Anagene Case Summary

The main reason behind it is that the variance analysis of materials, labor, and overhead indicates the difference between original budget and actual sales/amount. It explains that the management should make changes in the budgets in order to diminish the chances of failure (Epstein & Jermakowicz, 2010). Moreover, the company should make changes in its all budgets like production budget, sales budget, manufacturing budget, selling budget and general & administrative. These changes would be helpful to reduce the difference between the actual and projected sales of the firm.

1- The total unit cost = Total Variable Cost + Production Fixed Expenses + Advertising Expense + Selling and Administrative Expense = 3.23 + 1.20 + 0.30 + 0.19 = 4.92.

The calculation has proven that contribution margin of Model S is higher than Model LX. In conclusion, all resources should be allocated to produce Model S up to its maximum production capacity.

Q2. Using budget data, what was the total expected cost per unit if all manufacturing and shipping overhead (both variable and fixed) was allocated to planned production? What was the actual per unit cost of production and shipping?

1. For financial accounting purposes, what is the total amount of product costs incurred to make 10,000 units?

Overhead costs are not in proportion to the production output because of the method they are using. This leads to inaccurate pricing and costing decisions. An Activity Based Costing System would help find the real relationship between the products produced and overhead.

14. A decision to work closely with a limited number of suppliers for the purpose of ensuring that the proper materials are available at the optimal time is an example of:

Second, the manufacturing order costs for non-stocked items was calculated by dividing total manufacturing order costs for non-stocked items by the number of orders for non-stocked products. Non-stocked products have additional costs associated with processing orders that went above and beyond the costs associated with a stocked product. The third step involved determining what the S"A allocation factor would be for calculating the S"A volume related costs. This allocation factor would then be applied to manufacturing COGS. The fourth and final step involved the calculation of the operating profit based on backing out volume related costs from sales revenues followed by deducting S"A and manufacturing order costs from the resulting gross margin to arrive at a operating profit.

In our second assumption, instead of using the cost of goods per cases in 1986, we try to use the percentage it counts in the total expenses which is 50.4% and to find the sales needed to break-even. The detail of the calculation is shown in the answer for questions d. The result is that 95,635, a little bit higher than the estimated sales of 90,000.

Wilkerson employs a Normal Cost System, which means that they use predetermined overhead rates along with actual costs for direct material and direct labor. Normal costing systems are appropriate when overhead costs are a relatively small percentage of total manufacturing costs and product diversity is limited. For Wilkerson, normal costing does not make sense. Overhead costs make up over 50 percent of total manufacturing costs and their product offering is relatively more diverse. This indicates that the current accounting system in place may be distorting costs significantly. Supporting data:

Under a traditional system, overhead cost is allocated to an activity based on hours or rates for direct labor or machine usage. However, this approach does not clearly indicate how much overhead cost will be needed in order to complete a job through a particular function. ABC methodology is to be used as an alternative to traditional accounting where a business 's overhead costs (indirect costs such as electrical energy consumption for heating or cooling, or indirect cost associated with marketing) are allocated as a proportion of direct costs, to an activity. This approach is unsatisfactory because there can be cases where two activities could absorb the same direct costs

Overhead costs include rent, office staff, depreciation, and other. Once the flexible budget was complete, variances between the actual and flexible budget could be calculated (Exhibit B). The variance for frame assembly was favorable with actual costs being $82,663 less than in the flexible budget. The variances for wheel and final assembly however were both unfavorable. Wheel assembly had an unfavorable variance of $50,650, while final assembly variance was the highest at an unfavorable variance of $231,200. Taking into account these three aspects of direct cost, direct cost has an unfavorable variance $199,187. Although most overhead costs are fixed, 2/3 of other costs are variable and increase with the increased production. As shown in Exhibit B, overhead variance is unfavorable at $60,000. The direct cost variance and overhead variable together lead to a total unfavorable variance of $259,187.

• This cost method does not provide the best system for JDCW’s cost allocation. By using only three overhead rates the present system grossly undermines the true production costs since other activities of the production process are not acknowledged.

Therefore, there is no doubt that it is significant to allocate overhead cost accurately for every production. If the overhead is calculated incorrectly, the selling price of the product will change. The company will not cover the cost and make a loss.

Reducing manufacturing overhead improving labor estimates on quotes is important because currently the marketing department does not trust cost estimates from the operations department. Marketing typically adjusts quotes to reflect market and corporate goals. This is a poor approach to address the bidding process and is likely a contributing factor the low success rate of quotes.