Analysis
Under Part 1 of stated scenario 1, one can see that it deals with deals with the determination of the profits of an entrepreneur, Ms. LOUSIE FAIRBERN from her business which consist of two distribution channels. The name of the distribution channels are a consulting business wherein there exists two clientele Mr. Adams and Mr. Betz while the other consulting business includes commercial window treatment business wherein there exists three clientele namely Mr. Chatham, Mr.Dedham and Mr. Elm. . Further, it shall be pertinent to note that Mr. Adams is provided a discount of 10% for luring customers from her competitors and a 5% discount to Mr.Elm for ensuring expedite payments. On the basis above detail a simulation has been tabulated here-in-below stating profitability of the business :
Consumer Profitability |
|||||||
(Amount in AUD) |
|||||||
Sl. No. |
Particulars |
Adams |
Betz |
Chatham |
Dedham |
Elm |
Total |
1 |
Gross Revenue |
234000 |
188800 |
357380 |
147840 |
73200 |
1001220 |
2 |
Direct Cost |
147000 |
117200 |
218400 |
115720 |
57040 |
655360 |
3 |
Gross Profit |
87000 |
71600 |
138980 |
32120 |
16160 |
345860 |
4 |
Indirect costs |
||||||
— Activity based Overheads |
85100 |
136160 |
221260 |
||||
47099 |
38001 |
84127 |
34802 |
17231 |
221260 |
||
-Balance over head allocation |
27845 |
22466 |
42526 |
17592 |
8710 |
119140 |
|
5 |
Discount |
23400 |
3660 |
27060 |
|||
6 |
Net Profit |
-11344 |
11133 |
12326 |
-20274 |
-13442 |
-21600 |
(Amount in AUD) |
|||||||
Sl. No. |
Particulars |
Adams |
Betz |
Chatham |
Dedham |
Elm |
Total |
1 |
Direct Cost |
147000 |
117200 |
218400 |
115720 |
57040 |
655360 |
2 |
Indirect costs |
||||||
– Activity based Overheads |
85100 |
136160 |
221260 |
||||
47099 |
38001 |
84127 |
34802 |
17231 |
221260 |
||
-Balance over head allocation |
27845 |
22466 |
42526 |
17592 |
8710 |
119140 |
|
3 |
Total Cost |
221944 |
177667 |
345053 |
168114 |
82981 |
995760 |
On the basis of above, one can understand the company is running on losses. Further, the allocation of overheads on the basis of activity had been done at 25% and 45% . Further, the same has been allocated customer wise on the basis of gross revenue.
In addition, the balance cost has been allocated on the revenue basis to all clients as detailed in the simulation.
Further, discounts provided to specific customers have been allocated.
PART 2
Dear Louis,
Hope you are doing well.
As you have requested us in our last meeting to provide you a report with a detailed analysis of customer costs, profitability, distribution channel profitability and total profitability of your business. In this regard, please find the report enclosed herewith and marked as annexure-1
Regards,
Your consultant
Louise Fairbern is an entrepreneur. Her business consists of two distribution channels. The name of the distribution channels are a consulting business wherein there exists two clientele Mr. Adams and Mr. Betz while the other consulting business includes commercial window treatment business wherein there exists three clientele namely Mr. Chatham, Mr.Dedham and Mr. Elm. . Further, it shall be pertinent to note that Mr. Adams is provided a discount of 10% for luring customers from her competitors and a 5% discount to Mr.Elm for ensuring expedite payments.
On the basis of details provided above, a detailed analysis was conducted with emphasis on cost associated with each individual client and revenue generated from such client. A detailed simulation has been provided here-in-below wherein the cost and profit from each client has been tabulated.
(Amount in AUD) |
|||||||
Sl. No. |
Particulars |
Adams |
Betz |
Chatham |
Dedham |
Elm |
Total |
1 |
Gross Revenue |
234000 |
188800 |
357380 |
147840 |
73200 |
1001220 |
2 |
Direct Cost |
147000 |
117200 |
218400 |
115720 |
57040 |
655360 |
3 |
Gross Profit |
87000 |
71600 |
138980 |
32120 |
16160 |
345860 |
4 |
Indirect costs |
||||||
-Overheads |
85100 |
136160 |
221260 |
||||
47099 |
38001 |
84127 |
34802 |
17231 |
221260 |
||
-Balance over head allocation |
27845 |
22466 |
42526 |
17592 |
8710 |
119140 |
|
5 |
Discount |
23400 |
3660 |
27060 |
|||
6 |
Net Profit |
-11344 |
11133 |
12326 |
-20274 |
-13442 |
-21600 |
7 |
Business wise result |
-211 |
-21389 |
-21600 |
On perusal of the above simulation, it may be understood the following:-
- Gross revenue earned by Ms.Louise from her business stands at AUD 10,01,220/- while the direct cost associated for earning such revenue stands at AUD 6,55,360/- which is 65% of the gross revenue earned from such business. Accordingly contribution cum gross profits stands at AUD 345860/- nearly 35% of the gross revenue.
- Further, it can be understood that the indirect cost of running the business stands at AUD 3,40,400/- . The same is approximately 35% of the gross revenue of the business of Louise. In addition, for analysing the each customer profitability, these indirect cost has been allocated to various customers on the basis of revenue earned from making sales/ service to them during the course of business.
Recommendation
Further, 25% of the above stated cost has been allocated to consultancy service and 40% to window treatment business. Also ,, the same has been allocated customer wise on the basis of gross revenue.
In addition, the balance cost has been allocated on the revenue basis to all clients as detailed in the simulation.
- Post allocation of aforesaid cost, discount allocated by Louise to her two specific customers have been taken into consideration. Ms. Louise has offered a discount of 10% to Adams for attracting customers and a 5% to Elm for quick payment of services received.
- Post allocation of discount to specific customers, it may be seen that business is incurring losses and there is a loss of near about AUD 21,600/- which stands at approximately 2% of gross revenue of Louise’s business. Thus, the proposed business is running in loss.
- On further analysis of profitability of business of Louise i.e. on the basis of consultancy wise and window treatment service wise, one may observe that the consultancy service is incurring a loss of AUD 211 while the business of window treatment service has incurred losses of AUD 21,389/ which forms a major chunk of losses of the company. Thus, prima facie it may be seen that both business of Ms. Louis has been incurring losses
- Further, going for an indepth analysis on the basis of clientele, it may be observed that sales made to Adams has incurred a significant loss of AUD 11,344 /-. While the services that were made to Betz has let the firm to earn a margin of AUD 11,133/- which is substantially huge. For other customers such as Chatham , Dedham and Elm are considered, it may be observed that profit /loss of AUD 12,326/-, AUD -20,274 and AUD 13,442/- respectively has been earned /incurred from them. The table has been detailed here-in-below:
(Amount in AUD) |
|||||||
Sl. No. |
Particulars |
Adams |
Betz |
Chatham |
Dedham |
Elm |
Total |
1 |
Gross Revenue |
234000 |
188800 |
357380 |
147840 |
73200 |
1001220 |
2 |
Direct Cost |
147000 |
117200 |
218400 |
115720 |
57040 |
655360 |
3 |
Gross Profit |
87000 |
71600 |
138980 |
32120 |
16160 |
345860 |
4 |
Indirect costs |
||||||
-Overheads |
85100 |
136160 |
221260 |
||||
47099 |
38001 |
84127 |
34802 |
17231 |
221260 |
||
-Balance over head allocation |
27845 |
22466 |
42526 |
17592 |
8710 |
119140 |
|
5 |
Discount |
23400 |
3660 |
27060 |
|||
6 |
Net Profit |
-11344 |
11133 |
12326 |
-20274 |
-13442 |
-21600 |
7 |
Business wise result |
-211 |
-21389 |
-21600 |
On the basis of detailed analysis, carried here-in-above following recommendations have been proposed:
- Louise should not offer any discount to Mr.Adams . If such event is not possible, then discount shall be offered in the range of 1%-5%;
- Louise can forego one of her clientele Mr. Dedham as he is major contributor to loss of business or an alternative can be done in the form of charging extra prices;
- Louise should increase her bargaining power and should put reliable efforts in cost cutting;
- Louise should stop offering discount to Mr.Elm.
Conclusion
The business of Ms. Louise has been incurring losses and the same can be mitigated by following the steps proposed under recommendations.
The detailed computation has been provided here-in-below:
Sl No |
Particulars |
Okay Chip |
|
1 |
Direct Material |
5 |
2 |
2 |
Direct Manufacturing Labour |
60 |
20 |
3 |
Prime Cost |
65 |
22 |
4 |
Sale price |
80 |
26 |
5 |
Contribution (4-3) |
15 |
4 |
6 |
Hours |
3 |
1 |
7 |
Contribution per Hour |
5 |
4 |
8 |
Total Hours |
45000 |
|
9 |
Total Contribution from Super Chip (7*8) |
225000 |
|
10 |
Annual Fixed Cost |
400000 |
|
11 |
Loss (9-10) |
-175000 |
|
12 |
Manufacturing of unit |
15000 |
0.00 |
13 |
Sale |
15000 |
0.00 |
The above computation involves computation of contribution which has been derived by reducing variable cost from sales. Further, contribution per hour has been computed by dividing contribution on the basis of labour hour. Post that it was observed that the contribution per hour for super chip is greater than Okay chip by AUD 1. Accordingly, Super Chip shall be produced maximum. Further, there is active market of 15000 units of Super Chip and hence the same is produced.
The detailed computation has been provided here-in-below:
Sl No |
Particulars |
Process Control Division |
Proposed Scenario |
1 |
Direct Material |
70 |
65 |
2 |
Direct Manufacturing Labour |
45 |
45 |
3 |
Prime Cost |
115 |
110 |
4 |
Sale price |
132 |
145 |
5 |
Contribution (4-3) |
17 |
35 |
6 |
Hours |
3 |
3 |
7 |
Contribution per Hour |
5.67 |
11.67 |
8 |
Contribution forgone of Super chip |
5.00 |
|
9 |
Net Contribution (7-8) |
5.67 |
6.67 |
10 |
Decision |
Yes, should be switched |
|
11 |
Increase in Contribution (1)*3*5000 |
15000 |
On the basis of above computation, one may observe that the net contribution under the proposed change increases by AUD 1 per hour. Hence, the same may be carried out.
Further, the above computation has been carried out by estimating contribution which has been derived by reducing variable cost from sales. Further, contribution per hour has been computed by dividing contribution on the basis of labour hour
The three transfer price has been computed for the purpose of deriving the range. The first transfer being extremely high and the process division may not agree to the same. Thus, only two transfer price has been used for determining range. The computation has been provided here-in-below:
Transfer Price 1
Sl No |
Particulars |
Super Chip |
1 |
Direct Material |
5 |
2 |
Direct Manufacturing Labour |
60 |
3 |
Prime Cost |
65 |
4 |
Overheads |
26.67 |
5 |
Transfer Price (3+4) |
91.67 |
Transfer Price 2
Sl No |
Particulars |
Super Chip |
1 |
Direct Material |
5 |
2 |
Direct Manufacturing Labour |
60 |
3 |
Prime Cost |
65 |
4 |
Contribution |
15 |
5 |
Transfer Price (3+4) |
80 |
Transfer Price 3
Sl No |
Particulars |
Super Chip |
1 |
Direct Material |
5 |
2 |
Direct Manufacturing Labour |
60 |
3 |
Prime Cost |
65 |
4 |
Contribution |
15 |
5 |
Sharing of Additional Contribution |
1.5 |
6 |
Transfer Price (3+4+5) |
81.5 |
Thus, on the basis of above computation transfer price shall range between 80-81.5 AUD per unit.
The said range has been derived on the basis of understanding that both division shall ensure maximum profitability. Thus semi-conductor division shall not transfer chip below its current sale price and shall also try to share profits on account of transfer of super chip to process division which is AUD 3 per unit. In addition, the process division shall not pay any amount greater than the 50% of profits on account of proposed change. Hence, the said transfer price has been determined.
The detailed computation has been provided here-in-below:
Sl No |
Particulars |
Super Chip |
Okay Chip |
1 |
Direct Material |
5 |
2 |
2 |
Direct Manufacturing Labour |
60 |
20 |
3 |
Prime Cost |
65 |
22 |
4 |
Sale price |
80 |
26 |
5 |
Contribution (4-3) |
15 |
4 |
6 |
Hours |
3 |
1 |
7 |
Contribution per Hour |
5 |
4 |
8 |
Total Hours |
60000 |
|
9 |
Total Contribution from Super Chip (7*8) |
300000 |
|
10 |
Annual Fixed Cost |
400000 |
|
11 |
Loss (9-10) |
-100000 |
|
12 |
Manufacturing of unit |
20000 |
0.00 |
13 |
Sale |
15000 |
0.00 |
On perusal of the above table, one can understand that the division is still incurring losses even if the said transformation takes place and the above transfer price shall hold good as the transfer price shall be greater than equal to current sale price.