Fluent Essays

Another accounting assignment needa tobe done , Ive attached the files for your reference, please let me know if in case you need any help and other related details. Thanks dear. buacc_5933_standards_of_ethical_conduct_for_management__accountants.docx ford_pinto_product_defect_costs.docx _buacc5933_sem1_2020___assignment_partners_.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview APPENDIX PREVIEW Management accountants have an obligation to the organizations they serve, their profession, the public, and themselves to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct. In recognition of this obligation, the Institute of Management Accountants has published and promoted the following standards of ethical conduct for management accountants. IMA State ment of Ethical Professional Practice Members of IMA shall behave ethically. A commitment to ethical professional practice includes: overarching principles that express our values, and standards that guide our conduct. Principles IMA’s overarching ethical principles include: Honesty, Fairness, Objectivity, and Responsibility. Members shall act in accordance with these principles and shall encourage others within their organizations to adhere to them. Standards A member’s failure to comply with the following standards may result in disciplinary action. I. COMPETENCE Each member has a responsibility to: 1. Maintain an appropriate level of professional expertise by continually devel-oping knowledge and skills. 2. Perform professional duties in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and technical standards. 3. Provide decision support information and recommendations that are accurate, clear, concise, and timely. 4. Recognize and communicate professional limitations or other constraints that would preclude responsible judgment or successful performance of an activity. II. CONFIDENTIALITY Each member has a responsibility to: 1. Keep information confi dential except when disclosure is authorized or legally required. 2. Inform all relevant parties regarding appropriate use of confi dential informa-tion. Monitor subordinates’ activities to ensure compliance. 3. Refrain from using confi dential information for unethical or illegal advantage. Weygandt, J. J., Kimmel, P. D., & Kieso, D. E. (2014). Managerial accounting : Tools for business decision making, 7th edition. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com 19:19:51. B-2 Appendix B Standards of Ethical Conduct for Management Accountants B-1 Created from ballarat on 2020-04-23 III. INTEGRITY Each member has a responsibility to: 1. Mitigate actual confl icts of interest, regularly communicate with business associates to avoid apparent confl icts of interest. Advise all parties of any potential confl icts. 2. Refrain from engaging in any conduct that would prejudice carrying out duties ethically. 3. Abstain from engaging in or supporting any activity that might discredit the profession. IV. CREDIBILITY Each member has a responsibility to: 1. Communicate information fairly and objectively. 2. Disclose all relevant information that could reasonably be expected to infl u-ence an intended user’s understanding of the reports, analyses, or recommendations. 3. Disclose delays or defi ciencies in information, timeliness, processing, or internal controls in conformance with organization policy and/or applicable law. Resolution of Ethical Confl ict In applying the Standards of Ethical Professional Practice, you may encounter problems identifying unethical behavior or resolving an ethical confl ict. When faced with ethical issues, you should follow your organization’s established policies on the resolution of such confl ict. If these policies do not resolve the ethical confl ict, you should consider the following courses of action: 1. Discuss the issue with your immediate supervisor except when it appears that the supervisor is involved. In that case, present the issue to the next level. If you cannot achieve a satisfactory resolution, submit the issue to the next management level. If your immediate superior is the chief executive offi cer or equivalent, the acceptable reviewing authority may be a group such as the audit committee, executive committee, board of directors, board of trustees, or owners. Contact with levels above the immediate superior should be initiated only with your superior’s knowledge, assuming he or she is not involved. Communication of such problems to authorities or individuals not employed or engaged by the organization is not considered appropriate, unless you believe there is a clear violation of the law. 2. Clarify relevant ethical issues by initiating a confi dential discussion with an IMA Ethics Counselor or other impartial advisor to obtain a better understanding of possible courses of action. 3. Consult your own attorney as to legal obligations and rights concerning the ethical confl ict. Source: Institute of Management Accountants. Reprinted by permission. Go to www.imanet.org/ about_ima/our_mission.aspx to learn more about the IMA’s commitment to ethical professional practices and its available resources, including an Ethics Helpline. Weygandt, J. J., Kimmel, P. D., & Kieso, D. E. (2014). Managerial accounting : Tools for business decision making, 7th edition. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from ballarat on 2020-04-23 19:20:35. 1971-1980 Ford Pinto BY THE AUTO EDITORS OF CONSUMER GUIDE The Pinto Fire Controversy PREV NEXT One of the biggest continuing automotive news stories in the latter part of the Seventies dealt with tales of exploding Ford Pintos and the considerable awards civil-court juries were presenting to victims of accidents involving the cars. Was the Pinto fire controversy a lot of hype, or had Ford truly discounted human lives in order to save a few dollars? As early as 1972, reports of explosions in low-speed collisions involving Pintos struck from the rear started to come in to the National Highway Safety and Transportation Administration. Accident investigations in many of the cases revealed that victims had few, if any, trauma injuries as a result of the impacts, but had burned to death when the cars exploded into flames. Some had been trapped inside the cars due to the body buckling and doors becoming jammed shut. By the 1973 model year, Ford may have already known the Pinto was a fire hazard. Fire safety had been a major concern at Ford since the mid S ixties. Arjay Miller, then company president, had been involved in a fiery crash while driving his new 1965 Lincoln C ontinental. When traffic slowed unexpectedly, he was rear-ended by another car. The fuel tank started to leak and a spark sent the rear of the luxury car up in flames. Fortunately, the drivers door wasnt damaged and Miller was able to get out relatively unscathed. He went on a crusade for safer fuel tanks, and worked with several suppliers for systems that would contain highly flammable gasoline and give motorists a wider margin of safety. He even testified before Congress about the importance Ford Motor Company placed on the matter. What went wrong with the Pinto, then? Records indicated that Ford had first conducted rear-end collision tests on the Pinto in December 1970, months after it was already in production. Initially, 11 carefully coordinated crashes were conducted, and in all but three of them, gas tanks ruptured and often burst into flames. In the three tests that didnt result in fires, the cars had prototype safety devices that engineers had developed while working with suppliers. Most effective was the use of a rubber bladder/liner produced by the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. Despite rupturing the exterior of the tank, no fuel was spilled, and no fire resulted. It was estimated that the unit cost of bladders would have amounted to $5.08 per car. The second method that had been employed was an extra steel plate attached to the rear of the car just behind the bumper, isolating the tank from direct contact during impact. It successfully warded off a blow at 30 mph, helping to keep the tank intact. No company cost analysis was done at the time, but experts felt that this part could have cost up to $11 per car to install. Engineers found that the majority of the ruptures were caused by two factors: 1) the filler neck breaking off and allowing fuel to pour out, where it could be exposed to an ignition source; and 2) the tank being penetrated by contact with the differential mounting bolts and right shock absorber. This is where a third successful fix had been devised -- a rather simple plastic insulator fitted on the differential that would keep the bolts from ever making contact with the fuel tank. Cost of this item was less than $1. Several company memos presented as evidence during the civil trials revealed that these remedies were discussed, with the conclusion that to shut down production and retool would be too expensive. Most damaging to Ford were memos found and published by author/researcher Mark Dowie in the muckraking magazine Mother Jones that detailed a cost analysis of corporate liability in the event of having to compensate crash victims. Experts calculated the value of a human life at around $200,000, while a serious burn injury was worth about $67,000. Using an estimate of 180 deaths and 180 serious burns, someone put on paper that the cost to redesign and rework the Pintos gas tank would cost close to $137 million, while possible liability costs worked out to around $49 million. Comparisons were drawn up between the Pinto and the imported Capri that was being sold by Lincoln-Mercury dealers. Both cars were of similar size and construction, but everyone agreed that the Capris fuel tank was in a much safer location: up and away from the rear bumper, and less vulnerable in a rear-end collision. Ford engineers argued that to place the tank any higher up in the Pinto would rob the trunk of already meager storage space, and that even a set of golf clubs would have a hard time being squeezed into the leftover space. Ultimately, 27 people were determined to have been killed in rear-end-crash explosions involving Pintos. In one of the few cases brought to trial, a California jury awarded a boy who had been severely burned and disfigured a total of $126 million. The driver of the car had died from her injuries a few days after the accident. When the memos regarding the liability assessments were entered into evidence, the case was as good as over. Even after a judge reduced the amount to $3.5 million on appeal, this was far more than the company had ever counted on paying. It was a real wake-up call for Ford, whose legal teams went to work to try and settle as many of the pending cases as possible out of court. Matters were to get even more serious for the company. In 1978, Elkhart County, Indiana, Prosecutor Michael Cosentino called for a grand jury hearing in the case of three girls who had died in a Pinto collision fire. As a result of the grand jury findings, he filed criminal charges of negligent homicide against officials of the Ford Motor Company. Once again, Fords corporate legal machine went to work. It was found that the accident had occurred on a stretch of road that was notorious for being dangerous. Then, too, the driver of the speeding van that rear-ended the Pinto was in possession of alcohol and drugs, which were deemed to have contributed more to the accident than anything else. Ultimately, the trial judge had to dismiss the criminal charges. However, this was another stern warning not only to Ford, but to all of American industry regarding its responsibility for product safety. Finally, in September 1978, Ford issued a recall for 1.5 million 1971-76 Pinto sedans and Runabouts, plus all similar 1975-76 Mercury Bobcats, for a safety repair. Each car received a new fuel-tank filler neck that extended deeper into the tank and was more resistant to breaking off in a rear-end collision. A plastic shield was installed between the differential and the tank, as well as another to deflect contact with the right-rear shock absorber. (While not totally immune from the hazards of rear-end collisions, station wagons -- with their 10 extra inches of rear-end sheetmetal and different configuration for the fuel filler -- were deemed far safer, and were not a part of the recall notice.) Reflecting on the Pinto incident and Fords attempts to control the damage at the risk of its public image, former Ford exec Lee Iacocca made this summation in his book Talking Straight: Clamming up is what we did at Ford in the late 70s when we were bombarded with suits over the Pinto, which was involved in a lot of gas tank fires. The suits might have bankrupted the company, so we kept our mouths shut for fear of saying anything that just one jury might have construed as an admission of guilt. Winning in court was our top priority; nothing else mattered. And of course, our silence added to all the suspicions people had about us and the car. Source: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1980-ford-pinto12.htm BUACC 5933 COST AND MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING Semester 1, 2020 GROUP ASSIGNMENT Week 10, Sunday 31st May at 5:00 PM DUE DATE AND TIME: (Online group submission through Moodle) PERCENTAGE OF FINAL GRADE: 25\% (25 marks) of your total marks for this unit. Assignment Description / Requirements • • • • This is a group assignment. Each group must be completed in a group of 2 to 3 members. It is the students’ responsibility to form/ join a group and to ensure that the group dynamics work. Please make sure that names and ID numbers of all group members are stated on the cover sheet of your submission. The assignment has three parts. The assignment requires development of a model using a spreadsheet and a word document. Both excel spreadsheet and word document have to be submitted to the assignment folder. Students must fully reference the source(s) of all materials, even if you have reexpressed the ideas, facts or descriptions; acknowledge all direct quotations; and not submit their work that has been researched and written by another person. Plagiarism is heavily penalised. Please monitor Moodle regularly for any further instructions or announcements. Submission Instruction: This assignment is to be submitted online only. (You are not required to submit a hard copy) The completed assignment must be submitted into the allocated area, Assignment Dropbox, on Moodle on or before the due date. Only one submission per group is required. i.e. only one student submits on behalf of all other group members. When you are required to submit an assignment through your Moodle Unit site, you will receive an email to your Federation email address confirming that it has been submitted. Once submitted you cannot take your assignment back but you can submit another version. The most recent version submitted will be marked. Page 1 of 5 You must keep a backup copy of every assignment you submit, until the marked assignment has been returned to you. In the unlikely event that one of your assignments is misplaced, you will need to submit your backup copy. Any work you submit may be checked by electronic or other means for the purposes of detecting collusion and/or plagiarism. Marking, Dispute Resolution and Free Riders: The marking will be done for the group as a whole not on individual basis. Each group member is awarded the same mark. Working in groups has its pros and cons. It is beneficial that you can learn a lot by discussing the issues with your fellow students. Invariably different group members bring different skills to a project; it is up to you to make the best of it. If you find your group members are “not pulling their weight” or there are problems with any member’s commitment, please try to resolve those issues amongst yourselves. Open and honest communication always helps. If you are unable to resolve these issues, you are most welcome to see your lecturer and tutor. We will try to sort out the problems together. Do this as soon as possible and certainly before the due date. In case of any dispute among the group members or if there are any free riders identified in the group, members should report to your lecturer in writing. Assessment Feedback: Students who submit their work by the due date will receive their marks and feedback on Moodle within 15 working days of the assignment submission due date. Notes: • There is a discussion area on Moodle titled ‘Assignment discussion Forum’. This area is for you to discuss the assignment. It is an area for students to help each other. • The assignment is to comply with the University’s General Guide to Writing and Study Skills, General Guide to Referencing, and Assignment Layout and Appearance Guidelines, via the links below: https://federation.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/190044/General-Guide-toWritingand-Study-Skills.pdf https://federation.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/313328/FedUni-General-GuidetoReferencing-2016ed.pdf https://federation.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/190043/General-Guide-toLayoutand-Appearance.pdf • Penalties for late submission: The marking penalties will apply if you submit an assessment task after the due date without an approved extension: 5\% will be deducted from available marks for each calendar day up to five days, and work that is submitted Page 2 of 5 more than five days after the due date will not be marked. Requests for extension of time must be made with the lecturer concerned and based on Special Consideration guidelines. For further information on Discretionary Assessment Extensions and Special Consideration, including access to the policy, procedures or associated forms, see http://federation.edu.au/current-students/essentialinfo/administration/specialconsideration • Plagiarism and collusion are forms of cheating and are considered a serious academic misconduct, and severe penalties are associated with them. Please refer to the university policy for more information. https://federation.edu.au/current-students/assistancesupport-and-services/studentsupport-services/student-advisoryservice/misconduct/accused-of-plagiarism-ormisconduct • Turnitin: Students are strongly recommended to check originality through Turnitin, prior to submitting the final assessment. For more information about Turnitin and how to check for originality, refer to the following useful links: https://fedflix.federation.edu.au/media/Uploading+to+Turnitin/0_irjuaw8p/74540772 https://federation.edu.au/current-students/learning-and-study/online-helpwith/plagiarism https://moodle.federation.edu.au/course/view.php?id=64539 Assignment This assignment has three parts. Part A: Button Pty Ltd manufactures two types of children’s beds. The two products are Serta and Tempur. Button company, who currently use a conventional costing system, applies manufacturing overhead to all units at the rate of $90 per machine hour. Production information is as follows: Serta $40 $35 15,000 Direct material cost Direct labour cost Budget volume (units) Tempur $65 $35 30,000 The management accountant at Button company has determined that the firm’s overhead can be classified into three main activities: manufacturing machine setups, machine processing and product shipping. Information on the three cost drivers respectively is as follows: Setups Machine hours Outgoing shipments Serta 100 25,000 250 Page 3 of 5 Tempur 60 45,000 150 Total 160 70,000 400 Button Ltd has total overhead of $6,300,000 and has been categorised as follows: Manufacturing setups $1,344,000 Machine processing $3,556,000 Product shipping $1,400,000 Required: 1. Calculate the unit manufacturing cost of the Serta and the Tempu beds using the company’s current overhead costing procedures. 2. Calculate the unit manufacturing cost of the Serta and the Tempu using activity-based costing. Show your calculations using a simple Excel spreadsheet. 3. Is the cost of the Tempu bed distorted by the use of machine hours to allocate total manufacturing overhead to production, and, if so by how much per unit? 4. Assume that the current selling price of the Tempu bed is $280 and the marketing director has proposed to offer a $30 discount to increase sales. Is the discount ... Purchase answer to see full attachment