INTEGRATIVE EXERCISE
(CHAPTERS 11-14)
Special Sales Offer Relevant
Analysis
NoFat
manufactures one product, olestra and sells it to large potato chip
manufacturers as the key in gradient in nonfat snack foods, including Ruffles,
Lays, Doritos and Tostitos brand products. For each of the past 3 years, sales
of olestra have been far less than the expected annual volume of 125,000
pounds. Therefore, the company has ended each year with significant unused
capacity. Due to a short shelf life, NoFat must sell every pound of olestra
that it produces each year. As a result, NoFat’s controller, Allyson Ashley,
has decided to seek out potential special sales offers from other companies.
One company, Patterson Union (PU) – a toxic waste cleanup company – offered to
buy 10,000 pounds of olestra from NoFat during December for a price of $2.20
per pound. PU discovered through its research that olestra has proven to be
very effective in cleaning up toxic waste locations designated as Superfund
Sites by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Allyson was excited, nothing
that “This is another way to use our expensive olestra plant!”
The annual costs incurred by NoFat
to produce and sell 100,000 pounds of olestra are as follows:
Variable costs per pound:
Direct materials $1.00
Variable manufacturing
overhead $0.75
Sales commissions $0.50
Direct manufacturing
labor $0.25
Total fixed costs:
Advertising $ 3,000
Customer hotline service $ 4,000
Machine set-ups $40,000
Plant machinery lease $12,000
In
addition, Allyson met with several of NoFat’s key production managers and
discovered the following information:
·
The
special order could be produced without incurring any additional marketing or
customer service costs.
·
NoFat
owns the aging plant facility that it uses to manufacture olestra.
·
NoFat
incurs costs to set up and clean its machines for each production run, or batch
of olestra that it produces. The total set-up costs shown in the previous table
represent the production of 20 batches during the year.
·
NoFat
leases its plant machinery. The lease agreement is negotiated and signed on the
first day of each year. NoFat currently leases enough machinery to produce
125,000 pounds of olestra.
·
PU
requires that an independent quality team inspects any facility from which it
makes purchases. The terms of the special sales offer would require NoFat to
bear the $1,000 cost of the inspection team.
Required:
1.
Conduct
a relevant analysis of the special sales offer by calculating the following:
a.
The
relevant revenues associated with the special sales offer
Price per pound number of pound
= $2.20 x 10,000
= $22,000 of relevant (incremental) revenues from
the special sale
b. The relevant costs associated with
the special sales offer
·
Relevant
variable costs:
Direct
materials $1.00
Variable
manufacturing overhead $0.75
Direct
manufacturing labor $0.25
Total $2.00/pound
So $2.00/pound x 10,000 special sales pound =
$20,000 relevant variable costs
·
Relevant
fixed costs:
Batch costs
= Cost per batch x number of
batches required by special sales offer
= (Batch costs/number of batches)
x (special sales units/number of units per batch)
= ($40,000/20) x
[10,000/(100,000/20)]
= ($2,000 cost per batch) x (2
batches required by special sales offer)
= $4,000 batch cost for special
sales offer
Plant inspection team cost if
special sale is accepted = $1,000
Total relevant fixed cost =
$4,000 + $1,000 = $5,000 relevant fixed costs
Total Relevant Costs from Special
Sales Offer: $20,000 + $5,000 = $25,000
c.
The
relevant profit associated with the special sales offer
Relevant Revenues $22,000
Relevant Cost (25,000)
Relevant
profit ($3,000)
2.
Based
solely on financial factors, explain why NoFat should accept or reject PU’s
special sales offer.
NoFat harus menolak tawaran
penjualan khusus PU karena biaya yang relevan $ 25.000 lebih tinggi dari
pendapatan yang relevan $ 22.000 yang ditawarkan oleh PU, sehingga membuat
keuntungan yang relevan (atau tambahan) dari ($ 3.000) negatif.
3.
Describe
at least one qualitative factor that NoFat should consider, in addition to the
financial factors, in making its final decision regarding the acceptance or
rejection of the special sales offer.
Faktor kualitatif berpotensi
penting adalah reputasi produk, yaitu persepsi publik keselamatan Olestra ini.
Secara khusus, beberapa (mungkin besar) persentase pelanggan NoFat ini mungkin hawatir
bahwa Olestra bukan bahan yang aman untuk konsumsi manusia diberikan efektivitas
yang tampak jelas dalam membersihkan situs limbah beracun.
Cost-Based Pricing
Assume
for this question that NoFat rejected PU’s special sales offer because the
$2.20 price suggested by PU was too low. In response to the rejection, PU asked
NoFat to determine the price at which it would be willing to accept the special
sales offer. For its regular sales, NoFat sets prices by marking up variable
cost by 10%.
4.
If
Allyson decides to use NoFat’s 10% mark-up pricing method to set the price for
PU’s special sales offer.
a.
Calculate
the price that NoFat would change PU for each pound of olestra.
Total revenue = (Number of units × Variable cost per unit) × 1.10
= [10,000 units × ($1.00 + $0.75 + $0.50 + $0.25)] × 1.10
=
(10,000 units × $2.50) × 1.10
= $25,000 × 1.10
=
$27,500
The selling price per unit = Total revenue from special sale/Number of units
= $27,500/10,000
= $2.75 selling price per unit
b. Calculate the relevant profit
that NoFat would earn if it set the special sales price by using its mark-up
pricing method. (Hint: use the
estimate of relevant costs that you calculated in response to Requirement 1b).
Relevant revenue $27,500
Relevant costs (25,000)
Relevant
profit $ 2,500
c.
Explain
why NoFat should accept or reject the special sales offer if it uses its
mark-up pricing method to set the special sales price.
Ya, NoFat harus menerima tawara
penjuaan khusus jika PU setuju untuk membayar harga sebesar $2.75 per unit,
yang merupakan hasi dari NoFat’s cost-plus pricing formula.
Incorporating a Long-Term Horizon
into the Decision Analysis
Assume
for this question that Allyson’s relevant analysis reveals that NoFat would
earn a positive relevant profit of $10,000 from the special sale (i.e., the
special sales alternative). However, after conducting this traditional,
short-term relevant analysis, Allyson wonders whether it might be more
profitable over the long-term to downsize the company by reducing its
manufacturing capacity (i.e., its plant machinery and plant facility). She is
aware that downsizing requires a multiplayer time horizon because companies
usually cannot increase or decrease fixed plant assets every year. Therefore,
Allyson has dedicated to use 5 year time horizon in her long-term decision
analysis. She is identified the following information regarding capacity
downsizing (i.e., the downsizing alternative):
·
The
plant facility consists of several buildings. If it chooses to downsize its
capacity, NoFat can immediately sell of one building to an adjacent business
for $30,000.
·
If
it chooses to downsize its capacity, NoFat’s annual lease cost for plant
machinery will decrease to $9,000.
Therefore,
Allyson must choose between these two alternatives: Accept the special sales
offer each year and earn a $10,000 relevant profit for each of the next 5 years
or reject the special sales offer and downsize as described above.
5.
Assume
that NoFat pays for all costs with cash. Also assume a 10% discount rate, a 5
year time horizon, and all cash flow occur at the end of the year. Using an NPV
approach to discount future cash flows to present value.
a. Calculate the NPV of accepting
the special sale with the assumed positive relevant profit of $10,000 per year
(i.e., the special sales alternative)
= Annual net cash inflow from
special sales relevant profit x Discount factor
= $10,000 x 3.791
= $37,910 NPV of accepting special
sales offer five-year time horizon
b. Calculate the NPV of downsizing
capacity as previously described. (i.e., the downsizing alternative)
(1)
Cash
inflow from immediate sale of one building for $30,000 (no need to discount
cash flow because it occurs at time 0)
(2)
Annual
lease cost decreases from $12,000 to $9,000. This cost decrease of $3,000
represents an annual $3,000 increase inflow. The present value of this annuity
equals:
=
$3,000 x 3.791
=
$11,371
Total NPV of downsizing = $30,000 + $11,373
=
$41,373
c.
Based
on the NPV of calculations a and b, identify and explain which of these two
alternatives is best for NoFat to pursue in the long-term.
Berdasarkan perhitungan NPV di
poin a dan b, downsizing alternative (poin b) menunjukkan long term alternative
NoFat yang lebih baik untuk dipilih karena estimasi menunjukkan bahwa NPV
positif yang lebih besar ($41,313) dari pada perhitungan alternative penjualan
khusus pada poin a ($37,910)
PROBLEM 12-39 SETTING TRANSFER PRICES – MARKET PRICE VERSUS
FULL COST
1.
Compute
the firmwide contribution margin associated contribution margin associated with
component Y34 and Model SC67. Also, compute the contribution margin earned by
each division.
|
|
Component
Y34
|
Component
SC67
|
Company
|
|
Sales
|
260,000
|
1,680,000
|
1,940,000
|
|
Variable
Expenses
|
160,000
|
920,000
|
1,080,000
|
|
Contribution
Margin
|
100,000
|
760,000
|
860,000
|
2. Harga pasar $12 adalah harga minimum untuk Divisi
Komponen dan harga maksimum untuk Divisi PSF.
3. Manajer akan menghentikan produksi dan tidak akan
membeli salah satu komponen.
4. Semua
40.000 unit Komponen Y34 akan dijual secara eksternal di pasar dengan harga $ 12 per unit.
5.
Penjualan $480.000 biaya Variabel marjin 160.000.
Kontribusi $ 320.000 kontribusi margin berkurang oleh $540.000. Cam membuat
keputusan yang salah.
PROBLEM
13-43 ACCEPT OR REJECT A SPECIAL ORDER
1.
Steve harus mempertimbangkan menjual bagian untuk $
1.85 karena laba divisinya ini akan meningkat $12.800:
|
|
Accept
|
Reject
|
|
Revenues (2 x $1.85
x 8,000)
|
$29,600
|
$0
|
|
Variable Expenses
|
16,800
|
0
|
|
Total
|
$12,800
|
$0
|
Pat’s divisional profits would
increase by$18,400:
|
|
Accept
|
Reject
|
|
Revenues ($32 x
8,000)
|
$256,000
|
$0
|
|
Variable Expenses:
|
|
|
|
Direct Material ($17 x 8,000)
|
(136,000)
|
0
|
|
Direct Labor ($7 x 8,000)
|
(56,000)
|
0
|
|
Variable Overhead ($2 x 8,000)
|
(16,000)
|
0
|
|
Component (2 x $1.85 x 8,000)
|
(29,600)
|
0
|
|
Total
|
$18,400
|
$0
|
2.
Pat
harus menerima harga $ 2. Harga ini akan meningkatkan biaya komponen dari $
29.600 untuk $ 32.000 (2 x $ 2 x 8.000) dan menghasilkan manfaat tambahan dari
$ 16.000 ($ 18.400 - $ 2.400). Divisi Steve akan melihat peningkatan laba dari
$ 15.200 (8.000 unit x 2 komponen per unit x $ 0,95 marjin kontribusi per
komponen).
3.
Ya.
Pada harga penuh, total biaya komponen adalah $ 36.800 (2 x $ 2,30 x 8000),
meningkat $ 7,200 (2 x 8.000 x 0,45) atas penawaran asli. Ini masih menyisakan
peningkatan keuntungan dari $ 11.200 ($ 18.400 - $ 7.200).
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar
komen o yo rek,, *suwun