Answers

Part 1 Examination – Paper 1.2

Financial Information for Management

December 2005 Answers

Section A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

D

C

C

C

B

D

C

C

A

B

A

B

C

D

A

C

D

A

A

C

D

D

D

D

B

1

D

2

C

1,700 units – Breakeven level units (1,200) = 500 units

3

C

Contribution per unit = 22 ÷ 0·55 × 0·45 = £18

Breakeven point = 198,000 ÷ 18 = 11,000

4

C

Variable cost per unit = [(170,000 – 5,000) – 140,000)] ÷ (22,000 –17,000) = £5

Total fixed cost above 18,000 units = 170,000 – (22,000 × 5) = £60,000

Total cost of 20,000 units = (20,000 × 5) + 60,000 = £160,000

5

B

6

D

7

C

Weighted average after 13th = [(200 × 9,300 ÷ 300) + (600 × 33)] ÷ (200 + 600) = £32·50

Closing stock valuation = 300 × 32·50 = £9,750

8

C

EOQ = [(2 × 160 × 9,000) ÷ (0·08 × 40)]0·5 = 949

9

A

10 B

17

11 A

Absorption rate = 247,500 ÷ 30,000 = £8·25

Absorbed cost = 28,000 × 8·25 = £231,000

Actual cost =

£238,000

Under absorption =

£7,000

12 B

Marginal costing profit = 36,000 – (2,000 × 63,000 ÷ 14,000) = £27,000

13 C

Process F: expected output = 0·92 × 65,000 =

actual output =

∴ abnormal loss

Process G: expected output = 0·95 × 37,500 =

actual output =

∴ abnormal gain

14 D

Actual hours at standard rate (27,000 × 8·50)

Standard hours of production at standard rate

∴Labour efficiency variance is

15 A

Sales price variance:

Actual sales at standard price (4,650 × 6)

Actual sales at actual price

Favourable price variance

Adverse sales volume contribution variance:

350 units × (6 × 0·60)

59,800

58,900

35,625

35,700

£

229,500

253,980

––––––––

24,480 Favourable

––––––––

£

27,900

30,225

–––––––

2,325

–––––––

1,260

16 C

17 D

18 A

19 A

Coefficient of determination = r2 = 0·6 × 0·6 = 0·36 = 36%

20 C

21 D

4,000 × [(20,000 ÷ 2,500) × 1·025] = £32,800

22 D

Production (units):

J: (6,000 – 100 + 300) =

K: (4,000 – 400 + 200) =

6,200

3,800

––––––

10,000

––––––

Joint costs apportioned to J: (6,200 ÷ 10,000) × 110,000 = £68,200

23 D

Material required to meet maximum demand:

6,000 × (13 ÷ 4) + 8,000 × (19 ÷ 4) = 57,500 litres

Material available:

50,000 litres

∴ Material is a limiting factor

Labour required to meet maximum demand:

6,000 × (35 ÷ 7) + 8,000 × (28 ÷ 7) = 62,000 hours

Labour available:

60,000 hours

∴ Labour is a limiting factor

18

24 D

Profits maximised when: marginal revenue (MR) = marginal cost (MC)

MR = 50 – 0·05Q

MC = 15

MR = MC

∴ 50 – 0·05Q = 15

and

Q = 700

P = 50 – (0·025 × 700) = £32·50

25 B

When P = 20

then

and

20 = 50 – 0·025Q

Q = 1,200

£

Total revenue (P × Q) = 1,200 × 20 = 24,000

Less total costs 2,000 + (15 × 1,200) = 20,000

––––––

∴Profit

4,000

––––––

Section B

1

(a)

Using the high-low method:

Units

120,000 (W1)

102,000

––––––––

18,000

––––––––

Total cost (£)

700,000

619,000

––––––––

81,000

––––––––

Working (W1)

Full capacity = 102,000 ÷ 0·85 = 120,000

(i)

Variable cost per unit = 81,000 ÷ 18,000 = £4·50

(ii)

Total fixed costs = 700,000 – (120,000 × 4·50) = £160,000

(iii) Selling price per unit = variable cost per unit ÷ (1·00 – 0·40)

= 4·50 ÷ 0·6 = £7·50

(iv) Contribution per unit = (7·50 – 4·50) = £3·00

(b)

New business:

Selling price (0·80 × 7·50)

Less variable cost

£ per unit

6·00

(4·50)

–––––

1·50

–––––

Contribution

Contribution from 15,000 units (15,000 × 1·50)

Less opportunity cost (15,000 ÷ 6) × £3·00

Net increase in contribution (and profit)

(c)

2

£

22,500

(7,500)

–––––––

15,000

–––––––

An opportunity cost is the cost of the best alternative forgone in a situation of choice. Opportunity costs are relevant costs.

In the situation of Pointdextre Ltd, if it goes ahead with the new business (that is the decision) then it will lose (forgo) the

contribution from some existing sales. This lost contribution is an opportunity cost relevant to the decision.

(a)

Process I

Input

Conversion

Abnormal gain (W2)

Litres

50,000

1,000

–––––––

51,000

–––––––

£

365,000

256,000

13,500

––––––––

634,500

––––––––

Output (W1)

Normal loss (0·08 × 50,000)

Workings:

W1 Cost per litre (365,000 + 256,000) ÷ (50,000 × 0·92) = £13·50

Output value = 47,000 × 13·50 = £634,500

W2 Abnormal gain = 47,000 – (50,000 × 0·92) = 1,000

Valuation (1,000 × 13·50) = £13,500

19

Litres

47,000

4,000

£

634,500

–

–––––––

51,000

–––––––

––––––––

634,500

––––––––

(b)

Workings:

Cost per equivalent litre (EL):

Completion of opening WIP

Started and finished within the month (50,000 – 5,000)

Work done so far on closing WIP

Conversion

EL

3,000

45,000

1,000

–––––––

49,000

–––––––

∴Cost per EL = 392,000 ÷ 49,000 = £8

(c)

3

(i)

Output = 80,000 + (45,000 × 13·50) + (48,000 × 8·00) = £1,071,500

(ii)

Closing WIP = (2,000 × 13·50) + (1,000 × 8·00) = £35,000

The disposal costs would be debited to the process account. Alternatively, they could be shown as a negative value on the

credit side of the account.

Let X = the number of units of product X

and Y = the number of units of product Y

Contribution per unit:

Product X

£ per unit

60

(45)

––––

15

––––

Selling price

Less variable cost

Contribution

Product Y

£ per unit

25

(13)

––––

12

––––

Objective function:

Total contribution = 15X + 12Y

Constraints:

3X + Y ≤ 4,200

Material (£5 per kg)

Labour (£6 per hour)

4X + 0·5Y ≤ 3,000

X, Y ≥ 0

Non negative

Using a graphical approach, the constraints (solid lines) and the objective function (dotted line) can be shown as follows:

Y

units

6,000

Labour

4,200 A

B

Material

750

0

C

600 750

X units

1,400

Note: the objective function line has been shown on the above graph for a total contribution of £9,000 (assumed). Thus 15X +

12Y = 9,000.

Therefore when X = 0, Y = (9,000 ÷ 12) = 750

and when Y = 0, X = (9,000 ÷ 15) = 600

The ‘feasible region’ is the area OABC shown on the graph. If the objective function line is moved away from the origin (at the

same gradient) the last point it reaches in the feasible region is point A which must therefore be the optimal point.

Therefore the optimal production is to produce and sell 4,200 units of product Y and no units of product X.

20

An alternative approach would be to calculate the total contributions at points A, B and C shown on the graph and select the point

giving the highest total contribution, as follows:

Point A

Total contribution from 4,200 units of Y is (4,200 × £12) = £50,400

Point B

To find the units at this point, solve the following equations simultaneously:

3X +

Y = 4,200

… (1)

4X + 0·5Y = 3,000

… (2)

From (1)

Y = 4,200 – 3X

Substituting into (2)

4X + 0·5(4,200 – 3X) = 3,000

∴

4X + 2,100 – 1·5X = 3,000

∴

2·5X

= 900

∴

X = 360

Substituting into (1)

(3 × 360) + Y

= 4,200

∴

Y = 3,120

Total contribution from 360 units of X and 3,120 units of Y is (360 × £15) + (3,120 × £12) = £42,840

Point C

Total contribution from 750 units of X is (750 × £15) = £11,250

Point A gives the highest contribution (£50,400 from producing 4,200 units of Y and no units of X) and is therefore the optimal

solution (as before).

4

(a)

Standard cost of actual production [12,500 × (11 + 24 + 18)]

Total variances:

Adverse

Favourable

£

£

Materials (W1)

5,200

Labour (W2)

8,700

Fixed overhead (W3)

5,800

–––––––

––––––

11,000

8,700

–––––––

––––––

Actual cost (142,700 + 291,300 + 230,800)

Workings:

W1

Actual cost

£

142,700

Standard cost of actual production

137,500

Actual cost

291,300

Standard cost of actual production

300,000

Actual cost

230,800

Standard cost of actual production

225,000

£

662,500

2,300 A

––––––––

664,800

––––––––

Variance

£

5,200 A

W2

8,700 F

W3

5,800 A

(b)

£

Expenditure variance:

Actual cost

230,800

Budgeted cost (12,000 × 18)

216,000

Volume variance:

Budgeted cost

216,000

Standard cost of actual production

225,000

£

14,800 A

9,000 F

(c)

The total direct materials and labour variances would be the same under absorption and marginal costing. The total fixed

overhead variance under marginal costing would be different and would be the same as the expenditure variance under

absorption costing (£14,800 A). There is no volume variance under marginal costing as fixed production costs are treated

as period costs and not treated as product costs.

21

5

(a)

Absorption rates:

Cost centre T: (780,000 ÷ 16,250) = £48 per machine hour

Cost centre W: (173,400 ÷ 14,450) = £12 per direct labour hour

(b)

Prime costs:

Direct materials

Direct labour:

Cost centre T

Cost centre W

Production overheads:

Cost centre T: (35 ÷ 60) × 48

Cost centre W: (21 ÷ 6) × 12

(c)

£

10

14

21

––––

45

28

42

––––

115

––––

Products do not pass through service cost centres so the costs of such centres cannot be absorbed directly into products.

Products only pass through production cost centres. Therefore in order to calculate a total production cost per unit, service

cost centre costs have to be reapportioned to production cost centres for absorption.

The method of reapportionment that fully recognises any work that service cost centres do for each is called the reciprocal

method. There are two techniques for applying the reciprocal method – a repeated distribution approach or the use of

simultaneous equations.

22

Part 1 Examination – Paper 1.2

Financial Information for Management

December 2005 Marking Scheme

Marks

Section A

Each of the 25 questions in this section is worth 2 marks

50

–––

Section B

1

(a)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

Variable cost per unit

Total monthly fixed costs

Selling price per unit

Contribution per unit

2

2

1

1

–––

6

(b)

Contribution from new business

Opportunity cost

Net increase in profit

2

11/2

1/

2

–––

4

(c)

Explanation of opportunity cost

Reference to Pointdextre Ltd

1

1

–––

2

–––

12

–––

2

(a)

Input and conversion

Normal loss

Abnormal gain

Output

1

11/2

11/2

1

–––

5

(b)

11/2

1/

2

2

1

–––

Equivalent units for conversion

Cost per equivalent unit for conversion

Valuation of output

Valuation of closing work in progress

5

3

(c)

Debit entry

(a)

Contributions per unit

Objective function

Constraints

2

–––

12

–––

1

1

3

–––

5

(b)

Graph (or total contributions at feasible points)

Optimal plan

3

1

–––

4

–––

9

–––

23

Marks

4

(a)

Total materials variance

Total labour variance

Total fixed overhead variance

Reconciliation statement

1

1

1

1

–––

4

(b)

Expenditure variance

Volume variance

1

1

–––

2

(c)

Direct materials and labour variances the same

Total variance = expenditure variance

No volume variance with reason

1

1

1

–––

3

–––

9

–––

5

(a)

Cost centre T absorption rate

Cost centre W absorption rate

1

1

–––

2

(b)

1/

2

Prime cost

Production overheads (T)

Production overheads (W)

Total unit cost

1

1

1/

2

–––

3

(c)

Reapportionment explanation

Reapportionment method

2

1

–––

3

–––

8

–––

24

Part 1 Examination – Paper 1.2

Financial Information for Management

December 2005 Answers

Section A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

D

C

C

C

B

D

C

C

A

B

A

B

C

D

A

C

D

A

A

C

D

D

D

D

B

1

D

2

C

1,700 units – Breakeven level units (1,200) = 500 units

3

C

Contribution per unit = 22 ÷ 0·55 × 0·45 = £18

Breakeven point = 198,000 ÷ 18 = 11,000

4

C

Variable cost per unit = [(170,000 – 5,000) – 140,000)] ÷ (22,000 –17,000) = £5

Total fixed cost above 18,000 units = 170,000 – (22,000 × 5) = £60,000

Total cost of 20,000 units = (20,000 × 5) + 60,000 = £160,000

5

B

6

D

7

C

Weighted average after 13th = [(200 × 9,300 ÷ 300) + (600 × 33)] ÷ (200 + 600) = £32·50

Closing stock valuation = 300 × 32·50 = £9,750

8

C

EOQ = [(2 × 160 × 9,000) ÷ (0·08 × 40)]0·5 = 949

9

A

10 B

17

11 A

Absorption rate = 247,500 ÷ 30,000 = £8·25

Absorbed cost = 28,000 × 8·25 = £231,000

Actual cost =

£238,000

Under absorption =

£7,000

12 B

Marginal costing profit = 36,000 – (2,000 × 63,000 ÷ 14,000) = £27,000

13 C

Process F: expected output = 0·92 × 65,000 =

actual output =

∴ abnormal loss

Process G: expected output = 0·95 × 37,500 =

actual output =

∴ abnormal gain

14 D

Actual hours at standard rate (27,000 × 8·50)

Standard hours of production at standard rate

∴Labour efficiency variance is

15 A

Sales price variance:

Actual sales at standard price (4,650 × 6)

Actual sales at actual price

Favourable price variance

Adverse sales volume contribution variance:

350 units × (6 × 0·60)

59,800

58,900

35,625

35,700

£

229,500

253,980

––––––––

24,480 Favourable

––––––––

£

27,900

30,225

–––––––

2,325

–––––––

1,260

16 C

17 D

18 A

19 A

Coefficient of determination = r2 = 0·6 × 0·6 = 0·36 = 36%

20 C

21 D

4,000 × [(20,000 ÷ 2,500) × 1·025] = £32,800

22 D

Production (units):

J: (6,000 – 100 + 300) =

K: (4,000 – 400 + 200) =

6,200

3,800

––––––

10,000

––––––

Joint costs apportioned to J: (6,200 ÷ 10,000) × 110,000 = £68,200

23 D

Material required to meet maximum demand:

6,000 × (13 ÷ 4) + 8,000 × (19 ÷ 4) = 57,500 litres

Material available:

50,000 litres

∴ Material is a limiting factor

Labour required to meet maximum demand:

6,000 × (35 ÷ 7) + 8,000 × (28 ÷ 7) = 62,000 hours

Labour available:

60,000 hours

∴ Labour is a limiting factor

18

24 D

Profits maximised when: marginal revenue (MR) = marginal cost (MC)

MR = 50 – 0·05Q

MC = 15

MR = MC

∴ 50 – 0·05Q = 15

and

Q = 700

P = 50 – (0·025 × 700) = £32·50

25 B

When P = 20

then

and

20 = 50 – 0·025Q

Q = 1,200

£

Total revenue (P × Q) = 1,200 × 20 = 24,000

Less total costs 2,000 + (15 × 1,200) = 20,000

––––––

∴Profit

4,000

––––––

Section B

1

(a)

Using the high-low method:

Units

120,000 (W1)

102,000

––––––––

18,000

––––––––

Total cost (£)

700,000

619,000

––––––––

81,000

––––––––

Working (W1)

Full capacity = 102,000 ÷ 0·85 = 120,000

(i)

Variable cost per unit = 81,000 ÷ 18,000 = £4·50

(ii)

Total fixed costs = 700,000 – (120,000 × 4·50) = £160,000

(iii) Selling price per unit = variable cost per unit ÷ (1·00 – 0·40)

= 4·50 ÷ 0·6 = £7·50

(iv) Contribution per unit = (7·50 – 4·50) = £3·00

(b)

New business:

Selling price (0·80 × 7·50)

Less variable cost

£ per unit

6·00

(4·50)

–––––

1·50

–––––

Contribution

Contribution from 15,000 units (15,000 × 1·50)

Less opportunity cost (15,000 ÷ 6) × £3·00

Net increase in contribution (and profit)

(c)

2

£

22,500

(7,500)

–––––––

15,000

–––––––

An opportunity cost is the cost of the best alternative forgone in a situation of choice. Opportunity costs are relevant costs.

In the situation of Pointdextre Ltd, if it goes ahead with the new business (that is the decision) then it will lose (forgo) the

contribution from some existing sales. This lost contribution is an opportunity cost relevant to the decision.

(a)

Process I

Input

Conversion

Abnormal gain (W2)

Litres

50,000

1,000

–––––––

51,000

–––––––

£

365,000

256,000

13,500

––––––––

634,500

––––––––

Output (W1)

Normal loss (0·08 × 50,000)

Workings:

W1 Cost per litre (365,000 + 256,000) ÷ (50,000 × 0·92) = £13·50

Output value = 47,000 × 13·50 = £634,500

W2 Abnormal gain = 47,000 – (50,000 × 0·92) = 1,000

Valuation (1,000 × 13·50) = £13,500

19

Litres

47,000

4,000

£

634,500

–

–––––––

51,000

–––––––

––––––––

634,500

––––––––

(b)

Workings:

Cost per equivalent litre (EL):

Completion of opening WIP

Started and finished within the month (50,000 – 5,000)

Work done so far on closing WIP

Conversion

EL

3,000

45,000

1,000

–––––––

49,000

–––––––

∴Cost per EL = 392,000 ÷ 49,000 = £8

(c)

3

(i)

Output = 80,000 + (45,000 × 13·50) + (48,000 × 8·00) = £1,071,500

(ii)

Closing WIP = (2,000 × 13·50) + (1,000 × 8·00) = £35,000

The disposal costs would be debited to the process account. Alternatively, they could be shown as a negative value on the

credit side of the account.

Let X = the number of units of product X

and Y = the number of units of product Y

Contribution per unit:

Product X

£ per unit

60

(45)

––––

15

––––

Selling price

Less variable cost

Contribution

Product Y

£ per unit

25

(13)

––––

12

––––

Objective function:

Total contribution = 15X + 12Y

Constraints:

3X + Y ≤ 4,200

Material (£5 per kg)

Labour (£6 per hour)

4X + 0·5Y ≤ 3,000

X, Y ≥ 0

Non negative

Using a graphical approach, the constraints (solid lines) and the objective function (dotted line) can be shown as follows:

Y

units

6,000

Labour

4,200 A

B

Material

750

0

C

600 750

X units

1,400

Note: the objective function line has been shown on the above graph for a total contribution of £9,000 (assumed). Thus 15X +

12Y = 9,000.

Therefore when X = 0, Y = (9,000 ÷ 12) = 750

and when Y = 0, X = (9,000 ÷ 15) = 600

The ‘feasible region’ is the area OABC shown on the graph. If the objective function line is moved away from the origin (at the

same gradient) the last point it reaches in the feasible region is point A which must therefore be the optimal point.

Therefore the optimal production is to produce and sell 4,200 units of product Y and no units of product X.

20

An alternative approach would be to calculate the total contributions at points A, B and C shown on the graph and select the point

giving the highest total contribution, as follows:

Point A

Total contribution from 4,200 units of Y is (4,200 × £12) = £50,400

Point B

To find the units at this point, solve the following equations simultaneously:

3X +

Y = 4,200

… (1)

4X + 0·5Y = 3,000

… (2)

From (1)

Y = 4,200 – 3X

Substituting into (2)

4X + 0·5(4,200 – 3X) = 3,000

∴

4X + 2,100 – 1·5X = 3,000

∴

2·5X

= 900

∴

X = 360

Substituting into (1)

(3 × 360) + Y

= 4,200

∴

Y = 3,120

Total contribution from 360 units of X and 3,120 units of Y is (360 × £15) + (3,120 × £12) = £42,840

Point C

Total contribution from 750 units of X is (750 × £15) = £11,250

Point A gives the highest contribution (£50,400 from producing 4,200 units of Y and no units of X) and is therefore the optimal

solution (as before).

4

(a)

Standard cost of actual production [12,500 × (11 + 24 + 18)]

Total variances:

Adverse

Favourable

£

£

Materials (W1)

5,200

Labour (W2)

8,700

Fixed overhead (W3)

5,800

–––––––

––––––

11,000

8,700

–––––––

––––––

Actual cost (142,700 + 291,300 + 230,800)

Workings:

W1

Actual cost

£

142,700

Standard cost of actual production

137,500

Actual cost

291,300

Standard cost of actual production

300,000

Actual cost

230,800

Standard cost of actual production

225,000

£

662,500

2,300 A

––––––––

664,800

––––––––

Variance

£

5,200 A

W2

8,700 F

W3

5,800 A

(b)

£

Expenditure variance:

Actual cost

230,800

Budgeted cost (12,000 × 18)

216,000

Volume variance:

Budgeted cost

216,000

Standard cost of actual production

225,000

£

14,800 A

9,000 F

(c)

The total direct materials and labour variances would be the same under absorption and marginal costing. The total fixed

overhead variance under marginal costing would be different and would be the same as the expenditure variance under

absorption costing (£14,800 A). There is no volume variance under marginal costing as fixed production costs are treated

as period costs and not treated as product costs.

21

5

(a)

Absorption rates:

Cost centre T: (780,000 ÷ 16,250) = £48 per machine hour

Cost centre W: (173,400 ÷ 14,450) = £12 per direct labour hour

(b)

Prime costs:

Direct materials

Direct labour:

Cost centre T

Cost centre W

Production overheads:

Cost centre T: (35 ÷ 60) × 48

Cost centre W: (21 ÷ 6) × 12

(c)

£

10

14

21

––––

45

28

42

––––

115

––––

Products do not pass through service cost centres so the costs of such centres cannot be absorbed directly into products.

Products only pass through production cost centres. Therefore in order to calculate a total production cost per unit, service

cost centre costs have to be reapportioned to production cost centres for absorption.

The method of reapportionment that fully recognises any work that service cost centres do for each is called the reciprocal

method. There are two techniques for applying the reciprocal method – a repeated distribution approach or the use of

simultaneous equations.

22

Part 1 Examination – Paper 1.2

Financial Information for Management

December 2005 Marking Scheme

Marks

Section A

Each of the 25 questions in this section is worth 2 marks

50

–––

Section B

1

(a)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

Variable cost per unit

Total monthly fixed costs

Selling price per unit

Contribution per unit

2

2

1

1

–––

6

(b)

Contribution from new business

Opportunity cost

Net increase in profit

2

11/2

1/

2

–––

4

(c)

Explanation of opportunity cost

Reference to Pointdextre Ltd

1

1

–––

2

–––

12

–––

2

(a)

Input and conversion

Normal loss

Abnormal gain

Output

1

11/2

11/2

1

–––

5

(b)

11/2

1/

2

2

1

–––

Equivalent units for conversion

Cost per equivalent unit for conversion

Valuation of output

Valuation of closing work in progress

5

3

(c)

Debit entry

(a)

Contributions per unit

Objective function

Constraints

2

–––

12

–––

1

1

3

–––

5

(b)

Graph (or total contributions at feasible points)

Optimal plan

3

1

–––

4

–––

9

–––

23

Marks

4

(a)

Total materials variance

Total labour variance

Total fixed overhead variance

Reconciliation statement

1

1

1

1

–––

4

(b)

Expenditure variance

Volume variance

1

1

–––

2

(c)

Direct materials and labour variances the same

Total variance = expenditure variance

No volume variance with reason

1

1

1

–––

3

–––

9

–––

5

(a)

Cost centre T absorption rate

Cost centre W absorption rate

1

1

–––

2

(b)

1/

2

Prime cost

Production overheads (T)

Production overheads (W)

Total unit cost

1

1

1/

2

–––

3

(c)

Reapportionment explanation

Reapportionment method

2

1

–––

3

–––

8

–––

24

## Forecasting Credit Portfolio Risk - Discussion Paper Series 2: Banking and Financial Supervision No 01/2004 pot

## Canadian Air Carrier Protective Program Financial Audit for Fiscal Year 2004-05 June 1, 2005 Audit and Evaluation Final Report doc

## Canadian Air Carrier Protective Program Financial Audit for Fiscal Year 2005-06 Final Report pptx

## Minnesota State University, Mankato Financial Audit For the Period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1998_part1 pdf

## Minnesota State University, Mankato Financial Audit For the Period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1998_part2 pot

## Minnesota State University, Mankato Financial Audit For the Period July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1998_part3 doc

## Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board Financial Audit For the Period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1999_part1 pptx

## STATE OF ILLINOIS PRAIRIELAND ENERGY, INC. FINANCIAL AUDIT For the Year Ended June 30, 2005 _part1 doc

## STATE OF ILLINOIS PRAIRIELAND ENERGY, INC. FINANCIAL AUDIT For the Year Ended June 30, 2005 _part2 pdf

## State of Illinois REGIONAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION #1 FINANCIAL AUDIT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 Performed as Special Assistant Auditors for the Auditor General, State of Illinois_part1 pdf

Tài liệu liên quan