Home For AAT student members AQ 2013 AAT Level 4 (Level 8 in Scotland)
Current updates regarding coronavirus (Covid-19) and the precautions AAT are taking will be continually updated on the below page.

Please check this link for the latest updates:
We hope you are all safe and well and if you need us we will be here. 💚


Pcr

13

Comments

  • nikyxnikyx New Member Registered Posts: 6
    hunter wrote: »
    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 worked in Sq cm
    added wastage
    converted to sq metres
    add closing stock
    less opening stock

    might have been wrong though? I duno??? Think I messed everything up!
  • CortezCortez Feels At Home Registered Posts: 76
    mowzer wrote: »
    I said no but could be if costs were lower for customer loyalty reasons, bigger share of market etc. probably all nonsense!

    I'm now scared that its all wrong tho cos it said turnover not production volume!

    Me too, I completely missed that if it did say that.

    I went on about market share etc and I don't think I actually said whether it was beneficial or not ... more like, well it depends what the aim of the company is ... if they wanted to increase market share then a lower selling price is beneficial but if they "had enough" market share and were only interested in profits than it was not beneficial.

    ... So probably zero marks for me on that one :lol:
  • nikyxnikyx New Member Registered Posts: 6
    mowzer wrote: »
    I said no but could be if costs were lower for customer loyalty reasons, bigger share of market etc. probably all nonsense!

    I'm now scared that its all wrong tho cos it said turnover not production volume!

    I worked in production volume aswell and i reckon most people would have! Did it not say to just show the flexed turnover?
  • Oliver1987Oliver1987 New Member Registered Posts: 6
    mowzer wrote: »
    yeah, but divided answers by 10,000
    nikdan123 wrote: »
    i said it wasnt beneficial cos they had budgeted the selling price at 300 and it was actually 275..is this wrong?

    I got the same selling price as you. Therefore it wasnt beneficial
  • sam123sam123 New Member Registered Posts: 11
    Cortez wrote: »
    What did everyone put for the question ... advise whether the change in selling price was beneficial?

    I put yes it was, because if the other variences had remained the same then it would have actually resulted in more profit. By saying this though, i assumed the extra 10,000 units sold were becasue of the lower price.

    What did you put?
  • CortezCortez Feels At Home Registered Posts: 76
    sam123 wrote: »
    I put yes it was, because if the other variences had remained the same then it would have actually resulted in more profit. By saying this though, i assumed the extra 10,000 units sold were becasue of the lower price.

    What did you put?

    Seems reasonable.

    See #64 for mine!
  • sam123sam123 New Member Registered Posts: 11
    I wasn't feeling too bad before but after reading these comments i'm not too confident now, i know i've messed a few things up (didn't even notice that wierd bit about labour overtime in task 1.1) but as i said before i've been 100% sure i've failed in the past and i've ended up passing.
  • LocoLoco Just Joined Registered Posts: 2
    i'm feeling quite sick, thought i had done ok (well anything was better than horrid PEV) but not so sure now hmmm oh well it is over now on to PTC revision :huh:
  • rjww85rjww85 Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 20
    I'm not too convinced I did well on this paper! I read the questions to make sure I was giving the answers they were asking for but I am not sure that I even did that correctly.

    Hopefully by showing all my workings logically it will show that I knew what I was doing even if the final answer isn't correct.

    Nothing I can do about it now, just got to wait untill February for the results to see if I will be doing a resit in June 08.:crying:
  • ally29ally29 Feels At Home Registered Posts: 26
    I wasn't confident coming out and am now even worse.

    I had two limiting factors which I know a few others had and completely missed the contribution part at then end and just listed them and had an overall adverse variance of £1,945,000.

    Oh well, I'm so gutted, but nothing I can do about it now - onto to PTC tomorrow, then a girlie night out - can't wait!
  • LouLou143LouLou143 Feels At Home Registered Posts: 74
    Same as Ally. I took it as he could only purchase in 1500 but I got a feeling that that was extra - thinking back over it cuz he said he made the purchase and could only get max of 1500 for Jan.

    So labour would have been the only limiting factor.

    The like you 1,945,000 for section 2. Its funny cuz I did it in the same way as the question.....then sat there for ages and started doing the marginal costing way. But then something in my head said, no as you do not have all the information to split the fixed costs up. Most papers had what the variable cost actually was or what the actual fixed costs were. Otherwise you had to make assumptions that either the variable cost was the same as the budget or that the fixed costs were the same as the budget!

    Difficult one. I wouldn't worry though - remember the way they mark it is based on the performance overall over the country etc. If everyone found difficulty with the questioning, they'd take that into consideration. Its not that you did not know how to do it, they confused you!!!!
  • hays112hays112 Just Joined Registered Posts: 2
    I'm really disappointed i thought I was well prepared for PCR but i totally messed up section 2 by using absorbtion costing i just wish they had made it clearer marginal costing was to be used :crying: I am really confused by the turnover/volume basis for flexing the budget it just seemed so strange to have use the actual sales and the budget costs - so I based it on the actual volume. I'm guessing thats enough mistakes to make a fail
  • LouLou143LouLou143 Feels At Home Registered Posts: 74
    I just got confused cuz most marginal statement questions have closing stock figures. i.e produced 70,000 and sold 60,000. Then the contribution would have been obvious as you flex the budget to reflect this on marginal costing!!!
  • fruitcakefruitcake Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 17
    thank you all

    i felt awful coming out of my pcr exam today thinking that i had wasted my time revising and sitting the exam... but knowing that everyone has similar opinions regarding the poor wording of much of the paper and that my answers match with some of those mentioned i don't feel so bad... on to ptc revision... hmmm...

    good luck to all for any exams still to come

    :confused1:
  • kylarakylara New Member Registered Posts: 6
    Oliver1987 wrote: »
    I am not sure how i've done now. I understood it as he had ordered 1,500 and couldn't get anymore as well. I'm more confused now than when i did it this morning.

    I took the question to mean that the max you could have was 1500 and this was less than you needed for both production levels after stock adjustments.

    I didn't adjust for stock in the flexed budget...but then my figures were based on 60k units.....I never remember about the stock. And I had about 4 variences over 50k to talk about (if you include material as 1)

    Both Material and labour were limiting factors based on my calculations and reasoning...but I couldn't get my material to work backwords to see how many production units it was short!

    I hope the people working out the marking method read the forum! The rumor mill says that a group get together with white boards and write down areas people have problems with....including feedback as discussed further back. Then they work out how many errors to allow.
    I hate competancy based exams...bring in the 50% pass :P
  • Emma1708Emma1708 Well-Known Registered Posts: 217
    hays112 wrote: »
    I'm really disappointed i thought I was well prepared for PCR but i totally messed up section 2 by using absorbtion costing i just wish they had made it clearer marginal costing was to be used :crying: I am really confused by the turnover/volume basis for flexing the budget it just seemed so strange to have use the actual sales and the budget costs - so I based it on the actual volume. I'm guessing thats enough mistakes to make a fail

    Can you please explain what you mean when you say you based it on the actual volume. I thought that is what we were supposed to do - flex the budget from 50000 to 60000 - have I done it wrong?
  • hunterhunter Feels At Home Registered Posts: 54
    flexed budget

    I flexed on volume Emma, seemed the logical thing to do, flexing from 50000 units to 60000, I also included the contribution, and calculated the variable cost of energy as the same as budget resulting in a zero variance adjusting the fixed costs of energy and showing the variance there!!
  • accountschicaccountschic Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 15
    I don;t think you are wrong. I think the opening stock / closing was of finished production not raw materials.

    I don't think missing that if it should be there is a fail anyway.

    I think the labour at average hour rate was horrible so badly worded. I spent ages just trying to understand that.

    I'm hoping PTc is better in teh morning!
  • Emma1708Emma1708 Well-Known Registered Posts: 217
    hunter wrote: »
    I flexed on volume Emma, seemed the logical thing to do, flexing from 50000 units to 60000, I also included the contribution, and calculated the variable cost of energy as the same as budget resulting in a zero variance adjusting the fixed costs of energy and showing the variance there!!

    Thats what I did - is it completely wrong then or just that it was done on absorption not marginal?
  • hays112hays112 Just Joined Registered Posts: 2
    sorry if i wasn't clear i think my head is still spinning from the exam! I'm still confused as to whether sales should based on actual TURNOVER (16,500,00) or actual sales at budget selling price (300 x 60,000 = 18,000,000) as the wording on the exam just said actual turnover..........:confused1:
  • GoldenRetreiverGoldenRetreiver Feels At Home Registered Posts: 64
    Hi I came out of the exam not too bad - until now. When will AAT stop trying to trip us up with questions that are clear and concise. All I did was do the same as the layout as in the paper but flex the budget to 60,000. I came up with an adverse variance of about 194500
  • DebzDebz Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 17
    Yes Mowzer - it specifically asked that in the question so you are right to show the contribution. For section 1 I thought material was the limiting factor as there were enough labour hours available to meet revised production.
  • DebzDebz Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 17
    Yes Cortez. I had similar figures to you for the hours required Task 1.1 but the labour rate I took it as £8 + £12 = £20/2 = £10 to get the average
  • ManuManu Just Joined Registered Posts: 2
    Pcr

    I am glad I am not the only one that found 1500 couldn't even cover the original demand for materials... I kept thinking I must have done something wrong. I don't recall seeing anything like that on any previous paper.

    Also found the cost of production for each type of product difficult due to opening and closing stock of raw material. I excluded opening and closing stock of materials... only calculated material required for production and added on wastage. How did anyone else do on that?

    Reading other people posts I think I might have done task 2.1 wrong too. I left the flexed budget and actuals in the same format as the question... I don't recall it mentioning marginal costing.

    Well, I guess we find out in over 2 months... :crying:

    No point in worrying about it now... just focus on Christmas now! :) Bring on the mince pies! ::001_tt2:

    Interested to hear what everyone else thought!

    Manu
  • lizzylizzy Feels At Home Registered Posts: 36
    Losing Faith

    I have read all the posts and feel I have to comment having heard so many negative comments recently. I sat both PEV & PCR. I study through distance learning & sit my exams at a college 2 hours drive away. This year I looked on the AAT site & saw that I could sit the exams in my home town. I booked these & was sent confirmation in Oct with the address, desk no. etc. On Friday last week I rang the local college to confirm I was going to the correct building. I was told I was not sitting the exam there as AAT had made a mistake. AAT told me they had only just found out that the college wouldnt take external candidates.
    The said college tells me AAT had known for "weeks" and should not advertise their college.
    If I had not rang this college I would not have found out until Monday a.m. that I had to drive another 2 hours away therefore missing the exam.
    After feeling let down over the weekend I attended the PEV exam. I have to agree with the all the comments made about section 1, it was not as expected.
    AAT state that they encourage comments but "please make sure its specific" not just statements like it was "horrible" or "not what I was expecting" .
    Sorry I thought this was a forum for students, in which comments like that help support each other.
    I also agree that the PCR & PEV exam did not make questions clear, for example in PCR if the 1500 sq.m was additional to an amount already ordered or not ( I could go on)
    Well lets hope February brings good news for us all & AAT please let me know where my re-sits will be next year!!
  • birdiebirdie Just Joined Registered Posts: 3
    hunter wrote: »
    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 the same way as you, seem easier to do like that. :thumbup1:
  • jazzyjazzy Just Joined Registered Posts: 1
    Pcr

    I have read the comments with interest and just have to reply. With regard to the material as a limiting factor, I have done what most people seem to have done and taken this to be limited. Surely if it is company policy to keep 5 days supply (or whatever it was) of materials in stock then this should be maintained. I did put in my memo that the stock could be used to meet the order but I still had it as a limiting factor.

    The other thing is the flexed budget. Do I remember reading there were no opening or closing stocks? In which case the production and turnover quantities would be the same. So stop worrying folks.

    I feel reasonably happy with this exam. Not so sure about the PEV though.

    Nice to talk to you all. This is my first post. Hopefully not my last
  • lmiddlehamlmiddleham Feels At Home Registered Posts: 71
    The overtime premium in working out the total cost of production noone seems to have matched my way of splitting it across products?
    As 1 product took 200 hours and the other took 160 i did it like this:

    Total overtime premium x 200/360 total hours over both products = overtime premium for 250ml
    Total overtime premium x 160/360 for 500ml

    The figures I got with this matched my figures in my total labour budget from earlier so at least I got some consistency!

    Did anyone else do it this way though?
  • ZoeyarZoeyar Settling In Nicely Registered Posts: 17
    lmiddleham wrote: »
    The overtime premium in working out the total cost of production noone seems to have matched my way of splitting it across products?
    As 1 product took 200 hours and the other took 160 i did it like this:

    Total overtime premium x 200/360 total hours over both products = overtime premium for 250ml
    Total overtime premium x 160/360 for 500ml

    The figures I got with this matched my figures in my total labour budget from earlier so at least I got some consistency!

    Did anyone else do it this way though?
    Hi Imiddleham,

    I worked it out the same way as you - was feeling confident about the exam but after reading all the posts starting to get a bit worried.
    I also worked out the materials using the same way - obviously not with labour hours but materials needed to make each type of carton.
  • LouLou143LouLou143 Feels At Home Registered Posts: 74
    lmiddleham - I did it that way too!

    I remember seeing something like this come up in the past except it was based on production - I remember sitting for ages thinking how they worked it out! Luckily I remembered for the exam!
Sign In or Register to comment.