HND财政预算报告范本(英文版)(pdf 8页)

HND财政预算报告范本(英文版)(pdf 8页)

更多企业学院：

《中小企业管理全能版》183套讲座+89700份资料《总经理、高层管理》49套讲座+16388份资料《中层管理学院》46套讲座+6020份资料《国学智慧、易经》46套讲座

《人力资源学院》56套讲座+27123份资料《各阶段员工培训学院》77套讲座+ 324份资料《员工管理企业学院》67套讲座+ 8720份资料《工厂生产管理学院》52套讲座+ 13920份资料

《财务管理学院》53套讲座+ 17945份资料

《销售经理学院》56套讲座+ 14350份资料

《销售人员培训学院》72套讲座+ 4879份资料

Introduction

Tricol plc a company who makes a range of furniture and kitchenware. And one of its most popular products is the ‘Zupper’expandable table.

The purpose of writing this report is to do the variance analysis, project evaluation and to compare the budget and actual data by using the technique.

Findings

Part A

Possible Reason for Variances

1. Material

Direct Material – Total - ￡2,400 F made up:

Direct Material Usage –￡20000 F

(Level of significance –usage/total budgeted Material costs = 8,000/64,000 = 12.5% > 3%, should be reviewed)

2000 kg less materials are used than budgeted for the actual level of production. Possible reason may be using the higher-grade material with less wastage. Or the new machinery use less materials and incurs less wstage.

Direct Material Price –￡5,600 A

(5,600/64,000=8.75% >3%)

It is ￡1 per kg more expensive than planned

Possible reason:

New material supplier does not give discounts for materials.

Hither-grade materials have been used which is more expensive.

2. Labour

Direct Labour Total - ￡6,400A

Direct Labour Rate –￡3,520A

(3,520/28,800=12.2%>3%)

On average, the actual labour rate is ￡1/hour higher than budgeted

Possible reason:

The wage settlement is higher than expected

The new machine requires trainings so that overtime required more than expected.

Direct labour Efficiency - ￡2000 A>3%)4.16%

Actually, more than 200 labour hours have been used than budgeted. Possible reason:

New machinery requires more hours for training..

Human resource issues – the skilled operatives is not enough.

3．Total Overhead - ￡600 F

Rate is 4.70%

Unpredicted increase in insurance and Administration costs

Possible reason:

New machinery brings more expensive insurance, higher maintenance and additional administrative costs.

Part B

1. Key assumptions made:

a)There is no taxation and inflation.

b)Assumed that there is no vary given return market rate.

c)The total cost of the project will be payable at the start

d)The expected revenue from the investment – this is the expected Net Cash

Flow after deduction of all relevant costs

2. Payback

Payback in this case is 4.125 years (total investment-return period is five years). So the company can get back the investment.

The Net Present Value is ￡- 64，800. It indicates that the project does not appear to be financially viable.

Conclusion

Part B

This project is available because the payback is 4.125years.

But the Net Present Value (NPV) is negative. So the project is not available. However, we should use the conclusion of the Net Present Value because the Net Present Value (NPV) considered the time value of money. Recommendations

Part A

Recommendations for management action:

1.All the variances should be analysis because all of them are above 3%, the

level of significance.

2.Particularly, the direct labour variances need further investigation – why is

the company paying a higher wage rate but the labour productivity is lower than planned.

Part B

1.To consider the effect of the new facilities on company’s own staff –in