Search results

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.

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. The questions in Part (A) of the case direct the students to analyze the risk inherent in both one particular asset and the entire ACCF portfolio. For this analysis the students need to calculate daily VaR and monthly VaR values and interpret these figures in the context of ACCF's risk management. In Part (B) the foundation receives a major donation. As a result, the risk inherent in its portfolio changes considerably. The students are asked to evaluate the risk of the fund's new portfolio and to perform a portfolio rebalancing analysis.

Understanding the concept of value at risk (VaR); Calculating daily and monthly VaR by two different methods, the historical and the parametric approach; Interpreting the results of VaR calculations; Understanding the role of diversification for managing risk; Evaluating the impact of portfolio rebalancing on the overall risk of a portfolio.

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. The questions in Part (A) of the case direct the students to analyze the risk inherent in both one particular asset and the entire ACCF portfolio. For this analysis the students need to calculate daily VaR and monthly VaR values and interpret these figures in the context of ACCF's risk management. In Part (B) the foundation receives a major donation. As a result, the risk inherent in its portfolio changes considerably. The students are asked to evaluate the risk of the fund's new portfolio and to perform a portfolio rebalancing analysis.

Understanding the concept of value at risk (VaR); Calculating daily and monthly VaR by two different methods, the historical and the parametric approach; Interpreting the results of VaR calculations; Understanding the role of diversification for managing risk; Evaluating the impact of portfolio rebalancing on the overall risk of a portfolio.

In April 2012, JPMorgan Chase & Company was struggling with large losses that had the potential to damage the reputation of the company, of its Chairman, Jamie Dimon, and of its Chief Investment Officer, Ina Drew. The losses arose from large credit derivative trades in the London office that Dimon described as “bad strategy … badly executed … poorly monitored”.

The case presents a $1+billion technology company seeking new growth through the introduction of a radically new product platform. During its first ten years, PTC Corporation grew faster than Microsoft did during the similar period of its evolution. By the late 1990s PTC was faced with intensified competition and saturation in its core markets. To maintain growth, the company introduced a completely new product platform. While PTC focused on developing and selling the product, it failed to recognize that this new product was so different from its traditional offerings that it required a new organizational structure, sales capabilities, support processes, and market strategy. The case traces the company's evolution from development and launch of Windchill through the four-year period post-launch, during which its founding CEO was forced out and the company transformed. Ultimately, Windchill became a top seller for PTC, but not until after significant internal change.

The PTC case illustrates what it means to build a new business within the context of an existing, successful firm. It can also be used to explore what it takes to accomplish a successful new product launch for a substantially new product platform. Sales and channel strategy also figures prominently in the case.

Risk managers have more tools than ever to help protect their companies from risk. Complex financial instruments, intricate mathematical models, and access to massive amounts of data can help the risk manager structure a multifaceted strategy to decrease volatility and protect the company from a catastrophic event. However, these tools have their own risks that can complicate a risk manager's job.

Analyzing corn price volatility helps students understand four best practices for risk managers, regardless of the specific risks they face or the strategies they employ: quantify the company's exposure; understand the nature of the risk; understand how the hedge works in practice; and separate hedging and speculation.

Innovative Always (IA) is a small manufacturing unit which has implemented Standard Costing. It has five departments which are headed by five partners. For cost control monthly budgets are prepared. At the end of each month, actual are compared with budgets and variances are calculated. Performance of the five partners alongwith their respective departments have to be evaluated with the help of detailed variance analysis. The case also throws up some conceptual issues like Normal Output, Interdependence of Variances and Recalculation of certain variances for assigning clear cut responsibilities to concerned departments. A comprehensive case on Budgeting and Standard Costing, it showcases the importance of Flexible Budget and Variance Analysis for cost control and performance evaluation.

The case recounts actual events and embeds information that has either been provided by the organization or that is publicly available from secondary sources, such as links to news articles, the organization’s financial report and videos. The protagonist is a real person, although identified only by first name, and she was interviewed extensively and provided planning documents.

The case addresses fundamental project management concepts via a nonprofit’s fundraising event that had to be shifted to online delivery during the early days of COVID. Students take the perspective of advising the protagonist, a key member of the event committee. As if this substantive re-plan during a pandemic was not challenging enough, the committee had the additional complication of integrating a fundraising management system into the organization in time to support the event. Students must work through detailed planning and calculations and also need to think more broadly about appropriate tradeoffs and justify them in their recommendations.

As this case has students work with concepts and skills central to project management and has involves a mix of applying, analyzing and evaluation outcomes, it can be used within operations management or project management courses for either undergraduate senior-level or early graduate-level business or engineering students. It has already been assigned in project management courses in two separate MBA programs. The case required no substantial revisions, and feedback from student evaluations show that it was perceived positively in both classes.

At the core of this case is a distribution, or sourcing, problem that can be modeled and solved using linear programming (LP). There are also issues of whether to build (a) new plant(s)––and if so, what the capacity should be––and whether to expand or close one or more of the existing plants. These latter issues can be analyzed using a 0/1 LP facility-location model. Alternatively, because the number of options is limited, they can be analyzed using the straight LP model of the distribution problem as a tool to facilitate analysis.

This case describes the evolution of an entrepreneur's venture-capital fund-raising from seed-stage financing through later-round efforts. The case focuses on where the “action” is in venture finance: the exploitation of social capital by an entrepreneur and investors. Much of the teaching materials on venture finance focus on the economics of financing; while these materials provide useful information about the mechanics of valuation and how to structure venture-capital agreements, they miss the social side of venture-capital investing. The case illustrates the theoretical concept that social capital (i.e., a person's relationship to other people in society) influences venture finance. The case can be used in a class on entrepreneurship or venture finance.