Chap005.pdf

CHAPTER 5

Ac A c t i v i t y -Bas -B ased ed Cos Co s t i n g and an d Cos Co s t Manag Man agem emen entt Systems ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS 5-1 5-1

In a traditional, volume-based volume-based produ ct-costing system, only a single predetermined overhead rate rate is used. All manufacturing-overhead costs are combined into one cost pool, and they are applied to products on the basis of a single cost driver that is closely related to production volume. The most frequently used cost drivers in traditional product-costing systems are direct-labor hours, direct-labor dollars, machine hours, and units of production.

5-2 5-2

Aerotech Corporation's management management was being misled by the traditional produ ctcosting system, because the high-volume product lines were being overcosted and the low-volume product line was being undercosted. The high-volume products essentially were subsidizing the low-volume line. The traditional product-costing system failed to show that the low-volume products were driving more than their share of overhead costs. As a result of these misleading costs, the company's management was mispricing its products.

5-3 5-3

An activity-based costing system is a two-stage process of assigning costs to produ cts. In stage one, activity-cost p ools are established. In In stage two a cost driver is identified for each activity-cost pool. Then the costs in each pool are assigned to each product line in proportion to the amount of the cost driver consumed by each product line.

5-4 5-4

A cost driver is a characteristic of an an event event or activity that that results in the incurr ence of costs by that event or activity. In activity-based costing systems, the most significant cost drivers are identified. Then a database is created that shows how these cost drivers are distributed across products. This database is used to assign costs to the various products depending on the extent to which they use each cost driver.

5-5 5-5

The four broad categories of activities identified in an activity-based costing system are as as follow s: (a) (a)

Unit-level Unit-level activities: Must be done for each each unit of produ ction.

(b)

Batch-level Batch-level activities: Must be performed for each each batch of produ cts.

(c)

Product-sustaining activities: Neede Neededd to suppor t an entire produ ct line.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Managerial Accounting, 6/e

© 2005 2005

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 5-1

(d)

Facility-level Facility-level (or general-operations-le general-operations-level) vel) activities: Required Required for the entire production process to occur.

5-6 5-6

An activity-based costing system alleviated alleviated the problems Aerotech Corporation was having under its traditional, volume-based product-costing system by more accurately assigning costs to products. Products were assigned costs based on the extent to which they used various cost drivers that were determined to be closely related related to t he incurrence of a variety of overhead costs.

5-7 5-7

Product-costin g systems based on a single, volume-based volume-based cost driver tend to overcost high-volume products, because all overhead costs are combined into one pool and distributed across all products on the basis of only one cost driver. This simple averaging process fails to recognize the fact that a disproportionate amount of costs often is associated with low-volume or complex products. The result is that low-volume products are assigned less than their share of manufacturing costs, and high-volume prod ucts are assigned more than their share of the costs.

5-8 5-8

In traditional, volume-based volume-based costing systems, only direct material and direct labor are considered direct costs. In contrast, under an activity-based costing system, an effort is made to account for as many costs as possible as direct costs of production. Any cost that can possibly be traced to a particular product line is treated treated as a direct cost of that prod uct.

5-9 5-9

A cost management management system (CMS (CMS)) has the follow ing objectives: (a) (a) To measure measure the cost of the resources cons umed in performing the organization's organization's significant activities. (b) To identify and eliminate non-value-added costs. These are costs of activities that can be eliminated with no deterioration of product quality, performance, or perceived value. (c) To determine determine the efficiency and effectiveness effectiveness of all major activi ties performed in the enterprise. (d) To identify and evaluate new activities that can improve the future performance of th e organization. organization.

McGraw-Hill/Irwin 5-2

© 2005 2005

The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Solutions Manual

5-10 5-10

Non-value-a Non-value-added dded costs are are the costs of activities that can be eliminated with no deterioration of produc t quality, perfo rmance, or perceived value. Some examples examples of potential non-value-added costs are as follows: time spent unnecessarily moving raw materials, work in process, or finished goods between operations; unnecessary time spent by raw materials or work in process waiting for the next operation; storage of unnecessary inventories of raw materials, parts, or partially completed products; costs incurred in repairing defective units when the defects could be eliminated with better quality control syst ems.

5-11 5-11

Time is spent in a manufacturing process in the follow ing five ways: process time, inspection time, move time, waiting waiting time, and and storage st orage time. There There is the potential for non-value-added non-value-added costs in any of t hese five areas. areas. Inefficient Inefficient or unnecessary steps in the production process may result in non-value-added costs. Other potential nonvalue-added activities include unnecessary inspections, unnecessary movement of materials and goods between operations, unnecessary time spent waiting by materials or partially comp leted goods, and excessive excessive inventory i n stor age.

5-12 5-12

Two factors that tend to result result in produc t cost distortio n under traditional, volumebased product-costin g systems are as follows: (a) Non-unit level overhead costs: Many overhead costs vary with cost drivers that are not unit-level activities. Use of a unit-level cost driver to assign such costs tends to result in cost distortion. (b) Product diversity: When a manufacturer produces a diverse set of products, which exhibit different consumption ratios for overhead activities, use of a single cost driver to assign costs results in cost distortion.

5-13 5-13

Three import ant factors in selecting cost drivers for an an ABC system are are as follow s: Degree of correlati cor relation on between consumption of an activity and consumption of (a) Degree the cost driv er. measurement (b) Cost of measurement of of the cost dri ver.

(c) Behavioral , that is, how the cost dri ver selected selected will affect the behavior of Behavioral effects the individu als involved in the activity related to the cost driver. 5-14 5-14

A homogeneous cost pool is a group ing of overhead overhead costs in which each each cost component is consumed in roughly the same proportion by each cost object (e.g., produ ct line).


© 2005 2005


5-15

An activity dictio nary lists all of the activities identified and used in an activity-based costing analysis. The activity dictionary provid es for consist ency in the terminolog y and level of complexity in the ABC analysis in the organization’s variou s subunits.

5-16

Designing and implementing an ABC system requires a large amount of data from all facets of an organization's operations. A multidi sciplinary team will be more effective in obtaining access to this data, and the result will be a better ABC system. Moreover, a multidisciplinary team typically helps in gaining acceptance of the new product-costing system.

5-17

Tipoffs that a new product-costing system may be needed include the following (eight required): (a) Line managers do not believe the product costs reported by the accounting department. (b) Marketing personnel are unwilling to use reported product costs in making pricing decisions. (c) Complex products that are difficult to manufacture are reported to be very profitable although they are not pri ced at a premium. (d) Produ ct-line profit margins are difficult t o explain. (e) Sales are increasing, but p rofits are declining. (f) Line managers suggest that apparently profitable products be dropped. (g) Marketing or production managers are using "bootleg costing systems," which are informal systems they designed, often on a personal compu ter. (h) Some products that have reported high profit margins are not sold by competitors. (i) The firm seems to have captured a highly profitable product nic he all for itself. (j) Overhead rates are very high, and increasing over time. (k) Product lines are diverse. (l) Direct labor is a small percentage of total costs. (m) The results of bids are difficult to explain. (n) Competito rs' high-volum e products seem to be priced unrealistically low.


© 2005


(o) The accounting department sp ends significant amount s of time on special costing projects to support bids or pr icing decisions. 5-18

Line managers are close to the production process and may realize that a complex product, which is difficult to manufacture, is undercosted by a traditional, volumebased costing system. Because of the cost distortion that is common in such systems, the undercosted product may appear to be profitable when it is really losing money. Line managers may have a "gut feeling" for this situation, even if the cost-accounting system suggests otherwise.

5-19

Diverse products typically consume support activities (such as purchasing , material handling, engineering, and inspection) in differing degrees. When there are significant differences among product lines in the ways that they consume support services (and thereby cause overhead costs), a traditional, volume-based costing system may distort product costs. Some products are overcosted; others are undercosted. An ABC system can eliminate (or at least alleviate) such cost distortion.

5-20

Activity-based costing is just as appropr iate in the service industry as in the manufacturing industry. Just as in manufacturing firms, diverse services typically consume support activities in varying degrees. ABC systems are more accurate in tracking the usage of these support activities to the services (products) that are produced than are traditional, volume-based costing sy stems.

5-21

As indicated in the chapter, Pennsylvania Blue Shield, like many manufacturers, classifies activities as unit level, batch level, product-sustaining level, or facility level. Maintenance of the medical-services provider network (i.e., the physicians and hospitals that provide medical care to claimants) is a product-sustaining-level activity because it benefits an entire product line (service line, in this case) of personal health insur ance policies.


© 2005


SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES EXERCISE 5-22 (15 MINUTES) 1.

Material-handling cost per mirror: $90,000 [(30)(250) (30)(250)] *

250

$1,500

*The total number of direct-labor hours. An alternative calculation, since both types of product use the same amount of the cost driver, is the following: $90,000 60 *

$1,500

*The total number of unit s (of both typ es) produced. 2.

Material-handling cost per lens = $1,500. The analysis is identical to that given for requirement (1).

3.

Material-handling cost per mirror: $90,000 4† (4 16) * 30

$600

*The total nu mber of material moves. †The number of material moves for the mirror prod uct line. 4.

Material-handling cost per lens: $90,000 16 * (4 16) 30

$2,400

*The number of material moves for the lens product line.


© 2005


EXERCISE 5-23 (20 MINUTES) There is no singl e correct answer to this exercise. There are many reasonable solution s. Cost pool 1: Raw materials and components....................................................................... Inspection .......................................................................................................... Total ....................................................................................................................

3,835,000 yen 39,000 yen 3,874,000 yen

Cost driver: r aw-material cost Cost pool 2: Depreciation, machinery ................................................................................... Electricity, machinery........................................................................................ Equipment maintenance, wages ...................................................................... Equipment maintenance, parts ........................................................................ Total ....................................................................................................................

1,820,000 yen 156,000 yen 195,000 yen 39,000 yen 2,210,000 yen

Cost driver: number of units produced. Cost pool 3: Setup wages ....................................................................................................... Total ....................................................................................................................

52,000 yen 52,000 yen

Cost driver: number of production runs. Cost pool 4: Engineerin g design ........................................................................................... Total ....................................................................................................................

793,000 yen 793,000 yen

Cost driver: number of parts in a product .


© 2005


EXERCISE 5-23 (CONTINUED) Cost pool 5: Depreciation, plant ............................................................................................ Insurance, plant ................................................................................................. Electricity, light .................................................................................................. Custodial wages, plant ...................................................................................... Property taxes .................................................................................................... Natural gas, heating .......................................................................................... Total ....................................................................................................................

910,000 yen 780,000 yen 78,000 yen 52,000 yen 156,000 yen 39,000 yen 2,015,000 yen

Cost driver: for cos ts allocated to support departments, square footage; for costs assigned to products, number of units produced. EXERCISE 5-24 (5 MINUTES) Cost pool 1: uni t-level Cost pool 2: uni t-level Cost pool 3: batch-level Cost pool 4: produ ct-sustaining-level Cost pool 5: facility-level EXERCISE 5-25 (15 MINUTES) 1.

a.

Quality-contr ol costs assigned to the enamel paint line under the tradition al system: Quality-contr ol costs = 16% direct-labor cost Quality-control costs assigned to enamel paint line = 16% $98,000 = $15,680


© 2005


EXERCISE 5-25 (CONTINUED) b.

Quality-contr ol costs assigned to the enamel paint line under activity-based costing: Quantity for Activity Pool Rate Enamel Paint Incoming material inspection ....... $23.00 per type .... 24 types ........ In-process inspection ................... .28 per unit ..... 35,000 units .. Product certification...................... 144.00 per order... 50 orders....... Total quality-control costs assigned...........................................................

2.

Assigned Cost $ 552 9,800 7,200 $17,552

The tradition al product-costing system undercosts the enamel paint product line, with respect to quality-control costs, by $1,872 ($17,552– $15,680).

EXERCISE 5-26 (20 MINUTES) Wheelco's product-costing system probably is providing misleading cost information to management. A common problem in a traditional, volume-based costing system is that high-volume products are overcosted and low-volume products are undercosted. There is evidence of this in the exercise, since Wheelco's competitors are selling the high-volume DC16 wheel at a price lower than Wheelco's reported manufacturing cost. In contrast, Wheelco is selling its specialty JY16 wheel at a huge markup above the product's reported cost. An activity-based costing system probably would report a lower product cost for wheel DC16 and a substantially hi gher cost for wheel JY16. The president's strategy of pushing the firm's specialty products probably will aggravate Wheelco's problem even further. These products probably are not as profitable as the firm's traditio nal product-cost ing system makes them appear. Recommendation: Install an activity-based costing system. If the new reported product costs shift as suggested in the preceding comments, then lower the price on the high-volume pr oducts, such as wheel DC16. The prices of the specialty wheels probably w ill need to be raised. It is possible that Wheelco should di scontinue low-volume product s.


© 2005


EXERCISE 5-27 (15 MINUTES) 1.

Key features of an activity-based costing system: (a)

Two-stage procedure for cost assignment.

(b)

Stage one: Establish activity cost pools.

(c)

Stage two: Select cost drivers for each activity-cost pool. Then assign the costs in each cost pool to the company's product lines in proportion to the amount of the related cost driver used by each prod uct line.

2.

As described in the answer to the preceding exercise, the new system probably will reveal distortion in the firm's reported product costs. In all likelihood, the high-volume products are overcosted and the low-volume specialty produ cts are undercosted.

3.

Strategic options: (a)

Lower the prices on the firm's high-volume products to compete more effectively.

(b)

Increase the prices on low-volume specialty products.

(c)

Consider eliminating the specialty product lines. This option may not be desirable if there is a marketing need to produce a full product line. Also, the specialty wheels may give Wheelco prestige.

EXERCISE 5-28 (20 MINUTES) The activities of the Seneca Falls Winery m ay be classified as fol lows: U: Unit-level B: Batch-level P: Product-sust aining-level F: Facility-level


© 2005


EXERCISE 5-28 (CONTINUED) Activity (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Classification P P P P P P P B B B


Activity (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19)

Classification B B U U U U B F F

© 2005


EXERCISE 5-29 (30 MINUTES) 1.

ZODIAC MODEL ROCKETRY COMPANY COMPUTATION OF SELLING COSTS B Y ORDER SIZE AND PER MOTOR WITHIN E ACH ORDER SIZE

Small Sales commissio ns a (Unit cost: $675,000/225,000 = $3.00 per bo x ........................ $

Order Size Medium Large

Total

6,000

$135,000

$534,000

$ 675,000

Catalogs b (Unit cost: $295,400/590,800 = $.50 per catalog) ...................

127,150

105,650

62,600

295,400

Costs of catalog salesc (Unit cost: $105,000/175,000 = $.60 per motor) .....................

47,400

31,200

26,400

105,000

Credit and collectio n d (Unit cost: $60,000/6,000 = $10.00 per order) ..................

4,850

24,150

31,000

60,000

Total cost per order size ................

$185,400

$296,000

$654,000

$1,135,400

Units (motors) sold e........................

103,000

592,000

2,180,000

Unit cost per order size f .................

$1.80

$.50

$.30

aRetail

sales in boxes unit cost: Small, 2,000 $3 Medium, 45,000 $3 Large, 178,000 $3 b Catalogs distr ibuted unit cost c Catalog sales unit cost d Number of retail orders unit cost eSmall: (2,000 12) + 79,000 = 103,000 Medium: (45,000 12) + 52,000 = 592,000 Large: (178,000 12) + 44,000 = 2,180,000 f Total cost per order si ze ÷ units sol d


© 2005


EXERCISE 5-29 (CONTINUED) 2.

The analysis of selling costs shows that small orders cost more than large orders. This fact could persuade management to market large orders more aggressively and/or offer discounts fo r them.

EXERCISE 5-30 (20 MINUTES) The definitions used by Carrier Corporation for each of the activity levels are given below. (See Robert Adams and Ray Carter, "United Technologies' Activity-Based Accounting Is a Catalyst for Success” As Easy as ABC , 18, p.4.) Note that United Technolo gies uses the term structural - level activity, in stead of facility - level activity as used in th e text. •

•

•

•

Unit: This activity or cost occurs every time a unit is produced. An example is the utility cost for production equipment. This level of activity usually relates directly to production volume. Batch: This activity is performed for each batch produced or acquired. Examples include moving raw material between the stock room and production line or setting up a machine for a run. Product-sustaining: This activity is performed to maintain product designs, processes, models, and parts. Examples include expediting pur chasing, maintaining tools and dies, or assuring quality. Sustaining activities are required for supp orting a key manufacturing capability or pro cess. Facility: These activities are performed to enable production. They are fundamental to supporting the busi ness entity at the most basic level. Examples are managing or cleaning the building.

These definitions are consistent with those given in the chapter. An argument for the ABC project team's classification would be that the activity or account in question was characterized by the definition of the activity-level classification given above. An argument against the team's classification would be that the particular activity or account did not satisfy the definition. For example, moving materials is a batch-level activity because a raw material must be moved to the product area when a production run or batch is started. Depreciation is a facility-level account because depreciation on plant and equipment represents the cost of providing production facilities in which manufacturing can take place.


© 2005


EXERCISE 5-31 (30 MINUTES) Answers will vary widely, depending on the college or university and the activities chosen. EXERCISE 5-32 (30 MINUTES) Answers will vary widely, depending on the website chosen. In general, though, activitybased costing could be a useful tool in helping any governmental unit understand what its cost drivers are for the various activities in which i t engages.


© 2005


SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS PROBLEM 5-33 (35 MINUTES) 1.

Activity-based costing results in improved costing accuracy for two reasons. First , companies that use ABC are not limited to a single driver when allocating costs to products and activities. Not all costs vary with units , and ABC allows users to select a host of nonunit -level cost drivers. Second, consumptio n ratios often differ greatly among activities. No single cost driver will accurately assign costs for all activities in this situation.

2.

Allocation of administrative cost based on billable hours: E-commerce consulting: 2,400 ÷ 6,000 = 40%; $381,760 x 40% = $152,704 Information systems: 3,600 ÷ 6,000 = 60%; $381,760 x 60% = $229,056 E-Commerce Consulting

Information Systems Services

Billings: 3,600 hours x $140………… 2,400 hours x $140………… Less: Professional staff cost: 3,600 hours x $50 2,400 hours x $50 Administrative cost……. Income……………………………

(120,000) (152,704) $ 63,296

( 229,056) $ 94,944

Income ÷ billings……………….

18.84%

18.84%


$504,000 $336,000 (180,000)

© 2005


PROBLEM 5-33 (CONTINUED) 3. Activity-based application rates: Activity

Cost

Staff supp ort

$207,000

In-house computing

145,000

Miscellaneous office charges

29,760

Activity Driver

Application Rate

÷ 300 clients

=

$690 per client

÷ 5,000 computer hours (CH)

=

$29 per CH

÷ 1,200 client transactions (CT)

=

$24.80 per CT

Staff support , in-house computin g, and miscellaneous office charges of e-commerce consulting and information systems services:

Activity Staff support: 240 clients x $690…………... 60 clients x $690……………. In-house computing: 2,900 CH x $29………………. 2,100 CH x $29………………. Miscellaneous of fice charges: 480 CT x $24.80……………... 720 CT x $24.80……………... Total ……………………………….


E-Commerce Consulting

Information Systems Services $165,600

$ 41,400 84,100 60,900 11,904 17,856 $120,156

© 2005

$261,604


PROBLEM 5-33 (CONTINUED) Profitability e-commerce consulting and information systems services: E-Commerce Consulting Billings: 3,600 hours x $140……….. 2,400 hours x $140……….. Less: Professional staff cost: 3,600 hours x $50 2,400 hours x $50 Administrative cost……. Income………………………….. Income ÷ billings……………...

Information Systems Services $504,000

$336,000 (180,000) (120,000) (120,156) $ 95,844 28.53%

( 261,604) $ 62,396 12.38%

4.

Yes, his attitude should change. Even though both services are needed and profession als are paid the same rate, the income percentages show that e-commerce consulting provides a higher return per sales dollar than information systems services (28.53% vs. 12.38%). Thus, all other thin gs being equal, professionals should spend more time with e-commerce.

5.

Probably not. Although both services produce an attractive return for Clark and Shiffer, the firm is experiencing a very tight labor market and will likely have trouble finding qualified help. In addition, the professional staff is currently overworked, which would probably limit the services available to new clients.


© 2005


PROBLEM 5-34 (30 MINUTES) 1.

Deluxe manufacturing overhead cost: 32,000 machine hours x $80 = $2,560,000 $2,560,000 ÷ 16,000 units = $160 per unit Executive manufacturin g overhead cost: 45,000 machine hours x $80 = $3,600,000 $3,600,000 ÷ 30,000 units = $120 per unit Deluxe

Executive

$ 40 25 160 $225

$ 65 25 120 $210

Direct material………………. Direct labor………………….. Manufactur ing overhead…. Unit cost………………… 2. Activity-based application rates:


Activity Driver

Application Rate

Activity

Cost

Manufacturing setups

$1,344,000

÷ 160 setups (SU)

= $8,400 per SU

Machine processing

3,696,000

÷ 77,000 machine hours (MH)

= $48 per MH

Product shipping

1,120,000

÷ 350 outgoing = $3,200 per OS shipments (OS)

© 2005


PROBLEM 5-34 (CONTINUED) Manufacturing setup, machine processing, and product shipping costs of a Deluxe unit and an Executive unit: Activity Manufacturing setups: 100 SU x $8,400…………….. 60 SU x $8,400…………….. Machine processing : 32,000 MH x $48…………... 45,000 MH x $48…………... Product shipping: 200 OS x $3,200…………… 150 OS x $3,200…………….. Total …………………………….

Deluxe

Executive

$ 840,000 $ 504,000 1,536,000 2,160,000 640,000 $3,016,000

480,000 $3,144,000

Production volume (units)….

16,000

30,000

Cost per unit…………………..

$188.50*

$104.80**

* $3,016,000 ÷ 16,000 units = $188.50 ** $3,144,000 ÷ 30,000 units = $104.80 The manufactured cost of a Deluxe cabinet is $253.50, and the manufactured co st o f an Executive cabinet is $194.80. The calculations follow:

Direct material………………………………… Direct labor……………………………………. Manufacturin g setup, machine processing, and outgoing shipments.. Total cost……………………………………….

Deluxe

Executive

$ 40.00 25.00

$ 65.00 25.00

188.50 $253.50

104.80 $194.80

3. The Deluxe storage cabinet is undercost ed. The use of machine hours produ ced a unit cost of $225; in contrast, the more accurate activity-based-costing approach shows a unit cost of $253.50. The difference between these two amount s is $28.50.


© 2005


PROBLEM 5-34 (CONTINUED) 4. Cost distortion: The Deluxe cabinet product line is undercosted by $456,000, and the Executive cabinet product lin e is overcosted by $456,000. Supportin g calculations follow : Deluxe

5.

Executive

$28.50* 16,000 = $456,000

$(15.20)† 30,000 = $(456,000)

*$253.50 $225.00

†$194.80

$210.00

No, the discount is not advisable. The regular selling price of $270, when compared against the more accurate ABC cost figur e, shows that each sale provides a profi t to the fir m of $16.50 ($270.00 - $253.50). However, a $30 discount will actually produce a loss of $13.50 ($253.50 - $240.00), and the more units that are sold, the larger the loss. Notice that with the less-accurate, machine-hour-based figure ($225), the marketing manager will be misled, believing that each discounted unit sold would boost income by $15 ($240 - $225).


© 2005



a.

Manufacturin g overhead costs include all indirect manufacturing costs (all production costs except direct material and direct labor). Typical overhead costs include: •

•

•

b.

Indirect labor (e.g., a lift-truck driver, maintenance and inspection labor, engineering labor, and supervisor s). Indirect material. Other indirect manufacturing costs (e.g., building maintenance, machine and tool maintenance, property taxes, insurance, depreciation on plant and equipment, rent, and ut ilities).

Companies develop overhead rates before production to facilitate the costing of products as they are completed and shipped, rather than waiting until actual costs are accumulated for the period of prod uction.

2.

The increase in the overhead rate should not have a negative impact on the company, because the increase in indirect costs was offset by a decrease in direct labor.

3.

Rather than using a plantwide overhead rate, Digital Light could implement separate activity co st pools. Examples are as follows: •

•

4.

Separate costs int o departmental overhead accounts (or other r elevant pools), with one account for each production and service department. Each department would allocate its overhead to products on the basis that best reflects the us e of these overhead services. Treat individual machines as separate cost centers, with the machine costs collected and charged to the products us ing machine hours.

An activity-based costing system might benefit Digital Light because it assigns costs to products according to their usage of activities in the production process. More accurate product costs are the result.


© 2005



Predetermined overhead rate = budgeted overhead ÷ budgeted direct-labor hours = $710,000 ÷ 20,000* = $35.50 per direct labor hour *20,000 budgeted direct-labor hours = (2,500 units of Medform)(3 hrs./unit) + (3,125 units of Procel)(4 hrs./unit)

Direct material ................................. Direct labor: 3 hours x $15.............................. 4 hours x $15.............................. Manufacturin g overhead: 3 hours x $35.50......................... 4 hours x $35.50......................... Total cost.......................................... 2.

Medform

Procel

$ 30.00

$ 45.00

45.00 60.00 106.50 $181.50

142.00 $247.00

Activity-based overhead application rates:


Activity Cost Driver

Application Rate

Activity

Cost

Order processing

$120,000

÷ 600 orders processed (OP)

= $200 per OP

Machine processing

500,000

÷ 50,000 machine hrs. (MH)

= $10 per MH

Product inspection

90,000

÷ 15,000 inspection hrs. (IH)

= $6 per IH

© 2005


PROBLEM 5-36 (CONTINUED) Order processing, machine processing, and product inspection costs of a Medform unit and an Procel unit: Activity

Medform

Procel

Order processing: 350 OP x $200 ....................... 250 OP x $200 ....................... Machine processing: 23,000 MH x $10 .................... 27,000 MH x $10 .................... Product inspection: 4,000 IH x $6 ........................ 11,000 IH x $6 ........................ Total

$324,000

66,000 $386,000

Productio n volume (units) Cost per unit

2,500 $129.60*

3,125 $123.52**

$ 70,000 $ 50,000 230,000 270,000 24,000

* $324,000 ÷ 2,500 units = $129.60 ** $386,000 ÷ 3,125 units = $123.52 The manufactured cost of a Medform un it is $204.60, and the manufactured cost of a Procel unit is $228.52:

Direct material………………………………. Direct labor: 3 hours x $15…………………………… 4 hours x $15…………………………… Order processing, machine processing, and product inspection……………….. Total cost…………………………………….


Medform

Procel

$ 30.00

$ 45.00

45.00 60.00 129.60 $204.60

© 2005

123.52 $228.52


PROBLEM 5-36 (CONTINUED) 3.

a.

The Procel product is overcosted by $18.48 ($247.00 - $228.52) under the traditional product -costing system. The labor-hour application base resulted in a $247 unit cost; in contrast, the more accurate ABC approach yielded a lower unit cost of $228.52. The opposite situation occurs with the Medform product, which is undercosted by $23.10 under the traditional approach ($181.50 vs. $204.60 under ABC). The traditional costing system overcosts the Procel product line by a total of $57,750 ($18.48 x 3,125 units), and it undercosts the Medform product line by the same amount, $57,750 ($23.10 x 2,500 units).

b.

Yes, especially since Meditech’s selling prices are based heavily on cost. An overcosted product will result in an inflated selling price, which could prove detrimental in a highly competitive marketplace. Customers will be turned off and will go elsewhere, which hurts prof itability. With undercosted products, selling prices may be too low to adequately cover a product’s more accurate (higher) cost. This situation is also troublesome and will result in lower income reported for t he company.


Valdosta Vinyl Company (VVC) is currently using a plantwide overhead rate that is applied on the basis of direct-labor dollars. In general, a plantwide manufacturingoverhead rate is acceptable only if a similar relationship between overhead and direct labor exists in all departments or the company manufactures products that receive the same proportion al services from each department In most cases, departmental overhead rates are preferable to plantwide overhead rates because plantwide overhead rates do not provide the followi ng: •

•

A framework for reviewing overhead costs on a departmental basis, identifying departmental cost overruns, or taking corrective action to improve departmental cost control. Sufficient information about product profitability, thus increasing the difficulties associated with management decision making.


© 2005



Because the company uses a plantwide overhead rate applied on the basis of directlabor dollars, the elimination of direct labor in the Molding Department through the introduction of robots may appear to reduce the overhead cost of the Molding Department to zero. However, this change will not reduce fixed manufacturing costs such as depreciation and plant supervision. In reality, the use of robots is likely to increase fixed costs because of increased depreciation. Under the current method of allocating overhead costs, these costs merely will be absorbed by the remaining departments.

3.

a.

In order to improve the allocation of overhead costs in the Cutting and Finishing departments, management should move toward an activity-based costing system. The firm should: •

•

b.

Establish activity-cost pools fo r each significant activity. Select a cost driver for each activity that best reflects the relationship of the activity to t he overhead costs incurred.

In order to accommodate the automation of the Molding Department in its overhead accounting system, the company should: •

•

•

Establish a separate overhead pool and rate for the Molding Department. Identify fixed and variable overhead costs and establish fixed and variable overhead rates. Apply overhead costs to the Molding Department on the basis of robot or machine hours.


© 2005



Overhead to be assigned to film development chemical order: Activity Cost Pool Machine setups Material handling Hazardous waste contro l Quality control Other overhead costs

Pool Rate $4,000 per setup $4 per pound $10 per pound $150 per inspection $20 per machine hour

Level of Cost Driver 6 setups 9,000 pounds 2,100 pounds 8 inspections 550 machin e hours

Assigned Overhead Cost $24,000 36,000 21,000 1,200 11,000

Total

$93,200

2.

Overhead cost per box of chemicals

=

$93,200 1,000 boxes

3.

Predetermined overhead rate

=

total budgeted overhead cost total budgeted machine hours

=

$93.20 per box

=

$2,500,000 40,000

= $62.50 per machin e hr. 4.

Overhead to be assigned to film development chemical order, given a single predetermined overhead rate: a.

Total overhead assigned

= $62.50 per machin e hr. 550 machine hr. = $34,375

b.

5.

Overhead cost per box of chemicals

=

$34,375 1,000 boxes

=

$34.375 per box

The radiological development chemicals entail a relatively large number of machine setups, a large amount of hazardous materials, and several inspections. Thus, they are quite costly in terms of driving overhead costs. Use of a single predetermined overhead rate obscures this characteristic of the production job. Underestimating the overhead cost per box could have adverse consequences for Rapid City Radiology, Inc. For example, it could lead to poor decisions about product pricing. The activitybased costing sy stem will s erve management much better than the syst em based on a single, predetermined overhead rate.


© 2005


PROBLEM 5-39 (20 MINUTES) (a)

Overhead assigned to photographic plates: Activity Cost Pool Pool Rate Machine setups $4,000 per setup Material handling $4 per pound Hazardous waste control $10 per pound Quality control $150 per inspection Other overhead costs $20 per machine hour Total Overhead cost per unit

(b)

$25,000 100 plates

Level of Cost Driver 4 setups 800 pounds 400 pounds 4 inspections 60 machine hours

Assigned Overhead Cost $16,000 3,200 4,000 600 1,200 $25,000

$250

Unit cost per plate: Direct material ............................... Direct labor .................................... Manufactur ing overhead .............. Total cost per plate .......................


$210 60 250 $520

© 2005



Activity Cost Pool I: Machine-related costs II: Setup and inspection III: Engineering IV: Plant-related costs

2.

Calculation of pool rates:

Type of Activity Unit-level Batch-level Product-sustaining-level Facility-level

I: Machine-related costs: $1,800,000 18,000 machine hrs.

= $100 per machine hr.

II. Setup and inspection: $720,000 80 runs

= $9,000 per run

III. Engineering: $360,000 200 change orders

= $1,800 per change order

IV. Plant-related costs: $384,000 3,840 sq. ft.


= $100 per sq. ft.

© 2005



Unit costs for odds and ends: I: Machine-related costs: Odds: $100 per machine hr.

8 machine hr. per unit

= $800 per unit

Ends: $100 per machine hr.

2 machine hr. per unit

= $200 per unit

II: Setup and inspection: Odds: $9,000 per run ÷ 25 units per run

= $360 per unit

Ends: $9,000 per run ÷ 125 units per run

= $72 per unit

III: Engineering: Odds:

$1,800 per change order 200 change orders 75% 1,000 units

=

Ends:

$270,000 = $270 per unit 1,000 units

$1,800 per change order 200 change orders 25% 5,000 units

=

$90,000 = $18 per un it 5,000 units

IV. Plant-related costs: Odds:

$100 per sq. ft. 3,840 sq. ft. 80% 1,000 units

=

Ends:

$100 per sq. ft. 3,840 sq. ft. 20% 5,000 units

=


$307,200 = $307.20 per unit 1,000 units

$76,800 = $15.36 per unit 5,000 units

© 2005



New product cost per unit using the ABC system: Direct material .................................................. Direct labor ....................................................... Manufacturin g overhead: Machine-related......................................... Setup and inspection................................ Engineering ............................................... Plant-related .............................................. Total cost per unit ............................................

5.

Ends $240.00 180.00

800.00 360.00 270.00 307.20 $2,017.20

200.00 72.00 18.00 15.36 $725.36

Odds $2,017.20 120% $2,420.64

Ends $725.36 120% $870.43 (rounded)

New target prices: New product cost (ABC).................................. Pricing policy ................................................... New target price ...............................................

6.

Odds $ 160.00 120.00

Full assignment of overhead costs: Odds Manufacturin g overhead costs: Machine-related......................................... Setup and inspection ............................... Engineering ............................................... Plant-related .............................................. Total overhead cost per unit........................... Pro duction volume ....................................... Total overhead assigned.................................


Ends

$ 800.00 $ 200.00 360.00 72.00 270.00 18.00 307.20 15.36 $1,737.20 $ 305.36 1,000 5,000 $1,737,200 $1,526,800 Total = $3,264,000

© 2005



Cost distortion: Odds Traditional volume-based costing system: reported product cost ................................................. Activit y-based costing system: reported product cost ................................................. Amount of cost distortion per unit....................................

$

Ends

664.00

$996.00

2,017.20 $(1,353.20)

725.36 $270.64

Traditional system undercosts odds by $1,353.20 per unit Production volume ............................................................. 1,000 Total amount of cost distortion for entire product line .................................................................. $(1,353,200)

Traditional system overcosts ends by $270.64 per unit 5,000 $1,353,200

Sum of these two amounts is zero.


© 2005



a.

GSCC's predetermined overhead rate, using direct-labor cost as the single cost driver, is $10 per direct labor do llar, calculated as follow s: Overhead rate

=

total manufactur ing-overhead cost budgeted direct -labor cost

= $12,000,000/$1,200,000 = $10 per direct-labor dollar b.

The full product costs and selling prices of one pound of Jamaican and one pound o f Colombian coffee are calculated as follows: Jamaican Direct material ........................................ Direct labor ............................................. Overhead (.40 $10).............................. Full product cost .................................... Markup (30%).......................................... Selling price............................................

2.

Colombian

$2.90 .40 4.00 $7.30 2.19 $9.49

$ 3.90 .40 4.00 $8.30 2.49 $10.79

The new product cost, under an activity-based costing approach, is $11.06 per pound of Jamaican and $4.62 per pound of Columb ian coffee, calculated as follow s: Activity Purchasing Material handling Quality control Roasting Blending Packaging


Cost Driver Purchase orders Setups Batches Roasting hours Blending hours Packaging hours

Budgeted Activity 2,316 3,600 1,440 192,200 67,200 52,000

© 2005

Budgeted Cost Unit Cost $2,316,000 $1,000 2,880,000 800 576,000 400 3,844,000 20 1,344,000 20 1,040,000 20


PROBLEM 5-41 (CONTINUED) Jamaican Coffee Standard cost per poun d: Direct material......................................................................................... Direct labor .............................................................................................. Purchasing (4 orders* $1,000/2,000 lb.) ............................................ Material handling (12 setups $800/2,000 lb.) .................................... Quality control (4 batches $400/2,000 lb .) ........................................ Roasting (10 hours $20/2,000 lb.)...................................................... Blending (5 hours $20/2,000 lb.)........................................................ Packaging (1 hours $20/2,000 lb .) ..................................................... Total cost .................................................................................................

$2.90 .40 2.00 4.80 .80 .10 .05 .01 $11.06

*Budgeted sales ÷ purchase order size 2,000 lbs. ÷ 500 lbs. = 4 orders Colombian Coffee Standard cost per poun d: Direct material......................................................................................... Direct labor .............................................................................................. Purchasing (2 orders* $1,000/100,000 lb .) ........................................ Material handling (15 setups $800/100,000 lb.)................................ Quality control (5 batches $400/100,000 lb .) .................................... Roasting (500 hours $20/100,000 lb.)................................................ Blending (250 hours $20/100,000 lb.)................................................ Packaging (50 hours $20/100,000 lb .) ............................................... Total cost .................................................................................................

$3.90 .40 .02 .12 .02 .10 .05 .01 $4.62

*Budgeted sales ÷ purchase order size 100,000 lbs. ÷ 50,000 lbs. = 2 orders


© 2005



a.

The ABC analysis indicates that several activities other than direct labor drive overhead. The cost computations show that the current system significantly undercosted Jamaican coffee, the low-volume product, and significantly overcosted the high-volum e product, Colombian cof fee.

b.

The implication of the ABC analysis is that the low-volume products are using resources but are not covering their share of the cost of those resources. The Jamaican blend is currently priced at $9.49 [see requirement 1(b)], which is significantly below its activity-based cost of $11.06. The company should set long-run prices above cost. If there is excess capacity and many of the costs are fixed, it may be acceptable to price some products below full activity-based cost temporarily in order to build demand for the product. Otherwise, the high-volume, high-margin prod ucts are subsidizing the low-volume, low-margin prod ucts.


© 2005



Kara Lindley's predecessor at Pensacola Air Industries (PAI) would have used a 10 percent material-handling rate, calculated as foll ows: Payroll .................................................................................... Employee benefits ................................................................ Telephone .............................................................................. Other utilities ......................................................................... Materials and supplies ......................................................... Depreciation .......................................................................... Total Material-Handling Department costs ........................ Material-handling rate

$270,000 54,000 57,000 33,000 9,000 9,000 $432,000

=

total Material-Handling Department costs total direct -material costs

=

$432,000 $3,009,000 $1,311,000

= 10% 2.

a.

The revised material-handling costs to be allocated on a per-purchase-order basis is $1.00, calculated as follows: Total Material-Handling Department costs.......................................... Deduct: Direct cost s: Direct govern ment payroll ..................................... $54,000 10,800 Fringe benefits (20% $54,000)............................ Direct phone line..................................................... 4,200 Material-handling costs applicable to purchase orders .................... Total number of purchase orders Material-handling cost per purchase order

b.

$432,000

69,000 $363,000 363,000 $ 1.00

Purchase orders might be a more reliable cost driver than is the dollar amount of direct material, because resources are consumed in processing a purchase order. The size of the order does not necessarily have an impact on the consumption of resources.


© 2005



There is a $111,900 reduction in material-handling costs allocated to government contracts b y PAI as a result of th e new allocation m ethod, calculated as follows : Previous method: Government material ............................................................ Material-handling rate ....................................................... Total (previous method).......................................................

$ 3,009,000 10% $ 300,900

New method: Directly traceable material-handling cos ts [$54,000 + (20% $54,000) + $4,200] ........................... Purchase orders (120,000 $1.00)...................................... Total (new method) ...............................................................

$ 69,000 120,000 $ 189,000

Net reduction .........................................................................

$ 111,900


© 2005



A forecast of the cumulative dollar impact over a three-year period from 20x4 through 20x6 of Kara Lindley's recommended change for allocating Material-Handling Department costs to the Government Contracts Unit is $351,519, calculated as follows: 20x5

20x6

Calculation of forecasted variable material-handling cos ts: Direct-material (DM) cost: 20x5 ($4,320,000 1.025) .................................... 20x6 ($4,428,000 1.025) ....................................

$4,428,000 $4,538,700

Material-handling rate (10% of DM cost) .................. $ 442,800 Deduct: Direct traceable costs .................................. 69,000a Variable material-handling costs .............................. $ 373,800

$ 453,870 69,000a $ 384,870

Calculation o f forecasted purchase orders: 20x5 (363,000 1.05) .................................................. 20x6 (381,150 1.05) ..................................................

381,150

Government purchase orders (33% of total)............

125,780

400,208 (rounded) 132,069 (rounded)

Calculation of material-handling cost s allocated to government contracts: Variable material-handling costs .............................. $ 373,800 Purchase orders.......................................................... 381,150 Variable material-handling costs per pur chase order (rounded) .................................................... $ .98 Government purchase orders ................................... 125,780 Projected variable m aterial-handling costs (rounded).................................................... $ 123,264 Fixed material-handling costs ................................... 69,000a Total material-handling cost s allocated to government contracts ......................................... $ 192,264 a$54,000

$ $

384,870 400,208

.96 132,069

$ 126,786 69,000a $ 195,786

+ (20% $54,000) + $4,200 = $69,000


© 2005


PROBLEM 5-42 (CONTINUED) Calculation of cum ulative dollar impact: Government material at 70% .......................................... $ 3,099,600b Material-handling at 10% (previous method) ................ Deduct: Material-handling costs allocated to government contracts (new method)...................... Net reduction in go vernment contract material-handling costs ...........................................

$ 3,177,090 c

$ 309,960d

$ 317,709e

192,264

195,786

117,696

$ 121,923

$

b 70%

$4,428,000 = $3,099,600 c 70% $4,538,700 = $3,177,090 d 10% $3,099,600 = $309,960 e10% $3,177,090 = $317,709 In summary, the cumulative dollar impact of the recommended change in allocating Material-Handling Department costs is $351,519, calculated as follows: 20x4 [from requirement (3)] ................ 20x5 ....................................................... 20x6 ....................................................... Total ...................................................... 5.

a.

$111,900 117,696 121,923 $351,519

Referring to the standards of ethical conduct for management accountants, Kara Lindley faces the following ethical issues: Competence: •

Prepare complete and clear reports and recommendations after appropriate analysis of relevant and reliable information. Lindley has an obligation to prepare the most relevant and reliable report.

Integrity: •


Refrain from engaging in any activity that would prejudice Lindley's ability to carry out her dut ies ethically.

© 2005


PROBLEM 5-42 (CONTINUED) •

•

Communicate unfavorable as well as favorable information and professional judgments and opinions. Refrain from engaging in or supporting any activity that would discredit Lindley's profession.

Objectivity: •

b.

Disclose fully all relevant information that could reasonably be expected to influence an intended user's understanding of reports and recommendations presented. Lindley has information that the company president should see if he is going to make a reliable judgment about the results of the Government Contracts Unit.

The steps Kara Lindley could take to resolve this ethical conflict are as follows: •

•

•

•

Lindley shou ld first follow the established polic ies at PAI. If this approach does not resolve the conflict or if such policies do not exist, she should discuss the problem with her immediate superior, except when it appears that the superior is involved. If the Government Contracts Unit manager, Paul Anderson, is h er superior, then she obviou sly cannot d iscuss the problem with him. In this case she should go to the next-higher managerial level and continue, up to the audit committee of the board of directors, until the conflict is resolved. She should also discuss the situation with an objective advisor to clarify the issues involved and obtain an understanding of possibl e courses of action. If the ethical conflict still exists after exhausting all levels of internal review, then she may have no other course of action than to resign from the company and submit an informative memorandum to an appropriate representative of the company.


© 2005



An activity-based costing system is a two-stage process of assigning costs to products. In stage one, activity-cost pools are established. In stage two a cost driver is identified for each activity-cost pool. Then the costs in each pool are assigned to each product line in proportion to the amount of the cost driver consumed by each product line.

2.

Queensland Electronics should not continue with its plans to emphasize the Zodiac model and phase out the Novelle model. As shown in the following activity-based costing analysis, the Zodiac model has a gross margin of less than 1 percent, while the Novelle model generates a gross margin of nearly 42 percent. Cost per event for each cost driver: Soldering .................... Shipments .................. Quality control ........... Purchase orders ........ Machine power .......... Machine setups .........

$ 880,000 836,000 1,170,000 1,110,000 47,500 948,500

÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷ ÷

1,600,000 19,000 78,000 185,000 190,000 9,485

= = = = = =

$ .55 44.00 15.00 6.00 .25 100.00

per solder joint per shipment per inspection per order per hour per setup

Zodiac

Novelle

Costs per model: Direct costs: Materiala ...................................................................... Direct labor b ................................................................ Machine hour s c .......................................................... Total direct costs...............................................................

$2,316,000 196,000 304,000 $2,816,000

$ 4,642,000 462,000 3,344,000 $ 8,448,000

Assigned costs: Soldering d ................................................................... Shipments e ................................................................. Quality control f ........................................................... Purchase orders g ....................................................... Machine power h .......................................................... Machine setups i ......................................................... Total assigned costs......................................................... Total cost ...........................................................................

$ 220,000 167,200 315,900 632,700 3,800 450,000 $1,789,600 $4,605,600

$ 660,000 668,800 854,100 477,300 43,700 498,500 $ 3,202,400 $11,650,400


© 2005


PROBLEM 5-43 (CONTINUED) Calculations: Zodiac aMaterial

......................................... labor................................... c Machine hours ............................. d Soldering ...................................... eShipments .................................... f Quality control .............................. g Purchase orders .......................... h Machine power............................. i Machine setups ............................ b Direct

Novelle

4,000 $579 4,000 $49 4,000 $76 400,000 $.55 3,800 $44 21,060 $15 105,450 $6 15,200 $.25 4,500 $100

22,000 22,000 22,000 1,200,000 15,200 56,940 79,550 174,800 4,985

$211 $21 $152 $.55 $44 $15 $6 $.25 $100

Profitability analysis: Sales ............................................................... Less: Cost of goods sold ............................. Gross margin................................................. Units sold ....................................................... Per-unit calculations : Selling price ........................................... Less: Cost of goods sold...................... Gross margin ......................................... Gross margin percentage..................... a$8.60/$1,160.00 =

Zodiac Novelle $4,640,000 $20,020,000 4,605,600 11,650,400 $ 34,400 $ 8,369,600 4,000 22,000 $1,160.00 1,151.40 $ 8.60 a 0.7%

Total $24,660,000 16,256,000 $ 8,404,000

$910.00 529.56 $380.44 41.8%b

0.7%

b $380.44/$910.00 = 41.8%


© 2005



General advantages associated with activity-based costing include the following: •

•

•

•

Provides management with a more thorough understanding of complex product costs and product profitability for improved resource management and pricing decisions. Allows management to focus on value-added and non-value-added activities, so that non-value-added activities can be controlled or eliminated, thus streamlining production processes. Highlights the relationship between activities and identifies opportunities to reduce costs (i.e., designing products with fewer parts in order to reduce the cost of the manufacturing process). Provides a more appropr iate means of charging ov erhead costs to products.


© 2005



Using Ultratech’s unit cost data, the total contribution margin expected from the PC board is $4,720,000, calculated as follows:

Per Unit $600 $280 28 112 32 30 $482 $118

Revenue ................................................................................. Direct material ....................................................................... Material-handling charge (10% of material) ....................... Direct labor ($28 per hr. 4 hr .) .......................................... Variable overhead ($8 per hr. 4 hr .)*................................ Machine tim e ($20 per hr. 1.5 hr.) .................................... Total cost ........................................................................ Unit contribution margin ...................................................... Total contri bution margin (40,000 $118) .........................

Total for 40,000 Units $24,000,000 $11,200,000 1,120,000 4,480,000 1,280,000 1,200,000 $19,280,000 $ 4,720,000

*Variable overhead rate: $2,240,000 ÷ 280,000 hr. = $8 per hr. The total cont ribution margin expected from the TV board i s $3,900,000, calculated as follows:

Per Unit $300 $160 16 42 12 10 $240 $ 60

Revenue ................................................................................. Direct material ....................................................................... Material-handling charge (10% of material) ....................... Direct labor ($28 per hr. 1.5 hr .) ....................................... Variable overhead ($8 per hr. 1.5 hr .)*............................. Machine tim e ($20 per hr. .5 hr.) ...................................... Total cost ........................................................................ Unit contribution margin ...................................................... Total contri bution margin (65,000 $60) ...........................

Total for 65,000 Units $19,500,000 $10,400,000 1,040,000 2,730,000 780,000 650,000 $15,600,000 $ 3,900,000

*Variable-overhead rate: $2,240,000 ÷ 280,000 hr. = $8 per hr.


© 2005



The pool rates, which apply to both the PC board and the TV board, are calculated as follows: Procurement ............................ Production scheduling ........... Packaging and shipping......... Machine setup ......................... Hazardous waste disposal ..... Quality control......................... General supplies ..................... Machine insertion ................... Manual insertion ..................... Wave soldering .......................

$800,000/4,000,000 $440,000/110,000 $880,000/110,000 $892,000/278,750 $96,000/16,000 $1,120,000/160,000 $132,000/110,000 $2,400,000/3,000,000 $8,000,000/1,000,000 $264,000/110,000

= = = = = = = = = =

$.20 per part $4.00 per board $8.00 per board $3.20 per setup $6.00 per lb. $7.00 per inspection $1.20 per board $.80 per part $8.00 per part $2.40 per board

Using activity-based costing, the total contribu tion margin expected from th e PC board is $3,464,000, calculated as follows:

Revenue ................................................................................... Direct material ......................................................................... Procurement ($.20 per part 55 parts) ................................ Production scheduling ........................................................... Packaging and shipping......................................................... Machine setup ($3.20 per setup 3 setups) ........................ Hazardous waste dispos al ($6 per lb. .40 lb.)................... Quality control ($7.00 per inspection 2 inspections).......................... General supplies ..................................................................... Machine insertion ($.80 per part 36 parts) ........................ Manual insertion ($8 per part 19 parts)............................. Wave soldering ....................................................................... Total cost Unit contribution margin Total contribution margin


© 2005

Per Unit $600.00 $280.00 11.00 4.00 8.00 9.60 2.40 14.00 1.20 28.80 152.00 2.40 $ 513.40 $ 86.60

Total for 40,000 Units $24,000,000 $11,200,000 440,000 160,000 320,000 384,000 96,000 560,000 48,000 1,152,000 6,080,000 96,000 $20,536,000 $ 3,464,000


PROBLEM 5-44 (CONTINUED) Using activity-based costing, the total contribu tion margin expected from t he TV board is $5,045,300, calculated as follows:

Revenue ................................................................................. Direct material ....................................................................... Procurement ($.20 per part 26 part s) .............................. Production scheduling ......................................................... Packaging and shipping....................................................... Machine setups ($3.20 per setup 2 setups) .................... Hazardous waste dispos al ($6 per lb. .03 l b.)................. Quality control ($7.00 per inspection x 1 inspection) ....... General supplies ................................................................... Machine insertion ($.80 per part 25 part s) ...................... Manual insertion ($8.00 per part x 1 part)........................... Wave soldering ..................................................................... Total cost.......................................................................... Unit contribution margin ...................................................... Total contribution margin .................................................... 4.

Total for 65,000 Per Unit Units $ 300.00 $19,500,000 $ 160.00 $10,400,000 5.20 338,000 4.00 260,000 8.00 520,000 6.40 416,000 .18 11,700 7.00 455,000 1.20 78,000 20.00 1,300,000 8.00 520,000 2.40 156,000 $ 222.38 $14,454,700 $ 77.62 $ 5,045,300

The analysis using the previously reported costs indicates that the unit contributio n of the PC board is almost double that of the TV board. On this basis, management is likely to accept the suggestion of the production manager and concentrate promot ional efforts on expanding th e market for th e PC boards. However, the analysis using activity-based costing does not support this decision. This analysis shows t hat the unit dollar contri bution from each of the boards is not as different as previously believed, and the total contribution from the TV board exceeds that of the PC board by almost $1.6 million. As a percentage of selling p rice, the contribution from the TV board is almost double that of the PC board (26 percent versus 14 percent).


© 2005



a.

The calculation of total budgeted costs for the Manufacturin g Department at Scott Manufacturin g is as follows: Direct material: Tuff Stuf f ($15.00 per unit 20,000 units) ........... Ruff Stuff ($9.00 per unit 20,000 units)............. Total direct material .................................................... Direct labor .................................................................. Overhead: Indirect labor ........................................................... Fringe benefits........................................................ Indirect material...................................................... Power....................................................................... Setup ....................................................................... Quality assurance .................................................. Other utilities .......................................................... Depreciation ............................................................ Total overhead............................................................. Total Manufactur ing Department budgeted cost .....

b.

$300,000 180,000 $ 480,000 2,400,000 $ 72,000 15,000 93,000 540,000 225,000 30,000 30,000 45,000 1,050,000 $3,930,000

The unit costs of Tuff Stuff and Ruff Stuff, with overhead assigned on the basis of direct-labor hours, are calculated as follows: Tuff Stuff: Direct material ........................................................ Direct labo r ($24.00 per hour 2 hours)* ............ Overhead ($10.50 per hour 2 hours)* ............... Tuff Stuff unit cost ...........................................

$15.00 48.00 21.00 $84.00

*Budgeted direct labor hour s: Tuff Stuff (20,000 units 2 hours)............................. Ruff Stuff (20,000 units 3 hour s) ............................ Total budgeted direct-labor hours ............................

40,000 60,000 100,000

Direct-labor rate: $2,400,000 per 100,000 hours Overhead rate: $1,050,000 per 100,000 hours


= $24.00 per hour = $10.50 per hour

© 2005


PROBLEM 5-45 (CONTINUED) Ruff Stuff: Direct material ........................................................ Direct labo r ($24.00 per hour 3 hours)* ............ Overhead ($10.50 per hour 3 hours)* ............... Ruff Stuff unit cost ...........................................

$ 9.00 72.00 31.50 $112.50

*Budgeted direct labor hour s Tuff Stuff (20,000 units 2 hours)............................. Ruff Stuff (20,000 units 3 hour s) ............................ Total budgeted direct-labor hours ............................

40,000 60,000 100,000

Direct-labor rate: $2,400,000 per 100,000 hours Overhead rate: $1,050,000 per 100,000 hours 2.

= $24.00 per hour = $10.50 per hour

The total budgeted cost of the Fabricating and Assembly Departments, after separation of cos ts into the activity cost p ools, is calculated as follows: Total

Direct material .......... Direct labor ............... Overhead: Indirect labor Fringe benefits Indirect material Power Setup Quality assurance Other utilities Depreciation Total overhead Total cost


$ 480,000 2,400,000 $ 72,000 15,000 93,000 540,000 225,000 30,000 30,000 45,000 $1,050,000 $3,930,000

Fabricating Percent Dollars 100% $ 480,000 74% 1,776,000 76% 80%

80% 50% 78%

$

54,720 12,000 60,000 480,000 15,000 24,000 15,000 35,100 $ 695,820 $2,951,820

© 2005

Assembly Percent Dollars 26%

$624,000

24% 20%

$ 17,280 3,000 33,000 60,000 210,000 6,000 15,000 9,900 $354,180 $978,180

20% 50% 22%



The unit costs of the produ cts using activity-based costing are calculated as follow s:

Fabricating: Total cost cos t .......... ............... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... .......... ......... ......... ........ ... $2,951,820 $2,951,820 Less: Direct material... material............................................................................................................................... 480, 480,00 0000 Less: Less : Direct Direc t labor......... labo r............. ......... ......... ......... .......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ....... 1,776,000 1,776,000 Pool overhead over head cost co st .......... ............... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ....... $ 695,820 695,820 Hours:

Tuff Stuff (4.4 (4.4 hours 20,000 units)...................... Ruff Stuff (6.0 (6.0 hours 20,000 units) uni ts) .......... .............. ......... ......... Total Total machine hours .... ...... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..

88,000 hours 120,00 120,0000 hours hou rs 208, 208,00 0000 hours

Pool rate per p er machin m achinee hou r ($695, ($695,820 820/20 /208,0 8,000). 00).... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ....... $3.35 $3.35 per h our (roun ded) $14.74 per unit un it (round (ro unded) ed) Fabricating Fabricating cost per per unit: Tuff Stuff ($3 ($3.3 .355 4.4 hours) .... .... $14.74 $20.10 per unit un it (round (ro unded) ed) Ruff Stuff ($3.35 ($3.35 6.0 hou rs) .... .... $20.10 Assem As sembl bly: y: Total cost ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ....... Less: Direct labor........ labor........... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ....... Pool overhead ov erhead cost ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... Setups: Setups:

Tuff Stuff .... ...... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... Ruff Stuff ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ... Total setups .... ..............................................................................................

$978,1 $978,180 80 624,00 624,0000 $354,1 $354,180 80 1,00 1,0000 272 1,27 1,2722

Pool r ate per setup set up ($354,180/1,2 ($354,180/1,272)...... 72)........... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ ... $278.44 $278.44 per setup s etup (round (rou nded) ed) Setup Setup cost per unit : Tuff Stuff: $278 $278.4 .444 per setup x (1,000 (1,000 setups setups / 20,0 20,000 00 units) .. $13. $13.92 92 per per unit un it (round ed) Ruff Stuff : $278.4 $278.444 per per setup x (272 (272 setups setup s / 20,000 20,000 units) uni ts) ..... ..... $3.79 $3.79 per unit (ro unded) und ed) Tuff Stuff unit cost: Direct material material .... .................................................................................................................................................. Direct labor (2 hours $24 per hour ho ur)) ......... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ ... Fabrication Fabrication overhead. overhead... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... Assem As sembl blyy over o verhead head ..................................... ........................................................ ............................. .......... Tuff Stuff unit cost .... ...... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... McGraw-Hill/Irwin 5-48

© 2005 2005

$15. $15.00 00 48.00 14.7 14.744 13.92 $91. $91.66 66 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Solutions Manual

PROBLEM 5-45 (CONTINUED) Ruff Stuff Stuff unit cost: Direct material ...... ......... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ... Direct labor (3 hours $24 per hour ho ur)) ......... .............. .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ ... Fabrication Fabrication overhead. overhead... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... Assem As sembl blyy over o verhead head ..................................... ........................................................ ............................. .......... Ruff Stuff unit cost .... .................................................................................................................. 4.

$ 9.00 9.00 72.00 20.1 20.100 3.79 $104 $104.8 .899

Ruff Stuff unit costs: Cost Cost with overhe overheaad assigne assignedd on direct-la direct-labor bor hours.. hours...... .......... ...... .. Cost using activity-based costing .... ................................................................................

$11 $112.50 2.50 $104 $104.8 .899

The activity-based costing unit costs may lead the company to decide to lower its price for Ruff Stuff in order to be more competitive in the market and continue production of the product. It now appears that Ruff Stuff has lower unit costs and can afford lower prices. Using ABC for assigning overhead costs generally leads to a more accurate estimate of the costs incurred to produce a product. Management should be able to make better informed decisions regarding pricing and production of the company’s products.


© 2005 2005



Based on the cost data from Gigabyte's Gigabyte's traditional, volume-based volume-based produc t-costing system, product G is the firm's least profitable product. Its reported actual gross margin is only $66.00, as compared with $254.25 and $313.50 for products T and W, respectively. However, the validity of this conclusion depends on the accuracy of the product costs reported by Gigabyte's product-costing system.

2.

Again, based on the produc t costs reported reported by the firm's traditional, volume-based volume-based product-costing system, product W appears to be very profitable. As in requirement (1), (1), however, however, the validity o f this assessment assessment depends on the accuracy of th e reported product costs.

3.

Gigabyte's competitor s have moved aggressively into the market for gismos (produc (produc t G), G), but they have abandoned the wh atchamacallit atchamacallit (product W) market market to t o Gigabyte. These competing firms apparently believe they can sell gismos at a much lower p rice than Gigabyte's Gigabyte's management feels feels is feasible. This This evidence sugg ests that Gigabyte's competitors may believe their product cost for gismos is below Gigabyte's reported product cost. In contrast, Gigabyte's competitors apparently believe that they cannot afford to sell whatchamacallits at Gigabyte's current price of $600. Perhaps Perhaps the competing firm s' reported produ ction cost s for prod uct W are are higher than the cost reported by Gigabyte's product-costing sys tem. The danger to Gigabyte is that the company will be forced out of the market for its second largest selling pr oduct. This could be disastrou s to Gigabyte, Inc.

4.

Percentages Percentages for raw-material raw-material costs:

Product G T W Total Tot al

Raw-Material Raw-Material Cost per Unit $105.00 157.50 52.50

Annu al Volume 8,000 15,000 4,000

Annu An nual al Raw-Material Raw-Material Cost $ 840,000 2,362,500 210,000 $3,412,500

Percentage of Total Tot al Raw-Material Raw-Material Cost* 25% 69% 6% 100%

*Percentage *Percentagess rounded r ounded to nea n earest rest wh ole percent.


© 2005 2005



Product costs based on an activity-based costing system: Product G Direct material ................................................ Direct labor ..................................................... Machinery a ...................................................... Machine setup b ............................................... Inspection c ...................................................... Material handli ng d .......................................... Engineeringe ................................................... Total .................................................................

$105.00 48.00 110.25 .43 31.50 82.03 45.25 $422.46

Product T

Product W

$157.50 36.00 122.50 .32 46.20 120.75 6.90 $490.17

$ 52.50 24.00 238.88 1.89 157.50 39.38 142.21 $656.36

aMachinery:

Product G: ($3,675,000 24%) Product T: ($3,675,000 50%) Product W: ($3,675,000 26%) b Machine setup: Product G: ($15,750 22%) Product T: ($15,750 30%) Product W: ($15,750 48%) c Inspection: Product G: ($1,575,000 16%) Product T: ($1,575,000 44%) Product W: ($1,575,000 40%) d Material handling : Product G: ($2,625,000 25%) Product T: ($2,625,000 69%) Product W: ($2,625,000 6%) eEngineering: Product G: ($1,034,250 35%) Product T: ($1,034,250 10%) Product W: ($1,034,250 55%)


8,000 units = 15,000 units = 4,000 units =

$110.25 $122.50 $238.88


$ .43 $ .32 $ 1.89


$ 31.50 $ 46.20 $157.50


$ 82.03 $120.75 $ 39.38


$ 45.25 $ 6.90 $142.21

© 2005



Comparison of reported product costs, new target prices, and actual selling prices: Product G Reported product costs: Traditional, volume-based costing system Activity-based costing system Target price based on new product co sts (150% new product cost) Current actual selling price

Product T

Product W

$573.00 422.46

$508.50 490.17

$286.50 656.36

633.69 639.00

735.26 762.75

984.54 600.00

PROBLEM 5-47 (20 MINUTES) MEMORANDUM

Date:

Today

To:

President, Gigabyte, Inc.

From:

I.M. Student

Subject:

Gigabyte's competitive position

Gigabyte's product-costing system has been providing misleading product cost information. Our traditional, volume-based costing system overcosted gismos and thingamajigs, but it substantially undercosted whatchamacallits. As a result Gigabyte has been overpricing gismos and thingamajigs and underpricing whatchamacallits. The company has been losing money on every sale in the product W market. Our competitors have taken advantage of our mispricing by moving aggressively into the gismo market and abandoning the whatchamacallit market to Gigabyte. As a result, our profitability has suffered. I recommend the followin g courses of action: 1.

Implement the new activity-based costing system and revise its database frequently.

2.

Lower the target price of gismos to $639, the current actual selling price. This price is slightly over our usual 50 percent markup over product cost .

3.

Consider lowering the price of thingamajigs to $736 in order to increase demand. The lower pric e still yields Gigabyte a 50 percent markup over produ ct cost.

4.

Raise the price of whatchamacallits to $985. If the product does not sell at that price, consider discontinuing the product line.


© 2005


PROBLEM 5-48 (20 MINUTES) Product G Traditional, volume-based costing system: reported product cost ..................................... Activity-based costing system: reported product cost ..................................... Amount of cost distortion per unit ......................

Product T

$573.00

$508.50

$ 286.50

422.46 $150.54

490.17 $ 18.33

656.36 $(369.86

Traditional system overcosts product G by $150.54 per unit Product volume....................................................... Total amount of cost distortion for entire product line .......................................................

Product W

Traditonal system overcosts product T by $18.33 per unit

8,000 $1,204,320

$

15,000 274,950

Traditional system undercosts product W by $369.86 per unit

4,000

$(1,479,440)

Sum of these three amounts is $(170). It would be zero except for the slight rounding errors in the calculation of th e new product costs to the nearest cent.


© 2005


SOLUTIONS TO CASES CASE 5-49 (45 MINUTES) 1.

Activity-based costing (ABC) differs from traditional costing in that it focuses on activities that consume resources as the fundamental cost drivers. ABC is a two-stage cost assignment process focused on causality and the determination of cost drivers. It usually uses several different activities to assign costs to products or services. Therefore, it is more detailed and more accurate than traditional costing. It also helps managers distinguish between value added and non -value added activities.

2.

Calculations of total activity cost pools and pool rates: Material handling ..... ($113,208 1.06) [(5 parts 5,000 units) + (10 parts 5,000 units )] = $120,000* (25,000 parts + 50,000 parts) = $120,000 75,000 parts = $1.60 per part *Rounded Inspection ................. ($235,850 1.06) (5,000 hour s + 7,500 hours) = $250,000* 12,500 hours = $20 per inspection hour *Rounded Machining ................. ($849,056 1.06) (15,000 hours + 30,000 hours) = $900,000* 45,000 hou rs = $20 per machine hour *Rounded Assembly .................. ($433,962 1.06) (6,000 hour s + 5,500 hours) = $460,000* 11,500 hou rs = $40 per assembly hour *Rounded


© 2005


CASE 5-49 (CONTINUED) 3. JY-63 20x4 Cost Data

JY-63 Estimated 20x5 Product Cost

Direct material: No cost increase ................ Direct labor: Direct labor $370,370 1.08 cost incr ease* ...... Material handling : Number of parts 5 sales in units ................ 5,000 25,000 $1.60 per unit................ Inspection: Inspection hours 5,000 $20 per h our ................. Machining: Machining activity in 15,000 hours $20 per h our ................. Assembly: Assembly activity in 6,000 hours $40 per h our ................. Total cost..............................

RX-67 20x4 Cost Data

$2,000,000

RX-67 Estimated 20x5 Product Cost $3,500,000

$185,186 400,000

200,000 10 5,000 50,000

40,000

80,000 7,500

100,000

150,000 30,000

300,000

600,000 5,500

240,000

220,000

$3,080,000

$4,750,000

*$400,000 and $200,000 are both rounded.


© 2005


CASE 5-49 (CONTINUED) 4.

CINCINNATI CYCLE COMPANY B UDGETED STATEMENT OF OPERATING M ARGIN FOR 20X5

Sales revenue.................................................. Cost of goods manufactured and sold: Beginning finished-goods inventory ............ Add: Direct material ..................................... Direct labor .......................................... Material handling ................................ Inspection ............................................ Machining ............................................ Assembly ............................................. Cost of goods available for sale.................... Less: Ending finished-goods inventory*... Cost of goods sold ......................................... Operating margin ............................................

JY-63 $3,621,000

RX-67 $4,459,000

Total $8,080,000

$ 480,000 2,000,000 400,000 40,000 100,000 300,000 240,000 $3,560,000 431,200 $3,128,800 $ 492,200

$ 600,000 3,500,000 200,000 80,000 150,000 600,000 220,000 $5,350,000 665,000 $4,685,000 $ (226,00

$1,080,000 5,500,000 600,000 120,000 250,000 900,000 460,000 $8,910,000 1,096,200 $7,813,800 $ 266,200

*Ending finished-goods inventory = (total product cost inventory in units:

÷

units produced) ending

JY-63: ($3,080,000 5,000 unit s) 700 units = $431,200 RX-67: ($4,750,000 5,000 units) 700 units = $665,000


© 2005


CASE 5-50 (60 MINUTES) 1. Product cost s based on traditional, volumebased costing system ............................... Markup percentage.......................................... Target price ......................................................

2.

Regular Model

Advanced Model

$210.00 110% $231.00

$430.00 110% $473.00

Deluxe Model $464.00 110% $510.40

Product costs based on activity-based costing system:

Direct material .................................................. Direct labor ....................................................... Machinery depreciation and maintenance a... Engineering, inspection and repair of defects b ........................................ Purchasing, receiving, shipping, and material handling c ...................................... Factory depreciation, taxes, insurance, and miscellaneous overhead costs d ........ Total ..................................................................

Regular Model $ 20.00 20.00 62.40

Advanced Model $ 50.00 40.00 416.00

Deluxe Model $ 84.00 40.00 153.60

34.08

87.00

68.15

30.55

104.00

58.50

24.99 $192.02

178.50 $875.50

51.17 $455.42

aPool

I: Depreciation, machinery ................................................................ Maintenance, machinery ................................................................ Total..................................................................................................

Regular: Advanced: Deluxe:


($3,200,000 ($3,200,000 ($3,200,000

39%) 13%) 48%)

20,000 = 1,000 = 10,000 =

$2,960,000 240,000 $3,200,000

$ 62.40 $416.00 $153.60

© 2005


CASE 5-50 (CONTINUED) b Pool

II: Engineering ..................................................................................... Inspection and repair of defects ................................................... Total..................................................................................................


($1,450,000 47%) ($1,450,000 6%) ($1,450,000 47%)

20,000 = 1,000 = 10,000 =

$ 700,000 750,000 $1,450,000

$ 34.08 $ 87.00 $ 68.15

c Pool

III: Purchasing, receiving, and shipping ............................................ Material handling ............................................................................ Total..................................................................................................


($1,300,000 47%) ($1,300,000 8%) ($1,300,000 45%)

20,000 = 1,000 = 10,000 =

$ 500,000 800,000 $1,300,000

$ 30.55 $104.00 $ 58.50

d Pool

IV: Depreciation, taxes, and insurance for factory ........................... Miscellaneous manufacturing overhead ...................................... Total..................................................................................................


($1,190,000 42%) ($1,190,000 15%) ($1,190,000 43%)

20,000 = 1,000 = 10,000 =

$ 600,000 590,000 $1,190,000

$ 24.99 $178.50 $51.17

3. Regular Model Product cost s based on activity-based costing system ................................................... Markup percentage.................................................... New target price.........................................................

Advanced Model

$192.02 110% $211.22

$875.50 110% $963.05

Deluxe Model $455.42 110% $500.96

The new target price of the regular mo del, $211.22, is lower t han the cur rent actual selling price, $220.


© 2005



MEMORANDUM

Date:

Today

To:

President Madison Electric Pump Corporation

From:

I.M. Student

Subject:

Product costing

Based on the cost data from our traditional, volume-based product-costing system, our regular model is not very profitable. Its reported actual contribution margin is only $10 ($220 – $210). However, the validity of this conclusion depends on the accuracy of the product costs reported by our product-costing system. Our competitors are selling moto rs like our standard model for $212. This price suggests that their product cost is substantially below our p reviously r eported cost of $210. Our new, activity-based costing system reveals serious product cost distortions stemming from our old costing system. The new costing system shows that the regular model costs only $192.02, which implies a target price of $211.22. This price is lower than our current actual selling price and roughly consistent with the price our comp etitors are charging. In contrast, our new pro duct-costing system reveals that the advanced model's product cost is $875.50 instead of the previously reported cost of $430. The new product cost suggests a target price of $963.05 for the advanced model, rather than $473, which was our previous target p rice for the advanced model.


© 2005



The company should adopt and maintain the activity-based costing system. The price of the regular model shou ld be lowered to the $212. Lowering th e price should enable the firm to regain its competitive position in the market for the regular model. Further price cuts should be considered if marketing studies indicate such a move will increase demand. The price of the advanced model should be set near the target price of $963.05. If the advanced model does not sell at this price, management should consider discontinuing the product line. Input fr om the marketing staff shou ld be sought before such an action is taken. An important consid eration is the extent to whi ch sales in the regular model and deluxe model markets depend on the firm's offering a complete product line. A slight price reduction should be considered for the deluxe model (from $510.40 down to $500.96). However, the product cost distortion from the old costing system did no t affect this model as seriously as it did th e other two.


© 2005


CASE 5-51 (20 MINUTES) Regular Model Traditional, volume-based costing system: reported product cost ........................................ Activity-based costing system: reported product cost ........................................ Amount of cost distortion per unit ..........................

Advanced Model

$210.00

$ 430.00

$464.00

192.02 $ 17.98

875.50 $(445.50)

455.42 $ 8.58

Traditional system overcosts Regular model by $17.98 per unit Product volume....................................................... Total amount of cost distortion for entire product line.........................................................

Deluxe Model

20,000 $359,600

Traditonal system undercosts Advanced model by $445.50 per unit

Traditional system overcosts Deluxe model by $8.58 per unit

1,000

10,000

$(445,500)

$85,800

Sum of th ese three amounts is $(100). It would be zero except for the slight rounding errors in the calculation of th e new product costs to the nearest cent.


© 2005


CASE 5-52 (20 MINUTES) 1.

The controller, Erin Jackson, has acted ethically up to this point. She correctly pointed out to the president that the firm's traditional, volume-based product-costing system was distorting the reported product cost for the company's three products. She designed an activity-based costing system to provide more accurate productcosting data.

2.

The production manager, Alan Tyler, is not acting ethically. Although we can sympathize with his plight, we cannot condone his pressuring the controller to suppress or alter the new product -costing data she has compiled. What can Tyler do that is ethical and has the potential for positive results? First, he could take a hard look at the deluxe model's production process. Are there non-value-added activities that could be reduced or eliminated? Second, he could argue to the president that the company should carry a full product line, if he has reason to believe that is the firm's best st rategy.

3.

Jackson has an ethical obligation to the president, to the company, to her profession, and to herself to report accurate product-costing data to the president. There is nothing wrong with her offer to her friend to go over her analysis again to verify its accuracy. However, she must report w hat she finds with no suppression or alteration of the data. Several of the ethical standards for managerial accounting apply in this case. (See Chapter 1 for a listing of these standards.) The standards that are most clearly relevant include the follow ing: Integrity: •

Communicate unfavorable as well as favorable information and professional judgments or opinions.

Objectivity: •

•

Communicate information f airly and objectively. Disclose fully all relevant information that could reasonably be expected to influence an intended user's understanding of the reports, comments, and recommendations presented.


© 2005


Chap005.pdf

Recommend Documents