CHAPTER 7. MARKUPS FOR EQUI PMENT PRICE DETERMINATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

........................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS

....................................................................................... 7-1 7.3 MARKUP CALCULATION PROCEDURE

.................................................................. 7-2 7.3.1 Approach for Manufacturer Markups

.............................................................................. 7-3 7.3.2 Approach for Distributor Markups

.................................................................................. 7-3 7.3.3 Overall Markup

........................................................................................................... ..... 7-5 7.4 MANUFACTURER MARKUPS

.................................................................................... 7-6 7.5 DISTRIBUTOR MARKUPS

........................................................................................... 7-7 7.6 SALES TAXES

............................................................................................................... 7 -9 7.7 SUMMARY OF MARKUPS

........................................................................................ 7-10

LIST OF TABLES

Table 7.4.1 Major Appliance Manufactur er Gross Margins and Markups

............................. 7-7 Table 7.5.1 Data Used to Calc ulate Distributor Markups

....................................................... 7-8 Table 7.5.2 Distributor (Mac- Gray) Baseline Markup

........................................................... 7-9 Table 7.6.1 Average Sales Tax Rates by Ce nsus Division and Large State

......................... 7-10 Table 7.6.2 Average Sales Tax Rates

................................................................................... 7-10 Table 7.7.1 Summary of Markups

........................................................................................ 7-10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 7.2.1 Distribution Channel for Commercial Clothes Washers

..................................... 7-2

7-iCHAPTER 7. MARKUPS FOR EQUIPMENT PRICE DETERMINATION

7.1 INTRODUCTION
To carry out the engineering and life-cy cle cost (LCC) analyses, DOE needed to determine the cost to the customer of a baseline product and the co st of more-efficient units. By applying a multiplier called a “markup” to the ma nufacturers’ equipment costs estimated in the engineering analysis, DOE estimated the consumer prices for baseline m odels and more-efficient equipment.

This chapter presents information and result s pertaining solely to CCWs. As described in section 1.3 of chapter 1 of this technical s upport document (TSD), DOE is continuing the rulemaking for energy conservation standards fo r microwave oven standby power, and analyses related to these products will be published in a separate TSD. In addition, DOE issued a final rule 1 adopting energy conservation standard s for conventional cooking products ( i.e. , cooktops and ovens) and microwave oven energy factor (EF), and details of the analyses for these products are contained in the co rresponding final rule TSD. 2

7.2 DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS
The appropriate markups for determining the consumer equipment price depend on the type of distribution channels through which products move from manufacturers to purchasers. At each point in the distribution channel, compan ies mark up the price of the equipment to cover their business costs and profit margin.

For commercial clothes washers, DOE base d the distribution cha nnels (see Figure 7.2.1) on data developed by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). 3 The CEE states that the relevant portions of the commercial, family-sized clothes washer market can be divided into three areas: laundromats; private multi-family housi ng; and large institutions. Included as part of large institutions are military ba rracks, universities, housing aut horities, lodging establishments, and health care facilities. For these three market areas, the CEE data indicate that an overwhelming majority of commer cial clothes washers are sold through either distributors or route operators. Laundromats generally purcha se their equipment through distributors while multi-family housing and large institutions generally lease their equipment from route operators. For purposes of developing the markups for co mmercial clothes washers, DOE based its calculations on the distribution ch annel that involves only distri butors. DOE assumed that the markups and the resulting consumer equipment pr ices determined for the distribution channel involving distributors would be representative of the prices paid by consumers acquiring their equipment from route operators.

7-1Source: CEE, 1998 Figure 7.2.1 Distribution Channel for Commercial Clothes Washers

7.3 MARKUP CALCULATION PROCEDURE
As just discussed, at each point in the di stribution channel, companies mark up the price of the equipment to cover their business costs a nd profit margin. In fina ncial statements, gross margin is the difference between the company reve nue and the company cost of sales or cost of goods sold ( CGS ). Inputs for calculating the gross ma rgin are all corporate costs—including overhead costs (sales, general, and administ ration); research and development (R&D) and interest expenses; depreciation, and taxes—and profits. In order for sales of a product to contribute positively to company cash flow, th e product’s markup must be greater than the corporate gross margin. Individual pr oducts may command a lower or higher markup, depending on their perceived added value and the competition they face from similar products in the market.

In developing markups for manufacturers a nd distributors, DOE obtained data about the
revenue, CGS , and expenses of firms that produce and sell the products of interest. DOE’s

7-2approach categorizes the expenses into two categories: labor-scaling costs ( LSC ), which are fixed labor and occupancy expenses that increase in proportion to the amount of labor required to produce or sell the product, and non-labor-scaling costs ( NLSC ), which are variable operating costs that do not scale with la bor and vary in proportion to CGS . Together, LSC and NLSC represent the gross margin.

7.3.1 Approach for Manufacturer Markups
DOE uses manufacturer markups to transfor m a manufacturer’s equipment costs into a manufacturer sales price. Using the CGS and gross margin, DOE calculated the manufacturer markup ( MU MFG ) with the following equation:

CGS + GM MFG MFG
= MU MFG CGS MFG where:

MU MFG = Manufacturer markup, CGS MFG = Manufacturer’s cost of goods sold, and GM MFG = Manufacturer’s gross margin.

7.3.2 Approach for Distributor Markups
DOE based the distributor markups for comm ercial clothes washers on financial data from the U.S. Census Business Expenditure Surv ey. DOE organized the financial data into balance sheets that break down cost compone nts incurred by firms that sell the products. a The key assumptions that DOE used to estimate the distributor markups using these financial data

were:

1. The balance sheets faithfully represent the various average costs incurred by firms selling home appliances and commercial clothes washers.

2. These costs can be divided into two categories:

a. Costs that vary in proportion to the manu facturer sales price (variable costs); and b. Costs that do not vary with the manu facturer sales price (fixed costs).

3. Distributor sales prices vary in proportion to distributor costs that are included in the balance sheets.

In support of the first assumption, the balanc e sheets itemize firm costs into a number of expense categories, including CGS , operating labor and occupancy costs, and other operating costs and profit. Although distributors tend to handle multiple commodity lines, the data provide the most accurate available indication of commercial clothes washer expenses.

a The retailers and distributors to whom these financial data refer handle multiple commodity lines.

7-3Information obtained from the trade literatu re pertaining to the h eating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) contracti ng industry tends to support the second assumption. This information indicates that distri butor markups should vary accord ing to the quantity of labor and materials used to sell or dist ribute the equipment, with mar kups on labor tending to be much larger than markups on materials. 4 This information also describes markups as varying much more in relation to sales volume than in relation to other factors, including appliance efficiency. This last finding strongly sugge sts that labor inputs vary more with sales volume than with appliance cost or efficiency. In the discu ssion that follows in s ection 7.5, DOE assumes a division of costs between those th at do not scale with the manufact urer sales price (fixed costs— labor and occupancy expenses referred to above as LSC ), and those that do (variable costs— operating expenses and profit referred to above as NLSC ). This division of costs led to the estimate of distributor markups described below in section 7.5.

In support of the third assumption, the dist ributor industries are relatively competitive, and consumer demand for commercial clothes wash ers is relatively inelastic, i.e. the demand is not expected to decrease significantly with a relativ ely small increase in price. The large number of merchant wholesalers of service equipment (i.e., dist ributors of produc ts including commercial clothes washers) listed by the U.S. Census Bureau in its Statistics of U.S. Businesses indicates the competitive nature of the market. 5 For example, there are over 5000 merchant wholesaler establishments of service equipment in the U.S. b Following standard economic theory, competitive firms facing inelastic demand e ither set prices in line with costs or quickly go out of business. 6

Using the above assumptions, DOE developed baseline and incremental markups to transform the manufacturer sales price into a consumer equipment price. DOE used the baseline markups, which cover all of a di stributor’s costs (i.e., both LSC and NLSC ), to determine the sales price of baseline models. The baseline ma rkup relates the manufactur er sales price to the distributor sales price. DOE considers baseline models to be equipment sold under existing market conditions (i.e., without new energy efficiency standards) . DOE calculated the baseline markup ( MU BASE ) for distributors usi ng the following equation:

CGS + GM CGS + ( LSC + NLSC ) DIST DIST DIST DIST DIST MU BASE = = CGS CGS DIST DIST

where:

MU BASE = Baseline distributor markup,

b DOE determined the number of establishments for household appliance stores based on the following North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and description: 443111, Household Appliance Stores

. DOE determined the number of establishments for di stributors of commercial clothes washers based on the following NAICS code and description: 42385, Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers

.

7-4CGS DIST = Distributor’s cost of goods sold, GM DIST = Distributor’s gross margin, LSC DIST = Distributor’s labor-scaling costs, and NLSC DIST = Distributor’s non-la bor-scaling costs.

Incremental markups cover only those co sts that scale with a change in the manufacturer’s sales price (i.e., NLSC ). Incremental markups are co efficients that relate the change in the manufacturer sa les price of higher-efficiency mo dels to the change in the distributor sales price. DOE considers higher-efficiency models to be equipment sold under market conditions with new efficiency standard s. It calculated the incremental markup ( MU INCR ) for distributors using the following equation:

CGS + NLSC DIST DIST MU INCR = CGS DIST where:

MU INCR = Incremental distributor markup, CGS DIST = Distributor’s cost of goods sold, and NLSC DIST = Distributor’s non-la bor-scaling costs.

7.3.3 Overall Markup
The overall markup is the product of the manuf acturer and distributor markups, as well as sales taxes.

DOE used the overall baseline markup to es timate the consumer equipment price of baseline models, given the manufacturer cost of the baseline models. As stated above, DOE considers baseline models to be equipment sold under existing market conditions (i.e., without new energy efficiency standards). The followi ng equation shows how DOE used the overall baseline markup to determine the equipment price for baseline models.

EQP = COST × 

## ( MU × MU × Tax 

## ) = COST × MU BASE MFG MFG BASE SALES MFG OVERALL

_ BASE

where:

EQP BASE = Consumer equipment price for baseline models, COST MFG = Manufacturer cost for baseline models, MU MFG = Manufacturer markup, MU BASE = Baseline distributor markup, Tax SALES = Sales tax, and MU OVERALL_BASE = Baseline overall markup (product of manufacturer markup, baseline distributor markup, and sales tax).

7-5Similarly, DOE used the overall incremental markup to estimate changes in the consumer equipment price, given changes in the manufacturer cost above the baseline model cost resulting from a standard to raise equipment efficiency. The total consumer equipment price for higherefficiency models is composed of two components: the consumer equipment price of the baseline model and the change in consumer equipment pri ce associated with the increase in manufacturer cost to meet the new efficiency standard. The following equation shows how DOE used the overall incremental markup to determine the consumer equipment price for higher-efficiency models (i.e., models meeting new efficiency standards).

EQP = COST × MU + Δ COST × 

## ( MU × MU × Tax 

## ) STD MFG OVERALL

_ BASE MFG MFG INCR SALES

= EQP BASE + Δ COST MFG × MU OVERALL

_ INCR

where:

EQP STD = Consumer equipment price for models meeting new efficiency standards, EQP BASE = Consumer equipment price for baseline models, COST MFG = Manufacturer cost for baseline models, Δ COST MFG = Change in manufacturer cost for higher-efficiency models, MU MFG = Manufacturer markup, MU INCR = Incremental distributor markup, Tax SALES = Sales tax, MU OVERALL_BASE = Baseline overall markup (product of manufacturer markup, baseline distributor markup, and sales tax), and MU OVERALL_INCR = Incremental overall markup (product of manufacturer markup, incremental distributor markup, and sales tax).

7.4 MANUFACTURER MARKUPS
DOE developed an average manufacturer ma rkup by examining the annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by four publicly-t raded manufacturers primarily engaged in appliance manufacturing and whose combined product range includes residential cooking products and commercial clothes washers. 7 The four manufacturers represent a nearly 50 percent market share fore core appliances. Because these comp anies are typically diversified, producing a range of different a ppliances, an industry average markup was assumed by DOE to be representative for the manufacture of each type of appliance. DOE evaluated markups for the years between 2002 and 2005, inclusive.

Table 7.4.1 lists the average corporate gr oss margin during the years from 2002 to 2005, and corresponding markups, for each of the four manufacturers.

7-6Table 7.4.1 Major Appliance Manufacturer Gross Margins and Markups
Mfr A Mfr B Mfr C Mfr D Average Net Revenues (Million) $372 $280 $4770 $12,682 Corporate Gross Margin 15% 28% 16% 22% Markup 1.18 1.39 1.19 1.28
Source: SEC 10-K reports (2002-2005)

The average markup value based on th ese four companies is 1.26.

7.5 DISTRIBUTOR MARKUPS
DOE used financial data from the BES for the category “Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers” to calculate markups used by distributors for commercial clothes washers. c 8 Table 7.5.1 shows the data from the BES and the distributor markups DOE estimated using the procedures described above.

c DOE used the 1997 BES was used becau se the 2002 BES did not contain suffic ient data for the calculation of gross margin or cost of goods sold. Al so, because complete financial data were not available for the category Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers , DOE used data from the classification of Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers which encompasses a broader set of merchant wholesalers.

7-7Table 7.5.1 Data Used to Calculat e Distributor Markups
Item Million Dollars Sales (revenue) 225425 Cost of Goods Sold (CGS) 158097 Gross Margin 67328 Labor-Scaling Costs (LCS): Payroll 25904 Fringe Benefits 3233

Contract Labor 954
Taxes and License Fees 823 Lease and Rental Payments 2932 Telephone and Communications 1185

Utilities 705
Commissions Paid 963

Contract Work 958 Repair and Maintenance 826
LCS Subtotal: 38483 Non-Labor-Scaling Costs (NLCS): Depreciation and Amortization 2650

Office Supplies 885 Packaging and Other Materials 346

Advertising Services 959 Legal Services 277 Accounting, Auditing, and Bookkeeping 346 Computer Related Services 403 Other Operating Expenses 8149
Net Profit Before Taxes 14830
NCLS Subtotal: 28845 Baseline Markup (MU BASE ) = (CGS+GM)/CGS 1.43 Incremental Markup (MU INCR ) = (CGS+NLSC)/CGS 1.18

As a check on the above markup values for distributors, DOE calculated markups based on the annual report of one distributor company (Mac-Gr ay) within th is sector. d 9 The report includes data regarding revenue and CGS for this company, but not a breakdown of other expenses. As a result, it was only possible to es timate a baseline markup. Table 7.5.2 below shows the data for the commercial clothes washer dist ributor from the annual report as well as the baseline distributor markup DOE estimated for the sector as a whole using the procedures described above. The average value of 1.27 over the 2000–2004 tim e period for one company is

d Mac-Gray also serves the multi-family sector and can also be considered a route operator.

7-8lower than the value of 1.43 developed from th e Census data. Although this one company has a lower baseline markup than that determined with the Census data, DOE decided to base its distributor markups on the Census data because this data is supposed to be representative of all distributors of commercial clothes washers.

Table 7.5.2 Distributor (Mac-Gr ay) Baseline Markup
Firm Year Revenue Cost of goods sold Baseline Markup

Mac-Gray Services Inc. 2000 154268 119120 1.30

2001 152069 121127 1.26

2002 150368 117956 1.27

2003 149656 118349 1.26

2004 182694 145080 1.26 Average Baseline Markup 1.27
Source: Mac-Gray Services Inc. 2004 annual report.

7.6 SALES TAXES
The sales tax represents state and local sa les taxes that are applied to the consumer equipment price of the equipment. The sales tax is a multiplicative factor that increases the consumer equipment price.

DOE derived state and local taxes from da ta provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse. 10 These data represent weighted averages that in clude county and city rates. DOE then derived population-weighted average tax values for each Ce nsus division and large state, as shown in Table 7.6.1 below.

7-9Table 7.6.1 Average Sales Tax Rates by Census Division and Large State
Census Division/State Tax Rate New England 4.98%
Mid Atlantic 6.07%
East North Central 6.56%
West North Central 6.65%
South Atlantic 5.95%
East South Central 7.85%
West South Central 8.30%
Mountain 6.46%
Pacific 4.97%
New York State 8.25%
California 7.95%
Texas 7.95%
Florida 6.70%

DOE then derived U.S. average tax values for each product (as shown in Table 7.6.2 below) based on the product’s sa turation within each Census di vision and large state. It determined the saturations from the DOE En ergy Information Administration (EIA)’s 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey. 11 Note that the range of tax rates is relatively narrow—ranging from a low of 6.83 percent for microwave ovens to a high of 7.07 percent for gas non-self-cleaning ovens.

Table 7.6.2 Average Sales Tax Rates
Product Tax Rate
Commercial clothes washers 6.84%

7.7 SUMMARY OF MARKUPS
Table 7.7.1 summarizes the markups at each stage in the distribution channel and the overall baseline and incremental markups, as well as sales taxes, for each product.

Table 7.7.1 Summary of Markups Markup Baseline Incr.
Manufacturer 1.26
Distributor 1.43 1.18
Sales Tax 1.069
Overall 1.93 1.59

7-10The example provided below illustrates how DOE used the baseline and incremental markups to derive a consumer equipment price. Assuming the baseline manufacturer cost is $300 and the change in manufacturer cost to meet a given energy e fficiency standard is $50, the resulting baseline consumer equipment price ( EQP BASE ) and higher-efficiency equipment price ( EQP STD ) are:

EQP = COST × 

## ( MU × MU × Tax 

## ) BASE MFG MFG BASE SALES

= $300 × 1.26 × 1.43 × 1.069 = $579

EQP = EQP + Δ COST × 

## ( MU × MU × Tax 

## ) STD BASE MFG MFG INCR SALES

= $576 + $50 × 1.26 × 1.18 × 1.069 = $579 + $79 = $658

7-11REFERENCES

1 U.S. Department of Energy-Office of En ergy Efficiency and Re newable Energy, Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Consumer Products (Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, Microwave Ovens, and Electric and Gas K itchen Ranges and Ovens) and for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment (Com mercial Clothes Washers); Final Rule. Federal Register , 2009. 74(66): pp. 16040-16096.

2 U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Residential Dishwa shers, Dehumidifiers, Cooking Products, and Commercial Clothes Washers , March, 2009. Washington, DC.

< http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residentia l/cooking_products_final_rul e_tsd.html >

3 Consortium for Energy Efficiency, Commercial Family-Sized Washers: An Initiative Description of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency , 1998. Boston, MA.

< http://www.cee1.org/com/cwsh/cwsh-main.php3 >

4 Skaer, M. What should you charge? Try these Tested Formulas. The Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration News , 2001.

< http://www.achrnews.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/ features/BNP_Features_Item/0,1338,23113,00.html >

5 U.S. Census Bureau. Statistics of U.S. Businesses , 2004. Washington, DC.

< http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/susb04.htm >

6 Pindyck, R.S. and D.L. Rubinfeld, Microeconomics, 5 th ed. , 2000. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

7 Security Exchange Commission, SEC 10-K Reports, Various dates, 2002-2005, Security Exchange Commission. < http://www.sec.gov / >

8 U.S. Census Bureau. 1997 Economic Census, Business Expenses Survey Merchant Wholesalers

, Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies , 1997. Washington, DC.

< http://www.census.gov/csd/bes/bes97.htm >

9 Mac-Gray Corporation. 2004 Annual Report , 2004. Waltham, MA.

10 Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Inc. State sales tax rates along with combined average city and county rates , 2006. < http://thestc.com/STrates.stm >

11 U.S. Department of Energy-En ergy Information Administration. Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2001 Public Use Data Files , 2001. Washington, DC.

< http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/publicuse2001.html >

7-12