As a subsidiary manager, would you consider Regent’s use of the beginning-of-the-year exchange rate for budget setting and average-of-the-year rate for budget tracking appropriate? Why? What changes in the budgeting process can Regent make to prepare foreign subsidiary managers to better respond to the effects of inflation and exchange rate changes?
It was January 2016, and Lee Morgan, CEO of Regent, Inc., was
getting ready to review the financial performance of Regent’s
subsidiaries. In recent years, this exercise had become a challenge
for Morgan because of rising complaints from several subsidiaries
regarding the performance evaluation system (PES) at Regent. Morgan
called in Tracy Kimball, Regent’s controller, and had the following
conversation with her:
Morgan (CEO): Tracy, I guess it is time for us to take another look
at our PES. Yoshi Takada [manager of Japanese subsidiary] has been
complaining that it is unfair to evaluate all subsidiaries by the
same yardstick.
Kimball (Controller): But fairness was perhaps the most important
consideration when I designed the PES back in 1993. We hold each
subsidiary manager, domestic and foreign, responsible for the
budgeted U.S. dollars profit, allowing us to achieve corporate
profitability goals.
Morgan (CEO): Takada feels that since his unit’s distinctive
contribution comes from its low- cost production, we should treat
his unit as a cost center. He contends that because he sells mostly
to discounters and builder channels in the U.S., the price
competition is severe, and profit margins are rather low.
Kimball (Controller): That’s true. But it’s a huge market, and
Takada has exclusive rights from
Regent to cater to that segment of the U.S. market.
Morgan (CEO): Steve Bogage [manager of Danish subsidiary] has
suggested that his is a marketing unit and should be treated as a
revenue center. Also, he thinks that managers should be rewarded
using ROI [return on investment] since it is a comprehensive
measure incorporating
not only the profitability, but also the investments we make in the
subsidiaries.
Kimball (Controller): We could consider that, but you know the many
limitations of ROI as a performance metric. For example, ROI
encourages managers to focus more on short-run profitability rather
than on long-term success.
Morgan (CEO): What about the demand from several managers of our
foreign subsidiaries that we should track the budgets using the
same exchange rate that we use in setting them?
Kimball (Controller): In that case, who should assume the
responsibility for changes in the exchange rate?
Morgan (CEO): That’s the point. They feel penalized by our holding
them responsible for dollar profitability when they cannot control
the exchange-rate fluctuations.
Kimball (Controller): That’s incorrect! Who else can determine the
sourcing, supplying, and pricing strategies better than the
subsidiary managers? We already manage the transactions and
translation risks at the headquarters. Shouldn’t they manage the
operating part of the foreign exchange risk?
Morgan (CEO): Yes, I guess. We’ve always asked foreign subsidiary
managers to address the economic effects of the exchange-rate
changes in making strategic and tactical decisions.
Kimball (Controller): Moreover, most of our stockholders are based
in the U.S. Maximizing dollar returns to them should be our top
priority!
Morgan (CEO): But Takada has complained that the strengthening yen
hurts his margins.
Kimball (Controller): That’s been his alibi every year. Ever since
he assumed the responsibility of Japanese operations in 2000,
Takada has been clamoring for higher bonuses, despite his unit’s
unsatisfactory performance.
Morgan (CEO): But why should exchange-rate changes matter? I recall
from my college economics course that purchasing power parity takes
care of exchange-rate changes. In other words, inflation and the
foreign exchange rates offset each other, leaving managerial
performance unaffected by the exchange-rate movements.
Kimball (Controller): True, but that happens only in the long run.
In the short run, exchange-rate movements might not fully reflect
the differences in the inflation rates between the two countries
[see the Appendix].
Morgan (CEO): So what should we do about that, Tracy?
Kimball (Controller): Maybe we need to revise the budgets for
performance evaluation purposes.
Morgan (CEO): Should we institute new measures, such as market
share, that Bogage has suggested on numerous occasions?
Kimball (Controller): If we incorporate the wish of each subsidiary
manager in the PES, then we will need a different system for each
manager!
Global Appliance Industry
As a result of mergers and acquisitions in the past three decades,
the home appliance industry in
2015 has fewer than ten companies that together control about 50
percent of the global market. Some of the global players in the
industry include Electrolux (Sweden), General Electric (U.S.),
Maytag (U.S.), Whirlpool (U.S.), Matsushita (Japan), and
Bosch-Siemens (Germany). The remaining 50 percent of the market is
in the hands of country focused competitors. The overall industry
has grown at a very slow pace, making competition among players
very fierce. Growth for a particular company has come mainly from
acquisitions or from stealing a competitor’s market
share. There are significant economies of scale in the
manufacturing of components, such as compressors and motors that
form a critical part of home appliances. Improvements in component
design are essential in enhancing the functionality of home
appliances in areas such as energy efficiency, noise control, and
water consumption. The three major segments in the
home appliance industry are the low-price segment (where several
eastern European and Chinese companies, and private label
suppliers, compete), a mid-price segment (where Electrolux
competes), and a high-price segment (where Bosch-Siemens,
Whirlpool’s KitchenAid
subsidiary, and Maytag have positioned several products). The
distributors of home appliances in the U.S. consist of major
retailers (Sears, JC Penney, etc.), appliance stores, discounters
(Sam’s Club, Costco Wholesale, BJ’s Wholesale Club, etc.), and
builder channels (Home Depot,
Lowe’s, etc.). The retailers’ large size enables them to exert
tremendous influence over the suppliers of home appliances in terms
of prices, delivery, and credit terms.
Regent and Its Subsidiaries in Denmark and Japan
Regent, a publicly held U.S. company, is a global player in the
home appliance industry with a wide range of products, including
refrigerators, kitchen appliances, and laundry machines (washers
and dryers). Regent’s 2015 sales were $1.1 billion. Regent’s
overall strategy has been to participate in all three (low-price,
mid-price, and high-price) segments of the appliance
industry.
Regent has several subsidiaries in the U.S. and abroad. The foreign
subsidiaries resulted mainly from Regent’s acquiring a majority
interest in appliance companies during the mid-
1990s. These acquisitions were made in countries where Regent
expected a significant growth in disposable income and in the
proportion of two-income families in the population. These
subsidiaries design, produce, market, and distribute appliances in
the respective countries.
They also incur all their costs and generate all their revenues in
currencies of their respective countries. The Danish and Japanese
subsidiaries are, however, different in the nature of their
operations, as described below.
The Danish subsidiary was established in 1997 as a marketing unit
and has exclusive rights to market Regent’s kitchen appliances in
Denmark. Denmark had an attractive base of customers who could
afford high-priced kitchen appliances, who desired feature-filled
cooking ranges, and who preferred foreign-made products. Demand has
not been great enough, however, for Regent to justify putting up a
scale-efficient manufacturing operation in Denmark. Moreover, a
U.S. subsidiary of Regent that holds a proprietary technology to
produce high-quality kitchen appliances has been experiencing
excess capacity. Regent’s corporate management seized the
opportunity by asking the Danish subsidiary to source its products
primarily from Regent’s U.S. subsidiary, as long as the latter is
able to supply the quantities needed. The transfer price (inclusive
of transportation costs) is denominated in U.S. dollars and is
negotiated between the two subsidiary managers; the price for each
quarter is to be decided at the beginning of the quarter. There are
no local suppliers of comparable kitchen appliances in Denmark.
Most other businesses in the kitchen appliances market in Denmark
are small private companies, producing and selling their products
in Denmark only. The high-end U.S. product gives the Danish
subsidiary a distinct advantage over local competitors.
The Japanese subsidiary was established in 2000 as a production
unit. Using the excellence of Japanese engineers in component
design and low-cost manufacture, the subsidiary produces low- cost
laundry machines (washers and dryers) in Japan and sells them in
the U.S. with sales prices (inclusive of transportation costs)
denominated in U.S. dollars. The Japanese subsidiary has exclusive
rights from Regent to sell laundry machines to discounters and
builder channels in the U.S. under ‘‘store’’ brands that cater to
the low end of the market. Manufacture of laundry machines in Japan
is largely in the hands of domestic manufacturers that produce
energy- efficient and compact machines for sale in Japan. Other
‘‘private label’’ suppliers of laundry machines to U.S. discounters
and builder channels consist of local (U.S.) companies known for
producing domestically, using lean manufacturing techniques.
Budgeted and Actual Profitability of Regent’s Foreign
Subsidiaries
In consultation with the subsidiary officers, and taking into
account the expected changes in market conditions in the
forthcoming year, Regent’s headquarters set budgets for
subsidiaries at year-end. For the foreign subsidiaries, budgets are
communicated in local currency (LC) as well as U.S. dollars, using
the exchange rate at the end of the previous year. The 2015
budgets, using the December 2014 exchange rates, for the two
subsidiaries are given below.
Regent’s investments in the Danish and Japanese subsidiaries at the
beginning of 2015 were as follows. These investments did not change
materially during 2015.
The actual number of units sold in the two countries, as well as
the product mix, practically met the levels budgeted for 2015
(50,700 units and 249,000 units in Denmark and Japan,
respectively). The actual inflation in the home appliance industry
in both countries was almost identical to Regent’s expectations
reflected in the budget above. The actual performance of the two
subsidiaries for 2015 was as follows:
The average economy-wide inflation in 2015 was 4.30 percent in Denmark, 2.25 percent in Japan, and 2.30 percent in the U.S. The specific inflation in the home appliance industry in each country paralleled the economy-wide inflation in 2015.
Regents strategy for using beginning of year exchange rate mechanism and average if year for budget setting is inappropriate as exchange rate mechanism in long run is offset by inflation across various nations and its purchasing power parity.
Hence Regents and subsidiary managers must adopt weighted average model of budgeting where budget takes into factors like inflation, current performance, industry wide benchmarking, purchasing power parity, exchange rate and all of them being assigned equal weights. This minimises risks from all parameters and efficient allocation of resources is thus possible with streamlined operations and cost effectiveness in budgeting.
As a subsidiary manager, would you consider Regent’s use of the beginning-of-the-year exchange rate for budget...
3. What discount rate would you use to discount the Brazilian Real cash flows from the project? Does this adequately capture the risk of investing in Brazil? 4. What is the present value of the cheap financing being provided by the Japanese equipment manufacturer? How, if at all does this change the valuation of the project? 3. Note the value of the cheap financing should be added to the Br R value that you calculated above. For this calculation you...
please we need answer for quetion NO 2 Please send the written answer on the computer and not by hand HAIER's foray into International Markets: In the late 1990s, the Haier group (Haier) was the leader in the Chinese consumer appliances market (with a 39.7%, 50% and 37.1% market share in refrigerators, air-conditioners and washing machines respectively in December 1998). But deflation in the Chinese economy slowed sales. But deflation in the Chinese economy slowed sales growth from 50% in...
please we need answer for quetion NO 2 Please send the written answer on the computer and not by hand HAIER's foray into International Markets: In the late 1990s, the Haier group (Haier) was the leader in the Chinese consumer appliances market (with a 39.7%, 50% and 37.1% market share in refrigerators, air-conditioners and washing machines respectively in December 1998). But deflation in the Chinese economy slowed sales. But deflation in the Chinese economy slowed sales growth from 50% in...
Can you answer only question 5and 6 Questions: 1. How could the promotion of UK Hoover have been better designed? Be as specific as you can. 2. Given the fiasco that did occur, how do you think Maytag should have responded? 3. Comment on the following statement: “Firing the three top executives of UK Hoover is unconscionable. It smacks of a vendetta against European managers by an American parent. After all, their only ‘crime’ was a promotion that was too...
Domino’s Global Marketing Domino’s made its name by pioneering home delivery service of pizza in the United States. The company was founded in 1960 in Ypsilanti, Michigan, by Tom Monaghan and his brother, Jim. Domino’s Pizza was sold to Bain Capital in 1998 and went public in 2004. Before that, on May 12, 1983, Domino’s opened its first store internationally—in Winnipeg, Canada. And, in 2012, Domino’s Pizza removed the word “Pizza” from the logo to emphasize its non-pizza products. Its...
Starbucks after Schultz This activity is important because, as a manager, you must be able to identify your company’s core competency and select an appropriate business-level strategy to optimize its competitive value. The goal of this exercise is to demonstrate your understanding of core competency and business-level strategies by applying these concepts to Starbucks’ recent experience in identifying and regaining its competitive advantage. Read the case below and answer the questions that follow. Case Inspired by Italian coffee bars, Starbucks...
Questions 1. 20-3. Identify the key advantage of each of the six candidates. Identify their key limitation. Rank- order the candidates, from the most to least qualified, for the position of Managing Director of TCT India. 2. 20-4. What operational and personal challenges might the person you recommend encounter if named managing director? 3. 20-5. What steps would you recommend your preferred candidate take to manage those challenges? 4. 20-6. What are the pros and cons of posting a foreign...
Please use own words. Thank you. CASE QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION > Analyze and discuss the questions listed below in specific detail. A minimum of 4 pages is required; ensure that you answer all questions completely Case Questions Who are the main players (name and position)? What business (es) and industry or industries is the company in? What are the issues and problems facing the company? (Sort them by importance and urgency.) What are the characteristics of the environment in which...
It is based on the multiple-choice question pasted below. Use the current 21 percent tax rate. (28) in the current year, Acom, Inc., had the following items of income and expense! Sales $500,000 Cost of sales 250,000 Dividends received 25,000 The dividends were received from a corporation of which Acom owns 30%. In Acom's current yoar income tax rotum, what amount should be reported as income before special deductions? A. $525.000 B. $508,750 C. $275,000 D. $250.000 The correct answer...
Case study Company Case Campbell Soup Company: Watching What You Eat You might think that a well-known, veteran consumer products company like the Campbell Soup Company has it made. After all, when people think of soup, they think of Campbell’s. In the $5 billion U.S. soup market, Campbell dominates with a 44 percent share. Selling products under such an iconic brand name should be a snap. But if you ask Denise Morrison, CEO of Campbell, she’ll tell you a different...