Search results

Greenko, a renewable power generating company investing in biomass, small and medium hydro power and wind power projects, had projected to achieve 1GW (Giga Watt = 1000 Mega Watt) of installed capacity by March 2015. The company had been financing its projects with debt from Indian banks and financial institutions on a project finance basis and it had to now decide whether to refinance the project finance debt with an international bond issue of USD 550 million. The case provides an opportunity to discuss the public policy and financing aspects of renewable energy in India.

In 2007 Conseco's CEO, C. James Prieur, faced a complicated set of problems with his company's long-term care (LTC) insurance subsidiary, Conseco Senior Health Insurance (CSHI). CSHI faced the threat of congressional hearings and an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, triggered by an unflattering New York Times article alleging that CSHI had an unusually large number of customer complaints and was denying legitimate claims. This threat came in addition to broader systemic problems, including the fact that the entire LTC industry was barely profitable. What little profitability existed was dependent on the goodwill of state insurance regulators, to whom the industry was highly beholden for approvals of rate increases to keep it afloat. Furthermore, CSHI had unique strategic challenges that could not be ignored: First, the expense of administering CSHI's uniquely heterogeneous set of policies put it at a disadvantage relative to the rest of the industry and made rate increases especially necessary. Second, state regulators were negatively predisposed toward Conseco because of its notorious reputation and thus were often unwilling to grant rate increases. Finally, CSHI was dependent on capital infusions totaling more than $1 billion from its parent company, Conseco, for which Conseco had received no dividends in return. Faced with pressure from Conseco shareholders and the looming congressional investigations, what should Prieur do? Students will discuss the available options in the context of a long-term relationship between Conseco and state insurance regulators. Prieur's solution to this problem proved to be innovative for the industry and to have far-reaching consequences for CSHI's corporate structure.

After reading and analyzing this case, students will be able to: evaluate the impact of a regulatory environment on business strategy; and assess the pros and cons of various market strategies as well as recommend important non-market strategies for a firm in crisis in a highly regulated industry.

Islamic Finance and Investment

Level of program/audience: Advanced undergraduate and postgraduate.

Intermediate and Advanced Finance, Economics, Islamic Economics & Finance, Islamic Banking & Finance, Islamic Capital Market and other relevant courses.

Capital markets instruments, conventional or Islamic.

This case focuses on Tracoma Holding Berhad Bai Bithaman Ajil Debt Securities (BaIDS) amounting to RM 100 million which was issued by Tracoma Holding Berhad in 2005. It was the first issuance of a sukuk (Islamic debt securities or bond) by the company. The proceeds were used to finance its growth and to repay existing bank borrowings and capital requirements. This case is interesting, as it allows students to study the bai bithaman ajil sukuk structure and issuance process in the Malaysian capital market. It also provides basic financial transaction and credit rating of sukuk which requires analytical skills. Being a debt-based facility, the sukuk was subjected to credit rating evaluation by the MARC, the rating agency appointed by the company. Further downgrading of the sukuk meant it would lead to the worst-case scenario. Some actions needed to be taken to solve this issue; therefore, the CFO suggested an urgent meeting with the sukuk holders.

The students should be able to: understand the issuance process and the principle of BBA (bai bithamin ajil) in sukuk structure; understand reason(s) methods of fund raising by firm and the allocations of fund; understand the sukuk default issue; analyze the reasons for sukuk default; understand the importance of debt securities credit ratings; and identify investors' protection in the case of sukuk default.

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

We obtained information on China Gerui from secondary published sources, including annual reports downloaded from the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) EDGAR database, news sites and newspapers, the company’s website and journal articles. One of the authors visited the China Gerui plant in Henan, China.

China Gerui, a Chinese metal fabrication company, enjoyed exponential growth because of its location, product innovation and ability to move up the value chain. At the height of its success, the company listed on the Nasdaq and had plans to raise capital to fund ambitious expansion plans. Unfortunately, four years after listing on Nasdaq, the company received a letter from the listing qualifications department notifying China Gerui that they were not in compliance with Nasdaq’s filing requirements because it had not filed its Form 20-F. Now, the company had only five days to decide whether to request an appeal of the letter.

This case is best suited for higher-level undergraduate accounting and finance courses such as intermediate accounting, auditing, international accounting, financial statement analysis, corporate finance and investments analysis. It is especially appropriate for graduate-level global accounting and advanced financial statement analysis courses. In these courses, the best placement is after coverage of SEC regulations and requirements for financial statement reporting and disclosure. Moreover, the case may be used as a tool to demonstrate the step-by-step process for searching and retrieving information from a public company’s filings through the SEC’s EDGAR database.

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

This case covers the framework and process to determine fair value as specified in International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 13. It illustrates an instance in which auditors interpret the concept of fair value to be consistent with other principles in standards such as the principle of prudence in the conceptual framework. In addition, a lot of the discussion in the case is applicable to accounting education in any regulatory jurisdictions given the convergence of US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and IFRS 13. In addition, while fair value accounting may have been designed to give investors more useful information, in practise it could involve highly subjective judgement and the resulting implementation may be affected by incentives of different stakeholders. The CK Tang’s case provides an excellent opportunity to discuss incentives of varies parties in determining the fair value in financial reporting decisions. In short, this case could be a good jumping-off point to talk about management and auditors’ incentives in financial reporting in general.

Publicly available information (e.g. financial reporting standards, corporate announcements and reports, news reports) was used as the basis for this case.

The case centres on an iconic Singaporean integrated retailing and property landlord entity: Tang holdings. As part of its succession planning, the company’s founding family decided to take its listing arm, C.K. Tang Limited (CK Tang hereafter), private in May 2006. The Tang brothers, who represented the controlling family, initiated several attempts to delist the company. The minority shareholders of CK Tang were unhappy that the offer price was below the net asset value of the company. The minority shareholders also highlighted that the reported fair value of the flagship Tang Plaza complex understated its highest and best use and might not possibly comply with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) 13.

The case can be used for class discussions with undergraduate students or master students in intermediate accounting courses.

This case study considers the supply chain redesign of a multinational company, with specific emphasis on production lot sizing, inventory policy and transportation decisions.

The material is intended for senior level students of business administration, logistics and similar departments. An intermediate knowledge of supply chain, purchasing and inventory concepts is required; therefore, the case is better suited for students who have taken one-semester courses on supply chain management and inventory management. This case can be used in graduate courses as part of discussions on physical distribution, supply chain design/redesign, risk pooling through process optimization.

Within the global market, establishing the right business model where cost of operations is optimized has become key for competitiveness. This necessitates the simultaneous consideration and reevaluation of production, inventory and transportation interactivities within the integrated supply chain. We first discuss the business procurement model of a multinational company with emphasis on critical aspects of the current structure. An alternative model brought into consideration by the managers of the company considers consolidation of shipments through supply hubs and distribution to regional manufacturers. We present an analysis based on perspectives of company managers for and against this new business model. We finally provide numeric evidence on relevant costs of both models in order to enhance further discussion on redesign decisions.

The discussion regarding the case will provide a better understanding of key concepts of supply chain integration and coordination as well as the significance of the optimization of underlying processes.

Teaching notes.

Financial accounting to assess stewardship: the case requires students to evaluate Thompson’s stewardship of McDonald’s, in part based on the company’s financial accounting information. Financial reporting performs an important societal role by helping control agency problems that arise from the separation of ownership and management. Since external stakeholders cannot “observe directly the extent and quality of managerial effort on their behalf […] the manager may be tempted to shirk […] blaming any deterioration of firm performance on factors beyond his/her control” (Scott, 2014, p. 23). However, although financial reporting helps hold managers accountable to shareholders, accounting information is not fully informative about managerial effort. For example, while net income provides useful information regarding the CEO’s stewardship, it is also “noisy,” due to recognition lags and other factors (Scott, 2014, p. 364). Efforts undertaken by Thompson in a particular period, such as marketing expenditures, might reduce current earnings, yet boost future profitability. Additionally, Thompson’s predecessor’s past efforts might have positive or negative effects on current earnings. Evaluating stewardship effectively involves considerable judgment, in addition to knowledge of financial accounting. The implication of poor firm performance is that the CEO is ineffective at formulating and implementing strategies and policies to enhance firm value (Dikolli et al., 2014). Specifically, it appears that missing earnings benchmarks matter more for relatively inexperienced CEOs. Don Thompson’s tenure of 33 months at McDonalds is 42 percent lower than median CEO tenure documented in academic research, where the median tenure of chief executives documented in large sample empirical studies is about 57 months (Dikolli et al., 2014). The evidence suggests that the longer a CEO serves, the less likely he is to be dismissed for performance-related reasons. This appears to be the result of the resolution of uncertainty about CEO’s ability and leads to subsequent declines in the level of monitoring by the Board of Directors. Performance evaluation and bias: a significant body of research explores the extent to which female managers are assessed differently than their male counterparts (Powell and Butterfield, 2002). For example, female CEOs face more threats from activist investors than male CEOs. Therefore, even after women achieve the highest managerial rank, they experience more professional challenges than their male counterparts (Gupta et al., 2018). However, the question of whether black CEOs are assessed differently is more challenging to answer empirically as a result of a smaller sample size (only one percent of S&P 500 companies are run by black CEOs). Our case attempts to develop the inference that if female CEOs are subject to bias, analogous forces are likely at work when black CEOs are assessed. Recent evidence further suggests that business students sometimes demonstrate bias in making assessments (Mengel et al., 2018). The authors discuss these findings – as well as strategies for including them in the case discussion – in the “Teaching Strategy” section herein below.

The case was written from the public record surrounding the appointment of Don Thompson and McDonald’s company filings. The record includes articles from The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, as well as local and industry publications.

The case examines the role of financial accounting in evaluating CEO performance in the context of the appointment of McDonald’s first African-American chief executive and his subsequent two-and-a-half years on the job. The case deepens students’ understanding of the link between financial reporting and stewardship, while highlighting the subjectivity inherent in assessing managerial performance, particularly over relatively short time periods. As students analyze the case, they must consider the extent to which a firm’s results are attributable to luck vs skill. We use “skill” to refer to CEO effort and other controllable factors, while “luck” refers to exogenous factors, such as macroeconomic conditions. Assessing stewardship is of practical significance. It allows pay to be better aligned with performance and empowers stakeholders to identify when a change of leadership may be warranted. The case may also be used to spur reflection, in an applied context, on the importance of being alert to unconscious bias, even when evaluating seemingly objective financial reporting data. Recent research, discussed herein, suggests that business students sometimes exhibit bias when making assessments.

The case should be included in discussions of corporate governance, executive compensation and the role of accounting information in efficient contracting. It is appropriate in intermediate financial accounting courses for undergraduates, introductory graduate accounting courses, or other courses with an element of financial statement analysis. Standard introductory accounting textbooks offer helpful supplementary reading for students. Horngren et al.’s (2014) book, Introduction to Financial Accounting (12th ed.), Pearson, London, provides an overview of the income statement and its role in assessing performance (see Chapter 2) as well as a useful discussion on evaluating the components and trends of a business (see Chapter 12). More advanced students may benefit from the in-depth discussion of earnings quality, operating income and non-operating income found in Chapter 4 of Intermediate Accounting (9th ed.), McGraw Hill Education, New York by Spiceland et al. (2018).

This case may be taught singly or used as a merger-negotiation exercise with “Chrysler Corporation: Negotiations between Daimler and Chrysler” (UVA-F-1240). Set in February 1998, the case places students in the position of negotiators for the company; their task is to value both firms, assess the potential earnings dilution of a combination, and negotiate a detailed agreement with their counterpart. The case can be used to explore such interesting negotiation issues as determination of a share-exchange ratio, treatment of major stockholders, and structuring a deal. Also, the case and exercise can be used to spark a discussion of acquisition in comparison with strategic alliance, or other less formal models of combination.

This case may be taught singly or used as a merger-negotiation exercise with “Daimler-Benz A. G.: Negotiations between Daimler and Chrysler” (UVA-F-1241). Set in February 1998, the case places students in the position of negotiators for the company; their task is to value both firms, assess the potential earnings dilution of a combination, and negotiate a detailed agreement with their counterpart. The case can be used to explore such interesting negotiation issues as determination of a share-exchange ratio, treatment of major stockholders, and structuring a deal. Also, the case and exercise can be used to spark a discussion of acquisition in comparison with strategic alliance, or other less formal models of combination.

Alice Monroe was an admissions officer at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. It was early January 2017 and Alice had enrolled in Northwestern's 403(b) retirement plan two months earlier. After spending a considerable amount of time examining the mutual funds available through the university's retirement plan, Alice had picked two to invest in: a large-cap equity growth fund and a mid-cap equity fund. (See the related case "Selecting Mutual Funds for Retirement Accounts (A).") Her initial allocations were 50% of her investment dollars in each fund.

Upon further reflection, however, she realized these initial allocations were somewhat simplistic. She recalled, from an investments class she had taken at college, the topic of modern portfolio theory, which held that by adding more funds to her portfolio she might be able to achieve greater diversification and thereby reduce the overall risk of her portfolio and/or achieve a higher expected return. Alice now was considering adding an intermediate-term bond fund and a real estate fund to her retirement account.

She hoped to use modern portfolio theory to prove that these new funds would indeed help her diversify her portfolio. If they did, she would also reassess her portfolio weights to determine the optimal allocation.