Ferguson Foundry Limited

&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212- Case Ferguson metalworks Limited (FFL) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Date March 10 2013 To distinguish Ferguson, President From Carl Holitzner Re FFLs Lower-Than-Budgeted Profit for the Fiscal year cease May 31 2010 The study issue is determining why Ferguson metalworks Limiteds (FFL) existent profit was $367,600 move than work outed, despite interchange 2,000 more wood stoves (12,000 instead of 10,000 units). This forget be explained using partition Analysis to demonstrate the underlying reasons why the caller-out failed to meet its professorships expectations.FFL profit for 2010 was below budget due to some(prenominal) factors twain production and marketing related. From a production perspective, there were 3 study areas of clientele all of which were unfavor adequate with respect to air division Analysis (As shown in disclose 3) 1. accost application 2. vari sufficient quantity Overhead 3. firm approach The $139,200 unfavorable consider hollow variate batch be attributed to umteen reasons however it is most likely linked to the management team. Due to the azoic retirement of the gross sales manager, the production manager being hospitalized and the accountant quitting, it spate be understood that inefficiencies were bound to arise.Without proper management, labor trim down oerall productivity of the company, as these workers took 121,200 hours to produce 12,00 stoves rather than the standard 120,000 hours that it should have taken. This bring down wampum Income by $18,000 (Labor Yield magnetic variation calculation). Secondly, the occupation arising from trail Labor as well transcends to the multivariate Overhead, as it is used as its cost driver. As a result, the $69,600 unfavorable Variable Overhead Variance cease besides be attributed to the more hours undertaken to produce the 12,000 stoves.With the lack of an inefficient management team, bash could have accumulated through inefficient use and/or the budget could have not even accurately portrayed current pass judgment for smash-up items. The third problem with regards to the production perspective stage businesss the amplification in stiff costs. In particular, the touch on manufacturing cost change magnituded by $30,000 everyplace budgeted costs, which in turn resulted in a decline of net income by the same amount. This could have resulted due to several reasons such as surplus machinery being required to handle the increased sales volume.However at this heighten it is unclear given the information provided and so further investigation essential be conducted in an effort to better budget for future intractable costs. From a marketing perspective, there were also 3 major areas of concern all of which were unfavorable with respect to Variance Analysis 1. Price 2. indomitable follow 3. sales flick In analyzing the footing changes, although it was benef icial to increase the sell price of the raw material timber orbit ($300 to $325), this income cash advance was significantly outweighed by the decrease in sell price of the opulent wood image ($800 to $700).In the end, the price changes of two products resulted in a $300,000 step-down in profit ( gross sales Price Variance). Another reason for FFLs lower than budgeted profit, although obvious and minor, had to do with the increase in selling and administration cost. As can be seen in debunk 3 by the ameliorate sell & Administration Budget Variance, an increase in the rigid costs reduced net profit by $7,000. The third problem area, concerning the marketing perspective, convoluted the variety in sales mix from real to budget.FFL actually sell more basic Wood range of mountainss and fewer lofty Wood mountain chains than budgeted. Unfortunately, the idealistic Wood grasp possessed a risqueer(prenominal)(prenominal) standard contribution margin per unit than the Basic ($210 to $80). Therefore the contrast in the mix of sales caused FFLs net profit to be reduced by $234,000 (gross revenue merge Variance). Ultimately, more market research mustinessiness be conducted to better understand consumer wants and needs and thus be able to efficiently budget company products accordingly to reach profitability goals. vermiform appendix EXHIBIT 1 BASIC (Actual) BASIC (Std. DELUXE (Actual) DELUXE (Std. ) tradeing Price $325 $300 $700 $800 Variable be come in Materials $67. 50 $70. 00 $171. 00 $190. 00 Direct Labor $104. 00 $90. 00 $248. 00 $240. 00 Overhead $52. 00 $45. 00 $124. 00 $120. 00 change & Admin $15. 00 $15. 00 $40. 00 $40. 00 impart Variable be $238. 50 $220. 00 $583. 00 $590. 00 Contribution Margin $86. 50 $80. 00 $117. 00 $210. 00 CONTRIBUTION MARGINS TABLE metaphor of some calculations tangled * using the Actual Results Table Provided in presentation AActual social unit marketing (Basic) = gross revenue Revenue ? sales Volume (units) = $2,340,000 / 7,200 units = $325 unit Direct Materials (Basic) = Direct Materials damage ? gross sales Volume (units) = $486,000 / 7,200 units = $67. 50 * using the building block Cost Standards Table Provided in attest B Std. unit Direct Labor (Basic) = DL Std. Qty. Per unit of measurement x DL Std. say Per Hr. = 6 hrs. x $15. 00 per hr. = $90 accompaniment EXHIBIT 2 For the grade cease May 31 2010 ACTUAL turn- cypher discrepancy wring compute SALES-VOLUME air division STATIC BUDGET TOTAL difference mensuration (units) 12,000 12,000 10,000 gross sales Revenue $5,700,000 ($300,000) $6,000,000 $250,000 $5,750,000 ($50,000) Variable be $4,515,600 ($99,600) $4,416,000 ($181,000) $4,235,000 ($280,600) CM $1,184,400 ($399,600) $1,584,000 $69,000 $1,515,000 ($330,600) intractable cost $919,500 ($37,000) $882,500 $882,500 ($37,000) enlighten Income $264,900 ($436,600) $701,500 $69,000 $632,500 ($367,600) FLEXIBLE BUDGET REPORT GIVEN CALCULATE D FILL IN THE BLANK deviationS ($) = UNFAVORABLE & $ = FAVORABLE deterrent example of some calculations involved for Flex Budget Flex gross revenue Revenue = Std.Sell Price Per unit x Actual gross revenue volume (units) Basic Wood chain of mountains = $300 x 7,200 units = $2,160,000 rarefied Wood Stove = $800 x 4,800 units = $3,840,000 entire Flex sales Revenue = $6,000,000 Flex Variable Costs = Std. Variable Price Per Unit x Actual Sales Volume (units) Basic Wood Stove = $220 x 7,200 = $1,548,000 Deluxe Wood Stove = $590 x 4,800 = $2,832,000 issue forth Flex Variable Costs = $4,416,000 Flex Fixed Costs = Static Fixed Costs vermiform appendix EXHIBIT 3 FLEX BUDGET naval division SALES VOLUME VARIANCE SALES VARIANCES Sales Price $300,000 U - Sales Mix - $234,000 USales quantity - $303,000 F Sales Volume - $69,000 F TOTAL SALES VARIANCE $300,000 U $69,000 F VARIABLE COST VARIANCES Direct Materials $109,000 F - Direct Labor $139,200 U - Overhead $69,60 0 U - change & Admin $0 - TOTAL VARIABLE COST VARIANCE $399,600 U - TOTAL CM VARIANCE $399,600 U - FIXED COST VARIANCES Mfg. Budget $30,000 U - Sell & Admin Budget $7,000 U - TOTAL FIXED COST VARIANCE $37,000 U - TOTAL VARIANCE $436,600 U $69,000 F VARIANCES TABLE U = negativeF = halcyon cecal appendage Illustration of some calculations involved in creating Exhibit 3 SALES VARIANCE Section Sales Price Variance = Actual Units sold x (Actual Sell Price Budgeted) Basic Wood Stove = 7,200 x ($325-$300) = $180,000 F Deluxe Wood Stove = 4,800 x ($700-$800) = $480,000 U Total Sales Price Variance = $300,000 U Sales Mix Variance = (Actual Sales Mix % Budgeted) x Actual fare units sold x Budgeted CM per unit Basic Wood Stove = (7,200/12,000)-(4,500/10,000) x 12,000 x $80 = $144,000 F Deluxe Wood Stove = (4,800/12,000)-(5,500/10,000) x 12,000 x $210 = $378,000 UTotal Sales Mix Variance = $234,000 U Sales Quantity Variance = (Actual essential units sold Budgeted) x Budgeted Sales Mix % x Budgeted CM per unit Basic Wood Stove = (12,000-10,000) x (4,500/10,000) x $80 = $72,000 F Deluxe Wood Stove = (12,000=10,000) x (5,500/10,000) x $210 = $231,000 F Total Sales Quantity Variance = $303,000 F Sales Volume Variance = (Actual Sales Volume Budgeted) x Budgeted Cm per unit Basic Wood Stove = (7,200-4,500) x $80 = $216,000 F Deluxe Wood Stove = (4,800-5,500) x $210 = $147,000 U Total Sales Volume Variance = $69,000 FFerguson foundry Limited&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212- Case Ferguson foundry Limited (FFL) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Date March 10 2013 To crisscross Ferguson, President From Carl Holitzner Re FFLs Lower-Than-Budgeted Profit for the Fiscal Year Ended May 31 2010 The major issue is determining why Ferguson metalworks Limiteds (FFL) actual profit was $367,600 lower than budgeted, despite selling 2,000 more wood stoves (12,000 instead of 10,000 units). This will be explained using Va riance Analysis to demonstrate the underlying reasons why the company failed to meet its presidents expectations.FFL profit for 2010 was below budget due to many factors both production and marketing related. From a production perspective, there were 3 major areas of concern all of which were unfavorable with respect to Variance Analysis (As shown in Exhibit 3) 1. Direct Labor 2. Variable Overhead 3. Fixed Cost The $139,200 unfavorable Direct Labor Variance can be attributed to many reasons however it is most likely linked to the management team. Due to the proto(prenominal) retirement of the sales manager, the production manager being hospitalized and the accountant quitting, it can be understood that inefficiencies were bound to arise.Without proper management, labor reduced general productivity of the company, as these workers took 121,200 hours to produce 12,00 stoves rather than the standard 120,000 hours that it should have taken. This reduced Net Income by $18,000 (Labor Yi eld Variance calculation). Secondly, the problem arising from Direct Labor also transcends to the Variable Overhead, as it is used as its cost driver. As a result, the $69,600 unfavorable Variable Overhead Variance can also be attributed to the more hours undertaken to produce the 12,000 stoves.With the lack of an inefficient management team, overhead could have accumulated through inefficient use and/or the budget could have not even accurately portrayed current rank for overhead items. The third problem with regards to the production perspective concerns the increase in fixed costs. In particular, the fixed manufacturing cost increased by $30,000 over budgeted costs, which in turn resulted in a reduction of net income by the same amount. This could have resulted due to several reasons such as supernumerary machinery being required to handle the increased sales volume.However at this lead it is unclear given the information provided and so further investigation must be conducted in an effort to better budget for future fixed costs. From a marketing perspective, there were also 3 major areas of concern all of which were unfavorable with respect to Variance Analysis 1. Price 2. Fixed Cost 3. Sales Mix In analyzing the price changes, although it was beneficial to increase the sell price of the Basic Wood Stove ($300 to $325), this income profit was significantly outweighed by the reduction in sell price of the Deluxe Wood Stove ($800 to $700).In the end, the price changes of both products resulted in a $300,000 reduction in profit (Sales Price Variance). Another reason for FFLs lower than budgeted profit, although obvious and minor, had to do with the increase in selling and administration cost. As can be seen in Exhibit 3 by the Fixed Selling & Administration Budget Variance, an increase in the fixed costs reduced net profit by $7,000. The third problem area, concerning the marketing perspective, involved the difference in sales mix from actual to budget .FFL actually sold more Basic Wood Stoves and fewer Deluxe Wood Stoves than budgeted. Unfortunately, the Deluxe Wood Stove possessed a higher(prenominal) standard contribution margin per unit than the Basic ($210 to $80). Therefore the difference in the mix of sales caused FFLs net profit to be reduced by $234,000 (Sales Mix Variance). Ultimately, more market research must be conducted to better understand consumer wants and needs and thus be able to efficiently budget company products accordingly to reach profitability goals. APPENDIX EXHIBIT 1 BASIC (Actual) BASIC (Std. DELUXE (Actual) DELUXE (Std. ) Selling Price $325 $300 $700 $800 Variable Costs Direct Materials $67. 50 $70. 00 $171. 00 $190. 00 Direct Labor $104. 00 $90. 00 $248. 00 $240. 00 Overhead $52. 00 $45. 00 $124. 00 $120. 00 Sell & Admin $15. 00 $15. 00 $40. 00 $40. 00 Total Variable Costs $238. 50 $220. 00 $583. 00 $590. 00 Contribution Margin $86. 50 $80. 00 $117. 00 $210. 00 CONTRIBUTION MARGINS TABLE Illustra tion of some calculations involved *Using the Actual Results Table Provided in Exhibit AActual Unit Selling (Basic) = Sales Revenue ? Sales Volume (units) = $2,340,000 / 7,200 units = $325 Unit Direct Materials (Basic) = Direct Materials Cost ? Sales Volume (units) = $486,000 / 7,200 units = $67. 50 *Using the Unit Cost Standards Table Provided in Exhibit B Std. Unit Direct Labor (Basic) = DL Std. Qty. Per Unit x DL Std. estimate Per Hr. = 6 hrs. x $15. 00 per hr. = $90 APPENDIX EXHIBIT 2 For the Year Ended May 31 2010 ACTUAL FLEX-BUDGET VARIANCE FLEX BUDGET SALES-VOLUME VARIANCE STATIC BUDGET TOTAL VARIANCE Quantity (units) 12,000 12,000 10,000 Sales Revenue $5,700,000 ($300,000) $6,000,000 $250,000 $5,750,000 ($50,000) Variable Costs $4,515,600 ($99,600) $4,416,000 ($181,000) $4,235,000 ($280,600) CM $1,184,400 ($399,600) $1,584,000 $69,000 $1,515,000 ($330,600) Fixed Costs $919,500 ($37,000) $882,500 $882,500 ($37,000) Net Income $264,900 ($436,600) $701,500 $69,000 $632,500 ($367,600) FLEXIBLE BUDGET REPORT GIVEN CALCULATED FILL IN THE BLANK VARIANCES ($) = UNFAVORABLE & $ = FAVORABLE Illustration of some calculations involved for Flex Budget Flex Sales Revenue = Std.Sell Price Per Unit x Actual Sales volume (units) Basic Wood Stove = $300 x 7,200 units = $2,160,000 Deluxe Wood Stove = $800 x 4,800 units = $3,840,000 Total Flex Sales Revenue = $6,000,000 Flex Variable Costs = Std. Variable Price Per Unit x Actual Sales Volume (units) Basic Wood Stove = $220 x 7,200 = $1,548,000 Deluxe Wood Stove = $590 x 4,800 = $2,832,000 Total Flex Variable Costs = $4,416,000 Flex Fixed Costs = Static Fixed Costs APPENDIX EXHIBIT 3 FLEX BUDGET VARIANCE SALES VOLUME VARIANCE SALES VARIANCES Sales Price $300,000 U - Sales Mix - $234,000 USales Quantity - $303,000 F Sales Volume - $69,000 F TOTAL SALES VARIANCE $300,000 U $69,000 F VARIABLE COST VARIANCES Direct Materials $109,000 F - Direct Labor $139,200 U - Overhead $69,600 U - Selling & Ad min $0 - TOTAL VARIABLE COST VARIANCE $399,600 U - TOTAL CM VARIANCE $399,600 U - FIXED COST VARIANCES Mfg. Budget $30,000 U - Sell & Admin Budget $7,000 U - TOTAL FIXED COST VARIANCE $37,000 U - TOTAL VARIANCE $436,600 U $69,000 F VARIANCES TABLE U = badF = Favorable APPENDIX Illustration of some calculations involved in creating Exhibit 3 SALES VARIANCE Section Sales Price Variance = Actual Units sold x (Actual Sell Price Budgeted) Basic Wood Stove = 7,200 x ($325-$300) = $180,000 F Deluxe Wood Stove = 4,800 x ($700-$800) = $480,000 U Total Sales Price Variance = $300,000 U Sales Mix Variance = (Actual Sales Mix % Budgeted) x Actual total units sold x Budgeted CM per unit Basic Wood Stove = (7,200/12,000)-(4,500/10,000) x 12,000 x $80 = $144,000 F Deluxe Wood Stove = (4,800/12,000)-(5,500/10,000) x 12,000 x $210 = $378,000 UTotal Sales Mix Variance = $234,000 U Sales Quantity Variance = (Actual total units sold Budgeted) x Budgeted Sales Mix % x Bu dgeted CM per unit Basic Wood Stove = (12,000-10,000) x (4,500/10,000) x $80 = $72,000 F Deluxe Wood Stove = (12,000=10,000) x (5,500/10,000) x $210 = $231,000 F Total Sales Quantity Variance = $303,000 F Sales Volume Variance = (Actual Sales Volume Budgeted) x Budgeted Cm per unit Basic Wood Stove = (7,200-4,500) x $80 = $216,000 F Deluxe Wood Stove = (4,800-5,500) x $210 = $147,000 U Total Sales Volume Variance = $69,000 FFerguson Foundry LimitedCASE abridgment FERGUSON FOUNDRY LIMITED (FFL) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction After reviewing the monetary statements for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2010, Mark Ferguson, President of Ferguson Foundry Limiteds (FFL), was disappointed with the results. Operating Income was $367,600 below expectation, despite having sold 2,000 wood stove units greater than budgeted. To determine which areas FFLs actual act was better or worse than judge, a form analysis will be conducted.However, it is important to note that variance analysis alone c an moreover emphasize areas that need improvement, and not determine the reason for these discrepancies. A further investigation is warranted once determining the issues outlined through variance analysis. Analysis Qualitative and Quantitative There are many areas at bottom FFLs production which have been proven to be admonishing, and where immediate improvement is necessary. Of particular concern is the shifting overhead, where an unfavorable variance of $180,600 was discovered ( adjunct F).Within this variance, the variable overhead costs, both manufacturing and non-manufacturing of the Deluxe model are what seem to be causing inefficiencies. The Deluxe model accounts for $157,200 of the $180,600U mentioned above. Other Key Areas of Concern adumbrate Through Variance Analysis * Appendix I Although the selling price of the basic model increased by $25, a $100 reduction in the selling price of the Deluxe model counterbalanced this increase, and negatively affected income. Appe ndix E The difference between the budgeted and actual sales mix had an adverse effect on revenues. The Deluxe model had a greater CM/unit of 210, and was budgeted at 55% of the sales mix, however, it only ended up accounting for 40% of the actual sales mix. * Appendix H The market share of FFL resulted in being less than expected (10% to 9%), in a market which was larger than expected/budgeted (133,333 to 100,000 units). passport and Implementation We recommend a proper rectification of the issues with regards to FFLs unfavourable variances.Firstly, is it of utmost importance to have all the necessary components of management (i. e. supervisors, directors, and managers) on the job and ready to manage. Once FFL has the personnel to solve these significant issues, the following(a) must be corrected, in order Direct labor inefficiencies and high overhead costs, most importantly. Then, they can fine tune and solve higher than usual selling and administrative expenses and high fixed ove rhead costs. and instructions with regards to solving these issues are outlined in Appendix K.However, if FFL is not capable of reorganising the company by itself, external help is necessary to fulfill specific changes that will improve FFLs bottom line. REFERENCES Bhimani, Alnoor et al. Management and Cost Accounting. Pearson Education Limited, 2012. Print. APPENDIX A DIRECT literal VARIANCES Note F = Favorable and U = bad APPENDIX B DIRECT MATERIAL VARIANCES CONTINUED *540,000 + 912,000 = 1,452,000 *315,000 + 1,045,000 = 1,360,000 Note F = Favorable and U = untoward APPENDIX C DIRECT LABOR VARIANCESNote F = Favorable and U = unfavorable APPENDIX D DIRECT LABOR VARIANCES CONTINUED Note F = Favorable and U = Unfavorable APPENDIX E SALES VARIANCES 7200/12000 = 0. 6 4500/10000 = 0. 45 Note F = Favorable and U = Unfavorable APPENDIX F VARIABLE OVERHEAD VARIANCE *Variable Selling & Administrative Expenses are labeled as Non-Manufacturing in this table. Total Variable Overhead f or Basic and Deluxe = 27,000U + 18,000F = 9,000U Note F = Favorable and U = Unfavorable APPENDIX G FIXED OVERHEAD VARIANCE *750,000 ? 115,000 = 6. 217 Note F = Favorable and U = Unfavorable APPENDIX H MARKET VARIANCES Note F = Favorable and U = Unfavorable APPENDIX I VARIANCE OVERVIEW Note F = Favorable and U = Unfavorable Note F = Favorable and U = Unfavorable APPENDIX J ANALYSIS OF THE UNFAVORABLE VARIANCES Note F = Favorable and U = Unfavorable Note $421,300 represents the sum of all unfavorable variances that have brought down the companys annual earnings. Note F = Favorable and U = Unfavorable APPENDIX K RECOMMENDATIONS REDUCING THE TOTAL UNFAVOURABLE VARIANCE