The fact that no one has seen anything like Amazon before makes people worried; this produces people into believing that the five- hundred and sixty billion dollar company has control of the economy, thus forming a monopoly. However, as long as the prices do not go up, consumers do not suffer, and competition challenges Amazon, then the company does not have a monopoly. The first reason that proves Amazon does not have a monopoly: the prices. Amazon does control the majority of e-commerce. However, Amazon prices stay low, enhancing the business of Amazon, which explains the dominance in online shopping.
We are living in a free market economy age where business entities are engaged in competitive practices. This sometimes (if not always) leads to the monopolisation of the market by way of anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominance, mergers and takeovers between business entities which result in distortion of the market. Most countries in the world have enacted competition laws to protect their free market economies and have thereby developed an economic system in which the allocation of resources is determined solely by demand and supply. Although the antitrust laws are very much new to the Indian regulatory framework but the western countries likes US and Canada has this kind of regulatory framework since last decade of the 19th century.
However, when the monopoly firm is established, the monopolist may spend some money on advertisement to acquaint the consumers about his product. But he will spend on advertisement only once. On the other hand, due to large number of firms and existence of competition among them, expenditure on selling costs is essential under monopolistic competition. 5. The monopolist can charge different prices from different customers for the same product and can adopt the policy of price discrimination.
As such, they may work together to have priced in view of maximizing profits as such; prices must be higher than the market clearing price with the relatively lower output (Bain, 1949). Additionally, algologists can work alone to produce greater quantity and set lower prices on the products and earn a profit. They though viewed as unstable oligopolistic firms may choose to work together to dictate the market. The game theory concept offers the most probable grounds for firms to make profits in an oligopoly market structure. However, most firms are known to have under dealings that may undermine such gains.
The companies involved in the price war can take steps to curtail their Selling, General and Administrative (S, G & A) expenses to improve their performance. If the company’s pricing strategy succeeds, the company will earn good operating profits. However, if it fails, the curtailed and well planned S, G & A expenses will help the company mitigate the competition risks. The lower S, G & A expenses as a percentage of revenue indicates a better performance. Sainsbury’s already had much lower S, G & A expenses as a percentage of its revenue than that of Morrisons.
With this competition job acquisition and profit margins can be reduced. Northrop Grumman can gain competitive advantage with technology, customer needs and pricing to acquire new contracts. T3 Government Regulations .05 3.5 .175 Changes to government rules and regulations can negatively affect Northrop Grumman T4 Decline in Defense Spending .05 3.0 .15 Defense spending can directly impact Northrop Grumman with limits other customers. Since it is politically driven and changes quickly, Northrop Grumman cannot make the necessary long term planning required to efficiently build a business. T5 Slowdown of the economy .1 4.0 .4 An economic slowdown, could affect Northrop Grumman worldwide, this factor can lead to an increase in costs in all
Our assumptions concerning client combine for this situation is that Sonance would drop the mass retail market client to signal they're centered solely on the custom and semi-custom installation markets. additionally, Sonance would think about reducing the worth of their Original Series Speakers to Dealers to $90 from $140. this might improve the Dealers' profit margin to seventy fifth, adequate SpeakerCraft's, though the margin web of installation prices would still be lower (see Exhibit 2). These assumptions would cause AN exaggerated Retention Rate through the Dealers sales of Original Series Speakers of eighty fifth and a better rate of 100 percent vs. 5%. Sonance would additionally increase their Retention Rate with Dealers for the present iPort product to eighty
In the case the management team decides to remain in the current method, then other solutions can be done without the need to lay off some employees. Other solutions can be recommended. III. Relevant Stakeholders a. Oscar Gamble, as Shields Corporation’s Controller: high net income means security and profitability of the company; low net income may mean lay off of some employees to reduce expenses, thus somehow increasing income; b. Accounting staff : high net income means security of employment, while low net income may mean lay off of employees including the accounting staff to reduce administration expenses; c. Owners of the company: high net income means
These fines are mostly millions of euros to avoid companies to form cartels. In the European Union the fines for being part of a cartel is 10% of the company’s revenue. The punishment should be greater than 10, it should be large enough so no company would start or be part of a cartel (Chavda & Jegers, 2007, p. 242-243). Another reason is the lenience policy of the Commission. When the EC can prove a company is active in a cartel it will receive a fine.
Is it just to reduce the turnover costs? It’s not only the cost incurred by a company that emphasizes the need of retaining employees but also the need to retain talented employees from getting poached. The process of employee retention will benefit an organization in the following ways: 1. The Cost of Turnover: The cost of employee turnover adds hundreds of thousands of dollars/rupees to a company's expenses. While it is difficult to fully calculate the cost of turnover (including hiring costs, training costs and productivity loss), industry experts often quote 25% of the average employee salary as a conservative estimate.