Vendor Billed Cost Original Retail Net Sales Initial markup% Maintained markup% Reductions% Vendor A $38,520 $87,000 $86,270 $22,342 125.86% 0.84% Vendor B $43,270 $102,000 $98,420 $25,097 135.73% 3.51% Vendor C $41,270 $94,000 $77,720 $23,937 127.77% 17.32% Vendor D $42,230 $98,000 $81,660 $24,493 132.06% 16.67% Vendor E $74,200 $179,000 $155,750 $43,036 141.24% 12.99% Vendor F $68,030 $162,000 $149,940 $39,457 138.13% 7.44% Vendor G $96,990 $235,000 $199,870 $56,254 142.29% 14.95% Vendor H $101,280 $250,000 $203,800 $58,742 146.84% 18.48% Vendor I $52,270 $130,000 $108,990 $30,317 148.71% 16.16% Vendor J $75,320 $187,000 $137,780 $43,686 148.27% 26.32% Vendor K $83,260 $201,000 $170,980 $48,291 141.41% 14.94% Vendor L $91,020 $198,000 $181,850 $52,792 117.53% 8.16% Total: $807,660 $1,923,000 $1,653,030 $468,443 138.10% 14.04% Which vendors’ maintained markup percentage performances were better than the overall maintained markup percentage achieved for the total merchandise? Compare the total initial markup percentage (total IMU%) that was originally planned and the total maintained markup percentage (total MMU%) achieved. What is the total reductions% that caused the difference between the total IMU% and total MMU%? Given that there were no cash discounts or alteration costs, did the buyer meet her gross margin goal of 50%? If yes, which vendor(s) positively contributed to the buyer’s meeting her gross margin goal? (i.e., Which vendors’ merchandise met or exceeded a gross margin of 50%?)
Vendor Billed Cost Original Retail Net Sales Initial markup% Maintained markup% Reductions% Vendor A $38,520 $87,000 $86,270 $22,342 125.86% 0.84% Vendor B $43,270 $102,000 $98,420 $25,097 135.73% 3.51% Vendor C $41,270 $94,000 $77,720 $23,937 127.77% 17.32% Vendor D $42,230 $98,000 $81,660 $24,493 132.06% 16.67% Vendor E $74,200 $179,000 $155,750 $43,036 141.24% 12.99% Vendor F $68,030 $162,000 $149,940 $39,457 138.13% 7.44% Vendor G $96,990 $235,000 $199,870 $56,254 142.29% 14.95% Vendor H $101,280 $250,000 $203,800 $58,742 146.84% 18.48% Vendor I $52,270 $130,000 $108,990 $30,317 148.71% 16.16% Vendor J $75,320 $187,000 $137,780 $43,686 148.27% 26.32% Vendor K $83,260 $201,000 $170,980 $48,291 141.41% 14.94% Vendor L $91,020 $198,000 $181,850 $52,792 117.53% 8.16% Total: $807,660 $1,923,000 $1,653,030 $468,443 138.10% 14.04% Which vendors’ maintained markup percentage performances were better than the overall maintained markup percentage achieved for the total merchandise? Compare the total initial markup percentage (total IMU%) that was originally planned and the total maintained markup percentage (total MMU%) achieved. What is the total reductions% that caused the difference between the total IMU% and total MMU%? Given that there were no cash discounts or alteration costs, did the buyer meet her gross margin goal of 50%? If yes, which vendor(s) positively contributed to the buyer’s meeting her gross margin goal? (i.e., Which vendors’ merchandise met or exceeded a gross margin of 50%?)
Practical Management Science
6th Edition
ISBN:9781337406659
Author:WINSTON, Wayne L.
Publisher:WINSTON, Wayne L.
Chapter2: Introduction To Spreadsheet Modeling
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 20P: Julie James is opening a lemonade stand. She believes the fixed cost per week of running the stand...
Related questions
Question
| Vendor | Billed Cost | Original Retail | Net Sales | Initial markup% | Maintained markup% | Reductions% |
| Vendor A | $38,520 | $87,000 | $86,270 | $22,342 | 125.86% | 0.84% |
| Vendor B | $43,270 | $102,000 | $98,420 | $25,097 | 135.73% | 3.51% |
| Vendor C | $41,270 | $94,000 | $77,720 | $23,937 | 127.77% | 17.32% |
| Vendor D | $42,230 | $98,000 | $81,660 | $24,493 | 132.06% | 16.67% |
| Vendor E | $74,200 | $179,000 | $155,750 | $43,036 | 141.24% | 12.99% |
| Vendor F | $68,030 | $162,000 | $149,940 | $39,457 | 138.13% | 7.44% |
| Vendor G | $96,990 | $235,000 | $199,870 | $56,254 | 142.29% | 14.95% |
| Vendor H | $101,280 | $250,000 | $203,800 | $58,742 | 146.84% | 18.48% |
| Vendor I | $52,270 | $130,000 | $108,990 | $30,317 | 148.71% | 16.16% |
| Vendor J | $75,320 | $187,000 | $137,780 | $43,686 | 148.27% | 26.32% |
| Vendor K | $83,260 | $201,000 | $170,980 | $48,291 | 141.41% | 14.94% |
| Vendor L | $91,020 | $198,000 | $181,850 | $52,792 | 117.53% | 8.16% |
| Total: | $807,660 | $1,923,000 | $1,653,030 | $468,443 | 138.10% | 14.04% |
- Which vendors’ maintained markup percentage performances were better than the overall maintained markup percentage achieved for the total merchandise?
- Compare the total initial markup percentage (total IMU%) that was originally planned and the total maintained markup percentage (total MMU%) achieved.
- What is the total reductions% that caused the difference between the total IMU% and total MMU%?
- Given that there were no cash discounts or alteration costs, did the buyer meet her gross margin goal of 50%? If yes, which vendor(s) positively contributed to the buyer’s meeting her gross margin goal? (i.e., Which vendors’ merchandise met or exceeded a gross margin of 50%?)
Expert Solution
Step 1
| Vendor (A) | Billed Cost (B) | Original Retail (*C) | Net Sales(D) | Initial markup%for each vendor(E=B X 58%) | Maintained markup Planned For each vendor (F=(C-B)/B) |
Reductions applied to the merchandise [G=(C-D)/C] |
| Vendor A | $38,520 | $87,000 | $86,270 | $22,342 | 125.86% | 0.84% |
| Vendor B | $43,270 | $102,000 | $98,420 | $25,097 | 135.73% | 3.51% |
| Vendor C | $41,270 | $94,000 | $77,720 | $23,937 | 127.77% | 17.32% |
| Vendor D | $42,230 | $98,000 | $81,660 | $24,493 | 132.06% | 16.67% |
| Vendor E | $74,200 | $179,000 | $155,750 | $43,036 | 141.24% | 12.99% |
| Vendor F | $68,030 | $162,000 | $149,940 | $39,457 | 138.13% | 7.44% |
| Vendor G | $96,990 | $235,000 | $199,870 | $56,254 | 142.29% | 14.95% |
| Vendor H | $101,280 | $250,000 | $203,800 | $58,742 | 146.84% | 18.48% |
| Vendor I | $52,270 | $130,000 | $108,990 | $30,317 | 148.71% | 16.16% |
| Vendor J | $75,320 | $187,000 | $137,780 | $43,686 | 148.27% | 26.32% |
| Vendor K | $83,260 | $201,000 | $170,980 | $48,291 | 141.41% | 14.94% |
| Vendor L | $91,020 | $198,000 | $181,850 | $52,792 | 117.53% | 8.16% |
| Total: | $807,660 | $1,923,000 | $1,653,030 | $468,443 | 138.10% | 14.04% |
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 5 steps
Recommended textbooks for you
Practical Management Science
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781337406659
Author:
WINSTON, Wayne L.
Publisher:
Cengage,
Operations Management
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259667473
Author:
William J Stevenson
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Operations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi…
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259666100
Author:
F. Robert Jacobs, Richard B Chase
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Practical Management Science
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781337406659
Author:
WINSTON, Wayne L.
Publisher:
Cengage,
Operations Management
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259667473
Author:
William J Stevenson
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Operations and Supply Chain Management (Mcgraw-hi…
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781259666100
Author:
F. Robert Jacobs, Richard B Chase
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781285869681
Author:
Robert M. Monczka, Robert B. Handfield, Larry C. Giunipero, James L. Patterson
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Production and Operations Analysis, Seventh Editi…
Operations Management
ISBN:
9781478623069
Author:
Steven Nahmias, Tava Lennon Olsen
Publisher:
Waveland Press, Inc.