读书人财会频道财会考试专业网站 http://www.reader8.com/exam/caikuai/ Relevant to: Paper 1.2Professional scheme The structure of this paper was identical to recent previous sittings with 25 compulsor
读书人财会频道 财会考试专业网站 http://www.reader8.com/exam/caikuai/
Relevant to: Paper 1.2Professional scheme
The structure of this paper was identical to
recent previous sittings with 25 compulsory
multiple choice questions in Section A and five
compulsory 10 mark questions in Section B.
Section A
The questions in this section came from right
across the syllabus and the topics tested complemented the
topics set in Section B. Each question carried two marks.
There was the usual mixture of computational and descriptive questions.
Questions on the following topics were least well answered: cost behaviour,
break even charts, relevant costs for decision making,
costvolumeprofit analysis and process costing
involving work in process and equivalent units.
Section B
Question 1
This question tested various aspects of process
costing including normal and abnormal losses and abnormal gains.
The process also involved the creation of two joint products.
Part (a) required candidates to produce one process account
which included the volumes and valuations of the joint products
separately. Errors made by weaker candidates were:
To produce more than one process account.
To present an answer in the wrong format – an account was required.
To show the combined output and value of the joint products.
To incorrectly calculate the abnormal loss in the process.
To show the normal loss as having no realisable value.
Part (b) required candidates to explain how an abnormal gain
arises and how it should be treated in a process account.
This part was answered well by many candidates.
Question 2
This question involved cost-volume-profit analysis for a
single product situation. In part (a)
candidates were required to calculate the contribution
per unit and the total profit for the current year from the
information given. The key to doing this was to be able to
apply the given contribution to sales ratio correctly to the
given variable cost per unit. The calculations involved were
incorrectly done by many candidates. Part (b) required
candidates to calculate how many units of the product
should be produced and sold in the next year to achieve
a target profit given that the selling price and costs were
increasing by different percentages. A very common error
was to use the fixed cost per unit given and adjust this for
the percentage increase in cost rather than
applying it to the total fixed cost.
Previous examiner’s comments have emphasised
the importance of candidates
showing clear workings in their answers. This question was a
classic example of one where the common error
in part (a) - already referred to - did not mean that
marks were automatically lost in part (b)
even though it involved using the figures already calculated
in part (a). As long as the workings were clearly shown in part (b),
a candidate could have scored full marks in part (b) using the
wrong figures brought forward from part (a).
The written part of this question (c) required candidates
to explain and give an example of a semi-variable cost
and to explain how such a cost is dealt with
in costvolumeprofit analysis. Part (c) was the
best answered part of this question.
Question 3
This question required the calculation of two sales
variances for a company using absorption costing
and an explanation of who in the organisation
would need such variance information. The last
part of the question tested candidates understanding
of the difference between absorption costing and
marginal costing. Answers to the calculation of the
two straightforward sales variances were generally
very disappointing. Common errors were:
· To use the production figures given rather than
the sales figures in calculating the sales volume variance.
· To calculate a sales volume turnover variance
rather than the sales volume profit variance as clearly
stated in the requirements to the question.
· To base the sales price variance on budgeted sales
(or even production) rather than on actual sales units.
· To fail to indicate clearly whether the variances
calculated were adverse or favourable.
In part (b) candidates often wrote at length about
the possible causes of the variances calculated in part (a)
which was not required and gained no credit. Part (b)
was about identifying who in the organisation should
have the sales variances reported to them and why.
A surprisingly large number of candidates did not
specifically mention the sales or marketing managers at all in their answers.
Part (c) required candidates to calculate the budgeted
profit under absorption costing and the equivalent figure
if marginal costing had been in use. Many candidates
produced unnecessarily elaborate answers. For example,
full trading statements were not necessary to arrive at the
profits. A very common error was to produce actual
profits the requirement to the question had the requirement for
BUDGETED profit in capitals.
Question 4
Most candidates found this question on the economic
order quantity (EOQ) concept the easiest on the paper.
In part (a) the EOQ for two different years needed to be calculated.
Errors that arose involved misreading the question (the cost of
placing an order rose by £11 and not to £11) and incorrect
substitutions into the formula that was given on the
examination paper. Part (b) caused a lot more
problems to candidates it involved the calculation
of the extra cost of ordering
and holding stock between one year and the next.
A significant number of candidates had little idea
about how to calculate the annual costs involved
even though they had correctly calculated the EOQ
in part (a). The short descriptive part (c) was well answered by
most candidates. In line with the marks, quite brief answers
were expected as candidates only needed to “identify”
major holding and ordering costs. Some candidates wasted
time by writing at length about these costs.
Question 5
The last question on the paper involved scarce resources
for two periods. In the first period there was a single scarce
resource and in the second two scarce resources. Therefore a linear
programming approach was only required in part (b) for the second period.
Common errors made by candidates were:
To try and use linear programming in part (a) instead of calculating
the contribution per unit of limiting factor for each product.
To ignore the requirement in both parts (a) and (b) to calculate
the resultant total contribution for the optimal production plans.
To base the optimal plan in part (a) on the product with the
highest contribution per unit.
To ignore the information given in the question that the optimal
plan in the second period involved a combination of both products.
To muddle up values and units in the same constraint in part (b).
It was surprising to find a significant number of candidates
performing better in part (b) than in part (a) of this question.
来源:读书人-ACCA考试
