← All projects

Finance · Simulation

What changed the margin, and which contracts need review?

Higher prices did not offset rising costs in this simulated customer portfolio. A margin bridge explains the $157,706 decline in contribution.

Catalyst Pricing & Contract Economics · Added 2026-10-17

Independent portfolio research. This project includes an analytical report rather than an interactive application. Scenario assumptions are separate from observed results.

Finding

In the simulation, variable contribution falls by $157,706. Higher realized prices add $979,360, while higher unit costs subtract $1,380,513. Volume and mix complete the reconciliation. Revenue growth alone would miss the cost pressure.

Why it matters

Use the bridge to identify contracts for review before proposing a general price increase. Check service-cost allocations and test how demand could respond.

Who could use this

Commercial finance and pricing teams reviewing customer and product profitability.

Data and scope

180 synthetic customer-product-period records across 30 fictional customers and two illustrative annual snapshots. No company operating data are used.

How the analysis works

Python and SQL separate volume, product/customer mix, realized price and variable cost in an exactly reconciling ordered margin bridge. A 135-case grid varies price, elasticity, churn and cost inflation.

Limits of the evidence

Elasticities, churn and allocated service costs are invented. The three-year NPV excludes tax, capex, working capital and service costs. No willingness to pay or actual savings is estimated.