June 10 Exams POLL Paper F5 was Post your comments here

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!

I thought Q3 was the problem.. i started to calculate the optimal point with a simultaneous equation, and i kept getting W at 0 and L at 600.. which i was mythed about as W had higher contribution, but i continued to use through the scenario..

how else did people tackle Q3 a) ?

@ Ollie 78 – yes i agree with that bonus 6 x 400

@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 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.

The paper was so straight forward and easy but i concentrated my study on the difficult part of the sylabus and was shocked to see the paper.
i hope i pass F5.but q5 was a bit tricky involve a lot of calculations..

guys, relax, it will be shame to fail 😛

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

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

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!!!

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.

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?

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.

@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 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

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.