Question: Recalculate the profit per ton of LLHC. Assume all values remain the same from the assigned case except for following?changes:
Carrying?costs= 8% per year
Average shipments per ton of?LLHC= 12
Prime Paper ABC Case Primo Paper, Inc., has three paper mills, one of which is located in Seattle, Washington. The Seattle mill produces 200 different types of coated and uncoated specialty printing papers. This large variety of products was the result of a full-line marketing strategy adopted by Primo's management. Management was convinced that the value of variety more than offset the extra costs of the increased complexity. During 2009, the Seattle mill produced 240,000 tons of coated paper and 160,000 tons of uncoated stock. Of the 400,000 tons produced, 360,000 were sold. Thirty different products account for 80 percent of the tons sold. Thus, 170 products are classied as low- volume products. Lightweight lime hopsack in cartons (LLHC) is one of the low-volume products. LLI-IC is produced in rolls, converted into sheets of paper, and then sold in canons. In 2009, the cost to produce and sell one ton of LLHC was as follows: Direct materials: Pulps 2,225 pounds 3 540 Additives (11 different items) 200 pounds 600 Tub size 75 pounds 12 Recycled scrap paper 296 pounds [241 Totaldirectmaterials 1,128 Direct labor m Overhead: Papermachine (1.25 tons @ $120 per ton) $ 150 Finishing machine (1.25 tons @ $144 per ton) 180 Total overhead 5 330 Shipping and warehousing 3 36 Total manufactln'ing and selling cost M Overhead is applied using a two-stage process. First, overhead is allocated to the paper and nishing machines using the direct method of allocation with carerlly selected activity drivers. Second, the overhead assigned to each machine is divided by the budgeted tons of output. These rates are then multiplied by the number of tons required to produce one good ton. In 2006, LLHC sold for $2,500 per ton, making it one of the most protable products. A similar examination of some of the other low-volume products revealed that they also had very respectable prot margins. Unfortunately, the performance of the high-volume products was less impressive, with many showing losses or very low prot margins. This situation led Emily Hansen to call a meeting with her marketing vice president, Natalie Nabors, and her controller, Carson Chesser. EMILY: The above-average protability of our low-volume specialty products and the poor prot 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. NATALIE: I'm not convinced that the solution you are proposing is the right one. I know our highvolume products are of high quality, and I am convinced that we are as eicient in our production as other rms. 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... CARSON: Natalie, I hate to disagree, but the $36 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. NATALIE: 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 the high-volume products are sent directly to customers, whereas most of the low- volurne products are sent to the distribution center. Now all the products passing through the Mill Shipping Department should receive a share of the $4,000,000 annual shipping costs. Yet, as currently practiced, all products receive a share of the receiving and shipping costs of the distribution center. EMILY: Carson, is this true? Does our system allocate our shipping and warehousing costs in this way? CARSON: Yes, I'm afraid it does. Natalie may have a point. Perhaps we need to reevaluate our method to assign these costs to the product lines. EMILY: Natalie, do you have any suggestions concerning how the shipping and warehousing costs ought to be assigned? NATALIE: 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 shipmuts are packed on pallets and weigh one ton each. (There are 14 cartons of paper per pallet.) In 2006, Receiving processed 112,000 tons of paper. Receiving employs 50 people at an annual cost of $2,400,000. Other receiving costs total about $2,000,000. 1 would recommend that these costs be assigned 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 60 people for picking and 35 for loading at an annual cost of $4,800,000. Other shipping costs total $4,400,000. Picking and loading are more concerned with the number of shipping items rather than 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 using the number of items shipped. In 2006, for example, we handled 380,000 shipping items. EMILY: These suggestions have merit. Carson, I would like to see what effect Natalie's suggestions have on the per-unit assignment of shipping and warehousing for LLHC. If the effect is signicant, then we will expand the analysis to include all products. CARSON: I'm willing to compute the effect, but I'd like to suggest one additional feature. Currently, we have a policy to carry about three tons of LLHC in inventory. Our current costing system totally ignores the cost of carrying this inventory. Since it costs us $1,998 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 14 percent per year. This cost should also be assigned to the units sold. EMILY: Carson, this also sounds good to me. Go ahead and include the carrying cost in your computation To help in the analysis, Carson gathered the following data for LLHC for 2006: Tons sold 10 Average cartons per shipment 2 Average shipments per ton (items) 7
