Excel/Accounting Conversion

profilechamie
week_5_chapter_7_solution.docx

Problem 7-19

1.

Per 16-Ounce T-Bone

Revenue from further processing:

Sales price of one filet mignon (6 ounces × $3.60 per pound ÷ 16 ounces per pound)

$1.35

Sales price of one New York cut (8 ounces × $2.00 per pound ÷ 16 ounces per pound)

 1.00

Total revenue from further processing

2.35

Less sales revenue from one T-bone steak

 2.25

Incremental revenue from further processing

0.10

Less cost of further processing

 0.20

Profit per pound from further processing

($0.10)

2. The T-bone steaks should be processed further into the filet mignon and the New York cut. This will yield ($0.10) per pound in added profit for the company. The $0.55 “profit” per pound for T-bone steak mentioned in the problem statement is not relevant to the decision, since it contains allocated joint costs. The company will incur the allocated joint costs regardless of whether the T-bone steaks are sold outright or processed further; thus, this cost should be ignored in the decision.

Problem 7-20

1. Product MJ-7 yields a contribution margin of $14 per gallon ($35 – $21 = $14). If the plant closes, this contribution margin will be lost on the 22,000 gallons (11,000 gallons per month × 2 = 22,000 gallons) that could have been sold during the two-month period. However, the company will be able to avoid certain fixed costs as a result of closing down. The analysis is:

Contribution margin lost by closing the plant for two months ($14 per gallon × 22,000 gallons)

$(308,000)

Costs avoided by closing the plant for two months:

Fixed manufacturing overhead cost ($230,000 – $170,000 = $60,000; $60,000 × 2 months = $120,000)

$120,000

Fixed selling costs ($310,000 × 10% × 2 months)

   62,000

   182,000 

Net disadvantage of closing, before start-up costs

(126,000)

Add start-up costs

   (14,000)

Disadvantage of closing the plant

$(140,000)

No, the company should not close the plant; it should continue to operate at the reduced level of 11,000 gallons produced and sold each month. Closing will result in a $140,000 greater loss over the two-month period than if the company continues to operate. Additional factors are the potential loss of goodwill among the customers who need the 11,000 gallons of MJ-7 each month and the adverse effect on employee morale. By closing down, the needs of customers will not be met (no inventories are on hand), and their business may be permanently lost to another supplier.

Problem 13-14 (continued)

Alternative Solution:

Plant Kept Open

Plant Closed

Difference—Net Operating Income Increase (Decrease)

Sales (11,000 gallons × $35 per gallon × 2)

$  770,000 

$         0 

$(770,000)

Less variable expenses (11,000 gallons × $21 per gallon × 2)

   462,000 

           0 

  462,000 

Contribution margin

   308,000 

           0 

 (308,000)

Less fixed costs:

Fixed manufacturing overhead cost ($230,000 × 2; $170,000 × 2)

460,000 

340,000 

120,000 

Fixed selling cost ($310,000 × 2; $310,000 × 90% × 2)

    620,000 

  558,000 

    62,000 

Total fixed cost

 1,080,000 

  898,000 

  182,000 

Net operating loss before start-up costs

(772,000)

(898,000)

(126,000)

Start-up costs

                

   (14,000)

   (14,000)

Net operating loss

$ (772,000)

$(912,000)

$(140,000)

2. Ignoring the additional factors cited in part (1) above, Hallas Company should be indifferent between closing down or continuing to operate if the level of sales drops to 12,000 gallons (6,000 gallons per month) over the two-month period. The computations are:

Cost avoided by closing the plant for two months (see above)

$182,000

Less start-up costs

   14,000

Net avoidable costs

$168,000

Verification:

Operate at 12,000 Gallons for Two Months

Close for Two Months

Sales (12,000 gallons × $35 per gallon)

$ 420,000

$          0

Less variable expenses (12,000 gallons × $21 per gallon)

  252,000

             0

Contribution margin

  168,000

             0

Less fixed expenses:

Manufacturing overhead ($230,000 and $170,000 × 2 months)

460,000

340,000

Selling ($310,000 and $279,000 × 2 months)

   620,000

   558,000

Total fixed expenses

1,080,000

898,000

Start-up costs

             0

     14,000

Total costs

 1,080,000

   912,000

Net operating loss

$ (912,000)

$(912,000)

Problem 7-22

1. The fixed overhead costs are common and will remain the same regardless of whether the cartridges are produced internally or purchased outside. Hence, they are not relevant. The variable manufacturing overhead cost per box of pens is $0.30, as shown below:

Total manufacturing overhead cost per box of pens

$0.80

Less fixed manufacturing overhead ($50,000 ÷ 100,000 boxes)

 0.50

Variable manufacturing overhead cost per box

$0.30

The total variable cost of producing one box of Zippo pens is:

Direct materials

$1.50

Direct labor

1.00

Variable manufacturing overhead

 0.30

Total variable cost per box

$2.80

If the cartridges for the Zippo pens are purchased from the outside supplier, then the variable cost per box of Zippo pens would be:

Direct materials ($1.50 × 80%)

$1.20

Direct labor ($1.00 × 90%)

0.90

Variable manufacturing overhead ($0.30 × 90%)

0.27

Purchase of cartridges

 0.48

Total variable cost per box

$2.85

The company should reject the outside supplier’s offer. Producing the cartridges internally costs $0.05 less per box of pens than purchasing them from the supplier.

Another approach to the solution is:

Cost avoided by purchasing the cartridges:

Direct materials ($1.50 × 20%)

$0.30

Direct labor ($1.00 × 10%)

0.10

Variable manufacturing overhead ($0.30 × 10%)

 0.03

Total costs avoided

$0.43

Cost of purchasing the cartridges

$0.48

Cost savings per box by making cartridges internally

$0.05

Note that the avoidable cost of $0.43 above represents the cost of making one box of cartridges internally.

2. The company would not want to pay any more than $0.43 per box, since it can make the cartridges for this amount internally.

3. The company has three alternatives for obtaining the necessary cartridges. It can:

#1

Produce all cartridges internally.

#2

Purchase all cartridges externally.

#3

Produce 100,000 boxes internally and purchase 50,000 boxes externally.

The costs under the three alternatives are:

Alternative #1—Produce all cartridges internally:

Variable costs (150,000 boxes × $0.43 per box)

$64,500

Fixed costs of adding capacity

 30,000

Total cost

$94,500

Alternative #2—Purchase all cartridges externally:

Variable costs (150,000 boxes × $0.48 per box)

$72,000

Alternative #3—Produce 100,000 boxes internally, and purchase 50,000 boxes externally:

Variable costs:

100,000 boxes × $0.43 per box

$43,000

50,000 boxes × $0.48 per box

 24,000

Total cost

$67,000

Or, in terms of total cost per box of pens, the answer would be:

Alternative #1—Produce all cartridges internally:

Variable costs (150,000 boxes × $2.80 per box)

$420,000

Fixed costs of adding capacity

   30,000

Total cost

$450,000

Alternative #2—Purchase all cartridges externally:

Variable costs (150,000 boxes × $2.85 per box)

$427,500

Alternative #3—Produce 100,000 boxes internally, and purchase 50,000 boxes externally:

Variable costs:

100,000 boxes × $2.80 per box

$280,000

50,000 boxes × $2.85 per box

 142,500

Total cost

$422,500

Thus, the company should accept the outside supplier’s offer, but only for 50,000 boxes of cartridges.

4. In addition to cost considerations, Bronson should take into account the following factors:

a) The ability of the supplier to meet required delivery schedules.

b) The quality of the cartridges purchased from the supplier.

c) Alternative uses of the capacity that is used to make the cartridges.

d) The ability of the supplier to supply cartridges if volume increases in future years.

e) The problem of alternative sources of supply if the supplier proves undependable.

Problem 13-21

1.

Marcy

Tina

Cari

Lenny

Sewing Kit

Direct labor cost per unit

$ 4.80

$ 3.00

$ 8.40

$ 6.00

$ 2.40

Direct labor-hours per unit* (a)

   0.40

   0.25

   0.70

   0.50

   0.20

Selling price

$35.00

$24.00

$22.00

$18.00

$14.00

Less variable costs:

Direct materials

3.50

2.30

4.50

3.10

1.50

Direct labor

4.80

3.00

8.40

6.00

2.40

Variable overhead

   1.60

   1.00

  2.80

   2.00

    0.80

Total variable costs

   9.90

   6.30

 15.70

 11.10

    4.70

Contribution margin (b)

$25.10

$17.70

$ 6.30

$ 6.90

$  9.30

Contribution margin per DLH (b) ÷ (a)

$62.75

$70.80

$ 9.00

$13.80

$46.50

* Direct labor cost per unit ÷ $12.00 per direct labor-hour

2.

Product

DLH Per Unit

Estimated Sales (units)

Total DLHs

Marcy

0.40

26,000

10,400

Tina

0.25

42,000

10,500

Cari

0.70

40,000

28,000

Lenny

0.50

46,000

23,000

Sewing Kit

0.20

450,000

 90,000

Total DLHs required

161,900

3. Since the Cari doll has the lowest contribution margin per labor hour, its production should be reduced by 17,000 dolls (11,900 excess DLHs ÷ 0.70 DLH per doll = 17,000 dolls). Thus, production and sales of the Cari doll will be reduced to 23,000 dolls for the year.

4. Since the additional capacity would be used to produce the Cari doll, the company should be willing to pay up to $21.00 per DLH ($12.00 usual labor rate plus $9.00 contribution margin per DLH) for added labor time. Thus, the company could employ workers for overtime at the usual time-and-a-half rate of $18.00 per hour ($12.00 × 1.5 = $18.00) and still improve overall profit.

5. Additional output could be obtained in a number of ways including working overtime, adding another shift, expanding the workforce, contracting out some work to outside suppliers, and eliminating wasted labor time in the production process. The first four methods are costly, but the last method can add capacity at very low cost.

Technical note: Some would argue that direct labor is a fixed cost in this situation and should be excluded when computing the contribution margin per unit. However, when deciding which products to emphasize, no harm is done by misclassifying a fixed cost as a variable cost—providing that the fixed cost is the constraint. If direct labor were removed from the variable cost category, the net effect would be to bump up the contribution margin per direct labor-hour by $12.00 for each of the products. The products will be ranked exactly the same—in terms of the contribution margin per unit of the constrained resource—whether direct labor is considered variable or fixed. However, if labor is not fixed and is not the constraint, including labor cost in the calculation of the contribution margin may lead to incorrect rankings of the products.

Problem 8-24

1. The income statement would be:

Sales revenue

¥200,000

Less commissions (40% × ¥200,000)

   80,000

Contribution margin

120,000

Less fixed expenses:

Maintenance

¥50,000

Insurance

10,000

Depreciation*

 36,000

Total fixed expenses

   96,000

Net operating income

¥ 24,000

*¥180,000 ÷ 5 years = ¥36,000 per year

2. The simple rate of return would be:

Yes, the games would be purchased. The return exceeds the 14% threshold set by the company.

3. The payback period would be:

*Net operating income, ¥24,000 + Depreciation, ¥36,000 = ¥60,000.

Yes, the games would be purchased. The payback period is less than the 3 years.

Problem 8-26

1.

Labor savings

€190,000

Ground mulch savings

    10,000

€200,000

Less out-of-pocket costs:

Operator

70,000

Insurance

1,000

Fuel

9,000

Maintenance contract

    12,000

    92,000

Annual savings in cash operating costs

€108,000

2. The formula for the simple rate of return when a cost reduction project is involved is as follows:

3. The formula for the payback period is:

*

In this case, the cash inflow is measured by the annual savings in cash operating costs.

The harvester meets Mr. Despinoy’s payback criterion since its payback period is less than 5 years.

4. The formula for the internal rate of return is:

Looking at Table 14C-4 in Appendix 14C, and reading along the 12-period line, a factor of 4.4 would represent an internal rate of return of approximately 20%.

Note that the payback and internal rate of return methods would indicate that the investment should be made. The simple rate of return method indicates the opposite since the simple rate of return is less than 16%. The simple rate of return method generally is not an accurate guide in investment decisions.

Cost savings-Depreciation on new equipme

nt

Simple rate of return =

Initial investment

€108,000 - €40,000*

= = 14.2% (rounded)

€480,000

€480,000

*Depreciation is calculated as follows:

= €40,000 per year

12 years

Investment required

Payback period =

Net annual cash inflow

€480,000

= = 4.4 years (rounded)

108,000*

Investment required

Factor of the internal

=

rate of return

Net annual cash inflow

€480,000

= = 4.4 (rounded)

€108,000

Net avoidable costs$168,000

=

Contribution margin per gallon$14 per ga

llon

=12,000 gallons

Net operating income

Simple rate

=

of return

Initial investment - Salvage from old eq

uipment

¥24,000¥24,000

= = = 16%

¥180,000-¥30,000¥150,000

Initial investment - Salvage from old eq

uipment

Payback period =

Net annual cash inflow

¥180,000-¥30,000¥150,000

= = = 2.5 years

¥60,000*¥60,000