Q1. Toyland company Producers a small plastic toy. All direct materials are added at the beginning of the production process. Data for the direct materials used in the manufacture of plastic toys for the month of July is listed below.
Beginning work in process 25,000 units Units started during the period 50,000 units Completed and transferred out 67,500 units Manufacturing costs:
Beginning work in process (direct materials) $35,000 Direct material used $75,000
a. Under the FIFO method, how many units were started and completed with respect to direct materials during the month?
b. Under the FIFO method, what is the cost of the direct materials in ending work in process at the end of the month?
c. Under the FIFO method, what is the amount of direct materials cost transferred out this period?
d. Calculate the direct materials cost per equivalent unit under the weighted average method. (2Marks) CH6
Q2. What process is used to assign costs in an ABC system? Provide numerical example.
Q3. Suppose Ahmad company produces and sells 800 units for SR20. Variable manufacturing cost per unit is SR10. Total fixed manufacturing costs (up to the maximum capacity of 1000 units) are SR3,000. Variable operating cost is SR1 per unit and fixed operating costs total $1000.
A customer placed a special order for 150 units for $15 each. The customer is willing to shoulder the delivery costs. So the business will not incur additional variable operating costs. Does the quantitative and qualitative analysis suggest that the company should accept the special order?
gaging rivals through competitive moves generates a series of temporary advantages that lead to superior performance. There can be dual inferences by this; normative insights claim that making more moves, more complex moves, and more aggressive and faster moves (i.e., sooner) leads to higher performance (Young,Smith, and Grimm, 1996; Grimm, Lee, and Smith, 2006; Ozcan and Eisenhardt, 2009). Whereas other insight suggest that firms are more likely to enact moves if they have knowledge that their competitors are unlikely or unable to respond with impairing countermoves (Gimeno, 1999). In both the cases it is what is of significance is highlight the mechanism by which the capacity to compete is generated and regularly upgraded. It is believed by strategy scholars worldwide that some firms consistently outperform others, and there is some reliable evidence underlying this belief (Rumelt, 1991; McGahan and Porter, 1997). This poses challenges for many economists, who are inclined to assess persistent differences in performance as a function of underlying ‘unobserved heterogeneity’ (Mundlak, 1961; Griliches, 1986). The theoretical base of the paper is derived from three fundamental paradigms of marketing and strategy domain: Market based view of the firm (MBV) and the Resource based view of firm (RBV) and Schumpeterian view of entrepreneurship. MBV implies that firm’s sources of market power explain its relative competitive advantage. However it was researched that market power and market knowledge alone cannot explain firm’s superior advantage. (Caves & Porter 1977; Porter 1980, 1985, 1996; Peteraf & Bergen 2003). Market based view (market orientation) and the resource based view (firm market capabilities) may be strong correlates but cannot on its own explain firm competitive advantage. What the firm needs is the optimum interaction effect of both which has propensity to bestow sustainable competitive advantage to the firms (Bruni and Verona 2009; Cavusgil et al. 2007; Dacko et al. 2008; Fang and Zou 2009; Morgan 2012) have introduced and explained the term ‘dynamic marketing capabilities’ (DMCs) and identified various marketing mechanisms that contribute to sustainable competitive advantage. However in case of highly uncertain environments, the predictive power of even dynamic marketing capabilities on sustaining com>GET ANSWER