ECR Tutors Comments

System
System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
edited 10:30AM in AAT student discussion
Has any tutors had a look at the ECR exam yet, your comments would be must welcome.

Comments

  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    ECR Tutors Comments

    i dont have college till friday. only 5 of us doid the exam yesterday we found it a bit of a struggle.
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    ECR Tutors Comments

    Erm, I would like to see my tutors comments, but I won't see her till next week now...<BR>I found the exam very hard and nothing like the previous years exams. Specially the table layout of the last question where you had to rank the B and C product, I knew how to work it out, but the table layout got me...<BR><BR>It was a tricky one for me, could be re sitting this one ... <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif" border="0"><BR><BR>What did anyone get for answers? Absorption rate in the first section about 40.00?? I hope lol<BR>
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    ECR Tutors Comments

    Yes I got 40 for the absorption rate, I found the limiting factor question hard as well, I wished afterwards that I had worked out my figures using a production plan underneath the question the way we were taught in the class, then put the figures in the boxes, I think it would have been easier, the way they had it laid out confused me, I can't remember what my figures only that it came out as a loss
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    ECR Tutors Comments

    <br><br><< <i>Has any tutors had a look at the ECR exam yet, your comments would be must welcome.</i> >><br><br><BR><BR>I've had a chance to look today. Haven't had a chance to look at the forum comments, so I may not agree with you all, but what the heck...<BR><BR>Please bear in mind these are MY comments, NOT those of the AAT or any college - I'm the one to blame!<BR><BR><BR>Task 1.1<BR><BR>Nothing to say here. Shouldn't have any problem with yet another FIFO stock card.<BR><BR>Task 1.2<BR><BR>Journal entries for materials. Again, nothing new, except that I liked the layout - I think the gaps between transactions helped to avoid errors.<BR><BR>Task 1.3<BR><BR>I'm getting a bit bored now! A good sign, as it means "seen it all before!" So long as you read that OT premium was a direct cost, you should be fine on this labour cost question.<BR><BR>Task 1.4<BR><BR>Basic allocation and apportionment - again simple enough if you've done the past papers.<BR><BR>Task 1.5<BR><BR>Calculation of an absorption rate, from new info given rather than your allocation/apportionment. Clearly they were telling you about a machine intensive division, so divide overheads by budgeted machine hours.<BR><BR>Task 1.6<BR><BR>The first task you won't have seen in past papers, although calculating cost per unit ISN'T unusual. Under marginal costing just include variable costs, under absorption costing include a share of fixed costs too. The clue was that they referred to marginal costing as variable costing...<BR><BR>Part (b) was OK so long as you realised that under recovery means the same as under absorption. Realistically, what else could it mean? That said, even if you drew a blank here, it's a small part of a small task.<BR><BR>Task 2.1<BR><BR>Cost behaviour, show costs at different output levels. The variable and fixed costs were clearly shown, so this task should have been simple enough. It has been seen before, and the brief written tasks only demand a basic understanding of cost behaviour.<BR><BR>Task 2.2<BR><BR>Calculation of contribution per unit leading on to budgeted profit/loss. As seen in previous papers, with a fairly "user-friendly" layout.<BR><BR>Task 2.3<BR><BR>Break-even and margin of safety. Again nothing new, except that fixed costs had been split between the different products.<BR><BR>Task 2.4<BR><BR>Limiting factor analysis, you were asked to work out the optimum production plan, and calculate the profit under this plan. Again nothing new, and a nice friendly table to complete!<BR><BR>Task 2.5<BR><BR>Nice simple NPV and payback calculations, and nothing too wierd in the memo.<BR><BR>All in all I thought this was a fair paper. It had major similarities to previous papers, and the small differences shouldn't have caused problems if you understand the subject matter. There was perhaps a little more work involved than before, but then the time allowed has been very generous in the past 3 papers.<BR><BR>Whatever you thought, can't do anything now - best of luck for the other one tomorrow! <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"><BR><BR>Andrew Harrington.<BR><BR>Task 2.3
  • System
    System Posts: 100,534 🤖 Admin 🤖
    ECR Tutors Comments

    I agree with Andy-it was alot less out of the blue than the finance paper:<BR><BR>-I got 33 and 41 for the marginal/absorption costing question<BR>-under recovered threw me at first but I just answered for under absorption<BR>-I realised i made a stupid mistake in my allocation table though-I split the cost for the last line which was already allocated!! I know its only one mistake but does the nature of the mistake make me 'incompetent?'

Categories

Privacy Policy