products shows how profitable the products are after deducting all cost. However‚ it is important to find the appropriate method of overhead cost allocation. In Sippican’s case the traditional accounting method is used‚ which does not reflect the real resource usage of the different product lines. The correct method in this case would be to apply the time-driven ABC approach for cost allocation. Such method apart from showing the actual profitability after all cost deductions also depicts the differences
Premium Cost accounting Capacity utilization Costs
Sippican Corporation According to the activity based costing‚ the manufacturing overhead should be apportioned in the following method The Direct Material cost per unit and the direct labour cost per unit for the valves‚ pumps and the flow controller is given below. Direct Material Direct Labour Total Units Cost/unit cost/unit Valves 7500 16 12.35 Pumps 12500 20 16.25 Flow Controller 4000 22 13 The total manufacturing overhead of $654600 should be apportioned based on the activity required for
Premium Costs Variable cost Activity-based costing
1 SIPPICAN CORPORATION CASE ANALYSYS 20229 Cost Management System 2 Executive Summary Company Overview Accounting method Production process Activities performed Q1. Should Sippican use a contribution margin approach? Explanation Q2. Capacity cost rates for resources Q3. a. Revised costs and profits b. Product costs and profitability analysis with the new allocation method. Cause of the shifts in values. Q4. What actions should the management take to improve
Premium Cost Cost accounting Management accounting
The Sippican Corporation Cost System Analysis We were tasked with analyzing Sippican’s costing structure to determine if activity based costing can give a clearer picture of the company’s true costs. Currently‚ Sippican assigns overhead costs at a flat rate across all three products. (4-54c) Our analysis of cost and profitability reveals a dramatic difference between the cost to produce each product as reported using Sippican’s traditional costing structure and the detailed analysis
Premium Profit Cost Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
Sippican Corporation Sippican Corporation Questions: 1. Given some of the apparent problems with Sippican’s cost system‚ should executives abandon overhead assignment to products entirely and adopt a contribution margin approach in which manufacturing overhead is treated as a period expense? Why or why not? Answer: Consider Sippican is a manufacturer company with multiple products‚ using simple cost accounting system that directly allocate factory overhead to unit of product entirely through
Premium Management Organization Education
the number of units produced per production run- it is 375 for valves and 18 for flow controllers per production run. This shows the reason for high overheads cost too. Hence it calls for checking the cost allocation system of the company. Since Sippican produces three different products which comprise of different components‚ processes for all three need to be customised and refined to bring in any kind of standards. Variations in batch size owing to the machining constraints etc. are brought in
Premium Capacity utilization Manufacturing Profit
McDonald’s Corporation Case Analysis Name left out BUSN 412 Business Policy July 27‚ 2008 CASE ANALYSIS MCDONALD’S CORPORATION COMPANY NAME: McDonald’s Corporation INDUSTRY: Fast Food COMPANY WEB SITE: http://www.McDonald’s.com/corp.html COMPANY BACKGROUND: The first McDonald’s was built in 1940 by the brothers Dick and Mac McDonald. In 1954 Ray Kroc became the first franchisee appointed by Mac and Dick McDonald in San Bernardino‚ California. The following year‚ 1955‚ Kroc opened his
Premium Hamburger
2010-2011 MASSEY UNIVERSITY Honesty Declaration School of Management (Albany) |Lecturer’s Name |Paper Name |Paper Number | |David Tappin |Project Management |152.752 | Honesty Declaration |I/we declare that this is an original assignment and is entirely my/our own work.
Premium Project management Management
HERNISCHFEGER CORPORATION CASE ANALYSIS 1. Describe clearly the accounting changes Harnischfeger made in 1984 as stated in Note 2 of its financial statements In 1984 they changed the depreciation method from accelerated methods to the straight-line for financial reporting purposes. This change included a adjustment of the residual values on certain machinery and equipment. They also included the products purchased from Kobe Steel‚ LTD and sold by them in their net sales. Moreover‚ they
Premium Depreciation Income statement Pension
Financial Decision Making Final Project Case analysis: Marriott Corporation Introduction and background The Marriott Corporation‚ an American firm‚ was founded in 1927 by J.Willard Marriot.The company began as a small beer stand and soon began to sell food and provided lodging that expanded rapidly. With the help of his wife Alice‚ the family owned business had 45 restaurants in nine states by 1940 and grew into one of the leading service companies. The Company has three major lines
Premium Rate of return Net present value Weighted average cost of capital