Chapter 13 Relevant Costs for Decision Making Solutions to Questions 13-1A relevant cost is a cost that differs in total between the alternatives in a decision. 13-2An incremental cost (or benefit) is the change in cost (or benefit) that will result from some proposed action. An opportunity cost is the benefit that is lost or sacrificed when rejecting some course of action. A sunk cost is a cost that has already been incurred and that cannot be changed by any future decision.
13-3No. Variable costs are relevant costs only if they differ in total between the alternatives under consideration. 3-4No. Not all fixed costs are sunk—only those for which the cost has already been irrevocably incurred. A variable cost can be a sunk cost, if it has already been incurred. 13-5No. A variable cost is a cost that varies in total amount in direct proportion to changes in the level of activity. A differential cost is the difference in cost between two alternatives.
If the level of activity is the same for the two alternatives, a variable cost will not be affected and it will be irrelevant. 13-6No. Only those future costs that differ between the alternatives under consideration are relevant. 3-7Only those costs that would be avoided as a result of dropping the product line are relevant in the decision. Costs that will not differ regardless of whether the product line is retained or discontinued are irrelevant. 13-8Not necessarily. An apparent loss may be the result of allocated common costs or of sunk costs that cannot be avoided if the product line is dropped.
A product line should be discontinued only if the contribution margin that will be lost as a result of dropping the line is less than the fixed costs that would be avoided.
Even in that situation the product line may be retained if its presence promotes the sale of other products. 13-9Allocations of common fixed costs can make a product line (or other segment) appear to be unprofitable, whereas in fact it may be profitable. 13-10If a company decides to make a part internally rather than to buy it from an outside supplier, then a portion of the company’s facilities have to be used to make the part. The company’s opportunity cost is measured by the benefits that could be derived from the best alternative use of the facilities. 3-11Any resource that is required to make products and get them into the hands of customers could be a constraint. Some examples are machine time, direct labor time, floor space, raw materials, investment capital, supervisory time, and storage space. While not covered in the text, constraints can also be intangible and often take the form of a formal or informal policy that prevents the organization from furthering its goals. 13-12Assuming that fixed costs are not affected, profits are maximized when the total contribution margin is maximized.
A company can maximize its contribution margin by focusing on the products with the greatest amount of contribution margin per unit of the constrained resource. 13-13Joint products are two or more products that are produced from a common input. Joint costs are the costs that are incurred up to the split-off point. The split-off point is the point in the manufacturing process where joint products can be recognized as individual products. 13-14Joint costs should not be allocated among joint products.
If joint costs are allocated among the joint products, then managers may think they are avoidable costs of the end products. However, the joint costs will continue to be incurred as long as the process is run regardless of what is done with one of the end products. Thus, when making decisions about the end products, the joint costs are not avoidable and are irrelevant. 13-15As long as the incremental revenue from further processing exceeds the incremental costs of further processing, the product should be processed further. 3-16Most costs of a flight are either sunk costs, or costs that do not depend on the number of passengers on the flight. Depreciation of the aircraft, salaries of personnel on the ground and in the air, and fuel costs, for example, are the same whether the flight is full or almost empty. Therefore, adding more passengers at reduced fares at certain times of the week when seats would otherwise be empty does little to increase the total costs of making the flight, but can do much to increase the total contribution and total profit. Exercise 13-1 (15 minutes) | |Case 1 | |Case 2 | | |Item |Relevant |Not Relevant | |Relevant |Not Relevant | |a. |Sales revenue |X | | | |X | |b. |Direct materials |X | | |X | | |c. Direct labor |X | | | |X | |d. |Variable manufacturing overhead |X | | | |X | |e. |Depreciation— Model B100 machine | |X | | |X | |f. |Book value— Model B100 machine | |X | | |X | |g. Disposal value— Model B100 machine | |X | |X | | |h. |Market value—Model B300 machine (cost) |X | | |X | | |i. |Fixed manufacturing overhead | |X | | |X | |j. |Variable selling expense |X | | | |X | |k. Fixed selling expense |X | | | |X | |l. |General administrative overhead |X | | | |X | Exercise 13-2 (30 minutes) 1. No, production and sale of the racing bikes should not be discontinued. If the racing bikes were discontinued, then the net operating income for the company as a whole would decrease by $11,000 each quarter: Lost contribution margin | |$(27,000) | |Fixed costs that can be avoided: | | | |Advertising, traceable |$ 6,000 | | |Salary of the product line manager | 10,000 | 16,000 | |Decrease in net operating income for the company as a whole | |$(11,000) |
The depreciation of the special equipment is a sunk cost and is not relevant to the decision. The common costs are allocated and will continue regardless of whether or not the racing bikes are discontinued; thus, they are not relevant to the decision. Alternative Solution: |Current Total |Total If Racing Bikes|Difference: Net | | | |Are Dropped |Operating Income | | | | |Increase or (Decrease) | |Sales |$300,000 |$240,000 |$(60,000) | |Less variable expenses | 120,000 | 87,000 | 33,000 | |Contribution margin | 180,000 | 153,000 | (27,000) | |Less fixed expenses: | | | | |Advertising, traceable |30,000 |24,000 |6,000 | |Depreciation on special |23,000 |23,000 |0 | |equipment* | | | | |Salaries of product managers |35,000 |25,000 |10,000 | |Common allocated costs | 60,000 | 60,000 | 0 | |Total fixed expenses | 148,000 | 132,000 | 16,000 | |Net operating income |$ 32,000 |$ 21,000 |$ (11,000) | *Includes pro-rated loss on the special equipment if it is disposed of. Exercise 13-2 (continued) 2. The segmented report can be improved by eliminating the allocation of the common fixed expenses. Following the format introduced in Chapter 12 for a segmented income statement, a better report would be: | | |Total |Dirt Bikes |Mountain Bikes |Racing Bikes | | |Sales $300,000 |$90,000 |$150,000 |$60,000 | | |Less variable manufacturing and selling expenses | 120,000 | 27,000 | 60,000 | 33,000 | | |Contribution margin | 180,000 | 63,000 | 90,000 | 27,000 | | |Less traceable fixed expenses: | | | | | | |Advertising |30,000 |10,000 |14,000 |6,000 | | |Depreciation of special equipment |23,000 |6,000 |9,000 |8,000 | | |Salaries of the product line managers | 35,000 | 12,000 | 13,000 | 10,000 | | |Total traceable fixed | 88,000 | 28,000 | 36,000 | 24,000 | | |expenses | | | | | | |Product line segment margin |92,000 |$35,000 |$ 54,000 |$? 3,000 | | |Less common fixed expenses | 60,000 | | | | | |Net operating income |$? 32,000 | | | | Exercise 13-3 (30 minutes) | 1. |Per Unit Differential | |15,000 units | | | |Costs | | | | | |Make |Buy | |Make |Buy | | |Cost of purchasing | |$35 | | |$525,000 | | |Direct materials |$14 | | |$210,000 | | | |Direct labor |10 | | |150,000 | | | Variable manufacturing overhead |3 | | |45,000 | | | |Fixed manufacturing overhead, traceable1 |2 | | |30,000 | | | |Fixed manufacturing overhead, common | | | | | | | |Total costs |$29 |$35 | |$435,000 |$525,000 | | |Difference in favor of continuing to make the carburetors | |$6 | | | |$90,000 | | |1 |Only the supervisory salaries can be avoided if the carburetors are purchased. The remaining book value of the special | | |equipment is a sunk cost; hence, the $4 per unit depreciation expense is not relevant to this decision. Based on these data, | | |the company should reject the offer and should continue to produce the carburetors internally. | | 2. |Make |Buy | | |Cost of purchasing (part 1) | |$525,000 | | |Cost of making (part 1) |$435,000 | | | |Opportunity cost—segment margin foregone on a potential new product line | 150,000 | | | |Total cost |$585,000 |$525,000 | | |Difference in favor of purchasing from the outside supplier | |$60,000 | | Thus, the company should accept the offer and purchase the carburetors from the outside supplier. Exercise 13-4 (15 minutes) Only the incremental costs and benefits are relevant.
In particular, only the variable manufacturing overhead and the cost of the special tool are relevant overhead costs in this situation. The other manufacturing overhead costs are fixed and are not affected by the decision. | |Per Unit |Total | | | |for 20 | | | |Bracelets | |Incremental revenue |$169. 95 |$3,399. 0 | |Incremental costs: | | | |Variable costs: | | | |Direct materials |$ 84. 00 |1,680. 00 | |Direct labor |45. 00 |900. 00 | |Variable manufacturing overhead |4. 00 |80. 00 | |Special filigree | 2. 00 | 40. 00 | |Total variable cost |$135. 00 |2,700. 0 | |Fixed costs: | | | |Purchase of special tool | | 250. 00 | |Total incremental cost | | 2,950. 00 | |Incremental net operating income | |$ 449. 00 | Even though the price for the special order is below the company’s regular price for such an item, the special order would add to the company’s net operating income and should be accepted. This conclusion would not necessarily follow if the special order affected the regular selling price of bracelets or if it required the use of a constrained resource. Exercise 13-5 (30 minutes) | 1. | |A |B |C | | |(1) |Contribution margin per unit |$54 |$108 |$60 | | |(2) |Direct material cost per unit |$24 |$72 |$32 | | |(3) |Direct material cost per pound |$8 |$8 |$8 | | |(4) |Pounds of material required per unit (2) ? (3) |3 |9 |4 | | |(5) |Contribution margin per pound (1) ? 4) |$18 |$12 |$15 | 2. The company should concentrate its available material on product A: | |A |B |C | |Contribution margin per pound (above) |$ 18 |$ 12 |$ 15 | |Pounds of material available |? 5,000 |? 5,000 |? 5,000 | |Total contribution margin |$90,000 |$60,000 |$75,000 |
Although product A has the lowest contribution margin per unit and the second lowest contribution margin ratio, it is preferred over the other two products since it has the greatest amount of contribution margin per pound of material, and material is the company’s constrained resource. 3. The price Barlow Company would be willing to pay per pound for additional raw materials depends on how the materials would be used. If there are unfilled orders for all of the products, Barlow would presumably use the additional raw materials to make more of product A. Each pound of raw materials used in product A generates $18 of contribution margin over and above the usual cost of raw materials.
Therefore, Barlow should be willing to pay up to $26 per pound ($8 usual price plus $18 contribution margin per pound) for the additional raw material, but would of course prefer to pay far less. The upper limit of $26 per pound to manufacture more product A signals to managers how valuable additional raw materials are to the company. If all of the orders for product A have been filled, Barlow Company would then use additional raw materials to manufacture product C. The company should be willing to pay up to $23 per pound ($8 usual price plus $15 contribution margin per pound) for the additional raw materials to manufacture more product C, and up to $20 per pound ($8 usual price plus $12 contribution margin per pound) to manufacture more product B if all of the orders for product C have been filled as well. Exercise 13-6 (10 minutes) |A |B |C | |Selling price after further processing |$20 |$13 |$32 | |Selling price at the split-off point | 16 | 8 | 25 | |Incremental revenue per pound or gallon |$ 4 |$ 5 |$ 7 | |Total quarterly output in pounds or gallons |? 15,000 |? 20,000 |? 4,000 | |Total incremental revenue |$60,000 |$100,000 |$28,000 | |Total incremental processing costs | 63,000 | 80,000 | 36,000 | |Total incremental profit or loss |$(3,000) |$ 20,000 |$(8,000) | Therefore, only product B should be processed further. Exercise 13-7 (30 minutes) 1. The relevant costs of a hunting trip would be: |Travel expense (100 miles @ $0. 21 per mile) |$21 | | |Shotgun shells |20 | | |One bottle of whiskey | 15 | | |Total |$56 | This answer assumes that Bill would not be drinking the bottle of whiskey anyway. It also assumes that the resale values of the camper, pickup truck, and boat are not affected by taking one more hunting trip.
The money lost in the poker game is not relevant because Bill would have played poker even if he did not go hunting. He plays poker every weekend. The other costs are sunk at the point at which the decision is made to go on another hunting trip. 2. If Bill gets lucky and bags another two ducks, all of his costs are likely to be about the same as they were on his last trip. Therefore, it really doesn’t cost him anything to shoot the last two ducks—except possibly the costs for extra shotgun shells. The costs are really incurred in order to be able to hunt ducks and would be the same whether one, two, three, or a dozen ducks were actually shot.
All of the costs, with the possible exception of the costs of the shotgun shells, are basically fixed with respect to how many ducks are actually bagged during any one hunting trip. 3. In a decision of whether to give up hunting entirely, more of the costs listed by John are relevant. If Bill did not hunt, he would not need to pay for: gas, oil, and tires; shotgun shells; the hunting license; and the whiskey. In addition, he would be able to sell his camper, equipment, boat, and possibly pickup truck, the proceeds of which would be considered relevant in this decision. The original costs of these items are not relevant, but their resale values are relevant. Exercise 13-7 (continued) These three requirements illustrate the slippery nature of costs.
A cost that is relevant in one situation can be irrelevant in the next. None of the costs—except possibly the cost of the shotgun shells—are relevant when we compute the cost of bagging a particular duck; some of them are relevant when we compute the cost of a hunting trip; and more of them are relevant when we consider the possibility of giving up hunting. Exercise 13-8 (10 minutes) |Contribution margin lost if the Linen Department is dropped: | | |Lost from the Linen Department |$600,000 | |Lost from the Hardware Department (10% ? 2,100,000) | 210,000 | |Total lost contribution margin |810,000 | |Less fixed costs that can be avoided ($800,000 – $340,000) | 460,000 | |Decrease in profits for the company as a whole |$350,000 | Exercise 13-9 (15 minutes) The target production level is 40,000 starters per period, as shown by the relations between per-unit and total fixed costs. | | |“Cost” Per |Differential Costs | | | | |Unit |Make |Buy |Explanation | | |Direct materials |$3. 10 |$3. 0 | |Can be avoided by buying | | |Direct labor |2. 70 |2. 70 | |Can be avoided by buying | | |Variable manufacturing overhead |0. 60 |0. 60 | |Can be avoided by buying | | |Supervision |1. 50 |1. 50 | |Can be avoided by buying | | |Depreciation |1. 00 |— | |Sunk Cost | | |Rent |0. 0 |— | |Allocated Cost | | |Outside purchase price | | |$8. 40 | | | |Total cost |$9. 20 |$7. 90 |$8. 40 | | The company should make the starters, rather than continuing to buy from the outside supplier. Making the starters will result in a $0. 50 per starter cost savings, or a total savings of $20,000 per period: $0. 50 per starter ? 40,000 starters = $20,000 Exercise 13-10 (15 minutes) 1. Annual profits will be increased by $39,000: |Per Unit |15,000 Units | |Incremental sales |$14. 00 |$210,000 | |Incremental costs: | | | |Direct materials |5. 10 |76,500 | |Direct labor |3. 80 |57,000 | |Variable manufacturing overhead |1. 0 |15,000 | |Variable selling and administrative | 1. 50 | 22,500 | |Total incremental costs | 11. 40 | 171,000 | |Incremental profits |$? 2. 60 |$? 39,000 | The fixed costs are not relevant to the decision, since they will be incurred regardless of whether the special order is accepted or rejected. 2. The relevant cost is $1. 50 (the variable selling and administrative expenses). All other variable costs are sunk, since the units have already been produced.
The fixed costs would not be relevant, since they will not change in total as a consequence of the price charged for the left-over units. Exercise 13-11 (15 minutes) The company should accept orders first for C, second for A, and third for B. The computations are: | | |A |B |C | |(1) |Direct materials required per unit |$24 |$15 |$9 | |(2) |Cost per pound |$3 |$3 |$3 | |(3) |Pounds required per unit (1) ? 2) |8 |5 |3 | |(4) |Contribution margin per unit |$32 |$14 |$21 | |(5) |Contribution margin per pound of materials used (4) ? (3) |$4. 00 |$2. 80 |$7. 00 | Since C uses the least amount of material per unit of the three products, and since it is the most profitable of the three in terms of its use of materials, some students will immediately assume that this is an infallible relationship. That is, they will assume that the way to spot the most profitable product is to find the one using the least amount of the constrained resource.
The way to dispel this notion is to point out that product A uses more material (the constrained resource) than does product B, but yet it is preferred over product B. The key factor is not how much of a constrained resource a product uses, but rather how much contribution margin the product generates per unit of the constrained resource. Exercise 13-12 (10 minutes) |Sales value if processed further |$84,000 | |(7,000 units ? $12 per unit) | | |Sales value at the split-off point | 63,000 | |(7,000 units ? 9 per unit) | | |Incremental revenue |21,000 | |Less cost of processing further | 9,500 | |Net advantage of processing further |$11,500 | Exercise 13-13 (20 minutes) | 1. |Fixed cost per mile ($5,000* ? 50,000 miles) |$0. 10 | | |Variable cost per mile | 0. 7 | | |Average cost per mile |$0. 17 | | |* |Insurance |$1,600 | | | |Licenses |250 | | | |Taxes |150 | | | |Garage rent |1,200 | | | |Depreciation | 1,800 | | | |Total |$5,000 | This answer assumes the resale value of the truck does not decline because of the wear and tear that comes with use. 2.
The insurance, the licenses, and the variable costs (gasoline, oil, tires, and repairs) would all be relevant to the decision, since these costs are avoidable by not using the truck. (However, the owner of the garage might insist that the truck be insured and licensed if it is left in the garage. In that case, the insurance and licensing costs would not be relevant since they would be incurred regardless of the decision. ) The taxes would not be relevant, since they must be paid regardless of use; the garage rent would not be relevant, since it must be paid to park the truck; and the depreciation would not be relevant, since it is a sunk cost.
However, any decrease in the resale value of the truck due to its use would be relevant. 3. Only the variable costs of $0. 07 would be relevant, since they are the only costs that can be avoided by having the delivery done commercially. 4. In this case, only the fixed costs associated with the second truck would be relevant. The variable costs would not be relevant, since they would not differ between having one or two trucks. (Students are inclined to think that variable costs are always relevant in decision-making, and to think that fixed costs are always irrelevant. This requirement helps to dispel that notion. ) Exercise 13-14 (30 minutes) No, the bilge pump product line should not be discontinued. The computations are: Contribution margin lost if the line is dropped | |€(460,000) | |Fixed costs that can be avoided: | | | |Advertising |€270,000 | | |Salary of the product line manager |32,000 | | |Insurance on inventories | 8,000 | 310,000 | |Net disadvantage of dropping the line | |€(150,000) | The same solution can be obtained by preparing comparative income statements: | |Keep Product Line |Drop Product Line |Difference: Net | | | | |Operating Income | | | |Increase or (Decrease) | |Sales |€850,000 |€ 0 |€(850,000) | |Less variable expenses: | | | | |Variable manufacturing expenses |330,000 |0 |330,000 | |Sales commissions |42,000 |0 |42,000 | |Shipping | 18,000 | 0 | 18,000 | |Total variable expenses | 390,000 | 0 | 390,000 | |Contribution margin | 460,000 | 0 | (460,000) | |Less fixed expenses: | | | | |Advertising |270,000 |0 |270,000 | |Depreciation of equipment |80,000 |80,000 |0 | |General factory overhead |105,000 |105,000 |0 | |Salary of product line manager |32,000 |0 |32,000 | |Insurance on inventories |8,000 |0 |8,000 | |Purchasing department expenses | 45,000 | 45,000 | 0 | |Total fixed expenses | 540,000 | 230,000 | 310,000 | |Net operating loss |€ (80,000) |€(230,000) |€(150,000) | Exercise 13-15 (20 minutes) The costs that are relevant in a make-or-buy decision are those costs that can be avoided as a result of purchasing from the outside. The analysis for this exercise is: |Per Unit | |30,000 Units | | |Differential Costs | | | | |Make | |Buy | |Make | |Buy | |Cost of purchasing | | |$21. 00 | | | |$630,000 | |Cost of making: | | | | | | | | |Direct materials |$? 3. 60 | | | |$108,000 | | | |Direct labor |10. 00 | | | |300,000 | | | |Variable overhead |2. 0 | | | |72,000 | | | |Fixed overhead | 3. 00 |* | | | 90,000 | | | |Total cost |$19. 00 | |$21. 00 | |$570,000 | |$630,000 | |* |The remaining $6 of fixed overhead cost would not be relevant, since it will continue regardless of whether the company | | |makes or buys the parts. | The $80,000 rental value of the space being used to produce part S-6 represents an opportunity cost of continuing to produce the part internally. Thus, the completed analysis would be: |Make |Buy | |Total cost, as above |$570,000 |$630,000 | |Rental value of the space (opportunity cost) | 80,000 | | |Total cost, including opportunity cost |$650,000 |$630,000 | |Net advantage in favor of buying | |$20,000 | | Problem 13-16 (30 minutes) | 1. Contribution margin lost if the flight is | |$(12,950) | | |discontinued | | | | |Flight costs that can be avoided if the flight is discontinued: | | | | |Flight promotion |$ 750 | | | |Fuel for aircraft |5,800 | | | |Liability insurance (1/3 ? $4,200) |1,400 | | | |Salaries, flight assistants |1,500 | | | |Overnight costs for flight crew and assistants | 300 | 9,750 | | |Net decrease in profits if the flight is discontinued | |$? 3,200) | The following costs are not relevant to the decision: |Cost | |Reason | | | | | |Salaries, flight crew | |Fixed annual salaries, which will not change. | | | | | |Depreciation of aircraft | |Sunk cost. | | | | |Liability insurance (two-thirds) | |Two-thirds of the liability insurance is unaffected by this | | | |decision. | | | | | |Baggage loading and flight preparation | |This is an allocated cost that will continue even if the flight is | | | |discontinued. | Problem 13-16 (continued) Alternative Solution: |Keep the Flight |Drop the Flight |Difference: Net | | | | |Operating Income | | | | |Increase or (Decrease) | |Ticket revenue |$14,000 |$ 0 |$(14,000) | |Less variable expenses | 1,050 | 0 | 1,050 | |Contribution margin | 12,950 | 0 | (12,950) | |Less flight expenses: | | | | |Salaries, flight crew |1,800 |1,800 |0 | |Flight promotion |750 |0 |750 | |Depreciation of aircraft |1,550 |1,550 |0 | |Fuel for aircraft |5,800 0 |5,800 | |Liability insurance |4,200 |2,800 |1,400 | |Salaries, flight assistants |1,500 |0 |1,500 | |Baggage loading and flight preparation |1,700 |1,700 |0 | |Overnight costs for flight crew and | 300 | 0 | 300 | |assistants at destination | | | | |Total flight expenses | 17,600 | 7,850 | 9,750 | |Net operating loss |$ (4,650) |$ (7,850) |$ (3,200) | 2. The goal of increasing the seat occupancy could be obtained by eliminating flights with a lower-than-average seat occupancy. By eliminating these flights and keeping the flights with a higher average seat occupancy, the overall average seat occupancy for the company as a whole would be improved. This could reduce profits, however, in at least two ways.
First, the flights that are eliminated could have contribution margins that exceed their avoidable costs (such as in the case of flight 482 in part 1). If so, then eliminating these flights would reduce the company’s total contribution margin more than it would reduce total costs, and profits would decline. Second, these flights might be acting as “feeder” flights, bringing passengers to cities where connections to more profitable flights are made. Problem 13-17 (15 minutes) 1. | |Per 16-Ounce T-Bone | |Revenue from further processing: | | |Sales price of one filet mignon (6 ounces ? $4. 00 per pound ? 6 ounces per pound) |$1. 50 | |Sales price of one New York cut (8 ounces ? $2. 80 per pound ? 16 ounces per pound) | 1. 40 | |Total revenue from further processing |2. 90 | |Less sales revenue from one T-bone steak | 2. 25 | |Incremental revenue from further processing |0. 65 | |Less cost of further processing | 0. 5 | |Profit per pound from further processing |$0. 40 | 2. The T-bone steaks should be processed further into the filet mignon and the New York cut. This will yield $0. 40 per pound in added profit for the company. The $0. 45 “profit” per pound shown in the text is not relevant to the decision, since it contains allocated joint costs. The company will incur the joint costs regardless of whether the T-bone steaks are sold outright or processed further; thus, this cost should be ignored in the decision. Problem 13-18 (60 minutes) 1. The simplest approach to the solution is: Gross margin lost if the store is closed | | |$(316,800) | |Costs that can be avoided: | | | | |Sales salaries |$70,000 | | | |Direct advertising |51,000 | | | |Store rent |85,000 | | | |Delivery salaries |4,000 | | | |Store management salaries |9,000 | | | |($21,000 – $12,000) | | | | Salary of new manager |11,000 | | | |General office compensation |6,000 | | | |Insurance on inventories ($7,500 ? 2/3) |5,000 | | | |Utilities |31,000 | | | |Employment taxes | 15,000 |* | 287,000 | |Decrease in company profits if the North Store is closed | | |$ (29,800) | *Salaries avoided by closing the store: | | | Sales salaries |$70,000 | | Delivery salaries |4,000 | | Store management salaries |9,000 | | Salary of new manager |11,000 | | General office compensation | 6,000 | | Total avoided |100,000 | | Employment tax rate |?? 5% | | Employment taxes avoided |$15,000 | Problem 13-18 (continued) Alternative Solution: | |North Store Kept |North Store Closed |Difference: Net | | |Open | |Operating Income | | | | |Increase or (Decrease) | |Sales |$720,000 |$? 0 |$(720,000) | | |Less cost of goods sold 403,200 | 0 | 403,200 | | |Gross margin | 316,800 | 0 | (316,800) | | |Operating expenses: | | | | | |Selling expenses: | | | | | |Sales salaries |70,000 |0 |70,000 | | |Direct advertising |51,000 |0 |51,000 | | |General advertising |10,800 |10,800 |0 | | |Store rent |85,000 |0 |85,000 | | |Depreciation of store fixtures |4,600 |4,600 |0 | | |Delivery salaries |7,000 |3,000 |4,000 | | |Depreciation of delivery equipment | 3,000 | 3,000 | 0 | | |Total selling expenses | 231,400 | 21,400 | 210,000 | | |Administrative expenses: | | | | | |Store management salaries |21,000 |12,000 |9,000 | | |Salary of new manager |11,000 |0 |11,000 | | |General office compensation |12,000 |6,000 |6,000 | | |Insurance on fixtures and |7,500 |2,500 |5,000 | | |inventory | | | | | |Utilities |31,000 |0 |31,000 | | |Employment taxes |18,150 |3,150 |15,000 |* | General office—other | 18,000 | 18,000 | 0 | | |Total administrative expenses | 118,650 | 41,650 | 77,000 | | |Total operating expenses | 350,050 | 63,050 | 287,000 | | |Net operating income (loss) |$(33,250) |$(63,050) |$ (29,800) | | *See the computation on the prior page. Problem 13-18 (continued) 2. Based on the data in (1), the North Store should not be closed. If the store is closed, then the company’s overall net operating income will decrease by $29,800 per quarter.
If the store space cannot be subleased or the lease broken without penalty, a decision to close the store would cause an even greater decline in the company’s overall net income. If the $85,000 rent cannot be avoided and the North Store is closed, the company’s overall net operating income would be reduced by $114,800 per quarter ($29,800 + $85,000). 3. Under these circumstances, the North Store should be closed. The computations are as follows: |Gross margin lost if the North Store is closed (part 1) |$(316,800) | |Gross margin gained from the East Store: $720,000 ? 1/4 = $180,000; $180,000 ? 5%* = $81,000 | 81,000 | |Net operating loss in gross margin |(235,800) | |Less costs that can be avoided if the North Store is closed (part 1) | 287,000 | |Net advantage of closing the North Store |$? 51,200 | *The East Store’s gross margin percentage is: $486,000 ? $1,080,000 = 45% Problem 13-19 (60 minutes) 1. The $90,000 in fixed overhead costs charged to the new product is a common cost that will be the same whether the tubes are produced internally or purchased from the outside. Hence, they are not relevant. The variable manufacturing overhead per box of Chap-Off would be $0. 50, as shown below: Total manufacturing overhead cost per box of Chap-Off |$1. 40 | |Less fixed portion ($90,000 ? 100,000 boxes) | 0. 90 | |Variable overhead cost per box |$0. 50 | The total variable costs of producing one box of Chap-Off would be: |Direct materials |$3. 60 | |Direct labor |2. 00 | |Variable manufacturing overhead | 0. 0 | |Total variable cost per box |$6. 10 | If the tubes for the Chap-Off are purchased from the outside supplier, then the variable cost per box of Chap-Off would be: |Direct materials ($3. 60 ? 75%) |$2. 70 | |Direct labor ($2. 00 ? 90%) |1. 80 | |Variable manufacturing overhead ($0. 50 ? 90%) |0. 45 | |Cost of tube from outside | 1. 5 | |Total variable cost per box |$6. 30 | Therefore, the company should reject the outside supplier’s offer. A savings of $0. 20 per box of Chap-Off will be realized by producing the tubes internally. Problem 13-19 (continued) Another approach to the solution would be: |Cost avoided by purchasing the tubes: | | |Direct materials ($3. 60 ? 25%) |$0. 90 | |Direct labor ($2. 00 ? 10%) |0. 20 | |Variable manufacturing overhead ($0. 50 ? 0%) | 0. 05 | |Total costs avoided |$1. 15 |* | | | | |Cost of purchasing the tubes from the outside |$1. 35 | | | | |Cost savings per box by making internally |$0. 20 | |* |This $1. 5 is the cost of making one box of tubes internally, since it represents the overall cost savings that | | |will be realized per box of Chap-Off by purchasing the tubes from the outside. | 2. The maximum purchase price would be $1. 15 per box. The company would not be willing to pay more than this amount, since the $1. 15 represents the cost of producing one box of tubes internally, as shown in Part 1. To make purchasing the tubes attractive, however, the purchase price should be less than $1. 15 per box. Problem 13-19 (continued) 3. At a volume of 120,000 boxes, the company should buy the tubes. The computations are: |Cost of making 120,000 boxes: | | |120,000 boxes ? $1. 5 per box |$138,000 | |Rental cost of equipment | 40,000 | |Total cost |$178,000 | | | | |Cost of buying 120,000 boxes: | | |120,000 boxes ? $1. 35 per box |$162,000 | | | | |Or, on a total cost basis, the computations are: | | | | | |Cost of making 120,000 boxes: | | |120,000 boxes ? 6. 10 per box |$732,000 | |Rental cost of equipment | 40,000 | |Total cost |$772,000 | | | | |Cost of buying 120,000 boxes: | | |120,000 boxes ? $6. 30 per box |$756,000 |
Thus, buying the boxes will save the company $16,000 per year. Problem 13-19 (continued) 4. Under these circumstances, the company should make the 100,000 boxes of tubes and purchase the remaining 20,000 boxes from the outside supplier. The costs would: |Cost of making: 100,000 boxes ? $1. 15 per box |$115,000 | |Cost of buying: 20,000 boxes ? $1. 35 per box | 27,000 | |Total cost |$142,000 | Or, on a total cost basis, the computation would be: Cost of making: 100,000 boxes ? $6. 10 per box |$610,000 | |Cost of buying: 20,000 boxes ? $6. 30 per box | 126,000 | |Total cost |$736,000 | Since the amount of cost under this alternative is $20,000 less than the best alternative in Part 3, the company should make as many tubes as possible with the current equipment and buy the remaining tubes from the outside supplier. 5. Management should take into account at least the following additional factors: )The ability of the supplier to meet required delivery schedules. b)The quality of the tubes purchased from the supplier. c)Alternative uses of the capacity that would be used to make the tubes. d)The ability of the supplier to supply tubes if volume increases in future years. e)The problem of alternative sources of supply if the supplier proves undependable. Problem 13-20 (30 minutes) 1. Since the fixed costs will not change as a result of the order, they are not relevant to the decision. The cost of the new machine is relevant, and this cost will have to be recovered by the current order since there is no assurance of future business from the retail chain. |Unit |Total—5,000 units | |Revenue from the order ($50 ? 84%) |$42 |$210,000 | |Less costs associated with the order: | | | |Direct materials |15 |75,000 | |Direct labor |8 |40,000 | |Variable manufacturing overhead |3 |15,000 | |Variable selling expense ($4 ? 25%) |1 |5,000 | |Special machine ($10,000 ? ,000 units) | 2 | 10,000 | |Total costs | 29 | 145,000 | |Net increase in profits |$13 |$ 65,000 | | 2. |Revenue from the order: | | | |Reimbursement for costs of production (variable production costs of $26, plus fixed manufacturing |$175,000 | | |overhead cost of $9 = $35 per unit; $35 per unit ? 5,000 units) | | | |Fixed fee ($1. 80 per unit ? ,000 units) | 9,000 | | |Total revenue |184,000 | | |Less incremental costs—variable production costs | 130,000 | | |($26 per unit ? 5,000 units) | | | |Net increase in profits |$ 54,000 | | 3. |Sales revenue: | | | |From the U. S.
Army (above) |$184,000 | | |From regular channels ($50 per unit ? 5,000 units) | 250,000 | | |Net decrease in revenue |(66,000) | | |Less variable selling expenses avoided if the Army’s order is accepted ($4 per unit ? 5,000 units) | 20,000 | | |Net de