[Q2] FAR Study Group 2014 - Page 406

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #183478
    jeff
    Keymaster

    I’ve had a few requests for April/May Study Groups…March will be here before you know it.

    In order to take an early April exam, you should begin studying…now. 🙂

    Jeff Elliott, CPA (KS) | Another71 | NINJA CPA | NINJA CMA | NINJA CPE

Viewing 15 replies - 6,076 through 6,090 (of 6,668 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #566644
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    double post… even my mouse is crazy

    #566645
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    they are making sure we know arithmetic, just in case we managed to get through 10-11 years of school and 4-5 years of college without learning it lol

    #566646
    stoleway
    Participant

    The replacement cost of an inventory item is below the net realizable value and above the net realizable value less the normal profit margin. The original cost of the inventory item is below the net realizable value less the normal profit margin. Under the lower-of-cost-or-market (LCM) method, the inventory item should be valued at

    A. Net realizable value less the normal profit margin.

    B. Original cost.

    C. Net realizable value.

    D. Replacement cost.

    REG -63│ 84!!
    BEC- 59│70│ 71 │78!
    AUD- 75!
    FAR- 87!

    Mass-CPA

    #566647
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    B. Original cost

    #566648
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    B. Original cost

    I like these questions

    #566649
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    B – original cost

    #566650
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    stoleaway, its always good to use numbers when a mc like that is given.

    assume original cost is 50

    assume replacement is 70

    assume net realizable value is 80

    assume net realizable value less a profit margin is 60

    when doing lcm, you take the middle of replacement, nrv, and nrv less profit margin and compare that to original cost and use whichever is lower, in this case its 70 compared to 50. the original cost is lower. choice B

    #566651
    stoleway
    Participant

    Original cost is correct….its just stupid on my part to get this wrong.

    REG -63│ 84!!
    BEC- 59│70│ 71 │78!
    AUD- 75!
    FAR- 87!

    Mass-CPA

    #566652
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    On April 1, Year 1, Saxe Inc, purchased $200,000 face value, 9% treasury bonds for $198,500, including accrued interest of $4,500. The notes mature July 1, Year 2, and pay interest semi-annually on Jan 1, and July 1. Saxe uses the straight line method of amortization. The notes were sold on Dec 1, Year 1, for $206,500, including accrued interest of $7,500. In its October 31, Year 1 Balance Sheet, the carrying amount of the investment should be:

    A) $197,200

    B) $194,000

    C) $199,000

    D) $196,800

    #566653
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Pensions – Govts – Installment sales and Long Term Contracts, debt restructure as my major weak areas.

    #566654
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I got this one correct, but doing the absolute wrong calculation, I hate when that happens.

    #566655
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    D) $196,800 ?

    #566656
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Yep! Its D

    #566657
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    which is right calculation? I did 6000/15*7= 2800 + 194000?

    #566658
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Yeppy – still at crazy dance LOL

Viewing 15 replies - 6,076 through 6,090 (of 6,668 total)
  • The topic ‘[Q2] FAR Study Group 2014 - Page 406’ is closed to new replies.