{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

ACCT303Chapter9

# Cost of goods available for sale 3,850,000 deduct

This preview shows pages 12–15. Sign up to view the full content.

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Cost of goods available for sale 3,850,000 Deduct ending inventory (1,040 units × (\$220 + \$165) per unit) (400,400) Deduct favorable production volume variance ( 178,32 ) a F Cost of goods sold 3,271,280 Gross margin 7,480,720 Operating costs Variable marketing costs (8,960 units × \$75 per unit) 672,000 Fixed R&D 981,120 Fixed marketing 3,124,480 Total operating costs 4,777,600 Operating income \$ 2,703,120 a PVV = Allocated \$1,650,000 (\$165 × 10,000) – Actual \$1,471,680 = \$178,320 9-12 3. 2009 operating income under absorption costing is greater than the operating income under variable costing because in 2009 inventories increased by 1,040 units, and under absorption costing fixed overhead remained in the ending inventory, and resulted in a lower cost of goods sold (relative to variable costing). As shown below, the difference in the two operating incomes is exactly the same as the difference in the fixed manufacturing costs included in ending vs. beginning inventory (under absorption costing). Operating income under absorption costing \$2,703,120 Operating income under variable costing 2,531,520 Difference in operating income under absorption vs. variable costing \$ 171,600 Under absorption costing: Fixed mfg. costs in ending inventory (1,040 units × \$165 per unit) \$ 171,600 Fixed mfg. costs in beginning inventory (0 units × \$165 per unit) Change in fixed mfg. costs between ending and beginning inventory \$ 171,600 4. Relative to the obvious alternative of using contribution margin (from variable costing), the absorption-costing based gross margin has some pros and cons as a performance measure for Electron’s supervisors. It takes into account both variable costs and fixed costs—costs that the supervisors should be able to control in the long-run—and therefore it is a more complete measure than contribution margin which ignores fixed costs (and may cause the supervisors to pay less attention to fixed costs). The downside of using absorption-costing-based gross margin is the supervisor’s temptation to use inventory levels to control the gross margin—in particular, to shore up a sagging gross margin by building up inventories. This can be offset by specifying, or limiting, the inventory build-up that can occur, charging the supervisor a carrying cost for holding inventory, and using nonfinancial performance measures such as the ratio of ending to beginning inventory. 9-13 9-23 (20–30 min.) Comparison of actual-costing methods. The numbers are simplified to ease computations. This problem avoids standard costing and its complications. 1. Variable-costing income statements: 2008 2009 Sales Production 1,000 units 1,400 units Sales Production 1,200 units 1,000 units Revenues (\$3 per unit) \$3,000 \$3,600 Variable costs: Beginning inventory Variable cost of goods manufactured Cost of goods available for sale Deduct ending inventory a \$ 700 700 (200 ) \$ 200 500 700 (100 ) Variable cost of goods sold Variable operating costs Variable costs Contribution margin Fixed costs Fixed manufacturing costs...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

### Page12 / 48

Cost of goods available for sale 3,850,000 Deduct ending...

This preview shows document pages 12 - 15. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online