Ask Me Help Desk - Cost of Production Summary

Can someone help me with the production summary for blending... I got stuck in that part and I can't continue because of that... I've been doing a lot of trials and errors and still can't have it balanced...

Here goes the problem...
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8312/picture2rb.jpg

Cost of production summary - mixing... hope its correct...
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/971/591j.jpg

Here goes blending...

Front page...
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8879/592v.jpg

Back page...
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/313/594b.jpg

Since your image is twice the width of my screen, it probably would have been easier to have uploaded it as an attachment.

I've had to make some assumptions since there's things not in the instructions. One is that it's weighted average. Since they've given no completion point for the beginning inventory, that's a good assumption. However, I do not know if the material and conversation costs are going at the same rate. Many times the materials are added at the beginning of the process and therefore do not have a completion rate. You have done it as though material and conversion are the same. I can't know if that's cause it's supposed to be that way, or only because you think it's supposed to be that way.

I've never done a weighted average where costs were brought in from a prior department. (I've only done that with FIFO, which actually makes more sense to me.) So I'm having to guess about how the beginning balance from mixing and costs transferred in are handled.

I've noticed you've added all the costs together and seem to intend to just throw them into the average. Since I don't know, I can't know if that's correct or not.

What I can tell you is that you left out the 500 units. Your ending inventory actually consists to two things: 500 units that are finished but haven't been transferred out yet, and 4000 units which are 4/5 complete. You have the 3200 EU for the 4000. And you have the 10,000 transferred out. But you don't have the 500 that are 100% complete and still sitting in ending inventory. Treat that like a 3rd category -- the costs will remain in ending inventory, but they're at 100%, so you have to keep this separate. Your total EU's is actually 13,700.

See if that fixes the problem. If so, I'd be curious to see how this comes out since I've never done one quite like this before.

I have solved the problem for you and is attached as promised
Attachment 25042
I hope it helps

You just solved it for him/her??

What was this we were discussing the other day about people just expecting to get solutions to things when we don't do that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by morgaine300

Since your image is twice the width of my screen, it probably would have been easier to have uploaded it as an attachment.

I've had to make some assumptions since there's things not in the instructions. One is that it's weighted average. Since they've given no completion point for the beginning inventory, that's a good assumption. However, I do not know if the material and conversation costs are going at the same rate. Many times the materials are added at the beginning of the process and therefore do not have a completion rate. You have done it as though material and conversion are the same. I can't know if that's cause it's supposed to be that way, or only because you think it's supposed to be that way.

I've never done a weighted average where costs were brought in from a prior department. (I've only done that with FIFO, which actually makes more sense to me.) So I'm having to guess about how the beginning balance from mixing and costs transferred in are handled.

I've noticed you've added all the costs together and seem to intend to just throw them into the average. Since I don't know, I can't know if that's correct or not.

What I can tell you is that you left out the 500 units. Your ending inventory actually consists to two things: 500 units that are finished but haven't been transferred out yet, and 4000 units which are 4/5 complete. You have the 3200 EU for the 4000. And you have the 10,000 transferred out. But you don't have the 500 that are 100% complete and still sitting in ending inventory. Treat that like a 3rd category -- the costs will remain in ending inventory, but they're at 100%, so you have to keep this separate. Your total EU's is actually 13,700.

See if that fixes the problem. If so, I'd be curious to see how this comes out since I've never done one quite like this before.

I think smexy had posted the attempt made and had obvious confusions. That is the reason for the solution. If the attempt was not there, I would not have ventured to solve it.

Again your post must have been helpful to smexy. May I mention a few comments on the above post?

1. You were right in assuming the average cost method to be applied. Your reasonings are correct.
2. Completion stage has been mentioned in the question which shows the stage of completion. I agree that in real life we do not get such a situation where all the completion is uniform. However, in order to bring home the process costing for the students, the questions are so designed that they learn the complexities in stages.
3. Well, my solution will indeed help you understand the weighted average method. My study of cost accounting is based on Adolph Matz and Milton Usry 7th edition.
4. In process costing the cost flow follows the production flow from one department to the next. When there are inventories in the subsequent departments, they will also include costs from the preceding department. In FIFO method you also consider the preceding department costs, I am sure. This is because the beginning inventory is completed in the next period and the costs of opening inventory (including preceding department costs) is added with costs incurred by the department in the current month.
5. I am sure you will agree that there are many problems in process costing such as normal and abnormal losses, and abnormal gains. Then there are losses discovered at various stages of completion. There are also joint and by prodcuts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rehmanvohra

I think smexy had posted the attempt made and had obvious confusions. That is the reason for the solution. If the attempt was not there, I would not have ventured to solve it.

It's a little obvious they made an attempt to do it, unless you think I'm a complete moron... and a darn good attempt too. So obviously I must still have a reason for having said that, don't you think? Leaning is a process done in steps... fix an error, do as much as you can, then deal with the next error. That's how people learn.

Seems very few people around here understanding what a learning process is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by morgaine300

It's a little obvious they made an attempt to do it, unless you think I'm a complete moron... and a darn good attempt too. So obviously I must still have a reason for having said that, don't ya think? Leaning is a process done in steps... fix an error, do as much as you can, then deal with the next error. That's how people learn.

Seems very few people around here understanding what a learning process is.

I have never intended to offend you in any case. I think you are stretching the matter too far. Please remember that as a Muslim, my religion does not permit me to insult any one in any manner whatsoever. I do not think that you are a moron, complete or incomplete. If you feel it that way, I can not say except that it is your own choice.

In your post you have accepted the fact that you have never come across such a situation while doing weighted average cost for subsequent processes, but you have done so in FIFO method. I have also referred to the text book from I had learnt. If you have any such citation, please do let me know, it will add to my knowledge.

Quote:

I have never intended to offend you in any case. I think you are stretching the matter too far. Please remember that as a Muslim, my religion does not permit me to insult any one in any manner whatsoever. I do not think that you are a moron, complete or incomplete. If you feel it that way, I can not say except that it is your own choice.

You've also apparently never heard of sarcasm...

Quote:

In your post you have accepted the fact that you have never come across such a situation while doing weighted average cost for subsequent processes, but you have done so in FIFO method. I have also referred to the text book from I had learnt. If you have any such citation, please do let me know, it will add to my knowledge.

You're referring to the costs carried over from a prior department using FIFO? You're speaking of the $26,650 transferred from mixing to blending? Are you saying you have no example of that for FIFO? (I had no example of that for average.)

Just ignore this post... I was experimenting with something that didn't work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by morgaine300

You've also apparently never heard of sarcasm....

You're referring to the costs carried over from a prior department using FIFO? You're speaking of the $26,650 transferred from mixing to blending? Are you saying you have no example of that for FIFO? (I had no example of that for average.)

Yes I have heard about sarcasm. It requires intention to insult some one. As I said, I do not have any such intention.

Please see your post of September 28 regarding weighted average method. Can you please clarify?

oh sorry guys... well I was just trying to ask help from the net since I can't get any from my professor... she doesn't actually teach us, making us review the book ourselves. Since numbers are really freakin me out and its taking me time to pick up the lesson from the book, I make sure that my answers to problems were correct. And after getting answers from experts, I try to solve it myself and figure out the solution they made to come up with their answers... hmmm no worries... this'll be the last question from me, I guess it was misunderstood and taken the other way around... and by the way thank you to all who helped... godbless =P More Power ^^

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smexy

oh sorry guys... well i was just trying to ask help from the net since i can't get any from my professor... she doesnt actually teach us, makin us review the book ourselves. Since numbers are really freakin me out and its takin me time to pick up the lesson from the book, i make sure that my answers to problems were correct. and after getting answers from experts, i try to solve it myself and figure out the solution they made to come up with their answers... hmmm no worries... this'll be the last question from me, i guess it was misunderstood and taken the other way around... and btw thank you to all who helped ... godbless =P More Power ^^

It's not about you. You never asked for just the solution that I ever saw. The people here should not be posting solutions to problems. Most people learn from explanation, not from solutions. If you learn from solutions, it's best for those here to provide an example of a solution rather than doing your problem. My beef was not with you in any way. You actually did a pretty darn good job.

[QUOTE=rehmanvohra;2007861]

Quote:

Yes I have heard about sarcasm. It requires intention to insult some one. As I said, I do not have any such intention.

Oh sigh. You still don't get the sarcasm. I never thought you thought I was a moron. That was part of the sarcasm. But it's like a joke-- if you don't get it, it's not worth explaining. You've missed the entire point.

Quote:

Please see your post of September 28 regarding weighted average method. Can you please clarify?

I assume you mean the part related to the transfer in of costs from the prior department, since that's what you referred to in your prior post. I'm not really sure what you want clarified. The only average I've ever done has had a beginning balance, but not any costs transferred in from another department. That is, I saw examples of the first department in line. I only barely learned average.

I thought you were saying you had never seen the same thing (costs transferred in from a prior department) using FIFO. I was trying to clarify if that's what you meant.