Impact of Handset Leasing on Profitability

100% found this document useful (2 votes)
1K views12 pages
The document provides financial statements for Companies A and B over two years, where Company A introduced handset leasing plans and Company B did not, allowing analysis of the impact of le…

Uploaded by

Preethi Ravi
  • Problem Statement and Tasks
  • Company A Financial Statement
  • Company B Financial Statement
  • Industry Comparisons
  • Company X Financial Analysis

Problem Statement

BCG experts from other case teams think that the handset leasing business model h
should be explored further. The Principal, Elisse, wants you to assess the potential i
handset leasing business on the client’s financials by looking at the impact it has ha
markets. One BCG expert sent some financial data. The market he suggested is at a
development to Company X’s home market. There are two main operators who for
duopoly. Company A launched handset leasing 2 years ago, but its competitor, Com
not. This allows us to isolate the impact of handset leasing on profitability.

Elisse hands you a partially completed excel model and some financial statements f
companies, and asks you to complete the analysis.

Within the workbook, Elisse has also added in a guiding sheet for you to follow. If
yourself stuck, you may want to refer to the sheet for guidance on how to complete
is also a list of technical terms that you may find useful in the resources section bel

Sub-Task 1:
Analyse the data from Company A and Company B to determine the impact of leas
financial performance. State and apply your own assumptions, and identify the met
use to perform a financial forecast for Company X.

Sub-Task 2:

Apply the metrics and performance impacts you have identified to forecast the upsi
the key metrics for Company X. To do this, first assume that Company X will grow
average, then assume it will grow at the same rate as Company A, which introduced
Comparing the two forecasts will allow you to calculate the net impact of leasing.
t

g business model has potential and


assess the potential impact of the
the impact it has had in other
he suggested is at a similar stage of
n operators who form an effective
its competitor, Company B, did
rofitability.

nancial statements from the two

or you to follow. If you find


on how to complete the tasks. There
sources section below.

e the impact of leasing handsets on


nd identify the metrics you would

to forecast the upside in terms of


mpany X will grow at industry
A, which introduced leasing.
impact of leasing.
Company A Financial Statement Note: Company A launched it's first mobile
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 It aims to make premium handsets m
S$ Million
Total Total Total
Income Statement
Operating revenue $ 8,537 $ 9,233 $ 9,670
Operating expenses $ (6,184) $ (6,270) $ (6,416)
EBITDA $ 2,353 $ 2,963 $ 3,255
Net interest expense $ (130) $ (143) $ (148)
Taxation $ 198 $ 201 $ 203
Depreciation & amortisation $ (743) $ (753) $ (759)
Net profit $ 1,678 $ 2,269 $ 2,550

Operating Revenue & Expenses Composition


Mobile Service $ 2,812 $ 3,375 $ 3,690
Others $ 5,725 $ 5,858 $ 5,980
Operating revenue $ 8,537 $ 9,233 $ 9,670

Operating expenses $ 6,184 $ 6,270 $ 6,416

Mobile Subscribers ('000s) 4,085 4,195 4,409


ARPU* 57 67 70
ompany A launched it's first mobile handset leasing plans at the start of Year 1
aims to make premium handsets more affordable to customers
Company B Financial Statement Note: Company B operates in the same m
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2
S$ Million
Total Total Total
Income Statement
Operating revenue $ 8,784 $ 9,033 $ 9,006
Operating expenses $ (6,153) $ (6,372) $ (6,470)
EBITDA $ 2,631 $ 2,661 $ 2,536
Net interest expense $ (158) $ (194) $ (189)
Taxation $ (356) $ (341) $ (305)
Depreciation & amortisation $ (1,416) $ (1,507) $ (1,469)
Net profit $ 2,117 $ 2,126 $ 2,042

Operating Revenue & Expenses Composition


Mobile Service $ 5,465 $ 5,641 $ 5,764
Others $ 3,371 $ 3,363 $ 3,102
Operating revenue $ 8,784 $ 9,033 $ 9,006

Operating expenses $ 6,153 $ 6,372 $ 6,470

Mobile Subscribers ('000s) 9,106 9,281 9,324


ARPU* 50 51 52
ompany B operates in the same market as Company A, and has not launched leasing plans
Industry Average
Growth (%)
Year 1 Year 2 Average Remarks
Mobile Service 5.46% 2.25% 3.85%

Mobile Subscribers ('000s) 2.16% 1.91% 2.03% Overall industry mobile subscribers growing at 2.03% average

Company A
Growth (%)
Year 1 Year 2 Average Remarks
Mobile Service 8.15% 4.73% 6.44%

Mobile Subscribers ('000s) 2.69% 5.10% 3.90%

Company B
Growth (%)
Year 1 Year 2 Average Remarks
Company B grows below industry average, due to absence of
Mobile Service 2.84% -0.30% 1.27%
leasing.
Mobile Subscribers ('000s) 1.92% 0.46% 1.19%
Industry Total
Key Comparables
Year 1 Year 2 Average Remarks
Operating Revenue Growth 5.46% 2.25% 3.85%
Industry average comparables used to
Net Profit Growth 15.79% 4.51% 10.15%
compare Company X's performance.
ARPU $ 55.75 $ 57.37 $ 56.56
* Average Revenue Per User

Company A
Market Share (%)
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Remarks
Mobile Service 33.97% 37.43% 39.03%

ARPU* $ 57 $ 67 $ 70 Higher growth in ARPU than company B


* Average Revenue Per User

Company B
Market Share (%)
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Decrease in overall
Remarks
& mobile plan
Mobile Service 66.03% 62.57% 60.97% market share, due to absence of
leasing.
ARPU* $ 50 $ 51 $ 52 Lower growth in ARPU than company A
* Average Revenue Per User
Company X has not launched leasing mobile plans

Company X Financial Statement (handset leasing implemented)


Year 0 Year 1 Year 2
S$ Million
Total Total Total
Operating Revenue & Expenses Composition
Mobile Service $ 1,354 $ 1,441 $ 1,534
Others $ 1,008 $ 1,008 $ 1,008
Operating revenue $ 2,362 $ 2,449 $ 2,542
Growth rate 3.69% 3.79%

Operating expenses $ 1,796 $ 1,862 $ 1,933

Mobile Subscribers ('000s) 2,341 2,432 2,527


ARPU* 48 49 51

Income Statement
Operating revenue $ 2,362 $ 2,449 $ 2,542
Operating expenses $ (1,796) $ (1,862) $ (1,933)
EBITDA $ 566 $ 587 $ 609
Net finance expense $ (27) $ (27) $ (27)
Taxation $ (45) $ (45) $ (45)
Depreciation & amortisation $ (294) $ (294) $ (294)
Net profit $ 200 $ 221 $ 243
Growth 10.38% 10.06%
Company X Financial Statement (handset leasing not implemented)
Year 0
Remarks S$ Million
Total
Operating Revenue & Expenses Composition
Assume 6.44% growth as per comparable Company A. Mobile Service $ 1,354
Others $ 1,008
Operating revenue $ 2,362
Net growth of 3.74% in operating revenues, slightly below industry rate of Growth rate

Assume constant expense ratio Operating expenses $ 1,796

Assume 3.90% growth as per comparable Company A. Mobile Subscribers ('000s) 2,341
ARPU of X is below industry average of $56.50 but shows
ARPU* 48
positive growth

Income Statement
Operating revenue $ 2,362
Derived from operating figures above
Operating expenses $ (1,796)
EBITDA $ 566
Net finance expense $ (27)
Taxation $ (45)
Depreciation & amortisation $ (294)
Net profit $ 200
10.06% - 10.38% annual growth. Slightly higher than industry average of Growth
implemented) Difference in Company X Financial Statement with and with
Year 1 Year 2
Remarks S$ Million
Total Total
Operating Revenue & Expenses Composition
$ 1,406 $ 1,460 Assume 3.85% growth as per Industry Average. Mobile Service
$ 1,008 $ 1,008 Others
$ 2,414 $ 2,468 Operating revenue
2.21% 2.24% Net growth of 2.22% in operating revenues, significantly belo Growth rate

$ 1,836 $ 1,877 Operating expenses

2,389 2,437 Assume 2.03% growth as per comparable industry average. Mobile Subscribers ('000s)
Without leasing, ARPU grows more slowly than
49 50 ARPU*
with leasing

Income Statement
$ 2,414 $ 2,468 Operating revenue
Derived from operating figures above
$ (1,836) $ (1,877) Operating expenses
$ 578 $ 591 EBITDA
$ (27) $ (27) Net finance expense
$ (45) $ (45) Taxation
$ (294) $ (294) Depreciation & amortisation
$ 213 $ 226 Net profit
6.19% 6.10% 6.10%-6.19% annual growth. Much lower than industry averageGrowth
Statement with and without handset leasing
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2
Remarks
Total Total Total

$ - $ 35 $ 74
$ - $ - $ -
$ - $ 35 $ 74 Difference of 1.5% growth rate in Operating
1.49% 1.55% Revenue with handset leasing

$ - $ 27 $ 56

0 44 90
0 0 1 Difference of $1 by Year 2

$ - $ 35 $ 74
$ - $ (27) $ (56)
$ - $ 8 $ 18
$ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ -
$ - $ - $ -
$ - $ 8 $ 18
0.00% 4.20% 3.96% Difference of 4% growth rate in Net Profit

Common questions

Powered by AI

Company A's EBITDA increased significantly from S$2,353 million to S$3,255 million between Year 0 and Year 2, while net profit soared from S$1,678 million to S$2,550 million. This sharp rise in key financial metrics post-leasing outperform industry average profit growth, indicating strong profitability and efficient revenue generation attributable to the leasing model .

Industry average growth rates influence strategic decisions by serving as benchmarks for evaluating potential competitive advantage. Company A's growth rates exceeded industry averages post-leasing, suggesting that leasing can offer Company X an advantage over competitors who do not lease, by aligning with industry trends and customer demand dynamics .

Key risks Company X should consider include increased upfront costs and complexities in managing leasing contracts, potential market saturation affecting subscriber growth, and dependency on continuous device upgrades to retain customer interest. Observations from Company A highlight the need to balance these risks with strategic pricing and customer acquisition techniques to leverage growth .

Handset leasing led to a substantial increase in ARPU for Company A, from $57 in Year 0 to $70 in Year 2. Conversely, Company B's ARPU only increased from $50 to $52 over the same period . This suggests that handset leasing made premium handsets more affordable, increasing customer willingness to spend and potentially attracting higher-value customers, thereby validating leasing as a lucrative consumer pricing model in this context.

Company A increased its market share from 33.97% in Year 0 to 39.03% in Year 2, attributed largely to the successful implementation of handset leasing. Company B's market share dropped from 66.03% to 60.97% over the same period . For Company X, this indicates that leasing not only garners higher ARPU but also expands market penetration by differentiating its offerings and capturing a larger consumer base within a duopoly environment.

Post-leasing implementation, Company A's operating expenses grew modestly from S$6,184 million in Year 0 to S$6,416 million in Year 2, while operating revenue increased more significantly from S$8,537 million to S$9,670 million . This suggests efficient cost management and a scalable leasing model, enabling revenue growth to outpace expenses, enhancing profitability.

With handset leasing, Company X's net profit growth is around 10.06% to 10.38%, compared to a lower projected growth of around 6.10% to 6.19% without leasing . This significant discrepancy underscores leasing as a catalyst for enhanced profitability, suggesting that adopting leasing could be a strategic decision to boost financial performance.

Introduction of handset leasing could potentially boost Company X's customer acquisition and retention, as illustrated by Company A, where subscriber growth significantly outpaced Company B's post-leasing. Company A's subscriber base grew by 3.90% on average due to leasing, while Company B saw lower growth rates . This indicates that leasing can attract new customers and enhance retention by providing cost-effective access to premium technology.

Handset leasing positively impacts Company A's profitability compared to Company B. After implementing leasing, Company A's EBITDA grew from S$2,353 million in Year 0 to S$3,255 million in Year 2. In contrast, Company B, which did not adopt leasing, showed a slight decrease in EBITDA from S$2,631 million to S$2,536 million over the same period .

Assuming Company X follows a similar growth trajectory as Company A post-leasing implementation, it could assume a growth rate in mobile subscribers of approximately 3.90% and potentially see ARPU increases significantly, similar to Company A's ARPU climb from $57 to $70 . These assumptions suggest that leasing could drive revenue and expand market share by making handsets more accessible.

Problem Statement
Sub-Task 1:
Sub-Task 2:
BCG experts from other case teams think that the handset leasing business model h
s
t
g business model has potential and 
assess the potential impact of the 
the impact it has had in other 
he suggested is at
Company A Financial Statement
Note:
Company A launched it's first mobile
S$ Million
Year 0
Year 1
Year 2
It aims to make prem
ompany A launched it's first mobile handset leasing plans at the start of Year 1
aims to make premium handsets more affordabl
Company B Financial Statement
Note:
Company B operates in the same m
S$ Million
Year 0
Year 1
Year 2
 
Total
Total
Total
Inco
ompany B operates in the same market as Company A, and has not launched leasing plans
Growth (%)
Industry Average
Year 1
Year 2
Average
Remarks
Mobile Service
5.46%
2.25%
3.85%
Mobile Subscribers ('000s)
2.16%
1
Key Comparables
Industry Total
Year 1
Year 2
Average
Remarks
Operating Revenue Growth
5.46%
2.25%
3.85%
Net Profit Growth
15.
Company X has not launched leasing mobile plans
Company X Financial Statement (handset leasing implemented)
S$ Million
Year 0
Company X Financial Statement (handset leasing not implemented)
Remarks
S$ Million
Year 0
Total
Operating Revenue & Expenses

You might also like