Pcr
Comments
-
:001_unsure:It never actually said to do the production statment using the marginal way so i was confused about that because it said show contribution...i just did it the same way as on paper as it never technically said which way you had to do it0
-
Howdid you get the contribution figure?0
-
:001_unsure:It never actually said to do the production statment using the marginal way so i was confused about that because it said show contribution...i just did it the same way as on paper as it never technically said which way you had to do it
did you show the contribution though? If not, do you think we will lose loads of marks for not doing it that way?0 -
Contribution is a marginal costing term, as it's a contribution towards payment of fixed costs. Under absorption costing, fixed costs are absorbed into costs of production.0
-
i dont think we will lose a major amount of marks...i hope not anyway but sounds like a few ppl have dont it like us...just ave to not think about it.0
-
i no its a marginal costing term but compared to previous years papers the wording was crap0
-
Most of mine were too. I panicked at first but when i wrote report i sort of bundled all the material into one because it was really the same thing and ended up with probably an average length report for this type of questionActually scrap that ... I had 1,960 up until the Contribution bit. Then I thought I better add the fixed costs at the bottom and I'm pretty sure I had £1,945 adverse for profit as well.
For the actual Energy variable cost what did everyone get? Did you just do 60,000 * £18? Which gave you the same as budget but then you had a 30k variance on the fixed part?
I'm sure I had 1,990 up until the contribution as i kept my fixed cost the same for the energy which meant the variable changed to 18.50. Did anyone else do this? :huh:0 -
It was sneaky just mentioning contribution n not being a bit more explicit0
-
i kept the fixed costs the same, not sure what the cost per unit but we prob dod the same thing. i just couldn't see any other way0
-
Oliver1987 wrote: »I did it this way and also came to the same result.i dont think we will lose a major amount of marks...i hope not anyway but sounds like a few ppl have dont it like us...just ave to not think about it.
I did it the same as you too, just got confused about it so thought i'd just leave it out instead of messing it all up, lol0 -
I spend so long on Task 1.1 ... think I was 45 minutes or so before I finished that. I got to the end of it and then realised I hadn't done anything with opening and closing stock on the purchases budget so changed that and most the answers after than needed changing too!
Antoher question that I was a little confused with was the overtime, it said apportion overtime on the basis of average hourly rate ... what did everyone else take this to mean?
I took the total labour cost which was 1400 hours @ 8 + 495 hours @ 12 = 17140 and divided it by the number of hours 17140 / 1895 = 9.05 (rounded up to nearest penny).
Then when doing the total cost of production for each of the cartons I multiplied that by the number of hours I had calculated previously so I had something like ...
Labour
250ml = 1263 * 9.05 = 11431
500ml = 632 * 9.05 = 5720
Which is a total of 17151 .... £11 different due to rounding.
Anyone else do something similar to that?0 -
:huh:Hi
Yes I asumed it was his order already in and therefore all he could get.
I agree that if you did this then the revised plan could not be met by materials or labour.
I agree with everyone that it was porrly worded and not clear what you were been told or asked to do.
Considering it's technician and therefore complex enough with number crunching I don;t think we all need that added confusion. Afterall AAT are big on work place simulation well at work we know what we are aksed and expected to do.
Maybe both answers will be acceptable since we seem 50/50 and wording was bad.
What did you all think to the labout at average hourly rate... myself and my mates went blank.
I really should be revising PTC for tomorrow!0 -
I spend so long on Task 1.1 ... think I was 45 minutes or so before I finished that. I got to the end of it and then realised I hadn't done anything with opening and closing stock on the purchases budget so changed that and most the answers after than needed changing too!
Antoher question that I was a little confused with was the overtime, it said apportion overtime on the basis of average hourly rate ... what did everyone else take this to mean?
I took the total labour cost which was 1400 hours @ 8 + 495 hours @ 12 = 17140 and divided it by the number of hours 17140 / 1895 = 9.05 (rounded up to nearest penny).
Then when doing the total cost of production for each of the cartons I multiplied that by the number of hours I had calculated previously so I had something like ...
Labour
250ml = 1263 * 9.05 = 11431
500ml = 632 * 9.05 = 5720
Which is a total of 17151 .... £11 different due to rounding.
Anyone else do something similar to that?
I didn't do that but it could be right. i didn't have a clue n think i wasted a good five minutes just looking at that sentence. :mad2:0 -
I spend so long on Task 1.1 ... think I was 45 minutes or so before I finished that. I got to the end of it and then realised I hadn't done anything with opening and closing stock on the purchases budget so changed that and most the answers after than needed changing too!
Antoher question that I was a little confused with was the overtime, it said apportion overtime on the basis of average hourly rate ... what did everyone else take this to mean?
I took the total labour cost which was 1400 hours @ 8 + 495 hours @ 12 = 17140 and divided it by the number of hours 17140 / 1895 = 9.05 (rounded up to nearest penny).
Then when doing the total cost of production for each of the cartons I multiplied that by the number of hours I had calculated previously so I had something like ...
Labour
250ml = 1263 * 9.05 = 11431
500ml = 632 * 9.05 = 5720
Which is a total of 17151 .... £11 different due to rounding.
Anyone else do something similar to that?
I read it as to charge them at the average hourly rate which would £10.00 (£8 normal & £12 Otime) So did:
1263*10
632*10
but this gave me a higher figure so this was maybe wrong?0 -
I also did a similar thing with the labour. It seemed like the most appropriate thing to do.
The wording really was awful throughout the paper.0 -
On the 1st section when did everyone convert the materials from Square Cm's to Square Metres? I did part (b) with the wasteage included and everything, and then part (c) said 'what is the production in square metres' so i just multiplied my part (b) answer by 10,000. Anyone else do something similar?0
-
pcr
Hi, I had same figures for labour, but panicked with the cost of production and just put total figures in for materials labour and overheads, I know this isnt what they asked for but I couldnt get my head round splitting it all out. Thought the paper was ok after PEV on Monday.:thumbup1:0 -
I assumed that because the requirement to produce a flexed budget said "produce a flexed budget for actual turnover" rather than "actual volume; then the flexed budget turnover should be for the new rather than the original sale price. Did anyone else think that?0
-
On the 1st section when did everyone convert the materials from Square Cm's to Square Metres? I did part (b) with the wasteage included and everything, and then part (c) said 'what is the production in square metres' so i just multiplied my part (b) answer by 10,000. Anyone else do something similar?
In part B after wastage and opening/closing stock I left it in cm2.
In part C I divided my answer to B by 10,000.0 -
On the 1st section when did everyone convert the materials from Square Cm's to Square Metres? I did part (b) with the wasteage included and everything, and then part (c) said 'what is the production in square metres' so i just multiplied my part (b) answer by 10,000. Anyone else do something similar?
yeah, but divided answers by 10,0000 -
I di that and got same variance as you.... then went on to waffle wondefully about the beauty of the variances!!
I am looking forward to a serious latge glass of wine after PTC tomorrow!!0 -
accountschic wrote: »:huh:Hi
Yes I asumed it was his order already in and therefore all he could get.
I agree that if you did this then the revised plan could not be met by materials or labour.
I agree with everyone that it was porrly worded and not clear what you were been told or asked to do.
Considering it's technician and therefore complex enough with number crunching I don;t think we all need that added confusion. Afterall AAT are big on work place simulation well at work we know what we are aksed and expected to do.
Maybe both answers will be acceptable since we seem 50/50 and wording was bad.
What did you all think to the labout at average hourly rate... myself and my mates went blank.
I really should be revising PTC for tomorrow!
I did the same as you and came to the conclusion that both materials and labour were limiting factors, but I forgot to take into account the opening stock of materials. With that added to the 1,500metres was it still limited by material? I can't honestly remember what the figures were!
Just have to hope I got follow through marks and can still pass....0 -
I converted sq cms to sq metres, then:
Total sq mtres
Less opening stock
add closing stock
then the wastage
I think that mite have been an error on my part, did anyone else do the same or have i fluffed it badly!!! hope not cos I thought the paper was generally ok.0 -
What did everyone put for the question ... advise whether the change in selling price was beneficial?0
-
I divided also.. am really confused.0
-
Cortez, I had exactly the same fgures as you :001_smile:0
-
i said it wasnt beneficial cos they had budgeted the selling price at 300 and it was actually 275..is this wrong?0
-
I converted sq cms to sq metres, then:
Total sq mtres
Less opening stock
add closing stock
then the wastage
I think that mite have been an error on my part, did anyone else do the same or have i fluffed it badly!!! hope not cos I thought the paper was generally ok.
I did it differently to that I think.
For material usage budget I had:
Material required for production budget
Add wastage
= Total material required
Then for purchases budget I had:
Total material required
Less opening stock
Add closing stock
= Total material to purchase
Not sure whether that's right or not though.0 -
I said no but could be if costs were lower for customer loyalty reasons, bigger share of market etc. probably all nonsense!What did everyone put for the question ... advise whether the change in selling price was beneficial?
I'm now scared that its all wrong tho cos it said turnover not production volume!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.2K Books to buy and sell
- 2.3K General discussion
- 12.5K For AAT students
- 328 NEW! Qualifications 2022
- 161 General Qualifications 2022 discussion
- 11 AAT Level 2 Certificate in Accounting
- 57 AAT Level 3 Diploma in Accounting
- 95 AAT Level 4 Diploma in Professional Accounting
- 8.9K For accounting professionals
- 23 coronavirus (Covid-19)
- 273 VAT
- 92 Software
- 275 Tax
- 138 Bookkeeping
- 7.2K General accounting discussion
- 203 AAT member discussion
- 3.8K For everyone
- 38 AAT news and announcements
- 345 Feedback for AAT
- 2.8K Chat and off-topic discussion
- 584 Job postings
- 16 Who can benefit from AAT?
- 36 Where can AAT take me?
- 42 Getting started with AAT
- 26 Finding an AAT training provider
- 48 Distance learning and other ways to study AAT
- 25 Apprenticeships
- 66 AAT membership