[CAUT] Parts Mark up - Institutional Variation

[Fred Sturm]

On Jun 12, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Chris Solliday wrote:

> of the doubled

Hi Chris,
	So you take cost (100), double it (200), subtract 40% of that (200 -  
80), and end up with 120, or a 20% markup (simpler math). And then add  
freight. At least that's how I am interpreting what I have read. Or am  
I missing something?

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Skolnik" <davidskolnik at optonline.net>
> To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Parts Mark up - Institutional Variation
>
>
>> CAUTS -
>> It still fascinates me that our profession is possibly the only one
>> that conducts these agonizing self-examinations in a public
>> forum.  It seems to me that, to the extent that mark-up is a
>> legitimately based cost, it could justifiably appear as such in any
>> billing break-out.  On the other hand, to the extent that it is based
>> upon control of supply and / or customer ignorance, it is arguably a
>> subject for ethical pondering.  The institutional component is just
>> another twist.  Either suppliers sell direct to end users or they
>> don't.  Either they provided institutional / government discounts, or
>> they don't.  If the purchasing secretary at the institution knows the
>> wholesale price of parts, are they entitled to that discount when you
>> work on their home piano?   I thought Tom's response stated the case
>> concisely. Not as concisely as Chris, however.  Was that 40% of the
>> original cost or of the doubled cost?
>>
>>> double wholesale less 40% then add shipping charge.
>>> Chris Solliday
>>
>> David Skolnik
>> Hastings on Hudson, NY
>>
>> At 12:02 PM 6/11/2008, you wrote:
>>> Dear Fellow CAUT"S
>>>
>>>
>>> I was wondering what  you do regarding  parts mark up
>>> for the institutions you work for.  This has always
>>> been a fuzzy area for me.   I'm not sure if we can
>>> discuss this or not, but any input would be
>>> appreciated.  Just want to be sure I'm doing the
>>> equitable and ethical thing.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG.
>>> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.2.0/1495 - Release Date:
>>> 6/10/2008 5:11 PM
>>
>>