This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
Summarised Statement of Financial Position At 31 DECEMBER 20X9 LPG
Fixed assets 2,600
Balance at bank 100
Capital and reserves
Ordinary share capital (£1
Preference share capital 200
Profit and loss account 800
Debenture stock 1,400
Trade creditors 800
SUMMARISED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 20X9
Cost of sales (including purchases £4,300) 4,500
Gross profit 1,500
Administrative and distribution costs 1,160
Trading profit 340
Debenture interest 74
Profit before tax 266
Profit after tax 160
Preference dividend 10
Profit available for ordinary shareholders 150
Ordinary dividend 10
Retained profit 140
ROCE = 10% 340/3,400 Ã- 100%
Profit margin = 5.7% 340/6,000 Ã- 100%
Asset turnover = 1.8 times 6,000/3,400
Gross profit margin = 25% 1,500/6,000 Ã- 100%
Return on owners' equity = 14.2% (266 - 10)/(1,000 + 800) Ã- 100%
Current ratio = 2 times 1,600/800
Acid test ratio = 1.25 times (900 + 100)/800
Debtors ratio = 55 days 900/6,000 Ã- 365 days
Creditors ratio = 68 days 800/4,300 Ã- 365 days
Stock turnover = 7.5 times 4,500/600
Earnings per share = 15p 150/1,000
Dividend cover = 15 times 150/10
Gearing = 47% (1,400 + 200)/3,400 Ã- 100%
Interest cover = 4.6 times 340/74
1. Return on capital employed- The company showed a 10% return on capital, which is not good, but is inadequate because it exceeds the interest payment on bonds which is 5.3%.
2. Profit margin - This is very low at 5.7%. Net income varies widely from one sector to another; there is no need for more information on the performance of other companies to extract useful conclusions about the level of this relationship.
3. Asset turnover ratio - the overall efficiency of property sales. This is 1.8 times of LPG.
4. Gross profit margin - These is a more respectable 25% but, again in conjunction with industry averages indicate whether it is acceptable.
Return on owners' equity - Return on equity which is 14.2% depends on following three things.
- Investor expected return.
- Industry average.
- The return achievable in other ways of investment, e.g. building society.
A ratio of about 1:1 is generally regarded as indicating a reasonable level of liquidity. The current ratio is often more variable because of variations in the company needs to keep in stock. This suggests that the nature of business and LPG Ltd. stock levels above average are necessary, or that their inventory control procedures are poor. More information is clearly needed. The inventory turnover ratio may shed more light on this aspect.
Several ratios give some idea of management efficiency.
1. Asset turnover ratio -- Unfortunately, we can draw conclusions not have any information about the company and its effective management and more data is needed to compare reports of companies in recent years and reports of other companies for the current year.
2. Debtors ratio - LPG Ltd's number of 55 days is perhaps acceptable, as 60 days is
Habitually regarded as 'par' for a company offering normal credit terms of monthly
Payment for all its sales.
3. Creditors ratio - LPG Ltd pays its creditors on average in 68 days. It was after the period in which it draws its accounts receivable (55 days), it will help cash flow together.
4. Stock turnover ratio - This is equivalent to 7.5 times for LPG Ltd and is still difficult to reach conclusions on the character of isolation. It should be compared with other years for the company and other companies.
1. Earnings per share -- LPG Ltd. Earnings per share from 15p. This should be compared with a profit per share of LPG be achieved by the year if the trend is positive or not.
2. Dividend cover - This is 15 times, a very safe earnings to dividend ratio.
1. The gearing ratio for LPG Ltd is 47%. Anything over 50% would most likely be considered as
2. Interest cover - For LPG Ltd this is 4.6 times. This may be regarded reasonable.
Variance analysis is a tool of budgetary control by evaluation of performance by means of variances between budgeted amount, planned amount or standard amount and the actual amount incurred/sold. Variance analysis can be carried out for both costs and revenues.
Scenario for Variance:
Sufi cakes produce prepare cakes that are sold directly to the public. New Production (celebrity chef) has argued that companies should only use organic ingredients in the production of cake. Organic ingredients are more expensive, but must produce a product to improve taste and provide health promotion for customers. It was hoped that this would increase demand and allow an immediate increase in the price of cakes.
Sufi Cakes liability standard operating system based on cost differences attributed to specific individuals. Individual administrators receive a bonus when net favorable variances are granted. The new approach of the cake to organic production was introduced in early March 2009, following a decision by the director of the new production. There have been no changes in that time to the standard cost card. The variance reports for February
and March are shown below (Fav = Favourable and Adv = Adverse)
Manager responsible Allocated variances February March
Variance $ Variance $
Material price (total for all ingredients) 25 Fav 2,100 Adv
Material mix 0 600 Adv
Material yield 20 Fav 400 Fav
Sales price 40 Adv 7,000 Fav
Sales contribution volume 35 Adv 3,000 Fav
Production manager is shocked that he seems to have lost all hope of a new bonus system. Sales Manager believes that the new cakes are excellent and staff delighted with the progress.
In April 2009 the following data applied:
Standard cost card for one cake (without adjustment for the organic ingredient change)
Ingredients Kg $
Flour 0Â·10 0Â·12 per kg
Eggs 0Â·10 0Â·70 per kg
Butter 0Â·10 1Â·70 per kg
Sugar 0Â·10 0Â·50 per kg
Total input 0Â·40
Normal loss (10%) (0Â·04)
Standard weight of a cake 0Â·36
Standard sales price of a cake 0Â·85
contribution per cake after all variable costs 0Â·35
In April the budget for production and sales was 50,000 cakes. Actual production and sales was 60,000 cakes in
that month, during which the following happened:
following essentials are used Kg $
Flou 5,700 $741
Eggs 6,600 $5,610
Butter 6,600 $11,880
Sugar 4,578 $2,747
Total input 23,478 $20,978
Actual loss (1,878)
Actual output of cake mixture 21,600
Actual sales price of a cake $0Â·99
All cakes produced must weigh 0Â·36 kg as this is what is advertised.
Sufi Cakes operate a just in time stock system and holds almost no inventory.
Calculations of variance
Material price variances
Ingredient Actual price/kg Standard price/kg Actual (AP - SP) x AQ Adverse or Favourable
Quantity kg MPV
Flour 0Â·13 0Â·12 5,700 57 Adverse
Eggs 0Â·85 0Â·70 6,600 990 Adverse
Butter 1Â·80 1Â·70 6,600 660 Adv
Sugar 0Â·60 0Â·50 4,578 458 Adv
Total 2,165 Adv
Material mix variance
Ingredient Act mix Std mix Std price Variance Adv or Fav
Flour 5,700 5,870 0Â·12 -20
Eggs 6,600 5,870 0Â·70 511
Butter 6,600 5,870 1Â·70 1,241
Sugar 4,578 5,870 0Â·50 -646
------- ------- ------
Totals 23,478 23,478 1,086 Adv
------- ------- ------
Material yield variance
Actual yield 60,000 cakes
Standard yield (23,478/0Â·4) 58,695 cakes
Difference 1,305 cakes
Standard cost of a cake (W1) $0Â·302
Yield variance (1,305 * 0Â·302) 394 Fav
Sales price variance
Act price Standardd Price Act volume (AP - SP) Adv or Fav
* Act Vol
Cake 0Â·99 0Â·85 60,000 8,400 Fav
Sales volume contribution variance
Actual volume 60,000 cakes
Budget volume 50,000 cakes
Standard contribution 0Â·35
Variance (60,000 - 50,000) * 0Â·35 = $3,500 Fav
Standard cost of a cake
Ingredients Kg $ Cost
Flour 0Â·10 $0Â·12 per kg 0Â·012
Eggs 0Â·10 0Â·70 perkg 0Â·070
Butter 0Â·10 $1Â·70 per kg 0Â·170
Sugar 0Â·10 $0Â·50 per kg 0Â·050
Total input 0Â·40 0Â·302
Normal loss (10%) (0Â·04)
Standard weight/cost of a cake 0Â·36 0Â·302
assesing the two leaders is difficult in this situation. In a production manager traditional sense has seriously increased in March after the transition to organic ingredients. It has a net negative cons his department $ 2,300 per month.
No adjustment to the rules that have been taken to switch to organic farming. Director has not only bought organic, has also changed the combination increases the contribution of more expensive ingredients. This may have contributed to increased sales of cakes. However, the decision to go organic has seen sales of business improvement. We are told that the cakes should taste better, and that customers can understand the health point of view. The production, however, shared none of the favorable variance in sales that result. If we assume that the sales performance improvement decision in full production manager to change the ingredients, the net profit for the favorable variance is $ 7,700.
The production manager does not seem to work in the original standard, in February, indicating an efficient service. In fact, it has earned a little extra this month.
A change in the ecological idea must be to customers. Would probably need a change of marketing and customer-specific conisations. The sales manager will probably feel he has done a good job in March. One wonders, however, are entirely responsible for all differences in favour. The transition to organic farming has undoubtedly contributed to the sales manager and in February, appears to have not met their objectives.
Traditional System of absorption of overheads
Traditional systems of cost accounting often allocate costs based on simple measures such as the number of hours of direct labor, direct labor or machine hours. Using a single unit as a single cost factor is rare to find cause and effect desired criterion for allocating costs, it offers a relatively inexpensive and convenient to comply with financial reporting requirements.
The traditional approach to cost sharing system consists of three basic steps: the costs accrue in the production or the production Department, the Department does not share the production cost of production departments and distribute the result (revised) costs ward production of various products, services or customers. The costs of this traditional allocation approach suffers from a number of deficiencies that may lead to distorted costs for decision making. For example, the conventional move towards of distributing the cost of unused capacity on products. Thus, these products will be charged the resources not used. To correct distortions, many companies have adopted various systems of cost allocation approach known as activity costs (ABC).
Unlike traditional systems of cost accounting, ABC systems first accumulate costs for each business organization, and assign activity costs to products, services or customers (cost objects), resulting in this activity. As expected, the most critical aspect of the CBA is the analysis of the activity. Business analysis is the process of identifying appropriate measures production performance and capital and their effects on the cost of developed a good or a service. Considerably, as considered in the next section evaluates the activity is the basis for addressing the distortions inherent in traditional systems of cost accounting.
ABC systems are not inherently limited by the principles of the requirements for financial reporting. By contrast, ABC systems have the inherent flexibility of ad hoc reports to facilitate management decisions on the costs of activities to design, produce, sell and deliver company goods or service. At the heart of this elasticity is that the emphasis on the accumulation of ABC cost systems through several key activities, while the distribution costs traditionally focuses on the accumulation of costs by business unit. By highlighting on definite activities, ABC systems provide greater cost allocation, especially when costs are caused by drivers who do not cost depending on volume. Even so, traditional cost accounting continue to be used to meet the needs of conventional financial reporting. ABC systems continue to supplement, not replace, traditional cost accounting.
In most cases, sufficiently strong traditional cost accounting system measures the direct costs of goods and services such as equipment and labor. Accordingly, the ABC implementation generally focuses on indirect costs, such as manufacturing overhead and selling, general and administrative expenses. Given this objective, the main objective of implementing ABC to reclassify most if not all indirect costs (as indicated by the traditional cost accounting) that the direct costs. As a result of these reclassifications, the precision of the cost has risen sharply.
According to Ray H. Garrison and Eric W. Noreen, there are six basic steps required to implement
an ABC system:
1. Identify and define activities and activity pools.
2. Directly trace costs to activities
3. Assign costs to activity cost pools.
4. Calculate activity rates.
5. Allocate costs to cost items using the activity rates and activity method previously determined.
6. Set up and hand out management reports.
COSTS AND BENEFITS
While ABC systems are quite complex and costly to implement, Charles T. Horn Branch, Gary L. Sundem and William O. Stratton that many industries of manufacturing and nonmanufacturing are the adoption of ABC systems for a variety causes:
1. Accuracy margins for different products and services, and customer ratings, more and more difficult to achieve given that direct work quickly replaced by automated equipment. Therefore cost, a common entity (indirect costs) becomes the most important part of total costs.
2. Since the rapid changes in technology and reduce the life cycle of the product, companies do not have time to change prices or costs are paid, when detected.
3. Companies inaccurate cost measurements tend to lose the offer, as products more expensive due to hidden losses undercoated products, and are not aware that activities are not cost effective.
4. As the costs of information technology are decreasing, the price has developed systems and ABC also decreased.
Zero based budgeting
Zero-based budgeting is a technique for planning and decision making, which faces the working process of traditional budgeting. In the traditional supplementary budget, departmental managers justify only increases the budget in previous years and what has already been spent is automatically sanctioned. No reference to the previous level of expenditure. In contrast, the zero-based budget, each department works extensively reviewed and all expenditures must be approved not only increases. Zero-based budgeting requires the budget request must be justified in every detail of every division leader of the zero-based. Zero-base is indifferent to whether the total budget is increasing or decreasing.
The term "zero-based budgeting" is sometimes used in personal finance to describe "zero-sum budgeting", the practice of budgeting every dollar of income received, and then adjusting some part of the budget downward for every other part that needs to be adjusted upward.
Zero budgeting also refers to the identification of a task or tasks, then the financial resources to complete the task regardless of the current resource.
Advantages of zero based budgeting:
1. efficient allocation of resources, since it is based on the needs and interests.
2. Leadership positions to find an inexpensive way to improve operations.
3. Identification of financial statements overstated.
4. useful service departments, where production is difficult to identify.
5. Increases staff motivation by providing greater initiative and responsibility in decision making.
6. More communication and coordination within the organization.
7. Identify and eliminate redundant and obsolete assets.
8. Identify opportunities for outsourcing.
9. Force cost centres to identify their tasks and their relation to overall objectives.