selma

1.1.8 Gray Market△
第一段：

提出了gray market的定义，说游离于产品的分销渠道之外的一种市场。通常会通过另外渠道从制造厂商那里获取商品，然后以极低的价格销售。无论是制造商还是零售商都觉得gray market是一种伤害。制造商认为会搅乱分销渠道，零售商认为会影响商品的价格水平并降低零售商利润；

第二段：

Under certain market conditions, gray marketing can benefit manufacturers and retailers. The favorable market condition is met when the customer base is distinctively segmented- i.e. the presence of a significant number of both price sensitive and price insensitive customers. 虽然灰色区销售的商品可能价格低，但是正规渠道的销售和灰色区销售吸引的人群不一样，有些人看重价格因素，就会去灰色区购买，而有些人习惯在超市购买，自然也会继续自己的习惯。


第三段：

In the presence of market segmentation, manufacturers and retailers can increase profits by charging higher prices to price insensitive customers while improving the quality of the service. This measure will most likely offset the loss of revenue from price sensitive customers.  gray market将价格敏感性的顾客全部吸引，从而使得零售商可以专心的服务于那些价格非敏感客户，提高服务水平等等。对于制造商，则可以如何如何。

题目：

1．主旨题
答：To explain how gray market can benefit the profit and margin of manufacturers and retailers

2. 如果gray market不存在，但是满足这两个条件（一个是顾客的区分度很大，还有一个是有庞大的对价格insensitive的顾客群）的公司，哪一项措施可以达到黑市交易存在时给公司带来的益处？
答：可以开两个chain store, 一个关注于价格敏感客户，一个专注服务质量。

3. 在Grey market中retailers可以怎样？
答：关注他们该关注的客户群体，放弃低Margin那部分客户群体。

4. 假如没有grey market， 这篇文章 indicate商家会怎么做？
答：可能要考虑的那些喜欢买便宜东西的顾客。

selma

1.1.7 雇佣人数 (已与原1.1.13经济萧条合并)

第一段：

1980年左右a wave of layoff雇佣人数下降因为在第二次世界大战之后是很正常的，而令人奇怪的是1993年雇用人数也下降了为什么呢？第一段给了个解释， 说什么是由高科技引起的，导致工人效率的提高，所以layoff,第一段尾反驳了（有题），说科技是慢慢影响的，三十年什么的。

第二段:

就提出了新理论，说labor cost 才是原因，说什么part time 的人,工资低，福利不好，还有就是layoff全职的人。

selma

版本2

第一段:

说的是人们很少把purchasing behavior和consuming behavior分开来，来分析大减价，比如有些商品“买一送一”后为什么会恢复到以前的销量水平。除非consuming rates提高.

第二段:

有很多conditions会左右consumption，比如time, complicity, ease of preparation。讲了XXconvenience，比如说包装如果很方便拆开或者使用起来不需要做很多准备工作，大家就更加愿意购买。最后又说了但是不方便的包装有时候也会增加consumption,比如一大袋食物做一次很麻烦，消费者就会一次做很多省事。结尾是用泡冰茶举例，说明泡一小包冰茶和一罐冰茶工序是一样的。

题目：

1. 问下面哪个例子和原文最后的例子一样。
答：我选的是捎带一个邻居去超市和捎带两个邻居去超市那个选项。

2. 主旨题
答：一个是challenge传统理论，另一个是分析convenience什么的，explore relations between stockpiling and consumption of food products.

3. 问题是问stock piling和trigger consumption increase的关系在high-convenience package和low-convenience package中一样吗？
答：that stockpiling increases product salience and triggers consumption incidence among high-convenience products. However, when the decision is made to consume a product, stockpiling increases the consumption quantity for both high- and low-convenience products.

4. 问道影响consumption的condition中文章没有提到的是？
答：如果没有放进冰箱是否会腐烂

In the context of packaged goods, consumer behavior research tends to focus on purchase decisions rather than consumption decisions. Yet consumers’ ability to increase consumption is critical for growing mature brands that have already achieved high levels of household penetration and loyalty (Wansink 1994a; Wansink and Ray 1996). Understanding postpurchase consumption behavior is also important in the assessment of the profitability of stockpilinginducing promotions, such as multiunit packs or “buy one get one free” offers, which may deplete future sales unless consumers increase consumption rates (Blattberg and Neslin 1990).

As is shown in Figure 1, the convenience of consuming the product moderates the impact of stockpiling on consumption rate: Stockpiling is more likely to trigger consumption incidence for high-convenience products than for low-convenience products. Consumption convenience can contribute to as much as 48% of impulsively consumed food (Wansink 1994b). Consumption convenience is a function of the time, comfort, and ease of preparation, depending on the number, complexity, cost, and accessibility of the operations required before consumption (Gehrt and Yale 1993; Reilly 1982). Consumption convenience can be influenced by packaging (e.g., individually wrapped packs are convenient because they do not force consumers to use, store, or waste the remaining quantity), and it applies to food as well as nonfood products (e.g., prestamped envelopes versus regular unstamped envelopes).

We anticipate that convenience moderates the impact that stockpiling has on consumption incidence but does not influence the impact on consumption quantity (given incidence). Low-convenience products are ingredients or steps in a broader process. They often require the availability of other ingredients and the performance of multiple operations before they can be consumed. For example, consuming iced tea from a mix requires time, water, a container, a spoon, and refrigeration; using detergent requires time, dirty laundry, and a washing machine. All these ingredients need to be available for consumption incidence to occur. However, when all the ingredients are available and the first consumption incidence occurs, low-convenience products can subsequently be consumed in higher quantities relatively easily. Preparing a small pitcher (大水罐) of iced tea from a powdered mix, for example, requires almost as much time and effort as preparing a large pitcher. Stockpiling therefore increases consumption quantity (given incidence) for high- and lowconvenience products. However, stockpiling triggers consumption incidence primarily for high-convenience products. As a result, stockpiling increases total consumption (the product of higher incidence and higher quantity given incidence) more for high-convenience products than for low-convenience products.

selma

1.1.6营销策略
版本1
讲manufacture和retail sellors 对产品打折的的影响啥的。

第一段:

越来越多的生产商开始抱怨渠道促销(trade promotion).生产商应零售商要求提供低价促销产品,但零售商往往利用两边信息不对称赚取利润.消费者虽然知道大致哪些产品在促销,但不是很清楚具体的开始和结束日期 （推断题）.

第二段:

于是一些制造商考虑其它招。天天促销，天天低价，既避免零售商中饱私囊，又避免顾客不知道。但至少有一个制造商的证明此法不妥，长此以往好产品成了低价品，顾客也就失去兴趣。并且一旦有其它竞争产品某一期间暂时低价促销，产品就失去竞争力。制造商再出一招，干脆自己做广告，让顾客事先知道产品要打折扣，从而扩大销售量，但又不太合适，成本太高，制造商很为难。

题目：

1. 有道infer 题（INFER 消费者的行为）
答：the consumers know the frequency of discount in a certain interval. (因为文中有这么一句话：Although the consumers only know approximate frequency of discount)

2. 有一个问manufacturer曾试过什么方法来避免这种现象
答：根据题目定位，选的一些M采用每天都低价的战略（everyday XX price）

3.  some manufacturer intend to advertise the discount by themselves, what is their assumption?
答：If the customers know the discount message, they will spent more time in searching for the discount (so the retailers will not benefit from the discount by not offering to the customers)

4. 如某公司，后来就又变回原来的促销方式。为什么呢？
答：即使有经常性的促销，消费者还是会被其它偶尔促销产品所吸引

selma

1.1.5  government regulation与crop出口量

第一段：

讲如果政府采用 environmental regulation 在农业方面的文章: 有学者认为, 增加 environmental regulation 会降低该农产品的国际市场占有率,因为别国没采用的话成本将产生差异. 但作者认为不然,作者的理由为: 如果假设这些 regulation 都是针对那些 insensitve crops(我确定是这个形容词)的作物,那么举排名前三的烟草, XX, XX 来说,增加 regulation 并不会对他们的国际市占率有太大的影响，尤其这些作物占国际出口农作物的比例仅为1%。此外，环境监管并不是导致份额下降的唯一因素，其他因素还有汇率、还有一个国内什么什么的（这边有题 国内什么什么的在题中对应一个 individual country 的什么 比较确定）


题目：

1．文中提到三种作物1% 是为了说明什么？
答：说明环保法规并不会对农产品的国际市场占有率有太大的影响。

2. 如何 weaken 作者的 assumption
答：控制污染的条款对产量与出口量大的作物有最大影响

selma

1.1.4  check支付方式
第一段:
说现在电子化的支付方式很多，但是paper check 还是很受欢迎，占80%什么的
第二段:
讲paper check多说明市场不健康，似乎稍微讲了点原因
第三段:
重点说这个paper check的弊端吧，writer怎么样怎么样，可是拿利息，不用承担什么什么风险
第四段:
驳斥了上面的理论，说现在对一些大的check，第三段里讲的吃亏的那一方也是rational的，会争取利益。它给出了原因，1因为技术提高2 当量较大时，receiver可以采取行动以减少float产生的损失--和writter商量

题目：

1. 作者提到了现在因为科技的进步，支票的签发与兑现很快了，是为什么
答：是为了说明支票从开出到兑现产生的float的经济效益没有这么大了

2. 对那些支持第三段中老观点的人来说，以下哪个选项是正确的？
答：因为某种原因支票的使用只带来社会成本，而不会给支票使用者带来成本，所以他们一直用。（Since individuals and businesses don’t face that higher social cost）

３. 从这个文章可以infer出支票接受者对支票产生的check float的态度？
答：支票接受者会通过谈判来保护自身的利益（也就是要求分享check float）

４. 这篇文章的主旨是什么？
答：解释了为什么支票一直还在使用的几个原因
Despite the growing availability and acceptance of electronic payment instruments —such as credit cards, debitcards, and automated clearinghouse (ACH) payments—by far the most popular noncash payment instrument used in the United States is the paper check. In 1995, approximately 80 percent of all noncash transactions were made by check (Bank for International Settlements, forthcoming). Furthermore, although use of electronic instruments has grown in the past several years, check use has grown as well: between 1987 and 1993, the average annual number of payments per capita increased by 26 payments for electronic instruments, but by 31 payments for checks (Humphrey, Pulley, and Vesala, forthcoming). Clearly, individuals and businesses are not rapidly shifting away from checks to electronic instruments.

The popularity of checks persists even though checks cost society more to produce and process than do electronic instruments. According to standard economic theory, that may be a sign that the market for payment instruments is not working properly. In general, in an efficient market, when competing goods are available and one costs society more, the prices of the goods will reflect the relative costs of the resources used to produce them, and the cheaper good will be substituted for the more expensive. In this way, society uses its resources to produce only the particular goods it wants in the particular amounts it wants. In other words, resources are used efficiently. When use does not shift to the cheaper goods, either the goods are not close substitutes or the market has failed, and there is a potential role for a public authority to attempt to correct the failure.

Market failure is a commonly accepted view of what’s happened in the market for payment instruments. According to this view, the users of checks are the check writers. And for those individuals and businesses, the private cost, or price, of using checks has been distorted by the value of check float, or the time between the writing and clearing of a check. During that time, of course, the funds can earn interest for the check writer rather than for the check receiver. The size of this benefit is thought to have reduced the price of check use below the cost to society of producing and processing checks. Since individuals and businesses don’t face that higher social cost, they continue to use checks despite the existence of other means of payment that are less costly to society. In short, checks are overused.

The main reason for this new conclusion is that the value of float for all checks has decreased significantly since the Humphrey and Berger (1990) study. I estimate that, in real terms, between 1987 and 1993, the value of float for an average check payment dropped from $1.04 to $0.09, or about 90 percent.

The reasons for this dramatic drop in the value of float are primarily greater efficiency in check processing and lower short-term interest rates. Both the labor and capital involved in check processing became more efficient between 1987 and 1993. During that time, for example, the Bank Administration Institute (1994) estimates that check encoding labor productivity at commercial banks, measured in items encoded per hour, increased about 24 percent. Over the same period, the productivity of readersorters (the high-speed equipment used to process checks), measured in items processed per hour, increased 18 percent. These productivity increases have expedited check clearing. At the same time, the amount of interest that float allows check users to earn shrank considerably. For example, between 1987 and 1993, the average three-month secondary market U.S. Treasury bill rate fell about 50 percent, from 5.78 to 3.00 percent (FR Board, various dates).

That view is suspect even if the data still supported it, though. The view seems to assume that only the agent on one side of a transaction—the check writer—recognizes and takes advantage of the value of float. That assumption doesn’t correspond with expected rational behavior. Since float is a transfer payment from the check receiver to the check writer, with no allocative effects overall, rational agents are likely to negotiate a mutually beneficial distribution of any significant value of float. And, in fact, this type of negotiation is common for large payments between businesses, for which the value of float is potentially large. In practice, many business-to-business payments contractually stipulate payment transaction terms that internalize the effects of float.

selma

1.1.3 CEO★

    Although recent censure of corporate boards of directors as “passive” and “supine” may be excessive, those who criticize board performance have plenty of substantive ammunition. Too many corporate boards fail in their two crucial responsibilities of overseeing long-term company strategy and of selecting, evaluating, and determining appropriate compensation of top management. At times, despite disappointing corporate performance, compensation of chief executive officers reaches indefensibly high levels, nevertheless, suggestions that the government should legislate board reform are premature. There are ample opportunities for boards themselves to improve corporate performance.
   
    Most corporate boards’ compensation committees focus primarily on peer-group comparisons. They are content if the pay of top executives approximates that of the executives of competing firms with comparable short-term earnings or even that of executives of competing firms of comparable size. However, mimicking the compensation policy of competitors for the sake of parity means neglecting the value of compensation as a means of stressing long-term performance. By tacitly detaching executive compensation policy from long-term performance, committees harm their companies and the economy as a whole. The committees must develop incentive compensation policies to emphasize long-term performance. For example a board’s compensation committee can, by carefully proportioning straight salary and such short-term and long-term incentives as stock options, encourage top management to pursue a responsible strategy.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Q14
According to the passage, the majority of compensation committees put the greatest emphasis on which of the following when determining compensation for their executives?
A.    Long-term corporate performance
B.    The threat of government regulation
C.    Salaries paid to executives of comparable corporations
D.    The probable effect the determination will have on competitors
E.    The probable effect the economic climate will have on the company
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q15
The passage suggests which of the following about government legislation requiring that corporate boards undergo reform?
A. Such legislation is likely to discourage candidates from joining corporate boards.
B. Such legislation is likely to lead to reduced competition among companies.
C.The performance of individual companies would be affected by such legislation to a greater extent than would the economy as a whole.
D. Such legislation would duplicate initiatives already being made by corporate boards to improve their own performance.
E.Corporate boards themselves could act to make such legislation unnecessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q16
Which of the following best describes the organization of the passage?
A. A problem is acknowledged, the causes are explored, and a solution is offered.
B. A question is raised, opposing points of view are evaluated, and several alternative answers are discussed.
C. A means of dealing with a problem is proposed, and the manner in which a solution was reached is explained.
D. A plan of action is advanced, and the probable outcomes of that plan are discussed.
E. Two competing theories are described and then reconciled.

selma

1.1.2企业竞争

第一段：

关于性质相似的企业是否应该距离的近一些。 传统观点认为这样会加剧竞争，导致降价（这里有一题问以下那种现象属于此类，题干很长，不难）。但事实是这样吗？ 也不一定。实际上企业在一起起码有两点好处：（1）好的方法技术传播的快。（2）增大需求。

第二段：


研究了德克萨斯州的旅馆行业。并提出了两个问题：（1）为什么这样会带来好处。（2）哪些人是好处的受益者

第三段：


经过研究，发现并不是所有的旅馆都得到好处，在大旅馆旁边的小旅馆得到了最大的好处。

题目：