- This topic has 688 replies, 98 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
- Posts
Regarding super isor, his salary was not relevant, but his overtime salary is relevant cost
No but than u had to replace the wood as well with the price being charged at four weeks later.
Sam, but as far as i remember there is no further use for 20 ms, because they are not used periodically, just 480
I think 20 times the price they paid was sunk
Than 30 which we needed at the higher price
And 20 again for the replacement with price from four weeks later
There was use. The question clearly said this type of wood is in regular use. The minute u see regular it simply mean it needs replacing
You just use 20 for order, zero relevant cost, you take 30 out of 480 used periodically, then you just replenish 30
The only trick in this question was which price will u charge and the answer was 4 Weeks later coz the original supplier would have been supplying it
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 171
- ☆☆
I agree with Sam, the 20m2 was needed 4 weeks later and would have been replaced at a cost of $8.2 per m2 while the 30m2 to be bought will be valued at $8.5 per m2
I got 9 thousand something even if I m wrong or your wrong the difference is off 100 not 1000
You are right guys, but only if whole 500 units were used periodically. I remember the note stated that 20 of 500 are not of further use
I don’t think it said that.
Coz the last sentence clearly mentioned this would be needed again but the problem was which price, earlier or later and clearly original supplier was supplying within 3 weeks so it’s fine
Mcqs that took my time were with answers feedforward, minus 1300, D and A, breakeven of 18 smth, 16 shadow price
Sam/gtv
Trust me, you’ve smashed this paper. I agree with 99% of what you’ve said. I also agree with the 0.33 and 0.67 rounding of mix variances, exactly what I got although if you prefer weighted then that method is equally correct. I prefer mr Moffat’s method as works better in my tiny brain cells!Ps Sam, I also go with you on the other 20 units of mats being required in future.
Importantly the very few diffs we have a little point dropped here or there. Please to see others wrote similar to me for balanced scorecard part 2. Think this was a curveball and will split those candidates that covered the ‘entire’ syllabus rather than trying to guess what will come up. Also think the Mcq format also supports requirement to not skip any areas and therefore rewards hard work. Well done guys!!’Stop worrying Gtv. Every point we make we’re able to back up. Of course odd points here and there will be dropped but we’re both making rational points with minor differences. I’m a ver pessimistic person on exams ordinarily so please don’t mistake this for arrogance. I can just see from your rationale that you’ve knocked this out of the park and you’ve worked hard and will be rewarded for it.
- The topic ‘*** F5 December 2014 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***’ is closed to new replies.