Absorption Costing Approach to Pricing:
Learning Objective of the Article:
- Compute the
selling price of a product using the absorption costing approach.
- What
are the advantages or benefits, disadvantages/limitations of absorption
costing approach
The
absorption costing approach to cost plus pricing differs from the
economists' approach (price elasticity of demand) both in what costs are
marked up and in how markup is determined. Under the
absorption costing approach to cost plus pricing, the cost base is the
absorption costing unit product cost rather than
variable costing.
-
Setting a target selling price using the
absorption costing approach.
-
Determining and calculating markup
percentages.
-
Problems with the absorption costing
approach.
For example, let us assume that the
management of Ritter Company wants to set the selling price of a product
that has just undergone some design modification. The accounting department
has provided cost estimates for the redesigned product as shown below:
| |
Per Unit |
Total |
| Direct
materials |
$6 |
|
| Direct
labor |
4 |
|
| Variable
manufacturing overhead |
3 |
|
| Fixed
manufacturing overhead |
|
$70,000 |
| Variable
selling, general, and administrative expenses |
2 |
|
| Fixed
selling, general and administrative expenses |
|
60,000 |
The first step in the
absorption
costing
approach to cost plus pricing is to compute the unit product cost. For
Ritter Company, this amounts to $20 per unit at a volume of 10,000 units as
calculated below:
| Direct
materials |
$6 |
| Direct
labor |
4 |
| Variable
manufacturing overhead |
3 |
| Fixed
manufacturing overhead ($70,000 / 10,00 units) |
7 |
| |
------- |
| Unit
product cost |
$20 |
| |
==== |
Ritter company has a general policy of marking up unit product costs by
50%. A price quotation sheet for the company prepared using the
absorption
costing
approach is presented below:
|
Direct materials |
$6 |
|
Direct labor |
4 |
|
Variable manufacturing
overhead |
3 |
|
Fixed manufacturing
overhead (based on 10,000 units) |
7 |
| |
-------- |
|
Unit product cost |
20 |
|
Markup to cover selling,
general, and administrative expenses and desired profit--50% of unit
manufacturing cost |
10 |
| |
-------- |
|
Target selling price |
$30 |
Note that selling, general and administrative
(SG&A) costs are not included in the cost base. Instead, the markup is
supposed to cover these expenses. Let us see how some companies compute
these markup percentages.
How did Ritter Company arrive at is markup
percentage of 50% in the above schedule? This figure could be a widely used
rule of thumb in the industry or just a company tradition that seems to
work. The markup percentage may also be the result of an explicit
computation. As we have discussed, the markup over cost ideally should be
largely determined by market conditions. However a particular approach is to
at least start with markup based on cost and desired profit. The reasoning
goes like this. The markup must be large enough to cover sales, general and
Administrative (SG&A) expenses and
provide an adequate
return on investment (ROI).
Given the forecasted unit sales, the
markup can be calculated by using the following formula:
Markup percentage on absorption cost = [(Required return on investment
× Investment) +
SG&A expenses] / Units sales ×
Unit product cost
To show how the formula above is applied,
assume Ritter Company must invest $100,000 to produce and market 10,000
units of the product each year. The $100,000 investment covers purchase of
equipment and funds needed to carry inventories and accounts receivable. If
Ritter Company requires a 20%
return on investment (ROI), then the markup
for the product would be calculated as follows:
Markup percentage on
absorption cost = (20% ×
100,000) + ($2 ×
10,000 + $60,000) / 10,000 × $20
= ($20,000) + ($80,000) /
$200,000
50%
This markup of 50% leads to a target selling
price of $30 for Ritter company. As verified by the following calculations:
|
Direct materials |
$6 |
|
Direct labor |
4 |
|
Variable manufacturing overhead |
3 |
|
Fixed manufacturing overhead ($70,000 /
10,000 units) |
7 |
| |
------- |
|
Unit product cost |
$20 |
| |
====== |
|
INCOME
STATEMENT AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSIS--RITTER COMPANY ACTUAL UNIT
SALES PRICE = 10,000 UNITS; SELLING PRICE = $30 |
|
Ritter
Company
Absorption Costing Income Statement |
|
Sales ($30 per unit ×
10,000 units) |
$300,000 |
|
Less cost of goods sold ($20 per unit × 10,000 units) |
200,000 |
| |
-------------- |
|
Gross margin |
100,000 |
|
Less selling, general, and administrative
expenses ($2 per unit 10,000
units + $60,000) |
80,000 |
| |
-------------- |
|
Net operating income |
$20,000 |
| |
======= |
|
Return
on investment ROI |
|
Return on investment (ROI)
= Net operating income / Average operating assets
= $20,000 / $100,000
= 20% |
If the company actually sell 10,000 units of
the product at this price, the company's
return on investment (ROI) on this product will indeed be
20%. If it turns out that more than 10,000 units are sold at this price, the
ROI will be greater than 20%. If less than 10,000 units are sold. the
return on investment (ROI) will be less than 20%. The required
return on investment (ROI) will be attained only if the forecasted unit sales volume
is attained.
Using the
absorption
costing approach, the
pricing problem looks deceptively simple. All you have to do is calculate
cost, decide how much profit you want, and then set your price. It appears
that you can ignore demand and arrive at a price that will safely yield
profit whatever profit you want. However, as noted above, the
absorption
costing approach relies on a forecast of unit sales. Neither the markup nor
the unit product cost can be computed without such a forecast. The
absorption
costing approach essentially assumes that the consumers need the
forecasted sales and will pay whatever price the company decides to charge.
However, customers have a choice. If the price is too high, they can buy
from a competitor or they may choose not to buy at all. Suppose, for
example, that when Ritter Company sets its price at $30, it sells only 7,000
units rather than the 10,000 units forecasted. As shown in above
calculations, the company would then have a loss of $25,000 on the product
instead of a profit of $20,000. Some managers believe that the
absorption
costing approach to pricing is safe. This is an illusion. This approach is
safe only as long as customers choose to buy at least as many units as
managers forecasted they buy.
|
Direct materials |
$6 |
|
Direct labor |
4 |
|
Variable
manufacturing overhead |
3 |
|
Fixed
manufacturing overhead ($70,000 / 7,000 Units) |
10 |
| |
-------- |
|
Unit product
cost |
$23 |
| |
===== |
|
INCOME
STATEMENT AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT ANALYSIS--RITTER COMPANY ACTUAL UNIT
SALES PRICE = 7,000 UNITS; SELLING PRICE = $30 |
|
Ritter
Company
Absorption Costing Income Statement |
|
Sales ($30 per
unit × 7,000 units) |
$210,000 |
|
Less cost of
goods sold ($23 per unit × 7,000 Units) |
161,000 |
| |
------------ |
|
Gross margin |
49,000 |
|
Less selling, general and administrative expenses
($2 per unit ×
7,000 units + $60,000) |
74,000 |
| |
------------ |
|
Net operating
income |
$(25,000) |
| |
======= |
|
Return On Investment
(ROI) |
|
Return on investment (ROI)
= Net operating income / Average operating assets
= – $25,000 / $100,000
= – 25% |
Rather than focusing on costs--which can be dangerous if forecasted unit
volume does not materialize--many managers focus on customer value when
making pricing decisions.
|
In Business |
Setting in the Customer's Seat--(Real
Business Example):
The ticket-services manager of the Washington Opera Company, Jimmy
Legarreta, faced a difficult decision. After a financially unsuccessful
season, he knew he had to do something about the Opera company's pricing
policy. Friday and Saturday performance were routinely sold out, and
demand for the beast seats far exceed supply. Meanwhile, tickets for
midweek performances were often left unsold. "Legarreta also knew that
no all seats were equal, even in the sought-after orchestra section. So
the ticket manager and his staff sat in every one on the opera houses
2,200 seats and gave each a value according to the view and the
acoustics...In the end, the Opera raised prices for its most covered
seats by as much as 50 % but also dropped the prices of some 600 seats.
The gamble paid off in a 9% revenue increase during the next season."
Source: Susan Greco, "Are your prices
right?" Inc., January 1997, p.88.
|
|