Fence Company Ltd.

Robin L. M. Cheung
Student #0024338
For Professor D. Armishaw
A621 Managerial Accounting
McMaster University
Fence Company Ltd.

E
EX ECUTI VE S
TIIVE
XECUT UMM
SUMMA RY
ARY
Established in 19x5, Fence Company Ltd. is the brain-child of two brothers, Robert and Morris
Wood. Catering to the residential housing market, FC is a low-cost provider of wooden fences.
After a financially distressing year, FC requires an overhaul to its cost and pricing structure, its
marketing, human resources, and its operations—indeed, it has yet to establish an overall
strategy congruent with its competencies and resources.

The current financial and

strategic position of FC was
evaluated using various formal
systematic models, such as
Nadler and Tushman’s (1997)
Congruency model, Porter’s
(1985) Five Forces, and company
analysis (SWOT). These models
point to a best-cost provider
strategy supported with
expanded marketing and seasonal
work teams. Fence Company
Ltd. must no longer compete
solely on price but also on quality
and brand, which can allow
pricing at a premium.

Fence Company must first reduce

its fixed costs. The secretary and
warehouse expenses should be eliminated and replaced with cellular telephone and delivery
costs. Better controls are required for the tools and machinery to avoid additional expenses in
following years.

Sales commissions should be changed to encourage more sales, but of smaller one-house
projects rather than large groups. The volume discount to group sales should be eliminated, as
it resulted in negative earnings.

As a benchmark, FC should aim to return 8% on investment—a reasonable target given the

current economic climate.
Fence Company Ltd.

B
Baackground
ckground
Equally owned by two brothers, Robert and Morris Wodd,
Fence Company Ltd. (FC) Was incorporated in March, 19x5.
Catering to the residential fence market, it offers volume
discounts for group purchases, guarantees to repair defective
fences at no cost, and has a capacity of 36,000 metres per
year.

IIndustry
ndustry A nalysis
Analysis
The Canadian fencing industry, along with all residential
construction industries, has been hit hard since the beginning of the 19x0 recession. In fact,
Industry Canada cites this period as being the “most prolonged period of stagnation…since the
Great Depression.” This stagnation has been mainly attributable to cyclical, demographic, and
structural factors. Owing to excess capacity generated during the previous decade and the
concurrent slow growth in the overall Canadian economy, Fence Company faces a particularly
difficult challenge in the next few years.

See Appendix 1 for a comprehensive industry analysis.

TThe
he Problem
Problem
Fiscal year 19x5 was a difficult one for Fence Company.
It is now late March, 19x6, and the Woods must make
some modifications to their current business model in
order to remain viable. The 50,000 metres projected
for 19x6 is unreasonable, since this projected volume
exceeds capacity by 39%.

C ompany A
Company nalysis
Analysis
See Appendix 2 for complete Congruency and SWOT analyses.

The use of formal models facilitates systematic development of feasible alternatives. In order
to propose alternative courses of action that fit FC’s specific context, its current internal and
external situation, its competitive environment, its strategic objectives, and its competencies
and resources must be considered. General recommendations made at the generic level
without regard for specific company context are therefore avoided since all recommendations
take FC’s specific context into account.
Fence Company Ltd.

Practical A
Practical Assssuumptions
mptions
A number of assumptions were integrated into this financial model:

Variable Costs are Linear

This model assumes that variable costs, such as materials and labour, are linear over the
relevant range; that is, there are no volume discounts on material, and no additional costs to
hiring supplementary teams.

100-metre Average Fence Length

The model assumes an average house to require 100
metres of fence. Obviously, many houses will require
more or less fencing; however, all orders were assumed
to comprise 100 linear metres.

Constant Selling Price

The model assumes a non-negotiable pricing of $12 per
metre for base scenario. This conservative assumption
assumes that sales closes each sale at the minimum
expected $12 per metre price point. Each sale is assumed to close for the same price.
Similarly, in each proposed scenario, all orders are presumed to be closed for the same selling
price per metre.

Non-adjacent Multiple Orders

In the case of one-, two-, and four-house multiple orders, the $120 machine transportation fee
is assumed to apply to each order. Further, multiple orders are presumed to be non-adjacent
for the purposes of calculating length of fencing. Adjacent orders would result in reduced
machine transportation costs and reduced materials cost for the shared portions of the fences.

Non-Unionized Labour
Labour is presumed to be non-unionized. Although management is legally prohibited from
interfering in the formation of unions, labour force is presumed to be non-unionized. This
results in lower wage costs, easier lay-offs, and higher productivity.

Minimum Salaries Fixed

The required $12,000 salary for secretarial staff and $15,000 per owner are assumed to be
fixed and constant. Although including the $15,000 per owner is controversial given the
business is a limited partnership, this is presumed to be an absolutely necessary minimum
required return for the purposes of analysis. Return on investment (ROI) is therefore assumed
to be over and above the required salaries.

Snow-Ploughing is Incremental
The model assumes that the $500 per winter month truck rental expense and its associated
revenues are incremental to FC’s core competency of fence construction. It is therefore
excluded from the base scenario.

5% Premium for Just-in-Time Deliveries

Because supplier premiums for JiT on-site delivery of required materials was not specified, a
5% premium was assumed for the purposes of developing a financial model.
Fence Company Ltd.

All Teams Share One Truck

The model assumes that one truck is used by all teams. Once the team and materials are
delivered to the site, the truck can leave to service another team (during the multi-team
summer months).

Cellular Telephone Costs $100 per month

In order to evaluate the feasibility of replacing the full-time secretary with cellular telephones
for the two owners, the cellular telephone was assumed to cost $50 per person per month, or
$100 per month.

FFinancial
inancial An
Analysis
nalysis
FC’s current proposed 19x6 budget is detailed in Appendix 3. According to their planned
allotment of work teams (outlined in Appendix 3), assuming an average fence order-size of 100
metres, maximum capacity is estimated at 360 houses (orders) per year.

Base Scenario Not Viable

Given its current cost and pricing structure, FC is far from able to break even with its most
conservative offer, the one-house, 100-metre order. This order gains FC an estimated
contribution margin of $118 per house. In order to break even relying entirely on 100-metre
orders, FC would have to build 78,814 metres of fencing, or over 788 house orders. With a
maximum capacity of 36,000 metres (360 houses) per year, FC is not able to remain viable with
its current 100-metre pricing structure.

Its most generous offer, a four-house, 400-metre order offers increased sales commission and a
volume discount. This pricing structure results in a negative contribution margin; every four-
house, 400-metre order loses FC approximately $152.

The Solution: Cut Costs

Fence Company must align its cost and price structure more closely with its capabilities. Given
its estimated production ceiling of 36,000 metres in 19x6,

A lternati
Alternat ves
tiives
Differentiate the Product
The Woods have undertaken Porter’s low-cost provider
strategy by default. The focus is on volume, attracting
clients on the basis of price. Although the Woods brothers
guarantee quality, they have not delivered it. This morphs
the guarantee from an asset to a liability. FC must segment
its market and position itself to target it most effectively. In
a market with low barriers to entry, a price war inevitably
results in only one winner—the customer. FC must not rely
on low-cost cut-throat pricing to attract customers. It can
focus either on a quality product, or specialty fences with
features not offered by competitors. Without a formal
research and development department, however, FC is
limited to offering prefabricated fence products. As such,
new entrants also have access to the same product base. A
novel way of developing a new product without R&D would
Fence Company Ltd.

be applying fencing to porches and verandas in fashionable ways. This would particularly
appeal to the luxury homeowner who is less price-sensitive.

Develop new Products

FC could erect barriers to entry by specializing in a particular type of
fence. Intellectual property laws would protect product innovations
provided their technologies have not been presented to the public in a
disclosing nature. The cost to protect a technology with a patent,
however, would be estimated in the tens of thousands; however, with
FC’s estimated 19x6 revenues of $436,000, establishing a research and
development division and acquiring and prosecuting patents is far out
of reach. The company’s core competencies lie in assembling fences from pre-manufactured
parts, not developing new ones.

Realign Business as Best-Cost Provider

Rather than try to serve all segments of a heterogeneous market and compete solely on the
basis of price, Fence Company should identify its target segments and pursue a best-cost
provider strategy, emphasizing delivering its previously-stated value proposition of quality
workmanship while striving to optimize cost structure to maintain
competitiveness with new entrants.

Cash out or Sell the Business

The Woods brothers have made little capital investment and have no
firm commitments, such as collective agreements or long-term
leases. Potential new entrants also recognize the relative ease of
exiting the industry, increasing competitiveness. If FC wants to
become competitive, it must make a new value proposition that
results in increased benefits and presents potential new entrants
with a barrier to exit.

Increase Advertising
Little (1970) describes a sigmoidal mathematical relationship between advertising expenditure
and short-run sales response. No advertising efforts were under way in 19x5 and none were
planned for 19x6. FC’s sales would, therefore, increase exponentially with sufficient
advertising expenditures. This level would be determined by Little’s ADBUDG (1970) function
calibrated with inexpensive marketing research information.

Increase Teams to meet Demand

Although FC currently has a capacity of 36,000 metres, the Wood brothers estimated the
market to be 50,000 metres. Because FC is not bound by a collective agreement barring hiring
seasonal short-term workers, FC could easily hire seasonal or student workers as required.

Cut Costs
FC currently has a high proportion of fixed costs that cannot be justified by expected revenues.
A full-time secretary at $12,000 per year can be replaced by a cellular telephone for each of
the owners for $1,200 per year. Instead of stockpiling inventory in a warehouse, FC can
negotiate Just-in-Time delivery agreements with its suppliers. At 5% additional cost, this still
represents a net savings of $16,140 over base (assuming capacity production at 36,000 metres
per year).

Merge with Another Company

Fence Company could elect to merge with another company. This could be either a
contracting/construction company or a supplier (vertically integrating) or with a deck or
Fence Company Ltd.

veranda specialist (horizontal). This strategy would allow FC to exploit economies of scale and
additional resources; however, the brothers would lose a significant amount of control and
identity.

R ecomm
Recom meendations
ndations
Fence Company should establish a best-cost provider strategy and support it with adequate
marketing and human resources. The Woods estimated the total 19x6 market size to be 50,000
metres (500 houses). Although their current team configuration cannot support this demand,
FC could supplement its workforce during the summer months and access additional low-cost
student work.

Best-Cost Provider Strategy

The best-cost provider strategy aims to provide the best possible product at the best possible
price. While this seems to be a contradiction, it really represents a balance. The Woods
should ensure appropriate product quality by ensuring better controls. This can be
accomplished through establishment of more rigorous and formal standards. This would
represent an additional fixed cost; however, once a standard has been developed, variable
costs are required to implement it. Alternatively, the Woods could consider pursuing a niche
strategy. They could cater to upscale luxury homeowners, who would be willing to pay a
premium for attractive quality fences or to agricultural clients who would require large orders
on the same site and regular maintenance contracts.

Cut Costs
Regardless of the strategy FC chooses, however, it must reduce its costs. The current cost
structure requires production of 78,800 metres of fence to break-even. This not only exceeds
current capacity, but it also exceeds estimated market demand. Wage rate is assumed to be
minimum wage and therefore cannot be reduced legally. Materials costs are assumed to be at
their minimum assuming that FC receives volume discounts already and stockpiles material in
the warehouse.

The warehouse expense, however, could be removed. This would reduce the need for a truck
to transport materials. It is estimated that FC would then be required to pay a 5% premium for
Just-in-Time delivery of materials and for ordering in smaller quantities.

The secretary can be replaced by two cellular telephones—one for each owner. Although the
secretary may be able to accommodate more callers, the current market size of 500 houses
distributed evenly over the nine-month work term would translate into less than three calls per
day. Assuming the owners are not actually involved in the unskilled labour, three calls per day
can easily be handled by the two owners. This represents a net savings of $10,800 per year—a
90% reduction in the relevant costs.

Because all tools from the previous years must be replaced, this expense is
included in all estimates; however, the new tools must be controlled
better. This could be accomplished by issuing each worker with a
numbered set of tools which must be checked in at the end of a the
following year’s expenses by a significant portion of the $3,000 (a portion
would be required each year for amortization of the tool depreciation).
Fence Company Ltd.

Supplement Workforce to Meet Demand

During the peak summer seasons, FC can supplement its workforce by hiring student workers.
Student workers have a lower legislated minimum wage and are less career-oriented than the
regular workers. Not constrained by a collective agreement, FC is free to adjust its workforce
to meet demand. Its current planned work team distribution accommodates 36,000 metres per
year (assuming 20 work-days per month):

M
Moonntthh
Month W
W oorrkk T
Work Teeaam
Teamsmss C
Caappaacciittyy (((metr
Capacity mmeettre ss))
rees)
April 1 2,000
May 3 6,000
June 3 6,000
July 3 6,000
August 3 6,000
September 3 6,000
October 1 2,000
November 1 2,000
Total 36,000

The brothers estimated the market size to be 50,000 metres. This can be accomplished by
the addition of student workers as follows:

M
Moonntthh
Month W
W oorrkk T
Work Teeaam
Teamsmss C
Caappaacciittyy (((metr
Capacity mmeettre ss))
rees)
April 1 2,000
May 4 8,000
June 5 10,000
July 5 10,000
August 4 8,000
September 4 8,000
October 1 2,000
November 1 2,000
Total 50,000

University and college students can begin work earlier than high school students; thus, the
combined school students can accommodate more work teams during June and July.

Increase Marketing Efforts

In order to tap into this expanded market, or to expand the market greater than 50,000 metres
per year, FC can increase marketing efforts. Little’s ADBUDG model (Little, 1970) outlines the
exponential growth of sales due to increased advertising and
promotion. Cluster analysis and factor analysis can be applied to
previous customers (pre-existing data that are readily available
within FC’s own files) to identify customer segments which can
be effectively targeted with appropriate pricing and materials.
Little’s quantitative model can also be used to determine the
optimal promotional expenditures and produce a time-phased
budget.

Evaluate Snow Ploughing Plan As Incremental

The brothers propose to rent the truck for a snow-ploughing
operation during the off season (Winter). This does not align well with FC’s core competency
Fence Company Ltd.

of erecting fences; however, because the business is essentially dormant during this period, the
brothers can evaluate this option. This should be viewed as an incremental cost, however, and
the costs of renting the truck during the winter were not included in calculations pertaining to
the fence business; further, revenues resulting from ploughing snow are irrelevant to FC’s
operations, since FC’s competencies do not include ploughing snow—perhaps the Woods’ do.

Eliminate Volume Discounts and Reduce Commissions

Since the volume discount increases variable costs so significantly that no profit is possible, it
should be eliminated; further, the $13 price should be enforced and supported with a
differentiated product of higher quality or singular construction. Vinyl fencing is a new
alternative that provides better ruggedness at comparable cost to wood. The overall budget
assumes that fences will be sold at $13 per metre, and assumes group sales are sold at $12 per
metre. Even with this structure, however, group sales are unprofitable and should not be
implemented.

Commissions should be structured to encourage the more profitable single-house orders. For
this reason, a constant 5% commission is suggested for single or group sales; however,
calculations estimated the commission at 6%. This supports a high performing salesperson by
increasing commissions based on volume of single-house sales while not encouraging group
sales.
Fence Company Ltd.

References

Nadler DA and Tushman ML. 1997. A congruence model for organization problem solving. In
Managing Strategic Innovation and Change: A collection of readings. Oxford University
Press. New York.
 Fence Company Ltd.

A
Appppen
endix 11:: IIndustry
ndix ndustry A nalysis
Analysis
Porter’s Five Forces

SUBSTITUTES

• Vinyl fencing—comparable cost, greater

reliability
• Increased trust among neighbours may
reduce demand for fences

RIVALRY AMONG BUYERS

COMPETING SELLERS
IE R S
UPPPLLIERS
SSUP • Significant power
• Low margins—cut-throat • Residential contractors
• Reliable supplies crucial competition in low-cost • Residential homeowners
to on-time delivery when provider segments • Reduced discretionary
using Just-in-Time • Many are members of income due to recession
delivery Canadian Fence Industry
• Short-term profitability Association (CFIA)—have
crucial to maintaining more credibility
supplier relationships and
credit

POTENTIAL NEW ENTRANTS

• Relatively easy to enter market

• Niche and best-cost provider strategies yield
better returns than Fence Company’s low-
cost provider strategy
• Membership in Canadian Fence Industry
Association relatively simple and increases
attractiveness to clients.
Fence Company Ltd.

A
Appppeennddiixx 22:: C
Coonnggrruueennccyy aanndd S
SWWO
OTT A
Annaallyysseess
Nadler and Tushman (1997) developed a congruency model that facilitates systematic
generation of feasible alternatives given an organization’s environment, history, and core
competencies given its selected strategy. This model has been used to develop alternative
courses of action for FC based on its specific situation.

Without taking strategy, competencies, and organizational structure and background into
account, recommendations are not defensible.
 Fence Company Ltd.

EEEnnnvi
vviirrronment/
oonnm Reeesources/
meenntt//R
R ssoouurrcceess//H
Hiiissstory
H ttoorryy
- Customer-centric - Limited financial resources
- Low barriers to entry - Young (1-year-old) company
- Low product diversity - Low product reliability

SSStttrategy
rraatteeggyy
- Establish better internal controls
- Consider alternatives to Porter’s low-cost provider strategy
- Increase customer base (most customers are one-time clients)

O
Orrggaanniizzaattiioonnaall C
Organizational Cuullttuurree
Culture

• Family-owned
• Informal, loose
controls
• Informal performance
management

C
C mppeetteenncciieees
Cooompetenci
m ss FFFooormal
maall O
rrm O ggaanniizzzati
Orrrgani aattiiooon
nn
A
A
Arrrrrraaangements
nnggeem meennttss
• Mediocre fence-
building capability • Informal organization
• Small capacity structure
• Low reliability • Project-based teams
• Flexible work teams
• Not constrained by
collective agreements

T
Taaask
T sskksss

• Devise and implement

internal controls
• Optimize cost
structures
• Reconsider overall
strategic position

O
O ttppuuttss//O
Ouuutputs/ Obbbjjjeeecti
O ccttiivvves
eess
- Achieve return on investment above market rate
- Target ROI of 8 per cent
- Short-term profitability important to maintain debt positions
- Long-Term growth
Fence Company Ltd.

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
ƒ Flexible staffing ƒ Lack of adequate quality controls
ƒ Can lay off as required ƒ Guarantee work without actual quality
ƒ Low wage rates ƒ Lack of formal business judgment
ƒ Rent equipment as required ƒ Discount structure hurts margins rather than
ƒ Non-unionized workforce improves
ƒ Student summer breaks closely match peak times ƒ Commission structure hurts margins
ƒ Operating Leverage relatively low
OPPORTUNITIES TTHR
HRE
RE ATS
EATS
ƒ Housing starts indicate growing market ƒ Low barriers to entry
ƒ Large low-cost student summer workforce ƒ Low barriers to exit
ƒ Gain credibility by becoming member of Canadian ƒ Recessions—economic factors
Fence Industry Association (CFIA)
Financial Analysis
Fence Company Ltd.

Base Scenario
Houses 1 2 4 Teams Capacity (houses)
Metres 100 200 400 April 1 20
Selling Price $12 $12 $12 May 3 60
Revenues $1,200 $2,400 $4,800 June 3 60
Less Vol Disc $0 $0 -$480 July 3 60
Commission 5% 6% 8% August 3 60
Less Commission $60 $144 $384 September 3 60
Net Revenues $1,140 $2,256 $3,936 October 1 20
November 1 20
Variable Costs 1 2 4 Total 360
Wood $ 660.00 $ 1,320.00 $ 2,640.00
Nails $ 110.00 $ 220.00 $ 440.00
Transportation $ 120.00 $ 240.00 $ 480.00
Labour $ 132.00 $ 264.00 $ 528.00
Total VC $ 1,022.00 $ 2,044.00 $ 4,088.00
1 2 4
CM $118.00 $212.00 -$152.00 B/E (houses) 788.1356 877.3584906 -2447.37
UCM $118.00 $106.00 -$38.00
CM% 9.83% 8.83% -3.17%

Fixed Costs 1 2 4
Secretary $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00
Management $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00
Warehouse $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00
Tools $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
Truck
April $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00
May-Sept $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
Oct/Nov $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Machine $ 4,800.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 4,800.00
Gas/Maintenance $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
Telephone $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00
Total FC $ 93,000.00 $ 93,000.00 $ 93,000.00
Fence Company Ltd.

Scenario 1: Proposed
Houses 1 2 4 Teams Capacity (houses)
Metres 100 200 400 April 1 20
Selling Price $13 $13 $12 May 3 60
Revenues $1,300 $2,600 $4,800 June 3 60
Less Vol Disc $0 $0 $0 July 3 60
Commission 5% 6% 5% August 3 60
Less Commission $65 $156 $240 September 3 60
Net Revenues $1,235 $2,444 $4,560 October 1 20
November 1 20
Variable Costs 1 2 4 Total 360
Wood $ 693.00 $ 1,386.00 $ 2,772.00 <-- 5% JiT Delivery Premium
Nails $ 115.50 $ 231.00 $ 462.00 <-- 5% JiT Delivery Premium
Transportation $ 120.00 $ 240.00 $ 480.00
Labour $ 132.00 $ 264.00 $ 528.00
Total VC $ 1,060.50 $ 2,121.00 $ 4,242.00
1 2 4
CM $174.50 $323.00 $318.00 B/E (houses) 299.1404 323.2198142 656.60
UCM $174.50 $161.50 $79.50
CM% 13.42% 12.42% 6.63%

Fixed Costs 1 2 4
Secretary $ - $ - $ -
Management $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 <-- Assume management requirement of $30k is fixed
Warehouse $ - $ - $ -
Tools $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
Truck
April $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00
May-Sept $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
Oct/Nov $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Machine $ 4,800.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 4,800.00
Gas/Maintenance $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
Telephone $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 <-- $100/month for cellular phones to replace secretary
Total FC $ 52,200.00 $ 52,200.00 $ 52,200.00
Fence Company Ltd.

Scenario 2: Proposed Additional Teams

Houses 1 2 4 Teams Capacity (houses)
Metres 100 200 400 April 1 20
Selling Price $13 $13 $12 May 4 80
Revenues $1,300 $2,600 $4,800 June 5 100
Less Vol Disc $0 $0 $0 July 5 100
Commission 5% 6% 5% August 4 80
Less Commission $65 $156 $240 September 4 80
Net Revenues $1,235 $2,444 $4,560 October 1 20
November 1 20
Variable Costs 1 2 4 Total 500
Wood $ 693.00 $ 1,386.00 $ 2,772.00 <-- 5% JiT Delivery Premium
Nails $ 115.50 $ 231.00 $ 462.00 <-- 5% JiT Delivery Premium
Transportation $ 120.00 $ 240.00 $ 480.00
Labour $ 132.00 $ 264.00 $ 528.00
Total VC $ 1,060.50 $ 2,121.00 $ 4,242.00
1 2 4
CM $174.50 $323.00 $318.00 B/E (houses) 299.1404011 323.2198142 656.60
UCM $174.50 $161.50 $79.50
CM% 13.42% 12.42% 6.63%

Fixed Costs 1 2 4
Secretary $ - $ - $ -
Management $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 <-- Assume management requirement of $30k is fixed
Warehouse $ - $ - $ -
Tools $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00
Truck
April $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00
May-Sept $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00
Oct/Nov $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
Machine $ 4,800.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 4,800.00
Gas/Maintenance $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00
Telephone $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 <-- $100/month for cellular phones to replace secretary
Total FC $ 52,200.00 $ 52,200.00 $ 52,200.00