In 2013, Rio Tinto was expected to begin commercial shipments from Oyu Tolgoi, a copper and gold mine in the Gobi Desert of Mongolia. Oyu Tolgoi was one of the last great unmined deposits in the world, and, once operations were in full swing, was expected to constitute around a tenth of Rio Tinto's profits and over a quarter of Mongolia's GDP. But the terms of the deal were being threatened by elections in Mongolian and a change in voter sentiment towards the project. With around $6 billion invested, Rio Tinto had to figure out how to make its investment work out. Meanwhile the Mongolian government, facing scorching economic growth rates, had to lead the country through its most significant transformation since the time of Ghengis Khan nine centuries earlier.
After an unusual round of doubles in May 2011, real estate investor Bobby Turner, Managing Partner, Canyon-Agassi Charter School Facilities Fund (CACSFF) and Chairman, CEO, and Co-Founder of Canyon Capital Realty Advisors, found himself at a loss for words. Turner was in the midst of raising capital for the CACSFF, a vehicle designed to promote the success and growth of best-in-class charter schools by acting as a for-profit "bridge" developer of educational facilities throughout the United States. He thought he had found the perfect investor in Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder and billionaire philanthropist, who for years had been an outspoken supporter of education reform. But as he made his pitch on the tennis court alongside his partner, retired professional tennis star Andre Agassi, and Andre's wife, retired professional tennis star Steffi Graf, he realized he would encounter more resistance than originally expected. Despite Gates' fascination and intrigue with the pair's novel concept, he was hesitant to mix the non-profit oriented efforts of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with a for-profit private equity investment. Turner had heard similar concerns from other philanthropists and foundations. Furthermore, the fund's characterization as a social enterprise left unanswered questions regarding how making a positive impact could be juxtaposed with efforts to maximize investor profits. What started off as the match of the century ended rather unceremoniously as Gates graciously declined the opportunity to invest in CACSFF. As Turner and Agassi walked off the court, they realized they would have to go back to the drawing board to better gauge which investors would have an appetite for this type of investment and how best to market the fund to those parties going forward.
The director of client services at henderson bas, an interactive advertising company, was trying to decide how to set a price for the newly proposed campaign for Halpernia Industries, one of her clients. Though the strategic direction of the campaign had been agreed upon, Halpernia had rejected the two creative proposals already presented to it. The director was unsure how to set a price for the campaign. She needed to balance the need for the company to be profitable with the importance of maintaining the client relationship with Halpernia by deciding whether or not to charge Halpernia for the significant amount of work that had gone into the rejected proposals.
The administrator of the Westmount Retirement Residence is concerned about the current cost accounting system. The administrator is not clear on how much each service offered was truly costing, and therefore charged each resident the same price per month regardless of their needs. In the past, the majority of patients demanded similar services, and therefore this pricing and costing system was appropriate. However, with demographic changes to the population, some residents required intense medical care, while others were healthy and fit and required less care. A new pricing model had to be developed that reflected both the size of suite inhabited and the level of medical care and service required by each individual patient.
The administrator of the Westmount Retirement Residence is concerned about the current cost accounting system. The administrator is not clear on how much each service offered was truly costing, and therefore charged each resident the same price per month regardless of their needs. In the past, the majority of patients demanded similar services, and therefore this pricing and costing system was appropriate. However, with demographic changes to the population, some residents required intense medical care, while others were healthy and fit and required less care. A new pricing model had to be developed that reflected both the size of suite inhabited and the level of medical care and service required by each individual patient.