Supongamos que un inversionista al hacer la evaluación de su proyecto hotelero A supone tres posibles escenarios: auge del país, economía normal y economía recesiva. Para esos estados de la economía proyecta sus posibles ganancias y señala que en el escenario del AUGE existe una probabilidad de ocurrencia de 0,25 (del 25%) para que el hotel gane US$ 500,pero que en una situación de economía NORMAL existe la probabilidad de ocurrencia de 0,50 (del 50%) de que el hotel gane 400 y finalmente que en un contexto de una economía RECESIVA existe la probabilidad de ocurrencia también de 0,25 (del 25%) de que el hotel gane US$300. Entonces los valores esperados de estas tres ganancias en esos tres escenarios es : 500 x 0,25 = US$ 125; 400 x 0,50 = US$ 200; y, 300 x 0,25 = US$ 75.
El socio le sugiere que mejor es recurrir a un proyecto de contingencia B que según su evaluación daría los siguientes resultados: en AUGE con 0,25 de pobabilidad daría una ganancia de US$ 600 y un Valor Esperado igual a : US$ 150; en el contexto de una economía NORMAL existe la probabilidad de 0,50 y la utilidad podría ser US$ 400 con un Valor Esperado igual a US$ 200, y que en el contexto de una economía RECESIVA existe la probabilidad de 0,25 y la utilidad sería US$ 200, con una Valor Esperado de US$ 50.
Pero entonces el socio principal le dice que no habría pasado nada porque al sumar los VALORES ESPERADO de ambos proyectos, o sea : 125 + 200+ 75 = 400, y para el proyecto de contingecia B , la suma sería : 150 + 200 + 50 = 400. Es rsumen las GANANCIAS ESPERADAS en ambos posibles proyectos es igual. Pero el socio amigo le advierte que el rango de la ganancia de su proyecto es igual a : US$ 500 menos US$ 300 =US$ 200; pero que el rango de la ganancia del proyecto B es igual a: US$ 600 menos US$ 200 = US$ 400.
Para buscar una solución de consenso, el socio mayor le sugiere que estimen la DESVIACION ESTANDAR de la distribución de probabilidades de las dos ALTERNATIVAS para poder medir el RIESGO de esos dos proyectos. Entonces los cálculos fueron los siguientes :
Proyecto A
500 - 400 = 100, con probabilidad de 0,25
400 - 400 = 0, con probbailidad de 0,50
300 - 400 = -100, con probabilidad de 0,25
Ahora cada desviación al cuadrado por su probabilidad sería:
US$ 10.000 x 0,25 = US$ 2.500
US$ 0 x 0,50 = US$ 0
US$ 10.000 x 0,25 = US$ 2.500
Entonces la Varianza sería US$ 5.000 y la Desviación Estándar sería la raíz de 5.000 = US$ 70.71
Este mismo cálculo para el proyecto B, arroja una desviación estándar igual a: US$ 141,42
Con estos datos los socios midieron el RIESGO de estas alternativas de negocios de esta manera:
Para el proyecto A : US$ 70,71 / US$ 400 = 0,18
Para el proyecto B : US$ 141,42 / US$ 400 = 0,36
La ganancia esperada para ambos proyectos es igual , pero el proyecto A tiene una menor dispersión relativa y el riesgo porcentual es del 18%, mientras que el proyecto B tiene una mayor dispersión relativa y un riesgo, en términos porcentuales, del 36%.
Como los socios son adversos al RIESGO, se decidieron por el proyecto A.
Ahora bien si los socios no saben o no pueden estimar la PROBABILIDAD de OCURRENCIA de las ganancias de los proyectos, entonces se encuentran en una típica decisión en situación de INCERTIDUMBRE, y la única manera de asegurar una decisión racional es establecer unos cálculos bajo los CRITERIOS MAXIMIN y MINIMAX
El criterio MAXIMINdice que el proyectista debe determinar el peor resultado posible de cada estrategia, para seleccionar lo mejor de estos peores resultados; es decir, una posición CONSERVADORA, porque se tiene adversión al riesgo y la supervivencia del proyecto es evitar las pérdidas.
Entoces existen dos estrategias en dos contextos, o sea: se invierte o no se invierte en un posible estado de EXITO o de FRACASO.
Si inviette y el proyecto es exitoso, puede tener una ganancia de US$ 40.000 y si fracasa, una pérdida de US$ 20.000, lo que no se sabe es la probabilidad de ese éxito y de ese fracaso. En este caso el peor resultado es menos US$ 20.000 si INVIERTE en el proyecto; y si no invierte, entonces la ganancia es CERO. Así pues, lo mejor de los peores posibles resultados es NO INVERTIR
El criterio MINIMAXdice que el proyectista debe seleccionar la estrategia que minimiza el criterioMAXIMIN o sea: minimiza una decisión errónea.En este caso, el proyectista sabe que si existe el FRACASO del proyecto al invertir, la ganancia sería US$ 40.000 menos US$ 20.000 = US$ 20.000; y si no invierte en un estado de éxito, entonces deja de obtener US$ 40.000. Pero para ser conservador se decide por al MAXIMIN más bajo: o sea por US$ 20.000.
martes, enero 30, 2007
La ganancia de la empresa y la ganancia economica
La ganancia de la empresa es el ingreso de la firma menos lo que llamamos los costes explícitos, es decir aquellos costes para pagar su mano de obra, compra de sus materias primas y materiales y el pago de los intereses al negociar un préstamo. Pero el concepto de ganancia econñomica tiene que ver con la eficiencia para asignar socialmente los recursos de que disponemos, y por ello tiene que ver con el concepto de coste de oportunidad. Por esto la venta de una empresa debería cubrir no sólo sus costes explícitos sino también los llamados costes implícitos que vienen dados por la alternativa que existe de usar los recursos de otra manera. Por ejemplo, si el gerente de una empresa conoce el valor en que él puede vender sus servicios de administrador a otra empresa y si el capital que desearía invertir le produce un ingreso adicional si se lo presta a otra firma similar a la él, entonces lo que puede suceder es que la ganancia de la empresa se puede transforme en una pérdida económica. Voy a poner un ejemplo para aclarar el concepto.
Si una empresa vende al año digamos US$ 100.000 y sus costes explícitos para contratar sus insumos es de US$ 80.000 al año, no hay duda que la ganancia brutra de la empresa es igual a la diferencia entre los ingresos y los cotes o sea: US$ 20.000 al año.
Ahora bien si el dueño de la empresa nos dice que si el dejara ese negocio y fuese contratado por una firma él podría tener ingresos propios igual a US$ 30.000 al año y también señala que si el capital que el ha colocado en su empresa lo utilizara en otra alernativa como sería comprar bonos del Estado ese dinero le rendería US$ 5.000 adicionales. Entonces, la ganacia económica sería los ingresos de la firma menos los llamados costes IMPLICITOS, es decir : US$ 100.000 menos US$ 35.000, es decir US$ 65.000. La ganancia desde el punto de vista del coste de oportunidad es menor en US$ 15.000 que la ganancia de la empresa. Para la sociedad como un todo la verdadera ganancia de esa empresa es de US$ 65.000, pero para el empresa dueño de la empresa la ganancia de su negocio es igual a US$ 80.000.
Si una empresa vende al año digamos US$ 100.000 y sus costes explícitos para contratar sus insumos es de US$ 80.000 al año, no hay duda que la ganancia brutra de la empresa es igual a la diferencia entre los ingresos y los cotes o sea: US$ 20.000 al año.
Ahora bien si el dueño de la empresa nos dice que si el dejara ese negocio y fuese contratado por una firma él podría tener ingresos propios igual a US$ 30.000 al año y también señala que si el capital que el ha colocado en su empresa lo utilizara en otra alernativa como sería comprar bonos del Estado ese dinero le rendería US$ 5.000 adicionales. Entonces, la ganacia económica sería los ingresos de la firma menos los llamados costes IMPLICITOS, es decir : US$ 100.000 menos US$ 35.000, es decir US$ 65.000. La ganancia desde el punto de vista del coste de oportunidad es menor en US$ 15.000 que la ganancia de la empresa. Para la sociedad como un todo la verdadera ganancia de esa empresa es de US$ 65.000, pero para el empresa dueño de la empresa la ganancia de su negocio es igual a US$ 80.000.
lunes, enero 29, 2007
Where Not To Build a Hotel
Where Not To Build a Hotel
by Larry Mundy
The economy is improving. People are traveling again. Things are looking up for the hotel business.
You know what that means, of course. It means hotel developers are in high gear planning, financing and building new projects. If they hurry, and there are no glitches in zoning, and the loan terms are favorable, and construction gets started before winter, then maybe, just maybe, the new hotel can be opened just as the industry enters another “down cycle.” Actually, if enough new hotels are opened, that can cause the next down cycle all by itself, but that’s another column.
Some new hotels are instantly successful. Some are in trouble before the grand opening balloons pop. If I could forecast reliably whether a given new hotel project will make money, I would be far more popular, and able to afford much more expensive bad habits. But I do have some suggestions where hotel developers should not locate a new hotel:
Near an older sports stadium
Nothing makes your sport-fan market disappear faster than a shiny new stadium opening across town, and the home team moving there. But every sports-team owner in the country is pressuring local civic leaders for a proper new $1 billion facility with an opening roof and thousands of expensive “skyboxes,” built at public expense and leased to the team owner for $1 a year. The old stadium will host two tractor-pulls, and will then be demolished to make room for public housing.
Adjacent to the corporate-campus headquarters of a new high-tech company
A lot of people learned this lesson during the dot-com bust. Nothing appears and disappears faster than a fast-moving, high-tech enterprise. The amazing new gadget they can’t make fast enough for $300 will be cloned in Taiwan and on the shelves at Wal-Mart next year for $19.97, and the stock that surged through the $100 mark will soon be useful only as scratch paper. You may sell some group rooms to lawyers while the “creative accounting” is investigated, but after that your hotel will be as empty as the former Intergalactic Headquarters building.
Near a pristine national park
You know, the kind of eco-tourist boutique hotel made of rough-hewn cedar, but which has a 24-hour masseuse and $500 wine bottles in the cellar. You may get the rich jet setters trying to look rugged, but next week the nice folks who run the U.S. government will probably decide to allow oil exploration, strip mining, and storage of nuclear waste at the base of Mount Rebus. Jet-setters are so fickle.
In any country whose government changes weekly
In the search for emerging markets, U.S. companies are planning hotels on the white-sand beaches of various banana republics with liberal gaming laws and a constabulary eager to supplement their meager wages with, um, “contributions.” Just realize that when your assets are “nationalized,” that generally means you don’t own them anymore, and that the former Minister of Jungle Tourism probably thinks he can run the hotel better than you anyway. Especially if he gets it for free.
On a major earthquake fault line, artificial beach made of fill materials, or area known for sink-holes
Hotels tend to be heavier than many other structures, like pup tents or camping trailers. If the first floor or two suddenly goes subterranean, guests may balk at staying on the upper floors as well. A corollary is to avoid sites of former landfills, where decaying garbage will bubble methane to the surface for the next 300 years. You have enough methane problems just hosting the chili cook-off.
Next door to any hotel owned by a governmental agency
You don’t want to compete for rate with a hotel that has no debt service or profit motive, and funds its capital needs with “mill levies.” There aren’t many of these catering to the general public, and most of them are nothing to write home about, but remember that anything run by the government has more money than you, because they print the stuff.
In any market where the average occupancy rate, expressed as a percentage, is lower than the number of grades you completed in school
I don’t care how marvelous and unique your hotel will be. If there are three other hotels in the market, and each has three cars in the parking lot at 3 AM, the “market” consists of approximately nine people. Even if you get them all, and run the other three hotels completely out of business, your lender will soon own your hotel. Developers always argue that their hotel will be so unique and wonderful it will “induce” business. The Hotel Developer’s Dictionary defines “induce” this way: “induce, v., in-dooce. (1) to be so unique and wonderful that people stay at your hotel, even though their meeting is in another town; (2) to be even more unique and wonderful than that, so that local residents stay at your hotel just to escape their own drab abodes; (3) to hallucinate with drunken optimism.”
Those are just some suggestions where not to put a new hotel. I’m sure our readers could come up with dozens of additional suggestions, all of which boil down to this: “Don’t put it next to mine!”
by Larry Mundy
The economy is improving. People are traveling again. Things are looking up for the hotel business.
You know what that means, of course. It means hotel developers are in high gear planning, financing and building new projects. If they hurry, and there are no glitches in zoning, and the loan terms are favorable, and construction gets started before winter, then maybe, just maybe, the new hotel can be opened just as the industry enters another “down cycle.” Actually, if enough new hotels are opened, that can cause the next down cycle all by itself, but that’s another column.
Some new hotels are instantly successful. Some are in trouble before the grand opening balloons pop. If I could forecast reliably whether a given new hotel project will make money, I would be far more popular, and able to afford much more expensive bad habits. But I do have some suggestions where hotel developers should not locate a new hotel:
Near an older sports stadium
Nothing makes your sport-fan market disappear faster than a shiny new stadium opening across town, and the home team moving there. But every sports-team owner in the country is pressuring local civic leaders for a proper new $1 billion facility with an opening roof and thousands of expensive “skyboxes,” built at public expense and leased to the team owner for $1 a year. The old stadium will host two tractor-pulls, and will then be demolished to make room for public housing.
Adjacent to the corporate-campus headquarters of a new high-tech company
A lot of people learned this lesson during the dot-com bust. Nothing appears and disappears faster than a fast-moving, high-tech enterprise. The amazing new gadget they can’t make fast enough for $300 will be cloned in Taiwan and on the shelves at Wal-Mart next year for $19.97, and the stock that surged through the $100 mark will soon be useful only as scratch paper. You may sell some group rooms to lawyers while the “creative accounting” is investigated, but after that your hotel will be as empty as the former Intergalactic Headquarters building.
Near a pristine national park
You know, the kind of eco-tourist boutique hotel made of rough-hewn cedar, but which has a 24-hour masseuse and $500 wine bottles in the cellar. You may get the rich jet setters trying to look rugged, but next week the nice folks who run the U.S. government will probably decide to allow oil exploration, strip mining, and storage of nuclear waste at the base of Mount Rebus. Jet-setters are so fickle.
In any country whose government changes weekly
In the search for emerging markets, U.S. companies are planning hotels on the white-sand beaches of various banana republics with liberal gaming laws and a constabulary eager to supplement their meager wages with, um, “contributions.” Just realize that when your assets are “nationalized,” that generally means you don’t own them anymore, and that the former Minister of Jungle Tourism probably thinks he can run the hotel better than you anyway. Especially if he gets it for free.
On a major earthquake fault line, artificial beach made of fill materials, or area known for sink-holes
Hotels tend to be heavier than many other structures, like pup tents or camping trailers. If the first floor or two suddenly goes subterranean, guests may balk at staying on the upper floors as well. A corollary is to avoid sites of former landfills, where decaying garbage will bubble methane to the surface for the next 300 years. You have enough methane problems just hosting the chili cook-off.
Next door to any hotel owned by a governmental agency
You don’t want to compete for rate with a hotel that has no debt service or profit motive, and funds its capital needs with “mill levies.” There aren’t many of these catering to the general public, and most of them are nothing to write home about, but remember that anything run by the government has more money than you, because they print the stuff.
In any market where the average occupancy rate, expressed as a percentage, is lower than the number of grades you completed in school
I don’t care how marvelous and unique your hotel will be. If there are three other hotels in the market, and each has three cars in the parking lot at 3 AM, the “market” consists of approximately nine people. Even if you get them all, and run the other three hotels completely out of business, your lender will soon own your hotel. Developers always argue that their hotel will be so unique and wonderful it will “induce” business. The Hotel Developer’s Dictionary defines “induce” this way: “induce, v., in-dooce. (1) to be so unique and wonderful that people stay at your hotel, even though their meeting is in another town; (2) to be even more unique and wonderful than that, so that local residents stay at your hotel just to escape their own drab abodes; (3) to hallucinate with drunken optimism.”
Those are just some suggestions where not to put a new hotel. I’m sure our readers could come up with dozens of additional suggestions, all of which boil down to this: “Don’t put it next to mine!”
E-Commerce Strategy
Does Your Business Have an E-Commerce Strategy?
Act now to avoid being left behind in the "new industrial revolution."
E-commerce is the fastest growing area of industry in the world. The online marketplace is developing so rapidly that an Internet presence will soon become the norm for businesses in the United Kingdom, as it is in the USA. There are currently around 250,000 British commercial domains (addresses ending in "co.uk") with up to 20,000 more being added every month. Soon, businesses that are not online will be at a serious competitive disadvantage.
A Growing Industry
Some estimates suggest that over 170 million people worldwide now use the Internet. The World Wide Web is growing at a rate of 15% per month, and every day 45 thousand people go online for the first time. Over seven million people in the U.K. now use the Net regularly, and personal computers are currently outselling televisions.
With a potential marketplace of this scale, there are enormous opportunities for those small and medium-sized enterprises that can embrace e-commerce.
The implications for all businesses, large or small, are clear - develop and implement an e-commerce strategy soon, or risk being left behind.
Benefits of Being Online
For SMEs there are particular benefits from being online. These include having the opportunity to reach a wide geographical area and a large target market for relatively low costs, and being "open for business" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Business-to-business e-commerce is already reasonably well developed in the U.K., but business-to-customer / client trading is fast catching up and research shows that Britain is increasingly becoming a nation of technophiles. However, if a business wishes to reap some of the benefits of e-commerce, it is not enough simply to go online. As with any other marketing activity, the quantity an quality of your returns depends upon the quantity and quality of your investment.
Web Sites
Perhaps the most important element of your e-commerce strategy will be your web site, which, if well-designed, can be used to achieve a number of objectives:
To sell products and services online
To provide key customer services online
To provide up-to-the-minute information on your products and services
To provide post-sales support
To prospect for new customers/clients
To stay ahead of the competition
To enhance the reputation of your business
To improve firm and brand awareness
There is a wealth of information on the Internet aimed at helping businesses develop e-commerce strategies - simply typing "e-commerce" into a search engine will provide a vast range of options. The development of the online marketplace represents a great opportunity for small businesses. Make sure that your business
Act now to avoid being left behind in the "new industrial revolution."
E-commerce is the fastest growing area of industry in the world. The online marketplace is developing so rapidly that an Internet presence will soon become the norm for businesses in the United Kingdom, as it is in the USA. There are currently around 250,000 British commercial domains (addresses ending in "co.uk") with up to 20,000 more being added every month. Soon, businesses that are not online will be at a serious competitive disadvantage.
A Growing Industry
Some estimates suggest that over 170 million people worldwide now use the Internet. The World Wide Web is growing at a rate of 15% per month, and every day 45 thousand people go online for the first time. Over seven million people in the U.K. now use the Net regularly, and personal computers are currently outselling televisions.
With a potential marketplace of this scale, there are enormous opportunities for those small and medium-sized enterprises that can embrace e-commerce.
The implications for all businesses, large or small, are clear - develop and implement an e-commerce strategy soon, or risk being left behind.
Benefits of Being Online
For SMEs there are particular benefits from being online. These include having the opportunity to reach a wide geographical area and a large target market for relatively low costs, and being "open for business" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Business-to-business e-commerce is already reasonably well developed in the U.K., but business-to-customer / client trading is fast catching up and research shows that Britain is increasingly becoming a nation of technophiles. However, if a business wishes to reap some of the benefits of e-commerce, it is not enough simply to go online. As with any other marketing activity, the quantity an quality of your returns depends upon the quantity and quality of your investment.
Web Sites
Perhaps the most important element of your e-commerce strategy will be your web site, which, if well-designed, can be used to achieve a number of objectives:
To sell products and services online
To provide key customer services online
To provide up-to-the-minute information on your products and services
To provide post-sales support
To prospect for new customers/clients
To stay ahead of the competition
To enhance the reputation of your business
To improve firm and brand awareness
There is a wealth of information on the Internet aimed at helping businesses develop e-commerce strategies - simply typing "e-commerce" into a search engine will provide a vast range of options. The development of the online marketplace represents a great opportunity for small businesses. Make sure that your business
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)