Digg This

Talk Back

Post a Comment

No comments posted

Related Articles

• The Great Talent Search
• The Lean-Building Machine
• Market Downturn Deepens
• Establishing a Strategic Plan
• Mr. Optimism

[View All]

HousingZone Blogs Glen Singer Jonathan Sweet Nick Bajzek Paul Deffenbaugh Rick Heaston Susan Bady

HousingZone Most Popular Stories

• Home Mortgage Rates Set to Move Higher Next Spring
• Tax Credit Extension to Give Housing Recovery a Boost
• Design Challenge Winners Tackle the Multigenerational Household
• The Energetic Discipline Behind Professional Builder's Builder of the Year
• What remodelers need to know about the new lead paint rules
• Remodelers Tighten Up Labor Costs to Stay Afloat
• Use abandoned phone numbers to boost remodeling business
• What Today's First-Time Buyers Want in a New Home
• 100 Best New Products 2009
• Remodeling market down, but remodelers expect recovery

The Case of the Boisterous Bar Braggart

Alan Hanbury
April 1, 2003
Professional Remodeler

	Alan Hanbury

Liars always figure, and figures always lie. Heard that one before? I know that most of you know how to use percentages to make your results look better. For instance, a small remodeler might say he had a 40% sales increase rather than admit it was from $100,000 to $140,000. A large company would say its volume increased $100,000 instead of 1% on a $10 million volume. We use the terminology that we know will cast the best light.

When a remodeler says he marks up 100% (2.0 multiplier), you might wonder what floodlight he has been shining on those numbers, or about his blood alcohol level. Another just-as-successful remodeler is doing the same volume with a 50% markup (1.5 multiplier). The truth is that when it comes to net profit, they could be twins!

Table 1 Benefit or cost to employer Company 1 (100% markup) Company 2 (50% markup) Four field employees W-2 $200,000 $200,000 Employer portion of FICA $15,300 $15,300 Federal unemployment ($56/employee) $224 Conn. state unemployment (3% of $15,000/employee) $1,800 Workers’ comp @ 16% of payroll without overtime $32,000 Contractors liability @ 3% of total payroll $6,000 Health insurance @ $900/month/employee $43,200 Disability insurance @ $292/month/employee $14,000 Vacation (1-3 weeks per employee) $8,320 Holidays (6 full days and 2 half-days) $5,600 Training (2 half-days and CGR classes 2 full days) $2,000 Tool and gas allowance @ $100/month each $4,800 Pension @ 15% of pay $30,000 Profit sharing on job-performance basis @ 2% of gross sales $20,000 Materials and supplies $140,000 $140,000 Subcontractors $120,000 $120,000 Permits and fees $4,700 $4,700 Engineering, architect and design fees $20,000 $20,000 Cost of goods sold Markup (using multipliers) $500,000 X 2.0 $667,944 X 1.5 Sale price $1,000,000 $1,001,916

Look at the examples in Table 1. Let's assume each company has four employees, including the owner. If the first remodeler includes only material, subcontractors, labor with payroll taxes, permits, fees and professional design costs in hard costs, that $500,000 cost of goods sold (CGS) would be sold for $1 million. On the other hand, the second remodeler correctly (to my thinking) collects as many costs as possible directly associated with an employee (including labor burden) to place in CGS.

Standard overhead items such as office expenses, sales, marketing, staff, owners' compensation, labor burden for office employees, accounting, etc., would be the same for both companies and could be 30% of sales for a professionally run remodeling business. Company 1 has $500,000 of gross profit, $300,000 of overhead, plus that unaccounted-for $167,944 for labor burden, which leaves $32,056 for net profit. That is the same for Company 2 (See Table 2).

Companies 1 and 2 charge the same sales price and have the same net profit. Company 1 needs $500,000 of gross profit to support the overhead and labor burden items that Company 2 placed in cost of goods sold. When each new employee is hired by Company 1, a new overhead budget must be assembled, new break-even and new gross profit targets determined, and thus new markup calculated to cover the increase in overhead and maintain net profit. Employee-produced sales growth hurts this company, even bankrupts it.

With properly calculated labor burden, hiring and firing does not affect overhead except marginally: With communication devices, some administrative function time and some auto expenses (insurance, possibly depreciation or lease expenses), this comes to maybe $5,000 per employee. That's small potatoes compared with the $167,944 "hidden" cost of employment possibly "ignored" by Company 1.

Table 2 Company 1 Company 2 Sales $1,000,000 $1,000,000 minus Cost of goods sold $500,000 $666,684 equals Gross profit $500,000 $333,316 minus Overhead $300,000 $300,000 minus Labor burden $167,944 (Included in CGS) equals Net profit $ 32,056 $32,056

The beauty of Company 2 is that it is having every client help pay for education, training, bonuses, vacation and other days we pay to have people not work. With this model, you can charge intelligently for labor-only jobs or for extras, and compare in-house versus subcontractor costs, with no year-end surprises.

Figures do not lie, but we often lie to ourselves and to peers. When people brag about their markup, ask what is in their cost of goods sold, what their target sales are (not a range or an approximation), what planned overhead is and what their target net profit is. If they cannot answer those questions, you are experiencing "liars always figure." Now you can out-figure them.

Alan Hanbury, CGR, CAPS, is the treasurer of House of Hanbury Builders Inc., a full-service remodeling company in Newington, Conn. He is a frequent speaker at trade shows and home builders associations on profitability and accountability. E-mail him at aehjcgr@aol.com.

© 2009, Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Talk Back

There are no comments posted for this article.

POST A COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE