Chillout Corporation Essay

Owens & Minor is a distributor of surgical and medical supplies to hospitals and other health care facilities. Due to changing demand from customers, the company is facing increased operating costs, which has resulted in lower profit margins and even losses. In 1993, O&M recorded an $18 million profit, which was reduced to a loss of $11 million in 1995. The entire industry is experiencing similar difficulties. In an effort to resume profitability, O&M is evaluating alternatives to “cost-plus pricing”. Cost-plus pricing does not reflect the true cost of the services provided by O&M. Customers are demanding more of O&M while

Although the company did show an increased gross profit of $8,255,000 with $6,358,000 less Net Sales in 2013 versus 2012, that increase is due to the reduction in product Cost of Goods Sold by $14,613,000. Since increases in product price will negatively affect sales, one of management’s primary goals is to keep prices stable. This objective is achieved through implementation of cost cutting programs, investing in more efficient equipment, and automation of more steps in the production process.

As we continue to move toward the end our quarterly objectives. I wanted to take the time to explain some of our costs. In our particular field of designing and manufacturing products, we are always engaging in ways that we can mitigate loss and improve our processes. Performing such changes will give a stronger presence in the market by allowing us to remain competitive.

According to Epstein and Buhovac, (2014), costing system is a process designed to monitor the costs incurred in a certain business. Costing systems are meant to advise the management on how to choose the most appropriate course of action with cost efficiency and capability. According to Cardinaels and Labro (2009) costing system provides detailed cost information needed by management needs to control current operations with the aim of improving the future. Below are some of the costing systems that are common to many organizations (Epstein & Buhovac, 2014).

| |iv. Service quality cost savings – Controllable and relevant – With the 6 supplier option the company saves $100,000 in|

found out that despite this cost reduction in material cost, the costs of producing the low -end units for

Wilkerson employs a Normal Cost System, which means that they use predetermined overhead rates along with actual costs for direct material and direct labor. Normal costing systems are appropriate when overhead costs are a relatively small percentage of total manufacturing costs and product diversity is limited. For Wilkerson, normal costing does not make sense. Overhead costs make up over 50 percent of total manufacturing costs and their product offering is relatively more diverse. This indicates that the current accounting system in place may be distorting costs significantly. Supporting data:

Management may elect to lockout labor at any time if it believes that no reasonable progress has been made in negotiations. Work stoppages will severely damage HCC customer relationships and its valued reputation as a firm dedicated to the prompt delivery of quality products. For each strike, lock-out, or sustained unfair labor practice charge related to management bargaining practices, the gross sales percentage change for all future years will be reduced by 1% and material costs will rise by an additional 1% per year.

Ernst & Whinney audit firm suffered tremendously from the backlash of ZZZZ Best’s case. One of the issues stemming from ZZZZ Best’s case is the difference between a review and an audit as evidence by civil suit filed by a California bank against the firm. The bank claimed that its decision to grant ZZZZ Best’s loan was based on the opinion of Ernst & Whinney review of ZZZZ Best’s financial statements period ending July 31, 1986. The case was ruled in favor of Ernst & Whinney as the audit firm had expressly stated in their report that it was not issuing an opinion and the bank should not have rely heavily on the review report. Also, ZZZZ Best was a public company at the time, a review of its

    Surprise cash counts are very useful in fraud prevention if the method is used correctly. Employees should know that cash will be counted, but that its sporadic and

Again, prices will be cut and reduce our company’s perceived value (Conrad “The Advantages of…”).

Now that the initial startup phase of our company is complete, our team of Analysts has determined what we have deemed reasonable costs, considering that our definition of “reasonable” aligns with yours. In order to defend our stance on what we feel is reasonable, we have considered the nature of costs, such as air travel for business meetings and the use of our high quality materials, by researching the market for affordable, high-quality materials and have put standards in place to keep air travel valid for these government contracts. With the understanding that although the nature of the cost may be considered acceptable, the amount of the cost may not meet standards when it comes to costs defined as “reasonable” (Murphy, John Edward; Guide to Contract Pricing, pg. 47). With this in mind, we continue to research the market to find adequate material at a much lower cost. We have used this data to create what we feel is a cost that would not and should not exceed what any prudent person would pay in a competitive business environment. We are aware of the competition and have made it a strong incentive of ours to save on costs for the items that we are providing to you. Allowability of our costs is guided by the 52 generally applicable cost principles that are based on specific laws and policies (Murphy, John Edward; Guide to Contract

First, we have identified if there is really an insufficiency in the amount of selling prices set by the Sales Department, in reference to Exhibit 1 of the case. We did this through identifying the maximum amount of overhead costs that the company can incur for the three products and comparing it with the total overhead costs. See Table 1 for details.

After analyzing the results from the previous quarter, it was determined that the prices set for each segment were not sufficient. Product sales priority were also not properly adjusted. With the R&D investments, sales priorities needed to be changed for the main focus to become the most profitable market segments. Prices were not competitive which in turned decreased revenue, market share, and profitability. To become more competitive we altered the prices in each market segment. The Workhorse product was the first to change, the price was lowered to $2500 in an attempt to increase sales; at this price Team 4 was still making a profit on this product, as well as making the price much more competitive. The Workhorse sales priority was also lowered to 3rd in Americas and 4th in APAC and EMEA. This product was not selling as well as we had hoped, and was no longer as profitable as it once was which led to this decision. Next, the Innovator product’s price was adjusted; this involved a price increase to $4100. This price was adjusted to include the new

14-1: “Standard Costing Is Alive and Well at Parker Brass” by D. Johnsen and P. Sopariwala, Management Accounting Quarterly (Winter 2000), pp. 12-20.