Saturday, January 30, 2010

Marginal Costing versus Absorption Costing

After knowing the two techniques of marginal costing and absorption costing, we have seen that the net profits are not the same because of the following reasons:

1. Over and Under Absorbed Overheads
In absorption costing, fixed overheads can never be absorbed exactly because of difficulty in forecasting costs and volume of output. If these balances of under or over absorbed/recovery are not written off to costing profit and loss account, the actual amount incurred is not shown in it. In marginal costing, however, the actual fixed overhead incurred is wholly charged against contribution and hence, there will be some difference in net profits.
2. Difference in Stock Valuation
In marginal costing, work in progress and finished stocks are valued at marginal cost, but in absorption costing, they are valued at total production cost. Hence, profit will differ as different amounts of fixed overheads are considered in two accounts.
The profit difference due to difference in stock valuation is summarized as follows:
  1. When there is no opening and closing stocks, there will be no difference in profit.
  2. When opening and closing stocks are same, there will be no difference in profit, provided the fixed cost element in opening and closing stocks are of the same amount.
  3. When closing stock is more than opening stock, the profit under absorption costing will be higher as comparatively a greater portion of fixed cost is included in closing stock and carried over to next period.
  4. When closing stock is less than opening stock, the profit under absorption costing will be less as comparatively a higher amount of fixed cost contained in opening stock is debited during the current period.

1 comment:

  1. Hi

    I read this post 2 times. It is very useful.

    Pls try to keep posting.

    Let me show other source that may be good for community.

    Source: Performance appraisal techniques

    Best regards