The Butler Lumber Company faced a critical decision: whether to accept an offer of 3% discount for early payment on a $100,000 lumber purchase or to forego the discount and pay the full amount in 30 days. This scenario presents a classic analysis of opportunity cost and effective interest rates in short-term financing.
The immediate attraction of the discount is the apparent savings of $3,000 (3% of $100,000). However, the finance team at Butler Lumber needs to determine if this seemingly straightforward saving is genuinely advantageous. The core question is: can the company generate a higher return on that $97,000 within the next 30 days, or even consider alternative financing options that are less expensive than implicitly borrowing at the rate implied by the discount offer?
To analyze this properly, we need to calculate the implied annual interest rate of foregoing the discount. By paying on the 30th day instead of immediately, Butler Lumber essentially “borrows” $97,000 for 30 days and pays $3,000 in interest. This translates to an interest rate of $3,000/$97,000 for a 30-day period. To annualize this rate, we multiply it by the number of 30-day periods in a year (approximately 12). This calculation yields an approximate annual interest rate of 37.11%.
This surprisingly high effective annual interest rate of 37.11% acts as a crucial benchmark. Butler Lumber needs to compare this to its other available financing options. If the company can borrow money from a bank, a line of credit, or other sources at a rate significantly lower than 37.11%, it should reject the discount and opt for alternative financing. This approach would minimize the cost of capital and improve the company’s overall financial performance.
The company should also consider its current cash position and any planned investments. If Butler Lumber has sufficient cash on hand that is currently earning a return lower than 37.11% annually, accepting the discount would be the more financially prudent choice. Conversely, if the company has an opportunity to invest the $97,000 in a project with a return exceeding 37.11%, rejecting the discount and using the funds for that investment would be more beneficial in the long run.
Finally, Butler Lumber should consider the potential impact on its relationship with the lumber supplier. Taking the discount, even if it involves a slightly higher cost of capital, could strengthen the relationship and potentially lead to more favorable terms in the future. However, consistently foregoing discounts could strain the relationship if the supplier values early payment.
In conclusion, the decision regarding the discount hinges on a comparative analysis of the implied annual interest rate of foregoing the discount against Butler Lumber’s alternative financing options, investment opportunities, and the importance of maintaining a strong supplier relationship. A thorough examination of these factors will enable the company to make the most financially sound decision.
638×826 butler lumber company case solution from www.slideshare.net 
595×842 butler lumber case discussion from www.academia.edu 
225×225 butler lumber company case study writer from mybestwriter.com 
586×459 butler lumber case solution from www.casehero.com 
180×233 butler lumber case study solution butler lumber case study from www.coursehero.com 
660×200 butler lumber case study solution harvard hbr case study from caseism.com