Variable Cost and Contribution Margin

CHAPTER 12 PRICING DECISIONS AND COST MANAGEMENT 12-1The three major influences on pricing decisions are 1. Customers 2. Competitors 3. Costs 12-2Not necessarily. For a one-time-only special order, the relevant costs are only those costs that will change as a result of accepting the order. In this case, full product costs will rarely be relevant. It is more likely that full product costs will be relevant costs for long-run pricing decisions. 12-3Two examples of pricing decisions with a short-run focus: 1. Pricing for a one-time-only special order with no long-term implications. . Adjusting product mix and volume in a competitive market. 12-4Activity-based costing helps managers in pricing decisions in two ways. 1. It gives managers more accurate product-cost information for making pricing decisions. 2. It helps managers to manage costs during value engineering by identifying the cost impact of eliminating, reducing, or changing various activities. 12-5Two alternative starting points for long-run pricing decisions are 1. Market-based pricing, an important form of which is target pricing.
The market-based approach asks, “Given what our customers want and how our competitors will react to what we do, what price should we charge? ” 2. Cost-based pricing which asks, “What does it cost us to make this product and, hence, what price should we charge that will recoup our costs and achieve a target return on investment? ” 12-6A target cost per unit is the estimated long-run cost per unit of a product (or service) that, when sold at the target price, enables the company to achieve the targeted operating income per unit. 2-7Value engineering is a systematic evaluation of all aspects of the value-chain business functions, with the objective of reducing costs while satisfying customer needs. Value engineering via improvement in product and process designs is a principal technique that companies use to achieve target cost per unit. 12-8A value-added cost is a cost that customers perceive as adding value, or utility, to a product or service. Examples are costs of materials, direct labor, tools, and machinery.
A nonvalue-added cost is a cost that customers do not perceive as adding value, or utility, to a product or service. Examples of nonvalue-added costs are costs of rework, scrap, expediting, and breakdown maintenance. 12-9No. It is important to distinguish between when costs are locked in and when costs are incurred, because it is difficult to alter or reduce costs that have already been locked in. 12-10Cost-plus pricing is a pricing approach in which managers add a markup to cost in order to determine price. 2-11Cost-plus pricing methods vary depending on the bases used to calculate prices. Examples are (a) variable manufacturing costs; (b) manufacturing function costs; (c) variable product costs; and (d) full product costs. 12-12Two examples where the difference in the costs of two products or services is much smaller than the differences in their prices follow: 1. The difference in prices charged for a telephone call, hotel room, or car rental during busy versus slack periods is often much greater than the difference in costs to provide these services. 2.

The difference in costs for an airplane seat sold to a passenger traveling on business or a passenger traveling for pleasure is roughly the same. However, airline companies price discriminate. They routinely charge business travelers––those who are likely to start and complete their travel during the same week excluding the weekend––a much higher price than pleasure travelers who generally stay at their destinations over at least one weekend. 12-13Life-cycle budgeting is an estimate of the revenues and costs attributable to each product from its initial R&D to its final customer servicing and support. 2-14Three benefits of using a product life-cycle reporting format are: 1. The full set of revenues and costs associated with each product becomes more visible. 2. Differences among products in the percentage of total costs committed at early stages in the life cycle are highlighted. 3. Interrelationships among business function cost categories are highlighted. 12-15Predatory pricing occurs when a business deliberately prices below its costs in an effort to drive competitors out of the market and restrict supply, and then raises prices rather than enlarge demand.
Under U. S. laws, dumping occurs when a non-U. S. company sells a product in the United States at a price below the market value in the country where it is produced, and this lower price materially injures or threatens to materially injure an industry in the United States. Collusive pricing occurs when companies in an industry conspire in their pricing and production decisions to achieve a price above the competitive price and so restrain trade. 12-16(20–30 min. ) Relevant-cost approach to pricing decisions, special order. . Relevant revenues, $4. 00 ( 1,000$4,000 Relevant costs Direct materials, $1. 60 ( 1,000$1,600 Direct manufacturing labor, $0. 90 ( 1,000900 Variable manufacturing overhead, $0. 70 ( 1,000700 Variable selling costs, 0. 05 ( $4,000 200 Total relevant costs 3,400 Increase in operating income$ 600 This calculation assumes that: a. The monthly fixed manufacturing overhead of $150,000 and $65,000 of monthly fixed marketing costs will be unchanged by acceptance of the 1,000 unit order. b.
The price charged and the volumes sold to other customers are not affected by the special order. Chapter 12 uses the phrase “one-time-only special order” to describe this special case. 2. The president’s reasoning is defective on at least two counts: a. The inclusion of irrelevant costs––assuming the monthly fixed manufacturing overhead of $150,000 will be unchanged; it is irrelevant to the decision. b. The exclusion of relevant costs––variable selling costs (5% of the selling price) are excluded. 3. Key issues are: . Will the existing customer base demand price reductions? If this 1,000-tape order is not independent of other sales, cutting the price from $5. 00 to $4. 00 can have a large negative effect on total revenues. b. Is the 1,000-tape order a one-time-only order, or is there the possibility of sales in subsequent months? The fact that the customer is not in Dill Company’s “normal marketing channels” does not necessarily mean it is a one-time-only order. Indeed, the sale could well open a new marketing channel.
Dill Company should be reluctant to consider only short-run variable costs for pricing long-run business. 12-17(20–30 min. )Relevant-cost approach to short-run pricing decisions. 1. Analysis of special order: Sales, 3,000 units ( $75$225,000 Variable costs: Direct materials, 3,000 units ( $35$105,000 Direct manufacturing labor, 3,000 units ( $1030,000 Variable manufacturing overhead, 3,000 units ( $618,000 Other variable costs, 3,000 units ( $515,000 Sales commission 8,000 Total variable costs 176,000 Contribution margin$ 49,000
Note that the variable costs, except for commissions, are affected by production volume, not sales dollars. If the special order is accepted, operating income would be $1,000,000 + $49,000 = $1,049,000. 2. Whether McMahon’s decision to quote full price is correct depends on many factors. He is incorrect if the capacity would otherwise be idle and if his objective is to increase operating income in the short run. If the offer is rejected, San Carlos, in effect, is willing to invest $49,000 in immediate gains forgone (an opportunity cost) to preserve the long-run selling-price structure.
McMahon is correct if he thinks future competition or future price concessions to customers will hurt San Carlos’s operating income by more than $49,000. There is also the possibility that Abrams could become a long-term customer. In this case, is a price that covers only short-run variable costs adequate? Would Holtz be willing to accept a $8,000 sales commission (as distinguished from her regular $33,750 = 15% ( $225,000) for every Abrams order of this size if Abrams becomes a long-term customer? 12-18(15-20 min. Short-run pricing, capacity constraints. 1. Per kilogram of hard cheese: |Milk (8 liters [pic] $2. 00 per liter) |$16 | |Direct manufacturing labor |5 | |Variable manufacturing overhead |4 | |Fixed manufacturing cost allocated | 6 | |Total manufacturing cost |$31 | | | |
If Colorado Mountains Dairy can get all the Holstein milk it needs, and has sufficient production capacity, then the minimum price per kilo it should charge for the hard cheese is the variable cost per kilo = $16 + $5 + $4 = $25 per kilo. 2. If milk is in short supply, then each kilo of hard cheese displaces 2 kilos of soft cheese (8 liters of milk per kilo of hard cheese versus 4 liters of milk per kilo of soft cheese). Then, for the hard cheese, the minimum price Colorado Mountains should charge is the variable cost per kilo of hard cheese plus the contribution margin from 2 kilos of soft cheese, or, 25 + (2 [pic] $10 per kilo) = $45 per kilo That is, if milk is in short supply, Colorado Mountains should not agree to produce any hard cheese unless the buyer is willing to pay at least $45 per kilo. 12-19 (25–30 min. ) Value-added, nonvalue-added costs. 1. |Category |Examples | | |Value-added costs |a. Materials and labor for regular repairs |$800,000 | |Nonvalue-added costs |b.
Rework costs |$ 75,000 | | |c. Expediting costs caused by work delays |60,000 | | |g. Breakdown maintenance of equipment |55,000 | | |Total |$190,000 | |Gray area |d.
Materials handling costs |$ 50,000 | | |e. Materials procurement and inspection costs |35,000 | | |f. Preventive maintenance of equipment |15,000 | | |Total |$100,000 |
Classifications of value-added, nonvalue-added, and gray area costs are often not clear-cut. Other classifications of some of the cost categories are also plausible. For example, some students may include materials handling, materials procurement, and inspection costs and preventive maintenance as value-added costs (costs that customers perceive as adding value and as being necessary for good repair service) rather than as in the gray area.
Preventive maintenance, for instance, might be regarded as value-added because it helps prevent nonvalue-adding breakdown maintenance. 2. Total costs in the gray area are $100,000. Of this, we assume 65%, or $65,000, are value-added and 35%, or $35,000, are nonvalue-added. Total value-added costs: $800,000 + $65,000 $ 865,000 Total nonvalue-added costs: $190,000 + $35,000 225,000 Total costs$1,090,000 Nonvalue-added costs are $225,000 ? $1,090,000 = 20. 64% of total costs.
Value-added costs are $865,000 ? $1,090,000 = 79. 36% of total costs. |3. |Effect on Costs Classified as | | |Value-Added |Nonvalue-Added |Gray | |Program | | |Area | |(a) Quality improvement programs to | | | | |• reduce rework costs by 75% (0. 5 ( $75,000) | |–$ 56,250 | | |• reduce expediting costs by 75% | | | | |(0. 75 ( $60,000) | |– 45,000 | | |• reduce materials and labor costs by 5% | | | | |(0. 5 ( $800,000) |–$ 40,000 |                | | |Total effect |–$ 40,000 |–$101,250 | | | | | | | |(b) Working with suppliers to | | | | |• reduce materials procurement and inspection costs by 20% (0. 0 ( $35,000) | | | | |• reduce materials handling costs by 25% | | |–$ 7,000 | |(0. 25 ( $50,000) | | | | |Total effect | | |– 12,500 | |Transferring 65% of gray area costs (0. 5 ( | | |– 19,500 | |$19,500 = $12,675) as value-added and 35% | | | | |(0. 5 ( $19,500 = $6,825) as nonvalue-added | | | | |Effect on value-added and nonvalue-added costs |–$ 12,675 |–$ 6,825 |+ 19,500 | | |–$ 12,675 |–$ 6,825 |$ 0 | |(c) Maintenance programs to | | | | |• increase preventive maintenance costs by 50% | | | | |(0. 0 ( $15,000) | | |+$ 7,500 | |• decrease breakdown maintenance costs by 40% | | | | |(0. 40 ( $55,000) | |–$ 22,000 |          | |Total effect | |– 22,000 |+ 7,500 | |Transferring 65% of gray area costs (0. 65 ( $7,500 = $4,875) as value-added and 35%| | | | |(0. 5 ( $7,500 = $2,625) as nonvalue-added | | | | |Effect on value-added and nonvalue-added costs |+$ 4,875 |+ 2,625 |– 7,500 | | |+$ 4,875 |–$  19,375 |$ 0 | |Total effect of all programs |–$ 47,800 |–$127,450 | | |Value-added and nonvalue-added costs calculated in requirement 2 | | | | |Expected value-added and nonvalue-added costs as a result of implementing these |865,000 |225,000 | | |programs | | | | | |$817,200 |$ 97,550 | | If these programs had been implemented, total costs would have decreased from $1,090,000 (requirement 2) to $817,200 + $97,550 = $914,750, and the percentage of nonvalue-added costs would decrease from 20. 64% (requirement 2) to $97,550 ? 914,750 = 10. 66%. These are significant improvements in Marino’s performance. 12-20(25(30 min. ) Target operating income, value-added costs, service company. 1. The classification of total costs in 2012 into value-added, nonvalue-added, or in the gray area in between follows: ValueGrayNonvalue-Total AddedAreaadded(4) = (1) (2) (3) (1)+(2)+(3)
Doing calculations and preparing drawings 77% ? $390,000$300,300$300,300 Checking calculations and drawings 3% ? $390,000$11,70011,700 Correcting errors found in drawings 8% ? $390,000$31,20031,200 Making changes in response to client requests 5% ? $390,000 19,50019,500 Correcting errors to meet government building code, 7% ? $390,000 27,300 27,300 Total professional labor costs 319,800 11,700 58,500 390,000 Administrative and support costs at 44% ($171,600 ? $390,000) of professional labor costs 140,712 5,148 25,740 171,600 Travel 15,000 — 15,000 Total$475,512$16,848$84,240$576,600
Doing calculations and responding to client requests for changes are value-added costs because customers perceive these costs as necessary for the service of preparing architectural drawings. Costs incurred on correcting errors in drawings and making changes because they were inconsistent with building codes are nonvalue-added costs. Customers do not perceive these costs as necessary and would be unwilling to pay for them. Calvert should seek to eliminate these costs by making sure that all associates are well-informed regarding building code requirements and by training associates to improve the quality of their drawings. Checking calculations and drawings is in the gray area (some, but not all, checking may be needed). There is room for disagreement on these classifications.
For example, checking calculations may be regarded as value added. 2. Reduction in professional labor-hours by a. Correcting errors in drawings (8% ? 7,500)600 hours b. Correcting errors to conform to building code (7% ? 7,500) 525 hours Total 1,125 hours Cost savings in professional labor costs (1,125 hours ? $52)$ 58,500 Cost savings in variable administrative and support costs (44% ? $58,500) 25,740 Total cost savings$ 84,240 Current operating income in 2012$124,650 Add cost savings from eliminating errors 84,240 Operating income in 2012 if errors eliminated$208,890 3. Currently 85% ? 7,500 hours = 6,375 hours are billed to clients generating revenues of $701,250.
The remaining 15% of professional labor-hours (15% ? 7,500 = 1,125 hours) is lost in making corrections. Calvert bills clients at the rate of $701,250 ? 6,375 = $110 per professional labor-hour. If the 1,125 professional labor-hours currently not being billed to clients were billed to clients, Calvert’s revenues would increase by 1,125 hours ? $110 = $123,750 from $701,250 to $825,000 ($701,250 + $123,750). Costs remain unchanged Professional labor costs$390,000 Administrative and support (44% ? $390,000) 171,600 Travel 15,000 Total costs$576,600 Calvert’s operating income would be Revenues$825,000 Total costs 576,600 Operating income$248,400 12-21(25–30 min. Target prices, target costs, activity-based costing. 1. Snappy’s operating income in 2011 is as follows: | |Total for | | | |250,000 Tiles |Per Unit | | |(1) |(2) = (1) ? 250,000 | |Revenues ($4 ( 250,000) |$1,000,000 |$4. 00 | |Purchase cost of tiles ($3 ( 250,000) |750,000 |3. 0 | |Ordering costs ($50 ( 500) |25,000 |0. 10 | |Receiving and storage ($30 ( 4,000) |120,000 |0. 48 | |Shipping ($40 ( 1,500) |60,000 |0. 24 | |Total costs |955,000 |3. 82 | |Operating income |$ 45,000 |$0. 18 | 2.
Price to retailers in 2012 is 95% of 2011 price = 0. 95 ( $4 = $3. 80; cost per tile in 2012 is 96% of 2011 cost = 0. 96 ( $3 = $2. 88. Snappy’s operating income in 2012 is as follows: | |Total for | | | |250,000 Tiles |Per Unit | | |(1) |(2) = (1) ? 250,000 | |Revenues ($3. 80 ( 250,000) |$950,000 |$3. 0 | |Purchase cost of tiles ($2. 88 ( 250,000) |720,000 |2. 88 | |Ordering costs ($50 ( 500) |25,000 |0. 10 | |Receiving and storage ($30 ( 4,000) |120,000 |0. 48 | |Shipping ($40 ( 1,500) |60,000 |0. 24 | |Total costs |925,000 |3. 0 | |Operating income |$ 25,000 |$0. 10 | 3. Snappy’s operating income in 2012, if it makes changes in ordering and material handling, will be as follows: | |Total for | | | |250,000 Tiles |Per Unit | | |(1) |(2) = (1) ? 50,000 | |Revenues ($3. 80 ( 250,000) |$950,000 |$3. 80 | |Purchase cost of tiles ($2. 88 ( 250,000) |720,000 |2. 88 | |Ordering costs ($25 ( 200) |5,000 |0. 02 | |Receiving and storage ($28 ( 3,125) |87,500 |0. 35 | |Shipping ($40 ( 1,500) |60,000 |0. 4 | |Total costs |872,500 |3. 49 | |Operating income |$ 77,500 |$0. 31 | Through better cost management, Snappy will be able to achieve its target operating income of $0. 30 per tile despite the fact that its revenue per tile has decreased by $0. 20 ($4. 00 – $3. 80), while its purchase cost per tile has decreased by only $0. 12 ($3. 00 – $2. 88). 12-22 (20 min. ) Target costs, effect of product-design changes on product costs. 1. and 2.
Manufacturing costs of HJ6 in 2010 and 2011 are as follows: 2010 2011 Per UnitPer Unit Total (2) = Total (4) = (1)(1) ? 3,500 (3)(3) ? 4,000 Direct materials, $1,200 ? 3,500; $1,100 ? 4,000$4,200,000$1,200$4,400,000$1,100 Batch-level costs, $8,000 ? 70; $7,500 ? 80 560,000 160 600,000 150 Manuf. operations costs, $55 ? 21,000; $50 ? 22,000 1,155,000 330 1,100,000 275 Engineering change costs, $12,000 ? 14; $10,000 ? 10 168,000 48 100,000 25 Total$6,083,000$1,738$6,200,000$1,550 3. [pic]= [pic] ? 90% = $1,738 ? 0. 90 = $1,564. 20 Actual manufacturing cost per unit of HJ6 in 2011 was $1,550.
Hence, Medical Instruments did achieve its target manufacturing cost per unit of $1,564. 20 4. To reduce the manufacturing cost per unit in 2011, Medical Instruments reduced the cost per unit in each of the four cost categories—direct materials costs, batch-level costs, manufacturing operations costs, and engineering change costs. It also reduced machine-hours and number of engineering changes made—the quantities of the cost drivers. In 2010, Medical Instruments used 6 machine-hours per unit of HJ6 (21,000 machine-hours (3,500 units). In 2011, Medical Instruments used 5. 5 machine-hours per unit of HJ6 (22,000 machine-hours ( 4,000 units). Medical Instruments reduced engineering changes from 14 in 2010 to 10 in 2011.
Medical Instruments achieved these gains through value engineering activities that retained only those product features that customers wanted while eliminating nonvalue-added activities and costs. 12-23(20 min. )Cost-plus target return on investment pricing. 1. Target operating income = target return on investment ( invested capital Target operating income (25% of $900,000)$225,000 Total fixed costs 375,000 Target contribution margin$600,000 Target contribution per room-night, ($600,000 ? 15,000) $40 Add variable costs per room-night 5 Price to be charged per room-night $45 Proof Total room revenues ($45 ( 15,000 room-nights)$675,000 Total costs: Variable costs ($5 ( 15,000)$ 75,000 Fixed costs 375,000
Total costs 450,000 Operating income$225,000 The full cost of a room = variable cost per room + fixed cost per room The full cost of a room = $5 + ($375,000 ? 15,000) = $5 + $25 = $30 Markup per room = Rental price per room – Full cost of a room = $45 – $30 = $15 Markup percentage as a fraction of full cost = $15 ? $30 = 50% 2. If price is reduced by 10%, the number of rooms Beck could rent would increase by 10%. The new price per room would be 90% of $45 $ 40. 50 The number of rooms Beck expects to rent is 110% of 15,000 16,500 The contribution margin per room would be $40. 50 – $5$ 35. 50 Contribution margin ($35. 50 ( 16,500)$585,750
Because the contribution margin of $585,750 at the reduced price of $40. 50 is less than the contribution margin of $600,000 at a price of $45, Blodgett should not reduce the price of the rooms. Note that the fixed costs of $375,000 will be the same under the $45 and the $40. 50 price alternatives and hence, are irrelevant to the analysis. 12-24(20(25 min. )Cost-plus, target pricing, working backwards. 1. Investment$8,400,000 Return on investment18% Operating income (18% ( $8,400,000)$1,512,000 Operating income per unit of XR500 ($1,512,000 ( 1,500)$1,008 Full cost per unit of XR500 (1,008 ? 0. 09)$11,200 Selling price (($11,200 + $1,008))$12,208 Markup percentage on variable cost ($1,008 ( $8,450)11. 93%
Total fixed costs = (Full cost per unit – Variable cost per unit) ( Units sold = ($11,200 – $8,450) ( 1,500 units = $4,125,000 2. Contribution margin per unit = $12,208 – $8,450 = $3,758 Increase in sales = $10% ( 1,500 units = 150 units Increase in contribution margin = $3,758 ( 150 units =$563,700 Less: Advertising costs 500,000 Increase in operating income$ 63,700 Road Warrior should spend $500,000 in advertising because it increases operating income by $63,700. 3. |Revenues ($12,208 ? 1,400 units) |$17,091,200 | |Target full cost at 9% markup ($17,091,200 ? 1. 9) |$15,680,000 | |Less: Target total fixed costs ($4,125,000 – $125,000) | 4,000,000 | |Target total variable costs |$11,680,000 | |Divided by number of units | ? 1,400 units | |Target variable cost per unit |$ 8,342. 86 | 12-25(20 min. ) Life-cycle product costing. 1. [pic]
Contribution margin per unit = Selling price – Variable cost per unit = $50 – $25 = $25 |Total fixed costs over |= |Design fixed costs |+ |Production fixed |+ |Marketing and distribution | |life of robot | | | |costs | |fixed costs | = $650,000 + $3,560,000 + $2,225,000 = $6,435,000 BEP in units = [pic] 2a. Option A: |Revenues ($50 [pic] 500,000 units) |$25,000,000 | |Variable costs ($25 [pic] 500,000 units) |12,500,000 | |Fixed costs | 6,435,000 | |Operating income |$ 6,065,000 | 2b. Option B: Revenues | | | Year 2 ($70 [pic] 100,000 units) |$ 7,000,000 | | Years 3 & 4 ($40[pic]600,000 units) | 24,000,000 | | Total revenues |31,000,000 | |Variable costs ($25 [pic] 700,000 units) |17,500,000 | |Fixed costs | 6,435,000 | |Operating income |$ 7,065,000 | Over the product’s life-cycle, Option B results in an overall higher operating income of $1,000,000 ($7,065,000 – $6,065,000). 12-26(30 min. )Relevant-cost approach to pricing decisions. |1. Revenues (1,000 crates at $117 per crate) | |$117,000 | | |Variable costs: | | | | | Manufacturing |$35,000 | | | | Marketing | 17,000 | | | | Total variable costs | | 52,000 | | |Contribution margin | |65,000 | | |Fixed costs: | | | | | Manufacturing |$30,000 | | | | Marketing | 13,000 | | | | Total fixed costs | | 43,000 | | |Operating income | |$ 22,000 | Normal markup percentage: $65,000 ? $52,000 = 125% of total variable costs. 2. Only the manufacturing-cost category is relevant to considering this special order; no additional marketing costs will be incurred. Variable manufacturing cost per crate = $35,000 ? 1,000 crates = $35 per crate.
The relevant manufacturing costs for the 200-crate special order are: Variable manufacturing cost per unit $35 ( 200 crates$ 7,000 Special packaging 3,000 Relevant manufacturing costs$10,000 Any price above $50 per crate ($10,000 ? 200) will make a positive contribution to operating income. Therefore, based on financial considerations, Stardom should accept the 200-crate special order at $55 per crate that will generate revenues of $11,000 ($55 ( 200) and relevant (incremental) costs of $10,000. The reasoning based on a comparison of $55 per crate price with the $65 per crate absorption cost ignores monthly cost-volume-profit relationships.
The $65 per crate absorption cost includes a $30 per crate cost component that is irrelevant to the special order. The relevant range for the fixed manufacturing costs is from 500 to 2,000 crates per month; the special order will increase production from 1,000 to 1,200 crates per month. Furthermore, the special order requires no incremental marketing costs. 3. If the new customer is likely to remain in business, Burst should consider whether a strictly short-run focus is appropriate. For example, what is the likelihood of demand from other customers increasing over time? If Burst accepts the 200-crate special offer for more than one month, it may preclude accepting other customers at prices exceeding $55 per crate.
Moreover, the existing customers may learn about Burst’s willingness to set a price based on variable cost plus a small contribution margin. The longer the time frame over which Burst keeps selling 200 crates of canned peaches at $55 a crate, the more likely it is that existing customers will approach Burst for their own special price reductions. If the new customer wants the contract to extend over a longer time period, Burst should negotiate a higher price. 12-27(25–30 min. )Considerations other than cost in pricing decisions. 1. |Guest nights on weeknights: | | |18 weeknights ? 100 rooms ? 0% = 1,620 | | |Guest nights on weekend nights: | | |12 weekend nights ? 100 rooms ? 20% = 240 | | |Total guest nights in April = 1,620 + 240 = 1,860 | | |Breakfasts served: | | |1,620 weeknight guest nights ? 1. 0 = 1,620 | | | 240 weekend guest nights ? 2. = 600 | | |Total breakfasts served in April = 1,620 + 600 = 2,220 | | |Total costs for April: | | |Depreciation |$ 20,000 | |Administrative costs |35,000 | |Fixed housekeeping and supplies |12,000 | |Variable housekeeping and supplies (1,860 ? $25) |46,500 | |Fixed breakfast costs |5,000 | |Variable breakfast costs (2,220 ? 5) | 11,100 | |Total costs for April |$129,600 | |Cost per guest night ($129,600 ? 1,860) |$69. 68 | |Revenue for April ($68 ? 1,860) |$126,480 | |Total costs for April | 129,600 | |Operating income/(loss) |$ (3,120) | 2. |New weeknight guest nights | | |18 weeknights ? 100 rooms ? 5% = 1,530 | | |New weekend guest nights | | |12 weeknights ? 100 rooms ? 50% = 600 | | |Total guest nights in April = 1,530 + 600 = 2,130 | | |Breakfasts served: | | |1,530 weeknight guest nights ? 1. 0 = 1,530 | | | 600 weekend guest nights ? 2. = 1,500 | | |Total breakfasts served in April = 1,530 + 1,500 = 3,030 | | |Total costs for April: | | |Depreciation |$20,000 | |Administrative costs |35,000 | |Fixed housekeeping and supplies |12,000 | |Variable housekeeping and supplies (2,130 ? $25) |53,250 | |Fixed breakfast costs |5,000 | |Variable breakfast costs (3,030 ? $5) | 15,150 | |Total costs |$140,400 | |Revenue [(1,530 ? $80) + (600 ? 50)] |$152,400 | |Total costs for April | 140,400 | |Operating income |$ 12,000 | Yes, this pricing arrangement would increase operating income by $15,120 from an operating loss of $3,120 to an operating income of $12,000 ($12,000 + $3,120 = $15,120). 3. The weeknight guests are business travelers who have to stay at the hotel on weeknights to conduct business for their organizations. They are probably not paying personally for their hotel stays, and they are more interested in the hotel’s location in the business park than the price of the stay, as long as it is reasonable. The demand of business travelers is inelastic.
In contrast, the weekend guests are families who are staying at the hotel for pleasure and are paying for the hotel from their personal incomes. They are willing to consider other hotel options or even not travel at all if the price is high and unaffordable. The demand of pleasure travelers is elastic. Because of the differences in preferences of the weeknight and weekend guests, Executive Suites can price discriminate between these guests by charging $30 more on weeknights than on weekends and still have weeknight travelers stay at the hotel. 4. Executive Suites would need to charge a minimum of $35 per night for the last-minute rooms, an amount equal to the variable cost per room. Variable cost per room night = $25 per room night + $5 ? breakfasts = $35. Any price above $35 would increase Executive Suites operating income. 12-28 (25 min. ) Cost-plus, target pricing, working backward. 1. In the following table, work backwards from operating income to calculate the selling price |Selling price |$ 10. 14 (plug) | |Less: Variable cost per unit | 3. 75 | |Unit contribution margin |$ 6. 39 | |Number of units produced and sold | ? 00,000 units | |Contribution margin |$3,195,000 | |Less: Fixed costs | 3,000,000 | |Operating income |$ 195,000 | a)Total sales revenue = $10. 14 [pic] 500,000 units = $5,070,000 b)Selling price = $10. 14 (from above) Alternatively, |Operating income |$ 195,000 | |Add fixed costs | 3,000,000 | |Contribution margin |3,195,000 | |Add variable costs ($3. 75 ? 500,000 units) | 1,875,000 | |Sales revenue |$5,070,000 | [pic] )Rate of return on investment = [pic] d)Markup % on full cost Total cost = ($3. 75 [pic] 500,000 units) + $3,000,000 = $4,875,000 Unit cost = [pic] Markup % = [pic] Or [pic] |2. |New fixed costs |=$3,000,000 – $200,000 = $2,800,000 | | |New variable costs |= $3. 75 – $0. 60 = $3. 15 | | |New total costs |= ($3. 15 ? 500,000 units) + $2,800,000 = $4,375,000 | | |New total sales (5% markup) |= $4,375,000 [pic] 1. 4 = $4,550,000 | | |New selling price |= $4,550,000 ? 500,000 units = $9. 10 | | |Alternatively, | | | |New unit cost |= $4,375,000 ? 500,000 units = $8. 75 | | |New selling price |= $8. 75 [pic] 1. 04 = $9. 10 | |3. |New units sold = 500,000 units ? 90% = $450,000 units | Budgeted Operating Income | |for the Year Ending December 31, 20xx | |Revenues ($9. 10 [pic] 450,000 units) |$4,095,000 | |Variable costs ($3. 15 [pic] 450,000 units) | 1,417,500 | |Contribution margin |2,677,500 | |Fixed costs | 2,800,000 | |Operating income (loss) |$ (122,500) | 12-29(40–45 min. ) Target prices, target costs, value engineering, cost incurrence, locked-in cost, activity-based costing. 1. |Old CE100 | |New CE100 | | | |Cost Change | | |Direct materials costs |$182,000 |$2. 20 [pic] 7,000 = $15,400 less |$166,600 | |Direct manufacturing labor costs |28,000 |$0. 50 [pic] 7,000 = $3,500 less |24,500 | |Machining costs |31,500 |Unchanged because capacity same |31,500 | |Testing costs |35,000 |(20% [pic] 2. 5 [pic] 7,000) ? 2 = $7,000 |28,000 | |Rework costs |14,000 |(See Note 1) |5,600 | |Ordering costs |3,360 |(See Note 2) |2,100 | |Engineering costs |21,140 |Unchanged because capacity same |21,140 | |Total manufacturing costs |$315,000 | |$279,440 | Note 1: 10% of old CE100s are reworked. That is, 700 (10% of 7,000) CE100s made are reworked. Rework costs = $20 per unit reworked ( 700 = $14,000. If rework falls to 4% of New CE100s manufactured, 280 (4% of 7,000) New CE100s manufactured will require rework. Rework costs = $20 per unit ( 280 = $5,600. Note 2 : Ordering costs for New CE100 = 2 orders/month ( 50 components ( $21/order = $2,100
Unit manufacturing costs of New CE100 = $279,440 ? 7,000 = $39. 92 2. Total manufacturing cost reductions based on new design= $315,000 – $279,440 = $35,560 Reduction in unit manufacturing costs based on new design= $35,560 ? 7,000 = $5. 08 per unit. The reduction in unit manufacturing costs based on the new design can also be calculated as Unit cost of old design, $45 ($315,000 ? 7,000 units) – Unit cost of new design, $39. 92 = $5. 08 Therefore, the target cost reduction of $6 per unit is not achieved by the redesign. 3. Changes in design have a considerably larger impact on costs per unit relative to improvements in manufacturing efficiency ($5. 08 versus $1. 50).
One explanation is that many costs are locked in once the design of the radio-cassette is completed. Improvements in manufacturing efficiency cannot reduce many of these costs. Design choices can influence many direct and overhead cost categories, for example, by reducing direct materials requirements, by reducing defects requiring rework, and by designing in fewer components that translate into fewer orders placed and lower ordering costs. 12-30(25 min. )Cost-plus, target return on investment pricing. 1. Target operating income = Return on capital in dollars = $13,000,000[pic]10% = $1,300,000 2. |Revenues* |$6,000,000 | |Variable costs [($3. 50 + $1. 0)[pic]500,000 cases | 2,500,000 | |Contribution margin |3,500,000 | |Fixed costs ($1,000,000 + $700,000 + $500,000) | 2,200,000 | |Operating income (from requirement 1) |$1,300,000 | * solve backwards for revenues Selling price = [pic]$12 per case. Markup % on full cost Full cost = $2,500,000 + $2,200,000 = $4,700,000 Unit cost = $4,700,000 ? 500,000 cases = $9. 40 per case Markup % on full cost = [pic]27. 66% 3. Budgeted Operating Income | |For the year ending December 31, 20xx | |Revenues ($14 [pic] 475,000 cases*) |$6,650,000 | |Variable costs ($5 [pic] 475,000 cases) | 2,375,000 | |Contribution margin |4,275,000 | |Fixed costs | 2,200,000 | |Operating income |$2,075,000 | *New units = 500,000 cases[pic]95% = 475,000 cases
Return on investment = [pic]15. 96% Yes, increasing the selling price is a good idea because operating income increases without increasing invested capital, which results in a higher return on investment. The new return on investment exceeds the 10% target return on investment. 12-31(20 min. )Cost-plus, time and materials, ethics. 1. As shown in the table below, Garrison will tell Briggs that she will have to pay $460 to get the air conditioning system repaired and $440 to get it replaced. |COST |Labor |Materials |Total Cost | |Repair option (5 hrs. [pic] $30 per hr. $100) |$150 |$100 |$250 | |Replace option (2 hrs. [pic] $30 per hr. ; $200) | 60 | 200 | 260 | |  | | |  | |PRICE (100% markup on labor cost; 60% markup on materials) |Labor |Materials |Total Price | |Repair option ($150 [pic] 2; $100 [pic] 1. 6) |$300 |$160 |$460 | |Replace option ($60 [pic] 2; $200 [pic] 1. 6) | 120 | 320 | 440 | 2.
If the repair and replace options are equally effective, Briggs will choose to get the air conditioning system replaced for $440 (rather than spend $460 on repairing it). 3. R&C Mechanical will earn a greater contribution toward overhead in the repair option ($210 = $460 – $250) than in the replace option ($180 = $440 – $260). Therefore, Garrison will recommend the repair option to Briggs which is not the one she would prefer. Recognizing this conflict, Garrison may even present only the repair option to Ashley Briggs. Of course, he runs the risk of Briggs walking away and thinking of other options (at which point, he could present the replace option as a compromise). The problem is hat Garrison has superior information about the repairs needed but his incentives may cause him to not reveal his information and instead use it to his advantage. It is only the seller’s desire to build a reputation, to have a long-term relationship with the customer, and to have the customer recommend the seller to other potential buyers of the service that encourages an honest discussion of the options. The ethical course of action would be to honestly present both options to Briggs and have her choose. To have their employees act ethically, organizations do not reward employees on the basis of the profits earned on various jobs. They also develop codes of conduct and core values and beliefs that specify appropriate and inappropriate behaviors. 12-32(25 min. )Cost-plus and market-based pricing. 1.
California Temps’ full cost per hour of supplying contract labor is Variable costs$13 Fixed costs ($168,000 ? 84,000 hours) 2 Full cost per hour$15 Price per hour at full cost plus 20% = $15 ( 1. 20 = $18 per hour. 2. Contribution margins for different prices and demand realizations are as follows: | | |Contribution Margin per | | | | |Variable Cost per Hour |Hour |Demand in Hours |Total Contribution | |Price per Hour |(2) |(3) = (1) – (2) |(4) |(5) = (3) ? 4) | |(1) | | | | | |$16 |$13 |$3 |124,000 |$372,000 | |17 |13 |4 |104,000 |416,000 | |18 |13 |5 |84,000 |420,000 | |19 |13 |6 |74,000 |444,000 | |20 |13 |7 |61,000 |427,000 | Fixed costs will remain the same regardless of the demand realizations.
Fixed costs are, therefore, irrelevant since they do not differ among the alternatives. The table above indicates that California Temps can maximize contribution margin ($444,000) and operating income by charging a price of $19 per hour. 3. The cost-plus approach to pricing in requirement 1 does not explicitly consider the effect of prices on demand. The approach in requirement 2 models the interaction between price and demand and determines the optimal level of profitability using concepts of relevant costs. The two different approaches lead to two different prices in requirements 1 and 2. As the chapter describes, pricing decisions should consider both demand or market considerations and supply or cost factors.
The approach in requirement 2 is the more balanced approach. In most cases, of course, managers use the cost-plus method of requirement 1 as only a starting point. They then modify the cost-plus price on the basis of market considerations—anticipated customer reaction to alternative price levels and the prices charged by competitors for similar products. 12-33Cost-plus and market-based pricing. 1. Single rate = [pic] $11. 91 per test-hour (TH) Hourly billing rate for HTT and ACT = $11. 91[pic]1. 45 = $17. 27 2. Labor and supervision = [pic]= $4. 64 per test-hour Setup and facility costs = [pic]= $503. 275 per setup-hour Utilities = [pic]= $36. 80 per machine-hour (MH) 3. |HTT |ACT |Total | |Labor and supervision |$295,104 |$196,736 |$ 491,840 | |($4. 64? 63, 600; 42,400 test-hours)1 | | | | |Setup and facility cost |100,655 |301,965 |402,620 | |($503. 275? 200; 600 setup-hours)2 | | | | |Utilities | 184,000 | | | |($36. 80? ,000; 5,000 machine-hours)3 | |184,000 |368,000 | |Total cost |$579,759 |$682,701 |$1,262,460 | |Number of testing hours (TH) |? 63,600 TH |? 42,400 TH | | |Cost per testing hour |$9. 12 per TH |$ 16. 10 per TH | | |Mark-up | ? 1. 45 | ? 1. 5 | | |Billing rate per testing hour |$ 13. 22 per TH |$ 23. 35 per TH | | | | | | | 1106,000 test-hours [pic] 60% = 63,600 test-hours; 106,000 test-hours[pic]40% = 42,400 test-hours 2800 setup-hours ? 25% = 200 setup-hours; 800 setup-hours ? 75% = 600 setup-hours 310,000 machine-hours ? 50% = 5,000 machine-hours; 10,000 machine-hours ? 50% = 5,000 machine-hours The billing rates based on the activity-based cost structure make more sense.
These billing rates reflect the ways the testing procedures consume the firm’s resources. 4. To stay competitive, Best Test needs to be more efficient in arctic testing. Roughly 44% of arctic testing’s total cost [pic] occurs in setups and facility costs. Perhaps the setup activity can be redesigned to achieve cost savings. Best Test should also look for savings in the labor and supervision cost per test-hour and the total number of test-hours used in arctic testing, as well as the utility cost per machine-hour and the total number of machine hours used in arctic testing. This may require redesigning the test, redesigning processes, and achieving efficiency and productivity improvements. 12-34(25–30 min. )Life-cycle costing. 1. Total Project Life-Cycle Costs | |Variable costs: | | | Metal extraction and processing ($100 per ton ? 50,000 tons) |$5,000,000 | |Fixed costs: | | | Metal extraction and processing ($4,000 ? 24 months) |96,000 | | Rent on temporary buildings ($2,000 ? 7 months) |54,000 | | Administration ($5,000 ? 27 months) |135,000 | | Clean-up ($30,000 ? 3 months) |90,000 | | Land restoration |475,000 | | Selling land | 150,000 | |Total life-cycle cost |$6,000,000 | 2. Projected Life Cycle Income Statement | |Revenue ($150 per ton [pic] 50,000 tons) |$7,500,000 | |Sale of land (plug after inputting other numbers) |500,000 | |Total life-cycle cost | (6,000,000) | |Life-cycle operating income ($40 per ton ? 50,000 tons) |$2,000,000 | Mark-up percentage on project life-cycle cost = [pic] [pic] = 33? % 3. |Revenue ($140 per ton [pic] 50,000 tons) |$7,000,000 | |Sale of land | 400,000 | |Total revenue |$7,400,000 | |Total life-cycle cost at mark-up of 33? % |$5,550,000 | |($7,400,000 ? 1. 33333) | | |New Life would need to reduce total life-cycle costs by |$ 450,000 | |($6,000,000 – $5,550,000) | | |Check | | |Revenue |$7,000,000 | |Sale of land |400,000 | |Total life-cycle cost |(5,550,000) | |Life-cycle operating income |$1,850,000 | |Mark-up percentage = [pic]= 33? | | 12-35 (30 min. ) Airline pricing, considerations other than cost in pricing. 1. If the fare is $500, a. Air Eagle would expect to have 200 business and 100 pleasure travelers. b. Variable costs per passenger would be $65. c. Contribution margin per passenger = $500 – $65 = $435. If the fare is $2,100, a. Air Eagle would expect to have 180 business and 20 pleasure travelers. b. Variable costs per passenger would be $175. c. Contribution margin per passenger = $2,100 – $175 = $1,925. Contribution margin from business travelers at prices of $500 and $2,100, respectively, follow: At a price of $500: $435 ? 200 passengers = $ 87,000
At a price of $2,100: $1,925 ? 180 passengers= $346,500 Air Eagle would maximize contribution margin and operating income by charging business travelers a fare of $2,100. Contribution margin from pleasure travelers at prices of $500 and $2,100, respectively, follow: At a price of $500: $435 ? 100 passengers= $43,500 At a price of $2,100: $1,925 ? 20 passengers= $38,500 Air Eagle would maximize contribution margin and operating income by charging pleasure travelers a fare of $500. Air Eagle would maximize contribution margin and operating income by a price differentiation strategy, where business travelers are charged $2,100 and pleasure travelers $500.
In deciding between the alternative prices, all other costs such as fuel costs, allocated annual lease costs, allocated ground services costs, and allocated flight crew salaries are irrelevant. Why? Because these costs will not change whatever price Air Eagle chooses t