Financial Analysis The Clipboard Tablet Co.

Financial Analysis The Clipboard Tablet Co. Overview The Clipboard Tablet Co. is a firm that was run by Joe Schmoe at a time when the company required the development of new products. The company developed three distinct products namely X5, X6 and X7 PC tablets. As a new VP in charge of the company’s marketing department, I have seen assigned a task to analyze the performance of the company under Joe’s tenure in the past six years.Advertising We will write a custom case study sample on Financial Analysis The Clipboard Tablet Co. specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In the process of undertaking analysis of the company’s performance, we had to look into the organizational development of the Clipboard Tablet Company. Joe Schmoe’s tenure in charge of sales and marketing was marked by the sale of X5, X6 and X7 tablet models. The analysis of the Clipboard Tablet Co. focused on the financial analysis of the company, the sales and profitability of the three tab let products over a 6 year period. Analysis The analysis markers for the Clipboard Tablet Co. include product development, sales, pricing and performance compared to its competitors. The analysis of these markers is shown below: Product Development In relation to Clipboard Tablet Co. we have to look into the products of the company which are X5, X6 and X7 tablets developed and marketed by the company. The X7 tablet developed in the year 2010, it was launched, marketed and sold in the year 2011. In terms of the development of other tablets by the company, we look at X5 and X6 as products of the company. X5 and X6 tablets were developed prior to the year 2010 and thus they were developed earlier and the sales of these tablets were based on improvements of features and add-ons (Yaeger, 2009). The company did not abolish or come up with new clone versions of the tablet and thus sales relied upon the popularity of the old versions of X5 and X6 tablets. We made an analysis of the allocati on of funds to the RD department over the last six years. From our analysis, we witness that the company spent small in terms of the development of new products. For instance, in the years 2010 and 2011, the company retained RD expenses at around $ 22 million. While in the years preceding 2015, the company spent less and less on the development of new products (Stice, 2010). The RD costs kept reducing at a level of around 30% and the only new product that was developed was the X7 tablet.Advertising Looking for case study on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Sales The analysis of the sales the products X5, X6 and X7 shows that the Clipboard Tablet Co. performed well in the past six years. The sales performance of the tablets shows that the company sold a lot of X5 tablets in the last six years. In the year 2010, the company sold close to 1 million units of X5 tablet which netted the company around $ 249 million. The X5 tablet sold a lot of units in that year and the performance of X6 was also exemplary. As a result, based on the analysis of the sales performance, we notice that the sales of all products were on a growth path (McDonald, 2011). The sales figures for the X5 tablet have shown a growth in the figures from the 2010 period all the way to the year 2012. The increase in sales contributed to around 67% rise in the sales of X5. From the year 2013 to 2015, the sales of the X5 tablet declined tremendously by around 67%. Sales in many ways contribute to good profit margins and thus we had to analyze the profit margins brought about by the sale the tablets (Jones, 2011). Based on the data from the sale of the three tablets we realize that the revenues of the X5 tablet kept decreasing as time went by. As a result, the company profits with time were decreasing to a level that the revenue for X5 tablets amounted to around $ 137 million in the year 2015. This is compared to the initial revenue of around $ 248 million that the tablet realized in the year 2010. On the other hand, the X7 tablet realized revenues of around $ 30.3 million in its initial year of 2011 and this has grown to around $ 122 million by the end of 2015. This shows that while the sales growth figures grew by around 30% per annum the sales for the X7 tablet the sales figures for the X5 tablet declined by around the same margin over the same period. Pricing In the process of marketing and selling goods, it is important to market and sell your goods within a good price range. The tablets were sold at different market prices due to their differences in terms of performance. In the last 6 years starting from 2010 thru to 2015, the X5 tablet retailed at a fixed price of $ 265 while the X6 was sold at $ 420 and the X 7 at $ 195. The major driving force for determining the price of the tablets was the superiority and the popularity of the tablet brand.Advertising We will write a custom c ase study sample on Financial Analysis The Clipboard Tablet Co. specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Performance Measuring the performance of a company depends on the performance of its products, finances and analysis of the competition. Based on the sales prices of the tablets, the Clipboard Tablet Co. maintained steady prices for the tablet at around $ 265, 420 and 195 respectively for the X5, X6 and X7 tablets. This was in comparison to the prices for other tablets which sold at different retail prices. For instance, the most tablets retailed at around $ 200 up to $ 700 for high end tablets. Thus, based on this assessment we can contend that the Clipboard Tablet’s Co.’s competitors were performing well compared to the company. In terms of sales and revenue income, the company’s revenues continued to dip as revenue for its popular X5 and X6 brands continued to drop while the X7 sales were not picking up fast to catch up wi th the low sales of the other brands (McDonald, 2011). As a result, the company’s position compared to its competitors was dismal. Summary The analysis of the Clipboard Tablet Co.’s performance under Joe shows lack of foresight and strategic planning necessary in organizational development. Product development is a major in the process of selling consumer goods. As a result, Joe should have emphasized on the development of new products for the company since the company relies totally on the development and sale of tablets. For instance, in the last 6 years the company’s RD and fixed costs have remained the same while the revenues and profits have changed significantly. This is a mismatch of needs that should have been addressed a long time ago when the company was in need of restructuring. Moreover, allocation of costs was done in a manner whereby they were equally shared among the three main product segments for the Clipboard Tablet Company. As a result, in the periods 2010 to 2012, the X5 tablet sold more than the X6 and X7 brands and the reverse was witnessed between 2013 and 2015. In terms of sales and revenue, the company experienced high sales and revenue in the years 2012 and 2013. While the lowest revenues were witnessed in the years 2010 and 2015 due to poor sales of all the products ranges (Jones, 2011). The major problem in terms of sales was in pricing and timing since the company did not undertake good pricing models that would have netted the company good revenue streams. For instance, in the early years the company could have priced the X5 tablet as a premium product while discount on the other X6 and X7 tablets.Advertising Looking for case study on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More As a result, the sales units coupled with good pricing models would have netted the company good sales revenues. In general the performance of the company has been declining based on the revenue and profit figures (Stice, 2010). Since the company has a product mix that does not sell to well and pricing strategy that puts the company in a weak position compared to its competitors. The best strategy that would have been adopted by Joe was to sell the X5, X6, and X7 tablets at premium prices when the demand was high and discount new products as a means of attracting new consumers. Moreover, the company should have shelved the X5 tablet once demand had dipped to save the company from losses. References Jones, J., Heitger, D. Mowen, M. (2011). Cornerstones of Financial and Managerial Accounting. Sydney: Cengage Learning. McDonald, M., Payne, A. Frow P. (2011). Marketing Plans for Services: A Complete Guide. Chicago, IL: John Wiley and Sons. Stice, J. Swain, M. (2010). Accounting: Conc epts and Applications: Concepts and Applications. New York, NY: Lippincott Williams Wilkins. Yaeger, T. Sorensen, P. (2009). Strategic Organization Development: Managing Change for Success. Boston, MA: Jones Bartlett Learning.

National Origins Act

National Origins Act The National Origins Act, a component of the Immigration Act of 1924, was a law enacted on May 26, 1924, to greatly reduce the number of immigrants allowed to enter the United States by setting immigration quotas for each European nation. This immigration quota setting aspect of the 1924 law remains in effect today in the form of the per-country visa limits enforced by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Fast Facts: National Origins Act Short Description: Limited US immigration by imposing per-country quotasKey Players: US Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Warren Harding, US Senator William P. DillinghamStart Date: May 26, 1924 (enactment)Locations: United States Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.Key Cause: Post World War I isolationism Sentiment in the United States Immigration in the 1920s During the 1920s, the United States was experiencing a resurgence of anti-immigration isolationism. Many Americans objected to the growing numbers of immigrants being allowed to enter the county. The Immigration Act of 1907 had created the Dillingham Commission- named for its chairman, Republican Senator William P. Dillingham of Vermont- to review the effects of immigration on the United States. Issued in 1911, the commission’s report concluded that because it posed a serious threat to America’s social, cultural, physical, economic, and moral welfare, immigration from southern and eastern Europe should be drastically reduced.   Based on the Dillingham Commission report, the Immigration Act of 1917 imposed English literacy tests for all immigrants and completely barred immigration from most of Southeast Asia. However, when it became clear that literacy tests alone were not slowing the flow of Europe immigrants, Congress looked for a different strategy. Migration Quotas Based on the findings of the Dillingham Commission, Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 creating immigration quotas. Under the law, no more than 3 percent of the total number of immigrants from any specific country already living in the United States, according to the 1910 decennial U.S. Census, were allowed to migrate to the United States during any calendar year. For example, if 100,000 people from a particular country lived in America in 1910, only 3,000 more (3 percent of 100,000) would have been allowed to migrate in 1921. Based on the total foreign-born U.S. population counted in the 1910 Census, the total number of visas available each year to new immigrants was set at 350,000 per year. However, the law set no immigration quotas whatsoever on countries in the Western Hemisphere. A cartoon showing Uncle Sam putting the Emergency Quota Act (aka the Johnson Quota Act) in place, 19th May 1921. The act limits the annual number of immigrants who can be admitted from any country to 3% of the number of persons from that country already living in the United States according to the census of 1910. MPI / Getty Images While the Emergency Quota Act sailed easily through Congress, President Woodrow Wilson, who favored a more liberal immigration policy, used the pocket veto to prevent its enactment. In March 1921, newly inaugurated President Warren Harding called a special session of Congress to pass the law, which was renewed for another two years in 1922. In passing the National Origins Act, legislators made no attempt to hide the fact that the law was to limit immigration specifically from the countries of southern and eastern Europe. During debates on the bill, Republican U.S. Representative from Kentucky John M. Robsion rhetorically asked, â€Å"How long shall America continue to be the garbage can and the dumping ground of the world?† Long-Term Effects of the Quota System Never intended to be permanent, the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 was replaced in 1924 by the National Origins Act. The law lowered the 1921 per-country immigration quotas from 3 percent to 2 percent of each national group residing America according to the 1890 Census. Using 1890 instead of 1910 census data allowed more people to migrate to America from countries in northern and western Europe than from countries in southern and eastern Europe. Immigration based exclusively on a national origin quota system continued until 1965, when the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) replaced it with the current, consular-based immigration system that factors in aspects such as the potential immigrants’ skills, employment potential, and family relationships with U.S. citizens or legal permanent U.S. residents. In conjunction with these â€Å"preferential† criteria, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also applies a per-country permanent immigration ceiling. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants from any single country can exceed seven percent of the total number of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. This quota is intended to prevent immigration patterns to the United States from being dominated by any one immigrant group. The following table shows the results of the INA’s current quotas on U.S. immigration in 2016: Region Immigrants (2016) % of Total Canada, Mexico, Central, and South America 506,901 42.83% Asia 462,299 39.06% Africa 113,426 9.58% Europe 93,567 7.9% Australia and Oceania 5,404 0.47% Source: US Department of Homeland Security - Office of Immigration Statistics On an individual basis, the three countries sending the most immigrants into the United States in 2016 were Mexico (174,534), China (81,772), and Cuba (66,516). According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, current U.S. immigration policies and quotas are intended to keep families together, admit immigrants with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy, protect refugees, and promote diversity. Sources How the United States Immigration System Works. American Immigration Council (2016). â€Å"1921 Emergency Quota Law.† The University of Washington-Bothell Library.Congressional Record Proceedings and Debates, Third Session of the Sixty-Sixth Congress, Volume 60, Parts 1-5. (â€Å"How long shall America continue to be the garbage can and the dumping ground of the world?†).Higham, John. â€Å"Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism.† New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1963.Kammer, Jerry. The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965. Center for Immigration Studies (2015).