Explore the vast range of titles available.

Bilateral supply contracts are widely used despite the presence of spot markets. In this paper, we provide a potential explanation for this prevalence of supply contracts even when spot markets are liquid and without delivery lag. Specifically, we consider the determination of an equilibrium forward contract on a nonstorable commodity between two firms that have mean-variance preferences over their risky profits and negotiate the forward contract through a Nash bargaining process. We derive the unique equilibrium forward contract in closed form and provide an extensive analysis. We show that it is the risk-hedging benefit from a forward that justifies its prevalence in spite of liquid spot markets. In addition, while a forward does not affect production decisions due to the presence of spot markets, it does affect inventory decisions of the storable input factor due to its hedging effect against the inventory risk. We also show that price volatilities and correlations are important determinants of the equilibrium contract. In particular, the equilibrium forward price can be nonmonotonic in the spot price volatility and can decrease as the initial spot price increases.

We survey the recent literature on the use of spot market operations to manage procurement in supply chains. We present results in two categories: work that deals with optimal procurement strategies and work related to the valuation of procurement contracts. As an example of the latter, we provide new results on valuation of a supply contract with abandonment option. Based on our review, we also discuss the scope for doing further work.

We study contract design and coordination of a supply chain with one supplier and one retailer, both of which are capital constrained and in need of short-term financing for their operations. Competitively priced bank loans are available, and the failure of loan repayment leads to bankruptcy, where default costs may include variable (proportional to the firm’s sales) and fixed costs. Without default costs, it is known that simple contracts (e.g., revenue-sharing, buyback, and quantity discount) can coordinate and allocate profits arbitrarily in the chain. With only variable default costs, buyback contracts remain coordinating and equivalent to revenue-sharing contracts but are Pareto dominated by revenue-sharing contracts when fixed default costs are present. Thus, for general bankruptcy costs, contracts without buyback terms are of most interest. Quantity discount contracts fail to coordinate the supply chain, since a necessary condition for coordination is to proportionally reallocate debt obligations within the channel. With only variable default costs and with high fixed default costs exhibiting substantial economies-of-scale, revenue-sharing contracts with working capital coordination continue to coordinate the chain. Unexpectedly, for fixed default costs with small economies-of-scale effects, the two-firm system under a revenue-sharing contract with working capital coordination might have higher expected profit than the one-firm system. Our results provide support for the use of revenue-sharing contracts with working capital coordination for decentralized management of supply chains when there are bankruptcy risks and default costs. This paper was accepted by Serguei Netessine, operations management.

As an integrated part of a supply contract, trade credit has intrinsic connections with supply chain coordination and inventory management. Using a model that explicitly captures the interaction of firms’ operations decisions, financial constraints, and multiple financing channels (bank loans and trade credit), this paper attempts to better understand the risk-sharing role of trade credit—that is, how trade credit enhances supply chain efficiency by allowing the retailer to partially share the demand risk with the supplier. Within this role, in equilibrium, trade credit is an indispensable external source for inventory financing, even when the supplier is at a disadvantageous position in managing default relative to a bank. Specifically, the equilibrium trade credit contract is net terms when the retailer’s financial status is relatively strong. Accordingly, trade credit is the only external source that the retailer uses to finance inventory. By contrast, if the retailer’s cash level is low, the supplier offers two-part terms, inducing the retailer to finance inventory with a portfolio of trade credit and bank loans. Further, a deeper early-payment discount is offered when the supplier is relatively less efficient in recovering defaulted trade credit, or the retailer has stronger market power. Trade credit allows the supplier to take advantage of the retailer’s financial weakness, yet it may also benefit both parties when the retailer’s cash is reasonably high. Finally, using a sample of firm-level data on retailers, we empirically observe the inventory financing pattern that is consistent with what our model predicts. This paper was accepted by Vishal Gaur, operations management.

One of the main assumptions in research on designing supply contracts is that decision makers act in a way that maximizes their expected profit. A number of laboratory experiments demonstrate that this assumption does not hold. Specifically, faced with uncertain demand, decision makers place orders that systematically deviate from the expected profit maximizing levels. We have added to this body of knowledge by demonstrating that ordering decisions also systematically depend on individual contract parameters and by developing a behavioral model that captures this systematic behavior. We proceed to test our behavioral model using laboratory experiments and use the data to derive empirical model parameters. We then test our approach in out-of-sample validation experiments that confirm that, indeed, contracts designed using the behavioral model perform better than contracts designed using the standard model. This paper was accepted by Christian Terwiesch, operations management.

Prior theory claims that buyback and revenue-sharing contracts achieve equivalent channel-coordinating solutions when applied in a dyadic supplier–retailer setting. This suggests that a supplier should be indifferent between the two contracts. However, the sequence and magnitude of costs and revenues (i.e., losses and gains) vary significantly between the contracts, suggesting the supplier’s preference of contract type, and associated contract parameter values, may vary with the level of loss aversion. We investigate this phenomenon through two studies. The first is a preliminary study investigating whether human suppliers are indeed indifferent between these two contracts. Using a controlled laboratory experiment, with human subjects taking on the role of the supplier having to choose between contracts, we find that contract preferences change with the ratio of overage and underage costs for the channel (i.e., the newsvendor critical ratio). In particular, a buyback contract is preferred for products with low critical ratio, whereas revenue sharing is preferred for products with high critical ratio. We show these results are consistent with the behavioral tendency of loss aversion and are more significant for subjects who exhibit higher loss aversion tendencies in an out of context task. In the second (main) study, we examine differences in the performance of buyback and revenue-sharing contracts when suppliers have the authority to set contract parameters. We find that the contract frame influences the way parameters are set and the critical ratio again plays an important role. More specifically, revenue-sharing contracts are more profitable for the supplier than buyback contracts in a high critical ratio environment when accounting for the supplier’s parameter-specification behavior. Also, there is little difference in performance between the two contracts in a low critical ratio environment. These results can help inform supply managers on what types of contracts to use in different critical ratio settings. Data, as supplemental material, are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2182 . This paper was accepted by Martin Lariviere, operations management .

We consider a supply chain with a retailer and a supplier: A newsvendor-like retailer has a single opportunity to order a product from a supplier to satisfy future uncertain demand. Both the retailer and supplier are capital constrained and in need of short-term financing. In the presence of bankruptcy risks for both the retailer and supplier, we model their strategic interaction as a Stackelberg game with the supplier as the leader. We use the supplier early payment discount scheme as a decision framework to analyze all decisions involved in optimally structuring the trade credit contract (discounted wholesale price if paying early, financing rate if delaying payment) from the supplier's perspective. Under mild assumptions we conclude that a risk-neutral supplier should always finance the retailer at rates less than or equal to the risk-free rate. The retailer, if offered an optimally structured trade credit contract, will always prefer supplier financing to bank financing. Furthermore, under optimal trade credit contracts, both the supplier's profit and supply chain efficiency improve, and the retailer might improve his profits relative to under bank financing (or equivalently, a rich retailer under wholesale price contracts), depending on his current \"wealth\" (working capital and collateral).

To mitigate supply disruption risks, some manufacturers consider a flexible sourcing strategy, where they have an option of sourcing from multiple suppliers, including regular unreliable suppliers and backup reliable ones. Our objective is to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with flexible sourcing when suppliers are strategic price setters. We show that when each supplier announces a single (wholesale) price, such a game leads to a conflict of incentives and is not realistic in most practical settings. Therefore, we focus on a contingent-pricing game, with wholesale prices contingent on the manufacturer’s sourcing strategy. We describe the resulting equilibrium outcomes corresponding to the manufacturer’s different sourcing and inventory strategies. We show that in equilibrium, inventories are carried either by the manufacturer or by the unreliable supplier, but not both. The manufacturer does not necessarily benefit from the existence of a backup supplier and, in fact, is typically worse off. Similarly, supply chain performance may degrade. Thus, an up-front commitment to sole sourcing may be beneficial. Interestingly, suppliers may benefit from flexible sourcing even though the manufacturer does not. The main results extend to cases when partial backup sourcing is allowed, both suppliers are unreliable, recovery times are non-memoryless, an unreliable supplier may provide a richer set of contingent prices, or the supplier may be risk averse. The online supplementary document is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2626 . This paper was accepted by Yossi Aviv, operations management.

This paper develops a model of consumer returns policies. In our model, consumers face valuation uncertainty and realize their valuations only after purchase. There is also aggregate demand uncertainty , captured using the conventional newsvendor model. In this environment, consumers decide whether to purchase and then whether to return the product, whereas the seller sets the price, quantity, and refund amount. Using our model, we study the impact of full returns policies (e.g., using 100% money-back guarantees) and partial returns policies (e.g., when restocking fees are charged) on supply chain performance. Next, we demonstrate that consumer returns policies may distort incentives under common supply contracts (such as manufacturer buy-backs), and we propose strategies to coordinate the supply chain in the presence of consumer returns. Finally, we explore several extensions and demonstrate the robustness of our findings.

The classical newsvendor problem decides the optimal order quantity for a single period, with the assumptions that both the selling price and the end of period salvage value are fixed. However, the salvage value or clearance price in many instances depends on the leftover inventory. A fixed salvage value assumption could lead to suboptimal decisions in many situations. In this paper we determine the optimal pricing and ordering decision for a limited clearance sale inventory model using newsvendor framework with variable salvage value. We consider additive demand model, provide necessary and sufficient conditions for unique pricing and ordering policies, and calculate optimal contract parameters for wholesale price contract in decentralized supply chain setting. We compare our results against classical newsvendor model with fixed salvage value. We analytically prove that the price-setting limited clearance sale inventory model improves the ordering decision and profit level.