Sales Budget: |
||||
Particulars |
January |
February |
March |
Total |
Sales Volume (in units) |
76250 |
61000 |
68630 |
205880 |
Unit Selling Price |
$7,400 |
$7,400 |
$7,400 |
$7,400 |
Projected Sales (in $) |
$564,250,000 |
$451,400,000 |
$507,862,000 |
$1,523,512,000 |
Production Budget: |
|||||
1st Quarter |
|||||
Particulars |
January |
February |
March |
Total |
April |
|
(in unit) |
(in unit) |
(in unit) |
(in unit) |
|
Projected Sales Volume |
76250 |
61000 |
68630 |
205880 |
91500 |
Add: Closing Stock of Finished Goods |
36600 |
41178 |
54900 |
54900 |
|
Less: Opening Stock of Finished Goods |
48800 |
36600 |
41178 |
48800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected Production Volume (in units) |
64050 |
65578 |
82352 |
211980 |
|
Particulars |
January |
February |
March |
Total |
April |
|||||
|
Part 714 |
Part 502 |
Part 714 |
Part 502 |
Part 714 |
Part 502 |
Part 714 |
Part 502 |
Part 714 |
Part 502 |
Projected Production Volume |
64050 |
64050 |
65578 |
65578 |
82352 |
82352 |
|
|
|
|
Material required p.u. |
5 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
|
|
|
|
Total Material Required |
320250 |
384300 |
327890 |
393468 |
411760 |
494112 |
1059900 |
1271880 |
|
|
Add: Closing Stock of Raw Materials |
61000 |
73200 |
68630 |
82356 |
91500 |
109800 |
91500 |
109800 |
|
|
Less: Opening Stock of Raw Material |
76250 |
91500 |
61000 |
73200 |
68630 |
82356 |
76250 |
91500 |
|
|
Direct Material Purchased (in units) |
305000 |
366000 |
335520 |
402624 |
434630 |
521556 |
1075150 |
1290180 |
|
|
Material Cost p.u. |
$92 |
$122 |
$92 |
$122 |
$92 |
$122 |
$92 |
$122 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected Direct Material Purchased |
$28,060,000 |
$44,652,000 |
$30,867,840 |
$49,120,128 |
$39,985,960 |
$63,629,832 |
$98,913,800 |
$157,401,960 |
|
|
Direct Labor Budget: |
||||
1st Quarter |
||||
Particulars |
January |
February |
March |
Total |
|
(in unit) |
(in unit) |
(in unit) |
(in unit) |
Projected Production |
64050 |
65578 |
82352 |
211980 |
Direct Labor Hours p.u. |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
Total Direct Labor Hours |
576450 |
590202 |
741168 |
1907820 |
Direct Labor Cost per hour |
$50 |
$50 |
$50 |
$50 |
Budgeted Direct Labor Cost |
$28,822,500 |
$29,510,100 |
$37,058,400 |
$95,391,000 |
Manufacturing Overhead Budget |
||||
1st Quarter |
||||
Particulars |
January |
February |
March |
Total |
Total Direct Labor Hours |
576450 |
590202 |
741168 |
1907820 |
Variable Overhead per labor hour: |
|
|
|
|
Indirect Labor |
$64.05 |
$64.05 |
$64.05 |
$64.05 |
Power |
$6.10 |
$6.10 |
$6.10 |
$6.10 |
Maintenance |
$37.78 |
$37.78 |
$37.78 |
$37.78 |
Other Manufacturing Cost |
$45.75 |
$45.75 |
$45.75 |
$45.75 |
Total Variable Manufacturing Cost |
$88,586,420 |
$90,699,770 |
$113,899,592 |
$293,185,782 |
Fixed Overhead: |
|
|
|
|
Supervision |
$42,700,000 |
$42,700,000 |
$42,700,000 |
$128,100,000 |
Depreciation |
$3,812,500 |
$3,812,500 |
$3,812,500 |
$11,437,500 |
Rates & utilities |
$3,150,700 |
$3,150,700 |
$3,150,700 |
$9,452,100 |
Maintenance |
$34,688,040 |
$34,688,040 |
$34,688,040 |
$104,064,120 |
Other Fixed Overhead |
$15,250,000 |
$15,250,000 |
$15,250,000 |
$45,750,000 |
Total Fixed Manufacturing Overhead |
$99,601,240 |
$99,601,240 |
$99,601,240 |
$298,803,720 |
Budgeted Manufacturing Overhead |
$188,187,660 |
$190,301,010 |
$213,500,832 |
$591,989,502 |
Ending Finished Goods Inventory Budget |
|||
|
1st Quarter |
||
Particulars |
January |
February |
March |
Total Production Volume |
64050 |
65578 |
82352 |
Material Cost p.u.: |
|
|
|
Part 714 |
$460 |
$460 |
$460 |
Part 502 |
$732 |
$732 |
$732 |
Total Material Consumed |
$76,347,600 |
$78,168,976 |
$98,163,584 |
Total Direct Labor Cost |
$28,822,500 |
$29,510,100 |
$37,058,400 |
Total Manufacturing Overhead |
$188,187,660 |
$190,301,010 |
$213,500,832 |
Total Production Cost |
$293,357,760 |
$297,980,086 |
$348,722,816 |
Production Cost p.u. |
$4,580.14 |
$4,543.90 |
$4,234.54 |
Ending Finished Goods Inventory |
36600 |
41178 |
54900 |
Budgeted Finished Goods Inventory |
$167,633,006 |
$187,108,847 |
$232,476,231 |
Cost of Goods Sold Budget: |
||||
1st Quarter |
||||
Particulars |
January |
February |
March |
Total |
Budgeted Absorption Cost of Opening Inventory |
$3,050 |
$4,580.14 |
$4,543.90 |
$3,050 |
Opening Stock of Finished Goods |
48800 |
36600 |
41178 |
48800 |
Opening Stock Value |
$148,840,000 |
$167,633,006 |
$187,108,847 |
$148,840,000 |
Add: Total Production Cost |
$293,357,760 |
$297,980,086 |
$348,722,816 |
$940,060,662 |
|
$442,197,760 |
$465,613,092 |
$535,831,663 |
$1,088,900,662 |
Less: Closing Finished Goods Inventory |
$167,633,006 |
$187,108,847 |
$232,476,231 |
$232,476,231 |
Budgeted Cost of Goods Sold |
$274,564,754 |
$278,504,245 |
$303,355,432 |
$856,424,431 |
Budgeted Income Statement: |
||||
1st Quarter |
||||
Particulars |
January |
February |
March |
Total |
Total Sales Revenue |
$564,250,000 |
$451,400,000 |
$507,862,000 |
$1,523,512,000 |
Less: Cost of Goods Sold |
$274,564,754 |
$278,504,245 |
$303,355,432 |
$856,424,431 |
Gross Profit |
$289,685,246 |
$172,895,755 |
$204,506,568 |
$667,087,569 |
Less: Selling & Admin Expenses |
$112,087,500 |
$89,670,000 |
$100,884,300 |
$302,641,800 |
Budgeted Net Profit/(Loss) |
$177,597,746 |
$83,225,755 |
$103,622,268 |
$364,445,769 |
Cash Budget: |
||||
1st Quarter |
||||
Particulars |
January |
February |
March |
Total |
Cash Flow from Operating Activities: |
|
|
|
|
Collection from the month’s sales |
$383,690,000 |
$306,952,000 |
$345,346,160 |
$1,035,988,160 |
Collection from last month’s sales |
$180,560,000 |
$169,275,000 |
$135,420,000 |
$485,255,000 |
Cash Sales |
$11,285,000 |
$9,028,000 |
$10,157,240 |
$30,470,240 |
Purchase of Direct Material |
($72,712,000) |
($79,987,968) |
($103,615,792) |
($256,315,760) |
Direct Labor Cost |
($28,822,500) |
($29,510,100) |
($37,058,400) |
($95,391,000) |
($88,586,420) |
($90,699,770) |
($113,899,592) |
($293,185,782) |
|
Supervision Cost |
($42,700,000) |
($42,700,000) |
($42,700,000) |
($128,100,000) |
Rates & utilities |
($3,150,700) |
($3,150,700) |
($3,150,700) |
($9,452,100) |
Maintenance |
($34,688,040) |
($34,688,040) |
($34,688,040) |
($104,064,120) |
Other Fixed Overhead |
($15,250,000) |
($15,250,000) |
($15,250,000) |
($45,750,000) |
Selling & Admin Expenses |
($112,087,500) |
($89,670,000) |
($100,884,300) |
($302,641,800) |
Net Cash Flow from Operating Activities |
$177,537,840 |
$99,598,422 |
$39,676,576 |
$316,812,838 |
Cash Flow from Investing Activities: |
|
|
|
|
Purchase of Land |
|
($39,650,000) |
|
($39,650,000) |
Net Cash Flow from Investing Activities |
$0 |
($39,650,000) |
$0 |
($39,650,000) |
Cash Flow from Financing Activities: |
|
|
|
|
Dividend paid |
($190,000,000) |
|
|
($190,000,000) |
Loan Taken/(Repaid) |
$8,649,660 |
($8,649,660) |
|
$0 |
Interest paid on Loan |
|
($43,248) |
|
($43,248) |
Cash Flow from Financing Activities: |
($181,350,340) |
($8,692,909) |
$0 |
($190,043,248) |
Net Increase/(Decease) in Cash Balance |
($3,812,500) |
$51,255,514 |
$39,676,576 |
$87,119,589 |
Add: Opening Cash Balance |
$3,812,500 |
$0 |
$51,255,514 |
$3,812,500 |
Closing Balance |
$0 |
$51,255,514 |
$90,932,089 |
$90,932,089 |
Total Opening & Closing Raw Material Inventory: |
||||||||
Particulars |
January |
February |
March |
April |
||||
|
Part 714 |
Part 502 |
Part 714 |
Part 502 |
Part 714 |
Part 502 |
Part 714 |
Part 502 |
Total Sales Volume |
76250 |
76250 |
61000 |
61000 |
68630 |
68630 |
91500 |
91500 |
Material Required p.u. |
5 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
5 |
6 |
Stock Maintaining Level |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opening Stock |
76250 |
91500 |
61000 |
73200 |
68630 |
82356 |
91500 |
109800 |
Closing Stock |
61000 |
73200 |
68630 |
82356 |
91500 |
109800 |
|
|
Fixed & Variable Maintenance Cost: |
|
Direct Labor Hours |
Total Maintenance Cost |
1471600 |
$90,280,000 |
1677500 |
$98,057,500 |
1540300 |
$92,872,500 |
1403000 |
$87,687,500 |
Variable Maintenance Cost per hour |
$37.78 |
Fixed Maintenance Cost |
$34,688,040 |
Particulars |
Without New Facility |
% of Total Cost |
With New Facility |
% of Total Cost |
Variance |
Remarks |
Direct Material Cost |
$252,680,160 |
27% |
$189,510,120 |
19% |
25.00% |
Favorable |
Direct Labor Cost |
$95,391,000 |
10% |
$71,543,250 |
7% |
25.00% |
Favorable |
Variable Manufacturing Overhead |
$293,185,782 |
31% |
$293,185,782 |
29% |
0.00% |
Favorable |
Fixed Manufacturing Overhead |
$298,803,720 |
32% |
$448,205,580 |
45% |
-50.00% |
Adverse |
Total Production Cost |
$940,060,662 |
100% |
$1,002,444,732 |
100% |
-6.64% |
Adverse |
As seen in the above analysis with the introduction of the new highly automated manufacturing facility that would be purchased in February as recommended by Paulo would not be a favorable decision for the business. As it can be observed from the above table the direct material cost comes down from $252,680,160 to $189,510,120 and the direct labor cost also comes down from $95,391,000 to $293,185,782. Therefore it can be said that Paulo is correct in his prediction that the new manufacturing facility will facilitate a labor saving process. But as it also can be observed from the table that the fixed manufacturing overhead increases from $298,803,720 to $448,205,580. Therefore the total production cost increases from $940,060,662 to $1,002,444,732 which clearly indicates the fact that purchasing the new manufacturing facility on February would be a venture that would ultimately lead to loss rather than profit. This is because if the total production cost increases then automatically the amount of total revenue generated will decrease therefore resulting in an indirect loss.
Sales Budget Variance: |
|||
Particulars |
Actual |
Budgeted |
Variance |
Quarterly Sales Volume |
228500 |
205880 |
22620 |
Unit Selling Price |
$7,400 |
$7,400 |
$7,400 |
Total Sales Revenue |
$1,690,900,000 |
$1,523,512,000 |
$167,388,000 |
Remarks |
|
|
Favorable |
The above table represents the sales budget variance. As shown, the remarks provided in the table is, Favorable. This means that there has not been much difference in the budgeted total sales revenue and actual sales revenue that has been occurred. Therefore the sales budget has been more or less accurately prepared (Otley and Emmanuel 2013).
Material Price Variance: |
|||
Particulars |
Part 714 |
Part 502 |
Total Cost |
Actual Material Used |
1313800 |
1224600 |
|
Standard Price p.u. |
$92 |
$122 |
|
Standard Cost for Actual Quantity |
$120,869,600 |
$149,401,200 |
$270,270,800 |
Actual Material Cost |
$145,043,520 |
$99,113,070 |
$244,156,590 |
Material Price Variance |
$24,173,920 |
($50,288,130) |
($26,114,210) |
Remarks |
Adverse |
Favorable |
Favorable |
As seen in the above table prepared, the material price variance for the total cost comes down to a favorable amount of 26,224,210. The reasons for such a positive material price variance may be obtaining more discounts while purchasing large orders, decrease in the level of market price or as an effect of better procurement practices that have been implemented in the organization (Kokubu and Kitada 2015).
Material Usage Variance: |
|||
Particulars |
Part 714 |
Part 502 |
Total Cost |
Actual Material Used |
1313800 |
1224600 |
|
Standard Price p.u. |
$92 |
$122 |
|
Standard Cost for Actual Quantity |
$120,869,600 |
$149,401,200 |
$270,270,800 |
Budgeted Material Cost |
$97,510,800 |
$155,169,360 |
$252,680,160 |
Material Usage Variance |
($23,358,800) |
$5,768,160 |
($17,590,640) |
Remarks |
Favorable |
Adverse |
Favorable |
The material usage variance as can be figured out from the above table, comes down to a favorable value of $17,590,640. This indicates the fact that the variation between the budgeted figure and the actual figure is not much and that the budgeted and stipulated and quantity of input has been used for production.
Direct Labor Rate Variance: |
|
Particulars |
Amount |
Actual Direct Labor Hours |
2618140 |
Standard Rate per labor hour |
$50 |
Standard Labor Cost for Actual Labor Hours |
$130,907,000 |
Actual Direct Labor Cost |
$150,543,100 |
Material Price Variance |
$19,636,100 |
Remarks |
Adverse |
The labor rate variance essentially measures the difference between the estimated and actual cost of labor. As shown in the above table the direct labor variance turns out to be adverse. This means that the cost of labor incurred was much more than anticipated. This may be due to reasons such as protests by the labor unions for increase in labor rate or increase in the general market price.
Direct Labor Efficiency Variance: |
|
Particulars |
Amount |
Actual Direct Labor Hours |
2618140 |
Standard Rate per labor hour |
$50 |
Standard Labor Cost for Actual Labor Hours |
$130,907,000 |
Budgeted Labor Cost |
$95,391,000 |
Material Price Variance |
$35,516,000 |
Remarks |
Adverse |
The direct labor efficiency variance also turned out to be adverse. This means that the efficiency of the labor in general has worsened and is far away from what was estimated or budgeted. This may be due to the fact that the labor in general is feeling demoralized due to absence of introduction of enough incentive or bonus on the part of the laborers. Another reason may be that the workforce is not skilled enough to meet the budget.
An imposed budgetary approach refers to the process of preparation of budget by the higher authority or by the officials who are at the higher hierarchical level of the organization. Essentially the budget is prepared by the management and then imposed upon the general staff of the organization. No input from the employees or other staff at lower levels of authority is considered while preparing the budget (Fullerton et al. 2013).
Now if the situation as described in Part C had occurred then Paulo might have been disturbed with the entire outcome and might have taken necessary steps in order to mitigate such disparities between the budgeted and the real outcome. However there might have been a sense of relief prevailing in him as because the budget was not prepared by him and any sort of mistake in it was not his responsibility (Needles et al. 2013).
However in case of a participative budgetary approach which includes all the levels of authority starting from the general employees, the level of urgency and concern felt by Paulo would definitely have been greater. This is because a participative budgetary approach towards preparation of a budget includes the feedback of the supervisors who submit their estimations to the middle level of management who in turn prepare their own estimations and submit them to the management comprising of directors who represent the highest level of authority in an organization. Therefore Paulo in case of a participative approach would be much more concerned and interested in identifying the faults, as because it would be his own responsibility to rectify the errors in the budget and the ways in which it could be made more accurate.
Brigham, E.F. and Ehrhardt, M.C., 2013. Financial management: Theory & practice. Cengage Learning.
Bryce, H.J., 2017. Financial and strategic management for nonprofit organizations. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG
Drury, C., 2013. Costing: an introduction. Springer
DRURY, C.M., 2013. Management and cost accounting. Springer.
Fullerton, R.R., Kennedy, F.A. and Widener, S.K., 2013. Management accounting and control practices in a lean manufacturing environment. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(1), pp.50-71
Garvey, P.R., Book, S.A. and Covert, R.P., 2016. Probability methods for cost uncertainty analysis: A systems engineering perspective. CRC Press
Kokubu, K. and Kitada, H., 2015. Material flow cost accounting and existing management perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, pp.1279-1288
Needles, B.E., Powers, M. and Crosson, S.V., 2013. Principles of accounting. Cengage Learning.
Otley, D. and Emmanuel, K.M.C., 2013. Readings in accounting for management control. Springer
Williams, J., 2014. Financial accounting. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.