×




Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version Negotiation Strategy / MBA Resources

Introduction to Negotiation Strategy

Negotiation Strategy solution for Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version case study


At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Luis M. Viceira. The Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version (referred as “Vanguard Retirement” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Finance & Accounting. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, Financial markets, Risk management.

Negotiation strategy solution for case study Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version ” provides a comprehensive framework to analyse all issues at hand and reach a unambiguous negotiated agreement. At Oak Spring University, we provide comprehensive negotiation strategies that have proven their worth both in the academic sphere and corporate world.


BATNA in Negotiation Strategy


Three questions every negotiator should ask before entering into a negotiation process-

What’s my BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) – my walkaway option if the deal fails?

What are my most important interests, in ranked order?

What is the other side’s BATNA, and what are his interests?



12 Hrs

$59.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

24 Hrs

$49.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

48 Hrs

$39.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now




Case Description of Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version Case Study


The Vanguard Group is one of the largest asset managers in the U.S., with over $1 trillion in assets, ninety percent of which are mutual fund assets, and more than 12,000 employees at year-end 2006. Vanguard has built a strong reputation as the manager of reference for low-cost investing and high-quality customer service which always does what it thinks is best for its clients. Vanguard has recently launched a family of life-cycle funds called Target Retirement Funds. Life-cycle funds, which have proven popular both with investors in company-sponsored defined-contribution pension plans and with individual investors, are built on the idea of "age-based investing," or the notion that investors should allocate more of their long-term savings to stocks when they are young and have longer retirement horizons, and decrease this allocation as they approach retirement. The management at Vanguard is examining the central role of these funds may play in some initiatives aimed at growing Vanguard's retail, defined contribution and client advisory services. The pending approval of the Pension Protection Act will make it possible for sponsors of defined-contribution plans to take a more active role in advising plan participants, and the assets in individual retirement accounts and defined-contribution pension plans are expected to continue their rapid growth moving forward. Should Vanguard promote these funds as the next step in Vanguard's quest to make investing as simple, low-cost, and effective as it can possibly be? At stake is Vanguard's brand and client trust, and the welfare of millions of Americans now responsible for providing for their own retirement.


Case Authors : Luis M. Viceira

Topic : Finance & Accounting

Related Areas : Financial markets, Risk management




Seven Elemental Tools of Negotiation that can be used in Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version solution


1. Satisfies everyone’s core interests (yours and theirs)


By interests, we do not mean the preconceived demands or positions that you or the other party may have, but rather the underlying needs, aims, fears, and concerns that shape what you want. Negotiation is more than getting what you want. It is not winning at all cost. Number of times Win-Win is better option that outright winning or getting what you want.





2. Is the best of many options

Options are the solutions you generate that could meet your and your counterpart’s interests . Often people come to negotiations with very fixed ideas and things they want to achieve. This strategy leaves unexplored options which might be even better than the one that one party wanted to achieve. So always try to provide as many options as possible during the negotiation process. The best outcome should be out of many options rather than few options.


3. Meets legitimate, fair standards

When soft bargainers meet hard bargainers there is always the danger of soft bargainers ceding more than what is necessary. To avoid this scenario you should always focus on legitimate standards or expectations. Standards are often external and objective measures to assess the fairness such as rules and regulations, financial values & resources , market prices etc. If the negotiated agreement is going beyond the industry norms or established standards of fairness then it is prudent to get out of the negotiation.


4. Is better than your alternatives or BATNA

Every negotiators going into the negotiations should always work out the “what if” scenario. The negotiating parties in the “Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version” has three to four plausible scenarios. The negotiating protagonist needs to have clear idea of – what will happen if the negotiations fail. To put it in the negotiating literature – BATNA - Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. If the negotiated agreement is not better than BATNA then there is no point in accepting the negotiated solution.


5. Is comprised of clear, realistic commitments

One of the biggest problems in implementing the negotiated agreements in corporate world is – the ambiguity in the negotiated agreement. Sometimes the negotiated agreements are not realistic or various parties interpret the outcomes based on their understanding of the situation. It is critical to do negotiations as water tight as possible so that there is less scope for ambiguity.


6. Is the result of effective communication?

Many negotiators make the mistake of focusing only on the substance of the negotiation (interests, options, standards, and so on). How you communicate about that substance, however, can make all the difference. The language you use and the way that you build understanding, jointly solve problems, and together determine the process of the negotiation with your counterpart make your negotiation more efficient, yield clear agreements that each party understands, and help you build better relationships.


7. Managing relationship with counterparty

Another critical factor in the success of your negotiation is how you manage your relationship with your counterpart. According to “Luis M. Viceira”, the protagonist may want to establish a new connection or repair a damaged one; in any case, you want to build a strong working relationship built on mutual respect, well-established trust, and a side-by-side problem- solving approach.




Different types of negotiators – what is your style of negotiation

According to Harvard Business Review , there are three types of negotiators – Hard Bargainers, Soft Bargainers, and Principled Bargainers.

Hard Bargainers – These people see negotiations as an activity that they need to win. They are less focused less on the real objectives of the negotiations but more on winning. In the “Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version ”, do you think a hard bargaining strategy will deliver desired results? Hard bargainers are easy to negotiate with as they often have a very predictable strategy

Soft Bargainers – These people are focused on relationship rather than hard outcomes of the negotiations. It doesn’t mean they are pushovers. These negotiators often scribe to long term relationship rather than immediate bargain.

Principled Bargainers – As explained in the seven elemental tools of negotiations above, these negotiators are more concern about the standards and norms of fairness. They often have inclusive approach to negotiations and like to work on numerous solutions that can improve the BATNA of both parties.

Open lines of communication between parties in the case study “Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.





NPV Analysis of Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version



References & Further Readings

Luis M. Viceira (2018), "Vanguard Group, Inc., in 2006 and Target Retirement Funds, Chinese Version Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.


Kogas SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Utilities , Natural Gas Utilities


BT Group SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Software & Programming


Precision Camshafts SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Consumer Cyclical , Auto & Truck Parts


NS SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Containers & Packaging


Xiamen Port A SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Transportation , Misc. Transportation


BIO ON SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Chemicals - Plastics & Rubber


Kimberly-Clark SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Personal & Household Prods.


Trade Me SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Services , Printing & Publishing