2020 will be long remembered for the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic

 

2020 will be long remembered for the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic which brought nations to an economic and social halt, created health care nightmares and caused an existential debate on what is normal now, and what will it become.

 

While the virus did not discriminate by race, gender, class, ethnicity or belief systems, it did highlight social justice inequities in densely populated urban centers nationally and abroad. People of color, vulnerable populations and overwhelmed cities were disproportionately impacted by the invisible threat and the federal response, which both overshadowed and illuminated pre-existing social justice challenges based on race, zip code, and access to diminishing primary resources.

 

Select two of the areas from the seven we discussed this semester (race, immigration, gender, human sexuality, SES, health care, and violence/trauma). Using the readings, your lived experiences, and relevant news sources, please:

 

Describe the impact of the virus in your community on the area your selected.

What policies or experiences provided help and what policies or experiences made the challenge more complex?

Make one recommendation that you believe can be a positive solution and /or  alleviate suffering.

 

You must use two citations for each area. Use an article from the New York Times or other News source.

Sample resources (Courtesy of Professor George-Moses):

 

This article on Racial Disparities and COVID-19 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2012910

 

This article on Immigrants, Access to Health Care and the Coronavirus https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/3/13/21173897/coronavirus-low-income-immigrants.

 

 

 

This is 50% of the final exam grade

 

 

 

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

Incident Response (IR) Strategic Decisions

Suppose that you have been alerted of a potential incident involving a suspected worm spreading via buffer overflow techniques, compromising Microsoft IIS Web servers. As the IR Team leader, it is your responsibility to determine the next steps.

Write a two to three (2-3) page paper in which you:

Explain in detail the initial steps that would need to be made by you and the IR team in order to respond to this potential incident.
Construct a process-flow diagram that illustrates the process of determining the incident containment strategy that would be used in this scenario, and identify which containment strategy would be appropriate in this case, through the use of graphical tools in Visio, or an open source alternative such as Dia. Note: The graphically depicted solution is not included in the required page length.
Construct a process flow diagram to illustrate the process(es) for determining if / when notification of the incident should be relayed to upper management, and explain how those communications should be structured and relayed through the use of graphical tools in Visio, or an open source alternative such as Dia. Note: The graphically depicted solution is not included in the required page length.
Detail the incident recovery processes for the resolution of this incident.

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

the ppt of the JUUL and the Vaping Revolution case

Despite unprecedented growth and success as a start-up, in recent years, JUUL has faced mounting pressure as outside observers have questioned how much of its stunning growth has been generated by adult smokers switching to e-cigarettes, and how much by nonsmoking teens adopting JUUL as a fashionable new drug. Additionally, new evidence emerged linking vaping to a spate of mysterious respiratory illnesses and deaths in the U.S., causing federal, state, and local regulators to begin placing increased pressure on JUUL Labs and other e-cigarette companies.

Your team is a cross-disciplinary business unit within JUUL Labs, with members representing the leadership of different functions such as data analytics, finance, accounting, marketing, management, and design. Given that the company was ostensibly founded to reduce the harm of smoking, your team has been asked to put together recommendations to JUUL’s leadership team on what more the company could do to prevent misuse of its products, restore its reputation, and grow its business more successfully.

Within your presentation, you’ve been asked to:

1.(This is the topic of ppt) my part: Begin with an analysis of our responsibilities as a company – to our shareholders, our customers, and society – taking into account our company’s vision and mission statement;
2.here should include SWOT analysis:
JUUL Labs SWOT Analysis

After reading the case, review how to conduct a SWOT analysis using the following articles:
SWOT Analysis: What It Is and When to Use It by BusinessNewsDaily (Links to an external site.)
The Structure of a Good SWOT from Strategic Management Insight (Links to an external site.)
Then, create a table analyzing JUUL’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
After thinking through the SWOT analysis, answer the following questions:
Looking at the weaknesses and threats you identified above, what do you believe JUUL should do to position itself well as a company in the face of mounting pressure?
Looking at the strengths and opportunities you identified above, where do you believe JUUL has the greatest potential for growth?
Looking back to JUUL Labs’ early years, how did their strategic choices enhance or endanger their future?
What tensions do leaders face between their fiduciary duty to create sustainable economic value and their responsibilities to customers and society?

I uploaded the case and my analysis doc. Hoping these can help you to finish the ppt.

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

critical analysis of a country’s existing model of public management

You are required to write an essay which provides a detailed, critical analysis of a country’s existing model of public management. First, select a country of your choosing. Then, undertake a review of the literature on that country’s system of public management. Drawing from public management theories and concepts, identify strengths and weaknesses in the model or models being used. Make recommendations, where appropriate, as to how limitations and challenges in the existing system of public management could be resolved. You are free to choose how you wish to structure the report. However, it recommended that your essay includes the following components:
• Introduction – in which the structure of the report is laid out.
• Analysis of existing system(s) in country – in which the existing system of public management in the country is described using key terms and concepts, that is, based on the traditional model or NPM or other approach(es), using evidence and examples to illustrate how certain practices and approaches fit with these concepts.
• Critical reflection of approach(es) used in the country– in which the existing systems of public management in the country are critically assessed in terms of the theories and practical aspects, drawing on relevant academic sources of literature.
• Recommendations – in which proposals for the use of other models, theories and tools are explored drawing on your wider reading.
• Conclusions – in which the ideas are summarised. No new material should be included in a conclusion.

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

Personal statement for MSc risk management

Personal statement for Aplication to MSc
Risk management and finance .
My undergrad was economics and finance.

Should be covered following 3 topics:
1. Why I want to study the subject at this degree level ( postgrad)
2. What attracts me in the subject
3. Why my undergrad study ( economics and finance) make me suitable for the course

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

Ethical Outsourcing – A Case Study

Ethical Outsourcing – A Case Study
Note: To receive full credit, your paper must include an analysis of both of the following articles. Failure to include both of them will result in partial credit.
Levi Strauss Expands Ethical Sourcing Program to Offer Low-Cost Loans to Offshore Vendors
Partnership with World Bank Arm Will Offer Even Lower Rates to Top Performers in Labor Practices, Safety and the Environment
By SCDigest Editorial Staff
Iconic blue jeans maker Levi Strauss & Co. is putting some financial muscle behind its on-going ethical sourcing plans, announcing a program in which it will partner with the World Bank to offer low cost financing to its vendors offshore.
The company announced that it would begin providing lower-cost loans to its 550 or suppliers worldwide, with those who perform best on a series of labor, safety and environmental measures receiving even lower interest rates. The special financial program was rolled out in conjunction with a private sector arm of the World Bank, called the International Finance Corporation.
Under the rules of the program, loan rates will be determined on a kind of sliding scale. As suppliers improve conditions for employees and improve environmental performance they will be rewarded with lower interest rates on for the loans, which will be provided through a special IFC facility.
The Levi’s program was developed after a series of deadly fires and other accidents at apparel factories in Bangladesh and Pakistan in 2012 and 2013, most notably the 2013 collapse of Rana Plaza factory building in Bangladesh, which left more than 1,100 dead across five companies operating in the facility.
This disaster prompted great scrutiny of international supply chains in the apparel sector, and led to separate programs by groups of largely European and then U.S. retailers and brand companies designed to promote safer working conditions at factories in the region. These programs planned to offer loans or other financial assistance to those suppliers to improve operating conditions – as well as promises of increased vendor inspections.
It is not clear how well those programs have in fact played out since then. Regardless, Levi’s is in a sense now also going it alone with a program which is designed to provide even greater incentives to improve conditions by offering better-performing contractors the chance to reduce their cost of capital.
Through the program with the IFC, Levi Strauss suppliers in general will have access to loans at lower rates than they could find in their home countries. But suppliers which score high marks on labor, safety and environmental standards will get a further discount of up to 50 basis points (.5%) on the interest charged.
The 2012-13 incidents, which also included a deadly fire in Pakistan that killed more than 100 workers as well as a series of smaller but still deadly problems at other apparel factories, exposed a lot of questionable practices in the soft goods supply chain.
Those included rampant sub-contracting, such that retailers and brand companies really lost track of what companies were making their garments in what factories, and ruthless demands for lower costs from apparel suppliers that they claimed left no money to invest in safer facilities and more generous labor practices.
For example, apparel dust and fibers are known as major fire hazards, yet many facilities in that region were found to have such dangerous debris throughout their factories. At the factory where the deadly Pakistani fire took place, many of the escape routes (doors and windows) were padlocked shut, trapping workers as the fire began to rage.
Since then, major retailers such as Walmart and others have apparently tightened up many of their vendor practices, such as forbidding initial suppliers from sub-contract out work from an order without informing Walmart of the move, or prohibiting sending such work to unapproved factories in Bangladesh or elsewhere. How well these rules are working is also not yet clear.
Levi’s is also banking on having longer-term supplier relationships in low-cost countries, rather than pursuing the “supplier of the moment” approach that had characterized the industry, with vendor selection based almost solely on price and the ability to deliver the quantities required.
Michael Kobori, Levi Strauss’ vice president of sustainability, said the company now relies on “fewer, more capable” vendors and adds that the company has had relationships going back an average of 10 years with its top suppliers. If the pilot with the IFC works, Kobori says Levi’s is committed to helping to expand it to the rest of the garment industry, not just its own suppliers, as part of a “global race to the top “in standards.
Levi’s has long claimed it has some of the strictest labor standards in the apparel industry, employing a number of full-time inspectors to visit factories around the world. It also is rare among apparel brands in publishing a full list of the factories and suppliers it contracts with.
Ethical Sourcing Program Attributes
Levi’s of course is far from the only company to be pursuing so-called “ethical sourcing programs,” but how to build such procurement capability is often not clear. Recently, the consultants at Capgemini published the model shown below illustrating the key “enablers” of strong ethical sourcing initiatives:
Ethical Sourcing Program Enablers
But of course, costs remain a major factor in any procurement exercise, at times making ethical sourcing programs a bit of a challenge. Capgemini argues that ethical sourcing can actually often result in lower sourcing costs, as volumes are typically consolidated across fewer vendors with more volume to leverage, while quality and service levels also improve.
There is also the belief – somewhat supported by the evidence – that consumers prefer to buy products that are derived from ethical sourcing programs, such that any cost increases should be more than compensated for by greater sales volumes, or higher price points to gain back any lost margin. This preference is said to be especially high among the so-called millennials generation.
However, the evidence for such buyer preferences to date are mostly based on consumers telling pollsters what they would prefer. Whether that actually translates into real purchase behavior is still a bit of an unknown.
Tragedy Results in New Sourcing Rules
Europe Leads Way While U.S. Retailers Pursue Different Path
By SCDigest Editorial Staff
In response to a series of disastrous factory fires in Bangladesh and, after declining to participate in a mostly European-led legally binding accord relative to worker safety in that country, Walmart announced its own program in 2013, committing to contracting immediately with a third-party auditing firm to inspect 279 factories the company uses in Bangladesh for fire and structural safety, and publish the results.
Walmart will force suppliers with deficiencies in their buildings to make repairs or risk being dropped from the company’s approved list of suppliers. While unlike the European agreement Walmart will not directly provide any funds for such structural or operational improvements, a company executive said that Walmart will absorb price increases in the cost of the goods it buys if suppliers need that increase to fund its investments.
Walmart says it has also just published a list of 250 factories in Bangladesh that the company has already de-certified as potential suppliers for safety related issues. The company is also setting up a hotline for apparel workers in Bangladesh to use to report any unsafe working or building conditions.
Just as with the deadly apparel factory in November 2012 in Pakistan, the tragic collapse of a building housing several apparel factories in Bangladesh the following April, which killed more than 1200 in one of the worst industrial accidents in history, has as SCDigest predicted led to what will be changes in apparel sourcing practices, though much faster than we would have imagined.
The fire in Pakistan killed some 112 workers there, and the factory was found to have been making garments for Walmart, Sears and other big-name retailers, even after it had been cited for unsafe conditions before the deadly blaze. Both Walmart and Sears said they were unaware production for their stores was being carried out at the facility, as it turns out the orders found their way there through what it has become clear are very murky sub-contract relationships in t
he Asian apparel industry.
That led Walmart a few months later to change a number of its sourcing rules, including barring any sub-contract work to manufacturers and facilities it has not approved, requiring inspectors for its tier one suppliers to be actual employees, not hired agents, and ending a sort of “three strikes and you out” violation policy to one where suppliers can be terminated for a single violation.
After the Bangladesh building disaster, in which workers were ordered back into the building after inspectors had ordered it evacuated after seeing cracks in the structure, changes are coming rapidly. Just a few days after the tragedy, Canada’s Loblaw’s chain and Europe’s Primark, which were each having apparel produced within the building, announced they would financially compensate the families of those killed and workers that have been injured.
A number of European retailers, including H&M, Inditex (parent of Zara), C&A, Carrefour, Marks & Spencer, Primark, PVH and perhaps others all agreed to sign what is being described as a legally-binding contract that requires retailers to help pay for fire safety and building improvements in the factories they use in Bangladesh. The accord was actually drafted in 2012, but got near instant momentum after the building collapse.
The six-page agreement, called the “Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh,” was set to last five years, and stipulated that the retailers would not to hire manufacturers whose apparel factories fail to meet safety standards and refused to make improvements. For those that would make improvements, the signees will be committed to paying for necessary repairs and renovations – and that could certainly be a large expense.
The agreement also included an independent inspection program with public reports of all inspections, specifying, for example, that signees must inspect no fewer than 30% of the facilities of their tier one suppliers annually. PVH said that it would contribute $2.5 million to underwrite factory safety improvements as part of the plan.
How such costs would be split among various retailers and brands using an existing facility was unclear. Also unclear was how this would work in practice, as orders to apparel factories in Bangladesh and elsewhere are episodic and sometimes given for just a specific garment at a specific time.
The pact was negotiated by retailers with global worker-safety advocates, and overlapped with the Bangladeshi government’s announcements that it would raise the minimum wage for
garment-industry workers and make it easier for workers to unionize.
At the equivalent of $37 per month, Bangladesh has among the lowest minimum wage levels
in the world at present. Currently, Bangladesh factories must approve union formation at their operations, a rule that obviously means such efforts are usually futile.
The agreement did not encompass sourcing from Pakistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, countries in Africa and other low-cost sourcing options where conditions can also be dangerous for workers. That, apparently, will wait until some tragedy in one of those countries.
The irony of course is that these low wages and few regulations are what drove the wave of apparel sourcing to Bangladesh in the first place, sending its level of exports to $18 billion annually, or some 75% of its total exports. Would the new costs that will come from such accords and changes in government rules push retailers and brands to some of these other countries instead?
That was the real unknown in the moves. For almost two decades, the apparel sector had been known for rapidly moving sourcing locations based on labor costs, tariffs and other factors that drive total landed cost per unit. But, in its statement, H&M at least said it would “accept the price increase that might arise as a consequence of the salary revision.”
No U.S. brands or retailers were initially ready to sign on. Walmart did not immediately make any formal comments on the proposal. Gap said it wouldn’t sign the agreement in its current form because of language that makes it legally binding in U.S. courts. It put forward an amendment that calls for retailers to be publicly expelled from the group if they fail to comply with arbitration, according to a person familiar with the matter.
“The litigation landscape is different in the U.S. than in Europe,” said Bill Chandler, Gap’s vice president of global corporate affairs. “Gap Inc. is ready to sign on today with a modification to a single area – how disputes are resolved in the courts.”
However, Gap has promised $22 million in loans for factory improvements in the country. There is also reporting saying that U.S. retailers and brands were working with U.S. trade groups to develop their own accord to improve overseas workplace safety, beyond only Bangladesh.
To show how this game works, U.S. retailers were singled out for failure to announce they will sign the agreement in some quarters. “Gap calls itself a leader on social responsibility,” said Scott Nova, executive director of the Worker Rights Consortium. “The opposite is the case. Gap and Walmart are laggards.”
So, if you don’t sign a legally binding agreement within a few weeks of a major tragedy, the full
implications of which are unclear, you are criticized by international labor organizations and elsewhere. Some investor groups, such as the public employee pension funds in California and Illinois, have called on U.S. retailers, the stocks of many of which are owned in these state investment portfolios, to improve worker safety in low cost countries as well.
According to draft agreement involving U.S. retailers and brands, signatories would have 45 days to form a governing board and develop an implementation plan. The board would include three labor representatives, three retailer representatives and a chairman chosen by the U.N. International Labor Organization, meaning labor advocates will have a majority of the seats.

SCM 341 – Extra Credit Project #3 – Instructions – Case Study Analysis
Write a two-page paper (400-word minimum length) analyzing one of the case studies shown below, which are posted on the course Canvas site (Modules → Extra Credit Projects folder).
Case Study Title_______________________________________
▪ Automation Trends – A Case Study (three articles)
▪ Ethical Outsourcing – A Case Study (two articles)
▪ Implementing Lean – A Case Study (three articles)
The paper must discuss how topics in the case study’s article(s) relate to relevant or pertinent concepts discussed in Chapters 1-15 of the course textbook (note: definitions of terms are not concepts).
Analysis must cite at least 3 but no more than 4 textbook concepts. Long introductions, such as “in Chapter X of Stevenson textbook” and long quotations from the textbook will not count toward paper’s minimum length. Further, satisfactory completion of the extra credit project will require that concepts be cited in the analysis using the following format:
(Stevenson, Page ___)
Note: Page references using older editions of textbook are not acceptable.
Submission Deadline: See Syllabus
Formatting – Papers must be in Microsoft Word or pdf format, double-spaced with one-inch margins and use 12-point Times New Roman font. In addition, the following must be shown in the top, upper left-hand corner of paper but does not count toward 400-word minimum length:
▪ Student Name
▪ Course and Section Number
▪ Title of Case Study
Notes:
1. If paper is submitted without any textbook concept references or references are cited using
an older edition of the course textbook, the paper will receive no extra credit points.
2. If paper is not the required length, not submitted in the required format, or submitted without properly
formatted textbook references; the number of extra credit points awarded will be reduced by 50%.
3. If one or more of the textbook concept references cited in the analysis are not relevant or pertinent to the content of the case study article(s), the number of extra credit points awarded may be reduced.
4. To receive any consideration for extra credit points, all papers must be uploaded to the course Canvas site (Assignments → Extra Credit Project 3) by the due date shown in the syllabus.
5. Projects will be reviewed by the instructor for compliance with these instructions, and, if found to
be lacking, students may be given an opportunity to revise and resubmit their projects for full credit.
If you have any questions or concerns, please stop by during office hours or contact me by e-mail.
Bob O’Donnell, Lecturer Operations & Supply Chain Management UW Oshkosh College of Business
Sage Hall Room 1418 E-mail: odonnelr@uwosh.edu

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

The Food Machine

This 2 page paper will off a youtube video link below

After viewing “The Food Machine” documentary (links on youtube), write a two-page paper (400-word minimum) analyzing its contents and answering the following discussion questions:
1. How have changes in productivity impacted both farming and food processing in the United States? 2. How have changing consumer eating habits impacted product design in the food industry?
3. Why is work design a critical issue for agricultural support services, such as contract harvesters?
4. How will current food supply chains have to change to provide more locally grown fruits/vegetables?
Submission Deadline: See Syllabus
Formatting – Papers must be in Microsoft Word or pdf format, double-spaced with 1-inch margins and use 12-point Times New Roman font. The text and number of the discussion questions must be included in paper, but do not count towards 2 page In addition, the following must be shown in the top, left-hand corner of the first page of paper but does not count toward the 2 page minimum:

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

TACTICAL DECISION MAKING AND RELEVANT ANALYSIS

1. Tactical decisions are short run in nature; they involve choosing among alternatives with an
immediate or limited end in view. Strategic decisions involve selecting strategies that yield a
long-term competitive advantage.
2. A manager can identify alternatives by using his or her own knowledge and experience and by
obtaining input from others who are familiar with the problem.
3. Past costs can be used to help predict future costs.
4. Depreciation is an allocation of a sunk cost. This cost is a past cost and will never differ across
alternatives.
5. The salary of the supervisor of an assembly line with excess capacity is an example of an
irrelevant future cost for an accept-or-reject decision.
6. Yes. Suppose, for example, that sufficient materials are on hand for producing a part for 2 years.
After 2 years, the part will be replaced by a newly engineered part. If there is no alternative use
for the materials, then the cost of the materials is a sunk cost and not relevant in a make-or-buy
decision.
7. If a firm is operating below capacity, then a price that is above variable costs will increase profits.
8. A segment is any subunit of sufficient importance to warrant production of performance reports.
9. Contribution margin is the amount available to cover fixed expenses and provide for profit.
Segment margin is the amount available to cover common fixed expenses and provide for
profit. Contribution margin is the difference between revenues and variable expenses.
Segment margin is contribution margin less direct fixed expenses.
10. A complementary effect is the loss of revenue on a secondary product when the primary product
is dropped. Thus, complementary effects may make it more expensive to drop a product.
11. No. Joint costs are irrelevant in a sell or process further decision. They occur regardless of
whether the product is sold at the split-off point or processed further.
12. Yes. The incremental revenue is $1,400, and the incremental cost is only $1,000, creating a
net benefit of $400.
13. No. If a scarce resource is used in producing the two products, then the product providing the
greatest contribution per unit of scarce resource should be selected. For more than one scarce
resource, linear programming may be used to select the optimal mix.
8
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
TACTICAL DECISION MAKING
AND RELEVANT ANALYSIS
8-1
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
8-1. e
8-2. b
8-3. e
8-4. c
8-5. b
8-6. e
8-7. e
8-8. c
8-9. b
8-10. d
8-11. c
8-12. c
8-13. c
8-14. a
8-15. d
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
8-2
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-16
1. There are two alternatives: make the ingredient in-house or purchase it externally.
2. Relevant costs of making the ingredient in-house include direct materials, direct labor,
and variable overhead (both manufacturing and marketing). Relevant costs of
purchasing the ingredient externally include the purchase price.
3.
Make Buy
Direct materials…………………………… $25,000 — $ 25,000
Direct labor………………………………… 15,000 — 15,000
Variable manufacturing overhead……… 7,500 — 7,500
Variable marketing overhead…………… 10,000 — 10,000
Purchase cost……………………………… — $60,000 (60,000)
Total relevant cost………………………… $57,500 $60,000 $ (2,500)
It is cheaper to make the ingredient in-house. This alternative is cheaper by $2,500.
4.
Make Buy
Direct materials…………………………… $25,000 — $ 25,000
Direct labor………………………………… 15,000 — 15,000
Variable manufacturing overhead……… 7,500 — 7,500
Variable marketing overhead…………… 10,000 — 10,000
Avoidable fixed plant overhead………… 6,000 — 6,000
Purchase cost……………………………… — $60,000 (60,000)
Total relevant cost………………………… $63,500 $60,000 $ 3,500
Now it is cheaper to purchase the ingredient. This alternative is cheaper by $3,500.
* $30,000 × 0.20 = $6,000
BRIEF EXERCISES: SET A
Cost to Make
Alternatives Differential
Cost to Make
Alternatives Differential
*
8-3
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-17
1. Relevant costs and benefits of accepting the special order include the sales price of
$5, direct materials, direct labor, and variable overhead. No relevant costs or
benefits are attached to rejecting the order.
2. If the problem is analyzed on a unit basis:
Accept Reject
Price……………………………………… $ 5.00 — $ 5.00
Direct materials………………………… (1.75) — (1.75)
Direct labor……………………………… (2.50) — (2.50)
Variable overhead…………………… (1.50) — (1.50)
Decrease in operating income……… $(0.75) — $(0.75)
Operating income will decrease by $7,500 [($0.75) × 10,000 units] if the special order
is accepted; therefore, the special order should be rejected.
Differential
Benefit to
Accept
8-4
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-18
Poinsettias Fruit Trees Total
Sales……………………………………… $970,000 $3,100,000 $4,070,000
Less variable expenses:
Variable cost of goods sold……… 460,000 1,630,000 2,090,000
Variable selling expense…………… 38,800 124,000 162,800
Contribution margin…………………… $471,200 $1,346,000 $1,817,200
Less direct fixed expenses:
Direct fixed overhead……………… 160,000 200,000 360,000
Direct selling and administrative… 146,000 87,000 233,000
Segment margin………………………… $165,200 $1,059,000 $1,224,200
Less common fixed expenses:
Common fixed overhead………………………………………………… 800,000
Common selling and administrative…………………………………… 450,000
Operating income (loss)…………………………………………………… $ (25,800)
For the Coming Year
Gorman Nurseries Inc.
Segmented Income Statement
8-5
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-19
1. The two alternatives are to keep the parquet flooring line or to drop it.
2. The relevant benefits and costs of keeping the parquet flooring line include sales
of $300,000, variable costs of $250,000, machine rent cost of $40,000*, and
supervision cost of $20,000.
None of the relevant benefits and costs of keeping the parquet flooring line would
occur under the drop alternative.
* The $40,000 of relevant machine rent cost is computed as 0.80 of the total $50,000 machine rent cost.
3.
Keep Drop
Sales…………………………………… $300,000 — $300,000
Less: Variable expenses…………… 250,000 — 250,000
Contribution margin………………… $ 50,000 — $ 50,000
Less: Machine rent*………………… (40,000) — (40,000)
Supervision…………………… (20,000) — (20,000)
Total relevant benefit (loss)………… $ (10,000) — $ (10,000)
The differential amount to keep the line is ($10,000), thus, in favor of dropping the
parquet flooring.
* $50,000 × 0.80 = $40,000
Differential
Amount to
Accept
8-6
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-20
1. Previous contribution margin of the strip line was $175,000. A 10% decrease in
sales implies a 10% percent decrease in total variable costs, so the contribution
margin decreases by 10%.
New Contribution Margin for Strip = $175,000 – 0.10($175,000) = $157,500.
The reasoning is the same for the plank line, but the decrease is 5%.
New Contribution Margin for Plank = $80,000 – 0.05($80,000) = $76,000.
Therefore, if the parquet floor product line were dropped, the resulting total
contribution margin for Hickory would equal $233,500 ($157,500 + $76,000).
2.
Keep Drop
Contribution margin…………… $305,000 $233,500 $ 71,500
Less: Machine rent……………… (75,000) (35,000) (40,000)
Supervision……………… (45,000) (25,000) (20,000)
Total………………………………… $185,000 $173,500 $ 11,500
* $50,000 × 0.20 = $10,000; $10,000 (remaining parque) + $15,000 (strip) + $10,000 (plank) = $35,000
Notice that the contribution margin for the drop alternative equals the new
contribution margins of the strip and plank lines ($157,500 + $76,000). Also, machine
rent and supervision remain relevant across these alternatives.
As shown in BE 8-19, the decision to drop the parquet flooring line makes Hickory
better off by $10,000 (avoided relevant costs were greater than the lost contribution
margin) when only the parquet line is considered. However, as shown in this
exercise (BE 8-20), dropping parquet would have an $11,500 net detrimental effect
on the other two lines in that Hickory would lose contribution margin of $71,500
but only avoid relevant costs of $60,000. Therefore, Hickory is better off by
$11,500 if it KEEPS the parquet line.
BE 8-21
1. Revenue from Logs = (8,000 × $495) = $3,960,000
2. Revenue from Further Processing = $0.75 × (8,000 × 800) = $4,800,000
Further Processing Cost = $0.15 × (8,000 × 800) = $960,000
Income from Further Processing = $4,800,000 – $960,000 = $3,840,000
3. Jack’s should sell the logs without further processing because the company
will make $3,960,000 versus the $3,840,000 it would make by processing the
logs further for use in regular construction framing.
Differential
Amount to Keep
*
8-7
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-22
1. Swoop Rufus
Contribution margin per unit……………………………… $ 5.00 $15.00
÷ Required machine time per unit*……………………… 0.10 0.33
Contribution margin per hour of machine time………… $50.00 $45.00
2. Since the Swoop sweatshirt yields $50 of contribution margin per hour of machine
time (which is higher than the $45 contribution margin per hour of machine time
for Rufus), all machine time (i.e., 7,000 hours) should be devoted to the production
of Swoop sweatshirts.
The optimal mix is Swoop = 70,000 units and Rufus = 0 units.
3. Total Contribution Margin of Optimal Mix = 70,000 units Swoop × $5
= $350,000
Note: Brief Exercise 8-22 (as well as Example 8.7) clearly illustrates
a fundamentally important point involving relevant decision making with a
constrained resource. The point is that when making this relevant decision, one
should choose the option with the highest contribution margin per unit of the
constrained resource —even if that option does not have the highest contribution
margin per unit. For instance, in this exercise, Rufus’s contribution margin is three
times greater than Swoop’s contribution margin ($15 > $5). However, because
each Rufus sweatshirt requires more than three times as much machine time to
produce than each Swoop sweatshirt (0.33 machine hour per Rufus sweatshirt
> 0.10 machine hour per Swoop sweatshirt), Swoop has a higher contribution
margin per machine hour than does Rufus ($50 > $45).
60 minutes *
Units of Swoop = = 70,000 units
0.10 = 0.33 =
0.10 hour per Swoop sweatshirt
7,000 total hours
6 minutes per Swoop unit
60 minutes
20 minutes per Rufus unit
8-8
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-23
1. Swoop Rufus
Contribution margin per unit………………………………… $ 5.00 $15.00
÷ Required machine time per unit*…………………………… 0.10 0.33
Contribution margin per hour of machine time…………… $50.00 $45.00
2. Since Swoop yields $50 of contribution margin per hour of machine time,
the first priority is to produce all of the Swoop sweatshirts that the market
will take (i.e., demands). Machine time required for maximum amount of
Swoop = 40,000 maximum units × 0.10 hour of machine time required per
Swoop sweatshirt = 4,000 hours needed to manufacture 40,000 Swoop
sweatshirts.
Remaining Machine Time
for Rufus Sweatshirts
= 3,000 hours
Units of Rufus to Be Produced
in Remaining 3,000 Hours
Now the optimal mix is 40,000 units of Swoop sweatshirts and 9,091 units of
Rufus sweatshirts. This mix will precisely exhaust the machine time available.
* Differences due to rounding.
3. Total Contribution Margin of Optimal Mix = (40,000 units Swoop × $5) +
(9,091 units Rufus × $15)
= $336,365
BE 8-24
Price = Cost + (Markup Percentage × Cost)
= $170,000 + 0.15($170,000)
= $170,000 + $25,500
=
BE 8-25
1. Desired Profit = 0.25 × Target Price
= 0.25 × $380
= $95
2. Target Cost = Target Price – Desired Profit
= $380 – $95
= $285
* 0.10 = 0.33
6 minutes per Swoop unit
60 minutes
20 minutes per Rufus unit
= 7,000 hours – 4,000 hours
$195,500
0.33 hours per unit
3,000 hours
=
60 minutes
= = 9,091 units*
8-9
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-26
1. There are two alternatives: make Two AM in-house or purchase it externally.
2. Relevant costs of making Two AM in-house include direct materials, direct labor, and
variable overhead (both manufacturing and marketing). Relevant costs of purchasing
Two AM externally include the purchase price.
3.
Make Buy
Direct materials……………………………… $2,000,000 — $ 2,000,000
Direct labor…………………………………… 350,000 — 350,000
Variable manufacturing overhead………… 150,000 — 150,000
Variable marketing overhead……………… 250,000 — 250,000
Purchase cost………………………………… — $2,500,000 (2,500,000)
Total relevant cost…………………………… $2,750,000 $2,500,000 $ 250,000
It is cheaper to buy Two AM in-house. This alternative is cheaper by $250,000.
4.
Make Buy
Direct materials……………………………… $2,000,000 — $ 2,000,000
Direct labor…………………………………… 350,000 — 350,000
Variable manufacturing overhead………… 150,000 — 150,000
Variable marketing overhead……………… 250,000 — 250,000
Intellectual property theft
management cost…………………………… — 350,000 (350,000)
Purchase cost………………………………… — $2,500,000 (2,500,000)
Total relevant cost…………………………… $2,750,000 $2,850,000 $ (100,000)
Now it is cheaper to make Two AM in-house. This alternative is cheaper by $100,000.
Cost to Make
BRIEF EXERCISES: SET B
Alternatives Differential
Cost to Make
Alternatives Differential
8-10
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-27
1. Relevant costs and benefits of accepting the special order include the sales price of
$18,000, direct materials, direct labor, and variable overhead. No relevant costs or
benefits are attached to rejecting the order.
2. If the problem is analyzed on a unit basis:
Accept Reject
Price………………………………… $ 18,000.00 — $ 18,000.00
Direct materials…………………… (10,000.00) — (10,000.00)
Direct labor………………………… (2,000.00) — (2,000.00)
Variable overhead………………… (4,000.00) — (4,000.00)
Increase in operating income…… $ 2,000.00 — $ 2,000.00
Operating income will increase by $10,000,000 [($2,000) × 5,000 units], if the special
order is accepted; therefore, the special order should be accepted.
Differential
Benefit to
Accept
8-11
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-28
Bladers Ballers Total
Sales……………………………………… $80,000,000 $180,000,000 $260,000,000
Less variable expenses:
Variable cost of goods sold……… 10,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000
Variable selling expense…………… 4,000,000 9,000,000 13,000,000
Contribution margin…………………… $66,000,000 $141,000,000 $207,000,000
Less direct fixed expenses:
Direct fixed overhead……………… 20,000,000 100,000,000 120,000,000
Direct selling and administrative… 4,000,000 10,000,000 14,000,000
Segment margin………………………… $42,000,000 $ 31,000,000 $ 73,000,000
Less common fixed expenses:
Common fixed overhead……………………………………………………… 18,000,000
Common selling and administrative………………………………………… 8,000,000
Operating income (loss)………………………………………………………… $ 47,000,000
Kraft Bowlen
Segmented Income Statement
For the Coming Year
8-12
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-29
1. The two alternatives are to keep the Boat Maintenance line or to drop it.
2. The relevant benefits and costs of keeping the Boat Maintenance line include sales
of $5,000,000, variable costs of $4,900,000, garage/warehouse cost of $210,000*, and
supervision cost of $75,000**.
None of the relevant benefits and costs of keeping the Boat Maintenance line would
occur under the drop alternative.
* The $210,000 of relevant garage/warehouse cost is computed as 0.60 of the total $350,000
garage/warehouse cost.
** The $75,000 of relevant supervision salaries is computed as 0.50 of the total $150,000 supervision
cost.
3.
Keep Drop
Sales…………………………………… $5,000,000 — $5,000,000
Less: Variable expenses…………… 4,900,000 — 4,900,000
Contribution margin………………… $ 100,000 — $ 100,000
Less: Garage/warehouse rent*…… (210,000) — (210,000)
Supervision**………………… (75,000) — (75,000)
Total relevant benefit (loss)………… $ (185,000) — $ (185,000)
The differential amount to keep the line is ($185,000), thus, in favor of dropping the
Boat Maintenance line.
* $350,000 × 0.60 = $210,000
** $150,000 × 0.50 = $75,000
Differential
Amount to
Accept
8-13
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-30
1. Previous contribution margin of the Winter Storage line was $2,000,000. A 20% decrease
in sales implies a 20% percent decrease in total variable costs, so the contribution
margin decreases by 20%.
New Contribution Margin for Winter Storage = $2,000,000 – 0.20($2,000,000) = $1,600,000.
The reasoning is the same for the Boat Fuel & Concessions line, but the decrease is
10%.
New Contribution Margin for Boat Fuel & Concessions =
$800,000 – 0.10($800,000) = $720,000.
Therefore, if the Boat Maintenance line were dropped, the resulting total
contribution margin for Mullett Marina would equal $2,320,000 ($1,600,000 + $720,000).
2.
Keep Drop
Contribution margin………………… $ 2,900,000 $2,320,000 $ 580,000
Less: Garage/warehouse rent……… (1,105,000) (895,000) (210,000)
Supervision…………………… (270,000) (195,000) (75,000)
Total relevant benefit (loss)………… $ 1,525,000 $1,230,000 $ 295,000
* $350,000 × 0.40 = $140,000 (remaining Boat Maintenance) + $700,000 (Winter Storage) +
$55,000 (Fuel & Con) = $895,000
** $150,000 × 0.50 = $75,000 (remaining Boat Maintenance + $50,000 (Winter Storage) +
$70,000 (Fuel & Con) = $195,000
Notice that the contribution margin for the drop alternative equals the new
contribution margins of the Winter Storage and Boat Fuel & Concessions lines
($1,600,000 + $720,000). Also, garage rent and supervision remain relevant across
these alternatives.
As shown in BE 8-29, the decision to drop the Boat Maintenance line makes Mullett
better off by $185,000 (avoided relevant costs were greater than the lost contribution
margin) when only the Boat Maintenance line is considered. However, as shown in this
exercise (BE 8-30), dropping Boat Maintenance would have a $295,000 net detrimental
effect on the other two lines in that Mullett would lose contribution margin of $580,000
but only avoid relevant costs of $285,000. Therefore, Mullett is better off by $295,000
if it KEEPS the Boat Maintenance line.
BE 8-31
1. Revenue (or contribution to income) from selling consumable milk =
(1,000,000 × $3) = $3,000,000
2. Revenue from Further Processing = $6.00 × (1,000,000 × 0.50) = $3,000,000
Further Processing Cost = $1.50 × (1,000,000 × 0.50) = $750,000
Income from Further Processing = $3,000,000 – $750,000 = $2,250,000
3. Bart’s should NOT further process the consumable milk into butter because the
company would make only $2,250,000 versus the $3,000,000 it would make by selling
the milk at the split-off point (i.e., not processing further).
Differential
Amount to Keep
*
**
8-14
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-32
1. Full Body
Contribution margin per unit……………………………… $198.00 $ 90.00
÷ Required masseuse time per massage*……………… 1.50 0.50
Contribution margin per hour of masseuse time……… $132.00 $180.00
2. Since the Trouble Spots massage yields $180 of contribution margin per
hour of masseuse time (which is higher than the $132 contribution margin
per hour of masseuse time for Full Body), all masseuse time (i.e., 6,000 hours)
should be devoted to the provision of Trouble Spots massages.
= 12,000 units
The optimal mix is Trouble Spots = 12,000 massages and Full Body =
0 massages
3. Total Contribution Margin
of Optimal Mix
= $2,376,000
= 12,000 units Trouble Spots × $198
6,000 total masseuse hours
0.50 hour per Trouble Spots massage
Trouble Spots
30 minutes per Trouble Spots unit
60 minutes
* 0.50 =
Units of Trouble Spots
60 minutes
1.50 =
90 minutes per Full Body unit
=
8-15
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
BE 8-33
1. Full Body
Contribution margin per massage $198.00 $ 90.00
÷ Required masseuse time per massage*……………………… 1.50 0.50
Contribution margin per hour of masseuse time…………… $132.00 $180.00
2. Since Trouble Spots yields $180 of contribution margin per hour of masseuse time,
the first priority is to offer all of the Trouble Spots massages that the market will
take (i.e., demands). Masseuse time required for maximum amount of Trouble Spots =
8,000 maximum units × 0.50 hours of masseuse time required per Trouble Spots =
4,000 hours needed to provide 8,000 Trouble Spots massages.
Remaining Masseuse Time
for Full Body Massages
= 2,000 hours
Now the optimal mix is 8,000 units of Trouble Spots massages and 1,333 units of
Full Body massages. This mix will precisely exhaust the masseuse time available.
* Differences due to rounding.
3. Total Contribution Margin of Optimal Mix = 8,000 units Trouble Spots × $90) +
(1,333 units* Full Body × $198)
= $983,934
BE 8-34
Price = Cost + (Markup Percentage × Cost)
= $750,000 + 0.10($750,000)
= $750,000 + $75,000
=
BE 8-35
1. Desired Profit = 0.20 × Target Price
= 0.20 × $600
= $120
2. Target Cost = Target Price – Desired Profit
= $600 – $120
= $480
Trouble Spots
30 minutes per Trouble Spots massage
60 minutes
= 6,000 hours – 4,000 hours
* 1.50 =
90 minutes per Full Body massage
0.50
$825,000
60 minutes
=
2,000 hours =
= 1.50 hours per unit Units of Full Body Massages to Be Offered
in Remaining 2,000 Hours 1,333 units*
8-16
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
E 8-36
The correct order is 4, 5, 2, 6, 3, and 1.
E 8-37
Steps in Austin’s decision:
Step 1: Define the problem. The problem is whether to continue studying at his
present university or to study at a university with a nationally recognized
engineering program.
Step 2: Identify the alternatives. Events a and b. (Students may want to include
Event i—possible study for a graduate degree. However, future events
indicate that Austin still defined his problem as in Step 1 above.)
Step 3: Identify the costs and benefits associated with each feasible alternative.
Events c, e, f, and i. (Students may also list Events e and f in Step 5—they are
included here because they may help Austin estimate future income benefits.)
Step 4: Total the relevant costs and benefits for each feasible alternative. No specific
event is listed for this step, although we can assume that it was done, and
that three schools were selected as feasible since Event j mentions that two
of three applications met with success.
Step 5: Assess qualitative factors. Events d, e, f, g, and h.
Step 6: Make the decision. Event j is certainly relevant to this and Event k is the
actual decision. [What did Austin ultimately decide? He decided to stay at
SMWU and finish his engineering degree. He also applied for—and won—
summer internships with large West Coast companies in the aerospace
industry. Currently, he’s applying for jobs and (Plan B) looking into graduate
programs.]
EXERCISES
8-17
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
E 8-38
1. The two alternatives are to make the component in-house or to buy it from Bryce.
2.
Make Buy
Direct materials………………………… $12.00 — $ 12.00
Direct labor……………………………… 8.25 — 8.25
Variable overhead……………………… 4.50 — 4.50
Purchase cost………………………… — $25.00 (25.00)
Total relevant cost………………… $24.75 $25.00 $ (0.25)
3. Zion should make the component in-house because operating income will be
$2,500 ($0.25 × 10,000) higher than if the part were purchased from Bryce.
E 8-39
1.
Make Buy
Direct materials………………………… $12.00 — $ 12.00
Direct labor……………………………… 8.25 — 8.25
Variable overhead……………………… 4.50 — 4.50
Avoidable fixed overhead*…………… 1.50 1.50
Purchase cost………………………… — $25.00 (25.00)
Total relevant cost………………… $26.25 $25.00 $ 1.25
* Avoidable fixed overhead is the 75% of fixed overhead that would be eliminated if the
component were no longer made in-house. Avoidable fixed overhead is relevant because if
Zion makes the component, it will incur the cost, but if the component is purchased, that fixed
overhead will not be incurred ($2.00 × 0.75 = $1.50).
Zion should purchase the component from Bryce because it will save $12,500
($1.25 × 10,000) over making it in-house.
Alternatives Differential
Alternatives Differential
Cost to Make
Cost to Make
8-18
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
E 8-39 (Concluded)
2. As the percentage of avoidable fixed cost increases (above 75%), total relevant
costs of making the component increase, causing the “purchase” decision to
be more financially appealing (compared to the “make” option) than it was when
the percentage was 75%. In other words, as the percentage increases, the $12,500
difference between the “purchase” and “make” options increases resulting in the
“purchase” decision being even more attractive. Alternatively, as the percentage
of avoidable fixed costs decreases, the “make” option eventually is equally costly
(a difference of zero) and as equally appealing financially as the “purchase” option.
Finally, as the percentage of avoidable fixed cost decreases low enough and the
total relevant costs of making the component decrease, the “make” option
becomes the more financially appealing option (i.e., when the relevant fixed costs
per unit become sufficiently small—which is explored in Requirement 3).
3. Total relevant avoidable fixed cost would need to decrease by $12,500. Total
relevant make costs of $262,500 need to decrease to $250,000 to equal the total
relevant buy costs. Holding all other relevant make costs constant, this decrease
of $12,500 ($262,500 – $250,000) in fixed cost would reduce the total relevant
avoidable fixed overhead from $15,000 (0.75 × $2 per unit × 10,000 units) or $1.50
per unit ($15,000/10,000 units) to $2,500 ($15,000 – $12,500) or $0.25 per unit
($2,500/10,000 units). Therefore, for Zion to be indifferent between “making”
versus “buying” the component (i.e., incur the same cost), the avoidable fixed
overhead cost would need to be $0.25 per unit ($2,500/10,000 units), which is 12.5%
($0.25/$2.00). In other words, the $1.50 per unit fixed cost (75% figure) would need
to decrease to $0.25 per unit (12.5%) before Zion is indifferent between “making”
versus “buying” the component.
8-19
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
E 8-40
1. The two alternatives are:
(1) to accept the special order
(2) to reject the special order
2. Direct materials…………………… $3.10
Direct labor………………………… 2.25
Variable overhead………………… 1.15
Total…………………………… $6.50
Relevant manufacturing costs are $6.50 per unit so the contribution margin
per unit from the special order is $0.50 ($7.00 – $6.50). The increase in total
contribution margin is $7,500 (15,000 × $0.50). Therefore, the special order
should be accepted.
3. The statement that “existing sales will not be affected” indicates that there will
be no product-line cannibalization; in other words, there is sufficient excess
capacity such that the acceptance of the special sales will not decrease Smooth
Move’s regular sales. Another consideration, possibly due to the geographic
separation, is that existing customers are less likely to learn of the new price,
which was $5 (or 42%) lower.
E 8-41
In this case, it may be easier to deal with the total costs and revenues of the special
order:
Revenue ($7.00 × 15,000)…………………………………………… $105,000
Less variable costs:
Direct materials ($3.30 × 15,000).……………………………… $49,500
Direct labor ($2.25 × 15,000)…………………………………… 33,750
Variable overhead ($1.15 × 15,000)…………………………… 17,250 100,500
Less labeling machine…………………………………….………… 12,000
Loss on special order………………………………….………… $ (7,500)
Smooth Move should reject the special order because it will reduce income by $7,500.
8-20
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
E 8-42
1.
Sweaters Jackets Total
Sales……………………….………………… $210,000 $450,000 $660,000
Less variable expenses:
Variable cost of goods sold…………… 145,000 196,000 341,000
Variable selling expense……………… 10,500 22,500 33,000
Contribution margin………………………. $ 54,500 $231,500 $286,000
Less direct fixed expenses:
Direct fixed overhead…………………… 25,000 47,000 72,000
Direct selling and administrative……… 20,000 50,000 70,000
Segment margin……………………….…… $ 9,500 $134,500 $144,000
Less common fixed expenses:
Common fixed overhead……………………….………………………… 45,000
Common selling and administrative……………………….…………… 15,000
Operating income……………………….……………………………………… $ 84,000
2. For the company as a whole, an increase of $10,000 in fixed expense will
result in a decrease in operating income to $74,000 ($84,000 – $10,000). If
the equipment is for the sweaters line, then that line’s segment margin will
be $(500), and management will need to consider whether the line should
be dropped. If profitability is not expected to improve (either by increasing
price or decreasing other costs), then the sweaters line should be dropped.
If the equipment is for the jackets line, while segment margin will decrease
to $124,500 ($134,500 – $10,000), it remains profitable and there will be no
need to drop it.
E 8-43
If Petoskey drops Conway, overall profit will decrease by $75,000 as a result of the
lost contribution margin ($300,000 – $225,000). Note that the direct fixed expense for
depreciation is a sunk cost and not relevant to the decision (i.e., it will remain
unchanged whether Conway is kept or dropped). Therefore, the overall impact of
dropping Conway is that profit decreases by the $75,000 lost contribution margin.
As a result, Petoskey should keep Conway because profits are higher with Conway
than without Conway.
Knitline Inc.
Segmented Income Statement
For the Coming Year
8-21
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
E 8-44
If Petoskey drops Conway, overall profit will increase by $5,000. Contribution margin will
decrease by $75,000 as a result of the lost contribution margin ($300,000 – $225,000).
Note that the fixed expense for depreciation is a sunk cost and not relevant to the
decision (i.e., it will remain unchanged whether Conway is kept or dropped). However,
Petoskey will avoid the $80,000 supervisory salary cost if it drops Conway. Therefore,
the overall impact of dropping Conway is that profit decreases by the $75,000 lost
contribution margin but increases by the lost supervisory salary of $80,000, which is
a net increase in profit of $5,000. Therefore, Petoskey should drop Conway because
profits are higher without Conway than with Conway.
E 8-45
If Petoskey drops Conway, profit will decrease by $28,000. There will be a decrease of
$75,000 as a result of the lost Conway contribution margin ($300,000 – $225,000). Note
that the direct fixed expense for depreciation is a sunk cost and not relevant to the
decision (i.e., it will remain unchanged whether Conway is kept or dropped). However,
Petoskey will avoid the $80,000 supervisory salary cost for Conway if it drops Conway.
Finally, if Petoskey drops Conway, 20% of Alanson’s contribution margin, or $33,000
(i.e., 0.20 × $165,000), will also be lost as Conway-loving customers shop elsewhere for
Alanson.
Therefore, the overall impact of dropping Conway is that profit decreases by the $75,000
lost Conway contribution margin, increases by the lost Conway supervisory salary of
$80,000, and decreases by the lost Alanson contribution margin of $33,000, which is
a net decrease in profit of $28,000. Therefore, Petoskey should keep Conway because
profits are higher with Conway than without Conway.
E 8-46
1. Contribution Margin if HS Is Sold at Split-Off = $9 × 14,000 pounds
= $126,000
2. Contribution margin if HS is processed into CS
Revenue ($45 × 4,000)……………………………… $180,000
Less further processing cost……………………… 34,000
Contribution margin………………………………… $146,000
Bozo should further process HS; profit from processing further will be $20,000 higher
($146,000 – $126,000) than if it were sold at split-off.
8-22
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
E 8-47
1. Reno Tahoe
Unit contribution margin………………………………………… $120 $75
÷ Painting department hours…………………………………… 5 3
Contribution margin per unit scarce resource…………… $ 24 $25
2. Assuming no other constraints, the optimal mix is zero units of Reno and 820
units of Tahoe. Total painting department time is 2,460 hours per year; if all of
them are devoted to Tahoe production, then 820 units (2,460/3) of Tahoe can
be produced.
3. Contribution Margin = ($120 × 0) + ($75 × 820) = $61,500
E 8-48
1. If 500 units of each product can be sold, then the company will first make and
sell 500 units of Tahoe (the product with the higher contribution margin per hour
of painting department time). This will take 1,500 hours (500 units × 3 hours)
of painting department time, leaving 960 hours (2,460 hours – 1,500 hours)
for Reno production. This time will yield 192 units (960 hours/5 hours per unit)
of Reno.
Optimal mix: 192 units Reno, 500 units Tahoe
2. Total Contribution Margin = ($120 × 192) + ($75 × 500) = $60,540
8-23
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
E 8-49
1. Price of National Parks Memory Card Game = $20.00 + (0.65 × $20) = $33.00
2. Price of Guess This Animal Track Game = $40.00 + (0.65 × $40) = $66.00
3. The financial manager might encounter one or more common challenges to using
cost-plus (or markup) pricing. One challenge might be identifying the most
appropriate percentage by which to mark up gift shop costs. For example, if the
percentage is too high (and 65% seems high), the manager risks setting prices
too high, thereby causing some customers to decide not to buy the gift shop’s
products. One factor working in the manager’s favor in this environment is that
businesses in remote locations, such as many national park gift shops, face
little or no competition. This can spur customers to spend more money than
they would when more competition exists. Alternatively, if the markup percentage
is too low, the manager risks setting prices too low. When prices are too low,
profits are less than they would be with higher prices. In extreme cases, profits
can be negative if total revenues are less than total costs.
Another challenge might be accurately estimating the costs on which the markup
percentage is applied. Even if the markup percentage is appropriate, marking up a
grossly inaccurate estimate of costs can result in consequences similar to those
described in the previous paragraph. For example, if reported costs are far too low,
the price and total revenues that result will be lower than they could be (or need to
be) to be profitable. If reported costs are far too high, the price will be too high,
and total revenues will be lower than if a more appropriate price, that customers
are willing to pay, is set.
E 8-50
1. Desired Profit = 0.20 × Target Price
= 0.20 × $60
= $12.00
2. Target Cost = Target Price – Desired Profit
= $60.00 – $12.00
= $48.00
8-24
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
E 8-51
1. The amounts Heather has spent on purchasing and improving the Grand Am a
irrelevant because these are sunk costs.
2.
Restore
Cost Item Grand Am
Transmission…………………………………… $2,000 $ 0
Water pump…………………………………… 400 0
Master cylinder………………………………… 1,100 0
Sell Grand Am………………………………… 0 (6,400)
Cost of new car………………………………… 0 9,400
Total………………………………………… $3,500 $ 3,000
Heather should sell the Grand Am and buy the Neon because it provides a net
savings of $3,500 – $3,000.
Note: Heather should consider the qualitative factors. If she restores the Gran
how much longer will it last? What about increased license fees and insurance
the newer car? Could she remove the stereo and put it in the Neon without gre
decreasing the Grand Am’s resale value?
E 8-52
1. If the analysis is done using total costs, each variable cost as well as the purc
price will be the unit cost multiplied by 35,000 units. The direct fixed overhead
$77,000 is avoidable if the part is purchased.
Make Buy
Direct materialsa……………………………… $210,000 $ 0
Direct laborb…………………………………… 70,000 0
Variable overheadc…………………………… 52,500 0
Fixed overhead………………………………… 77,000 0
Purchase costd………………………………… 0 385,000
Total relevant costs……………………… $409,500 $385,000
Blasingham should purchase the part.
2. Maximum Price = $409,500/35,000 = $11.70 per unit
3. Income would increase by $24,500 ($409,500 – $385,000).
a $6.00 × 35,000 = $210,000
b $2.00 × 35,000 = $70,000
c $1.50 × 35,000 = $52,500
d $11.00 × 35,000 = $385,000
Alternatives
Buy Neon
8-25
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
E 8-53
Make Buy
1. Direct materialsa…………………………… $210,000 $ 0
Direct laborb………………………………… 70,000 0
Variable overheadc………………………… 52,500 0
Purchase costd……………………………… 0 385,000
Total relevant costs…………………… $332,500 $385,000
Blasingham should continue manufacturing the part.
2. Maximum Price = $332,500/35,000 = $9.50 per unit
3. Income would decrease by $52,500 ($332,500 – $385,000).
a $6.00 × 35,000 = $210,000
b $2.00 × 35,000 = $70,000
c $1.50 × 35,000 = $52,500
d $11.00 × 35,000 = $385,000
8-26
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
P 8-54
1. If the special order is accepted:
Revenues ($7 × 100,000)……………………………………….………………… $ 700,000
Direct materials ($2 × 100,000)………………………………….………………… (200,000)
Direct labor ($1 × 100,000)……………………………………….………………… (100,000)
Variable overhead ($3 × 100,000)……………………………….………………… (300,000)
Total net benefit………………………………………………………………… $ 100,000
Fixed overhead and selling costs are irrelevant.
If the special order is rejected, there will be no impact on income. Therefore, the
quantitative analysis is $100,000 in favor of accepting the special order.
2. The qualitative factors are those that cannot be easily quantified. The company is
faced with a problem of idle capacity. Accepting the special order would bring
production up to near capacity and allow the company to avoid laying off
employees. This would also enhance the company’s community image.
The special-order price is well below the company’s normal price. Will this have a
potential impact on regular customers? Considering the fact that the customer is
located in a region not usually served by the company, the likelihood of an adverse
impact on regular business is not high. However, if it were likely and the amount
could be quantified, then it would represent a relevant item for consideration in the
analysis.
PROBLEMS
8-27
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
P 8-55
1.
Coffee
Blenders Makers Total
Sales……………………………………………… $1,560,000 $2,175,000 $3,735,000
Less: Variable cost of goods sold…………… 1,170,000 2,025,000 3,195,000
Contribution margin…………………………… $ 390,000 $ 150,000 $ 540,000
Less: Direct fixed expenses………………… 184,000 142,500 326,500
Segment margin………………………………… $ 206,000 $ 7,500 $ 213,500
Less: Common fixed expenses*…………………………………………………… 13,500
Operating income……………………………………………………………………… $ 200,000
* $340,000 – $184,000 – $142,500
2. If the coffee maker line is dropped, profits will decrease by $7,500, the segment
margin. If the blender line is dropped, profits will decrease by $206,000.
3. Coffee
Blenders Makers Total
Sales……………………………………………… $1,775,000 $2,175,000 $3,950,000
Less: Variable cost of goods sold…………… 1,350,000 2,025,000 3,375,000
Contribution margin…………………………… $ 425,000 $ 150,000 $ 575,000
Less: Direct fixed expenses………………… 184,000 142,500 326,500
Segment margin………………………………… $ 241,000 $ 7,500 $ 248,500
Less: Common fixed expenses*…………………………………………………… 13,500
Operating income……………………………………………………………………… $ 235,000
Profits increase by $35,000.
* $340,000 – $184,000 – $142,500
Alard Company
Segmented Income Statement
8-28
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
P 8-56
Scented Musical Regular Total
1. Sales…………………………………… $13,000 $19,500 $25,000 $57,500
Less: Variable expenses…………… 9,100 15,600 12,500 37,200
Contribution margin………………… $ 3,900 $ 3,900 $12,500 $20,300
Less: Direct fixed expenses……… 4,250 5,750 3,000 13,000
Product margin……………………… $ (350) $ (1,850) $ 9,500 $ 7,300
Less: Common fixed expenses………………………………………………… 7,500
Operating income (loss)………………………………………………………… $ (200)
Kathy should accept this proposal. The 30% sales increase, coupled with the
increased advertising, reduces the loss from $1,000 to $200. Both scented and
musical product-line profits increase. However, more must be done. If the
scented and musical product margins remain negative, the two products
may need to be dropped.
2. Regular:
Sales………………………………………………… $20,000
Less: Variable expenses………………………… 10,000
Contribution margin……………………………… $10,000
Less: Fixed expenses*…………………………… 10,500
Operating income (loss)…………………………… $ (500)
*$3,000 direct + $7,500 common
While dropping the two lines results in a $500 loss versus the original
$1,000 loss, it is worse than the alternative offered in Requirement 1.
Other options need to be developed.
3. Combinations would be beneficial. Dropping the musical line (which
shows the greatest segment loss) and keeping the scented line while
increasing advertising yields a profit (the optimal combination).
Scented Regular Total
Sales…………………………………………………… $13,000 $22,500 $35,500
Less: Variable expenses…………………………… 9,100 11,250 20,350
Contribution margin………………………………… $ 3,900 $11,250 $15,150
Less: Direct fixed expenses……………………… 4,250 3,000 7,250
Product margin……………………………………… $ (350) $ 8,250 $ 7,900
Less: Common fixed expenses………………………………………………… 7,500
Operating income………………………………………………………………… $ 400
8-29
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
P 8-57
1. Cost Item Make Buy
Raw materialsa………………………………………………… $218,000 $ 0
Direct laborb…………………………………………………… 70,200 0
Variable overheadc…………………………………………… 20,800 0
Fixed overheadd……………………………………………… 58,000 0
Purchase coste……………………………………………… 0 340,000
$367,000 $340,000
Net savings by purchasing: $367,000 – $340,000 = $27,000.
Hetrick should purchase the crowns rather than make them.
Depreciation of $5,000 is irrelevant (and therefore excluded from the analysis
here) because it will NOT change regardless of whether Hetrick makes or
buys the crowns.
a ($70 × 2,000 Porcelain) + ($130 × 600 Gold) = $218,000
b $27 × (2,000 + 600) = $70,200
c $8 × (2,000 + 600) = $20,800
d $26,000 + $32,000 = $58,000
e ($125 × 2,000) + ($150 × 600) = $340,000
8-30
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
P 8-57 (Concluded)
2. Qualitative factors that Hetrick should consider include quality of crowns, reliability
and promptness of producer, and reduction of workforce.
3. It reduces the cost of making the crowns to $335,000 ($367,000 – $32,000), which
is less than the cost of buying because fixed overhead decreases to $26,000 for
a total relevant make cost of $5,000 less than the buy cost. Therefore, Hetrick
should make the crowns.
4. Cost Item Make Buy
Raw materialsa………………………………………………… $372,000 $ 0
Direct laborb…………………………………………………… 129,600 0
Variable overheadc…………………………………………… 38,400 0
Fixed overhead………………………………………………… 58,000 0
Purchase costd………………………………………………… 0 615,000
$598,000 $615,000
Hetrick should produce its own crowns if demand increases to this level because
the fixed overhead is spread over more units.
a ($70 × 4,200 Porcelain) + ($130 × 600 Gold) = $372,000
b $27 × (4,200 + 600) = $129,600
c $8 × (4,200 + 600) = $38,400
d ($125 × 4,200) + ($150 × 600) = $615,000
P 8-58
Process
Per 600 lbs. Further Sell Difference
Revenuesa…………………………………… $24,000 $7,200 $16,800
Bagsb…………………………………………… 0 (39) 39
Shippingc……………………………………… (384) (60) (324)
Grindingd……………………………………… (1,500) 0 (1,500)
Bottlese………………………………………… (2,400) 0 (2,400)
$19,716 $7,101 $12,615
a 600 × 10 × $4 = $24,000;
$12 × 600 = $7,200
b $1.30 × (600/20)
c [(10 × 600)/25] × $1.60 = $384;
$0.10 × 600 = $60
d $2.50 × 600 = $1,500
e 10 × 600 × $0.40 = $2,400
Zanda should process depryl further.
2. $12,615/600 = $21.025 additional income per pound
$21.025 × 265,000 = $5,571,625
8-31
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
P 8-59
1. System A System B Headset Total
Sales……………………………………… $45,000 $32,500 $8,000 $85,500
Variable expenses……………………… 20,000 25,500 3,200 48,700
Contribution margin…………………… $25,000 $ 7,000 $4,800 $36,800
Direct fixed cost……………………… 526 11,158 1,016 12,700
Segment margin…………………… $24,474 $ (4,158) $3,784 $24,100
Common fixed cost…………………… 18,000
Operating income………………… $ 6,100
* $45,000/$85,500 × $18,000 = $9,474;
$10,000 – $9,474 = $526
** $32,500/$85,500 × $18,000 = $6,842;
$18,000 – $6,842 = $11,158
*** $8,000/$85,500 × $18,000 = $1,684;
$2,700 – $1,684 = $1,016
2. System A Headset Total
Sales……………………………………… $58,500 $6,000 $64,500
Variable expenses……………………… 26,000 2,400 28,400
Contribution margin…………………… $32,500 $3,600 $36,100
Direct fixed cost……………………… 526 1,016 1,542
Segment margin…………………… $31,974 $2,584 $34,558
Common fixed cost…………………… 18,000
Operating income………………… $16,558
System B should be dropped.
3. System A System C Headset Total
Sales……………………………………… $45,000 $26,000 $7,200 $78,200
Variable expenses……………………… 20,000 13,000 2,880 35,880
Contribution margin…………………… $25,000 $13,000 $4,320 $42,320
Direct fixed cost*……………………… 526 11,158 1,016 12,700
Segment margin…………………… $24,474 $ 1,842 $3,304 $29,620
Common fixed cost…………………… 18,000
Operating income………………… $11,620
Replacing B with C is better than keeping B, but not as good as dropping B
without replacement with C.
* ** ***
8-32
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
P 8-60
1. Steve should consider selling the part for $1.85 because his division’s profits would
increase $12,800:
Accept Reject
Revenues (2 × $1.85 × 8,000)………………………………… $29,600 $0
Variable expenses (2 × $1.05 × 8,000)……………………… 16,800 0
Total…………………………………………………………… $12,800 $0
Pat’s divisional profits would increase by $18,400:
Accept Reject
Revenues ($32 × 8,000)………………………………………… $ 256,000 $0
Variable expenses:
Direct materials ($17 × 8,000)……………………………… (136,000) 0
Direct labor ($7 × 8,000)…………………………………… (56,000) 0
Overhead ($2 × 8,000)……………………………………… (16,000) 0
Component ($2 × $1.85 × 8,000)…………………………… (29,600) 0
Total relevant benefits………………………………………… $ 18,400 $0
2. Pat should accept the $2 price. This price will increase the cost of the component
from $29,600 to $32,000 (2 × $2 × 8,000) and yield an incremental benefit of $16,000
($18,400 – $2,400).
Steve’s division will see an increase in profit of $15,200 (8,000 units × 2 components
per unit × $0.95 contribution margin per component).
3. Yes. At full price, the total cost of the component is $36,800 (2 × $2.30 × 8,000), an
increase of $7,200 over the original offer. This still leaves an increase in profits of
$11,200 ($18,400 – $7,200). (See the answer to Requirement 1.)
P 8-61
1. Markup based on cost of goods sold:
Cost of Goods Sold + (Cost of Goods Sold × Markup) = Sell Price
$48,100 + ($48,100 × Markup) = $130,000
Markup = ($130,000 – $48,100)/$48,100
= 1.703, or 170.3%
2. Direct materials……………………………… $ 1,800
Direct labor…………………………………… 1,600
Overhead……………………………………… 800
Total cost…………………………………… $ 4,200
Add: Markup ($4,200 × 1.703)……………… 7,153
Initial bid…………………………………… $11,353
8-33
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
P 8-62
Basic Standard Deluxe
1. Price……………………………………………… $ 9.00 $30.00 $35.00
Variable cost……………………………………… 6.00 20.00 10.00
Contribution margin…………………………… $ 3.00 $10.00 $25.00
÷ Machine hours………………………………… 0.10 0.50 0.75
Contribution margin per
machine hour…………………………………… $30.00 $20.00 $33.33
The company should sell only the deluxe unit with contribution margin per
machine hour of $33.33. Sealing can produce 20,000 (15,000/0.75) deluxe units
per year. These 20,000 units, multiplied by the $25 contribution margin per
unit, would yield a total contribution margin of $500,000.
2. First, produce and sell 12,000 deluxe units, which would use 9,000 machine
hours (12,000 × 0.75). Then, produce and sell 50,000 basic units, which would
use 5,000 machine hours (50,000 × 0.10). Finally, with the remaining 1,000
machine hours, produce 2,000 standard units.
Total Contribution Margin = ($25 × 12,000) + ($3 × 50,000) + ($10 × 2,000)
= $470,000
* Rounded
P 8-63
1. The company should not accept the offer because the additional revenue is
less than the additional costs (assuming fixed overhead is allocated and will
not increase with the special order):
Incremental revenue per box………………………………………………… $ 4.20
Incremental cost per box…………………………………………………… 4.25
Loss per box………………………………………………………………… $(0.05)
Total loss: $0.05 × 5,000 = ($250)
2. Costs associated with the layoff:
Increase state UI premiums (0.01 × $1,460,000)………………………… $14,600
Notification costs ($25 × 20)………………………………………………… 500
Rehiring and retraining costs ($150 × 20)………………………………… 3,000
Total………………………………………………………………………… $18,100
The order should be accepted. The loss of $250 on the order is more than
offset by the $18,100 savings by not laying off employees.
*
8-34
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
P 8-64
1. Sales………………………………………………………………………………… $263,000
Costs………………………………………………………………………………… 223,000
Operating profit……………………………………………………………… $ 40,000
Process
2. Sell Further Difference
Revenues………………………………… $40,000 $75,000 $35,000
Further processing cost………………… 0 23,900 23,900
Operating income (loss)…………… $40,000 $51,100 $11,100
The company should process Delta further because gross profit would increase by
$11,100 if it were processed further. (Note: Joint costs are irrelevant to this decision
because the company will incur them whether or not Delta is processed further.)
P 8-65
1. ($30 × 2,000) + ($60 × 4,000) = $300,000
2. Juno Hera
Contribution margin………………………………………… $30 $60
÷ Pounds of material………………………………………… 2 5
Contribution margin/pound………………………………… $15 $12
Norton should make as much of Juno as can be sold and then make Hera.
2,000 units of Juno × 2 lbs. per unit = 4,000 pounds
16,000 pounds – 4,000 pounds = 12,000 pounds for Hera
Hera Production = 12,000 lbs. per unit/5 lbs. per unit = 2,400 units
Product mix is 2,000 Juno and 2,400 Hera.
Total Contribution Margin = ($30 × 2,000) + ($60 × 2,400)
= $204,000
8-35
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
P 8-66
1. Process
Sell Further
Revenues……………………… $24,000 $33,000 $ 9,000
Processing cost……………… — (4,100) (4,100)
Total………………………… $24,000 $28,900 $ 4,900
Germain should be processed further as it will increase profit by $4,900
for every 1,000 liters.
2. Process
Sell Further
Revenues……………………… $24,000 $33,000 $ 9,000
Processing cost……………… — (4,100) (4,100)
Distribution cost……………… — (800) (800)
Commissions………………… — (3,300) (3,300)
Total………………………… $24,000 $24,800 $ 800
Germain should be processed further as it will increase profit by $800 for every
1,000 liters. Note that the liability issue was not quantified so it would need to
be considered as a qualitative factor, further reducing the attractiveness of
making geraiten.
P 8-67
1. Monthly cost for FirstBank:
Checking accounts:
Maintenance fees ($5 × 6)………………………….……… $ 30
Foreign DR/CR ($0.10 × 200)……………………………… 20
Returned checks ($3 × 25)…….…………………………… 75
Earnings on deposits ($0.50 × 300)……………………… (150) $ (25)
Credit card fees ($0.50 × 4,000)……………………………… 2,000
Wire transfers [($15 × 40) + ($50 × 60)]……………………… 3,600
Line of credit charges (0.06/12 × $100,000)………………… 500
Internet banking charges………………………………….…… 20
Total monthly charges…………………………………….… $6,095
One-time Internet setup fees ($15 × 6 accounts)………… $ 90
Differential Amount
to Process Further
Differential Amount
to Process Further
8-36
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
P 8-67 (Concluded)
Monthly cost for Community Bank:
Checking accounts: Returned checks ($2 × 25)…….…………… $ 50
Credit card fees
Per item ($0.50 × 4,000)…………………………………………… $2,000
Batch processing ($7 × 20)……………………………………… 140 2,140
Wire transfers ($30 × 100)…….……………………………………. 3,000
Line of credit charges (0.07/12)($100,000)………………………… 583
Total monthly charges…………………………………………… $5,773
Monthly cost for RegionalOne Bank:
Checking accounts:
Foreign DR/CR ($0.20 × 200)…………………………………… $ 40
Returned checks ($3.80 × 25)…………………………………… 95
Earnings on deposits ($0.30 × 300)…………………………… (90) $ 45
Credit card fees ($0.50 × 4,000)…………………………………… 2,000
Wire transfers [($10 × 40) + ($55 × 60)]…………………………… 3,700
Line of credit charges (0.065/12)($100,000)……………………… 542
Internet banking charges………………………………….………… 20
Total monthly charges………………………………….………… $6,307
* Answers rounded to the nearest dollar.
Community Bank has the lowest overall monthly fees. On quantitative factors
alone, it would be chosen.
2. If the full online banking access were crucial, Community Bank would be eliminated
immediately. This leaves FirstBank and RegionalOne Bank. The two sets of monthly
costs are similar, $6,095 for FirstBank versus $6,307 for RegionalOne. Now, the
banking relationship, comfort level of Kicker with the loan officer, and confidence
in the bank’s ability to respond quickly and appropriately to Kicker’s needs will be
the deciding factors. Additionally, some further negotiation would probably be
done—for example, on the interest rate on the line of credit.
*
*
8-37
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
Case 8-68
1. Pamela should not have told Roger about the deliberations concerning the power
department because this is confidential information. She had been explicitly told
to keep the details quiet but deliberately informed the head of the unit affected by the
potential decision. (Standard II: 1) Her revelation may be interpreted as actively or
passively subverting the attainment of the organization’s legitimate and ethical
objectives.
2. The romantic relationship between Pamela and Roger sets up a conflict of interest
for this particular decision. Pamela should have withdrawn from any active role in it.
(Standard III: 1) However, she should definitely provide the information she currently
has about the cost of eliminating the power department. To not do so would be active
subversion of the organization’s legitimate and ethical objectives. Moreover, she has
the obligation to communicate information fairly and to disclose all relevant
information that could reasonably be expected to influence an intended user’s
understanding. In addition, however, Pamela should discuss the qualitative effects
of eliminating the power department. The effects on workers, community relations,
reliability of external service, and any ethical commitments the company may have
to its workers should all enter into the decision. Pamela should communicate the
short-term quantitative effects and express any concerns about the qualitative
factors. She should also project what the costs of operating internally would be for
the next 5 years and compare that with the estimates of the costs of external
acquisition. Pamela also might consider the potential cost of laying off workers,
such as unemployment insurance costs, severance pay, etc. Later, if business
improves, Pamela would then have to incur costs for training any new employees
or formerly laid off employees that are hired back.
CASES
8-38
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 8 Tactical Decision Making and Relevant Analysis
Case 8-69
1. Salesa…………………………………………………… $3,751,500
Less: Variable expensesb…………………………… 2,004,900
Contribution margin…………………………………… $1,746,600
Less: Direct fixed expensesc………………………… 1,518,250
Divisional margin……………………………………… $ 228,350
Less: Common fixed expensesc…………………… 299,250
Operating (loss)……………………………………… $ (70,900)
a Based on sales of 41,000 units
Let X = Units sold
$83X/2 + $100X/2 = $3,751,500
$183X = $7,503,000
X = 41,000 units
b $83X/125.0% $66.40 Manufacturing cost
– 20.00 Fixed overhead
$46.40 Per internal unit variable cost
+ 5.00 Selling expenses
$51.40 Per external unit variable cost
Variable Costs = ($46.40 × 20,500) + ($51.40 × 20,500)
= $2,004,900
c Fixed selling and admin.: $1,100,000 – $5(20,500) = $997,500
Direct fixed selling and admin.: 0.70 × $997,500 = $698,250
Direct fixed overhead: $20 × 41,000 = $820,000
Total direct fixed expenses = $698,250 + $820,000 = $1,518,250
Common fixed expenses = 0.30 × $997,500 = $299,250
2. Keep Drop
Sales……………………………………………………… $ 3,751,500 $ —
Variable costs…………………………………………… (2,004,900) (2,050,000)
Direct fixed expenses………………………………… (1,518,250) —
Annuity…………………………………………………… — 100,000
Total…………………………………………………… $ 228,350 $(1,950,000)
* $100 × 20,500 (The units transferred internally must be purchased externally.)
The company should keep the division.
Case 8-70
Answers will vary.
*
8-39
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

PROCESS COSTING

1. Process costing collects costs by process (department) for a given period of time. Unit
costs are computed by dividing these costs by the department’s output measured for the
same period of time. Job-order costing collects costs by job. Unit costs are computed by
dividing the job’s costs by the units produced in the job. Process costing is typically used
for industries where units are homogeneous and mass-produced. Job-order costing is used
for industries that produce heterogeneous products (often custom-made).
2. In sequential processing, products pass through a series of processes, one after another
(i.e., in a given sequence). In parallel processing, products pass through two or more
different sequences at the same time, merging eventually at the final process.
3. The cost flows for process-costing and job-order costing systems are essentially the same.
Process costing requires a work-in-process account for each process/producing department.
Costs flow from one work-in-process account to another until the final process is reached.
4. The work-in-process account of the receiving department is debited, and the work-in-process
account of the transferring department is credited. The finished goods account is debited,
and the work-in-process account of the final department is credited upon completion
of the product.
5. Service firms generally do not have work-in-process inventories, and so equivalent units of
production are not needed. An important factor in process costing for services is determining
just what constitutes a unit of output.
6. Firms adopting JIT reduce inventories to very low levels. As a result, work-in-process
inventories are close to zero, and equivalent units of production need not be calculated.
In essence, unit cost is total cost for the period divided by output.
7. Equivalent units are the number of whole units that could have been produced, given the amount
of materials, labor, and overhead used. Equivalent units are the measure of a period’s output,
a necessary input for the computation of unit costs in a process-costing system.
8. In calculating this period’s unit cost, the weighted average combines the work and costs in
beginning inventory with current-period costs and work to calculate this period’s unit cost. The
FIFO method excludes any costs and output carried over from the prior period’s unit cost
computation; hence, only current work and costs are used to calculate this period’s unit cost.
9. If the per-unit cost of the prior period is the same as the per-unit cost of the current period,
there will be no difference between the results of the weighted average and FIFO methods.
Additionally, if no beginning work-in-process inventory exists, both the FIFO and weighted
average methods give the same results.
6 PROCESS COSTING
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
6-1
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
10. The first step is the preparation of a physcial flow schedule. This schedule identifies the physical
units that must be accounted for and provides an accounting for these units. The second step is
the equivalent unit schedule. This schedule computes the equivalent whole output for the period.
The schedule’s computations rely on information from the physical flow schedule. The third step is
computation of the unit cost. To compute the unit cost, the manufacturing costs of the period for the
process are divided by the period’s output. The output is obtained from the equivalent unit schedule.
The fourth step uses the unit cost to value goods transferred out and those remaining in work in
process. The final step checks to see if the costs assigned in Step 4 equal the total costs to account
for.
11. A production report summarizes the activities and costs associated with a process for a given
period. It shows the physical flow, the equivalent units, the unit cost, and the values of ending
work in process and goods transferred out. The report serves the same function as a job-order
cost sheet in a job-order costing system.
12. Separate equivalent units must be calculated for each category of materials and for conversion
costs.
13. Transferred-in units represent partially completed units and are clearly a material for the
receiving department. To complete the product (or further process it), additional materials
and conversion costs are added by the receiving department.
14. The weighted average method uses the same unit cost for all goods transferred out. The FIFO
method divides goods transferred out into two categories: units started and completed and
units from beginning work in process. The period’s unit cost is used to value goods started
and completed. The cost of goods transferred out from beginning work in process is obtained
by (1) assigning them all costs carried over from the prior period and (2) using the current
period’s unit cost to value the equivalent units completed this period.
6-2
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
6-1. d
6-2. c
6-3. b
6-4. d
6-5. d
6-6. b 0 + 2,300 units + (500 units × 0.4) = 2,500 units
6-7. b $46,000/[0 + 2,300 units + (500 units × 0.4)] = $18.40
6-8. a $18.40 × 2,300 units transferred = $42,320
(see M.C. 6-7 for calculation of $18.40)
6-9. c $18.40 × (500 units × 0.40) = $3,680
(see M.C. 6-7 for calculation of $18.40)
6-10. d 100,000 units transferred + (25,000 units × 0.40) = 110,000 units
6-11. e 100,000 units transferred + (25,000 units × 0.80) = 120,000 units
6-12. c ($112,500 + $450,000)/125,000 units = $4.50 per unit
100,000 units transferred × $4.50 = $450,000
6-13. c ($100,000 + $550,000)/100,000 units = $6.50
6-14. e (25,000 × 0.20) + 80,000 + (25,000 × 0.60) = 100,000 units
6-15. b (25,000 × 0.80) + 80,000 + (25,000 × 0.80) = 120,000 units
6-16. d $720,000/120,000 units = $6.00
6-17. b $450,000/125,000 EU = $3.60 per unit
100,000 units transferred × $3.60 per unit = $360,000
6-18. a
6-19. c
6-20. d
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
6-3
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
BE 6-21
Mixing Cooking Packaging
1. Direct materials……………………… $ 825,000 $ 379,500 $ 330,000
Direct labor…………………………… 120,000 75,000 180,000
Applied overhead…………………… 225,000 82,500 332,500
Transferred-in cost…………………… — 1,170,000 1,707,000
Total cost…………………………… $1,170,000 $1,707,000 $2,549,500
2.
Debit
Work in Process—Cooking 1,170,000
Work in Process—Mixing 1,170,000
Work in Process—Packaging 1,707,000
Work in Process—Cooking 1,707,000
Finished Goods 2,549,500
Work in Process—Packaging 2,549,500
BE 6-22
Equivalent Units
Units completed………………………………………………
EWIP (0.40 × 16,800)…………………….……………………
Output…………………………………………………………
BE 6-23
1. Equivalent Units
Units completed……………………………………………
EWIP (0.60 × 112,500)…………………….………………
Output……………………………………………………
Unit Cost = $2,295,000/382,500………………..………
2. Cost of goods tranferred out ($6 × 315,000)….………
Cost of EWIP ($6 × 67,500)…………….………………
BRIEF EXERCISES: SET A
112,000
Journal
Date Description Credit
$1,890,000
405,000
6,720
118,720
315,000
67,500
382,500
$6.00
6-4
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
BE 6-24
1. Equivalent
Units
Units completed…………………………………………………………… 720,000
EWIP (0.40 × 225,000)……………………………………………………… 90,000
Output for January……………………………………………….………… 810,000
2. Unit Cost = $1,215,000/810,000…………………..……………………… $1.50
3. Cost of goods tranferred out ($1.50 × 720,000)……………………… $1,080,000
EWIP ($1.50 × 90,000)……………………………………………………… 135,000
BE 6-25
Physical flow schedule:
Units in BWIP (80% complete)……………………… 160,000
Units started…………………………………………… 720,000
Total units to account for………………………… 880,000
Units completed and transferred out:
Units started and completed……………………… 600,000
Units completed from BWIP………………………… 160,000 760,000
Units in EWIP (60% complete)……………………… 120,000
Total units accounted for………………………… 880,000
BE 6-26
Physical flow:
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP………… 4,000 Units completed……………… 27,200
Units started…………………… 31,200 Units in ending WIP………… 8,000
Total units to acct. for………35,200 Total units acct’d. for…… 35,200
Equivalent units:
Units completed…………………………………………………………………… 27,200
Units in ending work in process……………………………………………… 4,800
Total equivalent units………………………………………………………… 32,000
Manzer Inc.
Production Report
For the Month of October
Weighted Average Method
UNIT INFORMATION
Cutting Department
6-5
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
BE 6-26
Costs to account for:
Beginning work in process…………………………………………………… $ 32,000
Incurred during October………………………………………………………… 608,000
Total costs to account for…………………………………………………… $640,000
Cost per equivalent unit…………………………………………………………… $20.00
Costs accounted for:
Transferred
Out Total
Goods transferred out
($20.00 × 27,200)………………………… $544,000 — $544,000
Goods in ending WIP
($20.00 × 4,800)………………………… — $96,000 96,000
Total costs accounted for……………… $544,000 $96,000 $640,000
BE 6-27
1. Materials Conversion
Units completed………………………………………………… 65,200 65,200
Add: Units in ending WIP ×
Fraction complete (12,000 × 1; 12,000 × 0.60)…… 12,000 7,200
Equivalent units of output……………………………..…… 77,200 72,400
2.
Unit materials cost [($40,980 + $125,000)/77,200]……………………………… $2.15
Unit conversion cost [($28,920 + $210,000)/72,400]…………………………… 3.30
Total unit cost……………………………………………………………………… $5.45
*Rounded
3.
Cost transferred out (65,200 × $5.45)…………………………………………… $355,340
Cost of ending WIP:
Materials (12,000 × $2.15)……………………………………………………… $ 25,800
Conversion (7,200 × $3.30)……………………………………………………… 23,760
Total ending WIP cost……………………………………………………… $ 49,560
COST INFORMATION
Ending
Work in Process
*
*
6-6
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
BE 6-28
1. Physical flow schedule:
Units in beginning work in process………………………… 70,000
Units started during the period……………………………… 240,000
Total units to account for…………………………………… 310,000
Units completed and transferred out:
Units started and completed…………………………………… 192,500
Units completed from beginning work in process………… 70,000 262,500
Units in ending work in process……………………………… 47,500
Total units accounted for…………………………………… 310,000
2. Units completed…………………………………..………………… 262,500
Units in EWIP………………………………………………………… 47,500
Equivalent units (transferred-in materials)………………… 310,000
3. Unit Transferred-In Cost = ($283,000 + $957,000)/310,000…… $4.00
BE 6-29
Equivalent
Units
1. Units started and completed…………………………………………………… 570,000
Units in BWIP (0.20 × 120,000)…………………………………………………… 24,000
Units in EWIP (0.75 × 80,000)…………………………………………………… 60,000
Total……………………………………………………………………………… 654,000
2. Unit Cost = $1,471,500/654,000………………………………………………… $2.25
3. Cost of units transferred out:
BWIP costs……………………………………………………………………… $ 120,000
To finish BWIP………………………………………………………………… 54,000
Started and completed……………………………….………………………… 1,282,500
Total……………………………………………….………………………… $1,456,500
EWIP ($2.25 × 60,000)….….……………………………….……………………… $135,000
6-7
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
BE 6-30
Physical flow:
Units to account for:
Units in beginning WIP……… 120,000 Units accounted for:
Units started……………………650,000 Units started and completed… 570,000
From beginning WIP…………… 120,000
Total units to acct. for…… 770,000 Units in ending WIP……………… 80,000
Total units acct’d. for……… 770,000
Equivalent units:
Started and completed………………………………………………..……………… 570,000
To complete beginning WIP (120,000 × 0.20)…………………………………… 24,000
Units in ending WIP (80,000 × 0.75)………………………………………………… 60,000
Total equivalent units……………………………………………………………… 654,000
Costs to account for:
Costs in beginning WIP……………………………………………………………… $ 120,000
Costs added by department………………………………………………………… 1,471,500
Total costs to account for………………………………………………………… $1,591,500
Cost per Equivalent Unit = $1,471,500/654,000……………………………………… $2.25
Costs accounted for:
Transferred out:
Units started and completed (570,000 × $2.25)……………………………… $1,282,500
Units in beginning work in process:
From prior period………………………………………………………….……… 120,000
From current period (24,000 × $2.25)………………………………………… 54,000
Total cost transferred out………………………………………….…………… $1,456,500
Goods in ending work in process (60,000 × $2.25)………………………………… 135,000
Total costs accounted for……………………………………..…………………… $1,591,500
*Any difference due to rounding
UNIT INFORMATION
COST INFORMATION
Aztec Inc.
Mixing Department
Production Report
For the Month of July
(FIFO Method)
*
6-8
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
BE 6-31
Mixing Cooking Packaging
1. Direct materials………………………………… $600,500 $ 285,500 $ 250,000
Direct labor……………………………………… 90,000 50,000 120,000
Applied overhead……………………………… 117,000 65,000 156,000
Transferred-in cost…………………………… — 807,500 1,208,000
Total cost…………………………………… $807,500 $1,208,000 $1,734,000
2.
Debit
Work in Process—Cooking 807,500
Work in Process—Mixing 807,500
Work in Process—Packaging 1,208,000
Work in Process—Cooking 1,208,000
Finished Goods 1,734,000
Work in Process—Packaging 1,734,000
BE 6-32
Equivalent Units
Units completed…………………………………………………………
EWIP (0.30 × 15,750)…………………….…………………………….
Output…………………………………………………………………
BE 6-33
1. Equivalent Units
Units completed……………………………………………………
EWIP (0.70 × 42,700)…………………….…………………………
Output……………………………………………………………
Unit Cost = $1,759,120/219,890………………..…………………
2. Cost of goods tranferred out ($8 × 190,000)….………………
Cost of EWIP ($8 × 29,890)…………….……………………….
BRIEF EXERCISES: SET B
$1,520,000
239,120
190,000
29,890
219,890
$8.00
105,000
4,725
109,725
Journal
Date Description Credit
6-9
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
BE 6-34
1. Equivalent
Units
Units completed………………………………………………………………………… 360,000
EWIP (0.40 × 112,500)…………………………………………………………………… 45,000
Output for July……………………………………………….…………………………… 405,000
2. Unit Cost = $607,500/405,000…………………..……………………………………… $1.50
3. Cost of goods tranferred out ($1.50 × 360,000)…………………………………… $540,000
EWIP ($1.50 × 45,000)…………………………………………………………………… 67,500
BE 6-35
Physical flow schedule:
Units in BWIP (60% complete)…………………………………… 60,000
Units started………………………………………………………… 230,000
Total units to account for……………………………………… 290,000
Units completed and transferred out:
Units started and completed……………………………………… 185,000
Units completed from BWIP……………………………………… 60,000 245,000
Units in EWIP (80% complete)…………………………………… 45,000
Total units accounted for……………………………………… 290,000
BE 6-36
Physical flow:
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP……… 15,000 Units completed……………… 102,000
Units started…………………… 117,000 Units in ending WIP………… 30,000
Total units to acct. for…… 132,000 Total units acct’d for……… 132,000
Equivalent units:
Units completed……………………………………………………………………… 102,000
Units in ending work in process…………………………………………………… 18,000
Total equivalent units…………………………………………………………… 120,000
UNIT INFORMATION
Washburn Inc.
Production Report
For the Month of June
Weighted Average Method
Molding Department
6-10
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
BE 6-36 (Concluded)
Costs to account for:
Beginning work in process…………………………………………………… $ 180,000
Incurred during June………………………………………………………… 3,420,000
Total costs to account for………………………………………………… $3,600,000
Cost per equivalent unit………………………………………………………… $30.00
Costs accounted for:
Transferred Ending
Out Work in Process Total
Goods transferred out
($30.00 × 102,000)……………………… $3,060,000 — $3,060,000
Goods in ending WIP
($30.00 × 18,000)……………………… — $540,000 540,000
Total costs accounted for……………… $3,060,000 $540,000 $3,600,000
BE 6-37
1. Materials Conversion
Units completed……………………………………………… 13,040 13,040
Units in ending WIP ×
Fraction complete (2,400 × 1; 2,400 × 0.60)…… 2,400 1,440
Equivalent units of output……………………………..… 15,440 14,480
2. Unit materials cost [($16,000 + $50,000)/15,440]……… $ 4.27
Unit conversion cost [($12,000 + $84,000)/14,480]…… 6.63
Total unit cost…………………………………………… $10.90
* Rounded
3. Cost transferred out (13,040 × $10.90)…………………… $142,136
Cost of ending WIP:
Materials (2,400 × $4.27)………………………………… $ 10,248
Conversion (1,440 × $6.63)…………………………… 9,547
Total ending WIP cost……………………………… $ 19,795
Add:
COST INFORMATION
*
*
6-11
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
BE 6-38
1. Physical flow schedule:
Units in beginning work in process……………………………… 30,000
Units started during the period…………………………………… 120,000
Total units to account for……………………………………… 150,000
Units completed and transferred out:
Units started and completed……………………………………… 110,000
Units completed from beginning work in process…………… 30,000 140,000
Units in ending work in process………………………………… 10,000
Total units accounted for……………………………………… 150,000
2. Units completed…………………………………..…………………… 140,000
Units in EWIP…………………………………………………………… 10,000
Equivalent units (transferred-in materials)…………………… 150,000
3. Unit Transferred-In Cost = ($63,000 + $237,000)/150,000………… $2.00
BE 6-39
1. Units started and completed………………………………………………………… 28,500
Units in BWIP (0.30 × 6,000)………………………………………………………… 1,800
Units in EWIP (0.60 × 4,000)………………………………………………………… 2,400
Total…………………………………………………………………………………… 32,700
2. Unit Cost = $130,800/32,700………………………………………………………… $4.00
3. Cost of units transferred out:
BWIP costs…………………………………………………………………………… $ 16,380
To finish BWIP……………………………………………………………………… 7,200
Started and completed……………………………….…………………………… 114,000
Total……………………………………………….……………………………… $137,580
EWIP ($4.00 × 2,400)….….……………………………….…………………………… $9,600
Equivalent
Units
6-12
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
BE 6-40
Physical flow:
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP………… 6,000 Units started and completed… 28,500
Units started……………………… 32,500 From beginning WIP…………… 6,000
Units in ending WIP…………… 4,000
Total units to acct. for……… 38,500 Total units acct’d for……… 38,500
Equivalent units:
Started and completed………………………………………………..………………… 28,500
To complete beginning WIP (6,000 × 0.30)………………………………………… 1,800
Units in ending WIP (4,000 × 0.60)…………………………………………………… 2,400
Total equivalent units……………………………………………………………… 32,700
Costs to account for:
Costs in beginning WIP………………………………………………………………… $ 16,380
Costs added by department…………………………………………………………… 130,800
Total costs to account for………………………………………………………… $147,180
Cost per Equivalent Unit = $130,800/32,700…………………………………………… $4.00
Transferred out:
Units started and completed (28,500 × $4.00)………………………………… $114,000
Units in beginning work in process:
From prior period………………………………………………………….………… 16,380
From current period (1,800 × $4.00)……………………………………………… 7,200
Total cost transferred out………………………………………….…………… $137,580
Goods in ending work in process (2,400 × $4.00)…………………………………… 9,600
Total costs accounted for……………………………………..……………………… $147,180
Saludable Inc.
Costs accounted for:
Drying Department
Production Report
For the Month of November
(FIFO Method)
COST INFORMATION
UNIT INFORMATION
6-13
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
E 6-41
1.
Direct materials………… $ 29,400
Direct labor……………… 68,400
Applied overhead……… 57,000
Transferred-in cost:
From Molding…………
From Grinding……… 718,600
Total cost………………… $873,400
2. Unit Cost = $873,400/18,000……….….………………………………………………… $48.52
E 6-42
1.
a. Work in Process—Grinding
Work in Process—Molding
b. Work in Process—Finishing
Work in Process—Grinding
c. Finished Goods
Work in Process—Finishing
2. The journal entries for the job-order and process-costing systems are generally
the same. There is one key difference. For process costing, each department has
its own WIP account. As goods are completed in one department, they are
transferred with their costs to the next department.
E 6-43
1. Equivalent
Units
21,600 units completed……………………………………………………………… 21,600
(2,250 units × 0.60)………………………………………………………………… 1,350
December output……………………………………………………………………… 22,950
2. Unit Cost per Unit = $82,620/22,950………………………………………………… $3.60
3. Cost of Goods Transferred Out = $3.60 × 21,600….……………………………… $77,760
4. EWIP = $3.60 × 1,350……………….…………..……………………………………… $4,860
$286,400
27,600
35,000
$349,000 $718,600
349,000
$ 30,400
67,200
272,000
232,000
272,000
128,000
128,000
Finishing
Department
EXERCISES
Description
Journal
Date
Department
Molding
Department
Grinding
Credit
232,000
272,000
Debit
6-14
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
E 6-44
Units completed……………………………………………………………………… 504,000
Units in ending work in process × Fraction complete:
(96,000 × 0.75)……………………………………………………………………… 72,000
Equivalent units of output………………………………………………………… 576,000
E 6-45
1. Unit Cost = $174,000/75,000 = $2.32 per unit
2. Cost of ending work in process ($2.32 × 21,600)………………………………… $50,112
Cost of goods tranferred out ($2.32 × 53,400)…………………………………… $123,888
3. Cassien is using the weighted average method for calculating unit costs. Thus, the
unit cost for June will be a mixture of May and June costs. May costs will not reflect
the cost savings and so the June unit cost will be higher than expected. Using FIFO
for June would better reflect the effect of the cost reductions and overcome the
problem.
E 6-46
1. Unit Cost = $1,100,000/220,000…………………………………………………… $5.00
2. Cost of units transferred out (196,000 × $5.00)……………………………… $ 980,000
Cost of ending WIP (24,000 × $5.00)…………………………………………… 120,000
Total costs accounted for…………………..………………………………… $1,100,000
3. The weighted average method is simpler to use than FIFO, but it does not reflect
the unit cost as well if costs are changing significantly from one period to the next.
FIFO calculates the unit cost using only costs of the current period and output of the
current period. Weighted average rolls back and picks up the costs and output in
BWIP and counts them as if they belong to the current period. These costs and
output of two periods are mixed. For Byford, the unit cost under weighted average
is $5.00 (see solution to Requirement 1). The unit cost for units in BWIP is $3.06
($107,000/35,000). This suggests a significant difference in the unit cost of the prior
period from the unit cost of the current period. If this type of cost fluctuation is
typical, Byford should switch to FIFO.
E 6-47
Units to account for:
Units in beginning work in process……………………………… 91,500
Units started during the period…………………………………… 99,000
Total units to account for……………………………………… 190,500
Units completed and transferred out:
Units started and completed*……………………………………… 73,800
Units completed from beginning work in process…………… 91,500 165,300
Units in ending work in process………………….……………… 25,200
Total units accounted for……………………………………… 190,500
*99,000 – 25,200 = 73,800
6-15
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
E 6-48
Units to account for:
Units in beginning WIP………………………………………………………………… 25,000
Units started……………………………………………………………………………… 142,500
Total units……………………………………………………………………………… 167,500
Units accounted for:
Completed from BWIP…………………………………………………………………… 25,000
Started and completed*………………………………………………………………… 107,500
Units in ending WIP……………………………………………………………………… 35,000
Total units……………………………………………………………………………… 167,500
142,500 – 35,000
E 6-49
Physical flow:
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP………… 20,000 Units completed……………… 50,000
Units started……………………… 40,000 Units in ending WIP…………… 10,000
Total units to acct. for……… 60,000 Total units acct’d for……… 60,000
Equivalent units:
Units completed…………………………………………………………………………… 50,000
Units in ending work in process (0.20 × 10,000)…………………………………… 2,000
Total equivalent units………………………………………………………………… 52,000
Costs to account for:
Costs in beginning WIP………………………………………………………………… $ 93,600
Costs added by department…………………………………………………………… 314,600
Total costs to account for…………………………………………………………… $408,200
Cost per equivalent unit…………………………………………………………………… $7.85
UNIT INFORMATION
COST INFORMATION
Mino Inc.
Production Report
For the Month of April
(Weighted Average Method)
Cooking Department
6-16
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
E 6-49 (Concluded)
Costs accounted for:
Transferred
Out Total
Goods transferred out
($7.85 × 50,000)…..………… $392,500 — $392,500
Goods in ending WIP
($7.85 × 2,000)…..…………… — $15,700 15,700
Total costs accounted for….. $392,500 $15,700 $408,200
E 6-50
Materials Conversion
Units completed……………………..……………… 60,000 60,000
Units in ending WIP ×
Fraction complete* (20,000 × 0.60)…..…… 20,000 12,000
Equivalent units of output……………..…………… 80,000 72,000
*60% completion is related to conversion.
E 6-51
1. Unit materials cost [($147,000 + $1,053,000)/240,000]………………………… $5.00
Unit conversion cost [($7,875 + $236,205)/216,000]…………………………… 1.13
Total unit cost……………………………………………………………………… $6.13
2. Cost transferred out (180,000 × $6.13)…………………………………….….… $1,103,400
Cost of ending WIP:
Materials (60,000 × $5.00)……………………………………….….…………… $ 300,000
Conversion (36,000 × $1.13)…………………………………………………… 40,680
Total ending WIP cost……………………………………………………..…… $ 340,680
E 6-52
1. Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP…… 40,000 Units transferred out……… 120,000
Units started*……………… 110,000 Units in ending WIP………… 30,000
Total units to acct. for… 150,000 Total units acct’d for…… 150,000
Add:
Ending
Work in Process
6-17
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
E 6-52 (Concluded)
* Calculation:
Units transferred out……………..………………………………………………………… 120,000
Units in ending WIP……………..………………………………………………………… 30,000
Less: Units in beginning WIP…..………………………………………………………… (40,000)
Units transferred in………………..…………………………………………………… 110,000
2. Transferred-In Materials Conversion
Units transferred out……………… 120,000 120,000 120,000
Units in ending WIP………………… 30,000 30,000 18,000
Equivalent units………………… 150,000 150,000 138,000
E 6-53
1. Unit transferred-in cost [($2,100 + $30,900)/75,000]……..…………… $0.44
Unit materials cost [($1,500 + $22,500)/75,000]……..………………… 0.32
Unit conversion cost [($3,000 + $45,300)/69,000]……..……………… 0.70
2. Total unit cost…..……………..…………………………………………… $1.46
E 6-54
Units started and completed……..……………………………………… 27,000
Units in BWIP × Fraction to be completed (15,000 × 0.60)……..…… 9,000
Units in EWIP × Fraction complete (8,000 × 0.75)……..……………… 6,000
Equivalent units of output…………………………………..…………… 42,000
E 6-55
1. Unit Cost = $14,000/7,840……………………………………….………… $1.79
2. Cost of ending work in process ($1.79 × 2,400)……………..………… $ 4,296
Cost of goods transferred out:
From BWIP:
Prior-period costs…………………………………………..…………… $ 1,120
Completion costs ($1.79 × 840)…..…………………………………… 1,504
Started and completed ($1.79 × 4,600)………..…………………… 8,234
Total………..………………………………………………………… $10,858
* Rounded
*
*
6-18
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-56
1. Mixing department:
a. Units Transferred to Tableting = Total Units* – Ending WIP
= 420,000 – 36,000
*Total Units = Beginning WIP + Units Started = 0 + 420,000
b. Units completed………………………………………………….……………… 384,000
Add: Units in ending work in process: 36,000 × 0.50…………………… 18,000
Equivalent units of output…………..………………………………………… 402,000
2. Tableting department:
Units Transferred Out = Total Units* – Ending WIP = 408,000 – 12,000 = 396,000
*Total Units = Beginning WIP + Units Transferred In = 24,000 + 384,000 = 408,000
3. The solution is to convert the transferred-in units to the same unit of measure as
the output for the tableting department. Each bottle has eight ounces of transferredin
material. Thus, 384,000 ounces become 48,000 bottles. Using this converted
measure, the revised solution would be as follows:
Units Transferred Out = Total Units* – Ending WIP = 51,000 – 1,500 = 49,500
*Total Units = Beginning WIP + Units Transferred In = 3,000 + 48,000 = 51,000
P 6-57
1. Units to account for:
Units in beginning work in process………..…………………… 60,000
Units started during the period……………..…………………… 120,000
Total units to account for…………………..………………… 180,000
Units accounted for:
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed……………………..………………… 90,000
From beginning work in process…………..……………… 60,000 150,000
Units in ending work in process…………..…………………… 30,000
Total units accounted for…………………..………………… 180,000
PROBLEMS
= 384,000
6-19
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-57 (Concluded)
2. Cabinets Components Conversion
Units completed……………………………… 150,000 150,000 150,000
Units in EWIP………………………………… 30,000 30,000 6,000
Equivalent units…………………………… 180,000 180,000 156,000
*0.20 × 30,000
3. Costs to account for: Cabinets Components Conversion Total
Beginning WIP……………… $1,200,000 $12,600,000 $ 5,400,000 $19,200,000
Incurred during April……… 2,400,000 25,200,000 8,640,000 36,240,000
Total costs to acct. for… $3,600,000 $37,800,000 $14,040,000 $55,440,000
Equivalent units…………… 180,000 180,000 156,000
Cost per equivalent unit…… $20 $210 $90 $320
4. Costs Transferred Out = 150,000 × $320
=
Cost of Ending WIP = (30,000 × $20) + (30,000 × $210) + (6,000 × $90)
= $7,440,000
5. Costs to account for:
Beginning work in process………..…………………………………………… $19,200,000
Incurred during April………………..…………………………………………… 36,240,000
Total costs to account for………..………………………………………… $55,440,000
Costs accounted for:
Goods transferred out……………..…………………………………………… $48,000,000
Goods in ending work in process……..……………………………………… 7,440,000
Total costs accounted for……………..…………………………………… $55,440,000
$48,000,000
*
6-20
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-58
1.
Physical flow:
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP…… 60,000 Units completed…………… 150,000
Units started………………… 120,000 Units in ending WIP………… 30,000
Total units to acct. for… 180,000 Total units acct’d. for…… 180,000
Equivalent units: Cabinets Components Conversion
Units completed……………………………… 150,000 150,000 150,000
Units in EWIP…………………………………… 30,000 30,000 6,000
Equivalent units…………………………… 180,000 180,000 156,000
Costs to account for: Cabinets Components Conversion Total
Beginning WIP……………… $1,200,000 $12,600,000 $ 5,400,000 $19,200,000
Incurred during April……… 2,400,000 25,200,000 8,640,000 36,240,000
Total costs to acct. for… $3,600,000 $37,800,000 $14,040,000 $55,440,000
Equivalent units……………… 180,000 180,000 156,000
Cost per equivalent unit…… $20 $210 $90 $320
Transferred Ending Work
Costs accounted for: Out in Process Total
Goods transferred out
($320 × 150,000)……………………………… $48,000,000 — $48,000,000
Goods in ending WIP
Cabinets ($20 × 30,000)…………………… $ 600,000 600,000
Components ($210 × 30,000)…………… 6,300,000 6,300,000
Conversion ($90 × 6,000)………………… — 540,000 540,000
Total costs accounted for…………… $48,000,000 $7,440,000 $55,440,000
*0.20 × 30,000
Unit Information
Stillwater Designs
Production Report
For the Month of April
(Weighted Average Method)
Assembly Department
*
6-21
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-58 (Concluded)
2. Although the answers may vary, some essential elements should be mentioned in
the report. The job cost sheet summarizes the manufacturing activity for a job,
whereas the production report summarizes the manufacturing activity in a process
department for a period of time. Both reports provide unit cost information, although
the production report only provides the unit cost for a given process. Only the last
process provides the total cost per unit. A similar observation can be made about
the detail concerning materials and conversion costs. The job cost sheet acts as a
subsidiary work-in-process account. The production report also provides the cost
of ending work in process for each process. The sum of these amounts will give the
total work in process—so the production report serves a similar information function.
Thus, the purpose and content of the reports are very similar.
P 6-59
1. Units to account for:
Units in beginning work in process (60% complete)…………. 40,000
Units started during the period………………..…………………… 120,000
Total units to account for……………………..………………… 160,000
Units accounted for:
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed……………………..…………………… 80,000
From beginning work in process………..……………………… 40,000 120,000
Units in ending work in process (60% complete)…………..…… 40,000
Total units accounted for………………………….…..………… 160,000
2. Units completed…………………………………………..……………… 120,000
Add: Units in EWIP × Fraction complete
(40,000 × 0.60)…..……………………………………………………… 24,000
Equivalent units of output………………………………..…………… 144,000
3. Unit Cost [($144,000 + $604,800)/144,000] = $5.20
6-22
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-59 (Concluded)
4. First, calculate the cost per unit for the equivalent units in beginning
inventory (0.60 × 40,000 = 24,000 equivalent units in BWIP) = 24,000
Prior-Period Unit Cost = $144,000/24,000…………………………………………… $6.00
Next, calculate the current-period (FIFO) cost per unit:
= Weighted Average Equivalent
Units – Prior-Period
Equivalent Units
= 144,000 – 24,000
= 120,000
FIFO Unit Cost = $604,800/120,000 = $5.04
The weighted average unit cost
= (24,000/144,000)$6 + (120,000/144,000)$5.04
= $5.20
P 6-60
Physical flow:
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP……… 40,000 Units completed……………… 120,000
Units started…………………… 120,000 Units in ending WIP………… 40,000
Total units to acct. for…… 160,000 Total units acct’d. for…… 160,000
Equivalent units:
Units completed……………… 120,000
Units in ending WIP………… 24,000
Total equivalent units…… 144,000
Costs to account for:
Costs in beginning WIP…………………………..………………………………… $144,000
Costs added by department………………………..……………………………… 604,800
Total costs to account for…………………………..………………………… $748,800
Cost per equivalent unit…………………………..…………………………………… $5.20
FIFO Equivalent Units for Materials
COST INFORMATION
Alfombra Inc.
Production Report
For the Month of August
(Weighted Average Method)
UNIT INFORMATION
Throw Rug Department
6-23
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-60 (Concluded)
Transferred
Costs accounted for: Out Total
Goods transferred out
($5.20 × 120,000)……………… $624,000 $624,000
Goods in ending WIP:
Conversion ($5.20 × 24,000)…… $124,800 124,800
Total costs accounted for… $624,000 $124,800 $748,800
P 6-61
1. Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP……… 15,000 Transferred out……… 45,000
Units started*………………… 35,000 Units in ending WIP… 5,000
Total…………………………… 50,000 Total………………… 50,000
*50,000 – 15,000 = 35,000
2. Equivalent
Units
Transferred out………………………………………..…………………………… 45,000
Ending WIP (5,000 × 0.25)…………..…………………………………………… 1,250
Total………………………………………………………………..……………… 46,250
3. Unit cost [($1,656 + $26,094)/46,250]……..…………………………………… $0.60
4. Cost transferred out (45,000 × $0.60)………………………..………………… $27,000
Cost of ending WIP (1,250 × $0.60)……………………………………………… $750
5. To assign costs to spoiled units, they should appear as an item in the
equivalent units schedule:
Equivalent
Units
Transferred out…………………………………………………..………………… 42,500
Spoiled units…………………………………………………………..…………… 2,500
Ending WIP (5,000 × 0.25)…………..…………………………………………… 1,250
Total………………………………………………………………………..……… 46,250
Work in Process
Ending
6-24
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-61 (Concluded)
The cost per equivalent unit is the same calculated without spoilage.
Spoilage Cost = 2,500 × $0.60 = $1,500
If the spoilage cost is abnormal, then it will not be assigned to production. A
common approach is to treat the $1,500 as a loss for the period. If the spoilage
is normal, then it would be added to the cost of goods transferred out.
P 6-62
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP……… 24,000 Units completed……………… 70,000
Units started…………………… 56,000 Units in ending WIP………… 10,000
Total units to acct. for…… 80,000 Total units acct’d. for …… 80,000
Equivalent units:
Units completed………………………………………………………………………… 70,000
Units in ending WIP (10,000 × 0.70)………………………………………………… 7,000
Total equivalent units……………………………………………………………… 77,000
Costs to account for:
Costs in beginning WIP………………………..……………………………………… $285,520
Costs added by department…………………..……………………………………… 638,480
Total costs to account for………………………………………………………… $924,000
Cost per equivalent unit ($924,000/77,000)……..……………………………………… $12.00
Costs accounted for:
Goods transferred out (70,000 × $12.00)………..………………………………… $840,000
Ending WIP (7,000 × $12.00)……..…………………………………………………… 84,000
Total costs accounted for……………………………………..………………… $924,000
COST INFORMATION
Millie Company
Assembly Department
For the Month of June
(Weighted Average Method)
UNIT INFORMATION
Production Report
6-25
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-63
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP…….. 24,000 Started and completed…… 46,000
Units started……..…………… 56,000 From beginning WIP……… 24,000
From ending WIP…………… 10,000
Total units to acct. for…… 80,000 Total units acct’d for…… 80,000
Equivalent units:
Started and completed……………………………………………………………… 46,000
To complete beginning WIP (24,000 × 0.40)……………………………………… 9,600
Units in ending WIP (10,000 × 0.70)……………………………………………… 7,000
Total equivalent units…………………………………………………………… 62,600
Costs to account for:
Costs in beginning WIP…………………………..………………………………… $285,520
Costs added by department……………………..………………………………… 638,480
Total costs to account for……………………..………………………………… $924,000
Cost per equivalent unit ($638,480/62,600)……………………………………..…… $10.1994
Costs accounted for:
Transferred out:
Units started and completed (46,000 × $10.1994)…………………………… $469,172
Units in beginning WIP:
From prior period………………………………………..…………………… 285,520
From current period (9,600 × $10.1994)…………………..……………… 97,914
Total cost transferred out………………………………………………… $852,606
Goods in ending work in process (7,000 × $10.1994)………………………… 71,396
Total costs accounted for……………………………………………………… $924,002
* Rounded
UNIT INFORMATION
COST INFORMATION
Millie Company
(FIFO Method)
Assembly Department
Production Report
For the Month of June
*
6-26
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-64
1. a. Physical flow schedule:
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in BWIP……… 30,000 Units completed………… 480,000
Units started……… 500,000 From EWIP……………… 50,000
Total units……… 530,000 Total units…………… 530,000
b. Equivalent unit schedule:
Units completed………………………………..……………………………… 480,000
Units in ending WIP (50,000 × 0.40)…..…………………………………..… 20,000
Total equivalent units…………..………………………………………… 500,000
2. Unit cost computation:
Costs in BWIP………………..……………………………………………………… $ 270,000
Costs added……………..…………………………………………………………… 11,342,500
Total costs……………..………………………………………………………… $11,612,500
Unit Cost = $11,612,500/500,000…………..……………………………………… $23.225
3. Ending work in process (20,000 × $23.225)…………………………………… $464,500
Goods transferred out (480,000 × $23.225)……..…..………………………… $11,148,000
4. Cost reconciliation:
Costs to account for: Costs accounted for:
Beginning WIP…..……… $ 270,000 Transferred out…..…… $11,148,000
August costs…..……… 11,342,500 Ending WIP…..………… 464,500
Total to acct. for….. $11,612,500 Total to acct. for…..… $11,612,500
5. Equivalent unit schedule: Paraffin Pigment
Units completed………………..………………………………… 480,000 480,000
Units in ending WIP……………………..……………………… 20,000 20,000
Total equivalent units……………………..………………… 500,000 500,000
Unit cost computation: Paraffin Pigment
Costs in BWIP…………………………..………………………… $ 120,000 $ 100,000
Costs added……………………………..………………………… 3,250,000 2,550,000
Total costs………….……..…………………………………… $3,370,000 $2,650,000
Unit paraffin cost = $3,370,000/500,000….……………..……………………… $6.74
Unit pigment cost = $2,650,000/500,000………….…..………………………… $5.30
6-27
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-65
1. Department A
a. Physical flow schedule:
Units in beginning WIP…………..………………… 5,000
Units started in November…………..…………… 25,000
Total units to account for………..…………… 30,000
Units completed and transferred out:
Units completed………..…………………………… 28,000
Units in ending WIP……………..………………… 2,000
Total units accounted for……………..……… 30,000
b. Equivalent unit calculation:
Units completed……………..………………………………………… 28,000
Add: Equivalent units in ending WIP (2,000 × 0.80)………..…… 1,600
Total equivalent units……………………………………..……… 29,600
c. Costs charged to the department: Materials Conversion Total
Beginning WIP…………..……………… $10,000 $ 6,900 $ 16,900
Incurred during November…………..… 57,800 95,220 153,020
Total costs…………..………………… $67,800 $102,120 $169,920
Unit cost calculation:
Unit cost = $169,920/29,600………….…..…………………………… $5.7405
d. and e. Cost reconciliation:
Costs to account for:
Beginning WIP…………………………..……………………………… $ 16,900
Costs incurred…………………………………..……………………… 153,020
Total costs to account for………………..……………………… $169,920
Total costs accounted for:
Goods transferred out (28,000 × $5.7405)……..…..……………… $160,734
Costs in ending WIP (1,600 × $5.74)…………..…………………… 9,185
Total costs accounted for*…………………..…………………… $169,919
* Rounded
2.
Credit
Work in Process—Department A
Raw Materials 57,800
Work in Process—Department A
Conversion Costs—Department A 95,220
Work in Process—Department B
Work in Process—Department A 160,734
160,734
57,800
Debit
Journal
95,220
Date Description
*
*
*
6-28
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-65 (Concluded)
Answers may vary, but could (or should) include:
Using a conversion cost control account is more commonly used because direct
labor is becoming a small percentage of total manufacturing costs. Automation is
one cause; changing the nature of direct labor as in JIT is another cause. In
manufacturing cells, direct labor also performs many so-called traditional overhead
activities such as maintenance and inspection—thus, taking on the nature of
“conversion labor.”
P 6-66
1. Department A
a. Physical flow schedule:
Units in beginning WIP……………..…………………… 5,000
Units started in November………..…………………… 25,000
Total units to account for…………..……………… 30,000
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed…..……………………………… 23,000
From beginning WIP………………..…………………… 5,000
Units in ending WIP………………..…………………… 2,000
Total units accounted for…………..……………… 30,000
b. Equivalent unit calculation:
Units started and completed……..……………………………………… 23,000
Equivalent units in beginning WIP [(1 – 0.40) × 5,000]……………… 3,000
Equivalent units in ending WIP (2,000 × 0.80)………………………… 1,600
Total equivalent units…………………..……………………………… 27,600
c. Costs charged to the department: Materials Conversion Total
Beginning WIP…..…………………………… $10,000 $ 6,900 $ 16,900
Incurred during November…..…………… 57,800 95,220 153,020
Total costs…..…………………………… $67,800 $102,120 $169,920
Unit cost calculation:
Unit Cost = $153,020/27,600……………..…………………………………… $5.544
6-29
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-66 (Concluded)
d. and e. Cost reconciliation:
Costs of unit started and completed (23,000 × $5.544)……………… $127,512
Costs of unit in beginning WIP:
Prior period costs………………..……………………………………… 16,900
Current cost to finish units (3,000 × $5.54)………….………..……… 16,632
Total cost of units transferred out……..………………………… $161,044
Costs in ending WIP (1,600 × $5.54)…………………………………….. 8,870
Total costs accounted for*…………..………………………………… $169,914
Costs to account for:
Beginning WIP………………………..…………………………………… $ 16,900
Costs incurred………………………..…………………………………… 153,020
Total costs to account for……………..…………………………… $169,920
* Difference due to rounding.
2.
Debit Credit
Work in Process—Department A
Raw Materials 57,800
Work in Process—Department A
Conversion Costs—Department A 95,220
Work in Process—Department B
Work in Process—Department A 161,044
Because conversion costs are not broken into labor and overhead components,
a control account for conversion costs is used. Some firms are now combining
overhead and direct labor costs into one category. This practice is developing
because direct labor is becoming a small percentage of total manufacturing costs.
95,220
161,044
Journal
Date Description
57,800
6-30
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-67
1.
Units to account for:
Units in beginning WIP……………………………………………………… 10
Units started…………………………………………………………………… 150
Total units to account for………………………………………………… 160
Physical Equivalent
Units accounted for: Flow Units
Units completed…………………………………………… 140 140
Units in ending WIP ……………………………………… 20 10
Total units accounted for……………………………… 160 150
Costs to account for: Materials Conversion* Total
Beginning WIP……………………………… $ 252 $ 846 $ 1,098
Incurred during March……………………… 3,636 13,854 17,490
Total costs to account for……………… $3,888 $14,700 $18,588
Equivalent units…………………………………………………………………… 150
Cost per equivalent unit………………………………………………………… $123.92
* Conversion is labor plus overhead (200% of labor):
BWIP: $282 + ($282 × 2.00) = $846
March: $4,618 + ($4,618 × 2.00) = $13,854
Transferred Ending Work
Costs accounted for: Out Total
Goods transferred out
(140 × $123.92)…………………………… $17,349 — $17,349
Ending WIP (10 × $123.92)………………… $1,239 1,239
Total costs accounted for……………… $17,349 $1,239 $18,588
in Process
Benson Pharmaceuticals
Mixing Department
For the Month of March
(Weighted Average Method)
UNIT INFORMATION
COST INFORMATION
Production Report
6-31
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-67 (Continued)
2.
Units to account for:
Units in beginning WIP…………………………………………………………… 4,000
Units started………………………………………………………………………… 210,000
Total units to account for …………………………………………………… 214,000
Units accounted for: Flow Trans. In Materials Conversion
Units completed………………… 208,000 208,000 208,000 208,000
Units in ending WIP*…………… 6,000 6,000 6,000 2,400
Total units accounted for…… 214,000 214,000 214,000 210,400
* 6,000 × 0.40
Costs to account for: Trans. In Materials Total
Beginning WIP…………………… $ 140 $ 32 $ 50 $ 222
Incurred during March………… 17,349 1,573 4,860 23,782
Total costs to account for… $17,489 $1,605 $4,910 $24,004
Equivalent units………………… 214,000 214,000 210,400
Cost per equivalent unit……… $0.0817 $0.0075 $0.0233 $0.1125
** BWIP: $20 + ($20 × 1.50) = $50
March: $1,944 + ($1,944 × 1.50) = $4,860
Costs accounted for: Total
Goods transferred out
(208,000 × $0.1125)……………………………… $23,400 $23,400
Ending WIP transferred in
(6,000 × $0.0817)………………………………… 490
Materials (6,000 × $0.0075)……………………… 45
Conversion (2,400 × $0.0233)…………………… 56
Total costs accounted for…………………… $23,400 $23,991
*** Difference due to rounding.
Benson Pharmaceuticals
Encapsulating Department
For the Month of March
(Weighted Average Method)
Production Report
UNIT INFORMATION
56
45
$591
Equivalent Units
Physical
Conversion
Out
Transferred Ending Work
in Process
$490
COST INFORMATION
***
**
6-32
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-67 (Concluded)
3. Weighted average is easier to use than FIFO because it does not require separate
tracking for units in BWIP. FIFO requires that prior-period work and costs be
accounted for separately. The weighted average method commingles prior-period
work and costs with current-period work and costs, thus making the computations
much easier. The weighted average method will produce essentially the same results
as the FIFO method if the cost of inputs remains relatively unchanged from one
period to the next. If there are significant changes in costs, then the unit cost of the
two periods can be significantly different. Of course, if BWIP is very small, then the
difference in using weighted average as opposed to FIFO will be immaterial.
6-33
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-68
1.
Units to account for:
Units in beginning WIP……………… 10
Units started…………………………… 150
Total units to account for………… 160
Units accounted for:
Units started and completed………… 130 130
Units in BWIP (to complete)………… 10 6
Units in EWIP………………………… 20 10
Total units accounted for………… 160 146
* 10 × 0.60 = 6
** 20 × 0.50 = 10
Costs to account for: Total
Beginning WIP…………………………… $ 1,098
Incurred during March…………………… 17,490
Total costs to account for……………… $18,588
Equivalent units………………………………………………………………… 146
Cost per equivalent unit………………………………………………………… $119.7945
*** BWIP: $282 + ($282 × 2.00) = $846
March: $4,618 + ($4,618 × 2.00) = $13,854
Costs accounted for: Total
Units started and completed
(130 × $119.7945)……………………… — $15,573
Units in beginning WIP:
From prior period……………………… — 1,098
From current period
(6 × $119.7945)……………………… — 719
Ending work in process
(10 × $119.7945)……………………… $1,198 1,198
Total costs accounted for……… $1,198 $18,588
in Process
Benson Pharmaceuticals
Mixing Department
(FIFO Method)
COST INFORMATION
UNIT INFORMATION
For the Month of March
Physical
Flow
Transferred
Production Report
$17,390
Equivalent
Units
Ending Work
Conversion
$ 846
13,854
$14,700
Materials
$15,573
1,098
719
Out
$ 252
3,636
$3,888
***
*
**
6-34
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
P 6-68 (Concluded)
2.
Units to account for:
Units in beginning WIP…………… 4,000
Units started………………………… 210,000
Total units to account for…… 214,000
Physical
Units accounted for: Flow Trans. In Materials Conversion
Units started and completed………… 204,000 204,000 204,000 204,000
Units in BWIP (to complete)………… 4,000 — — 2,000
Units in EWIP…………………………… 6,000 6,000 6,000 2,400
Total units accounted for………… 214,000 210,000 210,000 208,400
Costs to account for: Trans. In Materials Total
Beginning WIP………………………… $ 140 $ 32 $ 50 $ 222
Incurred during March………………… 17,390 1,573 4,860 23,823
Total costs to account for………… $17,530 $1,605 $4,910 $24,045
Equivalent units……………………… 210,000 210,000 208,400
Cost per equivalent unit***…………… $0.0828 $0.0075 $0.0233 $0.1136
* BWIP: $20 + ($20 × 1.50) = $50
** March: $1,944 + ($1,944 × 1.50) = $4,860
*** The numbers are rounded and the unit costs are calculated using only costs for March
because FIFO is being used.
Ending
Costs accounted for: Work in Process Total
Units started and completed
(204,000 × $0.1136)………………… $23,174 — $23,174
Units in BWIP from prior period 222 — 222
Current period (2,000 × $0.0233)…… 47 — 47
Ending WIP:
Transferred In (6,000 × $0.0828)… — $497 497
Materials (6,000 × $0.0075)……… — 45 45
Conversion (2,400 × $0.0233)…… — 56 56
Total costs accounted for*…… $23,443 $598 $24,041
*Difference due to rounding.
Transferred
Out
Conversion
COST INFORMATION
Equivalent Units
Benson Pharmaceuticals
UNIT INFORMATION
Encapsulating Department
(FIFO Method)
For the Month of March
Production Report
*
**
6-35
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
Case 6-69
1. Unit cost computation:
Physical flow schedule:
Units, beginning work in process…………………………………………… 0
Units started…………………………………………………………………… 2,800
Total units to account for………………………………………………… 2,800
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed………………………………………………………… 2,500
From beginning work in process…………………………………………… 0
Units, ending work in process……………………………………………… 300
Total units accounted for………………………………………………… 2,800
Direct Conversion
Costs charged to the department: Materials Cost Total
Costs in BWIP………………………………… $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Costs added by department*……………… 114,000 82,201 196,201
Total costs………………………………… $114,000 $82,201 $196,201
* $45,667 + (0.80 × $45,667)
Direct Conversion
Equivalent units calculation: Materials Cost
Units completed………………………………………………… 2,500 2,500
Equivalent units in ending work in process……………… 300 240
Total equivalent units……………………………………… 2,800 2,740
Unit cost calculation:
Unit Cost = Unit Direct Materials Cost + Unit Conversion Costs
Direct material cost**………………………………………………………… $40.71
Unit conversion cost………………………………………………………… 30.00
Total unit cost……………………………………………………………… $70.71
** Rounded
2. Since conversion activity is the same for both bows, only the materials cost will
differ. Thus, the unit materials cost is computed and then added to the unit
conversion cost obtained in Requirement 1.
Econo Model
Physical flow schedule:
Units, beginning work in process…………………………………………… 0
Units started…………………………………………………………………… 1,600
Total units to account for………………………………………………… 1,600
CASES
6-36
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
Case 6-69 (Continued)
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed…………………..……………………………………… 1,500
From beginning work in process………..……………………………………… 0
Units, ending work in process…………..……………………………………… 100
Total units accounted for………………..…………………………………… 1,600
Direct materials cost charged to the department: Direct
Materials
Costs in beginning work in process……..……………………………………… $ 0
Costs added by department………………..……………………………………… 30,000
Total costs…………………………………..……………………………………… $30,000
Equivalent units calculation: Direct
Materials
Units completed……………………………..………………………………………… 1,500
Add: Equivalent units in ending work in process…………..………………… 100
Total equivalent units…………………………………………..………………… 1,600
Unit cost calculation:
Unit Cost = Unit Direct Materials Cost + Unit Conversion Costs
Direct material cost per unit………………………………..……………………… $18.75
Unit conversion cost…………………………………………..……………………… 30.00
Total unit cost………………………………………………..…………………… $48.75
Deluxe Model
Physical flow schedule:
Units, beginning work in process…………………………..………………… 0
Units started…………………………………………………..…………………… 1,200
Total units to account for…………………………………..………………… 1,200
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed……………………………………..…………………… 1,000
From beginning work in process…………………………..…………………… 0
Units, ending work in process……………………………..…………………… 200
Total units accounted for…………………………………..………………… 1,200
Direct materials cost charged to the department: Direct
Materials
Costs in beginning work in process……………………..……………………… $ 0
Costs added by department……………………………..………………………… 84,000
Total costs…………………………………………………..……………………… $84,000
6-37
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
Case 6-69 (Concluded)
Equivalent units calculation: Direct
Materials
Units completed………..…………………………………………………………… 1,000
Add: Equivalent units in ending work in process………..…………………… 200
Total equivalent units……………………………………..………………… 1,200
Unit cost calculation:
Unit Cost = Unit Direct Materials Cost + Unit Conversion Costs
Direct material cost per unit …………………………………..……………………… $ 70
Unit conversion cost…………………………………………..……………………… 30
Total unit cost…………………………………………………..…………………… $100
3. Unit cost for Econo model……………………………..……………………………… $ 48.75
Unit cost for Deluxe model…………………………..……………………………… 100.00
Unit cost for both together……………………………..……………………………… $148.75
Using pure process costing understates the cost of the Deluxe model and overstates
the cost of the Econo model.The error is large, so Karen seems to be justified in her
belief that a pure process-costing relationship is not appropriate.
Process costing could be used for all departments other than the pattern department.
The pattern procedures can be used for conversion costs, but the cost of direct
materials should be tracked by batch.
4. The profitability of the Econo line was being understated by nearly $22, while that of
the Deluxe line was overstated by over $29 producing an erroneous $51 difference
in profitability under the current process-costing system. This easily could be enough
difference to make the marketing manager’s request for additional advertising dollars
a sound one. It is quite possible that Aaron was wrong in not granting the request—
wrong because he was using the wrong cost information. This example illustrates
the importance of an accurate costing system.
6-38
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
Case 6-70
1. Physical flow schedule:
Units, beginning work in process……………………………………………… 10,000
Units started (transferred in)…………………..………………………………… 51,000
Total units to account for……………………..…………………………… 61,000
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed………………………..………………………………… 40,000
From beginning work in process……………..………………………………… 10,000
Units, ending work in process………………..………………………………… 11,000
Total units accounted for………………………..…………………………… 61,000
Costs:
Costs incurred by the gating department:
Direct materials (0.23 × $378,000)…………………………………………… $ 86,940
Direct labor (0.35 × $530,300)……………………………………………… 185,605
Overhead (0.35 × $643,518)………………………………………………… 225,231
Total costs added……………………………………………….………… $497,776
*Assumes that overhead is used in the same proportion as direct labor
Direct Conversion
Equivalent units calculation: Materials Costs
Units started and completed……………………………………… 4 0,000 40,000
Units completed from beginning work in process…………… 4,000
Add: Equivalent units in ending work in process…………… 1 1,000 6,600
Total equivalent units……………………………………….…… 51,000 50,600
Unit cost calculation:
Unit Cost = Unit Direct Materials Cost + Unit Conversion Costs
Direct material cost per unit……………………………………..………………… $1.70
Unit conversion cost*……………………………………………..………………… 8.12
Total unit cost……………………………………………………..……………… $9.82
*Rounded
Value of ending work in process:
Direct materials (11,000 × $1.70)…..…………..……………………………… $18,700
Conversion costs (6,600 × $8.12)…..…………..……………………………… 53,592
Total cost of units in ending work in process………………..………… $72,292
Assumptions: Overhead is used at the same rate as direct labor.
The FIFO method is used because the costs associated with the beginning work in
process are not known. Only the manufacturing costs added this period (20X1) are
known. Since the FIFO method requires only current output and current costs to
calculate the unit cost, it is the method that should be used. Once a cost per
equivalent unit is known, the ending work in process can be valued.
6-39
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
Case 6-70 (Continued)
2. Units, beginning work in process…………………..……………………………… 8,000
Units started (transferred in)………………………………………………………… 50,000
Total units to account for………………………………………………………… 58,000
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed…………………………………………………………… 42,000
From beginning work in process………………………………………………… 8,000
Units, ending work in process…………………………………………………… 8,000
Total units accounted for……………………………………………………… 58,000
Direct Conversion Transferred
Equivalent units calculation: Materials Costs In
Units started and completed…..…………………… 42,000 42,000 42,000
Units to complete, beginning
work in process…..………………………………… 0 6,400 0
Add: Equivalent units in ending
work in process…..………………………… 8,000 2,400 8,000
Total equivalent units…..…………………………… 50,000 50,800 50,000
Costs:
Transferred-in cost (50,000 × $9.82)*…………………………… $491,000
Costs incurred by shell creating:
Direct materials ($378,000 × 0.47)…………………………… $177,660
Direct labor ($530,300 × 0.15)………………………………… 79,545
Overhead ($643,518 × 0.15)…………………………………… 96,528
Total conversion cost……………………………………… 353,733
Total costs…………………………………………………………… $844,733
* Assumes that all units transferred out, including those finished from beginning work in process, have
a cost of $9.82 per unit. In essence, this assumes that the unit cost of this period equals the unit cost
of the prior period.
Unit Cost = Unit Direct Materials Cost + Unit Conversion Costs + Unit Tranferred-In
Cost
Unit direct materials cost* …………………………………………………………… $ 3.55
Unit conversion costs* ……………………………………………………………… 3.47
Unit transferred-in cost……………………………………………………………… 9.82
$16.84
Units, ending work in process:*
Direct materials (8,000 × $3.55)…………………………………………………… $ 28,400
Conversion costs (2,400 × $3.47)………………………………………………… 8,328
Transferred in (8,000 × $9.82)…………………………………………………… 78,560
Total cost of ending work in process……………………………………… $115,288
*Rounded
6-40
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 6 Process Costing
Case 6-70 (Concluded)
In addition to the same assumptions made for the first department, we had to assume
that the unit cost of all units transferred out was equal to the FIFO method unit cost.
This assumption holds if the cost of producing last period did not change for this
period. Even if the cost did change, the error is not likely to be large. For purposes
of estimating the value of ending work in process, the assumption is quite workable.
Case 6-71
1. Gary’s proposal requires Donna to falsify the equivalent unit calculation so that
income and assets can be inflated and reported incorrectly. Falsification of the
production report would be a violation of at least two major ethical standards:
integrity and credibility. If Donna agrees to the proposal, she would be taking action
that would discredit her profession. In addition, Donna has an ethical obligation
to communicate information fairly and objectively, disclosing all information that
would be needed for the loan officer to fairly assess the merits of the company’s
request for a loan. Clearly, Donna should not agree to falsify the production report.
2. Donna has an obligation to report Gary to a superior only if an actual ethical problem
exists. If Gary decides that the course of action he is suggesting is not really in his or
the company’s best interests, then no ethical problem exists and no action by Donna
is needed.
3. If Gary insists on his idea of falsification of the division’s reports, Donna should
attempt to resolve the conflict by appealing to Gary’s immediate supervisor (and on
up, if necessary and with the immediate supervisor’s knowledge, assuming he or
she is not involved) until a satisfactory resolution is achieved. If no satisfactory
resolution is possible, then Donna should consult her own attorney as to legal
obligations and rights concerning the ethical conflict. She may also clarify the
ethical issues by initiating a confidential discussion with an IMA Ethics Counselor.
4. In this situation, the ethical dilemma is complicated by two factors: Donna’s age
and a low likelihood of resolution by appealing to higher-level authorities. Donna’s
age may make it more difficult to find alternative employment (at least at the same
level and pay), and it may mean possible forfeiture of retirement benefits. Seeking
help from an expert in ethics and consulting a lawyer are certainly good
recommendations. Donna has the option of fighting back, and at her age (with
retirement benefits at stake), a good offense may be her best defense.
6-41
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"

ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING 5 AND MANAGEMENT

1. For plantwide rates, overhead is first collected in a plantwide pool, using direct tracing. Next, an
overhead rate is computed and used to assign overhead to products.
2. First stage: Overhead is assigned to production department pools using direct tracing, driver
tracing, and allocation. Second stage: Individual departmental rates are used to assign overhead
to products as they pass through the departments.
3. Nonunit-level overhead activities are those overhead activities that are not highly correlated with
production volume measures. Examples include setups, materials handling, and inspection.
Nonunit-based cost drivers are causal factors—factors that explain the consumption of
nonunit-level overhead. Examples include setup hours, number of moves, and hours of inspection.
4. Product diversity is present whenever products have different consumption ratios for different
overhead activities.
5. An overhead consumption ratio measures the proportion of an overhead activity consumed by
a product.
6. Activity-based product costing is an overhead costing approach that first assigns costs to
activities and then to cost objects. The assignment is made possible through the identification of
activities, their costs, and the use of cost drivers.
7. An activity dictionary is a list of activities accompanied by information that describes each
activity (called attributes).
8. Costs are assigned using direct tracing and resource drivers.
9. Activity-based customer costing can identify what it is costing to service different customers.
Once known, a firm can then devise a strategy to increase its profitability by focusing more on
profitable customers, converting unprofitable customers to profitable ones where possible, and
“firing” customers that cannot be made profitable.
10. Activity-based supplier costing traces all supplier-caused activity costs to suppliers. Often, many
costs are overlooked by traditional costing. By assigning all costs that are caused by suppliers,
a company may find that its low-cost supplier does not correspond to the one that has the
lowest purchase price.
11. Driver analysis is concerned with identifying the root causes of activity costs. Knowing the root
causes of activity costs is the key to improvement and innovation. Once a manager understands
why costs are being incurred, efforts can be taken to improve cost efficiency.
12. Value-added activities are necessary activities. Activities are necessary if they are mandated or
if they are not mandated and satisfy three conditions: (1) they cause a change of state, (2) the
change of state is not achievable by preceding activities, and (3) they enable other activities to be
performed. Value-added costs are costs caused by activities that are necessary and efficiently
executed.
ACTIVITY-BASED COSTING
5 AND MANAGEMENT
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
5-1
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
13. Nonvalue-added activities are unnecessary activities or activities that are necessary but inefficient
and improvable. An example is moving goods. Nonvalue-added costs are those costs caused by
nonvalue-added activities. An example is the cost of materials handling.
14. (1) Activity elimination—the identification and elimination of activities that fail to add value.
(2) Activity selection—the process of choosing among different sets of activities caused by
competing strategies.
(3) Activity reduction—the process of decreasing the time and resources required by an activity.
(4) Activity sharing—increasing the efficiency of necessary activities using economies of scale.
15. Cycle time is the length of time required to produce one unit of product; velocity is the number of
units that can be produced in a given period of time.
5-1. a
5-2. d
5-3. c
5-4. c
5-5. e
5-6. a
5-7. e
5-8. c $40,000 × 0.25 = $10,000
5-9. d $80,000/40,000 moves = $2 per move
5-10. a
5-11. d
5-12. b $1,200,000/1,500,000 pounds = 0.80 per pound shipped
Order of 10,000 pounds × 0.80 = $8,000 for shipping
5-13. d
5-14. a
5-15. e
5-16. e
5-17. b
5-18. c (10 hours/60 units) × 60 minutes in 1 hours = 10 minutes
5-19. a 60 units/10 hours = 6 units per hour
5-20. e
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
5-2
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
BE 5-21
1. Activity Driver
Cutting hours 0.43 0.57
Assembly hours 0.38 0.62
Inspection hours 0.28 0.72
Rework hours 0.25 0.75
a 4,000/9,400; 5,400/9,400
b 2,850/7,500; 4,650/7,500
c 945/3,375; 2,430/3,375
d 150/600; 450/600
2. There is evidence of product diversity, but it is not strong. The consumption ratios
vary from 0.25 to 0.43, revealing that the vaquero boots vary in their consumption
of the activities. However, the range is narrow and so the diversity is not great.
BE 5-22
Cutting: $225,600/9,400 = $24 per Cutting hour
Assembling: $300,000/7,500 = $40 per Assembling hour
Inspecting: $67,500/3,375 = $20 per Inspecting hour
Reworking: $45,000/600 = $75 per Reworking hour
BE 5-23
Processing transactions:
$0.20 × 12,000……………..………………
$0.20 × 7,200……………..…………………
Preparing statements:
$0.95 × 12,000……………..………………
$0.95 × 7,200……………..…………………
Answering questions:
$4.00 × 24,000……………..………………
$4.00 × 36,000……………..………………
Providing ATMs:
$1.50 × 48,000……………..………………
$1.50 × 14,400……………..………………
Total cost………………………………………
Unit cost………………………………………
BRIEF EXERCISES: SET A
$173,880
Vaquero Vaquera
Classic Gold
$181,800
Activity
11,400
96,000
72,000
$ 2,400
30,000
$ 5.80
7,500
$ 1,440
6,840
144,000
21,600
$ 24.24
÷ ÷
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
5-3
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
BE 5-24
Comparing source documents 0.25 × $500,000 = $125,000
Resolving discrepancies 0.60 × $500,000 = $300,000
Processing payment 0.15 × $500,000 = $75,000
BE 5-25
Order Filling Rate = ($1,455,127 + $970,085)/3,636 orders = $667 per order
Selling Call Rate = ($719,820 + $479,880)/900 orders = $1,333 per sales call
Large Smaller
Cost assignment: Retailer Retailers
Ordering
$667 × 36……………………….…………… $24,012
$667 × 3,600……………………….……… $2,401,200
Sales calls
$1,333 × 18……………………….………… 23,994
$1,333 × 882……………………….……… 1,175,706
Total $48,006 $3,576,906
Activity Cost Assignment
5-4
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
BE 5-26
Test Rate = $1,200,000/2,000* failed tests
= $600 per failed test
Reorder Rate = $300,000/100** reorders
= $3,000 per reorder
* (1,200 + 780 + 10 + 10)
** (60 + 40)
Using these rates and the activity data, the total purchasing cost per unit of each
component is computed as follows:
125X 30Y 125X 30Y
Purchase cost:
$10 × 120,000…………… $1,200,000
$26 × 60,000……………… $1,560,000
$12 × 15,000……………… $180,000
$28 × 15,000……………… $420,000
Testing components:
$600 × 1,200……………… 720,000
$600 × 780………………… 468,000
$600 × 10………………… 6,000
$600 × 10………………… 6,000
Reordering components:
$3,000 × 60………………… 180,000
$3,000 × 40………………… 120,000
$3,000 × 0………………… 0
$3,000 × 0………………… 0
Total $2,100,000 $2,148,000 $186,000 $426,000
÷ Units 120,000 60,000 15,000 15,000
Unit cost $ 17.50 $ 35.80 $ 12.40 $ 28.40
BE 5-27
Retesting: Nonvalue-Added Cost = $720,000. Retesting is a nonvalue-added activity,
and its value-added standard is therefore 0. All cost is waste.
Welding: $1,350,000/67,500 welding hours = $20 per welding hour
Nonvalue-Added Cost = (AQ – SQ)$20 = (67,500 – 54,000) × $20 = $270,000
BE 5-28
Velocity = 144,000 units/36,000 hours = 4 units per hour
Cycle Time = 36,000 hours/144,000 units = 0.25 hour (15 minutes)
Notice that cycle time is the inverse of velocity.
Alpha Electronics La Paz Company
5-5
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
BE 5-29
1. Activity Driver Casual Formal
Cutting hours 0.40 0.60
Sewinghours 0.30 0.70
Inspection hours 0.33 0.67
Rework hours 0.40 0.60
a 12,000/30,000; 18,000/30,000
b 3,000/10,000; 7,000/10,000
c 2,000/6,000; 4,000/6,000
d 400/1,000; 600/1,000
2. There is evidence of product diversity, but it is not strong. The consumption ratios
vary from 0.30 to 0.40, revealing that the casual shirts vary in their consumption
of the activities. However, the range is narrow and so the diversity is not great.
BE 5-30
Cutting: $90,000/30,000 = $3 per Cutting hour
Sewing $100,000/10,000 = $10 per Sewing hour
Inspecting: $36,000/6,000 = $6 per Inspecting hour
Reworking: $20,000/1,000 = $20 per Reworking hour
BE 5-31
Processing transactions:
$0.20 × 20,000……………..………………
$0.20 × 12,000……………..………………
Preparing statements:
$0.85 × 20,000……………..………………
$0.85 × 12,000……………..………………
Answering questions:
$2.00 × 40,000……………..………………
$2.00 × 60,000……………..………………
Providing ATMs:
$1.80 × 80,000……………..………………
$1.80 × 24,000……………..………………
Total cost……………………………………………
Unit cost………………………………………………
BRIEF EXERCISES: SET B
Activity Silver Premium
$ 4,000
$ 2,400
17,000
10,200
80,000
120,000
144,000
43,200
$245,000 $175,800
12,500 50,000
$ 19.60 $ 3.52
÷ ÷
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
5-6
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
BE 5-32
Activity
Unloading goods 0.25 × $440,000 = $110,000
Counting goods 0.35 × $440,000 = $154,000
Inspecting goods 0.40 × $440,000 = $176,000
BE 5-33
Order Filling Rate = ($646,400 + $161,600)/1,520 orders = $532 per order
Selling Call Rate = ($320,000 + $80,000)/824 orders = $485 per sales call
Large Smaller
Cost assignment: Retailer Retailers
Ordering
$532 × 20……………………….……………… $10,640
$532 × 1,500……………………….…………… $ 798,000
Sales calls
$485 × 8……………………….……………….… 3,880
$485 × 816……………………….……………… 395,760
Total $14,520 $1,193,760
Cost Assignment
5-7
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
BE 5-34
Test Rate = $4,500,000/7,500* failed tests
= $600 per failed test
Reorder Rate = $1,125,000/375** reorders
= $3,000 per reorder
(4,500 + 2,925 + 39 + 36)
(225 + 150)
Using these rates and the activity data, the total purchasing cost per unit of each
component is computed as follows:
#625 #827 #625 #827
Purchase cost:
$30 × 450,000…………… $13,500,000
$78 × 225,000…………… $17,550,000
$36 × 56,250……………… $2,025,000
$84 × 56,250……………… $4,725,000
Testing components:
$600 × 4,500……………… 2,700,000
$600 × 2,925……………… 1,755,000
$600 × 39………………… 23,400
$600 × 36………………… 21,600
Reordering components:
$3,000 × 225……………… 675,000
$3,000 × 150……………… 450,000
$3,000 × 0………………… 0
$3,000 × 0………………… 0
Total $16,875,000 $19,755,000 $2,048,400 $4,746,600
÷ Units 450,000 225,000 56,250 56,250
Unit cost $ 37.50 $ 87.80 $ 36.42 $ 84.38
BE 5-35
Reworking: Nonvalue-Added Cost = $740,000. Reworking is a nonvalue-added
activity, and its value-added standard is therefore 0. All cost is waste.
Purchasing: $900,000/45,000 purchasing hours = $20 per purchasing hour
Nonvalue-Added Cost = (AQ – SQ)$20 = (45,000 – 24,000) × $20 = $420,000
BE 5-36
Velocity = 40,000 units/8,000 hours = 5 units per hour
Cycle Time = 8,000 hours/40,000 units = 0.20 hour (12 minutes)
Notice that cycle time is the inverse of velocity.
Otavalo Manufacturing Piura Company
5-8
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
E 5-37
1.
Inspection hours………………………… 0.60 0.40
Setup hours……………………………… 0.70 0.30
Machine hours…………………………… 0.25 0.75
Number of moves……………………… 0.80 0.20
a 1,080/1,800; 720/1,800
b 420/600; 180/600
c 960/3,840; 2,880/3,840
d 2,880/3,600; 720/3,600
2. The consumption ratios vary significantly from driver to driver, ranging from 0.25 to
0.80 for Scented and 0.20 to 0.75 for the Regular cards. Thus, there seems to be
significant product diversity. If machine hours are used as the only driver, Scented
cards would receive 25% of the overhead, and Regular cards would receive 75% of
the overhead. Yet, the Scented cards consume well over 60% of the non-machinerelated
overhead. Thus, the Scented cards are undercosted, and the Regular cards
are overcosted. This inaccuracy can adversely affect many decisions, including
pricing, keep or drop, and cost-volume-profit.
3. Rates:
Inspecting products:
$45,000/1,800 inspection hours = $25 per inspection hour
Setting up equipment:
$28,500/600 setup hours = $47.50 per setup hour
Machining:
$30,720/3,840 machine hours = $8.00 per machine hour
Moving materials:
$16,200/3,600 moves = $4.50 per move
Note: The denominator is the total driver amount (sum of the demand of the
two products).
Cost
Hours
Cost
Rate
Scented Cards Regular Cards
EXERCISES
Rate =
Inspection Hours = = $45,000/$20 = 2,250 inspection hours
4.
a
b
c
d
a
b
c
d
5-9
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
E 5-38
1. Molding Activity Overhead Cost = $675,000 × 0.80 = $540,000
= $540,000/3,000,000 pounds
= $0.18 per pound molded
2. Decal Application Overhead Cost = $675,000 × 0.20 = $135,000
= $135,000/375,000 decals
= $0.36 per decal applied
E 5-39
= $432,000/8,000 setup hours = $54 per setup hour
= $1,440,000/9,600 oven hours = $150 per oven hour
2. Total overhead costs assigned to Fudge (ABC rates):
= (Setup Rate × Fudge Setup Hours) + (Oven Hour Rate × Fudge Oven Hours)
= ($54 × 6,400) + ($150 × 1,600) = $585,600
3. Unit overhead assigned to Fudge:
= $585,600/8,000 units = $73.20
4. Plantwide overhead rate based on oven hours:
= $1,872,000/9,600 oven hours = $195 per oven hour
5. Total overhead costs assigned to Fudge (plantwide rate):
= Plantwide Rate × Number of Oven Hours Used by Fudge
= $195 × 1,600 = $312,000
1.
=
Activity Rate =
Activity Rate =
=
Total Overhead Costs
Total Oven Hours
Other Overhead Costs
Total Oven Hours
Total Overhead Assigned to Fudge
Total Setup Hours
Number of Fudge Units
a.
b.
Molding Activity Costs
Pounds of Plastic Molded
Decal Application Activity Costs
Setup Costs
Number of Decals Applied
Activity Rate (molding) =
Activity Rate (application) =
5-10
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
E 5-39 (Concluded)
6. The difference in overhead assignment to Fudge between the two systems is due to
their different treatment of setup costs (i.e., both systems use oven hours to assign
“other overhead” costs). The total overhead assigned to Fudge under the ABC
system is much higher ($585,600) than under the nonABC system ($312,000)
because the ABC system recognizes that Fudge consumes 80% of the setup hours
(6,400/8,000) and, therefore, assigns 80% of the setup costs to Fudge. The nonABC
system assigns all overhead costs (including setup costs) using oven hours, which
results in Fudge being assigned only 16.67% (1,600/9,600 oven hours) of the setup
costs, rather than 80% (6,400/8,000 setup hours). This difference—80% versus
16.67%—results in the $273,600 ($585,600 – $312,000) difference in setup costs
assigned to Fudge under the two cost systems as shown in the following
breakdown:
(0.80 – 0.1667) × Total Setup Costs of $432,000 = 0.6333 × $432,000 = $273,600*
* Rounded
E 5-40
1. Treating patients: Normal Intensive
$4.00 × 6,400………………………..……………….…… $ 25,600
$4.00 × 8,000………………………..……………….…… $ 32,000
Providing hygienic care:
$5.00 × 4,800………………………..……………….…… 24,000
$5.00 × 17,600………………………..……………….… 88,000
Responding to requests:
$2.00 × 32,000………………………..……………….… 64,000
$2.00 × 80,000………………………..……………….… 160,000
Monitoring patients:
$3.00 × 6,000………………………..……………….…… 18,000
$3.00 × 72,000………………………..……………….… 216,000
Cost assigned………………………………………..……… $131,600 $496,000
2. Nursing cost per patient day: Normal Intensive
$131,600/8,000 patient days…………………………… $16.45
$496,000/6,400 patient days…………………………… $77.50
3. From Requirement 1, Total Nursing Cost = $131,600 + $496,000
= $627,600
Thus, using patient days (8,000 + 6,400):
Nursing Cost per Patient Day = $627,600/14,400
= $43.58
Both regular and intensive care patients would receive a charge of $43.58 per
patient day for nursing services. However, this is manifestly unfair because the
intensive care patients clearly place much greater demands on nursing services
than regular surgical patients. The ABC approach captures this difference as
demonstrated in Requirements 1 and 2.
5-11
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
E 5-41
1. Resource Unloading Counting Inspecting
Equipment……………………………………… $15,000 — $ 1,200
Fuel……………………………………………… 3,600 — —
Operating……………………………………… 1,500 — 750
Labor*…………………………………………… 60,000 $37,500 52,500
Total………………………………………… $80,100 $37,500 $54,450
*(0.40 × $150,000; 0.25 × $150,000; 0.35 × $150,000)
2. Direct tracing and driver tracing are used. When the resource is used only by one
activity, then direct tracing is possible. When the activities are shared, as in the
case of labor, then resource drivers must be used.
E 5-42
1. JIT NonJIT
Sales (in units)a………………………………………………… 525,000 525,000
Salesb…………………………………………………………… $78,750,000
Allocationc……………………………………………………… $2,625,000 $2,625,000
a Sales (in units) = Average Order Size × Sales Orders;
JIT = 750 × 700 = 525,000; NonJIT = 7,500 × 70 = 525,000
b 525,000 units × $150 = $78,750,000
c $5,250,000 × 0.50 = $2,625,000
2. Activity rates:
Ordering Rate = $3,080,000/770 sales orders = $4,000 per sales order
Selling Rate = $1,120,000/140 sales calls = $8,000 per sales call
Service Rate = $1,050,000/525 sales calls = $2,000 per sales call
JIT NonJIT
Ordering costs:
$4,000 × 700……….…………….………………………….… $2,800,000
$4,000 × 70……….…………….………………………….… $ 280,000
Selling costs:
$8,000 × 70……….…………….………………………….… 560,000
$8,000 × 70……….…………….………………………….… 560,000
Service costs:
$2,000 × 350……….…………….………………………….… 700,000
$2,000 × 175……….…………….………………………….… 350,000
Total…….…………….………………………….………… $4,060,000 $1,190,000
$78,750,000
5-12
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
E 5-42 (Concluded)
For the nonJIT distributors, the customer costs amount to $2,625,000/70 =
$37,500 per order under the original allocation. Using activity assignments, this
drops to $1,190,000/70 = $17,000 per order, a difference of $20,500 per order. For
an order of 7,500 units, the order price can be decreased by $2.73 per unit without
affecting customer profitability. Overall profitability will decrease, however, unless
the price for orders is increased to JIT distributors.
3. It sounds like the JIT buyers are switching their inventory carrying costs to
Stillwater Designs without any significant benefit to Stillwater Designs. Stillwater
Designs needs to increase prices to reflect the additional demands on customersupport
activities. Furthermore, additional price increases may be needed to
reflect the increased number of setups, purchases, and so on, that are likely
occurring inside the plant. Stillwater Designs should also immediately initiate
discussions with its JIT customers to begin negotiations for achieving some of
the benefits that a JIT supplier should have, such as long-term contracts. The
benefits of long-term contracting may offset most or all of the increased costs
from the additional demands made on other activities.
E 5-43
1. Supplier cost:
First, calculate the activity rates for assigning costs to suppliers:
Inspecting components:
$480,000/4,000 sampling hours = $120 per sampling hour
Reworking products:
$6,084,000/6,000 rework hours = $1,014 per rework hour
Warranty work:
$9,600,000/16,000 warranty hours = $600 per warranty hour
Next, calculate the cost per component by supplier:
Buckner
Manzer Inc. Company
Purchase cost:
$89 × 800,000……………………… $71,200,000
$86 × 3,200,000……………………… $275,200,000
Inspecting components:
$120 × 80…………………………… 9,600
$120 × 3,920………………………… 470,400
5-13
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
E 5-43 (Concluded)
Buckner
Company
Reworking products:
$1,014 × 360…..….………….….…………………
$1,014 × 5,640…..….………….….………………… $ 5,718,960
Warranty work:
$600 × 800…..….………….….……………………
$600 × 15,200…..….………….….………………… 9,120,000
Total supplier cost…………………………………… $290,509,360
÷ Units supplied……………………………………… 3,200,000
Unit cost………………………………………………… $ 90.78
2. Using warranty hours, the rate is $4,000,000/16,000 = $250 per warranty hour.
The cost assigned to each component would be:
Bucker
Lost sales: Company
$250 × 800…..….………….….……………………
$250 × 15,200…..….………….….………………… $3,800,000
Total……………………………………………….. $3,800,000
÷ Units supplied……………………………………… 3,200,000
Increase in unit cost……………………………… $ 1.19
3. As with product costing, accurate assignment of costs to the cost object is essential
for well-grounded decision making. Suppliers can cause a firm to perform costly
activities such as inspection, rework, and warranty work. The total cost of a
component is thus more than its purchase price. As this example shows, the
component with the higher price is actually less expensive because it causes less
demand on internal costly activities. Thus, the company would likely decrease the
purchases of the one supplier in favor of the other. It also might attempt to work
with the one supplier which is causing significant demands on internal activities to
see if the quality of its component can be increased.
Manzer Inc.
$ 0.25
$200,000
$200,000
800,000
$ 90.07
480,000
800,000
Manzer Inc.
$ 365,040
$72,054,640
5-14
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
E 5-44
Nonvalue-Added Cost
$9 per unit1
$300 per setup2
$120 per product3
$400,000 per year4
$250 per unit5
$900,000 per year6
1 (0.50 × $12) – (0.25 × $8) + [(8 – 7.5) × $10] = $9
2 (8 – 2) × $50 = $300
3 (6 – 0) × $20 = $120
4 $320,000 + (16,000 × $5) = $400,000
5 (6.5 – 6) × $500 = $250
6 As given
E 5-45
* For example, process design, product design, and quality approach or philosophy
E 5-46
Activity selection
Activity reduction
Activity elimination
Activity elimination
Activity selection
Activity sharing
E 5-47
1. Velocity = 80,000/20,000 = 4 units per hour
2. Cycle Time = 20,000/80,000 = 1/4 hour per unit = 15 minutes per unit
3. Cycle Time = 10 minutes = 10/60 = 1/6 hr. Velocity = 1/Cycle Time = 1 ÷ 1/6 = 6
units per hour
Units Produced/Production Hours = Velocity
Units Produced = Velocity × Production Hours
= 6 units per hour × 20,000 production hours
= 120,000 units
ef
Case
abc
Cost Reduction
d
Suppliers
de
Product design
Multiple*
f
abc
Plant layout
Process design
Product design
f
Root Cause
Case
abcde
Case
5-15
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
E 5-48
1. Yes. Because direct materials and direct labor are directly traceable to each
product, their cost assignment should be accurate.
2. The consumption ratios for each activity (using machine hours and setup
hours as the activity drivers) are as follows:
Elegant Fina
Machining………………… 0.10 0.90 (500/5,000 and 4,500/5,000)
Setups……………………… 0.50 0.50 (100/200 and 100/200)
3. Elegant: $1.75* × $9,000/3,000 = $5.25 per briefcase
Fina: $1.75* × $3,000/3,000 = $1.75 per briefcase
* Overhead Rate = $21,000/$12,000 = $1.75 per direct labor dollar (or 175% of direct
labor cost)
More machine and setup costs are assigned to Elegant than Fina. This is
clearly a distortion because the production of Fina is automated and uses
the machine resources much more than the handcrafted Elegant. In fact,
the consumption ratios for machining are 0.1 and 0.9 (using machine
hours as the measure of usage). Thus, Fina uses 9 times the machining
resources that Elegant does. Setup costs are similarly distorted. The
products use an equal number of setup hours. Yet, if direct labor dollars
are used, then the Elegant briefcase receives three times more machining
costs than the Fina briefcase.
4. Products tend to make different demands on overhead activities, and this
should be reflected in overhead cost assignments. Usually, this means
the use of both unit- and nonunit-level activity drivers. In this example,
there is a unit-level activity (machining) and a nonunit-level activity (setting
up equipment).
Machine rate: $18,000/5,000 = $3.60 per machine hour
Setup rate: $3,000/200 = $15 per setup hour
Costs assigned to each product: Elegant Fina
Machining:
$3.60 × 500…………………………………………… $1,800
$3.60 × 4,500………………………………………… $16,200
Setups:
$15 × 100…………………………………………… 1,500 1,500
Total……………………………………………….……… $3,300 $17,700
÷ Units………………………………………………… 3,000 3,000
Unit overhead cost……………………………….. $ 1.10 $ 5.90
5-16
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
E 5-49
1. Total overhead: $152,000 ($80,000 + $24,000 + $18,000 + $30,000)
Activity driver: Machine hours (20,000 + 20,000 = 40,000)
Rate = $152,000/40,000 = $3.80 per machine hour
Overhead assignment:
Infantry: $3.80 × 20,000 = $76,000
Special forces: $3.80 × 20,000 = $76,000
2. Consumption ratios:
Machine Receiving Packing
Hours Setups Orders Orders
Infantry……………………… 0.50 0.75 0.90 0.67
Special forces……………… 0.50 0.25 0.10 0.33
3. Activity rates:
Machining: $80,000/40,000 machine hours = $2.00 per machine hour
Setups: $24,000/400 setups = $60.00 per setup
Receiving: $18,000/1,000 receiving orders = $18.00 per receiving order
Packing: $30,000/2,400 packing orders = $12.50 per packing order
Special
4. Overhead assignment: Infantry Forces
Machining:
$2.00 × 20,000…………………………….……………… $40,000
$2.00 × 20,000…………………………….……………… $40,000
Setups:
$60.00 × 300…………………………….………………… 18,000
$60.00 × 100…………………………….………………… 6,000
Receiving:
$18.00 × 900…………………………….………………… 16,200
$18.00 × 100…………………………….………………… 1,800
Packing:
$12.50 × 1,600…………………………….……………… 20,000
$12.50 × 800…………………………….………………… 10,000
Total……………………….………………….……………… $94,200 $57,800
5. Using only machine hours undercosts the infantry product and overcosts the
special forces product. The consumption ratios reveal this before the actual
calculations are made.
Product
5-17
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
E 5-50
Activity Dictionary:
Providing nursing care
Supervising nurses Coordinating nursing Number of nurses
activities
Feeding patients Providing meals to patients Number of meals
Laundering bedding Cleaning and delivering Pounds of laundry
and clothes clothes and bedding
Providing physical Therapy treatments Hours of therapy
therapy directed by physician
Monitoring patients Using equipment to monitor Monitoring hours
patient conditions
E 5-51
1. Activity rates:
Setups = $2,000,000/500 setups = $4,000 per setup
Machining = $80,000,000/400,000 machine hours = $200 per machine hour
Engineering = $6,000,000/150,000 engineering hours = $40 per engineering hour
Packing = $100,000/500,000 packing orders = $0.20 per packing order
2. Calculation of unit product costs: Deluxe Regular
Setups:
$4,000 × 300…………………………….…… $ 1,200,000
$4,000 × 200…………………………….…… $ 800,000
Machining:
$200 × 100,000……………………………. 20,000,000
$200 × 300,000……………………………. 60,000,000
Engineering:
$40 × 50,000…………………………….…… 2,000,000
$40 × 100,000…………………………….… 4,000,000
Packing:
$0.20 × 100,000…………………………… 20,000
$0.20 × 400,000…………………………… 80,000
Total overhead……………………………… $23,220,000 $64,880,000
÷ Units………………………………………… 100,000 800,000
Overhead per unit…………………………… $ 232 $ 81
Prime cost per unit………………………… 529 483
Unit cost…………………………………… $ 761 $ 564
* Rounded
Activity Name Activity Description Activity Driver
Satisfying patient needs Nursing hours
* *
5-18
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
E 5-52
1. First, receiving is viewed as a value-added activity because the efficient level
of the activity is nonzero. Second, receiving enables other activities to be
performed. Third, there is a change of state—from a state of no materials
received to a state of materials received. Fourth, the receiving state should
not have been achieved by a prior activity. Fifth, it is a necessary activity—
one essential for the firm to remain in business.
Possible reasons for exceeding the value-added standard: suboptimal
inventory management policies, reorders due to bad parts being delivered
by suppliers, extra orders due to rework requirements, and additional
orders because the wrong types and quantities of materials were ordered.
2. Activity Rate = $630,000/72,000 orders = $8.75 per order
Value-Added Costs = $8.75 × 36,000 = $315,000
Nonvalue-Added Costs = $8.75 × 36,000 = $315,000
The practical capacity is currently 72,000 orders; thus, 36,000 orders are
unnecessary.
5-19
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-53
1. Cost before addition of duffel bags:
$60,000*/100,000 = $0.60 per unit
*$120,000/2 (costs doubled with the addition of new product)
The assignment is accurate because all costs belong to the one product.
2. Activity-based cost assignment:
Stage 1:
Activity Rate = $120,000/80,000 transactions = $1.50 per transaction
Stage 2:
Overhead applied:
Backpacks: $1.50 × 40,000* = $60,000
Duffel bags: $1.50 × 40,000 = $60,000
*80,000 transactions/2 = 40,000 (number of transactions had doubled)
Unit cost:
Backpacks: $60,000/100,000 units = $0.60 per unit
Duffel bags: $60,000/25,000 units = $2.40 per unit
3. Product cost assignment:
Overhead rates:
Patterns: $30,000/15,000 direct labor hours = $2.00 per direct labor hour
Finishing: $90,000/30,000 direct labor hours = $3.00 per direct labor hour
Unit cost computation: Backpacks Duffel Bags
Patterns:
$2.00 × 0.10…………………………………… $0.20
$2.00 × 0.20…………………………………… $0.40
Finishing:
$3.00 × 0.20…………………………………… 0.60
$3.00 × 0.40…………………………………… 1.20
Total per unit………………………………………… $0.80 $1.60
PROBLEMS
5-20
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-53 (Concluded)
4. This problem allows us to see what the accounting cost per unit should
be by providing the ability to calculate the cost with and without the duffel
bags. With this perspective, it becomes easy to see the benefits of the
activity-based approach over those of the functional-based approach. The
activity-based approach provides the same cost per unit as the singleproduct
setting. The functional-based approach used transactions to allocate
accounting costs to each producing department, and this allocation probably
reflects quite well the consumption of accounting costs by each producing
department. The problem is the second-stage allocation. Direct labor hours
do not capture the consumption pattern of the individual products as they
pass through the departments. The distortion occurs, not in using transactions
to assign accounting costs to departments, but in using direct labor hours to
assign these costs to the two products.
In a single-product environment, ABC offers no improvement in productcosting
accuracy. However, even in a single-product environment, it may be
possible to increase the accuracy of cost assignments to other cost objects
such as customers.
5-21
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-54
1. Plantwide Rate = $990,000/440,000 DLHs = $2.25 per DLH
Overhead cost per unit:
Model A: ($2.25 × 140,000)/10,000 units = $31.50
Model B: ($2.25 × 300,000)/100,000 units = $6.75
Activity rates:
Driver
Setups Production runs $270,000/100 runs = $2,700 per run
Inspections Inspection hours $210,000/2,000 hours = $105 per hour
Machining Machine hours $240,000/220,000 hours = $1.09 per hour
Maintenance Maintenance hours $270,000/100,000 hours = $2.70 per hour
2. Overhead assignment: Model A Model B
Setups:
$2,700 × 40………………………………. $108,000
$2,700 × 60………………………………. $162,000
Inspections:
$105 × 800……………………………….. 84,000
$105 × 1,200……………………………… 126,000
Machining:
$1.09 × 20,000…………………………… 21,800
$1.09 × 200,000…………………………… 218,000
Maintenance:
$2.70 × 10,000…………………………… 27,000
$2.70 × 90,000…………………………… 243,000
Total overhead…………………………… $240,800 $749,000
÷ Units produced…………………….…… 10,000 100,000
Overhead per unit……………………… $ 24.08 $ 7.49
3. Departmental rates:
Overhead cost per unit:
Model A: ($3.50 × 10,000 machine hours) + ($0.90 × 130,000 direct labor hours)
/10,000 units = $15.20
Model B: ($3.50 × 170,000 machine hours) + ($0.90 × 270,000 direct labor hours)
/100,000 units = $8.38
4. A common justification is to use machine hours for machine-intensive departments
and labor hours for labor-intensive departments. Using activity-based costs as the
standard, we can say that departmental rates decreased the accuracy of the overhead
cost assignment for both products. The departmental rates cost A well below the ABC
method while the plantwide rate costs A well above the ABC method. However, the
rates of difference are very close. Looking at it this way, departments costs are not
clearly more wrong than the plantwide rate; they are wrong in a different direction.
Activity Activity Rate
5-22
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-54 (Concluded)
Costing by method:
A B A/B Diff
ABC $24.08 $7.49 3.2
Department 15.20 8.38 1.8 –1.4
Plantwide 31.50 6.75 4.7 +1.5
P 5-55
1. Labor and gasoline are driver tracing.
Labor (0.75 × $120,000)…………………… $ 90,000 Time = Resource Driver
Gasoline ($3 × 6,000 moves)…………… 18,000 Moves = Resource Driver
Depreciation (0.75 × $16,000)…………… 12,000 Time = Resource Driver
Total cost……………………………… $120,000
2. Plantwide Rate = $600,000/20,000 direct labor hours
= $30 per DLH
Unit cost: Basic Deluxe
Prime costs $80.00 $160
Overhead:
$30 × 10,000 direct labor hours/40,000 units 7.50
$30 × 10,000 direct labor hours/20,000 units 15
$87.50 $175
3. Activity rates:
Maintenance: $114,000/4,000 = $28.50 per maintenance hour
Engineering: $120,000/6,000 = $20 per engineering hour
Materials handling: $120,000/6,000 = $20 per move
Setting up: $96,000/80 = $1,200 per setup
Purchasing: $60,000/300 = $200 per requisition
Receiving: $40,000/750 = $53.33 per order processed
Paying suppliers: $30,000/750 = $40 per invoice processed
Providing space: $20,000/10,000 = $2 per machine hour
Unit cost: Basic Deluxe
Prime costs ($80 × 40,000; $160 × 20,000)…………… $3,200,000 $3,200,000
Overhead:
Maintenance:
$28.50 × 1,000……….…………….…………………. 28,500
$28.50 × 3,000……….…………….…………………. 85,500
Engineering:
$20.00 × 1,500……….…………….…………………. 30,000
$20.00 × 4,500……….…………….…………………. 90,000
Materials handling:
$20.00 × 1,200……….…………….…………………. 24,000
$20.00 × 4,800……….…………….…………………. 96,000
5-23
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-55 (Continued)
Setting up:
$1,200 × 16……….…………….………… 19,200
$1,200 × 64……….…………….………… 76,800
Purchasing:
$200 × 100……….…………….………… 20,000
$200 × 200……….…………….………… 40,000
Receiving:
$53.33 × 250……….…………….………… 13,333
$53.33 × 500……….…………….………… 26,665
Paying suppliers:
$40 × 250……….…………….…………… 10,000
$40 × 500……….…………….…………… 20,000
Providing space:
$2 × 5,000……….…………….…………… 10,000
$2 × 5,000……….…………….…………… 10,000
Total………………………….…………….… $3,355,033 $3,644,965
÷ Units produced………….…………….… 40,000 20,000
Unit cost (ABC)…………….…………….… $ 83.88 $ 182.25
Unit cost (traditional)……….…………… $ 87.50 $ 175.00
The ABC costs are more accurate (better tracing—closer representation of actual
resource consumption). This shows that the basic model was overcosted and the
deluxe model undercosted when the plantwide overhead rate was used.
4. Consumption ratios: Basic Deluxe
Maintenance……………….…………….… 0.25 0.75
Engineering………………….……………. 0.25 0.75
Materials handling………….……………. 0.20 0.80
Setups……………………….…………….… 0.20 0.80
Purchasing………………….…………….… 0.33 0.67
Receiving…………………….……………. 0.33 0.67
Paying suppliers………….…………….… 0.33 0.67
Providing space…………….……………. 0.50 0.50
5. When products consume activities in the same proportion, the activities with the
same proportions can be combined into one pool. This is so because the pooled
costs will be assigned in the same proportion as the individual activity costs. Using
these consumption ratios as a guide, we create four pools, reducing the number of
rates from 8 to 4.
* Rounded
*
5-24
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-55 (Concluded)
Pool 1:
Maintenance…………………………………………… $114,000
Engineering……………………………………………… 120,000
Total…………………………………………………… $234,000
÷ Maintenance hours…………………………………… 4,000
Pool rate……………………………………………… $ 58.50
Note: Engineering hours could also be used as a driver. The activities are
grouped together because they have the same consumption ratios:
(0.25, 0.75).
Pool 2:
Materials handling……………………………………… $120,000
Setting up………………………………………………… 96,000
Total…………………………………………………… $216,000
÷ Number of moves…………………………………… 6,000
Pool rate……………………………………………… $ 36
Note: Materials handling and setups have the same consumption ratios:
(0.20, 0.80). The number of setups could also be used as the pool driver.
Pool 3:
Purchasing……………………………………………… $ 60,000
Receiving………………………………………………… 40,000
Paying suppliers………………………………………… 30,000
Total…………………………………………………… $130,000
÷ Orders processed…………………………………… 750
Pool rate……………………………………………… $ 173.33
Note: The three activities are all product-level activities and have the same
consumption ratios: (0.33, 0.67).
Pool 4:
Providing space………………………………………… $20,000
÷ Machine hours………………………………………… 10,000
Pool rate……………………………………………… $ 2
Note: This is the only facility-level activity.
5-25
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-56
1. The cost of supervision is computed as follows:
Salary of supervisor (direct)………………………………… $ 80,000
Salary of secretary (direct)…………………………………… 35,000
Other costs (direct)…………………………………………… 170,000
Assistants (3 × 0.75 × $60,000)……………………………… 135,000
Total…………………………………………………………… $420,000
The total cost of care is $2,700,000 plus a $70,000 share of the cost of
supervision (25/150 × $420,000). Thus, the cost per patient day is
computed as follows:
$2,770,000/10,000 = $277 per patient day
(The total cost of care divided by patient days.) Notice that every maternity
patient—regardless of type—would pay the daily rate of $277.
2. First, the cost of the secondary activity (supervision) must be assigned to
the primary activities (various nursing care activities) that consume it
(the driver is the number of nurses):
Maternity nursing care assignment:
25/150 × $420,000 = $70,000
Thus, the total cost of nursing care is $1,200,000 + $70,000 = $1,270,000.
Next, calculate the activity rates for the two primary activities:
Occupancy and feeding:
$1,500,000/10,000 = $150.00 per day
Nursing care:
$1,270,000/50,000 = $25.40 per nursing hour
Finally, the cost per patient day type can be computed:
Patient Daily Rate
Normal…………………………………… $213.50
Cesarean………………………………… $308.75
Complications………………………… $658.00
a ($150 × 7,000) + ($25.40 × 17,500)/7,000
b ($150 × 2,000) + ($25.40 × 12,500)/2,000
c ($150 × 1,000) + ($25.40 × 20,000)/1,000
This example illustrates that activity-based costing can produce significant
product-costing improvements in service organizations that experience
product diversity.
a
b
c
5-26
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-56 (Concluded)
3. The laundry department cost would increase the total cost of the maternity
department by $115,200 (240,000/1,250,000 × $600,000). This would
increase the cost per patient day by $11.52 ($115,200/10,000). The activity
approach would need more detailed information—specifically, the amount
of pounds of laundry caused by each patient type. The activity approach
will increase the accuracy of the cost assignment if patient types produce
a disproportionate share of laundry. For example, if patients with
complications produce 40% of the pounds with only 10% of the patient
days, then the $11.52 charge per day is not a fair assignment.
5-27
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-57
1. Cost per Account = $6,105,000/75,000 accounts = $81.40
Average Fee per Month = $81.40/12 months = $6.78
2. Activity rates:
Opening and closing accounts:
$300,000/30,000 accounts = $10 per account
Issuing monthly statements:
$450,000/900,000 statements = $0.50 per statement
Processing transactions:
$3,075,000/30,750,000 transactions = $0.10 per transaction
Customer inquiries:
$600,000/3,000,000 minutes = $0.20 per minute
Providing ATM services:
$1,680,000/2,400,000 transactions = $0.70 per transaction
Costs assigned: Low Medium High
Opening and closing:
$10 × 22,500………………………… $ 225,000
$10 × 4,500………………………… $ 45,000
$10 × 3,000………………………… $ 30,000
Issuing monthly statements:
$0.50 × 675,000…………………… 337,500
$0.50 × 150,000…………………… 75,000
$0.50 × 75,000……………………… 37,500
Processing transactions:
$0.10 × 27,000,000………………… 2,700,000
$0.10 × 3,000,000………………… 300,000
$0.10 × 750,000…………………… 75,000
Customer inquiries:
$0.20 × 1,500,000………………… 300,000
$0.20 × 900,000…………………… 180,000
$0.20 × 600,000…………………… 120,000
Providing ATM services:
$0.70 × 2,025,000………………… 1,417,500
$0.70 × 300,000…………………… 210,000
$0.70 × 75,000……………………… 52,500
Total cost……………………………… $4,980,000 $810,000 $315,000
Number of accounts………………… 57,000 12,000 6,000
Cost per account………………… $ 87.37 $ 67.50 $ 52.50
5-28
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-57 (Concluded)
3. Average profit per account: $90.00 – $81.40 = $8.60
ABC profit measure:
Low-balance customers………………… $80.00 – $87.37 = $(7.37)
Medium-balance customers…………… $100.00 – $67.50 = $32.50
High-balance customers………………… $165.00 – $52.50 = $112.50
4. First, calculate the profits from loans, credit cards, and other products by
customer category (using ABC data). Next, compare 50% of the cross-sales
profits from low-balance customers with the total loss from the low-balance
checking accounts. If the cross-sales profits are greater than the loss, the
president’s argument has merit.
P 5-58
1. GAAP mandates that all nonmanufacturing costs be expensed during the
period in which they are incurred. GAAP is the most likely cause of the practice.
The limitations of GAAP-produced information for cost management should be
emphasized.
The total product consists of all benefits, both tangible and intangible, that a
customer receives. One of the benefits is the order-filling service provided by
Grundvig. Thus, it can be argued that these costs should be product costs
and not assigning them to products undercosts all products. From the
information given, there are more small orders than large (100,000 orders
average 600 units); thus, these small orders consume more of the order-filling
resources. They should, therefore, receive more of the order-filling costs.
5-29
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-58 (Continued)
2. The average order-filling cost per unit produced is computed as follows:
$9,000,000/180,000,000* units = $0.05 per unit
* (600 × 100,000) + (1,000 × 60,000) + (1,500 × 40,000) = 180,000,000
Thus, order-filling costs are about 6 to 10% of the selling price, clearly not a
trivial amount.
Furthermore, the per-unit cost for individual product families can be computed
using the number of orders as the activity driver:
Activity Rate = $9,000,000/200,000 orders = $45 per order
The per-unit ordering cost for each product family can now be calculated:
Category I: $45/600 = $0.08 per unit
Category II: $45/1,000 = $0.05 per unit
Category III: $45/1,500 = $0.03 per unit
Category I, which has the smallest batches, is the most undercosted of the
three categories. Furthermore, the unit ordering cost is quite high relative to
Category I’s selling price (10 to 16% of the selling price). This suggests that
something should be done to reduce the order-filling costs.
3. With the pricing incentive feature, the average order size has been increased
to 2,000 units for all three product families. The number of orders now
processed can be calculated as follows:
Orders = [(600 × 100,000) + (1,000 × 60,000) + (1,500 × 40,000)]/2,000
= 90,000
Reduction in Orders = 200,000 – 90,000 = 110,000
Steps That Can Be Reduced = 110,000/2,000 = 55
Reduction in resource spending:
Step-fixed costs: $50,000 × 55 = $2,750,000
Variable activity costs: $20 × 110,000 = 2,200,000
$4,950,000
5-30
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-58 (Concluded)
Customers were placing smaller and more frequent orders than necessary.
They were receiving a benefit without being charged for it. By charging for
the benefit and allowing customers to decide whether the benefit is worth
the cost of providing it, Grundvig was able to reduce its costs (potentially
by shifting the cost of the service to the customers). The customers,
however, apparently did not feel that the benefit was worth paying for and
so increased order size. By increasing order size, the number of orders
decreased, decreasing the demand for the order-filling activity, allowing
Grundvig to reduce its order-filling costs. Other benefits may also be
realized. The order size affects activities such as scheduling, setups, and
materials handling. Larger orders should also decrease the demand for
these activities, and costs can be reduced even more.
Competitive advantage is created by providing the same customer value
for less cost or better value for the same or less cost. By reducing the
cost, Grundvig can increase customer value by providing a lower price
(decreasing customer sacrifice) or by providing some extra product
features without increasing the price (increasing customer realization,
holding customer sacrifice constant). This is made possible by the
decreased cost of producing and selling the bolts.
It may also be of value to note that we are discussing airplane bolt packages
that are priced at $0.50 to $0.80 each. For Category I, that means the range of
difference in inventory impact on the customer is $700 – $1,120 [$0.50 × (2,000 –
600) to $0.80 × (2,000 – 600)]. This is certainly manageable when they are
placing so many orders. It is likely the customers will also realize some
savings by placing fewer orders as the bolts are small and the carrying
cost should not be significant relative to ordering and receiving costs.
5-31
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-59
1. Supplier cost:
First, calculate the activity rates for assigning costs to suppliers:
Replacing engines:
$800,000/2,000 engines = $400 per engine
Expediting orders:
$1,000,000/200 late shipments = $5,000 per late shipment
Repairing engines:
$1,800,000/2,500 engines = $720 per engine
Next, calculate the cost per engine by supplier:
Supplier cost:
Watson Johnson
Purchase cost:
$900 × 18,000………………………….…… $16,200,000
$1,000 × 4,000………………………….…… $4,000,000
Replacing engines:
$400 × 1,980………………………….……… 792,000
$400 × 20………………………….………… 8,000
Expediting orders:
$5,000 × 198………………………………… 990,000
$5,000 × 2………..…………………………… 10,000
Repairing engines:
$720 × 2,440………………………………… 1,756,800
$720 × 60………………………………..…… 43,200
Total supplier cost…………………………… $19,738,800 $4,061,200
÷ Units supplied……………………….……… 18,000 4,000
Unit cost…………………………………… $ 1,096.60 $ 1,015.30
The Johnson engine costs less when the full supplier effects are considered.
This is a better assessment of cost because it considers the costs that are
caused by the supplier due to poor quality, poor reliability, and poor delivery
performance.
2. In the short run, buy 20,000 from Johnson and 2,000 from Watson. In the
long run, one possibility is to encourage Watson to increase its quality
and maintain purchases from both sources (lowers source risk by having
two suppliers).
5-32
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-60
1. Activity-based management is a system-wide, integrated approach that focuses
management’s attention on activities. It involves two dimensions: a cost dimension
and a process dimension. Key elements in activity management are identifying
activities, assessing their value, and retaining only value-adding activities. The
consultant identified the activities but did not formally classify the activities as
value-added or nonvalue-added. Nor did the consultant offer any suggestions
for increasing efficiency—at least not formally. The consultant apparently had
tentatively identified potential savings through eliminating nonvalue-added
activities. Management must still decide how to reduce, eliminate, share, and
select activities to achieve cost reductions.
2. Setting up equipment……………………………… $125,000
Materials handling………………………………… 180,000
Inspecting products……………………………… 122,000
Handling customer complaints………………… 100,000
Filling warranties…………………………………… 170,000
Storing goods……………………………………… 80,000
Expediting goods…………………………………… 75,000
Total……………………………………………… $852,000
5-33
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-60 (Continued)
Units produced and sold………………………………… 120,000 *
Potential unit cost reduction……………………………… $7.10 **
* $1,920,000/$16 (Total Cost/Unit Cost)
** $852,000/120,000 = $7.10
The consultant’s estimate of cost reduction was on target. Per-unit costs
can be reduced by at least $7, and further reductions may be possible if
improvements in value-added activities are possible.
We have identified $7.10 per unit of potential cost reduction. We don’t know
for sure that costs can actually be reduced that much, and, if they can, what
the cost of doing that would be. For example, eliminating materials handling
generally involves a change in layout, which costs money (additional fixed
cost and depreciation). Setups are often the result of design changes or
improvements to the circuit boards, and, if they go to automation, that involves
reprogramming the machine rather than simply telling the worker to make
a change. They are currently making $2 per unit profit. If they can get a cost
reduction of at least $4 per unit, they can maintain current sales and profit
levels at a $14 price. Any additional cost savings contributes to profit. If
they can achieve at least a $5.34 cost savings, they can maintain their current
total profit at the increased volume. Any savings over those amounts is
more profit than they are making currently.
3. Unit cost to maintain sales = $14 – $4 = $10
Unit cost to expand sales = $12 – $4 = $8
Current cost = $16
Cost reduction to maintain = $16 – $10 = $6
Cost reduction to expand = $16 – $8 = $8
4. Total potential reduction:
$ 852,000 (from Requirement 2)
150,000 (by automating)
$1,002,000
÷ Units………………………………… 120,000
Unit savings………………………… $ 8.35
Costs can be reduced by at least $7, enabling the company to maintain
current market share. Further, if all the nonvalue-added costs are eliminated,
then the cost reduction needed to increase market share is also possible.
See also the discussion of profitability provided in Requirement 2. Activity
selection is the form of activity management used here.
5-34
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-60 (Concluded)
5. Current:
Sales………………………………………… $ 2,160,000 ($18 × 120,000 units)
Costs………………………………………… (1,920,000)
Income…………………………………… $ 240,000
$14 price: (assumes that current market share is maintained):
Sales………………………………………… $1,680,000 ($14 × 120,000 units)
Costs………………………………………… (918,000) ($7.65 × 120,000 units)
Income…………………………………… $ 762,000
$12 price:
Sales………………………………………… $ 2,160,000 ($12 × 180,000 units)
Costs………………………………………… (1,377,000) ($7.65 × 180,000 units)
Income…………………………………… $ 783,000
* $16.00 – $8.35 = $7.65
The $12 price produces the greatest benefit.
P 5-61
1. Nonvalue-added usage and costs, 20X1:
Nonvalue Usage Nonvalue Cost
AQ* VAQ** AQ – VAQ (AQ – VAQ)SP
Materials……… 600,000 480,000 120,000 $ 600,000
Engineering…… 48,000 27,840 20,160 604,800
$1,204,800
* 1.25 × 6 × 80,000 = 600,000
** (4 × 6,000) + (10 × 2,400) = 48,000
(AQ for engineering represents the actual practical capacity acquired.)
*** 6 × 80,000 = 480,000
**** (0.58 × 24,000) + (0.58 × 24,000) = 27,840
Note: VAQ = Value-Added Quantity; SP = Price of Activity Quantity; SP for materials
is $5; SP for engineering is $30 (24 × $60,000)/48,000.
2. Expected values for the coming year (20X2):
Materials: EQ = 480,000 + 0.60(120,000) = 552,000 pounds
Engineering: EQ = 27,840 + 0.60(20,160) = 39,936 engineering hours
Excess
Nonvalue Usage
AQ EQ* AQ – EQ
Materials……… 584,800 552,000 32,800 $164,000 U
Engineering…… 35,400 39,936 (4,536) 136,080 F
* For engineering, the expected value is a measure of how much resource usage is needed (this year),
and so progress is measured by comparing with actual usage, not activity availability.
Excess
Nonvalue Cost
(AQ – EQ)SP
***
** ****
*
5-35
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
P 5-61 (Concluded)
The company failed to meet the materials standard but beat the engineering
standard. The engineering outcome is of particular interest. The actual usage
of the engineering resource is 35,400 hours, and activity availability is 48,000.
Thus, the company has created 12,600 hours of unused engineering capacity.
Each engineer brings a capacity of 2,000 hours. Since engineers come in
whole units, the company now has six too many! Thus, to realize the savings
for the engineering activity, the company must decide how to best use these
available resources. One possibility is to simply lay off six engineers, thereby
increasing total profits by the salaries saved ($360,000). Other possibilities
include reassignment to activities that have insufficient resources (assuming
they could use engineers, e.g., perhaps new product development could use
six engineers). The critical point is that resource usage reductions must be
converted into reductions in resource spending, or the efforts have been in
vain.
P 5-62
1. Theoretical Velocity = 90,000/12,000 hours = 7.5 telescopes per hour
Theoretical Cycle Time = 60/7.5 telescopes = 8 minutes per telescope
2. Actual Velocity = 75,000/12,000 hours = 6.25 telescopes per hour
Actual Cycle Time = 60/6.25 telescopes = 9.6 minutes
3. Budgeted Conversion Costs = $7,500,000/(12,000 × 60)
= $10.42 per minute
Theoretical Conversion Costs per Telescope = $10.42 × 8 = $83.36
Actual Conversion Costs per Telescope = $10.42 × 9.6 = $100.03
Yes. By reducing cycle time, the cost per unit can be reduced. The potential
reduction is as follows:
$100.03 – $83.36 = $16.67 per telescope
5-36
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
Case 5-63
1. Shipping and warehousing costs are currently assigned using tons of paper
produced, a unit-based measure. Many of these costs, however, are not driven by
quantity produced. Many products have special handling and shipping requirements
involving extra costs. These costs should not be assigned to those products that
are shipped directly to customers.
2. The new method proposes assigning the costs of shipping and warehousing
separately for the low-volume products. To do so requires three cost assignments:
receiving, shipping, and carrying. The cost drivers for each cost are tons processed,
items shipped, and tons sold.
Pool rate, receiving costs:
= $19.64 per ton processed
Pool rate, shipping costs:
Shipping Cost per Shipping Item = $2,300,000/190,000 shipping items
= $12.11 per shipping item
Pool rate, carrying cost (an opportunity cost):
Carrying Cost per Year (LLHC) = 25 × $1,665 × 0.16
= $6,660
Carrying Cost per Ton Sold = $6,660/10 = $666
Shipping and warehousing cost per ton sold:
Receiving………………………………… $ 19.64
Shipping ($12.11 × 7)…………………… 84.77
Carrying…………………………………… 666.00
Total……………………………………… $770.41
Receiving Cost
Tons Processed
CASES
= $1,100,000/56,000 tons
5-37
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
Case 5-63 (Concluded)
3. Profit analysis:
Revised profit per ton (LLHC):
Selling price………………………………………………………………… $2,400.00
Less manufacturing cost………………………………………………… 1,665.00
Gross profit………………………………………………………………… $ 735.00
Less shipping and warehousing………………………………………… 770.41
Loss………………………………………………………………………… $ (35.41)
Original profit per ton:
Selling price………………………………………………………………… $2,400.00
Less manufacturing cost………………………………………………… 1,665.00
Gross profit………………………………………………………………… $ 735.00
Less shipping and warehousing………………………………………… 30.00
Profit………………………………………………………………………… $ 705.00
The revised profit, reflecting a more accurate assignment of shipping and
warehousing costs, presents a much different picture of LLHC. The product is,
in reality, losing money for the company. Its earlier apparent profitability was
attributable to a subsidy being received from the high-volume products (by
spreading the special shipping and handling costs over all products, using
tons produced as the cost driver). The same effect is also true for the other
low-volume products. Essentially, the system is understating the handling
costs for low-volume products and overstating the cost for high-volume
products.
4. The decision to drop some high-volume products and emphasize low-volume
products could clearly be erroneous. As LLHC has demonstrated, its apparent
profitability is attributable to distorted cost assignments. A significant change in
the image of LLHC was achieved by simply improving the accuracy of shipping
and handling costs. Further improvements in accuracy in the overhead
assignments may cause the view of LLHC to deteriorate even more. Conversely,
the profitability of high-volume products may improve significantly with increased
costing accuracy. This example underscores the importance of having accurate
and reliable accounting information. The accounting system must bear the
responsibility of providing reliable information.
5. Ryan’s strategy changed because his information concerning the individual
products changed. Apparently, the accounting system was undercosting the
low-volume products and overcosting the high-volume products. Once better
information was available, Ryan was able to respond better to competitive
conditions.
5-38
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
CHAPTER 5 Activity-Based Costing and Management
Case 5-64
1. Disagree. Chuck is expressing an uninformed opinion. He has not spent the
effort to find out exactly what activity-based management and costing are
attempting to do; therefore, he has no real ability to offer any constructive
criticism of the possible benefits of these two approaches.
2. and 3.
At first glance, it may seem strange to even ask if Chuck’s behavior is unethical.
After all, what is unethical about expressing an opinion, albeit uninformed? While
offering uninformed opinions or recommendations may be of little consequence
in many settings, a serious issue arises when a person’s expertise is relied upon
by others to make decisions or take actions that could be wrong or harmful to
themselves or their organizations. This very well may be the case for Chuck’s
setting, and his behavior may be labeled professionally unethical.
Chuck’s lack of knowledge about activity-based systems is a signal of his
failure to maintain his professional competence. Standard I-1 of the IMA Statement
of Ethical Professional Practice indicates that management accountants have a
responsibility to continually develop their knowledge and skills. Failure to do so
is unethical.
5-39
© 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

What Students Are Saying About Us

.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but splendidwritings.com proved they are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"

.......... Customer ID: 14***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"The company has some nice prices and good content. I ordered a term paper here and got a very good one. I'll keep ordering from this website."

"Order a Custom Paper on Similar Assignment! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount"