f**n
发帖数: 401 | 1 I have a question on pricing. Since I am not majoring in economic, please
bear with me with my description:
I am selling fruits: apples, peaches, etc. I have a number of customers: A,
B, C, etc.
The way these customers buy fruits is different from the way we see in
supermarket.
Customer A comes to me and says: I have $10, and I want 10 apples and 10
peaches. He gets them.
Customer B comes and says: I have $5 and I want 3 apples and 6 peaches. He
gets them too.
Customer C comes and says: I have $ |
v********e
发帖数: 1058 | 2 I think it depends on your valuations of the fruits...
for heterogeneous items you may have very different valuations for different
combinations of items, but in the case of fruits that sounds implausible,
so you may assume linearity.
,
【在 f**n 的大作中提到】
: I have a question on pricing. Since I am not majoring in economic, please
: bear with me with my description:
: I am selling fruits: apples, peaches, etc. I have a number of customers: A,
: B, C, etc.
: The way these customers buy fruits is different from the way we see in
: supermarket.
: Customer A comes to me and says: I have $10, and I want 10 apples and 10
: peaches. He gets them.
: Customer B comes and says: I have $5 and I want 3 apples and 6 peaches. He
: gets them too.
|
f**n
发帖数: 401 | 3 The example is an analogy for the problem we are trying to solve. We do not
really sell fruits, but something much more expensive :P Please excuse me
for the bad comparison.
I do not get exactly what you mean by "different valuation for different
combinations of items". Would you please explain a little further?
By "linearity" I assume you mean the price for two apples is equal to twice
the price of one single apple, right?
Finally, which part of economics do you think relevant to the problem I
【在 v********e 的大作中提到】
: I think it depends on your valuations of the fruits...
: for heterogeneous items you may have very different valuations for different
: combinations of items, but in the case of fruits that sounds implausible,
: so you may assume linearity.
:
: ,
|
v********e
发帖数: 1058 | 4 "Very different valuation for different combinations of items" introduces
combinatorial valuations. For an extreme example, your valuation for any
single shoe is zero, but that for a pair of shoes is stricitly positive.
This is an example of complementarity.
I'm not econ major either. Looking forward to expert answers. (I thought the
problem might be related to supply and demand theory though.)
not
twice
【在 f**n 的大作中提到】
: The example is an analogy for the problem we are trying to solve. We do not
: really sell fruits, but something much more expensive :P Please excuse me
: for the bad comparison.
: I do not get exactly what you mean by "different valuation for different
: combinations of items". Would you please explain a little further?
: By "linearity" I assume you mean the price for two apples is equal to twice
: the price of one single apple, right?
: Finally, which part of economics do you think relevant to the problem I
|
kx
发帖数: 16384 | 5 这不是一个经济学问题，而是一个会计实务的问题。
作为一个会计实务问题，是根据管理需要来确定如何计算成本与利润的，不存在一个“唯一正确”的做法。 |
h*******l
发帖数: 359 | 6 what are the cost for a and p?
,
【在 f**n 的大作中提到】
: I have a question on pricing. Since I am not majoring in economic, please
: bear with me with my description:
: I am selling fruits: apples, peaches, etc. I have a number of customers: A,
: B, C, etc.
: The way these customers buy fruits is different from the way we see in
: supermarket.
: Customer A comes to me and says: I have $10, and I want 10 apples and 10
: peaches. He gets them.
: Customer B comes and says: I have $5 and I want 3 apples and 6 peaches. He
: gets them too.
|
f**n
发帖数: 401 | 7 We do not know currently. And we assume the cost is already covered. That is
, by the time we are trying to sell them, all apples and peaches are already
made.
What if we know the cost of apple is $0.2 and cost of peach is $0.3?
Thanks!
【在 h*******l 的大作中提到】
: what are the cost for a and p?
:
: ,
|
kx
发帖数: 16384 | 8 我晚点来回复，就回在此楼。
寄信人: fern (fur:P)
标 题: Re: a question on pricing
发信站: 未名空间 (Tue Jul 29 10:57:05 2008)
来 源: 72.37.
I can understand that there is no "uniquely correct" methodology. But I do
appreciate if you can point some possible avenues. Can you please elaborate
on that?
“唯一正确”的做法。
【在 kx 的大作中提到】
: 这不是一个经济学问题，而是一个会计实务的问题。
: 作为一个会计实务问题，是根据管理需要来确定如何计算成本与利润的，不存在一个“唯一正确”的做法。
|
i*******e
发帖数: 349 | 9 my 2 cents.
我觉得LZ这个问题还是和经济学有关系的，可以视为一个卖家利润最大化的问题。作为
卖家会有自己的valuation或者说reservation price，低于这个价钱（可以是0）就不
愿意卖，利润等于价格减去valuation；买家也有一个valuation或者最高出价，高于这
个价钱也不愿意买，消费者剩余等于valuation减去价格。交易能达成的前提是价格能
够两个valuation之间，但是这不足以准确预测价格，因为任何卖家valuation和买家
valuation之间的价格都有可能。
在经济学中有几种价格形成的机制：
1）完全竞争市场，个体买卖双方都没有market power，价格由总需求和供给决定，双
方都必须接受或者不交易，因此价格起到资源配置的作用。
2）卖方垄断，有完全的market power。a)如果卖家只能订出一个价格并且知道需求函
数的反函数P（Q)，就会max P（Q)*P-Q*C，b)如果可以歧视定价并且了解买家的
valuation，就会有很多情况，比如完全的歧视定价就是去收取每个买家的valuation，
不完全的歧视定价的例 |
f**n
发帖数: 401 | 10 First thank you very much for your reply. Below I will try to respond as
best as I can.
Yes, a reservation/reference price is what we currently look for. However, (
1) on seller's side, we do not know what basis can we base on in order to
derive the reservation price. (2) on buyer's side, a buyer typically have
quite fixed budget for the deal (i.e., $x for y apples and z peaches) and it
is hard to split the price for apple or peach from the total $.
下的定价很
争的结果。
（比如
It is true that buyers have g
【在 i*******e 的大作中提到】
: my 2 cents.
: 我觉得LZ这个问题还是和经济学有关系的，可以视为一个卖家利润最大化的问题。作为
: 卖家会有自己的valuation或者说reservation price，低于这个价钱（可以是0）就不
: 愿意卖，利润等于价格减去valuation；买家也有一个valuation或者最高出价，高于这
: 个价钱也不愿意买，消费者剩余等于valuation减去价格。交易能达成的前提是价格能
: 够两个valuation之间，但是这不足以准确预测价格，因为任何卖家valuation和买家
: valuation之间的价格都有可能。
: 在经济学中有几种价格形成的机制：
: 1）完全竞争市场，个体买卖双方都没有market power，价格由总需求和供给决定，双
: 方都必须接受或者不交易，因此价格起到资源配置的作用。
|
|
|
f*****0
发帖数: 489 | 11 since cost is given and the seller has no right to refuse a sale,
evaluatingn profits becomes evaluating revenue.
so the basig question boils down to this: how to rank revenues derived from
customer A, B and C. |
f**n
发帖数: 401 | 12 This is exactly where we have difficulty at. If cost is given or fixed, how
can we say the deal from customer A is better than customer B, or vice
versa?
It seems to me that any ranking criterion must be somewhat subjective. For
example the executive management may have some pre-defined standards. But
we would like to know is why some criterion make more sense than another.
For example, I can say deal from customer A is more valuable than the deal
from customer B because we get more money from A
【在 f*****0 的大作中提到】
: since cost is given and the seller has no right to refuse a sale,
: evaluatingn profits becomes evaluating revenue.
: so the basig question boils down to this: how to rank revenues derived from
: customer A, B and C.
|
kx
发帖数: 16384 | 13 大概写了一下，有点罗嗦
一、结论
1.这是一个会计实务问题，而不是经济学问题；
2.这个问题的题目不对，因为这不是一个定价问题，而是一个确定成本的问题。
每笔交易的整体价格是确定的，因为本题中价格是一个已经发生的事实。
二、按时间顺序简述下你的问题：
1. 取得20a + 25p ，不知道成本
2. 三笔交易，标记为A、B、C
A 10a + 10p = $10
B 3a + 6p = $5
C 6a + 5p = $8
合计 19a + 21p = $23
3.剩下 1a + 4p
4.问题：如何评价，或者叫做如何比较这三笔交易的收益率
三、解答：
假设所有的 a 都是一样的，成本也是一样的。所有的p都是一样的，成本也是一样。
1.评价三笔交易的收益率，就是
计算或比较每笔交易的 （收入-成本）/收入
计算或比较每笔交易的 （收入-成本）/成本 得出的结论也是一样的。
2.根据题目，每笔交易的收入(price)是已经确定了的
至于在每笔交易中 ，a 的收入是多少，p的收入是多少，其实与题目 |
f**n
发帖数: 401 | 14 Thank you for the detailed explanation.
My general response is that, under current setting (i.e., transactional
price is fixed), there is no need to set price for each item.
However, what if I say I can find out the price elasicity or the price
response function, instead of having a fixed price. Does this problem
become very different?
Below are some specific comments. Again many thanks!
Besides 收益率, what are other commonly used criteria?
Isn't this supply/demand argument?
Does this mean we sho
【在 kx 的大作中提到】
: 大概写了一下，有点罗嗦
: 一、结论
: 1.这是一个会计实务问题，而不是经济学问题；
: 2.这个问题的题目不对，因为这不是一个定价问题，而是一个确定成本的问题。
: 每笔交易的整体价格是确定的，因为本题中价格是一个已经发生的事实。
: 二、按时间顺序简述下你的问题：
: 1. 取得20a + 25p ，不知道成本
: 2. 三笔交易，标记为A、B、C
: A 10a + 10p = $10
: B 3a + 6p = $5
|
kx
发帖数: 16384 | 15 1.客户A对a有一个价格弹性系数，对p也有一个
同理客户B、C对a、p都各有一个函数
社会总体对a、p也各有一个价格弹性系数
但是交易A、B、C不是同一个人，三笔交易也不是对仅有数量不同的
同样物品的交易，
所以我实在猜不出，你能找到的这个价格弹性函数，是谁对哪个物品的弹性函数
2.对于卖方来说，收入-成本 是唯一的评价标准，因为出货之后与进货之前，
你除了多了点钱或者少了点钱，还能找到什么区别？
除非你在卖东西的同时，因为技术流失影响到了自己的竞争地位。
买方则不同，买进以后毕竟还多了个不同于钱的实物。
所以买方倒是可以有多个评价标准
3.机会成本与供需理论完全是两个概念
机会成本就是我为了卖这个东西给你，必然丧失了卖给别人的机会。
所以卖给别人的可能的最高收入，就是我卖东西给你的成本。
4.市价法一般用在完全竞争市场上，比如a、p这些水果，一般都是完全竞争市场
但是你的设备就不一定是完全竞争市场了。
当然你在非完全竞争市场上用市价法也不是不可以，
但是一般在非完全竞争市场上，都用机会成本法或者历史成本法。
【在 f**n 的大作中提到】
: Thank you for the detailed explanation.
: My general response is that, under current setting (i.e., transactional
: price is fixed), there is no need to set price for each item.
: However, what if I say I can find out the price elasicity or the price
: response function, instead of having a fixed price. Does this problem
: become very different?
: Below are some specific comments. Again many thanks!
:
: Besides 收益率, what are other commonly used criteria?
: Isn't this supply/demand argument?
|
