Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@karldugan said:
I think it said you had to prioritise one order over the other but the second order could be part filled. I just did it to see which of the three options was best to comment on the options. If you can part fill either one I’d assume you can part fill both.
I recommended BB be fully filled first though, even though I had excelsior with a higher contribution – mentioned supplier relationship already existed, growth opportunities if successful as trial was 10% of stores, Excelsior was in high end sector and Northland was going through recession so would customers would be downgrading which shops they went to where as BB was a supermarket so unlikely to be as badly affected.Fair comments. i am sure you will get marks for it. However, i did the opposite. I choose Excelsior because its a new partner. Customers there are more likely to buy because they look for quality instead of price. Whereas, in the supermarket, people probably wont even notice it because of the high price (because it is luxury handmade) so it would be better for BB to test it with a small order first.
@karldugan said:
I’m sure it said something about which one to prioritise and which one to part fulfill.
Order should have been prioritised on contribution per limiting factor not total contribution so do all a then b then c.
Think I got 94k for excel and 91 for BB and 96k if you did all A all B and split C between both companiescan you actually do that ? if you did all A all B and split C between both companies ? i dont think that is an option
how did you deal with the share exchange btw ? did you need to adjust the share capital ?
why would the parent give it own shares when it transfers the ownership of the sub ? hmmm maybe i didnt read it properly :O
what it did was i did not do anything to the share capital because it did not involve the parent share whatsoever.
you use the share to work out the consideration and stick the gain into the OCE.
that what i thought also about the contingent liabilities but i dont think anyone agreed with me yet.
i did that as well. i think it has to be at amortised cost right ? no ? because it was kept for cash flow.
why financial instrument in 1a has to be at 49 ? i thought it had to be at amortised cost ? it was kept for the cash flow so it kept until maturity and then sell ? it passed the business model test surely.
I really do hope the SOFP comes up or SCF. i hate P/L. I have been told the same thing but you cant really predict anything !!!!
LSBF tutor predicts that it might be SOFP again. Hopefully, wont be profit and loss.