- This topic has 456 replies, 63 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
@gawcram said:
Qustion says something like this
35% mark up on cost
and they mentioned the cost to parent is 2.43
which means if the cost is 100 they would sell 135, profit is 35
if they had mentioned parent sold 2.43 then u are right
but here they mentioned 2.43 is only the cost to parentGeshi, no. Mark up is 35/135
@accastudent1986 said:
Remind me what the question said about the deferred tax asset/liability?unrecorded 1.2 something deferred tax asset in question 1 note 2 i guess
@gawcram said:
you are considering 2.43 as sales which means cost plus profit
but qustion says 2.43 is only costYou misunderstood something
@gawcram said:
you are considering 2.43 as sales which means cost plus profit
but qustion says 2.43 is only costIt stated at cost to subsidiary, which means sales to parent, so u are wrong
@emo777 said:
You misunderstood somethingAll I want to ask is ,this 2.43 amount did the qustion say as parent sold goods to sub for 2.43
or the cost for parent is 2.43?@gawcram said:
All I want to ask is ,this 2.43 amount did the qustion say as parent sold goods to sub for 2.43
or the cost for parent is 2.43?It was cost for subsidiary, so revenue for paren, thats why 35/135
@emo777 said:
It stated at cost to subsidiary, which means sales to parent, so u are wrongif its cost to sub, you are right
I misunderstood for cost to parent@christa316 said:
But it said it was 35% of costDidnt it say that the markup was 35% of cost… and wasn’t the cost listed as the cost to the Parent?
Oh thats why I had the difference then. I swore that was the cost to the parent so I calculated the markup to find the profit and that was the PURP
Yes, i remember It was the cost to parent aswell
@emo777 said:
Kevin, for you man. There was a question about capital gearing, the answer was D, risk and smth. Impairment was pretty straighforward.What was it about capital gearing, I cant remember
@gawcram said:
What was it about capital gearing, I cant rememberIt was about risk and debt structure
I remember it to be 2.43 at cost for subsidiary. It cant be 2.43 at cost to parent, i have made many examples on thus, and acca never gave something like 35/100
@cene89 said:
How did you calculate the ROCEs in Q2?Adam, i will explain. But what is your solution tp purp in question 1? The case with 2.43?
@cene89 said:
630 was the PURP of the parent!2.43*35/135 right?
@cene89 said:
Yes!Ok, regarding roces in part A, just use formula and it asked for continuing, so pbit/ capital employed
@anna777 said:
Gvtftf, thanks. Perhaps, I guess. I don’t remember 🙂Anna, u non for profit net shares i net shareholderov, tolko non financial performance
I thought I was the only one that saw the cost to parent.. I applied to markup to 4,3m
what you are showing is the profit margin…. But the cost that was given was cost to parent
@gawcram said:
if its cost to sub, you are right
I misunderstood for cost to parentGeshi, if you lok through the thread you would see I had the same thing.
I am sure they said cost to parent… but in this case I thought majority ruled so I assumed I interpreted it wrong
The tax losses were related to the sub. It should have been recognised as a tax asset since they were sure that there was going to be future profits the losses could have been relieved against. The post acq. profits however would have remained the same so you would have had the same ending loss of (1200) .
The goodwill however would have been iffy
@christa316 said:
The tax losses were related to the sub. It should have been recognised as a tax asset since they were sure that there was going to be future profits the losses could have been relieved against. The post acq. profits however would have remained the same so you would have had the same ending loss of (1200) .The goodwill however would have been iffy
What did u include when u calculate net assets at acqn of sub when u calculate the goodwill?
I remember share capital of sub plus retained earnings at acqn of sub and deduct fv adjustment
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.