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
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, cost-volume-profit
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 cost- volume-profit 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
