Comments

  1. avatar says

    @John Moffat

    sir, when doing process costing, if there is no value given for normal loss, is there a method for calculating this value and if yes, how do we calculate it??

    i just know that the value should already be given in the question ^^

  2. Avatar of Temperance says

    @John Moffat

    H Sir, I’m just trying to understand the concept of under and over absorption.

    Is it that an under absorption occurs when the amount absorbed is less than the actual overhead incurred?

    And an over absorption occurs when the amount absorbed is greater than the actual overheads occurred?

  3. avatar says

    Sir can I ask for your help please. I have a problem regarding the difference in eg1 and eg2:

    Why do you say in eg1 “adjustment for fixed overheads = amount absorbed – BUDGET total” [at 05:30 in the lecture], and yet in eg2 it is the “amount absorbed – ACTUAL total” [at 27:05 in the lecture]? Surely as we used the budgeted amount of 20000 in eg1 then the budgeted amount of 320000 should be used in eg2? Have I missed something?

    Many thanks.

    • Avatar of johnmoffat says

      Firstly, we always calculate the absorption rate using budget figures – so in example 1 the absorption rate is $2 per unit, and in example 2 the absorption rate is $4 per hour. I guess that you are happy with that.

      With absorption costing, every unit or hour is effectively charged (absorbed) at this absorption rate which is why we may have over or under absorption (because the amount absorbed is different than the amount it should be).

      The difference between the two examples is that in example 1 we are asked to prepare budget profit statements – so we are comparing the amount absorbed with what the total budget fixed overheads should be; but in example 2 we are not asked to prepare a budget statement, we are told what the actual overheads are and so we are comparing the amount absorbed with the actual total fixed overheads.

      (You will see when we come to variance analysis in a later chapter that we can split the over/under absorption between the difference between absorbed and budget figure, and the difference between actual total and budget total – but don’t worry about that yet :-) )

      Hope that helps.

      (PS I have a feeling that you asked this before and that I did not answer. If so, then sorry – I was away last week and it was difficult for me to check things)

    • Avatar of johnmoffat says

      Over absorption means that the fixed overheads have been over absorbed – i.e. that we have charged more fixed overheads than we should have.
      To correct it means that the fixed overhead cost should be lower, which means that the profit should be higher.
      (vice versa when we have under-absorbed (or under-charged) we have not charged a big enough expense, so more expense means that the correct profit should be lower)

  4. avatar says

    Mr John, i don’t understand how you got 2000 for the fixed cost under the heading selling costs and as it is under-absorbed, why did you reduced it from the gross profit ? i thought it was 1000 and must be added to the gross profit

  5. avatar says

    these r the toughest chapters for me in f2 absorption/marginal costing,,,,,,hw can i b gud in these chapters,,im going to attempt CBE in the next few days,,,any tips 2 b gud at these chapters n for passing f2 plzzzzzz???

  6. avatar says

    I find example 2 confusing. Why was $315500 used to get the over/under absorption value instead of $320000?
    Isn’t $320000 the budgeted overhead since you used 320000 divided by 80000 to get the absorption rate at $4?

    • Avatar of johnmoffat says

      320,000 is indeed the budgeted overhead.

      However with absorption costing, every unit produced is charged at $4 and so is we produce more or less that the budgeted production we will have over or under absorbed the overheads.

      • avatar says

        Sir can I ask for your help please. I have a similar problem regarding the difference in eg1 and eg2:

        Why do you say in eg1 “adjustment for fixed overheads = amount absorbed – BUDGET total” [at 05:30 in the lecture], and yet in eg2 it is the “amount absorbed – ACTUAL total” [at 27:05 in the lecture]? Surely as we use the budgeted amount of 20000 in eg1 then the budgeted amount of 320000 should be used in eg2? Have I missed something?

        Many thanks.

  7. avatar says

    Can someone correct me if i am wrong pls ?
    If we observe , in the part A, we subtracted the total cost of closing inventory of 2000 units at £27 . This means that the total cost of this £2000 was not included in our calculation in January ….Agreed !

    Now in February , the closing stock of £2000 becomes our opening stock valued at £27, of which £2 of it represents fixed overhead cost . If we only produced 9500 units in february , the total value of fixed overhead absorbed at £2 will be – (opening stock of 2000 units x £2) + (actual production 9500 units x £2) = . £23000. Therefore the adjustment for fixed overheads would have been £23000 – Actual budget of £20000 = £3000 . It seems the lecturer ignored the fixed cost element of £4000 in the february opening stock, as it was not accounted for in January .

    Can someone pls correct me if i am wrong ?

    • Avatar of johnmoffat says

      You are wrong – my lecture is correct.

      You are confusing two things – the way we value inventory, and the amount that is charged (which is what absorbed means) in the profit statement.

      I don’t know if you have done Paper F3 yet, but if we were doing financial accounts (which we are not) then there are several ways that you might choose to value inventories, but you would charge still charge the actual fixed overheads (here 20,000) in the income statement. Because we are doing management accounts (and using absorption costing) the amount initially charged in the income statement is always the actual production times the standard fixed overhead per unit. To ‘correct’ it we then need the over/under adjustment for fixed overheads. The calculations in the lecture (and obviously in the answer at the back of the course notes) is correct.

      (and if you look at the next chapter where it is the same example using marginal costing, it effectively ‘proves’ it).

      • avatar says

        I totally agree with all you said above……its never been my bone of contention.
        My grouse , or rather what i am finding difficult to understand is – when adjusting for fixed overheads in february , we only adjusted for 9500 units , and we completely ignored any adjustment for the opening stock of 2000 units that we brought forward from january.
        Again i might be wrong…..just looking for clarification.

      • avatar says

        Bear in mind – The 2000 units brought forward in January was calculated at £27 , which includes and over-charge of £2 , so i think our adjustment should have been £2 x (2000 units + £9500 units ).

      • Avatar of johnmoffat says

        I am afraid you are wrong :-)

        The reason is that the variances are checking whether or not we have over/under spent in the current period.
        Since opening and closing stock are valued at standard cost per unit, it is only what was spent in the current period that is relevant.

      • avatar says

        We don’t have to adjust for the opening stock of 2000 units because we adjusted for it when it was actually produced – in the previous month. Remember, absorbtion rate per unit is budgetet FC devided by budgeted PRODUCTION, not sales. So we only adjust for the units acually produced (which may include closing inventory and closing inventory for one month is the opening for the next).

Leave a Reply