pcr dec 09
Comments
-
katie123666 wrote: »I spent too much time on the stmt and I totally messing it up, I forgot my tipex so there is crossings out all over it, I just totally lost it when I was doing it, I havent done one before that looked like that!
It was weird they dont normally give proformas. I think most people will have made a mistake on that. Cant remember any figures off it to see what other people got. Im sure I done somthing wrong on it was strange.0 -
Yes, QT 3 had a ridiculous figure of over 4m after adding the variation and this made the required hours for qt3 to be high and a little overtime of, i think, less than a thousand hours for qt4 while qts 1 and 2 had idle times.
As for the sales, you had to divide the total by 4 to arrive at 2.7 for each qt before applying the variations. At the end (total), the total sales still amounted to same figure as the three negative variations in qts i,2 and 4 all added up to the 1.5m positive figure for qt 3. That much i can remember and finally i arrived at a std cost unit of £1.1.. for the closing stock valuation in the p&l to give the closing stock a value of, i think, 280,000. The profit was somewhat over 2m.
For section2, the average time for each production was 45 mins, while the actual was, i think, 43.5, meaning there was a a favourabl variance of 1.5mins which when converted gave a little over £20,000. While the usage had a negative variance of 50p which also resulted in a total extra cost of about £24,000. At the end of the day, when you adjust the two variances here, you arrive at a figure in the range of 4,250(A) which was actually the total variance btw the budgeted and actual labour cost. In the report, the efficiency of labour was achieved but at a slighty higher cost, which makes the cost reduction motive not to be achieved.
These are my calculations but we wait and see.0 -
STMT? What question was this? :S0
-
I know its probably the last thing that any one feels like doing at the mo but could someone just run through what I was meant to do on the statement, I filled all the details I had worked out previously and opening stock. Messed up the closing stock but then how do you get the figures at the bottom (the operating profit and the one above)
I know this sounds daft but I havent done one of these with stock.0 -
I thought I did really well but reading this forum always gets me worried.
Did anyone get £1.12 in the closign stock valuation in 1.2? I divided those two weird numbers and got £1.12 bang on and thought it was a good sign that the figure was right.0 -
Coma, i got 1.2 as well, which made me arrive at a closing figure of 280,000. But, who knows?0
-
Yes, QT 3 had a ridiculous figure of over 4m after adding the variation and this made the required hours for qt3 to be high and a little overtime of, i think, less than a thousand hours for qt4 while qts 1 and 2 had idle times.
As for the sales, you had to divide the total by 4 to arrive at 2.7 for each qt before applying the variations. At the end (total), the total sales still amounted to same figure as the three negative variations in qts i,2 and 4 all added up to the 1.5m positive figure for qt 3. That much i can remember and finally i arrived at a std cost unit of £1.1.. for the closing stock valuation in the p&l to give the closing stock a value of, i think, 280,000. The profit was somewhat over 2m.
For section2, the average time for each production was 45 mins, while the actual was, i think, 43.5, meaning there was a a favourabl variance of 1.5mins which when converted gave a little over £20,000. While the usage had a negative variance of 50p which also resulted in a total extra cost of about £24,000. At the end of the day, when you adjust the two variances here, you arrive at a figure in the range of 4,250(A) which was actually the total variance btw the budgeted and actual labour cost. In the report, the efficiency of labour was achieved but at a slighty higher cost, which makes the cost reduction motive not to be achieved.
These are my calculations but we wait and see.
Finally someone whose answers ring a bell0 -
-
For section2, the average time for each production was 45 mins, while the actual was, i think, 43.5, meaning there was a a favourabl variance of 1.5mins which when converted gave a little over £20,000. While the usage had a negative variance of 50p which also resulted in a total extra cost of about £24,000. At the end of the day, when you adjust the two variances here, you arrive at a figure in the range of 4,250(A) which was actually the total variance btw the budgeted and actual labour cost. In the report, the efficiency of labour was achieved but at a slighty higher cost, which makes the cost reduction motive not to be achieved.
These are my calculations but we wait and see.
Thats excatly what I did...0 -
Haha which ones were the 2 weird ones!!0
-
0
-
I got £1.06!0
-
haha we all seem to get different amounts on the cost per unit0
-
Oh well at least that gives us all hope, its quite rare that so many people have different answers.0
-
YEAAA!!! Same as me :P Did you just you the original data given to work it out?
I just added the costs I had calculated from the statement i.e Total materials cost + Total Labour Cost and Total Overheads (including the fixed amount) and divided it by bugeted sales of like 10,350,000 or something like that gave 0.88p0 -
hopefully because there are lots of different numbers they will know it was harder than usual and be nicer 0
-
No I idea what I got but I know that I divided two really big numbers to get £1 something and x by 250000 (or what ever the closing stock figure was) but as I have stuffed every thing else up i'm sure that will be wrong too!0
-
Doubt it
We greatly value your comments as we use them to improve the standard of our exam papers. The results of the surveys will be collated and considered by the Exam Review Panels, along with all evidence relating to candidates' performance in the exams. It's therefore no exaggeration to say that your feedback can directly affect the way we do things.
Taken from the questionnaire news item.0 -
We greatly value your comments as we use them to improve the standard of our exam papers. The results of the surveys will be collated and considered by the Exam Review Panels, along with all evidence relating to candidates' performance in the exams. It's therefore no exaggeration to say that your feedback can directly affect the way we do things.
Taken from the questionnaire news item.
I don't want to tell them how i did until they tell me I have passed or failed!0 -
I just added the costs I had calculated from the statement i.e Total materials cost + Total Labour Cost and Total Overheads (including the fixed amount) and divided it by bugeted sales of like 10,350,000 or something like that gave 0.88p
I did the same and got exactly £1.12 hmmmmm
Quite strange as this is almost a 30% difference so some of us must have been WAY off in calculating the total production cost.0 -
Anyone know the date we get our results?
I can't seem to find it anywhere.0 -
I know that I completely messed up my section 2 of BTC in June. My numbers were calculated wrong and I still passed. I think as long as you get the numbers in the right place and and get where they come correct from the actual number calculated doesn't make you lose too many marks.0
-
I think I got 1.06 coz I only used direct hours to calculate overhead as I didnt see that it said overtime was direct.0
-
Something I missed the first time and then had to correct was the overheads. There was a variable rate and fixed rate0
-
I thought it was very confusing regarding overheads and direct labour and overtime, thats when the tippex started.0
-
Ian and Coma....the difference between the .88 and the 1.12 is that the former excluded the overhead cost, while the latter, which i belong to, included the overhead in arriving at the production cost which we ultimately divided by the units. There's obviously going to be just one right answer and that is whether you had to factor the overheads in it or not. I arrived at .88 as well but i later changed aded the overhead, so the question is, is that the right thing to do?0
-
I assumed we were using absorption costing for the cost per unit & ended up with £1.12
Andrea0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.2K Books to buy and sell
- 2.3K General discussion
- 12.5K For AAT students
- 323 NEW! Qualifications 2022
- 160 General Qualifications 2022 discussion
- 11 AAT Level 2 Certificate in Accounting
- 56 AAT Level 3 Diploma in Accounting
- 93 AAT Level 4 Diploma in Professional Accounting
- 8.8K For accounting professionals
- 23 coronavirus (Covid-19)
- 273 VAT
- 92 Software
- 274 Tax
- 138 Bookkeeping
- 7.2K General accounting discussion
- 201 AAT member discussion
- 3.8K For everyone
- 38 AAT news and announcements
- 345 Feedback for AAT
- 2.8K Chat and off-topic discussion
- 582 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