Paper F5 Dec 2010 exam was

overall….did comments, not finished computations…lol

@suso7 said:
labour rate variance
650*1.5+750*2=2475 hours should take
2475-2200=275
275*2*(18-14)=2200(A)
labour efficiency extra 275*14=3850(A)
in total 6050(A)
Did anyone do like this?

hmm seems logical, however i would say 275 hours x 18 because 14 $ is the rate of pay for permanent staff. we were supposed to calculate temporary staff labour variances. You had only total variance of 6050 (A) , and you only knew how many hours they should take – 275 hours x 18 = 4950
but did take 550 hours x 18 = 9900 (it was said that temps worked twice as much in the question)

9900 – 4950 = 4950 (A). To calculate rate variance you deduct 4950 from the total variance of 6050(A) – 4950 = 1100 (A)
6050=4950+1100

@marcin060482 said:
hmm seems logical, however i would say 275 hours x 18 because 14 $ is the rate of pay for permanent staff. we were supposed to calculate temporary staff labour variances. You had only total variance of 6050 (A) , and you only knew how many hours they should take – 275 hours x 18 = 4950
but did take 550 hours x 18 = 9900 (it was said that temps worked twice as much in the question)

9900 – 4950 = 4950 (A). To calculate rate variance you deduct 4950 from the total variance of 6050(A) – 4950 = 1100 (A)
6050=4950+1100

efficiancy variance is the difference between actual hours worked & standard hours for actual production * standard rate. difference is that extra 275 hours (new workers worked slower)*14. Is not so?

sorry tgemporary staff worked twice as much =550 hrs:)

it doesn'[t matter now, pray for pass,

and merry christmas,

PS> Exams is not most important thing in life…

@joevassallo said:
Questions were too long – you need to spend a lot of timw reading through it before you answer the questions.

Not very confident.

Am surprised 2 questions were repeated from June exam – linear programming and ABC.

hi

i think same. I thought there will be no linear programming and AbC and they actually featured…

overall easy exam for well prepared student, but I am not confident too much about my result..

Didn’t like this paper at all. Was not expecting ABC and Linear to come up again. There was far too much reading in the Performance Measurement Q and the labour variances were difficult. Did not do well and I think I will be seeing this one again in June!

Anyone agree?! Please say yes! Lol!

@willynwilson said:
I thought the exam was severly time pressured! I just about finished, labour rate and labour variance was a bit rubbish!

Linear programming, optimal point was at the two constraints that weren’t 1+0.5 = can’t remember!

I think I got 1275 and 875 for optimum plan, with a shadow price of 1 I think!

It said on the question that unfinished products were going to be made the following week, so I just got rid of the 2 decimal places and calculated the full products!

Q2, the company performed much better than the year before, and as market was going to decline by 20%, their turnover only decreased 8%!

Q4, cost drivers, I had procurement and purchase orders, delivery against deliveries, machine running costs and machine hours, and machine set up against production runs!

Anyone agree?! Please say yes! Lol!

Yes 🙂

I agree with you. Only for the units – I think you had to keep the 2 decimals..as it was written on the question, but I don’t think they will take points for this..I also got confused and at the beginning got rid of the decimals..but if you do so..and when you calculate the shadow price..it will show you that for the Optimal level…the grams used were over the limit of 5000..which can’t be possible as you have make the equations.. to restrict to that level….when you calculate it with 2 decimals..result was 4999.13 grams used..which is less than 5000 and in other conditions..this would be not Binding..but as the diff is less than 1 unit…I said that is limiting and calculated the Shadow Price…Hope this will be fine and correct!@

@vthiru7777 said:
new examinar she shows her talent on us…….
she change the entire formate of the paper.
I

OK so new examiner showing style on us …BAD BAD VERY BAD
and i saw the same thing in F9 paper this time…so much concentration on NPV and other few topics…others like Forex,interest rates, hedging, etc were not even touched in the paper…skewed papers cannot be test of someone’s ablity….although I am hoping for a pass in both F5 and F9 … cheers

hey guys i think i did not bad with regards to Q1, Q2, Q4 and Q5 i did not have alot of time for Q3! All i did on Q3 was define variable and establish constraints….what did people put for the contraints please? will i get marks for this part? thanks!!

the questions were too long and wasted a lot of time.
For example for linear progression i calculated the contribution to find that the contribution was given.
Performance management I could have spent two hours on it.
variances- too much junk for a variance question.
generally f5 has been one of the worst subjects.Hope Ann Irons will credit us wisely.

tooo ttoooo waayyyy easy paper
i did forecastingggg , just managed to understand it 4 am in the morning ATLAST. it didnt come
curves, i spent like hours on these questions
didnt come
paper was very easy
lengthy i would agree…could have done even better if had 30 more mins 😀
but yes ppl u cant complain…if u didnt find this easy,,,then i would like u to explain me wht easy is

I thought the 1c+0.5l wasn’t one of the optimal constraints? I calculated at all points in the graph,

I can’t remember the other 2.

You are right there was one more constrain – labour if I am right (9600 min?) and on my graph two constrains crossed each other was that one with 5000 and labour with 9600 – I got answers as somebody already posted it here