COLA WARS : COKE AND PEPSI IN THE 21ST CENTURY” INTRODUCTION "Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the 21st Century” explains the economics of the soft drink industry and its relation with profits‚ taking into account all stages of the value chain of the soft drink industry. By focusing on the war between Coca-Cola and PepsiCo as market leaders in this industry – with a 90% market share in carbonated beverages – the study analyses the different stages of the value chain (concentrate producers
Premium Coca-Cola Soft drink
2. What is the maximum price they could expect to pay Monmouth‚ based on an analysis of valuation using discounted cash flow‚ calculation of WACC and terminal value determination? 2. Based on the DCF valuation and using a WACC of 8.25% (the beta assumed to be 1‚ the average beta of comparable firms and the coupon rate to be 7.96%‚ the rate for BB rated companies) and a growth rate of 5.5%. The fair price is $40.4 per share for Robertson‚ lower than the $50 offered by Simmons to sell their
Premium Discounted cash flow Market value Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
Spenser Garrison Strategic Management 3/17/10 Case 1: Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in 2006 The soft drink industry is very competitive for all companies involved. Recently the competition between established firms has only increased with the market nearing its saturation point. All companies in the industry‚ especially those thinking about entering‚ have to think about Porter’s 5-Forces model and the pressures it outlines; rivalry among establish firms‚ risk of entry by potential
Premium Coca-Cola Soft drink
Coke Zero Case Study Coca Cola is world renowned soft drink. Unfortunately when it comes to taking health into consideration this is one of the last things one should be ingesting into their system. That’s why Coke introduced Diet Coke in 1982. Unfortunately the typical male consumer shies away from dieting due to social pressure for being perceived or mistaken for the feminine persona often categorized as a homosexual. With proper understanding‚ Coke was able to market a no calorie‚ body conscience
Premium Coca-Cola Diet Coke Gender
Kowalski XACC/280 22July12 Dr. Edward Walden University of Phoenix a) PEPSICO‚ INC. Trend Analysis of Net Sales and Net Income For the Five Years Ended 2005 Base Period 2001—(in millions) | | | 2005 | | 2004 | | 2003 | | 2002 | | 2001 | | | | | | | | | | | | | (1) | ------------------------------------------------- Net sales Trend | | $32562 | | $29261 | | $26971 | |
Premium Revenue Income statement Financial ratio
CAPITAL BUDGETING Cost of Capital Evaluating Cash Flows Payback‚ discounted payback NPV IRR‚ MIRR The Cost of Capital • Cost of Capital Components – Debt – Common Equity • WACC Should we focus on historical (embedded) costs or new (marginal) costs? The cost of capital is used primarily to make decisions which involve raising and investing new capital. So‚ we should focus on marginal costs. What types of long-term capital do organizations use? nLong-term debt nEquity Weighted
Premium Net present value Internal rate of return
1/20/2015 New Coke Case Study The failure of the introduction of New Coke raises the question of who was responsible for this notorious flop. The efforts to launch a new product began as a tactic to combat Pepsi’s taste test marketing campaign‚ in which consumers where shown preferring the taste of Pepsi over the original Coke product. This campaign contributed to Pepsi gaining significant market growth. Coke chose to respond by creating a new product that was preferred over both Pepsi and the original
Premium Marketing Product management New product development
Coke vs Pepsi Week 5 Case Study Question #1 Question #2 Question #3 Question #4 Can you make poor investment decisions and be profitable? What evidence do you see from the companies’ results that indicate how well they made investment decisions (capital budgeting). A company can make poor investment decisions and still remain profitable‚ but only for a time. A company cannot continually make poor investment decisions and remain profitable forever. When looking at the Coke vs Pepsi case study
Premium Investment Interest
Cola Wars Continue : Coke and Pepsi in 2006 1. Why historically has the soft drink industry been so profitable? * High rate of consumption increasing at an average of 3% per year * Increasing availability of CSDs * Introduction of diet and flavoured varieties Year | 1970 | 1975 | 1981 | 1985 | 1990 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2004 | Consumption in Cases (million) | 3090 | 3780 | 5180 | 6500 | 7780 | 8710 | 9290 | 9880 | 10240 | 2. Compare the economics of concentrated
Premium Pepsi Bottle Coca-Cola
Strategy ‘Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in 2010’ Analysis of the US carbonated soft drinks (CSD) industry (a) Strategic issues The CSD market in the US (approx. $74 billion) is dominated by two concentrate manufacturers – namely Coke and Pepsi –. Both companies have been competing intensely since the 1970s‚ yet have thrived from this competition and have grown the business very profitably‚ as both have benefitted from the CSD market growth rates of around 10% p.a. until the early 2000s
Premium Strategic management Management Soft drink