Cost Analysis and Allocation: A Case Study on Procedure Costing, Study notes of Business Accounting

Download Cost Analysis and Allocation: A Case Study on Procedure Costing and more Study notes Business Accounting in PDF only on Docsity!

Answers

Fundamentals Level – Skills Module, Paper F Performance Management June 2015 Answers

Section A

1 C

Divisional profit before depreciation = $2·7m x 15% = $405,000 per annum. Less depreciation = $2·7m x 1/50 = $54,000 per annum. Divisional profit after depreciation = $351, Imputed interest = $2·7m x 7% = $189, Residual income = $162,000.

2 D

Option (ii) is not relevant since it is a common cost.

3 C

A target cost is arrived at by identifying the market price of a product and then subtracting a desired profit margin from it.

4 C

The maximum regret at each supply level is as follows: At 325: $ At 350: $ At 375: $ At 400: $ The minimum of these is $82 at 375, therefore the answer is C.

5 A

Statement (ii) describes an enterprise resource planning system, not an executive information system.

6 B

The method of apportioning general fixed costs is not required to calculate the break-even sales revenue.

7 C

All of the others are internal sources of information.

8 D

Statement (ii) is wrong as it reflects the common misconception that the shadow price is the maximum price which should be paid, rather than the maximum extra over the current purchase price. Statement (iii) is wrong but could be thought to be correct if (ii) was wrongly assumed to be correct.

9 B

10 B

ROCE can be calculated by multiplying the operating profit margin and the asset turnover. 28% x 65% = 18·2%

Section B

1 (a) Beckley Hill

Annual activity per cost driver Procedure A B Total No. of procedures 14,600 22,400 37, Admin. time per procedure (hours) 14,600 33,600 48, Patient hours 350,400 1,075,200 1,425, Number of meals 14,600 89,600 104, Cost driver rates Administrative costs – $1,870,160/48,200 = $38·80 per admin hour Nursing costs – $6,215,616/1,425,600 = $4·36 per patient hour Catering costs – $966,976/104,200 = $9·28 per meal General facility costs – $8,553,600/1,425,600 = $6 per patient hour Overhead allocation per procedure Procedure A B Administrative costs 38·80 58· Nursing costs 104·64 209· Catering costs 9·28 37· General facility costs 144·00 288· ––––––––– ––––––––– 296·72 592· ––––––––– ––––––––– Add direct costs: Surgical 1,200 2, Anaesthesia 800 1, ––––––––– ––––––––– Total cost per procedure 2,296·72 4,852· ––––––––– –––––––––

(b) When activity-based costing (ABC) is used as in (a) above, the cost for Procedure A is approximately $2,297 as compared to the approximate $2,476 currently calculated by BH. For Procedure B, the cost using ABC is approximately $4,853 as compared to the approximate current cost of $4,736. Hence, the cost of Procedure A goes down using ABC and the cost of Procedure B goes up. This reflects the fact that the largest proportion of the overhead costs is the nursing and general facility costs. Both of these are driven by the number of patient hours for each procedure. Procedure B has twice as many patient hours as Procedure A. Whilst this is not taken into account when the overheads are simply being divided by the number of procedures and allocated to each product, it would be if ABC were adopted instead. Hence, the allocation of costs would more fairly reflect the use of resources driving the overheads. However, ABC can be a lot of work to implement, and whilst the comparative costs are different, they are not significantly different. Given that ABC is costly to implement, it may be that a similar allocation in overheads can be achieved simply by using a fairer basis to absorb the costs. If patient hours are used as the basis of absorption instead of simply dividing the overheads by the number of procedures, the costs for Procedures A and B would be $2,296 and $4,853 (W1). Hence, the same result can be achieved without going to all of the time and expense of using ABC. Therefore BH should not adopt ABC but use this more accurate basis of absorbing overheads instead. Working 1 $17,606,352/1,425,600 hours = $12·35 per hour. Therefore absorption cost for A = $1,200 + $800 + (24 x $12·35) = $2,296. Same calculation for B but with 48 hours instead.

2 Mobe Co

From the group’s perspective For every motor sold externally, Division M generates a profit of $80 ($850 – $770) for the group as a whole. For every motor which Division S has to buy from outside of the group, there is an incremental cost of $60 per unit ($800 – [$770 – $30]). Therefore, from a group perspective, as many external sales should be made as possible before any internal sales are made. Consequently, the group’s current policy will need to be changed. This does, however, assume that the quality of the motors bought from outside the group is the same as the quality of the motors made by Division M. Division M’s total capacity is 60,000 units. Given that it can make external sales of 30,000 units, it can only supply 30,000 of Division S’s demand for 35,000 motors. These 30,000 units should be bought from Division M since, from a group perspective, the cost of supplying these internally is $60 per unit cheaper than buying externally. The remaining 5,000 motors required by Division S should then be bought in from the external supplier at $800 per unit.. In order to work out the transfer price which should be set for the internal sales of 30,000 motors, the perspective of both divisions must be considered.

From Division M’s perspective Division M’s only buyer for these 30,000 motors is Division S, so the lowest price it would be prepared to charge is the marginal cost of making these units, which is $740 per unit. However, it would ideally want to make some profit on these motors too and would consequently expect a significantly higher price than this. From Division S’s perspective Division S knows that it can buy as many external motors as it needs from outside the group at a price of $800 per unit. Therefore, this will be the maximum price which it is prepared to pay. Overall Therefore, the transfer price should be set somewhere between $740 and $800. From the perspective of the group, the total group profit will be the same irrespective of where in this range the transfer price is set. However, it is important that divisional managers and staff remain motivated. Given the external sales price which Division M can achieve and the fact that Division S would have to pay $800 for each motor bought from outside the group, the transfer price should probably be at the higher end of the range.

3 Bokco

(a) Planning and operational variances Revised hours for actual production: Cumulative time per hour for 460 units is calculated by using the learning curve formula: Y = ax b a = 7 x = 460 b = –0· Therefore y = 7 x 460 –0·1520^ = 2· Therefore revised time for 460 units = 1,268 hours. Labour efficiency planning variance (Standard hours for actual production – revised hours for actual production) x std rate = ([460 x 7] – 1,268) x $12 = $23,424F Labour efficiency operational variance (Revised hours for actual production – actual hours for actual production) x std rate (1,268 – 1,860) x $12 = $7,104A

(b) Consequences of failure to anticipate learning effect The likely consequences are as follows:

• Bokco will have hired too many temporary staff because of the fact that the new product can actually be produced more quickly than originally thought. Given that these staff are hired on three-month contracts, Bokco will presumably have to pay the staff for the full three months even if all of them are not needed. This will be a significant and unnecessary cost to the business.
• Since production is actually happening more quickly than anticipated, the company may well have run out of raw materials, leading to a stop in production. Idle time is a waste of resources and costs money.
• If there have been stockouts, the buying department may have incurred additional costs for expedited deliveries or may have been forced to use more expensive suppliers. This would have made the material price variance adverse and negatively affected the buying department’s manager bonus, which would have a demotivational effect on him.
• Since Bokco uses cost plus pricing for its products, the price for the product will have been set too high. This means that sales volumes may well have been lower than they otherwise might have been, leading to lost revenue for the company and maybe even failure of the new product launch altogether. This will continue to be the case for the next two months unless the price review is moved forward.
• The sales manager will be held responsible for the poorer sales of the product, which will probably be reflected in an adverse sales volume variance. This means that he may lose his bonus through no fault of his own. This will have a demotivational effect on him. Note: Other valid points could be made too.

4 ALG Co

(a) Variable cost per unit Material cost = $2,400,000/200,000 = $12 per unit. Labour cost = $1,200,000/200,000 = $6 per unit. Variable overhead cost using high-low method: ($1,850,000 – $1,400,000)/(350,000 – 200,000) = $3 per unit. Therefore total variable cost per unit = $21. Fixed costs = $1,400,000 – (200,000 x $3) = $800,

5 (a) Main steps

1. Activities are identified by managers. Managers are then forced to consider different ways of performing the activities. These activities are then described in what is called a ‘decision package’, which:
   • analyses the cost of the activity;
   • states its purpose;
   • identifies alternative methods of achieving the same purpose;
   • establishes performance measures for the activity;
   • assesses the consequence of not performing the activity at all or of performing it at different levels. As regards this last point, the decision package may be prepared at the base level, representing the minimum level of service or support needed to achieve the organisation’s objectives. Further incremental packages may then be prepared to reflect a higher level of service or support.
2. Management will then rank all the packages in the order of decreasing benefits to the organisation. This will help management decide what to spend and where to spend it. This ranking of the decision packages happens at numerous levels of the organisation.
3. The resources are then allocated based on order of priority up to the spending level available.

(b) Potential problems At present, the LRA finds itself facing particularly difficult circumstances. The fires and the floods have meant that urgent expenditure is now needed on schools, roads and hospitals which would not have been required if these environmental problems had not occurred. Lesting is facing a crisis situation and the main question is therefore whether this is a good time to introduce anything new at the LRA when it already faces so many challenges. The introduction of ZBB in any organisation is difficult at any time because of the fact that the process requires far more skills than, for example, incremental budgeting. Managers would definitely need some specialist training as they simply will not have the skills which they would need in order to construct decision packages. This then would have further implications in terms of time and cost, and, at the moment, both of these are more limited than ever for the LRA. When so many costs are being faced by the LRA, can it really consider spending money on training staff to prepare and evaluate decision packages? Given that the budget needs preparing imminently as the new financial year is approaching, it is really too late to start training staff. With ZBB, the whole budgeting process becomes a lot more cumbersome as it has to be started from scratch. There is a lot of paperwork involved and the whole process of identifying decision packages and determining their costs and benefits is extremely time-consuming. There are often too many decision packages to evaluate and there is frequently insufficient information for them to be ranked. The LRA provides a wide range of services and it is therefore obvious that this would be a really lengthy and costly process to introduce. At the moment, some residents are homeless and several schools have been damaged by fire. How can one rank one as more important than the other when both are equally important for the community? Sometimes, the information needed in order to rank them simply will not be available, or managers will not feel able to assimilate it properly. Another problem with ZBB is that it can cause conflict to arise as departments compete for the resources available. Since expenditure is urgently required for schools, roads and hospitals, it is likely that these would be ranked above expenditure on the recycling scheme. In fact, the final phase of the scheme may well be postponed. This is likely to cause conflict between departments as those staff and managers involved in the recycling scheme will be disappointed if the final phase has to be postponed.

(c) The potential benefits

• ZBB will respond to changes in the economic environment since the budget starts from scratch each year and takes into account the environment at that time. This is particularly relevant this year after the fires and the floods. Without ZBB, adequate consideration may not be given to whether the waste management scheme should continue but, if ZBB is used, the scheme will probably be postponed as it is unlikely to rank as high as expenditure needed for schools, housing and hospitals.
• If any of the activities or operations at LRA are wasteful, ZBB should be able to identify these and remove them. This is particularly important now when the LRA faces so many demands on its resources.
• Managers may become more motivated as they have had a key role in putting the budget together.
• It encourages a more questioning attitude rather than just accepting the status quo.
• Overall, it leads to a more efficient allocation of resources.
• All of the organisations activities and operations are reviewed in depth.
• ZBB focuses attention on outputs in relation to value for money. This is particularly important in the public sector where the 3 Es (economy, efficiency and effectiveness) are often used to measure performance. Note: Only three were required.

Fundamentals Level – Skills Module, Paper F Performance Management June 2015 Marking Scheme

Section A Marks

2 marks per question 40 ––––––

Section B

1 (a) ABC calculation Correct cost driver rates 2 Overhead unit cost for A 1· Overhead unit cost for B 1· Total cost for A 0· Total cost for B 0· ––– 6 –––

(b) Discussion Per valid point 2 ––– Maximum 4 ––– Total marks 10 ––––––

2 Division M’s external sales generate $80 per unit 1 Divison S’s external purchases cost $60 per unit 1 Comparison of the $60 & $80 1 Reasoned conclusion that Div M should make 30,000 external sales 2 Division S should buy 5,000 units from outside 1 Co policy should be changed 1 Minimum TP from Division M’s perspective 1 Maximum TP from Division S’s perspective 1 Range of TPs discussed 2 Irrelevant to group which TP charged 1 ––– Total marks (maximum) 10 ––––––

3 (a) Advanced variances Revised labour hours 1 Planning variance 2 Operational variance 2 ––– 5 –––

(b) Consequences Maximum per point 2 ––– 5 ––– Total marks 10 ––––––