Alright, alright, let's not get too carried away here. I think the key is that ABC will provide more accurate costing, even if it's a bit more of a hassle to implement. In the long run, the improved decision-making from better cost data makes it worth it.
Haha, yeah, I can just imagine the poor accountants trying to wrangle all the activity drivers and cost pools for ABC. Sounds like a nightmare compared to the good old days of just using direct labor hours!
That's a good point. ABC does require more data collection and analysis, which could make it more costly and time-consuming to set up and maintain. The simpler absorption costing might be preferable in some situations.
But isn't ABC also more complex and resource-intensive to implement? I'm not so sure about the 'easier to administer' and 'cost less' claims in A and D.
I agree with Curt. ABC is designed to be more granular and precise in how it allocates overhead, which should lead to a more accurate cost assignment compared to the broader, volume-based approach of absorption costing.
Hmm, this is a tricky question. I think the correct answer is C - ABC will provide more accurate overhead allocation than absorption costing. The whole point of activity-based costing is to more accurately assign overhead costs to products based on the specific activities and resources they consume.
upvoted 0 times
...
Log in to Pass4Success
Sign in:
Report Comment
Is the comment made by USERNAME spam or abusive?
Commenting
In order to participate in the comments you need to be logged-in.
You can sign-up or
login
Henriette
6 months agoBulah
6 months agoDorthy
7 months agoBulah
7 months agoJennifer
7 months agoJin
7 months agoLindy
7 months agoGladys
7 months agoAlisha
6 months agoElsa
7 months agoKaty
8 months agoFelix
8 months agoEdna
8 months agoRobt
8 months agoAyesha
8 months agoCurt
8 months ago