Vanraj Tractors free essay sample

- VANRAJ MINI-TRACTORS - The case depicts the dilemma of a decision-maker Mr Trivedi who has to select an appropriate segment for marketing the 10 horsepower (HP) Vanraj Mini tractor in the states of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. The four segments identified for Vanraj tractors: small and marginal farmers, large farmers, industries, and horticulture farmers. Vanraj was economical and could perform almost all the functions of a big tractor at lower costs serving multiple purposes and uses. It provided added and immense advantage over the existing Chinese made mini-tractors and bullocks used by small farmers and the existing market players catered to the larger farmer segment considered lucrative and substantive in nature with a higher level of mechanization. India has emerged as the world’s largest market for tractors and the small and marginal farmers are dominant in terms of numbers but no player currently serving this segment. Mr Trivedi found a huge market potential in the small and large farmer segment as they had a latent demand and believed that this segment was the most appropriate target market for Vanraj but the other board members advised him to consider and study the feasibility and profitability from the other identified segments before deciding to freeze a particular target segment. We will write a custom essay sample on Vanraj Tractors or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Decision Problem 1. Selecting an appropriate target segment for Vanraj among the 4 identified segments. 2. Determining the appropriate price level for Vanraj to be sold in the selected segment. Analysis Vanraj was designed for agricultural and transportation purposes with a robust and versatile technology. The segment demarcation and selection is crucial as the overall marketing strategy will get modified wherein each segment has a completely different industry structure and competitive environment. Vanraj was design to address most of the problems faced by small and marginal farmers which no other big tractor was able to do. This had led Mr Trivedi to believe in its perfect fit to the needs of this particular segment of farmers. STATE| ANNUAL SALES (in units)| Gujarat| 17345| Maharashtra| 28443| Madhya Pradesh| 15288| Uttar Pradesh| 54392| Table 1: Average past sales of tractors in respective states The high fragmentation of agricultural landholdings with 82% held by small and marginal farmers with an increasing role of mechanization to increase foodgrain production provided a boost to tractor sales in India over the last two decades. The size of landholding did not inhibit the use of tractors and with declining size of landholdings per farmer; the big tractors were not economically viable for use in such farm sizes. The issue was that horsepower of tractors was increasing and size of landholding was declining which led to the exclusion of the small and marginal farmer segment from the purview of tractor companies. Demographic segmentation Small and marginal farmers| Large farmers| * Large in number * Small landholding (average 1. 4 to 0. 4 hectares) * Engaged in subsistence farming * Uneconomical for farm mechanization| * Small in number * Large landholdings (average 3 hectares) * Engaged in commercial farming hence earning high income * High levels of farm mechanizations| Geographic segmentation Northern India (UP)| Western and Southern India (Gujarat, Maharashtra MP)| * Soil is alluvial and fertile * Requires lower horsepower tractors * Area under horticulture farming 1066 (‘000 hectares)| * Harder laterite and black soil * Requires higher horsepower tractors * Area under horticulture farming 1550 (‘000 hectares)| Breakeven analysis Actual production of the ‘Vanraj’ varies from 300 to 480 across the seven years. The cost of production also varies from Rs. 471. 84 lakhs to Rs. 758. 76 lakhs. The average cost of production per tractor thus comes around Rs. 1. 58 lakhs. Considering profit after tax, dividend, depreciation and contingent expenses the net cash accrual for first to second year ranges from Rs. 7. 1 lakhs to 9. 5 lakhs. The overall profit comes to 7. 1-9. 5%. The sales realization against 300-480 tractors will range from Rs. 570 lakhs – 912 lakhs from the first to the seventh year. Thus, the price of ‘Vanraj’ mini tractor can be fixed at Rs. 1. 9 lakhs. The breakeven sales at 100% capacity can be Rs. 11. 40 Millions. Segment I: Small and marginal farmers In India, small farmers traditionally relied upon bullocks for all their agricultural needs. Therefore, the main competitor for Vanraj Mini tractor were bullocks rather than other Chinese make mini tractors which were not suitable for Indian trying conditions. | Bullocks (2 no. )| Vanraj| Other small tractors| Initial cost| Rs 0. 027m| Rs 0. 19m| Rs 0. 16m| Life span| 8-9 years| 8-9 years| 6-7 years| Other cost(fuel or fodder costs)| Fodder = Rs 17500*11 yrs = Rs 192500| Fuel = 950 hrs*1. 5l/hr*Rs 3. 3/litre*8 = Rs 376200| Rs 376200| Maintenance costs| Nil| 15% of selling price = Rs 0. 03 m| 40% of selling price = Rs 0. 6 m| Total cost incurred (for 8 year usage)| Rs 2,19,500| Rs 5,96,200| Rs 5,96,200| Challenges Though, using mechanized equipment rather than bullocks would increase efficiency in agricultural methods, total cost incurred on Vanraj mini is 3 times more when compared with total cost incurred on bullocks. The technical factor of maneuvering across a small landholding po ses some problem. The vagaries of monsoons coupled with fluctuating crop production may encourage farmers to hire big tractors whenever the need arises instead of owing a tractor which may end up becoming a liability for the marginal farmer. Hence, it is not economical for small farmers. It is more economical for farmers to hire a big tractor which can supplement the existing bullocks. This way they would be saving time and work  more efficiently. Hiring charges = Rs 250/hr; usage = 950 hrs per year; total yearly cost = Rs 237500 if replaces bullocks fully. Thus if a farmer is totally dependent on hiring, Vanraj may be a profitable option for him but as per Indian context, hiring provides farmer with the flexibility and also one cannot be sure about the number of such farmers. The market segment analysis for the tractors reveals the following facts: TRACTORS MARKET SEGMENT Segment| Sales Distribution (in %)| Price (millions) (subsidy Rs 30k for 30 HP)| Growth rate (overall 30%)| Consumption| 50 HP| 4. 5| | 17. 88| | The cost of tractors is varying from Rs. 0. 10 Million to Rs. 0. 40 million and above. ‘Vanraj’ proves to be the better choice as compared to its Chinese counterparts on account of better reliability and performance. Hence even if it is priced a little higher people would still prefer it if they are made aware of the long term benfits. Its advantage over bigger tractors in terms of better manoeuvrability and easy access to small corners of land makes it quite a handy asset to posses. Thus, the price of ‘Vanraj’ tractor fixed at Rs. 0. 19 million seems justified and appropriate. Table 2: Driving factors for use of mini tractors for farmer segment States| Area under Fruits (ha) (year 2001-02)| Area under vegetables (ha) (year 2001-02)| Marginal farmers (year 2000)| Small farmers (year 2000)| Large farmers (year 2000)| Gujarat, MP, Maharashtra, UP| 1066. (10% increase)| 1548. 9 (10% increase)| 25415| 9681| 10472| If we combine the marginal small farmers we will find that the total number of farmers in this category comes out to be around 35096. Moreover this is the untapped section of the market. Since the installed capacity is only 600 tractors per annum. The company can supply around 4350 tractors. Moreover since the farmers are economically ill equipped they can form a group and buy a tractor for thei r common purpose. With the various problems which crop up now and again in case of the 3 competitors and also Chinese made Mini Tractors (10 HP segment) or along with the newly entering HMT(18-25 HP segment) ‘Vanraj’ can pounce upon this opportunity as it has the many advantages over the other Big Tractors like low cost, fuel efficiency, availability of spares, easy maintainability, high manoeuvrability and compatibility with various farming implements and since the tractor market is always served by the bank loans, impetus can be provided so as to become a frontrunner in this segment. Segment II – Horticulture Department The big tractors are unwieldy in negotiating their way through the small gap between the lanes in horticulture farms. Vanraj’s small turning radius and mini-size would make it easy to maneuver it through the small lanes of horticulture farms. The three-wheel convertibility option available in Vanraj would be of great use in interculture operations in Horticulture farms. * Savings on initial cost:  Vanraj Mini tractor price= Rs 0. 19 million. Least price of a Big Tractor= Rs 0. 4 million Savings= Rs 0. 05 million * Savings on fuel Cost:  Vanraj Mini Tractor consumption= 1. 5 litre/hr  Average consumption of a big tractor= 4 litre/hr  Savings in fuel= 2. 5 litre/hr * Saving in fuel cost = 2. 5*33 = Rs 82. 5/hr Estimation of market potential in horticulture segment Percentage change in area from 1991-92 to 2001-02 (approx. ) | Area under fruits(%)| Area under vegetables(%)| Maharashtra| 128| 67| Gujarat| 76| 103| Uttar Pradesh| -5| 35| Madhya Pradesh| -28| -23| The above table signifies a very significant growth in area under horticulture in the period from 1991-92 to 2001-02. In fact the total land under Horticulture in the yaer 2001-02 was around 2615. 6 hectares. As horticulture and plantations are practiced by relatively well off persons and also in comparatively bigger areas they can go for â€Å"Vanraj† tractors wherever feasible rather than spending on the bigger tractors. Thus there is immense potential in the horticulture segment. Recommendations Although Mini Tractors had just 1% share of the tractor segment, it was estimated that the small farmers still using bullocks formed a larger part of untapped market. * The small farmer segment offers a huge potential and can be marketed by highlighting and communicating the intrinsic benefits of Vanraj in economic and technical terms. * Horticulture sector presents a niche market for Vanraj. It is concentrated only in few pockets of  states. Hence, Vanraj marketing should focus o n such areas to fully tap the market potential. * Area under Horticulture saw a decrease in states like Madhya Pradesh. Hence, Vanraj should interact with farmers in this region, find out the reasons and give them proper advice and hence should try to create a market for them. Conclusion The horticulture segment and small and marginal farmer segments could be easily tapped as both segments required value for money which was offered by the Vanraj tractor as compared to other mini or big tractors. [ 1 ]. More than 30 HP tractors are referred to as big tractors and less than 20 HP tractors are referred to as mini-tractors in our case analysis.

Strategic Planning Theories Essays

Strategic Planning Theories Essays Strategic Planning Theories Paper Strategic Planning Theories Paper Essay Topic: Citizen Kane DBA 822 Seminars in Strategy and International Business Strategic Planning Theories A Literature Review By; Benjamin J. Shuford III 8/24/10 Introduction: Strategic planning is a broad concept that has been introduced into the main stream practices of today’s corporations. Strategic planning can be defined as an organization’s process of defining goals, direction, and decision making processes that effect the allocation of resources that include capital and people. The term â€Å"strategy† is derived from the Greek word of â€Å"strategos,† which means literally, â€Å"general of the army. (Hart, 1965). The Greek tribes of ancient civilizations would elect a strategos to head their regiments during battles. These political rulers would follow the strategic advice from the council members about managing troops to win battles. From its early military roots on winning battles to becoming a pattern of purposes and policies that define a company and its busines s, strategic planning has become the primary focus of today’s diverse organizations. There are many theories that are used to describe how organizations view the strategic planning process. These processes are framed as models that are consistently being revised to fit the needs of an organization. This literature review will focus on some of these models and the theorists who developed them. This literature review will review theories from Igor Ansoff, Henry Mintzberg, Michael Porter, and Kenichi Ohmae. The purpose will be to gain a better understanding of how these theories shape organizational performance. An analysis will be conducted to evaluate the practice of and the future direction of these theories. The choice to review these four theorists over all of the others is because of their legacy and robust contributions to the field of strategic management. Ansoff was one of the earliest writers on strategy as a management discipline, and laid strong foundations for several later writers to build upon, including Michael Porter, Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad. He invented the modern approach to strategy and his work pulled together various ideas and disparate strands of thought, giving a new coherence and discipline to the concept he described as strategic planning. A debate between Ansoff and Henry Mintzberg over their differing views of strategy was reflected in print over many years, particularly in the Harvard Business Review. Ansoff has often been criticized by Mintzberg, who disliked the idea of strategy being built from planning which is supported by analytical techniques. This criticism was based on the belief that Ansoffs reliance on planning suffered from three fallacies: that events can be predicted, that strategic thinking can be separated from operational management, and that hard data, analysis and techniques can produce novel strategies. The strategic planning/management theories of Porter and Ohmae were derived from both Ansoff and Mentzberg. Ansoff was the originator of the strategic management concept, and was responsible for establishing strategic planning as a management activity. The Strategic Planning Process: Because of high competitive business environments, organizations must engage in strategic planning processes that clearly define and state the objectives of the organization. They must assess both external and internal factors to develop and implement a strategy to stay competitive. They need to evaluate the process and make needed adjustments to stay on track. In their search for sources of sustainable competitive advantage, researchers have come to realize that business performance depends not only on the formulation and successful implementation of a given strategy but also on the process by which competitive positions are created or maintained. Mintzberg was one of the first to point out that the realized strategy of an organization can strongly differ from the intended strategy and that the extent to which an intended strategy can be realized is closely related to the strategic process that exist within the organization (Mintzberg, 1987). In his early work, he identified three main types of strategy processes: planning, entrepreneurial and learning-by-experience. He described planning as a philosophical approach when he classifies strategic business thinking in ten schools of thought, which he describes in their historical and ideological context. Early theorist, such as Igor Ansoff, focused on the analytical aspects of strategy formation. The first three schools in Mintzberg’s taxonomy are therefore prescriptive and focus on how strategy ought to be formulated. One of the major premises of the prescriptive schools if the performance claim, which states that the more an organization engages in systematic strategic planning, the more likely it will result in above average returns. The prescriptive schools have been influential in the discourse of strategy formulation, but have failed to explain the process of strategy execution (Mintzberg, 1990). Mintzbergs School of Strategic Thought (Mintzberg and Lampel, 1990). | | | | | | | | School| Category| Foundation| | | | Design| Prescriptive| Engineering| | | | Planning| Prescriptive| Systems Theory| | | | Positioning| Prescriptive| Economics| | | | Entrepreneurial| Descriptive| Economics| | | | Cognitive| Descriptive| Psychology| | | | Learning| Descriptive| Psychology| | | | Power| Descriptive| Political Science| | | | Cultural| Descriptive| Anthropology| | | | Environmental| Descriptive| Biology| | | | Configuration| Both| History| | | | | | | | | | The Design school defines strategy formation as a process of conception. It began during the late 1950s and mid-1960s. This school puts emphasis on an appraisal of external environment and the internal situation using the classic SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats). Also shaping strategy formulation are the values of the organization’s management and an assessment of the organization’s social responsibilities (Selznick, 1957). The Planning school identified strategy formation as a formal process. It emerged in the mid 1960. It has resulted in a plethora of strategic planning models. The underlying foundation of all of these models is straightforward: divide the SWOT model into neatly delineated steps. Step1 – Set objectives – Establish and qualify goals or objective of the organization. Step 2- External Audits – Assess the external environment, using the SWOT analysis, and create a set of forecasts about the future. Step 3 – Internal audits – Typically this process is assisted by checklists and tables of topic to consider. Step 4 – Strategy evaluation – Organizations can use a variety of techniques ranging from return on nvestment (ROI), to risk analysis, to calculating shareholder value. Step 5 – Strategy implementation – This step creates a very detailed and formalized action plan. Objectives, strategies, budgets, and programs are all brought together into a master plan. The Positioning School defines strategy formation as an analytical process. This school began in the 1980s and was popular due to the notion of competitive strategy frameworks that were identified as five forces on an organization’s environment by Michael Porter. The significance of this school is that it emphasized the importance of strategies to any given industry. The Entrepreneurial school looks at strategy formation as a visionary process. This school of thought developed in the 1990s and using vision as a central starting point. Vision establishes the broad sense of direction while preserving flexibility to adapt to changing conditions. One of the advocates of the entrepreneurial school is Peter Drucker, who identifies entrepreneurship with management itself: â€Å"Central to business enterprise is†¦ the entrepreneurial act, an act of economic risk taking. And business enterprise is an entrepreneurial institution† (Drucker, 1970). The Cognitive school defined strategy formation as a mental process and started in the early 1990s. This school focuses on the mind of the strategist, drawing from the field of cognitive psychology. There is a large body of research that suggests that individuals encounter a variety of problems in making decisions that influence many situations in the management process because they are difficult to change and form once implemented. Individuals who practice this school find that they each have different cognitive styles that can distort decision making processes. The Learning school defines strategy formation as an emergent process. It started in the mid 1990s and follows the perspective that people within an organization learn how to use the organization’s abilities to change and adapt in a positive manner in order to respond to a changing environment (Quinn, 1980). This school is less concerned with the actual strategy that was formulated than with what it took to get a strategy implemented. The Power school, which began in the late 1980s, defines strategy formation as a process of negotiation and is based on the notion that the influence of power from the external environment will affect any organization, and in many cases politics will infuse an organization. This school views strategy as a political process that focuses on alliance building, empire building, budgeting, expertise, insurgency, counterinsurgency, lording, rival camps, whistle-blowing, and line versus staff. The importance of this school is that it has identified the political process as a reality that must be acknowledged and managed but that is not the sole means for making strategies within an organization. The Cultural school defines strategy formation as a collective process. The cultural school began in the early 1990s and can be thought of as a system of shared values, beliefs, and meanings held by staff members that distinguish the organization from other organizations. The dimensions making up this school include teamwork, honesty, control, decision making processes, rewards, and conflict. The Environmental school started in the mid-1990s and defines strategy formation as a reactive process. It views the forces operating outside the organization as active, while the organization itself merely reacts to these outside forces. The primary contribution of this school is that it attempts to bring the overall view of strategy formation into balance. This school emphasizes that the outside environment, the leadership, and the organization itself are actually responsible for strategy making. The Configuration school defines strategy formation as a process of transformation. This school began in the mid-1990s and attempts to integrate strategy by showing how different dimensions of an organization band together under particular conditions to define states, models, or ideas types. The premise of this school is that periods of stability and transformation can best be understood as life cycles of an organization. The key to strategic management is to recognize the need for transformation and manage the process of change without having a negative impact on the organization. Later developments in strategic management literature moved away from the prescriptive approach modeled on quantitative exact sciences and their inherent presumptions of a controlled world. The descriptive schools of thought are inspired on the qualitative social and cultural sciences and study what businesses actually did to be successful for other organizations to learn from their approaches. The descriptive schools move from a focus on a-priori strategic planning to a-posteriori dynamic strategy formulation and execution. For practitioners, the prescriptive schools of thought are very attractive. However, the descriptive schools are somewhat problematic to practitioners of strategic management because they do not provide straightforward recipes for success. The question raised by Mintzberg’s taxonomy of strategic thought and other similar taxonomies is how average practitioners can determine what strategy they should employ (Sokol, 1992). Fuller (1996) suggests that traditional strategic planning is under fire. Strategic planning in the classical model was developed in an era when the external environment was relatively simple, stable, and predictable, and when the behavior of a firm was viewed as being cybernetic. Strategic plans were primarily used as a control mechanism to reduce uncertainty and risk and to allocate power. They were internally focused because many of the company’s transactions were internal. As a result of slow or negligible environmental change, managers were able to consider their strategic options once a year through a process that is detached from the ordinary workings of the company. Consequently, the plans that are produced are used in litigation between a corporation and its business units, or among business units, for control of the decision-making processes. Hamel and Prahalad (1995) ask why it is that in so many companies strategic planning departments are being disbanded or dramatically downsized. This change in emphasis was driven by thinkers such as Hammer and Champy (1993) with their concept â€Å"business process re-engineering†. Hamel and Prahalad (1995) continue to make the claim that the problem is not with strategy but with the particular notion of strategy that predominates in most companies. What is being rejected is not strategy itself, but strategy setting as a pedantic planning ritual on one hand or as a speculative and open-ended investment commitment on the other. The academic scholars of the Planning School had determined a formal process for strategic planning and, in 1985; a study by Ginter (1985) was undertaken in the UK to determine whether this academic model had practical applicability. The 4,000 members of the Planning Executive Institute were asked a range of questions to provide a forum for assessing the perceptions of planning and strategic managers in practice. In excess of 1,000 members responded, and the researchers concluded that the model was a good framework for the way strategic planning takes place in the corporate environment. The Ginter (1985) paper described the strategic process as containing eight elements: (1) Vision and mission; (2) Objective setting; (3) External environmental scanning; (4) Internal environmental scanning; (5) Strategic alternatives (crafting strategy); (6) Strategy selection; (7) Implementation; and (8) Control. These elements are found consistently in the literature and taught in university business schools and undergraduate programs Thompson and Strickland (1998), Hill and Jones (1998), Stahl and Grigsby (1992). Viljoen (1994), and Hubbard (1996), all propound similar models in their educational texts. The central message of the Planning School is â€Å"formal procedure, formal training, formal analysis, lots of numbers† (Mintzberg, 1998). Many corporations adopted formal strategic planning as the fundamental driving concept for their business. Differentiation strategy When using a differentiation strategy, a company focuses effort on providing a unique Product or service, setting their offerings apart from competitors. Product differentiation fulfills a customer need and involves uniquely tailoring the product or service to the customer. This strategy allows organizations to charge a premium price to capture market share. The differentiation strategy is effectively implemented when the business provides unique or superior value to the customer through product quality, features, or after-sale support and service. Firms following a differentiation strategy can charge a higher price for their products based on the product characteristics, the delivery system, the quality of service, or the distribution channels. The quality may be real or perceived, based on fashion, brand name, or image. The differentiation strategy appeals to a sophisticated or knowledgeable consumer interested in a unique quality product or service and willing to pay a higher price for these non-standardized products. Customers value the differentiated products more than they value low costs. Our research identified three tactics which were significantly related to organizational performance in the companies we surveyed following the differentiation strategy. These critical practices included: 1. Innovation in marketing technology and methods. 2. Fostering innovation and creativity. 3. Focus on building high market share. Cost leadership strategy Porter’s generic strategy of cost leadership focuses on gaining competitive advantage by having the lowest costs and cost structure in the industry. In order to achieve a low-cost advantage, an organization must have a low-cost leadership mindset, low-cost manufacturing with rapid distribution and replenishment, and a workforce committed to the low-cost strategy. The organization must be willing to discontinue any activities in which they do not have a cost advantage and may outsource activities to other organizations that have a cost advantage. There are many ways to achieve cost leadership such as mass production, mass distribution, economies of scale, technology, product design, input cost, capacity utilization of resources, and access to raw materials. Cost leaders work to have the lowest product or service unit costs and can withstand competition with their lower cost structure. Cost leaders may take a number of cost saving actions, including building efficient scale facilities, tightly controlling overhead and production costs, and monitoring costs to build their relatively standardized products that offer features acceptable to many customers at the lowest competitive price. But the tactic that proved to be most critical to this strategy is the minimization of distribution costs. Focus strategy In a focus generic strategy, a firm targets a specific, often narrow, segment of the market. The firm can choose to concentrate on a select customer group (youths or senior citizens, for example), product range, segment of a market (professional craft persons versus do-it-yourselfers), geographical areas (East coast versus West coast), or service line. For example, many European firms focus solely on the European market. Focus also is based on adopting a narrow competitive scope within an industry that large firms may have overlooked. The focus strategy aims at growing market share through operating in a narrow market or niche segment more effectively than larger competitors. A successful focus strategy depends upon an industry segment large enough to have good growth potential but small enough not to be important to other major competitors. Focusing allows the firm to direct its resources to certain value chain activities to build its advantage. An organization may also choose a combination strategy by mixing one of the generic strategies of low-cost or differentiation with the focus strategy. For example, a firm may choose to have a focus differentiation strategy or a focus/cost leadership strategy. Based on our research, four tactics appear to be critical for organizations attempting a focus/low cost strategy: 1. Providing outstanding customer service. 2. Improving operational efficiency. 3. Controlling the quality of products or services. 4. Extensive training of front-line personnel. Focus/differentiation Another combination focus strategy is a focus/differentiation strategy where the organization has a unique quality product offered to a targeted market segment or niche. The significantly important tactics include: * Producing specialty products and services. * Producing products or services for high price market segments. In addition to generic strategies, Porter (1985) developed several other modular concepts. The five forces model is shown in Figure 2. Porter (1980) suggested that the task facing managers is to analyze competitive forces in an industry’s environment. He claimed that only five forces needed consideration. Porter (1980) argued that the stronger the manifestation of each of the forces, the more limited the ability of established companies to raise prices and to earn greater profits. This is pure Modernist, Neo-economic thinking. The simplifying and â€Å"blinding† role of externalities in economics, blinds Porter (1980) who is unable to postulate the role of government, or de-regulation, in his five factor, positioning model at the very time he was proselytizing the case of the US Airline industry under severe conditions of Reaganite, ideological deregulation of that industry (Kouzmin, 2007). Porter (1997) preaches that many of these intangible forces are measurable and that, in addition, there is a â€Å"chain of causality that runs from competitive environment to position to activities to employee skills and organization†. This causal argument is further pursued with Porter’s (1985) concepts of the value chain (see Figure 3). The value chain analysis is based on the simple linear idea that every activity performed in an organization will add some value to the final products or services produced. The final product is simply the aggregate of values contributed. The 3Cs model of Kenichi Ohmae Ohmae (1982) has much to discuss about competitive position, particularly the competitive positioning of successful Japanese companies. It is his view that the theories abounding in economic and economic policy circles concerning the importance of position have not been the drivers of Japanese success. He believes that strategy is not about beating the competition but about satisfying customer needs. Still further, Deming (1986) expounds a fundamental concept when exhorting his audience to consider the concept of competition. It is his argument that people must learn to cooperate with others and to compete with themselves. In the context of strategy, the ideas of Ohmae and Deming, regarding the importance of customers is most important. Concepts of competition and market share are of little use to the business principal and as a consequence there is very little that the philosophies of the Positioning School can add to their strategy knowledge base. As with Ohmae’s Japanese corporations, competitive advantage is driven by the ability to serve the needs of customers better. The 3Cs Model is a strategic look at the factors needed for success. The 3C’s model points out that a strategist should focus on three key factors for success. In the construction of a business strategy, three main players must be taken into account: 1. The Corporation 2. The Customer 3. The Competitors Only by integrating these three C’s (Corporation, Customer, Competitors) in a strategic triangle, a sustained competitive advantage can exist. Ohmae refers to these key factors as the three C’s or strategic triangle. Hito-Kane-Mono A favorite phrase of Japanese business planners is hito-kane-mono, standing for people, money and things. They believe that streamlined corporate management is achieved when these three critical resources are in balance without surplus or waste. For example: Cash over and beyond what competent people can intelligently expend is wasted. Of the three critical resources, funds should be allocated last. The corporation should firstly allocate management talent, based on the available mono (things): plant, machinery, technology, process know-how and functional strength. Once these hito (people) have developed creative and imaginative ideas to capture the business’s upward potential, the kane (money) should be given to the specific ideas and programs generated by the individual managers. The Ansoff Growth Matrix Strategy Tool Igor Ansoff (1965) was the originator of the strategic management concept, and was responsible for establishing strategic planning as a management activity in its own right. His landmark book, Corporate Strategy (1965), was the first text to concentrate entirely on strategy, and although the ideas outlined are complex, it remains one of the classics of management literature. Ansoff was one of the earliest writers on strategy as a management discipline, and laid strong foundations for several later writers to build upon, including Michael Porter, Gary Hamel and C K Prahalad. He invented the modern approach to strategy and his work pulled together various ideas and disparate strands of thought, giving a new coherence and discipline to the concept he described as strategic planning. During the 1970s and 1980s, this concept shaped more ideas about management as other writers took up Ansoffs ideas, such as core competence or sticking to the knitting. A debate between Ansoff and Henry Mintzberg over their differing views of strategy was reflected in print over many years, particularly in the Harvard Business Review. Ansoff has often been criticized by Mintzberg, who disliked the idea of strategy being built from planning which is supported by analytical techniques. This criticism was based on the belief that Ansoffs reliance on planning suffered from three fallacies: that events can be predicted, that strategic thinking can be separated from operational management, and that hard data, analysis and techniques can produce novel strategies. Ansoff argued that within a companys activities there should be an element of core capability, an idea later adopted and expanded by Hamel and Prahalad. To establish a link between past and future corporate activities (the first time such an approach was undertaken) The Ansoff Growth matrix is a tool that helps businesses decide their product and market growth strategy. This Ansoff Matrix considers the existing and new markets as well as the existing and new products and services as a potential for business growth and development. Ansoff identified four key strategy components that interact with each other causing various effects on both new and existing products and markets. Figure four below is followed with a brief description of each component of the matrix. The Ansoff Growth Matrix Grid Source: (Proctor, 1997, p. 146). Market penetration Market penetration is the name given to a growth strategy where the business focuses on selling existing products into existing markets. Market penetration seeks to achieve four main objectives: Maintain or increase the market share of current products – this can be achieved by a combination of competitive pricing strategies, advertising, sales promotion and perhaps more resources dedicated to personal selling Secure dominance of growth markets Restructure a mature market by driving out competitors; this would require a much more aggressive promotional campaign, supported by a pricing strategy designed to make the market unattractive for competitors Increase usage by existing customers – for example by introducing loyalty schemes a market penetration marketing strategy is very much about â€Å"business as usual†. The business is focusing on markets and products it knows well. It is likely to have good information on competitors and on customer needs. It is unlikely, therefore, that this strategy will require much investment in new market research. Market development Market development is the name given to a growth strategy where the business seeks to sell its existing products into new markets. There are many possible ways of approaching this strategy, including: New geographical markets; for example exporting the product to a new country New product dimensions or packaging: for example New distribution channels Different pricing policies to attract different customers or create new market segments Product development Product development is the name given to a growth strategy where a business aims to introduce new products into existing markets. This strategy may require the development of new competencies and requires the business to develop modified products which can appeal to existing markets. Diversification Diversification is the name given to the growth strategy where a business markets new products in new markets. This is an inherently more risk strategy because the business is moving into markets in which it has little or no experience. For a business to adopt a diversification strategy, therefore, it must have a clear idea about what it expects to gain from the strategy and an honest assessment of the risks. Future Direction of Strategic Planning Strategic planning has come a long since its humble earlier works that were defined in the early 1960s. Many of these earlier concepts are still valid today or are reflected in the basic assumptions being used by leaders in our ever diverse organizations. Today, the goal of the organization is to achieve a competitive advantage by positioning itself in such a way that it has the ability to succeed all competition by enhancing performance. Competitive advantage is a concept that business organizations will continue to strive for. Michael Porter has been credited with introducing the five forces concept into business strategies. His theory has served as a back board for IO Theory (industrial Organization) theory. The traditional Bain/Mason paradigm of industrial organization offered strategic management a systematic model for assessing competition within an industry and was never really inducted into business policy by top decision makers. Many economists today have learned that introducing business policies into strategic planning and managing the economic impact of this union offers a positive influence on how organizations match up against each other on a microeconomic scale (Porter, 1981). From an IO economic perspective, mobility barriers or market positions are critical sources of competitive advantages that lead to superior performance. Organizational economics is more concerned with devising appropriate governance mechanisms or contracts to help reduce transaction or agency costs. The RBV (Resource Based View) of the firm has refocused the field of strategic management on all internal characteristics and views firms these characteristics as the source of competitive advantage. These characteristics have been identified as operational efficiencies, mergers, acquisitions, level of diversification, types of diversification, organizational structures, team management style, human resources management, and the manipulation of the political and social influences intruding upon the market that impacts organizations (Teece, 1982). The resource based view of the firm will be continue to be of significant importance to any organization because it provides leaders with specific tools needed to sustain a competitive position in a market place by providing management needed insights into examining the resource attributes and the their relationships towards other related variables in the market place as a means to gain the edge in the dynamic market (Barney, 2001). Conclusion Strategic planning has developed into a vital practice that must be approached with careful consideration to allow for through investigation into how an organization is structured. From both an internal and external perspective, managers need to recognize the need to evaluate value, mission, core competencies, history, and past, current, and future situations in order to gain and sustain competitive advantage in a market place. The need to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, has been addressed as a main basic goal that must be used by leaders to empower the organization. Various models and theorists have been identified and explained as a means to gain a better understanding on how to define strategic planning. Since the 1960s, there have been many different points of view concerning the strategic planning concept. Various schools of thought have been developed by infamous theorists who have engraved a foot print into the development of modern corporate practices. Many of these concepts have paved the way for common approaches utilized by corporations as building blocks for surviving in such dynamic and competitive environments. Many of the strategies that are in use today are variations from the past and will continue to be adopted and manipulated to fit the needs of leaders seeking to find solutions to new and emerging issues that are relevant and applicable to the real business needs of organizations. Leaders today will need to continue finding new ways to plan for the future and adjust to the pace of environmental change with confidence, knowledge, skill, and ability. References Ansoff, H. I. (1965). An Analytic Approach to Business Policy for Growth and Expansion. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Barney, J. B. (1991). â€Å"Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage†, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120. Deming, W. E. (1986). Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Drucker, P. (1970), Technology Management and Society, Harper Collins Books, NY. Fuller, M. (1996), â€Å"Strategic planning in an era of total competition†, Planning Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 22-7. Ginter, M. (1985). Planners’ Perceptions of the Strategic Management Process Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 581-96. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993). Re-engineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for a Business Revolution, Harper, New York, NY. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, K. (1995), â€Å"Thinking differently†, Business Quarterly, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 22-35. Hart, L. (1965). The Memoirs of Captain Hill. Volume 1 and II. Gassell, London, 1965. Hill, L. and Jones, R. (1998), Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Hubbard, G. and Taylor, G. (1996), Practical Australian Strategy, Prentice-Hall, Sydney. Kouzmin, A. (2007). â€Å"Economic rationalism, risk and institutional vulnerability†, Risk Decision and Policy, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 229-57. Mintzberg, H. (1987). The Strategy Concept 1: Five Ps for strategy. California Management Review, Vol. 30, pp. 11-24. Mintzberg, H. (1990). Strategy Formation: Schools of Thought. Perspectives on Strategic Management, J. W. Fredrickson. Frand Rapids, Philadelphia, Harper Business: 105-236. Mintzberg, H. and Lampel, J. 1998), Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour through the Wilds of Strategic Management, Prentice-Hall, New York, NY. Mintzberg, H. (1998). Five Ps For Strategy: The Strategy Process. Revised European Ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Ohmae, K. (1982). The Mind of the Strategist: The Art of Japanese Business, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Porter, M. E. (1979), â€Å"How competitive forces shape strategy†, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 137-45. Porter, M. E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, Free Press, New York, NY. Porter, M. E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press, New York, NY. Porter, M. E. (1991), â€Å"Toward a dynamic theory of strategy†, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, Winter, pp. 95-117. Porter, M. E. (1997), â€Å"Response to letters to the editor†, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 162-3. Proctor, T. (1997). A Conceptual Synergy Model of Strategy Formulation for Manufactoring. Quarterly Journal of Operations and Production Management. Vol. 24, ISS: 9. pp. 140-149. Quinn, B. (1980). Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Home, IL: Irwin. Sokol, R. (1992). Simplifying Strategic Planning. Management Decision. Vol. 30 No7. Pp. 11- 17. Teece, J. (1982). Towards an Economic Theory of the Multi-Product Firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, pp. 39-63. Viljoen, J. (1994), Strategic Management – Planning and Implementing Successful Corporate Strategies, Longman, Melbourne. Viljoen, J. and Dann, S. (2000), Strategic Management – Planning and Implementing Successful Corporate Strategies, Longman, Melbourne.

Organizations and behavior Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Organizations and behavior - Essay Example For this purpose they focused on the hierarchical structure of the organization. The hierarchical structure followed by the company exhibits a Tall structure. The number of personnel reporting to each manager tends to be lesser in case of Tall structures. This results in better opportunities for the superiors to monitor and supervise the activities of the subordinates (courses.jonesinternational.edu, n.d., p.185). The employees of the organization played no role in designing and running the production lines. Also the organization followed the Taylorist style of production which refers to the mass production system. The Taylorist production approach was established by F.W.Taylor, who gave birth to Scientific Management. His school of thoughts is termed as Taylorism. Taylorism believed that any job can be learnt and taught. This theory treats the humans like machines and proposed that for the achieving higher production the management must eliminate inefficiency from its functioning. H owever, this theory completely neglects the usual complications that happen within a normal human being (Boyd, n.d). Taylorist production style supports the assembly line system where each worker performs the same task repetitively. Here the concept of division of labor was given significance and people started getting experienced in a certain domain while the rest of the production system remained unknown to them. A strict supervision policy was maintained within the organization which created distance between the management and the employees. The repetition of same task created frustration among the workers. The quality of work started to decline which affected the management adversely. In turn the employees were threatened and scolded which ultimately resulted in more and more employee turnover. The theories which were employed to channelize the changes within the organization made the Hawk Car Company to eliminate the tall hierarchical structure and instead of that, they introdu ced Adhocracy. The adhocracy structure is characterized by dynamic and organic units which have limited standardization and formalization, and is inclined toward decentralized decision making. These units are associated with least routine task and lower vertical differentiation which encourage greater responsiveness and flexibility among the employees (Robbins and Mathew, 2009, pp 199- 200). The management also took vital steps towards training the employees in such a manner so that they can gain knowledge about the entire production system. The workers were provided with the opportunity to grow in their position by better performance. The new management style took great care of the employee’s personal lives too and helped them in solving those to the possible extent. The aim of this remodeling decision was making the workforce competent and motivated about studying the process of manufacturing of the whole car and not just learning some specialized functions. These changes m ade the jobs entirely interesting and the employees felt free to approach their seniors in any case of complexity. The managers also took care of the issues arising regarding the work and paid full attention toward its solution. Team work and motivation played an important role in rectifying the conventional organizational structure that the company had been following for the past years. Question 2 McGregor suggested two management styles according to which managers regarded the work potential of their employees.

The French revolution collapse of the feudal systems and monarchies of Essay

The French revolution collapse of the feudal systems and monarchies of 18th century Europe - Essay Example The French Revolution which took place between 1789 to 1794, â€Å"marked the advent of modern society†1, both bourgeois and capitalist, in the history of France. The revolution brought about the national unity of the country through destruction of the privileged feudal orders considered as remnants of the Middle Ages. It is historically significant because the revolution successfully established a liberal democracy. Due to these double outcomes, in the perspective of world history, it can be considered as a classical model of a bourgeois revolution. However, the history of the French revolution is an integral part of European history. Earlier revolutions in other European countries such as Holland in the 16th century, and two revolutions in England in the 17th century, as well as the 18th century revolution in America paved the way for the French revolution. In all the European countries, the evolution ultimately resulted in the formation of modern society. With the different revolutions opposing the old economic and social system with its feudalism, the bourgeoise could benefit to varying degrees. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate the reasons for the French Revolution and the collapse of the ancient monarchies and feudal systems of eighteenth century Europe. The Revolution began an era of change from the nineteenth century onwards, with the evolution of a democratic and equitable modern society. The Bourgeoisie Uprising: Cause of the French Revolution Lefebvre2 was a lifelong socialist, under the increasing influence of Marxism which assigns the bourgeoisie with the key role of representatives and beneficiaries of capitalism. According to this scholar, the rise of the bourgeoisie was the main cause of the French Revolution. After several centuries of increasing in numbers and wealth, the bourgeoisie class took control of power in France in 1789. Medieval society had been ruled over by a landed aristocracy, because the only f orm of wealth was land. However, by the eighteenth century, â€Å"economic power, personal abilities and confidence in the future had passed largely to the bourgeoisie†3 who were supported by a new form of wealth and a new ideology that was clearly defined. In 1789, the bourgeoisie overthrew the remaining aristocratic, feudal lords who had retained their dominance despite their economic decline. It was possible for the bourgeoisie to overthrow the aristocracy because the monarchy’s political authority had collapsed due to the lack of adequate funds. The reason for their inability to pay was that the aristocracy or privileged classes of nobility and clergy clung to their age-old privileges and immunity from paying. Moreover, they used their political power to prevent the king fom undertaking necessary reforms4. Following their ousting, the bourgeoisie established a regime based on the new distribution of economic power. Significantly, Lefebvre5 refers to four revolution ary movements in France between 1787 to 1789. First came the revolt of the aristocracy, which destroyed the monarchy. It was the culmination of an aristocratic resurgence which took place for over a century, in which the nobility had struggled to regain their pre-eminence in the social order, which Louis XIV had removed. In order to carrry out their revolution, the nobility had sought the support of the bourgeoisie; however the successful implementation of the movement provided the bourgeoisie with ideas to resolve their own problems. In the September of 1788, the parliament of Paris which formed the driving force behind the aristocratic reaction, required that the Estates-General promised by the government for 1789 should be constituted as they had been in 1614 at their last meeting. For the bourgeoisie this was not acceptable, since the forms of 1614 underscored aristocratic predominance. Under these circumstances the revolution of the bourgeoisie

Love and Soul Mate Essay Example for Free

Love and Soul Mate Essay Knowing that I would get to spend the rest of my life with my best friend is the best feeling EVER! Even after being married for years, my love still grows every day! I know I am with my soul mate and still can’t believe we have made it and have overcome so much in our life Knowing that I would get to spend the rest of my life with my best friend is the best feeling EVER! Even after being married for years, my love still grows every day! I know I am with my soul mate and still can’t believe we have made it and have overcome so much in our life njkj kj kj Knowing that I would get to spend the rest of my life with my best friend is the best feeling EVER! Even after being married for years, my love still grows every day! I know I am with my soul mate and still can’t believe we have made it and have overcome so much in our lifeKnowing that I would get to spend the rest of my life with my best friend is the best feeling EVER! Even after being married for years, my love still grows every day! I know I am with my soul mate and still can’t believe we have made it and have overcome so much in our lifeKnowing that I would get to spend the rest of my life with my best friend is the best feeling EVER! Even after being married for years, my love still grows every day! I know I am with my soul mate and still can’t believe we have made it and have overcome so much in our life Knowing that I would get to spend the rest of my life with my best friend is the best feeling EVER! Even after being married for years, my love still grows every day! I know I am with my soul mate and still can’t believe we have made it and have overcome so much in our life

The Medicinal Marijuana Debate Essay -- Medicinal Marijuana Essays

The Medicinal Marijuana Debate For years research groups, certain state governments, pharmaceutical companies and even some physicians have battled with the federal government over the legalization of the marijuana plant for medicinal purposes. Large amounts of research have been devoted to both sides of the argument; however, many of the studies contradict each other when naming the benefits and risks of marijuana. How can we decide whether the therapeutic values of marijuana outweigh the hazards of the drug when there have been no definitive findings? First we must review what is known about marijuana, such as how the chemicals in it affect the body, and then pick which study results seem more scientifically sound. For over 4000 years and in many different cultures, marijuana has been used medicinally for pain relief and treatment of many ailments. These ailments include digestive disorders, hemorrhaging, congestion, asthma and insomnia. The drug has been administered orally, topically and through inhalation. It was not until 1937 that using marijuana became a federal offense with the introduction of the Marijuana Tax Act ((6)). Today, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, which defines it as "highly addictive with no medical usefulness"-the same definition given to heroin ((4)). The opioids in heroin and the cannabinoids in marijuana are used similarly by the brain. They either bridge synapses in the brain so that messages can be transmitted, in which case they are acting as agonists, or they block the agonist's binding site so that messages cannot be transmitted across synapses. In the latter case, the cannabinoids or opioids are acting as antagonists ((3)). Cannabinoids and opioids do not cause identica... ...dicine but with severe restrictions. Why deny ill people almost definite relief? References 1) Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base http://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/es.html 2) Medical Marijuana: full analysis of the Institute of Medicine's commissioned report http://www.360marijuana.com/marijuana/articles/041999.html 3) Scientific American: Healing Haze? http://www.sciam.com/missing.cfm 4) Drug Enforcement Administration: The Medical Myths of Marijuana http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/sayit/myths.htm 5) ARDPArk, Inc.: Synthetic THC/ Marinol http://www.ardpark.org/reference/marinol.htm 6) Why all the controversy? What does the research actually show? http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/history/chapter.bhtml 7) New, Emerging Evidence of Marijuana's Medical Efficacy http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science/emerging.html

Impact of Stock Split on Stock Return

Proceedings of ASBBS Volume 16 Number 1 THE IMPACT OF STOCK SPLIT ANNOUNCEMENTS ON STOCK PRICE: A TEST OF MARKET EFFICIENCY Garcia de Andoain, Carlos Longwood University carlos. [email  protected] longwood. edu Bacon, Frank W. Longwood University 2O1 High Street Farmville, VA 23909 [email  protected] edu Phone: 434-395-2131 Fax: 434-395-2203 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to test whether the investor can make an above normal return by relying on public information impounded in a stock split announcement. Using risk adjusted event study methodology, this study tests â€Å"how† and â€Å"when† public announcements of forward and reverse stock splits affect stock price. Stock split announcement samples include 38 two for one, 39 three for two, and 10 reverse splits. A total of 36,714 observations for the announcement samples and the corresponding S&P 500 stock index were analyzed using standard risk adjusted event study methodology. Results suggest that the firms’ public stock split announcements did not affect stock price on the announcement day. Rather, for the two for one and three for two forward split samples, stock price exhibited a significant positive reaction up to 27 days prior to the announcement. For the reverse split sample, stock price exhibited a significant negative reaction up to 30 days prior to the announcement. Results support the semi- strong form efficient market hypothesis since stock prices adjust so fast to public information that no investor can earn an above normal return by trading on the announcement day. Investors greet forward stock split announcement with a positive sign, whereas they view reverse splits as bad news. Management may be using stock splits to adjust stock price to a more marketable range, downward with forward and upward for reverse splits. Evidence here suggests signs of insider trading activity up to twenty-seven days prior to the announcement of the stock split. INTRODUCTION Stock split announcements have always been very common phenomena among firms and continue to be one of the least understood topics in finance. A stock split announcement increases the number of shares of a company while decreasing the price per share. The two for one split is most common, for example a company with 500 shares at $10 per share will issue 500 additional shares bringing the total to 1000 shares theoretically dropping the stock price to $5 per share. A stock split usually takes place after an increase in the price of the stock, and it carries a positive stock price reaction. (Asquith) This phenomenon has not yet been fully understood, regardless the numerous studies in the field. ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS Volume 16 Number 1 BACKGROUND Barker (1956) presented one of the most popular theories to explain stock split behavior. Barker findings failed to consider the split action itself. Barker’s study concluded that price changes occurred because of the increase in cash dividends and not from the split action. (Johnson). According to the â€Å"signaling hypothesis†, managers use stock split announcements to convey positive information about the firm (Ikenberry, Rankine, Strice). Investors see a stock split announcement as a positive thing, whereas a reverse split does not convey favorable information. Fama (1969) suggests that the stock market is â€Å"efficient†, meaning that stock prices adjust very fast to new information. The theory of market efficiency is concerned with whether prices reflect all the public available information or not (Fama 1970). Efficiency implies that it is impossible for the investor to earn an above normal return from public information. PURPOSE The purpose of this event study is to test market efficiency theory by analyzing the impact of three samples of stock split announcements on the firm’s stock price. Stock split announcement samples include 38 two for one, 39 three for two, and 10 reverse splits. Specifically, how fast does the market price of the firms’ stock react to the samples of regular and reverse stock split announcements examined? The study tests whether the investor can make an above normal return by relying on public information imbedded in a stock split announcement, as well as if stock price is affected by a stock split announcement. This study investigates if acting on public information is enough to have an unusual return, or if there must be an illegal action such as inside trading to be able to â€Å"outperform† the stock market. Which form efficiency is the market? Research shows that the market is semi-strong form efficient. An above normal return can only be gained from inside information, and not when acting in public information. LITERATURE REVIEW Fama defined market efficiency in terms of how quick the stock market reacts to the information and suggested three kinds of market efficiency: Weak form, semi-strong and strong form efficiency. If market is weak for efficient, then stock price reacts so fast to all past information that no investor can earn an above normal return (higher than the market or the return on the S&P 500 index). This study shows how investors will not earn a high return from acting on public information (stock split announcement), while investors having access to inside information will make an abnormal return. A second kind of market efficiency is semi-strong. It states that stock price reacts so fast to all public information that no investor can earn an above normal return (higher than the market or the return on the S&P 500 index) by acting on this type of information. (Fama 1970). Splits usually result in high market valuations, but study done by Fama (1970), Dodd, Patell and Wolfson, found that there is no evidence of abnormal return after the release of public information. They concluded that the market assimilates and takes into consideration public information very fast, within 5 to 15 minutes after the disclosure (Malkiel). This supports the idea that an investor acting on public information will not earn an above normal return. When this happens the market is said to be semi-strong form efficient. If the market is strong form efficient, then stock price reacts so fast to all information (both public and private), that no investor can earn an above normal return (higher than the market or the return on the S&P 500 index) by acting on this kind of information. Studies made by Friend, Brown concluded that profit can only be gained by having access to private or inside information, which is illegal. Fama ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS Volume 16 Number 1 presents evidence supporting that efficiency is not met in the strong form and that the semi-strong form is more accurate. This study agrees that stock split announcement are affected in a company stock price according to the semi strong form efficiency which states that stock prices reacts so fast to all public information that no investor can earn an above normal return after the announcement is made. An example would be information concerning a merger. If an investor would buy shares on the announcement day of the merger, the semi strong market efficiency believes that the investor would never be able to earn an above normal return, because adjustments had already been done in the stock price. The market has already been adjusted, so therefore the only way to outperform the market in this case would be by using inside information. METHODOLOGY: This study includes samples of companies that announced a two for one, three for two or reverse stock split announcement. These companies trade their stock in either the NYSE or NASDAQ. The Data for this study was collected from http://finance. yahoo. com/. The announcement date (Day 0) is the day that the stock splits are announced. Every stock return from the companies and from the S&P 500 index was also collected. The Event Study proceeds as following: 1. Historical prices for both the firms and the S&P 500 were collected from day -180 to day +30, being the event period -30 to +30 and Day 0 the announcement day. 2. Holding Period Return was calculated for all the companies as well as for the S&P 500 on the event period days (-180 to +30). HPR was obtained from the following formula: Current Daily Return = (current day close price – previous day close price) / prev. Day close price 3. A regression analysis was performed, being the current firm return the dependent variable and the S&P return the independent variable. The data that was used was the one belonging to the pre-event period (from day -181 to -30). The alpha and the beta were obtained from the regressions. 4. The expected return for each firm as well as for the S&P 500 was calculated: Expected Return = (Alpha + Beta) x S&P actual return 5. Excess Return was obtained from the difference between Actual and Expected Return. Excess Return = Actual Return – Expected Return 6. Average Excess Return (for the Event period) was calculated as: Average Excess Return (AER) = Total Excess Return / n (number of firms in the sample) 7. Cumulative Average Excess Return for the event period (Day -30 to Day +30) was calculated by adding the AER for each day in the event period. 8. A correlation test was done with AER and CAER. The graphs represent AER and CAER plotted against Time. ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS Volume 16 Number 1 Table 1 describes 38 companies that split their stock on a two for one basis between December 1, 2006 and May 14, 2007, along with their respective alphas and betas. TABLE 1: TICKER AFAM ACLI COMPANY NAME Almost Family Inc. American Commercial Lines Inc Selective Insurance Group Inc. ZOLL Medical Corp Trimble Navigation Ltd. Albemarle Corp Guess? Inc. Cooper Industries Ltd Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc GameStop Corp Sealed Air Corp. Carlisle Companies Inc CarMax Inc. Harsco Corp. Amphenol Corp Cabot Oil & Gas Corp Nike Inc Cummins Inc Greif Inc DATE ANNOUNCED Dec 11 Feb 06 TRADED INDEX NASDAQ NASDAQ ALPHA 0. 01665915 -0. 000394377 BETA 0. 08530878 2. 602491516 SIGI ZOLL TRMB ALB GES CBE JEC GME SEE CSL KMX HSC APH COG NKE CMI GEF Jan 30 Jan 25 Jan 25 Feb 07 Feb 14 Feb 14 Jan 26 Feb 12 Feb 16 Feb 08 Feb 22 Jan 23 Jan 17 Feb 26 Feb 15 Mar 08 Feb 26 NASDAQ NASDAQ NASDAQ NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE -0. 000319706 0. 004077614 -0. 000187534 0. 0022 37728 0. 001589658 0. 000761731 0. 001074342 0. 000477979 0. 00085897 -0. 001167829 0. 003087277 -0. 001056001 0. 000467862 0. 000826123 0. 001079523 -0. 000720045 0. 02203648 1. 38328513 1. 207411999 1. 321541131 1. 327988752 2. 246784079 1. 308635864 1. 946533548 1. 721660362 1. 172042857 1. 346601558 1. 240366727 1. 658082593 1. 86971211 1. 568927816 0. 553921446 1. 980439113 1. 880200397 ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS VLGEA AZZ ATR TSO GEO TSBK VSEC MRO GIL NRG CROX AGN PMFG MIDD SJR PVA GILD PBR STR Village Super Market Inc AZZ incorporated AptarGroup Inc Tesoro Corporation Geo Group Inc Timberland Bancorp Inc. VSE Corp Marathon Oil Corp. Gildan Activewear NRG Energy Inc. Crocs, Inc Allergan Inc PMFG Inc Middleby Corp Shaw Comm CL Penn Virginia CP Gilead Sciences Petroleo Brasileiro Questar CP Mar 21 Apr 09 Apr 18 May 01 May 01 Apr 25 May 01 Apr 25 May 03 May 02 May 03 May 02 May 04 May 04 May 10 May 08 May 08 May 11 May 14 NASDAQ NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NASDAQ NASDAQ NYSE NYSE NYSE NASDAQ NYSE NASDAQ NASDAQ NYSE NYSE NASDAQ NYSE NYSE Volume 16 Number 1 0. 00054113 0. 002118906 0. 00174286 0. 00160687 0. 002825174 0. 000615586 0. 001278324 0. 000144992 0. 003089016 0. 00241574 0. 00282982 -0. 000453038 0. 002024817 0. 02028334 0. 001186211 -0. 00050926 . 000009116 -0. 00064373 -. 000142796 1. 351096108 0. 681656728 0. 033542167 0. 973844695 1. 578867077 0. 107464578 2. 457597999 0. 986395517 0. 000111517 0. 316285515 1. 783171812 0. 952984111 0. 039990601 1. 964415725 0. 938731083 1. 1695925 1. 517629839 1. 817825121 . 706466451 Table 2 describes 39 companies that split their stock on a three for two bases between August 23, 2006 and May 15, 2007, along w ith their respective alphas and betas. TABLE 2: ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS TICKER NGA EPIQ BAM WMS VIVO IEX ATLS VSEA BWS WCN RSG JCTCF MDCI PFBC CMCSA SWS BKE VOL SSI FMD CRVL GBCI AFG SPAR COMPANY NAME North AM Gav Epiq Systems Inc Brookfield Asset MGT V M S Industries Inc Meridian Bioscience IDEX Cop Atlas America Inc Varian Semicond Brown shoe corp Waste connections Republic SVCS Jewett Cameron Inc Medical Action IND Preferred Bank LA Comcast Cp A SWS Group Inc Buckle Inc Volt Info Science Inc Stage Stores Inc First Marblehead Corp Corvel CP Glacier Bancorp American Financial Group Spartan Motors Inc DATE ANNOUNCED May 15 May 10 May 02 May 07 April 19 April 04 April 27 April 24 March 08 Feb 12 Feb 01 March 13 Jan 09 Jan 25 Feb 01 Nov 30 Dec 12 Dec 20 Jan 09 Nov 10 Nov 13 Nov 29 Nov 15 Nov 02 TRADED INDEX NASDAQ NASDAQ NYSE NYSE NASDAQ NYSE NASDAQ NASDAQ NYSE NYSE NYSE NASDAQ NASDAQ NASDAQ NASDAQ NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NYSE NASDAQ NASDAQ NYSE NASDAQ Volume 16 Number 1 ALPHA -0. 001032797 0. 001183339 0. 000859066 0. 002219704 0. 0011736 22 0. 000243421 0. 000488161 0. 001788461 0. 000592124 -0. 000187979 -0. 000441765 0. 000124622 0. 001559912 0. 000301413 0. 001381697 0. 000530857 -. 000641295 0. 001338437 0. 000540995 0. 004563185 0. 003763906 0. 000329484 0. 000736169 0. 003450361 BETA 1. 997738247 1. 038735222 1. 251257403 1. 094503791 1. 550013068 1. 509306631 0. 38871871 2. 207840195 2. 599167684 0. 92152423 0. 761431985 -0. 512126102 1. 004029551 0. 867741293 0. 927831638 2. 477624454 1. 602298009 2. 358292804 1. 756904894 0. 830932855 2. 113368174 1. 743070573 0. 936337426 0. 519840545 ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS SBIB AEO CTBK IRM PERY EAT AME WGNB ACAP UBSH EML MCBI CASS CCFH Sterlin Bancshares American Eagle Outfitters Inc Trico Bankshares Iron Mountain Inc Perry Ellis International Brinker International Inc Ametek Inc WGNB Corp American Physicians Cap Union Bankshares Corp Eastern Co Metrocorp Bancshares Cass Information Systems CCF Holding Co Oct 31 Nov 14 Nov 08 Dec 07 Nov 21 Nov 02 Oct 25 Sep 18 Sep 26 Sep 07 Sep 28 Aug 04 Jul 24 Aug 23 NASDAQ NYSE NASDAQ NYSE NASDAQ NYSE NYSE NASDAQ NASDAQ NASDAQ AMEX NASDAQ NASDAQ NASDAQ Volume 16 Number 1 0. 001127642 0. 003616084 0. 001058586 -0. 0000284 0. 002794647 -0. 000020642 0. 00005895 0. 00024115 0. 000317657 -0. 00058103 0. 000419721 0. 000941528 0. 003356848 0. 002118726 1. 165421403 1. 593723526 1. 432917191 0. 627633001 0. 919648907 0. 886164833 1. 31003146 -0. 00226624 0. 066171033 1. 663620313 0. 22686963 0. 121493122 0. 113211419 -0. 08732041 Table 3 describes 10 samples of companies that split their stock on a reverse basis between August 27, 2003 and September 15, 2008, along with their respective alphas and betas. TABLE 3: TICKER OPWV ERIC IWOV SIG COMPANY NAME Openwage Systems LM Ericcson Telephone Co Interwoven Inc Signet Jewelers LTD DATE ANNOUNCED Oct 09 Oct 18 Aug 27 Sept 11 TRADED INDEX NASDAQ NASDAQ NASDAQ NYSE ALPHA 0. 00680888 -0. 006696905 0. 001398048 -0. 000938713 BETA 2. 51286756 1. 949328188 1. 469236928 0. 891488791 ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS BFLY REV CNXT IACI TMTA ERIC Bluefly Inc Revlon Inc Conexant Systems Inc. IAC/ InterActiveCorp Transmeta Corporation LM Ericcson Telephone Co April 3 Sep 15 June 2 June 09 Aug 15 April 09 NASDAQ NYSE NASDAQ NASDAQ NASDAQ NASDAQ Volume 16 Number 1 -0. 00449535 0. 000925943 -0. 004900502 -0. 001442165 -0. 002052045 -0. 004006643 0. 070525685 0. 902722337 1. 73193906 0. 982384488 1. 265168622 -0. 16807384 To test for semi-strong market efficiency the following null and alternative hypotheses are used for the three stock split samples: H10: The risk adjusted return of the stock price of the sample of firms announcing stock splits is not significantly affected by this type of information on the announcement date. H11: The risk adjusted return of the stock price of the sample of firms announcing stock splits is significantly positively affected by this type of information on the announcement date. H20: The risk adjusted return of the stock price of the sample of firms announcing stock splits is not significantly affected by this type of information around the announcement date as defined by the event period. H21: The risk adjusted return of the stock price of the sample of firms announcing stock splits is significantly positively or negatively affected around the announcement date as defined by the event period. QUANTITATIVETESTS AND RESULTS: Did the market react to the announcements of regular two for one, the regular three for two, and the reverse stock splits? Was the information surrounding the event significant? A’priori, one would expect there to be a significant difference in the Actual Average Daily Returns (Day -30 to Day +30) and the Expected Average Daily Returns (Day -30 to Day +30) if the information surrounding the event impounds new, significant information on the market price of the firms' stock. If a significant risk adjusted difference is observed, then we support our hypothesis that this type of information did in fact significantly either increase or decrease stock price. To statistically test for a difference in the Actual Daily Average Returns and the Expected Daily Average Returns over the event period day -30 to day +30, we conducted a paired sample t-test for the three samples and found a significant difference at the 5% level between actual average daily returns and the risk adjusted expected average daily returns. Average Excess Return (AER) graphs are shown below. Results here support the alternate hypothesis H21: The risk adjusted return of the stock price of the sample of firms announcing stock splits is significantly affected around the announcement date as defined by the event period. This finding supports the significance of the information around the event since the market’s reaction was observed. ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS Volume 16 Number 1 Is it possible to isolate and observe the samples’ daily response to the announcement from day -30 to day +30? If so, at what level of efficiency did the market respond to the information and what are the implications for market efficiency? Another purpose of this analysis was to test the efficiency of the market in reacting to the three samples of stock split announcements. Specifically, do we observe weak, semi-strong, or strong form market efficiency as defined by Fama, 1970, in the efficient market hypothesis? The key in the analysis is to determine if the AER and CAER are significantly different from zero or that there is a visible graphical or statistical relationship between time and either AER or CAER. T-tests of AER and CAER both tested different from zero at the 5% level of significance. Likewise, observation of the following CAER Charts (graphs of CAER from day –30 to day +30 for each sample) confirm the significant positive reaction of the risk adjusted returns for the two forward split samples up to 27 pre-announcement and a significant negative reaction for the reverse split sample up to 30 days prior to the stock split announcement. Two for one stock split announcements: ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS Volume 16 Number 1 Three for two split announcement: ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS Volume 16 Number 1 Reverse split announcement: ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS Volume 16 Number 1 There are three forms of market efficiency as defined by Fama, which are strong, semi-strong and weak form efficiency. Observation of the CAER graphs against time for two for one and three for two stock split announcements shows a positive reaction twenty seven days prior to the announcement date. Reverse splits are normally done in order make the stock more appealing for investors with an unusual low market price. (Lawson) Also, reverse splits might be used in order to reduce the number of shareholders of the company. As an example if a 1-10 reverse stock split is made effective, the investor will have ten times less shares than before, but at ten times the price. In the reverse split case, the CAER graph suggests that return falls from day -30 until day -15, while then increasing until day 10. After day 10 the stock starts to level off. CAER graphs for two for one and three for two stock splits show how excess return rises up to 27 days prior to the announcement day. From Day 0 until Day 30 stock returns start to level off. This evidence supports Hypothesis H10, which states that stock price is not affected by this type of information on the announcement date. The stock return has already been adjusted before the stock split announcement is made. The investor cannot outperform the market by using public information. The price has already been affected by the announcement of two for one and three for two stock split announcement. After the announcement day, from days 6 to 16 the return goes up, which is caused by investors that react favorably to the announcement by buying more shares. After this small increase, stock price decreases and levels off. The CAER graphs support the idea that the market is semi- strong form efficient. For the samples analyzed, public information does not affect stock price on the announcement day. Reaction is observed up to 27 days prior to the announcement date which suggests that to be able to â€Å"outperform† the market you must be aware of inside information. CONCLUSION: The purpose of this study was to test whether the investor can make an above normal return by relying on public information impounded in a stock split announcement. Using risk adjusted event study methodology, this study tests â€Å"how† and â€Å"when† public announcements of forward and reverse stock splits affect stock price. Stock split announcement samples include 38 two for one, 39 three for two, and ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS Volume 16 Number 1 10 reverse splits. A total of 36,714 observations for the announcement samples and the corresponding S 500 stock index were analyzed using standard risk adjusted event study methodology. Results suggest that the firms’ public stock split announcements did not affect stock price on the announcement day. Rather, for the two for one and three for two forward split samples, stock price exhibited a significant positive reaction up to 27 days prior to the announcement. For the reverse split sample, stock price exhibited a significant negative reaction up to 30 days prior to the announcement. Results support the semi- strong form efficient market hypothesis since stock prices adjust so fast to public information that no investor can earn an above normal return by trading on the announcement day. Investors greet forward stock split announcement with a positive sign, whereas they view reverse splits as bad news. Management may be using stock splits to adjust stock price to a more marketable range, downward with forward and upward for reverse splits. Evidence here suggests signs of insider trading activity up to twenty-seven days prior to the announcement of the stock split. ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009 Proceedings of ASBBS REFERENCES: Volume 16 Number 1 Asquith, Paul, Paul Healy, and Krishna Palepu. â€Å"Earnings and Stock Splits. † The Accounting Review 64 (1989): 387-403. Barker, C. A. , â€Å"Effective Stock Splits,† Havard Business Review, XXXIV (January-February, 1956), pp. 101-106 Easely, David, Maureen O'hara, and Gideon Saar. â€Å"How Stock Splits Affect Trading: a Microstructure Approach. † The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 36 (2001): 25-51. Fama, Eugene F. Efficient Capital Markets: a Review of Theory and Empirical Work. † The Journal of Finance, 25 (1970): 383-417. 9 Dec. 2007 . Fama, Eugene F. , Lawrence Fisher, Michael C. Jensen, and Richard Roll. â€Å"The Adjustment of Stock Prices to New Information. † International Economic Review 10 (1969) : 1-21. 9 Dec. 2007 . Ikenberry, David L. , Graeme Rankine, and Earl K. Stice. â€Å"What do stock splits really signal?. † Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 31. n3 (Sept 1996): 357(19). General OneFile. Gale. Longwood University. 9 Dec. 2007 . Johnson, Keith B. â€Å"Stock Splits and Price Change. † The Journal of Finance 21 (1966): 675-686. 9 Dec. 2007 . Lakonishok, Josef, and Baruch Lev. â€Å"Stock Splits and Stock Dividends: Why, Who, and When. † The Journal of Finance 42 (1987): 913-932. Lamoureux, Christopher G. , and Percy Poon. â€Å"The market reaction to stock splits. † Journal of Finance 42. n5 (Dec 1987): 1347(24). General OneFile. Gale. Longwood University. 9 Dec. 2007 . Lawson, Michael J. â€Å"Reverse Stock splits: The Fiduciary's obligations under State LAw. † California Law Review 63 (1975): 1226-249. Malkiel, Burton G. â€Å"Is the stock market efficient?. † Science 243. n4896 (March 10, 1989): 1313(6). General OneFile. Gale. Longwood University. 9 Dec. 2007 . ASBBS Annual Conference: Las Vegas February 2009