Swot Analysis Of Bbqfun

Breakeven Analysis for Product Tylenol Approach 1 - Same price as Tylenol Approach 2a - Cheaper than Tylenol Approach 2b - Cheaper w/lowered trade cost $ $ $ $ Unit Cost (Variable Cost) 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Trade Cost (Selling Price to Retailers) $ 1.69 $ 1.69 $ 1.05 $ 0.70 Fixed Cost (Advertising) 2,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 Break-Even Quantity [Fixed Cost/(Trade Cost-Unit Cost)] 1,834,862 5,504,587 13,333,333 60,000,000 Contribution Margin (Unit) 64% 64% 43% 14%

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

1.1 Summarise key aspects of legislation, regulatory requirements and codes of practice relating to own role and responsibilities

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.

There would still be a net loss in 2006 due to the increase of break-even point, which increased from $7,505 to $8,640.

Revenue Estimates Revenue Item 100% Monthly 75% Monthly 50% Monthly Notes Rooms $2,956,500 $2,217,375 $1,478,250 8,100 daily Leases $180,000 $135,000 $90,000 TOTAL REVENUE $3,136,500 $2,352,375 $1,568,250 Expences TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS $454,000 $340,500 $227,000 TOTAL FIXED COSTS $1,403,000 $1,403,001 $1,403,002 TOTAL EXPENSE BEFORE IT $1,857,000 $1,743,501 $1,630,002 EBIT $1,279,500 $608,874 -$61,752 Depreciation $320,000 $320,001 $320,002 EBITDA $1,599,500 $928,875 $258,250 Furnishing Interest $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 20yr Mortgage Interest $182,000 $182,000 $182,000 TOTAL INTEREST $292,000 $292,000 $292,000 TAXES (40%) $395,000.00 $126,749.60 -$141,500.80

The primary two reasons for having an assessment of implementing change is to have proper data and analysis so that the change can grow from an idea to a proper implemented procedure. The different sources of data that are collected will be useless until they are properly analyzed with respect to projected changes. Therefore, it is important to focus on data collection, analyzing, and summarizing to form a proper decision on changes that are appropriate. A properly analyzed and planned implementation of change will be strong against any resistance, identify areas where there might be potential problems, and will help develop strategies to begin the process of identifying

In May 2006, Westmount Retirement Residence was having very low profitability. Its very simple pricing model essentially charged each resident the same price per month regardless of their needs. This was due to a change in the patients´ demands. In the past, patients´ demands were similar and therefore the company´s pricing and costing system was appropriate. But changes in the population and in the requirements of the residents caused that the pricing model remained out of date and the costing system inappropriate. One of the problems observed when analyzing the company´s situation was that due to the costing system used it was not possible to have a clear picture of how much each of the services offered were costing. Consequently, it was clearly very difficult being able to define a pricing system that will give the shareholders the desired profit. The first step was to design a new costing system adequate for the company

The revenue is $600,600*1.2= $720,720. The variable cost changes as sales increases and fixed cost stays the same, the gross profit is $175,500. After tax, the net income is $100,557.

Based on the master budget, there have something wrong and unclear. All the numbers are the same, evenly quarter two have more sale than other quarter, at least less 30% than quarter two. We can easy to recognize with a few changes and we can achieve a goal $1.000.000

Under the original costing system used by Dakota Office Products, Customer A is shown to be slightly less profitable than Customer B. From the calculations above, we see that Customer A is slightly profitable at 0.3% profit as a percent of sales, and Customer B is not profitable, at a loss of (7.1%). We observe that Customer A is a consumer of low-cost services and generally pay their bills within 30 days unlike customer B who took 90 days or more. Timely servicing of debt led to profitability of Customer A.

After paying 25% to the venture capital firm, $22,776.50, the net profit before taxes would be $68,329.50. Then after paying taxes of $34,164.75 they would be left with $34,165 of an increase in cash.

When price is $20.6, the quantity is 1,242,425 and profit is $101, we come near to break even point.

net sales: $1,000,000 cost of goods sold: $700,000 rent: $20,000 wages: $100,000 other operating expenses: $50,000 net sales – all operating expenses = 530,000

After making some wise short-term investments at a race track, Chris Low had some additional cash to invest in a business. The most promising opportunity at the time was in building supplies, so Low bought a business that specialized in sales of one size of nail. The annual volume of nails was 2,000 kegs, and they were sold to retail customers in an even flow. Low was uncertain of how many nails to order at any time. Initially, only two costs concerned him: order-processing costs, which were $60 per order without regard to size, and warehousing costs, which were $1