Dial. Almost 90% of Just Dial revenues came from Tier I cities in India. In order to mark its presence and expand its network to Tier II cities, Just Dial required funds. With funds already raised from private equity investors, Just Dial planned to take the IPO route for further fundraising. In March 2013, Just Dial's IPO was approved by SEBI after five previous unsuccessful attempts - twice on NASDAQ, two aborted filings in India in the last two years and one on a smaller exchange. The case is positioned in May 2013, just a few days before the IPO's launch, when there was a great deal of negative news in the market regarding Just Dial's overvaluation. The business model was completely new and there were no industry comparables in order to do a fair valuation. Analysts in the market repeatedly warned investors, suggesting they avoid the IPO because it was overvalued. Furthermore, they said that it was only meant to provide an exit option for the PE investors. Consequently, investors were sceptical of Just Dial's valuation. With this negative perception prevailing in the market, should Just Dial consider delaying the IPO or lowering the price range (thus reconsidering its valuation)?
Elon Musk, the CEO of the U.S.-headquartered Tesla Motors (Tesla), was considering how the company should enter the Chinese market. Less than a year earlier, Tesla had exited Singapore after disappointing results only six months after entering that promising market. There were several questions that the company would have to answer in order to formulate an appropriate entry strategy for China. First, could the company learn from its experiences in the United States and Singapore and apply this learning to China? Second, was it the right time to enter the Chinese market? Finally, how could Tesla prevent a repeat of the Singapore experience in China? There were several questions that the company would have to answer in order to formulate an appropriate entry strategy for China.
In the fall of 2014, the Alibaba Group, an e-commerce company that operates domestic and international marketplaces and provides Internet-based services from its headquarters in Hangzhou, China, startled the world with its record-breaking initial public offering on the New York Stock Exchange. The company’s business plan differs from other major Internet companies such as Amazon and eBay by its strategies that are tailored to the particular circumstances of the Chinese economy and Chinese consumers. Now, the executive team has set its sights on achieving the next big thing — developing its online-to-offline business, a market sector estimated to be worth a trillion dollars in the age of the mobile Internet. However, the company faces stiff competition from Tencent, the other Internet titan in China. How can Alibaba integrate online and offline activities to increase sales and improve the consumer’s experience — and, therefore, improve its own bottom line?
On November 25, 2012, the head of Revenue Recognition at ESol Limited (ESol) India was preparing for a meeting with the company’s sales team at the head office in Bangalore. ESol Limited was a large, U.S.-based multinational information technology corporation, which had moved into India in 2000. Since then, its management had insisted on the need for close monitoring of accounting procedures in strict adherence to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Although the sales team had negotiated the Request for Proposal with MoveForward, a large research firm in India handling and processing high volumes of sensitive data, in good faith, the revenue recognition team felt that clauses dealing with penalties, liquidated damages and termination put their company at risk and wished to defer all of the revenue proposed for the contract until these issues were resolved. The friction between the two teams put the entire deal in jeopardy.
This case was written as an update to the case "The National Geographic Society," HBS No. 311-002, published in 2011. The (B) case describes the 2015 creation of National Geographic Partners, a for-profit joint venture between the National Geographic Society and 21st Century Fox. It describes the basic structure and terms of the deal as well as diverse reactions to it.
Two engineers founded a start-up for the design and development of Internet of Things and wearable technology products. They received initial seed capital from family in lieu of equity shares. The company developed a product that could be used to search for misplaced items through the user's phone. The product was expected to be ready for mass production in a week. However, in spite of potential huge demand, the company did not have funds for mass production because it used the seed capital on the design and development. The supplier would not produce unless the start-up paid up front. The technology start-up needed to analyze all the available options for funding mass production of its product and choose the most suitable one.
In 2013 Taco Bell, a large U.S. fast food chain, was looking for ways to grow. One of the opportunities the company was considering was adding a line of breakfast foods, something the brand had tried-unsuccessfully-before. There were clear reasons to proceed with the launch, as breakfast offered a completely new meal occasion with tremendous potential. However, there were also notable concerns when it came to operational issues and consumer behavior. Opening for breakfast would increase costs, and getting people to change their morning routine would be difficult. Should Taco Bell risk adding a breakfast menu, or not? This case gives students an opportunity to debate growth and new product opportunities.
Designed for a course in public finance or in transportation, this case describes the financial crisis that, in 2013, loomed over the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), the transit system serving Philadelphia and four surrounding counties. The difficulties were predominantly in the system's long-inadequate capital budget, which funded maintenance, repair, and replacement costs for the aging legacy system, but these problems were severe enough that they were threatening day-to-day operations. SEPTA had been forced to delay needed reinvestment in the system for so many years that, absent significant new funding, the SEPTA board and general manager warned that they would be forced to shrink its system dramatically over the next 10 years, reducing service in the city of Philadelphia and nearly eliminating suburban commuter rail service. To ground the discussion, the case provides political and structural background about SEPTA, alongside the recent financial history of both operating and capital budgets, allowing students to understand the nature of the funding difficulties that had historically beset the authority. The case also provides enough information on transit finance to support a more general conversation. Case exhibits include demographic and commuting data for the five counties served by SEPTA; fare and subsidy information by mode of transport; fare elasticity by mode of transport; sources of subsidy in both operating and capital budgets; information about the tax burden in Pennsylvania; the projected consequences of abolishing SEPTA for commuting costs, jobs, and property values; and pros and cons of using different kinds of state funding to finance transit. A brief 2-page sequel describes how proponents were eventually able to win legislative approval for additional funding, and what the legislature ultimately chose as its revenue source. Case number 2047.0
This sequel accompanies Case Number 2047.0. Designed for a course in public finance or in transportation, this case describes the financial crisis that, in 2013, loomed over the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), the transit system serving Philadelphia and four surrounding counties. The difficulties were predominantly in the system's long-inadequate capital budget, which funded maintenance, repair, and replacement costs for the aging legacy system, but these problems were severe enough that they were threatening day-to-day operations. SEPTA had been forced to delay needed reinvestment in the system for so many years that, absent significant new funding, the SEPTA board and general manager warned that they would be forced to shrink its system dramatically over the next 10 years, reducing service in the city of Philadelphia and nearly eliminating suburban commuter rail service. To ground the discussion, the case provides political and structural background about SEPTA, alongside the recent financial history of both operating and capital budgets, allowing students to understand the nature of the funding difficulties that had historically beset the authority. The case also provides enough information on transit finance to support a more general conversation. Case exhibits include demographic and commuting data for the five counties served by SEPTA; fare and subsidy information by mode of transport; fare elasticity by mode of transport; sources of subsidy in both operating and capital budgets; information about the tax burden in Pennsylvania; the projected consequences of abolishing SEPTA for commuting costs, jobs, and property values; and pros and cons of using different kinds of state funding to finance transit. A brief 2-page sequel describes how proponents were eventually able to win legislative approval for additional funding, and what the legislature ultimately chose as its revenue source. Case number 2047.1