Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The more I think about this exam the more I don’t think the remote format suits it as it was set up.
This exam is always time consuming but on this sitting there were 8 exhibits to read if I recall correctly. Previous exams have mainly had 5-6 exhibits I think so seemed there was a lot more information to digest.
I am thinking there was additional information to allow for differing variants of questions that were asked, does anyone know are there normally variants of questions in the written paper for SBL?
The idea of pushing more information into an already time limited exam seems quite harsh and not well thought through. I know myself I was looking at information in the exhibits and wondering where it fitted in in the questions I had but just couldn’t see what relevance it had and only became clear after I learnt the alternative questions. Appreciate that it is an exam but providing additional information that is only going to confuse doesn’t seem appropriate.
Any thoughts or am I just moaning!?
did anyone think that in relation to the allegations re conduct and ethic a lot was based on hearsay and gossip – the guy seemed to hear a lot from 3rd parties
yeah if you log into my acca , my qualification and then the mitigating circumstances and select exam format remote , listen it may not make a difference but if i was borderline and had 15 mins extra ill guarantee i could have got 1 -2 marks if not more in that time
yeah ill be logging it with ACCA – like i didnt get to write for 8% of my exam writing time , so imagine if ACCA said you need 50/92 – I think its unfair not to raise it
Benefits of this I put
– Accountability addressed as voting every 3 years
– Roles – specific roles and responsibilities in new format – think only 2 had roles specified in old structure
– Leadership and Guidance – the executive board being established would provide this in comparison to the old structureWeaknesses (not sure if exact phrase)
– No limits on numbers
– Lack of independent members
– Board was to be comprised based on like a quota system from the two old co – thought this may supress talent / incorrect people getting roles based on companyI had the 15 minute timer issue too, as soon as it popped up I couldn’t access anything and then by the time it got sorted time was pretty much up, I know its only 15 mins but 15 mins in SBL is 8% of the marks writing time so its the difference between passing and failing – not really happy with that to be honest
Actually yeah now others mention it I couldn’t use the slides properly either for the last about 45 mins – not able to bullet point and highlight as headers – I was wondering what was going on
yeah i thought their functional currency was grommits as all sales, purch and most of their finance was in grommits and also some wages too.
I didnt see the currency that they pax in as being of an influence in this q as it stated that they were legally required to pay tax in that currency so they had no choice in the matter – also argued that even if you did take into account the tax payment that their primary economic activity in the most seemed to be in grommits.
Thought it was quite hard if im honest particularly question 3 – also the depth of the course that was actually tested didnt seem that large – bar one or two small things there was no need to consult the formula sheet at all which i found strange.
Q1 – Was happy initially when I saw it in comparison to some of the previous Q1 , part a ) was about the profit centre v cost centre – hadn’t seen this tested before – changes that i went through that were required were personnel, attitude to risk, technology to allow it , mgt structure – but these could be miles off. b) the computations of the currency and ir hedging went well , as did the inter co netting , the gamma and delta – went through what this was but didnt address it greatly , the report wasnt great due to time constraints. part c) the 20% equity holder asking about risk – agreed that they may be correct that shareholders themselves should hedge against risk in their portfolios but in this case with IR and FX risk being an everyday part of business it was prudent to do so and expected.
Q2 – Relatively ok on the NPV Calcs – made a few silly errors down to pressure nothing else but thats going to happen . VAR -messed up the formula again just exam pressure , and covering sensitivity wasn’t great – b) on the possible downfalls in there evaluation – i think that they had said the price was guaranteed by the goverment and this was one of the factors that if under 10% they would reject but though as guaranteed price it was rash to reject if this element below the threshold and all else good
Q3 – Nightmare from start to finish if I got 5 from it i would take it – havent seen a q like this set out and was expecting some CAPM, Asset Beta, WACC etc but not to be .
Anyway would be doing very well to get over the 50 but such is life – let us know any thoughts.
Part a was tricky always is you think you are right but one mistake and the answer is also there as a choice , part b the same but the topics were ok – some of the theory multiple choices I had to wither down to a 50/50 call . Part c the appraisal on the project with the r and d , working capital was hard enough for the marks – suggested making the appraisal better by including some sensitivity analysis and looking for competitors reports for guidance .think the final part of the q related to risk and how what they could do with it in relation to projected sales . Second part c q was the equity v loan – there was a rights issue but didn’t give the issue numbers itself eg 2 for 5 , think that was to throw people but the overall figure was all that was needed , second part spoke about the effect of each v the industry norm briefly – the third part about the dividends not being paid I spoke about m and m and the irrelevancy theory which I think the director was talking about but in this case I advised the trad theory to pay may be better due to signaling , benefits of the loan tax shield etc – anyway always hard to judge but please let me know if I am miles off – hope everyone is now relaxing – good luck !
From what i know lets say you lease something for 100k , and pay 10K deposit on the day.
The right of use asset will be 100k and the lease liability will be 90k .
Why we paid 10k so no longer owe it. So our entries would be
Dr Right of use asset 100k
Cr Bank – what we paid – 10k
Cr Lease Liability 90kThe way i thought about it was if you agreed a lease for 100k and paid 10k deposit and then someone asked how much you owed on the lease you would say 90k , and if they asked for 100k you would say no – think thats correct anyway !
is the 100 not the 100,000 $1 shares in the co? the equity in the co which equals the assets – liabiliites of the co ?
Thanks yeah i can see how there would be an effect but i thought they asked to use the net/gross margin calculated in part 1 which included the sub – anyway maybe i was just tired at this stage and totally made a mess of it
Anybody get the section C question on the consolidated accounts where the parent had bought 80% of the sub that year.
The question asked you to analyse the groups performance from last year (even though there was no group last year as it was only a single entity) and gave I think two ratios and a the gross and net margin % from the previous year for the parent alone but no other back up figures for analysis.
Anyone think there was a lack of information to do an analysis , the ratios and % given are really only of use if you have figures to back them up .
I found this part very difficult – any thoughts anyone ?
