Case Studies
Case 2
1.
Profitability has decreased comparing to their anticipation. The status of the company in the market has transformed from dominance to 10 percent use of all three products. Differences in revenue caused the partners to re-allocate their salaries and dividends.
2.
Judging by the revenue, net profit, gross profit per worker hour and ROI, the electrical division has had the best financial performance.
3.
The budgeting process was based on gut feelings so it’s not optimum. If it were a cognitive boss like me, I’ll set a preliminary budget, according to the normal cost and profit percentages from of last year. Additionally, I would adopt BIM to abet the budgeting process, anticipating costs more accurately.
4.
The Toronto MEP is an S Corporation. And since there is a buy-sell clause existing between partners, the partner who has been distracted by family concerns can sell out his shares to another partner’s son who wants in under proper consent and ownership agreement. Then they still can split the compensation based on profits. …show more content…
Tax purpose and nepotism. If this partner’s son is incompetent considering his lack of experiences, other employees may distinguish this as a gross injustice.
6.
Apparently the partner’s son had an appropriate education for the job. What he needs is five years of experiences outside the company or starting from the bottom in this company.
7.
First one to add is the contribution to the partnership. It’s crucial to know each partner’s contribution to determine the percentage of ownership. Thereupon comes the allocation of profits, losses, and draws. In my opinion they should allocate profits based on the percentage of ownership. Finally the clause stating the procedures of admitting a novel partner should be added.
Case 3
1.
In as much as he sacrificed his profit margin just to attain greater volume. His ROI grew weaker and weaker as time goes by. And he didn’t put much effort in planning or using
Case 2
1.
Profitability has decreased comparing to their anticipation. The status of the company in the market has transformed from dominance to 10 percent use of all three products. Differences in revenue caused the partners to re-allocate their salaries and dividends.
2.
Judging by the revenue, net profit, gross profit per worker hour and ROI, the electrical division has had the best financial performance.
3.
The budgeting process was based on gut feelings so it’s not optimum. If it were a cognitive boss like me, I’ll set a preliminary budget, according to the normal cost and profit percentages from of last year. Additionally, I would adopt BIM to abet the budgeting process, anticipating costs more accurately.
4.
The Toronto MEP is an S Corporation. And since there is a buy-sell clause existing between partners, the partner who has been distracted by family concerns can sell out his shares to another partner’s son who wants in under proper consent and ownership agreement. Then they still can split the compensation based on profits. …show more content…
Tax purpose and nepotism. If this partner’s son is incompetent considering his lack of experiences, other employees may distinguish this as a gross injustice.
6.
Apparently the partner’s son had an appropriate education for the job. What he needs is five years of experiences outside the company or starting from the bottom in this company.
7.
First one to add is the contribution to the partnership. It’s crucial to know each partner’s contribution to determine the percentage of ownership. Thereupon comes the allocation of profits, losses, and draws. In my opinion they should allocate profits based on the percentage of ownership. Finally the clause stating the procedures of admitting a novel partner should be added.
Case 3
1.
In as much as he sacrificed his profit margin just to attain greater volume. His ROI grew weaker and weaker as time goes by. And he didn’t put much effort in planning or using