OCR Accounting 2016

How's everybody on F014 for Friday?

Reply 41

Original post by Robyn98

How's everybody on F014 for Friday?

I hope the questions are as generous as F013, the questions are a lot less forgiving for marks when you make a mistake early in workings.

I feel like the general difficulty of F014 is easier than F013, the hardest thing they can ask is a contract account or cash budgets, but there aren't really any 'hidden' adjustments that can catch people out. The written questions also have quite simple points.

Reply 42

Original post by AGR3

Same here, to me F014 is a bit easier in comparison. However I prefer contract account questions to others and cash budget is not bad either. My only problem with this paper is timing cuz written questions seem to take me a lot of time. Hopefully we will all do well, I've finished the syllabus early and been revising for monthsT.T

Reply 43

Yes I agree, the numbers other than cash budget which can be quite nasty with wording are a lot simpler than with F013 but there's so much content to the written questions. That'll be the hardest part

Reply 44

What topics do with think are coming up

Reply 45

Original post by Robyn98

What topics do with think are coming up

Investment appraisal, absorption costing (full OAR calculation method), budget with P&L and BS. Written question on Just in Time / Economic Order Quantity.

Reply 46

Original post by Robyn98

What topics do with think are coming up

Absorption costing, Job costing, cash budget and investment appraisal

Reply 47

The paper was nice and questions were straightforward :smile:

anyone remember any figures?
I got 1070320 for actual cost q4, and 1.80, 1.20 and 0.80 for OAR per DLH
the purchasing prices for the stock valuation question for 3yrs were 16, 16.8 and 17.22 respectively

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 48

chloeemily17

yeah i got all that too don't remember much else though couldn't figure out standard cost for that question though it was bugging me

Reply 49

I will write up the whole paper with all my answers to questions soon, I don't have all the details of the questions but I have my exact answers.

If anyone can comment with as many written questions as possible incase I have forgotten them that would be appreciated.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 50

Q1 Closing Stock Valuation:
FIFO method closing stock at 2015 (final year) = 6,888
LIFO method closing stock at 2015 (final year) = 6,400

Gross profits FIFO method:
Year 1 28,480
Year 2 33,692
Year 3 35,280

Q2 Single Absorption rate:
40%

Selling price of Job using single rate = 60,960

New OARs:
1.80 per DLH
1.20 per DLH
0.80 per DLH

£30 per DMH
£40 per DMH
£20 per DMH

Cost of Job with new DLH rates = £52,200

Q3 Marginal vs Absorption costing profits were £22,000 and £15.050

Q4 Standard cost = 1,039,950 (before flex) 1,081,548 (after flex)
Actual cost = 1,070,320

Variances should have totalled to the difference (11,228), if it did there's complete probability that all the variances were correct.

These are not confirmed answers, these are my answers, some I am confident of and some not so much. Do not panic if your answers are different, I may be wrong.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 51

Written Questions:

Appropriateness of FIFO, LIFO and AVCO:

SSAP 9 allows FIFO or AVCO, lower of cost and net realisable value
FIFO best, most common, gives more accuracy value if prices are changing as uses recent prices.
Higher stock figure reduces cost of sales, increases profit and current assets.
This method is best for the business as prices were changing.

LIFO not allowed, not very good in general. Uses old prices so false value of stock.
Low stock figure increases cost of sales, decreases profits and current assets.
Possibly useful when prices don't change, as will be same value as FIFO.

AVCO useful if prices fluctuate but steadily.
Most likely gives lowest stock value out of FIFO or AVCO which means it is most prudent.
Same effect as FIFO but lesser extent.

3 Uses of Marginal costing in decision making:
Choose:
Make or buy, limiting factor, special order, discontinue a product, pricing etc...

Evaluate original OAR with new OARS:
Old OAR is bad. Overheads are mostly time-based and so unrelated to total costs. Will most likely give incorrect absorption rate and so over/under absorb which affects profits.
New OAR good, different grades of labour so each department will have different OAR. Time-based.

How inappropriate OARs adversely affect profits:

Over absorption = higher profits, however the higher price may lead to reduced sales which will reduce profits.

Under absorption = difference charged to P&L as expense which reduces profit.

Two effects of a favourable material price variance:

Price is cheaper and so profits may be higher. However as price is cheaper the quality of goods may be lower which will lead to higher wastage = higher costs = lower profits.
If quality of goods are not to customers expectations it will reduce sales and decrease profits.

I may have missed 1 or 2 written questions, I didn't have time to remember them, if you can reply to this with the missed question I'll remember my answer.

Reply 52

Original post by AGR3

Q1 Closing Stock Valuation:
FIFO method closing stock at 2015 (final year) = 6,888
LIFO method closing stock at 2015 (final year) = 6,400

Gross profits FIFO method:
Year 1 28,480
Year 2 33,692
Year 3 35,280

Single Absorption rate:
40%

Selling price of Job using single rate = 60,960

New OARs:
1.80 per DLH
1.20 per DLH
0.80 per DLH

£30 per DMH
£40 per DMH
£20 per DMH

Cost of Job with new DLH rates = £52,200

Question I can't remember, something about profit, answers were £22,000 and £15.050

Standard cost = 1,039,950 (before flex) 1,081,548 (after flex)
Actual cost = 1,070,320

Variances should have totalled to the difference (11,228), if it did there's complete probability that all the variances were correct.

These are not confirmed answers, these are my answers, some I am confident of and some not so much. Do not panic if your answers are different, I may be wrong.

The 22,000 in the job costing question I think was the prime cost (21,200+800). Idk where the following figure came from though.
Btw in the standard costing question we were supposed to calculate standard cost for 4680 units right? I mean is that what they expect in the mark scheme in previous years? can't remember.

Reply 53

Original post by TPP19

Yes the standard costs had to be flexed to match actual production of 4680. Also, not sure why I would've remembered prime cost, it may be something else.

Reply 54

Original post by AGR3

Yes the standard costs had to be flexed to match actual production of 4680. Also, not sure why I would've remembered prime cost, it may be something else.

Well yes that's probable. Just cuz it was the first thing coming to my mind when I saw 22,000. Anw thank u.

Reply 55

Think the paper was alright. Standard questions. What figures did people get for the marginal v absorption question?

Reply 56

Original post by Robyn98

Think the paper was alright. Standard questions. What figures did people get for the marginal v absorption question?

I think the profit figures I got were £22,000 and £15,050. Can't remember the question for certain though.

Reply 57

Original post by AGR3

I think the profit figures I got were £22,000 and £15,050. Can't remember the question for certain though.

For which year? I can't remember my figures

Reply 58