ATAR Notes: Forum

Archived Discussion => 2009 => Mid-year exams => Exam Discussion => Victoria => Accounting => Topic started by: monokekie on June 09, 2009, 06:10:07 pm

Title: the confuzing part
Post by: monokekie on June 09, 2009, 06:10:07 pm
sorry bout double posting this but,
i still wonder. why wouldn't stock gain be understated. if the credit sale is recorded, there would be less stock in the firm's stock control account, the stock gain would be higher.
If the credit sale is not recorded, there would be more stock in the firm's stock control account, the stock gain would be lower, thus understating the stock gain???

and why wouldn't the opening balance be zero. since it is clearly stated on the question that owner contributed 20000 to commence business on 1 Jan, wouldn't it be a cash receipts which should be included in the cash flow statement instead of opening balance?
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: phanphy on June 09, 2009, 06:17:11 pm
Transactions for the credit sale of stock:

Debtors Control
    Sales
    GST Clearing
Cost of Sales
    Stock Control

Seeing that GST, Debtors and Stock are not included in the Profit and Loss Statement,
this means that:

Cost of Sales would be UNDERstated
Credit Sales would also be UNDERSTATED
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on June 09, 2009, 06:18:44 pm
Yeah I didn't understand where stock gain came from :S

I hope you're right, it's what I wrote too!
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: monokekie on June 09, 2009, 06:20:07 pm
but sales usually include cost of sales?

stock control is thus affected,

thus stock count at the very end of the reporting period would recognise less stock gain?
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: Ilovemathsmeth on June 09, 2009, 06:25:08 pm
I don't know.

Stock control would show a higher value of stock. Physical stock take would mean there is a lower value of stock on shelves due to the stock going out in the omitted credit sale.

Which is why I said cost of sales would be less and sales would be less :(

I'm so sad now, I still don't get why it would be stock gain :(

Do you reckon I could get 2 of the 3 marks?
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: nbalakers24 on June 09, 2009, 06:33:37 pm
i tihkn they are syaing that
cost of sales decreases stock

if you omit that, your are overstating stock as it should decrease

i'm not sure, i jsut wrote what phanphy  said
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: phanphy on June 09, 2009, 06:34:37 pm
yeah you probably would
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: nbalakers24 on June 09, 2009, 06:45:36 pm
its also a 3 mark question, so 1 mark for one entry if stock gain is included.

Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: monokekie on June 09, 2009, 08:15:03 pm
there's a new saying now, guys,

someone said that Net profit would be another revenue item........ :S
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: nbalakers24 on June 09, 2009, 08:23:28 pm
It cant be because

net profit = revenue - expenses

if you understand what i'm trying to say, lol.

Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: monokekie on June 09, 2009, 08:25:06 pm
lol, i understandd.... but the way she say it makes you believe her rofl, myfriend, she is very good at debating...

Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: nbalakers24 on June 09, 2009, 08:31:36 pm
haha

what else did she put down?
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: monokekie on June 09, 2009, 08:35:42 pm
she put down zero for opening entry....
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: mtwtfss on June 09, 2009, 08:39:05 pm
highly doubt that, cos then u could therefore also mention gross profit, adjusted GP etc.

It specifically said revenue and expense accounts  im pretty sure
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: nbalakers24 on June 09, 2009, 08:39:50 pm
haha
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: Lemollin on June 09, 2009, 08:40:33 pm
So whats the concept behind this "stock gain" theory?

Apparently i put Credit Sales (Understated) and Cost of Sales (Understated), i understand that its a 3 marks question, but in a credit sales, stock gain isnt involved right?
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: Flaming_Arrow on June 09, 2009, 08:44:45 pm
just imagine i had 1000 left in the strock control account, i made a credit sale with cost of sales 200 but didnt record in my stock card it would say 1000 but i actually have 800 left, so when i do a physical stocktake it would say stock loss. but the trial balance had a stock gain which would mean its understated due to fact its actually a stock loss which would increase stock gain.

i hope that makes sense
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: nbalakers24 on June 09, 2009, 08:50:30 pm
that makes perfect sense

damn lost the marks
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: monokekie on June 09, 2009, 08:50:56 pm
but i thought this way,

you did a stock count with 800 stock on hand, stock card says 400, there are 400 stock gain.

(but if a credit sale of stock cost 100 is omitted, stock becomes overstated.)

so, the stock should be 300, stock gain should be 500.

stock gain should be 500, but only recorded as 400, isn't it understated?
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: phanphy on June 09, 2009, 10:53:14 pm
Actually yeah, stock gain.
Explains why it was 3 marks
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: phanphy on June 10, 2009, 11:41:27 am
Hey, $20000 or 0 for bank balance (For CFS)?
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: Flaming_Arrow on June 10, 2009, 11:45:35 am
Hey, $20000 or 0 for bank balance (For CFS)?

i duno i wrote $20 000 but i think it should be 0
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: nbalakers24 on June 10, 2009, 01:23:23 pm
Hey, $20000 or 0 for bank balance (For CFS)?

i duno i wrote $20 000 but i think it should be 0

same
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: Flaming_Arrow on June 10, 2009, 04:47:11 pm
but i thought this way,

you did a stock count with 800 stock on hand, stock card says 400, there are 400 stock gain.

(but if a credit sale of stock cost 100 is omitted, stock becomes overstated.)

so, the stock should be 300, stock gain should be 500.

stock gain should be 500, but only recorded as 400, isn't it understated?

yer i agree with you actually, it should be understated
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: mtwtfss on June 10, 2009, 05:19:40 pm
fmllll
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: turley on June 10, 2009, 06:19:26 pm
im quite sure bank balance is zero. think about it, the business starts with $0. also the $20000 contribution is included in the $30000 sundries
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: turley on June 10, 2009, 06:22:32 pm
it is stock gain.

let consider this fact - what possible two entries can fit in revenues?
we accept credit sales (or sales) is one. net profit, gross profit and adjusted gross profit dont belong (ie. the are revs - exps)
logically stock gain is the only one the fits, unless you want to try your luck as discount rev..
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: mtwtfss on June 10, 2009, 07:37:15 pm
im quite sure bank balance is zero. think about it, the business starts with $0. also the $20000 contribution is included in the $30000 sundries

Hm..but if they contribute 20,000 on 1/1, bank balance on the 1/1 = 20,000

CFS asks for the balance as at 1/1, which is 20,000

thats what i hope it is anyway!
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: mtwtfss on June 10, 2009, 07:38:23 pm
Any guesses at the A+ cut off?
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: monokekie on June 11, 2009, 08:43:14 pm
82/90
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: phanphy on June 12, 2009, 12:24:40 pm
Any guesses at the A+ cut off?

i'd say around 80?
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: sunniya on June 13, 2009, 10:58:18 pm
yeh net profit would be incorrect
i hate that revenues q. who would hav thought of stock gain :(
opening balance is probably 0, if u wrote 20,000 you would be double counting the capital coz u recorded capital for 30,000 and that would include the 20,000.
Title: Re: the confuzing part
Post by: lalala on June 13, 2009, 11:03:54 pm
yeh net profit would be incorrect
i hate that revenues q. who would hav thought of stock gain :(
opening balance is probably 0, if u wrote 20,000 you would be double counting the capital coz u recorded capital for 30,000 and that would include the 20,000.


I'm pretty sure it is 0 aswell, because under the Cash receipts journal it said "note..the capital contribution consists of two different contributions by the owner during the Reporting Period."
Why else would they have noted that?
Oh well, i wrote 20, 000 :(