6-i

CHAPTER 6. MARKUPS FOR EQUIPMENT PRICE DETERMINATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Distribution Channels.................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1.2 Markup Calculation Procedure..................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 MANUFACTURER MARKUPS................................................................................. 6-2

6.3 RETAILER MARKUP................................................................................................ 6-3

6.3.1 Approach for Retailer Markups.................................................................................... 6-3

6.3.1.1 Baseline Retailer Markup ........................................................................... 6-3

6.3.1.2 Incremental Retailer Markup...................................................................... 6-4

6.4 SALES TAXES........................................................................................................... 6-8

6.5 SUMMARY OF MARKUPS....................................................................................... 6-9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 6.2.1 Major Appliance Manufacturers: Gross Margins and Markups......................... 6-2

Table 6.3.1 Data for Baseline Markup Calculation: Electronics and Appliance Stores 

(2002).............................................................................................................. 6-4

Table 6.3.2 Data for Incremental Markup Calculation: Electronics and Appliance 

Stores (2002).................................................................................................... 6-6

Table 6.3.3 Electronics and Appliance Stores: Concentration by Four Large Firms............. 6-7

Table 6.4.1 Average Sales Tax Rates by Census Division and Large State.......................... 6-8

Table 6.4.2 Average Sales Tax Rates.................................................................................. 6-8

Table 6.5.1 Summary of Markups....................................................................................... 6-9
6-1

CHAPTER 6. MARKUPS FOR EQUIPMENT PRICE DETERMINATION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

To carry out its analyses, DOE needed to determine the cost to the consumer of baseline 

products and the cost of more-efficient units. As discussed in chapter 8, DOE developed retail 

prices for baseline products using proprietary retail price data collected by The NPD Group. For 

products with higher-than-baseline efficiency, DOE estimated the consumer prices by applying 

appropriate markups to the incremental manufacturing costs estimated in the engineering 

analysis. 

6.1.1 Distribution Channels

The appropriate markups for determining consumer product prices depend on the type of 

distribution channels through which products move from manufacturers to purchasers. At each 

point in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover their 

business costs and profit margin. 

Data from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) (1) indicate that

an overwhelming majority of residential appliances are sold through retail outlets. Because DOE 

is not aware of any other distribution channel that plays a significant role for residential clothes 

washers, DOE assumed that all of the clothes washers are purchased by consumers from retail 

outlets. DOE did not include a separate distribution channel for clothes washers products 

included as part of a new home, as it did not have information on the extent to which these 

products are “pre-installed” by builders in new homes.

6.1.2 Markup Calculation Procedure

As just discussed, at each point in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price 

of the product to cover their business costs and profit margin. In financial statements, gross 

margin is the difference between the company revenue and the company cost of sales or cost of 

goods sold (CGS). The gross margin includes the expenses of companies in the distribution 

channel—including overhead costs (sales, general, and administration); research and 

development (R&D) and interest expenses; depreciation, and taxes—and company profits. To 

cover costs and to contribute positively to company cash flow, the price of products must include 

a markup. Products command lower or higher markups, depending on company expenses 

associated with the product and the degree of market competition. In developing markups for 

manufacturers and retailers, DOE obtained data about the revenue, CGS, and expenses of firms

that produce and sell the products of interest. 
6-2

6.2 MANUFACTURER MARKUPS

DOE uses manufacturer markups to transform a manufacturer’s production costs into a 

manufacturer sales price. Using the CGS and gross margin, DOE calculated the manufacturer 

markup (MUMFG) with the following equation:

MFG

MFG MFG

MFG CGS

CGS GM

MU

+ =

Where:

MUMFG = manufacturer markup,

CGSMFG = manufacturer’s cost of goods sold or manufacturer production cost (MPC), 

and

GMMFG = manufacturer’s gross margin.

The manufacturer’s CGS (or MPC) plus its GM equals the manufacturer selling price 

(MSP).

DOE developed an average manufacturer markup by examining publicly available 

financial information including Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports for 

manufacturers of major household appliances whose product offerings include residential 

dishwashers. These four manufacturers hold a combined 99 percent of the market for residential 

dishwashers in the United States. Because these companies are typically diversified, producing a

range of different appliances, an industry average markup was assumed by DOE to be 

representative for the manufacture of dishwashers. DOE evaluated markups for 2003–2010. 

Table 6.2.1 lists the average corporate gross margin during the years 2003–2010, and 

corresponding markups, for each of the four manufacturers.

Table 6.2.1 Major Appliance Manufacturers: Gross Margins and Markups

Mfr A Mfr B Mfr C Mfr D

Average Net Revenues million $ 12,178 16,447 15,379 11,278

Average Cost of Goods Sold $ 7,975 13,914 12,023 6,624

Markup 1.53 1.18 1.28 1.70

Source: SEC 10-K reports (2010-2003)

The weighted average markup values based on these four companies is 1.24; therefore

DOE used the 1.24 markup for both standard and compact dishwashers. 
6-3

6.3 RETAILER MARKUP

6.3.1 Approach for Retailer Markups

DOE based the retailer markups for residential clothes washers on financial data for 

Electronics and Appliance Stores from the 2002 U.S. Census Business Expenditure Survey 

(BES), which is the most recent available survey. (3) DOE organized the financial data into 

statements that break down cost components incurred by firms in this category. DOE assumes 

that the income statements faithfully represent the various average costs incurred by firms selling 

home appliances. Although Electronics and Appliance Stores handle multiple commodity lines, 

the data provide the most accurate available indication of expenses for selling home appliances.

The BES data provided for Electronics and Appliance Stores only contain total sales and 

detailed operating expenses. In order to construct a complete data set to estimate markups, DOE 

needed to estimate CGS and gross margin. The 1997 Business Expenses Survey provides total 

sales, gross margin and detailed operating expenses of Household Appliance Stores. The CGS 

and gross margin account for around 70 percent and 30 percent of the total sales, respectively.

DOE found that gross margin as percent of sales has been roughly constant in this category from 

1993 to 2007.a

6.3.1.1 Baseline Retailer Markup

Therefore, DOE assumed that the fractions of CGS and gross margin as percent 

of sales in 2002 are the same as in 1997. Following this assumption, DOE calculated the CGS, 

gross margin and net profit for Electronics and Appliance Stores in the 2002 BES. 

The baseline markup relates the manufacturer sales price of baseline products to the 

retailer sales price. DOE considers baseline models to be products sold under existing market 

conditions (i.e., without new energy efficiency standards). DOE calculated the baseline markup 

(MUBASE) for retailers as an average markup using the following equation:

RTL

RTL RTL

BASE CGS

CGS GM MU+ =

Where:

MUBASE = baseline retailer markup,

CGSRTL = retailer’s cost of goods sold, and

GMRTL = retailer’s gross margin.

Table 6.3.1 shows the calculation of the baseline retailer markup.

 

a U.S. Census, 2007 Annual Retail Trade Report: Electronics and Appliance Stores Sales and Gross Margin 
6-4

Table 6.3.1 Data for Baseline Markup Calculation: Electronics and Appliance Stores 

(2002)

Kind of Business Item Amount 

Sales

$1,000

83,896,811

Cost of Goods Sold (CGS) 57,888,800

Gross Margin (GM) 26,008,011

Baseline Markup = (CGS+GM)/CGS 1.45

Source: U.S. Census, 2002 Business Expenses Survey (for sales) and 1997 Business Expenses Survey (for CGS 

and GM shares)

6.3.1.2 Incremental Retailer Markup

Incremental markups are coefficients that relate the change in the manufacturer sales 

price of higher-efficiency models to the change in the retailer sales price. DOE considers higherefficiency models to be products sold under market conditions with new efficiency standards. 

The incremental markup reflects a situation in which the retailer faces an increase in CGS for a 

particular product due to new or amended standards.

Unfortunately, empirical evidence regarding appliance retailer markup practices when a 

product increases in cost (due to increased efficiency or other factors) is lacking. DOE 

understands that real-world markup practices will vary depending on the market conditions faced 

by retailers, on the magnitude of the change in CGS associated with an efficiency increase and 

on any associated changes in retail costs. Pricing in retail stores may also involve rules of thumb 

that are difficult to know and to incorporate into DOE’s analysis.

Given the uncertainty about actual markup practices in appliance retailing, DOE uses an 

approach that reflects the following key concepts:

 

1. Changes in the efficiency of the goods sold are not expected to increase economic profits. 

Thus, DOE calculates markups/gross margins to allow cost recovery for retail companies 

in the distribution chain (including changes in the cost of capital) without changes in 

company profits. 

2. Efficiency improvements impact some distribution costs but not others. DOE sets 

markups and retail prices to cover the distribution costs expected to change with 

efficiency but not the distribution costs that are not expected to change with efficiency. 

The incremental markup approach is described in more detail in Dale et al. (2004). (4)

To estimate incremental retailer markups, DOE divides retailers’ operating expenses into 

two categories: (1) Those that do not change when CGS increases due to amended efficiency 

standards (“fixed”), and (2) Those that increase proportionately with CGS (“variable”). DOE 

defines fixed costs to include labor and occupancy expenses because these costs are not likely to 

increase as a result of a rise in CGS due to amended efficiency standards. All other expenses, as 
6-5

well as the net profit, are assumed to vary in proportion to CGS. Although it is possible that 

some of the other expenses may not scale with CGS, DOE is inclined to take a more conservative 

position and include these as variable costs. (Note: Under DOE’s approach, a high fixed cost 

component yields a low incremental markup.) 

DOE calculated the incremental markup (MUINCR) for retailers using the following 

equation:

RTL

RTL RTL

INCR CGS

CGS VC MU + =

Where:

MUINCR = incremental retailer markup,

CGSRTL = retailer’s cost of goods sold, and

VCRTL = retailer’s variable costs.

Table 6.3.2 shows the breakdown of operating expenses using the 2002 BES data. The 

incremental markup is calculated as 1.17.
6-6

Table 6.3.2 Data for Incremental Markup Calculation: Electronics and Appliance Stores 

(2002)

Input Data for Incremental Markup Calculation

Amount 

Sales

$1,000

83,896,811

Cost of Goods Sold (CGS) 57,888,800

Gross Margin (GM) 26,008,011

Labor & Occupancy Expenses (“Fixed”)

Annual payroll 10,267,605

Employer costs for fringe benefit 1,407,970

Contract labor costs including temporary help 160,094

Purchased utilities, total 427,809

Cost of purchased repair and maintenance services 308,789

Cost of purchased management consulting administrative services and 

other professional services 300,548

Purchased communication services 400,598

Lease and rental payments 2,655,286

Taxes and license fees (mostly income taxes) 385,538

Subtotal: 16,314,237

Other Operating Expenses & Profit (“Variable”)

Expensed computer related supplies 86,751

Cost of purchased packaging and containers 41,866

Other materials and supplies not for resale 611,361

Cost of purchased transportation, shipping and warehousing services 500,233

Cost of purchased printing services 285,012

Cost of purchased advertising and promotional services 1,840,898

Cost of purchased legal services 90,020

Cost of purchased accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services 86,292

Cost of purchased custom coded original software (expensed) including 

adaption of off-the-shelf software 18,944

Cost of system support design and services including web design 35,748

Cost of insurance 393,201

Cost of data processing and other purchased computer services, except 

communications 41,056

Depreciation and amortization charges 1,229,110

Commissions paid 106,061

Other operating expenses 2,929,906

Cost of contract work 21,955

Net profit before taxes 1,375,360

Subtotal: 9,693,774

Incremental Markup = (CGS+Total Other Operating Expenses 

and Profit)/CGS 1.17

Source: U.S. Census, 2002 Business Expenses Survey
6-7

By dividing expenses into fixed and variable components, the incremental markup 

approach envisions that retailers cover costs without changing profits. Although retailers may be 

able to reap higher profits for a time, DOE’s approach assumes that competition in the appliance 

retail market will tend to pressure retail margins back down. 

To measure the degree of competition in appliance retailing, DOE estimated the four-firm 

concentration ratio (FFCR) of major appliance sales in three retail channels: Electronics and 

Appliance Stores, Building and Material and Supplies Dealers, and General Merchandise Stores.

The FFCR represents the market share of the four largest firms in the relevant industry. 

Generally, an FFCR of less than 40 percent indicates that the industry is not concentrated and an 

FFCR of more than 70 percent indicates that an industry is highly concentrated.b c

The FFCR of major appliance sales is equal to the sector FFCR times the percent of total 

sales within each sector accounted for by major appliances. As shown in Table 6.3.3, the results 

indicate that appliance sales in Electronics and Appliance Stores, Household Appliance Stores, 

Building Material Supplies Dealers, and General Merchandise Stores have a FFCR well under 

the 40-percent threshold. Moreover, the Electronics and Appliance Stores sector includes 

“Household Appliance Stores” as a subsector. Because there are many stores in this subsector, it 

has a FFCR of only 16.8 percent. 

Table 6.3.3 Electronics and Appliance Stores: Concentration by Four Large Firms

Sector

Four-Firm 

Concentration 

Ratio

Percent of Sales 

Accounted for by 

Major Appliances

%

% of sector 

sales

Four-Firm 

Concentration Ratio

Electronics and 

Appliance Stores

% of major appliance 

sales

43.9 39.4 17.3

Household 

Appliance Stores 

subsector

16.8 - -

Building Material and 

Supplies Dealers 41.7 15.7 6.5

General Merchandise 

Stores 65.1 35.4 23.0

Source: U.S. Economic Census, Establishment and Firm Size: (Including Legal Form of Organization), 1997, 2002.

*Note: The assumption used here is that major appliance sales are uniformly distributed within all firms in each 

sector. 

 b University of Maryland University College, AMBA 607 course materials: note on industry structure:

http://info.umuc.edu/mba/public/AMBA607/IndustryStructure.html.[Last accessed July 10, 2012.] c Quick MBA, Economics: industry concentration:

http://www.quickmba.com/econ/micro/indcon.shtml. [Last accessed July 10, 2012.]
6-8

6.4 SALES TAXES

The sales tax represents state and local sales taxes that are applied to the consumer 

product price. The sales tax is a multiplicative factor that increases the consumer product price.

DOE derived state and local taxes from data provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.

(5)

DOE derived population-weighted average tax values for each Census division and large state, as 

shown in Table 6.4.1.

Table 6.4.1 Average Sales Tax Rates by Census Division and Large State

Census Division/State Tax Rate 2009 %

New England 5.55

Mid Atlantic 6.62

East North Central 6.88

West North Central 7.06

South Atlantic 6.51

East South Central 7.93

West South Central 8.42

Mountain 6.81

Pacific 5.23

New York State 8.45

California 9.20

Texas 8.05

Florida 6.65

DOE then derived U.S. average tax values for each product (as shown in Table 6.4.2) 

based on the product’s saturation within each Census division and large state. It determined the 

saturations from the DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA)’s 2005 Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey. (6)

Table 6.4.2 Average Sales Tax Rates

Product Tax Rate %

Standard-Sized Dishwashers 7.17

Compact Dishwashers 7.17
6-9

6.5 SUMMARY OF MARKUPS

Table 6.5.1 summarizes the markups at each stage in the distribution channel and 

provides the average sales tax to arrive at overall markups.

Table 6.5.1 Summary of Markups

Standard Compact

Markup Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental

Manufacturer 1.24 1.24

Retailer 1.45 1.17 1.45 1.17

Sales Tax 1.0717 1.0717

Overall 1.93 1.55 1.93 1.55
6-10

REFERENCES

1. Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. AHAM 2003 Fact Book. 2003. Washington, 

DC. p. 25. 

2. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC 10-K Reports, Various dates, 2004-2009,

Securities and Exchange Commission. (Last accessed July 10, 2012.)

<http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/webusers.htm>.

3. U.S. Census Bureau. 2002 Economic Census, Business Expenses Survey, Retail Trade, 

Household Appliance Stores, 2002. Washington, DC. [Last accessed July 10, 2012.] 

<http://www.census.gov/econ/bes/historic_releases.html>

4. Dale, L., D. Millstein, K. Coughlin, R. Van Buskirk, G. Rosenquist, A. Lekov, and S. 

Bhuyan. An Analysis of Price Determination and Markups in the Air-Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment Industry. January 2004. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: 

Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL-52791.

5. Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Inc. State sales tax rates along with combined average city and 

county rates. (Last accessed July 10, 2012.) <http://thestc.com/STrates.stm>

6. U.S. Department of Energy–Energy Information Administration. Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey, 2005. Public Use Data Files. Washington, DC. (Last accessed July 10, 

2012.) < http://www.eia.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse05/pubuse05.html>