- This topic has 688 replies, 98 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
- Posts
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 171
- ☆☆
Do u mean the weighted average price? Cos that would have been 4.74 or something since you would have divided the weighted price by the total number of units (6.4/1.35) or so.
If I can remember that 6 and some pence were for 1 batch so no division was necessary
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 171
- ☆☆
Ok cos (0.25/1.35) multiplied by 181,512 should give you 33,613.33 while (0.5/1.35) multiplied by 181,512 should give you 67,226.67. The other (0.6/1.35) gave a round figure
Sam, he is right, there is an alternative method. But i did: (181512/3.5 – 136000) multiplied by 6.4
Basically how I calculated it was at this point which u are taking about the adverse and favroubale varaunce should have been equal to zero and than time by standard Contribution
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 171
- ☆☆
yea, I used the weighted average price per kg method. Much faster IMO.
Weighted average price was 6 and something.
My estimate not too high. I know I have smashed out Q3 4 5 hoping for at least 26 marks from them 3 questions
If you get 30 points on mcq you basically need only 4 points from each of five wuestions 😀
After reading all your comment I think I should get ready to sit F5 again in June.
I messed most of the calculations in part B … 🙁 (very upset)
Anyway will start studying F9.
Good luck to all.I know balance scored card I’m hoping to get minimum of 12 and above.
Even in relevant around 8 marks I think I made a mess off the last point.Coz apportion overhead I don’t would needed to have been included.
The same here, i included it. But do you think they will take off 2 points for this?
Wow F5 and F9 together. That’s a very bold decision I think
Both management.Btw I hate management!!
- The topic ‘*** F5 December 2014 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***’ is closed to new replies.