GAQM Exam CLSSYB-001 Topic 5 Question 30 Discussion

Actual exam question for GAQM's CLSSYB-001 exam

Question #: 30
Topic #: 5

A Belt has determined that the loan application does not need to be reviewed by accounting thereby improving the number of applications a loan processer can handle. According to Cost of Poor Quality (COPQ) definitions RTY improvement would be considered _______________.

ADownsizing savings

BHard savings

CSoft savings

DMedian savings

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: B

by Glenna at Jul 08, 2023, 07:01 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CLSSYB-001 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Royce

2 months ago

Ooh, I've got one - what do you call a loan officer who's also a magician? A 'master of disCOPQ'! Alright, I'll see myself out...

upvoted 0 times

Evangelina

1 months ago

C: Soft savings

upvoted 0 times

...

Filiberto

2 months ago

B: Hard savings

upvoted 0 times

...

Penney

2 months ago

A: Soft savings

upvoted 0 times

...

Hollis

3 months ago

Ugh, COPQ questions are the worst. But I'm pretty sure the answer is C. Soft savings. Anything that improves efficiency without reducing direct costs has to be in the 'soft' category. Although, I'd love to see the look on an accountant's face if you told them their review wasn't needed!

upvoted 0 times

Mitsue

2 months ago

Soft savings it is, for sure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Salley

2 months ago

Imagine the confusion in accounting!

upvoted 0 times

...

Renea

2 months ago

I agree, it's definitely C. Soft savings.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tiffiny

3 months ago

Ha! Leave it to the LEAN folks to turn loan processing into a quality issue. I'm going with B. Hard savings. If they can handle more applications without extra staff, that's gotta be real money saved, right?

upvoted 0 times

Bong

27 days ago

Actually, I see your point. Soft savings could also be a valid option in this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...

Adelina

28 days ago

I think it's C. Soft savings. It's more about efficiency and process improvement rather than direct cost savings.

upvoted 0 times

...

Izetta

28 days ago

Definitely, being able to handle more applications without extra staff is a big cost saver.

upvoted 0 times

...

Devorah

30 days ago

I agree, B. Hard savings makes the most sense in this case.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shelton

1 months ago

Actually, I think you might be right. Soft savings could also be a factor in this scenario.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lorrine

1 months ago

I think it's C. Soft savings. It's more about efficiency and process improvement rather than direct cost savings.

upvoted 0 times

...

Luther

1 months ago

Definitely, being able to handle more applications without extra staff is a big cost saver.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jesus

1 months ago

I'm leaning towards B as well. It's all about reducing costs and increasing productivity.

upvoted 0 times

...

Francoise

2 months ago

I think C. Soft savings could also be a possibility. It's about improving processes.

upvoted 0 times

...

Trinidad

2 months ago

I agree, B. Hard savings makes the most sense in this case.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rodolfo

2 months ago

I agree, B. Hard savings makes the most sense. Efficiency is key.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jospeh

3 months ago

Hmm, I think the answer is C. Soft savings. Improving the loan application process without involving accounting seems like it would reduce overhead, but not necessarily lead to hard cash savings. The RPT improvement is the key here.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rory

3 months ago

I'm not sure, but I think it could also be B) Hard savings because it could lead to direct cost reductions.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lucia

3 months ago

I agree with Mabelle, because improving the number of applications processed without needing accounting review would lead to soft savings.

upvoted 0 times

...

Graciela

3 months ago

This is a trick question! Surely the correct answer is D. Median savings, right? I mean, how can loan processing be considered a 'poor quality' issue? Sounds like a win-win to me!

upvoted 0 times