Question Details

(solution) Case 2-7 Bryanna Snyder ACCT499 13 October 2016 Professor Karina


Hi there. Can you help with me the actual case study please? See attached


Case 2-7

 

Bryanna Snyder

 

ACCT499

 

13 October 2016

 

Professor Karina Kasztelnik

 

American Public University Complete case study 2-7 at the end of Chapter 2. The paper must be formatted according to APA

 

style. You must use at least 2 scholarly resources other than the textbook to support your claims.

 

The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages in length excluding the title pages and references and

 

thoroughly address the case study questions.

 

Case 2-7 Milton Manufacturing Company

 

Milton Manufacturing Company produces a variety of textiles for distribution to wholesale manufacturers of

 

clothing products. The company?s primary operations are located in Long Island City, New York, with branch

 

factories and warehouses in several surrounding cities. Milton Manufacturing is a closely held company. Irv Milton

 

is the president of the company. He started the business in 2002 and it grew in revenue from $500,000 to $5.0

 

million in 10 years. However, the revenues declined to $4.5 million in 2012. Net cash flows from all activities also

 

were declining. The company was concerned because it planned to borrow $20 million from the credit markets in

 

the fourth quarter of 2013.

 

Irv Milton met with Ann Plotkin, the chief accounting officer (CAO), on January 15, 2013, to discuss a proposal

 

by Plotkin to control cash outflows. She was not overly concerned about the recent decline in net cash flows from

 

operating activities because these amounts were expected to increase in 2013, as a result of projected higher levels

 

of revenue and cash collections.

 

Plotkin knew that if overall capital expenditures continued to increase at the rate of 26 percent per year, Milton

 

Manufacturing probably would not be able to borrow the $20 million. Therefore, she suggested establishing a new

 

policy to be instituted on a temporary basis. Each plant?s capital expenditures for 2013 would be limited to the level

 

of capital expenditures in 2011. Irv Milton pointedly asked Plotkin about the possible negative effects of such a

 

policy, but in the end Milton was convinced it was necessary to initiate the policy immediately to stem the tide of

 

increases in capital expenditures. A summary of cash flows appears in Exhibit 1.

 

Sammie Markowicz is the plant manager at the headquarters location in Long Island City. He was informed of

 

the new capital expenditure policy by Ira Sugofsky, the vice president for operations. Markowicz told Sugofsky that

 

the new policy could negatively affect plant operations because certain machinery and equipment, essential to the

 

production process, had been breaking down more frequently during the past two years. The problem was primarily

 

with the motors. New and better models with more efficient motors had been developed by an overseas supplier. These were expected to be available by April 2013. Markowicz planned to order 1,000 of these new motors for the

 

Long Island City operation, and he expected that other plant managers would do the same. Sugofsky told Markowicz

 

to delay the acquisition of new motors for one year after which time the restrictive capital expenditure policy would

 

be lifted. Markowicz reluctantly agreed.

 

Milton Manufacturing operated profitably during the first six months of 2013. Net cash inflows from investing

 

activities exceeded outflows by $250,000 during this time period. It was the first time in three years there was a

 

positive cash flow from investing activities. Production operations accelerated during the third quarter as a result of

 

increased demand for Milton?s textiles. An aggressive advertising campaign initiated in late 2012 seemed to bear

 

fruit for the company. Unfortunately, the increased level of production put pressure on the machines and the degree

 

of breakdown was increasing. A big problem was that the motors wore out prematurely.

 

EXHIBIT 1

 

MILTON MANUFACTURING COMPANY

 

Summary of Cash Flows

 

For the Years Ended December 31, 2012 and 20011 (000 omitted)

 

December 31, 2012

 

Cash Flows from Operating Activities

 

Net income

 

$ 372

 

Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by December 31, 2011

 

$? 542 operating activities

 

1,350

 

1,383

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

 

$ 1,722

 

$? 1,925

 

Cash Flows from Investing Activities

 

Capital expenditures

 

$ (2,420)

 

$? (1,918)

 

Other investing inflows (outflows)

 

176

 

84

 

Net cash used in investing activities

 

$ (2,244)

 

$? (1,834)

 

Cash Flows from Financing Activities

 

Net cash provided (used in) financing activities

 

$

 

168

 

$ ?? (376)

 

Increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

 

$

 

(285)

 

$ ? (354)

 

Cash and cash equivalents?beginning of the year

 

$

 

506

 

$ ? 791

 

Cash and cash equivalents?end of the year

 

$

 

152

 

$ ? 506

 

Markowicz was concerned about the machine breakdown and increasing delays in meeting customer demands for

 

the shipment of the textile products. He met with the other branch plant managers who complained bitterly to him

 

about not being able to spend the money to acquire new motors. Markowicz was very sensitive to their needs. He

 

informed them that the company?s regular supplier had recently announced a 25 percent price increase for the

 

motors. Other suppliers followed suit and Markowicz saw no choice but to buy the motors from the overseas

 

supplier. That supplier?s price was lower, and the quality of the motors would significantly enhance the machines?

 

operating efficiency. However, the company?s restrictions on capital expenditures stood in the way of making the purchase.

 

Markowicz approached Sugofsky and told him about the machine breakdowns and concerns of other plant

 

managers. Sugofsky seemed indifferent. He reminded Markowicz of the capital expenditure restrictions in place and

 

that the Long Island City plant was committed to make expenditures at the same level as it had in 2011. Markowicz

 

argued that he was faced with an unusual situation and he had to act now. Sugofsky hurriedly left but not before he

 

said to Markowicz: ?A policy is a policy.?

 

Markowicz reflected on the comment and his obligations to Milton Manufacturing. He was conflicted because he

 

viewed his primary responsibility and that of the other plant managers to ensure that the production process operated

 

smoothly. The last thing the workers needed right now was a stoppage of production because of machine failure.

 

At this time, Markowicz learned of a 30-day promotional price offered by the overseas supplier to gain new

 

customers by lowering the price for all motors by 25 percent. Coupled with the 25 percent increase in price by the

 

company?s supplier, Markowicz knew he could save the company $1,500, or 50 percent of cost, on each motor

 

purchased from the overseas supplier.

 

After carefully considering the implications of his intended action, Markowicz contacted the other plant

 

managers and informed them that while they were not obligated to follow his lead because of the capital expenditure

 

policy, he planned to purchase 1,000 motors from the overseas supplier for the headquarters plant in Long Island

 

City.

 

Markowicz made the purchase in the fourth quarter of 2013 without informing Sugofsky. He convinced the plant

 

accountant to record the $1.5 million expenditure as an operating (not capital) expenditure because he knew the

 

higher level of operating cash inflows would mask the effect of his expenditure. In fact, Markowicz was proud that

 

he had ?saved? the company $1.5 million and he did what was necessary to ensure that the Long Island City plant

 

continued to operate.

 

The acquisitions by Markowicz and the other plant managers enabled the company to keep up with the growing

 

demand for textiles and the company finished the year with record high levels of net cash inflows from all activities.

 

Markowicz was lauded by his team for his leadership. The company successfully executed a loan agreement with

 

Second Bankers Hours & Trust Co. The $20 million borrowed was received on January 3, 2014.

 

During the course of an internal audit on January 21, 2014, Beverly Wald, the chief internal auditor who is a

 

CPA, discovered that there was an unusually high level of motors in the inventory. A complete check of inventory determined that $1.0 million of motors remained on hand.

 

Wald reported her findings to Ann Plotkin and together they went to see Irv Milton. After being informed of the

 

situation, Milton called in Ira Sugofsky. When Wald told him about her findings, Sugofsky?s face turned beet red. He

 

paced the floor, poured a glass of water, drank it quickly, and then began his explanation. Sugofsky told them about

 

his encounter with Sammie Markowicz. Sugofsky stated in no uncertain terms that he had told Markowicz not to

 

increase plant expenditures beyond the 2011 level. ?I left the meeting believing that he understood the company?s

 

policy. I knew nothing about the purchase,? he stated.

 

At this point Wald joined in and explained to Sugofsky that the $1 million is accounted for as inventory and not

 

an operating cash outflow: ?What we do in this case is transfer the motors out of inventory and into the machinery

 

account once they are placed into operation because, according to the documentation, the motors added significant

 

value to the asset.? Sugofsky had a perplexed look on his face. Finally, Irv Milton took control of the accounting

 

lesson by asking: ?What?s the difference? Isn?t the main issue that Markowicz did not follow company policy?? The

 

three officers in the room shook their head simultaneously, perhaps in gratitude for being saved the additional

 

lecturing. Milton then said he wanted the three of them to brainstorm some alternatives on how best to deal with the

 

Sammie Markowicz situation and present the alternatives to him in one week. NOTES

 

This case deals with a company?s efforts to manage its short-term earnings and cash outflows by restricting capital

 

expenditures. Ethical Issues

 

Top management ?s decision to restrict capital expenditures created a conflict for Sammie Markowicz, the plant

 

manager at the headquarters location in Long Island City. On the one hand, Markowicz knows that the company

 

expects him to follow company policy. On the other hand, he is very conscious of his primary responsibility to keep

 

the production process operating as efficiently as possible. Markowicz was placed in a difficult position because of

 

the capital expenditure restrictions, especially in light of the previously experienced machine breakdowns. The conflict comes to a head for Markowicz when he learns about the 25% price increase that is announced by the

 

plant?s primary supplier for motors used in the production process. Markowicz? decision to order $150,000 of the motors for the Long Island City plant influences other plant managers

 

to take similar actions. He acted in a way that he thought would be in the best interest of the company even though

 

it violated company policy. He failed to consider the consequences of his action on the stakeholders. At a minimum,

 

Markowicz could have contacted top management with his dilemma and sought a reversal of the policy by

 

emphasizing the more frequent machine break downs and pending price increase. Markowicz was wrong to hide

 

the acquisition of an asset by charging it to expense. This action violates the rights of the stockholders who rely on

 

accurate financial information. Markowicz?s action were primarily motivated by self-interest (reasoning at stage 2)

 

and not out of concern for the interests of the stakeholders. An issue that should be dealt with by the company is

 

how and why Markowicz was able to circumvent the interest controls and override the policy. Questions:

 

1. Identify the ethical and professional issues of concern to Beverly Wald in this case.

 

2. Identify and evaluate the alternative courses of action for Wald, Plotkin, and Sugofsky to

 

present in their meeting with Milton.

 

3. How do virtue considerations influence the alternatives presented?

 

4. If you were in Milton?s place, which of the alternatives would you choose and why?

 


Solution details:

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .
SiteLock

About this Question

STATUS

Answered

QUALITY

Approved

DATE ANSWERED

Sep 13, 2020

EXPERT

Tutor

ANSWER RATING

GET INSTANT HELP/h4>

We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.

NEW ASSIGNMENT HELP?

Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.

WE GUARANTEE, THAT YOUR PAPER WILL BE WRITTEN FROM SCRATCH AND WITHIN A DEADLINE.

Order Now