Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I think 46m with the basic calc. Does that sound about right? I didn’t do any calculations with a price increase, I only did inflation increases with consistent prices.
I got close to 0 when I applied 10% inflation so could be right depending on the adjustment you made
I had NFPI, EVA and Performance Pyramid.
Hoping to pass section A, but I struggled the most here. I didn’t really have enough points for each question.
I recalculated EVA at 6% and 10% inflation increases. I think my initial EVA calculation got me 46 million? On the whole, this was a great question.
Performance pyramid was fine. My points to question (b) were okay if a little weak.
Would be keen to hear what people put for Section A questions
Ooo and what did you guys think about whether the discontinued operation met IFRS 5 criteria? I said that it did when the shareholders agreed to sell and the search for a buyer first started. Therefore at the first y/e it should be a discontinued operation. But at the next y/e, I said it no longer met the criteria as held for sale as there wasn’t much intention behind selling it and the sale was not probable at that date. I then said that the letter (after the y/e) did not change my decision as it did not give further clarification of an event at y/e and so was non-adjusting. Ultimately not too sure though so keen to hear what you think!
I think the group and ethics question was okay. Bit random that the group was based on a foreign subsidiary as that hasn’t come up too much in past questions. For the last part of groups, I argued that it could no longer be classed as a subsidiary as control had been lost. Likewise, crowdfunding was fine. I argued that the treatment was based on judgment. It could be treated as revenue/cost of sales if drone sales were a part of operations. However, ultimately, I said it should go straight to equity and a provision should be recognised as the drone sale operation was still in development. I also said that the loan from Mr Pain was a related party transaction and should be held as a current liability as it was repayable on demand. Section B questions, I found harder to answer and ended up leaving a few out, particularly the value in use/discounting question as well as the long question where you needed to critically asses if the judgment/estimates were useful. The recognition (or lack of), I argued was against IFRS 9 and outlined the measurement criteria. I also said it was against the Conceptual Framework and IAS 1. I mentioned that the true and fair override did not apply and it also did not achieve fair presentation. For the IFRS 3 business acquisition that required judgement, I argued that the IAS 38 separability criterion needed judgement, the valuation of contingent consideration (since it’s based on a contingent probability) and the valuation of assets in accordance with FV as ultimately depends on the highest and best use and depends what the directors think market participants would do. I think I did enough to pass. I hope!