4.
Using the downloaded data and spreadsheet
program, load the file titled
“Budget.” Examine the worksheet carefully and locate the following
schedules:
• WPA.6—Budgeted vs. actual income statements for 2009
• Schedule 1—Cost of goods manufactured
• Schedule 2—Operating expenses
Compare with the results of requirement (3). Do any of the variances,
when considered in relation to the results of requirement (3), raise warning
signals? Print the budget.
jawabkan pertanyaan tersebut
Based on the data from the "2009-budget.pdf" which includes:
WPA.6 — Budgeted vs. Actual Income Statements for 2009
Schedule 1 — Cost of Goods Manufactured
Schedule 2 — Operating Expenses
and comparing it with the ratios and figures calculated in requirement (3), here is the analysis:
Comparison of Budgeted vs Actual Results for 2009 (WPA.6)
Actual Budget Variance Variance
Item Notes related to Requirement (3)
($000) ($000) ($000) %
Actual sales lower than budget,
Sales
302,000 335,000 -33,000 -10.93% may impact profitability analysis
Revenue
(Req 3)
Cost of Nearly on budget, consistent with
224,642 227,800 +3,158 +1.39%
Goods Sold overhead % from (3)
Gross Profit Gross profit substantially lower
77,358 107,200 -29,842 -27.85%
on Sales than budget, potential concern
Operating Over budget, consistent with
48,418 45,770 -2,648 -5.79%
Expenses operating expense ratios in (3)
Operating income notably below
Operating
28,940 61,430 -32,490 -52.88% budget, matches negative
Income
operating income % in (3)
Interest
12,800 12,890 +90 +0.70% Actual interest close to budget
Expense
Actual Budget Variance Variance
Item Notes related to Requirement (3)
($000) ($000) ($000) %
Net Income Substantially lower net income vs
16,640 45,762 -29,122 -63.64%
before Taxes budget raising financial concern
Lower net income indicates
Net Income 10,140 32,033 -21,893 -68.34%
strong warning signal
Schedule 1 — Cost of Goods Manufactured
Actual Budget Variance Variance
Item Notes
($000) ($000) ($000) %
Cost of Direct Higher materials cost
94,750 91,050 +3,700 +4.06%
Materials Used affects COGM
Significant unfavorable
Direct Labor Costs 35,600 31,500 +4,100 +13.02%
variance
Manufacturing
103,324 102,600 +724 +0.71% Close to budget
Overhead
Total Manufacturing Generally higher than
233,674 225,150 +8,524 +3.79%
Costs budget
Schedule 2 — Operating Expenses
Operating Expense Actual Budget Variance Variance
Notes
Component ($000) ($000) ($000) %
Slightly over budget,
Selling Expenses 23,070 21,880 +1,190 +5.44%
minor concern
General and
Under budget; positive
Administrative 22,700 26,538 -3,838 -14.46%
variance
Expenses
Overall favorable
Total Operating
45,770 48,418 -2,648 -5.47% variance, but gross profit
Expenses
affected
Warning Signals Based on Variances Compared to Requirement (3)
Sales below budget (-10.93%) strongly affects gross profit and net income negatively.
Gross profit lower by 27.85% than budget signals problems with pricing, volume, or costs.
Direct labor costs 13% above budget could indicate inefficiencies or increased wage rates.
Operating income and net income substantially below budget indicate serious profitability
issues.
Positive variance in operating expenses (under budget) somewhat offsets losses but not
enough.
Overall, the large unfavorable variances in sales and labor cost, combined with falling
profits, should be warning signals triggering further management review and audit focus—
consistent with the concerning ratios from requirement (3).
Printed Budget Summary
The key figures summarized from the budget and actuals provide a clear view:
Category Actual ($000) Budget ($000) Variance ($000) Variance %
Sales Revenue 302,000 335,000 -33,000 -10.93%
Cost of Goods Sold 224,642 227,800 +3,158 +1.39%
Gross Profit 77,358 107,200 -29,842 -27.85%
Operating Expenses 48,418 45,770 -2,648 -5.79%
Operating Income 28,940 61,430 -32,490 -52.88%
Net Income 10,140 32,033 -21,893 -68.34%
If you want, I can prepare a formatted print-ready version of this budget comparison or export it
to a file for your review. Let me know!
⁂
1. 2009-Wheels-4-U.pdf
2. 2009-budget.pdf
3. 2009-analy2.pdf
