Skip to main content

Valuing Stocks

The basic rule is that "stocks are valued at the lower of cost or net realisable value." Sometimes I get confused when the scenario is asked in a different way. Here are two scenarios that I want you to attempt:


Value the following items of stock:

  1. Material costing $12,000 bought for processing and assembly for a profitable special order. Since buying these items, the cost price has fallen to $ 10,000.
  2. Equipment constructed for a customer for an agreed price of $ 18,000. This has recently been completed at a cost of $ 16,800. It has now been discovered that, in order to meet certain regulations, conversion with an extra cost $ 4,200 will be required. The customer has accepted partial responsibility and agreed to meet half the extra cost.
What are your answers ? I am sure that you will get it right. Respond as comments on the blog.

Answer 1 : Value of Material is _____

Answer 2: Value of Equipment is _______

Give reasons for your answer..

Regards,

Santosh Puthran
AICWA

Comments

raghu said…
In the first case it is a special order it is assumed the price is fixed then:
$12000 is sunk.The value should be treated as $12000 and cost absorbed in the price fixed.
If the price is yet to be fixed then there is range for absorbtion to $2000 depending on other factors including buyers capacity to bargain in the given condition.
But this is for pricing purpose however accountal will have to be on full sunk cost.
In the second case the incidental cost is $4200 which means the cost of equipment now stands at $21000/-
Customer will pay now $20100/-a loss of $900/-
Anonymous said…
Point 2
It should be valued at $16800+2100 =18900
Because 16800 is cost of equipment and 2100 is accepted liability.
For valuation purpose one should not take selling price(i.e. agreed price).

Reference to point 1,

Raw material is always valued at cost price since it is purchased for own consumption and is not for sale.
( also RM is always valued at moving average price-normally, thus any incerease or decrease in cost gets averaged out)

In case intention is to sell the the raw material then the market rate or cost price whichever is lower as to be selected.

Prashant
Anonymous said…
For Case no.1, the valuation of the stock is on cost basis as it is rawmaterial (here cost cost will be generally at weighted moving average).

For case no.2, the value of the stock would be $16800+$2100(extra cost partial amt)or the market price whichever is lesser, since it is finished good (conservatism principle)

CMA.K.SRIRAM
raghu said…
In the first case the special order is said to be profitable which means the stock is moving.Only thing one should determine is whether the cost of the order should comedown because of reduction of rawmaterial cost by $2000/- in the market.This situation is subjective and negotiable for sustenance.Ideally full cost recovery is a must but the situation demand a reassessment then it should be leveraged upto $2000.
In the second case Incremental cost arose after the project cost is sunk.What the Buyer has agreed to is to share 50% which translates to 2100/- additional revenue but what u incurr is full 4200/- which means the cost equipment remains unchanged (inclusive of increment)again we are not valuing stock here we are valuing Cost of sale which is fully sunk to create an equipment.
Anonymous said…
Amogh Paranjape:

for valuing hte Material as on the balance Sheet Date the valuation should be $10000 Less the Profit of the supplier. Or say at $10000
Reason is - at the date of valuation cost or net realisable price is to be considered. Earlier purhcases cost now is irrrelavent. B/S should reflect its true & Fair view as on the date of it.

Supplier has now quoted hte new sellingprice of Rs. $10000 which includes his profit , therefore in our case when we go for its realisable price profit of the supplier will not be realised.
Anonymous said…
Amogh Paranjape
In second Case the Equipment should be valued at Rs. 16800 being the actual cost price.
earlier aggreed price of 18000 may be including the profit & 16800 may be cost of finished goods.
What is now cost of upgardation in future is not yet spent by the seller. it is therefore irrrelavent.
Santosh Puthran said…
Thanks for so many responses. It has already turned out to be 6 accountants having 7 opinions. The solution that is available from where I picked this problem is as follows:

Solution 1: Value at $12000. $10,000 is irrelevant. The rule is lower of cost or net relisable value. Since the materials will be processed before the sale there is no reason to believe that net realisable value will be below cost.

Solution 2: Value at net realisable value ie. $ 15900, as this is below cost (NRV = contract price of $ 18,000 less the company's share of modification cost, $ 2100)

Popular posts from this blog

Throughput Accounting

Throughput accounting (TA) is an alternative to cost accounting proposed by Eliyahu M. Goldratt. It is not based on Standard Costing or Activity Based Costing (ABC). Throughput Accounting is not costing and it does not allocate costs to products and services. It can be viewed as business intelligence for profit maximization. Conceptually throughput accounting seeks to increase the velocity at which products move through an organization by eliminiating bottlenecks within the organization.


Cost (or Management) accounting is an organization's internal method used to measure efficiency. Since no one outside the organization uses such internal accounts for investment or other decisions, any methods that an organization finds helpful can be used.


Throughput accounting improves profit performance with better management decisions by using measurements that more closely reflect the effect of decisions on three critical monetary variables (throughput, inventory, and operating expense — defin…

Learning Curve Theory

Learning Curve Theory is concerned with the idea that when a new job, process or activity commences for the first time it is likely that the workforce involved will not achieve maximum efficiency immediately. Repetition of the task is likely to make the people more confident and knowledgeable and will eventually result in a more efficient and rapid operation. Eventually the learning process will stop after continually repeating the job. As a consequence the time to complete a task will initially decline and then stabilise once efficient working is achieved. The cumulative average time per unit is assumed to decrease by a constant percentage every time that output doubles. Cumulative average time refers to the average time per unit for all units produced so far, from and including the first one made.

Major areas within management accounting where learning curve theory is likely to have consequences and suggest potential limitations of this theory.


Areas of consequence:
A Standard Costing

Resistence to Change - Approaches of Kotter and Schlesinger

The Six (6) Change Approaches of Kotter and Schlesinger is a model to prevent, decrease or minimize resistance to change in organizations.
According to Kotter and Schlesinger (1979), there are four reasons that certain people are resisting change: Parochial self-interest (some people are concerned with the implication of the change for themselves ad how it may effect their own interests, rather than considering the effects for the success of the business)Misunderstanding(communication problems; inadequate information)Low tolerance to change (certain people are very keen on security and stability in their work)Different assessments of the situation (some employees may disagree on the reasons for the change and on the advantages and disadvantages of the change process) Kotter and Schlesinger set out the following six (6) change approaches to deal with this resistance to change: Education and Communication - Where there is a lack…