個案總覽

Spreadsheet for product 8B20N022.

Spreadsheet for product 9B20N022.

A star fund manager at Principal First had been managing the company’s information technology fund for the previous six years. Under his management, the fund had consistently outperformed the market, delivering a five-year compounded annual growth rate of 28 per cent. The exceptional performance of the fund was due to an overexposed position in Vakrangee Limited, a mid-tier information technology company. The fund manager bought the stock in early October 2017 at ₹240. By January 2018, the stock reached a high of ₹500. However, the fund manager did not liquidate his position because he believed that there was still more value in the company. At the end of January 2018, the stock plummeted, as did its net asset value, and the fund manager wondered where he had gone wrong in his analysis.

On March 21, 2017, Downer EDI Limited, a leading provider of engineering, construction, and infrastructure management services in the Australasia region, announced an unsolicited offer for Spotless Group Holdings at A$1.15 per share, to be funded largely by a fully underwritten renounceable two-for-five rights issue at A$5.95 per share. Although an offer for Spotless Group Holdings was not unexpected, the market was surprised at the considerable premium of 58 per cent above the previous day’s closing price of A$0.725. With the institutional portion of the rights offering due to close the following day, an equity analyst with a large institutional fund that was a major shareholder of Downer EDI Limited, had little time to complete a thorough valuation analysis of Spotless Group Holdings. If the analyst determined that Downer EDI Limited was overpaying for Spotless Group Holdings, she would recommend that the fund turn down the rights offering and sell its stake in Downer EDI Limited.

Spreadsheet to accompany product 8B20N041.

Student Spreadsheet to accompany product 9B20N041.

This case provides a minimum threshold and a range of value for a contract for janitorial services in an office building. A variety of facts are presented that negotiators can choose to pay more or less attention to when planning and conducting their negotiation. Mitchell, a shift supervisor, has been temporarily empowered to conduct the negotiation on behalf of his supervisor, Robert Eckhart, who is out sick. Jim Evans, the sales representative from Philly Cleans, is attempting to preserve his company's typical 25% profit margin, which is 10% above the industry norm of 15%. A contingency agreement is a possibility, which would likely take the form of a delivery reduction in the average price per room if in fact the average size of the rooms in this renovated office building is actually significantly smaller than the average size of rooms in newly constructed office buildings. This case contains two roles, one for each person in a two-party negotiation. They are relatively short in length and can be read in class just prior to a mock negotiation. This learning activity is appropriate for teaching negotiations skills to a broad audience, including undergraduate and graduate business school students, adult learners in a variety of settings, and in a corporate university.

B case to case UV8090. This case provides a minimum threshold and a range of value for a contract for janitorial services in an office building. A variety of facts are presented that negotiators can choose to pay more or less attention to when planning and conducting their negotiation. Mitchell, a shift supervisor, has been temporarily empowered to conduct the negotiation on behalf of his supervisor, Robert Eckhart, who is out sick. Jim Evans, the sales representative from Philly Cleans, is attempting to preserve his company's typical 25% profit margin, which is 10% above the industry norm of 15%. A contingency agreement is a possibility, which would likely take the form of a delivery reduction in the average price per room if in fact the average size of the rooms in this renovated office building is actually significantly smaller than the average size of rooms in newly constructed office buildings. This case contains two roles, one for each person in a two-party negotiation. They are relatively short in length and can be read in class just prior to a mock negotiation. This learning activity is appropriate for teaching negotiations skills to a broad audience, including undergraduate and graduate business school students, adult learners in a variety of settings, and in a corporate university.

This case contains two roles, one for each person in a two-party negotiation. They are relatively short in length and can be read in class just prior to negotiating. This learning activity is appropriate for teaching negotiation skills to a broad audience, including undergraduate and graduate business school students, adult learners, and in corporate university settings. At first glance, there is no immediate resolution to the negotiation. A couple is attempting to qualify for an apartment lease, and based on a percentage of guaranteed salary, they do not qualify. Students should learn that only by asking probing questions and seeking to understand more about one another's assets and interests can the landlords and potential renters identify a workable solution.

This case contains two roles, one for each person in a two-party negotiation. They are relatively short in length and can be read in class just prior to negotiating. This learning activity is appropriate for teaching negotiation skills to a broad audience, including undergraduate and graduate business school students, adult learners, and in corporate university settings. At first glance, there is no immediate resolution to the negotiation. A couple is attempting to qualify for an apartment lease, and based on a percentage of guaranteed salary, they do not qualify. Students should learn that only by asking probing questions and seeking to understand more about one another's assets and interests can the landlords and potential renters identify a workable solution.

This case follows Jason, a high school student who is looking forward to going to college. He is an excellent student and a basketball star, which allowed him to receive two full-ride scholarships: the first to play Division 1 basketball at Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) and the second to attend the University of Virginia (UVA). This leaves Jason with a huge decision to make. Should he attend Penn State and try to fulfill his dream of playing in the NBA, or should he attend UVA and fulfill his passion for engineering? To gain more information to guide his decision, Jason solicits advice from two of his mentors: his basketball coach, Coach Roberts, and his math teacher, Ms. Humphries.

Spreadsheet for case UV8082.

Cinda Klickna, trustee of the State of Illinois Teachers' Retirement System (TRS), was preparing to vote in June 2019 on a proposed $75 million investment in a new fund being raised by First Light Capital (FLC), a midsized buyout firm. Illinois had been under financial pressure for some time, and TRS, the state's largest public pension, was seriously underfunded. In 2012, TRS's board began a plan to strategically increase its allocations to private equity (PE). By 2018, the target allocation to PE had reached 15%, well above the 10% average of other public pensions. The increase in PE was undertaken in an attempt to close the funding gap necessitated by insufficient state funding and the generally low-interest-rate environment. The strategy had not gone unnoticed, and many now openly questioned the higher risk and costs of these investments. In the face of this greater scrutiny, Klickna believed it was important that the pension's PE investments earn a satisfactory return, by looking to invest in funds that had upper-quartile returns and public market equivalents (PMEs) greater than one. This case is appropriate for courses that cover PE investments, such as those typically covering topics on venture capital or PE, or courses on asset management that include alternative assets. It introduces students to some of the commonly used PE performance metrics and the challenges associated with measuring performance for an illiquid asset class. Students are introduced to the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS) and their purposes and limitations in evaluating performance. Students are asked to calculate the gross and net since-inception internal rate of return (SI-IRR), DPI, RVPI, TVPI, and PME for the same pending investment in FLC Fund IV and compare how performance is assessed across these metrics. The case also discusses the push for greater disclosure in the PE industry as it grows in its influence and public investors seek to know more about its performance.

Spreadsheet for case UV8086.

BusBoard Prototype Systems Ltd. (BusBoard), a company based in Calgary, Alberta, that designed and manufactured printed circuit boards targeted at the electronics hobbyist market, managed foreign-currency transactions on a transaction-by-transaction basis. The company's general manager had been buying and selling CAD and USD while attempting to maximize the company's value, timing transactions based on previous experience and professional judgment. This was challenging because she did not have any experience with currency futures or options, and she wondered if she could improve company performance by trading currencies differently. Exchange-rate volatility put constant pressure on her ability to make the best choice. The company paid most of its suppliers and received most of its payments from customers in USD. Highlighted in the case study is a recent transaction in which BusBoard ordered parts and supplies from a Taiwanese supplier, with 50 per cent payment due on contract negotiation and the remaining 50 per cent due on delivery. The general manager knew that developing a more effective way to manage currency transactions could play a big part in keeping the company profitable in the future.

A star fund manager at Principal First had been managing the company's information technology fund for the previous six years. Under his management, the fund had consistently outperformed the market, delivering a five-year compounded annual growth rate of 28 per cent. The exceptional performance of the fund was due to an overexposed position in Vakrangee Limited, a mid-tier information technology company. The fund manager bought the stock in early October 2017 at ₹240. By January 2018, the stock reached a high of ₹500. However, the fund manager did not liquidate his position because he believed that there was still more value in the company. At the end of January 2018, the stock plummeted, as did its net asset value, and the fund manager wondered where he had gone wrong in his analysis.

Student spreadsheet supplement to case W20590

On August 11, 2016, the chairman of Aditya Birla Group (ABG) announced that ABG would merge Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited (ABNL) with Grasim Industries Limited (Grasim). ABG’s board also proposed to demerge Aditya Birla Financial Services Limited, a subsidiary of ABNL, from the newly merged Grasim. Financial analysts speculated that the merger was planned to fund ABNL’s telecommunication business before an upcoming spectrum sale and the launch of a strong, competing telecommunication company. The investor community, particularly minority shareholders, were concerned about the merger and felt that ABG’s main motive for the merger was to increase its stake in Grasim. What were the rationales for the merger? Would the promoter’s holding increase after the merger, as the shareholders perceived? Was the share swap ratio between ABNL and Grasim justified? Would there be a post-merger synergy creation, and which of the two companies would transfer wealth to the other? Should the shareholders vote in favour of the merger?

In December 1938, US president Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) contemplated recent setbacks that challenged the viability of his program of economic recovery, popularly called the "New Deal." Various achievements and defeats in the first three years of his administration energized his supporters and galvanized a diverse opposition of conservatives, populists, and extremists-who believed FDR had gone too far or not far enough. Critics accused him of overreach of powers beyond his constitutional authority, of inconsistency, of inciting class warfare, and of creating conditions that actually retarded recovery. Would the record of the New Deal sustain the level of popular support that he won in the election of 1936? Had his policies and programs promoted economic recovery? What lessons should he learn from his defeats? What changes should he make in his programs and politics as he entered the election year? Should he double down on his progressive agenda or change course?