[alaya]

Passed with 55% at first attempt. Didn’t expect to pass either..

[alaya]

@raoul7370 said:
Well that is what it is there for, so yes. Do so.

One thing I find a bit odd though. The mock I wrote for our students was not well attempted, with a far bigger % of students running out of time than is usual. Thing is, I wanted everyone to get a chance to attempt as much as possible to embed good technique, so I chose to keep the scenario exhibits a little shorter than I might have done.

My point – I am not convinced the number of exhibits or size of the story is the problem. I think this is going to happen at every sitting, and is down to there being a 50 mark question.

As a former P1 tutor, the same thing happened every time with the 50 mark question on that paper, even though it was only 1.5 pages of story.

A lot of students seem to struggle when there are many different requirements and 1 big story. I remain sure that this is largely a lack of technique, or lack of timed practice of such questions, or a combination of the two. However (and the main reason I continue to post on this thread despite some of the delightful comments I get for doing so), I also think quite a few students simply do not realise that exam stories are deliberately larger than they need to be to supply sufficient points for students to talk about.

That 24 mark audit risk question probably needs only 9 well explained risks to get all the risk marks available. I reckon there are at least 20 risks in there. So find a many as you can, pick 9 you are comfortable explaining, and then move on.

Thing is, unlike P1 (where any requirement could mean having to read several parts of the story), P7/AAA has always tended to give the story in bite sized chunks. If more students realised this, I think they would, as I do, see it NOT as a 50 mark question, but instead as a 24 marker, a 6 marker, a 10 marker, and a 6 marker (plus 4 marks for a format which requires no reading at all).

While a little crossover is possible, it becomes clear quickly that:

– 6 marks of audit tests on goodwill need Exhibit 4 only

– 6 marks of ethics and prof issues needs just 1 paragraph of Exhibit 2

– 10 marks of audit strategy needs just 3 paragraphs of Exhibit 5 to read

The scary bit is of course Exhibit 3, with not just FS numbers but also notes to the FS (although these notes provide another bite by bite exercise, and lots of audit risks). The specimen paper had FS but no notes so of course this is going to take longer to get through.

Anyway, I hope those of you reading this take my comments for what they are – an attempt to help you pass the exam. If you believe that the very existence of exam technique is wrong, and that the exam should allow for deeper analysis and more time, and that tutors should teach the subject in its full glory, then sure, happy to do that.

I would happily discuss the finer points of auditing all day, as I suspect some of you might have realised…

Thank you, we really value your input, although it may not seem like it :).
I still think that the time is not enough for the questions given, though. Also I’m pretty sure that no amount of filled in surveys will help with that :(..

[alaya]

@sokty said:
I don’t think we should talk about risk of under-disclosure because the requirement stated clearly that we should not talk about disclosure.

Yes, the requirement said “You are not required to consider audit risks relating to disclosure, as these will be
planned for later in the audit process.”

[alaya]

@sgaosikelwe said:
Be realistic, boot licking does not work for ACCA optional papers
The exam was very long, Q1 in particular and the question was also tricky as some statements needed to be read more than once to get the true meaning. there was high possibility that some students may have understood it differently and answered it in a wrong context.
i agree with those who said that we have to highlight our concerns with the examiner to set realistic exams which test Knowledge and application under professional conditions. we just talked about time pressure and how it affects the quality of audit. in the same note it affects the quality of exam answers.

LETS WALK THE TALK

If we walk the talk and actually receive this extra time, they will compensate this in another way by cutting easy/professional marks, making trickier questions or testing obscure areas of the syllabus. The hints received here show that there is one thing that did not change about this exam in time: the 30% pass rate. It is safer to leave it like that and “work within the framework forced on us”. Anyway, by comparison with the polls from the other professional level exams, except for SBL, ours is by far the best :). And I have to admit that the questions were fair, the only issue was the time.

[alaya]

@rogman228 said:
I absolutely agree planning is crucial in audits. And it is in this exam, too. Like I said previously you need to go in with a game plan. But not just that, you need to go in with plenty of practice of that game plan already under your belt.

I sat four mocks before the exam all under exam conditions. 3 from the BBP kit and another from my college. When I was doing that exam, it was virtually like sitting it a fifth time. And I sucked hard my first two mock attempts believe me.

Like raoul hinted, once you have plenty of practice under your belt you know exactly how to go about answering the question requirements before reading a thing. Then it’s all about highlighting and plucking as many points as possible from the scenario presented and explaining them well.

I am not going to be arrogant and pretend I know it all, I don’t, and it is not in my nature. I could even still get less than 50 come October if I am unlucky.

However, if I am reassured of one thing before then it is that I have done what many students on here failed to do. Writing as many points as I wanted for each part of each and every question. I planned how I could achieve this, practised it at home, then did it on the day.

It is not just audit you have to do this in but all the papers. It is just more important than most. But my plan, practice, and follow said practised plan on the exam day has worked for every paper so far. I have scored 84 in P3, 65 in P2, 69 in P1 and 51 in advanced Taxation. And practising your technique to get knowledge onto your answer paper as best as possible was very important to score well for all those exams, too.

With all due respect to those complaining about the time, you just didn’t prepare enough to be able to manage it.

Thank you for your advice, I appreciate it, but please keep your opinion regarding our preparation for this exam for yourself.

[alaya]

@boltcutter said:
@raoul7370

Keep your expertise to yourself @raoul7370 !! I don`t normal respond to these but the way bulling other studying on this forums since day one is nauseating.

STOP annoying fellow students.

Let other students express how they felt about this exam freely.Maybe you belong to another group with other “experts”……It will be interesting to see if your results will show the same.

raoul7370 is not a student, he is a tutor and former marker for P7. He is trying to teach us how to approach this exam, so let’s give him a break. If were him, I would have given up long time ago ?.

I actually find this discussion very useful because I never thought to approach an ACCA exam with a high school mindset ?. All we have to do is to memorize the standard risks and audit procedures for each SOFP/P&L line and try to connect them to the problem. Looks like basic mathematics, you learn the formula and you apply it in exam to the question given. Use your comon sense for the ethics part and that’s the exam. Probably our problem is that we are thinking too much, when we are only required to learn by heart. I would never do that in reality, but this is just an exam, I guess I will have to go against my gut for this one ?.

[alaya]

@gladys2001 said:
Alaya, did you write this paper? If you had to attempt,it, am sure you will appreciate what we are trying to say

Yes, I attempted AAA. I left the exam hall with a terrible headache and my fingers were hurting from so much writing. It was frustrating because there was 0 time for reading, 0 time for thinking, 0 time for analysis. I wouldn’t have complained, but reading the sarcastic comments of raoul7370 provoked me. I realised that I wasted my time studying the syllabus and practicing questions, I should have studied exam technique instead.

[alaya]

Robertoh I am a student. I also happen to know a quite a few FCCAs through the nature of my work and it is sad that most of them don’t even remember the basics about IAS. If I talk to them and say for eg IAS12 requires this and that, they immediately ask what is this IAS about?. Also none of them remembers any of the exams passed for eg that P7 is audit.

I agree with being able to think fast and to finding solutions quickly. But there is a huge difference between fast and under pressure. ACCA means under pressure not fast.

[alaya]

I just wanted to emphasize that audit should be about reading, understanding, applying professional judgement, being sceptic. This is what matters most, not just exam technique.

[alaya]

I am really sick and tired of the exam technique topic that tutors and examiners are so keen of and keep bringing up. Nobody uses this exam technique in real life, hopefully. In 10+ years working in both internal and external audit, I had my share of time pressured audits. Thank God that I didn’t use the exam technique recommended of not reading anything about the client, blankly computing ratios and cherry picking the risks that I’m most comfortable with, or the usual standard risks for the respective type of engagement. Understanding and risk assessment usually took about 25-30% of the time allocated to the engagement. In a highly regulated, rapidly changing environment it is crucial to invest enough time to understand what you are assessing, instead of applying pre-defined knowledge. It could be possible that a risk which affects many similar companies from the industry is not relevant for the audited company, or that the audited company faces uncommon risks for that industry.
Regarding money laundering, maybe it should be a big deal for this exam with some requirements of applied knowledge instead of just defining money laundering / stages of money laundering. The number of fines applied by regulators is constantly increasing and there are some recent cases in which the fine value was so huge (several hundred million euros) that the regulator actually had to consider if the company will be able to pay it. Being able to identify ML is more important than being able to define it in my opinion.

[alaya]

Dear raoul7370,

Maybe 22+ year experienced tutors/markers/examiners should pay a visit to real life from time to time as they seem to be totally missing the point:

”There are not 15 mins of reading time. Haven’t been for years. By the time 15 mins were up, you should have had 6 ratios calculated for 2 years and Briefing notes set up and have 9 marks minimum in the bank.”
Audit should not be about how many marks you have in the bank, a good auditor should perform a proper understanding of the client, through meetings/discussions with client management and personnel SUPPORTED BY THE analytical review performed. In exam conditions this means that it should not be enough to just calculate random ratios, you have to spend TIME to understand what are the most relevant ones for your client/client industry e.g. there is no point in computing inventory turnover if the balance is immaterial as you are dealing with a services company – you can learn this by reading the question, not just the requirement.

”The key is to provide 18 marks of answer, not answer the entire scenario (where she provides too many risks so that everyone will find some, not to overload you)”,
”The moment you see a new sub acquired, that is overseas, even if story says same year end, they use IFRS and have same acc policies, and even with story saying ignore disclosure risks (I did not do the exam but am told it said that?), you have at least 4 audit risks (initial GW, impaired GW at y/e, forex retranslation, pre v post acqn reserves calc). That is 8 marks if well explained. Add on 6 for ratios, 3 for Prof Marks, and surely there are 4 standard goodwill tests on any company and you have 21 already having barely touched the scenario (if at all). No controls testing, and use of IA staff, must be worth at least 2 easy marks? That’s 23 and still haven’t read the story that everyone will always say is too long.”
”As I said to one of my class, if you think you have too many risks be happy. Shows you know what you are doing. Just go with those you are most comfortable explaining and ditch the rest. Has always been like this, and I don’t understand why so many students think they have to cover every available point”.
In real life an auditor should consider ALL the significant risks that the client is facing, not just the most obvious ones and most certainly not just the ones that he has time to look into or the ones that he is most comfortable with/understands. Again this means TIME spent understanding the client. Risk assessment should mean likelihood, impact, prioritization, thus TIME. There is a reason for that time resource prerequisite when accepting an audit, don’t you think?

”Fact is I haven’t seen the exam but have just written an answer to Q1 that will get 25 marks minimum. Based only on what requirements say. So if I can do that without reading a single word of the scenario that is apparently too long, why isn’t every student doing it too? Having poor exam technique is not the examiner’s fault and if you keep blaming everyone else you will never improve” ”The very fact you say I should see the paper before commenting shows the problem. No I don’t need to see it, because the scenario is not the key to passing this, it is the requirements.
many students having appalling technique for this paper”
This here is actually the biggest issue – you see, a proper audit exam would not allow passing it without reading the question, exam technique should not be the key to passing, professional judgement and scepticism should be the key. The equivalent in real life means do the minimum work in the time assigned, do not extend audit procedures if you have a riskier client, thus sacrifice quality. As long as you get the big fat fee/50% mark, it is ok.

”All exam papers are “trial sat””
By whom? Tutors, students, auditors? Skilled in exam technique or in audit?

”But if you have fallen foul to overrunning due to a failure to do the above, worry not (well not too much). So many people will have done the same, and surely ACCA want a pass rate no worse than 30%”, ”Rest assured the pass rate will not change much, which should mean that nobody has any more or less chance of success than they would have done under the old format.”
This is just sad, I always suspected pass rate manipulation as there was no change in trend except for cases in which the examiner or exam structure changed e.g. the artificial increase for P3 up to 56% before the merger with P1.

To conclude, if this exam would practice what it preaches, maybe we would not see so many audit failures involving qualified professionals…

[Author]

Posts