Cost Allocation, Customer-profitability Analysis, And Sales-variance Analysis

Cost Allocation, CustomerProfitability Analysis, and Sales-Variance Analysis Chapter 14

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 1

Learning Objective 1 Identify four purposes for allocating costs to cost objects.

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 2

Purposes of Cost Allocation 1. To provide information for economic decisions 2. To motivate managers and other employees

3. To justify costs or compute reimbursement 4. To measure income and assets for reporting to external parties

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 3

Learning Objective 2 Guide cost-allocation decisions using appropriate criteria.

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 4

Criteria to Guide Cost-Allocation Decisions Cause-and-effect: Using this criterion, managers identify the variable or variables that cause resources to be consumed. Benefits-received: Using this criterion, managers identify the beneficiaries of the outputs of the cost object. ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 5

Criteria to Guide Cost-Allocation Decisions Fairness or equity: This criterion is often cited on government contracts when cost allocations are the basis for establishing a price satisfactory to the government and its suppliers. Ability to bear: This criterion advocates allocating costs in proportion to the cost object’s ability to bear them. ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 6

Role of Dominant Criteria The cause-and-effect and the benefitsreceived criteria guide most decisions related to cost allocations.

Fairness and ability to bear are less frequently used. Why?

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 7

Role of Dominant Criteria Fairness is an especially difficult criterion to obtain agreement on. The ability to bear criterion raises issues related to cross-subsidization across users of resources in an organization.

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 8

Learning Objective 3 Discuss decisions faced when collecting costs in indirect-cost pools.

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 9

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example Smith Corporation manufactures clothes washers and dryers in two divisions: Clothes Washer Division in Canton (CWD) Clothes Dryer Division in Dayton (CDD)

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 10

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example Corporate costs: Treasury $ 600,000 Human resources $1,200,000 Administration $4,800,000 Treasury cost is interest to finance equipment acquisition of $4,000,000 in Canton and $2,000,000 in Dayton. ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 11

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example Division costs: Direct costs Indirect costs Total

Canton $2,200,000 1,980,000 $4,180,000

Dayton $4,000,000 2,500,000 $6,500,000

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 12

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example If Smith Corporation allocates corporate costs to divisions, how many cost pools should it use to allocate corporate costs? One single cost pool? Numerous individual corporate cost pools? A key factor is the concept of homogeneity.

Which allocation basis should Smith Corporation use to allocate treasury costs? ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 13

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example Treasury costs: $600,000 Canton Division: $600,000 × ($4,000,000 ÷ $6,000,000) = $400,000 Dayton Division: $600,000 × ($2,000,000 ÷ $6,000,000) = $200,000

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 14

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example Smith Corporation allocates human resources on the basis of total direct labor costs incurred in each division. Suppose direct labor costs in Canton are $1,200,000 and $1,800,000 in Dayton. How does Smith Corporation allocate its $1,200,000 of human resources costs? ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 15

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example Canton Division: $1,200,000 × ($1,200,000 ÷ $3,000,000) = $480,000 Dayton Division: $1,200,000 × ($1,800,000 ÷ $3,000,000) = $720,000 Smith does not allocate corporate administration costs to the divisions. ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 16

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example Canton Treasury costs: $600,000 (2/3 and 1/3) Human resources costs: $1,200,000 40% and 60% Total allocated to divisions

Dayton

$400,000 $200,000 480,000 720,000 $880,000 $920,000

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 17

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example Treasury costs are reallocated by the divisions to Assembly. Human resources costs are reallocated by the divisions to the Dept. of Human Resources.

90 90

Toledo

Cleveland 80 76 Akron Canton

71

75

OHIO G re a t Mia m i Rive r Dayton

77

70 Columbus

O hio Rive r

M usking um Rive r Cincinnati O hio Rive r

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 18

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example Canton Division

Assembly direct costs $1,300,000 Corporate costs 400,000 Total costs $1,700,000

Finishing direct costs: $900,000

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 19

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example Canton Division

Human Resources direct costs: $1,680,000 Corporate costs: 480,000 Total costs $2,160,000

Maintenance direct costs: $300,000

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 20

Cost Allocation and Costing Systems Example Assembly Dept. $1,700,000

Finishing Dept. $900,000

Canton Division $5,060,000 Maintenance Dept. $300,000

Human Resources Dept. $2,160,000

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 21

Learning Objective 4 Discuss why a company’s revenues can differ across customers purchasing the same product. ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 22

Customer Revenue Analysis Example During the first six months of 2003, English Languages Institute expanded its market and sold 200 composition programs to two new customers in Mexico. Customer A is in Tijuana and customer B is in Guadalajara. ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 23

Customer Revenue Analysis Example Customer A B Programs sold 140 60 List selling price $185 $185 Invoice price $175 $180 Total revenues $24,500 $10,800 What explanation(s) can be given for these revenue differences? ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 24

Customer Revenue Analysis Example

1. The volume of programs purchased

2. The magnitude of price discounting ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 25

Customer Cost Analysis Example Assume that English Languages Institute has an activity-based costing system that focuses on customers rather than products. Activity Area Cost Driver and Rate Order taking $ 80 per purchase Order set up $100 per batch

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 26

Customer Cost Analysis Example

Number of: Purchase orders Batches

Customer A

Customer B

7 7

2 2

What is the cost of servicing each customer?

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 27

Customer Cost Analysis Example

Ordering: Set-up: Total

Customer A: 7 × $80/order = $ 560 7 × $100/batch = 700 $1,260

English can use this information to persuade this customer to reduce usage of the ordering and setup cost drivers. ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 28

Customer Cost Analysis Example

Ordering: Setup: Total

Customer B: 2 × $80/order = $160 2 × $100/batch = 200 $360

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 29

Learning Objective 5 Apply the concept of cost hierarchy to customer costing.

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 30

Cost Hierarchy General Motors uses a seven-level cost hierarchy to analyze profitability. The aim of this cost hierarchy is to assign costs to the lowest level of the hierarchy at which they can be identified.

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 31

Cost Hierarchy 1. Enterprise-related activities 2. Market-related activities 3. Channel-related activities 4. Customer-related activities 5. Order-related activities

6. Parts-related activities 7. Direct materials ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 32

Learning Objective 6 Discuss why customer-profitability differs across customers.

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 33

Customer-Profitability Profiles Which customer is more profitable, A or B? A Revenues $24,500 Cost of good sold ($95 per unit) 13,300 Contribution margin $11,200 Other expenses 1,260 Operating income $ 9,940 ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

B $10,800 5,700 $ 5,100 360 $ 4,740 14 - 34

Customer-Profitability Profiles Customer A seems to be more profitable. However, customer B has a higher gross profit percentage. Customer A has a gross profit of 40.6% ($9,940 ÷ $24,500). Customer B has a gross profit of 43.9% ($4,740 ÷ $10,800). ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 35

Learning Objective 7 Provide additional information about the sales-volume variance by calculating the sales-mix variance and the sales-quantity variance. ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 36

Sales-Volume Variance Components The following information relates to English Languages Institute budget for the year 2003. Product Grammar Trans. Comp. Selling price per unit $259 $87 $185 Variable cost 189 50 95 Contribution margin per unit $ 70 $37 $ 90

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 37

Sales-Volume Variance Components Product

Grammar

Translation Composition

Cont. margin

$70

$37

$90

× Units

3,185

980

735

= Total

$222,950

$36,260

$66,150

Sales mix

65%

20%

15%

Total budgeted contribution margin = $325,360 ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 38

Sales-Volume Variance Components The following are the actual results for English Languages for the year 2003. Product

Grammar

Translation Composition

Selling $/unit

$255

$85

$185

Variable cost

180

45

95

Cont. margin per unit

$ 75

$40

$ 90

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 39

Sales-Volume Variance Components Product

Grammar

Translation Composition

Cont. margin

$75

$40

$90

× Units

2,880

990

630

= Total

$216,000

$39,600

$56,700

Sales mix

64%

22%

14%

Total actual contribution margin = $312,300 ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 40

Static-Budget Variance

Product Grammar Translation Composition Total

Actual results $216,000 39,600 56,700 $312,300

StaticStaticbudget budget amount variance $222,950 $ 6,950 U 36,260 3,340 F 66,150 9,450 U $325,360 $13,060 U

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 41

Flexible-Budget Variance Actual contribution Product margin/unit Grammar $75 Translation $40 Composition $90

Unit volume 2,880 990 630

Actual results $216,000 $ 39,600 $ 56,700

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 42

Flexible-Budget Variance Budgeted contribution Product margin/unit Grammar $70 Translation $37 Composition $90

Actual unit volume 2,880 990 630

Flexible budget $201,600 $ 36,630 $ 56,700

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 43

Flexible-Budget Variance FlexibleActual budget Product results amount Grammar $216,000 $201,600 Translation $39,600 $ 36,630 Composition $56,700 $ 56,700 Total flexible-budget variance

Flexiblebudget variance $14,400 F $ 2,970 F 0 $17,370 F

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 44

Sales-Volume Variance

Product Actual Budget Grammar (2,880 – 3,185) Translation (990 – 980) Composition (630 – 735) Total sales-volume variance

Budgeted contribution margin × $70 = $21,350 U × $37 = 370 F × $90 = 9,450 U $30,430 U

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 45

Sales-Mix Variance Sales-mix variance

=

× ×

Actual units of all products sold

Actual sales-mix percentage – Budgeted sales-mix percentage Budgeted contribution margin per unit

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 46

Sales-Mix Variance Grammar:

4,500(0.64 – 0.65) × $70 = $3,150 U

Translation: 4,500(0.22 – 0.20) × $37 = $3,330 F

Composition: 4,500(0.14 – 0.15) × $90 = $4,050 U Total sales-mix variance

= $3,870 U

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 47

Sales-Quantity Variance Sales-quantity variance

=

× ×

Actual units of all products sold – Budgeted units of all products sold Budgeted sales-mix percentage Budgeted contribution margin per unit

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 48

Sales-Quantity Variance Grammar: (4,500 – 4,900) × 0.65 × $70 Translation: (4,500 – 4,900) × 0.20 × $37 Composition: (4,500 – 4,900) × 0.15 × $90 Total sales-quantity variance

= $18,200 U

= $ 2,960 U = $ 5,400 U = $26,560 U

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 49

Learning Objective 8 Provide additional information about the sales-quantity variance by calculating the market-share variance and the market-size variance. ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 50

Market-Share Variance Example Assume that English Languages Institute derives its total unit sales budget for 2003 from a management estimate of a 20% market share and a total industry sales forecast by Desert Services of 24,500 units in the region. In 2003, Desert Services reported actual industry sales of 28,125 units. ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 51

Market-Share Variance Example What is English’s actual market share? 4,500 ÷ 28,125 = 0.16 Budgeted total contribution margin is $325,360. Budgeted number of units is 4,900. What is the budgeted average contribution margin per unit? $325,360 ÷ 4,900 = $66.40 ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 52

Market-Share Variance Example What is the market-share variance?

= ×

×

Actual market size in units Actual market share – Budgeted market share Budgeted contribution margin per composite unit for budgeted mix

28,125(0.16 – 0.20) × $66.40 = $74,700 U ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 53

Market-Share Variance Example Actual Market Size × Actual Market Share × Budgeted Average Contribution Margin Per Unit 28,125 × 0.16 × $66.40 = $298,800 Actual Market Size × Budgeted Market Share × Budgeted Average Contribution Margin Per Unit 28,125 × 0.20 × $66.40 = $373,500 $373,500 – $298,800 = $74,700 U ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 54

Market-Size Variance Example Market-size variance

= ×

×

Actual market size in units – Budgeted market size in units Budgeted market share Budgeted contribution margin per composite unit for budgeted mix

(28,125 – 24,500) × 0.20 × $66.40 = $48,140 F ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 55

Market-Size Variance Example Actual Market Size × Budgeted Market Share × Budgeted Average Contribution Margin Per Unit 28,125 × 0.20 × $66.40 = $373,500 Static Budget: Budgeted Market Size × Budgeted market share × Budgeted Average Contribution Margin Per Unit 24,500 × 0.20 × $66.40 = $325,360 $373,500 – $325,360 = $48,140 F ©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 56

Summary of Variances Level 1

Level 2

Static-Budget Variance 13,060 U Flexible-Budget Variance $17,370 F

Sales-Volume Variance $30,430 U

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 57

Summary of Variances Level 2

Level 3

Sales-Volume Variance $30,430 U Sales-Mix Variance $3,870 U

Sales-Quantity Variance $26,560 U

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 58

Summary of Variances Level 3

Level 4

Sales-Quantity Variance $26,560 U Market-Share Variance $74,700 U

Market-Size Variance $48,140 F

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 59

End of Chapter 14

©2003 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Cost Accounting 11/e, Horngren/Datar/Foster

14 - 60