Business and Cost Strategy Implemented for Time Warp 2

We evaluated our company’s position in the industry, and found ourselves in an excellent starting position to further develop our products and match them to the industry’s needs. Our market share is adequate and we can advance further with our strategy improve and reposition our products in the coming years. We have underutilized capacity, which we intend to improve, while increasing automation to reduce costs. We have plans to improve our promotion to improve product awareness and with the appropriate product lines we will increase price to improve margins and better align our high-end product image. Our current financial position is optimistic, showing our leverage (Assets/Equity) at 2.0, when our goal is to maintain 1.5-2.0 overall. By utilizing the analysis tools we are learning what elements are driving demand, how to effectively tailor our products through R&D, how best to adjust our marketing and pricing, while lowering input costs, in order to improve margins and to ensure our stakeholders are all satisfied.

In year 17 we totally changed our strategy. This time we were targeting an entirely different market. We brought down our models offered from 200 to 150, furthermore we raised our average S/Q rating by almost 40%. To increase the S/Q rating we had to dramatically invest in TQM and enhanced features. This did slightly did improve over market share but at the same time brought our net revenue down and we found ourselves struggling with cash towards the year end.

Although the company did show an increased gross profit of $8,255,000 with $6,358,000 less Net Sales in 2013 versus 2012, that increase is due to the reduction in product Cost of Goods Sold by $14,613,000. Since increases in product price will negatively affect sales, one of management’s primary goals is to keep prices stable. This objective is achieved through implementation of cost cutting programs, investing in more efficient equipment, and automation of more steps in the production process.

Sony is one of the largest consumer electronics manufacturers in the world. It has introduced various high quality products such as the Play Station series product line. However, Sony has not managed to have a positive net income and has faced six net loss in the last seven years. Aiming for a turning a round, Sony declares a goal of $4.8 million of operating profit in the fiscal year 2017 and targets a 10% return on equity (the Economist, 2015). Sony’s business strategy to is to restructure and divide the company into three sectors, which are Growth Drivers, Stable Profit Generators, and Volatility Management, to give the business sectors the independence to operate in the most efficient manner (Baker, 2015).

Next, the actual money that spent on this project is far exceed the budgeted amount. To date, it spent 12.55 million more than expected. However, this is not the end, there are still two testing remains incomplete which will cost company more to finish them. Regarding to each items, the item that results in the most unfavorable result is the software development that cost the company 12.90 million more to finish development. We should also notice that the items far behind the schedule are all related to the software. This tells us that the company is extremely not good at developing software. This may due to the sudden change from the medium segmentation focus to the high end products. I would initially recommend the company to have a joint venture with the other high end company to implement this project. However, as the project is almost done, the most important thing is how to promo this product that makes it profitable or at

As upper-level management it is important to understand the key components of cost-volume-profit analysis. Identifying objectives including concepts related to CVP is crucial to the absorption of information.

We continued to estimate a decline in NiMH sales, lowering our forecast to $21M which also mirrored the sales figure in 2012. However, we forecasted a sharp increase in Ultracapacitor sales with a 2013 sales estimate of $6.9M which is also the 2012 sales figure. (Break-through?) The price of the NiMH was lowered to $8.50 due to increasing market pressure, but we left the price of the Ultracapacitor the same. We kept our R&D investments in process improvement the same for both the NiMH and Ultracapacitor, but decreased our investment in NiMH energy density to $2M. The decision to decrease this investment was based on the decline in sales for this product.

The company ended in the last place, and we know that there are areas of opportunities. In spite of this, out of the five performance areas, our weighted average scores were above the investor expected standards for Y2015. On the other hand, we never meet the image rating score of 70, and our EPS fell

Increase in the profits above the actual budget can be attributed to 20% increase in sales in 2009. Although Jean’s profits were above the actual budget, French Division’s earnings were much lower than what it could have been, had they budgeted for the actual volume of sales that they ended up selling. We can partly attribute this decrease in earnings to the fact

1. It is a fact that item 345 has lost market share and as the product manager I would be concerned about it. By retaining FF20 price I can gain market share only if competition increases their price to FF20. At the outset this seems unlikely because competition has

Break even analysis can be used to decide whether to alter the existing product emphasis or not. For example in this case, if we refer last year’s data, we can see that the product C is not economically feasible to manufacture at $2.40 / unit. Following table gives the analysis for checking whether the company can afford to invest in additional “C” capacity.

After closely reviewing the financial and production data, our accounting team has found that your traditional cost allocation is faulty and misleading. The costs of products A and C were over allocated and products B and D were under allocated causing deceptive information on the true profits of the company. Also, product B appears to be

In light of the situation mentioned above, FPL has to ensure that it has the resources available to meet future competition where one of the determinants of winning or retaining new business may be price. Hence, its dividend payout policy must be modified to account for these industry changes.

5. The cannibalization of the profits of regular cranapple sales must be included in the analysis. This an example of a negative within-firm externality and it gets charged as an expense because it is technically lost cash flows. Management of Cranfield would have to use careful thinking and good judgement when analyzing this negative externality. If they choose not to make the lite product because of the cannibalization, then it opens the door for another firm to create the product and steal sales. The textbook sites IBM’s decision in the 1970’s to shift away from the PC business over fears of it hurting their mainframe business. That was obviously a huge mistake and acts as an example of why financial analysis can only take a firm so far. They must understand the industry and long run consequences of any given decision.

Revenue has increased by 5.7% but profit has balloon up to 208.1% since 2010. This may because of major business process re-engineering. The question may arise that the quality of the product might hurt by reducing the operating and non-operating costs. Further steps should be taken to investigate and cure the quality matter to stabilize the revenue.