Search results

In recent years Lehman Brothers, one of the five largest investment banks in the United States, had grown increasingly reliant on its fixed income trading and underwriting division, which served as the primary engine for its strong profit growth. The bank had also significantly increased its leverage over the same timeframe, going from a debt-to-equity ratio of 23.7x in 2003 to 35.2x in 2007. As leverage increased, the ongoing erosion of the mortgage-backed industry began to impact Lehman significantly and its stock price plummeted. Unfortunately, public outcry over taxpayer assumption of $29 billion in potential Bear losses made repeating such a move politically untenable. The surreal scene of potential buyers traipsing into an investment bank's headquarters over the weekend to consider various merger or spin-out scenarios repeated itself once again. This time, the Fed refused to back the failing bank's liabilities, attempting instead to play last-minute suitors Bank of America, HSBC, Nomura Securities, and Barclay's off each other, jawboning them by arguing that failing to step up to save Lehman would cause devastating counterparty runs on their own capital positions. The Fed's desperate attempts to arrange its second rescue of a major U.S. investment bank in six months failed when it refused to backstop losses from Lehman's toxic mortgage holdings. Complicating matters was Lehman's reliance on short-term repo loans to finance its balance sheet. Unfortunately, such loans required constant renewal by counterparties, who had grown increasingly nervous that Lehman would lose the ability to make good on its trades. With this sentiment swirling around Wall Street, Lehman was forced to announce the largest Chapter 11 filing in U.S. history, listing assets of $639 billion and liabilities of $768 billion. The second domino had fallen. It would not be the last.

This case covers the period from the sale of Bear Stearns to JP Morgan to the conversion into bank holding companies by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, including the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America. The case explains the new global paradigm for the investment banking industry, including increased regulation, fewer competitors, lower leverage, reduced proprietary trading, and-potentially-reduced profits.

In early 2006, the anticipated expansion of package delivery services in China provided a great opportunity for the two package delivery giants FedEx and UPS. It was unclear which of these firms would make the most of this opportunity. An analysis of financial performance suggests that UPS is the better performer. On the other hand, the FedEx stock price performance has been far stronger. This apparent conflict highlights the fact that stock prices reflect anticipated future performance and new information. A teaching note and instructor and student spreadsheets are available.

Learning outcomes are as follows: understanding the difference between brand identity and brand image; applying various segmentation tools; understanding the appeal of the aspirational brand and its consequence on private and public consumption; exploring the strategic options available to a brand facing a brand appropriation; exploring the pros and cons of opposing a brand appropriation; and developing a plan for the implementation of this strategy.

This case will help students understand the difference between the brand identity that the brand owners intend and the brand image that consumers actually perceive.

This case is designed to be used in marketing management, brand strategy or consumer culture course. Specifically, the case is designed for college seniors or master students with basic strategic marketing training. It should provide the basis of discussions on the topics of brand management, consumer culture, brand portfolio management, international marketing, repositioning strategy, brand architecture, brand equity, brand assets, brand appropriation and consumer relationships with brands.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 8: Marketing

The Beringer Wine Estates Company has been expanding its market share in the premium segment of the wine industry in the 1990's. After operating as a wholly owned subsidiary of the giant Nestlé food company for almost a quarter of a century, the firm was sold in 1996 to new owners, in a leveraged buyout. For the next year and a half, management and the new owners restructured the firm and expanded through internal growth and strategic acquisitions. With a heavy debt load from the LBO, it seemed prudent for management to consider a significant rebalancing of its capital structure. By paying off a portion of its debt and enhancing the equity account, the firm would achieve greater financial flexibility which could enhance its growth rate and business options. Finally, a publicly held common stock would provide management with another “currency” to be used for enhancing its growth rate and overall corporate valuation. With the equity markets in turmoil, significant strategic decisions had to be made quickly. Should the IPO be completed, with the district possibility of a less than successful after market price performance and these implications for pursuing external growth initiatives? A variety of alternative courses of action and their implications for the financial health of the Beringer Company and the financial wealth of Beringer stockholders are integral components of this case.

Sara Lee Corporation's acquisition binge in the 1980s and 1990s left the company with a portfolio of vastly different businesses operating independently of one another. It had experienced rapid top-line growth, but at the same time cash flows had declined. Sara Lee ignored both internal and external warning signs until a major transformation plan became necessary. This case examines the company's multiple turnaround attempts. The learning objective of the case is to analyze “early stage” turnaround efforts by examining how the company found itself in decline, evaluating its attempts to improve its performance, and assessing the turnaround plan.

(1) Learn to identify a specific challenging moment when reading and analyzing a turnaround plan; (2) address the implementation problems of an early stage turnaround and discuss exit options; (3) evaluate when a change of long-held beliefs and decades-long strategy by a company is warranted; (4) evaluate Sara Lee's marketing strategies in light of the disappointed retail and wholesale customers; and (5) show the similarities in traits between turnaround managers and high-growth entrepreneurs.

The learning outcomes of this case are in understanding core concepts of brand management and brand dilution. Assessment of macro-economic risks and proper positioning strategies are the key take-away from this case. The case gives an understanding of how brands are built and positioned, and the pitfalls of poor brand planning and assessment that could lead to brand dilution. The case is useful for highlighting the importance of brand management and the challenges of re-positioning. The discussions would shed light on why it is important to plan and manage spending on marketing for brand building activities, and why brands would suffer when spending is reduced. This case is a teaching case and not a research case. It will help participants assimilate available information in combination with existing academic theories and publications to help develop an accurate assessment and prognosis of the events leading until the point of slicing the case.

Reid & Taylor in 2015 had been reduced to a discounter brand offering extended end-of-season sales when most other competitors have ended their promotions. In the 17 years since its big-budget launch in the Indian market in one of the most memorable brand introductions, Reid & Taylor changed its ambassador twice and repositioned itself thrice. The case would allow participants to delve deeper into aspects of marketing spending, brand management, positioning and advertising effectiveness. The case brings to the fore discussions on marketing, specifically on branding, positioning and its related advertising in the textile sector for a brand that has not been studied in academic literature until the present time. The discussion allows for novelty, involving both forward- and backward-looking assessments and evaluations to help participants better imbibe learnings in brand management and positioning.

The case is suitable for a graduate-level (Master’s level) course in marketing and brand management. This case is suitable for elective courses that discuss positioning and brands.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 8: Marketing

At three o'clock in the morning on September 10, 2001, Thierry Hautillac, a risk arbitrageur, learns of the final agreement between Pinault-Printemps-Redoute SA (“PPR”) and LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA (“LVMH”). After a contest for control of Gucci lasting over two years, PPR has emerged as the winner. PPR and LVMH have agreed for PPR to buy about half of LVMH's stock in Gucci for $94 per share, for Gucci to pay an extraordinary dividend of $7 per share, and for PPR to give a two and a half year put option with a strike price of $101.50 to the public shareholders in Gucci. The primary task for the student in this case is to recommend a course of action for Hautillac: should he sell his 2% holding of Gucci shares when the market opens, continue to hold his shares, or buy more shares? The student must estimate the risky arbitrage returns from each of these choices. As a basis for this decision, the student must value the terms of payment and consider what the Gucci stock price will do upon the market's open. The student must determine the intrinsic value of Gucci using a DCF model as well as information on peer firms and transactions. The student must consider potential synergies between Gucci and PPR and between Gucci and LVMH. The student must assess the likelihood of a higher bid, using analysis of price changes at earlier events in the contest for clues.

The purpose of this study is to use design thinking principles to understand the failure of the ‘new’ European Super League, and also understand how it could be redesigned.

This case has been developed from secondary sources, including news reports, social media sites, annual reports and websites of the Union of European Football Associations and the European football clubs. This case was classroom-tested with post-graduate management students in a design thinking course in May 2021 at an Indian business school, S.P. Jain Institute of Management & Research, in Mumbai, India.

In April 2021, a new football league – the European Super League, is announced as a breakaway rebel league, in direct competition with United European Footballers Association's Champions League. It is backed by the top 12 European clubs and officials in European football, besides the US investment bank, JP Morgan. The new league is touted as one intended to save football. It is, however, denounced by fans and shunned almost universally. The league, which has been planned for the past three and half years, faces collapse. Why did the European Super League fail? How could the founders design a new league?

This case could be used in an undergraduate or MBA classroom or an executive education programme in a design thinking course. It can also be used to teach marketing courses such as marketing strategy, new product development and consumer behaviour.

International business, Accounting and Finance.

Undergraduate and Postgraduate levels (advanced financial accounting, international accounting, other accounting and business courses with an international setting.

The case uses the Asia Pulp & Paper Company’s (APP) entry into the international debt market to highlight the consequences of different business practices between the East (in this case, Indonesia) and the West. On the one hand, it shows that APP was set up as the “front” to access international debt capital; on the other, it reveals the naïvety of Western lenders who parted with their funds without conducting a thorough background research on the financial viability of the company they invested in. The APP debacle is a poignant reminder for market participants and business/accounting students that the divergence of the business settings across countries can make business contractual arrangements tenuous and corporate financial information irrelevant to its users. It also exposes the unique ways of how some Asian countries conduct their business affairs.

The following are the expected learning outcomes: comprehend the impact of differences in culture and ethnic origin on business practices; evaluate the impact of cultural nuances on the legality of contracts in the international business setting; understand the impact of currency fluctuation on the financial position of multinational firms; and be more cautious in conducting business and entering into contracts with foreign firms.

Teaching notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CCS 1: Accounting and Finance.

Set in September 1992, this exercise provides teams of students the opportunity to negotiate terms of a merger between AT&T and McCaw Cellular. AT&T, one of the largest U.S. corporations, was the dominant competitor in long-distance telephone communications in the United States. McCaw was the largest competitor in the rapidly growing cellular-telephone communications industry. Prior to the negotiations, AT&T had no position in cellular communications. This case and its companion (F-1143) are designed to allow students to be assigned roles to play. The case may pursue some or all of the following teaching objectives: exercising valuation skills, practicing strategic analysis, exercising bargaining skills, and illustrating practical aspects of mergers and acquisitions.