Troll face at stock gain

[RossiJ]

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 ??

[soggie]

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.

[RossiJ]

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

[Somye]

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...

[nacho]

i just used 'last out first in'

[kamb0z]

my teacher has said in the past you can use both

[RossiJ]

i just used 'last out first in'

same logical or not haha

[soggie]

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?

[Somye]

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

[soggie]

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

[elul]

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 ?

[elul]

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

[jimbothebest]

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

[Anon123]

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.

[luffy]

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.