Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COST-VOLUME-PROFIT Decisions
ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION :
Before independence, there was almost no “Public sector” in Indian economy. The only in-
stances worthy of mention were Railways, The Post & Telegraph, The Port Trust, The Ord-
nance and the Aircraft factories and few Government controlled undertakings.
After independence India adopted the road of planned economic development through Five
year plans. In this India opted for dominance of the Public Sector firmly believing that Politi-
cal independence without economic self-reliance would not enable for Government to fulfill
the aspirations of the countrymen. The passage of Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 and
adoption of socialist pattern of society as the national economic goal of the country built the
foundation of the dominant public sector as we see it today. It was believed that a dominant
public sector would reduce the inequality of income and wealth and advance the general pros-
perity of the nation.
Textile Corporation was set up to nationalise such units and to make them healthy and
profitable. Public enterprises also facilitate the groups of small-scale industries.
3. Political objectives
i. Public interest - Public enterprises are established in the interest of the country as a whole.
India has become an industrial power because of the development of public sector
concerns. They facilitate self-reliance in strategic sectors.
ii. National defence - Public enterprises are set up for the manufacture of arms, ammunition,
telecommunications, oil, etc., which are essential for the safety and security of the country.
iii. Socialism - Public enterprises are required to future the political ideology of the Government
as well as to serve the constitutional objectives of socialistic pattern of society.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUBLIC SECTOR AND PRIVATE SECTOR ACCOUNTING :
Public sector accounts are prepared to show the accountability to the concerned department
and private sector accounts are prepared to find out operating results, profit or loss, out of the
commercial transactions undertaken to earn profit. Other differences are as follows:
l Different Accounting System - Private sector accounts are prepared on accrual basis i.e.
earning and spending etc. Balance of both debit and credit side equates one another, but
public sector accounts are maintained on cash basis i.e. cash receipt and cash payment for
the respective period are taken into consideration.
l Profit or Loss - The purpose of public sector account is to depict accountability to the
legislature while private sector accounts try to depict commercial profit earned for the
year ended.
l Balance Sheet - In private sector accounts, balance sheet shows assets and liabilities on a
cumulative basis but in case of public sector accounting, the current year’s expenditures
as well as capital receipts are shown. In Private sector accounting final accounts consists
of profit and loss account, balance sheet, statement of changes in financial position. In
case of public sector accounts, final accounts consists of public sector account and balancing
accounts. Under balancing account, all the balances of the public sector accounts are
shown along with receivables and payables.
l Equation - In private sector accounting equation of assets and liabilities takes the following
form: Capital, Surplus, Other liabilities; Fixed assets, Current assets, Investments. But in
case of public sector accounting equation takes the following form: Public sector account
receivables-Payables.
l System of Entry - Under private sector accounting, double entry system is followed and
journal, ledger, trial balance can be prepared. But in the case of public sector accounting,
single entry system is followed because of its inability to prepare trial balance for absence
of full information.
l Depreciation - In private sector accounts, depreciation is charged on income statement to
arrive at true profit or loss, so that after the termination of the life of the asset they buy a
new asset for replacing the old asset; and also to claim tax exemption from commercial
profit. But in case of public sector accounting, there is no provision for providing
Time horizons
The variables are forecasted for a predetermined period of time. This in business parlance is
known as “Time horizon”. It refers to the time span for which the forecasting is making. There
cannot be rigid rules to determine length of a time horizon. Conventionally accounts of a
count its impact on inter-enterprises and inter-industries, besides the impact on the enterprise
itself and its final consumers.
The different pricing followed by public enterprises can be broadly grouped under three major
heads:
1. Promotion-oriented pricing;
2. Surplus generation-oriented pricing;
3. Stabilization-oriented pricing.
Where external benefits arising from the operations of public enterprises outweigh surpluses
at the enterprise level, relatively lower prices, implying an indirect subsidy to the beneficia-
ries, may be adopted. Public utilities, financial intermediaries, etc. are examples of promotion-
oriented pricing in India. Public enterprises may follow a pricing policy to raise surpluses
either to plough back for their own development or contributing to the development and over-
all progress of the economy. The typical example of surplus generation-oriented pricing is
provided by the operations of the State Trading Corporation where the pricing of certain im-
ported items is meant for scrapping off fortuitous profits by taking advantage of the prevailing
domestic shortage.
The stabilization or regulation-oriented pricing in the public enterprise is intended to produce
a countervailing effect on private enterprise in certain market conditions in respect of goods
which are of primary necessity. As a result of such pricing policy, private enterprises are forced
to sell their products at lower prices. This type of operations in public enterprises can be suc-
cessful only if the public sector is in a position to release adequate supplies at lower prices so
that the restrictive and monopolistic trade practices by the private enterprises can be brought
under control. Besides, public enterprises may offer their products like intermediate inputs for
the benefit of private enterprises on the understanding that the end products be sold at fair
prices to final consumers. These kinds of operations have been confined largely to mass con-
sumption goods in India.
Pricing Principles
The pricing principles followed in public enterprises have been varied and diverse in nature.
The following, however may be distinguished.
(a) Cost plus pricing - The objective of cost plus pricing is to recover fully the cost and return
on investment. The cost plus pricing is employed in public enterprises like Indian
Telephone Industries, Hindustan Aeronautics, etc. wherein the government is a major
buyer.
(b) Marginal costing - In industries where cost decreases with increase in the scale of production,
marginal cost pricing entails a price subsidy to the extent of the difference between average
cost and marginal cost. This principle is justified provided the goods and services in
question have consumption and / or production externalities (external benefits) and high
price elasticity of demand which inhibits full utilization of productive capacity. In public
enterprises like BHEL, HEC and Electricity Boards where under utilization has been
perennially an inhibiting factor, the application of marginal cost pricing principle has
enabled them to recover a portion of the total cost. In multi-product enterprises, the
Keeping in view the above objectives, while fixing prices and profits of public sector products
and emphasizing state undertaking should not only pave their way but make legitimate prof-
its, a variety of consideration need to be done in mind. Some of them are indicated below:
l The general market price;
l The question as to what part of the economy in cost should be passed on to the consumer
and what portion to the tax payer;
l The likelihood of non-availability and, therefore, scarcity in the near future;
l The principle of what the traffic can bear.
Guidelines to Pricing
It is very necessary to have suitable guidelines for public enterprises which operate under
monopolistic or semi monopolistic conditions in order to derive externalities and direct ben-
efits to the consumers under the guidance of socialistic objectives. Pricing policies to be adopted
may follow the following guidelines:
1. The pricing of products should be within the landed costs of comparable imported goods
which would be the normal ceiling (and not on the basis of C.I.F prices).
2. Within the ceiling of landed cost, it would be open to the enterprises to have price
negotiation and fixed prices at suitable levels for their products which would give them a
reasonable return on the capital invested. It is also desired that the price so fixed should
be operative for a period of two to three years.
3. Ordinarily, the landed cost should be regarded as the absolute ceiling. If, however, in
accessing the landed costs, there are reasons to believe that imported F.O.B. / C.I.F prices
are artificially low, or in other exceptional circumstances, where our own cost of production
is very high, it may be necessary to have the prices higher than the landed costs. In such
circumstances, the matter is required to be referred to the administrative ministry
concerned for examination in depth in consultation with the M.O.F and Bureau of Public
Enterprises, etc.
FORMULATION, EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECTS :
While evaluating a capital expenditure we assume that the risk or quality of all investment
proposals under consideration does not differ from the risk of existing investment projects of
the firm and that the acceptance of any proposals or group of investment proposals does not
change the relative risk of the firm. The investment decision will be either to accept or to reject
the proposals. These criteria can be classified as follows:
Evaluation
NPV
Criteria
BCR
Discounting
Criteria
IRR
Annual Capital
Charge
If the pay back period calculated is less than some maximum acceptable pay-back period then
the proposal is accepted if not it is rejected. However, in most of the cases firms specify the
cut off, so a good project may be rejected. Another drawback of this method is it does not
consider time value of money and it does not consider cash flows beyond payback time. So
no useful result is obtained form it. However a new payback method has been introduced
which takes time value of money into account, known as discounted payback method.
Accounting Rate of Return (ARR)
Accounting rate of return can be defined as the ratio of the average profit after tax to the
average book value of investment. Firm accepts the project if its accounting rate of return
exceed the target average rate of return.
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
It can be defined as the rate of return at which NPV = 0.
Because of the various shortcomings in the average rate of return and pay back methods, it
generally is felt that discounted cash-flow method provide a more objective basis for evaluating
and selecting investment projects. This method takes account of both the magnitude and
timing of expected cash-flows in each period of a project’s life. In this method the internal rate
of return for an investment proposal is the discounted rate that equates the present value of
expected cash outflows with the present value of the expected inflows.
N
⎛ At ⎞
∑ ⎜⎜ ⎟ = o
t ⎟
t=o ⎝ (1 + r ) ⎠
Where At is the cash flows for the period t, where it maybe a net outflow or inflow, and N is
the last period in which a cash flow is expected. ‘r’ is the required rate of return.
The acceptance criteria generally employed with the internal rate of return method is to compare
the internal rate of return with a required rate of return, also known as the cutoff rate, or
hurdle rate. If the internal rate of return exceeds the required return, the project is accepted;
if not the project is rejected. For one period project IRR gives correct result (where IRR = C1 /
C0 - 1). But in most of the cases when IRR is very high for a project all NPV also becomes
higher than that, so it becomes impossible to draw the conclusion. The pitfalls of IRR are:
Lending borrowing — IRR is the same for lending and borrowing but NPV lines are in different
directions.
Multiple rates of return — for changing signs of CF’s there may be more than one IRR’s for the
same project.
Mutually exclusive projects — projects with higher IRR need not have higher NPV and a
different rate NPV gives different ranking.
IRR non existent — for some CF’s IRR may not exist.
Assumption about expected rate of return—to solve for IRR we will have to assume that
different expected returns gives same results (r1 = r2 = r3 ……….), indicating a flat term
structure.
Net Present Value (NPV)
This is also a discounted cash flow approach. With the present-value method, all cash flows
are discounted to present value, using the required rate of return. The net present value of an
investment proposal is
N
⎛ ⎞
∑ ⎜⎜ (1 +Atr ) t
⎟⎟ = NPV
t=o ⎝ ⎠
Where, r = required rate of return.
If the sum of these discounted cash flows is zero or more, the proposal is accepted, if not, it is
rejected.
Another way to express the acceptance criterion is to say that the project will be accepted if the
present value of cash inflows exceeds the present value of cash out flows.
Profitability index (PI)
The profitability index, or benefit cost ratio, of a project is the present value of future cash
flows over initial outlay. It is expressed as follows:
Because of burgeoning revenue deficit in Central Budget year after year on account of current
revenue expenditure on items such as interest payments, wages and salaries of Government
employees and subsidies, the Government is left with hardly any surplus for capital expenditure
on social and physical infrastructure. Huge amount of public resources are blocked in several
non-strategic PSEs giving meager return. Government is forced to commit further resources
for sustenance of many non-viable PSEs in absence of exit route. Above all it has to service
huge amount of outstanding debt before any money is available for investment in infrastructure.
All these Government economic woes led to an obviously straight forward option of divestment
of Government stake in PSEs.