Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Didn’t answer the last question.. chances of passing? Fairly sure I got at least 35 in q 1 the kaizen JIT 6 sigma & ERPS right up my street.
Anyone have detail on what the put in for the benchmarking q?
Mentioned that they only had one supplier with problems in case study so power of suppliers is high.
Power of buyers is high, they can donate to a myriad of causes.
And it said ‘competitive forces’ is question, think they where referring to the 5 forces boss but maybe I’m wrong
Bargaining power of suppliers was high – mentioned in case study they had one supplier.
Power of customers high also, they can donate to a myriad of charities.
Threat of sub’s – doing own charity work, donating to other causes etc
Threat of new entrants – government encouraging new entrants as recession
Competitive rivalry – loads of charities closed so moderate, but will increase with new initiatives from government
Also said ‘comp forces’ in q, think they where referring to the 5 forces but I could be wrong
Bargaining power of suppliers was high – mentioned in case study they had one supplier.
Power of customers high also, they can donate to a myriad of charities.
Also said ‘comp forces’ in q, think they where referring to the 5 forces but I could be wrong
I think there was 2 different papers emrah.
The paper I did said ‘competitive forces‘ in the question so ye think it was 5 forces.
Think another paper may have had PESTEL though
I wrote about a partnership briefly, got about one mark max 2.. what about the change part?
I rambled on about them needing a change of ethos if they went into private sector, commercial acumen etc.
Said in the meeting exhibit they might go private ?
What risks did you put in?
And talent management?
I didn’t know the talent management theory just blagged it like no rewards, no development, no career plan etc
I had a different paper, BCO though.
Q1 a – agency, stakeholder Q
B – fin and non fin performanceQ2 – 5 forces
Q3 a – collaboration in private and charity
B – something on changeQ4 a – risk assessment start and op
B – talent managementAnd business existed, inputs was the development of movie, processes making the film, output was the film.
Again could be wrong
Disagree with this. IBEX had control of the cast and distribution, also The subsidiary company had to contract all work to IBEX subsidiaries.
Also the income wasn’t split evenly, if the ticket sales where terrible the other company wouldn’t get much it said that in q.
I think they tried to trick people into joint venture but it was control but I could be wrong 🙁
I’m so annoyed!! I had 1.4m negative goodwill for my answer, then went back and changed it for some stupid reason taking out the deffered tax liability of 16m!!
I still got negative goodwill of around 8 so will pick up marks for describing how to treat it.
If you cross something out but it’s still visible do you get marks for it? 🙂
I said IBEX (q 3) where in control as they controlled most of the big considerations for the film – the cast and distribution. And they had to use their subsidiaries for all contract work. And that the board of directors couldn’t change this. But I could defo be wrong ??
Did everyone say that a business combination occurred on April X6? As a result of the 18% acquisition and the option to take the other 12% shares?
What about q4 part a? I said they where the principal as they where responsible for operation of the game and all other matters and received payments?
I think I said I was doing full goodwill calc but actually did the proportionate method 😀 😀
And stripped out deferred tax for no reason 😀 😀
100% repeat, awful exam
Also stripped out deffered tax from NA calculation, didn’t think you included this.
@micksymooresy16 said:
I think this could be right, why else would they mention that the accountant was off sick for 2 months and hadn’t updated the budgets? Just seems 7 marks is a lot for 2 standard variances but the logic of what your speaking sounds correct@anano said:
In Q31 accountant hadn’t updated standarts and as I remembered, only updated budget may be called revised budget. So I didn’t break it into planning and operational variances. This is maybe my mistake, but anyway my material price variance will be the correctAny thoughts on this?
@anano said:
Now I also found similar question about Truffle Co.. there is required to calculate op&planning variances, you’re right..
I’ve failed)))no shame in it prob failed myself, was a horrible exam, how hard are the p’s like?!
I said he was responsible for the material purchasing as the q said he was responsible for all purchasing issues. so many ways to go wrong like.
thats what I thought. Then i was questioning myself in terms of was the manager resposible for the design changes as the question stated he/she was resposible for all production and purchasing issues.
horrible question
@sunnydeol89 said:
Why would they give 7 or 8 marks for 2 basic variances from f2?my thoughts exactly – then 8 marks to assess 4 standard variances? doesnt add up like. only way I could think is that they attributed marks for the logic
@2929107 said:
if he would have had the chance to change the cost then that would have been the standard cost to compare with actual, that was the whole tricky part. thats why i saw no need of operational/planning variance. i calculated three variance and ‘assessed’ the production managers performance. i guess thats why the marks were more as you had to explain the variances too. dont know though? i might be wrong.That’s why I chose to do the plan & op, because if he had signed off the changes the ‘revised’ would be the standard so there would be no revised to compare to. Because he didn’t sign off changes, the 3 scenarios (standard, act & revised) existed. So that’s why I chose comparison of 3.
tough, tough, tough question – I think your right but I could be right too! 🙂