PMJune 10 Exams POLL Paper F5 was Post your comments here

guys, relax, it will be shame to fail :P

@ollie78 said:
yea i got shadow price of 4 and 10 but struggled with the 200w bit for some reason, mind went blank! Q5 think it was something like number of members x 12 divided by number of visits. i got two at over and 2 under i think and bonus was 6 x 400 so $2400. anyone agree??? hope so!

I agree with this!

I couldnt do shadow prices, mind went blank!

WIth the w=200 bit, i calculated a new feasible region and a new optimal point and solved it! Hope it was right!

can someone send a details calculation for the shadow prices please???i am desperate to know the answer................

Thanks OT not sure how I would cope without you

Hi all,

The paper overall was OKish..

Question 2, I wasnt sure about which pricing strategies to mention that related to the building industry, so ended up mentioning penetration pricing for the GC and market skimming for the EX.

Also on ABC calculation, the difference on ABC overheads compared to the full cost was quite significant.

Question 3 let me down and also 13 marks to calculate variances, not sure if I've done enough.
Question 5 required some thinking time, but overall was OK.

@4152marky said:
I got that total also i think. It was number of members x 60% x 12.

As for if it was controlable, i said it wasn't as the manager couldn't force his members to go to the gym once a week. Also if they had already paid their subscriptions and did attend once a week it would impact on his capacity which was going to get limited due to the growth.

I've calculated members x 60% = x

Then number of visits / x

It gave me numbers between 11 and 13

@mussa1984 said:
Hi all,
The paper overall was OKish..
Question 2, I wasnt sure about which pricing strategies to mention that related to the building industry, so ended up mentioning penetration pricing for the GC and market skimming for the EX.
Also on ABC calculation, the difference on ABC overheads compared to the full cost was quite significant.
Question 3 let me down and also 13 marks to calculate variances, not sure if I've done enough.
Question 5 required some thinking time, but overall was OK.
I've calculated members x 60% = x
Then number of visits / x
It gave me numbers between 11 and 13

The target was number of members x 60% x 12. I compared this to the number of visits per qtr.
The pricing strategies I used were complementery pricing, as you could sell a GC and EX together at disount, and penetration pricing to gather reputation and growth.

Before reading all these comments i was very happy and confident to secure v healthy marks in this paper as it really was easy but now i've seen that i made a few mistakes so i am only hoping for a pass now :(
as far as paper is concerned last night i was thinkin not to go for the exam cos i was sure i am gonna fail it but I went for it cos i am not a looser and surprisingly according to me paper was the easiest in the history of F5... Mr Geoff Rocks!!!

yea pricing strategies question-none really stood out i put complementary and skimming but neither really aplied to the building trade in that way but guess get some examples in and hope for some marks! also question on controlling the outcome q5 not that easy

not sure about anyone else, but I really couldn't get into the study for F5 after fowling up on my expectations on F6. However, everything seemed fairly easy, and I don't really care if I fail, obviously It would be better to pass first time, it looks better in an interview etc. What's important is I can now enjoy my summer. Until December, enjoy.

@ollie78 said:
yea i got shadow price of 4 and 10 but struggled with the 200w bit for some reason, mind went blank! Q5 think it was something like number of members x 12 divided by number of visits. i got two at over and 2 under i think and bonus was 6 x 400 so $2400. anyone agree??? hope so!

yeah 2400 is correct :D same ans by me

in question to i write that using low price material is not good but having di-skilled processes would be OK

can any body tell me how much i am correct?

@handsome said:
in question to i write that using low price material is not good but having di-skilled processes would be OK
can any body tell me how much i am correct?

De-skilling the workforce "possibly" did more harm than good. The net variance was adverse which suggested that any savings on the rate variance were more than offset by the efficiency variance. Although it could be argued that with a learning curve this may be recovered.
All in all, on the face of it the paper was easier due to the lack of mathematical content. But it was still actually a difficult paper.

Also it stated that sales had slumped and returns were up 20% which would suggest that quality i.e. long term profitiability had suffered,

paper was easy as from the previous past papers...overall it was ok i didnt solve simultaneous equation and thats y no commentx bout question 2.

@handsome said:
in question to i write that using low price material is not good but having di-skilled processes would be OK

can any body tell me how much i am correct?

I share the same opinion, as labour efficiency was adverse due to additional time spent on wood supplied by new supplier.

Also I have mentioned that if the company would go back and use the old supplier, there would be some savings by using less skilled labourers.

@mussa1984 said:
I share the same opinion, as labour efficiency was adverse due to additional time spent on wood supplied by new supplier.

Also I have mentioned that if the company would go back and use the old supplier, there would be some savings by using less skilled labourers.

@mussa1984 said:
I share the same opinion, as labour efficiency was adverse due to additional time spent on wood supplied by new supplier.

Also I have mentioned that if the company would go back and use the old supplier, there would be some savings by using less skilled labourers.

I never thought about it like that, doh!!!!

I aslso said that he should have used the cheaper supplier to renegoiate with his existing supplier.

As said you could take this paper any way you want. There were a lot of questions that without further detail you could interpret it whatever way you want.

I was happy enough with the the paper until I read all these comments.
I said the shadow price of tailors time was nil because there was slack - the line was outside the optimum.
I also go a really wierd shadow price for material.

I go confuses with the idle time in the variance question and the different figures for production and sales.

Even the ABC question seems to have gone wrong as I stupidly sugested ways other than costs + instead of talking about skimming, penetration etc. How could I have done something so stupid.

Q5 is a blur as I was out of time and my writing was crazy.

Glad I looked at this - otherwise I would have spent the summer thinking I passed and would be bitterly disappointed in August.

Overall, it looked easy on the surface, but there were some curve balls.

I think the paper was easy. Surprisingly my difficult question was #1. I got a bit confused with the cost drivers in section b. Question 5 was easy also question 3 was bat overall, I mess up with time management and needed another to complete the paper. Thanks open tutition

overall the paper was easier than i expected. im not sure how i did on the written but my calculations werent too bad so hopefully i did enough.

thanks to OT i finally understood shadow prices when i watched the video (only 2 days ago) so i was quite happy when i saw that question. Q5 was the hardest. not sure how i'll do. Thanks again OT team and good luck to everyone...

Thats funny! I said the opposite. I said that the PM was acting for short term and individual gain and that he was putting in jeopardy the whole ethos of the company which stood for quality goods made in a traditional way, as proved by the other manager walking out.

@4152marky said:
I never thought about it like that, doh!!!!

I aslso said that he should have used the cheaper supplier to renegoiate with his existing supplier.

As said you could take this paper any way you want. There were a lot of questions that without further detail you could interpret it whatever way you want.

F5 exams today was ok but not all that easy as some people have been saying.
Questions number 1,2,3 and may be 4 was ok but required a lot of time. Question 5 was a bit confused. My question is; how many people were able to manage their time well to answer all the questions? For all the comments I have read so far everybody is talking only about Linear programming which they say a bit easy and is only 20 marks and how can you get the rest of 30 marks to pass F5.
Anyway OpenTuition has done a good job especially John and I hope to get 50% but not easy, let all face the fact. Lol!!!!

@passfirsttime said:
I was happy enough with the the paper until I read all these comments.
I said the shadow price of tailors time was nil because there was slack - the line was outside the optimum.
I also go a really wierd shadow price for material.
I go confuses with the idle time in the variance question and the different figures for production and sales.
Even the ABC question seems to have gone wrong as I stupidly sugested ways other than costs + instead of talking about skimming, penetration etc. How could I have done something so stupid.
Q5 is a blur as I was out of time and my writing was crazy.
Glad I looked at this - otherwise I would have spent the summer thinking I passed and would be bitterly disappointed in August.
Overall, it looked easy on the surface, but there were some curve balls.

Sorry to say mate. But there was no slack as the optimum point was the intersection of the labour and material constraints, That will explain your stange results for the shadow price.

@shane1988 said:
I did not have much trouble like you guys with Q5, i answered the last part stating that the manager could have unethically changed the figures for lateness so he hits bonus, and changed figures for member visits – to again trigger bonus… explained a bit as i wasnt sure why 5 marks was given!

Well... actual changing the data in the computer is not only unethical but straightforward fraud.
I think the exeminer (Ann Irons) was thinking in a different line.
I have given an example that in the 4th qtr the manager was only one training short from his target to get his bonus for that period. He can give that lesson away for free and get his money. It is unethical since it will incur cost for the company without having a corresponding income. It would not be done to boost sale but only watching his own interest.

Does anyone know if John has seen the paper, and what he thought?

Yes, the question said 'manipulate', which implys that he would do something like hold a new membership rather that something fraudulent or illegal.

@edinapr said:
Well... actual changing the data in the computer is not only unethical but straightforward fraud.
I think the exeminer (Pami Bahl) was thinking in a different line.
I have given an example that in the 4th qtr the manager was only one training short from his target to get his bonus for that period. He can give that lesson away for free and get his money. It is unethical since it will incur cost for the company without having a corresponding income. It would not be done to boost sale but only watching his own interest.

It is so obvious to me now!
Thanks.

@4152marky said:
Sorry to say mate. But there was no slack as the optimum point was the intersection of the labour and material constraints, That will explain your stange results for the shadow price.

i relied on the tips and i'm glad i did!!
God bless opentuition!!!!!

@keeva said:
Ref. shadow pricing -- I hope I remember correctly the figures:
7W+5L = 3500
2W+2L = 1201 (if I calculate it for tailor's time)
Solve this, and obtain a shadow price of $4. Together with the normal rate of $1.5 it gives a total of $5.5, more in comparison with the tailor's offer....so...accept the offer! This was my answer....

Hi, I also have answered to accept the tailors offer since they were only asking $3 extra above their regular rate. The regular rate was included in the original calculation. That was lower than the shadow price. But interestingly I got $8 as a shadow price.
C=48W+40L
The original product mix was 350 W and 250 L that gave me $26800 contribution. The new product mix after the labour hour was increased by 1 the new product mix was 351W and 249L. That gave me $26808. The difference is $8. So now... how did you get the $4?

I found 4/5 of the questions OK.

The shadow pricing question was a disaster for me though as I just didn't get to grips with it.

Anyone know when the question paper goes online?

THE PAPER WAS BIT TRICKY .....SMALL CALCULATION.......MORE DISCSION.....PAPER WAS NOT JUST EASY IT WAS TRICKY..........I TOTALY MESSED UP WITH Q5.......I TOOK LAST 45MINS ONLY FOR THIS QUSTION.......I WASTED 30 MINS TO UNDERSTAN WHAT THE EXAMINER EXACTLY WANT TO ASK.........WELL DONE MR.DAVID......YOU PREPAPRE THE EXAM WITH HARD WORKING...AND WE ALSO HAVE DONE IT WITH LOT OF PAIN........HOPE EVERY ONE CLEAR THIS EXAM...BEST OF LUCK EVERY1............

@vickylucky said:
THE PAPER WAS BIT TRICKY .....SMALL CALCULATION.......MORE DISCSION.....PAPER WAS NOT JUST EASY IT WAS TRICKY..........I TOTALY MESSED UP WITH Q5.......I TOOK LAST 45MINS ONLY FOR THIS QUSTION.......I WASTED 30 MINS TO UNDERSTAN WHAT THE EXAMINER EXACTLY WANT TO ASK.........WELL DONE MR.DAVID......YOU PREPAPRE THE EXAM WITH HARD WORKING...AND WE ALSO HAVE DONE IT WITH LOT OF PAIN........HOPE EVERY ONE CLEAR THIS EXAM...BEST OF LUCK EVERY1............

We got the warning: On the success CD they said that the exeminer is passionate about Non Financial Performance Indicators. We should have thought about the Q5 as managers not as accountants. Then it would have been very easy. It was similar to some of the MBA exam questions though. I liked it. It was different.