This note presents a short description of balance of payments (BOP) and international investment position (IIP) data. It works through examples using data for the United States and Mexico while providing guidance for understanding the data of just about any country.
In November 2017, a fan of hockey watched his favourite team lose 6-4 against a contending team. After a great start to the season with a record of 6 wins and 1 loss, his favourite team had lost 6 of the last 8 games, dropping their record to 8 wins and 7 losses. The fan knew that the time was approaching for the inevitable discussions with his friends regarding the team's success. Which players should they have signed? Which player should the team trade for? What line combinations would serve the team best? Who was overvalued, and who was undervalued? Knowing that conversations among his friends typically took on a random and unstructured format, the fan planned to provide a more analytical approach to the discussion this year. His research would raise the level of the conversation and help back up his suggestions.
Monisha Perkash cofounded Lumo Bodytech during an incubation program organized by Innovation Endeavors - the venture capital firm started by Eric Schmidt - in 2011. At the time, she had barely met her cofounders and the team was expected to launch a business after six months of design thinking and prototyping efforts. The result was a start-up focused on improving posture and helping solve the common problem of back pain. As of 2018, Lumo Bodytech was still alive and thriving, but the journey had not been free of obstacles and difficult decisions for the CEO. Even before the conclusion of the incubation phase, one of the cofounders had expressed his dissatisfaction with the direction of the ideation process and threatened to quit if nothing changed. He was an accomplished software engineer who had become a friend in just a few months of work. Additionally, the equity for the new business had already been split among the four cofounders, which could further complicate any exit negotiations. Around a year later, Lumo Bodytech had successfully launched but the wearables fever was dying down and the financial needs of the young start-up became more pressing by the day. That was when Perkash was approached by a large Asian manufacturer who would be willing to invest if the company implemented a significant change in its strategy, from focusing on a single product to adopting a platform approach to its product line. It was a hard decision to face so early in their trajectory, but Perkash knew she had to make a choice. The challenges related to financing the company would knock on Perkash's door once again in mid-2014, when the company had to decide between raising venture debt or settling for a smaller round of equity financing. To make matters worse, there seemed to be a central misalignment between the cofounders and one of the board members about how to approach the issue.
When Hewlett-Packard Enterprise notified Rhode Island's Governor's Office that it won't be able to deliver a "fully-functioning" technology upgrade for the Department of Motor Vehicles, both parties had reached a breaking point. HPE argued that it would need more money to complete the system, while the Governor's cabinet countered by stating that HPE was violating its contractual obligations. The case covers Rhode Island's perspective of the various moves each side made in preparation for anticipated adjudication.
In November 2017, a fan of hockey watched his favourite team lose 6–4 against a contending team. After a great start to the season with a record of 6 wins and 1 loss, his favourite team had lost 6 of the last 8 games, dropping their record to 8 wins and 7 losses. The fan knew that the time was approaching for the inevitable discussions with his friends regarding the team's success. Which players should they have signed? Which player should the team trade for? What line combinations would serve the team best? Who was overvalued, and who was undervalued? Knowing that conversations among his friends typically took on a random and unstructured format, the fan planned to provide a more analytical approach to the discussion this year. His research would raise the level of the conversation and help back up his suggestions.
Calgary’s city manager sought to build stronger relationships with the community to attract development and retain investment in the city. He knew that implementing the Proximity Initiative guidelines, a collaborative effort between the Railway Association of Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, while intended to limit potential safety risks in the case of a derailment or volume release, would simultaneously limit urban development opportunities, particularly within the downtown. The guidelines did not consider the balance of public safety with economic diversification so specific to Calgary's context. The manager had to consider an appropriate solution for his city.
In 2017, hedge fund Mantle Ridge acquired less than 5 per cent of the stock of CSX Corporation (CSX) and made demands for board representation as well as the installation of a new chief executive officer (CEO) of CSX. This new CEO had abruptly resigned from Canadian Pacific (CP) and joined forces with Mantle Ridge at the time the fund announced its activist position in CSX. On February 14, 2017, CSX management announced a special meeting and shareholders’ vote to respond to Mantle Ridge’s demands, which included a compensation package for this new CEO, estimated at $300 million. In light of the improvements at CP, could the same model be implemented successfully at CSX? If so, was the proposed compensation package for an incoming CEO justified? The chief investment officer of a large U.S. pension fund, has been asked to vote at the upcoming meeting and faces two main questions: Should she vote in favour of approving the package? Alternatively, should she sell CSX stock now?
In April 2017, a college student in California was graduating with a degree in business administration with a concentration in entrepreneurship. She had been a florist for the past six years and wished to pursue her dream of starting her own flower business. Her vision was to open a flower shop where all the arrangements were uniquely designed for each customer and no two arrangements were the same. Her current employers were trying to sell their shop (Belle Fleur) and offered to sell it to her at a discount price. She had to decide whether to buy the business or start her own shop from scratch.
In late 2015, Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) opened its first brick-and-mortar Amazon Books store in the United States. Amazon had invested heavily in expanding in the United States through new projects, from establishing Amazon Prime Now to setting up Amazon Books and Amazon Go locations. By 2017, a rumour suggested that Amazon might acquire Whole Foods Market Inc., a natural and organic foods supermarket. Could Amazon be as successful in offline retail as it had been in e-commerce? How could the company differentiate itself in the brick-and-mortar retail segment?
Amazon, Google, and Apple all offer their own smart speaker. The devices represent each firm's entry point into the connected home market. All three companies come into the space with their own strengths and weaknesses. Who will win?
Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, is in the heart of basketball country. Yet its record for the 2013/2014 basketball season was a dismal 5-20. The school recruited Jason Polykoff from the University of Pennsylvania's coaching staff to reinvent the program. By summer, Polykoff learned that only three players would be returning. That left him with a major decision: scramble to recruit enough players to fill the roster and play the 2014/2015 season, or forfeit the season and devote time to building the 2015/2016 roster. Each option would have a major detrimental impact in his ability to recruit in the future.
After years of growth, the Swiss watch industry faced an existential crisis. Exports to the US, their primary market, had dropped by more than two thirds over the past five years. Swiss watches were being disrupted by high-quality and affordable American products. The Swiss had to figure out how to respond. No matter the outcome, the year 1876 would prove to be pivotal.
This case examines the intersection of two firms (Cogent Labs-a machine learning software firm in Tokyo; and Google, the technology infrastructure giant) attempting to exploit the benefits of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the financial services sector. The case protagonist, David Malkin, known as the "AI Architect" at Cogent Labs, must decide how best to position his firm for growth. Malkin knew that artificial intelligence had great potential to revolutionize several aspects of the financial services industry, but he also knew that artificial intelligence's greatest achievements to date were in very narrow functions. Malkin further knew that large, sophisticated financial service clients owned a vast array of proprietary datasets that were impossible to replicate. Meanwhile the major "cloud" providers like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft had large-scale computing infrastructures and multi-billion-dollar research and development budgets with which they could (and did) generate innovative artificial intelligence software of their own. Malkin wondered how a small software firm like Cogent Labs without its own proprietary datasets, or a large-scale computing infrastructure, or a multi-billion R&D budget could fit in? Would Cogent Labs' current approach of developing their own proprietary machine learning applications to run on the cloud and sell directly to financial services firms in Tokyo prove to be a sustainable model? Or would Cogent Labs ultimately need to partner/merge with one of the major cloud providers in order to provide the expertise necessary to customize their offerings for financial services clients? Or, was the future even more uncertain; would software firms like Cogent eventually need to create and own new datasets of their own, and build their own infrastructures to host their own new data, in order to avoid being disintermediated in the future if (and when) machine learning expertise became truly commoditized?
On June 25, 2014, the director of marketing and development at Allied Founders Pvt. Ltd., a company that operated out of Belgaum in India, was analyzing various problems associated with his company’s management approach. The director was considering a change from the company’s system of breakdown maintenance to a new information system of preventive maintenance. While executing its first international export order, the company faced several challenges related to production delays, mainly due to poor equipment maintenance. To plan for his company’s future in the international market, the director proposed adopting preventive maintenance as a solution, but he was unsure whether to use traditional means (i.e., manual record keeping) or implement a new information system. He was concerned about the issues that could arise from the change, including resistance from employees worried about job loss, providing the necessary training, and exposing the company to other risks.
In June 2017, a journalist was preparing a major news story about Lumni Inc. (Lumni), a company that he wanted to profile in the next issue of his Mexico City–based magazine. Lumni's mission was essentially a social one: to improve the conditions, access, and quality of higher education for young students, especially in Latin America. However, although its mission was originally non-profit, Lumni was not considered a non-governmental organization since it worked with a financially sustainable model and did not depend on donations or government funding. As the journalist investigated this business model, he learned that some experts referred to it as a hybrid business model. Although he had been gathering research on Lumni for some months, he still was unsure whether his report should promote hybrid business models as viable alternatives to traditional business models.
A hybrid business model incorporates the social responsibility interests of a non-profit organization with the economic objectives of a for-profit company. This note explains the fundamental organizational activities that drive a hybrid business model and provides examples of successful hybrid business models currently in operation. This note can be used as a companion document to Lumni Inc.: Improving Society in a Sustainable Way, product no. 9B18M011.