Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Solution Manual Managerial Accounting Hansen Mowen 8th Editions CH 9 PDF
Solution Manual Managerial Accounting Hansen Mowen 8th Editions CH 9 PDF
STANDARD COSTING:
A MANAGERIAL CONTROL TOOL
QUESTIONS FOR WRITING AND DISCUSSION
1. Standard costs are essentially budgeted 11. Managers generally tend to have more con-
amounts on a per-unit basis. Unit standards trol over the quantity of an input used rather
serve as inputs in building budgets. than the price paid per unit of input.
2. Unit standards are used to build flexible 12. A standard cost variance should be investi-
budgets. Unit standards for variable costs gated if the variance is material and if the
are the variable cost component of a flexible benefit of investigating and correcting the
budgeting formula. deviation is greater than the cost.
3. The quantity decision is determining how 13. Control limits indicate how large a variance
much input should be used per unit of out- must be before it is judged to be material
put. The pricing decision determines how and the process is out of control. Control
much should be paid for the quantity of input limits are usually set by judgment although
used. statistical approaches are occasionally used.
4. Historical experience is often a poor choice 14. The materials price variance is often com-
for establishing standards because the his- puted at the point of purchase rather than
torical amounts may include more inefficien- issuance because it provides control infor-
cy than is desired.
mation sooner. When this is done, the va-
5. Engineering studies can serve as an impor- riance may be called the materials purchase
tant input to standard setting. Many feel that price variance, and it is the responsibility of
this approach by itself may produce stan- the purchasing manager rather than the
dards that are too rigorous. production manager.
6. Ideal standards are perfection standards, 15. Disagree. A materials usage variance can
representing the best possible outcomes. be caused by factors beyond the control of
Currently attainable standards are standards the production manager, e.g., purchase of a
that are challenging but allow some waste. lower-quality material than normal.
Currently attainable standards are often
chosen because many feel they tend to mo- 16. Disagree. Using higher-priced workers to
tivate rather than frustrate. perform lower-skilled tasks is an example of
an event that will create a rate variance that
7. Standard costing systems improve planning is controllable.
and control and facilitate product costing.
17. Some possible causes of an unfavorable
8. By identifying standards and assessing dev- labor efficiency variance are inefficient labor,
iations from the standards, managers can machine downtime, and poor quality mate-
locate areas where change or corrective be- rials.
havior is needed.
18. Part of a variable overhead spending va-
9. Actual costing assigns actual manufacturing riance can be caused by inefficient use of
costs to products. Normal costing assigns overhead resources.
actual prime costs and estimated overhead
costs to products. Standard costing assigns 19. Agree. This variance, assuming that variable
estimated manufacturing costs to products. overhead costs increase as labor usage in-
creases, is caused by the efficiency or ineffi-
10. A standard cost sheet presents the standard ciency of labor usage. Also labor may not be
amount of inputs and the price for each input a good driver for variable overhead.
and uses this information to calculate the
unit standard cost.
275
20. Fixed overhead costs are either committed lume is different from the expected, then the
or discretionary. The committed costs will company has either lost or earned a contri-
not differ by their very nature. Discretionary bution margin. The volume variance signals
costs can vary, but the level the company this outcome, and if the variance is large,
wants to spend on these items is decided at then the loss or gain is large since the vo-
the beginning and usually will be met unless lume variance understates the effect.
there is a conscious decision to change the
22. The spending variance is more important.
predetermined levels.
This variance is computed by comparing ac-
21. The volume variance is caused by the actual tual expenditures with budgeted expendi-
volume differing from the expected volume tures. The volume variance simply tells
used to compute the predetermined stan- whether the actual volume is different from
dard fixed overhead rate. If the actual vo- the expected volume.
276
EXERCISES
9–1
1. d 4. c
2. e 5. e
3. d 6. a
9–2
277
9–3
9–4
2. SH direct labor hours per unit = 10,000/40,000 = 0.25 hrs. per bunny
9–5
9–6
2. The installation and repair manager. If the new workers are now properly
trained, no corrective action is required. If they are not, further training will be
required to return to the direct labor hours normally used.
278
9–7
2. The purchasing agent. Corrective action would require a return to the pur-
chase of the higher-quality material normally used.
9–8
279
9–9
280
9–10
AP × AQ SP × AQ SP × SQ
$6.82 × 173,500 $7 × 173,500 $7 × 170,000
$31,230 F $24,500 U
Price Usage
AR × AH SR × AH SR × SH
$13.50 × 50,900 $14 × 50,900 $14 × 51,000
$25,450 F $1,400 F
Rate Efficiency
281
9–11
AR × AH SR × AH SR × SH
$9.50 × 79,900 $9.40 × 79,900 $9.40 × 80,400
$7,990 U $4,700 F
Rate Efficiency
282
9–12
1. Fixed overhead rate = $0.55/(1/2 hr. per unit) = $1.10 per DLH
SH = 786,000 × 0.5 = 393,000
Applied FOH = $1.10 × 393,000 = $432,300
283
9–13
The spending variance is the difference between planned and actual costs.
Each item’s variance should be analyzed to see if these costs can be reduced.
The volume variance is the incorrect prediction of volume, or alternatively, it
is a signal of the loss or gain that occurred because of producing at a level
different from the expected level.
The variable overhead spending variance is the difference between the actual
variable overhead costs and the budgeted costs for the actual hours used.
The variable overhead efficiency variance is the savings or extra cost attri-
butable to the efficiency of labor usage.
284
9–14
AR × AH SR × AH SR × SH
$18.10 × 515,000 $18 × 515,000 $18 × 504,000
$51,500 U $198,000 U
Rate Efficiency
285
9–15
286
9–16
1. Tom purchased the large quantity to obtain a lower price so that the price
standard could be met. In all likelihood, given the reaction of Jackie Iverson,
encouraging the use of quantity discounts was not an objective of setting
price standards. Usually, material price standards are to encourage the pur-
chasing agent to search for sources that will supply the quantity and quality
of material desired at the lowest price.
2. It sounds like the price standard may be out of date. Revising the price stan-
dard and implementing a policy concerning quantity purchases would likely
prevent this behavior from reoccurring.
3. Tom apparently acted in his own self-interest when making the purchase. He
surely must have known that the quantity approach was not the objective.
Yet, the reward structure suggests that there is considerable emphasis
placed on meeting standards. His behavior, in part, was induced by the re-
ward system of the company. Probably, he should be retained with some ad-
ditional training concerning the goals of the company and a change in em-
phasis and policy to help encourage the desired behavior.
9–17
Materials:
AP × AQ SP × AQ SP × SQ
$38,295 $2.00 × 20,700 $2.00 × 20,650
$3,105 F $100 U
Price Usage
Labor:
AR × AH SR × AH SR × SH
$57,226 $9 × 6,200 = $55,800 $9 × 6,195 = $55,755
$1,426 U $45 U
Rate Efficiency
287
9–18
288
9–19
3. SH = 4 × Units produced
20,000 = 4 × Units produced
Units produced = 5,000
289
PROBLEMS
9–20
1. Materials:
AP × AQ SP × AQ SP × SQ
$1.72 × 38,500 $1.70 × 38,500 $1.70 × 40,000
$770 U $2,550 F
Price Usage
The new process saves 0.25 × 4,000 × $1.70 = $1,700. Thus, the net savings
attributable to the higher-quality material are (2,550 – $1,700) – $770 = $80.
Keep the higher-quality material.
The new process gains $80 in materials (see Requirement 1) but loses $2,500
from the labor effect, giving a net loss of $2,420. If this pattern is expected to
persist, then the new process should be abandoned.
If this is the pattern, then the new process should be continued. It will save
$87,360 per year ($1,680 × 52 weeks). The weekly savings of $1,680 is the ma-
terials savings of $80 plus labor savings of $1,600.
290
9–21
1. e 9. m
2. h 10. l
3. k 11. j
4. n 12. c
5. d 13. a
6. g 14. i
7. o 15. f
8. b
9–22
291
9–22 Concluded
4. Lumber:
MPV = (AP – SP)AQ
= ($3.10 – $3.00)16,000 = $1,600 U
MUV = (AQ – SQ)SP
= (16,000 – 15,000)$3 = $3,000 U
Rubber pads:
MPV = (AP – SP)AQ
= ($0.048 – $0.05)51,000 = $102 F
MUV = (AQ – SQ)SP
= (51,000 – 40,000)$0.05 = $550 U
Labor:
LRV = (AR – SR)AH
= ($8.05 – $8.00)5,550 = $277.50 U
LEV = (AH – SH)SR
= (5,550 – 4,900)$8 = $5,200 U
292
9–23
1. The cumulative average time per unit is an average. It includes the 2.5 hours
per unit when 40 units are produced as well as the 1.024 hours per unit when
640 units are produced. As more units are produced, the cumulative average
time per unit will decrease.
2. The standard should be 0.768 hour per unit as this is the average time taken
per unit once efficiency is achieved:
[(1.024 × 640) – (1.28 × 320)]/(640 – 320)
4. There would be unfavorable efficiency variances for the first 320 units be-
cause the standard hours are much lower than the actual hours at this level.
Actual hours would be approximately 409.60 (320 × 1.28), and standard hours
would be 245.76 (320 × 0.768).
9–24
293
9–24 Continued
AR × AH SR × AH SR × SH
$13 × 150,000 $12 × 150,000 $12 × 140,000
$150,000 U $120,000 U
Rate Efficiency
Formula approach:
VOH spending variance = Actual VOH – (SVOR × AH)
= $1,470,000 – ($10 × 150,000)
= $30,000 F
VOH efficiency variance = (AH – SH)SVOR
= (150,000 – 140,000)$10
= $100,000 U
10,000 × $10 = $100,000
294
9–24 Continued
6. (Appendix required)
Materials Inventorya .................................. 2,790,000
MPV ....................................................... 93,000
Accounts Payableb .............................. 2,697,000
Work in Processc ....................................... 2,940,000
MUV ............................................................ 8,400
Materials Inventoryd ............................ 2,948,400
a
465,000 × $6 = $2,790,000
b
465,000 × $5.80 = $2,697,000
c
490,000 × $6 = $2,940,000
d
(465,000 + 26,400) × $6 = $2,948,400
295
9–24 Concluded
e
2 × $12 × 70,000 = $1,680,000
f
2 × $10 × 70,000 = $1,400,000
g
2 × $6 × 70,000 = $840,000
296
9–25
Athens plant:
Actual FOH Budgeted FOH Applied FOH
$2,500,000 $2,400,000 $4 × 600,000
$100,000 U $0
Spending Volume
297
9–25 Concluded
4. For each plant, the standard fixed overhead rate is $4 per direct labor hour.
Since each subassembly should use two hours, the fixed overhead cost per
unit is $8, regardless of where they are produced. Should they differ? Some
may argue that the rate for the Little Rock plant needs to be recalculated. For
example, one possibility is to use expected actual capacity, instead of prac-
tical capacity. In this case, the Little Rock plant would have a fixed overhead
rate of $2,400,000/480,000 hours = $5 per hour and a cost per subassembly of
$10. The question is: Should the subassemblies be charged for the cost of the
unused capacity? ABC suggests a negative response. Products should be
charged for the resources they use, and the cost of unused capacity should
be reported as a separate item—to draw management’s attention to the need
to manage this unused capacity.
298
9–26
299
9–26 Continued
300
9–26 Concluded
9–27
1. The budgeted overhead costs are broken down into fixed and variable costs
by the high-low method:
Standard VOH rate = Change in cost/Change in activity
= $288,000/24,000
= $12/hour
FOH rate = Total rate – VOH rate
= $18 – $12
= $6
301
9–27 Concluded
3. To find the VOH spending variance, we need to find the actual hours. To find
AH, we first need to find the standard hours, SH:
Fixed OH volume variance = Budgeted fixed overhead – (Fixed
overhead rate × SH)
$36,000 = $360,000 – ($6.00 × SH)
$324,000 = $6.00 × SH
SH = 54,000
Next, the actual hours need to be found:
VOH efficiency variance = (AH – SH)SVOR
–$24,000 = (AH – 54,000)$12
–2,000 = AH – 54,000
AH = 52,000
VOH spending variance = Actual VOH – (VOH rate × AH)
= $620,000 – ($12 × 52,000)
= $620,000 – $624,000
= $4,000 F
302
9–28
303
9–28 Concluded
304
9–29
1. Performance Report
Actual Budgeted
Costs Costs* Variance
Direct materials $ 775,000 $ 750,000 $25,000 U
Direct labor 590,000 600,000 10,000 F
Variable overhead 310,000 300,000 10,000 U
Fixed overhead 180,000 165,000 15,000 U
Total $1,855,000 $1,815,000 $40,000 U
*Uses the variable unit standard costs for materials, labor and variable over-
head (e.g., DM = $15 × 50,000); fixed overhead = $3.00 × 55,000 (the FOH rate
is based on expected production).
305
9–29 Continued
d. FOH variances:
Spending variance = Actual FOH – Budgeted FOH
= $180,000 – $165,000
= $15,000 U
Volume variance = Budgeted FOH – (FOH rate × SH)
= $165,000 – ($2.50 × 60,000)
= $15,000 U
Note: FOH rate is calculated as follows:
Hours allowed = 60,000 hours/50,000 units
= 1.20 hours per unit
Standard FOH rate = $3.00 per unit/1.20 hours per unit
= $2.50 per hour
e. VOH variances:
Variable OH rate = $300,000/60,000 hours
= $5.00 per hour
Spending variance = Actual VOH – (SVOR × AH)
= $310,000 – ($5.00 × 63,000)
= $5,000 F
Efficiency variance = (AH – SH)SVOR
= (63,000 – 60,000)$5.00
= $15,000 U
306
9–29 Concluded
3.
Materials Work in Process
(a) 770,000 770,000 (b) (b) 750,000 1,800,000 (f)
(c) 600,000
(d) 300,000
(e) 150,000
Finished Goods
(f) 1,800,000 1,800,000 (g)
307
9–30
1. April (UCL = Upper control limit, and LCL = Lower control limit)
Materials:
Price standard: $0.25 × 723,000 = $180,750
UCL: 0.08 × $180,750 = $14,460
LCL: ($14,460)
Quantity standard: 8 × 90,000 × $0.25 = $180,000
UCL: 0.08 × $180,000 = $14,400
LCL: ($14,400)
Labor:
Price standard: $7.50 × 36,000 = $270,000
UCL: 0.08 × $270,000 = $21,600
LCL: ($21,600)
Quantity standard: 0.4 × 90,000 × $7.50 = $270,000
UCL: 0.08 × $270,000 = $21,600
LCL: ($21,600)
May
Materials:
Price standard: $0.25 × 870,000 = $217,500
UCL: 0.08 × $217,500 = $17,400
LCL: ($17,400)
Quantity standard: 8 × 100,000 × $0.25 = $200,000
UCL: 0.08 × $200,000 = $16,000
LCL: ($16,000)
Labor:
Price standard: $7.50 × 44,000 = $330,000
UCL: 0.08 × $330,000 = $26,400
LCL: ($26,400)
Quantity standard: 0.4 × 100,000 × $7.50 = $300,000
UCL: 0.08 × $300,000 = $24,000
LCL: ($24,000)
308
9–30 Continued
June
Materials:
Price standard: $0.25 × 885,000 = $221,250
UCL: 0.08 × $221,250 = $17,700
LCL: ($17,700)
Quantity standard: 8 × 110,000 × $0.25 = $220,000
UCL: 0.08 × $220,000 = $17,600
LCL: ($17,600)
Labor:
Price standard: $7.50 × 46,000 = $345,000
UCL: 0.08 × $345,000 = $27,600
LCL: ($27,600)
Quantity standard: 0.4 × 110,000 × $7.50 = $330,000
UCL: 0.08 × $330,000 = $26,400
LCL: ($26,400)
309
9–30 Continued
3. Control charts allow us to see when the variances are outside an acceptable
range. They may also show a pattern that may help in pinpointing when the
problem began.
Control charts: To simplify the presentation, the variances are expressed as a
percentage of the total quantity or price standard, and the Y-axis is used for
variances. These percentages were calculated in Requirement 2.
MPV:
%
10.0
8.0
x
x
0.0 x
–8.0
APRIL MAY JUNE
310
9–30 Continued
MUV:
%
10.0
x
8.0
0.0 x x
–8.0
APRIL MAY JUNE
311
9–30 Continued
LRV:
%
10.0
8.0
0.0
x
x
–8.0
APRIL MAY JUNE
312
9–30 Concluded
LEV:
%
10.0 x
8.0
0.0
x
–8.0
APRIL MAY JUNE
9–31
1. Hepler Company must put 60,000 units of lower-quality material into produc-
tion in order to produce 54,000 finished units:
Good units/(1 – Rejection rate) = Units required
54,000/0.9 = 60,000 units
2. In order to produce 60,000 units (54,000 good units and 6,000 rejects), Hepler
Company must utilize the following labor:
New team = 8 Assembler A, 1 Assembler B, 1 Machinist
New team will work at 80 percent of the efficiency of the old team.
Assembler A: 8 hours × (60,000/80) = 6,000 hours
Assembler B: 1 hour × (60,000/80) = 750 hours
Machinist: 1 hour × (60,000/80) = 750 hours
313
9–31 Concluded
314
9–32
315
9–32 Concluded
316
MANAGERIAL DECISION CASES
9–33
2. The disadvantages that can result from using a standard costing system in-
clude the following:
• Cost standards that are too tight can have negative implications which may
cause demotivation.
• Standards may ignore qualitative characteristics which may jeopardize
product quality.
• Variance analysis at the operational level may limit the emphasis on conti-
nual improvement found in the new manufacturing environment.
317
9–33 Concluded
Standards that are set for routine activities, which can be identifiable and
measurable, can be associated with specific cost factors of uniform products
in long production runs.
Standards promote cost control through the use of variance analysis and per-
formance reports.
5. There could be negative employee reaction as the employees did not partici-
pate in the standard-setting process.
There could be dissatisfaction if the standards contain cost elements that are
not controllable by the production groups who are then held responsible for
any unfavorable variances.
The outside firm may not fully understand the manufacturing process; this
could result in poor management decisions based on faulty information.
9–34
1. By using a standard cost system, Sabroso Chips can increase control of its
manufacturing inputs. By developing price and quantity standards for each
input, management can compute price and usage variances for each input.
Since a standard cost system provides more information, control is en-
hanced. For example, since managers have the most control over usage of
inputs, knowing the usage variances provides specific information about
where action is needed. Moreover, by breaking out price variances which are
not as controllable, performance evaluation is improved.
318
9–34 Concluded
319
9–35
1. Pat’s decision was wrong and not in the best interests of the company. His
concern for his bonus and promotion was apparently more important than his
company’s reputation for a quality product. Unfortunately, his assessment of
personal risk was probably a significant input to the decision to buy the infe-
rior component. All too often, individuals decide to take an unethical course
of action based on their assessment of their chances of getting caught. This
obviously should not be a factor. What is right should be the driving concern
for this type of decision.
RESEARCH ASSIGNMENTS
9–36
9–37
320