Capsim Competition Rounds 1-2
C131690
Andrews
Grace Aderinto, Imani Guillory, Kaitlyn Kesselring, Madison Laughlin, Cory Rose, Alaina Wolgemuth
Andrews
Round 1
Round 2
Excellent
Satisfactory
Poor
ROS
-6.3%
-6.8%
>8%
>4%
<4%
Leverage
2.7
3.1
1.8 - 2.5
1.6-1.8 or
2.5-3.0
<1.5 or >3.0
Emergency
Loan
$0
$0
$0
$1 mil - $3
mil
> $3 mil
>35%
>27%
<27%
Contribution 26.5%
Margin
18.7%
ROS
● Our net income was less than out sales,
resulting in a 0.5 increase. Our
performance in the market place is in a
poor standing.
Leverage
● We were able to manage our equity higher
than our debt. We are in excellent
standing.
Emergency Loan
● We did not need financial assistance going into
round 2.
Contribution Margin
● Our CM decreased by 7.8%, leaving is in a poor
standing in the market for performance.
Andrews
Round 1
Round 2
Excellent
Satisfactory
Poor
Stock Price
$17.71
$1.00
>$40 +5*Round#
>$30
+5*Round#
<$30
+5*Round#
EPS
($3.12)
($3.79)
>$2+Round#
>0.5*Round#
<0.5*Round#
>BB
>CC
<CC
Ratio between
2.0 and 2.5
Ratio 1.7-2.0
or 2.5-2.8
Ratio <1.7 or
> 2.8
Bond Rating
C
C
Current Ratio
3.21
1.87
Stock Price
● Our stock price decreased drastically
because there was a lack of demand,
this keeps us at a poor standing.
EPS
● Our EPS increased slightly due to our
net profit slightly increasing leaving us
in a poor position in the marketplace.
Bond Rating
● Our bond rating did not change from rounds 1-2
leaving us in a poor position in the marketplace.
Current Ratio
● Current ratio decreased because our short term
debt increased, bringing us from a poor standing to
a satisfactory performance in the marketplace.
Andrews
Round 1
Round 2
Excellent
Satisfactory
Poor
Total Assets
$112,931
$121,173
>$100 M +$8
M*Round#
>$100 M+
5M*Round#
<$100 M+
$5M*Round#
Automation
Traditional &
Low End
Products
Low End:
5.6
Trad: 4.4
Low End:
7.2
Trad: 6.0
Low End > 9.0
Traditional
>7.0
Low End > 7.0
Traditional
>6.0
Low End < 7.0
Traditional
<6.0
Automation
High Tech
Products
3.0
3.0
>6.5
>5.0
<5.0
Total Assets
● You can see that our assets going into round 2
increased, leaving us in an excellent standing in the
marketplace.
Automation Low & Trad
● Our automation has steadily been increasing from round
1 to 2, which brings us to a satisfactory standing place.
Automation High Tech Products
● Our high end product did not change,
leaving us at a poor rating for
performance in the marketplace.
Production Vs Capacity
● From round 1 to 2, we were able to
increase capacity to produce more to
meet demand, in doing so this
brought us from poor performance to
satisfactory standing in the
marketplace.
Round 1
Round 2
Andrews
Round 1
Round 2
Production Vs
Capacity
Cap > Prod
Prod > Cap
Excellent
Satisfactory
Poor
Production
bar > 1.5
Capacity bar
Production
bar >
Capacity bar
Production
bar <Capacity
bar
Andrews
Round 1
Round 2
Excellent
Satisfactory
Poor
Product
Count
2.9
2.9
>7 Products
>=4 Products
< 4 Products
Stock Outs
<25% of Prod
>25% of Prod
None
<25% of
Products
>25% of
Products
Contribution
Margin
<75% of Prod
<75% of Prod
All Products
> 30%
75% of Prod.
>30%
<75%of
Products
Product
Dec.Survey
Score
Most Prod.
<30
Most Prod
>30
All Products
> 40
Most
Products >30
Most
Products <30
Product Count
● Our score did not increase, leaving us in a
poor position in the marketplace.
Stock Outs
● In round 2, we stocked out on most of our
products, leaving us at a poor
performance for this round in the
marketplace.
Contribution Margin
● Both rounds we performed poorly.
Product December Survey Score
● Round 1 going into 2, we focused a little more on
customer criteria buying. In doing so, this brought us
from poor to satisfactory in the marketplace.
Competition Round 1 Balance Score Card
Competition Round 2 Balance Score Card