Monforte Dairy Case Summary

Case #7 – Monforte Dairy

ACME Marketing Group
Howard Tseng
ENTR 3140 – S50
Team #1

November 9, 2011

Team #1

2

Critical Issues
Insolvency: Monforte is heavily leveraged on debt and the bank is not willing to finance a loan. Monforte runs the risk of not being able to pay off the current portion of their debt and liabilities as they are due.
The current financial situation of Monforte does not allow capitalization on expansion.
Government Quota: The government quota system regulates Monforte’s cheese production which could potentially hinder them meeting the demand for their product; Klahsen ultimately has less control as the supplier power is increased.
Management Time & Commitment: Despite Klahsen’s goal for reaching
$10 million in revenue, she must balance her time with her work and home life as she has 3 kids including a 10 ten year old at home.

Analysis
Klahsen has a window of opportunity to expand her business based on current low interest rates; however,
Monforte’s debt situation would make it difficult for her to obtain any bank loan to capitalize on this opportunity (Exhibit 3).
Monforte is highly leveraged by debt with a ratio of 11.49 in 2009; this makes
Monforte vulnerable to any interest rate increases and creates difficulties in obtaining financing from the bank for possible expansion of the company. By analysing Monforte’s finances for 2009 it is apparent that Klahsen is unable to pay off her current liabilities, with an acid ratio of 0.9. This liquidity issue could be detrimental to Monforte as it would not be able to pay off its creditors if they suddenly called in the debt. It is becoming increasingly difficult to pay her debt due to the fact that her receivables are collected
14 days after she needs to pay her payables1.
Presently Monforte’s cow’s milk cheese production is restricted by government quotas. This negatively impacts Klahsen’s business due to the fact that Monforte can only produce a certain amount of the five types of cow’s milk cheese. As Monforte sold almost everything it produced in 2009, a
government quota would decrease their overall production which would result in Monforte not meeting last year’s production amount and demand. Monforte’s cheese production is heavily dependant on the supply of milk they receive; the price for this input is out of the control of Monforte and this is extremely important as the power of the supplier is high (Exhibit 2). Currently Klahsen is able to circumvent the quota on cow’s milk by producing cheese using goat, sheep and water buffalo milk.
Klahsen is a mature woman who would like to retire in 10 to 15 years. Klahsen would therefore want to see a return on her investment for any expansion option before she retires. She plans on reaching 10 million dollars in revenue for Monforte. Furthermore, Klahsen has 3 children including a 10 year old daughter; this is a full time job in itself. If Klahsen decided to grow Monforte she would need to consider the amount of time any option would take considering her time restrictions.
See Exhibit 1 for Pros & Cons Analysis.
Option 1 – Affinage
Through the installation of an Affinage, Monforte would be able to produce more cheese without an increase in their cow’s milk quota. This option would also allow Monforte to be the first company offering Affinage services in Ontario as well as allow Monforte to exercise more control of the quality of their product and purchase its competition’s cheese and sell at a premium. The Affinage would not start to produce an income until 2012 for which the projection is $155,700, with an initial cost of $1,000,000, break-even would be in 6.42 years (Exhibit 7). However, due to their current financial situation, obtaining that initial investment would prove to be difficult. If Monforte were to lease the shelving units and Climate Control system, their initial cost would be reduced to $500,000, which would allow a
1

ACME assumes that this increase in the age of receivables is directly related to Monforte’s increase in sales to the restaurant industry.

Team #1

3

payback period of 3.21 years with an ROI, based on initial $500,000 investment, of 31.14% (Exhibit 7).
The breakeven amount of cheese to be produced with this option, based on yearly fixed costs, would be
34,489 lbs of cheese which translates into $344,890.51, operating at 52.26% of total capacity (Exhibit 7).
Option 2 – Charcuterie
By increasing Monforte’s product line to include the complementary product of cured meats, Monforte would be able to reach a new untapped market in which they would have the first mover advantage.
However, Klahsen has a lack of industry knowledge and cannot forecast the demand for the meat; this would make the Charcuterie a risky endeavour. The initial investment for the Charcuterie would be
$310,000 and this option would pay-back in 4.44 years with a contribution margin of $7.50, a breakeven of 29,933.33 lbs of Charcuterie, and $419,066.67 in breakeven revenue (Exhibit 4). In the first year the sales for the Charcuterie would be $33,884 and increasing to $119,433.83 within 4 years as forecasted in
(Exhibit 4). With this option, Klahsen would be able to increase the loyalty of the pig farmers and receive a lower price per pig by donating the whey to the pig farmers. A sensitivity analysis shows that she is able to pay up to $6.12/lbs and still breakeven, however she would be receiving the pig for $2/lbs (Exhibit 4).
Option 3 – Auberge
Food tourism is on a rise, therefore, by opening an Auberge Klahsen would capitalize on this increase.
The Auberge would be a good place to highlight Monforte cheese, and expand her product offerings. The
Auberge option would also include the ability to produce and sell hops. Klahsen could partner the restaurant and farming aspects with the Stratford Chef School which she believed would be ideal for
Monforte. However, Klahsen has not yet obtained an agreement with the Stratford Chefs School. Klahsen also has no experience in running a farm, inn, or spa this could be a detriment to the operation. Out of all the options available to Monforte to grow the business the Auberge would be the most time consuming option because Klahsen would have to overlook a farm, restaurant, inn, and a spa. Though the Auberge would suffer from seasonality due to the hops aspect the initial investment for the Auberge would be
$1,620,000, the highest among the options, and would constitute a payback and ROI of 6.09 years &
16.42%, best case, or 37.89 years & 2.64%, base case, with projected revenues of $265,950 and $42,750 respectively (Exhibit 6). The worst case scenario would include none of the hops growing and generating
$100,000 from the inn/spa and $364,000 from serving 14 people at the Auberge and a net income of $220,550 (Exhibit 6).
Option 4 – Cheese Making School
A cheese making school would be the first of its kind in Ontario and the school would be an opportunity for Monforte to improve the industry. The school would make use of Monforte during the three months which they do not use their facilities. However, Klahsen would also be teaching her specialty to individuals who could potentially be her competitors in the future. This option would provide the lowest initial investment of $25,000. However, with a capacity of 12 students per year, this option is not profitable as Monforte would need 15 students the first year to break even and 13 students per year
onwards.
This results in a loss of $23,000 in the first year and then a loss of $3,000 from then on (Exhibit
5).
Option 5 – Status Quo with Sale of Building
By maintaining status quo, Monforte’s projected revenue for 2010 would be $148,785.55, an increase of
$101,468.55, and $276,138.22 in 2015 with sales of $2,676,451.16, based on an annual 6% overall increase in sales (Exhibit 8). Remaining at status quo involves the lowest amount of risk for Monforte and allows Klahsen to build capital to finance an expansion at some other point in time. Status quo would also allow Monforte to decrease its debt to equity ratio and improve its acid ratio. By selling the building it recently purchased and leasing it back Monforte would reduce their debt to equity ratio to 2.54 as opposed to the current 11.49. This would free up some much needed capital for Monforte and would also allow
Monforte to potentially receive funding from the bank for possible future expansion. The lease payment

Team #1

4

calculated would amount to $4,618.06 (Exhibit 8). The net income for 2010 would then increase to
$411,725.19 and would increase to $628,010.77 in
2015.
Option 6 – Stock Incentives (employee loyalty system)
With Monforte’s current financial position an employee stock incentive may not be very appealing.
Although Klahsen is worried about employee loyalty, Monforte’s salary percentage is higher than the industry average. As shown in Exhibit 8, in 2009 Monforte’s administrative wages accounted for 11.95% of total revenue and production wages accounted for 7% of net sales, totalling 18.95% overall, where as the industry average accounts for 9.60% of revenues (Exhibit 8).

Decision criteria
Financially feasible
Time manageable
Not affected by milk quota limit
Profitable
Payback in 10-15 years
Risk level

Status Quo
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Low

Affinage
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Medium

Charcuterie
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
High

Auberage
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
High

Cheese School
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
High

Recommendations
Our recommendation is for Monforte to remain status quo for now as Klahsen would be wise to build up capital before she thinks of expanding. She should work to grow the existing business and look to decrease the debt to equity ratio. Klahsen should also look to sell her current building and lease it back in order to decrease the debt ratio which would free up capital for future expansion.
After the sale of the building and if financially stable, Monforte should invest $500,000 into the Affinage option once capital to invest is attainable. The Affinage option would include leasing the shelving units required as well as leasing the Climate Control System.

Action Plan
Based on the above analysis, Monforte should continue their existing operations, as her current financial position does not allow her to pursue any expansion options. Klahsen should immediately begin to search for a buyer for her building to free up some capital and decrease the debt to equity ratio. Once the building is sold, Monforte should rectify its existing debt.
In 2011, Monforte should re-evaluate their financial position, and if feasible, invest $500,000 into the Affinage option. The option should include leasing the shelving units and the Climate Control
System.

Team #1

5
Exhibit 2 – Porters 5 Forces

Exhibit 1 - Pros and Cons
Options

Pros

Cons







Greater quality control of own cheese
Some control over competitors cheese
Only company in Ontario doing this
Capitalize on economies of scale
Age and sell cheese in off season






time requirement; cheese not available until 2012 addition of employees
Carrying inventory
How likely is it to hire qualified staff?
Too big for Klahsen to handle






Tourism draw for Stratford
Possibility for farming subsidies
Marketing exposure for cheese
Diversification of product offerings






Lack of experience with spa, Inn, farm
No agreement with school or on land
Seasonality and weather
Time requirement for Klahsen






Complimentary product to market
Associated with slow food movement and healthier living Lower market price on pigs from whey
Minimal competition in Ontario





Distance from Stratford; 1hour away
Lack of industry forecasting knowledge
No experience in producing this product







Good use of downtime and not affect production
Minimal effort from Ruth, done by Neville
First pick of graduates
Innovative prestige and franchising opportunities
Only cheese making school in Ontario





Status Quo




Lowest risk
Expected growth in the industry



Stock Option




Vested interest in company
Motivates employees



Threat of New
Entrants – High



High barriers to entry such as government quotas, relationships with suppliers, good branding, production knowledge Food safety regulations
Her economies of scale in the industry
Pasteurized cheese products
European artisan cheeses
Artisan cheese from Quebec (other provinces) Minimal power because of higher cost of foreign cheeses
Minimal threat from local competitors
Loyalty of Monforte customers; desire to buy local
Set pricing on cow’s milk
Government quota agreements give suppliers power
Monforte’s desire to buy local
Relatively low due large growth in market Loyalty of customer base; high differentiation Production Capacity

Employees would be aware of companies financial

Affrinage

Auberge

Charcuterie

Cheese Making
School

Exhibit 3 – SWOT
Strengths

Leader in mass producer of specialty cheese in area o Have first mover advantage

Loyal customers and strong brand image o 100 mile diet, slow food movement, healthy eating

Ruth is a chef and a graduate of Stratford Chefs School o Won award for role in agriculture with Monforte

Strong support from local farmers market

High inventory turnover

Has secured quotas for milk

Offers sheep, goat cheese to substitute milk quota
Opportunities








Threat of Substitute
Products – Low








Bargaining Power of
Suppliers – Med-high
Could be training competitors
Limits on students (capacity)
Potential free labour hours for producing cheese

Bargaining Power of
Buyers (Customers) –
Low




Rivalry of Competing
Firms in an industry –
Low








Weaknesses

Low profit margins in business model (10%)

Ruth’s age (considering retirement in 10-15 years)

Lack of time – Ruth is currently still a mother

Heavily leveraged on debt o Might not be able to obtain loan in current situation o Inability to pay off debt at once

Production downtime during the winter

Lost a full year of production

Production limit due to cow’s milk quota
 Inability to redeem all CSA vouchers at once
Threats

Low current finance interest rates
 New competitors
Increase in interest of food tourism
 Substitutes: pasteurized cheese, imported speciality cheese
Increase in consumer interest in wine (complements cheese)
 Contamination of stock
Growing market of specialty and local foods
 Change in government quota on milk or food regulations
Available facility space during winter season
 Change in supplier’s price or agreement
Sell stocks or assets
 Staff leaving
Summary: The speciality foods industry is at a growth stage and demand for Monforte’s product is rising. Ruth has an opportunity to take advantage of the low finance rates to expand. However, the company is currently financed on high debts and its current risky position may not allow any bank to lend Ruth money.

Team #1
Exhibit 4 – Charcuterie
Revenue Projections
(6% Increase in sales)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Sales
$ 489,390.00
$ 518,753.40
$ 549,878.60
$ 582,871.32
$ 617,843.60
Cost of Pigs
$ 127,241.40
$ 134,875.88
$ 142,968.44
$ 151,546.54
$ 160,639.34
Production labour
$ 100,000.00
$ 100,000.00
$ 100,000.00
$ 100,000.00
$ 100,000.00
Gross Margin
$ 262,148.60
$ 283,877.52
$ 306,910.16
$ 331,324.78
$ 357,204.26
Expense
Rent
$ 12,000.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 12,000.00
Labour
$ 110,000.00
$ 110,000.00
$ 110,000.00
$ 110,000.00
$ 110,000.00
Utilities
$ 30,000.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 30,000.00
Equipment
$ 12,500.00
$ 12,500.00
$ 12,500.00
$ 12,500.00
$ 12,500.00
Marketing
$ 60,000.00 $ 224,500.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 224,500.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 224,500.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 224,500.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 224,500.00
Net Income
$ 37,648.60
$ 59,377.52
$ 82,410.16
$ 106,824.78
$ 132,704.26
Net Income after 10% Donation $ 33,883.74
$ 53,439.77
$ 74,169.14
$ 96,142.30
$ 119,433.83
**Assuming that 50% of 2009 sales (excluding 10% of sommeliers) will be allocated to Charcuterie product
**Cost of pig: 489,390/14 = 34956.43 * 1.82 = 63,620.70 * 2 = $127,241.40
**Assuming that Sales increase by an average of 6% per year (7% annual growth in farmers market & 5% inc. for specialty foods - (7/2+5/2 = 6% Inc.)
Payback Period
Remaining to recover
222,676.49 Breakeven Analysis
Exhibit 5 – Cheese School
Initial Investment
310,000.00 2012 Net income
74,169.14 Selling Price
14.0
2010 Net income
33,883.74 Remaining to recover
148,507.35 Production labour
2.9
Cheese School
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Remaining to recover 276,116.26 2013 Net income
96,142.30 Cost of Charcuterie
3.6
Students enrolled
12
12
12
2011 Net income
53,439.77 Remaining to recover
52,365.05 CM
7.5
Revenue
$ 102,000.00 $ 102,000.00 $ 102,000.00
2014 Net Income
119,433.83 Breakeven lbs
29,933.3
Start up portion of year to recover
0.44 BE Revenue
419,066.7
Curriculum design $ 20,000.00
Payback period in years
4.44
Instrutor Fee
$ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00
Marketing
$ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
Sensitivity Analysis based on inc. of unit cost for pig per pound and first year sales
Total Fix Costs
$ 125,000.00 $ 105,000.00 $ 105,000.00
Net Income
-$ 23,000.00 -$ 3,000.00 -$ 3,000.00
Unit Cost per Pig Cost of Pig Labour
Sales
Gross Margin
BE Students
15
13
13
$
2.00 $ 127,241 $
100,000 $ 489,390 $
262,149
BE Revenue
$ 125,000.00 $ 110,500.00 $ 110,500.00
$
3.00 $ 190,862 $
100,000 $ 489,390 $
198,528
$
4.00 $ 254,483 $
100,000 $ 489,390 $
134,907
$
5.00 $ 318,104 $
100,000 $ 489,390 $
71,287
$
6.00 $ 381,724 $
100,000 $ 489,390 $
7,666
$
6.12 $ 389,390 $
100,000 $ 489,390 $
$
7.00 $ 445,345 $
100,000 $ 489,390 -$
55,955
$
8.00 $ 508,966 $
100,000 $ 489,390 -$
119,576
$
9.00 $ 572,586 $
100,000 $ 489,390 -$
183,196
$
10.00 $ 636,207 $
100,000 $ 489,390 -$
246,817
$
11.00 $ 699,828 $
100,000 $ 489,390 -$
310,438
$
12.00 $ 763,448 $
100,000 $ 489,390 -$
374,058

6

Team #1

Exhibit 6 - Auberge

Operations feeds 14 people a night (minimum) feeds 17 people a night (Likely) feeds 20 people a night (Best)
Nights per week
Weeks per year (all year round)
Price per meal
Cost per Acre
Min. Acre of farm
Cost of Land
Hops
Acre needed for hops
Cost per acre for hops
Installation of hops cost
Annual sales per Acre/Plant full time supervisor
8 Pickers @ 3,500 per for 4 months
Equpiment
Maintenance & Repair
Hops Sales
Auberge Restaurant
Acres for Auberge
Maintenance, livestock, seeds
Supervisor
Building
Furnitures & Fixtures
Other Staff salaries
Total Initial Investment
Cost of land installation of Hops
Equipment for hops
Building for Auberge furnitures Total Investment
Payback Period in Years initial investment
Max. Case payback
Base Case payback
ROI
Max
Base

Revenue
$ 364,000
$ 442,000
$ 520,000
$
4
$
52
$
125
$
9,000
$
100
$ 900,000
$
30
$
8,000
$ 240,000
$
8,000
$ 35,000
$ 112,000
$ 80,000
$
2,000
$ 240,000
$
70
$ 210,000
$ 35,000
$ 350,000
$ 50,000
$ 245,000
$ 900,000
$ 240,000
$ 80,000
$ 350,000
$ 50,000
$ 1,620,000
$ 1,620,000
6.09
37.89
16.42%
2.64%

7

Revenue Projection for 2012 and years to follow
Min.
Base
Max.
Revenue from spa/inn
$ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 200,000
Revenue From Auberge
$ 364,000 $ 442,000 $ 520,000
Revenue from Hops
$
$ 120,000 $ 240,000
Total Revenue
$ 464,000 $ 712,000 $ 960,000
Cost of Hops
*Installation cost
$ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000
**Equipment
$ 4,000 $ 4,000 $
4,000
Supervisor
$ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000
Employees
$ 112,000 $ 112,000 $ 112,000
Maintenance
$ 2,000 $ 2,000 $
2,000
Total costs for hops
$ 165,000 $ 165,000 $ 165,000
Cost of Auberge
Maintenance of livestock, etc. $ 210,000 $ 210,000 $ 210,000
Supervisor
$ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000
***Building
$ 7,000 $ 7,000 $
7,000
****Furniture & Fixtures
$ 2,500 $ 2,500 $
2,500
Other Staff salaries
$ 245,000 $ 245,000 $ 245,000
Total Cost for Auberge
$ 499,500 $ 499,500 $ 499,500
Total overall cost
$ 664,500 $ 664,500 $ 664,500
Net Income (Loss)
-$ 200,500 $ 47,500 $ 295,500
Net Income (Loss) after
-$ 220,550 $ 42,750 $ 265,950
10% Donation
Breakeven Revenue
$ 664,500
Assumption: Min. Case = 14 people served per night.
Base Case = 17 people served per night ax. Case = 20 People served per night

Exhibit 7 - Affrinage

Incremental Revenue Projections (66,000 lbs)
Sales
COGS
Production labour
Gross Profit

2012
Units Cost
$660,000.00
$10.00
$198,000.00
$3.00
$100,000.00
$1.52
$362,000.00

Expenses
Utilities
$24,000
Marketing
$30,000
Amort. Renovations
$25,000
Salaries
$85,000
Lease Shelving unit
$12,500
Lease Climate Control System
$12,500
Total Expense
$189,000
Net Income (Loss)
$173,000.00
Income after 10% Donation
$155,700.00
**Assuming shelving unit is leased based on 20 yr. Useful life
**Climate Control is leased based on useful life 20 yr.
ROI for 2010
Income
$155,700.00
Investment
$500,000
31.14%
Breakeven Analysis
Selling Price
$10.00
Variable Cost
$3.00
production labour
1.52
Contribution Margin
$5.48
Breakeven lbs of cheese
34,489.05
Breakeven Revenue
$ 344,890.51
% of Capacity to BE
52.26%
Breakeven based on first year expenses, not including initial investment
Payback Period - Financing
Initial Investment
$1,000,000
Net Income
$155,700
Payback in Years
6.42
Annual Amortization Expense
Payback Period - Leasing
Renovation costs (500,000/20)
$25,000 Initial Investment
$ 500,000.00
Shelving Space (250,000/20)
$12,500 Net Income
$ 155,700.00
Climate Control (250,000/20)
$12,500 Payback in Years
3.21

Team #1

8

Exhibit 8 – Status Quo

2009 2009 % of Sales
2010 2010 % of Sales
2011
2012
2013
2014
Sales
$
987,534
91% $ 1,900,000.00
95% $ 1,520,000 $ 2,047,200 $ 2,182,032 $ 2,324,954
Deferred CSA sales
$
100,000
9% $ 100,000.00
5% $ 600,000 $
200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000
Net Sales
$ 1,087,534
100% $ 2,000,000.00
100% $ 2,120,000 $ 2,247,200 $ 2,382,032 $ 2,524,954
COGS
Materials, Utilities, freight $
274,425
25% $ 504,673.88
25% $ 534,954 $
567,052 $ 601,075 $ 637,139
Production wages
$
76,171
7% $ 133,299.25
7% $ 141,297 $
149,775 $ 158,762 $ 168,287 total COGS
$
350,596
32% $ 637,973.13
32% $ 676,252 $
716,827 $ 759,836 $ 805,426
Gross Income
$
736,938
68% $ 1,362,026.87
68% $ 1,443,748 $ 1,530,373 $ 1,622,196 $ 1,719,528
Operating Expense
Admin Wages
$
130,000
12% $ 227,500.00
11% $ 241,150 $
255,619 $ 270,956 $ 287,214
Rent
$
0% $
0% $
$
$
$
Property Tax Expense
$
60,000
6% $ 110,341.38
6% $ 116,962 $
123,980 $ 131,418 $ 139,303
Vehicle
$
30,000
3% $ 55,170.69
3% $ 58,481 $
61,990 $ 65,709 $ 69,652
R&D
$
0% $
0% $
$
$
$
Amortization
$
168,430
15% $ 46,807.00
2% $ 49,615 $
52,592 $ 55,748 $ 59,093
Other
$
163,330
15% $ 300,367.62
15% $ 318,390 $
337,493 $ 357,743 $ 379,207
***Building lease Payment
$ 58,742 $
58,742 $ 58,742 $ 58,742
Total Operating Expense
$
551,760
51% $ 740,186.69
37% $ 843,340 $
890,416 $ 940,316 $ 993,211
Operating Profit
$
185,178
17% $ 621,840.19
31% $ 600,409 $
639,958 $ 681,880 $ 726,317
Less: Interest Expense
$
137,861
13% $ 130,000.00
7% $ 122,590 $
115,602 $ 109,013 $ 102,799
Less: Loss on asset disposal $
0% $
0% $
$
$
$
Net earnings before tax
$
47,317
4% $ 491,840.19
25% $ 477,819 $
524,355 $ 572,867 $ 623,518
R&D tax credits
$
0% $
0% $
$
$
$
Income Tax
$
0% $ 80,115.00
4% $ 84,922 $
90,017 $ 95,418 $ 101,143
Net Income (Loss)
$
47,317
4% $ 411,725.19
21% $ 392,897 $
434,338 $ 477,448 $ 522,374
**Amortization for 2010 - 168,430 - 11,600 = 156,830 - represents amortization for Building, Furniture, and Leasehold improvements
Building
77.55% is the portion of the building in the amortization - 156,830 * 77.55% = 121,622 - amortization expense allocated to building
Furniture
168,430 - 121,622 = 46,808 is the remaining amortization expense for furniture, leasehold improvements and other fixed assets
Leashold
Assuming amortization is the same
Total
***Building Lease Payment
Building Net
$1,330,000
Useful Life
24
Lease Payments
$55,417
added 6% incentive
$58,741.67
Monthly Payments
$4,895.14

2015
$ 2,276,451
$ 400,000
$ 2,676,451
$ 675,367
$ 178,384
$ 853,752
$ 1,822,699
$ 304,446
$
$ 147,662
$ 73,831
$
$ 62,638
$ 401,960
$ 58,742
$ 1,049,279
$ 773,420
$ 96,940
$
$ 676,481
$
$ 107,212
$ 569,269
1330000
225000
160000
1715000

78%
13%
9%
100%