In 20X1, LLHC sold for $2,400 per ton, making it one of the most profitable products. A similar examination of some of the other low-volume products revealed that they also had very respectable profit margins. Unfortunately, the performance of the high-volume products was less impressive, with many showing losses or very low-profit margins. This situation led Ryan Chesser to call a meeting with his marketing vice president, Jennifer Woodruff, and his controller, Kaylin Penn. Ryan: The above-average profitability of our low-volume specialty products and the poor profit performance of our high-volume products make me believe that we should switch our marketing emphasis to the low-volume line. Perhaps we should drop some of our high-volume products, particularly those showing a loss. Jennifer: I’m not convinced that solution is the right one. I know our high-volume products are of high quality, and I’m convinced that we are as efficient in our production as other firms. I think that somehow our costs are not being assigned correctly. For example, the shipping and warehousing costs are assigned by dividing these costs by the total tons of paper sold. Yet … Kaylin: Jennifer, I hate to disagree, but the $30-per-ton charge for shipping and warehousing seems reasonable. I know that our method to assign these costs is identical to a number of other paper companies. Jennifer: Well, that may be true, but do these other companies have the variety of products that we have? Our low-volume products require special handling and processing, but when we assign shipping and warehousing costs, we average these special costs across our entire product line. Every ton produced in our mill passes through our mill shipping department and is either sent directly to the customer or to our distribution center and then eventually to customers. My records indicate quite clearly that virtually all of the high-volume products are sent directly to customers, whereas most of the low-volume products are sent to the distribution center. Now, all of the products passing through the mill shipping department should receive a share of the $2,000,000 annual shipping costs. I’m not convinced, however, that all products should receive a share of the receiving and shipping costs of the distribution center as currently practiced. Ryan: Kaylin, is this true? Does our system allocate our shipping and warehousing costs in this way? Kaylin: Yes, I’m afraid it does. Jennifer may have a point. Perhaps we need to reevaluate our method to assign these costs to the product lines. Ryan: Jennifer, do you have any suggestions concerning how the shipping and warehousing costs should be assigned? Jennifer: It seems reasonable to make a distinction between products that spend time in the distribution center and those that do not. We should also distinguish between the receiving and shipping activities at the distribution center. All incoming shipments are packed on pallets and weigh one ton each. There are 14 cartons of paper per pallet. In 20X1, the receiving department processed 56,000 tons of paper. Receiving employs 15 people at an annual cost of $600,000. Other receiving costs total about $500,000. I would recommend that these costs be assigned by using tons processed. Shipping, however, is different. There are two activities associated with shipping: picking the order from inventory and loading the paper. We employ 30 people for picking and 10 for loading, at an annual cost of $1,200,000. Other shipping costs total $1,100,000. Picking and loading are more concerned with the number of shipping items than with tonnage. That is, a shipping item may consist of two or three cartons instead of pallets. Accordingly, the shipping costs of the distribution center should be assigned by using the number of items shipped. In 20X1, for example, we handled 190,000 shipping items. Ryan: These suggestions have merit. Kaylin, I would like to see what effect Jennifer’s suggestions have on the per-unit assignment of shipping and warehousing for LLHC. If the effect is significant, then we will expand the analysis to include all products. Kaylin: I’m willing to compute the effect, but I’d like to suggest one additional feature. Currently, we have the policy to carry about 25 tons of LLHC in inventory. Our current costing system totally ignores the cost of carrying this inventory. Since it costs us $1,665 to produce each ton of this product, we are tying up a lot of money in inventory—money that could be invested in other productive opportunities. In fact, the return lost is about 16% per year. This cost should also be assigned to the units sold. Ryan: Kaylin, this also sounds good to me. Go ahead and include the carrying cost in your computation. Tons sold 10 Average cartons per shipment 2 Average shipments per ton 7 Identify the flaws associated with the current method of assigning shipping and warehousing costs to Sharp’s products
In 20X1, LLHC sold for $2,400 per ton, making it one of the most profitable products. A similar examination of some of the other low-volume products revealed that they also had very respectable profit margins. Unfortunately, the performance of the high-volume products was less impressive, with many showing losses or very low-profit margins. This situation led Ryan Chesser to call a meeting with his marketing vice president, Jennifer Woodruff, and his controller, Kaylin Penn.
-
Ryan: The above-average profitability of our low-volume specialty products and the poor profit performance of our high-volume products make me believe that we should switch our marketing emphasis to the low-volume line. Perhaps we should drop some of our high-volume products, particularly those showing a loss.
-
Jennifer: I’m not convinced that solution is the right one. I know our high-volume products are of high quality, and I’m convinced that we are as efficient in our production as other firms. I think that somehow our costs are not being assigned correctly. For example, the shipping and warehousing costs are assigned by dividing these costs by the total tons of paper sold. Yet …
-
Kaylin: Jennifer, I hate to disagree, but the $30-per-ton charge for shipping and warehousing seems reasonable. I know that our method to assign these costs is identical to a number of other paper companies.
-
Jennifer: Well, that may be true, but do these other companies have the variety of products that we have? Our low-volume products require special handling and processing, but when we assign shipping and warehousing costs, we average these special costs across our entire product line. Every ton produced in our mill passes through our mill shipping department and is either sent directly to the customer or to our distribution center and then eventually to customers. My records indicate quite clearly that virtually all of the high-volume products are sent directly to customers, whereas most of the low-volume products are sent to the distribution center. Now, all of the products passing through the mill shipping department should receive a share of the $2,000,000 annual shipping costs. I’m not convinced, however, that all products should receive a share of the receiving and shipping costs of the distribution center as currently practiced.
-
Ryan: Kaylin, is this true? Does our system allocate our shipping and warehousing costs in this way?
-
Kaylin: Yes, I’m afraid it does. Jennifer may have a point. Perhaps we need to reevaluate our method to assign these costs to the product lines.
-
Ryan: Jennifer, do you have any suggestions concerning how the shipping and warehousing costs should be assigned?
-
Jennifer: It seems reasonable to make a distinction between products that spend time in the distribution center and those that do not. We should also distinguish between the receiving and shipping activities at the distribution center. All incoming shipments are packed on pallets and weigh one ton each. There are 14 cartons of paper per pallet. In 20X1, the receiving department processed 56,000 tons of paper. Receiving employs 15 people at an annual cost of $600,000. Other receiving costs total about $500,000. I would recommend that these costs be assigned by using tons processed.
Shipping, however, is different. There are two activities associated with shipping: picking the order from inventory and loading the paper. We employ 30 people for picking and 10 for loading, at an annual cost of $1,200,000. Other shipping costs total $1,100,000. Picking and loading are more concerned with the number of shipping items than with tonnage. That is, a shipping item may consist of two or three cartons instead of pallets. Accordingly, the shipping costs of the distribution center should be assigned by using the number of items shipped. In 20X1, for example, we handled 190,000 shipping items.
-
Ryan: These suggestions have merit. Kaylin, I would like to see what effect Jennifer’s suggestions have on the per-unit assignment of shipping and warehousing for LLHC. If the effect is significant, then we will expand the analysis to include all products.
-
Kaylin: I’m willing to compute the effect, but I’d like to suggest one additional feature. Currently, we have the policy to carry about 25 tons of LLHC in inventory. Our current costing system totally ignores the cost of carrying this inventory. Since it costs us $1,665 to produce each ton of this product, we are tying up a lot of money in inventory—money that could be invested in other productive opportunities. In fact, the return lost is about 16% per year. This cost should also be assigned to the units sold.
-
Ryan: Kaylin, this also sounds good to me. Go ahead and include the carrying cost in your computation.
|
Tons sold |
10 |
|
Average cartons per shipment |
2 |
|
Average shipments per ton |
7 |
-
Identify the flaws associated with the current method of assigning shipping and warehousing costs to Sharp’s products.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
