Product Cost Is $ 10.60 Per Unit

If the company decided to sell the new product at price of D.Cr. 8.20, that means the full fixed expense of 1.20 is covered and the company will make high profit. However, the selling price of D.Cr. 8.20 is very high and under this price the company will sell the new product at a lower volume than what the company planned sale volume in the budget and that will affect the company in the market as a strong competitor in the food manufacturing. According to the case, the company sales volume drop to 30 tons when the product was sold at the price of D.Cr. 8.2. Thus, my recommendation are as follows:

The most suitable costing method Yeltin should adopt is the practical capacity in order to remove the factor of uncertain budgeted sales figure. For this approach and the practical capacity of 65000-22000 units, then the revised overhead costs come out to be $30. With the inclusion of material and labor costs, the cost of the cartridge stand at $52 and the additional royalty expense of $10 raises the overall per unit cost to $62. The selling price of the cartridge is fixed at $150. With this selling price, the gross margin is equal to $88. The gross margin percentage is equal to 59%. In comparison to the budgeted volume, the gross margin has increased by 14%. See below

13. If the selling price is $22 per unit, what is the contribution margin per unit sold?

The product cost per unit under absorption costing is $15.00 and under variable costing are 10.60.

Acquisition of the automated milling machine will increase the apparent costs of all jobs—not just those that use the new facility. This is because the company uses a plantwide overhead rate. If there were a different overhead rate for each department, this would not happen.

The equipment is expected to cost $240,000 with a 12-year life and no salvage value. It will be depreciated on a straight-line basis. The company expects to sell 96,000 units of the equipment’s product each year. The expected annual income related to this equipment follows.

All relevant costs located in worksheets #2, and #3 indicate that Shamrock manufacturing will benefit by replacing the machines at either equipment cost. However, worksheet #1 presents a problem for Mr. Fitzgerald as it shows a $6500 increase in the first year expenses, which are irrelevant in the long-run, but may encourage Mr. Fitzgerald not to purchase the new equipment because it may reflect badly on the short-run net operating income of his plant during the evaluation period for his promotion. Worksheet #3 offers a breakeven scenario in the first year and a $24,000 reduction in relevant cash flows in year two, which is the best option for Mr. Fitzgerald and Shamrock, if available.

In order to meet customer demands for higher product quality, to comply with federally-mandated environmental regulations, and to reduce production costs, HCC must spend $2,000,000 within the next three years to upgrade equipment. The upgrade is expected to result in production efficiencies that will lower material and labor costs by reducing defective products, process waste, in-process inventory, and production man-hours through simplified work processes. It has been over a decade since significant modifications were made to the production facilities. Those changes were mostly technical in nature and did not substantially alter work processes or reduce overall employment. The average productivity gain in the industry for the past five years has been 3% per year. Financing for the loan to purchase the equipment

In January 2003, Michael Pogonowski, the chief financial officer of Aurora Textile Company, was questioning whether the company should install a new ring-spinning machine, the Zinser 351, in the Hunter production facility. This new machine has ability to produce a finer-quality yarn that would be used for higher-quality and higher-margin products. In deciding whether or not to invest this new machine, NPV and the payback period are critical factors. Firstly, we need to forecast the cash flows that the Zinser 351 will generate in the future. After calculation, the ten-year NPV will be $3, 172,582. Secondly, we use the payback period to analyze the acceptance of this project. Based on this analysis,

As opposed to purchasing new equipment, we could opt to maintain the equipment we currently have, which has an estimated service life of 11 years remaining. We could retain all of our claimed Investment Tax Credit for this purchase, which has two years of depreciation left, and would not be required to invest in any new training for our employees. We would recognize $31,000 in depreciation in present value terms, as well as save an estimated $200,000 in training costs and losses due to lower production during the “learning curve”. I estimate these savings to be approximately one month of payroll to include both the time spent on training, and our reduced production as employees learn how to use the new equipment. Additional detail of this option is provided in Appendix B, C, & D.

A down payment of $70,000 would be required, and a first year interest payment of $45,370 (Exhibit 9). It is expected that the two machines would run at 40% capacity bringing in incremental revenue of $613,225, and incremental operating income of $234,855. The cost breakdown structure and the incremental gains for the laser cutter and water cutter can be seen in Exhibit 10. The ROI at 40% capacity is 33.80% (Exhibit 5), which is well above the banks lending rate. The payback period at 40% capacity is the lowest of all options at 3 years (Exhibit 6). With a score of 30, this option scored the highest against the decision criteria (Exhibit 7). This is largely due strongest cash flow, highest ROI, and emphasis on maintaining a high quality product and excellent costumer service.

The machine will have a depreciation of $140,000 for the first five years; this is determined by dividing the initial investment by five. The old machine will be sold in 2010 for $25,000 which is below the current book value of $36,000. This is why there is a capital gain of $3,850 that will add to the incremental savings plus the depreciation for that year. The new sheeter will be sold at the end of the last year for $120,000 which will be taxed at 35; this is why a cost of $42,000 appears for the last cash flow (Exhibit 1). The NPV is a positive $1,063,567 and the IRR is 36%, this shows that the project will add value to the company along with having a great return. The payback period for the project is 2.45…Using the growth rate of 3%, the sales are projected to be nearly doubled from 2009 with the new sheeter. However, Pitts believes that he would not be surprised to see them increase by 7% or

6.The Year 0 net investment outlay for the project is $-475,000. This computed by adding the price of the machinery, installation, shipping, and the change in net working capital. The non-operating cash flow when the project is

The cost of my product will be about/around, $60-$70. The reason for this is because the cost of the

The materials used per unit of production, the Run labor hours and machine hours are provided in exhibit 2. The overhead expenses per unit of the product have been apportioned according to their percentage production and usage.