Case studies

The Arbor City Community Foundation (ACCF) was a medium-sized endowment established in Illinois in the late 1970s through the hard work of several local families. The vision of the ACCF was to be a comprehensive center for philanthropy in the greater Arbor City region. ACCF had a fund balance (known collectively as “the fund”) of just under $240 million. The ACCF board of trustees had appointed a committee to oversee investment decisions relating to the foundation assets. The investment committee, under the guidance of the board, pursued an active risk-management policy for the fund. The committee members were primarily concerned with the volatility and distribution of portfolio returns. They relied on the value-at-risk (VaR) methodology as a measurement of the risk of both short- and mid-term investment losses. In its report for the investment committee, the ACCF risk analytics team recommended the daily VaR at 95% confidence as a measure for short-term risk and reported the corresponding numbers. It is now the task of the investment committee to interpret these figures. The case questions guide the executive students to a critical evaluation of both the reported VaR figures as well as of the VaR methodology.

Understanding the concept of value at risk (VaR); Interpreting the results of VaR calculations; Evaluating the appropriateness of VaR calculations; Critical discussion of the VaR methodology.

A business analyst at Mead Corporation had just begun the process of estimating Mead's cost of capital for the fourth quarter of 1990. As part of her analysis, she hoped to explain why the cost of equity had increased and recommend whether the company should consider the increase a problem.

This case presents common-sized financials for two companies, each of which is in a number of industries. The companies have different market niches, and students are asked to identify the companies from details provided. The case also allows for financial comparisons among industries.

The case illustrates the application of the concepts of demand elasticities of an agricultural product with high protein content - pulses. It considers the current situation where a good monsoon has raised hopes for a bumper crop of pulses in India. From a deficit of about 20% met by imports, the county now is looking at attaining self-sufficiency. Public Policy options such as exports, imports or allowing domestic price adjustments or changing the minimum support price (MSP) in this regard are also considered.

ThinkAlike, a fictitious marketing consulting firm, was asked by TiVo to segment the market for its new digital video recorder (DVR) product. Students are asked to analyze realistic data and generate segments that will be useful for TiVo s marketing strategy.

Two recently graduated MBA students are tasked with developing an ad-serving learning algorithm for a mobile ad-serving company. The case illustrates the way in which hypotheses can be tested in an A/B format or “horse race” in order to establish customer preferences and superior profitability. The case was written for a course elective covering hypothesis testing.

The Global Networks Company (GNC), headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, made its global footprint in India in 1994 by establishing a presence in Bangalore. Although mainly a sales support office, GNC grew name recognition from its contracts with India’s government to help build nationwide networks. Not quite 20 years later, GNC decided to further invest in India and tapped a manager from the Boston office, Jim Notrika, to establish and then manage GNC’s first global software center in Mumbai. Split between Mumbai and Boston, the project team successfully completed several minor projects, but only months into its first major project, the team was struggling to meet deadlines. Blame was being passed in both directions, and when three talented engineers in Mumbai quit, Notrika makes an emergency trip to Mumbai to better understand the problem.

This case describes three common cross-cultural communication obstacles in teams: a preference for direct versus indirect confrontation of problems; a clash of collectivist versus individualistic cultural values related to reporting bad news or giving negative feedback; and different expectations of team leaders based on power-distance values.