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 M ARKUPS

................................ ................................ ....................... 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

- 96-1 CHAPTER 6. MARKUPS FOR EQUIPMEN T PRICE DETERMINATIO N

6.1 INTRODUCTION

To carry out its analyses, DOE needed to determi ne 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 Gro up. For products with higher

- than

- baseline efficiency, DOE estimated the consumer prices b y applying appropriate markup s to the incremental manufacturing costs estimated in the engineering analys is.

6.1.1 Distribution Channels

The appro priate 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 outle ts. 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 distrib ution 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 bu siness costs and profit margin. In financial statements, gross margin is the difference between the company revenue and the company co st 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 prof its. To cover costs and to contribute positively to company cash flow, the price of p roducts 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 ( MU MFG ) with the following equation:

MFG MFG MFG

MFG 

### CGS GM CGS MU +

=

W here:

MU MFG = m anufacturer markup,

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

and

GM MFG = m anufacturer’s gross margin.

The manufacturer’s CGS (or MP C ) 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 in clude residential

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

dis hwashers 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 12,178 million $ 1 6,447 1 5,379 11,278

Average Cost of Goods Sold 7,975 $ 1 3,914 1 2,023 6,624

Markup 1. 53 1. 18 1. 28 1. 70

Source: SEC 10

- K reports (2010

- 200 3 )

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 dish washers.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 app liances. 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 t otal 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 Retaile r Markup Therefore, DO E 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 cal culated the baseline markup ( MU BASE ) for retailers as an average markup using the following equation:

RTL RTL RTL

BASE 

### CGS GM CGS MU **+**

**=**

W here:

MU BASE = b aseline retailer markup,

CGS RTL = r etailer’s cost of goods sold, and

GM RTL = r etailer’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 Margin6-4 Table 6.3

. 1 Data for Baseline Markup Calculation: Electronics and Appliance Stores (2002)

Kind of B usiness I tem 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 s ales) 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 hig her

efficiency 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.

Unfortun ately, 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 condition s 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 DO E’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, D OE 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 , as6-5 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 DO E’s approach, a high fixed cost component yields a low incremental markup.)

DOE calculated the incremental markup ( MU INCR ) for retailers using the following equation:

RTL RTL RTL

INCR CGS VC CGS MU **+**

**=**

W here:

MU INCR = i ncremental retailer markup,

CGS RTL = r etailer’s cost of goods sold, and

VC RTL = r etailer’s variable costs.

Table 6.3

. 2 shows the breakdown of operating expenses using the 2 002 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 leg al 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 Survey6-7 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 competitio n 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: Elect ronics 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.

G enerally, 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 majo r appliances. As shown in Table 6.3

. 3 , t he 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 E lectronics and Appliance Stores: Concentration by Four Large Firms

Sector Four

- Firm

Concentration

Ratio Percent of Sales Accounted for by Major Appliances

% % of s ector

s ales Four

- Firm

Concentration Ratio

Electronics and Appliance Stores % of m ajor a ppliance

s ales

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 m ultiplicative 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 C ensus division and large state. It determined the

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

Co nsumption Survey. (6)

Table 6.4

. 2 Average Sales Tax Rates

Product Tax Rate %

Standard

- Sized Dishwashers 7.17

Compact Dishwashers 7.176-9 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 markup s

.

Table 6.5.1 Summary of Markups

Standard Compact Markup Baseline Incremental Baseline Incremental

Manufacturer 1. 2 4 1.2 4

Retailer 1.45 1.17 1.45 1.17

Sales Tax 1.07 17 1.0717

Overall 1. 93 1.5 5 1.9 3 1.5 56-10 REFERENCES

1. Association o f 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, 2 012. ]

< 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

. Jan uary 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 U se Data Files. Washington, DC. ( Last accessed July 10,

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