Part (b) required the straightforward calculation of a re-order level, where usage and lead time were constant. Surprisingly, this part was not attempted by a large number of candidates and most of the answers were very poor. For example, many candidates produced a re-order level of 183,960 units (8,760 x 21) in a situation where annual usage was only 8,760 units. Answers suggested that candidates had rote-learned the subject and were unable to adapt that learning to the specific circumstances in the question.
Part (c) required explanations of the terms 'stockout' and 'buffer stock', and a description of the circumstances in which the company in the question should consider having a buffer stock. The explanations of the terms were generally quite good. The application to the company was less well-answered, or not even attempted in many cases.
Question 4
This question examined two different areas of the syllabus - cost behaviour and the profit statements prepared under absorption and marginal costing. This question was generally well-answered by many candidates.
Part (a) required candidates to use the high-low method to calculate a variable cost and a total fixed cost. Common errors from weaker candidates included:
- confusing sales and production volumes in the calculation instead of using two production volumes
- dividing units by costs to obtain the variable cost per unit
- making simple arithmetical errors, or copying figures down incorrectly from the question.
Part (b) was not answered as well as part (a). It involved the calculation of the budgeted total contribution and net profit if marginal costing principles had been used. Common errors were:
- failing to recognise that the quickest way of calculating total contribution was to calculate the contribution per unit and to multiply this by the number of units sold
- multiplying the contribution per unit by the number of units produced
- producing a full trading and profit statement with incorrect units and/or incorrect stock valuations for marginal costing
- failing to deduct the fixed production and fixed selling and distribution costs in order to arrive at the net profit.
Part (c) required candidates to explain the circumstances in which the marginal costing and absorption costing profits for a period would be the same. Again, many answers were quite long when a short answer would have sufficed. The longer answers also tended to explain when the marginal costing profit would be higher or lower. This was not required and received no credit. Many candidates stated that the two profits would be the same when there were no opening and no closing stocks. They received some credit, but not full marks, for this. Opening and closing stocks need to be the same - not necessarily zero.
Question 5
This was a question involving sales pricing. Parts (a) and (c) were well-answered by the majority of candidates.
Part (a) involved the calculation of a total cost plus price and the resultant weekly profit. Common errors from weaker candidates were:
- using 'variable cost plus' instead of 'total cost plus', as clearly stated in the question
- calculating the total weekly sales and not the selling price per unit, as required
- an inability to calculate a mark-up of 40% correctly.
Part (b) required the calculation of a selling price which maximised weekly profits using marginal analysis. This topic had been flagged by a recent article in student accountant, and by multiple-choice questions set in Section A of the previous examination. There were some excellent answers from well-prepared candidates but many struggled with part (b). Common errors included:
- failure to recognise that the marginal cost was equal to £4 - the variable cost per unit given in the question
- setting the marginal revenue equal to zero instead of setting the marginal cost equal to the marginal revenue for profit maximisation
- using the 3,000 units given in the question as the profit-maximising volume and calculating a selling price of £14 as in (a).
Part (c), about penetration and skimming price policies, was generally well-answered.