The document is an investor presentation for Acorn Energy, Inc. providing an overview of the company's portfolio companies and financial highlights. It summarizes that Acorn has ownership stakes in three technology companies focused on underwater infrastructure security systems, smart grid distribution optimization, and 4D seismic monitoring systems for oil and gas. It provides revenue and growth figures for each portfolio company and notes their market positions, total addressable markets, and growth opportunities. The presentation also includes financial data on the company's balance sheet, income statement, and cash flows.
Advance Payment Systems: Paying Too Much Today and Being Satisfied TomorrowBernd Skiera
Slides that correspond to the paper:
Schulz, Fabian / Schlereth, Christian / Skiera, Bernd / Mazar, Nina (2015), "Advance Payment Systems: Paying Too Much Today and Being Satisfied Tomorrow", International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 32, Issue 3, forthcoming.
Abstract: Advance payment systems represent a pricing innovation, in which companies predict customers' future consumption for the following year and then bill a series of monthly, uniform advance payments. Any difference between predicted and actual consumption gets settled at the end of the year with a refund or extra payment. Companies thus gain earlier access to funds and lower risk of customer defaults; customers benefit from predictable monthly payments. However, customers' reactions to a refund or extra payment sequence in an advance payment system remain unclear. Three theoretical lenses offer predictions about customers' advance payment system preferences: prospect theory, with a focus on silver lining and hedonic editing principles; mental accounting; and the value of sequences. Using three empirical studies with survey and billing data of more than 20,000 customers to examine their reactions to refunds and extra payments, this paper reveals that receiving a refund reduces customers' price awareness, increases their recommendation likelihood, and reduces churn and tariff switching, as long as the refund is not too high. The findings illustrate both the consequences and the boundary conditions of the silver lining principle with large-scale field studies.
Advance Payment Systems: Paying Too Much Today and Being Satisfied TomorrowBernd Skiera
Slides that correspond to the paper:
Schulz, Fabian / Schlereth, Christian / Skiera, Bernd / Mazar, Nina (2015), "Advance Payment Systems: Paying Too Much Today and Being Satisfied Tomorrow", International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 32, Issue 3, forthcoming.
Abstract: Advance payment systems represent a pricing innovation, in which companies predict customers' future consumption for the following year and then bill a series of monthly, uniform advance payments. Any difference between predicted and actual consumption gets settled at the end of the year with a refund or extra payment. Companies thus gain earlier access to funds and lower risk of customer defaults; customers benefit from predictable monthly payments. However, customers' reactions to a refund or extra payment sequence in an advance payment system remain unclear. Three theoretical lenses offer predictions about customers' advance payment system preferences: prospect theory, with a focus on silver lining and hedonic editing principles; mental accounting; and the value of sequences. Using three empirical studies with survey and billing data of more than 20,000 customers to examine their reactions to refunds and extra payments, this paper reveals that receiving a refund reduces customers' price awareness, increases their recommendation likelihood, and reduces churn and tariff switching, as long as the refund is not too high. The findings illustrate both the consequences and the boundary conditions of the silver lining principle with large-scale field studies.
Slides from my presentation at Better Software 2015.
Code generates business value when it runs not when we write it.
We must know how our code perform at runtime, how it interacts with the infrastructure, how our customers are using it to give them the opportunity to give use more money.
Set SLAs, measure them, reach them and move forward to increase the business value of our software.
Java application monitoring with Dropwizard Metrics and graphite Roberto Franchini
Java application monitoring with Dropwizard Metrics and graphite.
How to correlate system monitoring and application monitoring using graphite as backend for Collectd and application metrics.
Sollen Studenten Facebook während des Unterrichts benutzen? Natürlich nicht u...Bernd Skiera
Hier sind Folien, die ein wesentliches Ergebnis des folgenden Beitrags (in deutscher Sprache) zusammenfassen:
Skiera, Bernd / Hinz, Oliver / Spann, Martin (2015), "Social Media and Academic Performance: Does Facebook Activity Relate to Good Grades?", Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol. 67, Issue 1, 54-72
We analyze how Facebook use and students’ social network positions within it relate to their academic performance. We use a unique data set obtained from a survey of students’ perceptions, actual Facebook connections to measure social network positions, and objective grades provided by the university registrar to measure academic performance. We find that Facebook activities during class relate negatively to academic performance, that students located in densely connected subnetworks earn better grades, and that in contrast to female students, male students benefit from a general use of Facebook, particularly if they are highly connected.
Optimal Pricing: Understanding Differences between Structural Models and Redu...Bernd Skiera
Although structural modeling as a means to improve pricing decisions often appears in prestigious academic journals, its consideration in pricing textbooks remains rather limited, and knowledge about its benefits and limitations in comparison to reduced-form models is scarce among “structural nonexperts”. This presentation outlines for these “structural nonexperts” which different abilities structural and reducedform models have to improve pricing decisions. Therefore, it uses a popular textbook example that fails to consider the abilities of both models, which are the abilities to capture the effects of consumers’ responses and changes in cost structure on prices. It outlines that the major advantages of structural models are the ability to capture competitors’ reactions and the description of new market equilibriums, which come at the costs of assumptions that usually prevent structural models to further improve prices. The beauty of the simple example provided is that it enables nontechnical readers to easily understand the major differences between structural and reduced-form models.
Skiera, Bernd / Bermes, Manuel / Horn, Lutz (2011), "Customer Equity Sustainability Ratio: A New Metric for Assessing a Firm’s Future Orientation", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 (May), 118-131
These slides that describe the content of the paper: Hinz, Oliver / Skiera, Bernd / Barrot, Christian / Becker, Jan (2011), "An Empirical Comparison of Seeding Strategies for Viral Marketing", Journal of Marketing, 75 (November), 55-71.
Seeding strategies have strong influences on the success of viral marketing campaigns, but previous studies using computer simulations and analytical models have produced conflicting recommendations about the optimal seeding strategy. This study compares four seeding strategies in two complementary small-scale field experiments, as well as in one real-life viral marketing campaign involving more than 200,000 customers of a mobile phone service provider. The empirical results show that the best seeding strategies can be up to eight times more successful than other seeding strategies. Seeding to well-connected people is the most successful approach because these attractive seeding points are more likely to participate in viral marketing campaigns. This finding contradicts a common assumption in other studies. Well-connected people also actively use their greater reach but do not have more influence on their peers than do less well-connected people.
San Donato Milanese, 29 July 2015 – The Snam Board of Directors, chaired by Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, yesterday approved the consolidated half-year report to 30 June 2015 (subjected to a limited audit) and the consolidated results for the second quarter of 2015 (unaudited).
Financial highlights
Total revenue: €1,837 million (+3.1%)
EBITDA: €1,434 million (+0.4%)
Net profit: €612 million (+9.1%)
Technical investments: €487 million
Free cash flow: €587 million
Operating highlights
Gas injected into the transportation network: 32.77 billion cubic metres, in line with the figure for the first half of 2014
Number of active meters: 6.518 million (5.911 million at 30 June 2014)
Available storage capacity: 11.4 billion cubic metres (unchanged compared with 30 June 2014)
Significant events
Completed on 9 July 2015 the activities relating to the revocation of the judicial administration order imposed on the subsidiary Italgas by the Court of Palermo on 11 July 2014
Approved on 22 June 2015 by the Snam Board of Directors the renewal of the Euro Medium Term Notes (EMTN) programme for the issuance of bonds worth a total of €12 billion, unchanged from the previous renewal of the programme
13. Balance Sheet ASSETS As of September 30, As of December 31, 2011 2010 Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents 55,182 6,549 Restricted deposit 877 1,317 Funds held in escrow 6,308 - Accounts receivable 3,561 5,273 Unbilled revenue 4,432 3,806 Inventory 1,860 1,114 Other current assets 513 333 Discontinued operations - 9,424 Total current assets 72,733 27,816 Property and equipment, net 594 490 Severance assets 2,604 2,498 Restricted deposit 81 85 Intangible assets, net 4,880 5,339 Goodwill 4,572 4,679 Deferred taxes 289 302 Other assets 528 378 Discontinued Operations - 18,198 Total assets $86,281 $59,785 LIABILITIES AND EQUITY As of September 30, As of December 31, 2011 2010 Current liabilities: Short-term bank credit and current maturities of long-term bank debt 914 1,308 Accounts payable 2,338 2,578 Accrued payroll, payroll taxes and social benefits 1,544 1,531 Other current liabilities 5,316 3,428 Current liabilities of discontinued operations - 4,372 Total current liabilities 10,112 13,217 Long-term liabilities: Accrued severance 3,842 3,715 Long-term debt 225 302 Other long-term liabilities 191 240 Discontinued operations - 434 Total long-term liabilities 4,258 4,691 Equity: Common stock - $0.01 par value per share: 183 180 Authorized – 30,000,000 shares; Issued –18,067,925 and 18,318,863 shares at December 31, 2010 and September 30, 2011 Additional paid-in capital 85,957 83,596 Warrants 427 427 Accumulated deficit -11,931 -48,431 Treasury stock, at cost – 801,920 shares at December 31, 2010 and September 30, 2011 -3,036 -3,036 Accumulated other comprehensive income 324 637 Total Acorn Energy shareholders’ equity 71,924 33,373 Non-controlling interests -13 8,504 Total equity 71,911 41,877 Total liabilities and equity $86,281 $59,785
14. Income Statement Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011 2010 Revenues: Projects 7,250 8,447 Smart grid distribution products and services 4,684 1,188 Other 319 360 Total revenues 12,253 9,995 Cost of sales: Projects 5,220 4,632 Smart grid distribution products and services 2,451 512 Other 255 249 Total cost of sales 7,926 5,393 Gross profit 4,327 4,602 Operating expenses: Research and development expenses, net of credits 1,587 502 Selling, general and administrative expenses 8,609 7,668 Total operating expenses 10,196 8,170 Operating loss -5,869 -3,568 Finance expense, net 46 -140 Gain on investment in GridSense - 1,327 Distribution from EnerTech - 135 Gain on sale of HangXing 492 - Loss before taxes on income -5,331 -2,246 Income tax benefit (expense) 12,072 -570 Net income (loss) from continuing operations 6,741 -2,816 Loss from discontinued operations -1,948 -8,714 Gain on the sale of discontinued operations, net of income taxes 30,683 - Non-controlling interest share of loss from discontinued operations 540 284 Net income (loss) attributable to Acorn Energy 36,016 -11,246 Net loss attributable to non-controlling interests 484 404 Net loss attributable to Acorn Energy Inc. 36,500 -10,842 Diluted loss per share attributable to Acorn Energy, Inc. shareholders: From continuing operations 0.41 -0.17 From discontinued operations 1.65 -0.58 Net income (loss) per share attributable to Acorn Energy, Inc. shareholders 2.06 -0.75 Weighted average number of shares outstanding attributable to Acorn Energy Inc. – basic and diluted 17,740 14,475