Excel/Accounting Conversion
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