harp Paper Inc. has paper mills, phis, Memphis mill produces 300 different types of coated and uncoated specialty printing papers. Management was convinced that the value of the large variety of products more than offset the extra costs of the increased complexity. During 2011, the Memphis mill produced 120,000 tons of coated paper and 80,000 tons of uncoated locate ssee

Managerial Accounting: The Cornerstone of Business Decision-Making
7th Edition
ISBN:9781337115773
Author:Maryanne M. Mowen, Don R. Hansen, Dan L. Heitger
Publisher:Maryanne M. Mowen, Don R. Hansen, Dan L. Heitger
Chapter5: Activity-based Costing And Management
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 63C
icon
Related questions
Question
100%

To help in the analysis, Kaylin gathered the following data for LLHC for 20X1:

Tons sold: 10

Average cartons per shipment: 2

Average shipments per ton: 7

 

1) Using the new costs computed in Requirement 2, compute the profit per ton of LLHC. Compare this with the profit per ton computed by using the old method. Do you think that this same effect would be realized for other low-volume products? Explain.

Sharp Paper Inc. has three paper mills, one of which is located in Memphis, Tennessee. The Memphis
mill produces 300 different types of coated and uncoated specialty printing papers. Management was
convinced that the value of the large variety of products more than offset the extra costs of the
increased complexity.
During 2011, the Memphis mill produced 120,000 tons of coated paper and 80,000 tons of uncoated
paper. Of the 200,000 tons produced, 180,000 were sold. Sixty products account for 80 percent of the
tons sold. Thus, 240 products are classified as low-volume products.
Lightweight lime hopsack in cartons (LLHC) is one of the low-volume products. LLHC is produced in
rolls, converted into sheets of paper, and then sold in cartons. In 2011 the cost to produce and sell one
ton of LLHC was as follows:
Direct materials:
Furnish (3 different pulps)
Additives (11 different items)
Tub size
Recycled scrap paper
Total direct materials
Direct labor
Overhead:
Paper machine ($100 per ton x 2,500 pounds)
Finishing machine ($120 per ton x 2,500 pounds)
Total overhead
Shipping and warehousing
Total manufacturing and selling cost
2,225 pounds $ 450
200 pounds
75 pounds
500
10
(296 pounds)
(20)
$ 940
$450
$ 125
150
$ 275
$
30
$1,695
Overhead is applied by using a two-stage process. First, overhead is allocated to the paper and
finishing machines by using the direct method of allocation with carefully selected cost drivers.
Second, the overhead assigned to each machine is divided by the budgeted tons of output. These
rates are then multiplied by the number of pounds required to produce one good ton.
In 2011, LLHC sold for $2,400 per ton, making it one of the most profitable products. A similar
examination of some of the other low-volume products revealed that they also had very respectable
profit margins. Unfortunately, the performance of the high volume products was less impressive, with
many showing losses or very low profit margins. This situation led Ryan Chesser to call a meeting with
his marketing vice president, Jennifer Woodruff, and his controller, Kaylin Penn.
Ryan: The above-average profitability of our low-volume specialty products and the poor profit
performance of our high-volume products make me believe that we should switch our marketing
emphasis to the low-volume line. Perhaps we should drop some of our high-volume products,
particularly those showing a loss.
Jennifer: I'm not convinced that solution is the right one. I know our high-volume products are of high
quality, and I'm convinced that we are as efficient in our production as other firms. I think that
somehow our costs are not being assigned correctly. For example, the shipping and warehousing
costs are assigned by dividing these costs by the total tons of paper sold. Yet ...
Transcribed Image Text:Sharp Paper Inc. has three paper mills, one of which is located in Memphis, Tennessee. The Memphis mill produces 300 different types of coated and uncoated specialty printing papers. Management was convinced that the value of the large variety of products more than offset the extra costs of the increased complexity. During 2011, the Memphis mill produced 120,000 tons of coated paper and 80,000 tons of uncoated paper. Of the 200,000 tons produced, 180,000 were sold. Sixty products account for 80 percent of the tons sold. Thus, 240 products are classified as low-volume products. Lightweight lime hopsack in cartons (LLHC) is one of the low-volume products. LLHC is produced in rolls, converted into sheets of paper, and then sold in cartons. In 2011 the cost to produce and sell one ton of LLHC was as follows: Direct materials: Furnish (3 different pulps) Additives (11 different items) Tub size Recycled scrap paper Total direct materials Direct labor Overhead: Paper machine ($100 per ton x 2,500 pounds) Finishing machine ($120 per ton x 2,500 pounds) Total overhead Shipping and warehousing Total manufacturing and selling cost 2,225 pounds $ 450 200 pounds 75 pounds 500 10 (296 pounds) (20) $ 940 $450 $ 125 150 $ 275 $ 30 $1,695 Overhead is applied by using a two-stage process. First, overhead is allocated to the paper and finishing machines by using the direct method of allocation with carefully selected cost drivers. Second, the overhead assigned to each machine is divided by the budgeted tons of output. These rates are then multiplied by the number of pounds required to produce one good ton. In 2011, LLHC sold for $2,400 per ton, making it one of the most profitable products. A similar examination of some of the other low-volume products revealed that they also had very respectable profit margins. Unfortunately, the performance of the high volume products was less impressive, with many showing losses or very low profit margins. This situation led Ryan Chesser to call a meeting with his marketing vice president, Jennifer Woodruff, and his controller, Kaylin Penn. Ryan: The above-average profitability of our low-volume specialty products and the poor profit performance of our high-volume products make me believe that we should switch our marketing emphasis to the low-volume line. Perhaps we should drop some of our high-volume products, particularly those showing a loss. Jennifer: I'm not convinced that solution is the right one. I know our high-volume products are of high quality, and I'm convinced that we are as efficient in our production as other firms. I think that somehow our costs are not being assigned correctly. For example, the shipping and warehousing costs are assigned by dividing these costs by the total tons of paper sold. Yet ...
Kaylin: Jennifer, I hate to disagree, but the $30-per-ton charge for shipping and warehousing seems
reasonable. I know that our method to assign these costs is identical to a number of other paper
companies.
Jennifer: Well, that may be true, but do these other companies have the variety of products that we
have? Our low-volume products require special handling and processing, but when we assign
shipping and warehousing costs, we average these special costs across our entire product line. Every
ton produced in our mill passes through our mill shipping department and is either sent directly to the
customer or to our distribution center and then eventually to customers. My records indicate quite
clearly that virtually all of the high-volume products are sent directly to customers, whereas most of
the low-volume products are sent to the distribution center. Now, all of the products passing through
the mill shipping department should receive a share of the $2,000,000 annual shipping costs. I'm not
convinced, however, that all products should receive a share of the receiving and shipping costs of the
distribution center as currently practiced.
Ryan: Kaylin, is this true? Does our system allocate our shipping and warehousing costs in this way?
Kaylin: Yes, I'm afraid it does. Jennifer may have a point. Perhaps we need to reevaluate our method
to assign these costs to the product lines.
Ryan: Jennifer, do you have any suggestions concerning how the shipping and warehousing costs
should be assigned?
Jennifer: It seems reasonable to make a distinction between products that spend time in the
distribution center and those that do not. We should also distinguish between the receiving and
shipping activities at the distribution center. All incoming shipments are packed on pallets and weigh
one ton each (there are 14 cartons of paper per pallet). In 2011, the receiving department processed
56,000 tons of paper. Receiving employs 15 people at an annual cost of $600,000. Other receiving
costs total about $500,000. I would recommend that these costs be assigned by using tons processed.
Shipping, however, is different. There are two activities associated with shipping: picking the order
from inventory and loading the paper. We employ 30 people for picking and 10 for loading, at an
annual cost of $1,200,000. Other shipping costs total $1,100,000. Picking and loading are more
concerned with the number of shipping items than with tonnage. That is, a shipping item may consist
of two or three cartons instead of pallets. Accordingly, the shipping costs of the distribution center
should be assigned by using the number of items shipped. In 2011, for example, we handled 190,000
shipping items.
Ryan: These suggestions have merit. Kaylin, I would like to see what effect Jennifer's suggestions have
on the per-unit assignment of shipping and warehousing for LLHC. If the effect is significant, then we
will expand the analysis to include all products.
Kaylin: I'm willing to compute the effect, but I'd like to suggest one additional feature. Currently, we
have a policy to carry about 25 tons of LLHC in inventory. Our current costing system totally ignores
the cost of carrying this inventory. Since it costs us $1,665 to produce each ton of this product, we are
tying up a lot of money in inventory-money that could be invested in other productive opportunities.
In fact, the return lost is about 16 percent per year. This cost should also be assigned to the units sold.
Transcribed Image Text:Kaylin: Jennifer, I hate to disagree, but the $30-per-ton charge for shipping and warehousing seems reasonable. I know that our method to assign these costs is identical to a number of other paper companies. Jennifer: Well, that may be true, but do these other companies have the variety of products that we have? Our low-volume products require special handling and processing, but when we assign shipping and warehousing costs, we average these special costs across our entire product line. Every ton produced in our mill passes through our mill shipping department and is either sent directly to the customer or to our distribution center and then eventually to customers. My records indicate quite clearly that virtually all of the high-volume products are sent directly to customers, whereas most of the low-volume products are sent to the distribution center. Now, all of the products passing through the mill shipping department should receive a share of the $2,000,000 annual shipping costs. I'm not convinced, however, that all products should receive a share of the receiving and shipping costs of the distribution center as currently practiced. Ryan: Kaylin, is this true? Does our system allocate our shipping and warehousing costs in this way? Kaylin: Yes, I'm afraid it does. Jennifer may have a point. Perhaps we need to reevaluate our method to assign these costs to the product lines. Ryan: Jennifer, do you have any suggestions concerning how the shipping and warehousing costs should be assigned? Jennifer: It seems reasonable to make a distinction between products that spend time in the distribution center and those that do not. We should also distinguish between the receiving and shipping activities at the distribution center. All incoming shipments are packed on pallets and weigh one ton each (there are 14 cartons of paper per pallet). In 2011, the receiving department processed 56,000 tons of paper. Receiving employs 15 people at an annual cost of $600,000. Other receiving costs total about $500,000. I would recommend that these costs be assigned by using tons processed. Shipping, however, is different. There are two activities associated with shipping: picking the order from inventory and loading the paper. We employ 30 people for picking and 10 for loading, at an annual cost of $1,200,000. Other shipping costs total $1,100,000. Picking and loading are more concerned with the number of shipping items than with tonnage. That is, a shipping item may consist of two or three cartons instead of pallets. Accordingly, the shipping costs of the distribution center should be assigned by using the number of items shipped. In 2011, for example, we handled 190,000 shipping items. Ryan: These suggestions have merit. Kaylin, I would like to see what effect Jennifer's suggestions have on the per-unit assignment of shipping and warehousing for LLHC. If the effect is significant, then we will expand the analysis to include all products. Kaylin: I'm willing to compute the effect, but I'd like to suggest one additional feature. Currently, we have a policy to carry about 25 tons of LLHC in inventory. Our current costing system totally ignores the cost of carrying this inventory. Since it costs us $1,665 to produce each ton of this product, we are tying up a lot of money in inventory-money that could be invested in other productive opportunities. In fact, the return lost is about 16 percent per year. This cost should also be assigned to the units sold.
Expert Solution
steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

Blurred answer
Knowledge Booster
Theory of Constraints (TOC)
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, accounting and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.
Similar questions
  • SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
Managerial Accounting: The Cornerstone of Busines…
Managerial Accounting: The Cornerstone of Busines…
Accounting
ISBN:
9781337115773
Author:
Maryanne M. Mowen, Don R. Hansen, Dan L. Heitger
Publisher:
Cengage Learning