Solutions For Homework Accounting 311 Cost

Solutions for Homework ** Accounting 311 Cost **
CHAPTER 1
1-1 Management accounting measures, analyzes and reports financial and nonfinancial
information that helps managers make decisions to fulfill the goals of an organization. It focuses on
internal reporting and is not restricted by generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
Financial accounting focuses on reporting to external parties such as investors, government
agencies, and banks. It measures and records business transactions and provides financial statements
that are based on generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
Other differences include (1) management accounting emphasizes the future (not the past),
and (2) management accounting influences the behavior of managers and other employees (rather
than primarily reporting economic events).
1-2 Financial accounting is constrained by generally accepted accounting principles.
Management accounting is not restricted to these principles. The result is that:
management accounting allows managers to charge interest on owners capital to help
judge a divisions performance, even though such a charge is not allowed under GAAP,
management accounting can include assets or liabilities (such as brand names developed
internally) not recognized under GAAP, and
management accounting can use asset or liability measurement rules (such as present
values or resale prices) not permitted under GAAP.
1-5 Supply chain describes the flow of goods, services, and information from the initial sources
of materials and services to the delivery of products to consumers, regardless of whether those
activities occur in the same organization or in other organizations.
Cost management is most effective when it integrates and coordinates activities across all
companies in the supply chain as well as across each business function in an individual companys
value chain. Attempts are made to restructure all cost areas to be more cost-effective.
1-14 The Institute of Management Accountants (IMA) sets standards of ethical conduct for
management accountants in the following areas:
Competence
Confidentiality
Integrity
Credibility
Managerial Cost Accounting (Acctg. 311) Homework solutions 1
1-29 (3040 min.) Professional ethics and end-of-year actions.
1. The possible motivations for the snack foods division wanting to take end-of-year actions
include:
(a) Management incentives. Gourmet Foods may have a division bonus scheme based on
one-year reported division earnings. Efforts to front-end revenue into the current year or
transfer costs into the next year can increase this bonus.
(b) Promotion opportunities and job security. Top management of Gourmet Foods likely will
view those division managers that deliver high reported earnings growth rates as being
the best prospects for promotion. Division managers who deliver unwelcome surprises
may be viewed as less capable.
(c) Retain division autonomy. If top management of Gourmet Foods adopts a management
by exception approach, divisions that report sharp reductions in their earnings growth
rates may attract a sizable increase in top management supervision.
2. The Standards of Ethical Conduct . . . require management accountants to
Perform professional duties in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and technical
standards.
Refrain from engaging in any conduct that would prejudice carrying out duties ethically.
Communicate information fairly and objectively.
Several of the end-of-year actions clearly are in conflict with these requirements and should be
viewed as unacceptable by Taylor.
(b) The fiscal year-end should be closed on midnight of December 31. Extending the close
falsely reports next years sales as this years sales.
(c) Altering shipping dates is falsification of the accounting reports.
(f) Advertisements run in December should be charged to the current year. The advertising
agency is facilitating falsification of the accounting records.
The other end-of-year actions occur in many organizations and fall into the gray to acceptable
area. However, much depends on the circumstances surrounding each one, such as the following:
(a) If the independent contractor does not do maintenance work in December, there is no
transaction regarding maintenance to record. The responsibility for ensuring that
packaging equipment is well maintained is that of the plant manager. The division
controller probably can do little more than observe the absence of a December
maintenance charge.
(d) In many organizations, sales are heavily concentrated in the final weeks of the fiscal
year-end. If the double bonus is approved by the division marketing manager, the
division controller can do little more than observe the extra bonus paid in December.
(e) If TV spots are reduced in December, the advertising cost in December will be reduced.
There is no record falsification here.
(g) Much depends on the means of persuading carriers to accept the merchandise. For
example, if an under-the-table payment is involved, or if carriers are pressured to accept
merchandise, it is clearly unethical. If, however, the carrier receives no extra
consideration and willingly agrees to accept the assignment because it sees potential sales
opportunities in December, the transaction appears ethical.
Each of the (a), (d), (e), and (g) end-of-year actions may well disadvantage Gourmet Foods in the
long run. For example, lack of routine maintenance may lead to subsequent equipment failure. The
divisional controller is well advised to raise such issues in meetings with the division president.
However, if Gourmet Foods has a rigid set of line/staff distinctions, the division president is the one
who bears primary responsibility for justifying division actions to senior corporate officers.
3. If Taylor believes that Ryan wants her to engage in unethical behavior, she should first
directly raise her concerns with Ryan. If Ryan is unwilling to change his request, Taylor should
discuss her concerns with the Corporate Controller of Gourmet Foods. She could also initiate a
confidential discussion with an IMA Ethics Counselor, other impartial adviser, or her own attorney.
Taylor also may well ask for a transfer from the snack foods division if she perceives Ryan is
unwilling to listen to pressure brought by the Corporate Controller, CFO, or even President of
Gourmet Foods. In the extreme, she may want to resign if the corporate culture of Gourmet Foods is
to reward division managers who take end-of-year actions that Taylor views as unethical and
possibly illegal. It was precisely actions along the lines of (b), (c), and (f) that caused Betty Vinson,
an accountant at WorldCom to be indicted for falsifying WorldComs books and misleading
investors.
CHAPTER 2
2.4 Factors affecting the classification of a cost as direct or indirect include
the materiality of the cost in question,
available information-gathering technology,
design of operations
2.10 Manufacturing companies typically have one or more of the following three types of
inventory:
1. Direct materials inventory. Direct materials in stock and awaiting use in the
manufacturing process.
2. Work-in-process inventory. Goods partially worked on but not yet completed. Also
called work in progress.
3. Finished goods inventory. Goods completed but not yet sold.
2-20 (1520 min.) Classification of costs, manufacturing sector.
Cost object: Type of car assembled (Corolla or Geo Prism)
Cost variability: With respect to changes in the number of cars assembled
There may be some debate over classifications of individual items, especially with regard to
cost variability.
Cost Item D or I V or F
A D V
B I F
C D F
D D F
E D V
F I V
G D V
H I F
2-22 (1520 min.) Variable costs and fixed costs.
1. Variable cost per ton of beach sand mined
Subcontractor $ 80 per ton
Government tax 50 per ton
Total $130 per ton
Fixed costs per month
0 to 100 tons of capacity per day = $150,000
2.
T
o
t
a
l
F
i
x
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
$450, 000
$300, 000
$150, 000
100 200 300
Tons of Capacity per Day
$975,000
$650,000
$325,000
2,500 5,000 7,500
Tons Mined
T
o
t
a
l
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
C
o
s
t
s

The concept of relevant range is potentially relevant for both graphs. However, the question does not
place restrictions on the unit variable costs. The relevant range for the total fixed costs is from 0 to
100 tons; 101 to 200 tons; 201 to 300 tons, and so on. Within these ranges, the total fixed costs do
not change in total.
3.
Tons
Mined
per Day
Tons
Mined
per Month
Fixed Unit
Cost per Ton
Variable
Unit
Cost per
Ton
Total Unit
Cost per
Ton
(1) (2) = (1)
25
(3) = FC (2) (4) (5) = (3) +
(4)
(a) 180 4,500 $300,000 4,500 =
$66.67
$130 $196.67
(b) 220 5,500 $450,000 5,500 =
$81.82
$130 $211.82
The unit cost for 220 tons mined per day is $211.82, while for 180 tons it is only $196.67. This
difference is caused by the fixed cost increment from 101 to 200 tons being spread over an
increment of 80 tons, while the fixed cost increment from 201 to 300 tons is spread over an
increment of only 20 tons.
2-23 (20 min.) Variable costs, fixed costs, relevant range.
1. Since the production capacity is 4,000 jaw breakers per month, the current annual relevant range
of output is 0 to 4,000 jaw breakers 12 months = 0 to 48,000 jaw breakers.
2. Current annual fixed manufacturing costs within the relevant range are $1,000 12 = $12,000 for
rent and other overhead costs, plus $6,000 10 = $600 for depreciation, totaling $12,600.
The variable costs, the materials, are 10 cents per jaw breaker, or $3,600 ($0.10 per jaw breaker
3,000 jaw breakers per month 12 months) for the year.
3. If demand changes from 3,000 to 6,000 jaw breakers per month, or from 3,000 12 = 36,000 to
6,000 12 = 72,000 jaw breakers per year, Yumball will need a second machine. Assuming
Yumball buys a second machine identical to the first machine, it will increase capacity from 4,000
jaw breakers per month to 8,000. The annual relevant range will be between 4,000 12 = 48,000
and 8,000 12 = 96,000 jaw breakers.
Assume the second machine costs $6,000 and is depreciated using straight-line depreciation over
10 years and zero residual value, just like the first machine. This will add $600 of depreciation per
year.
Fixed costs for next year will increase to $13,200, $12,600 from the current year + $600 (because
rent and other fixed overhead costs will remain the same at $12,000). That is, total fixed costs for
next year equal $600 (depreciation on first machine) + $600 (depreciation on second machine) +
$12,000 (rent and other fixed overhead costs).
The variable cost per jaw breaker next year will be 90% $0.10 = $0.09. Total variable costs
equal $0.09 per jaw breaker 72,000 jaw breakers = $6,480.
2-28 (2030 min.) Inventoriable costs versus period costs.
1. Manufacturing-sector companies purchase materials and components and convert them into
different finished goods.
Merchandising-sector companies purchase and then sell tangible products without changing
their basic form.
Service-sector companies provide services or intangible products to their customersfor
example, legal advice or audits.
Only manufacturing and merchandising companies have inventories of goods for sale.
2. Inventoriable costs are all costs of a product that are regarded as an asset when they are
incurred and then become cost of goods sold when the product is sold. These costs for a
manufacturing company are included in work-in-process and finished goods inventory (they are
inventoried) to build up the costs of creating these assets.
Period costs are all costs in the income statement other than cost of goods sold. These costs
are treated as expenses of the period in which they are incurred because they are presumed not to
benefit future periods (or because there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that such benefit
exists). Expensing these costs immediately best matches expenses to revenues.
3. (a) Mineral water purchased for resale by Safewayinventoriable cost of a merchandising
company. It becomes part of cost of goods sold when the mineral water is sold.
(b) Electricity used at GE assembly plantinventoriable cost of a manufacturing company.
It is part of the manufacturing overhead that is included in the manufacturing cost of a refrigerator
finished good.
(c) Depreciation on Googles computer equipmentperiod cost of a service company.
Google has no inventory of goods for sale and, hence, no inventoriable cost.
(d) Electricity for Safeways store aislesperiod cost of a merchandising company. It is a
cost that benefits the current period and it is not traceable to goods purchased for resale.
(e) Depreciation on GEs assembly testing equipmentinventoriable cost of a
manufacturing company. It is part of the manufacturing overhead that is included in the
manufacturing cost of a refrigerator finished good.
(f) Salaries of Safeways marketing personnelperiod cost of a merchandising company. It
is a cost that is not traceable to goods purchased for resale. It is presumed not to benefit future
periods (or at least not to have sufficiently reliable evidence to estimate such future benefits).
(g) Bottled water consumed by Googles engineersperiod cost of a service company.
Google has no inventory of goods for sale and, hence, no inventoriable cost.
(h) Salaries of Googles marketing personnelperiod cost of a service company. Google has
no inventory of goods for sale and, hence, no inventoriable cost.
2-29 (20 min.) Flow of Inventoriable Costs.
(All numbers below are in millions).
1.
Direct materials inventory 8/1/2008 $ 90
Direct materials purchased 360
Direct materials available for production 450
Direct materials used 375
Direct materials inventory 8/31/2008 $ 75
2.
Total manufacturing overhead costs $ 480
Subtract: Variable manufacturing overhead costs (250)
Fixed manufacturing overhead costs for August $ 230
3.
Total manufacturing costs $ 1,600
Subtract: Direct materials used (from requirement 1) (375)
Total manufacturing overhead costs (480)
Direct manufacturing labor costs for August $ 745
4.
Work-in-process inventory 8/1/2008 $ 200
Total manufacturing costs 1,600
Work-in-process available for production 1,800
Subtract: Cost of goods manufactured (moved into FG) (1,650)
Work-in-process inventory 8/31/2008 $ 150
5.
Finished goods inventory 8/1/2008 $ 125
Cost of goods manufactured (moved from WIP) 1,650
Finished goods available for sale in August $ 1,775
6.
Finished goods available for sale in August (from requirement 5) $ 1,775
Subtract: Cost of goods sold (1,700)
Finished goods inventory 8/31/2008 $ 75
2-30 (20 min.) Computing cost of goods purchased and cost of goods sold.
(1) Marvin Department Store
Schedule of Cost of Goods Purchased
For the Year Ended December 31, 2008
(in thousands)
Purchases $155,000
Add transportation-in 7,000
162,000
Deduct:
Purchase return and allowances $4,000
Purchase discounts 6,000 10,000
Cost of goods purchased $152,000
(2) Marvin Department Store
Schedule of Cost of Goods Sold
For the Year Ended December 31, 2008
(in thousands)
Beginning merchandise inventory 1/1/2008 $ 27,000
Cost of goods purchased (above) 152,000
Cost of goods available for sale 179,000
Ending merchandise inventory 12/31/2008 34,000
Cost of goods sold $145,000
2-32 (2530 min.) Income statement and schedule of cost of goods manufactured.
Howell Corporation
Income Statement for the Year Ended December 31, 2009
(in millions)
Revenues $950
Cost of goods sold:
Beginning finished goods, Jan. 1, 2009 $ 70
Cost of goods manufactured (below) 645
Cost of goods available for sale 715
Ending finished goods, Dec. 31, 2009 55 660
Gross margin 290
Marketing, distribution, and customer-service costs 240
Operating income $ 50
Howell Corporation
Schedule of Cost of Goods Manufactured
for the Year Ended December 31, 2009
(in millions)
Direct materials costs:
Beginning inventory, Jan. 1, 2009 $ 15
Purchases of direct materials 325
Cost of direct materials available for use 340
Ending inventory, Dec. 31, 2009 20
Direct materials used $320
Direct manufacturing labor costs 100
Indirect manufacturing costs:
Indirect manufacturing labor 60
Plant supplies used 10
Plant utilities 30
Depreciationplant and equipment 80
Plant supervisory salaries 5
Miscellaneous plant overhead 35 220
Manufacturing costs incurred during 2009 640
Add beginning work-in-process inventory, Jan. 1, 2009 10
Total manufacturing costs to account for 650
Deduct ending work-in-process, Dec. 31, 2009 5
Cost of goods manufactured $645
2-33 (1520 min.) Interpretation of statements (continuation of 2-32).
1. The schedule in 2-32 can become a Schedule of Cost of Goods Manufactured and Sold
simply by including the beginning and ending finished goods inventory figures in the supporting
schedule, rather than directly in the body of the income statement. Note that the term cost of goods
manufactured refers to the cost of goods brought to completion (finished) during the accounting
period, whether they were started before or during the current accounting period. Some of the
manufacturing costs incurred are held back as costs of the ending work in process; similarly, the
costs of the beginning work in process inventory become a part of the cost of goods manufactured
for 2009.
2. The sales managers salary would be charged as a marketing cost as incurred by both
manufacturing and merchandising companies. It is basically an operating cost that appears below the
gross margin line on an income statement. In contrast, an assemblers wages would be assigned to
the products worked on. Thus, the wages cost would be charged to Work-in-Process and would not
be expensed until the product is transferred through Finished Goods Inventory to Cost of Goods Sold
as the product is sold.
3. The direct-indirect distinction can be resolved only with respect to a particular cost object.
For example, in defense contracting, the cost object may be defined as a contract. Then, a plant
supervisor working only on that contract will have his or her salary charged directly and wholly to
that single contract.
4. Direct materials used = $320,000,000 1,000,000 units = $320 per unit
Depreciation on plant equipment = $80,000,000 1,000,000 units = $80 per unit
5. Direct materials unit cost would be unchanged at $320 per unit. Depreciation cost per unit
would be $80,000,000 1,200,000 = $66.67 per unit. Total direct materials costs would rise by 20%
to $384,000,000 ($320 per unit 1,200,000 units), whereas total depreciation would be unaffected at
$80,000,000.
6. Unit costs are averages, and they must be interpreted with caution. The $320 direct materials
unit cost is valid for predicting total costs because direct materials is a variable cost; total direct
materials costs indeed change as output levels change. However, fixed costs like depreciation must
be interpreted quite differently from variable costs. A common error in cost analysis is to regard all
unit costs as oneas if all the total costs to which they are related are variable costs. Changes in
output levels (the denominator) will affect total variable costs, but not total fixed costs. Graphs of
the two costs may clarify this point; it is safer to think in terms of total costs rather than in terms of
unit costs.
2-36 (20 min.) Labor cost, overtime and idle time.
1.(a) Total cost of hours worked at regular rates
42 hours 12 per hour $ 504.00
42 hours 12 per hour 504.00
2,004.00
Minus idle time (5.2 hours $12 per hour) 62.40
Direct manufacturing labor costs $1,941.60
(b) Idle time = 5.2 hours 12 per hour =
(c) Overtime and holiday premium.
$62.40
Week 1: Overtime (42-40) hours Premium, $6 per hour $ 12.00
Week 2: Overtime (42-40) hours Premium, $6 per hour 12.00
Week 3: Overtime (43-40) hours Premium, $6 per hour 18.00
Week 4: Holiday 8 hours Premium, $12 per hour 96.00
Total overtime and holiday premium $138.00
(d) Total earnings in May
Direct manufacturing labor costs $1,941.60
Idle time 62.40
Overtime and holiday premium 138.00
Total earnings $2,142.00
2. Idle time caused by equipment breakdowns and scheduling mixups is an indirect cost of the job
because it is not related to a specific job.
Overtime premium caused by the heavy overall volume of work is also an indirect cost
because it is not related to a particular job that happened to be worked on during the overtime hours.
If, however, the overtime is the result of a demanding rush job, the overtime premium is a direct
cost of that job.
2-37 (3040 min.) Fire loss, computing inventory costs.
1. Finished goods inventory, 2/26/2009 = $50,000
2. Work-in-process inventory, 2/26/2009 = $28,000
3. Direct materials inventory, 2/26/2009 = $62,000
This problem is not as easy as it first appears. These answers are obtained by working from the
known figures to the unknowns in the schedule below. The basic relationships between categories of
costs are:
Prime costs (given) = $294,000
Direct materials used = $294,000 Direct manufacturing labor costs
= $294,000 $180,000 = $114,000
Conversion costs = Direct manufacturing labor costs 0.6
$180,000 0.6 = $300,000
Indirect manuf. costs = $300,000 $180,000 = $120,000 (or 0.40 $300,000)
Schedule of Computations
Direct materials, 1/1/2009 $ 16,000
Direct materials purchased 160,000
Direct materials available for use 176,000
Direct materials, 2/26/2009 3 = 62,000
Direct materials used ($294,000 $180,000) 114,000
Direct manufacturing labor costs 180,000
Prime costs 294,000
Indirect manufacturing costs 120,000
Manufacturing costs incurred during the current period 414,000
Add work in process, 1/1/2009 34,000
Manufacturing costs to account for 448,000
Deduct work in process, 2/26/2009 2 = 28,000
Cost of goods manufactured 420,000
Add finished goods, 1/1/2009 30,000
Cost of goods available for sale (given) 450,000
Deduct finished goods, 2/26/2009 1 = 50,000
Cost of goods sold (80% of $500,000) $400,000
Some students may wish to place the key amounts in a Work in Process T-account. This problem can
be used to introduce students to the flow of costs through the general ledger (amounts in thousands):

Work in Process Finished Goods
Cost of
Goods Sold
BI 34 BI 30
DM used 114 COGM 420 -------> 420 COGS 400 ---->400
DL 180
OH 120 Available
To account for 448 for sale 450
EI 28 EI 50
CHAPTER 3
3-8 An increase in the income tax rate does not affect the breakeven point. Operating income at
the breakeven point is zero, and no income taxes are paid at this point.
3-16 (10 min.) CVP computations.
Variable Fixed Total Operating Contribution Contribution
Revenues Costs Costs Costs Income Margin Margin %
a. $2,000 $ 500 $300 $ 800 $1,200 $1,500 75.0%
b. 2,000 1,500 300 1,800 200 500 25.0%
c. 1,000 700 300 1,000 0 300 30.0%
d. 1,500 900 300 1,200 300 600 40.0%
3-17 (1015 min.) CVP computations.
1a. Sales ($30 per unit 200,000 units) $6,000,000
Variable costs ($25 per unit 200,000 units) 5,000,000
Contribution margin $1,000,000
1b. Contribution margin (from above) $1,000,000
Fixed costs 800,000
Operating income $ 200,000
2a. Sales (from above) $6,000,000
Variable costs ($16 per unit 200,000 units) 3,200,000
Contribution margin $2,800,000
2b. Contribution margin $2,800,000
Fixed costs 2,400,000
3. Operating income is expected to increase by $200,000 if Ms. Schoenens proposal is accepted.
The management would consider other factors before making the final decision. It is likely
that product quality would improve as a result of using state of the art equipment. Due to increased
automation, probably many workers will have to be laid off. Patels management will have to
consider the impact of such an action on employee morale. In addition, the proposal increases the
companys fixed costs dramatically. This will increase the companys operating leverage and risk.
3-23 (30min.) CVPanalysis,sensitivityanalysis.
1. SP = $30.00 (1 0.30 margin to bookstore)
= $30.00 0.70 = $21.00
VCU = $ 4.00 variable production and marketing cost
3.15 variable author royalty cost (0.15 $21.00)
$ 7.15
CMU = $21.00 $7.15 = $13.85 per copy
FC = $ 500,000 fixed production and marketing cost
3,000,000 up-front payment to Washington
$3,500,000
Solution Exhibit 3-23A shows the PV graph.
SOLUTION EXHIBIT 3-23A
PV Graph for Media Publishers
100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000
0

Units sold
O
p e
r a t
i n
g
i n
c o
m
e
( 0
0 0
s )
$3.5 million
252,708 units
FC = $3,500,000
CMU = $13.85 per book sold
$4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-1,000
-2,000
-3,000
-4,000
2a.
=
CMU
FC
=
$13.85
$3,500,000
= 252,708 copies sold (rounded up)
2b. Target OI =
CMU
OI FC+
=
$13.85
$2,000,000 $3,500,000 +
=
$13.85
$5,500,000
3a. Decreasing the normal bookstore margin to 20% of the listed bookstore price of $30 has the
following effects:
SP = $30.00 (1 0.20)
= $30.00 0.80 = $24.00
VCU = $ 4.00 variable production and marketing cost
+ 3 .60 variable author royalty cost (0.15 $24.00)
$ 7 .60
CMU = $24.00 $7.60 = $16.40 per copy
=
CMU
FC
=
$16.40
$3,500,000
The breakeven point decreases from 252,708 copies in requirement 2 to 213,415 copies.
3b. Increasing the listed bookstore price to $40 while keeping the bookstore margin at 30% has
the following effects:
SP =$40.00 (1 0.30)
= $40.00 0.70 = $28.00
VCU =$ 4.00 variable production and marketing cost
+ 4 .20 variable author royalty cost (0.15 $28.00)
$ 8 .20
CMU= $28.00 $8.20 = $19.80 per copy
=
$19.80
$3,500,000
The breakeven point decreases from 252,708 copies in requirement 2 to 176,768 copies.
3c. The answers to requirements 3a and 3b decrease the breakeven point relative to that in
requirement 2 because in each case fixed costs remain the same at $3,500,000 while the contribution
margin per unit increases.
3-24 (10 min.) CVP analysis, margin of safety.
1. Breakeven point revenues =
percentage margin on Contributi
costs Fixed
Contribution margin percentage =
$600,000
$1,500,000
= 0.40 or
40%
2. Contribution margin percentage =
price Selling
unit per cost Variable price Selling
0.40 =
SP $15
SP
0.40 SP = SP $15
0.60 SP = $15
SP = $25
3. Breakeven sales in units = Revenues Selling price = $1,500,000 $25 = 60,000 units
Margin of safety in units = sales in units Breakeven sales in units
= 80,000 60,000 = 20,000 units

Revenues, 80,000 units $25 $2,000,000
Breakeven revenues 1,500,000
Margin of safety $ 500,000
3-25 (25 min.) Operating leverage.
1a. Let Q denote the quantity of carpets sold
Breakeven point under Option 1
$500Q $350Q = $5,000
$150Q = $5,000
Q = $5,000 $150 = 34 carpets (rounded up)
1b. Breakeven point under Option 2
$500Q $350Q (0.10 $500Q) = 0
100Q = 0
Q = 0
2. Operating income under Option 1 = $150Q $5,000
Operating income under Option 2 = $100Q
Find Q such that $150Q $5,000 = $100Q
$50Q = $5,000
Q = $5,000 $50 = 100 carpets
Revenues = $500 100 carpets = $50,000
For Q = 100 carpets, operating income under both Option 1 and Option 2 = $10,000
For Q > 100, say, 101 carpets,
Option 1 gives operating income = ($150 101) $5,000 = $10,150
Option 2 gives operating income = $100 101 = $10,100
So Color Rugs will prefer Option 1.
For Q < 100, say, 99 carpets,
Option 1 gives operating income = ($150 99) $5,000 = $9,850
Option 2 gives operating income = $100 99 = $9,900
So Color Rugs will prefer Option 2.
3. Degree of operating leverage =
income Operating
margin on Contributi
Under Option 1, degree of operating leverage =
$10,000
100 $150
= 1.5
Under Option 2, degree of operating leverage =
$10,000
100 $100
= 1.0
4. The calculations in requirement 3 indicate that when sales are 100 units, a percentage change
in sales and contribution margin will result in 1.5 times that percentage change in operating income
for Option 1, but the same percentage change in operating income for Option 2. The degree of
operating leverage at a given level of sales helps managers calculate the effect of fluctuations in
sales on operating incomes.
3-35 (2025 min.) CVP analysis.
1. Selling price
$16.00
Variable costs per unit:
Purchase price $10.00
Shipping and handling 2.00
12.00
Contribution margin per unit (CMU) $ 4.00
Breakeven point in units =
unit per margin Contr.
costs Fixed
=
$4.00
$600,000
= 150,000
units
Margin of safety (units) = 200,000 150,000 = 50,000 units
2. Since Galaxy is operating above the breakeven point, any incremental
contribution margin will increase operating income dollar for dollar.
Increase in units sales = 10% 200,000 = 20,000
Incremental contribution margin = $4 20,000 = $80,000
Therefore, the increase in operating income will be equal to $80,000.
Galaxys operating income in 2008 would be $200,000 + $80,000 = $280,000.
3. Selling price $16.00
Variable costs:
Purchase price $10 130% $13.00
Shipping and handling 2.00
15.00
Contribution margin per unit
$ 1.00
Target sales in units =
CMU
TOI FC+
=
$1
$200,000 $600,000 +
= 800,000 units
Target sales in dollars = $16 800,000 = $12,800,000
3-47 (20 min.) Gross margin and contribution margin.
1. Ticket sales ($20
500 attendees) $10,000

Variable cost of dinner ($10
a
500 attendees) $5,000

Variable invitations and paperwork ($1
b

500) 500 5,500

Contribution margin 4,500
Fixed cost of dinner 6,000
Fixed cost of invitations and paperwork 2,500 8,500
Operating profit (loss) $ (4,000)
a
$5,000/500 attendees = $10/attendee
b
$500/500 attendees = $1/attendee
2. Ticket sales ($20
1,000 attendees) $20,000

Variable cost of dinner ($10
1,000 attendees) $10,000

Variable invitations and paperwork ($1
1,000) 1,000 11,000

Contribution margin 9,000
Fixed cost of dinner 6,000
Fixed cost of invitations and paperwork 2,500 8,500
Operating profit (loss) $ 500
3-48 (30 min.) Ethics, CVP analysis.
1. Contribution margin percentage =
Revenues osts
Revenues
Variable c
=
$5, , $3, , 000 000 000 000
$5,000,000
=
$5,000,000
$2,000,000
= 40%
Breakeven revenues =
costs Fixed
=
0.40
$2,160,000
= $5,400,000
2. If variable costs are 52% of revenues, contribution margin percentage equals 48% (100%
52%)
Breakeven revenues =
costs Fixed
=
0.48
$2,160,000
= $4,500,000
3. Revenues $5,000,000
Variable costs (0.52 $5,000,000) 2,600,000
Fixed costs 2,160,000
4. Incorrect reporting of environmental costs with the goal of continuing operations is unethical.
In assessing the situation, the specific Standards of Ethical Conduct for Management Accountants
(described in Exhibit 1-7) that the management accountant should consider are listed below.
Competence
Clear reports using relevant and reliable information should be prepared. Preparing reports on the
basis of incorrect environmental costs to make the companys performance look better than it is
violates competence standards. It is unethical for Bush not to report environmental costs to make the
plants performance look good.

Integrity
The management accountant has a responsibility to avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest and
advise all appropriate parties of any potential conflict. Bush may be tempted to report lower
environmental costs to please Lemond and Woodall and save the jobs of his colleagues. This action,
however, violates the responsibility for integrity. The Standards of Ethical Conduct require the
management accountant to communicate favorable as well as unfavorable information.
Credibility
The management accountants Standards of Ethical Conduct require that information should be
fairly and objectively communicated and that all relevant information should be disclosed. From a
management accountants standpoint, underreporting environmental costs to make performance look
good would violate the standard of objectivity.
Bush should indicate to Lemond that estimates of environmental costs and liabilities should be
included in the analysis. If Lemond still insists on modifying the numbers and reporting lower
environmental costs, Bush should raise the matter with one of Lemonds superiors. If after taking all
these steps, there is continued pressure to understate environmental costs, Bush should consider
resigning from the company and not engage in unethical behavior.
CHAPTER 10
10-1 The two assumptions are
1. Variations in the level of a single activity (the cost driver) explain the variations in the related
total costs.
2. Cost behavior is approximated by a linear cost function within the relevant range. A linear
cost function is a cost function where, within the relevant range, the graph of total costs
versus the level of a single activity forms a straight line.
10-17 (15 min.) Identifying variable-, fixed-, and mixed-cost functions.
1. See Solution Exhibit 10-17.
2. Contract 1: y = $50
Contract 2: y = $30 + $0.20X
Contract 3: y = $1X
where X is the number of miles traveled in the day.
3. Contract Cost Function
1
2
3
Fixed
Mixed
Variable
SOLUTION EXHIBIT 10-17
Plots of Car Rental Contracts Offered by Pacific Corp.

10-18 (20 min.) Various cost-behavior patterns.
1. K
2. B
3. G
4. J Note that A is incorrect because, although the cost per pound eventually equals a
constant at $9.20, the total dollars of cost increases linearly from that point
onward.
5. I The total costs will be the same regardless of the volume level.
6. L
7. F This is a classic step-cost function.
8. K
9. C
10-19 (30 min.) Matching graphs with descriptions of cost and revenue behavior.

a. (1)
b. (6) A step-cost function.
c. (9)
d. (2)
e. (8)
f. (10) It is data plotted on a scatter diagram, showing a linear variable cost function with
constant variance of residuals. The constant variance of residuals implies that
there is a uniform dispersion of the data points about the regression line.
g. (3)
h. (8)
10-20 (15 min.) Account analysis method.
1. Variable costs:
Car wash labor $260,000
Soap, cloth, and supplies 42,000
Water 38,000
Electric power to move conveyor belt 72,000
Total variable costs $412,000
Fixed costs:
Depreciation $ 64,000
Salaries 46,000
Total fixed costs $110,000
Some costs are classified as variable because the total costs in these categories change in proportion
to the number of cars washed in Lorenzos operation. Some costs are classified as fixed because the
total costs in these categories do not vary with the number of cars washed. If the conveyor belt
moves regardless of the number of cars on it, the electricity costs to power the conveyor belt would
be a fixed cost.
2. Variable costs per car =
$412,000
80,000
= $5.15 per car
Total costs estimated for 90,000 cars = $110,000 + ($5.15 90,000) = $573,500
10-23 (1520 min.) Estimating a cost function, high-low method.
1. The key point to note is that the problem provides high-low values of X (annual round trips
made by a helicopter) and Y
X (the operating cost per round trip). We first need to calculate the
annual operating cost Y (as in column (3) below), and then use those values to estimate the function
using the high-low method.
Cost Driver:
Annual Round-
Trips (X)
Operating
Cost per
Round-Trip
Annual
Operating
Cost (Y)
(1) (2) (3) = (1)
(2)
Highest observation of cost driver 2,000 $300 $600,000
Lowest observation of cost driver 1,000 $350 $350,000
Difference 1,000 $250,000

Slope coefficient = $250,000
1,000 = $250 per round-trip

Constant = $600,000 ($250
2,000) = $100,000
The estimated relationship is Y = $100,000 + $250 X; where Y is the annual operating cost of a
helicopter and X represents the number of round trips it makes annually.

2. The constant a (estimated as $100,000) represents the fixed costs of operating a helicopter,
irrespective of the number of round trips it makes. This would include items such as insurance,
registration, depreciation on the aircraft, and any fixed component of pilot and crew salaries. The
coefficient b (estimated as $250 per round-trip) represents the variable cost of each round tripcosts
that are incurred only when a helicopter actually flies a round trip. The coefficient b may include
costs such as landing fees, fuel, refreshments, baggage handling, and any regulatory fees paid on a
per-flight basis.
3. If each helicopter is, on average, expected to make 1,200 round trips a year, we can use the
estimated relationship to calculate the expected annual operating cost per helicopter:
Y = $100,000 + $250 X
X = 1,200
Y = $100,000 + $250
1,200 = $100,000 + $300,000 = $400,000

With 10 helicopters in its fleet, Reisens estimated operating budget is 10
$400,000 = $4,000,000.
10-39 (30min.) Multiple regression (continuation of 10-38).
1. Solution Exhibit 10-39 presents the regression output for setup costs using both number of setups
and number of setup-hours as independent variables (cost drivers).
Regression Output for Multiple Regression for Setup Costs Using Both Number of Setups and
Number of Setup-Hours as Independent Variables (Cost Drivers)
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.925940474
R Square 0.857365762
Adjusted R Square 0.809821016
Standard Error 14391.67909
Observations 9
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 2 7469930038 3734965019 18.03282 0.002901826
Residual 6 1242722562 207120427
Total 8 8712652600
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept -3894.83189 20831.39503 -0.1869693 0.857847 -54867.41916 47077.7554 -54867.41916 47077.75538
Number of Setups 60.8402738 132.0202547 0.46084045 0.661144 -262.2016515 383.882199 -262.2016515 383.8821991
Number of Setup-Hours 53.29936621 11.3948941 4.67747798 0.003405 25.41706486 81.1816676 25.41706486 81.18166757
2.
Economic
plausibility
A positive relationship between setup costs and each of the independent
variables (number of setups and number of setup-hours)
is economically plausible.
Goodness of fit r
2
= 86%, Adjusted r
2
= 81%
Standard error of regression =$14,392
Excellent goodness of fit.
Significance of
Independent
Variables
The t-value of 0.46 for number of setups is not significant at the 0.05 level.
The t-value of 4.68 for number of setup-hours is significant at the 0.05
level.
Specification
analysis of
estimation
assumptions
Assuming linearity, constant variance, and normality of residuals, the
Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.36 suggests the residuals are independent.
However, we must be cautious when drawing inferences from only 9
observations.
3. Multicollinearity is an issue that can arise with multiple regression but not simple regression
analysis. Multicollinearity means that the independent variables are highly correlated.
The correlation feature in Excels Data Analysis reveals a coefficient of correlation of
0.56 between number of setups and number of setup-hours. Since the correlation is less than
0.70, the multiple regression does not suffer from multicollinearity problems.
4. The simple regression model using the number of setup-hours as the independent variable
achieves a comparable r
2
to the multiple regression model. However, the multiple regression
model includes an insignificant independent variable, number of setups. Adding this variable
does not improve Williams ability to better estimate setup costs. Bebe should use the simple
regression model with number of setup-hours as the independent variable to estimate costs.
CHAPTER 11
11-23 (10 min.) Selection of most profitable product.
Only Model 14 should be produced. The key to this problem is the relationship of manufacturing
overhead to each product. Note that it takes twice as long to produce Model 9; machine-hours for
Model 9 are twice that for Model 14. Management should choose the product mix that
maximizes operating income for a given production capacity (the scarce resource in this
situation). In this case, Model 14 will yield a $9.50 contribution to fixed costs per machine hour,
and Model 9 will yield $9.00:
Model 9 Model 14
Selling price
Variable costs per unit (total cost FMOH)
Contribution margin per unit
Relative use of machine-hours per unit of product
Contribution margin per machine hour
$100.00
82.00
$ 18.00
2
$ 9.00
$70.00
60.50
$ 9.50
1
$ 9.50
11-28 (30 min.) Equipment upgrade versus replacement.
1. Based on the analysis in the table below, TechMech will be better off by $180,000 over
three years if it replaces the current equipment.
Over 3 years Difference
Comparing Relevant Costs of Upgrade and Upgrade Replace in favor of Replace
Replace Alternatives (1) (2) (3) = (1) (2)
Cash operating costs
$140; $80 per desk 6,000 desks per yr. 3 yrs. $2,520,000 $1,440,000 $1,080,000
Current disposal price (600,000) 600,000
One time capital costs, written off periodically as
depreciation 2,700,000 4,200,000 (1,500,000)
Total relevant costs $5,220,000 $5,040,000 $ 180,000
Note that the book value of the current machine ($900,000) would either be written off as
depreciation over three years under the upgrade option, or, all at once in the current year under
the replace option. Its net effect would be the same in both alternatives: to increase costs by
$900,000 over three years, hence it is irrelevant in this analysis.
2. Suppose the capital expenditure to replace the equipment is $X. From requirement 1,
column (2), substituting for the one-time capital cost of replacement, the relevant cost of
replacing is $1,440,000 $600,000 + $X. From column (1), the relevant cost of upgrading is
$5,220,000. We want to find X such that
$1,440,000 $600,000 + $X < $5,220,000 (i.e., TechMech will favor replacing)
Solving the above inequality gives us X < $5,220,000 $840,000 = $4,380,000.
TechMech would prefer to replace, rather than upgrade, if the replacement cost of the new
equipment does not exceed $4,380,000. Note that this result can also be obtained by taking the
original replacement cost of $4,200,000 and adding to it the $180,000 difference in favor of
replacement calculated in requirement 1.
3. Suppose the units produced and sold over 3 years equal y. Using data from requirement
1, column (1), the relevant cost of upgrade would be $140y + $2,700,000, and from column (2),
the relevant cost of replacing the equipment would be $80y $600,000 + $4,200,000.
TechMech would want to upgrade if
$140y + $2,700,000 < $80y $600,000 + $4,200,000
$60y < $900,000
y < $900,000
$60 = 15,000 units

or upgrade when y < 15,000 units (or 5,000 per year for 3 years) and replace when y > 15,000
units over 3 years.
When production and sales volume is low (less than 5,000 per year), the higher operating
costs under the upgrade option are more than offset by the savings in capital costs from
upgrading. When production and sales volume is high, the higher capital costs of replacement are
more than offset by the savings in operating costs in the replace option.
4. Operating income for the first year under the upgrade and replace alternatives are shown
below:
Year 1
Upgrade Replace
(1) (2)
Revenues (6,000
$500)
$3,000,00
0
$3,000,00
0
Cash operating costs
$140; $80 per desk
6,000 desks per year 840,000 480,000

Depreciation ($900,000
a
+ $2,700,000)
3; $4,200,000
3 1,200,000 1,400,000
Loss on disposal of old equipment (0; $900,000 $600,000)

0
300,00
0
Total costs
2,040,00
0
2,180,00
0
Operating Income
$
960,000
$
820,000
a
The book value of the current production equipment is $1,500,000
5 = $900,000; it
has a remaining useful life of 3 years.
First-year operating income is higher by $140,000 under the upgrade alternative, and Dan Doria,
with his one-year horizon and operating income-based bonus, will choose the upgrade
alternative, even though, as seen in requirement 1, the replace alternative is better in the long run
for TechMech. This exercise illustrates the possible conflict between the decision model and the
performance evaluation model.
11-31 (30 min.) Relevant costs, opportunity costs.
1. Easyspread 2.0 has a higher relevant operating income than Easyspread 1.0. Based on this
analysis, Easyspread 2.0 should be introduced immediately:
Easyspread 1.0 Easyspread 2.0
Relevant revenues $160 $195
Relevant costs:
Manuals, diskettes, compact discs $ 0 $30
Total relevant costs 0 30
Relevant operating income $160 $165
Reasons for other cost items being irrelevant are:
Easyspread 1.0
Manuals, diskettesalready incurred
Development costsalready incurred
Marketing and administrativefixed costs of period
Easyspread 2.0
Development costsalready incurred
Marketing and administrationfixed costs of period
Note that total marketing and administration costs will not change whether Easyspread 2.0 is
introduced on July 1, 2009, or on October 1, 2009.
2 2. Other factors to be considered:
a. Customer satisfaction. If 2.0 is significantly better than 1.0 for its customers, a
customer driven organization would immediately introduce it unless other factors
offset this bias towards do what is best for the customer.
b. Quality level of Easyspread 2.0. It is critical for
new software products to be fully debugged. Easyspread 2.0 must be error-free.
Consider an immediate release only if 2.0 passes all quality tests and can be fully
supported by the salesforce.
c. Importance of being perceived to be a market
leader. Being first in the market with a new product can give Basil Software a first-
mover advantage, e.g., capturing an initial large share of the market that, in itself,
causes future potential customers to lean towards purchasing Easyspread 2.0.
Moreover, by introducing 2.0 earlier, Basil can get quick feedback from users about
ways to further refine the software while its competitors are still working on their
own first versions. Moreover, by locking in early customers, Basil may increase the
likelihood of these customers also buying future upgrades of Easyspread 2.0.
d. Morale of developers. These are key people at
Basil Software. Delaying introduction of a new product can hurt their morale,
especially if a competitor then preempts Basil from being viewed as a market leader.
11-34 (3540 min.) Dropping a product line, selling more units.
1. The incremental revenue losses and incremental savings in cost by discontinuing the
Tables product line follows:
Difference:
Incremental
(Loss in Revenues)
and Savings in Costs
from Dropping
Tables Line
Revenues
Direct materials and direct manufacturing labor
Depreciation on equipment
Marketing and distribution
General administration
Corporate office costs
Total costs
Operating income (loss)
$(500,000 )
300,000
0
70,000
0
0
370,000
$(130,000 )
Dropping the Tables product line results in revenue losses of $500,000 and cost savings of
$370,000. Hence, Grossman Corporations operating income will be $130,000 lower if it
drops the Tables line.
Note that, by dropping the Tables product line, Home Furnishings will save none of the
depreciation on equipment, general administration costs, and corporate office costs, but it
will save variable manufacturing costs and all marketing and distribution costs on the
Tables product line.
2. Grossmans will generate incremental operating income of $128,000 from selling 4,000
additional tables and, hence, should try to increase table sales. The calculations follow:
Incremental Revenues
(Costs) and Operating Income
Revenues $500,000
Direct materials and direct manufacturing labor (300,000)
Cost of equipment written off as depreciation (42,000)
*
Marketing and distribution costs (30,000)
General administration costs 0

**
Corporate office costs 0
**
Operating income $128,000
*
Note that the additional costs of equipment are relevant future costs for the selling more tables decision because
they represent incremental future costs that differ between the alternatives of selling and not selling additional
tables.
Current marketing and distribution costs which varies with number of shipments = $70,000
$40,000 = $30,000. As the sales of tables double, the number of shipments will double, resulting
in incremental marketing and distribution costs of (2 $30,000) $30,000 = $30,000.
**
General administration and corporate office costs will be unaffected if Grossman decides to sell more tables.
Hence, these costs are irrelevant for the decision.
3.Solution Exhibit 11-34, Column 1, presents the relevant loss of revenues and the relevant
savings in costs from closing the Northern Division. As the calculations show, Grossmans
operating income would decrease by $140,000 if it shut down the Northern Division (loss in
revenues of $1,500,000 versus savings in costs of $1,360,000).
Grossman will save variable manufacturing costs, marketing and distribution costs, and division
general administration costs by closing the Northern Division but equipment-related depreciation
and corporate office allocations are irrelevant to the decision. Equipment-related costs are
irrelevant because they are past costs (and the equipment has zero disposal price). Corporate
office costs are irrelevant because Grossman will not save any actual corporate office costs by
closing the Northern Division. The corporate office costs that used to be allocated to the
Northern Division will be allocated to other divisions.
4. Solution Exhibit 11-34, Column 2, presents the relevant revenues and relevant costs of
opening the Southern Division (a division whose revenues and costs are expected to be identical
to the revenues and costs of the Northern Division). Grossman should open the Southern
Division because it would increase operating income by $40,000 (increase in relevant revenues
of $1,500,000 and increase in relevant costs of $1,460,000). The relevant costs include direct
materials, direct manufacturing labor, marketing and distribution, equipment, and division
general administration costs but not corporate office costs. Note, in particular, that the cost of
equipment written off as depreciation is relevant because it is an expected future cost that
Grossman will incur only if it opens the Southern Division. Corporate office costs are irrelevant
because actual corporate office costs will not change if Grossman opens the Southern Division.
The current corporate staff will be able to oversee the Southern Divisions operations. Grossman
will allocate some corporate office costs to the Southern Division but this allocation represents
corporate office costs that are already currently being allocated to some other division. Because
actual total corporate office costs do not change, they are irrelevant to the division.
Relevant-Revenue and Relevant-Cost Analysis for Closing Northern Division and Opening
Southern Division
(Loss in Revenues)
and Savings in
Costs from Closing
Northern Division
(1)
Incremental
Revenues and
(Incremental Costs)
from Opening
Southern Division
(2)
Revenues $(1,500,000 ) $1,500,000
Variable direct materials and direct
manufacturing labor costs 825,000 (825,000)
Equipment cost written off as depreciation 0 (100,000)
Marketing and distribution costs 205,000 (205,000)
Division general administration costs 330,000 (330,000)
Corporate office costs 0 0
Total costs 1,360,000 (1,460,000 )
Effect on operating income (loss) $ (140,000 ) $ 40,000
11-35 (3040 min.) Make or buy, unknown level of volume.
1. The variable costs required to manufacture 150,000 starter assemblies are
Direct materials $200,000
Direct manufacturing labor 150,000
Variable manufacturing overhead 100,000
Total variable costs $450,000
The variable costs per unit are $450,000 150,000 = $3.00 per unit.
Let X = number of starter assemblies required in the next 12 months.
The data can be presented in both all data and relevant data formats:
All Data Relevant Data
Alternative
1:
Make
Alternative
2:
Buy
Alternative
1:
Make
Alternative
2: Buy
Variable manufacturing costs
Fixed general manufacturing overhead
Fixed overhead, avoidable
Division 2 managers salary
Division 3 managers salary
Purchase cost, if bought from
Tidnish Electronics
Total
$ 3X
150,000
100,000
40,000
50,000

$340,000
+ $ 3X
$150,000
50,000
4X
$200,000
+ $ 4X
$ 3X
100,000
40,000
50,000

$190,000
+ $ 3X

$50,000
4X
$50,000
+ $ 4X
The number of units at which the costs of make and buy are equivalent is
All data analysis: $340,000 + $3X = $200,000 + $4X
X = 140,000
or
Relevant data analysis: $190,000 + $3X = $50,000 + $4X
X = 140,000
Assuming cost minimization is the objective, then
If production is expected to be less than 140,000 units, it is preferable to buy units
from Tidnish.
If production is expected to exceed 140,000 units, it is preferable to manufacture
internally (make) the units.
If production is expected to be 140,000 units, Oxford should be indifferent between
buying units from Tidnish and manufacturing (making) the units internally.
2. The information on the storage cost, which is avoidable if self-manufacture is
discontinued, is relevant; these storage charges represent current outlays that are avoidable if
self-manufacture is discontinued. Assume these $50,000 charges are represented as an
opportunity cost of the make alternative. The costs of internal manufacture that incorporate this
$50,000 opportunity cost are
All data analysis: $390,000 + $3X
Relevant data analysis: $240,000 + $3X
The number of units at which the costs of make and buy are equivalent is
All data analysis: $390,000 + $3X = $200,000 + $4X
X = 190,000
Relevant data analysis: $240,000 + $3X = $50,000 + $4X
X = 190,000
If production is expected to be less than 190,000, it is preferable to buy units from Tidnish. If
production is expected to exceed 190,000, it is preferable to manufacture the units internally.
CHAPTER 4
4.16 (10 min) Job order costing, process costing.
a. Job costing l. Job costing
b. Process costing m. Process costing
c. Job costing n. Job costing
d. Process costing o. Job costing
e. Job costing p. Job costing
f. Process costing q. Job costing
g. Job costing r. Process costing
h. Job costing (but some process costing) s. Job costing
i. Process costing t. Process costing
j. Process costing u. Job costing
k. Job costing
4-21 (2025 min.) Job costing, consulting firm.
1. Budgeted indirect-cost rate = $13,000,000 $5,000,000 = 260% of professional labor costs
2. At the budgeted revenues of $20,000,000, Taylors operating income of $2,000,000 equals
10% of revenues.
Markup rate = $20,000,000 $5,000,000 = 400% of direct professional labor costs
3. Budgeted costs
Direct costs:
Director, $200 3 $ 600
Partner, $100 16 1,600
Associate, $50 40 2,000
Assistant, $30 160 4,800 $ 9,000
Indirect costs:
Consulting support, 260% $9,000 23,400
Total costs $32,400
As calculated in requirement 2, the bid price to earn a 10% income-to-revenue margin is 400%
of direct professional costs. Therefore, Taylor should bid 4 $9,000 = $36,000 for the Red
Rooster job.
Bid price to earn target operating income-to-revenue margin of 10% can also be
calculated as follows:
Let R = revenue to earn target income
R 0.10R = $32,400
0.90R = $32,400
R = $32,400 0.90 = $36,000
Managerial Cost Accounting (Acctg. 311) Homework solutions
COST
ALLOCATION
BASE
}
}
}
Consulting
Support
Consulting
Support
COST OBJECT:
JOB FOR
CONSULTING
CLIENT
DIRECT
COSTS
}
Indirect Costs
Direct Costs
INDIRECT
COST
POOL
Professional
Labor Costs
Professional
Labor Costs
Professional
Labor
Client
Support
35
or, Direct costs $ 9,000
Indirect costs 23,400
Operating income 3,600
Bid price $36,000
4-33 (2530 min.) Service industry, job costing, two direct- and indirect-cost categories,
law firm (continuation of 4-32).
Although not required, the following overview diagram is helpful to understand Keatings job-
costing system.
1. Professional
Partner Labor
Professional
Associate Labor
Budgeted compensation per professional
Divided by budgeted hours of billable
time per professional
Budgeted direct-cost rate
$ 200,000
1,600
$125 per hour*
$80,000
1,600
$50 per hour
*Can also be calculated as

Total budgeted partner labor costs
Total budgeted partner labor - hours
=
$200,000 5
1,600 5
=
000 , 8
$1,000,000
= $125
Can also be calculated as

Total budgeted associate labor costs
Total budgeted associate labor - hours
=
$80,000 20
1,600 20
=
$1,600,000
32 000 ,
= $ 50
2. General
Support
Secretarial
Support
Budgeted total costs
Divided by budgeted quantity of allocation base
Budgeted indirect cost rate
$1,800,000
40,000 hours
$45 per hour
$400,000
8,000 hours
$50 per hour
Professional
Labor-Hours
General
Support
COST OBJECT:
JOB FOR
CLIENT
INDIRECT
COST
POOL
COST
ALLOCATION
BASE
}
}
}
}
DIRECT
COST
Indirect Costs
Direct Costs
Partner
Labor-Hours
Secretarial
Support
Professional
Associate Labor
Professional
Partner Labor
36
3. Richardson Punch
Direct costs:
Professional partners, $125 60; $125
30
Professional associates, $50 40; $50 120
Direct costs
Indirect costs:
General support, $45 100; $45 150
Secretarial support, $50 60; $50 30
Indirect costs
Total costs
$7,500
2,000
$ 9,500
4,500
3,000
7,500
$17,000
$3,750
6,000
$ 9,750
6,750
1,500
8,250
$18,000
4. Richardson Punch
Single direct - Single indirect
(from Problem 4-32)
Multiple direct Multiple indirect
(from requirement 3 of Problem 4-33)
Difference
$12,000
17,000
$ 5,000
undercosted
$18,000
18,000
$ 0
no change
The Richardson and Punch jobs differ in their use of resources. The Richardson job has a
mix of 60% partners and 40% associates, while Punch has a mix of 20% partners and 80%
associates. Thus, the Richardson job is a relatively high user of the more costly partner-related
resources (both direct partner costs and indirect partner secretarial support). The refined-costing
system in Problem 4-32 increases the reported cost in Problem 4-32 for the Richardson job by
41.7% (from $12,000 to $17,000).
4-34 (2025 min.) Proration of overhead.
1. Budgeted manufacturing overhead rate is $4,800,000 80,000 hours = $60 per machine-hour.

2.
Manufacturing overhead
underallocated
=
incurred

allocated
= $4,900,000 $4,500,000*
= $400,000
*$60 75,000 actual machine-hours = $4,500,000
a. Write-off to Cost of Goods Sold
Account
(1)
Account
Balance
(Before Proration)
(2)
Write-off
of $400,000
Underallocated
Manufacturing
Overhead
(3)
Account
Balance
(After Proration)
(4) = (2) + (3)
Work in Process
Finished Goods
Cost of Goods Sold
Total
$ 750,000
1,250,000
8,000,000
$10,000,000
$ 0
0
400,000
$400,000
$ 750,000
1,250,000
8,400,000
$10,400,000
b. Proration based on ending balances (before proration) in Work in Process, Finished
Goods and Cost of Goods Sold.
Account
(1)
Account Balance
(Before Proration)
(2)
Proration of $400,000
Underallocated
Manufacturing
Overhead
(3)
Account
Balance
(After Proration)
(4) = (2) + (3)
Work in Process
Finished Goods
Cost of Goods Sold
Total
$ 750,000
1,250,000
8,000,000
$10,000,000
( 7.5%)
(12.5%)
(80 .0% )
100 .0%
0.075 $400,000 = $ 30,000
0.125 $400,000 = 50,000
0.800 $400,000 = 320,000
$400,000
$ 780,000
1,300,000
8,320,000
$10,400,000
c. Proration based on the allocated overhead amount (before proration) in the ending
balances of Work in Process, Finished Goods, and Cost of Goods Sold.
Account
(1)
Account
Balance
(Before
Proration)
(2)
Allocated Overhead
Included in
the Account Balance
(Before Proration)
(3) (4)
Proration of $400,000
Underallocated
Manufacturing Overhead
(5)
Account
Balance
(After
Proration)
(6) = (2) + (5)
Work in Process $ 750,000 $ 240,000
a
( 5.33%) 0.0533 $400,000 = $ 21,320 $ 771,320
Finished Goods 1,250,000 660,000
b
(14.67%) 0.1467 $400,000 = 58,680 1,308,680
Cost of Goods Sold 8,000,000 3,600,000
c
(80.00%) 0.8000 $400,000 = 320,000
8,320,0
00
Total $10,000,000 $4,500,000 100.00 % $400,000 $10,400,000
a
$60 4,000 machine-hours
;
b
$60 11,000 machine-hours;
c
$60 60,000 machine-hours
3. Alternative (c) is theoretically preferred over (a) and (b). Alternative (c) yields the same
ending balances in work in process, finished goods, and cost of goods sold that would have been
reported had actual indirect cost rates been used.
Chapter 4 also discusses an adjusted allocation rate approach that results in the same
ending balances as does alternative (c). This approach operates via a restatement of the indirect
costs allocated to all the individual jobs worked on during the year using the actual indirect cost
rate.
4-35 (15 min.) Normal costing, overhead allocation, working backward.

1a. Manufacturing overhead allocated = 200% Direct manufacturing labor cost
$3,600,000 = 2 Direct manufacturing labor cost
Direct manufacturing labor cost =
2
$3,600,000
= $1,800,000
b.
Total manufacturing
cost
=
Direct material
used
+
Direct manufacturing
labor cost
+
Manufacturing
overhead allocated
$8,000,000 = Direct material used + $1,800,000 + $3,600,000
Direct material used = $2,600,000
2.
Work in Process
1/1/2009
+ Total manufacturing cost = Cost of goods manufactured +
Work in Process
12/31/2009
Denote Work-in-process on 12/31/2009 by X
$320,000 + $8,000,000 = $7,920,000 + X
X = $400,000
Work-in-process inventory, 12/31/09 = $400,000.
CHAPTER 5
5-16 (20 min.) Cost hierarchy.
1. a. Indirect manufacturing labor costs of $1,200,000 support direct manufacturing labor
and are output unit-level costs. Direct manufacturing labor generally increases with
output units, and so will the indirect costs to support it.
b. Batch-level costs are costs of activities that are related to a group of units of a product
rather than each individual unit of a product. Purchase order-related costs (including
costs of receiving materials and paying suppliers) of $600,000 relate to a group of
units of product and are batch-level costs.
c. Cost of indirect materials of $350,000 generally changes with labor hours or machine
hours which are unit-level costs. Therefore, indirect material costs are output unit-
level costs.
d. Setup costs of $700,000 are batch-level costs because they relate to a group of units
of product produced after the machines are set up.
e. Costs of designing processes, drawing process charts, and making engineering
changes for individual products, $900,000, are product-sustaining because they relate
to the costs of activities undertaken to support individual products regardless of the
number of units or batches in which the product is produced.
f. Machine-related overhead costs (depreciation and maintenance) of $1,200,000 are
output unit-level costs because they change with the number of units produced.
g. Plant management, plant rent, and insurance costs of $950,000 are facility-sustaining
costs because the costs of these activities cannot be traced to individual products or
services but support the organization as a whole.
2. The complex boom box made in many batches will use significantly more batch-level
overhead resources compared to the simple boom box that is made in a few batches. In addition,
the complex boom box will use more product-sustaining overhead resources because it is
complex. Because each boom box requires the same amount of machine-hours, both the simple
and the complex boom box will be allocated the same amount of overhead costs per boom box if
Teledor uses only machine-hours to allocate overhead costs to boom boxes. As a result, the
complex boom box will be undercosted (it consumes a relatively high level of resources but is
reported to have a relatively low cost) and the simple boom box will be overcosted (it consumes
a relatively low level of resources but is reported to have a relatively high cost).
3. Using the cost hierarchy to calculate activity-based costs can help Teledor to identify
both the costs of individual activities and the cost of activities demanded by individual products.
Teledor can use this information to manage its business in several ways:
a. Pricing and product mix decisions. Knowing the resources needed to manufacture and
sell different types of boom boxes can help Teledor to price the different boom boxes
and also identify which boom boxes are more profitable. It can then emphasize its
more profitable products.
b. Teledor can use information about the costs of different activities to improve
processes and reduce costs of the different activities. Teledor could have a target of
reducing costs of activities (setups, order processing, etc.) by, say, 3% and constantly
seek to eliminate activities and costs (such as engineering changes) that its customers
perceive as not adding value.
c. Teledor management can identify and evaluate new designs to improve performance
by analyzing how product and process designs affect activities and costs.
d. Teledor can use its ABC systems and cost hierarchy information to plan and manage
activities. What activities should be performed in the period and at what cost?
5-27 (30 min.) ABC, product-costing at banks, cross-subsidization.
1.
Robinson Skerrett Farrel Total
Revenues
Spread revenue on annual basis
(3% ; $1,100, $800, $25,000)
Monthly fee charges
($20 ; 0, 12, 0)
Total revenues
$ 33
0
33
$ 24
240
264
$750.00
0 .00
750 .00
$ 807.00
240 .00
1,047 .00
Costs
Deposit/withdrawal with teller
$2.50
40; 50; 5
Deposit/withdrawal with ATM
$0.80
10; 20; 16
Deposit/withdrawal on prearranged basis
$0.50
0; 12; 60
Bank checks written
$8.00
9; 3; 2
Foreign currency drafts
$12.00
4; 1; 6
Inquiries
$1.50
10; 18; 9
Total costs
Operating income (loss)
100
8
0
72
48
15
243
$(210 )
125
16
6
24
12
27
210
$ 54
12.50
12.80
30.00
16.00
72.00
13 .50
156 .80
$593 .20
237.50
36.80
36.00
112.00
132.00
55 .50
609 .80
$ 437 .20
The assumption that the Robinson and Farrel accounts exceed $1,000 every month and
the Skerrett account is less than $1,000 each month means the monthly charges apply only to
Skerrett.
One student with a banking background noted that in this solution 100% of the spread is
attributed to the depositor side of the bank. He noted that often the spread is divided between
the depositor side and the lending side of the bank.
2. Cross-subsidization across individual Premier Accounts occurs when profits made on
some accounts are offset by losses on other accounts. The aggregate profitability on the three
customers is $437.20. The Farrel account is highly profitable ($593.20), while the Robinson
account is sizably unprofitable. The Skerrett account shows a small profit but only because of the
$240 monthly fees. It is unlikely that Skerrett will keep paying these high fees and that FIB
would want Skerret to pay such high fees from a customer relationship standpoint.
The facts also suggest that the customers do not use the bank services uniformly. For
example, Robinson and Skerret have a lot of transactions with the teller or ATM, and also
inquire about their account balances more often than Farrell. This suggests cross-subsidization.
FIB should be very concerned about the cross-subsidization. Competition likely would
understand that high-balance low-activity type accounts (such as Farrel) are highly profitable.
Offering free services to these customers is not likely to retain these accounts if other banks offer
higher interest rates. Competition likely will reduce the interest rate spread FIB can earn on the
high-balance low-activity accounts they are able to retain.
3. Possible changes FIB could make are:
a. Offer higher interest rates on high-balance accounts to increase FIBs competitiveness
in attracting and retaining these accounts.
b. Introduce charges for individual services. The ABC study reports the cost of each
service. FIB has to decide if it wants to price each service at cost, below cost, or
above cost. If it prices above cost, it may use advertising and other means to
encourage additional use of those services by customers. Of course, in determining its
pricing strategy, FIB would need to consider how other competing banks are pricing
their products and services.
5-34 (3040 min.) Activity-based costing, merchandising.
1. General
Supermarket
Chains
Drugstore
Chains
Mom-and-Pop
Single
Stores Total
Revenues $3,708,000 $3,150,000 $1,980,000 $8,838,000
Cost of goods sold 3,600,000 3,000,000 1,800,000 8,400,000
Gross margin $ 108,000 $ 150,000 $ 180,000 $ 438,000
Other operating costs 301,080
Gross margin % 2.91% 4.76% 9.09%
The gross margin of Pharmacare, Inc., was 4.96% ($438,000 $8,838,000). The
operating income margin of Pharmacare, Inc., was 1.55% ($136,920 $8,838,000).
2. The per-unit cost driver rates are:
1. Customer purchase order processing,
$80,000 2,000 (140 + 360 + 1,500) orders = $40 per order
2. Line item ordering,
$63,840 21,280 (1,960 + 4,320 + 15,000) line items = $ 3 per line item
3. Store delivery,
$71,000 1,480 (120 + 360 + 1,000) deliveries = $47.973 per delivery
4. Cartons shipped,
$76,000 76,000 (36,000 + 24,000 + 16,000) cartons = $ 1 per carton
5. Shelf-stocking,
$10,240 640 (360 + 180 + 100) hours = $16 per hour
2. The activity-based costing of each distribution market for August 2008 is:
General
Supermarket
Chains
Drugstore
Chains
Mom-and-
Pop
Single Stores Total
1. Customer purchase order processing
($40 140; 360; 1,500) $ 5,600 $14,400 $ 60,000 $ 80,000
2. Line item ordering
($3 1,960; 4,320; 15,000) 5,880 12,960 45,000 63 ,840
3. Store delivery,
($47.973 120; 360; 1,000) 5,757 17,270 47,973 71,000
4. Cartons shipped
($1 36,000; 24,000; 16,000) 36,000 24,000 16,000 76,000
5. Shelf-stocking
($16 360; 180; 100) 5,760 2,880 1,600 10,240
$58,997 $71,510 $170,573 $301,080
The revised operating income statement is:
General Mom-and-Pop
Supermarket Drugstore Single
Chains Chains Stores Total
Revenues $3,708,000 $3,150,000 $1,980,000 $8,838,000
Cost of goods sold 3,600,000 3,000,000 1,800,000 8,400,000
Gross margin 108,000 150,000 180,000 438,000
Operating costs 58,997 71,510 170,573 301,080
Operating income $ 49,003 $ 78,490 $ 9,427 $ 136,920
Operating income margin 1.32% 2.49% 0.48% 1.55%
4. The ranking of the three markets are:
Using Gross Margin Using Operating Income
1. Mom-and-Pop Single Stores 9.09% 1. Drugstore Chains 2.49%
2. Drugstore Chains 4.76% 2. General Supermarket Chains 1.32%
3. General Supermarket Chains 2.91% 3. Mom-and-Pop Single Stores 0.48%
The activity-based analysis of costs highlights how the Mom-and-Pop Single Stores use a larger
amount of Pharmacares resources per revenue dollar than do the other two markets. The ratio of
the operating costs to revenues across the three markets is:
General Supermarket Chains 1.59% ($58,997 $3,708,000)
Drugstore Chains 2.27% ($71,510 $3,150,000)
Mom-and-Pop Single Stores 8.61% ($170,573 $1,980,000)
This is a classic illustration of the maxim that all revenue dollars are not created equal. The
analysis indicates that the Mom-and-Pop Single Stores are the least profitable market.
Pharmacare should work to increase profits in this market through: (1) a possible surcharge, (2)
decreasing the number of orders, (3) offering discounts for quantity purchases, etc.
Other issues for Pharmacare to consider include
a. Choosing the appropriate cost drivers for each area. The problem gives a cost driver
for each chosen activity area. However, it is likely that over time further refinements
in cost drivers would occur. For example, not all store deliveries are equally easy to
make, depending on parking availability, accessibility of the storage/shelf space to the
delivery point, etc. Similarly, not all cartons are equally easy to delivertheir weight,
size, or likely breakage component are factors that can vary across carton types.
b. Developing a reliable data base on the chosen cost drivers. For some items, such as
the number of orders and the number of line items, this information likely would be
available in machine readable form at a high level of accuracy. Unless the delivery
personnel have hand-held computers that they use in a systematic way, estimates of
shelf-stocking time are likely to be unreliable. Advances in information technology
likely will reduce problems in this area over time.
c. Deciding how to handle costs that may be common across several activities. For
example, (3) store delivery and (4) cartons shipped to stores have the common cost of
the same trip. Some organizations may treat (3) as the primary activity and attribute
only incremental costs to (4). Similarly, (1) order processing and (2) line item
ordering may have common costs.
d. Behavioral factors are likely to be a challenge to Flair. He must now tell those
salespeople who specialize in Mom-and-Pop accounts that they have been less
profitable than previously thought.
5-36 (40 min.) ABC, health care.
1a. Medical supplies rate =
years - patient of number Total
costs supplies Medical
=
150
$300,000

= $2,000/patient-year
=
space of feet square of amount Total
costs maint. clinic and Rent
=
30,000
$180,000

= $6 per square foot
=
years - patient of number Total
laundry food, charts,
patient manage to costs Admin.
=
150
$600,000

= $4,000/patient-year
Laboratory services rate =
tests laboratory of number Total
costs services Laboratory
=
2,500
$100,000

= $40 per test
These cost drivers are chosen as the ones that best match the descriptions of why the costs arise.
Other answers are acceptable, provided that clear explanations are given.
1b. Activity-based costs for each program and cost per patient-year of the alcohol and drug
program follow:
Alcohol Drug After-Care Total
Direct labor
Physicians at $150,000 0; 4; 0 $ 600,000 $ 600,000
Psychologists at $75,000 6; 4; 8 $450,000 300,000 $ 600,000 1,350,000
Nurses at $30,000 4; 6; 10 120,000 180,000 300,000 600,000
Direct labor costs 570,000 1,080,000 900,000 2,550,000
Medical supplies
1
$2,000 40; 50; 60 80,000 100,000 120,000 300,000
Rent and clinic maintenance
2
$6 9,000; 9,000; 12,000 54,000 54,000 72,000 180,000
Administrative costs to manage
patient charts, food, and laundry
3
$4,000 40; 50; 60 160,000 200,000 240,000 600,000
Laboratory services
4
$40 400; 1,400; 700 16,000 56,000 28,000 100,000
Total costs $880,000 $1,490,000 $1,360,000 $3,730,000
Cost per patient-year
$880,000
$22,000
40
=
$1,490,000
$29,800
50
=
1
Allocated using patient-years
2
Allocated using square feet of space
3
Allocated using patient-years
4
Allocated using number of laboratory tests
1c. The ABC system more accurately allocates costs because it identifies better cost drivers.
The ABC system chooses cost drivers for overhead costs that have a cause-and-effect
relationship between the cost drivers and the costs. Of course, Clayton should continue to
evaluate if better cost drivers can be found than the ones they have identified so far.
By implementing the ABC system, Clayton can gain a more detailed understanding of
costs and cost drivers. This is valuable information from a cost management perspective. The
system can yield insight into the efficiencies with which various activities are performed.
Clayton can then examine if redundant activities can be eliminated. Clayton can study trends and
work toward improving the efficiency of the activities.
In addition, the ABC system will help Clayton determine which programs are the most
costly to operate. This will be useful in making long-run decisions as to which programs to offer
or emphasize. The ABC system will also assist Clayton in setting prices for the programs that
more accurately reflect the costs of each program.
2. The concern with using costs per patient-year as the rule to allocate resources among its
programs is that it emphasizes input to the exclusion of outputs or effectiveness of the
programs. After-all, Claytons goal is to cure patients while controlling costs, not minimize costs
per-patient year. The problem, of course, is measuring outputs.
Unlike many manufacturing companies, where the outputs are obvious because they are
tangible and measurable, the outputs of service organizations are more difficult to measure.
Examples are cured patients as distinguished from processed or discharged patients,
educated as distinguished from partially educated students, and so on.
5-39 (50 min.) ABC, implementation, ethics.
1. Applewood Electronics should not emphasize the Regal model and should not phase out
the Monarch model. Under activity-based costing, the Regal model has an operating income
percentage of less than 3%, while the Monarch model has an operating income percentage of
nearly 43%.
Cost driver rates for the various activities identified in the activity-based costing (ABC) system
are as follows:
Soldering $ 942,000 1,570,000 = $ 0.60 per solder point
Shipments 860,000 20,000 = 43.00 per shipment
Quality control 1,240,000 77,500 = 16.00 per inspection
Purchase orders 950,400 190,080 = 5.00 per order
Machine power 57,600 192,000 = 0.30 per machine-hour
Machine setups 750,000 30,000 = 25.00 per setup
Applewood Electronics
Calculation of Costs of Each Model under Activity-Based Costing
Monarch Regal
Direct costs
Direct materials ($208 22,000; $584 4,000) $ 4,576,000 $2,336,000
Direct manufacturing labor ($18 22,000; $42 4,000) 396,000 168,000
Machine costs ($144 22,000; $72 4,000) 3,168,000 288,000
Total direct costs 8,140,000 2,792,000
Indirect costs
Soldering ($0.60 1,185,000; $0.60 385,000) 711,000 231,000
Shipments ($43 16,200; $43 3,800) 696,600 163,400
Quality control ($16 56,200; $16 21,300) 899,200 340,800
Purchase orders ($5 80,100; $5 109,980) 400,500 549,900
Machine power ($0.30 176,000; $0.30 16,000) 52,800 4,800
Machine setups ($25 16,000; $25 14,000) 400,000 350,000
Total indirect costs 3,160,100 1,639,900
Total costs $11,300,100 $4,431,900
Profitability analysis
Monarch Regal Total
Revenues $19,800,000 $4,560,000 $24,360,000
Cost of goods sold 11,300,100 4,431,900 15,732,000
Gross margin $ 8,499,900 $ 128,100 $ 8,628,000
Per-unit calculations:
Units sold 22,000 4,000
Selling price
($19,800,000 22,000;
$4,560,000 4,000) $900.00 $1,140.00
Cost of goods sold
($11,300,100 22,000;
$4,431,900 4,000) 513.64 1,107.98
Gross margin $386.36 $ 32.02
Gross margin percentage 42.9% 2.8%
2. Applewoods simple costing system allocates all manufacturing overhead other than
machine costs on the basis of machine-hours, an output unit-level cost driver. Consequently, the
more machine-hours per unit that a product needs, the greater the manufacturing overhead
allocated to it. Because Monarch uses twice the number of machine-hours per unit compared to
Regal, a large amount of manufacturing overhead is allocated to Monarch.
The ABC analysis recognizes several batch-level cost drivers such as purchase orders,
shipments, and setups. Regal uses these resources much more intensively than Monarch. The
ABC system recognizes Regals use of these overhead resources. Consider, for example,
purchase order costs. The simple system allocates these costs on the basis of machine-hours. As
a result, each unit of Monarch is allocated twice the purchase order costs of each unit of Regal.
The ABC system allocates $400,500 of purchase order costs to Monarch (equal to $18.20
($400,500 22,000) per unit) and $549,900 of purchase order costs to Regal (equal to $137.48
($549,900 4,000) per unit). Each unit of Regal uses 7.55 ($137.48 $18.20) times the
purchases order costs of each unit of Monarch.
Recognizing Regals more intensive use of manufacturing overhead results in Regal
showing a much lower profitability under the ABC system. By the same token, the ABC analysis
shows that Monarch is quite profitable. The simple costing system overcosted Monarch, and so
made it appear less profitable.
3. Duvals comments about ABC implementation are valid. When designing and
implementing ABC systems, managers and management accountants need to trade off the costs
of the system against its benefits. Adding more activities would make the system harder to
understand and more costly to implement but it would probably improve the accuracy of cost
information, which, in turn, would help Applewood make better decisions. Similarly, using
inspection-hours and setup-hours as allocation bases would also probably lead to more accurate
cost information, but it would increase measurement costs.
4. Activity-based management (ABM) is the use of information from activity-based costing
to make improvements in a firm. For example, a firm could revise product prices on the basis of
revised cost information. For the long term, activity-based costing can assist management in
making decisions regarding the viability of product lines, distribution channels, marketing
strategies, etc. ABM highlights possible improvements, including reduction or elimination of
non-value-added activities, selecting lower cost activities, sharing activities with other products,
and eliminating waste. ABM is an integrated approach that focuses managements attention on
activities with the ultimate aim of continuous improvement. As a whole-company philosophy,
ABM focuses on strategic, as well as tactical and operational activities of the company.
5. Incorrect reporting of ABC costs with the goal of retaining both the Monarch and Regal
product lines is unethical. In assessing the situation, the specific Standards of Ethical Conduct
for Management Accountants (described in Exhibit 1-7) that the management accountant should
consider are listed below.
Competence
Clear reports using relevant and reliable information should be prepared. Preparing reports on
the basis of incorrect costs in order to retain product lines violates competence standards. It is
unethical for Benzo to change the ABC system with the specific goal of reporting different
product cost numbers that Duval favors.
Integrity
The management accountant has a responsibility to avoid actual or apparent conflicts of interest
and advise all appropriate parties of any potential conflict. Benzo may be tempted to change the
product cost numbers to please Duval, the division president. This action, however, would
violate the responsibility for integrity. The Standards of Ethical Conduct require the management
accountant to communicate favorable as well as unfavorable information.
Credibility
The management accountants standards of ethical conduct require that information should be
fairly and objectively communicated and that all relevant information should be disclosed. From
a management accountants standpoint, adjusting the product cost numbers to make both the
Monarch and Regal lines look profitable would violate the standard of objectivity.
Benzo should indicate to Duval that the product cost calculations are, indeed, appropriate.
If Duval still insists on modifying the product cost numbers, Benzo should raise the matter with
one of Duvals superiors. If, after taking all these steps, there is continued pressure to modify
product cost numbers, Benzo should consider resigning from the company, rather than engage in
unethical behavior.
CHAPTER 17
17-19 (15 min.) Weighted-average method, equivalent units.
Under the weighted-average method, equivalent units are calculated as the equivalent units of
work done to date. Solution Exhibit 17-19 shows equivalent units of work done to date for the
Assembly Division of Fenton Watches, Inc., for direct materials and conversion costs.
Steps 1 and 2: Summarize Output in Physical Units and Compute Output in Equivalent Units;
Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing, Assembly Division of Fenton Watches, Inc., for
May 2009.
(Step 2)
(Step 1) Equivalent Units
Physical Direct Conversion
Flow of Production Units Materials Costs
Work in process beginning (given) 80
Started during current period (given) 50 0
To account for 58 0
Completed and transferred out during current period 460 460 460
Work in process, ending* (120 60%; 120 30%) 12 0 72 36
Accounted for 58 0 ___ ___
Work done to date 532 496
*
Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 60%; conversion costs, 30%.
17-20 (20 min.) Weighted-average method, assigning costs (continuation of 17-19).
Solution Exhibit 17-20 summarizes total costs to account for, calculates cost per equivalent unit
of work done to date in the Assembly Division of Fenton Watches, Inc., and assigns costs to
units completed and to units in ending work-in-process inventory.
Steps 3, 4, and 5: Summarize Total Costs to Account For, Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit,
and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed and to Units in Ending Work in Process;
Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing, Assembly Division of Fenton Watches, Inc., for
May 2009.
Total
Production
Costs
Direct
Materials
Conversion
Costs
(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given)
$ 584,400 $ 493,360
$ 91,040
Costs added in current period (given) 4 ,612 ,000 3 ,220 ,000 1 ,392 ,000
Total costs to account for $5 ,196 ,400 $3 ,713 ,360 $1 ,483 ,040
(Step 4) Costs incurred to date $3,713,360 $1,483,040
Divide by equivalent units of work
done to date (Solution Exhibit 17-19) 532 496
Cost per equivalent unit of work done
to date
$ 6 ,980 $ 2 ,990

(Step 5) Assignment of costs:
Completed and transferred out (460
units)
$4,586,200 (460* $6,980) + (460*
$2,990)
Work in process, ending (120 units) 610 ,20
0
(72
$6 ,980) + (36

$2 ,990 )
Total costs accounted for $5 ,196 ,40
0
$3 ,713 ,360 +
$1 ,483 ,040
*
Equivalent units completed and transferred out from Solution Exhibit 17-19, Step 2.

Equivalent units in work in process, ending from Solution Exhibit 17-19, Step 2.
17-35 (25 min.) Weighted-average method.
Solution Exhibit 17-35A shows equivalent units of work done to date of:
Direct materials 625 equivalent units
Conversion costs 525 equivalent units
Note that direct materials are added when the Assembly Department process is 10%
complete. Both the beginning and ending work in process are more than 10% complete and
hence are 100% complete with respect to direct materials.
Solution Exhibit 17-35B summarizes the total Assembly Department costs for April
2009, calculates cost per equivalent unit of work done to date for direct materials and conversion
costs, and assigns these costs to units completed (and transferred out), and to units in ending
work in process using the weighted-average method.
Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing, Assembly Department of Porter Handcraft for
April 2009.
(Step 1)(Step 2)
Equivalent Units
Physical Direct Conversion
Flow of Production Units Materials Costs
Work in process, beginning (given) 75
Started during current period (given) 550
To account for 625
Completed and transferred out
during current period 500 500 500
Work in process, ending*

(given) 125
125 100%; 125 20% 125 25
Accounted for 625
Work done to date 625 525
*
Degree of completion in this department: direct materials, 100%; conversion costs, 20%.
SOLUTION EXHIBIT 17-35B
Steps 3, 4, and 5: Summarize Total Costs to Account For, Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit,
and Assign Total Costs to Units Completed and to Units in Ending Work in Process;
Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing, Assembly Department of Porter, April 2009.
Total
Production
Costs
Direct
Materials
Conversion
Costs
(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) $ 1,910 $ 1,775 $ 135
Costs added in current period (given) 28,490 17,6 00 10,890
Total costs to account for $ 30,400 $ 19,375 $ 11,025
(Step 4) Costs incurred to date $19,375 $11,025
Divide by equivalent units of work done to
date (Solution Exhibit 17-35A)
625 525
Cost per equivalent unit of work done to date $ 31 $ 21
Completed and transferred out (500 units) $26,000 (500
*
$31) + (500
*

$21)
Work in process, ending (125 units) 4,400
(125
$31) + (25

$ 21)
Total costs accounted for $ 30,400 $ 19,375 + $ 11,025
*
Equivalent units completed and transferred out from Solution Exhibit 17-35A, Step 2.
Equivalent units in ending work in process from Solution Exhibit 17-35A, Step 2.
17.38 (30 min.) Transferred-in costs, weighted average.
1. Solution Exhibit 17-38A computes the equivalent units of work done to date in the
Binding Department for transferred-in costs, direct materials, and conversion costs.
Solution Exhibit 17-38B summarizes total Binding Department costs for April 2009,
calculates the cost per equivalent unit of work done to date in the Binding Department for
transferred-in costs, direct materials, and conversion costs, and assigns these costs to units
completed and transferred out and to units in ending work in process using the weighted-average
method.
2. Journal entries:
a. Work in Process Binding Department 144,000
Work in ProcessPrinting Department 144,000
Cost of goods completed and transferred out
during April from the Printing Department
to the Binding Department
b. Finished Goods 249,012
Work in Process Binding Department 249,012
Cost of goods completed and transferred out
during April from the Binding Department
to Finished Goods inventory
Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing,
Binding Department of Publish, Inc. for April 2009.
(Step 1) (Step 2)
Equivalent Units
Flow of Production
Physical
Units
Transferred-
in Costs
Direct
Materials
Conversion
Costs
Work in process, beginning (given) 900
Transferred-in during current period (given) 2,7 00
To account for 3,6 00
Completed and transferred out during current period: 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
Work in process, ending
a
(given) 600
(600 100%; 600 0%; 600 60%) 600 0 360
Accounted for 3,6 00
Work done to date 3,6 00 3 ,000 3,36 0
a
Degree of completion in this department: transferred-in costs, 100%; direct materials, 0%;
conversion costs, 60%.
SOLUTION EXHIBIT 17-38B
Steps 3, 4, and 5: Summarize Total Costs to Account For, Compute Cost per Equivalent Unit, and Assign Total Costs to
Units Completed and to Units in Ending Work in Process;
Weighted-Average Method of Process Costing,
Binding Department of Publish, Inc. for April 2009.

Total
Production
Costs
Transferred-in
Costs
Direct
Materials
Conversion
Costs
(Step 3) Work in process, beginning (given) $ 47,775 $ 32,775 $ 0 $15,000
Costs added in current period (given) 239,7 00 144 ,000 26,7 00 69 ,000
Total costs to account for $ 287,475 $1 76,775 $ 26,7 00 $ 84 ,000
(Step 4) Costs incurred to date $176,775 $26,700 $84,000
Divide by equivalent units of work done to date
(Solution Exhibit 17-38A) 3,6 00 3 ,000 3,36 0
Cost per equivalent unit of work done to date $ 49.104 $ 8.90 $ 25
Completed and transferred out (3,000 units) $249,012
(3,000
a
$49.104) + (3,000
a
$8.90) +
(3,000
a
$25)
Work in process, ending (600 units): 38,463
(6 00
b
$49.104) + (0
b
$8.90) + (36 0
b

$25)
Total costs accounted for $ 287,475
$1 76,77
5 + $ 26,7 00 + $ 84 ,000
a
Equivalent units completed and transferred out from Sol. Exhibit 17-38A, step 2.
b
Equivalent units in ending work in process from Sol. Exhibit 17-38A, step 2.
CHAPTER 15
15-9 The stand-alone cost-allocation method uses information pertaining to each user of a cost
object as a separate entity to determine the cost-allocation weights.
The incremental cost-allocation method ranks the individual users of a cost object in the
order of users most responsible for the common costs and then uses this ranking to allocate costs
among those users. The first-ranked user of the cost object is the primary user and is allocated
costs up to the costs of the primary user as a stand-alone user. The second-ranked user is the first
incremental user and is allocated the additional cost that arises from two users instead of only the
primary user. The third-ranked user is the second incremental user and is allocated the additional
cost that arises from three users instead of two users, and so on.
The Shapley Value method calculates an average cost based on the costs allocated to each
user as first the primary user, the second-ranked user, the third-ranked user, and so on.
15-19 (30 min.) Support department cost allocation; direct and step-down methods.
1. AS IS GOVT CORP
a. Direct method costs $600,000 $2,400,000
Alloc. of AS costs
(40/75, 35/75) (600,000) $ 320,000 $ 280,000
Alloc. of IS costs
(30/90, 60/90) (2,400,000) 800,000 1,600,000
$ 0 $ 0 $1,120,000 $1,880,000
b. Step-down (AS first) costs $600,000 $2,400,000
Alloc. of AS costs
(0.25, 0.40, 0.35) (600,000) 150,000 $ 240,000 $ 210,000
Alloc. of IS costs
(30/90, 60/90) (2,550,000) 850,000 1,700,000
$ 0 $ 0 $1,090,000 $1,910,000
c.Stepdown(ISfirst)costs $600,000 $2,400,000
Alloc. of IS costs
(0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 240,000 (2,400,000) $ 720,000 $1,440,000
Alloc. of AS costs
(40/75, 35/75) (840,000) 448,000 392,000
$ 0 $ 0 $1,168,000
$1,832,000
2. GOVT CORP
Direct method $1,120,000 $1,880,000
Step-down (AS first) 1,090,000 1,910,000
Step-down (IS first) 1,168,000 1,832,000
The direct method ignores any services to other support departments. The step-down method
partially recognizes services to other support departments. The information systems support
group (with total budget of $2,400,000) provides 10% of its services to the AS group. The AS
support group (with total budget of $600,000) provides 25% of its services to the information
systems support group. When the AS group is allocated first, a total of $2,550,000 is then
assigned out from the IS group. Given CORPs disproportionate (2:1) usage of the services of
IS, this method then results in the highest overall allocation of costs to CORP. By contrast,
GOVTs usage of the AS group exceeds that of CORP (by a ratio of 8:7), and so GOVT is
assigned relatively more in support costs when AS costs are assigned second, after they have
already been incremented by the AS share of IS costs as well.
3. Three criteria that could determine the sequence in the step-down method are:
a. Allocate support departments on a ranking of the percentage of their total services
provided to other support departments.
1. Administrative Services 25%
2. Information Systems 10%
b. Allocate support departments on a ranking of the total dollar amount in the support
departments.
1. Information Systems $2,400,000
2. Administrative Services $ 600,000
c. Allocate support departments on a ranking of the dollar amounts of service provided
to other support departments
1. Information Systems
(0.10 $2,400,000) = $240,000
2. Administrative Services
(0.25 $600,000) = $150,000
The approach in (a) above typically better approximates the theoretically preferred
reciprocal method. It results in a higher percentage of support-department costs provided to other
support departments being incorporated into the step-down process than does (b) or (c), above.
15-20 (50 min.) Support-department cost allocation, reciprocal method (continuation of 15-19).
1a.
Support Departments Operating Departments
AS I S Govt. Corp.
Costs
$600,000 $2,400,000
Alloc. of
AS costs
(0.25, 0.40, 0.35) (861,538) 215,385
$ 344,615 $ 301,538
Alloc. of IS costs
(0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 261,538 (2,615,385)
784,616 1,569,231
$ 0 $ 0
$1,129,231 $1,870,769
Reciprocal Method Computation
AS = $600,000 + 0.10 IS
IS = $2,400,000 + 0.25AS
IS = $2,400,000 + 0.25 ($600,000 + 0.10 IS)
= $2,400,000 + $150,000 + 0.025 IS
0.975IS = $2,550,000
IS = $2,550,000 0.975
= $2,615,385
AS = $600,000 + 0.10 ($2,615,385)
= $600,000 + $261,538
= $861,538
1b.
Support Departments Operating Departments
AS I S Govt. Corp.
Costs
$600,000 $2,400,000
1
st
Allocation of AS
(0.25, 0.40, 0.35) (600,000) 150,000 $ 240,000 $ 210,000
2,550,000
1
st
Allocation of IS
(0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 255,000 (2,550,000) 765,000 1,530,000
2
nd
Allocation of AS
(0.25, 0.40, 0.35) (255,000) 63,750 102,000 89,250
2
nd
Allocation of IS
(0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 6,375 (63,750) 19,125 38,250
3rd Allocation of AS
(0.25, 0.40, 0.35) (6,375) 1,594 2,550 2,231
3
rd
Allocation of IS
(0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 160 (1,594) 478 956
4
th
Allocation of AS
(0.25, 0.40, 0.35) (160) 40 64 56
4
th
Allocation of IS
(0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 4 (40) 12 24
5
th
Allocation of AS
(0.25, 0.40, 0.35) (4) 1 2 1
5
th
Allocation of IS
(0.10, 0.30, 0.60) 0 (1) 0 1
Total allocation $ 0 $ 0 $1,129,231 $1,870,769
2.
Govt. Consulting Corp. Consulting
a. Direct $1,120,000 $1,880,000
b. Step-Down (AS first) 1,090,000 1,910,000
c. Step-Down (IS first) 1,168,000 1,832,080
d. Reciprocal (linear equations) 1,129,231 1,870,769
e. Reciprocal (repeated iterations) 1,129,231 1,870,769
The four methods differ in the level of support department cost allocation across support
departments. The level of reciprocal service by support departments is material. Administrative
Services supplies 25% of its services to Information Systems. Information Systems supplies 10%
of its services to Administrative Services. The Information Department has a budget of $2,400,000
that is 400% higher than Administrative Services.
The reciprocal method recognizes all the interactions and is thus the most accurate. This is
especially clear from looking at the repeated iterations calculations.
15-24 (20 min.) Allocation of common costs.
1. Alternative approaches for the allocation of the $1,800 airfare include the following:
a. The stand-alone cost allocation method. This method would allocate the air fare on
the basis of each clients percentage of the total of the individual stand-alone costs.
Baltimore client
( )
$1, 400
$1, 400 $1,100 +
$1,800 = $1,008
Chicago client
( )
$1,100
$1, 400 $1,100 +
$1,800 = 792
$1,800
Advocates of this method often emphasize an equity or fairness rationale.
b. The incremental cost allocation method. This requires the choice of a primary party
and an incremental party.
If the Baltimore client is the primary party, the allocation would be:
Baltimore client $1,400
Chicago client 400
$1,800
One rationale is that Gunn was planning to make the Baltimore trip, and the Chicago stop was
added subsequently. Some students have suggested allocating as much as possible to the
Baltimore client since Gunn had decided not to work for them.
If the Chicago client is the primary party, the allocation would be:
Chicago client $1,100
Baltimore client 700
$1,800
One rationale is that the Chicago client is the one who is going to use Gunns services, and
presumably receives more benefits from the travel expenditures.
c. Gunn could calculate the Shapley value that considers each client in turn as the
primary party: The Baltimore client is allocated $1,400 as the primary party and $700 as the
incremental party for an average of ($1,400 + $700) 2 = $1,050. The Chicago client is
allocated $1,100 as the primary party and $400 as the incremental party for an average of
($1,100 + 400) 2 = $750. The Shapley value approach would allocate $1,050 to the Baltimore
client and $750 to the Chicago client.
2. I would recommend Gunn use the Shapley value. It is fairer than the incremental method
because it avoids considering one party as the primary party and allocating more of the common
costs to that party. It also avoids disputes about who is the primary party. It allocates costs in a
manner that is close to the costs allocated under the stand-alone method but takes a more
comprehensive view of the common cost allocation problem by considering primary and
incremental users, which the stand-alone method ignores.
The Shapley value (or the stand-alone cost allocation method) would be the preferred
methods if Gunn was to send the travel expenses to the Baltimore and Chicago clients before
deciding which engagement to accept. Other factors such as whether to charge the Chicago client
more because Gunn is accepting the Chicago engagement or the Baltimore client more because
Gunn is not going to work for them can be considered if Gunn sends in her travel expenses after
making her decision. However, each company would not want to be considered as the primary
party and so is likely to object to these arguments.
3. A simple approach is to split the $60 equally between the two clients. The limousine
costs at the Sacramento end are not a function of distance traveled on the plane.
An alternative approach is to add the $60 to the $1,800 and repeat requirement 1:
a. Stand-alone cost allocation method.
Baltimore client
( )
$1, 460
$1, 460 $1,160 +
$1,860 = $1,036
Chicago client
( )
$1,160
$1, 460 $1,160 +
$1,860 = $ 824
b. Incremental cost allocation method.
With Baltimore client as the primary party:
Baltimore client $1,460
Chicago client 400
$1,860
With Chicago client as the primary party:
Chicago client $1,160
Baltimore client 700
$1,860
c. Shapley value.
Baltimore client: ($1,460 + $700) 2 = $1,080
Chicago client: ($400 + $1,160) 2 = $ 780
As discussed in requirement 2, the Shapley value or the stand-alone cost allocation
method would probably be the preferred approaches.
Note: If any students in the class have faced this situation when visiting prospective employers,
ask them how they handled it.
15-32 (25 min.) Common costs.
1. Stand-alone cost-allocation method.
Wright, Inc. =
(900 $40)
(1, 500 $32)
(900 $40) (600 $40)

+
=
$36, 000
$48, 000
($36, 000 $24, 000)
+
= $28,800
Brown, Inc. =
(600 $40)
(1, 500 $32)
(900 $40) (600 $40)

+
=
$24, 000
$48, 000
($36, 000 $24, 000)
+
= $19,200
2. With Wright, Inc. as the primary party:
Party Costs Allocated
Cumulative Costs
Allocated
Wright $36,000 $36,000
Brown 12,000 ($48,000 $36,000) $48,000
Total $ 48,000
With Brown, Inc. as the primary party:
Party Costs Allocated
Cumulative Costs
Allocated
Brown $24,000 $24,000
Wright 24,0 00 ($48,000 $24,000) $48,000
Total $ 48,0 00
3. To use the Shapley value method, consider each party as first the primary party and then
the incremental party. Compute the average of the two to determine the allocation.
Wright, Inc.:
Allocation as the primary party $36,000
Allocation as the incremental party 24,0 00
Total $ 60,0 00
Allocation ($60,000 2) $30,000
Brown, Inc.:
Allocation as the primary party $24,000
Allocation as the incremental party 12,0 00
Total $ 36,0 00
Allocation ($36,000 2) $18,000
Using this approach, Wright, Inc. is allocated $30,000 and Brown, Inc. is allocated $18,000 of
the total costs of $48,000.
4. The results of the four cost-allocation methods are shown below.
Wright, Inc. Brown, Inc.
Stand-alone method $28,800 $19,200
Incremental (Wright primary) 36,000 12,000
Incremental (Brown primary) 24,000 24,000
Shapley value 30,000 18,000
The allocations are very sensitive to the method used. The stand-alone method is simple and
fair since it allocates the common cost of the dyeing machine in proportion to the individual
costs of leasing the machine. The Shapley values are also fair. They result in very similar
allocations and any one of them can be chosen. In this case, the stand-alone method is likely
more acceptable. If they used the incremental cost-allocation method, Wright, Inc. and Brown,
Inc. would probably have disputes over who is the primary party because the primary party gets
allocated all of the primary partys costs.
CHAPTER 16
16-16 (20-30 min.) Joint-cost allocation, insurance settlement.
1. (a) Sales value at splitoff method:
Pounds
of
Product
Wholesale
Selling Price
per Pound
Sales
Value
at Splitoff
Weighting:
Sales Value
at Splitoff
Joint
Costs
Allocated
Allocated
Costs per
Pound
Breasts
Wings
Thighs
Bones
Feathers
100
20
40
80
10
250
$0.55
0.20
0.35
0.10
0.05
$55.00
4.00
14.00
8.00
0 .50
$ 81 .50
0.675
0.049
0.172
0.098
0 .006
1 .000
$33.75
2.45
8.60
4.90
0 .3 0
$ 5 0 .00
0.3375
0.1225
0.2150
0.0613
0.0300
Costs of Destroyed Product
Breasts: $0.3375 per pound 40 pounds = $13.50
Wings: $0.1225 per pound 15 pounds = 1.84
$15. 34
b. Physical measure method:
Pounds
of
Product
Weighting:
Physical
Measures
Joint
Costs
Allocated
Allocated
Costs per
Pound
Breasts
Wings
Thighs
Bones
Feathers
100
20
40
80
10
250
0.400
0.080
0.160
0.320
0.040
1.000
$20.00
4.00
8.00
16.00
2 .00
$ 50 .00
$0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Costs of Destroyed Product
Breast: $0.20 per pound 40 pounds = $ 8
Wings: $0.20 per pound 15 pounds = 3
$1 1
Note: Although not required, it is useful to highlight the individual product profitability figures:
Sales Value at
Splitoff Method
Physical
Measures Method
Product
Sales
Value
Joint Costs
Allocated
Gross
Income
Joint Costs
Allocated
Gross
Income
Breasts
Wings
Thighs
Bones
Feathers
$55.00
4.00
14.00
8.00
0.50
$33.75
2.45
8.60
4.90
0.30
$21.25
1.55
5.40
3.10
0.20
$20.00
4.00
8.00
16.00
2.00
$35.00
0.00
6.00
(8.00)
(1.50)
2. The sales-value at splitoff method captures the benefits-received criterion of cost
allocation and is the preferred method. The costs of processing a chicken are allocated to
products in proportion to the ability to contribute revenue. Quality Chickens decision to process
chicken is heavily influenced by the revenues from breasts and thighs. The bones provide
relatively few benefits to Quality Chicken despite their high physical volume.
The physical measures method shows profits on breasts and thighs and losses on bones
and feathers. Given that Quality Chicken has to jointly process all the chicken products, it is non-
intuitive to single out individual products that are being processed simultaneously as making
losses while the overall operations make a profit. Quality Chicken is processing chicken mainly
for breasts and thighs and not for wings, bones, and feathers, while the physical measure method
allocates a disproportionate amount of costs to wings, bones and feathers.
16-21 (30 min.) Joint-cost allocation, process further.

Joint Costs =
$1,800
ICR8
(Non-Saleable)
ING4
(Non-Saleable)
XGE3
(Non-Saleable)
Processing
$175
Processing
$210
Processing
$105
Crude Oil
150 bbls $18 / bbl =
$2,700
NGL
50 bbls $15 / bbl =
$750
Gas
800 eqvt bbls
$1.30 / eqvt bbl =
$1,040
Splitoff
Point
1a. Physical Measure Method
Crude Oil NGL Gas Total
1. Physical measure of total prodn.
2. Weighting (150; 50; 800 1,000)
3. Joint costs allocated (Weights $1,800)
150
0.15
$270
50
0.05
$90
800
0.80
$1,440
1,000
1.00
$1,800
1b. NRV Method
1. Final sales value of total production
2. Deduct separable costs
3. NRV at splitoff
4. Weighting (2,525; 645; 830 4,000)
5. Joint costs allocated (Weights $1,800)
$2,700

175
$2,525
0.63125
$1,136.25
$750

105
$645
0.16125
$290.25
$1,040

210
$
830
0.20750
$373.50
$4,490

490
$4,000
$1,800
2. The operating-income amounts for each product using each method is:
(a) Physical Measure Method
Revenues
Cost of goods sold
Joint costs
Separable costs
Total cost of goods sold
Gross margin
$2,700
270
175
445
$2,255
$750
90
105
195
$555
$1,040
1,440
210
1,650
$ (610)
$4,490
1,800
490
2,290
$2,200
(b) NRV Method
Revenues
Cost of goods sold
Joint costs
Separable costs
Total cost of goods sold
Gross margin
$2,700.00
1,136.25
175.00
1,311.25
$1,388.75
$750.00
290.25
105.00
395.25
$354.75
$1,040.00
373.50
210.00
583.50
$ 456.50
$4,490.00
1,800.00
490.00
2,290.00
$2,200.00
3. Neither method should be used for product emphasis decisions. It is inappropriate to use
joint-cost-allocated data to make decisions regarding dropping individual products, or
pushing individual products, as they are joint by definition. Product-emphasis decisions
should be made based on relevant revenues and relevant costs. Each method can lead to
product emphasis decisions that do not lead to maximization of operating income.
4. Since crude oil is the only product subject to taxation, it is clearly in Sinclairs best interest to
use the NRV method since it leads to a lower profit for crude oil and, consequently, a smaller
tax burden. A letter to the taxation authorities could stress the conceptual superiority of the
NRV method. Chapter 16 argues that, using a benefits-received cost allocation criterion,
market-based joint cost allocation methods are preferable to physical-measure methods. A
meaningful common denominator (revenues) is available when the sales value at splitoff
point method or NRV method is used. The physical-measures method requires
nonhomogeneous products (liquids and gases) to be converted to a common denominator.
16.22 (30 min.) Joint-cost allocation, sales value, physical measure, NRV methods.
1a.
PANEL A: Allocation of Joint Costs using Sales Value at
Splitoff Method
Special B/
Beef
Ramen
Special S/
Shrimp
Ramen Total
Sales value of total production at splitoff point
(10,000 tons $10 per ton; 20,000 $15 per ton) $100,000 $300,000 $400,000
Weighting ($100,000; $300,000 $400,000) 0.25 0.75
Joint costs allocated (0.25; 0.75 $240,000) $60,000 $180,000 $240,000
PANEL B: Product-Line Income Statement for June 2009 Special B Special S Total
Revenues
Deduct joint costs allocated (from Panel A) 60,000 180,000 240,000
Deduct separable costs 48 ,000 168 ,000 216 ,000
Gross margin $ 108 ,000 $ 25 2,000 $36 0,000
Gross margin percentage 50% 42% 44%
1b.
PANEL A: Allocation of Joint Costs using Physical-Measure
Method
Special B/
Beef
Ramen
Special S/
Shrimp
Ramen Total
Physical measure of total production (tons) 10,000 20,000 30,000
Weighting (10,000 tons; 20,000 tons 30,000 tons) 33% 67%
Revenues
Gross margin $ 88 ,000 $ 27 2,000 $36 0,000
Gross margin percentage 41% 45% 44%
1c.
PANEL A: Allocation of Joint Costs using Net Realizable
Value Method Special B Special S Total
Final sales value of total production during accounting period
(12,000 tons $18 per ton; 24,000 tons $25 per ton) $216,000 $600,000 $816,000
Net realizable value at splitoff point $ 168 ,000 $ 432 ,000 $ 6 00,000
Weighting ($168,000; $432,000 $600,000) 28% 72%
Revenues (12,000 tons $18 per ton; 24,000 tons $25 per ton) $216,000 $600,000 $816,000
Gross margin $ 100,8 00 $ 259,2 00 $ 36 0,000
Gross margin percentage 46.7% 43.2% 44.1%
2. Sherrie Dong probably performed the analysis shown below to arrive at the net loss of
$2,228 from marketing the stock:
PANEL A: Allocation of Joint Costs using
Sales Value at Splitoff
Special B/
Beef
Ramen
Special S/
Shrimp
Ramen Stock Total
Sales value of total production at splitoff point
(10,000 tons $10 per ton; 20,000 $15 per
ton; 4,000 $5 per ton) $100,000 $300,000 $20,000 $420,000
Weighting
($100,000; $300,000; $20,000 $420,000) 23.8095% 71.4286% 4.7619% 100%
Joint costs allocated
(0.238095; 0.714286; 0.047619 $240,000) $57,143 $171,429 $11,428 $240,000
PANEL B: Product-Line Income Statement
for June 2009 Special B Special S Stock Total
Revenues
(12,000 tons $18 per ton; 24,000 $25 per ton;
4,000 $5 per ton) $216,000 $600,000 $20,000 $836,000
Separable processing costs 48,000 168,000 0 216,000
Joint costs allocated (from Panel A) 57,143 171,429 11,428 24 0,000
Gross margin $110,857 $260,571 8,572 380,000
Deduct marketing costs 10,800 10,8 00
Operating income $ ( 2,228 ) $ 369,2 00
In this (misleading) analysis, the $240,000 of joint costs are re-allocated between Special B,
Special S, and the stock. Irrespective of the method of allocation, this analysis is wrong. Joint
costs are always irrelevant in a process-further decision. Only incremental costs and revenues
past the splitoff point are relevant. In this case, the correct analysis is much simpler: the
incremental revenues from selling the stock are $20,000, and the incremental costs are the
marketing costs of $10,800. So, Instant Foods should sell the stockthis will increase its
operating income by $9,200 ($20,000 $10,800).
16-29 (30 min.) Joint-cost allocation, process further or sell.
A diagram of the situation is in Solution Exhibit 16-29.
1.
a. Sales value at splitoff method.
Monthly
Unit
Output
Selling
Price
Per Unit
Sales Value
of Total Prodn.
at Splitoff Weighting
Joint Costs
Allocated
Studs (Building) 75,000 $ 8 $ 600,000 46.1539% $ 461,539
Decorative Pieces 5,000 60 300,000 23.0769 230,769
Posts 20,000 20 400,000 30.7692 307,692
Totals $1,300,000 100.0000% $1,000,000
b. Physical measure method.
Physical
Measure of
Total Prodn. Weighting
Joint Costs
Allocated
Studs (Building) 75,000 75.00% $ 750,000
Decorative Pieces 5,000 5.00 50,000
Posts 20,000 20.00 200,000
Totals 100,000 100.00% $1,000,000
c. Net realizable value method.
Monthly
Units of
Total Prodn.
Fully
Processed
Selling
Price
per Unit
Net
Realizable
Value at
Splitoff Weighting

Joint Costs
Allocated
Studs (Building) 75,000 $ 8 $ 600,000 44.4445% $ 444,445
Decorative Pieces 4,500
a

100 350,000
b
25.9259 259,259
Posts 20,000 20 400,000 29.6296 296,296
Totals $1,350,000 100.0000% $1,000,000
a
5,000 monthly units of output 10% normal spoilage = 4,500 good units.
b
4,500 good units $100 = $450,000 Further processing costs of $100,000 = $350,000
2. Presented below is an analysis for Sonimad Sawmill, Inc., comparing the processing of
decorative pieces further versus selling the rough-cut product immediately at splitoff:
Units Dollars
Monthly unit output 5,000
Less: Normal further processing shrinkage 500
Units available for sale 4,500
Final sales value (4,500 units $100 per unit)
$450,000
Less: Sales value at splitoff 300,000
Incremental revenue 150,000
Less: Further processing costs 100,000
Additional contribution from further processing $ 50,000
3. Assuming Sonimad Sawmill, Inc. announces that in six months it will sell the rough-cut
product at splitoff due to increasing competitive pressure, behavior that may be demonstrated by
the skilled labor in the planning and sizing process include the following:
lower quality,
reduced motivation and morale, and
job insecurity, leading to nonproductive employee time looking for jobs
elsewhere.
Management actions that could improve this behavior include the following:
Improve communication by giving the workers a more comprehensive
explanation as to the reason for the change so they can better understand the situation
and bring out a plan for future operation of the rest of the plant.
The company can offer incentive bonuses to maintain quality and production and
align rewards with goals.
The company could provide job relocation and internal job transfers.
Joint Costs
$1,000,000
Separable Costs
Processing
$100,000
Processing
Studs
$8 per unit
Raw Decorative
Pieces
$60 per unit
Posts
$20 per unit
Decorative
Pieces
$100 per unit
Splitoff
Point
70
16-32 (20 min.) Joint-cost allocation with a byproduct.
1. Sales value at splitoff method: Byproduct recognized at time of production method
Joint cost to be charged to joint products = Joint Cost NRV of Byproduct
= $10,000 1000 tons 20% 0.25 vats $60
= $10,000 50 vats $60
= $ 7,000
Grade A
Coal
Grade B
Coal
Total
Sales value of coal at splitoff,
1,000 tons 0.4 $100; 1,000 tons 0.4 $60 $40,000 $24,000 $64,000
Weighting, $40,000; $24,000
$64,000 0.625 0.375

Joint costs allocated,
0.625; 0.375 $7,000 $ 4,375 $ 2,625 $ 7,000
Gross margin (Sales revenue Allocated cost) $35,625 $21,375 $57,000
2. Sales value at splitoff method: Byproduct recognized at time of sale method
Joint cost to be charged to joint products = Total Joint Cost = $10,000
Grade A
Coal
Grade B
Coal
Total
Sales value of coal splitoff,
1,000 tons .4 $100; 1,000 tons .4 $60 $40,000 $24,000 $64,000
Weighting, $40,000; $24,000
$64,000 0.625 0.375

Joint costs allocated,
0.625; 0.375 $10,000 $ 6,250 $ 3,750 $10,000
Gross margin (Sales revenue Allocated cost) $33,750 $20,250 $54,000
Since the entire production is sold during the period, the overall gross margin is the same
under the production and sales methods. In particular, under the sales method, the $3,000
received from the sale of the coal tar is added to the overall revenues, so that Cumberlands
overall gross margin is $57,000, as in the production method.
3. The production method of accounting for the byproduct is only appropriate if
Cumberland is positive they can sell the byproduct and positive of the selling price.
Moreover, Cumberland should view the byproducts contribution to the firm as material
enough to find it worthwhile to record and track any inventory that may arise. The sales
method is appropriate if either the disposition of the byproduct is unsure or the selling price
is unknown, or if the amounts involved are so negligible as to make it economically
infeasible for Cumberland to keep track of byproduct inventories.
CHAPTER 7
7-18 (2530 min.) Flexible-budget preparation and analysis.
1. Variance Analysis for Bank Management Printers for September 2009
Level 1 Analysis
Actual
Results
(1)
Static-Budget
Variances
(2) = (1) (3)
Static
Budget
(3)
Units sold
Revenue
12,000
$252,000
a
3,000 U
$ 48,000 U
15,000
$300,000
c
Variable costs 84,000
d
36,000 F 120,000
f
Contribution margin
Fixed costs
Operating income
168,000
150,000
$ 18,000
12,000 U
5,000 U
$ 17,000 U
180,000
145,000
$ 35,000
$17,000 U
Total static-budget variance
2. Level 2 Analysis
Actual
Results
(1)
Flexible-
Budget
Variances
(2) = (1) (3)
Flexible
Budget
(3)
Sales
Volume
Variances
(4) = (3) (5)
Static
Budget
(5)
Units sold 12,000 0 12,000 3,000 U 15,000
Revenue $252,000
a
$12,000 F $240,000
b
$60,000 U $300,000
c
Variable costs 84,000
d
12,000 F 96,000
e
24,000 F 120,000
f
Contribution margin 168,000 24,000 F 144,000 36,000 U 180,000
Fixed costs 150,000 5,000 U 145,000 0 145,000
Operating income $ 18,000 $19,000 F $ (1,000 ) $36,000 U $ 35,000
$19,000 F $36,000 U
Total flexible-budget Total sales-volume
variance variance
$17,000 U
a

12,000 $21 = $252,000
d

12,000 $7 = $ 84,000
b

12,000 $20 = $240,000
e

12,000 $8 = $ 96,000
c

15,000 $20 = $300,000
f

15,000 $8 = $120,000
3. Level 2 analysis breaks down the static-budget variance into a flexible-budget variance
and a sales-volume variance. The primary reason for the static-budget variance being
unfavorable ($17,000 U) is the reduction in unit volume from the budgeted 15,000 to an actual
12,000. One explanation for this reduction is the increase in selling price from a budgeted $20 to
an actual $21. Operating management was able to reduce variable costs by $12,000 relative to
the flexible budget. This reduction could be a sign of efficient management. Alternatively, it
could be due to using lower quality materials (which in turn adversely affected unit volume).
7-19 (30 min.) Flexible budget, working backward.
1. Variance Analysis for The Clarkson Company for the year ended December 31, 2009
Actual
Results
(1)
Flexible-
Budget
Variances
(2)=(1)(3)
Flexible
Budget
(3)
Sales-Volume
Variances
(4)=(3)(5)
Static
Budget
(5)
Units sold 130,000 0 130,000 1 0,000 F 120,000
Revenues $715,000 $260,000 F $455,000
a
$35,000 F $420,000
Variable costs 515 ,000 255 ,000 U 260 ,000
b
20 ,000 U 240 ,000
Contribution margin 200,000 5,000 F 195,000 15,000 F 180,000
Fixed costs 140 ,000 20,000 U 120,000 0 120 ,000
Operating income $ 6 0,000 $ 15,000 U $ 75,000 $ 1 5,000 F $ 60 ,000
a
130,000 $3.50 = $455,000; $420,000
120,000 = $3.50
b
130,000 $2.00 = $260,000; $240,000
120,000 = $2.00
2. Actual selling price: $715,000 130,000 = $5.50
Budgeted selling price: 420,000 120,000 = $3.50
Actual variable cost per unit: 515,000 130,000 = $3.96
Budgeted variable cost per unit: 240,000 120,000 = $2.00
3. A zero total static-budget variance may be due to offsetting total flexible-budget and total
sales-volume variances. In this case, these two variances exactly offset each other:
Total flexible-budget variance $15,000 Unfavorable
Total sales-volume variance $15,000 Favorable
A closer look at the variance components reveals some major deviations from plan.
Actual variable costs increased from $2.00 to $3.96, causing an unfavorable flexible-budget
variable cost variance of $255,000. Such an increase could be a result of, for example, a jump in
direct material prices. Clarkson was able to pass most of the increase in costs onto their
customersactual selling price increased by 57% [($5.50 $3.50)
$3.50], bringing about an

offsetting favorable flexible-budget revenue variance in the amount of $260,000. An increase in
the actual number of units sold also contributed to more favorable results. The company should
examine why the units sold increased despite an increase in direct material prices. For example,
Clarksons customers may have stocked up, anticipating future increases in direct material
prices. Alternatively, Clarksons selling price increases may have been lower than competitors
price increases. Understanding the reasons why actual results differ from budgeted amounts can
help Clarkson better manage its costs and pricing decisions in the future. The important lesson
learned here is that a superficial examination of summary level data (Levels 0 and 1) may be
insufficient. It is imperative to scrutinize data at a more detailed level (Level 2). Had Clarkson
not been able to pass costs on to customers, losses would have been considerable.
$15,000 U
Total flexible-budget variance
$15,000 F
Total sales volume variance
$0
73
7-20 (30-40 min.) Flexible budget and sales volume variances.
1. and 2.
Performance Report for Marron, Inc., June 2009
Actual
Flexible
Budget
Variances
Flexible
Budget
Sales Volume
Variances
Static
Budget
Static
Budget
Variance
Static Budget
Variance as
% of Static
Budget
(1) (2) = (1) (3) (3) (4) = (3) (5) (5) (6) = (1) (5) (7) = (6)
(5)
Units (pounds) 525,000 - 525,000 25,000 F 500,000 25,000 F 5.0%
Revenues $3,360,000 $ 52,500 U $3,412,500
a
$162,500 F $3,250,000 $110,000 F 3.4%
Variable mfg. costs 1,890,000 52,500 U 1,837,500
b
87,500 U 1,750,000 140,000 U 8.0%
Contribution margin $1,470,000 $105,000 U $1,575,000 $ 75,000 F $1,500,000 $ 30,000 U 2.0%
$105,000 U $ 75,000 F
Flexible-budget variance Sales-volume variance
$30,000 U
Static-budget variance
a
Budgeted selling price = $3,250,000
500,000 lbs = $6.50 per lb.

Flexible-budget revenues = $6.50 per lb.
525,000 lbs. = $3,412,500

b
Budgeted variable mfg. cost per unit = $1,750,000
500,000 lbs. = $3.50

Flexible-budget variable mfg. costs = $3.50 per lb.
525,000 lbs. = $1,837,500

3. The selling price variance, caused solely by the difference in actual and budgeted selling
price, is the flexible-budget variance in revenues = $52,500 U.
4. The flexible-budget variances show that for the actual sales volume of 525,000 pounds,
selling prices were lower and costs per pound were higher. The favorable sales volume variance
in revenues (because more pounds of ice cream were sold than budgeted) helped offset the
unfavorable variable cost variance and shored up the results in June 2009. Levine should be more
concerned because the small static-budget variance in contribution margin of $30,000 U is
actually made up of a favorable sales-volume variance in contribution margin of $75,000, an
unfavorable selling-price variance of $52,500 and an unfavorable variable manufacturing costs
variance of $52,500. Levine should analyze why each of these variances occurred and the
relationships among them. Could the efficiency of variable manufacturing costs be improved?
Did the sales volume increase because of a decrease in selling price or because of growth in the
overall market? Analysis of these questions would help Levine decide what actions he should
take.
7-23 (30 min.) Direct materials and direct manufacturing labor variances.
1.
May 2009
Actual
Results
Price
Variance
Actual
Quantity
Budgeted
Price
Efficiency
Variance
Flexible
Budget
(1) (2) = (1)(3) (3) (4) = (3) (5) (5)
Units 550 550
Direct materials $12,705.00 $1,815.00 U $10,890.00
a
$990.00 U $9,900.00
b

Direct labor $ 8,464.50 $ 104.50 U $ 8,360.00
c
$440.00 F $8,800.00
d

Total price variance $1,919.50 U
Total efficiency variance $550.00 U
a
7,260 meters
$1.50 per meter = $10,890

b
550 lots
12 meters per lot
$1.50 per meter = $9,900

c
1,045 hours
$8.00 per hour = $8,360

d
550 lots
2 hours per lot
$8 per hour = $8,800

Total flexible-budget variance for both inputs = $1,919.50U + $550U = $2,469.50U
Total flexible-budget cost of direct materials and direct labor = $9,900 + $8,800 = $18,700
Total flexible-budget variance as % of total flexible-budget costs = $2,469.50
$18,700 = 13.21%
2.
May
2010
Actual
Results
Price
Variance
Actual
Quantity
Budgeted
Price
Efficiency
Variance
Flexible
Budget
(1) (2) = (1) (3) (3) (4) = (3) (5) (5)
Units 550 550
Direct materials $11,828.36
a
$1,156.16 U $10,672.20
b
$772.20 U $9,900.00
c
Direct manuf. labor $ 8,295.21
d
$ 102.41 U $ 8,192.80
e
$607.20 F $8,800.00
c
Total price variance $1,258.57 U
Total efficiency variance $165.00 U
a
Actual dir. mat. cost, May 2010 = Actual dir. mat. cost, May 2009
0.98
0.95 = $12,705
0.98

0.95 = $11.828.36
Alternatively, actual dir. mat. cost, May 2010
= (Actual dir. mat. quantity used in May 2009
0.98)
(Actual dir. mat. price in May 2009
0.95)
= (7,260 meters
0.98)
($1.75/meter
0.95)
= 7,114.80
$1.6625 = $11,828.36
b
(7,260 meters
0.98)
$1.50 per meter = $10,672.20

c
Unchanged from 2009.
d
Actual dir. labor cost, May 2010 = Actual dir. manuf. cost May 2009
0.98 = $8,464.50
0.98
= $8,295.21
Alternatively, actual dir. labor cost, May 2010
= (Actual dir. manuf. labor quantity used in May 2009
0.98)
Actual dir. labor price in 2009

= (1,045 hours
0.98)
$8.10 per hour

= 1,024.10 hours
$8.10 per hour = $8,295.21

e
(1,045 hours
0.98)
$8.00 per hour = $8,192.80

Total flexible-budget variance for both inputs = $1,258.57U + $165U = $1,423.57U
Total flexible-budget cost of direct materials and direct labor = $9,900 + $8,800 = $18,700

Total flexible-budget variance as % of total flexible-budget costs = $1,423.57
$18,700 = 7.61%
3. Efficiencies have improved in the direction indicated by the production managerbut, it
is unclear whether they are a trend or a one-time occurrence. Also, overall, variances are still
7.6% of flexible input budget. GloriaDee should continue to use the new material, especially in
light of its superior quality and feel, but it may want to keep the following points in mind:
The new material costs substantially more than the old ($1.75 in 2009 and
$1.6625 in 2010 vs. $1.50 per meter). Its price is unlikely to come down even more
within the coming year. Standard material price should be re-examined and possibly
changed.
GloriaDee should continue to work to reduce direct materials and direct
manufacturing labor content. The reductions from May 2009 to May 2010 are a good
development and should be encouraged.
7-39 (60 min.) Comprehensive variance analysis review.
Actual Results
Units sold (90% 2,000,000) 1,800,000
Selling price per unit $4.80
Revenues (1,800,000 $4.80) $8,640,000
Direct materials purchased and used:
Direct materials per unit $0.80
Total direct materials cost (1,800,000 $0.80) $1,440,000
Direct manufacturing labor:
Actual manufacturing rate per hour $15
Labor productivity per hour in units 250
Manufacturing labor-hours of input (1,800,000 250) 7,200
Total direct manufacturing labor costs (7,200 $15) $108,000
Direct marketing costs:
Direct marketing cost per unit $0.30
Total direct marketing costs (1,800,000 $0.30) $540,000
Fixed costs ($850,000 $30,000) $820,000
Static Budgeted Amounts
Units sold 2,000,000
Selling price per unit $5.00
Revenues (2,000,000 $5.00) $10,000,000
Direct materials purchased and used:
Direct materials per unit $0.85
Total direct materials costs (2,000,000 $0.85) $1,700,000
Direct manufacturing labor:
Direct manufacturing rate per hour $15.00
Labor productivity per hour in units 300
Manufacturing labor-hours of input (2,000,000 300) 6,667
Total direct manufacturing labor cost (6,667 $15.00) $100,000
Direct marketing costs:
Direct marketing cost per unit $0.30
Total direct marketing cost (2,000,000 $0.30) $600,000
Fixed costs $850,000
1. Actual Static-Budget
Results Amounts
Revenues $ 8,6 40,000 $ 10 ,000,000
Variable costs
Direct materials 1,440,000 1,700,000
Direct manufacturing labor 108,000 100,000
Direct marketing costs 540 ,000 600 ,000
Total variable costs 2,088 ,000 2,40 0,000
Contribution margin 6,552,000 7,600,000
Fixed costs 8 2 0,000 85 0,000
Operating income $ 5,732 ,000 $ 6,750 ,000
2. Actual operating income $5,732,000
Static-budget operating income 6,750 ,000
Total static-budget variance $1, 018 ,000 U
Flexible-budget-based variance analysis for Sonnet, Inc. for March 2010:
Actual
Results
Flexible-Budget
Variances
Flexible
Budget
Sales-
Volume
Variances
Static
Budget
Units (diskettes) sold 1, 8 00,000 0 1, 8 00,000 2 00,000 2,0 00,000
Revenues
Variable costs
Direct materials
Direct manuf. labor
Direct marketing costs
Total variable costs
$ 8,6 40,000
1,440,000
108,000
540 ,000
2,088 ,000
$360,000 U
90,000 F
18,000 U
0
72 ,000 F
$ 9,000 ,000
1,530,000
90,000
54 0,000
2,160 ,000
$1, 0 00,000 U
170,000 F
10,000 F
6 0,000 F
240 ,000 F
$ 10,0 00,00
0
1,700,000
100,000
600 ,000
2,4 00,000
Contribution margin 6,552,000 288,000 U 6,840,000 760,000 U 7,600,000
Fixed costs 8 2 0,000 30,000 F 85 0,000 0 85 0,000
Operating income $ 5,732 ,000 $2 58 ,000 U $ 5,990 ,000 $ 76 0,000 U $ 6,75 0,000
3. Flexible-budget operating income = $5,990,000.
4. Flexible-budget variance for operating income = $258,000U.
5. Sales-volume variance for operating income = $760,000U.
Analysis of direct mfg. labor flexible-budget variance for Sonnet, Inc. for March 2010
Actual Costs
Incurred
(Actual Input Qty.
Actual Price)
Actual Input Qty.
Budgeted Price
Flexible Budget
(Budgeted Input
Qty. Allowed for
Actual Output
Budgeted Price)
Direct.
Mfg. Labor
(7,200 $15.00)
$108,000
(7,200 $15.00)
$108,000
(*6,000 $15.00)
$90,000
$0 $18,000 U
Price variance Efficiency variance
* 1,800,000 units 300 direct manufacturing labor standard productivity rate per hour.
6. DML price variance = $0; DML efficiency variance = $18,000U
7. DML flexible-budget variance = $18,000U
$760,000 U
Total sales-volume
variance
$258,000 U
Total flexible-budget
variance
$1,018,000 U
$18,000 U
Flexible-budget variance
78
CHAPTER 8
8-16 (20 min.) Variable manufacturing overhead, variance analysis.
1. Variable Manufacturing Overhead Variance Analysis for Esquire Clothing for June 2009
Actual Costs
Incurred
Actual Input Qty.
Actual Rate
(1)
Actual Input Qty.
Budgeted Rate
(2)
Flexible Budget:
Budgeted Input Qty.
Allowed for
Actual Output
Budgeted Rate
(3)
Allocated:
Budgeted Input Qty.
Allowed for
Actual Output
Budgeted Rate
(4)
(4,536 $11.50)
$52,164
(4,536 $12)
$54,432
(4 1,080 $12)
$51,840
(4 1,080 $12)
$51,840
2. Esquire had a favorable spending variance of $2,268 because the actual variable overhead
rate was $11.50 per direct manufacturing labor-hour versus $12 budgeted. It had an unfavorable
efficiency variance of $2,592 U because each suit averaged 4.2 labor-hours (4,536 hours 1,080
suits) versus 4.0 budgeted labor-hours.
$2,268 F
Spending variance
$2,592 U
Efficiency variance
Never a variance
$324 U
Never a variance
79
8-17 (20 min.) Fixed-manufacturing overhead, variance analysis (continuation of 8-16).
1 & 2.
Budgeted fixed overhead
rate per unit of
allocation base
=
4 040 , 1
400 , 62 $
=
160 , 4
400 , 62 $
= $15 per hour
Fixed Manufacturing Overhead Variance Analysis for Esquire Clothing for June 2009
Actual Costs
Incurred
(1)
Same Budgeted
Lump Sum
(as in Static Budget)
Regardless of
Output Level
(2)
Flexible Budget:
Same Budgeted
Lump Sum
Regardless of
Output Level
(3)
Allocated:
Budgeted Input Qty.
Allowed for Actual
Output
Budgeted Rate
(4)
$63,916 $62,400 $62,400
(4 1,080 $15)
$64,800
$1,516 U $2,400 F
Spending variance Never a variance Production-volume variance
$1,516 U $2,400 F
Flexible-budget variance Production-volume variance
The fixed manufacturing overhead spending variance and the fixed manufacturing
flexible budget variance are the same$1,516 U. Esquire spent $1,516 above the $62,400
budgeted amount for June 2009.
The production-volume variance is $2,400 F. This arises because Esquire utilized its
capacity more intensively than budgeted (the actual production of 1,080 suits exceeds the
budgeted 1,040 suits). This results in overallocated fixed manufacturing overhead of $2,400 (4
40 $15). Esquire would want to understand the reasons for a favorable production-volume
variance. Is the market growing? Is Esquire gaining market share? Will Esquire need to add
capacity?
8-21 (1015 min.) 4-variance analysis, fill in the blanks.
Variable Fixed
1. Spending variance
2. Efficiency variance
3. Production-volume variance
4. Flexible-budget variance
5. Underallocated (overallocated) MOH
$4,200 U
4,500 U
NEVER
8,700 U
8,700 U
$3,000 U
NEVER
600 U
3,000 U
3,600 U
These relationships could be presented in the same way as in Exhibit 8-4.
Actual Costs
Incurred
(1)
Actual Input Qty.
Budgeted Rate
(2)
Flexible Budget:
Budgeted Input Qty.
Allowed for
Actual Output
Budgeted Rate
(3)
Allocated:
Budgeted Input Qty.
Allowed for
Actual Output
Budgeted Rate
(4)
Variable
MOH
$35,700 $31,500 $27,000 $27,000
Actual Costs
Incurred
(1)
Same Budgeted
Lump Sum
Regardless of
Output Level
(2)
Flexible Budget:
Same Budgeted
Lump Sum
Regardless of
Output Level
(3)
Allocated:
Budgeted Input Qty.
Allowed for
Actual Output
Budgeted Rate
(4)
Fixed
MOH
$18,000 $15,000 $15,000 $14,400
$4,200 U
Spending variance
$4,500 U
Efficiency variance
Never a variance
$3,000 U
Spending variance Never a variance
$600 U
Production-volume variance
$8,700 U
Flexible-budget variance Never a variance
$8,700 U
Underallocated variable overhead
(Total variable overhead variance)
$3,000 U
$600 U
Production-volume variance
$3,600 U
Underallocated fixed overhead
(Total fixed overhead variance)
81
An overview of the 4 overhead variances is:
4-Variance
Analysis
Spending
Variance
Efficiency
Variance
Production-
Volume
Variance
Variable
Overhead $4,200 U $4,500 U Never a variance
Fixed
Overhead $3,000 U Never a variance $600 U
8-27 (15 min.) Identifying favorable and unfavorable variances.
Scenario
VOH
Spending
Variance
VOH
Efficiency
Variance
FOH
Spending
Variance
FOH
Production-
Volume Variance
Production output is
5% more than
budgeted, and actual
fixed manufacturing
overhead costs are 6%
more than budgeted
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
actual versus
budgeted VOH
rates
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
actual versus
flexible-budget
machine-hours
Unfavorable:
actual fixed
costs are more
than budgeted
fixed costs
Favorable: output
is more than
budgeted causing
FOH costs to be
overallocated
10% more than
budgeted; actual
machine hours are 5%
less than budgeted
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
actual versus
budgeted VOH
rates
Favorable: actual
machine-hours less
than flexible-
budget machine-
hours
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
actual versus
budgeted FOH
costs
Favorable: output
is more than
budgeted causing
FOH costs to be
overallocated
8% less than budgeted
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
actual versus
budgeted VOH
rates
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
actual machine-
hours versus
flexible-budget
machine-hours
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
actual versus
budgeted FOH
costs
Unfavorable:
output less than
budgeted will
cause FOH costs to
be underallocated
Actual machine hours
are 15% greater than
flexible-budget
machine hours
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
actual versus
budgeted VOH
rates
Unfavorable: more
machine-hours
used relative to
flexible budget
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
actual versus
budgeted FOH
costs
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
flexible-budget
machine-hours
relative to static-
budget machine-
hours
Relative to the flexible
budget, actual machine
hours are 10% greater
and actual variable
manufacturing
overhead costs are 15%
greater
Unfavorable:
actual VOH rate
greater than
budgeted VOH
rate
Unfavorable: actual
machine-hours
greater than
flexible-budget
machine-hours
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
actual versus
budgeted FOH
costs
Cannot be
determined: no
information on
actual output
relative to
budgeted output
8-29 (30 min.) Comprehensive variance analysis.
1. Budgeted number of machine-hours planned can be calculated by multiplying the number
of units planned (budgeted) by the number of machine-hours allocated per unit:
888 units 2 machine-hours per unit = 1,776 machine-hours.
2. Budgeted fixed MOH costs per machine-hour can be computed by dividing the flexible
budget amount for fixed MOH (which is the same as the static budget) by the number of
machine-hours planned (calculated in (a.)):
$348,096 1,776 machine-hours = $196.00 per machine-hour
3. Budgeted variable MOH costs per machine-hour are calculated as budgeted variable
MOH costs divided by the budgeted number of machine-hours planned:
$71,040 1,776 machine-hours = $40.00 per machine-hour.
4. Budgeted number of machine-hours allowed for actual output achieved can be calculated
by dividing the flexible-budget amount for variable MOH by budgeted variable MOH
costs per machine-hour:
$76,800 $40.00 per machine-hour= 1,920 machine-hours allowed
5. The actual number of output units is the budgeted number of machine-hours allowed for
actual output achieved divided by the planned allocation rate of machine hours per unit:
1,920 machine-hours 2 machine-hours per unit = 960 units.
6. The actual number of machine-hours used per output unit is the actual number of
machine hours used (given) divided by the actual number of units manufactured:
1,824 machine-hours 960 units = 1.9 machine-hours used per output unit.
8-39 (3040 min.) Comprehensive review of Chapters 7 and 8, working backward from
given variances.
1. Solution Exhibit 8-39 outlines the Chapter 7 and 8 framework underlying this solution.
a. Pounds of direct materials purchased = $176,000 $1.10 = 160,000 pounds
b. Pounds of excess direct materials used = $69,000 $11.50 = 6,000 pounds
c. Variable manufacturing overhead spending variance = $10,350 $18,000 = $7,650 F
d. Standard direct manufacturing labor rate = $800,000 40,000 hours = $20 per hour
Actual direct manufacturing labor rate = $20 + $0.50 = $20.50
Actual direct manufacturing labor-hours = $522,750 $20.50
= 25,500 hours
e. Standard variable manufacturing overhead rate = $480,000 40,000
= $12 per direct manuf. labor-hour
Variable manuf. overhead efficiency variance of $18,000 $12 = 1,500 excess hours
Actual hours Excess hours = Standard hours allowed for units produced
25,500 1,500 = 24,000 hours
f. Budgeted fixed manufacturing overhead rate = $640,000 40,000 hours
= $16 per direct manuf. labor-hour
Fixed manufacturing overhead allocated = $16 24,000 hours = $384,000
Production-volume variance = $640,000 $384,000 = $256,000 U
1. The control of variable manufacturing overhead requires the identification of the cost drivers
for such items as energy, supplies, and repairs. Control often entails monitoring nonfinancial
measures that affect each cost item, one by one. Examples are kilowatts used, quantities of
lubricants used, and repair parts and hours used. The most convincing way to discover why
overhead performance did not agree with a budget is to investigate possible causes, line item
by line item.
Individual fixed overhead items are not usually affected very much by day-to-day
control. Instead, they are controlled periodically through planning decisions and budgeting
procedures that may sometimes have planning horizons covering six months or a year (for
example, management salaries) and sometimes covering many years (for example, long-term
leases and depreciation on plant and equipment).
Solution Exhibit 8-39
Actual Costs
Incurred
(Actual Input Qty.
Actual Rate)
Actual Input Qty.
Budgeted Rate
Purchases Usage
Flexible Budget:
Budgeted Input Qty.
Allowed for
Actual Output
Budgeted Rate
Direct
Materials
160,000 $10.40
$1,664,000
160,000 $11.50
$1,840,000
96,000 $11.50
$1,104,000
3 30,000 $11.50
$1,035,000
Direct
Manuf.
Labor
0.85 30,000 $20.50
$522,750
0.85 30,000 $20
$510,000
0.80 30,000 $20
$480,000
Actual Costs
Incurred
Actual Input Qty.
Actual Rate
Actual Input Qty.
Budgeted Rate
Flexible Budget:
Budgeted Input Qty.
Allowed for
Actual Output
Budgeted Rate
Allocated:
Budgeted Input Qty.
Allowed for
Actual Output
Budgeted Rate
Variable
MOH
0.85 30,000
$11.70
$298,350
0.85 30,000 $12
$306,000
0.80 30,000 $12
$288,000
0.80 30,000 $12
$288,000
Actual Costs
Incurred
(1)
Same Budgeted
Lump Sum
Regardless of
Output Level
(2)
Flexible Budget:
Same Budgeted
Lump Sum
Regardless of
Output Level
(3)
Allocated:
Budgeted Input Qty.
Allowed for
Actual Output
Budgeted Rate
(4)
Fixed
MOH $597,460 $640,000
0.80 50,000 $16
$640,000
0.80 x 30,000 $16
$384,000
$176,000 F
Price variance
$69,000 U
Efficiency variance
$12,750 U
Price variance
$30,000 U
Efficiency variance
$42,750 U
$7,650 F
Spending variance
$18,000 U
Efficiency
variance
Never a variance
$10,350 U
Flexible-budget variance Never a variance
$256,000 U
$42,540 F
$256,000 U
Production volume variance
Never a variance
$42,540 F
Spending variance
volume variance
86
CHAPTER 9
9-18 (40 min.) Variable and absorption costing, explaining operating-income differences.
1. Key inputs for income statement computations are:
January February March
Beginning inventory
Production
Goods available for sale
Units sold
Ending inventory
0
1,000
1,000
700
300
300
800
1,100
800
300
300
1,250
1,550
1,500
50
The budgeted fixed manufacturing cost per unit and budgeted total manufacturing cost
per unit under absorption costing are:
(a) Budgeted fixed manufacturing costs
(b) Budgeted production
(c)=(a)(b) Budgeted fixed manufacturing cost per unit
(d) Budgeted variable manufacturing cost per unit
(e)=(c)+(d) Budgeted total manufacturing cost per unit
$400,000
1,000
$400
$900
$1,300
$400,000
1,000
$400
$900
$1,300
$400,000
1,000
$400
$900
$1,300
(a) Variable Costing
January 2009 February 2009 March 2009
Revenues
a
$1,750,000 $2,000,000 $3,750,000
Variable costs
Beginning inventory
b
$ 0 $270,000 $ 270,000
c
900,000 720,000 1,125,000
Cost of goods available for sale
Deduct ending inventory
d
900,000
(270,000 )
990,000
(270,000 )
1,395,000
(45,000
)
Variable cost of goods sold
Variable operating costs
e
Total variable costs
630,000
420,000
1,050,000
720,000
480,000
1,200,000
1,350,000
900,000
2,250,000
Contribution margin
Fixed costs
Fixed manufacturing costs
Fixed operating costs
Total fixed costs
Operating income
400,000
140,000
700,000
540,000
$ 160,000
400,000
140,000
800,000
540,000
$ 260,000
400,000
140,000
1,500,000
540,000
$ 960,000
a
$2,500 700; $2,500 800; $2,500 1,500
b
$? 0; $900 300; $900 300
c
$900 1,000; $900 800; $900 1,250
d
$900 300; $900 300; $900 50
e
$600 700; $600 800; $600 1,500
(b) Absorption Costing
January 2009 February 2009 March 2009
Revenues
a
Cost of goods sold
Beginning inventory
b
$ 0
$1,750,000
$ 390,000
$2,000,000
$ 390,000
$3,750,000
c
900,000 720,000 1,125,000
Allocated fixed manufacturing
costs
d
400,000 320,000 500,000
Cost of goods available for sale 1,300,000 1,430,000 2,015,000
e
(390,00
0) (390,000) (65,000)
Adjustment for prod. vol. var.
f
0 80,000 U (100,000 ) F
Cost of goods sold 910,000 1,120,000 1,850,000
Gross margin 840,000 880,000 1,900,000
Operating costs
g
420,000 480,000 900,000
Fixed operating costs 140,000 140,000 140,000
Total operating costs 560,000 620,000 1,040,000
Operating income $ 280,000 $ 260,000 $ 860,000
a
$2,500 700; $2,500 800; $2,500 1,500
b
$? 0; $1,300 300; $1,300 300
c
$900 1,000; $900 800; $900 1,250
d
$400 1,000; $400 800; $400 1,250
e
$1,300 300; $1,300 300; $1,300 50
f
$400,000 $400,000; $400,000 $320,000; $400,000 $500,000
g
$600 700; $600 800; $600 1,500
2. =
January: $280,000 $160,000 = ($400 300) $0
$120,000 = $120,000
February: $260,000 $260,000 = ($400 300) ($400 300)
$0 = $0
March: $860,000 $960,000 = ($400 50) ($400 300)
$100,000 = $100,000
The difference between absorption and variable costing is due solely to moving fixed
manufacturing costs into inventories as inventories increase (as in January) and out of
inventories as they decrease (as in March).
9-19 (2030 min.) Throughput costing (continuation of Exercise 9-18).
1.
Revenues
a
Direct material cost of
goods sold
Beginning inventory
b
$ 0 $1,750,000
$150,000
$2,000,000
$ 150,000
$3,750,000
Direct materials in goods
manufactured
c
Cost of goods available
for sale
d
Total direct material
cost of goods sold
500,000
500,000
(150,000 )
350,000
400,000
550,000
(150,000 )
400,000
625,000
775,000
(25,000 )
750,000
Throughput contribution 1,400,000 1,600,000 3,000,000
Other costs
Manufacturing
e
Operating
f
Total other costs
Operating income
800,000
560,000
1,360,000
$ 40,000
720,000
620,000
1,340,000
$ 260,000
900,000
1,040,000
1,940,000
$1,060,000
a
$2,500 700; $2,500 800; $2,500 1,500
b
$? 0; $500 300; $500 300
c
$500 1,000; $500 800; $500 1,250
d
$500 300; $500 300; $500 50
e
($400 1,000) + $400,000; ($400 800) + $400,000; ($400 1,250) + $400,000
f
($600 700) + $140,000; ($600 800) + $140,000; ($600 1,500) + $140,000
2. Operating income under:
Absorption costing
Variable costing
Throughput costing
$280,000
160,000
40,000
$260,000
260,000
260,000
$860,000
960,000
1,060,000
Throughput costing puts greater emphasis on sales as the source of operating income than does
absorption or variable costing.
3. Throughput costing puts a penalty on producing without a corresponding sale in the same
period. Costs other than direct materials that are variable with respect to production are expensed
when incurred, whereas under variable costing they would be capitalized as an inventoriable
cost.
9-21 (10 min.) Absorption and variable costing.
The answers are 1(a) and 2(c). Computations:
1. Absorption Costing:
Revenues
a
Cost of goods sold:
b
Allocated fixed manufacturing costs
c
Gross margin
$2,400,000
360,000
$4,800,000
2,760,000
2,040,000
Operating costs:
Variable operating
d

Fixed operating
Operating income
1,200,000
400,000 1,600,000
$ 440,000
a
$40 120,000
b
$20 120,000
c
Fixed manufacturing rate = $600,000 200,000 = $3 per output unit
Fixed manufacturing costs = $3 120,000
d
$10 120,000
2. Variable Costing:
Revenues
a
Variable costs:
Variable manufacturing cost of goods sold
b
c
Contribution margin
Fixed costs:
Fixed manufacturing costs
Fixed operating costs
Operating income
$2,400,000
1,200,000
600,000
400,000
$4,800,000
3,600,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
$ 200,000
a
$40 120,000
b
$20 120,000
c
$10 120,000
9-25 (10 min.) Capacity management, denominator-level capacity concepts.
1. a, b
2. a
3. d
4. c, d
5. c
6. d
7. a
8. b (or a)
9. b
10. c, d
11. a, b
9-26 (25 min.) Denominator-level problem.
1. Budgeted fixed manufacturing overhead costs rates:
Denominator
Level
Capacity
Concept
Budgeted Fixed
Manufacturing
Overhead per
Period
Budgeted
Capacity
Level
Budgeted Fixed
Manufacturing
Overhead Cost
Rate
Theoretical $ 4,000,000 2,880 $ 1,388.89
Practical 4,000,000 1,920 2,083.33
Normal 4,000,000 1,200 3,333.33
Master-budget 4,000,000 1,500 2,666,67
The rates are different because of varying denominator-level concepts. Theoretical and practical
capacity levels are driven by supply-side concepts, i.e., how much can I produce? Normal and
master-budget capacity levels are driven by demand-side concepts, i.e., how much can I sell?
(or how much should I produce?)
2. The variances that arise from use of the theoretical or practical level concepts will signal
that there is a divergence between the supply of capacity and the demand for capacity. This is
useful input to managers. As a general rule, however, it is important not to place undue reliance
on the production volume variance as a measure of the economic costs of unused capacity.
3. Under a cost-based pricing system, the choice of a master-budget level denominator will
lead to high prices when demand is low (more fixed costs allocated to the individual product
level), further eroding demand; conversely, it will lead to low prices when demand is high,
forgoing profits. This has been referred to as the downward demand spiralthe continuing
reduction in demand that occurs when the prices of competitors are not met and demand drops,
resulting in even higher unit costs and even more reluctance to meet the prices of competitors.
The positive aspects of the master-budget denominator level are that it is based on demand for
the product and indicates the price at which all costs per unit would be recovered to enable the
company to make a profit. Master-budget denominator level is also a good benchmark against
which to evaluate performance.
9-29 (40 min.) Variable costing and absorption costing, the All-Fixed Company.
This problem always generates active classroom discussion.
1. The treatment of fixed manufacturing overhead in absorption costing is affected primarily
by what denominator level is selected as a base for allocating fixed manufacturing costs to units
produced. In this case, is 10,000 tons per year, 20,000 tons, or some other denominator level the
most appropriate base?
We usually place the following possibilities on the board or overhead projector and then
ask the students to indicate by vote how many used one denominator level versus another.
Incidentally, discussion tends to move more clearly if variable-costing income statements are
discussed first, because there is little disagreement as to computations under variable costing.
a. Variable-Costing Income Statement:
2008 2009 Together
Revenues (and contribution margin) $300,000 $300,000 $600,000
Fixed costs:
Manufacturing costs $280,000
Operating costs 40,000 320,000 320,000 640,000
Operating income $ (20,000) $ (20,000) $ (40,000)
b. Absorption-Costing Income Statement:
The ambiguity about the 10,000- or 20,000-unit denominator level is intentional. IF YOU WISH,
THE AMBIGUITY MAY BE AVOIDED BY GIVING THE STUDENTS A SPECIFIC
DENOMINATOR LEVEL IN ADVANCE.
Alternative 1. Use 20,000 units as a denominator; fixed manufacturing overhead per unit is
$280,000 20,000 = $14.
2008 2009 Together
Revenues $300,000 $ 300,000 $600,000
Cost of goods sold
Beginning inventory 0 140,000
*
0
Allocated fixed manufacturing costs at $14 280,000 280,000
Deduct ending inventory (140,000)
Adjustment for production-volume variance 0 280,000 U 280,000 U
Cost of goods sold 140,000 420,000 560,000
Gross margin 160,000 (120,000) 40,000
Operating costs 40,000 40,000 80,000
Operating income $120,000 $(160,000 ) $ (40,000 )
*
Inventory carried forward from 2008 and sold in 2009.
Alternative 2. Use 10,000 units as a denominator; fixed manufacturing overhead per unit is
$280,000 10,000 = $28.
2008 2009 Together
Revenues $300,000 $300,000 $600,000
Cost of goods sold
Beginning inventory 0 280,000
*
0
Allocated fixed manufacturing costs at $28 560,000 560,000
Deduct ending inventory (280,000)
Adjustment for production-volume variance (280,000 ) F 280,000 U 0
Cost of goods sold 0 560,000 560,000
Gross margin 300,000 (260,000) 40,000
Operating costs 40,000 40,000 80,000
Operating income $260,000 $(300,000) $ (40,000)
*
Inventory carried forward from 2008 and sold in 2009.
Note that operating income under variable costing follows sales and is not affected by
inventory changes.
Note also that students will understand the variable-costing presentation much more
easily than the alternatives presented under absorption costing.
2.
Breakeven point
under variable
costing
=
per ton margin on Contributi
costs Fixed
=
$30
$320,000
= 10,667 (rounded) tons per year or 21,334 for two years.
If the company could sell 667 more tons per year at $30 each, it could get the extra
$20,000 contribution margin needed to break even.
Most students will say that the breakeven point is 10,667 tons per year under both
absorption costing and variable costing. The logical question to ask a student who answers
10,667 tons for variable costing is: What operating income do you show for 2008 under
absorption costing? If a student answers $120,000 (alternative 1 above), or $260,000
(alternative 2 above), ask: But you say your breakeven point is 10,667 tons. How can you show
an operating income on only 10,000 tons sold during 2008?
The answer to the above dilemma lies in the fact that operating income is affected by
both sales and production under absorption costing.
Given that sales would be 10,000 tons in 2008, solve for the production level that will
provide a breakeven level of zero operating income. Using the formula in the chapter, sales of
10,000 units, and a fixed manufacturing overhead rate of $14 (based on $280,000 20,000 units
denominator level = $14):

Let P = Production level
=
margin on contributi Unit
produced
Units
units
in sales
Breakeven
rate
overhead
manuf. Fixed
income
operating
Target
costs
fixed Total
1
1
1
]
1
,
_
,
_
,
_
,
_
10,000 tons =
30 $
) 000 10 ( 14 $ 0 $ 000 320 $ P + +
$300,000 = $320,000 + $140,000 $14P
$14P = $160,000
P = 11,429 units (rounded)
Proof:
Gross margin, 10,000 ($30 $14) $160,000
Production-volume variance,
(20,000 11,429) $14 $119,994
Marketing and administrative costs 40,000 159,994
Operating income (due to rounding) $ 6
Given that production would be 20,000 tons in 2008, solve for the breakeven unit sales level.
Using the formula in the chapter and a fixed manufacturing overhead rate of $14 (based on a
denominator level of 20,000 units):
Let N = Breakeven sales in units
N =
margin on contributi Unit
produced
Units
N
rate
overhead
manuf. Fixed
income
operating
Target
costs
fixed Total
1
1
1
]
1
,
_
,
_
,
_
,
_
N =
$320,000 + $0 + $14(N 20,000)
$30
$30N = $320,000 + $14N $280,000

$16N = $40,000
N = 2,500 units
Proof:
Gross margin, 2,500 ($30 $14) $40,000
Production-volume variance $ 0
Marketing and administrative costs 40,000 40,000
Operating income $ 0
We find it helpful to put the following comparisons on the board:
Variable costing breakeven = f(sales)
= 10,667 tons
Absorption costing breakeven = f(sales and production)
= f(10,000 and 11,429)
= f(2,500 and 20,000)
3. Absorption costing inventory cost: Either $140,000 or $280,000 at the end of 2008 and
zero at the end of 2009.
Variable costing: Zero at all times. This is a major criticism of variable costing and
focuses on the issue of the definition of an asset.
4. Operating income is affected by both production and sales under absorption costing.
Hence, most managers would prefer absorption costing because their performance in any given
reporting period, at least in the short run, is influenced by how much production is scheduled
near the end of a period.
CHAPTER 14
14-22 (2025 min.) Customer profitability, distribution.
1. The activity-based costing for each customer is:
Charleston
Pharmacy
Chapel Hill
Pharmacy
1. Order processing,
$40 13; $40 10 $ 520 $ 400
2. Line-item ordering,
$3 (13 9; 10 18) 351 540
3. Store deliveries,
$50 7; $50 10 350 500
4. Carton deliveries,
$1 (7 22; 10 20) 154 200
5. Shelf-stocking,
$16 (7 0; 10 0.5) 0 80
Operating costs $1,375 $1,720
The operating income of each customer is:
Charleston
Pharmacy
Chapel Hill
Pharmacy
Revenues,
$2,400 7; $1,800 10 $16,800 $18,000
Cost of goods sold,
$2,100 7; $1,650 10 14,700 16,500
Gross margin 2,100 1,500
Operating costs 1,375 1,720
Operating income $ 725 $ (220)
Chapel Hill Pharmacy has a lower gross margin percentage than Charleston (8.33% vs. 12.50%)
and consumes more resources to obtain this lower margin.
Ways Figure Four could use this information include:
a. Pay increased attention to the top 20% of the customers. This could entail asking them for
ways to improve service. Alternatively, you may want to highlight to your own personnel
the importance of these customers; e.g., it could entail stressing to delivery people the
importance of never missing delivery dates for these customers.
b. Work out ways internally at Figure Four to reduce the rate per cost driver; e.g., reduce the
cost per order by having better order placement linkages with customers. This cost
reduction by Figure Four will improve the profitability of all customers.
c. Work with customers so that their behavior reduces the total system-wide costs. At a
minimum, this approach could entail having customers make fewer orders and fewer line
items. This latter point is controversial with students; the rationale is that a reduction in
the number of line items (diversity of products) carried by Ma and Pa stores may reduce
the diversity of products Figure Four carries.
There are several options here:
Simple verbal persuasion by showing customers cost drivers at Figure Four.
Explicitly pricing out activities like cartons delivered and shelf-stocking so that
customers pay for the costs they cause.
Restricting options available to certain customers, e.g., customers with low
revenues could be restricted to one free delivery per week.
An even more extreme example is working with customers so that deliveries are easier to make
and shelf-stocking can be done faster.
d. Offer salespeople bonuses based on the operating income of each customer rather than
the gross margin of each customer.
Some students will argue that the bottom 40% of the customers should be dropped. This
action should be only a last resort after all other avenues have been explored. Moreover, an
unprofitable customer today may well be a profitable customer tomorrow, and it is myopic to
focus on only a 1-month customer-profitability analysis to classify a customer as unprofitable.
14-23 (3040 min.) Variance analysis, multiple products.
1. =
units in quantity
sales Actual

,
_
units in quantity
sales Budgeted

per ticket margin
on contributi Budgeted
Lower-tier tickets = (3,300 4,000) $20 = $14,000 U
Upper-tier tickets = (7,700 6,000) $ 5 = 8,500 F
All tickets $ 5,500 U
2.
unit per margin on contributi
average Budgeted
=
000 , 10
$5) (6,000 $20) 000 , 4 ( +
=
10,000
$30,000 000 , 80 $ +
=
000 , 10
000 , 110 $
= $11 per unit (seat sold)
Sales-mix percentages:
Budgeted Actual
Lower-tier
000 , 10
000 , 4
= 0.40
000 , 11
300 , 3
= 0.30
Upper-tier
000 , 10
000 , 6
= 0.60
000 , 11
700 , 7
= 0.70
Solution Exhibit 14-23 presents the sales-volume, sales-quantity, and sales-mix variances for
lower-tier tickets, upper-tier tickets, and in total for Detroit Penguins in 2010.
The sales-quantity variances can also be computed as:
=
,
_
sold
tickets all of
units Budgeted
sold
tickets all of
units Actual

percentage
mix - sales
Budgeted

per ticket
margin cont.
Budgeted
The sales-quantity variances are:
Lower-tier tickets = (11,000 10,000) 0.40 $20 = $ 8,000 F
Upper-tier tickets = (11,000 10,000) 0.60 $ 5 = 3,000 F
All tickets $11,000 F
The sales-mix variance can also be computed as:
=
sold
tickets all of
units Actual

Actual Budgeted Budgeted
contribution margin sales-mix sales-mix
per ticket percentage percentage
_

,
The sales-mix variances are
Lower-tier tickets = 11,000 (0.30 0.40) $20 = $22,000 U
Upper-tier tickets = 11,000 (0.70 0.60) $ 5 = 5,500 F
All tickets $16,500 U
3. The Detroit Penguins increased average attendance by 10% per game. However, there
was a sizable shift from lower-tier seats (budgeted contribution margin of $20 per seat) to the
upper-tier seats (budgeted contribution margin of $5 per seat). The net result: the actual
contribution margin was $5,500 below the budgeted contribution margin.
Columnar Presentation of Sales-Volume, Sales-Quantity and Sales-Mix Variances for Detroit
Penguins
Flexible Budget:
Actual Units of
All Products Sold
Actual Sales Mix
Budgeted
Contribution
Margin per Unit
(1)
Actual Units of
All Products Sold
Budgeted Sales Mix
Budgeted
Contribution Margin
per Unit
(2)
Static Budget:
Budgeted Units of
All Products Sold
Budgeted Sales Mix
Budgeted
Contribution
Margin per Unit
(3)
Panel A:
Lower-tier (11,000 0.30
a
) $20
3,300 $20
(11,000 0.40
b
) $20
4,400 $20
(10,000 0.40
b
) $20
4,000 $20
$66,000 $88,000 $80,000
$22,000U $8,000 F
Sales-mix variance Sales-quantity variance
$14,000 U
Sales-volume variance
Panel B:
Upper-tier (11,000 0.70
c
) $5
7,700 $5
(11,000 0.60
d
) $5
6,600 $5
(10,000 0.60
d
) $5
6,000 $5
$38,500 $33,000 $30,000
$5,500 F $3,000 F
Sales-mix variance Sales-quantity variance
$8,500 F
Panel C:
All Tickets
(Sum of Lower-
tier and Upper-
tier tickets)
$104,500
e
$121,000
f
$110,000
g
$16,500 U $11,000 F
Total sales-mix variance Total sales-quantity variance
$5,500 U
Total sales-volume variance
F = favorable effect on operating income; U = unfavorable effect on operating income.
Actual Sales Mix:
a
Lower-tier = 3,300 11,000 = 30%
c
Upper-tier = 7,700 11,000 = 70%
e
$66,000 + $38,500 = $104,500

Budgeted Sales Mix:
b
Lower-tier = 4,000 10,000 = 40%
d
Upper-tier = 6,000 10,000 = 60%
f

$88,000 + $33,000 = $121,000
g

$80,000 + $30,000 = $110,000
14-34 (40 min.) Variance analysis, multiple products.
1, 2, and 3. Solution Exhibit 14-34 presents the sales-volume, sales-quantity, and sales-mix
variances for each type of cookie and in total for Debbies Delight, Inc., in August 2009.
The sales-volume variances can also be computed as
Sales-volume
variance
=
( )
Actual quantity Budgeted quantity
of pounds sold of pounds sold

Budgeted contribution
margin per pound
The sales-volume variances are
Chocolate chip = (57,600 45,000) $2.00 = $25,200 F
Oatmeal raisin = (18,000 25,000) $2.30 = 16,100 U
Coconut = (9,600 10,000) $2.60 = 1,040 U
White chocolate = (13,200 5,000) $3.00 = 24,600 F
Macadamia nut = (21,600 15,000) $3.10 = 20,460 F
All cookies $53,120 F
The sales-quantity variance can also be computed as
Sales-volume
variance
=
Actual pounds Budgeted pounds
of all cookies of all cookies
sold sold
_

,

Budgeted
sales-mix
percentage

Budgeted
contribution
margin per pound
The sales-quantity variances are
Chocolate chip = (120,000 100,000) 0.45 $2.00 = $18,000 F
Oatmeal raisin = (120,000 100,000) 0.25 $2.30 = 11,500 F
Coconut = (120,000 100,000) 0.10 $2.60 = 5,200 F
White chocolate = (120,000 100,000) 0.05 $3.00 = 3,000 F
Macadamia nut = (120,000 100,000) 0.15 $3.10 = 9,300 F
The sales-mix variance can also be computed as:
Sales-quantity
variance
=
( )
Actual sales- Budgeted sales-
mix percentage mix percentage

Actual pounds
of all cookies
sold

Budgeted
contribution
margin per pound
The sales-mix variances are:
Chocolate chip = (0.48 0.45) 120,000 $2.00 = $ 7,200 F
Oatmeal raisin = (0.15 0.25) 120,000 $2.30 = 27,600 U
Coconut = (0.08 0.10) 120,000 $2.60 = 6,240 U
White chocolate = (0.11 0.05) 120,000 $3.00 = 21,600 F
Macadamia nut = (0.18 0.15) 120,000 $3.10 = 11,160 F
All cookies $ 6,120 F
A summary of the variances is:
Sales-Volume Variance
Chocolate chip $25,200 F
Oatmeal raisin 16,100 U
Coconut 1,040 U
White chocolate 24,600 F
Macadamia nut 20,460 F

Sales-Mix Variance
Chocolate chip $ 7,200 F
Oatmeal raisin 27,600 U
Coconut 6,240 U
All cookies $ 6,120 F
Sales-Quantity Variance
Chocolate chip $18,000 F
Oatmeal raisin 11,500 F
Coconut 5,200 F
4. Debbies Delight shows a favorable sales-quantity variance because it sold more cookies
in total than was budgeted. Together with the higher quantities, Debbies also sold more of the
high-contribution margin white chocolate and macadamia nut cookies relative to the budgeted
mixas a result, Debbies also showed a favorable total sales-mix variance.
Columnar Presentation of Sales-Volume, Sales-Quantity, and Sales-Mix Variances
for Debbies Delight, Inc.
Flexible Budget:
Actual Pounds of
All Cookies Sold
Actual Sales Mix
Budgeted
Contribution Margin
per Pound
(1)
Actual Pounds of
All Cookies Sold
Budgeted Sales Mix
Budgeted
Contribution Margin
per Pound
(2)
Static Budget:
Budgeted Pounds of
All Cookies Sold
Budgeted Sales Mix
Budgeted
Contribution Margin
per Pound
(3)
Panel A:
Chocolate Chip
(120,000 0.48
a
) $2
57,600 $2
(120,000 0.45
b
) $2
54,000 $2
(100,000 0.45
b
) $2
45,000 $2
$115,200 $108,000 $90,000
Panel B:
Oatmeal Raisin
(120,000 0.15
c
)
$2.30
18,000 $2.30
(120,000 0.25
d
)
$2.30
30,000 $2.30
(100,000 0.25
d
) $2.30
25,000 $2.30
$41,400 $69,000 $57,500
Panel C:
Coconut
(120,000 0.08
e
)
$2.60
9,600 $2.60
(120,000 0.10
f
)
$2.60
12,000 $2.60
(100,000 0.10
f
) $2.60
10,000 $2.60
$24,960 $31,200 $26,000
$7,200 F
Sales-mix variance
$18,000 F
Sales-quantity variance
$25,200 F
$27,600 U
Sales-mix variance
$11,500 F
$16,100 U
$6,240 U
Sales-mix variance
$5,200 F
$1,040 U
105
Actual Sales Mix:
a
Chocolate Chip = 57,600 120,000 = 48%
c
Oatmeal Raisin = 18,000 120,000 = 15%
e
Coconut = 9,600 120,000 = 8%
Budgeted Sales Mix:
b
Chocolate Chip = 45,000 100,000 = 45%
d
Oatmeal Raisin = 25,000 100,000 = 25%
f
Coconut = 10,000 100,000 = 10%
SOLUTION EXHIBIT 14-34 (Contd.)
Columnar Presentation of Sales-Volume, Sales-Quantity, and Sales-Mix Variances
for Debbies Delight, Inc.
Flexible Budget:
Actual Pounds of
All Cookies Sold
Actual Sales Mix
Budgeted
Contribution Margin
per Pound
(1)
Actual Pounds of
All Cookies Sold
Budgeted Sales Mix
Budgeted
Contribution Margin
per Pound
(2)
Static Budget:
Budgeted Pounds of
All Cookies Sold
Budgeted Sales Mix
Budgeted
Contribution Margin
per Pound
(3)
Panel D:
White Chocolate
(120,000 0.11
g
)
$3.00
13,200 $3.00
(120,000 0.05
h
)
$3.00
6,000 $3.00
(100,000 0.05
h
) $3.00
5,000 $3.00
$39,600 $18,000 $15,000
Panel E:
Macadamia Nut
(120,000 0.18
j
)
$3.10
21,600 $3.10
(120,000 0.15
k
)
$3.10
18,000 $3.10
(100,000 0.15
k
) $3.10
15,000 $3.10
$66,960 $55,800 $46,500
Panel F: $288,120
l
$282,000
m
$235,000
n
All Cookies
$21,600 F
Sales-mix variance
$3,000 F
$24,600 F
$11,160 F
Sales-mix variance
$9,300 F
$20,460 F
$6,120 F
Total sales-mix variance
$47,000 F
Total sales-quantity variance
$53,120 F
Total sales-volume variance
107
Actual Sales Mix:
g
White Chocolate =13,200 120,000 =
11%
j
Macadamia Nut = 21,600 120,000 =
18%
l
$115,200 + $41,400 + $24,960
+ $39,600 + $66,960 =
$288,120
Budgeted Sales Mix:
h
White Chocolate = 5,000 100,000 =
5%
k
Macadamia Nut = 15,000 100,000 =
15%
m
$108,000 + $69,000 + $31,200
+ $18,000 + $55,800 =
$282,000
n
$90,000 + $57,500 + $26,000
+ $15,000 + $46,500 =
$235,000
14-35 (15 min.) Market-share and market-size variances (continuation of 14-34).
Actual Budgeted
Chicago Market
Debbie's Delight
Market share
960,000
120,000
0.125
1,000,000
100,000
0.100
The budgeted average contribution margin per unit (also called budgeted contribution margin per
composite unit for budgeted mix) is $2.35:
Budgeted
Contribution
Margin per
Pound
Budgeted
Sales Volume
in Pounds
Budgeted
Contribution
Margin
Chocolate chip
Oatmeal raisin
Coconut
White chocolate
Macadamia nut
All cookies
$2.00
2.30
2.60
3.00
3.10
45,000
25,000
10,000
5,000
15,000
100,000
$ 90,000
57,500
26,000
15,000
46,500
$235,000
=
100,000
$235,000
= $2.35
=
= (960,000 1,000,000) 0.100 $2.35
= $9,400 U
=
= 960,000 (0.125 0.100) $2.35
= $56,400 F
By increasing its actual market share from the 10% budgeted to the actual 12.50%,
Debbies Delight has a favorable market-share variance of $56,400. There is a smaller offsetting
unfavorable market-size variance of $9,400 due to the 40,000 unit decline in the Chicago market
(from 1,000,000 budgeted to an actual of 960,000).
Solution Exhibit 14-35 presents the sales-quantity, market-share, and market-size variances for
Debbies Delight, Inc., in August 2009.
Market-Share and Market-Size Variance Analysis of Debbies Delight for August 2009
Static Budget:
Actual Market Size Actual Market Size Budgeted Market Size
Actual Market Share Budgeted Market Share Budgeted Market Share
Budgeted Average Budgeted Average Budgeted Average
Contribution Margin Contribution Margin Contribution Margin
Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit
960,000 0.125
a
$2.35
b
960,000 0.10
c
$2.35
b
1,000,000 0.10
c
$2.35
b
$282,000 $225,600 $235,000
$56,400 F $9,400 U
Market-share variance Market-size variance
$47,000 F
F = favorable effect on operating income; U = unfavorable effect on operating income
a
Actual market share: 120,000 units 960,000 units = 0.125, or 12.5%
b
Budgeted average contribution margin per unit: $235,000 1,000,000 units = $2.35 per unit
c
Budgeted market share: 100,000 units 1,000,000 units = 0.10, or 10%
An overview of Problems 14-34 and 14-35 is:
Sales-Volume Variance
$53,120 F
Market-Size Variance
$9,400 U
Market-Share Variance
$56,400 F
Sales-Mix Variance
$6,120 F
Sales-Quantity Variance
$47,000 F
110

CHAPTER 22
22-21 (30 min.) Effect of alternative transfer-pricing methods on division operating income.
Method A
Internal Transfers
at Market Prices
Method B
Internal Transfers at
110% of Full Costs
1. Mining Division
Revenues:
$90, $66
1
200,000 units $18 ,000,000 $ 13,200,000
Costs:
Division variable costs:
$52
2
200,000 units 10,400,000 10,400,000
Division fixed costs:
$8
3
200,000 units 1,600,000 1,600,000
Total division costs 12,000,000 12,000,000
Division operating income $ 6,000,000 $ 1,200,000
Metals Division
Revenues:
$150 200,000 units $30,000,000 $30,000,000
Costs:
Transferred-in costs:
$90, $66 200,000 units 18,000,000 13,200,000
Division variable costs:
$36
4
200,000 units 7,200,000 7,200,000
Division fixed costs:
$15
5
200,000 units 3,000,000 3,000,000
Total division costs 28,200,000 23,400,000
Division operating income $ 1,800,000 $ 6,600,000
1
$66 = Full manufacturing cost per unit in the Mining Division, $60 110%
2
Variable cost per unit in Mining Division = Direct materials + Direct manufacturing labor +
75% of manufacturing overhead = $12 + $16 + (75% $32) = $52
3
Fixed cost per unit = 25% of manufacturing overhead = 25% $32 = $8
4
Variable cost per unit in Metals Division = Direct materials + Direct manufacturing labor + 40%
of manufacturing overhead = $6 + $20 + (40% $25) = $36
5
Fixed cost per unit in Metals Division = 60% of manufacturing overhead = 60% $25 = $15
2. Bonus paid to division managers at 1% of division operating income will be as follows:
Method A
Internal Transfers
at Market Prices
Method B
Internal Transfers at
110% of Full Costs
Mining Division managers bonus
(1% $6,000,000; 1% $1,200,000)
$60,000 $ 12,000
Metals Division managers bonus
(1% $1,800,000; 1% $6,600,000)
18,000 66,000
The Mining Division manager will prefer Method A (transfer at market prices) because
this method gives $60,000 of bonus rather than $12,000 under Method B (transfers at 110% of
full costs). The Metals Division manager will prefer Method B because this method gives
$66,000 of bonus rather than $18,000 under Method A.
3. Brian Jones, the manager of the Mining Division, will appeal to the existence of a
competitive market to price transfers at market prices. Using market prices for transfers in these
conditions leads to goal congruence. Division managers acting in their own best interests make
decisions that are also in the best interests of the company as a whole.
Jones will further argue that setting transfer prices based on cost will cause Jones to pay
no attention to controlling costs since all costs incurred will be recovered from the Metals
Division at 110% of full costs.
22-22 (30 min.) Transfer pricing, general guideline, goal congruence.
1. Using the general guideline presented in the chapter, the minimum price at which the
Airbag Division would sell airbags to the Tivo Division is $90, the incremental costs. The
Airbag Division has idle capacity (it is currently working at 80% of capacity). Therefore, its
opportunity cost is zerothe Airbag Division does not forgo any external sales and as a result,
does not forgo any contribution margin from internal transfers. Transferring airbags at
incremental cost achieves goal congruence.
2. Transferring products internally at incremental cost has the following properties:
a. Achieves goal congruenceYes, as described in requirement 1 above.
b. Useful for evaluating division performanceNo, because this transfer price does not
cover or exceed full costs. By transferring at incremental costs and not covering fixed
costs, the Airbag Division will show a loss. This loss, the result of the incremental
cost-based transfer price, is not a good measure of the economic performance of the
subunit.
c. Motivating management effortYes, if based on budgeted costs (actual costs can
then be compared to budgeted costs). If, however, transfers are based on actual costs,
Airbag Division management has little incentive to control costs.
d. Preserves division autonomyNo. Because it is rule-based, the Airbag Division has
no say in the setting of the transfer price.
3. If the two divisions were to negotiate a transfer price, the range of possible transfer prices
will be between $90 and $125 per unit. The Airbag Division has excess capacity that it can use to
supply airbags to the Tivo Division. The Airbag Division will be willing to supply the airbags
only if the transfer price equals or exceeds $90, its incremental costs of manufacturing the
airbags. The Tivo Division will be willing to buy airbags from the Airbag Division only if the
price does not exceed $125 per airbag, the price at which the Tivo division can buy airbags in the
market from external suppliers. Within the price range or $90 and $125, each division will be
willing to transact with the other and maximize overall income of Quest Motors. The exact
transfer price between $90 and $125 will depend on the bargaining strengths of the two
divisions. The negotiated transfer price has the following properties.
a. Achieves goal congruenceYes, as described above.
b. Useful for evaluating division performanceYes, because the transfer price is the
result of direct negotiations between the two divisions. Of course, the transfer prices
will be affected by the bargaining strengths of the two divisions.
c. Motivating management effortYes, because once negotiated, the transfer price is
independent of actual costs of the Airbag Division. Airbag Division management has
every incentive to manage efficiently to improve profits.
d. Preserves subunit autonomyYes, because the transfer price is based on direct
negotiations between the two divisions and is not specified by headquarters on the
basis of some rule (such as Airbag Divisions incremental costs).
4. Neither method is perfect, but negotiated transfer pricing (requirement 3) has more
favorable properties than the cost-based transfer pricing (requirement 2). Both transfer-pricing
methods achieve goal congruence, but negotiated transfer pricing facilitates the evaluation of
division performance, motivates management effort, and preserves division autonomy, whereas
the transfer price based on incremental costs does not achieve these objectives.
22-27 (20min.) General guideline, transfer pricing.
1. The minimum transfer price that the SD would demand from the AD is the net price it
could obtain from selling its screens on the outside market: $120 minus $5 marketing and
distribution cost per screen, or $115 per screen. The SD is operating at capacity. The incremental
cost of manufacturing each screen is $80. Therefore, the opportunity cost of selling a screen to
the AD is the contribution margin the SD would forego by transferring the screen internally
instead of selling it on the outside market.
Contribution margin per screen = $115 $80 = $35
Using the general guideline,
Minimum transfer
price per screen
=
Incremental cost per
screen inccurred up to
the point of transfer
+
Opportunity cost per
screen to the
selling division
= $80 + $35 = $115
2. The maximum transfer price the AD manager would be willing to offer SD is its own
total cost for purchasing from outside, $120 plus $3 per screen, or $123 per screen.
3a. If the SD has excess capacity (relative to what the outside market can absorb), the
minimum transfer price using the general guideline is: for the first 2,000 units (or 20% of
output), $80 per screen because opportunity cost is zero; for the remaining 8,000 units (or 80%
of output), $115 per screen because opportunity cost is $35 per screen.
3b. From the point of view of Shamrocks management, all of the SDs output should be
transferred to the AD. This would avoid the $3 per screen variable purchasing cost that is
incurred by the AD when it purchases screens from the outside market and it would also save the
$5 marketing and distribution cost the SD would incur to sell each screen to the outside market.
3c. If the managers of the AD and the SD could negotiate the transfer price, they would settle
on a price between $115 per screen (the minimum transfer price the SD will accept) and $123
per screen (the maximum transfer price the AD would be willing to pay). From requirements 1
and 2, we see that any price in this range would be acceptable to both divisions for all of the
SDs output, and would also be optimal from Shamrocks point of view. The exact transfer price
between $115 and $123 will depend on the bargaining strengths of the two divisions. Of course,
Shamrock's management could also mandate a particular transfer price between $115 and $123
per screen.
22-32 (40 min.) Multinational transfer pricing, global tax minimization.
This is a two-country two-division transfer-pricing problem with two alternative transfer-pricing
methods.
Summary data in U.S. dollars are:
South Africa Mining Division
Variable costs: 560 ZAR 7 = $80 per lb. of raw diamonds
Fixed costs: 1,540 ZAR 7 = $220 per lb. of raw diamonds
Market price: 3,150 ZAR 7 = $450 per lb. of raw diamonds
U.S. Processing Division
Variable costs = $150 per lb. of polished industrial diamonds
Fixed costs = $700 per lb. of polished industrial diamonds
Market price = $5,000 per lb. of polished industrial diamonds
1. The transfer prices are:
a. 200% of full costs
Mining Division to Processing Division
= 2.0 ($80 + $220) = $600 per lb. of raw diamonds
b. Market price
Mining Division to Processing Division
= $450 per lb. of raw diamonds
200% of
Full Cost
Market
Price
Division revenues, $600, $450
4,000
Costs
Division variable costs, $80
4,000
Division fixed costs, $220
4,000
Total division costs
Division operating income
Division revenues, $5,000
2,000
Costs
Transferred-in costs, $600, $450
4,000
Division variable cost, $150
2,000
Division fixed costs, $700
2,000
Total division costs
$ 2,400,000
320,000
880,000
1,200,000
$1,200,000
$10,000,000
2,400,000
300,000
1,400,000
4,100,000
$ 5,900,000
$1,800,000
320,000
880,000
1,200,000
$ 600,000
$10,000,000
1,800,000
300,000
1,400,000
3,500,000
$ 6,500,000
2. 200% of
Full Cost
Market
Price
Income tax at 18%
Division after-tax operating income
$1,200,000
216,000
$ 984,000
$600,000
108,000
$492,000
Income tax at 30%
Division after-tax operating income
$5,900,000
1,770,000
$4,130,000
$6,500,000
1,950,000
$4,550,000
3. 200% of
Full Cost
Market
Price
South Africa Mining Division:
After-tax operating income
U.S. Processing Division:
Industrial Diamonds:
$ 984,000
4,130,000
$5,114,000
$ 492,000
4,550,000
$5,042,000
The South Africa Mining Division manager will prefer the higher transfer price of 200% of full
cost and the U.S. Processing Division manager will prefer the lower transfer price equal to
market price. Industrial Diamonds will maximize companywide net income by using the 200%
of full cost transfer-pricing method. This method sources more of the total income in South
Africa, the country with the lower income tax rate.
4. Factors that executives consider important in transfer pricing decisions include:
a. Performance evaluation
b. Management motivation
c. Pricing and product emphasis
d. External market recognition
Factors specifically related to multinational transfer pricing include:
a. Overall income of the company
b. Income or dividend repatriation restrictions
c. Competitive position of subsidiaries in their respective markets
22-34 (30 min.) Transfer pricing, goal congruence.
1. See column (1) of Solution Exhibit 22-34. The net cost of the in-house option is
$230,000.
2. See columns (2a) and (2b) of Solution Exhibit 22-34. As the calculations show, if
Johnson Corporation offers a price of $38 per tape player, Orsilo Corporation should
purchase the tape players from Johnson; this will result in an incremental net cost of
$210,000 (column 2a). If Johnson Corporation offers a price of $45 per tape player,
Orsilo Corporation should manufacture the tape players in-house; this will result in an
incremental net cost of $230,000 (column 2b).
Transfer 10,000
tape players to
Assembly. Sell
2,000 in outside
market at $35
each
(1)
Buy 10,000 tape
players from
Johnson at $38.
Sell 12,000 tape
players in outside
market at $35
each
(2a)
Buy 10,000 tape
players from
Johnson at $40.
Sell 12,000 tape
players in
outside market
at $35 each
(2x)
Buy 10,000 tape
players from
Johnson at $45.
Sell 12,000 tape
players in
outside market at
$35 each
(2b)
Incremental cost of Cassette
Division supplying 10,000 tape
players to Assembly Division
$25 10,000; 0; 0; 0
$(250,000) $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Incremental costs of buying 10,000
tape players from Johnson
$0; $38 10,000; $40
10,000; $45 10,000
0 (380,000) (400,000) (450,000)
Revenue from selling tape players in
outside market $35 2,000;
12,000; 12,000; 12,000
70,000 420,000 420,000 420,000
Incremental costs of manufacturing
tape players for sale in outside
market $25 2,000; 12,000;
12,000; 12,000
(50,000) (300,000) (300,000) (300,000)
Revenue from supplying head
mechanism to Johnson
$20 0; 10,000; 10,000; 10,000 0 200,000 200,000 200,000
Incremental costs of supplying head
mechanism to Johnson
$15 0; 10,000; 10,000; 10,000
0 (150,000 ) (150,000 ) (150,000 )
Net costs $(230,000 ) $(210,000 ) $(230,000 ) $(280,000 )
Comparing columns (1) and (2a), at a price of $38 per tape player from Johnson, the net
cost of $210,000 is less than the net cost of $230,000 to Orsilo Corporation if it made the tape
players in-house. So, Orsilo Corporation should outsource to Johnson.
Comparing columns (1) and (2b), at a price of $45 per tape player from Johnson, the net
cost of $280,000 is greater than the net cost of $230,000 to Orsilo Corporation if it made the tape
players in-house. Therefore, Orsilo Corporation should reject Johnsons offer.
Now consider column (2x) of Solution Exhibit 22-34. It shows that at a price of $40 per
tape player from Johnson, the net cost is exactly $230,000, the same as the net cost to Orsilo
Corporation of manufacturing in-house (column 1). Thus, for prices between $38 and $40, Orsilo
will prefer to purchase from Johnson. For prices greater than $40 (and up to $45), Orsilo will
prefer to manufacture in-house.
3. The Cassette Division can manufacture at most 12,000 tape players and it is currently
operating at capacity. The incremental costs of manufacturing a tape player are $25 per unit. The
opportunity cost of manufacturing tape players for the Assembly Division is (1) the contribution
margin of $10 (selling price, $35 minus incremental costs $25) that the Cassette Division would
forgo by not selling tape players in the outside market plus (2) the contribution margin of $5
(selling price, $20 minus incremental costs, $15) that the Cassette Division would forgo by not
being able to sell the head mechanism to external suppliers of tape players such as Johnson
(recall that the Cassette division can produce as many head mechanisms as demanded by external
suppliers, but their demand will fall if the Cassette Division supplies the Assembly Division with
tape players). Thus, the total opportunity cost to the Cassette Division of supplying tape players
to Assembly is $10 + $5 = $15 per unit.
Using the general guideline,
Minimum transfer
price per tape player
=
Incremental cost per Opportunity cost per
tape player up to the tape player to the
point of transfer selling division
+
= $25 + $15 = $40
Thus, the minimum transfer price that the Cassette Division will accept for each tape player is
$40. Note that at a price of $40, Orsilo is indifferent between manufacturing tape players in-
house or purchasing them from an external supplier.
4a. The transfer price is set to $40 + $1 = $41 and Johnson is offering the tape players for
$40.50 each. Now, for an outside price per tape player below $41, the Assembly Division would
prefer to purchase from outside; above it, the Assembly Division would prefer to purchase from
the Cassette Division. So, the Assembly division will buy from Johnson at $40.50 each and the
Cassette Division will be forced to sell its output on the outside market.
4b. But for Orsilo, as seen from requirements 1 and 2, an outside price of $40.50, which is
greater than the $40 cut-off price, makes inhouse manufacture the optimal choice. So, a
mandated transfer price of $41 causes the division managers to make choices that are sub-
optimal for Orsilo.
4c. When selling prices are uncertain, the transfer price should be set at the minimum
acceptable transfer price. It is only if the price charged by the external supplier falls below $40
that Orsilo Corporation as a whole is better off purchasing from the outside market. Setting the
transfer price at $40 per unit achieves goal congruence. The Cassette division will be willing to
sell to the Assembly Division, and the Assembly Division will be willing to buy in-house and
this would be optimal for Orsilo, too.
CHAPTER 23
23-16 (30 min.) ROI, comparisons of three companies.
1. The separate components highlight several features of return on investment not revealed
by a single calculation:
a. The importance of investment turnover as a key to income is stressed.
b. The importance of revenues is explicitly recognized.
c. The important components are expressed as ratios or percentages instead of dollar
figures. This form of expression often enhances comparability of different divisions,
businesses, and time periods.
d. The breakdown stresses the possibility of trading off investment turnover for income
as a percentage of revenues so as to increase the average ROI at a given level of
output.
2. (Filled-in blanks are in bold face.)
Companies in Same Industry
A B C
Revenue
Income
Investment
Income as a % of revenue
Investment turnover
Return on investment
$1,000,000
$ 100,000
$ 500,000
10%
2.0
20%
$
500,000
$
50,000
$5,000,000
10%
0.1
1%
$10,000,000
$
50,000
$
5,000,000
0.5%
2.0
1%
Income and investment alone shed little light on comparative performances because of
disparities in size between Company A and the other two companies. Thus, it is impossible to
say whether B's low return on investment in comparison with As is attributable to its larger
investment or to its lower income. Furthermore, the fact that Companies B and C have identical
income and investment may suggest that the same conditions underlie the low ROI, but this
conclusion is erroneous. B has higher margins but a lower investment turnover. C has very small
margins (1/20th of B) but turns over investment 20 times faster.
I.M.A. Report No. 35 (page 35) states:
Introducing revenues to measure level of operations helps to disclose specific areas for
more intensive investigation. Company B does as well as Company A in terms of income
margin, for both companies earn 10% on revenues. But Company B has a much lower turnover
of investment than does Company A. Whereas a dollar of investment in Company A supports
two dollars in revenues each period, a dollar investment in Company B supports only ten cents in
revenues each period. This suggests that the analyst should look carefully at Company Bs
investment. Is the company keeping an inventory larger than necessary for its revenue level?
Are receivables being collected promptly? Or did Company A acquire its fixed assets at a price
level that was much lower than that at which Company B purchased its plant?
On the other hand, Cs investment turnover is as high as As, but Cs income as a
percentage of revenue is much lower. Why? Are its operations inefficient, are its material costs
too high, or does its location entail high transportation costs?
Analysis of ROI raises questions such as the foregoing. When answers are obtained, basic
reasons for differences between rates of return may be discovered. For example, in Company Bs
case, it is apparent that the emphasis will have to be on increasing turnover by reducing
investment or increasing revenues. Clearly, B cannot appreciably increase its ROI simply by
increasing its income as a percent of revenue. In contrast, Company Cs management should
concentrate on increasing the percent of income on revenue.
23-20 (25 min.) Financial and nonfinancial performance measures, goal congruence.
1. Operating income is a good summary measure of short-term financial performance. By
itself, however, it does not indicate whether operating income in the short run was earned by
taking actions that would lead to long-run competitive advantage. For example, Summits
divisions might be able to increase short-run operating income by producing more product while
ignoring quality or rework. Harrington, however, would like to see division managers increase
operating income without sacrificing quality. The new performance measures take a balanced
scorecard approach by evaluating and rewarding managers on the basis of direct measures (such
as rework costs, on-time delivery performance, and sales returns). This motivates managers to
take actions that Harrington believes will increase operating income now and in the future. The
nonoperating income measures serve as surrogate measures of future profitability.
2. The semiannual installments and total bonus for the Charter Division are calculated as
follows:
Charter Division Bonus Calculation
For Year Ended December 31, 2009
January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009
Profitability
(0.02 $462,000)
$ 9,240
Rework
(0.02 $462,000) $11,500
(2,260)
On-time delivery No bonusunder 96% 0
Sales returns
[(0.015 $4,200,000) $84,000]
50%
(10,500 )
Semiannual installment
Semiannual bonus awarded
$ (3,520 )
$ 0
July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009
Profitability
(0.02 $440,000)
$ 8,800
Rework (0.02
$440,000) $11,000 (2,200)

On-time delivery 96% to 98% 2,000
Sales returns
[(0.015 $4,400,000) $70,000]
50%
(2,000 )
Semiannual installment
$ 6,600
$ 6,600
Total bonus awarded for the year $ 6,600
The semiannual installments and total bonus for the Mesa Division are calculated as follows:
Mesa Division Bonus Calculation
For Year Ended December 31, 2009
January 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009
Profitability
Rework
On-time delivery
Sales returns
(0.02
$342,000)
(0.02
$342,000) $6,000
Over 98%
[(0.015
$2,850,000) $44,750]
50%
$ 6,840
0
5,000
(1,000 )
Semiannual bonus installment
$10,840
$10,840
July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009
Profitability
Rework
On-time delivery
Sales returns
(0.02
$406,000)
(0.02
$406,000) $8,000
No bonusunder 96%
[(0.015
$2,900,000) $42,500] which is

greater than zero, yielding a bonus
$ 8,120
0
0
3,000
Semiannual bonus installment
$11,120
$11,120
Total bonus awarded for the year $21,960
3. The manager of the Charter Division is likely to be frustrated by the new plan, as the
division bonus has fallen by more than $20,000 compared to the bonus of the previous year.
However, the new performance measures have begun to have the desired effectboth on-time
deliveries and sales returns improved in the second half of the year, while rework costs were
relatively even. If the division continues to improve at the same rate, the Charter bonus could
approximate or exceed what it was under the old plan.
The manager of the Mesa Division should be as satisfied with the new plan as with the
old plan, as the bonus is almost equivalent. On-time deliveries declined considerably in the
second half of the year and rework costs increased. However, sales returns decreased slightly.
Unless the manager institutes better controls, the bonus situation may not be as favorable in the
future. This could motivate the manager to improve in the future but currently, at least, the
manager has been able to maintain his bonus with showing improvement in only one area
targeted by Harrington.
Ben Harringtons revised bonus plan for the Charter Division fostered the following
improvements in the second half of the year despite an increase in sales:
An increase of 1.9% in on-time deliveries.
A $500 reduction in rework costs.
A $14,000 reduction in sales returns.
However, operating income as a percent of sales has decreased (11% to 10%).
The Mesa Divisions bonus has remained at the status quo as a result of the following
effects:
An increase of 2.0 % in operating income as a percent of sales (12% to 14%).
A decrease of 3.6% in on-time deliveries.
A $2,000 increase in rework costs.
A $2,250 decrease in sales returns.
This would suggest that revisions to the bonus plan are needed. Possible changes include:
increasing the weights put on on-time deliveries, rework costs, and sales returns in
the performance measures while decreasing the weight put on operating income;
a reward structure for rework costs that are below 2% of operating income that
would encourage managers to drive costs lower;
reviewing the whole year in total. The bonus plan should carry forward the
negative amounts for one six-month period into the next six-month period
incorporating the entire year when calculating a bonus; and
developing benchmarks, and then giving rewards for improvements over prior
periods and encouraging continuous improvement.
23-21 (25 min.) Goal incongruence and ROI.
1. Bleefl would be better off if the machine is replaced. Its cost of capital is 6% and the IRR of
the investment is 11%, indicating that this is a positive net present value project.
2. The ROIs for the first five years are:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Operating income
1
$2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
End of year net assets 27,000 24,000 21,000 18,000 15,000
Average net assets 28,500
2
25,500 22,500 19,500 16,500
ROI 7.02% 7.84% 8.89% 10.26% 12.12%
1
Income is cash savings of $5,000 less $3,000 annual depreciation expense.
2
($30,000 + $27,000) 2 = $28,500
The manager would not want to replace the machine before retiring because the division is
currently earning a ROI of 11%, and replacement of the machine will lower the ROI every year
until the fifth year, when the manager is long gone.
3. Bleefl could use long term rather than short term ROI, or use ROI and some other long term
measures to evaluate the Patio Furniture division to create goal congruence. Evaluating the
managers on residual income rather than ROI would also achieve goal congruence. For example,
replacing the machine increases residual income in Year 1.
Residual income = Operating income (6% Average net assets)
= $2,000 (6% 28,500)
= $2,000 $1,710 = $290
23-35 (25 min.) Ethics, managers performance evaluation (A. Spero, adapted).
1a. Variable manufacturing cost per unit = $2
Fixed manufacturing cost per unit = $9,000,000 500,000 = $18
Total manufacturing cost per unit = $2 + $18 = $20
Revenues, $20 500,000 $10,000,000
Variable manufacturing costs, $2 500,000 1,000,000
Fixed manufacturing costs, $18 500,000 9,000,000
Fixed marketing costs 400,000
Total costs 10,400,000
Operating loss $ (400,000)
Ending inventory: $0
1b. Variable manufacturing cost per unit = $2
Fixed manufacturing cost per unit = $9,000,000 600,000 = $15
Total manufacturing cost per unit = $2 + $15 = $17
Revenues, $20 500,000 $10,000,000
Variable manufacturing costs, $2 500,000 1,000,000
Fixed manufacturing costs, $15 500,000 7,500,000
Fixed marketing costs 400,000
Total costs 8,900,000
Operating income $ 1,100,000
Ending inventory = $17 per unit 100,000 units = $1,700,000
2. It would not be ethical for Jones to produce more units just to show better operating
results. Professional managers are expected to take better operating actions that are in the best
interests of their shareholders. Joness action would benefit him at the cost of shareholders.
Joness actions would be equivalent to cooking the books, even though he may achieve this by
producing more inventory than was needed, rather than through fictitious accounting. Some
students might argue that Jones's behavior is not unethicalhe simply took advantage of the
faulty contract the board of directors had given him when he was hired.
3. Asking distributors to take more products than they need is also equivalent to cooking
the books. In effect, distributors are being coerced into taking more product. This is a particular
problem if distributors will take less product in the following year or alternatively return the
excess inventory next year. Some students might argue that Joness behavior is not unethicalit
is up to the distributors to decide whether to take more inventory or not. So long as Jones is not
forcing the product on the distributors, it is not unethical for Jones to push sales this year even if
the excess product will sit in the distributors inventory.
23-36 (15 min.) Ethics, levers of control.
1. If Amy Kimbell turns a blind eye toward what she has just observed at the UFP log
yard, she will be violating the competence, integrity, and objectivity standards for management
accountants.
Competence
Perform professional duties in accordance with technical standards
Integrity
Communicate unfavorable as well as favorable information and professional
judgments or opinions
Refrain from engaging in or supporting any activity that would discredit the
profession
Credibility
Communicate information fairly and objectively
Disclose fully all relevant information that could reasonably be expected to influence
an intended users understanding of the reports, comments, and recommendations.
Kimbell should:
a. Try to follow established UFP policies to try to bring the issue to the attention of UFP
management through regular channels; then, if necessary,
b. Discuss the problem with the immediate superior who is not involved in the
understatement of quality and costs.
c. Clarify relevant ethical issues with an objective advisor, preferably a professional
person outside UFP.
d. If all the above channels fail to lead to a correction in the organization, she may have
to resign and become a whistle-blower to bring UFP to justice.
2. UFP is clearly emphasizing profit, driving managers to find ways to keep profits strong
and increasing. This is a diagnostic measure, and over-emphasis on diagnostic measures can
cause employees to do whatever is necessaryincluding unethical actionsto keep the
measures in the acceptable range, not attract negative senior management attention and possibly
improve compensation and job reviews.
To avoid problems like this in the future, UFP needs to establish some strong boundary
systems and codes of conduct. There should be a clear message from upper management that
unethical behavior will not be tolerated. Training, role-plays, and case studies can be used to
raise awareness about these issues, and strong sanctions should be put in place if the rules are
violated. An effective boundary system is needed to keep managers on the right path.
UFP also needs to articulate a belief system of core values. The goal is to inspire managers
and employees to do their best, exercise greater responsibility, take pride in their work, and do
things the right way.

Solutions For Homework Accounting 311 Cost

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solutions For Homework Accounting 311 Cost

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solutions For Homework Accounting 311 Cost

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solutions for Homework ** Accounting 311 Cost **

500 attendees) $10,000

500 attendees) $5,000

500) 500 5,500

1,000 attendees) $20,000

1,000 attendees) $10,000

1,000) 1,000 11,000

1,000 = $250 per round-trip

1,200 = $100,000 + $300,000 = $400,000

$60 = 15,000 units

6,000 desks per year 840,000 480,000

General administration costs 0

*Can also be calculated as

Can also be calculated as

$64,000 0.625 0.375

$64,000 0.625 0.375

$3.50], bringing about an

500,000 lbs = $6.50 per lb.

525,000 lbs. = $3,412,500

500,000 lbs. = $3.50

525,000 lbs. = $1,837,500

$1.50 per meter = $10,890

12 meters per lot

$1.50 per meter = $9,900

$8.00 per hour = $8,360

2 hours per lot

$8 per hour = $8,800

(Actual dir. mat. price in May 2009

$1.50 per meter = $10,672.20

Actual dir. labor price in 2009

$8.10 per hour

$8.10 per hour = $8,295.21

$8.00 per hour = $8,192.80

$30N = $320,000 + $14N $280,000

$440,000) $11,000 (2,200)

$2,900,000) $42,500] which is

You might also like

Solutions for Homework Accounting 311 Cost