Download clayton bicycle company

ACCT 501
Final Case
Spring 2010
THIS CASE IS TO BE COMPLETED IN A PROFESSIONAL
MANNER. THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES WILL APPLY:
1.
All materials should be typed (or electronic file suitable for email).
2.
Clarity of expression and logical support for answers will be an
important consideration in evaluating the papers.
3.
Computations should be shown in a neat and orderly fashion.
Separate schedules may be used to summarize computations, but
they must be clearly referenced to the text in such a way as to
improve readability and understanding.
4. STUDENTS ARE TO COMPLETE THIS
ASSIGNMENT INDEPENDENTLY!
There should not be communication among other members of the
class, or anyone else. Contact the instructor for clarification
of the assignment or any related questions.
5.
The completed case will be due NO LATER than 6:00 p.m.
on May 5, 2010. Either hardcopy or email submissions will
be accepted.
We will meet on May 5, 2010 to discuss the case.
CLIFF TOP BICYCLE COMPANY
In May 1983, Suzanne Leister, marketing vice president of Cliff Top Bicycle Company, was mulling over the
discussion she had the previous day with Foxy Slyman, a buyer from Wall Smart Stores, Inc.
Wall
Smart operated a chain of discount stores in various areas of the United States. Wall Smart’s sales
volume had grown to the extent that it was beginning to add “house-brand” (also called “private-label”)
merchandise to the product lines of several of its departments. Mr. Slyman, Wall Smart’s buyer for
sporting goods, had approached Ms. Leister about the possibility of Cliff Top producing bicycles for Wall
Smart. The bicycles would bear the name “Super Bullet,” which Wall Smart planned to use for all of its
house-brand cycles.
Cliff Top had been making bicycles for almost 40 years. In 1983, the company’s line included 10 models,
ranging from a small beginner’s model with training wheels to a deluxe 12-speed adult’s model. Sales were
currently at an annual rate of about $10 million. The company’s 1982 financial statements appear in
Exhibit 1. Most of Cliff Top’s sales were through independently owned retailers (toy stores, hardware
stores, sporting goods stores) and bicycle shops. Cliff Top had never before distributed its products
through discount store chains of any type. Ms. Leister felt that Cliff Top bicycles had the image of being
above average in quality and price, but not a “top-of-the-line” product.
Wall Smart’s proposal to Cliff Top had features that made it quite different from Cliff Top’s normal way of
doing business. First, it was very important to Wall Smart to have ready access to a large inventory of
bicycles, because Wall Smart had great difficulty in predicting bicycle sales, both by store and by month.
Wall Smart wanted to carry these inventories in its regional warehouses, but did not want title on a bicycle
to pass from Cliff Top to Wall Smart until the bicycle was shipped from one of its regional warehouses to a
specific Wall Smart store. At that point, Wall Smart would regard the bicycle as having been purchased
from Cliff Top, and would pay for it within 30 days. However, Wall Smart would agree to take title to any
bicycle that had been in one of its warehouses for three months, again paying for it within 30 days. Mr.
Slyman estimated that on average, a finished bike would remain in a Wall Smart warehouse for 2 months.
Second, Wall Smart wanted to sell its Super Bullet bicycles at lower prices than the name-brand bicycles it
carried, and yet still earn approximately the same dollar gross margin on each bicycle sold – the rationale
being that Super Bullet bike sales would take away from the sales of the name-brand bikes carried by Wall
Smart. Thus, Wall Smart wanted to purchase bikes from Cliff Top at lower prices than the wholesale
prices of comparable bikes sold through Cliff Top’s usual channels.
Finally, Wall Smart wanted the Super Bullet bike to be somewhat different in appearance from Cliff Top’s
other bikes. While the frame and mechanical components could be the same as used on current Cliff Top
models, the fenders, seats, and handlebars would have to have the name Super Bullet molded into their
sidewalls. Also, the bicycles would have to be packed in boxes printed with Wall Smart and Super Bullet
names. These requirements were expected by Ms. Leister to increase Cliff Top’s purchasing, inventorying,
and production costs over and above the added costs that would be incurred for a comparable increase in
volume for Cliff Top’s regular products.
4
On the positive side, Ms. Leister was acutely aware that the bicycle boom had flattened out, and this plus
a poor economy had caused Cliff Top’s sales volume to fall the past two years.*
As a result, Cliff Top
currently was operating its plant at about 75 percent of one-shift capacity. Thus, the added volume from
Wall Smart’s purchases could possibly be very attractive. If agreement could be reached on prices, Wall
Smart would sign a contract guaranteeing to Cliff Top that Wall Smart would buy its house-brand bicycles
only from Cliff Top for a three-year period. The contract would then be automatically extended on a yearto-year basis, unless one party gave the other at least three-months notice that it did not wish to extend
the contract.
Suzanne Leister realized she needed to do some preliminary financial analysis of this proposal before
having any further discussions with Foxy Slyman. She had written on a pad the information she had
gathered to use in her initial analysis; this information is shown in Exhibit 2.
*Note: The American bicycle industry had become very volatile in recent years. From 1967 through 1970
sales averaged about 7 million units a year. By 1973 the total was up to a record 15 million units. By
1975 volume was back down to 7.5 million units. By 1982 volume was back up to 10 million units, still
well below the peak years.
5
EXHIBIT 1
Financial Statements (thousands of dollars)
Cliff Top COMPANY
Balance Sheet
As of December 31, 1982
Cash
342
Accounts payable
512
340
Accounts receivable
1,359
Accrued expenses
Inventories
2,756
Short-term bank loans
Plant & Equipment (net)
3,635
Long-term note payable
1,512
Total liabilities
4,990
2,626
Owners’ equity
3,102
8,092
8,092
Cliff Top COMPANY
Income Statement
For the Year Ended, December 31, 1982
Sales revenues
10,872
Cost of goods sold
8,043
Gross margin
2,829
Selling & admin exp.*
2,354
6
Income before taxes
475
Income tax expense
190
Net income
285
NOTE: *Total fixed selling & administrative expenses were $2 million. All variable selling and
administrative costs are related to shipping.
patterns is anticipated for future years.
No significant change in these behavior
7
EXHIBIT 2
1.
Estimated first-year costs of producing Super Bullet bicycles
(average unit costs, assuming a constant mix of models)
Materials
39.80 *
Labor (assume variable)
19.60
Manufacturing overhead
20.00 **
79.40
NOTES:
*
Does not include preparing materials specific to models for Wall Smart, our
production manager estimates this additional cost would be $4.25 per unit.
**
The accountant (such a sweet lady) provided this manufacturing overhead
rate, which was the same one used last year (based on a “normal volume”
of 100,000 units). Her estimate is that 60 percent of total manufacturing
overhead cost is fixed. She believes that manufacturing overhead cost
behavior patterns will remain the same as in 1982 (per unit variable
manufacturing overhead and total fixed manufacturing overhead will not
change).
2.
Unit price and annual volume:
Wall Smart estimates it will need 24,000 bikes a year and proposes to pay us (based on the
assumed mix of models) an average of $92.00 per bike for the first year. The contract would
contain an inflation escalation clause such that price will increase in proportion to inflation-caused
increases in costs shown in item 1, above; thus, the $92.00 and the cost figures are in effect,
“constant dollar” amounts. Slyman intimated that there was very little, if any, negotiating leeway in
the proposed price. Ms. Leister is aware that Wall Smart normally takes a very aggressive position
on terms with its suppliers.
3.
After-tax asset-related costs:
8
The firm estimates that incremental out-of-pocket interest costs related to increased investment in
receivables or inventories will be 10% (based on the average asset values)
9
EXHIBIT 2
(Continued)
4.
Assumptions for added inventories and receivables related to Super Bullet (average over the
year):
Finished goods: 1,500 bikes (awaiting next shipment to Wall Smart warehouses) plus the amount
in Wall Smart warehouses
Cliff Top will pay for shipping items to Wall Smart’s warehouses, and the variable shipping costs
behavior pattern is assumed to be the same as 1982.
5.
Impact on our regular sales (analysis from Leister):
Some customers comparison shop for bikes, and many of them are likely to recognize a Super
Bullet bike as a good value when compared with a similar bike (either ours or a competitor’s) at a
higher price in a non-chain toy or bicycle store. In 1982, we sold 98,791 bikes. My best guess is
that our sales over the next three years will be about 100,000 bikes a year if we forego the Wall
Smart deal. If we accept it, I think we’ll lose about 8,000 units of our regular sales volume a year,
since our retail distribution is quite strong in Wall Smart’s market regions. This estimate does not
include the possibility that a few of our current dealers might drop our line completely if they find
out we’re making bikes for Wall Smart.
10
REQUIRED:
Answer the following questions (showing all computations in an orderly
fashion and presenting conclusions in a logical and effective manner):
Due to recent changes, the income tax rate should be 30% for the next three years.
1. In the
first year
of the contract, what would be the TOTAL INCREMENTAL impact on net income
of adding the Super Bullet line? Be sure to consider ALL relevant items for which you have
information! This requirement does not mean specifically 1983 – do not try to “fine-tune” this
answer to a certain number of months in 1983! Simply calculate the impact for the first full twelve
months of the deal! For this initial requirement, you should stay within the assumptions given in
the case.
YOU SHOULD NOT PRESENT A TOTAL INCOME STATEMENT
(combining the Super Bullet line with our current lines)!! ONLY
PRESENT THE INCREMENTAL IMPACT OF THE SUPER
BULLET!!!!!!
Hint:
You may find it easier to initially compute some of the items regarding the Super Bullet on
a per-unit basis and then move to totals where that approach is simpler.
2.
Are there aspects of Wall Smart’s offer which cause you particular concern? List and explain (be
as specific as possible). What additional information would you like to have before making this
decision?
3.
What are the strategic
RISKS and REWARDS of adding the Super Bullet line?
Be as
specific as possible!
4.
Should Cliff Top Company accept the Super Bullet business assuming Wall Smart is unwilling to
make changes in their conditions? Why? Be specific - I want a
YES or NO answer with a
11
CAREFUL EXPLANATION OF YOUR REASONING!
5.
Independent of your answer to Question 4,
Bicycle Company?
what other strategic issues face Cliff Top
What alternatives might they consider to the Wall
Smart proposal?
If you anticipate significant changes in Cliff Top’s operations, how might some of the strategic
management and accounting techniques discussed during the latter part of the class be useful?