Aspen Tech case study Essay

History and Overview
• Specialized in the development of simulation package for client in procedure fabrication industries
• Advanced System for Process Engineering ( ASPEN ) undertaking conducted at the Massachusetts Intitutes of Technology ( MIT ) in Cambridge Massachusetts. from 1976 to 1981
• Founded in 1981 by Dr. Larry Evans. a professor of chemical technology at MIT
• Larry Evans”leadership in the development and application of incorporate systems for patterning. simulation and optimisation of industrial chemical procedure

History and Overview
• In 1982 its first twelvemonth of operations. AspenTech lost USD565. 000 on gross revenues of USD182. 000
• Over following 13 old ages AspenTech’s gross revenues grew quickly as it became a major remunerator in the procedure simulation section of the package industry.
• 1995 company earned net income $ 5. 4 million on gross revenues $ 57. 5 million. AspenTech estimated that it commanded 50 % of the
simulation market for chemical sector.
• 1995. it employed 417 people of which 265 ware based in the US and the balance in office in 5 states.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

History and Overview
• AspenTech went public in USDD31 million IPO which included a USD 18 Million primary offering and USD 13 Million secondary offering:
– to finance farther R & A ; D
– to get externally developed engineerings
– to let early investors to monetise their retentions in the company.

• Feb1995. Aspentech conducted a $ 23 million public offering. which included a USD 1 million primary offering and USD 22 million secondary offering.
• 1995. AspenTech was the lone one of the houses that specialized in simulation plans for chemical crude oil. and petrochemicals industries that was publically traded.

Merchandises ( versi makalah )
• Aspen Plus
Aspen Plus is the most popular merchandise
a steady province mold system built around the nucleus engineering This merchandise accounted 48 % of gross revenues in 1995

• Speed UP
It was AspenTech’s dynamic procedure patterning merchandise
commercialized in 1986 by Prosys Tecknology that AspenTech purchased in 1991

• Max
It is a less powerful version of Aspen Plus

• Advent
A package to optimise the trade-off between capital outgos for energy salvaging heat money changers and the energy salvaging realized

Merchandise Portfolio ( versi makalah )
• Properties PLUS
It is a database of chemicals belongingss underlying its other merchandises. popular with clients ~ developed in-house mold package

• Other faculties
– offers to the clients ~ licence individually
– use with its other merchandises to pattern subsystems used in extremely specialised chemicals treating application.

Merchandise Portfolio ( versi web )
• Process Engineering







Procedure simulation Chemicals ( 10 merchandises: AspenPlus )
Procedure simulation Oil & A ; Gas ( 8 merchandises: AspenHYSYS )
Process simulation Refining ( 11 merchandises: Aspenadsim+ )
Process simulation Batch/Pharma ( 8 merchandises: Aspenproperties ) Model Deployment ( 3 merchandises: AspenModelrunner )
Equipment mold ( 8 merchandises: AspenAcol+ )
Basic Engineering ( 2 merchandises: AspenKbase )
Economic Evaluation ( 3 merchandises: Aspn Icarus Project Manager )

• Advance Process Control ( 14 merchandises: Aspen Apollo. Aspen IQ )

• Planning & A ; Scheduling ( 10 merchandises: Aspen Advisor. Aspen MBO )

• Supply & A ; Distribution ( 3 merchandises: Aspen Retail )

• Production Management & A ; Execution ( 16 merchandises: Aspen 0server )

Gross saless & A ; Selling

• 1995. licensed to more than 450 companies ~ chemical industry and 350 univerities

• The merchandising rhythm for procedure modeling package was long ( 6-12 months )

• AspenTech charged a premium over rivals merchandises. raise licensing fees three times ( 1998-1995 ) ~10 %

• Customer trueness
– Over 90 % renewed their package
– 1994: 34 % gross from package reclamation ; 34 % from enlargement from bing client

• United States:
– Directs gross revenues force
– Earned combination of salary & A ; committee

• Gross saless subordinates: UK. Japan. HongKong. Brussels
– Serve local & A ; regional markets via directs gross revenues forces

• Licensed package for a non-cancelable term ~ 3 or 5 old ages

• Charge:
– one-year fee x license term ( twelvemonth )
– Interest rate 9. 5 % – 11 % presently 12 %

• Customer were more likely to purchase package priced in local currency

Hazard Exposure
1. Foreign Exchange Risk



sell package in local currencies installment from three-to-five old ages creates foreign exchange exposure exchange rate fluctuations
52 % gross generated from foreign company with following grosss figures:

• Europe 31 %
• Asia 12 %
• Other states 9 %
• In United State 48 % .

Hazard exposure are might be applicable: Transaction Exposure ( High )
most the costumier operated outside of US
Translation Exposure ( Low )
convert foreign currency fiscal statements into a individual currency ( USD ) .

Hazard Exposure
2. Interest Rate Risk ( low )
– AspenTech debt utilizing US dollar currency fix involvement rate and mid term ( 3years )
– topographic point a seasonal line-of-credit installation with a New England Bank

Hazard Exposure
3. Credit Hazard
– Credit hazard ( default hazard ) in high exposure degree

2 beginnings chance trigger this hazard:

turning quickly
client choose to postpone payment of their licence over the life of the contract
Ex-husband: AspenTech was apt for $ 4. 6 million of this sum under limited resort understanding
Unwilling ( Low )
most of the clients are a loyal client
Unable ( High )
depend on the type of concern of client

Liquid Hazard

many of its clients chose to postpone payment of their licences over the life of the contract
the company normally experienced an operating hard currency deficit
Ex-husband: the house booked gross of USD57. 5 million. yet receive hard currency payments straight from clients of merely $ 38. 5 million ( 66. 96 % ) .

Management Risk Perform by AspenTech
Foreign Exchange Risk
eliminated all gross revenues dealing exposure originating from foreign currency denominated license contract inline with its hazard direction policy by making hedge: – Sale non USD installment receivable for USD

– frontward currency understanding

Recognition Hazard
– AspenTech has non managed the hazard of the bad installment

– The contract with GE and Sanwa in selling the history receivable has limited resort understanding

Liquid Hazard
– To pull off its liquidness hazard in order to cover their twenty-four hours to twenty-four hours operation. AspenTech

sell its receivable to GE and Sanwa and other fiscal establishment. – AspenTech besides has debt to Massachusetts Capital Resources – placed a seasonal line of recognition installation with New England bank.

Recommendation
AspenTech’s should review the house hazard direction policies and patterns in visible radiation of the alterations:
– over the past twelvemonth AspenTech’s international gross revenues had remained a significant part of its grosss
– the steadfast international disbursals had increase a somewhat faster rate than its international gross
– AspenTech had gone from private company into a publically traded company

AspenTech’s should reexamine and find an acceptable degree of hazard. It involves finding sensible degree of hazard in-line with appropriate chance to derive

Recommendation
Net Foreign Exchange Exposure ( Operational Hedging )
AspenTech’s Value at Risk. 1995 ( 95 % assurance degree )

UK Pound
German DM
Belgian Franc
Nipponese Hankering

Expenses in local
currency
3. 129
722
158. 223
414. 793

Monthly Std.
Deviation
2. 90 %
2. 80 %
2. 70 %
3. 00 %

Exchange
Rate*
1. 5873
0. 6711
0. 0326
0. 0106

Entire
*Average exchange rate ( U. S. dollar per unit of foreign currency ) over financial twelvemonth 1995

Volt-ampere
$ 238
22
230
218
$ 707

AspenTech’s Net Foreign Exchange Exposure ( ‘000 ) by Currency. 1995 Cash Inflows
UK Pound
German DM
Belgian Franc
Nipponese Hankering

Current Gross saless
1. 724
1. 015
308. 984

Anterior Gross saless
981
577
175. 781

Cash Escapes
Expenses
3. 129
722
158. 223
414. 793

AspenTech should fudge merely the net exposure
• Net foreign exchange exposure in German and Japan
• Forward contract for Belgian’s runing disbursal

Net Exposure
( 424 )
870
( 158. 223 )
69. 972

Recommendation
Liquidity & A ; Credit Risk
– AspenTech should look other possibility to cover with other fiscal
establishment to increase their bargaining place to GE and Sanwa With higher bargaining place. AspenTech can acquire lower cost and better place in pull offing their recognition hazard

– Maximize in selling long term receivable foremost

Recommendation
Others Hedging Instrument:
– Plain-Vanilla Options
give the purchaser of the option the right but non the duty to purchase ( call ) or sell ( put ) a specific sum of currency at a predetermined work stoppage monetary value ( exchange rate
High cost

– Average-Rate Options
• Spot rate are calculated as an norm over a period
• Transaction possible during the expiry period at several preset day of the months
• Strike rate can be fixed or drifting

– Knock-in/knock-out Options
• Does non supply full protection
• The key is in finding the barrier rate
• Low cost

– Cross-currency minutess
– Foreign currency money-market adoption

Recommendation
• Others Hedging Instrument:
– Cross-currency minutess
• dealing fundamentally does non supply ability to fudge or procure any hazard
• provide chance of arbitrage if there is a difference between cross rate and indirect rate.

– Foreign currency money-market adoption
• Borrowing in the money market. instead hard to utilize since the company demand to find degree of debt that matched with its hard currency influx from other matched currency