Forum Replies Created
- Posts
i dont want to do verified cpd retrospectively. i have a record of cpd but its not relevant to audit work. i would like to ask if the director of the firm could issue additional cpd regarding my development/learning activities at work as i was an audit manager for two years there.
have you checked on the online records of acca/ members ?
in any way, to be a manager in audit firm is not required to be qualified. you can even be a partner under conditions and not be qualified so, i really dont see any reason to bother unless you are salty about him.
Hi all, new affiliate here.
i am trying to complete the Ethics and Professional Skills module. its so long module taking me 3 days so far and i need to make a presentation in powerpoint. is that for real? :p
@danishkhan919 said:
@tasbihak
Hey do you have any tips or trick to pass AAA?see my above answer 🙂
@rseegoolam said:
Do you need to be in the audit profession to do this paper AAA? Please let me knowno. just solve revision kit two times.
i was solving all the revision kit questions and all mock exams of the revision kit. also tried to memorise a lot of info from pocket notes.
i dont believe anyone could pass the exams by only OT notes. best chances are to solve the revision kit at least one time.
excellent news my friend indeed. the ambiquity of the scenario could also justify the 24 marks just for audit risk. lets not forget its audit risk meaning including detection risk.
@raoul7370 said:
the ambiguity of the scenario is excellent news.It means that in the audit procedures requirement you currently know nothing and are therefore allowed to test everything. Checking the make up of the board of the new entity, the shareholding structure, whether there is an agreement between the two owners to share control, whether any board meetings have already happened and if so reading minutes to see if both sides are co-controlling … 4 procedures :).
It also means that almost any risk that properly demonstrates knowledge of JV v Sub (and perhaps even v Associate) will score you marks, so be happy as I suspect your initial question ‘s answer is a yes!
The question didnt hint about voting nor board structure. as this was ambiguous i focused to say that if the board has more group members then control would be exercised and hence could be classified a subsidiary. the standard says it could be less than 50% and still be a subsidiary. oh well, food for thought. i believe a lot things are open to judgment in this module.
@raoul7370 said:
I have not seen the question, but if 2 companies form a new one together and each has 50% of the votes my starting presumption is a JV. However, control is achieved in more ways than one, and the key of joint control is that both parties must be involved in decisions – one cannot unilaterally decide anything. If the board comprises directors in equal numbers from each of the 2 joint venturers, and they have an agreement to decide things together, I doubt it would be a subsidiary. So if the question points heavily at a JV, the risks would in my opinion be wrongly accounting for it as a sub, or not applying the equity method of a JV correctly. As well as the risks of under-disclosure of interests in other entities (IFRS 12).could you argue that 50% is a subsidiary instead of joint venture? it didnt mentioned anywhere ‘ joint ventures’ but just the 2 companies formed a new 1. could you argue it was subsidiary if Group had control? could you get points further on consolidation risks of the said subsidiary?
@raoul7370 said:
if a newly listed company yes, because they would never have had to do it before so might forget or not know how.if they have been listed for years then they should know how to do it and no reason to get it wrong.
would reference to risk about ias 33 presentation get points as it was listed company?
@raoul7370 said:
It always concerns me when the comments on here regarding the exam are so focussed on accounting rules. And also complexities and details of the scenarios. This is missing the point in such a major way if you want to pass.I have not seen the exam paper. But based on several posts which detail the requirements, I would tell you the following:
Q1
3 easy Prof Marks
2 for calculating materiality of any 2 things you put as risksRISKS
Assuming no calcs were requested, probably aiming for 11 audit risks
Qn asks for audit work on 50% acqn and a grant, so that means both have risks:
– recognise grant in P or L too early
– might need prov for grant repayment if not meeting t+c
– new 50% thing needs disclosure (IFRS 12) and they might under-disclose
– mis-classification of new 50% thing as could be JV, Sub, associate and “control” is subjective concept
– new 50% acqn could be a new Op Seg = disclosure needed
– gain or loss on disposal wrong
– potential wrong classification of disposal as HFS or Discont Op(I do not know when it was sold so cannot tell which would be right)the above looks like enough risks to pass given the marks, and is based purely on seeing another part of the question asking for audit tests on those 2 things. It does not need reading of the story. Even if you only score an average of 1 mark per risk above, that is 7 marks, add to the 3 Prof Marks and 2 materiality and we are up to 12.
EXTRA INFO RE DISPOSAL
since I have not seen the story, I do not know what info HAS been given, but common sense says I would want the following, so if any of these are not in the story they go in the answer:
– WHEN sold
– to WHOM (could be RPT)
– for HOW MUCH (to calc gain, and also could be deferred / contingent)
– WHY (to help GC assessment of remaining company/group)
– tax situation (if a gain, tax likely)
– if sold post y/e, WHEN did the advertising for sale start (to check if HFS at y/e)If at least 2 of the above are not in story, that should be a pass (it was out of 4, right?)
TESTS
Grants have come up so often, if you cannot do 4 tests on a grant you might as well give up:
– CB and BS
– Grant agreement
– board minutes to verify commitment to use grant within the t+c
– recalc of whatever portion to P or L this year (if any)
– corresp with grant authority for signs of failure to meet t+cThe 50% thing … there was a JV question in Sep/Dec 2016 Q1. Sounds like it could be the same? Anyway, if tests are re classification then need to see involvement of your client in management and decisions at this new acqn:
– BM of client to understand intention of acqn, is it to jointly manage?
– BM of the thing acquired, to see if client’s directors are attending BM and voting
– Co House info to verify make up of board at acquired entity
– Shareholder reg to confirm 50% owned, and who owns the other 50%ETHICS
Cannot comment without seeing the story for this bit.
The point is that there are at least 20 marks of content above for Q1, and that assumes poor explanations of the audit risks, no attempt at the ethics at all, and not reading the scenario at all. Almost a pass.
A lot of auditing is about doing core things on every client, and then adding specific extras. The core stuff still gets marks, whatever the scenario says (within reason of course!).
Q2
SALE and LEASEBACK
The IFRS 16 accounting for these is nasty. I suggest you ignore it.
Evidence
– sale document confirming transfer of legal ownership to other party and date
– leaseback document to confirm lease length, payment terms and any other t+c
– BS and CB to verify any cash received from sale and date received
– BM to confirm understanding of why sale and leaseback done (could be cashflow issues and a GC problem)
– proposed disclosure note and SFP to verify asset now described as leased not ownedMatters
– calc materiality of a number in the storyabove is more than 4 out of 8 = pass. As I said, ignore the accounting rules. They are hard (judging by the amount of discussion on this thread!!)
INV PROP
having not read the question, I do not know whether this was bought in the year, or revalued in the year, or whatever. So it is hard for me to say what I would test, other than:
– copy of most recent valuation to verify value, and how recent
– quals, exp and indep of valuer to assess reliability
– if not recent, auditor expert to do valuation
– BMs to confirm intention re asset is investment not use
– recalc of gain on revaluation
– Land Reg docs to confirm still owned by client
– physical inspection to verify not in use by clientCalc materiality (of the reval gain, if there is one) and that’s that bit passed.
I will stop now, because no doubt this is annoying some of you, but the point here is that a decent approach, combined with having practised recent past questions (and therefore nailing the grant and JV tests because you did both in revision within past few days), gets a pass every time.
Anyone who is worrying about the specifics of the scenario ahead of what I did above is in deep trouble. So follow my advice, and stop getting angry at difficult accounting stuff in the stories.
Good luck to all for results 🙂
your attitude to exam would be to write something like telling to the marker ” i want a mark here” this should be in 3 lines. the examiner’s answer is the 500% of what should be written to pass so dont be afraid of that. If you have the knowledge then apply it in small paragraph and you will do fine. detail is not need in SBR but a wide range of knowledge of everything in syllabous.
hello,
in order to tackle the exam you should solve the revision kit at least once. you should order the new one including the revised conceptual framework. Due to your time limitation though not forbidding you should aim to conclude the revision kit by end of august. there are 80 questions divided by 40 days means at least 2-3 questions per day. go very briefly on lecture notes but do make your own as you solve the questions as pocket notes.
best of luck
you have time if you are able to solve the revision kit twice. there are 80 questions so you have to solve 6 questions per day 🙂
regards
