Denominatorhours 061 330000 300000 061 18300 F 8 34

# Denominatorhours 061 330000 300000 061 18300 f 8 34

• Homework Help
• 99

This preview shows page 64 - 67 out of 99 pages.

Denominatorhours Budgetedfixedoverheadrate = × \$ 0.61 = (330,000 – 300,000) × \$0.61 = \$18,300 F 8-34 (20 min.) Variable overhead variance. 1. Direct manufacturing labour variance analysis for the Art Supply Company Actual Costs Incurred Actual Input Qty. Budgeted Rate Flexible Budget: Budgeted Input Qty. Allowed for Actual Output Budgeted Rate 13,000 × 0.75 × 20.2 13,000 × 0.75 × 20 13,000 × 0.5 × 20.0 \$196,950 \$195,000 \$130,000 \$1,950 U \$65,000 U Rate variance Efficiency variance 2. Variable manufacturing overhead variance analysis for the Art Supply Company Actual Costs Incurred Actual Input Qty. Budgeted Rate Flexible Budget: Budgeted Input Qty. Allowed for Actual Output Budgeted Rate 13,000 × 0.75 × 9.75 13,000 × 0.75 × 10.0 13,000 × 0.5 × 10.0
\$95,062.5 \$97,500 \$65,000 \$2,437.5 F \$32,500 U Rate variance Efficiency variance 3. The favourable rate variance for variable manufacturing overhead suggests that less costly items were used, which could have a negative impact on labour efficiency. But note that the workers were paid a higher rate than budgeted, which, if it indicates the hiring of more qualified employees, should lead to favourable labour efficiency variances. Moreover, both rate variances are very small, approximately 1% and 2.5% respectively, while the efficiency variances are very large, each equaling 50% of expected costs. It is clear therefore that the efficiency variances are related to factors other than the cost of the labour or overhead. 4. If the variable overhead consisted only of costs that were related to direct manufacturing labour, then Sarah is correct—both the labour efficiency variance and the variable overhead efficiency variance would reflect real cost overruns due to the inefficient use of labour. However, a portion of variable overhead may be a function of factors other than direct labour (e.g., the costs of energy or the usage of indirect materials). In this case, allocating variable overhead using direct labour as the only base will inflate the effect of inefficient labour usage on the variable overhead efficiency variance. The real effect on firm profitability will be lower, and will likely be captured in a favourable rate variance for variable overhead. 8-35 (30 min.) Causes of indirect variances 1. Variable overhead variance analysis for Heather’s Horse Spa for August 2015 Actual Actual input Budgeted input allowed for Variable Overhead × Budgeted rate Actual output × Budgeted rate (525 × 38 × \$0.4) (500 × 38 × \$0.4) \$7,500 \$7,980 \$7,600 \$480 F \$380 U Rate variance Efficiency variance
2. Fixed overhead variance analysis for Heather’s Horse Spa for August 2015 Actual Static Budget Budgeted input allowed for Fixed Overhead Fixed Overhead Actual output × Budgeted Rate (500 x 40 x \$2.75) (500 × 38 × \$2.75) \$50,000 \$55,000 52,250 \$5,000 F \$2,750 U Rate variance Production-volume variance 3. The variable overhead rate variance arises from the fact that the cost of horse feed, shampoo, ribbons and other supplies was higher, per weighted average horse-guest week, than expected (\$7,500/ (525 × 38) kg = \$0.208/kg > \$0.2/kg). Unlike the material and labour rate variances, which only reflect the prices paid, the rate variance could have both a cost and usage component. HHS would have a negative rate variance if they paid more for feed than expected or if the horses ate more feed than expected.
• • • 