Phew! ECR done

16791112

Comments

  • *Jo
    *Jo Registered Posts: 509 Epic contributor 🐘
    Mog17 wrote: »
    We good!!!! Must say if you did the same as me taking the variable bit of semi-variable out before calculating absorption rates that was wrong. I checked and same came up last june - not meant to take it out. Poo. But hey, only 2 questions wrong there and will still get marks for principle on calculations even if the rates were wrong. Wine is good but really gone to my head!!!!!

    I can't properly remember but i think out of the 90,000 i took fixed costs of 30,000 out and allocated these and then did the apportioning with the variable.
  • mrspnut
    mrspnut Registered Posts: 70 Regular contributor ⭐
    Vidya_r wrote: »
    Of wht I remember:
    FIFO as it increases stock valuation in times of rising costs...

    Break even I calculated by using the PV ratio(5/8 = 0.625)...
    so break even sales revenue= 312500/.625= £500,000

    Margin of safety in terms of sales revenue= 875,000-500,000 = £375,000

    Margin of safety as %= (375,000/875,000) x 100 = 42.86%

    Graph 1 : semi variable cost

    Graph 2: Stepped fixed cost

    Normal loss = 12 tonne abnormal loss= 28tonne

    expected output = 388 tonnes

    Cost of unit output : (73960-240) / 388 = £ 190

    In the process account Dr side = 73960

    Cr Side
    Normal loss = 240
    Abnormal loss 28 x 190 = 5320
    Finished output 360 x 190 = 68400
    Total =73960

    Pay back period: 2.125 yr ~2yrs 2 months

    NPV IN £000 = 39.72

    Same here, so either we're both right or we made the same mistakes. :001_smile:
  • jozz73
    jozz73 Registered Posts: 5 New contributor 🐸
    Vidya_r wrote: »
    Of wht I remember:
    FIFO as it increases stock valuation in times of rising costs...

    Break even I calculated by using the PV ratio(5/8 = 0.625)...
    so break even sales revenue= 312500/.625= £500,000

    Margin of safety in terms of sales revenue= 875,000-500,000 = £375,000

    Margin of safety as %= (375,000/875,000) x 100 = 42.86%

    Graph 1 : semi variable cost

    Graph 2: Stepped fixed cost

    Normal loss = 12 tonne abnormal loss= 28tonne

    expected output = 388 tonnes

    Cost of unit output : (73960-240) / 388 = £ 190

    In the process account Dr side = 73960

    Cr Side
    Normal loss = 240
    Abnormal loss 28 x 190 = 5320
    Finished output 360 x 190 = 68400
    Total =73960

    Pay back period: 2.125 yr ~2yrs 2 months

    NPV IN £000 = 39.72


    this is what i got also:001_smile:
  • pirate
    pirate Registered Posts: 469 Dedicated contributor 🦉
    Andypandy wrote: »
    Did anyone else get £500,000 for break-even , with a MOS of £375000 - 42. something%?
    Yes I got 42%
    I did 375000/875000 to get the % margin of safety
  • Mog17
    Mog17 Registered Posts: 91 Regular contributor ⭐
    *Jo wrote: »
    I can't properly remember but i think out of the 90,000 i took fixed costs of 30,000 out and allocated these and then did the apportioning with the variable.

    Oh I i did all that too - not worried about the allocation/apportionment bit. It was the next question where you had to do the absorption rate that I messed up. I took the variable part out of the total overheads figure before calculating the rate. Which apparently isn't right. darn it.
  • Andypandy
    Andypandy Registered Posts: 526 Epic contributor 🐘
    Did anyone notice if the paper said how many marks each question was worth?
  • Mog17
    Mog17 Registered Posts: 91 Regular contributor ⭐
    no....
  • *Jo
    *Jo Registered Posts: 509 Epic contributor 🐘
    Mog17 wrote: »
    Oh I i did all that too - not worried about the allocation/apportionment bit. It was the next question where you had to do the absorption rate that I messed up. I took the variable part out of the total overheads figure before calculating the rate. Which apparently isn't right. darn it.

    Oh dear, no i didnt do that. Never mind, hopefully you got the rest of the paper correct. If not im also back in december for a resit by the sounds of it lol.
  • pirate
    pirate Registered Posts: 469 Dedicated contributor 🦉
    Andypandy wrote: »
    I got 2 years 2 months aswell for the payback.
    Should it be 2 years and 1.5 months?
    I put 3 months coz i was blinded by the 25 and assumed it was 25% of a year - was bogged eyed but found out after itsthe amount remaining divided by amount paid x 12
    so 25/200 = 0.125 * 12 = 1.5
  • A-Vic
    A-Vic Registered Posts: 6,970 Beyond epic contributor 🧙‍♂️
    mrspnut wrote: »
    There was an input of 400 tonnes, a normal loss of 12 tonnes and an output of 360 tonnes leaving 28 tonnes as an abnormal loss.

    agrees
  • Pinkjo
    Pinkjo Registered Posts: 88 Regular contributor ⭐
    Should it be 2 years and 1.5 months?
    I put 3 months coz i was blinded by the 25 and assumed it was 25% of a year - was bogged eyed but found out after itsthe amount remaining divided by amount paid x 12
    so 25/200 = 0.125 * 12 = 1.5

    That's what I put :001_smile:
  • hell's belle
    hell's belle Registered Posts: 11 New contributor 🐸
    I agree totally! I thought this was my "better" unit so god help us on Wednesday :eek:
  • *Jo
    *Jo Registered Posts: 509 Epic contributor 🐘
    Should it be 2 years and 1.5 months?
    I put 3 months coz i was blinded by the 25 and assumed it was 25% of a year - was bogged eyed but found out after itsthe amount remaining divided by amount paid x 12
    so 25/200 = 0.125 * 12 = 1.5

    think thats what i put, need to stop reading everyone elses answers, its making me worry what i put :001_rolleyes:
  • gregory
    gregory Registered Posts: 37 Regular contributor ⭐
    I did that way.
    0.8 less 0.3 gave me 0.5 as a contribution.
    So divided fixad cost by 0.5 gave me 625000 revenue.

    Make profit: (fixed cost + expecting profit)/contribution = 1025000

    I did all losses nearly like many of You but I didnt call this abnormal and normal and I calculated cost per tonne as at: 73960/400=184,9 but then i calculated by 388 which gave me 190, but in account I put on denit 400 and on credit side 28 then 360 and then 12 and (!!!!) called as P+L. My fault:thumbdown:

    Anyway looking forward to being surprised by FRA :laugh:
  • Andypandy
    Andypandy Registered Posts: 526 Epic contributor 🐘
    I'm off to revise the numbers of the ssap's that go with the rules for Wednesday,can't seem to gt them to sink in. Good luck with FRAs everyone!x
  • numbersishard
    numbersishard Registered Posts: 12 New contributor 🐸
    cdsp1980 wrote: »
    It is semi-variable

    I put variable, the line starts at fixed costs which are the same no matter the output
  • sparkspc
    sparkspc Registered Posts: 6 New contributor 🐸
    I didn't get 2 years 1 month - I thought it was (95ish) negative with the cash flow in year 3 of 135 - therefore about .7 of a year? (95/135) about 2 years 8 months. (39K NPV ish) but with a sub note about the £50000 not coming in until the end of year 3... I think there must have been two papers!! lol...
  • HayleyM
    HayleyM Registered Posts: 63 Regular contributor ⭐
    Hi,
    I got 2.125 years for the payback or 2 year and 1.5 months for the payback period. Is this right? Could I lose marks for not rounding if it is right.....:001_unsure:
  • Mog17
    Mog17 Registered Posts: 91 Regular contributor ⭐
    *Jo wrote: »
    Oh dear, no i didnt do that. Never mind, hopefully you got the rest of the paper correct. If not im also back in december for a resit by the sounds of it lol.

    Don't worry i'm sure you'll be fine! I'm hoping I won't fail the entire paper over that mistake so hopefully won't need to resit... I don't think I made any other major mistakes (fingers crossed) so still hopeful!!!!! Stay positive!!!!
  • RAR
    RAR Registered Posts: 3 New contributor 🐸
    Study materials

    Hi guys

    Pls tell me if the study materials are valid for only 18 months ????!!!

    Is this correct?:ohmy:
  • lsavage
    lsavage Registered Posts: 2 New contributor 🐸
    I got 3 years, 2months

    I am glad u put 3ys too.
    I put 3 yrs 1 mth.

    All of my mates put 2yrs 1mth, so know therefore got it completly wrong :mad2:
  • marknotgeorge
    marknotgeorge Registered Posts: 158 Dedicated contributor 🦉
    Hmm.

    Some I found simple, and some threw me. I've munged the process T account, and I think I used the target profit sales revenue instead of the break-even sales revenue when working out the margin of safety. It's a good job I showed lots and lots of working. I think most of the rest was OK. Shouldn't be too bad - I mean, if you can pass a financial paper without getting the trial balance to balance, I should be OK with this one? Right?
  • crse2006
    crse2006 Registered Posts: 9 New contributor 🐸
    Pinkjo wrote: »
    Yes, you're right! Normal loss was 12, abnormal was 28 (so total losses were 40 x £20 = £800)

    isnt abnormal loss done at cost so 190 not 20?
  • rumcheeka
    rumcheeka Registered Posts: 6 New contributor 🐸
    I feel like crying!! I shouldn't have looked on here, I've made silly mistakes, not reading the questions properly ie breakeven/sales revenue!! Oh well can't change now what I've written.

    On a plus note, we received our sim results for the ECR after our exams and I passed, no additional questions :-)

    Not looking forward to the FRA on Wednesday at all!!! I really need a light bulb moment but can't see me getting one before then.

    Good Luck all!!
  • debihargrave
    debihargrave Registered Posts: 33 Regular contributor ⭐
    mrspnut wrote: »
    No - total losses were 12 x £20 + 28 x £190 = £5,560

    i put input of 400 at £185 normal loss 12 tonnes at £20 and abnormal loss 28 tonnes at £20 also making my output 360 tonnes at £203.33
  • Esme
    Esme Registered Posts: 711 Epic contributor 🐘
    Abnormal loss is always at the same cost as output, so 190.
  • Pinkjo
    Pinkjo Registered Posts: 88 Regular contributor ⭐
    Esme wrote: »
    Abnormal loss is always at the same cost as output, so 190.

    I thought the clue was in the question, ie ALL losses are valued at £20. If it had been just normal loss I thought it would have said just "losses are valued at £20" and not "all losses" :confused1:
  • Esme
    Esme Registered Posts: 711 Epic contributor 🐘
    On the process account, did the labour and overhead costs go on two seperate lines on the debit side?
  • Esme
    Esme Registered Posts: 711 Epic contributor 🐘
    Pinkjo wrote: »
    I thought the clue was in the question, ie ALL losses are valued at £20. If it had been just normal loss I thought it would have said just "losses are valued at £20" and not "all losses" :confused1:

    Oh no... did it say all losses? You probably are right then! Oops!!
  • chris_b
    chris_b Registered Posts: 11 New contributor 🐸
    gregory wrote: »
    I did that way.
    0.8 less 0.3 gave me 0.5 as a contribution.
    So divided fixad cost by 0.5 gave me 625000 revenue.

    Make profit: (fixed cost + expecting profit)/contribution = 1025000

    I did all losses nearly like many of You but I didnt call this abnormal and normal and I calculated cost per tonne as at: 73960/400=184,9 but then i calculated by 388 which gave me 190, but in account I put on denit 400 and on credit side 28 then 360 and then 12 and (!!!!) called as P+L. My fault:thumbdown:

    Anyway looking forward to being surprised by FRA :laugh:

    i got 625000 for breakeven and 1025000 for target profit as well.Everyone else seems to have different answers to me and you breakeven and MOS.

Not registered?

Register to create your free account, talk to AAT members and start your own discussions.
Privacy Policy