Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

Introduction
Absorption Costing
Absorption costing is defined as a method for accumulating the costs associated with a
production process and apportioning them to individual products. This type of costing is required
by the accounting Standard Costings to create an inventory valuation that is stated in an
organization's balance sheet.
A product may absorb a broad range of fixed and Standard Costing costs. These costs are not
recognized as expenses in the month when an entity pays for them. Instead, they remain in
inventory as an asset until such time as the inventory is sold; at that point, they are charged to the
cost of goods sold.
Absorption Costing Components
The key costs assigned to products under an absorption costing system are
Direct materials: Those materials that is included in a finished product.
Direct labor: The factory labor costs required to construct a product.
Standard Costing manufacturing overhead: The costs to operate a manufacturing
facility, which vary with production volume. Examples are supplies and electricity for
production equipment.
Fixed manufacturing overhead: The costs to operate a manufacturing facility, which do
not vary with production volume. Examples are rent and insurance.
It is possible to use activity-based costing (ABC) to allocate overhead costs for inventory
valuation purposes under the absorption costing methodology. However, ABC is a timeconsuming and expensive system to implement and maintain, and so is not very cost-effective
when all you want to do is allocate inventory to be in accordance with GAAP or IFRS.

Page 1

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

You should charge sales and administrative costs to expense in the period incurred; do not assign
them to inventory, since these items are not related to goods produced, but rather to the period in
which they were incurred.
Absorption Costing Steps
The steps required to complete a periodic assignment of costs to produced goods is:
1. Assign costs to cost pools: This is comprised of a Standard Costing set of accounts that
are always included in cost pools, and which should rarely be changed.
2. Calculate usage: Determine the amount of usage of whatever activity measure is used to
assign overhead costs, such as machine hours or direct labor hours used.
3. Assign costs: Divide the usage measure into the total costs in the cost pools to arrive at
the allocation rate per unit of activity, and assign overhead costs to produced goods based
on this usage rate.
Overhead Absorption
Absorbed overhead is manufacturing overhead that has been applied to products or other cost
objects. Overhead is usually applied based on a predetermined overhead allocation rate.
Overhead is over absorbed when the amount allocated to a product or other cost object is higher
than the actual amount of overhead, while the amount is under absorbed when the amount
allocated is lower than the actual amount of overhead.
For example, Higgins Corporation budgets for a monthly manufacturing overhead cost of
Rs1,00,000, which it plans to apply to its planned monthly production volume of Rs50,000
widgets at the rate of Rs2 per widget. In January, Higgins only produced 45,000 widgets, so it
allocated just Rs90,000. Also, the actual amount of manufacturing overhead that the company
incurred in that month was Rs98,000. Therefore, Higgins experienced Rs8,000 of underabsorbed
overhead.

Page 2

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

In February, Higgins produced 60,000 widgets, so it allocated Rs120,000 of overhead. Also, the
actual amount of manufacturing overhead that the company incurred in that month was
Rs109,000. Therefore, Higgins experienced Rs11,000 of overabsorbed overhead.

Absorption Costing Problems

Since absorption costing requires the allocation of what may be a considerable amount of
overhead costs to products, a large proportion of a product's costs may not be directly traceable
to the product. Direct costing or constraint analysis do not require the allocation of overhead to a
product, and so may be more useful than absorption costing for incremental pricing decisions
where you are more concerned with only the costs required to build the next incremental unit of
product.
It is also possible that an entity could generate extra profits simply by manufacturing more
products that it does not sell. This situation arises because absorption costing requires fixed
manufacturing overhead to be allocated to the total number of units produced - if some of those
units are not subsequently sold, then the fixed overhead costs assigned to the excess units are
never charged to expense, thereby resulting in increased profits. A manager could falsely
authorize excess production to create these extra profits, but it burdens the entity with potentially
obsolete inventory, and also requires the investment of working capital in the extra inventory.

Page 3

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

Standard Costing
Standard Costing is a managerial accounting cost concept. Under this method, manufacturing
overhead is incurred in the period that a product is produced. This addresses the issue of
absorption costing that allows income to rise as production rises. Under an absorption cost
method, management can push forward costs to the next period when products are sold. This
artificially inflates profits in the period of production by incurring less cost than would be
incurred under a Standard Costing system. Standard Costing is generally not used for external
reporting purposes. Under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, income statements must use absorption
costing to comply with GAAP. Modern approach to product costing. Includes only Standard
Costing production cost, (direct material + direct labor and Standard Costing overhead) as
product or inventorial cost, and fixed overhead as period cost thats why known as Standard
Costing or direct costing , or marginal costing as cost of producing an extra unit will be same as
Standard Costing cost. Appropriate more for internal reporting, facilitates decision making by
using, models for analyzing break even, cost volume profit analysis, margin of safety and degree
of operating leverage etc. Like absorption costing, considers all non manufacturing cost as period
cost but Standard Costing statements , typically present expense by cost behavior ( Standard
Costing and fixed in relation to sales).
Direct material standards and variance analysis
Direct material standards are derived from the amount of material required for each product or
operation. This should take into account the most suitable material for the product specification
and design. It should also include any anticipated wastage or losses in the process. Direct
material standards should also consider the standard price of the material, based on the most
suitable and competitive price as required by the most suitable quality of material. These prices
should also include economic order quantity, discounts and credit terms offered by suppliers.The
standard material used and the standard cost of the material are combined to calculate the
standard material cost. By comparing the actual material price and the actual material used with
the standards calculated, the material price and the material usage variance can be determined.

Page 4

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

Material mix and yield variances
The direct material usage variance measures the change in total material cost caused by using a
non-standard amount of material in production. It is also possible to subdivide this variance into
a direct material mix variance and a direct material yield variance. This is mostly undertaken in
process industries where a standard input mix is the norm. Identifiable components of input are
combined during production to produce an output in which the individual components are no
longer separately identifiable. It is sometimes necessary to vary the input mix. As a result, this
may lead to an output from the process that will differ from what was expected. The material mix
variance therefore measures the change in cost caused by an alteration to the constituents of the
input mix. The material yield variance measures the change in cost brought about by any
deviation in output from the standard process output.

Direct labour standards and variance analysis

Direct labour standards are derived from the analysis of activities required for different
operations. Often a time and motion study is carried out to determine the most efficient
production method, including operating conditions, equipment required and best practice.
Following this, the time is analyzed to determine the standard hours required to complete an
operation. Standard wage rates are identified using rates of pay for employees required to carry
out the operation, which are normally set by the company. This standard time and standard wage
rate are combined to calculate the standard labour rate.

Overhead standards variable overheads

Where overheads vary with activities, a standard variable overhead rate is used. However,
several different activity measures exist and it is important for the organisation to identify which
measure influences overhead cost the most. For example, volume related variable overheads
could vary with direct labour, machine hours, material quantities or number of units. In practice,
the most frequently used are direct labour hours or machine hours. The variable overhead rate
per unit is applied to the standard labour or machine usage to calculate a standard variable cost
per unit. The two variances calculated for variable overheads are:
1. The variable overhead expenditure variance, which is equal to the difference between the
budgeted flexed variable overheads for the actual direct labour or machine hours of input, and
the actual variable overheads incurred.
2. The variable overhead efficiency variance, which is the difference between the standard hours
of input and the actual hours of input for the period, multiplied by the standard variable overhead
rate.
Page 5

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

Overhead standards fixed overheads
These overheads are largely independent of changes in activity and remain unchanged in the
short term over wide ranges of activity. The budgeted annual fixed overhead is divided by the
budgeted level of activity to determine the standard fixed overhead rate per unit of activity.
Machine hours are normally used for machine-related overheads and direct labour hours are used
for more labour-related overheads. This standard rate is applied to the standard labour or
machine usage per unit to calculate the standard fixed overhead cost for a product. The total
fixed overhead variance is the difference between the standard fixed overhead charged to
production and the actual fixed overhead incurred. An under- or over-recovery of overheads may
occur because the fixed overhead rate is calculated by dividing budgeted fixed overheads by
budgeted output. If actual output or fixed overhead expenditure differs from budget, then an
under or over recovery will occur. Therefore under- or over-recovery may be due to a fixed
overhead expenditure variance arising from actual expenditure differing from budgeted
expenditure. Alternatively, a fixed overhead volume variance may arise from actual production
differing from budgeted production.

Other variances sales variances

Sales variances can be used to analyze the performance of the sales function in a similar way to
those for manufacturing costs. Sales variances are calculated in terms of profit or contribution
margin, rather than on sales value.

Other variances planning and operational variances.

Some variances will arise due to factors that are almost or entirely within the control of
management. These are referred to as operational variances. Variances that occur from changes
in factors external to the business are referred to as planning variances. As planning variances are
not under the control of operational management, it cannot be held accountable for them

Page 6

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

Absorption V/S Standard Costing

A.) Comparison of Absorption and Standard Costing: When comparing absorption costing
and Standard Costing income statements, a number of points should be noted:
1. Deferral of fixed manufacturing costs under absorption costing. Under absorption costing,
if inventories increase then a portion of the fixed manufacturing overhead costs of the current
period is deferred to future periods in the inventory account. When the units are later taken out of
inventory and sold, the deferred fixed costs flow through to the income statement as part of cost
of goods sold.
2. Differences in inventories under the two methods. The ending inventory figures under the
Standard Costing and absorption costing methods are different. Under Standard Costing, only the
Standard Costing manufacturing costs are included in inventory. Under absorption costing, both
Standard Costing and fixed manufacturing costs are included in inventory.
3. Suitability for CVP analysis. An absorption costing income statement is not well suited for
providing data for CVP computations since it makes no distinction between fixed and Standard
Costing costs. In contrast, the Standard Costing method classifies costs by behavior and is very
useful in setting-up CVP computations.
B.) Extended Comparison of Income Data:
(All of these generalizations assume the LIFO inventory flow assumption is being used. The
generalizations may not hold in some rare cases if a company uses an inventory flow assumption
other than LIFO.)
1. Production equals sales (no change in inventories). When production equals sales,
inventories do not change. If inventories do not change, then there is no change in the fixed
manufacturing overhead costs in inventories under absorption costing. Therefore, under both
costing methods all of the current fixed manufacturing overhead will flow through to the income
Page 7

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

statement as an expense. In the case of absorption costing it will be part of cost of goods sold. In
the case of Standard Costing, it will be a period expense.
2. Production exceeds sales (inventories increase). When production exceeds sales, inventories
grow. If inventories grow, then some of the current fixed manufacturing overhead costs will be
deferred in inventories under absorption costing. Since all of the current fixed manufacturing
overhead costs are expensed under Standard Costing, the net operating income reported under
absorption costing will be greater than the net operating income reported under Standard
Costing.
3. Sales exceed production (inventories decrease). When sales exceed production, inventories
shrink. If inventories decrease, then some of the fixed manufacturing overhead costs that had
been deferred in inventories in previous periods will be released to the income statement as part
of cost of goods sold as well as all of the current fixed manufacturing overhead costs. Since only
the current fixed manufacturing overhead costs are expensed under Standard Costing, the net
operating income reported under absorption costing will be less than the net operating income
reported under Standard Costing.
4. Long-term differences in income. Over an extended period of time, the cumulative net
operating income figures reported under absorption costing and Standard Costing will be about
the same; they will differ only by the amount of fixed manufacturing overhead cost in ending
inventories under absorption costing. Cumulative net operating income figures will be identical
whenever ending inventories are reduced to zero.
5. Changes in production volume. Standard Costing net operating income is not affected by
changes in production volume. On the other hand, absorption costing net operating income is
affected by changes in production volume. For any given level of sales, net operating income
under absorption costing will increase as the level of output increases and hence inventories
increase.

Page 8

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

C.) The Matching Principle: Accountants and managers have been arguing for decades
concerning the relative merits of absorption and Standard Costing. In practice, absorption costing
is used far more than Standard Costing even for internal reports. The reasons for this are not
entirely clear, although the perception that absorption costing is required for external reporting
undoubtedly plays a key role. The argument for using absorption costing in external reports
seems to be based on the matching principle.
1. Argument for absorption costing. Advocates of absorption costing argue that all
manufacturing costs must be assigned to units of product so as to properly match costs with
revenues. They argue that fixed manufacturing overhead costs are essential to the production
process and must be included when costing units of product, regardless of how the cost behaves.
2. Argument for Standard Costing. Advocates of Standard Costing argue that fixed
manufacturing overhead costs are incurred in order to have the capacity to produce. Moreover,
they will be incurred regardless of whether anything is actually produced. Since these costs are
not caused by any particular unit of product and are incurred to provide capacity for a particular
period, the matching principle would dictate that fixed manufacturing overhead costs must be
expensed in the current period.
D.) Impact of JIT Inventory Methods: When companies use JIT methods for controlling their
operations, the distortions of income that can occur under absorption costing largely (or
completely) disappear.
1. The cause of distortions in net operating income. Erratic movements in net operating
income under absorption costing and the differences in net operating income between absorption
and Standard Costing can be traced to changing levels of inventory. When inventory levels are
constant or negligible, absorption costing and Standard Costing methods yield the essentially
same net operating income.
2. The JIT solution. Under an ideally functioning JIT system, goods are produced strictly to
customers orders. Finished goods inventories almost disappear and work in process inventories
are kept to a minimum. With little or no inventories, fixed manufacturing overhead costs cannot
be shifted between periods under absorption costing. As a result, both Standard Costing and
Page 9

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

absorption costing will show essentially the same net operating income figure, and the net
operating income under absorption costing will move in the same direction as movements in
sales.
Difference between the two approaches
Two basic differences can be seen between Standard Costing and absorption costing
The first difference is that under absorption costing fixed manufacturing overhead is
considered as product cost, because this approach advocates that product cannot be made
without the capacity provided by manufacturing cost, whereas as under direct costing
fixed overhead is considered as period cost because this approach advocates fixed
manufacturing would be incurred whether or not production occurs, that is they are not
caused by production.
The second difference is in the presentation of cost on the income statement, absorption
costing classifies expense as function (cost for same purpose, to generate revenue)
whereas Standard Costing costing categorize expense, first by behavior (Standard
Costing, fixed) and further by function.

Page 10

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

Calculating profit under Standard Costing and absorption costing:
Clearly, a product cost under Standard Costing will always be lower than absorption costing but
the difference between Standard Costing and absorption costing profits depends on the
relationship between volume of sales and volume of production .
When
Production =sales
Production > sales

profit

ending inventory

ac = vc
ac> vc

(ac vs vc)
no change
increased by

(by amount fixed overhead in (fixed overhead in additional

ending inventory minus fixed units as p > s)
Production < sales

overhead beginning inventory)

ac< vc
difference reduced
(by amount fixed overhead ( by fixed overhead from
released from ac beginning beginning

inventory)
Ac= absorption costing, vc= Standard Costing,

inventory

to

charged to cogs)

Approaches of Standard Costing & absorption costing:

Valuation of inventory:
In the financial accounting area there is strong argument of using absorption costing to value
inventory, according to financial accounting concepts cost can never be expensed until their
disposition is realized, advocates of absorption costing claim that fixed cost comprise part of
the cost of production. There is no strong argument for using Standard Costing costing to
value inventory for financial reporting purpose.

Short term decision making:

Page 11

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

Standard Costing cost are particularly useful for short term decisions, for example manager
often need to decide to make a component or buy it, a business may choose to buy a product
if the suppliers price is less than Standard Costing cost of the product, often the fixed cost
will be incurred, regardless, whether product is made or bought so they are not relevant to
decision. So marginal costing is a good choice in this case because absorption costing, cost
include fixed overhead, so using these product cost, can lead to erroneous decisions in short
term, because fixed cost do not change in short term. However in long term a business must
cover its fixed cost too, and managers prefer to use absorption costing data.
Profit information:
Under Standard Costing, profit is easier to predict. Profit is a function of sales, and the
classification of cost as fixed or Standard Costing makes it simple to project the effects of change
in sale on profit. Cost volume profit analysis (cvp analysis) an important decision making and
planning tool, used by managers which require a Standard Costing format.
When absorption costing is used there is no direct relationship between sales and profit because
of the unitized cost include in the product cost, some mangers find it confusing and difficult to
predict the effect on profit on change in sales, we can say absorption costing is not compatible
with cost volume profit analysis.
Planning and control:
Managers achieved control by comparing actual and planned performance , planned cost must
take account cost behavior, if they are to provide reliable basis for control, profit is also used as
performance measure, on the other side because of its disregard to cost behavior , absorption
costing provides a poor basis for planning and control. They encourage managers to improve
their profit performance by simply building up inventories , fixed overhead costs are carried
forward as inventory rather than expensed , during the current period , but its not really the true
profit , more inventory means more cost in handling, storage and insurance, which is against
grain of new management approaches like jit and tqm .

Advantages and disadvantages of Absorption Costing & Standard Costing costing

Page 12

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

What are advantages and disadvantages of Absorption costing system?
Advantage of Absorption Costing
1. Absorption costing recognizes fixed costs in product cost. As it is suitable for determining
price of the product. The pricing based on absorption costing ensures that all costs are covered.
2. Absorption costing will show correct profit calculation than Standard Costing costing in a
situation where production is done to have sales in future ( eg. seasonal production and seasonal
sales).
3. Absorption costing conforms to accrual and matching accounting concepts which requires
matching costs with revenue for a particular accounting period.
4. Absorption costing has been recognized for the purpose of preparing external reports and for
stock valuation purposes.
5. Absorption costing avoids the separating of costs into fixed and Standard Costing elements.
6. The allocation and apportionment of fixed factory overheads to cost centers makes manager
more aware and responsible for the cost and services provided to others.

Page 13

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

Disadvantages of Absorption Costing System
1. Absorption costing is not useful for decision making. It considers fixed manufacturing
overhead as product cost which increase the cost of output. As a result, it does not help in
accepting specially offered price for the product. Various types of managerial problems relating
to decision making can be solved only with the help of Standard Costing system.
2. Absorption costing is not helpful in control of cost and planning and control functions. It is not
useful in fixing the responsibility for incurrence of costs. It is not practical to hold a manager
accountable for costs over which he/she has not control.
3. Some current product costs can be removed from the income statement by producing for
inventory. As such, managers who are evaluated on the basis of operating income can
temporarily improve profitability by increasing production.
What are advantages and disadvantages of Standard Costing system?
Companies need absorption costing to prepare statements to satisfy external parties and Standard
Costing for better management. Both the costing methods have benefits and limitations.
Following are the main advantages and disadvantages of Standard Costing system:
Advantage of Standard Costing
1. Standard Costing provides a better understanding of the effect of fixed costs on the net
profits because total fixed cost for the period is shown on the income statement.
2. Various methods of controlling costs such as Standard Costing system and flexible
budgets have close relation with the Standard Costing system. Understanding Standard
Costing system makes the use of those methods easy.
3. Companies using Standard Costing system prepare income statement in contribution
margin format that provides necessary information for cost volume profit (CVP) analysis.
This data cannot be directly obtained from a traditional income statement prepared under
absorption costing system.

Page 14

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

4. The net operating income figure produced by Standard Costing is usually close to the
flow of cash. It is useful for businesses with a problem of cash flows.
Disadvantage of Standard Costing
1. Financial statements prepared under Standard Costing method do not conform to
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The auditors may refuse to accept
them.
2. Tax laws of various countries require the use of absorption costing.
3. Standard Costing does not assign fixed cost to units of products. So the production costs
cannot be truly matched with revenues.
4. Absorption costing is usually the base for evaluating top executives efficiency.

The difference between Standard Costing and absorption costing. How unit product
cost is computed under two methods?
Standard Costing and absorption are two different costing methods. Almost all successful
companies in the world use both the methods. Standard Costing and absorption costing
cannot be substituted for one another because both the systems have their own benefits
and limitations.
These costing approaches are known by various names. For example, Standard Costing is
also known as direct costing or marginal costing and absorption costing is also known as
full costing or traditional costing.
The information provided by Standard Costing method is mostly used by internal
management for decision making purposes. Absorption costing provides information that
is used by internal management as well as by external parties like creditors, government
agencies and auditors etc.
Page 15

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

Page 16

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

Computation of unit product cost under two methods:
Under absorption costing system, the product cost consists of all Standard Costing as well as all
fixed manufacturing costs i.e., direct materials, direct labor and factory overhead (FOH). But
when Standard Costing system is used, the fixed cost (both manufacturing and nonmanufacturing) is treated as a period or capacity cost and therefore is not included in the product
cost.
Following exhibition summarizes the difference between Standard Costing and absorption
costing:
Standard Costing versus absorption costing
Profit Statements under Standard Costing and Absorption Costing:
The net profit shown by Standard Costing and absorption costing techniques may not be the
same due to the different treatment of fixed manufacturing overheads. Standard Costing costing
technique treats fixed manufacturing overheads as period costs, where as in absorption costing
technique these are absorbed into the cost of goods produced and are only charged against profit
in the period in which those goods are sold. In absorption costing income statement, adjustment
pertaining to under or over-absorption of overheads is also made to arrive at the profit.
Terms explained:
Product and Period Costs:
1

Product costs: the costs of manufacturing the products;

Period costs: these are the costs other than product costs that are charged to, debited to, or
written off to the income statement each period.

Page 17

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

A Case Example on Standard Costing and Absorption Costing in Microsoft Excel Sheet 2:
Which Companies using Absorption Costing and Standard Costing? Why?
Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler used absorption costing to make themselves look more
profitable, researchers say. But the practice can be costly, and other companies may want to think
twice before they follow suit.

Why the Big Three Put Too Many Cars on the Lot
Its no secret that in the years leading up to 2008, the Big Three automakers Ford,
General Motors, and Chrysler were producing above market demand. But researchers
say they know why the automakers did it, and they are warning other companies to avoid
the same temptation.
To boost profits and keep up with short-term incentives, the automakers used an
accounting trick, overproducing while absorption costing, according to professors from
Michigan State University who wrote a study on the topic that was recognized this
January for its contribution to accounting by the American Institute of CPAs and other
groups. Ultimately, the practice hurt the automakers, tacking on advertising and inventory
holding costs and possibly causing a decline in brand image, the researchers say.
From 2005 to 2006, long before GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy and appealed for
federal aid, the automakers had abundant excess capacity. They could make more cars
with their resources than consumers were willing to buy. They also had high fixed costs,
including leases on factories and labor contracts that prevented them from laying off
workers when demand was low, says Karen Sedatole, associate professor of accounting at
MSU and a co-author of the study.
To take advantage of these factors, the Big Three produced above market demand while
using absorption costing a technique that allows companies to calculate the cost of
making a product by dividing total costs by the total number of products made, Sedatole

Page 18

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

says. Using this method, the cars the automakers made absorbed all manufacturing
costs, including the cost of paying rent on idle factories.
Because this method considers all fixed costs as part of the cost of goods sold, it gives
companies an incentive to spread that cost among more products to make the cost-perproduct appear lower. If this company has excess capacity, produces all the products it
can, and sells up to demand, its cost of goods sold will be lower than it would if the
company had only produced up to demand. This lower cost boosts profits on the income
statement. Instead of writing off the cost of these idle plants as an expense, companies
shift it to the balance sheet as inventory.
Say fixed costs for a given factory are $100, and that the factory can make 50 cars.
Consumers, however, demand only 10. Under absorption costing, if the company makes
all 50 cars, its cost-per-car is $2. If it makes only up to demand, or 10 cars, the cost-percar is $10. Although each car adds Standard Costing costs for steel and other parts, if
those costs are low, the company still has an incentive to make more cars to keep the
cost-per-car down.
If the company makes all 50 cars but can only sell 10, its cost of goods sold will appear
on its income statement as 10 cars at $2 per car, or $20, plus Standard Costing costs. The
cost of making the other cars will land on the balance sheet as ending inventory.
If, on the other hand, the company makes just 10 cars, its whole overhead cost of $100
will fall on its income statement, raising its cost of goods sold and lowering profits.
Companies that overproduce to avoid the latter scenario are, in a way, managing
earnings upward by trapping costs on the balance sheet as inventory, so they wont hit the
income statement, Sedatole says.
Absorption costing is legal. FASB Statement 151 allows companies to use the practice for
normal excess capacity and to expense abnormal excess capacity. But it doesnt
clearly define whats normal, leaving room for companies to overproduce in order to
lower unit cost.

Page 19

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

But business leaders should think twice before letting this accounting method influence
their production decisions, Sedatole says. Even though they can make their companies
appear more profitable in the short term by concealing excess capacity costs on the
balance sheet, holding so much excess inventory could be costly, she says.
When [the automakers] couldnt sell the cars, they would sit on the lot. Theyd have to
go in and replace the tires, and there were costs associated with that, Sedatole says. The
companies also had to pay to advertise their cars, often at discounted prices. And by
making their cars cheaper and more readily available, they may have turned off potential
customers, she adds.
If you see a $12,000 car in a TV ad is being auctioned off for $6,000 at your local
dealer, that affects your image of that vehicle, says Sedatole. This effect on brand image
is difficult to quantify, but the researchers correlated 1% of rebate with a 2% decline in
appeal in the J.D. Power Automotive Performance Execution and Layout (APEAL)
Index.
The Central Lesson
Some might argue that its good strategy for a company already obligated to pay rent and salaries
on its factories to make products up to its capacity. An economist would say as long as I could
sell the car for more than its Standard Costing cost, Im better off selling it, Sedatole says. But
thats a very, very short-term way of thinking, because it neglects the costs that come with
having a high volume of excess inventory.The central lesson? Companies shouldnt use their
financial-reporting methods to make internal decisions, says Ranjani Krishnan, MSU professor
of accounting and a co-author of the study. The objective of financial accounting is to provide
information for stakeholders that are external to the company, Krishnan says. But that is not
adequate from the perspective of internal decision-makers. Managerial accounting needs to focus
on the best way to provide information that will lead to strategic economic decisions.Using
absorption costing to monitor efficiency can lead companies to make poor production decisions,
Krishnan says. A company that does this could seem to be growing less efficient when demand
decreases. If a factory makes fewer cars this year than last year, for instance, its cost-per-car will
Page 20

Project on Standard Costing V/s Absorption Costing

look higher, and it may then overproduce in order to present itself more favorably to
shareholders, consumers, and analysts. Instead, Krishnan suggests, companies should write off
the cost of excess capacity as an expense on their internal income statements, a practice that may
help give them perspective. Another way to avoid overproduction: companies can change the
way they pay executives. Like many companies, the automakers put their managers under
pressure to deliver in the short term by structuring executive-compensation incentives around
metrics like labor hours-per-vehicle, which the auto industrys Harbour Report uses to compare
companies. With fixed labor hours, the only way to look more efficient under this measure is to
produce more cars.A lot of this behavior was frankly driven by greed, Krishnan says. If you
look at the type of managerial incentives they had during the time of our study, the executive
committee deliberations, it was all about meeting short-term quarterly traffic numbers or meeting
analysts forecasts so that they could get their bonuses.Instead, companies have to look at
performance from a more holistic perspective, and not just look at financial numbers like net
margin or profit, or return on investment, but also at things like customer satisfaction or brand
image, things which may be a little bit more difficult to measure because theyre not as
quantifiable.Sedatole and Krishnan co-authored the study with Alexander Brggen, an associate
professor at Maastricht University in the Netherlands.

Page 21