Process Costing: Discussion Questions
Process Costing: Discussion Questions
Process Costing: Discussion Questions
PROCESS COSTING
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. In sequential processing, products pass product (or further process it), additional
through a series of processes, one after materials and conversion costs are added by
another (i.e., in a given sequence). In parallel the receiving department.
processing, products pass through two or
more different sequences at the same time, 8. The cost flows for process-costing and job-
merging eventually at the final process. order costing systems are essentially the
same. Process costing requires a work-in-
2. Process costing collects costs by process process account for each process. Costs flow
(department) for a given period of time. Unit from one work-in-process account to another
costs are computed by dividing these costs until the final process is reached.
by the department’s output measured for the
same period of time. Job-order costing 9. The work-in-process account of the receiving
collects costs by job. Unit costs are computed department is debited, and the work-in-
by dividing the job’s costs by the units process account of the transferring
produced in the job. Process costing is department is credited. The finished goods
typically used for industries where units are account is debited, and the work-in-process
homogeneous and mass-produced. Job- account of the final department is credited
order costing is used for industries that upon completion of the product.
produce heterogeneous products (often
10. The first step is the preparation of a physical
custom-made).
flow schedule. This schedule identifies the
3. Equivalent units are the number of whole physical units that must be accounted for and
units that could have been produced, given provides an accounting. The second step is
the amount of materials, labour, and the equivalent unit schedule. This schedule
overhead used. Equivalent units are the computes the equivalent whole output for the
measure of a period’s output, a necessary period. The schedule’s computations rely on
input for the computation of unit costs in a information from the physical flow schedule.
process-costing system. The third step is computation of the unit cost.
To compute the unit cost, the manufacturing
4. In calculating this period’s unit cost, the
costs of the period for the process are divided
weighted average method treats prior period
by the period’s output. The output is obtained
output and costs carried over to the current
period as belonging to the current period. The from the equivalent unit schedule. The fourth
FIFO method excludes any costs and output step uses the unit cost to value goods
carried over from the prior period for this transferred out and those remaining in work
period’s unit cost computation. in process. The final step checks to see if the
costs assigned in step 4 equal the total costs
5. If the per-unit cost of the prior period is the to account for.
same as the per-unit cost of the current
period, there will be no difference between 11. A production report summarizes the activities
the results of the weighted average and FIFO and costs associated with a process for a
methods. Additionally, if no beginning work- given period. It shows the physical flow, the
in-process inventory exists, both the FIFO equivalent units, the unit cost, and the values
and weighted average methods give the of ending work in process and goods
same results. transferred out. The report serves the same
function as a job-order cost sheet in a job-
6. Separate equivalent units must be calculated order costing system.
for materials and conversion costs.
12. The weighted average method uses the
7. Transferred-in units represent partially
same unit cost for all goods transferred out.
completed units and are clearly a material for
the receiving department. To complete the The FIFO method divides goods transferred
Equivalent Units
Units completed 30,000
EWIP (0.40 × 2,000) 800
Output 30,800
1. Equivalent Units
Units completed 34,000
EWIP (0.60 × 12,000) 7,200
Equivalent units 41,200
$618,000
Unit cost = = $15
41,200
1. Equivalent Units
Units completed 75,000
EWIP (0.40 × 20,000) 8,000
Output for January 83,000
$166,000
2. Unit cost = = $2
83,000
Cutting Department
Production Report
For October
Weighted Average Method
UNIT INFORMATION
Physical flow:
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP 4,000 Units completed 40,000
Units started 44,000 Units in ending WIP 8,000
Total units to acct. for 48,000 Total units acctd. for 48,000
Equivalent units:
Units completed 40,000
Units in ending work in process × fraction complete 4,800
Total equivalent units 44,800
COST INFORMATION
Costs to account for:
Beginning work in process $ 50,000
Incurred during October 756,400
Total costs to account for $806,400
Cost per equivalent unit $18
1. Materials Conversion
Units completed ..............................................................
65,200 65,200
Add: Units in ending WIP ×
Percentage complete (12,000 × 100%; 12,000 × 40%) 12,000 4,800
Equivalent units of output .............................................. 77,200 70,000
Conversion Materials
Units completed 1,600 1,600 1,600
Units, EWIP 200 80 200
Equivalent units 1,800 1,680 1,800
Conversion Materials
Costs to account for:
Beginning work in process 32,000 94,000
Added in September 94,000 302,000
Total costs to account for 126,000 396,000
$142,000 + $458,000
3. Unit transferred-in cost = = $3
200,000
1. Equivalent Units
Units started and completed 59,000
Units in BWIP (0.20 × 10,000) 2,000
Units in EWIP (0.75 × 8,000) 6,000
Total 67,000
$90,450
2. Unit cost = = $1.35
67,000
Bebida Inc.
Mixing Department
Production Report
For August
(FIFO Method)
UNIT INFORMATION
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP 10,000 Started and completed 59,000
Units started 67,000 From beginning WIP 10,000
From ending WIP 8,000
Total units 77,000 Total units 77,000
Equivalent units:
Started and completed 59,000
To complete beginning WIP (10,000 × 20%) 2,000
Units in ending WIP (8,000 × 75%) 6,000
Total equivalent units 67,000
COST INFORMATION
Costs to account for:
Costs in beginning WIP $ 9,600
Costs added by department 90,450
Total costs to account for $100,050
$90,450
Cost per equivalent unit = $1.35
67,000
Exercise 6–14
1.
Moulding Grinding Finishing
Direct materials $ 87,500 $ 10,200 $ 6,100
Direct labour 7,600 15,700 9,900
Applied overhead 9,700 67,900 9,600
Transferred-in costs 0 104,800 198,600
Total cost $104,800 $198,600 $224,200
Exercise 6–15
1a. Work in Process—Grinding ...................................... 42,000
Work in Process—Moulding ................................ 42,000
3. The journal entries for the job-order and process-costing systems are generally
the same. There is one key difference. For process costing, each department
has its own WIP account. As goods are completed in one department, they are
transferred with their costs to the next department.
Exercise 6–16
3. Cost of goods transferred out for December = 28,900 units × $2.31 per unit =
$66,759
Exercise 6–18
3. Garcia is using the weighted average method for calculating unit costs. Thus,
the unit cost for June will be a mixture of May and June costs. May costs will
not reflect the cost savings and so the June unit cost will be higher than
expected. Using FIFO for June would better reflect the effect of the cost
reductions and overcome the problem.
Exercise 6–19
$2,196,000
1. Unit cost: = $6.46 (rounded)
340,000
Exercise 6–20
Exercise 6–21
Units to account for:
Units in beginning WIP .............................................................. 75,000
Units started ............................................................................... 369,000
Total units ............................................................................. 444,000
Units accounted for:
Completed from BWIP ............................................................... 75,000
Started and completed .............................................................. 324,000
Units in ending WIP ................................................................... 45,000
Total units ............................................................................. 444,000
Cooking Department
Production Report
For April
(Weighted Average Method)
UNIT INFORMATION
Physical flow:
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP 20,000 Units completed 50,000
Units started 40,000 Units in ending WIP 10,000
Total units to acct. for 60,000 Total units acctd. for 60,000
Equivalent units:
Units completed 50,000
Units in ending work in process 2,000
Total equivalent units 52,000
COST INFORMATION
Costs to account for:
Beginning work in process $ 93,600
Incurred during April 314,600
Total costs to account for $408,200
Cost per equivalent unit $7.85
Exercise 6–23
Materials Conversion
Units completed ......................................................... 90,000 90,000
Add: Units in ending WIP ×
Percentage complete (30,000 × 60%) ............. 30,000 18,000
Equivalent units of output ......................................... 120,000 108,000
Exercise 6–25
$2,100 + $30,900
1. Unit transferred-in cost: = $0.44
75,000
$1,500 + $22,500
Unit materials cost: = $0.32
75,000
$3,000 + $45,300
Unit conversion cost: = $0.70
69,000
Exercise 6–27
Exercise 6–28
$14,000
1. Unit cost = = $1.79 (rounded)
7,840
Problem 6–29
1. Units to account for:
Units in beginning WIP 400
Units started 4,000
Total units 4,400
Units accounted for:
Units transferred out (3,600):
Units from beginning WIP 400
Units started and completed 3,200
Units in ending WIP 800
Total units 4,400
2. Materials Conversion
Units in beginning WIP 0 160
Units started and completed 3,200 3,200
Units in ending WIP 0 160
Equivalent units 3,200 3,520
5. Cost reconciliation:
Costs to account for: Costs accounted for:
Beginning WIP $ 11,000 Transferred out $ 135,000
March costs 128,000 Ending WIP 4,000
Total to acct. for $ 139,000 Total acctd. for $ 139,000
6. Students responses will vary. The following are points for consideration:
Differences between FIFO and weighted average arise when direct materials
or conversion costs per unit vary greatly from period to period. While FIFO
tracks the costs separately for each period, the weighted average method
averages costs over periods. If per-unit costs vary greatly from period to
period and management prefers to have accurate costs for tracking
purposes, then FIFO is the preferred method.
Differences in FIFO and weighted average can also arise when the volume of
inventory in ending WIP is significantly greater than inventory transferred
out during the period.
Since the FIFO and weighted average methods are used to value inventory,
differences in the methods will result in differences in reported operating
and net income. As costs stabilize from period to period, the differences
between these two methods are reduced.
If management requires accurate information for specific periods, then FIFO
is recommended. However, if costs remain stable over time and management
does not require such detailed information, the weighted average method is
an acceptable alternative.
Both methods are GAAP-compliant.
1. Mixing department:
a. Units transferred to tableting = Total units* – Ending WIP
= 28,000 – 2,400 = 25,600
*Total units = Beginning WIP + Units started = 0 + 28,000
2. Tableting department:
Units transferred out = Total units* – Ending WIP = 27,200 – 800 = 26,400
*Total units = Beginning WIP + Units transferred in = 1,600 + 25,600 = 27,200
3. The solution is to convert the transferred-in units to the same unit of measure
as the output for the tableting department. Each bottle has eight grams of
transferred-in material. Thus, 25,600 grams become 3,200 bottles. Using this
converted measure, the revised solution would be as follows:
Units transferred out = Total units* – Ending WIP = 3,400 – 100 = 3,300
*Total units = Beginning WIP + Units transferred in = 200 + 3,200 = 3,400
Problem 6–31
1. Units to account for:
Units in beginning work in process ................ 60,000
Units started during the period........................ 120,000
Total units to account for ............................. 180,000
Units accounted for:
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed ................................. 90,000
From beginning work in process................. 60,000 150,000
Units in ending work in process ...................... 30,000
Total units accounted for ............................. 180,000
1. Physical flow:
BWIP + started = completed + EWIP
120,000 + X = 360,000 + 75,000
X = 315,000
Added:
Plastic cabinets 1,600,000
Speakers/comp. 29,680,000
Conversion 16,540,000
Total $46,480,000 $24,180,000
Grand total $70,660,000
Problem 6–33
1. Units to account for:
Units in beginning WIP 75
Units started 550
Total units 625
Units accounted for:
Units completed 500
Units in ending WIP 125
Total units 625
Transferred out:
Transferred-in $ 8,576.00 (500 x $17.152)
Materials 15,500.00 (500 x $31)
Conversion costs 10,022.50 (500 x $20.045)
Total transferred out $34,098.50
Ending WIP:
Transferred-in $ 2,144.00 (125 x $17.152)
Materials 3,875.00 (125 x $31)
Conversion costs 1,002.50 (50 x $20.045)
Total in ending WIP $7,021.50
5.
Cost reconciliation:
Costs to account for: Costs accounted for:
Beginning WIP $ 2,180 Transferred out $34,098.50
June costs 38,940 Ending WIP 7,021.50
Total to acct. for $41,120 Total acctd. for $41,120.00
Problem 6–34
1. Units to account for:
Units in beginning work in process ......................... 20,000
Units started during the period.................................. 60,000
Total units to account for ....................................... 80,000
Units accounted for:
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed ........................................... 40,000
From beginning work in process........................... 20,000 60,000
Units in ending work in process ............................... 20,000
Total units accounted for ....................................... 80,000
$11,520 + $72,000
3. Unit cost: = $1.16
72,000
4. First, calculate the cost per unit for the equivalent units in beginning inventory
(60% × 20,000 = 12,000 equivalent units in BWIP):
$11,520
Prior period unit cost = = $0.96 per unit
12,000
Next, calculate the current-period (FIFO) cost per unit:
FIFO equivalent units for materials = Weighted average equivalent units less
prior-period equivalent units
= 72,000 – 12,000 = 60,000
$72,000
FIFO unit cost = = $1.20
60,000
Production Report:
2. Equivalent Units
Transferred out 18,000
Ending WIP 500 (2,000 × 25%)
Total 18,500
$552 + $8,698
3. Unit cost: = $0.50
18,500
4. Cost transferred out:
18,000 × $0.50 = $9,000
5. To assign costs to spoiled units, they should appear as an item in the equivalent
units schedule:
Equivalent Units
Transferred out 17,000
Spoiled units 1,000
Ending WIP 500 (2,000 × 25%)
Total 18,500
The cost per equivalent unit is the same as calculated without spoilage.
Spoilage cost = 1,000 × $0.50 = $500
If the spoilage cost is abnormal, then it will not be assigned to production. A
common approach is to treat the $500 as a loss for the period. If the spoilage is
normal, then it would be added to the cost of goods transferred out.
Production Report:
UNIT INFORMATION
Units to account for: Units accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP 48,000 Started and completed 90,400
Units started 112,000 From beginning WIP 48,000
From ending WIP 21,600
Total units 160,000 Total units 160,000
Equivalent units:
Started and completed 90,400
To complete beginning WIP (48,000 × 40%) 19,200
Units in ending WIP (21,600 × 70%) 15,120
Total equivalent units 124,720
COST INFORMATION
Costs to account for:
Costs in beginning WIP $285,520
Costs added by department 666,304
Total costs to account for $951,824
Cost per equivalent unit ($666,304/124,720) $5.3424
4. Cost reconciliation:
Costs to account for: Costs accounted for:
Beginning WIP $ 260,000 Transferred out $ 10,595,000
August costs 10,780,000 Ending WIP 444,990
Total to acct. for $ 11,040,000 Total acctd. for $ 11,039,990
Difference of $10 is due to rounding.
Problem 6–40
1. Department A
a. Physical flow schedule:
Units in beginning WIP 5,000
Units started in November 25,000
Total units to account for 30,000
Units completed and transferred out:
Units completed 28,000
Units in ending WIP 2,000
Total units accounted for 30,000
b. Equivalent unit calculation:
Units completed 28,000
Add: Equivalent units in ending WIP (2,000 × 0.80) 1,600
Total equivalent units 29,600
1. Benson Pharmaceuticals
Picking Department Production Report
For March (Weighted Average Method)
UNIT INFORMATION
Units to account for:
Units in beginning WIP 10
Units started 150
Total units to account for 160
Units accounted for: Physical Flow Equivalent Units
Units completed 140 140
Units in ending WIP 20 10
Total units accounted for 160 150
COST INFORMATION
Costs to account for: Materials Conversion* Total
Beginning WIP $ 252 $ 846 $ 1,098
Incurred during March 3,636 13,854 17,490
Total costs to account for $3,888 $14,700 $18,588
÷ Equivalent units 150
Cost per equivalent unit $123.92
*Conversion is labour plus overhead (200% of labour):
BWIP: 282 + (282 × 2) = $846
March: 4,618 + (4,618 × 2) = $13,854
Transferred Ending
Out Work in Process Total
Costs accounted for:
Goods transferred out
(140 × $123.92) $17,349 $— $17,349
Ending work in process:
(10 × $123.92) 1,239 1,239
Total costs accounted for $17,349 $1,239 $18,588
2. Benson Pharmaceuticals
Encapsulating Department Production Report
For March (Weighted Average Method)
UNIT INFORMATION
Units to account for:
Units in beginning WIP 4,000
Units started 210,000
Total units to account for 214,000
COST INFORMATION
Costs to account for: Trans. In Materials Conversion* Total
Beginning WIP $ 140 $ 32 $ 50 $ 222
Incurred during March 17,349 1,573 4,860 23,782
Total costs to acct. for $17,489 $1,605 $4,910 $24,004
÷ Equivalent units 214,000 214,000 210,400
Cost per equivalent unit $0.0817 $0.0075 $0.0233 $0.1125
*BWIP: $20 + ($20*1.5); March: 1,944 + (1,944 × 1.5)
Transferred Ending
Out Work in Process Total
Costs accounted for:
Goods transferred out
(208,000 × $0.1125) $23,400 — $23,400
Ending work in process:
Trans. In (6,000 × $0.0817) — $490 490
Materials (6,000 × $0.0075) — 45 45
Conversion (2,400 × $0.0233) — 56 56
Total costs accounted for $23,400 $591 $23,991
Difference of $13 is due to rounding.
3. Weighted average is easier to use than FIFO because it does not require
separate tracking for units in BWIP. FIFO requires that prior period work and
costs be accounted for separately. The weighted average method co-mingles
prior period work and costs with current period work and costs, thus making
the computations much easier. The weighted average method will produce
essentially the same results as the FIFO method if the cost of inputs remains
relatively unchanged from one period to the next. If there are significant
changes in costs, then the unit cost of the two periods can be significantly
different. Of course, if BWIP is very small, then the effect of using weighted
average will not be noticeable either.
Problem 6–42
1. Gary’s proposal requires Donna to falsify the equivalent unit calculation so that
income and assets can be inflated and reported incorrectly. Falsification of the
production report would be a violation of at least two major ethical standards:
integrity and credibility. If Donna agrees to the proposal, she would be taking
action that would discredit her profession. In addition, Donna has an ethical
obligation to communicate information fairly and objectively, disclosing all
information that would be needed for the loan officer to fairly assess the merits
of the company’s request for a loan. Clearly, Donna should not agree to falsify
the production report.
3. If Gary insists on his idea of falsification of the division’s reports, Donna should
attempt to resolve the conflict by appealing to Gary’s immediate supervisor (and
on up, if necessary, and with the immediate supervisor’s knowledge, assuming
he or she is not involved) until a satisfactory resolution is achieved. If no
satisfactory resolution is possible, then Donna should consult her own attorney
as to legal obligations and rights concerning the ethical conflict.
4. In this situation, the ethical dilemma is complicated by two factors: Donna’s age
and a low likelihood of resolution by appealing to higher-level authorities.
Donna’s age may make it more difficult to find alternative employment (at least
at the same level and pay), and it may mean possible forfeiture of retirement
benefits. Seeking help from an expert in ethics and consulting a lawyer are
certainly good recommendations. Donna has the option of fighting back, and at
her age (with retirement benefits at stake), a good offense may be her best
defense.
Problem 6–43
1. Department A
a. Physical flow schedule:
Units in beginning WIP 5,000
Units started in November 25,000
Total units to account for 30,000
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed 23,000
From beginning WIP 5,000
Units in ending WIP 2,000
Total units accounted for 30,000
b. Equivalent unit calculation:
Units started and completed 23,000
Equivalent units in beginning WIP (1 – 0.40) × 5,000 3,000
Equivalent units in ending WIP (2,000 × 0.80) 1,600
Total equivalent units 27,600
c. Costs charged to the department:
Materials Conversion Total
Beginning WIP $10,000 $ 6,900 $ 16,900
Incurred during November 57,800 95,220 153,020
Total costs $67,800 $102,120 $169,920
Unit cost calculation:
$153,020
Unit cost =
27,600
= $5.54
2. Journal entries:
Work in Process—Department A ............................. 57,800
Raw Materials........................................................ 57,800
Work in Process—Department A ............................. 95,220
Conversion Costs—Department A ..................... 95,220*
Work in Process—Department B ............................. 160,940
Work in Process—Department A ........................ 160,940
*Because conversion costs are not broken into labour and overhead
components, a control account for conversion costs is used. A conversion
cost control account is more commonly used because direct labour is
becoming a small percentage of total manufacturing costs. Automation is one
cause; changing the nature of direct labour as in JIT is another cause. In
manufacturing cells, direct labour also performs many so-called traditional
overhead activities such as maintenance and inspection—thus, taking on the
nature of “conversion labour.”
Cost Allocated:
Units Transferred Out
BWIP - Opening balance $575 + $1,830 = $ 2,405
To Complete 8 × $123.0000 = 984
Started and Completed 200 × $158.5556 = 31,711
EWIP - Material 16 × $35.5556 = 569
Conversion 12 × $123.0000 = 1,476
$37,145
Cost Allocated:
Units Transferred Out
BWIP - Opening balance $48 + $80 = $ 128
To Complete 3,600 × $0.0554 = 199
Started and Completed 314,000 × $0.1388 = 43,583
EWIP - Material 3,000 × $0.0834 = 250
Conversion 600 × $0.0554 = 33
$44,193
UNIT INFORMATION
Equivalent Units
COST INFORMATION
Transferred Conversion
In Materials Cost Total
Costs to account for:
Beginning WIP $105,000 $ 3,950 $ 12,350 $ 121,300
Incurred during the period 750,000 30,000 125,500 905,500
Total cost to account for $855,000 $33,950 $137,850 $1,026,800
Transferred
Out Ending WIP Total
Costs accounted for:
Goods transferred out (12,000 × $62.3167) $747,800 $ 747,800
Goods in ending WIP:
Transferred in (5,000 × $50.2941) $251,471 251,471
Materials (5,000 × $1.9971) 9,986 9,986
Conversion (1,750 × $10.0255) ________ 17,545 17,545
Total costs accounted for $747,800 $279,002 $1,026,802
1.
Sherbrooke Toboggan Company
Sealing Department
Production Report For August
(First-In, First-Out Method)
UNIT INFORMATION
Equivalent Units
Physical Transferred
Flow In Material Conversion
Units accounted for:
Units started and completed 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Units completed from
beginning WIP 2,000 – – 800
Units in ending WIP 5,000 5,000 5,000 1,750
_____ ______ ______ ______
Total units accounted for 17,000 15,000 15,000 12,550
COST INFORMATION
Transferred Conversion
In Materials Cost Total
Costs to account for:
Beginning WIP $105,000 $ 3,950 $ 12,350 $ 121,300
Incurred during the period 750,000 30,000 125,500 905,500
Total cost to account for $855,000 $33,950 $137,850 $1,026,800
Transferred Ending
Out WIP Total
Costs accounted for:
Units in beginning WIP:
From prior period $121,300 $121,300
From current period (800 × $10) 8,000 8,000
Units started and completed (10,000 × $62) 620,000 620,000
Goods in ending WIP:
Transferred in (5,000 × $50) $250,000 250,000
Materials (5,000 × $2) 10,000 10,000
Conversion (1,750 × $10) ________ 17,500 17,500
Total costs accounted for $749,300 $277,500 $1,026,800
2. The solution to this problem differs from the solution to Problem 6-45 in that,
under the FIFO method, the costs of completed units that started in the
beginning WIP are calculated separately from the costs of units started and
completed in the current period. As a result, goods transferred out of WIP to the
next department will not necessarily carry the same costs, whereas all units
transferred out under the weighted average cost method all carry the same
costs.
1.
UNIT INFORMATION
*
© CPA Ontario.
Case 6-49
1. Unit cost computation:
Physical flow schedule:
Units, beginning work in process 0
Units started 2,800
Total units to account for 2,800
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed 2,500
From beginning work in process 0
Units, ending work in process 300
Total units accounted for 2,800
*Rounded
2. Since conversion activity is the same for both bows, only the materials cost will
differ. Thus, the unit materials cost is computed and then added to the unit
conversion cost obtained in Requirement 1.
Econo Model
Physical flow schedule:
Units, beginning work in process 0
Units started 1,600
Total units to account for 1,600
Units completed and transferred out:
Started and completed 1,500
From beginning work in process 0
Units, ending work in process 100
Total units accounted for 1,600
4. The profitability of the Econo line was being understated by nearly $22, while
that of the Deluxe line was overstated by over $29, producing an erroneous $51
difference in profitability under the current process-costing system. This easily
could be enough of a difference to make the marketing manager’s request for
additional advertising dollars a sound one. It is quite possible that Aaron was
wrong in not granting the request—wrong because he was using the wrong
cost information. This example illustrates the importance of an accurate costing
system.
Case 6–50
1. Physical flow schedule:
Units, beginning work in process 10,000
Units started (transferred in) 51,000
Total units to account for 61,000
Costs:
Transferred-in cost (50,000 × $9.82) $491,000*
Costs incurred by shell creating:
Direct materials ($378,000 × 0.47***) $177,660
Direct labour ($530,300 × 0.15) 79,545
Overhead ($643,518 × 0.15) 96,528**
Total conversion cost 353,733
Total costs $844,733
*Assumes that all units transferred out, including those finished from
beginning work in process, have a cost of $9.82 per unit. In essence, this
assumes that the unit cost of this period equals the unit cost of the prior
period.
**Rounded
***70% less 23% = 0.47
Case 6–51
The objective is to determine whether FIFO or weighted average process costing
generates higher COGS.
Under normal low-inflation (and high-inflation) scenarios, FIFO process
costing will lead to lower COGS as new inputs are purchased at ever-higher prices,
whereas weighted average process costing will lead to higher COGS as the costs
of inputs are averaged across time periods.
Due to pup joint input price drops, the implication upon COGS for FIFO
process costing is reversed. Inputs to be entered into COGS first under FIFO are
the more expensive inputs; consequently, COGS will be higher than COGS would
be under weighted average process costing.
As a result, Elise should advise management that FIFO process costing
provides greater evidence of injury than weighted average process costing.
Importantly, had 100% (instead of 30%) of pup joint input inventory on hand
been sold between September and November 2015, there would be zero difference
in COGS (and injury evidence) between FIFO and weighted average process
costing methods.
The solution can be determined by applying numbers, though it is not
necessary.
For example:
For when input costs were high, assume 750 units (75%) are purchased for
$20 per unit.
For when input costs were low, assume 250 units (25%) are purchased for
$10 per unit.
Total number of pup joint units produced is 1,000.
Under FIFO process costing, the use of 30% of pup joints inputs would generate
COGS of $6,000 (300 units (1,000 units x 30%) x $20 per unit).
Under weighted average process costing, the use of 30% of pup joint inputs would
generate COGS of $5,250 (300 units (1,000 units x 30%) x $17.50 per unit ((750 units
x $20 per unit + $250 units x $10 per unit) divided by 1,000 units)
The COGS generated by FIFO is higher, hence the FIFO process costing method
generates lower gross profit and net income, and greater evidence of injury.