ATAR Notes: Forum
Archived Discussion => Business Studies => 2011 => End-of-year exams => Exam Discussion => Victoria => Accounting => Topic started by: RossiJ on November 11, 2011, 07:58:49 pm
-
I had 2 at 90 and 1 at 80 but then changed it to 3 at 90 as VCAA usually leave one line at the bottom of every answer ;)
what was the answer ??
-
I had 2 at 90 and 1 at 80 as well, but pretty sure it is incorrect
my friend who should get a 50 did 3 at 90, basically he said that it could be due to an oversupply of stock, of which you take it from the cost price of 90 and not 80.
My thought process was that the business never had 41 at 90, it only ever had 40 units at 90. Thus you had to take one from the 80 batch.
-
My thought process was that the business never had 41 at 90, it only ever had 40 units at 90. Thus you had to take one from the 80 batch.
My exact thought process, lucky I went against it
Thanks xx
-
I had 2 at 90 and 1 at 80 as well, but pretty sure it is incorrect
my friend who should get a 50 did 3 at 90, basically he said that it could be due to an oversupply of stock, of which you take it from the cost price of 90 and not 80.
My thought process was that the business never had 41 at 90, it only ever had 40 units at 90. Thus you had to take one from the 80 batch.
But alternatively, It could also have been due to an undersupply to the customer, which would mean it would be the 2 at 90 and 1 at 80. Also, I think the cambridge textbook says that you should apply FIFO in reverse for a Stock Gain. I'm not 100% sure though...
-
i just used 'last out first in'
-
my teacher has said in the past you can use both
-
i just used 'last out first in'
same :) logical or not haha
-
I had 2 at 90 and 1 at 80 as well, but pretty sure it is incorrect
my friend who should get a 50 did 3 at 90, basically he said that it could be due to an oversupply of stock, of which you take it from the cost price of 90 and not 80.
My thought process was that the business never had 41 at 90, it only ever had 40 units at 90. Thus you had to take one from the 80 batch.
But alternatively, It could also have been due to an undersupply to the customer, which would mean it would be the 2 at 90 and 1 at 80. Also, I think the cambridge textbook says that you should apply FIFO in reverse for a Stock Gain. I'm not 100% sure though...
how would an undersupply to the customer result in taking 1 from the batch of 80 and 2 from 90?
-
I had 2 at 90 and 1 at 80 as well, but pretty sure it is incorrect
my friend who should get a 50 did 3 at 90, basically he said that it could be due to an oversupply of stock, of which you take it from the cost price of 90 and not 80.
My thought process was that the business never had 41 at 90, it only ever had 40 units at 90. Thus you had to take one from the 80 batch.
But alternatively, It could also have been due to an undersupply to the customer, which would mean it would be the 2 at 90 and 1 at 80. Also, I think the cambridge textbook says that you should apply FIFO in reverse for a Stock Gain. I'm not 100% sure though...
how would an undersupply to the customer result in taking 1 from the batch of 80 and 2 from 90?
Because if for example you only provided 19 units of stock instead of the 22, you would have only used your 80 stock and hence would have your 1 item of $90 stock in hand.
But yeah, as kamb0z said, I think you can use either
-
makes sense what you're saying, hope you're right...i guess we'll never know unless we order statements....though i dont know if im gonna give a shit in two months time
-
don't you apply reverse FIFO method. so it has too be 3 at 90 ... an undersupply to customers would support this .. as that is usually the reason that there is a gain ? right ?
-
I had 2 at 90 and 1 at 80 as well, but pretty sure it is incorrect
my friend who should get a 50 did 3 at 90, basically he said that it could be due to an oversupply of stock, of which you take it from the cost price of 90 and not 80.
My thought process was that the business never had 41 at 90, it only ever had 40 units at 90. Thus you had to take one from the 80 batch.
But alternatively, It could also have been due to an undersupply to the customer, which would mean it would be the 2 at 90 and 1 at 80. Also, I think the cambridge textbook says that you should apply FIFO in reverse for a Stock Gain. I'm not 100% sure though...
it would have been taken from the $90 units not the $80
-
Realising now that I was probably wrong, But I had 2 at 80 and 1 at 90... because of the credit purchase return, this means (unless there was an oversupply) then there could only possibly be 39 @ 90 and hence the other 2 gains were at 80. But yeah this is doubtful
-
Yeah it was "too easy", and I kept thinking that VCAA was trying to fuck with me in some way. In the end I was like nahh kent be, so just left it as 3 x 90.
-
I had 2 at 90 and 1 at 80 as well, but pretty sure it is incorrect
my friend who should get a 50 did 3 at 90, basically he said that it could be due to an oversupply of stock, of which you take it from the cost price of 90 and not 80.
My thought process was that the business never had 41 at 90, it only ever had 40 units at 90. Thus you had to take one from the 80 batch.
But alternatively, It could also have been due to an undersupply to the customer, which would mean it would be the 2 at 90 and 1 at 80. Also, I think the cambridge textbook says that you should apply FIFO in reverse for a Stock Gain. I'm not 100% sure though...
how would an undersupply to the customer result in taking 1 from the batch of 80 and 2 from 90?
Because if for example you only provided 19 units of stock instead of the 22, you would have only used your 80 stock and hence would have your 1 item of $90 stock in hand.
But yeah, as kamb0z said, I think you can use either
You can also use the most conservative price (says in the study tip of the cambridge book) + my teacher has advised us to use it on various occasions.
-
Last Out First In
LOFI
sounds like luffy
i think it would be right for you
-
Last Out First In
LOFI
sounds like luffy
i think it would be right for you
So 1x80 and 2x90 ??
-
im pretty sure stock gains do not follow last out first in.. thats only for sales returns
cause remember we learnt stock gains in unit 3 but last out first in in unit 4..
so im pretty sure 3x90 is correct. although it wasnt worded the best.. the stock gain could have come from anywhere.. oversupply by supplier or undersupply to customer (which is highly unlikely as they only bought 3..)
-
look at the book it does it would do it as 2 at 90 and 1 at 80, as last in first out i think both are correct
-
It doesn't matter. VCAA clearly does not specify which option is correct (Reverse FIFO, Conservatism or the only cost price left), so as long as you gained 3 units of stock, you should get 1 mark for the stock gain.
-
You had 41 at 90 dollars each. The Sales Return returned 1 unit of stock at 90 dollars.
To explain this, the concept of the cost of the stock being returned is "TO RETURN THE BUSINESS TO A POSITION AS IF THE SALE DID NOT OCCUR".
If, for that example, you sold 1 less item, FIFO would take 1 less item from the 90s, the last ones to be sold. As such, the business would have 1 more unit of stock at 90 dollars. Therefore, the cost of the stock being returned is $90.
-
It doesn't matter. VCAA clearly does not specify which option is correct (Reverse FIFO, Conservatism or the only cost price left), so as long as you gained 3 units of stock, you should get 1 mark for the stock gain.
I agree with this. However, I just checked out the question book again. In the stock write down question, it says something like "10 stock items ($90 cost price)" - Why would it say the cost price if the only cost price was $90.. I'm probably thinking too much into it. Either way, I failed that exam really badly.
-
You had 41 at 90 dollars each. The Sales Return returned 1 unit of stock at 90 dollars.
To explain this, the concept of the cost of the stock being returned is "TO RETURN THE BUSINESS TO A POSITION AS IF THE SALE DID NOT OCCUR".
If, for that example, you sold 1 less item, FIFO would take 1 less item from the 90s, the last ones to be sold. As such, the business would have 1 more unit of stock at 90 dollars. Therefore, the cost of the stock being returned is $90.
you only had 40 at $90, never was there 41 at $90
-
Last Out First In
LOFI
sounds like luffy
i think it would be right for you
So 1x80 and 2x90 ??
oh, interesting
i had 3 x 90 using LOFI
I agree with this. However, I just checked out the question book again. In the stock write down question, it says something like "10 stock items ($90 cost price)" - Why would it say the cost price if the only cost price was $90.. I'm probably thinking too much into it. Either way, I failed that exam really badly.
a fail for Luffy is anything below 99%!
-
Last Out First In
LOFI
sounds like luffy
i think it would be right for you
So 1x80 and 2x90 ??
oh, interesting
i had 3 x 90 using LOFI
I agree with this. However, I just checked out the question book again. In the stock write down question, it says something like "10 stock items ($90 cost price)" - Why would it say the cost price if the only cost price was $90.. I'm probably thinking too much into it. Either way, I failed that exam really badly.
a fail for Luffy is anything below 99%!
No - a fail for me for this exam is anything below 82/90. Right now I'm looking close to 70. So yes... epic fail.
-
It doesn't matter. VCAA clearly does not specify which option is correct (Reverse FIFO, Conservatism or the only cost price left), so as long as you gained 3 units of stock, you should get 1 mark for the stock gain.
-
It doesn't matter. VCAA clearly does not specify which option is correct (Reverse FIFO, Conservatism or the only cost price left), so as long as you gained 3 units of stock, you should get 1 mark for the stock gain.
true that. as long as the stock card reveals the stock gain, the values do not really matter, in the end you'll get the marks whether you put 80 or 90 as the value