Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 903 views

    Case Study Athens Glass Works Arkadia

    Uploaded by

    Jsc US
    1. Athens Glass Work likely lost significant market share due to raising their price from $2.05 to $2.36 per square foot. 2. Their increasing unit costs were probably due to flaws in the company's cost allocation system, which treated some fixed costs as variable costs. 3. Competitors have a 62.5% probability of lowering their price to match AGW's $2.15 price, but there is no indication they would go lower. AGW has room to lower their price to $1.76 per square foot at a production of 325,000 square feet.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Study Athens Glass Works Arkadia

    Uploaded by

    Jsc US
    903 views10 pages
    1. Athens Glass Work likely lost significant market share due to raising their price from $2.05 to $2.36 per square foot. 2. Their increasing unit costs were probably due to flaws in the company's cost allocation system, which treated some fixed costs as variable costs. 3. Competitors have a 62.5% probability of lowering their price to match AGW's $2.15 price, but there is no indication they would go lower. AGW has room to lower their price to $1.76 per square foot at a production of 325,000 square feet.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Athens Glass Work likely lost significant market share due to raising their price from $2.05 to $2.36 per square foot. 2. Their increasing unit costs were probably due to flaws in the company's cost allocation system, which treated some fixed costs as variable costs. 3. Competitors have a 62.5% probability of lowering their price to match AGW's $2.15 price, but there is no indication they would go lower. AGW has room to lower their price to $1.76 per square foot at a production of 325,000 square feet.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    903 views10 pages

    Case Study Athens Glass Works Arkadia

    Uploaded by

    Jsc US
    1. Athens Glass Work likely lost significant market share due to raising their price from $2.05 to $2.36 per square foot. 2. Their increasing unit costs were probably due to flaws in the company's cost allocation system, which treated some fixed costs as variable costs. 3. Competitors have a 62.5% probability of lowering their price to match AGW's $2.15 price, but there is no indication they would go lower. AGW has room to lower their price to $1.76 per square foot at a production of 325,000 square feet.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 10

    Case: Athens Glass Work

    Arkadia Group IV Bosmen Rianto, El Nora Theresia., Ivan Rilman, Marwan Hanif, Yusuf Adhitama

    Key question from the case


    1. Whether AGW Significant Loss Market Share

    due to price increase? 2. Whether unit cost grew with increasing volume or result of company allocation system? 3. Any possibility competitor will lower their price to $ 2.15?

    Step in constructing the case


    1. Check the independence of attribute using

    probability methods 2. Check the sanity of cost allocation system 3. Using probability to predict competitor behavior in reducing cost

    AGW Significant Loss Market Share due to price increase?

    Year 1991 1991 1992 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993

    Quarter

    Sales Volume (000 square feet) Price ($ per square foot) Market Price MS AGW Competitors AGW Competitors Share Increase decline 3 241 443 2.05 2.05 35.2% 4 313 592 2.05 2.15 34.6% 0% -2% 1 204 381 2.15 2.15 34.9% 5% 1% 2 269 513 2.15 2.15 34.4% 0% -1% 3 251 456 2.15 2.15 35.5% 0% 3% 4 238 672 2.36 2.15 26.2% 10% -26% 1 139 474 2.36 2.15 22.7% 0% -13% 2 162 642 2.36 2.15 20.1% 0% -11%

    P( Price AGW) P (MS decline) P (Price AGW| MS decline) P (Price AGW) * P (MS decline)

    0.285714 0.714286 0.142857 0.204082

    Unit cost grew with increasing volume or result of company allocation system?
    Production Volume (000 sf.ft.) Material Energy Labor Shipping General overhead Depreciation Manufacturing Cost Selling and admin cost Total Cost volume increase unit cost increase p (volume increase) p (cost increase) p (volume | cost) independence

    150 0.45 0.38 0.32 0.11 0.08 0.27 1.61 0.72 2.33

    175 0.45 0.36 0.31 0.11 0.08 0.23 1.54 0.69 2.23 0.17 -0.04 1 0.285714 0.285714 0.285714

    200 0.45 0.36 0.30 0.11 0.08 0.20 1.50 0.67 2.17 0.14 -0.03

    225 0.45 0.35 0.31 0.11 0.08 0.18 1.48 0.66 2.14 0.13 -0.01

    250 0.45 0.35 0.33 0.11 0.08 0.16 1.48 0.67 2.15 0.11 0.00

    275 0.45 0.37 0.35 0.11 0.09 0.15 1.52 0.68 2.20 0.10 0.02

    300 0.45 0.37 0.36 0.11 0.09 0.14 1.52 0.68 2.20 0.09 0.00

    325 0.45 0.38 0.38 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.54 0.69 2.23 0.08 0.01

    The ineffective cost allocation systems can leads to mistaken pricing strategy
    The major ineffective cost allocation systems in Roberts estimated cost per square foot (sqf) is treating some cost that in nature as Fixed Cost become Variable Costs. Fixed cost/sqf will decrease along with the numbers of glass produced. Those costs are: Shipping Cost. AGW has its own fleet, then the major cost will be depreciation (fuel is considered as less major) and the depreciation is considered as Fixed Cost General Overhead. Overhead in nature should be Fixed Cost instead of Variable to Labor cost. Selling and Admin Cost. AGW sales staffs are salaried employees instead of contractual. So the cost will remain fixed in nature. With the correct cost allocation system, actually AGW is in profitable situation. Based on our recalculation of sqf cost (treating these 3 costs as Variable Cost), AGW not only can reduce their price until USD 2.15 but until USD 1.76 with the production scale of 325.000 sqf. Please see our recalculation in the next spreadsheet.

    Note: We assume that the total fixed cost of each of three cost from the production level of 150,000 sqf multiplied by the original cost per unit at Roberts initial assumption y Total Shipping Cost is USD 16.500 (0.11*150.000) y Total General Overhead Cost is USD 12.000 (0.08*150.000) y Total Selling and Admin Cost is USD 108.000 (0.72*150.000)

    Any possibility competitor will lower their price to $ 2.15?

    Any possibility competitor will lower their price to $ 2.15? (continued)


    Based on our analysis on the competitorss reaction on AGW price movements (on the table above), noted that competitors will have probability of 62.50% in order to match their price with AGW and 37.50% probability to remain with their current price. No indication in the past experience that competitor has attitude to lower the price below AGW price. Further, AGW need not to worry if the competitor reduce their price since AGW still have room for price reduction until USD 1.76/sqf with the assumption of Break Even Point and production of 325,000 sqf

    Conclusion
    1. AGW Significant Loss Market Share probable

    due to price increase 2. Unit cost grew as result of company allocation system 3. There is possibility competitor will follow our price Reduction 4. But the benefit of lowering price will translate into better sales volume

    You might also like