Accounting Exam Discussion Thread

[Damoz.G]

$69? What about the $2 rebadging product cost?

A few people think it shouldn't be included because its an insignificant amount. However, I believe it should be included.

[Hayes451]

A few people think it shouldn't be included because its an insignificant amount. However, I believe it should be included.

Yeah that has to be correct

[BoredSatan]

it has to be included lol. $2 at 100% mark up would already change the selling price by $4. Imagine selling 10 scooters. Thats $40 difference in profit

[TimmyC]

it has to be included lol. $2 at 100% mark up would already change the selling price by $4. Imagine selling 10 scooters. Thats $40 difference in profit

That's a very interesting way of thinking about it. Yeah I thought it was pretty obvious

[sam.utute]

A few people think it shouldn't be included because its an insignificant amount. However, I believe it should be included.

I agree. I'm not a fan of the whole Materiality concept/10% threshold. You have to go by gut feel.

it has to be included lol. $2 at 100% mark up would already change the selling price by $4. Imagine selling 10 scooters. Thats $40 difference in profit

Best explanation.

[Kuchiki]

A few people think it shouldn't be included because its an insignificant amount. However, I believe it should be included.

I believe that they accept both treatments in VCE if it's a particularly insignificant amount, though I always included any directly attributable costs just to be safe.

(But in uni, you must test for materiality and only include additional costs if material, though you're allowed to group together costs that were paid on the same day and then test for materiality on that whole amount.)

[Damoz.G]

it has to be included lol. $2 at 100% mark up would already change the selling price by $4. Imagine selling 10 scooters. Thats $40 difference in profit

You're back!

If Sam's and Jabbok's Answers are 100% correct, I'm looking at 94-96/100. I calculated 96/100, but then I usually take off 2 marks for a stupid error made or a mark lost on a theory question.

But I'm definitely happy with that.

[sam.utute]

I believe that they accept both treatments in VCE if it's a particularly insignificant amount, though I always included any directly attributable costs just to be safe.

(But in uni, you must test for materiality and only include additional costs if material, though you're allowed to group together costs that were paid on the same day and then test for materiality on that whole amount.)

What are your thoughts on the exam and the solutions Kuchiki?

[Kuchiki]

What are your thoughts on the exam and the solutions Kuchiki?

I haven't actually worked through the exam myself (gotta study for my macro and corporate finance exams that are later this week >.<). Maybe if I feel like procrastinating later, haha.

[Mafioso]

Would 90/100 be an A+?

[Damoz.G]

Would 90/100 be an A+?

Most likely, yes.

[BoredSatan]

can't see them giving the marks to be honest if you said $2 was insignificant. Usually I say insignificant is if it was in cents (so less than $1)

[Damoz.G]

can't see them giving the marks to be honest if you said $2 was insignificant. Usually I say insignificant is if it was in cents (so less than $1)

Yeah, personally, I agree. If its worth less than a $1, then definitely a Period Cost.

BUT VCAA won't give marks for students who did include it and students who didn't like the Badging - One or the other, not both. Its probably those students who did include the $2 rebadging cost who will get the marks.

[Gogogadget]

Had a quick peek at the solutions don't want to get to much info haha..

But it said buying expenses was a cost of goods sold... is this definite? As buying expenses seem a bit ambiguous.

[Kuroyuki]

For the question about profit and loss on disposal being depreciation adjustment.
Isn't  this not entirely true?
Because loss can also happen because  the owner wanted to get rid of the asset faster thus sold it at a lower price. Or the asset could have had unexpected damages that would cause it to be sold for less than carrying value.
This wouldn't be classified as depreciation adjustments.
Anyone ?
I think/hoping I'm looking at ~95 with consequential prac, if that ^ is not wrong and accounting for random theory marks taken off my mark is too hard to estimate!