The document provides a strategic analysis of a toy company called Jot including an industry analysis using Porter's five forces, a SWOT analysis of the company, and the company's goals and strategies. It also includes a financial analysis noting high sales growth and ROE but low cash ratio and upcoming debt maturity. It summarizes four issues facing the company: a fault in a new toy, late Christmas deliveries, a nearshoring proposal, and a new toy range. It prioritizes addressing the toy fault first and recommends the nearshoring proposal. For each issue, it provides recommendations on how to address financial, strategic, and reputational impacts.

1. Banking University of Hochiminh City
Hochiminh City, Vietnam
Do Huu Minh, Le Thanh Nam,
Nguyen Hong Phuc , Nguyen Ngoc Huong Thao
MNPT CONSULTING

2. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Strategic analysis ..................................................................................................2
1.1.Industry Analysis.............................................................................................2
1.1.1. Industry overview............................................................................ 2
1.1.2. Five forces Analysis ....................................................................... 2
1.1.3. Market opportunity.......................................................................... 3
1.2.Company Analysis .......................................................................................... 4
1.2.1. SWOT Analysis................................................................................ 4
1.2.2. The Company’s Goals .................................................................... 5
1.2.3. The Company’s Strategies ............................................................. 5
2. Financial Analysis..................................................................................................6
3. Prioritization...........................................................................................................7
4. Ethical Issues.........................................................................................................8
5. Issues and Recommendations .............................................................................9
5.1.Fault in new flying spaceship toy ..................................................................9
5.2.Late delivery of Christmas products .............................................................12
5.3.Near-shoring proposal in Voldania................................................................14
5.4.Launch of new range of toys for 9 – 11 age group.......................................17
6. Appendices ............................................................................................................20

3. 2
1. Strategic analysis
1.1.Industry Analysis
1.1.1. Industry overview
The Toy industry is highly seasonal and trend-driven. According to a research by
Little and King Co., over 70% of sales for toy companies are held in third and fourth
quarter due to high demand in the winter holidays. In order to deal with over demanding,
the companies often offer early-buys program. During the non-peak season, the
companies promote non-holiday toys such as educational toys or sport related toys.
The key successful factor is the capability to innovate and introduce new
product. Changing consumer needs and wishes lead to the importance of investment in
Market Analysis, Research and Development and the Protection of Intellectual Property
Right (IPR) to promote new products. Each year, approximately 60% of toys on the
market are newly developed products that make this market one of the most dynamic
business sectors.
1.1.2. Five forces Analysis
Bargaining to
Customers
Bargaining to
Suppliers
Threat of New
Entrants
Threat of
Substitute
Products
Intensity of
Competition

4. 3
Low bargaining power to customers is partly compensated by power to suppliers.
There is a wide range of suppliers willing to manufacture at low charge. However, the
toy companies’ sales highly depend on big toys retailers, these retailers often call for
large discount. In order to get high profit, the toy companies need to build strong brand
name and create its own distribution channel, such as Online and Mobile shops, toys
outlets.
The market is highly fragmented and competitive. There are around 5,000
companies in Europe’s toy sector including both small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) and large companies. Over 99% of all companies are SMEs, as the same to
Jot. The best way to compete in this market is to well-serve some specific segments
with unique products.
1.1.3. Market opportunity
Asia, one of the three biggest markets, is growing quickly giving potential to the
toy companies. Asia now accounts for 28% of the global market. As a report by NPD
group, this market grew 9.6% in 2010 compared to 0.96% of the total global market and
reached to the value of USD23.1bn. Asia is forecast to keep growing and be the biggest
market in next several years.

5. 4
1.2.Company Analysis
1.2.1. SWOT Analysis
Strengths Weaknesses
 Well-known brand name of high
quality products
 Innovative in-house design team
 Diversified products portfolio with
unique electronic features
 Good bargaining power to
manufacturers
 Experienced Board of Management
 Low bargaining power to buyers
 High R&D and distribution cost per
product
 Weak inventory management
 Weak social responsibility activities
 Not ideal IT systems
 Unstable financial structure
Opportunities Threats
 Potential market for electronic and
educational toys
 Near-shoring proposal (Voldania)
 Increasing markets in Russia and
Asia
 Growing smart phone application
market, both for gaming and
educational
 Growth in Online and Mobile
Shopping
 Changing and highly seasonal market
 IPR problem in Asia
 Late shipment from suppliers
 Strong competitors
 Products’ technical problems
 Ethical issues
 Fall in average revenue for
smartphone application
Diversified products portfolio of 34 unique electronic and educational toys is the
strongest competitive advantage of the company. The company also strongly
focuses on serving its 2 current age of groups by innovating current products and
developing new electronic toys. Good and young design team is other important
strength.

6. 5
Porter’s generic strategy for Jot
Broad market
Scope
Cost Leadership Differentiation Strategy
Narrow Market Scope
(Segmentation Strategy)
Cost Leadership
Differentiation
Strategy (Jot’s)
Low Cost Competency Uniqueness Competency
1.2.2. The Company’s Goals
The sale is planned to move forward at 14.3% Compounded Annual Growth Rate
(CAGR) for next 5 years. The number of units sold up to 1.4 million in 2016 generating
nearly EUR20mn in sales. Jot also plans to sell its products in 36 different countries
from the current 22. (See appendix 1, page 20)
1.2.3. The Company’s Strategies
 To produce high innovative and educational electronic toys aimed at 2 age groups.
 To develop the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
 To expand to emerging market (Russia and Asia)
 To Near-shoring to reduce cost

7. 6
2. Financial Analysis
Sales growth is pretty high, 17% last year, supported by launching new product
and market expansion. Each year, Jot launches 5/6 new products and also enhances
certain aspect of some of its other products. These products have been greeted well by
retailers and consumers in both Europe and US. (See the appendix 2, page 21)
ROE is fairly high, 30% in 2012, but being vulnerable to input price and foreign
exchange fluctuation. By Using Dupont Analysis, we recognize that the company has
high tax and interest burden along with low operating profit margin (around 5% of
sales). The ROE is mainly supported by high assets turnover (2 times) and leverage
(5.77 times). This is very risky because any increase in the input cost or foreign
exchange fluctuation could severely destroy the ROE. (See appendix 3, page 22)
High account receivables (76% assets) are critical to push sales. This is risky but
suitable for its business operation, a young and growing company. However, the
company is running out of cash. The cash ratio of the company is very low, 0.007 times.
Meanwhile, Jot is going to excess its overdraft limit very soon. This could cause the
liquidity problem. (See appendix 4, appendix 5; page 23, 24)
Soon-matured long term debt and low overdraft limit might have bad effect to the
sales plan. In order to finance this huge amount of account receivables, the company
has to use not just short-term but also long-term debt which would mature in next few
years. However, the replacement is not available. That could lead to shortage of
financing source and lower sales growth.

8. 7
3. Prioritization
The company should deal with the issues first because it urgently harms the company
profitability and reputation. On the other hand, near-shoring and launching new range of
toy are what the company can do later to better the current situation.
In dealing with the issues, the company should prioritize “fault product issue” first.
Because this problem is badly affecting a whole new range of toy with 6000 completed
products leading to nearly 20% profit drop. In addition, it is also severely destroying the
company’s reputation and relationship with retailers. Meanwhile, “late delivery” seems
less severe than when it just results in 25% or 600 products late. (See appendix 6, page
25)
In assessing the proposals, the company should prioritize the “near-shoring to Voldania”
first because the proposal could reduce the cost of a huge number of products each
year. Given that the production and shipping cost in China are rising too fast as well as
the concern about the toxic toy and lack of IPR respect outside the firm. Meanwhile, the
“new range of toy” affects a smaller part of sales and is full of uncertainty.
Prioritization
1. Fault in new flying spaceship toy
2. Late delivery of Christmas product
3. Near-shoring proposal in Voldania
4. Launch of new range of toys for 9-11 age group

9. 8
4. Ethical issues
 Fault in new spaceship
The fault spaceship might hurt the children. Should Jot notify the customers and the
consumers of this fault? And should the company admit that the error is made by its
design team, not manufacturer?
Recommendations
Jot should be honest to its customers and ask them to stop releasing the fault products.
The company should also announce the fault to the consumers and tell them avoid
charging for longer than 2 hours until the product is revised.
Then the company must cover all fixing and distribution cost for both its customers and
consumers.
 Late delivery
This problem shows that the company is currently dealing with low capacity and
unreliable suppliers. Jot’s lack of control over its supply chain is not a professional way
to operating business.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Jot should find other reliable manufacturers with larger capacity
to support its need.
The company should figure out criteria to choose suppliers. Also, key performance
measure for existing and new manufacturers is advised.

10. 9
5. Issues and Recommendations
5.1.Fault in new flying spaceship toy
Financial impact
As we estimated, writing 3,200 products off would cause EUR128,000 loss presenting
1.1% of the sales plan for the year 2012 and blow up nearly 18.44% operating profit.
(See appendix 6, page 25)
Also, the company is using a lot of short term debt to finance its operating activity.
Therefore, unsold products might cause the company facing liquidity trouble.
Strategic and reputation impact
First, The Company’s most important strategy is to introduce new, unique and high
quality products which best fit to the year Toys trend. These types of technical problem
could cause failure in launching this new important product and severely affect the sales
plan. (See appendix 7, page 26)
Next, the design team is kept fresh by the introduction of new designers each year.
However, this error is made by the new designers. Therefore, the same mistake could
happen by other new designers and again cost the company money and hard-earn
reputation.
Last but not least, the retailers might suspect about the quality of the company’s
products. That could result in less orders and tighter contract terms in the future.
Potential solutions assessment
Alternative 1. Spend EUR10 per unit to repair the defective part
The aim of this solution is to get more from “the spaceship” and build reputation as a
good after-sale service company.
The company has to spend EUR60,000 to fix 6,000 fault spaceships. However, it could
gain EUR128,000 more for 3,200 products in the warehouse and even more contracts

11. 10
in the future if the product is sold well. However, the key question is if it possible for the
company to sell these 3,200 products when the rumor is spreading out.
In addition, the company might have to pay a lot of effort to get people to know about
the recall and to collect the fault products.
Alternative 2. Write the products off completely
The aim of this decision is not to further damage an already bruised reputation. Jot will
no longer worry about the potential technical problem that could occur with the product.
Writing off 6,000 units completely does not cost the company anything but it also results
in gaining nothing more and the sales plan would be failed.
In addition, the consumers who desire to possess the spaceship would be very upset
and might switch completely to other brands.
Recommendations
In short-term
Sales of this profitable product have been strong. It is likely that the market “loves” this
product and the company could earn more contracts in the future. Therefore, Jot should
officially announce and conduct the recall.
The retailers must be very satisfied because 1,600 fault products in their store would be
saved. They would be confident with new orders for the company’s product.
Notably, the company should somehow change the appearance and name of the fault
product, if possible, to make it brand new and different from the original product. People
would feel better about the spaceship and forget about the rumors.
The company also needs to conduct a comprehensive research to make sure other
technical problems will not happen again with the product.
For the order of fixing work, Jot should prioritize the products in the warehouse first to
fulfill any further orders.

12. 11
In long-term
Jot currently uses a specialized company based in Europe for manufacture and testing
of all prototype products. Obviously, that is not enough. Meanwhile, using fresh
designers, with creative idea but less experience to avoid fault, is still critical. Therefore,
the company would definitely upgrade its quality assurance process by adding more
testing facilities. More specialized companies for testing are advised.

13. 12
5.2.Late delivery of Christmas product
Impact of this problem
Financial Impact:
Due to the late delivery from Gull, Jot cannot fulfill all the customers’ orders on time.
Sales and profits in 2012 are expected to fall EUR8,400.
Strategic Impact:
Jot outsources 100% of its production as a strategy to reduce cost. However, it is likely
that Gull is operating at its full capacity in the peak season which is also the most
important season of Jot. Therefore, this problem is likely to repeat in the future and
severely affect Jot’s future sales as well as the relationship with its customers.
Potential Solutions Assessment
- To the manufacturer:
Alternative 1. Find a temporary manufacturer to provide 25% of the order (equivalent
to 600 products) as soon as possible to fulfill the responsibility to its customers.
However, it would definitely cost the company a lot of money and time but even
unsuccessful.
Alternative 2. Accept this late delivery with a suitable discount from Gull. The
retailers might not accept the late delivery because it is in the end of the peak season
and these products might be unsold.
Alternative 3. Cancel the rest 25%. Sales would definitely fall. However, the company
would no longer worry about the unsold products.
Financial affect of the late delivery
The number of units affected 600
The average selling price (EURO) 14
Expected Sales loss (EURO'000) 8.4

14. 13
- To Jot’s customers:
Alternative 1. Send all 75% to Jot’s main customers: the company could satisfy
these main customers and avoid penalty. The rest of 75% after being delivered to these
large customers can be shared equally to the smaller retailers. However, trading to big
retailers are often less profitable than to small one.
Alternative 2. Share out the product more equally so that the independent toyshops
at least get something of what ordered on time. However, Jot would be penalized by big
retailers. Also, the big retailers would suspect about the capability of Jot. And this is
absolutely bad because they will order less or even find other suppliers in the future.
Recommendations
It is almost impossible to find a replacement because the peak season is coming very
soon. Anyway, it would be late and the customers will absolutely not accept. Also 600
products seems not a big deal and the company can insure with 75% of full amount so
Jot should cancel the rest 25%. Indeed, the company should offer the unfulfilled
retailers other kind of products available in the warehouse at a reasonable price as a
replacement to protect sales.
Later, the company should send all received products to its main customers. By doing
this the company at least satisfies them and appears to be a reliable supplier.
Meanwhile, sharing out the product would not satisfy any one completely but absolutely
raising the fear of its important customers about the company’s capacity, operation and
professional.
Reassessing Gull and other existing suppliers and finding new larger capacity
manufacturer are advised. (See appendix 8, Criteria for choosing suppliers, page 27)

15. 14
5.3.Near-shoring proposal in Voldania
Financial aspect
The result shows that the project would save the company a lot of money and produce
positive incremental cash flow. The cost saving mainly comes from reducing distribution
cost. Obviously, given that NPV, EUR244,043 > 0, it is worth to undertake the project.
Strategic Aspect
The proposal would reduce the manufacturing and shipping time by over 30 days in
total. As a result, it would relieve the pressure in inventory storage and help the
company actively fulfill market demand.
Fiscal year Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Prodution units 60000 100000 140000 180000 220000
China
Labour cost per unit 1.050 1.176 1.317 1.475 1.652
Machine cost per unit 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Distribution cost per unit 3.00 3.18 3.37 3.57 3.79
Total cost per unit 5.450 5.756 6.088 6.448 6.840
Total production cost 327,000 575,600 852,309 1,160,680 1,504,718
Voldania
Labour cost per unit 2.250 2.295 2.341 2.388 2.435
Machine cost per unit 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96
Distribution cost per unit 1.20 1.27 1.35 1.43 1.51
Total cost per unit 5.410 5.527 5.649 5.777 5.910
Personal donation 25,000
Total production cost 349,600 552,700 790,891 1,039,849 1,300,298
Cost of capital 11%
Incremental cash flow -22,600 22,900 61,418 120,831 204,420
NPV 244,043
IRR 193%
All figures in EUR

16. 15
Jot needs a stable and strong supply chain for its fast growing business. Apparently,
near-shoring proposal would enlarge the supplying capacity and creates the company’s
geographical advantage to better serve its core market, Europe. As expected, the
proposal will provide the company with 16% of its production need. Lego Co. with the
strategy to near-shoring in Czech Republic is a successful example.
In addition, near-shoring is a way the company can protect itself from counterfeit toys
because China seems not to respect the property rights outside firm.
In general, Voldania is a good destination but EUR25000 personal donation to avoid
application delayed is a sign of corruption. Engaging in a bribery scandal could result in
legal trouble and completely destroy the company’s image.
Operational Aspect
Most of Jot’s products are manufactured using basic materials which are readily
available from variety of sources. Therefore, the manufactures in Voldania would be
able to fulfill Jot’s need.
However, it could take the company time to find a reliable and trusty manufacturer in
Voldania. There is high level of uncertainty about the quality and capacity of these
manufacturers.
Recommendations
Through these analyses, we recommend that Jot should undertake the proposal
because it is a positive NPV project and also consistent with the goal of Jot. However,
China Voldania
Manufacture Time 10 7
Shipping Time 30 2
Total 40 9
Time saving 31
Figures estimated in days

17. 16
Jot should consider the ‘personal donation’. Also the company should apply the key
criteria in choosing appropriate supplier. (See appendix 8, page 27)

18. 17
5.4.Launch of new range of toys for 9 – 11 age group
Strategic Suitability Assessment
Launching new range of product would help the company gain higher sales and tap
more into a whole new and increasing market with many opportunities. This could be a
start for a series of other apps that could help the company grow faster and sustain its
position on the market.
Ansoff matrix for “new range of toys proposal”
New Markets Market development
Existing Market Market Penetration Product development
Existing Products New Products
However, starting a smartphone app could dilute its brand name as educational and
electronic toy company for 2 age groups. Meanwhile, building this brand name is likely a
good strategy when Jot’s sales keep growing and became popular to people. Lego’s
hyper-adaptation disaster in past could be a good evidence of fragmented brand name
impact.
Diversification has high level of risk. First, the company has no experience doing this
work with new skills and techniques required. Second, the smartphone app market is
highly competitive with a huge number of producers and products. This has reduced the
average revenue per paid app, given 27% fall last year.
Diversification

19. 18
Launching this project also necessitate significant expanding of human and financial
resource. Unfortunately, Jot has limit of resources and be a fast growing business, so
undertaking this project would definitely distract the focus and limit the sustained
investment for core good activities.
These above reasons, as a whole, show that the proposal is not suitable to the
company at the current situation.
Acceptability Assessment
21
15
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2011 2012
Annual Average Revenue of Paid Smartphone Apps
(EUR'000)
Source: research2guidance
Projection for the smartphone apps
Cost of capital 11%
figures in EURO year 0 year 1 year 2 year 3
Sales 30000 25000 10000
Development cost -30000
Marketing cost -10000
Registration fee -20
Commission for
Distribution Partner
-9000 -7500 -4500
Tax 12006 -6300 -5250 -1650
Free Cash Flow -28014 14700 12250 3850
NPV ($1,813.78)
IRR 5.97%
All figures in EUR

20. 19
Although we are very optimistic about the project (when projected income is 2
times higher than the average revenue per paid app), it still appears to be an
unattractive proposal. Given that NPV, -EUR2,575 < 0, it is unwise to undertake.
Feasibility Assessment
The project does not require a big initial investment, around EUR40,000 so the
company can afford it. However, if the company cannot find a good programmer and
create a fascinating app, the project will definitely fail.
Recommendations
From above analysis, this project appears to be unattractive, risky and absolutely
unsuitable for the company. Therefore, we recommend the company to reject the
proposal.
The company still can pursue this project when it matures in its core activities and has
better plan of a series apps in the future.

21. 20
Appendices
Appendix 1: Five-year Plan
Extracts from Jot's 5-year plan
Actual Forecast Plan Plan Plan Plan
Fiscal year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Revenue €'000 9,866 11,658 13,124 14,791 16,840 19,260
18.163% 12.575% 12.702% 13.853% 14.371%
Gross Profit 31.9% 32.3% 32.6% 32.9% 33.2% 33.6%
Operating profit €'000 551 694 820 961 1,137 1,348
Operating profit 5.6% 6.0% 6.2% 6.5% 6.8% 7.0%
Number of unit sales 000 706.3 868.5 977.5 1102.0 1,240.0 1,405.0
Number of countries products to be sold in 22 23 25 28 32 36
Number of new products to be lauched each year 5 6 7 8 9 10

22. 21
Appendix 2: Projected Income Statement
Income Statement
Fiscal year 2010 2011 2012F 2013F 2014F 2015F 2016F
Sales 8371 9866 11658 13124 14791 16840 19260
Sales Growth 0% 18% 18% 13% 13% 14% 14%
Cost of Sale (5615) (6719) (7892) (8846) (9925) (11249) (12789)
Gross profit 2756 3147 3766 4278 4866 5591 6471
Gross margin 33% 32% 32% 33% 33% 33% 34%
Operating Profit 453 551 694 820 961 1137 1348
Finance expense (201) (213) (213) (213) (213) (213) (213)
Profit before tax 264 351 481 607 748 924 1135
Tax expense (30%) (79) (105) (144) (182) (224) (277) (341)
Net income 185 246 337 425 524 647 795
Net Margin 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4%
ROE 36.19% 34.70% 31.45% 28.68% 26.83% 25.37%
All figures in EUR'000

23. 22
Appendix 3: Financial ratios
Financial Ratio for 2011
Activity ratios Efficiency ratios
Days of inventories on Hand 27 Asset Turnover 2.02
Days of Sales Outstanding 134 Fixed Asset Turnover 13.4
Days of Payables -83 Net Working Capital Turnover 3.87
Cash cycle days 78
Average Net Working Capital 2548.5 General Equity information
Weight Average Shares 40,000
Profitability ratio EPS (EUR) 6.143
ROA 7.89%
ROE 30.37% Liquidity ratios
ROIC 11.03% Current Ratio 1.63
Quick Ratio 1.44
Solvency ratios Cash Ratio 0.0074
Financial Leverage 5.77
Debt to Equity ratio 4.77
Interest-bearing Debt to Equity 2.75

24. 23
Appendix 4: Projected Balance Sheet
Balance Sheet
Fiscal year 2010 2011 2012F 2013F 2014F 2015F 2016F
Assets 4,393 5,378 6,045 6,852 7,676 8,845 10,032
Current Assets 3,672 4,628 5,159 5,854 6,551 7,565 8,568
Cash & Cash Equivalents 29 21 25 28 31 36 41
Trade Receivables 3,173 4,065 4,488 5,141 5,711 6,644 7,486
Inventory 470 542 647 686 809 885 1,041
Long-term Assets 721 750 886 998 1,124 1,280 1,464
Equity and Liabilities 4,393 5,378 6,045 6,852 7,676 8,845 10,032
Current Liabilities 2,107 2,846 3,177 3,558 4,359 5,381 5,774
Bank Overdraft 790 960 1,181 1,192 1,754 2,340 2,318
Trade Payables 1,238 1,781 1,851 2,184 2,380 2,764 3,116
Tax Payables 79 105 144 182 224 277 341
Longterm Liability (debt) 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,100 600 600
Equity 686 932 1,269 1,694 2,217 2,864 3,659
Common Share 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Share premium 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Retained Earning 556 802 1,139 1,564 2,087 2,734 3,529
All figures in EUR'000

25. 24
Appendix 5: Projected Cash Flow Statement
Cash flow Statement
Fiscal year 2011 2012F 2013F 2014F 2015F 2016F
Profit Before tax 351 481 607 748 924 1135
Depreciation 240 284 319 360 410 469
Financial Cost (net) 200 213 213 213 213 213
(Increase)/decrease in inventories (72) (105) (39) (124) (76) (156)
(Increase)/decrease in receivables (892) (423) (653) (570) (933) (842)
Increase/(decrease) in Payables (excluding tax) 543 70 333 196 384 352
Financial cost (net) Paid (200) (213) (213) (213) (213) (213)
Tax Paid (79) (105) (144) (182) (224) (277)
Cash Flow from Operating Activities 91 202 423 428 484 680
Cash Flow from Investment Activites (269) (420) (431) (487) (565) (652)
Increase in Bank overdraft 170 221 11 562 586 (22)
Dividends Paid
Long-term debt paid 0 0 0 (500) (500) 0
Cashflow from Financial Activities 170 221 11 62 86 (22)
Net Change in Cash and Cash Equivalents (8) 4 3 4 4 5
0
Cash beginning 29 21 25 28 31 36
Cash ending 21 25 28 31 36 41
All figures in EUR'000

26. 25
Appendix 6: Impact of the issue and proposal
Fiscal year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Sales 8371 9866 11658 13124 14791 16840 19260
Sales Growth 0% 18% 18% 13% 13% 14% 14%
Cost of Sale (5615) (6719) (7892) (8846) (9925) (11249) (12789)
Gross profit 2756 3147 19550 21970 24716 28089 32049
Potential Losses from the Issue
Fault in new spaceship (128)
Late delivery (8)
After taking the recommendations
Affect from the issue
Fault in new spaceship 60
Late delivery (8)
Affect from the adopted proposal
Near-shoring in Voldania (23) 23 61 121 204
Planned Operating Profit 453 551 694 820 961 1137 1348
Projected Operating Profit 453 603 671 843 1022 1258 1552
% change 0% 9% -3% 3% 6% 11% 15%
Finance expense (201) (213) (213) (213) (213) (213) (213)
Profit before tax 264 351 481 607 748 924 1135
Tax expense (30%) (79) (105) (144) (182) (224) (277) (341)
Net income 185 246 337 425 524 647 795
Net Margin 2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4%
All figures in EUR'000

27. 26
Appendix 7: Toy trend 2013
1. SO RETRO!
2. POP CULTURE PERSUASION
3. 360 DEGREE PLAY
4. ENTICING TEENS & TWEENS
5. 24/7 PLAY
6. CONSTRUCTION CRAZE

28. 27
Appendix 8: The key criteria for the selection of new manufacturers
 Having enough capacity to meet the Jot’s needs
 Responsive to changes in volume.
 Quality of the manufacture.
 Respect the IPR’s.
 Always deliver the product on time and in accordance with contract terms
 Having professional operation, good treatment to employees
 Financially sound.
 Provide competitive price
 Close to the core market.