Latin Demonstratives as Personal Pronouns

America s Foreign Policy And Domestic Policy - 2540 Words

America has its fair share of issues on the political agenda. Debates about taxes, gay marriage, health care, and gun control are all major issues that come up in Congress during almost every session. There is one issue, however, that has been debated since the early colonial period, before the United States of America was even a country. The issue of immigration is not only one of the most heavily debated topics in Congress; it is one of the most complex. It is an issue that affects both the nation’s foreign policy and domestic policy. America is, at its core, a nation of immigrants. This melting pot of people from around the world is what has caused this nation to be so successful. Unfortunately, the current immigration system that America has is in need of a complete overhaul. A comprehensive immigration reform package would be beneficial all across the board. The benefits to the economy would be immense, especially in times like these with America’s struggling econo my. Today there are over eleven million undocumented immigrants in America. While most of these immigrants have jobs, they are paid â€Å"under the table† which keeps them from having to pay taxes. The employers hiring these illegal immigrants are hurting America’s economy rather than helping it. An immigration reform package that provides a way for these immigrants to earn legalization will greatlyShow MoreRelatedAmerican Foreign Policy After The Great Depression1390 Words   |  6 PagesAmerican foreign policy completely shifted from the Isolationism to Interventionism for valid reasons. First the economic and socially challenging home front crisis of the Great Depression kept American citizens and politicians busy with domestic policy. Additionally the disillusionment of people with WWI caused America to avoid war at all costs. However, the rising thre at of fascism in Europe forced America to defend democracy and help its allies. The first shift was seen when foreign policy in theRead MoreThe 70s Are Not Totally Happy `` Days1667 Words   |  7 PagesNot everyone was happy, a group of civilians and nonconformists pointed out the flaws in a suburb they believed had no moral, a government that was growing viciously with power. A lifestyle they believed was fundamentally repressed. And much of the America was still segregated. Regardless, the approach of the 1950s as days were happily lived. Perhaps when measured against the Great Depression of the 1930s, the world war of the 1940s, the warfare of the 1960s, and the despair of the 1970s, the 1950sRead MoreWoodrow Wilson s Accomplishments And Failures1691 Words   |  7 PagesWilson, it is essential to define the image he portrayed to the American population during his presidency. Many Americans and historians will claim he was a man of impartiality and the one who led America into WWI. He had a very solid influence on Congress for the many domestic and foreign affair policies he endorsed. The goal is to illustrate how President Woodrow Wilson ran his presidency in the eyes of the American citizens. This will be done by examining the many facades that President WoodrowRead MoreAmerica s Position On Reciprocity And Bilateral Free Trade Agreements1574 Words   |  7 PagesCommerce of the United States in Foreign Countries† in order to consolidate America’s position on reciprocity and bilateral free trade agreements. In the document he emphasized that â€Å"free commerce and navigation are not to be given in exchange for restrictions and vexations; nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of them†. Above all, Jefferson was concerned with â€Å"fair and equal access† to all foreign markets and realized that other European mercantilist policies were not favorable towards a completelyRead MoreThe United States And Foreign Policies870 Words   |  4 Pages Durning 1913 and 1916 Woodrow Wilsons domestic and foreign policies weren t both equally successful but both were successful. AlthoughWilson had primarily been elected to reform national politics and initiate new progressive policies in Washington, he spent the majority of his time as President dealing with foreign policy rather than domestic. Wilson s predecessors, including McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, and Taft, had viewed the United States as an emerging power that needed to extend its influenceRead MoreThe Cold War And Postmodern Eras1579 Words   |  7 PagesAmerica is often said to envelop in culture of fear. American elites have established this supremacy by the means of propaganda. From the Cold War to the War on Terror, these elites have maintained power along with the American Government to make sure they have control of their consumers. This has been accomplished with the establishment of an American foreign policy that has helped create a bipolar world. It allows America to focus on its interest and create a myth that the American people haveRead MorePresident Jimmy Carters Speech On Foreign Policy916 Words   |  4 Pagesdirection in foreign policy that emphasized humanitarianism, this new theory was inspired by the ideals of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Rooselvelt. Nevertheless, his speech is historically significant in that it reflects Carters desire to create new relationships with other nations by using democracy to create a cooperative foreign policy, notably a detente with the Soviet Union. The Afflatus of Others in Carters Agenda According to Carter himself, he claimed this new idea on foreign policy was â€Å"a beginningRead MoreU.s. Foreign Policy Policies1370 Words   |  6 PagesThe U.S. foreign policy has always been linked to the domestic policy since the U.S. never feared of expanding its national interests over the national boarders. Isolation for the U.S. usually implied slow economic growth and the large number of destructive conflicts within, while impudent foreign policy always guaranteed an abrupt economic growth for the U.S. economy. After the U.S. intervened in the WWI and the WWII, the U.S. economy witnessed a tremendous economic growth, nearly elimination ofRead MoreThe United States And Foreign Policy Essay982 Words   |  4 PagesAmerica believed that it was isolated from the rest of the world, and its foreign policy reflected these ideas and beliefs. The United States was on its way to becoming a world power and advancing its own interest in the world, especially in the North and South America. Isolationism caused the United States to avoid being involved in other countries politics and for the U.S. to remain neutral in foreign policy Americans in the 19th century were more interested in domestic events than the affairsRead MoreTaking a Look at the Cold War996 Words   |  4 Pageshope of making their rule secure. This would shape America’s foreign and domestic policy for the next few decades and define the Cold War presidents. The Cold War presidents, Harry S. Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Henry Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, each altered domestic and foreign affairs including civil rights, containment policies, and welfare reforms. Harry S. Truman, the first president of the Cold War, succeed President

My Career Plan Essay Sample free essay sample

Abstract. This paper presents an update of the ranking of economic sciences diaries by the invariant method. as introduced by Palacio-Huerta and Volij. with a broader sample of diaries. By comparing with the two other most outstanding rankings. it besides proposes a list of ‘target journals’ . ranked harmonizing to their quality. as a criterion for the field of economic sciences. JEL categorization: A12. A14. Keywords: Journal ranking ; economic sciences diaries ; concern disposal diaries ; finance diaries. commendations. 1. IntroductionThe ranking of professional diaries in economic science has attracted turning ? involvement during the past decennary ( see Kalaitzidakis et Al. . 2003 ; Koczy and Strobel. 2007 ; Kodrzycki and Yu. 2006 ; Laband and Piette. 1994 ; Liebowitz and Palmer. 1984 ; Liner and Amin. 2006 ; Palacio-Huerta and Volij. 2004 ) . Journal rankings have been used to measure the research public presentation of economic sciences sections ( e. g. Bommer and Ursprung. 1998 ; Combes and Linnemer. 2003 ; Lubrano et Al. . 2003 ) and of single economic experts ( e. g. ? Coupe. 2003 ) . They provide ‘objective’ information about the quality of publications in a universe where academic publications have reached an overpowering extent and assortment. While half a century ago a well-trained economic expert may hold comprehended all cardinal developments in economic sciences at big. today it is hard to follow even the gait of subfields. Therefore. the judgement by an single faculty member is accurate merely in so far as it concerns her or his ain field of specialisation. Still. engaging. term of office. publicity and support determinations should ideally be based on judgements of scientific quality. even when expertness about the specialisations of all campaigners is unavailable. For that ground economic experts have turned to journal rankings as a replacement for a direct judgement of scientific quality of persons and establishments. R 2008 The Author ? Journal Compilation R Verein fur Socialpolitik and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008. 9600 Garsington Road. Oxford OX4 2DQ. UK and 350 Main Street. Malden. MA 02148. USA. Ranking of Journals This comes with virtuousnesss and frailties. An advantage is surely that something every bit elusive as ‘scientific quality’ is non left any more to hearsay and rumours. Rankings besides constrain the finding of facts by influential scientists. who are sometimes capable to perverse inducements. By this item they foster the development of a scientific criterion and supply a unsmooth index of scientific quality for political relations. disposal and the general populace. As for the scientific community. rankings can rectify misperceptions. both with regard to journal quality and the importance of Fieldss. Narrow field definitions are sometimes used to insulate against judgements of scientific quality. By specifying my field as ‘papers written by myself ’ I can guarantee to be on top of my field. But rankings reveal how of import my field is compared with others. provided the sample is big plenty. An advantage of the ranking presented in this paper is that it covers a wide scope of diaries and. thereby. sheds light on how of import the different Fieldss are. Most significantly. rankings provide nonsubjective information on diary quality. This puts into perspective judgements of journal quality that are governed by the abilities. penchants and publications of officeholders. Examples of such evaluations abound. Take. for case. the Journal Rating that the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration1 had in topographic point until the terminal of 2007. It puts Econometrica – the figure 1 diary in the current ranking – into the same basket ( called A? ) as the Journal of Marketing Research ( figure 43 in the current ranking ) . Administrative Science Quarterly ( figure 73 in the current ranking ) . Regional Science and Urban Economics ( figure 84 in the current ranking ) or Regional Studies ( figure 151 in the current ranking ) . And it puts the Journal of Economic Theory – a top-ten diary in all of the three nonsubjective rankings used here – into the same basket ( called A ) as the local Austrian p eriodical Empirica. Harmonizing to hearsay this list was put together by inquiring incumbent forces for sentiments. Of class. there are better lists than this 1. But non even the list published by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy2 is free of obscurenesss: They list the Journal of Economic Theory in rank C together with diaries like the Energy Journal ( figure 97 in the present ranking ) . the Journal of Regulatory Economics ( figure 108 in the current ranking ) or the Southern Economic Journal ( figure 173 in the present ranking ) . This is likely an consequence of double-counting. as this list was put together by averaging across the rankings by Kodrzycki and Yu ( 2006 ) for which the policy ranking is a subset of the societal scientific discipline ranking. The Tinbergen list3 makes more sense. But it still puts the International Economic Review ( figure 5 in the present ranking ) and the Journal of Monetary Economics ( figure 7 in the current ranking ) into the same bracket ( A ) as the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management ( figure 54 in the present ranking ) and the Journal of Urban Economics ( figure 64 in 1. 2. 3. See http: //bach. wu-wien. Ac. at/bachapp/cgi-bin/fides/fides. aspx? journal=true See World Wide Web. ifw-kiel. de/research/internal-journal-ranking/ ? searchterm=Journal See hypertext transfer protocol: //www. Tinbergen. nl/research/ranking2. hypertext markup language K. Ritzberger the current ranking ) ; and it puts Economic Theory ( figure 23 in the present ranking ) . the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis ( figure 31 ) and the Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control ( figure 35 ) into the same basket ( B ) as the International Journal of Industrial Organization ( figure 90 ) . the Journal of Evolutionary Economics ( figure 114 ) and the Economicss of Education Review ( figure 120 ) . 4 Such judgements may reflect subjective sentiments or policy ends. But those should be made expressed and contrasted with nonsubjective informations. On the other manus. ‘objective’ rankings are no replacement for reading the documents. Given the high discrepancy of quality within any given diary. where a paper gets published is a really imperfect placeholder for its quality. Furthermore. many of the determinations that are aided by rankings need to take into history other dimensions than where an writer has published. How a candidateâ⠂¬â„¢s specialisation fits into a section and the consequence on the age construction are at least as of import considerations for engaging and publicity determinations. Furthermore. it may frequently be preferred to engage a campaigner who is willing and able to take on difficult challenges alternatively of one who rides on a manner moving ridge. even though the latter may hold a better publication record. Similarly. support determinations should be guided by a vision about scientific development. instead than by past successes. On none of these considerations do rankings supply a hint. Rankings are based on the thought that one paper quotes another. because the former uses a consequence obtained in the latter. Therefore. commendation analysis should supply an ‘objective’ image of quality. This is non ever the instance. nevertheless. for the undermentioned ( at least ) 10 grounds. First. the most of import parts are frequently non quoted. but used without mention: few documents that use Nash equilibrium citation Nash ( 1950 ) . among the many documents on continuum economic systems. a minority quotes Aumann ( 1964 ) . and about cipher acknowledges Hurwicz ( 1973 ) when working on mechanism design. Second. and related. the documents that get quoted most often are frequently non the 1s that contain the deepest consequences. Deep consequences are frequently difficult to understand and. therefore. make non pull a big readership. Hence. even though they may finally be most of import for scientific advancement. they do non roll up many commendations. Third. new developments in scientific disciplines frequently appear in new diaries. But for a new diary to be included in the commendation index takes ages and is capable to political use. A premier illustration is the Journal of the European Economic Association. which is still non included in the SSCI. even though it has surely published high-quality documents of all time since its origin. Fourth. some of the diaries that fare really good in the rankings merely do so because a little smattering of articles from these diaries get quoted overly and the others non at all. The mean paper from such a diary may in fact be rather 4. How this list was compiled is non rather clear. On the web page it is claimed that ‘important inputs’ were Kalaitzidakis e t Al. ( 2003 ) and Kodrzycki and Yu ( 2006 ) . The web page remains soundless on how these inputs were combined. R 2008 The Author ? Journal Compilation R Verein fur Socialpolitik and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2008 Ranking of Journals bad quality. but the few seminal parts secure a high ranking. That is. journal rankings give no information about the discrepancy among single parts. Furthermore. there are several facets of insider–outsider jobs that affect rankings. Fifth. there clearly exist commendation and umpirage trusts ( see Pieters and Baumgartner. 2002 ) . frequently supported by editorial board representation. that are upheld deliberately to support the research docket of insiders and restrain foreigners. 5 Sixth. the equal reappraisal system of diaries is biased against writers that are non affiliated with top universities or are employed at non-academic establishments ( see Blank. 1991 ) . Seventh. editors and influential scientists actively place publications of their pupils in top diaries. frequently irrespective of quality. to better the occupation market chances of their instruction end product. Hence. citations sometimes reflect placement policies more than quality. and in corporate more mentions to the advisers than to seminal parts. Eighth. and related. many of the documents in good diaries are minor fluctuations of known consequences. This is due to the equal reappraisal system. where manuscripts are frequently refereed by the writers of predating work. The latter. of class. hold a vested involvement in followups that appear in good diaries. because this increases their visibleness. Advanced thoughts. on the other manus. are frequently met with reluctance. because the referees have a difficult clip to digest the thoughts. Ninth. successful diaries sometimes acquire ‘highjacked’ by particular involvement groups that make them their kingdom through representation on column boards and reject any part from outside. Tenth. most journal rankings are tractable by editors and publishing houses. This may falsify column policy against pure quality and bias the rankings. For case. if a society runs a regular entry diary. it can better its ranking by besides running a few other diaries that merely publish soli cited documents. and do certain that solicited documents quote preponderantly documents from the regular entry diary All they have to make is to guarantee that diaries belonging to the trust get quoted more frequently than foreigners. or that outside diaries do non acquire quoted excessively frequently ( but alternatively working paper versions get quoted. for case ) . Having listed all these defects. there remains the deficiency of an option. The field of economic science has grown excessively big and diverse for any commission to judge scientific quality of persons or establishments. Therefore. rankings are at that place to remain. their legion jobs notwithstanding. The undertaking. hence. becomes to better their quality. The balance of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the superior methods that have been proposed in the literature. inclusive of the 1 used here. Section 3 presents the informations. Section 4 discusses the consequences of the present ranking and their hardiness. Section 5 puts together the current with two of the most outstanding anterior rankings to obtain a qualitative list of recommended diaries. Section 6 concludes. 5. ? Colin Camerer’s rejection of the review of neuroeconomics by Faruk Gul and Wolfgang Pesendorfer for the Journal of Economic Literature has become a celebrated illustration. 2. Ranking METHODSMany diverse ranking methods have been proposed. but no individual method is considered important. The most popular one is the impact factor ( Garfield. 1955 ) . the ratio of the figure of commendations of a given diary to the figure of articles published in this diary ( for a fixed period ) . This index depends on field size. commendation strength and turnover rate ( Jemec. 2001 ) . It is therefore biased in favour of certain diaries and Fieldss and does non take into history that commendations from a more of import diary count more than commendations from a less of import one. Most of this unfavorable judgment besides holds for assorted alterations of the impact factor ( see Hirst. 1978 ; Lindsey. 1978 ; Sombatsompop et Al. . 2004 ) . The portion of uncited documents ( Koenig. 1982 ) is likely to be near to zero for most diaries and allows small distinction at the top. The H-index ( Hirsch. 2004 ) was developed to rank single scientists. but has been adapted to ra nk diaries ( Braun et al. . 2005 ) . It is the largest whole number N such that the diary has n documents with n commendations each ( sole of self-citations ) . This index is vulnerable to size. The BT-method ( Bradley and Terry. 1952 ) . as applied by Stiegler et Al. ( 1995 ) . is a logit-type theoretical account that is used to gauge the odds ratio that one diary will mention another. It suffers from a deficiency of tantrum and becomes rapidly uninformative ( see Liner and Amin. 2006 ) . The LP-method ( Liebowitz and Palmer. 1984 ) . in contrast to the aforementioned. takes into history that diaries ought to be weighted otherwise harmonizing to their importance. Thus. less constituted diaries will transport a lower weight. so that it makes small difference whether or non they are included. This makes the LP-method robust to field size. If the entries cij of the J A J matrix C 5 [ cij ] represent the figure of commendations to journal I by journal J ( for i. J 5 1. . . . . J ) . and the diagonal entries ai of the J A J diagonal matrix A 5 [ Army Intelligence ] record the figure of articles published by diary I ( in the relevant period ) . the LP-method computes the weights vector v 5 [ six ] of diaries as the solution to the equation system where e 5 [ 1. . . 1 ] denotes the summing up ( row ) vector. This method has besides been used by Kalaitzidakis et Al. ( 2003. henceforth KMS ) . Kodrzycki and Yu ( 2006 ) and Laband and Piette ( 1994 ) . But this assignment of weights is vulnerable to commendation strength. i. e. to the figure of commendations per article. ( Journals that. state. print merely studies. without lending to scientific advancement. will hold a high commendation intensity. ) ? The tourney method ( Koczy and Strobel. 2007 ) ranks diaries harmonizing to their mark Ti given by Ranking of Diaries This me thod is invariant to journal size. diary or article splitting. and it is non tractable: the rank of a diary can non be increased by doing extra citations. It does non take into history. nevertheless. that crushing an of import diary in pairwise comparing ought to be worth more than winning against an unimportant diary. Palacio-Huerta and Volij ( 2004. henceforth PV ) have proposed a method that is characterized by five plausible maxims. A1. Anonymity: The ranking does non depend on the names of the diaries. A2. Invariability to commendation strength: Ceteris paribus the ranking is non affected by the length of the mention subdivision of the documents published in a diary. A3. Weak homogeneousness: The comparative ranking of any two diaries is a map of their common commendations. A4. Weak consistence: The superior method is ‘consistent’ when applied to jobs affecting different Numberss of diaries. A5. Invariability to splitting of diaries: If a diary is subdivided into two indistinguishable subjournals in footings of their commendations. each of the two receives half the original weight of the female parent diary. while the ratings of the other diaries are unaffected. This invariant method consequences in the rating vector that is the alone solution6 to the system of equations where diag tungsten denotes the operation of composing a vector tungsten as a diagonal matrix. Note that Av is the right-hand eigenvector of the stochastic matrix C ( diag European Union ) A1 that belongs to the Frobenius root ( which equals 1 ) . Therefore. one is free to take a standardization. Here. the standardization is to delegate 100 % to the top diary. Therefore. the ‘value’ of a diary is to be interpreted as the ratio of the figure of impact-weighted commendations received by that diary to those obtained by the best diary in the sample. The invariant method is besides used by Kodrzycki and Yu ( 2006 ) for their perarticle rating within the economic sciences subject and the societal scientific disciplines at big. The algorithm used by Google to rank hunt hits on the cyberspace ( Brin and Page. 1998 ) is besides a discrepancy of this method. The invariant method works good for closely knit Fieldss. but is debatable when the matrix C becomes reducible ( see Serrano. 2004 ) . that is. when C can be put into block upper-triangular signifier by substitutions of rows and columns. In such a instance there are subfields between which the commendation flows are unidirectional ; so the solution to ( 3 ) ceases to be alone and numerical consequences may be rather vague. The simplest case of that would happen if selfcitations were included and a diary merely quotes itself and is neer quoted by any other diary ; in that instance this diary can be assigned an arbitrary 6. More exactly. the solution is alone if the job is irreducible. K. Ritzberger value without impacting the values of other diaries. For the present calculations self-citations are excluded. but picking a sample that is excessively big can still take to a reducible matrix. For that ground some minor diaries had to be excluded from the current ranking. This besides represents a general caution to rankings for big samples. Reasonable consequences can merely be expected if the commendation flows between the diaries in the sample are sufficiently strong. That is. numerical consequences on Fieldss that are connected excessively slackly will be rather arbitrary. 3. DatasThe current paper applies the invariant method to a larger sample and a more recent clip period than PV or KMS. PV rank 37 diaries based on the period 1993–99. and KMS rank 159 diaries for the period 1994–98. The present paper considers 261 diaries for the three old ages 2003–05. 7 On the other manus. this survey excludes some diaries. Some minor diaries are excluded because of a deficiency of commendations and/or losing informations on the figure of articles. Diaries that have merely self-citations are besides excluded. because the invariant method is vulnerable to reducibility. Some of the more of import diaries are excluded. because they either province on their web pages that they solicit documents instead than taking entries ( Journal of Economic Literature and Journal of Economic Perspectives ) . because they are volumes instead than diaries ( NBER Macroeconomic Annuals ) or because they are pure conference volumes ( Brookings Papers on Economic Act ivity ) . This is done to enable a just application of the ranking. because otherwise research workers. who do non hold entree to those publications’ authorship pool. would be at a disadvantage.

Relevant Cost for Decision Making Chapter 13 Essay Example

Relevant Cost for Decision Making Chapter 13 Paper Chapter 13 Relevant Costs for Decision Making Solutions to Questions 13-1A relevant cost is a cost that differs in total between the alternatives in a decision. 13-2An incremental cost (or benefit) is the change in cost (or benefit) that will result from some proposed action. An opportunity cost is the benefit that is lost or sacrificed when rejecting some course of action. A sunk cost is a cost that has already been incurred and that cannot be changed by any future decision. 13-3No. Variable costs are relevant costs only if they differ in total between the alternatives under consideration. 3-4No. Not all fixed costs are sunk—only those for which the cost has already been irrevocably incurred. A variable cost can be a sunk cost, if it has already been incurred. 13-5No. A variable cost is a cost that varies in total amount in direct proportion to changes in the level of activity. A differential cost is the difference in cost between two alternatives. If the level of activity is the same for the two alternatives, a variable cost will not be affected and it will be irrelevant. 13-6No. Only those future costs that differ between the alternatives under consideration are relevant. 3-7Only those costs that would be avoided as a result of dropping the product line are relevant in the decision. Costs that will not differ regardless of whether the product line is retained or discontinued are irrelevant. 13-8Not necessarily. An apparent loss may be the result of allocated common costs or of sunk costs that cannot be avoided if the product line is dropped. A product line should be discontinued only if the contribution margin that will be lost as a result of dropping the line is less than the fixed costs that would be avoided. Even in that situation the product line may be retained if its presence promotes the sale of other products. 13-9Allocations of common fixed costs can make a product line (or other segment) appear to be unprofitable, whereas in fact it may be profitable. 13-10If a company decides to make a part internally rather than to buy it from an outside supplier, then a portion of the company’s facilities have to be used to make the part. The company’s opportunity cost is measured by the benefits that could be derived from the best alternative use of the facilities. 3-11Any resource that is required to make products and get them into the hands of customers could be a constraint. Some examples are machine time, direct labor time, floor space, raw materials, investment capital, supervisory time, and storage space. While not covered in the text, constraints can also be intangible and often take the form of a formal or informal policy that prevents the organization from furthering its goals. 13-12Assuming that fixed costs are not affected, profits are maximized when the total contribution margin is maximized. We will write a custom essay sample on Relevant Cost for Decision Making Chapter 13 specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Relevant Cost for Decision Making Chapter 13 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Relevant Cost for Decision Making Chapter 13 specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer A company can maximize its contribution margin by focusing on the products with the greatest amount of contribution margin per unit of the constrained resource. 13-13Joint products are two or more products that are produced from a common input. Joint costs are the costs that are incurred up to the split-off point. The split-off point is the point in the manufacturing process where joint products can be recognized as individual products. 13-14Joint costs should not be allocated among joint products. If joint costs are allocated among the joint products, then managers may think they are avoidable costs of the end products. However, the joint costs will continue to be incurred as long as the process is run regardless of what is done with one of the end products. Thus, when making decisions about the end products, the joint costs are not avoidable and are irrelevant. 13-15As long as the incremental revenue from further processing exceeds the incremental costs of further processing, the product should be processed further. 3-16Most costs of a flight are either sunk costs, or costs that do not depend on the number of passengers on the flight. Depreciation of the aircraft, salaries of personnel on the ground and in the air, and fuel costs, for example, are the same whether the flight is full or almost empty. Therefore, adding more passengers at reduced fares at certain times of the week when seats would otherwise be empty does little to increase the total costs of making the flight, b ut can do much to increase the total contribution and total profit. Exercise 13-1 (15 minutes) | |Case 1 | |Case 2 | | |Item |Relevant |Not Relevant | |Relevant |Not Relevant | |a. |Sales revenue |X | | | |X | |b. |Direct materials |X | | |X | | |c. Direct labor |X | | | |X | |d. |Variable manufacturing overhead |X | | | |X | |e. |Depreciation— Model B100 machine | |X | | |X | |f. |Book value— Model B100 machine | |X | | |X | |g. Disposal value— Model B100 machine | |X | |X | | |h. |Market value—Model B300 machine (cost) |X | | |X | | |i. |Fixed manufacturing overhead | |X | | |X | |j. |Variable selling expense |X | | | |X | |k. Fixed selling expense |X | | | |X | |l. |General administrative overhead |X | | | |X | Exercise 13-2 (30 minutes) 1. No, production and sale of the racing bikes should not be discontinued. If the racing bikes were discontinued, then the net operating income for the company as a whole would decrease by $11,000 each quarter: Lost co ntribution margin | |$(27,000) | |Fixed costs that can be avoided: | | | |Advertising, traceable |$ 6,000 | | |Salary of the product line manager |  10,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  16,000 | |Decrease in net operating income for the company as a whole | |$(11,000) | The depreciation of the special equipment is a sunk cost and is not relevant to the decision. The common costs are allocated and will continue regardless of whether or not the racing bikes are discontinued; thus, they are not relevant to the decision. Alternative Solution: |Current Total |Total If Racing Bikes|Difference: Net | | | |Are Dropped |Operating Income | | | | |Increase or (Decrease) | |Sales |$300,000 |$240,000 |$(60,000) | |Less variable expenses |  120,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  87,000 |  Ã‚  33,000 | |Contribution margin |  180,000 |  153,000 |  (27,000) | |Less fixed expenses: | | | | |Advertising, traceable |30,000 |24,000 |6,000 | |Depreciation on special |23,000 |23,000 |0 | |equipment* | | | | |Salaries of product managers |35,000 |25,000 |10,000 | |Common allocated costs |  Ã‚  Ã‚  60,000 |  Ã‚  60,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 | |Total fixed expenses |  148,000 |  132,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  16,000 | |Net operating income |$  32,000 |$  21,000 |$ (11,000) | *Includes pro-rated loss on the special equipment if it is disposed of. Exercise 13-2 (continued) 2. The segmented report can be improved by eliminating the allocation of the common fixed expenses. Following the format introduced in Chapter 12 for a segmented income statement, a better report would be: | | |Total |Dirt Bikes |Mountain Bikes |Racing Bikes | | |Sales $300,000 |$90,000 |$150,000 |$60,000 | | |Less variable manufacturing and selling expenses |  120,000 |  27,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  60,000 |  Ã‚  33,000 | | |Contribution margin |  180,000 |  63,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  90,000 |  Ã‚  27,000 | | |Less traceable fixed expenses: | | | | | | |Advertising |30,000 |10,000 |14,000 |6,000 | | |Depreciation of special equipment |23,000 |6,000 |9,000 |8,000 | | |Salaries of the product line managers |  Ã‚  Ã‚  35,000 |  12,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  13,000 |  Ã‚  10,000 | | |Total traceable fixed |  Ã‚  Ã‚  88,000 |  28,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  36,000 |  Ã‚  24, 000 | | |expenses | | | | | | |Product line segment margin |92,000 |$35,000 |$ 54,000 |$? 3,000 | | |Less common fixed expenses |  Ã‚  Ã‚  60,000 | | | | | |Net operating income |$? 32,000 | | | | Exercise 13-3 (30 minutes) | 1. |Per Unit Differential | |15,000 units | | | |Costs | | | | | |Make |Buy | |Make |Buy | | |Cost of purchasing | |$35 | | |$525,000 | | |Direct materials |$14 | | |$210,000 | | | |Direct labor |10 | | |150,000 | | | Variable manufacturing overhead |3 | | |45,000 | | | |Fixed manufacturing overhead, traceable1 |2 | | |30,000 | | | |Fixed manufacturing overhead, common |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   | | |Total costs |$29 |$35 | |$435,000 |$525,000 | | |Difference in favor of continuing to make the carburetors | |$6 | | | |$90,000 | | |1 |Only the supervisory salaries can be avoided if the carburetors are purchased. The remaining book value of the special | | |equipment is a sunk cost; hence, the $4 per unit depreciation expense is not relevant to this decision. Based on these data, | | |the company should reject the offer and should continue to produce the carburetors internally. | | 2. |Make |Buy | | |Cost of purchasing (part 1) | |$525,000 | | |Cost of making (part 1) |$435,000 | | | |Opportunity cost—segment margin foregone on a potential new product line |  150,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   | | |Total cost |$585,000 |$525,000 | | |Difference in favor of purchasing from the outside supplier | |$60,000 | | Thus, the company should accept the offer and purchase the carburetors from the outside supplier. Exercise 13-4 (15 minutes) Only the incremental costs and benefits are relevant. In particular, only the variable manufacturing overhead and the cost of the special tool are relevant overhead costs in this situation. The other manufacturing overhead costs are fixed and are not affected by the decision. | |Per Unit |Total | | | |for 20 | | | |Bracelets | |Incremental revenue |$169. 95 |$3,399. 0 | |Incremental costs: | | | |Variable costs: | | | |Direct materials |$  84. 00 |1,680. 00 | |Direct labor |45. 00 |900. 00 | |Variable manufacturing overhead |4. 00 |80. 00 | |Special filigree | 2. 00 | 40. 00 | |Total variable cost |$135. 00 |2,700. 0 | |Fixed costs: | | | |Purchase of special tool | | 250. 00 | |Total incremental cost | | 2,950. 00 | |Incremental net operating income | |$ 449. 00 | Even though the price for the special order is below the companys regular price for such an item, the special order would add to the companys net operating income and should be accepted. This conclusion would not necessarily follow if the special order affected the regula r selling price of bracelets or if it required the use of a constrained resource. Exercise 13-5 (30 minutes) | 1. | |A |B |C | | |(1) |Contribution margin per unit |$54 |$108 |$60 | | |(2) |Direct material cost per unit |$24 |$72 |$32 | | |(3) |Direct material cost per pound |$8 |$8 |$8 | | |(4) |Pounds of material required per unit (2) ? (3) |3 |9 |4 | | |(5) |Contribution margin per pound (1) ? 4) |$18 |$12 |$15 | 2. The company should concentrate its available material on product A: | |A |B |C | |Contribution margin per pound (above) |$ 18 |$ 12 |$ 15 | |Pounds of material available |? 5,000 |? 5,000 |? 5,000 | |Total contribution margin |$90,000 |$60,000 |$75,000 | Although product A has the lowest contribution margin per unit and the second lowest contribution margin ratio, it is preferred over the other two products since it has the greatest amount of contribution margin per pound of material, and material is the company’s constrained resource. 3. The price Barlow Company would be willing to pay per pound for additional raw materials depends on how the materials would be used. If there are unfilled orders for all of the products, Barlow would presumably use the additional raw materials to make more of product A. Each pound of raw materials used in product A generates $18 of contribution margin over and above the usual cost of raw materials. Therefore, Barlow should be willing to pay up to $26 per pound ($8 usual price plus $18 contribution margin per pound) for the additional raw material, but would of course prefer to pay far less. The upper limit of $26 per pound to manufacture more product A signals to managers how valuable additional raw materials are to the company. If all of the orders for product A have been filled, Barlow Company would then use additional raw materials to manufacture product C. The company should be willing to pay up to $23 per pound ($8 usual price plus $15 contribution margin per pound) for the additional raw materials to manufacture more product C, and up to $20 per pound ($8 usual price plus $12 contribution margin per pound) to manufacture more product B if all of the orders for product C have been filled as well. Exercise 13-6 (10 minutes) |A |B |C | |Selling price after further processing |$20 |$13 |$32 | |Selling price at the split-off point |  16 |  Ã‚  8 |  25 | |Incremental reve nue per pound or gallon |$  4 |$  5 |$  7 | |Total quarterly output in pounds or gallons |? 15,000 |? 20,000 |? 4,000 | |Total incremental revenue |$60,000 |$100,000 |$28,000 | |Total incremental processing costs |  63,000 |  Ã‚  80,000 |  36,000 | |Total incremental profit or loss |$(3,000) |$  20,000 |$(8,000) | Therefore, only product B should be processed further. Exercise 13-7 (30 minutes) 1. The relevant costs of a hunting trip would be: |Travel expense (100 miles @ $0. 21 per mile) |$21 | | |Shotgun shells |20 | | |One bottle of whiskey |  15 | | |Total |$56 | This answer assumes that Bill would not be drinking the bottle of whiskey anyway. It also assumes that the resale values of the camper, pickup truck, and boat are not affected by taking one more hunting trip. The money lost in the poker game is not relevant because Bill would have played poker even if he did not go hunting. He plays poker every weekend. The other costs are sunk at the point at which the decision is made to go on another hunting trip. 2. If Bill gets lucky and bags another two ducks, all of his costs are likely to be about the same as they were on his last trip. Therefore, it really doesn’t cost him anything to shoot the last two ducks—except possibly the costs for extra shotgun shells. The costs are really incurred in order to be able to hunt ducks and would be the same whether one, two, three, or a dozen ducks were actually shot. All of the costs, with the possible exception of the costs of the shotgun shells, are basically fixed with respect to how many ducks are actually bagged during any one hunting trip. 3. In a decision of whether to give up hunting entirely, more of the costs listed by John are relevant. If Bill did not hunt, he would not need to pay for: gas, oil, and tires; shotgun shells; the hunting license; and the whiskey. In addition, he would be able to sell his camper, equipment, boat, and possibly pickup truck, the proceeds of which would be considered relevant in this decision. The original costs of these items are not relevant, but their resale values are relevant. Exercise 13-7 (continued) These three requirements illustrate the slippery nature of costs. A cost that is relevant in one situation can be irrelevant in the next. None of the costs—except possibly the cost of the shotgun shells—are relevant when we compute the cost of bagging a particular duck; some of them are relevant when we compute the cost of a hunting trip; and more of them are relevant when we consider the possibility of giving up hunting. Exercise 13-8 (10 minutes) |Contribution margin lost if the Linen Department is dropped: | | |Lost from the Linen Department |$600,000 | |Lost from the Hardware Department (10% ? 2,100,000) |  210,000 | |Total lost contribution margin |810,000 | |Less fixed costs that can be avoided ($800,000 – $340,000) |  460,000 | |Decrease in profits for the company as a whole |$350,000 | Exercise 13-9 (15 minutes) The target production level is 40,000 starters per period, as shown by the relations between per-unit and total fixed costs. | | |â€Å"Cost† Per |Differential Costs | | | | |Unit |Make |Buy |Expl anation | | |Direct materials |$3. 10 |$3. 0 | |Can be avoided by buying | | |Direct labor |2. 70 |2. 70 | |Can be avoided by buying | | |Variable manufacturing overhead |0. 60 |0. 60 | |Can be avoided by buying | | |Supervision |1. 50 |1. 50 | |Can be avoided by buying | | |Depreciation |1. 00 |— | |Sunk Cost | | |Rent |0. 0 |— | |Allocated Cost | | |Outside purchase price |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   |$8. 40 | | | |Total cost |$9. 20 |$7. 90 |$8. 40 | | The company should make the starters, rather than continuing to buy from the outside supplier. Making the starters will result in a $0. 50 per starter cost savings, or a total savings of $20,000 per period: $0. 50 per starter ? 40,000 starters = $20,000 Exercise 13-10 (15 minutes) 1. Annual profits will be increased by $39,000: |Per Unit |15,000 Units | |Incremental sales |$14. 00 |$210,000 | |Incremental costs: | | | |Direct materials |5. 10 |76,500 | |Direct labor |3. 80 |57,000 | |V ariable manufacturing overhead |1. 0 |15,000 | |Variable selling and administrative |  Ã‚  Ã‚  1. 50 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  22,500 | |Total incremental costs |  11. 40 |  171,000 | |Incremental profits |$? 2. 60 |$? 39,000 | The fixed costs are not relevant to the decision, since they will be incurred regardless of whether the special order is accepted or rejected. 2. The relevant cost is $1. 50 (the variable selling and administrative expenses). All other variable costs are sunk, since the units have already been produced. The fixed costs would not be relevant, since they will not change in total as a consequence of the price charged for the left-over units. Exercise 13-11 (15 minutes) The company should accept orders first for C, second for A, and third for B. The computations are: | | |A |B |C | |(1) |Direct materials required per unit |$24 |$15 |$9 | |(2) |Cost per pound |$3 |$3 |$3 | |(3) |Pounds required per unit (1) ? 2) |8 |5 |3 | |(4) |Contribution margin per unit |$32 |$14 |$21 | |(5) |Contribution margin per pound of materials used (4) ? (3) |$4. 00 |$2. 80 |$7. 00 | Since C uses the least amount of material per unit of the three products, and since it is the most profitable of the three in terms of its use of materials, some students will immediately assume that this is an infallible relationship. That is, they will assume that the way to spot the most profitable product is to find the one using the least amount of the constrained resource. The way to dispel this notion is to point out that product A uses more material (the constrained resource) than does product B, but yet it is preferred over product B. The key factor is not how much of a constrained resource a product uses, but rather how much contribution margin the product generates per unit of the constrained resource. Exercise 13-12 (10 minutes) |Sales value if processed further |$84,000 | |(7,000 units ? $12 per unit) | | |Sales value at the split-off point |  63,000 | |(7,000 units ? 9 per unit) | | |Incremental revenue |21,000 | |Less cost of processing further |  Ã‚  9,500 | |Net advantage of processing further |$11,500 | Exercise 13-13 (20 minutes) | 1. |Fixed cost per mile ($5,000* ? 50,000 miles) |$0. 10 | | |Variable cost per mile |  0. 7 | | |Average cost per mile |$0. 17 | | |* |Insurance |$1,600 | | | |Licenses |250 | | | |Taxes |150 | | | |Garage rent |1,200 | | | |Depreciation |  1,800 | | | |Total |$5,000 | This answer assumes the resal e value of the truck does not decline because of the wear and tear that comes with use. 2. The insurance, the licenses, and the variable costs (gasoline, oil, tires, and repairs) would all be relevant to the decision, since these costs are avoidable by not using the truck. (However, the owner of the garage might insist that the truck be insured and licensed if it is left in the garage. In that case, the insurance and licensing costs would not be relevant since they would be incurred regardless of the decision. ) The taxes would not be relevant, since they must be paid regardless of use; the garage rent would not be relevant, since it must be paid to park the truck; and the depreciation would not be relevant, since it is a sunk cost. However, any decrease in the resale value of the truck due to its use would be relevant. 3. Only the variable costs of $0. 07 would be relevant, since they are the only costs that can be avoided by having the delivery done commercially. 4. In this case, only the fixed costs associated with the second truck would be relevant. The variable costs would not be relevant, since they would not differ between having one or two trucks. (Students are inclined to think that variable costs are always relevant in decision-making, and to think that fixed costs are always irrelevant. This requirement helps to dispel that notion. ) Exercise 13-14 (30 minutes) No, the bilge pump product line should not be discontinued. The computations are: Contribution margin lost if the line is dropped | |â‚ ¬(460,000) | |Fixed costs that can be avoided: | | | |Advertising |â‚ ¬270,000 | | |Salary of the product line manager |32,000 | | |Insurance on inventories |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  8,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  310, 000 | |Net disadvantage of dropping the line | |â‚ ¬(150,000) | The same solution can be obtained by preparing comparative income statements: | |Keep Product Line |Drop Product Line |Difference: Net | | | | |Operating Income | | | |Increase or (Decrease) | |Sales |â‚ ¬850,000 |â‚ ¬Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 |â‚ ¬(850,000) | |Less variable expenses: | | | | |Variable manufacturing expenses |330,000 |0 |330,000 | |Sales commissions |42,000 |0 |42,000 | |Shipping |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  18,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  18,000 | |Total variable expenses |  Ã‚  390,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 |  Ã‚  390,000 | |Contribution margin |  Ã‚  460,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 |  (460,000) | |Less fixed expenses: | | | | |Advertising |270,000 |0 |270,000 | |Depreciation of equipment |80,000 |80,000 |0 | |General factory overhead |105,000 |105,000 |0 | |Salary of product line manager |32,000 |0 |32,000 | |Insurance on inventories |8,000 |0 |8,000 | |Purchasing department expenses |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  45,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  45,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 | |Total fixed expenses |  Ã‚  540,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  230,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  310,000 | |Net operating loss |â‚ ¬Ã‚  (80,000) |â‚ ¬(230,000) |â‚ ¬(150,000) | Exercise 13-15 (20 minutes) The costs that are relevant in a make-or-buy decision are those costs that can be avoided as a result of purchasing from the outside. The analysis for this exercise is: |Per Unit | |30,000 Units | | |Differential Costs | | | | |Make | |Buy | |Make | |Buy | |Cost of purchasing | | |$21. 00 | | | |$630,000 | |Cost of making: | | | | | | | | |Direct materials |$? 3. 60 | | | |$108,000 | | | |Direct labor |10. 00 | | | |300,000 | | | |Variable overhead |2. 0 | | | |72,000 | | | |Fixed overhead |  Ã‚  Ã‚  3. 00 |* |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |  Ã‚  Ã‚  90,000 | |     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |Total cost |$19. 00 | |$21. 00 | |$570,000 | |$630,000 | |* |The remaining $6 of fixed overhead cost would not be relevant, since it will continue regardless of whether the company | | |makes or buys the parts. | The $80,000 rental value of the space being used to produce part S-6 represents an opportunity cost of continuing to produce the part internally. Thus, the completed analysis would be: |Make |Buy | |Total cost, as above |$570,000 |$630,000 | |Rental value of the space (opportunity cost) |  Ã‚  Ã‚  80,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   | |Total cost, including opportunity cost |$650,000 |$630,000 | |Net advantage in favor of buying | |$20,000 | | Problem 13-16 (30 minutes) | 1. Contribution margin lost if the flight is | |$(12,950) | | |discontinued | | | | |Flight costs that can be avoided if the flight is discontinued: | | | | |Flight promotion |$  Ã‚  750 | | | |Fuel for aircraft |5,800 | | | |L iability insurance (1/3 ? $4,200) |1,400 | | | |Salaries, flight assistants |1,500 | | | |Overnight costs for flight crew and assistants |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  300 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  9,750 | | |Net decrease in profits if the flight is discontinued | |$? 3,200) | The following costs are not relevant to the decision: |Cost | |Reason | | | | | |Salaries, flight crew | |Fixed annual salaries, which will not change. | | | | | |Depreciation of aircraft | |Sunk cost. | | | | |Liability insurance (two-thirds) | |Two-thirds of the liability insurance is unaffected by this | | | |decision. | | | | | |Baggage loading and flight preparation | |This is an allocated cost that will continue even if the flight is | | | |discontinued. | Problem 13-16 (continued) Alternative Solution: |Keep the Flight |Drop the Flight |Difference: Net | | | | |Operating Income | | | | |Increase or (Decrease) | |Ticket revenue |$14,000 |$  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 |$(14,000) | |Less variable expenses |  Ã‚  Ã‚  1,050 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  1,050 | |Contribution margin |  12,950 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 |  (12,950) | |Less flight expenses: | | | | |Salaries, flight crew |1,800 |1,800 |0 | |Flight promotion |750 |0 |750 | |Depreciation of aircraft |1,550 |1,550 |0 | |Fuel for aircraft |5,800 0 |5,800 | |Liability insurance |4,200 |2,800 |1,400 | |Salaries, flight assistants |1,500 |0 |1,500 | |Baggage loading and flight preparation |1,700 |1,700 |0 | |Overnight costs for flight crew and |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  300 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  300 | |assistants at destination | | | | |Total flight expenses |  Ã‚  17,600 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  7,850 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  9,750 | |Net operating loss |$ (4,650) |$ (7,850) |$  Ã‚  (3,200) | 2. The goal of increasing the seat occupancy could be obtained by eliminating flights with a lower-than-average seat occupancy. By eliminating these flights and keeping the flights with a hig her average seat occupancy, the overall average seat occupancy for the company as a whole would be improved. This could reduce profits, however, in at least two ways. First, the flights that are eliminated could have contribution margins that exceed their avoidable costs (such as in the case of flight 482 in part 1). If so, then eliminating these flights would reduce the company’s total contribution margin more than it would reduce total costs, and profits would decline. Second, these flights might be acting as â€Å"feeder† flights, bringing passengers to cities where connections to more profitable flights are made. Problem 13-17 (15 minutes) 1. | |Per 16-Ounce T-Bone | |Revenue from further processing: | | |Sales price of one filet mignon (6 ounces ? $4. 00 per pound ? 6 ounces per pound) |$1. 50 | |Sales price of one New York cut (8 ounces ? $2. 80 per pound ? 16 ounces per pound) |  1. 40 | |Total revenue from further processing |2. 90 | |Less sales revenue from one T-bone steak |  2. 25 | |Incremental revenue from further processing |0. 65 | |Less cost of further processing |  0. 5 | |Profit per pound from further proce ssing |$0. 40 | 2. The T-bone steaks should be processed further into the filet mignon and the New York cut. This will yield $0. 40 per pound in added profit for the company. The $0. 45 â€Å"profit† per pound shown in the text is not relevant to the decision, since it contains allocated joint costs. The company will incur the joint costs regardless of whether the T-bone steaks are sold outright or processed further; thus, this cost should be ignored in the decision. Problem 13-18 (60 minutes) 1. The simplest approach to the solution is: Gross margin lost if the store is closed | | |$(316,800) | |Costs that can be avoided: | | | | |Sales salaries |$70,000 | | | |Direct advertising |51,000 | | | |Store rent |85,000 | | | |Delivery salaries |4,000 | | | |Store management salaries |9,000 | | | |($21,000 – $12,000) | | | | Salary of new manager |11,000 | | | |General office compensation |6,000 | | | |Insurance on inventories ($7,500 ? 2/3) |5,000 | | | |Utilities |31 ,000 | | | |Employment taxes |  15,000 |* |  Ã‚  Ã‚  287,000 | |Decrease in company profits if the North Store is closed | | |$  (29,800) | *Salaries avoided by closing the store: | | | Sales salaries |$70,000 | | Delivery salaries |4,000 | | Store management salaries |9,000 | | Salary of new manager |11,000 | | General office compensation |  Ã‚  Ã‚  6,000 | | Total avoided |100,000 | | Employment tax rate | 5% | | Employment taxes avoided |$15,000 | Problem 13-18 (continued) Alternative Solution: | |North Store Kept |North Store Closed |Difference: Net | | |Open | |Operating Income | | | | |Increase or (Decrease) | |Sales |$720,000 |$? 0 |$(720,000) | | |Less cost of goods sold   403,200 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  403,200 | | |Gross margin |  316,800 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 |  (316,800) | | |Operating expenses: | | | | | |Selling expenses: | | | | | |Sales salaries |70,000 |0 |70,000 | | |Direct advertising |51,000 |0 |51,000 | | |General advertising |10,800 |10,800 |0 | | |Store rent |85,000 |0 |85,000 | | |Depreciation of store fixtures |4,600 |4,600 |0 | | |Delivery salaries |7,000 |3,000 |4,000 | | |Depreciation of delivery equipment |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  3,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  3,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 | | |Total selling expenses |  231,400 |  Ã‚  21,400 |  210,000 | | |Administrative expenses: | | | | | |Store management salaries |21,000 |12,000 |9,000 | | |Salary of new manager |11,000 |0 |11,000 | | |General office compensation |12,000 |6,000 |6,000 | | |Insurance on fixtures and |7,500 |2,500 |5,000 | | |inventory | | | | | |Utilities |31,000 |0 |31,000 | | |Employment taxes |18,150 |3,150 |15,000 |* | General office—other |  Ã‚  Ã‚  18,000 |  Ã‚  18,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  0 | | |Total administrative expenses |  118,650 |  Ã‚  41,650 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  77,000 | | |Total operating expenses |  350,050 |  Ã‚  6 3,050 |  Ã‚  287,000 | | |Net operating income (loss) |$(33,250) |$(63,050) |$  (29,800) | | *See the computation on the prior page. Problem 13-18 (continued) 2. Based on the data in (1), the North Store should not be closed. If the store is closed, then the company’s overall net operating income will decrease by $29,800 per quarter. If the store space cannot be subleased or the lease broken without penalty, a decision to close the store would cause an even greater decline in the company’s overall net income. If the $85,000 rent cannot be avoided and the North Store is closed, the company’s overall net operating income would be reduced by $114,800 per quarter ($29,800 + $85,000). 3. Under these circumstances, the North Store should be closed. The computations are as follows: |Gross margin lost if the North Store is closed (part 1) |$(316,800) | |Gross margin gained from the East Store: $720,000 ? 1/4 = $180,000; $180,000 ? 5%* = $81,000 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  81,000 | |Net operating loss in gross margin |(235,800) | |Less costs that can be avoided if the North Store is closed (part 1) |  Ã‚  Ã‚  287,000 | |Net advantage of closing the North Store |$? 51,200 | *The East Store’s gross margin percentage is: $486,000 ? $1,080,000 = 45% Problem 13-19 (60 minutes) 1. The $90,000 in fixed overhead cost s charged to the new product is a common cost that will be the same whether the tubes are produced internally or purchased from the outside. Hence, they are not relevant. The variable manufacturing overhead per box of Chap-Off would be $0. 50, as shown below: Total manufacturing overhead cost per box of Chap-Off |$1. 40 | |Less fixed portion ($90,000 ? 100,000 boxes) |  0. 90 | |Variable overhead cost per box |$0. 50 | The total variable costs of producing one box of Chap-Off would be: |Direct materials |$3. 60 | |Direct labor |2. 00 | |Variable manufacturing overhead |  0. 0 | |Total variable cost per box |$6. 10 | If the tubes for the Chap-Off are purchased from the outside supplier, then the variable cost per box of Chap-Off would be: |Direct materials ($3. 60 ? 75%) |$2. 70 | |Direct labor ($2. 00 ? 90%) |1. 80 | |Variable manufacturing overhead ($0. 50 ? 90%) |0. 45 | |Cost of tube from outside |  1. 5 | |Total variable cost per box |$6. 30 | Therefore, the company sho uld reject the outside supplier’s offer. A savings of $0. 20 per box of Chap-Off will be realized by producing the tubes internally. Problem 13-19 (continued) Another approach to the solution would be: |Cost avoided by purchasing the tubes: | | |Direct materials ($3. 60 ? 25%) |$0. 90 | |Direct labor ($2. 00 ? 10%) |0. 20 | |Variable manufacturing overhead ($0. 50 ? 0%) |  0. 05 | |Total costs avoided |$1. 15 |* | | | | |Cost of purchasing the tubes from the outside |$1. 35 | | | | |Cost savings per box by making internally |$0. 20 | |* |This $1. 5 is the cost of making one box of tubes internally, since it represents the overall cost savings that | | |will be realized per box of Chap-Off by purchasing the tubes from the outside. | 2. The maximum purchase price would be $1. 15 per box. The company would not be willing to pay more than this amount, since the $1. 15 represents the cost of producing one box of tubes internally, as shown in Part 1. To make purchasing the t ubes attractive, however, the purchase price should be less than $1. 15 per box. Problem 13-19 (continued) 3. At a volume of 120,000 boxes, the company should buy the tubes. The computations are: |Cost of making 120,000 boxes: | | |120,000 boxes ? $1. 5 per box |$138,000 | |Rental cost of equipment |  Ã‚  Ã‚  40,000 | |Total cost |$178,000 | | | | |Cost of buying 120,000 boxes: | | |120,000 boxes ? $1. 35 per box |$162,000 | | | | |Or, on a total cost basis, the computations are: | | | | | |Cost of making 120,000 boxes: | | |120,000 boxes ? 6. 10 per box |$732,000 | |Rental cost of equipment |  Ã‚  Ã‚  40,000 | |Total cost |$772,000 | | | | |Cost of buying 120,000 boxes: | | |120,000 boxes ? $6. 30 per box |$756,000 | Thus, buying the boxes will save the company $16,000 per year. Problem 13-19 (continued) 4. Under these circumstances, the company should make the 100,000 boxes of tubes and purchase the remaining 20,000 boxes from the outside supplier. The costs would: |Cost of making: 100,000 boxes ? $1. 15 per box |$115,000 | |Cost of buying: 20,000 boxes ? $1. 35 per box |  Ã‚  Ã‚  27,000 | |Total cost |$142,000 | Or, on a total cost basis, the computation would be: Cost of making: 100,000 boxes ? $6. 10 per box |$610,000 | |Cost of buying: 20,000 boxes ? $6. 30 per box |  126,000 | |Total cost |$736,000 | Since the amount of cost under this alternative is $20,000 less than the best alternative in Part 3, the company should make as many tubes as possible with the current equipment and buy the remaining tubes from the outside supplier. 5. Management should take into account at least the following additional factors: )The ability of the supplier to meet required delivery schedules. b)The qu ality of the tubes purchased from the supplier. c)Alternative uses of the capacity that would be used to make the tubes. d)The ability of the supplier to supply tubes if volume increases in future years. e)The problem of alternative sources of supply if the supplier proves undependable. Problem 13-20 (30 minutes) 1. Since the fixed costs will not change as a result of the order, they are not relevant to the decision. The cost of the new machine is relevant, and this cost will have to be recovered by the current order since there is no assurance of future business from the retail chain. |Unit |Total—5,000 units | |Revenue from the order ($50 ? 84%) |$42 |$210,000 | |Less costs associated with the order: | | | |Direct materials |15 |75,000 | |Direct labor |8 |40,000 | |Variable manufacturing overhead |3 |15,000 | |Variable selling expense ($4 ? 25%) |1 |5,000 | |Special machine ($10,000 ? ,000 units) |  Ã‚  Ã‚  2 |  Ã‚  Ã‚  10,000 | |Total costs |  29 |  145,000 | | Net increase in profits |$13 |$  65,000 | | 2. |Revenue from the order: | | | |Reimbursement for costs of production (variable production costs of $26, plus fixed manufacturing |$175,000 | | |overhead cost of $9 = $35 per unit; $35 per unit ? 5,000 units) | | | |Fixed fee ($1. 80 per unit ? ,000 units) |  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  9,000 | | |Total revenue |184,000 | | |Less incremental costs—variable production costs |  130,000 | | |($26 per unit ? 5,000 units) | | | |Net increase in profits |$  54,000 | | 3. |Sales revenue: | | | |From the U. S. Army (above) |$184,000 | | |From regular channels ($50 per unit ? 5,000 units) |  250,000 | | |Net decrease in revenue |(66,000) | | |Less variable selling expenses avoided if the Army’s order is accepted ($4 per unit ? 5,000 units) |  Ã‚  Ã‚  20,000 | | |Net de