Project 3: Simulation as a Tool for Strategic Decision

see attached docs

Project 3: Simulation as a Tool for Strategic Decision Making—Part 1

Introduction

In this Project you will use the Capsim software to simulate a real-world environment in which you not only make strategic business decisions for MediCorp but see the results year after year. Prepare yourself for operating in the complex world of international business and be sure to take notes as you progress through the simulation. Your team’s simulation results for MediCorp are not graded or assessed. Rather, your grade will be based on your individual analysis of how your team’s decisions affected the outcome of the simulation.

Structure of Projects

In Project 3 your team will make four rounds of decisions based on your selected local strategy, equivalent to four years of business operations for your client. Although you will be working as a team to make strategic decisions for your client, you will be given individual grades for Project 3 and Project 4 deliverables. While all business decisions are made as a team, the analysis of results is performed individually. Your project grade will be based on the quality of your individual analysis of the simulation results and your ability to interpret the results as a consequence of the team’s decisions.

Company Assignments in Capsim (Team Andrews)

Capsim assigns a company/team name to each team. The company names are preset, so students will not be able to change them. In the simulation report, the company name directly correlates to the product name(s). For example, the product names for the Andrews company will all start with the letter A; products for Baldwin will start with the letter B. This helps the participants understand what product belongs to what team when they are analyzing the results of the simulation.
The company names assigned in the Capsim simulation are as follows:

· Andrews

· Baldwin

· Chester

· Digby

· Erie

· Ferris

Any teams that are not assigned to students will be “computer teams,” meaning that the Capsim software will make decisions without any human input on behalf of each computer team.
To get started, click Step 1: Prepare for Your New Client.

Competencies

Your work will be evaluated using the competencies listed below.

· 1.1: Organize document or presentation clearly in a manner that promotes understanding and meets the requirements of the assignment.

· 1.2: Develop coherent paragraphs or points so that each is internally unified and so that each functions as part of the whole document or presentation.

· 1.3: Provide sufficient, correctly cited support that substantiates the writer’s ideas.

· 1.7: Create neat and professional looking documents appropriate for the project or presentation.

· 2.1: Identify and clearly explain the issue, question, or problem under critical consideration.

· 2.2: Locate and access sufficient information to investigate the issue or problem.

· 2.3: Evaluate the information in a logical and organized manner to determine its value and relevance to the problem.

· 2.4: Consider and analyze information in context to the issue or problem.

· 2.5: Develop well-reasoned ideas, conclusions or decisions, checking them against relevant criteria and benchmarks.

· 3.1: Identify numerical or mathematical information that is relevant in a problem or situation.

· 3.4: Employ software applications and analytic tools to analyze, visualize, and present data to inform decision-making.

· 4.1: Lead and/or participate in a diverse group to accomplish projects and assignments.

· 6.1: Identify the general (external) environment in which an organization operates and discuss the implications for enterprise success.

· 6.2: Evaluate strategic implications for domestic and international markets of an organization’s industry.

· 6.3: Analyze an organization’s internal strengths and weaknesses for strategic value.

· 6.4: Develop and recommend strategies for an organization’s sustainable competitive advantage.

· 10.1: Apply relevant microeconomics principles to support strategic decisions for the organization.

· 10.2: Analyze financial statements to evaluate and optimize organizational performance.

· 10.3: Determine optimal financial decisions in pursuit of an organization’s goals.

· 10.4: Make strategic managerial decisions for obtaining capital required for achieving organizational goals.

· 10.5: Develop operating forecasts and budgets and apply managerial accounting techniques to support strategic decisions.

· 12.1: Assess market risk and opportunity.

· 12.2: Analyze marketing information.

· 12.3: Prepare marketing plan for a new product/service.

· 13.1: Identify and analyze new opportunities.

Step 1: Decide on a Local Strategy

Your team will make strategic recommendations for and provide consulting advice to MCS’s client, MediCorp, which designs, manufactures, and sells genetic testing devices. You will make decisions in four functional departments: R&D, marketing, production, and finance.

It is important for MediCorp to tailor their R&D, marketing, and sales efforts to specifically reach the segment of the market most likely to buy their genetic testing devices. The success of MediCorp depends on the ability to tailor their products to meet their customer’s needs and desires. In conducting a

target market analysis

, it is essential to ask the right questions before settling on a company-wide strategy.

The local strategy for your team is

Local Strategy: Niche Cost Leader

Your team will need the strategy to guide its decisions for MediCorp. Review all

eight strategies in Capsim

before making a team decision.

Step 2: Make Your Decisions

Your team is now ready to help MediCorp compete in the genetic testing device industry by making strategic decisions through the Capsim platform. Your decisions will direct four calendar years of your client’s operations. On December 31 of each year in your simulation, Capsim will produce a report that reflects the results of your decisions. Your team will use these reports to make further decisions for the following calendar year.
First, consult your Round 0 Report to understand the starting position of MediCorp’s business. Use

How to Find Reports in Capsim

to locate the Round 0 Report and reports for all subsequent rounds. Then, begin making decisions for your client, consulting Capsim: A Systematic Approach to Making Strategic Decisions for direction.

Tips

· Teams should make their decisions in the following order: (1) R&D, (2) marketing, (3) production, and (4) finance. In this simulation, your team is unlikely to be successful if it makes decisions in a different sequence. However, coordination between the four areas during all decisions is also critical, and you may have to revisit decisions based on input from other departments.

· For your own benefit, it is advisable to individually take notes on the decision-making process, which may help you analyze your team’s results later in this project.

Fill out a Capsim Decision Record at the conclusion of each round for each of the four functions, R&D, Marketing, Production and Finance. This document will serve as a record of your thoughts and decisions in each of the functional areas.

Proceed to the next step for more information on finalizing your team’s decisions.

Step 3: Evaluate Your Contribution to the Team

When you have completed all four rounds, write a post of 200 words or less in your group discussion area explaining the decisions in which you were involved, the logic behind those choices, and how those decisions contributed to the team’s strategy and results.

Step 4: Analyze Your Team’s Decisions and Results

Hello,
I think it’s time to take a step back and assess the direction of our work with this client. I need you to write an analysis that (1) describes the decisions your team made in Rounds 1–4 and the results of those rounds and (2) interprets how your decisions influenced the results.
I’m looking for an eight- to ten-page analysis that answers some key questions about the influence of the decisions you made for MediCorp. Please use the attached template and have the report ready for me by the end of the week. Type your answers directly in the template.
Thanks for your hard work,
Jillian

Attachments:

Project 3 Analysis Questions

(See below)

Dupont Formula ROE

(see attachment)

You have now finished working with your team on implementing a local strategy for MediCorp. At this point you will transition into an individual role of an analyst for MCS. Each person on the team will do his or her own analysis of results without any consultation with other team members or with students on other teams.

Submit an analysis of Rounds 1 through 4 of the simulation by answering the questions provided in the Project 3 Analysis Questions template (see below). Your report should be eight to ten pages (approximately 150 to 200 words per question), double spaced, excluding cover page. Any tables, graphs, and figures should be included in the body of your answers. Your report should have one-inch margins and be double spaced in 12-point Times New Roman font. In-text citations and references should abide by APA format. Do not delete the questions as you complete the template.

Step 9: Submit Your Work

Take note of the recommended delivery dates and file-naming protocols in the following table:

Deliverable	Submission instructions
Individual contribution	Submit your post in the group discussion area
Project 3 analysis questions	lastname_firstname_Project3_Analysis x

Individual Analysis

Local Strategy: Niche Cost Leader

Country: USA, Marketing – United States of America: Low Tech

Team: ANDREWS

Project 3 Analysis Project 3 questions

Directions: Write your answers below each question. Please do not delete the questions.

1. What strategy were you implementing? Give examples of any three decisions over the four rounds that were consciously driven by your chosen strategy. Explain.

2. Which country and customer(s) did you target with your product (high tech, low tech, or both)? Why? Give examples of two decisions in R&D and two decisions in marketing that you implemented over the four rounds to enable your desired targeting.

3. In the market segment that you were focused on, what do your customers want most? Did your market share for the country where your products are sold change over the four rounds? Comment on how it changed and why.

4. Did you meet your potential demand in Round 1? Round 2? Round 3? Round 4? Hint: Look at Section 3 of the report (marketing). If you observed a stockout (inability to meet demand) in one or more rounds, pinpoint the reasons behind each instance.

5. Based on Section 1 (High Level Overview) of the Round 1 Report, how did your sales results compare to those of the other five teams? If your sales results were extreme (top two or bottom two among the six teams), explain what other than sheer luck, caused that to happen. In other words, what decisions in Round 1 might have caused your sales to excel or suffer in comparison to its competition?

6. Calculate ROE for all four rounds, using

Dupont Formula ROE

[Note: In the DuPont equation, ROE is equal to profit margin multiplied by asset turnover multiplied by financial leverage. Under DuPont analysis, return on equity is equal to the profit margin multiplied by asset turnover multiplied by financial leverage.]

7. Did you need an emergency loan in any of the four rounds? If so, why? If you did not need an emergency loan in any of the four rounds, explain the decisions that you made to ensure that your company would not need an emergency loan to survive.

8. Explain your capacity decisions, including whether or not to use a second shift in each round. Compare the available plant capacity in each round (first and second shift) versus the number of units produced. Was there idle capacity in any round? Is it possible that you could you have used capacity more efficiently while increasing your plant utilization? Explain why or why not.

9. See Section 5 (Finance) of the Round 4 report. How did your revenue grow over the four rounds? Why? How did your net income grow over the four rounds? Why? How did your share price/market cap grow over the four rounds? Why?

10. Did your team’s decisions in Rounds 1–4 always align with the chosen strategy? If you found yourself deviating from your strategy, explain why. In hindsight, what decisions would you have made differently? Explain.

Contents

RP106391_1 Round 4 – 202

Report

Section 1 High Level Overview

Section 2 Research & Development

Section 3 Marketing – United States of America: Low Tech

Section 4 Marketing – United States of America: High Tech

Section 5 Marketing – Germany: Low Tech

Section 6 Marketing – Germany: High Tech

Section 7 Marketing – China: Low Tech

Section 8 Marketing – China: High Tech

Section 9 Production

Section 10 Finance

Section 11 Custom Modules

0 . 1 R o st er

Andrews

Adeyemi Olayiwola

Olufemi Adedayo

Eric Vooys

Matthew Dowd

ANTHONY BREWINGTON

Uri Harris

Baldwin

Alexander Lopez

Mariatu Alie

Vidhi Shetty

Joseph Fish

Darren Cruz

Jason Bell

Chester

Erick Quintanilla

Emma Granzier

Ameerah Bridges

Dannita Dyson

Nicole Licari

Digby

kiara tarver

JAMYE graham

Maurice Mayo Jr

Porscha Day

Tyesha Anderson

CONTINUE

DECLINE ALL

Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.

(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)

SHOW DETAILS

Highlight

Section 1 | High Level Overview
Please note: For �nancials, millions are reported in thousands

1 . 1 H ig h L ev el O v er v iew

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby Average

Sales $40,320 $125,006 $105,724 $23,029 $73,5

EBIT $6,397 $43,151 $23,304 ($15,283) $14,39

Pro�t $3,189 $24,751 $13,716 ($21,663) $4,99

Cumulative Pro�t $6,278 $68,614 $37,445 ($20,609) $22,932

SG&A to Sales Ratio 10.11% 9.23% 6.34% 50.45% 19.03%

Contribution Margin 31.78% 50.78% 33.48% 7.22% 30.82%

Stock Price $15.71 $97.34 $49.42 $1.00 $40.87

Market Cap $33m $195m $106m $2m $84m

Emergency Loan $0 $0 $2,818 $95,613 $24,608

1 . 2 Ma r ket Sh a r e

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

United States of America 13.7% 42.5% 36% 7.8%

Germany 0% 0% 0% 0%

China 0% 0% 0% 0%

Global Market Share 13.7% 42.5% 36% 7.8%

1.3 USA Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
13.7 %13.7 %
Andrews
13.7 %

BaldwinBaldwin
42.5 %42.5 %
Baldwin
42.5 %

ChesterChester
36.0 %36.0 %
Chester
36.0 %

DigbyDigby
7.8 %7.8 %
Digby
7.8 %

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

1.4 Germany Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %

BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %

ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %

DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

1.5 China Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 2 | Research & Development

2 . 1 P r o d u ct L ist

Name Speed Accuracy Service Life Region Kit Age Revision Date Design Score

Able 5.7 6.2 14,000 USA 1.4 August 28, 2026 17

Baker 6.7 6.7 20,000 USA 1.7 December 19, 2026 61

Bold 9.5 9.5 20,050 USA 0.9 December 26, 2026 59

Cake 10.2 10.4 23,000 Germany, China 1.1 December 29, 2026 92

Dart 10.2 10.2 21,500 USA, Germany, China 1.1 June 9, 2026 —

Daze 9.0 9.0 21,000 USA, Germany, China 1.6 November 12, 2026 37

2.2 Perceptual Map

Speed

A
cc

u
ra

AbleAbleAbleBakerBakerBaker

BoldBoldBold
CakeCakeCake

DazeDazeDaze
DartDartDart

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0

6
8

20
CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 3 | Marketing – United States of America: Low Tech

3 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Price $15.00 – $35.00 55%

Age 3 Years 19%

Positioning Speed 6.8 Accuracy 6.8 17%

Service Life 14,000 – 20,000 Hours 9%

3 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

2026 Total Market Size 4,914

2026 Total Units Sold 4,800

2027 Demand Growth Rate 6%

3.3 USA Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
29.9 %29.9 %
Andrews
29.9 %

BaldwinBaldwin
47.0 %47.0 %
Baldwin
47.0 %

ChesterChester
23.1 %23.1 %
Chester
23.1 %

DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

3.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

143

2254

1111

1985

2875

54 0

Actual Potential

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

3 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Name Price
Revision

Date
Units

Sold
Potential

Sold
Stock
Out

Age Speed Accuracy
Sales

Budget
Customer

Accessibility
Promo
Budget

Customer
Awareness

Region
Kit

Design
Score

Customer
Satisfaction

Baker $35.00 19-Dec-2026 2,254 2,875 Yes 1.7 6.7 6.7 $2,500 73% $1,300 94% Yes 61 16

Able $28.00 28-Aug-2026 1,435 1,985 Yes 1.4 5.7 6.2 $1,500 52% $1,500 100% Yes 17 15

Cake $35.00 29-Dec-2026 1,111 54 No 1.1 10.2 10.4 $3,000 42% $1,900 100% No 11 0



CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 4 | Marketing – United States of America: High Tech

4 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Positioning Speed 10.2 Accuracy 10.2 39%

Age 0 Years 32%

Service Life 17,000 – 23,000 Hours 19%

Price $25.00 – $45.00 10%

4 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

2026 Total Market Size 3,473

2026 Total Units Sold 3,473

2027 Demand Growth Rate 13%

4.3 USA Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.1 %0.1 %
Andrews
0.1 %

BaldwinBaldwin
30.1 %30.1 %
Baldwin
30.1 %

ChesterChester
55.1 %55.1 %
Chester
55.1 %

DigbyDigby
14.7 %14.7 %
Digby
14.7 %

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

4.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

1047

1910

512

1088

1876

504

Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500

4 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Name Price
Revision
Date
Units
Sold
Potential
Sold
Stock
Out
Age Speed Accuracy
Sales
Budget
Customer
Accessibility
Promo
Budget
Customer
Awareness
Region
Kit
Design
Score
Customer
Satisfaction

Cake $35.00 29-Dec-2026 1,910 1,876 No 1.1 10.2 10.4 $3,000 85% $1,900 100% No 92 90

Bold $45.00 26-Dec-2026 949 931 No 0.9 9.5 9.5 $2,500 84% $2,000 100% Yes 59 51

Daze $45.00 12-Nov-2026 512 504 No 1.6 9 9 $2,900 66% $3,000 100% Yes 37 29

Baker $35.00 19-Dec-2026 98 157 Yes 1.7 6.7 6.7 $2,500 84% $1,300 94% Yes 22 16

Able $28.00 28-Aug-2026 5 6 Yes 1.4 5.7 6.2 $1,500 19% $1,500 100% Yes 15 0


CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 5 | Marketing – Germany: Low Tech

5 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Price €15.00 – €35.00 50%

Positioning Speed 6.8 Accuracy 6.8 21%

Age 3 Years 15%

Service Life 14,000 – 20,000 Hours 14%

5 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : €1.10EUR

2026 Total Market Size 1,259

2026 Total Units Sold 0

2027 Demand Growth Rate 20%

5.3 Germany Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

5.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0

Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

5 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Name Price
Revision
Date
Units
Sold
Potential
Sold
Stock
Out
Age Speed Accuracy
Sales
Budget
Customer
Accessibility
Promo
Budget
Customer
Awareness
Region
Kit
Design
Score

Customer
Satisfaction

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 6 | Marketing – Germany: High Tech

6 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Positioning Speed 10.2 Accuracy 10.2 43%

Age 0 Years 33%

Service Life 17,000 – 23,000 Hours 16%

Price €25.00 – €45.00 8%

6 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : €1.10EUR

2026 Total Market Size 1,654

2026 Total Units Sold 0

2027 Demand Growth Rate 35%

6.3 Germany Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

6.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

6 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Name Price
Revision
Date
Units
Sold
Potential
Sold
Stock
Out
Age Speed Accuracy
Sales
Budget
Customer
Accessibility
Promo
Budget
Customer
Awareness
Region
Kit
Design
Score
Customer
Satisfaction
CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 7 | Marketing – China: Low Tech

7 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Price ¥100.00 – ¥240.00 60%

Age 3 Years 14%

Positioning Speed 6.8 Accuracy 6.8 14%

Service Life 14,000 – 20,000 Hours 12%

7 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : ¥6.30CNY

2026 Total Market Size 2,426

2026 Total Units Sold 0

2027 Demand Growth Rate 45%

7.3 China Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

7.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

7 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Section 8 | Marketing – China: High Tech

8 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Positioning Speed 10.2 Accuracy 10.2 41%

Age 0 Years 28%

Service Life 17,000 – 23,000 Hours 20%

Price ¥170.00 – ¥305.00 11%

8 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : ¥6.30CNY

2026 Total Market Size 532

2026 Total Units Sold 0

2027 Demand Growth Rate 32%

8.3 China Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

8.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

8 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Section 9 | Production
9 . 1 P r o d u ct io n P la n t L o ca t io n s

USA Germany China

Andrews, Baldwin, Chester, Digby

Production vs Capacity

9 . 2 P la n t I n f o r ma t io n

Name
Primary
Segment

Units
Produced

Units
Sold

Inventory
USA

Inventory
Germany

Inventory
China

Auto. Next
Round

Capacity Next
Round

Plant
Utilization

Total Plant
Investment

Able Low Tech 1,440 1,440 0 0 0 5 1,350 200% $18,600

Baker High Tech 2,352 2,352 0 0 0 8.9 1,400 175% $364

Bold High Tech 1,056 949 107 0 0 8.9 650 169% $2,821

Cake High Tech 2,712 3,021 742 0 0 5.5 2,700 105% $15,120

Dart — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Daze High Tech 2,232 512 3,501 0 0 4.6 2,750 103% $17,600

9 . 3 Co st s

Name Price Direct Material Direct Labor Shipping Defects Cont. Margin

Able $28.00 $7.22 $11.06 $0.00 $0.76 31.8%

Baker $35.00 $10.18 $7.22 $0.00 $0.71 49.6%

Bold $45.00 $13.59 $6.71 $0.00 $0.83 53.1%

Cake $35.00 $13.55 $9.00 $0.00 $0.90 33.5%

Dart $15.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0%

Daze $45.00 $13.31 $9.07 $0.00 $0.92 7.2%

1,4401,4401,440

3,4083,4083,408

2,7122,7122,712

2,2322,2322,232

750750750

2,0502,0502,050

2,7002,7002,700

2,2502,2502,250

Production Capacity

Andrews
Baldwin
Chester
Digby

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500250 750 1250 1750 2250 2750 3250 3750

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 10 | Finance
1 0 . 1 I n co me St a t emen t

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Sales $40,320 $125,006 $105,724 $23,029

Variable Costs

Direct Material $10,487 $35,469 $38,451 $6,500

Direct Labor $15,920 $23,342 $27,135 $4,764

Shipping

$0 $0 $0 $0

Defects $1,100 $2,450 $2,733 $469

Inventory Carry $0 $269 $2,013 $9,632

Total Variable Costs (Labor, Material, Carry, Ship,
Defect)

$27,508 $61,530 $70,332 $21,366

Contribution Margin $12,812 $63,477 $35,392 $1,663

Period Costs

Depreciation $2,340 $5,685 $5,040 $4,473

SG&A

R&D $655 $1,951 $994 $1,303

Promotions $1,500 $3,300 $1,900 $5,250

Sales $1,500 $5,000 $3,000 $4,800

Administration $421 $1,284 $806 $264

Total Period Costs $6,416 $17,220 $11,740 $16,091

Net Margin $6,397 $46,256 $23,652 ($14,428)

Other (Fees/Write-offs/Bonuses/Relocation Fee) $0 $3,106 $348 $855

EBIT $6,397 $43,151 $23,304 ($15,283)

Interest (Short term/Long Term) $1,391 $4,295 $1,772 $18,046

Taxes $1,752 $13,600 $7,536 ($11,665)

Pro�t Sharing $65 $505 $280 $0

Net Pro�t $3,189 $24,751 $13,716 ($21,663)

1 0 . 2 B a la n ce Sh eet

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Cash $13,081 $65,918 $0 $0

Accounts Receivable $3,314 $10,274 $8,690 $1,893

Inventory $0 $2,239 $16,779 $80,269

Total Current Assets $16,395 $78,431 $25,468 $82,162

Plant and Equipment $35,100 $85,280 $75,600 $67,100

Accumulated Depreciation ($8,883) ($21,105) ($25,703) ($22,053)

Total Fixed Assets $26,217 $64,175 $49,897 $45,047

Total Assets $42,612 $142,606 $75,366 $127,209

Accounts Payable $2,261 $5,219 $5,097 $4,131

Current Debt $3,733 $3,733 $6,551 $101,047

Long-Term Debt $11,600 $47,800 $12,100 $25,200

Total Liabilities $17,594 $56,752 $23,749 $130,378

Common Stock $6,437 $4,937 $9,583 $5,137

Retained Earnings $18,581 $80,917 $42,035 ($8,306)

Total Equity $25,018 $85,854 $51,617 ($3,169)

Total Liabilities & Owners Equity $42,612 $142,606 $75,366 $127,209

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

1 0 . 3 Ca sh F lo w St a t emen t

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Starting Cash Position $25,047 $23,130 $0 $0

Cash From Operations

Net Income(Loss) $3,189 $24,751 $13,716 ($21,663)

Adjustment For Non-Cash Items

Depreciation $2,340 $5,685 $5,040 $4,473

Extraordinary Gains/Losses/Write-offs $0 $2,261 $0 $0

Changes In Current Assets And Liabilities

Accounts Payable $1,163 $919 $637 $1,000

Inventory $0 ($2,239) $6,302 ($38,527)

Accounts Receivable ($58) ($1,605) ($1,088) ($518)

Net Cash From Operations $6,634 $29,773 $24,607 ($55,235)

Cash From Investing

Net Plant Improvements ($18,600) ($3,185) ($15,120) ($17,600)

Cash From Financing

Dividends Paid $0 $0 ($2,692) $0

Sales Of Common Stock $0 $0 $0 $200

Purchase Of Common Stock $0 $0 ($1,500) $0

Cash From Long-Term Debt Issued $0 $16,900 $6,500 $16,900

Early Retirement Of Long-Term Debt $0 $0 $0 $0

Retirement Of Current Debt $0 ($700) ($14,613) ($41,578)

Cash From Current Debt Borrowing $0 $0 $0 $1,700

Cash From Emergency Loan $0 $0 $2,818 $95,613

Net Cash From Financing $0 $16,200 ($9,487) $72,835

Effect Of Exchange Rates $0 $0 $0 $0

Net Change In Cash ($11,966) $42,788 $0 $0

Ending Cash Position $13,081 $65,918 $0 $0

1 0 . 4 B o n d Ma r ket Su mma r y

Company Series Face Value Yield Closing Price S&P Rating

Andrews
11.0S2028
8.0S2033
9.0S2035

$5,600,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000

10.5%
8.13%
8.63%

$104.80
$98.45

$104.32

BBB
BBB
BBB

Baldwin

11.0S2028
8.0S2033
8.3S2034
8.1S2035
8.1S2036

$5,600,000
$5,100,000
$7,700,000

$12,500,000

$16,900,000

10.46%
8.04%
8.21%
8.1%
8.1%

$105.16
$99.48

$101.14
$100.00
$100.00

BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB

Chester
11.0S2028
8.2S2036

$5,600,000
$6,500,000

10.31%
7.72%

$106.66
$106.23

AA
AA

Digby
11.0S2028
8.7S2034

11.1S2036

$5,600,000
$2,700,000

$16,900,000

11.06%
10.03%
11.23%

$99.49
$86.76
$98.84

DDD
DDD
DDD

Next Year’s Prime Rate: 5%

1 0 . 5 St o ck Ma r ket Su mma r y

Company Closing Price Change Shares Outstanding Market Cap Book Value EPS Dividend Yield P/E

Andrews $15.71 $6.54 2,072,761 $33m $12.07 $1.54 $0.00 0% 10.21

Baldwin $97.34 $25.96 2,000,000 $195m $42.93 $12.38 $0.00 0% 7.87

Chester $49.42 $15.56 2,153,461 $106m $23.97 $6.37 $1.25 2.5% 7.76

Digby $1.00 $0.00 2,200,000 $2m ($1.44) ($9.85) $0.00 0% -0.10

Finance – Charts

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

10.6 Stock Price

10.7 Net Pro�t

1 0 . 8 I n co me St a t emen t – USA

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
Sales $40,320 $125,006 $105,724 $23,029
Variable Costs
Direct Material $10,487 $35,469 $38,451 $6,500
Direct Labor $15,920 $23,342 $27,135 $4,764

Shipping $0 $0 $0 $0

Defects $1,100 $2,450 $2,733 $469
Inventory Carry $0 $269 $2,013 $9,632
Total Variable Costs (Labor, Material, Carry, Ship,
Defect)
$27,508 $61,530 $70,332 $21,366
Contribution Margin $12,812 $63,477 $35,392 $1,663
Period Costs
Depreciation $2,340 $5,685 $5,040 $4,473
SG&A

SG&A $4,076 $11,535 $6,700 $11,617

R&D $655 $1,951 $994 $1,303
Promotions $1,500 $3,300 $1,900 $5,250
Sales $1,500 $5,000 $3,000 $4,800
Administration $421 $1,284 $806 $264
Total Period Costs $6,416 $17,220 $11,740 $16,091
Net Margin $6,397 $46,256 $23,652 ($14,428)
Other (Fees/Write-offs/Bonuses/Relocation Fee) $0 $3,106 $348 $855
EBIT $6,397 $43,151 $23,304 ($15,283)
Interest (Short term/Long Term) $1,391 $4,295 $1,772 $18,046
Taxes $1,752 $13,600 $7,536 ($11,665)
Pro�t Sharing $65 $505 $280 $0
Net Pro�t $3,189 $24,751 $13,716 ($21,663)

20.6220.6220.62

14.1814.1814.18
7.857.857.85 9.179.179.17

15.7115.7115.71

29.129.129.1

50.1850.1850.18

71.3871.3871.38

97.3497.3497.34

17.0517.0517.05

33.8533.8533.85

49.4249.4249.42

20.7420.7420.74

111 111

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

$100

$110

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
$-30000

$-20000

$-10000

$10000

$20000

$30000

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

1 0 . 9 I n co me St a t emen t – G er ma n y

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Sales $0 $0 $0 $0

Variable Costs

Direct Material $0 $0 $0 $0

Direct Labor $0 $0 $0 $0

Shipping $0 $0 $0 $0

Defects $0 $0 $0 $0

Inventory Carry $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Variable Costs (Labor, Material, Carry, Ship,
Defect)
$0 $0 $0 $0

Contribution Margin $0 $0 $0 $0

Period Costs

Depreciation $0 $0 $0 $0

SG&A

SG&A $0 $0 $0 $0

R&D $0 $0 $0 $0

Promotions $0 $0 $0 $0

Sales $0 $0 $0 $0

Administration $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Period Costs $0 $0 $0 $0

Net Margin $0 $0 $0 $0

Other (Fees/Write-offs/Bonuses/Relocation Fee) $0 $0 $0 $0

EBIT $0 $0 $0 $0

Interest (Short term/Long Term) $0 $0 $0 $0

Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0

Pro�t Sharing $0 $0 $0 $0

Net Pro�t $0 $0 $0 $0

1 0 . 1 0 I n co me St a t emen t – Ch in a

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
Sales $0 $0 $0 $0
Variable Costs
Direct Material $0 $0 $0 $0
Direct Labor $0 $0 $0 $0
Shipping $0 $0 $0 $0
Defects $0 $0 $0 $0
Inventory Carry $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Variable Costs (Labor, Material, Carry, Ship,
Defect)
$0 $0 $0 $0
Contribution Margin $0 $0 $0 $0
Period Costs
Depreciation $0 $0 $0 $0
SG&A
SG&A $0 $0 $0 $0
R&D $0 $0 $0 $0
Promotions $0 $0 $0 $0
Sales $0 $0 $0 $0
Administration $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Period Costs $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Margin $0 $0 $0 $0
Other (Fees/Write-offs/Bonuses/Relocation Fee) $0 $0 $0 $0
EBIT $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest (Short term/Long Term) $0 $0 $0 $0
Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0
Pro�t Sharing $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Pro�t $0 $0 $0 $0
CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 11 | Custom Modules

1 1 . 1 Wo r kf o r ce Su mma r y

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Number of Employees 252 393 469 391

First Shift 126 227 448 379

Second Shift 126 166 21 12

Overtime % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Turnover Rate 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%

New Employees 138 39 66 103

Separated Employees 0 74 0 0

Productivity Index 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

2/17/22, 4:01 PM

Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1796599&previousDecisionsKey=0&simKey=520265&round=5&decision… 1/3

Decision Summary

COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:01 PM Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1796599&previousDecisionsKey=0&simKey=520265&round=5&decision… 2/3

Product Name Able
Research & Development

Performance 6.3

Size 6.3

Reliability 14,000

Region Kit A

Marketing – USA

Price $28.00

Promo Budget $1,500

Sales Budget $1,500

Unit Sales Forecast 2000

Marketing – Germany

Price €0.00

Promo Budget $0

Sales Budget $0

Unit Sales Forecast 0

Marketing – China

Price ¥0.00

Promo Budget $0
Sales Budget $0
Unit Sales Forecast 0

Production

Production Plant Location USA

Production Order – USA 2,000

Production Order – Germany 0

Production Order – China 0

Capacity Change 0

Automation Next Round 3.0

Finance

Stock Issue $0

Stock Retire $0

Dividend $0.40

Current Debt $0

Bond Issue $0
COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:01 PM Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1796599&previousDecisionsKey=0&simKey=520265&round=5&decision… 3/3

Product Name Able
Bond Retire $0

COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:00 PM

Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1792015&previousDecisionsKey=0&simKey=520265&round=5&decision… 1/3

Decision Summary

COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:00 PM Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1792015&previousDecisionsKey=0&simKey=520265&round=5&decision… 2/3

Product Name Able
Research & Development

Performance 5.8

Size 5.8

Reliability 12,600

Region Kit A

Marketing – USA

Price $27.00

Promo Budget $1,200

Sales Budget $1,200

Unit Sales Forecast 2100

Marketing – Germany

Price €0.00

Promo Budget $0

Sales Budget $0

Unit Sales Forecast 0

Marketing – China

Price ¥0.00

Promo Budget $0
Sales Budget $0
Unit Sales Forecast 0

Production

Production Plant Location USA

Production Order – USA 2,225

Production Order – Germany 0

Production Order – China 0

Capacity Change 400

Automation Next Round 3.0

Finance

Stock Issue $1,500

Stock Retire $0

Dividend $0.00

Current Debt $0

Bond Issue $3,000
COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:00 PM Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1792015&previousDecisionsKey=0&simKey=520265&round=5&decision… 3/3

Product Name Able
Bond Retire $0

COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:02 PM

Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1806091&previousDecisionsKey=1806086&simKey=520265&round=5&d… 1/3

Decision Summary

COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:02 PM Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1806091&previousDecisionsKey=1806086&simKey=520265&round=5&d… 2/3

Product Name Able
Research & Development

Performance 5.7

Size 6.2

Reliability 14,000

Region Kit A

Marketing – USA

Price $28.00

Promo Budget $1,500

Sales Budget $1,500

Unit Sales Forecast 1450

Marketing – Germany

Price €0.00

Promo Budget $0

Sales Budget $0

Unit Sales Forecast 0

Marketing – China

Price ¥0.00

Promo Budget $0
Sales Budget $0
Unit Sales Forecast 0

Production

Production Plant Location USA

Production Order – USA 1,500

Production Order – Germany 0

Production Order – China 0

Capacity Change 600

Automation Next Round 5.0

Finance

Stock Issue $0

Stock Retire $0

Dividend $0.00

Current Debt $0

Bond Issue $0
COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:02 PM Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1806091&previousDecisionsKey=1806086&simKey=520265&round=5&d… 3/3

Product Name Able
Bond Retire $0

COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:01 PM

Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1799594&previousDecisionsKey=1799562&simKey=520265&round=5&d… 1/3

Decision Summary

COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:01 PM Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1799594&previousDecisionsKey=1799562&simKey=520265&round=5&d… 2/3

Product Name Able
Research & Development

Performance 4.5

Size 6.3

Reliability 14,000

Region Kit A

Marketing – USA

Price $25.00

Promo Budget $3,000

Sales Budget $3,000

Unit Sales Forecast 1450

Marketing – Germany

Price €0.00

Promo Budget $0

Sales Budget $0

Unit Sales Forecast 0

Marketing – China

Price ¥0.00

Promo Budget $0
Sales Budget $0
Unit Sales Forecast 0

Production

Production Plant Location USA

Production Order – USA 725

Production Order – Germany 0

Production Order – China 0

Capacity Change -1,350

Automation Next Round 4.0

Finance

Stock Issue $0

Stock Retire $0

Dividend $0.00

Current Debt $0

Bond Issue $3,000
COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:01 PM Decision Summary

https://ww5.capsim.com/capsimplatform/decision-details?auditDecisionsKey=1799594&previousDecisionsKey=1799562&simKey=520265&round=5&d… 3/3

Product Name Able
Bond Retire $0

COOKIE SETTINGS

2/17/22, 4:15 PM

Eight Strategies in Capsim

https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/mba/mba670/2221/course-resource-list/types-of-strategy.html?ou=622272 1/5

Eight Strategies in Capsim

The following questions can help guide MediCorp’s choice of strategy:

Will MediCorp be local or global?

Will MediCorp be niche or broad?

Will MediCorp be a cost leader or a differentiator?

The two tables below differentiate local strategies from global strategies. For the purpose

of Projects 3 and 4, we will use the following terminology for the eight strategy choices:

NicolasMcComber / E+ / Getty Images

Local

Niche Broad

Course Resource

2/17/22, 4:15 PM Eight Strategies in Capsim

https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/mba/mba670/2221/course-resource-list/types-of-strategy.html?ou=622272 2/5

Differentiator Focus on the high-tech segment

only one country (local).

Competitive advantage is gained

distinguishing products with

excellent design, high awareness,

easy accessibility, and new

products—any of which may be

tailored to the individual local

market’s needs. R&D

competency is developed to keep

designs fresh and exciting.

Products will keep pace with the
market, offering improved

accuracy and speed. Tailoring

products with specific region kits

is considered. Prices are above

average. Regional and product

branding and sales efforts are

given a larger budget to work
with.

Capacity is expanded as

higher demand is generated.

Vision statement: Premium,

tailored products for technology-

oriented customers in the local
region; our brands define the

cutting edge.

Maintain a presence in both

segments of the market in

only one country (local).

Competitive advantage is

gained by distinguishing

products with excellent
design, high awareness, and

easy

accessibility. R&D

competency is developed to

keep designs fresh and

exciting. Products keep pace

with the market, offering

improved accuracy and speed

– and sometimes tailored

region kits. Prices are above

average. Capacity is

expanded as higher demand

is generated.

Vision statement: Premium

products for the local

country: our brands

withstand the test of time.

2/17/22, 4:15 PM Eight Strategies in Capsim

https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/mba/mba670/2221/course-resource-list/types-of-strategy.html?ou=622272 3/5

Cost Leader Concentrate primarily on the

Low Tech segment in only one

country (local). Competitive

advantage is gained by keeping

R&D, production, and raw

materials costs to a minimum,

enabling the company to

compete on the basis of price.

Prices are below average.

Automation levels are increased

to improve

margins.

Vision statement: Reliable

products for low technology

customers in the local region: our

brands offer value.

Maintain a presence in both

segments (broad) of the

market in only one country

(local). Note: For the purpose

of this project, the market for

the company’s products
could be different from

where the plant is located.

Competitive advantage is

gained by keeping R&D,

production, shipping and raw

materials costs to a

minimum, enabling the

company to compete on the

basis of price (cost leader).

Prices are below average.

The Plant Automation level is

increased to improve

margins. Any international
selling must be done with an

eye on margins, first and

foremost.

Vision statement: Low priced

products for the local

country: our brands offer
solid value.

KTSDESIGN / Science Photo Library / Getty Images

Global

2/17/22, 4:15 PM Eight Strategies in Capsim

https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/mba/mba670/2221/course-resource-list/types-of-strategy.html?ou=622272 4/5

Niche Broad
Differentiator Focus on the high-tech segment

across two or three countries.

Competitive advantage is gained

by distinguishing products with
excellent design, high awareness,

easy accessibility, and new
products—any of which may be
tailored to the individual local

market’s needs. R&D competency

is developed to keep designs

fresh and exciting. Products will
keep pace with the market,

offering

improved accuracy and

speed. Tailoring products with

specific region kits is considered.

Prices are above average.

Regional and product branding
and

sales efforts are given a

larger budget to work with.

Capacity is expanded as higher

demand is generated.

Vision statement: Premium,
tailored products for technology-

oriented customers across the
globe; our brands define the

cutting edge.

Maintain a presence in both

segments of the market

across two or three

countries. Competitive
advantage is gained by

distinguishing products with

an excellent design, high

awareness, and easy

accessibility. R&D
competency is developed to

keep designs fresh and
exciting. Products keep pace

with the market, offering
improved accuracy and

speed—and sometimes

tailored region kits. Prices

are above average. Regional
and product branding and

sales efforts are given a
larger budget to work with.
Capacity is expanded as

higher demand is generated.

Vision statement: Premium

products for the industry

across the globe; our brands

withstand the test of time.

2/17/22, 4:15 PM Eight Strategies in Capsim

https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/mba/mba670/2221/course-resource-list/types-of-strategy.html?ou=622272 5/5

Cost Leader Concentrate primarily on the low-

tech segment across two or three

countries. Competitive advantage

is gained by keeping R&D costs,
production costs, and raw

materials costs to a minimum,

enabling the company to compete

on the basis of price. Prices are

below average. Regional and

product branding and sales

efforts are below average.

Automation levels are increased

to improve margins.
Vision statement: Reliable
products for low technology

customers across the globe; our

brands offer value.
Maintain a presence in both
segments of the market
across two or three

countries (global).
Competitive advantage is

gained by keeping R&D

costs, production costs, and

raw materials costs to a

minimum, enabling the
company to compete on the

basis of price. Prices are
below average. Regional and

product branding and sales
efforts are below average.

The plant automation level is

increased to improve
margins.
Vision statement: Low priced
products for the industry
across the globe; our brands

offer solid value.

All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity

of information located at external sites.

Return on Equity (ROE): The Dupont Formula

The calculation of the Return on Equity (ROE) is an internal measure of the efficiency of the management of the company’s assets. ROE is basically the dollar return on sales (net income/net sales) times the asset turnover ratio (net sales/total assets). An increasing ROE is an indicator of continuing growth in profitability and the improving efficiency of the management of company assets. This is critical because an improving ROE tends to drive improvement in stock price.

The Dupont formula helps decompose the different drivers of return on equity (ROE). It allows management to go deeper in their analysis of ROI by highlighting both profit and loss performance (which tends to be the focal point of management) and balance sheet management (which tends to be neglected). It helps investors to focus on the key metrics of financial performance individually.

The Dupont Formula analysis of ROI is most valuable when performing comparative analysis of a company’s performance from one period to the next.

DuPont Analysis = Net Profit Margin × AT × EM

where:

Net Profit Margin = Net Income / Revenue

AT = Asset turnover

Asset Turnover = Sales / Average Total Assets

EM=Equity multiplier

Equity Multiplier = Average Total Assets / Average Shareholders’ Equity

Reference:

Parrino, Kidwell, Bates. (2011). Fundamentals of Corporate Finance, Chapter 4, Wiley Textbooks. ISBN: 118213750

https://learning.oreilly.com/home/

IndividualAnalysis

Project 3 Analysis Directions: Write your answers below each question. Please do not delete the questions.

1. What strategy were you implementing? Give examples of any three decisions over the four rounds that were consciously driven by your chosen strategy. Explain.

The strategy I implemented was the marketing strategy for team Chester. Based on our capsim strategy on differentiator and local, we focus on the high-tech segment in one country (local) and look at our vision statement to premium tailored products for technology-oriented customers in the local region; our brand defined the cutting edge.

Examples of three decisions over the four rounds that were consciously driven by my chosen strategy are pricing, customer accessibility, and customer awareness.

For pricing for a high-tech buyer, they want the top quality, they are not worried about the price, but still, I had to consider and pay attention to what the customer wants and what the competitor is offering, so I don’t lose the market share to a competitor that has a lower price than me. So, I checked the competition price in each round so that I can price our products accurately. Another area I had to consider when I was setting the price was the contribution margin. Here, the contribution margin is the difference between the sales and variable cost. For example, in round 1, sales ($62,778) – total variable cost ($44,776) which equals $18,002 which is the contribution margin. And this is how much we make on our product after considering the cost in making each unit. I have to keep an eye on my prices to improve each year. When setting the price, I had to pay attention to customers’ acceptable buying price range for either segment. For this case, we are focusing on the high tech and customer buying criteria by the country or segment as given to us in the Capsim Market Condition report.

The other areas I made marketing decisions on all four rounds are awareness and accessibility. Here, we’re letting the customers know we have a product and how they can obtain the product. According to our course material at UMGC, awareness is the percentage of the market that is aware of our products cake, Cedar, and Coat. A promotion budget was utilized to drive awareness. In round 1, I spent $3000 on promotion to obtain 87% awareness for our product cake. I paid $3000 on the sales budget to get 61% accessibility, the whole amount allocated for advertising and sales budget utilized in year 1. Still, for subsequent years, year 2, for our cake customers, we had a 100% awareness and use $1800 for promo budget; this explains the fact that promotion efforts have a diminishing return and 75% of customer accessibility and paid $1350 for sales budget, this means 75% of customers find it easy to work with us and 25% didn’t find us accessible. If my competitor and I have the same product, if I have higher accessibility than them, I will sell more than them. For the sale budget, the product in the same segment will have the same accessibility; for example, in year 2, our product cake and cedar had the same accessibility of 75%. In year 3, our product cedar and coat had the same accessibility of 85% with a sale budget of $3000 since we had introduced a new product but in the same market segment.

We targeted the USA and customers interested in high tech because according to our vision statement, which states, premium, tailored products for technology-oriented customers in the local region, our brands define the cutting edge. So, for our R&D, we decided on: (1) produce a new product yearly that will have a competitive advantage, keeping the design fresh and exciting. We created a new product, cedar to meet customer demands, managed our existing products to keep them relevant in the marketplace, managed cake, and kept it appropriate in year 2 until cedar launched. We retired products from the market that no longer fit our strategic direction; by year 3, we retired cake and introduce our latest high-tech product coat.

Speed &accuracy: The device analyzes a sample and displays results in a time frame known as speed. The material cost correlates directly to the rate of your product. The more expensive the product, the more momentum it has to run the test. The high-tech customer is not worried about the money; they want the device with the highest speed and quality. For our product, cake in year 1 had a speed of 6.5, in year 2, cedar was introduced, our new product had a speed of 7.1, and in year 3, our latest product was introduced, and it had a speed of 9.5, was the fastest.

On the other hand, while accuracy is the likelihood of the testing device providing a correct result. Higher accuracy rating devices are less likely to give a false positive or false-negative effect. Also, in year 1, our product cake’s accuracy level was 6.4. In contrast, our next new product in the second year cedar had an accuracy of 7.1, improved, and the latest product coat in years 3 and 4 had an accuracy level of 9.5. The accuracy had improved tremendously. Also, the accuracy of our products cake, cedar, and coat is directly correlated to the cost of producing them.

Example of the two decision for marketing is pricing and forecasting: since we are dealing with the high-tech segment, the price range falls within $25 to $45, so we started our pricing at $33 for cake in year one, and we sold 863 units, in year two we also produce cake but we lowered our price to $30, so we can get sale while we wait for our new product cedar which had a revision or releases the day of May 26, 2023. So, cake sold 825 units, and cedar released, sold 816 units. In year three, we dropped cake, increase the price for cedar to $38.00, and it sold 771 units more than its potential unit sold of 754. In the same year, we introduced our latest product coat on January 3rd, 2024, we priced it at $45, it was our latest product, fully equipped, coat sold 1,860 units and in our last year, which is year four, cedar sold 596 at a price of $35, we lower the price so we can sell the remaining product, and we up the cost of coat to $46 since it is our latest high -tech product. It sold very well, 1,987 units. We did well with our pricing.

The other example the marketing team decided on was forecasting; here, we created a sales forecast to predict the amounts of units we think we’ll be selling in the coming year. We were mindful that the production team would utilize our sales forecast to determine how many units they will produce. The financial team will also use it to determine or predict profits, variable costs, and contribution margins. Also, we adjusted our forecast to reduce stocking out and having excess inventory. In years one and two, with our product cake, we had a stockout. Still, for the next product, cedar and coat, we adjusted our forecast, so the production department didn’t produce too much, which could have led to inventory buildups or too little, which means lost sales opportunities to our competitors, either way, would have been costly.

So, we utilize last year’s sales as a starting point for this year’s forecasts. The segment growth rate for high-tech for the upcoming year is 13 percent; we can expect to sell 13 percent more units this year than last year. The upcoming year’s market will not be similar to the previous year due to changes made by our company that produces a new product every year and our competitors also has a new product out, which will affect sales.

The market segment was I’m focused on is the high-tech segment; my customers want a top-quality product, they want speed, accuracy, age, service life, they are not worried about the price. They actually will pay for a high-priced product—the market share for the country USA where my products are sold changed over the four rounds. In the first year, our market size was 23.9% compared to round zero; our company took the most significant share of the market; also the 2nd year the market size increased to 40.2%, 3rd year the market size went up further to 57% and the last year it was 49.6%. The change was due to we had the highest accessibility from year one through four respectively accessibility was 61%, 75%, 85%, and 91%. And we also had one of the highest awareness and the highest customer satisfaction. In addition to this, the age was zero; we had new products every year, the speed and accuracy increased with each new product, and service life was at the top of the range.

In round 1, I didn’t meet my potential demand due to a stockout; the potential sold was 1,106 of our product cake, and the actual unit sold was 1,040.

In round 2, we had our existing product cake, which we still produce since the new product cedar would be released on May 26, 2023, actual cake units sold are 903, and the potential unit sold is 1,231 had a stockout. While the new product cedar actual unit sold was 344, and potential sold is 117. The market share for our team is 19%, and it’s the low-tech segment. Our primary market is the high-tech segment; we tapped into the low-tech market, our product cake priced within the high end of the low-tech price range at $33 for round 1 and $30 for round 2. The stockout, which was unable to meet demand, might have been from our high-tech end user customers like a new product, so we didn’t make too much knowing that we didn’t want leftover.

In rounds 3 & 4, there was no stockout, demand was met; although our price for cedar in round 3 was above the low-tech market, at $38, we still took a small portion of the low-tech market. In round 4, we lowered cedar price to $35 since we were introducing a new product coat, but amazingly cedar took 14% of the market compared to round 3, where cedar took 5.6% of the market. In round 4, we were able to take a portion of the low-tech market for $35, which is the low-tech high end of the cost; we sold 1,034 units, and the potential sold was 1,004; we sold more with price range within the low-tech.

5. Based on Section 1 (High-Level Overview) of the Round 1 Report, how did your sales results compare to those of the other five teams? If your sales results were extreme (top two or bottom two among the six teams), explain what other than sheer luck, caused that to happen. In other words, what decisions in Round 1 might have caused your sales to excel or suffer in comparison to its competition?

Base on section 1(High- level overview) of the round 1 report, my sales result compare to the other six teams was low, the 3rd from the bottom because in this round we introduce our new product cedar against releasing it next year, we had to borrow current loan to utilize in the research and design, promo budget and sales to increase awareness and accessibility, and since is a product for high-end users, we spent money to make sure it had the highest quality. In so doing, our sales suffered in comparison to our competitors.

6. Based on the Round 4 Report, were your sales after Round 4 higher or lower than your sales after Round 3? How do you explain this change in sales in view of your team’s decisions in Round 4?

Base on the round 4 report, my sales after round 4 were higher than sales after round 3. The change in sales from round 3 to 4 is due to the new product coat that was released; it is a high-tech product, so the high-tech market interested in quality, high tech, speed, accuracy, age, and service went for it. Base on our team decision in round 4, we spent $1,050 on sales budget to make sure we had the highest accessibility, which was 91%, and spent $2,650 on promo budget, which gave us 100% customer awareness; we also used the region kit, to boost demand by 10% over our competitors, we noticed our competitor Echo doesn’t have a region kit, we also increased our price to $46 compared to our competitors Echo whose price was at $42. Due to their decrease accessibility and awareness, we had an advantage over them; Echo’s accessibility and awareness were 52% and 53%, respectively. In comparison, ours was 91% and 100%, respectively; we invested more on our promo budget and sales budget, we had the highest accessibility and awareness among all the teams. We also sold 1,987 units compared to Echo that sold 889; our revision date was earlier Feb 22nd, 2025, compared to Echo, whose revision date was Nov 1, 2025, towards the end of the year.

We didn’t need an emergency loan in any of the four rounds to survive. In round 1, R&D had decided to design cedar and coat for subsequent years, since our company which is high -tech, was supposed to come up with a new product each year, so for each product, it had to be designed the year before being released in the market the following year. We didn’t have enough funds for our new product, cedar, so we borrowed $9,300 a current debt loan, which we’ll pay back within 12months. In round 2, we paid back the current debt loan of $9,300 when it was due, then we borrowed another current debt of $9,000, which we are to pay back the following year, and also took some bonds of $17,300, which we are to pay back in 10years (long- term debt) to design and produce coat. In round 3, we paid back our current debt of $9,000. And in round 4, we bought a stock of $4,397 to help increase our company’s value shares. In so doing, we didn’t have the need to obtain an emergency loan.

For capacity, since the plant can produce 1700 units of capacity in the first shift and additional 1700 units in a second shift, in round 1, our team decided since we had only one product cake, we put in a production order for 1850 base on the forecast of 1800, we utilized 109% of the plant, also we added capacity change of 1500 for our new product cedar that will be released the next year which is in our round 2. We used second shift in some of the rounds where we had more than 100% plant utilization. We didn’t have idle capacity in any round. We used capacity more efficiently while increasing our plant utilization, since we had to produce a new product every year based on our market segment. In round 2, we had two products to make, cake and cedar; which we produce 1728 units of cake and we used 106% of the plant, and for the cedar, we make 1440 units and utilize 100% plant, by round 3, we stop producing cake, and we introduced coat our newest product, we put capacity for 1850, but we produced 2,016, and utilize 114% of the plant, and round 4 for coat, we put the capacity for 2,100, we made 2016 and operated a 100% plant, we didn’t need to use second shift.

9. See Finance Section of the Round 4 report. At the end of Round 4, do you have any current debt? Explain the presence or absence of current debt at the end of Round 4. At the end of Round 4, do you have any long-term debt? Explain the presence or absence of long-term debt at the end of Round 4.

Looking at the Round 4 report’s Finance section, at the end of round 4, the current debt we have is $3,733, which was a long-term debt but is now due this 2025. And our company has a bond of $5,600 due 2027 for payoff and $17,300 due 2033 for a payoff, which combined is $22,900 is our long-term debt. The long-term debt is borrowed loans we utilized to carry out our project of researching & designing a new distinguishing product with excellent design to meet our local market needs. Also, we use the loans for branding and sales for high awareness and easy accessibility and capacity expansion as needed per demands.

Our team decision from round 1 to round 4 aligned most of the time with the chosen strategy; we as a team based on our company’s vision to build a distinguished product with excellent design, quality, service life, age, speed, and accuracy for our market segment. We decided to borrow current loans in round 1 and round 2. A long-term loan for research and design, for our new product which we have to produce yearly and keep the design fresh and exciting, the tailoring product with specific region kit, to obtain the 10% market demand in our market segment, for marketing in paying for our promo budget and sales budget to make sure we had the maximum awareness and accessibility compare to any other company especially the ones in the same market with us, our competitors. Our round 1 and 2, since we borrowed, we didn’t see much profit, but by round 3, our market share in the high-tech segment was 57%, we paid off our current debt, by round 4, we decided as a group to purchase some stocks to increase the valuation of our company. In round 4, we captured the right size of the market 49.6% of the high-tech segment, and with our other product, cedar was able to capture 14% of the low-tech market on round 4, with us setting the price at $35, which the high end for the low-tech customers. Our prices were set above average; in round 4, our price was $46, above the high-tech group range because it was a new product. We also utilized our plant for maximal production; some rounds we went over slightly, but on round 4, 100% operated the plant without going above. I conclude, as a team, we did very well.

Reference:

https://ww3.capsim.com/student/portal/index.cfm?template=reports.decisionAudit&key=1189815&previousKey=1189747&round=1

https://ww3.capsim.com/student/portal/index.cfm?template=reports.decisionAudit&key=1193445&previousKey=1191565&round=2

https://ww3.capsim.com/student/portal/index.cfm?template=reports.decisionAudit&key=1194952&previousKey=0&round=3

https://ww3.capsim.com/student/portal/index.cfm?template=reports.decisionAudit&key=1200011&previousKey=0&round=4

CapsimGlobal Market Conditions Report

https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/dam/learning-resources/course-content/mba/mba670/capsim/ms-office-files/CapsimGlobal%20MarketConditionsReport ?ou=562777

CapsimGlobal User Guide

https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/dam/learning-resources/course-content/mba/mba670/capsim/ms-office-files/Capsim%20Global%20User%20Guide ?ou=562777

https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/mba/mba670/2211/course-resource-list/production.html?ou=562777

MBA 670 Project

Individual Analysis

MediCorp

United States of America

MBA 670 Strategic Decision Making

This study source was downloaded by 100000761048127 from CourseHero.com on 02-18-2022 10:03:46 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

Project 3 Analysis Directions: Write your answers below each question. Please do not delete the
questions.

1. What strategy were you implementing? Give examples of any three decisions over the four

rounds that were consciously driven by your chosen strategy. Explain.

In this simulation, we used the niche differentiator (high tech) which included high end

performance and size. This market strategy gave MediCorp’s product a higher standard to lead

the industry in quality and value. The report revealed if keeping R&D cost and production cost at

a minimum the company will maintain their quality and value in the market. For example, round

1 was used as a test to see how the customers would react to the product, so the cost for R&D

stayed low and the automation for production as well to maintain the value foundation within the

market. Next in round 2, the cost remained the same, but because the value of the product among

customers were high the cost was able to increase due to the quality of the product. The price

started at $32.00 to $38.00 for high end. Lastly, the automation was increased over the rounds to

decease the labor cost and increase the margins on the product.

2. Which country and customer(s) did you target with your product (high tech, low tech, or

both)? Why? Give examples of two decisions in R&D and two decisions in marketing that you

implemented over the four rounds to enable your desired targeting.

The country that we selected the USA. Our team followed Niche differentiator strategy which

mainly targeted the high-tech market segment. In the R&D sections, we started the performance

and size at 6.4 and ended at 6.5 for the course of each round. If you revise a product’s Speed or

Accuracy, customers will perceive your product as an upgrade, and the age will be cut in half

(R&D Help Sheet, n.d.) and we did not want customers to think of our design as being young.

We entered the market at a steady pace to gain recognize from high end customers. The need for

a steady speed was to penetrate the market and become a well-known brand with high end

This study source was downloaded by 100000761048127 from CourseHero.com on 02-18-2022 10:03:46 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

customers. Another decision was to keep the service life in between 19,000-21,000. The reason is

because customers want quality in the product they are buying and needs to know it will be

reliable for many years. In marketing, we based our decision on value and quality looking at the

outcome of sales. We raised our price from $32.00 to $38.00 based on the outcome from the

sales prior. Our actual units sold were more than our potentials. Another decision was to keep the

promo budget low at $1,000. This because our product would be well known due to value and

quality, not much money would be need for promo.

3. In the market segment that you were focused on, what do your customers want most? Did your

market share for the country where your products are sold change over the four rounds?

Comment on how it changed and why.

In our market segment, the customer satisfaction was most important. The market share for

the USA did not change throughout the four rounds and stayed at 43.7%. By staying the same

over all rounds means that the company was not obtaining much profit on the profit being

products. Even though we were not profitable over the rounds, almost half of the market owned

our product and our teams were the leader in the market.

4. Did you meet your potential demand in Round 1? Round 2? Round 3? Round 4? Hint: Look at

Section 3 of the report (marketing). If you observed a stockout (inability to meet demand) in one

or more rounds, pinpoint the reasons behind each instance.

The marketing strategy was to provide value and quality. Moving forward through the rounds,

we did experience stock outs on some of the products. This occurred because the customer’s

ordered past the inventory that was kept on hand. We should have increased the forecast in

production stage for more inventory on hand to ensure the customer needs were being met.

This study source was downloaded by 100000761048127 from CourseHero.com on 02-18-2022 10:03:46 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

5. Based on Section 1 (High Level Overview) of the Round 1 Report, how did your sales results

compare to those of the other five teams? If your sales results were extreme (top two or bottom

two among the six teams), explain what other than sheer luck, caused that to happen. In other

words, what decisions in Round 1 might have caused your sales to excel or suffer in comparison

to its competition?

In the high-level overview on the Round 1 report, we had an increase in sales. Our team sales

were $102,556 putting us in 4th place among the other 6 teams. We knew in the beginning that we

would need to make our presence known by providing a value and quality product into the

market. With the high contribution margin of 52.36% we knew there would be a need for more

overhead expenses. We took the approach to improve the product awareness and accessibility for

consumers while monitoring the spending on promotion and sales. This made more funds

available for R&D and Production, to produce accurate forecast so that the finance departments

could plan accordingly. I believe in round 1 we should have produced more products and

increased our money in sales and promo to compete more in the market.

6. Based on the Round 4 Report, were your sales after Round 4 higher or lower than your sales

after Round 3? How do you explain this change in sales in view of your team’s decisions in

Round 4?

The sales for both round 3 and 4 stayed the same at $102,556. Looking at the reports there

were a few things we could have done differently. Under the R&D, I believe we should have

increased the speed and accuracy and produced more products to meet the customers demand to

ensure there was no stock out. Under production, the automation increased from 5.7 to 7.7 in

rounds 3 to 4 which positively impacted the profit margins by reducing labor costs. The

This study source was downloaded by 100000761048127 from CourseHero.com on 02-18-2022 10:03:46 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

marketing department responded to the strategy of providing value and competing based on

price, increasing from $38 to $45.

7. Did you need an emergency loan in any of the four rounds? If so, why? If you did not need an

emergency loan in any of the four rounds, explain the decisions that you made to ensure that

your company would not need an emergency loan to survive.

Based on the reports we did need an emergency loan of $17,478. Reviewing our cash flow

statement, the is a greater number of outflow of cash than the inflow of cash. Here is what we

should have done: focus more on short-term debt which would have provided us the funds to

invest more in the early rounds. If that were done, we have could have had enough cash to cover

short term debts for the next years. We also could have used more stocks to raise funds. We were

starting each year with a zero-dollar starting balance.

8. Explain your capacity decisions, including whether or not to use a second shift in each round.

Compare the available plant capacity in each round (first and second shift) versus the number of

units produced. Was there idle capacity in any round? Is it possible that you could you have used

capacity more efficiently while increasing your plant utilization? Explain why or why not.

Capacity is the number of units you can produce in a full year when running your

production line 24/7 (Production Help Sheet, n.d.). We decided to keep our capacity idle at 1,700

in each round meaning we can produce 3,400 units with 2 shifts. In each round our second shift

was 203. This was very critical for establishing our product in the US market. We were utilizing

our plant under 200%, so therefore would not be a need for a plant relocation. I believe we could

have used our capacity more efficiently because it could have assisted us from inquiring an

emergency loan. If we increased our capacity allowing for a lower automation, which would save

This study source was downloaded by 100000761048127 from CourseHero.com on 02-18-2022 10:03:46 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

on the labor making the need not necessary to invest in automation. As automation increased the

higher the automation the cost of production would rise.

9. See Finance Section of the Round 4 report. At the end of Round 4, do you have any current

debt? Explain the presence or absence of current debt at the end of Round 4. At the end of Round

4, do you have any long-term debt? Explain the presence or absence of long-term debt at the end

of Round 4.

Reviewing the end report for round 4 the is a current debt of $17,478, which is the amount of

the emergency loan borrowed. This is debt will be a future transaction for the outflow of cash.

The presence of the current debt means that our team ran out of cash during the year and needed

funds to cover expenses. There is long term debt is a total of $31. The presence of this long-term

debt is from the loan and our team took longer than one year to pay the money back. To avoid

these debts, I recommend investing in the company early and look at common stock to help with

any debt accrued early on. I believe we could have used our funds wisely for a better outcome in

the simulation.

10. Did your team’s decisions in Rounds 1–4 always align with the chosen strategy? If you found

yourself deviating from your strategy, explain why. In hindsight, what decisions would you have

made differently? Explain.

I think we stayed on our chosen strategy of niche differentiation (high end), but slightly

deviated. We stayed on track of providing a premium product that gave quality and value to

customers. There were certain decisions that could have prevented us from needing an

emergency loan and avoiding being stocked out of some products not meeting the needs of

customers. Below is a highlight of how niche differentiation should have run through the four

rounds.

This study source was downloaded by 100000761048127 from CourseHero.com on 02-18-2022 10:03:46 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

 Targeted markets that are high end to improve the performance and size

 R&D strategy is to ensure the customers expectation is satisfied

 Marketing strategy is to base decisions on price on the market’s expectations

 Production strategy is to increase the product margin by increase the automation

 Finance strategy is to issue long-term debt during the start of production and use

stock to raise money

This study source was downloaded by 100000761048127 from CourseHero.com on 02-18-2022 10:03:46 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

References

Production Help Sheet. (n.d.). Capsim. Retrieved from

https://ww3.capsim.com/modules/GIA/files/1_0/0/CapsimGlobal/EN/PDF/Production

HelpS

heet

Research & Development Help Sheet. (n.d.). Capsim. Retrieved from

https://ww3.capsim.com/modules/GIA/files/1_0/0/CapsimGlobal/EN/PDF/R&DHelpS

heet
This study source was downloaded by 100000761048127 from CourseHero.com on 02-18-2022 10:03:46 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

https://www.coursehero.com/file/62697634/mba-670-Project3-Analysisdocx/

http://www.tcpdf.org

Contents

RP106391_1 Round 2 – 202

Report

Section 1 High Level Overview

Section 2 Research & Development

Section 3 Marketing – United States of America: Low Tech

Section 4 Marketing – United States of America: High Tech

Section 5 Marketing – Germany: Low Tech

Section 6 Marketing – Germany: High Tech

Section 7 Marketing – China: Low Tech

Section 8 Marketing – China: High Tech

Section 9 Production

Section 10 Finance

Section 11 Custom Modules

0 . 1 R o st er

Andrews

Adeyemi Olayiwola

Olufemi Adedayo

Eric Vooys

Matthew Dowd

ANTHONY BREWINGTON

Uri Harris

Baldwin

Alexander Lopez

Mariatu Alie

Vidhi Shetty

Joseph Fish

Darren Cruz

Jason Bell

Chester

Erick Quintanilla

Emma Granzier

Ameerah Bridges

Dannita Dyson

Nicole Licari

Digby

kiara tarver

JAMYE graham

Maurice Mayo Jr

Porscha Day

Tyesha Anderson

CONTINUE

DECLINE ALL

Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.

(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)

SHOW DETAILS

Section 1 | High Level Overview
Please note: For �nancials, millions are reported in thousands

1 . 1 H ig h L ev el O v er v iew

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby Average

Sales $37,229 $92,516 $57,749 $48,615 $59,027

EBIT $1,987 $25,552 $7,246 $5,601 $10,097

Pro�t $105 $14,897 $2,334 $2,464 $4,95

Cumulative Pro�t $4,100 $26,574 $12,102 $9,960 $13,184

SG&A to Sales Ratio 10.50% 8.87% 10.95% 6.75% 9.27%

Contribution Margin 22.61% 41.59% 30.29% 22.74% 29.31%

Stock Price $7.85 $50.18 $17.05 $19.04 $23.53

Market Cap $16m $100m $37m $38m $48m

Emergency Loan $3,373 $0 $12,868 $0 $4,060

1 . 2 Ma r ket Sh a r e

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

United States of America 15.8% 39.2% 24.5% 20.6%

Germany 0% 0% 0% 0%

China 0% 0% 0% 0%

Global Market Share 15.8% 39.2% 24.5% 20.6%

1.3 USA Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
15.8 %15.8 %
Andrews
15.8 %

BaldwinBaldwin
39.2 %39.2 %
Baldwin
39.2 %

ChesterChester
24.5 %24.5 %
Chester
24.5 %

DigbyDigby
20.6 %20.6 %
Digby
20.6 %

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

1.4 Germany Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %

BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %

ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %

DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

1.5 China Market Share

Section 2 | Research & Development

2 . 1 P r o d u ct L ist

Name Speed Accuracy Service Life Region Kit Age Revision Date Design Score

Able 6.3 6.3 14,000 USA 1.8 May 25, 2024 34

Baker 5.3 5.3 20,000 3.1 January 15, 2024 90

Bold 7.6 7.6 20,000 0.7 April 11, 2024 35

Cake 8.0 8.4 21,050 Germany, China 1.5 December 31, 2024 57

Dart 9.0 9.0 21,000 USA 0.1 November 27, 2024 —

Daze 7.3 7.3 21,000 USA 3.1 November 28, 2023 61

2.2 Perceptual Map

Speed

A
cc

u
ra

AbleAbleAble
BakerBakerBaker

BoldBoldBold
CakeCakeCake

DazeDazeDaze

DartDartDart

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

20
CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 3 | Marketing – United States of America: Low Tech

3 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Price $15.00 – $35.00 55%

Age 3 Years 19%

Positioning Speed 5.8 Accuracy 5.8 17%

Service Life 14,000 – 20,000 Hours 9%

3 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

2024 Total Market Size 4,373

2024 Total Units Sold 4,373

2025 Demand Growth Rate 6%

3.3 USA Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
27.9 %27.9 %
Andrews
27.9 %

BaldwinBaldwin
36.5 %36.5 %
Baldwin
36.5 %

ChesterChester
13.7 %13.7 %
Chester
13.7 %

DigbyDigby
22.0 %22.0 %
Digby
22.0 %

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

3.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

1218

1596

597

961

1087

1920

523

843

Actual Potential

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Name Price
Revision

Date
Units

Sold
Potential

Sold
Stock
Out

Age Speed Accuracy
Sales

Budget
Customer

Accessibility
Promo
Budget

Customer
Awareness

Region
Kit

Design
Score

Customer
Satisfaction

Baker $32.50 15-Jan-2024 1,596 1,920 Yes 3.1 5.3 5.3 $1,800 65% $1,600 91% No 90 25

Able $28.00 25-May-2024 1,218 1,087 No 1.8 6.3 6.3 $1,500 35% $1,500 79% Yes 34 16

Daze $32.00 28-Nov-2023 961 843 No 3.1 7.3 7.3 $1,000 32% $1,000 61% Yes 61 13

Cake $35.00 31-Dec-2024 597 523 No 1.5 8 8.4 $3,000 62% $1,850 100% No 15 2



CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 4 | Marketing – United States of America: High Tech

4 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Positioning Speed 8.8 Accuracy 8.8 39%

Age 0 Years 32%

Service Life 17,000 – 23,000 Hours 19%

Price $25.00 – $45.00 10%

4 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

2024 Total Market Size 2,720

2024 Total Units Sold 2,720

2025 Demand Growth Rate 13%

4.3 USA Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
4.1 %4.1 %
Andrews
4.1 %

BaldwinBaldwin
36.7 %36.7 %
Baldwin
36.7 %

ChesterChester
38.7 %38.7 %
Chester
38.7 %

DigbyDigby
20.5 %20.5 %
Digby
20.5 %

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

4.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

111

998
1053

558

107

1038 1029

545

Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

250

500

750

1000

1250

4 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Name Price
Revision
Date
Units
Sold
Potential
Sold
Stock
Out
Age Speed Accuracy
Sales
Budget
Customer
Accessibility
Promo
Budget
Customer
Awareness
Region
Kit
Design
Score
Customer
Satisfaction

Cake $35.00 31-Dec-2024 1,053 1,029 No 1.5 8 8.4 $3,000 72% $1,850 100% No 57 53

Bold $45.00 11-Apr-2024 655 633 No 0.7 7.6 7.6 $1,800 67% $1,800 67% No 35 23

Daze $32.00 28-Nov-2023 558 545 No 3.1 7.3 7.3 $1,000 33% $1,000 61% Yes 19 12

Baker $32.50 15-Jan-2024 343 405 Yes 3.1 5.3 5.3 $1,800 67% $1,600 91% No 12 8

Able $28.00 25-May-2024 111 107 No 1.8 6.3 6.3 $1,500 27% $1,500 79% Yes 13 4


CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 5 | Marketing – Germany: Low Tech

5 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Price €15.00 – €35.00 50%

Positioning Speed 5.8 Accuracy 5.8 21%

Age 3 Years 15%

Service Life 14,000 – 20,000 Hours 14%

5 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : €1.00EUR

2024 Total Market Size 875

2024 Total Units Sold 0

2025 Demand Growth Rate 20%

5.3 Germany Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

5.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0

Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

5 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Name Price
Revision
Date
Units
Sold
Potential
Sold
Stock
Out
Age Speed Accuracy
Sales
Budget
Customer
Accessibility
Promo
Budget
Customer
Awareness
Region
Kit
Design
Score

Customer
Satisfaction

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 6 | Marketing – Germany: High Tech

6 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Positioning Speed 8.8 Accuracy 8.8 43%

Age 0 Years 33%

Service Life 17,000 – 23,000 Hours 16%

Price €25.00 – €45.00 8%

6 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : €1.00EUR

2024 Total Market Size 908

2024 Total Units Sold 0

2025 Demand Growth Rate 35%

6.3 Germany Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

6.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

6 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Section 7 | Marketing – China: Low Tech

7 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Price ¥100.00 – ¥240.00 60%

Age 3 Years 14%

Positioning Speed 5.8 Accuracy 5.8 14%

Service Life 14,000 – 20,000 Hours 12%

7 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : ¥7.20CNY

2024 Total Market Size 1,154

2024 Total Units Sold 0

2025 Demand Growth Rate 45%

7.3 China Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

7.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

7 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Section 8 | Marketing – China: High Tech

8 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Positioning Speed 8.8 Accuracy 8.8 41%

Age 0 Years 28%

Service Life 17,000 – 23,000 Hours 20%

Price ¥170.00 – ¥305.00 11%

8 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : ¥7.20CNY

2024 Total Market Size 306

2024 Total Units Sold 0

2025 Demand Growth Rate 32%

8.3 China Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

8.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

8 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Section 9 | Production
9 . 1 P r o d u ct io n P la n t L o ca t io n s

USA Germany China

Andrews, Baldwin, Chester, Digby

Production vs Capacity

9 . 2 P la n t I n f o r ma t io n

Name
Primary
Segment

Units
Produced

Units
Sold

Inventory
USA

Inventory
Germany

Inventory
China

Auto. Next
Round

Capacity Next
Round

Plant
Utilization

Total Plant
Investment

Able Low Tech 1,920 1,330 891 0 0 3 2,100 95% $0

Baker Low Tech 1,632 1,939 0 0 0 4.5 1,700 100% $5,440

Bold High Tech 864 655 209 0 0 3.8 900 100% $9,430

Cake High Tech 2,424 1,650 1,197 0 0 3.8 2,600 129% $13,780

Dart — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% $0

Daze Low Tech 1,632 1,519 518 0 0 3 1,700 100% $0

9 . 3 Co st s

Name Price Direct Material Direct Labor Shipping Defects Cont. Margin

Able $28.00 $9.38 $9.31 $0.00 $0.80 22.6%

Baker $32.50 $8.76 $8.49 $0.00 $0.75 42.3%

Bold $45.00 $11.52 $13.15 $0.00 $1.04 40.1%

Cake $35.00 $12.56 $9.27 $0.00 $0.90 30.3%

Dart $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0%

Daze $32.00 $13.18 $9.30 $0.00 $0.95 22.7%

1,9201,9201,920

2,4962,4962,496

2,4242,4242,424

1,6321,6321,632

2,1002,1002,100

2,6002,6002,600

1,9501,9501,950

1,7001,7001,700

Production Capacity

Andrews
Baldwin
Chester
Digby

0 1000 2000200 400 600 800 1200 1400 1600 1800 2200 2400 2600 2800

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 10 | Finance
1 0 . 1 I n co me St a t emen t

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Sales $37,229 $92,516 $57,749 $48,615

Variable Costs

Direct Material $13,135 $26,052 $20,148 $20,642

Direct Labor $12,466 $25,197 $15,403 $13,997

Shipping

$0 $0 $0 $0

Defects $1,067 $2,135 $1,481 $1,443

Inventory Carry $2,144 $651 $3,224 $1,477

Total Variable Costs (Labor, Material, Carry, Ship,
Defect)

$28,812 $54,035 $40,257 $37,560

Contribution Margin $8,417 $38,481 $17,492 $11,055

Period Costs

Depreciation $2,520 $3,992 $3,675 $2,040

SG&A

R&D $396 $315 $999 $906

Promotions $1,500 $3,400 $1,850 $1,000

Sales $1,500 $3,600 $3,000 $1,000

Administration $514 $887 $472 $373

Total Period Costs $6,430 $12,194 $9,996 $5,319

Net Margin $1,987 $26,287 $7,496 $5,736

Other (Fees/Write-offs/Bonuses/Relocation Fee) $0 $735 $250 $135

EBIT $1,987 $25,552 $7,246 $5,601

Interest (Short term/Long Term) $1,822 $2,165 $3,581 $1,733

Taxes $58 $8,185 $1,283 $1,354

Pro�t Sharing $2 $304 $48

$50

Net Pro�t $105 $14,897 $2,334 $2,464

1 0 . 2 B a la n ce Sh eet

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Cash $0 $15,755 $0 $16,773

Accounts Receivable $3,060 $7,604 $4,746 $3,996

Inventory $17,865 $5,423 $26,871 $12,311

Total Current Assets $20,925 $28,783 $31,617 $33,079

Plant and Equipment $37,800 $59,880 $55,120 $30,600

Accumulated Depreciation ($15,240) ($16,549) ($16,631) ($14,280)

Total Fixed Assets $22,560 $43,331 $38,489 $16,320

Total Assets $43,485 $72,113 $70,106 $49,399

Accounts Payable $3,072 $4,300 $4,472 $3,199

Current Debt $5,240 $1,867 $25,835 $6,967

Long-Term Debt $12,333 $22,133 $9,333 $12,033

Total Liabilities $20,646 $28,300 $39,640 $22,199

Common Stock $6,437 $4,937 $9,937 $4,937

Retained Earnings $16,403 $38,877 $20,530 $22,263

Total Equity $22,840 $43,814 $30,466 $27,200

Total Liabilities & Owners Equity $43,485 $72,113 $70,106 $49,399

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

1 0 . 3 Ca sh F lo w St a t emen t

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Starting Cash Position $4,545 $5,570 $347 $13,191

Cash From Operations

Net Income(Loss) $105 $14,897 $2,334 $2,464

Adjustment For Non-Cash Items

Depreciation $2,520 $3,992 $3,675 $2,040

Extraordinary Gains/Losses/Write-offs $0 $350 $0 $0

Changes In Current Assets And Liabilities

Accounts Payable ($1,130) $1,478 $663 $52

Inventory ($10,708) $1,069 ($17,377) ($2,837)

Accounts Receivable $1,294 ($3,430) $47 ($438)

Net Cash From Operations ($7,918) $18,356 ($10,659) $1,281

Cash From Investing

Net Plant Improvements $0 ($14,870) ($13,780) $0

Cash From Financing

Dividends Paid $0 $0 ($2,176) $0

Sales Of Common Stock $0 $0 $5,000 $0

Purchase Of Common Stock $0 $0 $0 $0

Cash From Long-Term Debt Issued $0 $7,700 $0 $2,700

Early Retirement Of Long-Term Debt $0 $0 $0 $0

Retirement Of Current Debt $0 ($1,000) ($2,700) ($5,500)

Cash From Current Debt Borrowing $0 $0 $11,100 $5,100

Cash From Emergency Loan $3,373 $0 $12,868 $0

Net Cash From Financing $3,373 $6,700 $24,092 $2,300

Effect Of Exchange Rates $0 $0 $0 $0

Net Change In Cash ($4,545) $10,186 ($347) $3,581

Ending Cash Position $0 $15,755 $0 $16,773

1 0 . 4 B o n d Ma r ket Su mma r y

Company Series Face Value Yield Closing Price S&P Rating

Andrews
10.0S2026
11.0S2028
8.0S2033

$3,733,333
$5,600,000

$3,000,000

9.83%
10.33%
8.51%

$101.76
$106.48
$94.00

B
B
B

Baldwin

10.0S2026
11.0S2028
8.0S2033
8.3S2034

$3,733,333
$5,600,000
$5,100,000
$7,700,000

9.67%
10.04%
8.05%
8.19%

$103.38
$109.58
$99.38

$101.34

BBB
BBB
BBB
BBB

Chester
10.0S2026
11.0S2028

$3,733,333
$5,600,000

9.98%
10.63%

$100.17
$103.49

CC
CC

Digby
10.0S2026
11.0S2028
8.7S2034

$3,733,333
$5,600,000
$2,700,000

9.78%
10.23%

8.7%

$102.30
$107.50
$100.00

BB
BB
BB

Next Year’s Prime Rate: 5%

1 0 . 5 St o ck Ma r ket Su mma r y

Company Closing Price Change Shares Outstanding Market Cap Book Value EPS Dividend Yield P/E

Andrews $7.85 ($6.33) 2,072,761 $16m $11.02 $0.05 $0.00 0% 154.64

Baldwin $50.18 $21.08 2,000,000 $100m $21.91 $7.45 $0.00 0% 6.74

Chester $17.05 ($8.23) 2,197,769 $37m $13.86 $1.06 $0.99 5.8% 16.06

Digby $19.04 ($1.69) 2,000,000 $38m $13.60 $1.23 $0.00 0% 15.46

Finance – Charts

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

10.6 Stock Price

10.7 Net Pro�t

1 0 . 8 I n co me St a t emen t – USA

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
Sales $37,229 $92,516 $57,749 $48,615
Variable Costs
Direct Material $13,135 $26,052 $20,148 $20,642
Direct Labor $12,466 $25,197 $15,403 $13,997

Shipping $0 $0 $0 $0

Defects $1,067 $2,135 $1,481 $1,443
Inventory Carry $2,144 $651 $3,224 $1,477
Total Variable Costs (Labor, Material, Carry, Ship,
Defect)
$28,812 $54,035 $40,257 $37,560
Contribution Margin $8,417 $38,481 $17,492 $11,055
Period Costs
Depreciation $2,520 $3,992 $3,675 $2,040
SG&A

SG&A $3,910 $8,202 $6,321 $3,279

R&D $396 $315 $999 $906
Promotions $1,500 $3,400 $1,850 $1,000
Sales $1,500 $3,600 $3,000 $1,000
Administration $514 $887 $472 $373
Total Period Costs $6,430 $12,194 $9,996 $5,319
Net Margin $1,987 $26,287 $7,496 $5,736
Other (Fees/Write-offs/Bonuses/Relocation Fee) $0 $735 $250 $135
EBIT $1,987 $25,552 $7,246 $5,601
Interest (Short term/Long Term) $1,822 $2,165 $3,581 $1,733
Taxes $58 $8,185 $1,283 $1,354
Pro�t Sharing $2 $304 $48 $50
Net Pro�t $105 $14,897 $2,334 $2,464

20.6220.6220.62

14.1814.1814.18

7.857.857.85

29.129.129.1

50.1850.1850.18

25.2825.2825.28

17.0517.0517.05

20.7420.7420.74

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
$0

$2500

$5000

$7500

$10000

$12500

$15000

$17500

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

1 0 . 9 I n co me St a t emen t – G er ma n y

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Sales $0 $0 $0 $0

Variable Costs

Direct Material $0 $0 $0 $0

Direct Labor $0 $0 $0 $0

Shipping $0 $0 $0 $0

Defects $0 $0 $0 $0

Inventory Carry $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Variable Costs (Labor, Material, Carry, Ship,
Defect)
$0 $0 $0 $0

Contribution Margin $0 $0 $0 $0

Period Costs

Depreciation $0 $0 $0 $0

SG&A

SG&A $0 $0 $0 $0

R&D $0 $0 $0 $0

Promotions $0 $0 $0 $0

Sales $0 $0 $0 $0

Administration $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Period Costs $0 $0 $0 $0

Net Margin $0 $0 $0 $0

Other (Fees/Write-offs/Bonuses/Relocation Fee) $0 $0 $0 $0

EBIT $0 $0 $0 $0

Interest (Short term/Long Term) $0 $0 $0 $0

Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0

Pro�t Sharing $0 $0 $0 $0

Net Pro�t $0 $0 $0 $0

1 0 . 1 0 I n co me St a t emen t – Ch in a

Section 11 | Custom Modules

1 1 . 1 Wo r kf o r ce Su mma r y

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Number of Employees 385 515 437 327

First Shift 385 456 338 327

Second Shift 0 59 99 0

Overtime % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Turnover Rate 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%

New Employees 39 240 68 33

Separated Employees 43 0 0 0

Productivity Index 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Capsim Decision Record

Explain your decisions for each action item in your department. Be sure to update this form after each round and evaluate your prior decisions.

Speed

Example: For round 1, because my team chose a local niche differentiator strategy, I did not increase speed. Right now, speed seems to be in a good spot on the perceptual map. Next round, if the sweet spot changes more than 1 point, we might need to spend some money to improve speed.

Round 2

, the spot on the round 2 perceptual map shifted but not enough (less than 1 point). So, we saved some money by not unnecessarily updating the speed. I’ll keep it at this speed for one more round and see where this product is on the perceptual map.

Accuracy

Service Life

Chosen strategy: Niche Cost Leader

Research and Development

Accuracy

5.8

6.3

Service Life

14,000

A – USA

Able

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

Speed

5.8

6.3

4.5

12,6

14,000

Region Kit

A – USA

Speed:

Round 1:

Round 2:

Round 3:

Round 4:

Accuracy:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Service Life:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Region Kit:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Marketing

Able

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

$1,200

$1,500

$3,000

$1500

2100

1450

Price	$27.00	$28 .00	$25.00	$28
Promo Budget		$1,200			$1,500	$3,000	$1500
Sales Budget
Forecast		2100		1450

Marketing

· Regions Selected for Sales

For each region selected: USA

· Price

· Round 1: In round 1, as a niche cost leader, we wanted to enable the company to compete based on price before raising the price. The entry price was set at $27.00. The price range in the customer buying criteria is between $25.00-$45.00 for the low-tech segment. The plan was to test the market before we decide to increase or decrease the price to make a profit.

· Round 2, we had to raise the price of our product to $28 because we didn’t make enough money in round one. Also, we increase the forecast to see if we can sell more products.

· Round 3, the product’s price was drop to $25 because we still didn’t make enough sales in round 2.

· Round 4, We had to raise the price to $28 because we were short of cash.

· Promotional Budget

· Round 1, we decided to keep the promo cost low at $1,200 because of the price of our product. We expect our product to be accessible at a low price, which will create awareness.

· Round 2, the promo was increased to $1,500. To keep up with speed and see how the demand would change this year if $300 more were added.

· Round 3, we decided to increase the promo budget to $3000 to create more awareness

· Round 4, we had to reduce the budget to $1500 since we had products left from the previous year.

· Sales Budget

· Round 1, our sales budget was set to $1,200. The sales budget should run concurrent to the promo budget because the sales budget determines the awareness customers have of the product.

· Round 2, In round 2, $300 was added to the sales budget at $1,200. This followed the same route as the promo budget.

· Round 3, the sales budget was increased to $3000 to help with the sales to raise the funds we have in hand

· Round 4, we decided to reduce the sales budget to $1500 since we had products left unsold from the previous year.

· Forecast

· Round 1, the forecast was set to 2100 units because this is a new product and since we don’t know how the customer would respond to it. We also did not want to have excess inventory left over.

· Round 2, the forecast was dropped down to 2000 units because we had some products left from the previous year.

· Round 3, the forecast was again dropped to 1450 units because we didn’t perform well in sales the previous year and had many unsold products.

· Round 4, we decided to stay with 1450 units to close the round.

Price:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Promotional Budget:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Sales Budget:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Forecast:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Production

Able

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

400

3.0

Schedule	2,225	2,000	725
Capacity		400	-1350
Automation		3.0	4.0

Plant Location:

Round 1: Team Andrews selected a local niche strategy for product Able. As such, we have chosen to start and keep our plant in the United States for all four rounds.

Round 2: Plant location remains the same.

Round 3: Plant location remains the same.

Round 4: Plant location remains the same.

Order:

Round 1: We decided to choose to make 2,225 products the first year. We implemented a 10% overage to our projection to avoid having any shortfall. Furthermore, we were doing our best to balance our closing financial position in the first year so we did not want to build too few or too many products.

Round 2: This round, we thought we were on a good route for production. We decided to make 2,000 more units. However, after this round, we only sold 1,330 and produced 1,920. One complete, we were left with 891 units still in stock with our compounded overage from year one.

Round 3: Having a lessons learned debrief from round two, we decided to make a few changes. We reduced our forecast to 1,450 for this round which allowed us to reduce our order to 725 units. In doing so, we compounded the 891 units that were left on our shelves from round 2 so meet our projected sales numbers +10%.

Round 4:

Capacity:

Round 1: We decided to start with a capacity of 400. We felt that it was a good start to the simulation to see how product Able would perform, coupled with our other decisions.

Round 2: Having a decent round one, we decided to keep capacity at 400 for this round. Our labor costs were not outrageous and we had a good level of worker retention.

Round 3: For round three, we had to reexamine our choices. The culmination of the first two rounds for product Able were less than optimal. We were left with a significant number of leftover product and as such needed to produce much less this round. We cut our capacity -1350 and as a result lost a significant number of employees.

Round 4:

Automation:

Round 1: For the first round, we kept automation at 3.0 to get a feel for how much of an impact, if any, it would make on our first year numbers.

Round 2:Our numbers at the end of round one were decent, so we decided to keep automation at a 3.0. However, after round two, we saw that we needed to make some changes to save the company.

Round 3:We had a surplus of inventory still on our shelves from round two. The decision was made to significantly reduce our order number for round three. In doing so, we cut our labor costs significantly and increased automation to 4.0 in hopes of having a great round four.

Round 4:

Finance

Able

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Round 4

$3,000

$1,500

Current Debt – Borrow

Bonds – Issue (borrow)

Bonds – Retire

Common Stock – Issue

Buy Back

Issue Dividend

Borrow:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Issue (Borrow):

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Retire:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Issue:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Buy Back:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Issue Dividend:

Round 1:
Round 2:
Round 3:
Round 4:

Contents

RP106391_1 Round 3 – 2025
Report

Section 1 High Level Overview

Section 2 Research & Development

Section 3 Marketing – United States of America: Low Tech

Section 4 Marketing – United States of America: High Tech

Section 5 Marketing – Germany: Low Tech

Section 6 Marketing – Germany: High Tech

Section 7 Marketing – China: Low Tech

Section 8 Marketing – China: High Tech

Section 9 Production

Section 10 Finance

Section 11 Custom Modules

0 . 1 R o st er

Andrews

Adeyemi Olayiwola

Olufemi Adedayo

Eric Vooys

Matthew Dowd

ANTHONY BREWINGTON

Uri Harris

Baldwin

Alexander Lopez

Mariatu Alie

Vidhi Shetty

Joseph Fish

Darren Cruz

Jason Bell

Chester

Erick Quintanilla

Emma Granzier

Ameerah Bridges

Dannita Dyson

Nicole Licari

Digby

kiara tarver

JAMYE graham

Maurice Mayo Jr

Porscha Day

Tyesha Anderson

CONTINUE

DECLINE ALL

Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.

(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)

SHOW DETAILS

Section 1 | High Level Overview
Please note: For �nancials, millions are reported in thousands

1 . 1 H ig h L ev el O v er v iew

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby Average

Sales $39,615 $105,477 $92,492 $16,726 $63,57

EBIT ($55) $30,237 $21,050 ($6,864) $11,09

Pro�t ($1,010) $17,289 $11,627 ($8,906) $4,75

Cumulative Pro�t $3,089 $43,862 $23,729 $1,054 $17,93

SG&A to Sales Ratio 21.44% 9.65% 7.12% 39.55% 19.44%

Contribution Margin 21.19% 45.26% 34.24% 18.25% 29.74%

Stock Price $9.17 $71.38 $33.85 $1.00 $28.85

Market Cap $19m $143m $74m $2m $60m

Emergency Loan $0 $0 $9,413 $41,578 $12,748

1 . 2 Ma r ket Sh a r e

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

United States of America 15.6% 41.5% 36.4% 6.6%

Germany 0% 0% 0% 0%

China 0% 0% 0% 0%

Global Market Share 15.6% 41.5% 36.4% 6.6%

1.3 USA Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
15.6 %15.6 %
Andrews
15.6 %

BaldwinBaldwin
41.5 %41.5 %
Baldwin
41.5 %

ChesterChester
36.4 %36.4 %
Chester
36.4 %

DigbyDigby
6.6 %6.6 %
Digby
6.6 %

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

1.4 Germany Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %

BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %

ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %

DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

1.5 China Market Share

Section 2 | Research & Development

2 . 1 P r o d u ct L ist

Name Speed Accuracy Service Life Region Kit Age Revision Date Design Score

Able 4.5 6.3 14,000 USA 1.4 December 21, 2025 15

Baker 6.0 6.0 20,000 2.3 July 23, 2025 78

Bold 9.0 8.7 20,250 0.9 December 31, 2025 57

Cake 9.2 9.5 23,000 Germany 1.3 December 23, 2025 89

Dart 9.9 9.9 21,500 USA, Germany 0.6 November 26, 2025 —

Daze 7.9 7.9 21,000 USA, Germany, China 2.1 November 30, 2025 37

2.2 Perceptual Map

Speed

A
cc

u
ra

AbleAbleAbleBakerBakerBaker

BoldBoldBold
CakeCakeCake

DazeDazeDaze

DartDartDart

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

2
4

20
CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 3 | Marketing – United States of America: Low Tech

3 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Price $15.00 – $35.00 55%

Age 3 Years 19%

Positioning Speed 6.3 Accuracy 6.3 17%

Service Life 14,000 – 20,000 Hours 9%

3 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

2025 Total Market Size 4,636

2025 Total Units Sold 4,516

2026 Demand Growth Rate 6%

3.3 USA Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
33.0 %33.0 %
Andrews
33.0 %

BaldwinBaldwin
40.6 %40.6 %
Baldwin
40.6 %

ChesterChester
26.4 %26.4 %
Chester
26.4 %

DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

3.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

1490

1834

1193

2463

1868

305

Actual Potential

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Name Price
Revision

Date
Units

Sold
Potential

Sold
Stock
Out

Age Speed Accuracy
Sales

Budget
Customer

Accessibility
Promo
Budget

Customer
Awareness

Region
Kit

Design
Score

Customer
Satisfaction

Baker $31.00 23-July-2025 1,664 1,835 Yes 2.3 6 6 $2,000 68% $1,400 94% No 78 27

Able $25.00 21-Dec-2025 1,490 2,463 Yes 1.4 4.5 6.3 $3,000 55% $3,000 100% Yes 11 19

Cake $35.00 23-Dec-2025 1,193 305 No 1.3 9.2 9.5 $3,000 62% $1,900 100% No 12 0

Bold $44.00 31-Dec-2025 170 33 Yes 0.9 9 8.7 $2,200 68% $2,000 90% No 10 0



CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 4 | Marketing – United States of America: High Tech

4 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Positioning Speed 9.5 Accuracy 9.5 39%

Age 0 Years 32%

Service Life 17,000 – 23,000 Hours 19%

Price $25.00 – $45.00 10%

4 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

2025 Total Market Size 3,074

2025 Total Units Sold 3,074

2026 Demand Growth Rate 13%

4.3 USA Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
3.1 %3.1 %
Andrews
3.1 %

BaldwinBaldwin
37.7 %37.7 %
Baldwin
37.7 %

ChesterChester
47.2 %47.2 %
Chester
47.2 %

DigbyDigby
12.0 %12.0 %
Digby
12.0 %

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

4.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

1159

1450

370

153

1166

1398

355

Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

250

500

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

4 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Name Price
Revision
Date
Units
Sold
Potential
Sold
Stock
Out
Age Speed Accuracy
Sales
Budget
Customer
Accessibility
Promo
Budget
Customer
Awareness
Region
Kit
Design
Score
Customer
Satisfaction

Cake $35.00 23-Dec-2025 1,450 1,398 No 1.3 9.2 9.5 $3,000 79% $1,900 100% No 89 84

Bold $44.00 31-Dec-2025 807 779 Yes 0.9 9 8.7 $2,200 76% $2,000 90% No 57 44

Daze $45.25 30-Nov-2025 370 355 No 2.1 7.9 7.9 $2,200 46% $2,450 89% Yes 26 16

Baker $31.00 23-July-2025 352 388 Yes 2.3 6 6 $2,000 76% $1,400 94% No 16 12

Able $25.00 21-Dec-2025 95 153 Yes 1.4 4.5 6.3 $3,000 29% $3,000 100% Yes 15 0


CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 5 | Marketing – Germany: Low Tech

5 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Price €15.00 – €35.00 50%

Positioning Speed 6.3 Accuracy 6.3 21%

Age 3 Years 15%

Service Life 14,000 – 20,000 Hours 14%

5 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : €1.05EUR

2025 Total Market Size 1,050

2025 Total Units Sold 0

2026 Demand Growth Rate 20%

5.3 Germany Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

5.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0

Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

5 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Name Price
Revision
Date
Units
Sold
Potential
Sold
Stock
Out
Age Speed Accuracy
Sales
Budget
Customer
Accessibility
Promo
Budget
Customer
Awareness
Region
Kit
Design
Score

Customer
Satisfaction

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 6 | Marketing – Germany: High Tech

6 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Positioning Speed 9.5 Accuracy 9.5 43%

Age 0 Years 33%

Service Life 17,000 – 23,000 Hours 16%

Price €25.00 – €45.00 8%

6 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : €1.05EUR

2025 Total Market Size 1,225

2025 Total Units Sold 0

2026 Demand Growth Rate 35%

6.3 Germany Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

6.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

6 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Section 7 | Marketing – China: Low Tech

7 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Price ¥100.00 – ¥240.00 60%

Age 3 Years 14%

Positioning Speed 6.3 Accuracy 6.3 14%

Service Life 14,000 – 20,000 Hours 12%

7 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : ¥6.60CNY

2025 Total Market Size 1,673

2025 Total Units Sold 0

2026 Demand Growth Rate 45%

7.3 China Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

7.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

7 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Section 8 | Marketing – China: High Tech

8 . 1 Cu st o mer B u y in g Cr it er ia

Expectations Importance

Positioning Speed 9.5 Accuracy 9.5 41%

Age 0 Years 28%

Service Life 17,000 – 23,000 Hours 20%

Price ¥170.00 – ¥305.00 11%

8 . 2 Dema n d I n f o r ma t io n

FX Rate $1.00$ : ¥6.60CNY

2025 Total Market Size 403

2025 Total Units Sold 0

2026 Demand Growth Rate 32%

8.3 China Market Share

AndrewsAndrews
0.0 %0.0 %
Andrews
0.0 %
BaldwinBaldwin
0.0 %0.0 %
Baldwin
0.0 %
ChesterChester
0.0 %0.0 %
Chester
0.0 %
DigbyDigby
0.0 %0.0 %
Digby
0.0 %
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

8.4 Actual vs. Potential Units Sold

0 0 0 00 0 0 0
Actual Potential
Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
0

8 . 5 To p P r o d u ct s

Section 9 | Production
9 . 1 P r o d u ct io n P la n t L o ca t io n s

USA Germany China

Andrews, Baldwin, Chester, Digby

Production vs Capacity

9 . 2 P la n t I n f o r ma t io n

Name
Primary
Segment

Units
Produced

Units
Sold

Inventory
USA

Inventory
Germany

Inventory
China

Auto. Next
Round

Capacity Next
Round

Plant
Utilization

Total Plant
Investment

Able Low Tech 694 1,585 0 0 0 4 750 97% ($12,795)

Baker Low Tech 2,016 2,016 0 0 0 6.3 2,100 124% $24,720

Bold High Tech 768 977 0 0 0 6.6 800 100% $7,582

Cake High Tech 2,496 2,643 1,051 0 0 4.1 2,700 100% $5,360

Dart — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Daze High Tech 1,632 370 1,781 0 0 4 2,250 100% $18,900

9 . 3 Co st s

Name Price Direct Material Direct Labor Shipping Defects Cont. Margin

Able $25.00 $7.55 $9.74 $0.00 $0.79 21.2%

Baker $31.00 $8.81 $8.64 $0.00 $0.72 41.7%

Bold $44.00 $12.10 $8.78 $0.00 $0.87 50.4%

Cake $35.00 $13.49 $8.77 $0.00 $0.88 34.2%

Dart $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0%

Daze $45.25 $12.94 $9.74 $0.00 $0.94 18.2%

694694694

2,7842,7842,784

2,4962,4962,496

1,6321,6321,632

750750750

2,5002,5002,500

2,6002,6002,600

1,7001,7001,700

Production Capacity

Andrews
Baldwin
Chester
Digby

0 1000 2000 3000200 400 600 800 1200 1400 1600 1800 2200 2400 2600 2800

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Section 10 | Finance
1 0 . 1 I n co me St a t emen t

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Sales $39,615 $105,477 $92,492 $16,726

Variable Costs

Direct Material $14,860 $28,530 $32,081 $4,764

Direct Labor $15,110 $26,898 $23,655 $3,554

Shipping

$0 $0 $0 $0

Defects $1,249 $2,310 $2,322 $347

Inventory Carry $0 $0 $2,770 $5,009

Total Variable Costs (Labor, Material, Carry, Ship,
Defect)

$31,219 $57,738 $60,827 $13,674

Contribution Margin $8,396 $47,739 $31,665 $3,052

Period Costs

Depreciation $1,100 $6,096 $4,032 $3,300

SG&A

R&D $972 $1,556 $977 $1,816

Promotions $3,000 $3,400 $1,900 $2,450

Sales $3,000 $4,200 $3,000 $2,200

Administration $1,521 $1,025 $705 $150

Total Period Costs $9,593 $16,277 $10,615 $9,916

Net Margin ($1,197) $31,462 $21,050 ($6,864)

Other (Fees/Write-offs/Bonuses/Relocation Fee) ($1,142) $1,226 $0 $0

EBIT ($55) $30,237 $21,050 ($6,864)

Interest (Short term/Long Term) $1,499 $3,096 $2,798 $6,838

Taxes ($544) $9,499 $6,388 ($4,795)

Pro�t Sharing $0 $353 $237 $0

Net Pro�t ($1,010) $17,289 $11,627 ($8,906)

1 0 . 2 B a la n ce Sh eet

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Cash $25,047 $23,130 $0 $0

Accounts Receivable $3,256 $8,669 $7,602 $1,375

Inventory $0 $0 $23,080 $41,742

Total Current Assets $28,303 $31,799 $30,683 $43,117

Plant and Equipment $16,500 $91,440 $60,480 $49,500

Accumulated Depreciation ($6,543) ($22,504) ($20,663) ($17,580)

Total Fixed Assets $9,957 $68,936 $39,817 $31,920

Total Assets $38,260 $100,735 $70,500 $75,037

Accounts Payable $1,098 $4,300 $4,460 $3,131

Current Debt $0 $700 $14,613 $41,578

Long-Term Debt $15,333 $34,633 $9,333 $12,033

Total Liabilities $16,431 $39,633 $28,407 $56,743

Common Stock $6,437 $4,937 $9,937 $4,937

Retained Earnings $15,392 $56,166 $32,156 $13,357

Total Equity $21,829 $61,102 $42,093 $18,294

Total Liabilities & Owners Equity $38,260 $100,735 $70,500 $75,037

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

1 0 . 3 Ca sh F lo w St a t emen t

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Starting Cash Position $0 $15,755 $0 $16,773

Cash From Operations

Net Income(Loss) ($1,010) $17,289 $11,627 ($8,906)

Adjustment For Non-Cash Items

Depreciation $1,100 $6,096 $4,032 $3,300

Extraordinary Gains/Losses/Write-offs ($1,292) $601 $0 $0

Changes In Current Assets And Liabilities

Accounts Payable ($1,975) $0 ($12) ($68)

Inventory $17,865 $5,423 $3,790 ($29,432)

Accounts Receivable ($196) ($1,065) ($2,856) $2,621

Net Cash From Operations $14,492 $28,343 $16,581 ($32,484)

Cash From Investing

Net Plant Improvements $12,795 ($32,302) ($5,360) ($18,900)

Cash From Financing

Dividends Paid $0 $0 $0 $0

Sales Of Common Stock $0 $0 $0 $0

Purchase Of Common Stock $0 $0 $0 $0

Cash From Long-Term Debt Issued $3,000 $12,500 $0 $0

Early Retirement Of Long-Term Debt $0 $0 $0 $0

Retirement Of Current Debt ($5,240) ($1,867) ($25,835) ($6,967)

Cash From Current Debt Borrowing $0 $700 $5,200 $0

Cash From Emergency Loan $0 $0 $9,413 $41,578

Net Cash From Financing ($2,240) $11,333 ($11,221) $34,612

Effect Of Exchange Rates $0 $0 $0 $0

Net Change In Cash $25,047 $7,375 $0 ($16,773)

Ending Cash Position $25,047 $23,130 $0 $0

1 0 . 4 B o n d Ma r ket Su mma r y

Company Series Face Value Yield Closing Price S&P Rating

Andrews

10.0S2026
11.0S2028
8.0S2033
9.0S2035

$3,733,333
$5,600,000

$3,000,000
$3,000,000

9.86%
10.34%
8.23%
8.71%

$101.38
$106.39
$97.18

$103.28

BB
BB
BB
BB

Baldwin

10.0S2026
11.0S2028
8.0S2033
8.3S2034
8.1S2035

$3,733,333
$5,600,000
$5,100,000
$7,700,000

$12,500,000

9.83%
10.24%
8.05%
8.2%
8.1%

$101.76
$107.46
$99.43

$101.24
$100.00

BBB
BBB

BBB
BBB
BBB

Chester
10.0S2026
11.0S2028

$3,733,333
$5,600,000

9.84%
10.26%

$101.66
$107.19

BBB
BBB

Digby
10.0S2026
11.0S2028
8.7S2034

$3,733,333
$5,600,000
$2,700,000

10.1%
11.03%
10.03%

$99.01
$99.76
$86.76

DDD
DDD
DDD

Next Year’s Prime Rate: 5%

1 0 . 5 St o ck Ma r ket Su mma r y

Company Closing Price Change Shares Outstanding Market Cap Book Value EPS Dividend Yield P/E

Andrews $9.17 $1.32 2,072,761 $19m $10.53 ($0.49) $0.00 0% -18.82

Baldwin $71.38 $21.20 2,000,000 $143m $30.55 $8.64 $0.00 0% 8.26

Chester $33.85 $16.80 2,197,769 $74m $19.15 $5.29 $0.00 0% 6.40

Digby $1.00 ($18.04) 2,000,000 $2m $9.15 ($4.45) $0.00 0% -0.22

Finance – Charts

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

10.6 Stock Price

10.7 Net Pro�t

1 0 . 8 I n co me St a t emen t – USA

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
Sales $39,615 $105,477 $92,492 $16,726
Variable Costs
Direct Material $14,860 $28,530 $32,081 $4,764
Direct Labor $15,110 $26,898 $23,655 $3,554

Shipping $0 $0 $0 $0

Defects $1,249 $2,310 $2,322 $347
Inventory Carry $0 $0 $2,770 $5,009
Total Variable Costs (Labor, Material, Carry, Ship,
Defect)
$31,219 $57,738 $60,827 $13,674
Contribution Margin $8,396 $47,739 $31,665 $3,052
Period Costs
Depreciation $1,100 $6,096 $4,032 $3,300
SG&A

SG&A $8,493 $10,181 $6,582 $6,616

R&D $972 $1,556 $977 $1,816
Promotions $3,000 $3,400 $1,900 $2,450
Sales $3,000 $4,200 $3,000 $2,200
Administration $1,521 $1,025 $705 $150
Total Period Costs $9,593 $16,277 $10,615 $9,916
Net Margin ($1,197) $31,462 $21,050 ($6,864)
Other (Fees/Write-offs/Bonuses/Relocation Fee) ($1,142) $1,226 $0 $0
EBIT ($55) $30,237 $21,050 ($6,864)
Interest (Short term/Long Term) $1,499 $3,096 $2,798 $6,838
Taxes ($544) $9,499 $6,388 ($4,795)
Pro�t Sharing $0 $353 $237 $0
Net Pro�t ($1,010) $17,289 $11,627 ($8,906)

20.6220.6220.62

14.1814.1814.18

7.857.857.85 9.179.179.17

29.129.129.1

50.1850.1850.18

71.3871.3871.38

25.2825.2825.28

17.0517.0517.05

33.8533.8533.85

20.7420.7420.74

111

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby
$-15000

$-10000

$-5000

$5000

$10000

$15000

$20000

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

1 0 . 9 I n co me St a t emen t – G er ma n y

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Sales $0 $0 $0 $0

Variable Costs

Direct Material $0 $0 $0 $0

Direct Labor $0 $0 $0 $0

Shipping $0 $0 $0 $0

Defects $0 $0 $0 $0

Inventory Carry $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Variable Costs (Labor, Material, Carry, Ship,
Defect)
$0 $0 $0 $0

Contribution Margin $0 $0 $0 $0

Period Costs

Depreciation $0 $0 $0 $0

SG&A

SG&A $0 $0 $0 $0

R&D $0 $0 $0 $0

Promotions $0 $0 $0 $0

Sales $0 $0 $0 $0

Administration $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Period Costs $0 $0 $0 $0

Net Margin $0 $0 $0 $0

Other (Fees/Write-offs/Bonuses/Relocation Fee) $0 $0 $0 $0

EBIT $0 $0 $0 $0

Interest (Short term/Long Term) $0 $0 $0 $0

Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0

Pro�t Sharing $0 $0 $0 $0

Net Pro�t $0 $0 $0 $0

1 0 . 1 0 I n co me St a t emen t – Ch in a

Section 11 | Custom Modules

1 1 . 1 Wo r kf o r ce Su mma r y

Andrews Baldwin Chester Digby

Number of Employees 139 467 450 327

First Shift 139 405 450 327

Second Shift 0 63 0 0

Overtime % 0% 0% 0% 0%

Turnover Rate 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0%

New Employees 14 47 58 33

Separated Employees 246 48 0 0

Productivity Index 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CONTINUE
DECLINE ALL
Capsim.com uses cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse our website, you agree to our Privacy Policy.
(https://www.capsim.com/privacy-policy)
SHOW DETAILS

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Project 3: Simulation as a Tool for Strategic Decision ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order a unique copy of this paper

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

600 words

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM

Total price:

$26

Our Services

Project 3: Simulation as a Tool for Strategic Decision

IndividualAnalysis

Order a unique copy of this paper