What did you think of the PCR exam
Options
Comments
-
also did anyone get an adverse labour varience due to the fact they have forecasted for a lot less basic and more overtime?0
-
I found it really hard as well. I ran out of time and I have never done that in an exam. I think it was because there was so many questions!!
Its not fair that you revise all this time and they completly change the format and wording of questions. Its completly unfair on Dec 08 sitters!0 -
I got the same answer as an adverse variance but when I wrote the report to explain why it was so different from budgeted, I forgot to mention the blooming selling price !!! Argh ! - the obvious answer.
I remembered about 30 seconds after leaving the room.0 -
Yeha got the same here0
-
I also mentioned linear regression and then waffled on about finding a trend and using extrapolation to forcast future sales figures.
I mentioned the reduced turnover per chargeable hour as the main reason for the profit being less than budgeted, coupled with the overtime variance.
The reason for the favourable basic labour variance seemed to be that there were less staff than budgeted, but they were working more overtime.0 -
also did anyone get an adverse labour varience due to the fact they have forecasted for a lot less basic and more overtime?
i got basic labour favourable by about 80k and overtime adverese by about 136k i said any hours not done in basic would have had to be made up in overtime therefore costing more0 -
I just compared the additional cost against the cost of the additional testing..? Am i talking about the same part..?one more thing before i start studying for june again :mad2:
to recalculate the labour did u use the overtime as well as a separate part to compare with?
as in
Just with the hrs x1.40 = xxx
then using overtime( same units) x overtime rate= xxxx
i did this then i compared the whole stock rate usin overtime and normal and then using normal overtime + subcontacting out.
Bascially i compared it 3 ways.
did anyone else do it like this
What profit % did everyone get for the first section?0 -
mm maybe i should have wrote down what i got properly.. i know one of my labour vsriances was adverse0
-
Yes, I commented in the report that it is likely they used lesser skilled staff, resulting in lower basic pay but higher overtime, and also the increased hire expenses. This combined with the reduced hourly rate charged accounted for the majority of it. Or that was my opinion, along with suggestions on how to improve.also did anyone get an adverse labour varience due to the fact they have forecasted for a lot less basic and more overtime?0 -
i got those too!
0 -
i compared those too -0
-
-
for the subcontracting bit I calculated that 130,000 units would have to be subcontracted, and that it would cost about twice as much as doing it on overtime? Ring any bells anyone?
In the last bit I also got adverse profit variance of £311,5000 -
I said that there may have been people on sick leave being paid SSP and so others have to cover their sickness but at overtime rate. I was pretty desperate as you can tell !0
-
Seeing as though there arent many answers ill post what i can remeber.
Anyone get 311500 adverse for profit variance in section 2?
Think it was that, Total expenses were £71500 (A) Ish?one more thing before i start studying for june again :mad2:
to recalculate the labour did u use the overtime as well as a separate part to compare with?
as in
Just with the hrs x1.40 = xxx
then using overtime( same units) x overtime rate= xxxx
i did this then i compared the whole stock rate usin overtime and normal and then using normal overtime + subcontacting out.
Bascially i compared it 3 ways.
did anyone else do it like this
Which question..?0 -
-
i messed up on the subcontract bit but re read the question later and did 1.4 x 130000 then i worked out 125000 units at 3 minutes each at overtime rate for what it should have cost, i then took this away from subcontract cost and used what was left for the extra cost, if you get what i mean0
-
£ 1.96 profit 18 % of sell price ?? section onecookymonstar wrote: »i got 130000 too - at £ 1.60 or something -0 -
The basic labour was a fixed cost - Certain amount of staff x certain amount tof hours available - They did say that - So I guessed for the actual labour to have been so much less they must have been short of permanent staff leading to less hours at standard being paid making the basic labour variance Favourable - Then the balance of the hours required must have been overtime worked by existing staff - leading to the adverse overtime variance
Thats what I thought anyway?0 -
I got same number for subcontracting, the difference ended up at about 74p / unit(in 70's anyway) after overtime amount for those was deducted from difference, then overheads for the 6500h had to be accounted for. I got it as still profitable, but recommended that if the increased demand were to continue that extra testing machines be priced up and lifecycle costing excersise carried out to compare profitability.oxongirl78 wrote: »for the subcontracting bit I calculated that 130,000 units would have to be subcontracted, and that it would cost about twice as much as doing it on overtime? Ring any bells anyone?
In the last bit I also got adverse profit variance of £311,5000 -
i messed up on the subcontract bit but re read the question later and did 1.4 x 130000 then i worked out 125000 units at 3 minutes each at overtime rate for what it should have cost, i then took this away from subcontract cost and used what was left for the extra cost, if you get what i mean
I take it your production in units required was the same as mine cos I had 125000 as well to subcontract - Cool0 -
The basic labour was a fixed cost - Certain amount of staff x certain amount tof hours available - They did say that - So I guessed for the actual labour to have been so much less they must have been short of permanent staff leading to less hours at standard being paid making the basic labour variance Favourable - Then the balance of the hours required must have been overtime worked by existing staff - leading to the adverse overtime variance
Thats what I thought anyway?
i think i suggested that labour efficiency had improved - so more produced for less hrs - so less cost? maybe or am i mental!!!0 -
I put about the increased expenses and lower turnover, which could have been from a lower sales price.... blah blah! I just said to look at historic data, when did the turnover/sales start decreasing, is this likely to continue for the foreseeable future, what stage of the product lifecyle is it in etc etc... :S! not so sure if that is right now, you read what other people have put, and its like "oh yeah, forgot about that" was fine in all except 1.3 & 1.4 totally threw me!
I showed all workings though, so just hoping that if i get the wrong answers, but used the correct formulas will still get marks, and it is only then one error carried through :S! I got about 112,000units so - 120,000 (round upto 10000)which needed to be subcontracted, but dont think that is right at all! Nearly ALL of the people ive spoke to who sat the exam thought it was horrible, and nothing like weve been prepared for, AAT tell us to revise from past papers etc, i understand it is the context they are testing us on however.
All weve got to do is wait now, although I feel a resit coming on!
Fingers crossed....
xx0 -
The basic labour was a fixed cost - Certain amount of staff x certain amount tof hours available - They did say that - So I guessed for the actual labour to have been so much less they must have been short of permanent staff leading to less hours at standard being paid making the basic labour variance Favourable - Then the balance of the hours required must have been overtime worked by existing staff - leading to the adverse overtime variance
Thats what I thought anyway?
I thought because the basic labour was fixed, and the adverse was favourable, the staff were cheaper, this was shown in the overtime adverse variance.
It also gives you a clue in the question.
''does this variance affect the company in another way..."
Or something?0 -
i said PEST and as soon as left i was like grrrr linear regression! Did anyone have £96,005 as the additional cost of subcontracting - 130,000 x £1.40 = £182,000
Less Overtime Saved - 6,500 x £13.23 =(£85,995)
Additonal Cost £96,0050 -
oxongirl78 wrote: »for the subcontracting bit I calculated that 130,000 units would have to be subcontracted, and that it would cost about twice as much as doing it on overtime? Ring any bells anyone?
In the last bit I also got adverse profit variance of £311,500
I got 130,000 units too and 6,500 less overtime hours needed, that makes me feel better, but I don't think I did so well in the email about it0 -
yeah it was 74 p additional cost per test...got that one right hipefully:)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.2K Books to buy and sell
- 2.3K General discussion
- 12.4K For AAT students
- 264 NEW! Qualifications 2022
- 144 General Qualifications 2022 discussion
- 9 AAT Level 2 Certificate in Accounting
- 45 AAT Level 3 Diploma in Accounting
- 66 AAT Level 4 Diploma in Professional Accounting
- 8.8K For accounting professionals
- 23 coronavirus (Covid-19)
- 268 VAT
- 90 Software
- 271 Tax
- 133 Bookkeeping
- 7.1K General accounting discussion
- 195 AAT member discussion
- 3.8K For everyone
- 38 AAT news and announcements
- 345 Feedback for AAT
- 2.8K Chat and off-topic discussion
- 578 Job postings
- 16 Who can benefit from AAT?
- 35 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