Question

M. K. Gallant is president of Kranbrack Corporation, a company whose stock is traded on a national exchange. In a meeting with investment analysts at the beginning of the year, Gallant had predicted that the company’s earnings would grow by 20% this year. Unfortunately, sales have been less than expected for the year, and Gallant concluded within two weeks of the end of the fiscal year that it would be impossible to report an increase in earnings as large as predicted unless some drastic action was taken. Accordingly, Gallant has ordered that wherever possible, expenditures should be postponed to the new year—including canceling or postponing orders with suppliers, delaying planned maintenance and training, and cutting back on end-of-year advertising and travel. Additionally, Gallant ordered the company’s controller to carefully scrutinize all costs that are currently classified as period costs and reclassify as many as possible as product costs. The company is expected to have substantial inventories at the end of the year.

Required:

1. Why would reclassifying period costs as product costs increase this period’s reported earnings?

2. Do you believe Gallant’s actions are ethical? Why or why not?

Answer 1

1. A cost that is classified as a period cost will be recognized on the income statement as an expense in the current period. A cost that is classified as a product cost will be recognized on the income statement as an expense (i.e., cost of goods sold) only when the associated units of product are sold. If some units are unsold at the end of the period, the costs of those unsold units are treated as assets. Therefore, by reclassifying period costs as product costs, the company is able to carry some costs forward in inventories that would have been treated as current expenses.

2. The discussion below is divided into two parts—Gallant’s actions to postpone expenditures and the actions to reclassify period costs as product costs.

The decision to postpone expenditures is questionable. It is one thing to postpone expenditures due to a cash bind; it is quite another to postpone expenditures in order to hit a profit target. Postponing these expenditures may have the effect of ultimately increasing future costs and reducing future profits. If orders to the company’s suppliers are changed, it may disrupt the suppliers’ operations. The additional costs may be passed on to Gallant’s company and may create ill will and a feeling of mistrust. Postponing maintenance on equipment is particularly questionable. The result may be breakdowns, inefficient and/or unsafe operations, and a shortened life for the machinery.

Gallant’s decision to reclassify period costs is not ethical—assuming that there is no intention of disclosing in the financial reports this reclassification. Such a reclassification would be a violation of the principle of consistency in financial reporting and is a clear attempt to mislead readers of the financial reports. Although some may argue that the overall effect of Gallant’s action will be a “wash”—that is, profits gained in this period will simply be taken from the next period—the trend of earnings will be affected. Hopefully, the auditors would discover any such attempt to manipulate annual earnings and would refuse to issue an unqualified opinion due to the lack of consistency. However, recent accounting scandals may lead to some skepticism about how forceful auditors have been in enforcing tight accounting standards

1. A cost that is classified as a period cost will be recognized on the income statement as an expense in the current period. A cost that is classified as a product cost will be recognized on the income statement as an expense (i.e., cost of goods sold) only when the associated units of product are sold. If some units are unsold at the end of the period, the costs of those unsold units are treated as assets. Therefore, by reclassifying period costs as product costs, the company is able to carry some costs forward in inventories that would have been treated as current expenses.

2. The discussion below is divided into two parts—Gallant’s actions to postpone expenditures and the actions to reclassify period costs as product costs.

The decision to postpone expenditures is questionable. It is one thing to postpone expenditures due to a cash bind; it is quite another to postpone expenditures in order to hit a profit target. Postponing these expenditures may have the effect of ultimately increasing future costs and reducing future profits. If orders to the company’s suppliers are changed, it may disrupt the suppliers’ operations. The additional costs may be passed on to Gallant’s company and may create ill will and a feeling of mistrust. Postponing maintenance on equipment is particularly questionable. The result may be breakdowns, inefficient and/or unsafe operations, and a shortened life for the machinery.

Gallant’s decision to reclassify period costs is not ethical—assuming that there is no intention of disclosing in the financial reports this reclassification. Such a reclassification would be a violation of the principle of consistency in financial reporting and is a clear attempt to mislead readers of the financial reports. Although some may argue that the overall effect of Gallant’s action will be a “wash”—that is, profits gained in this period will simply be taken from the next period—the trend of earnings will be affected. Hopefully, the auditors would discover any such attempt to manipulate annual earnings and would refuse to issue an unqualified opinion due to the lack of consistency. However, recent accounting scandals may lead to some skepticism about how forceful auditors have been in enforcing tight accounting standards