Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@kibalka I think your 2nd pass was a June sitting and your first failure was a Dec sitting isn’t it? Please could you tell me which sessions you failed and passed. I also agree with Gabriel in that June P2 is more easier
You need to choose P2 (UK) and P7 (UK) to get a practicing certificate from ACCA, if you intend to open your practicing firm then you need at least three years of experience recorded with the ACCA.
@hassan. I think your friends are lying. You can’t sit exams in June until you clear the subscription fee unless your friends are registering for the first time or didn’t sit exams in June in that particular year. I would advise you to wait till 8th Feb and then when registering for the June 2015 exams, you can also pay the subscription fee.
So will I be safe if I don’t pay until like 9th Feb 2014? I don’t want to pay the subscription fees so early
@unstopabl3 it’s surprising that they told you to write to ACCA’s Glasgow office. For me, I just wrote through my ACCA account and my exam circumstance letter was sent to my e-mail straight away so is there anything fishy here?
P4 will be better. As you failed P3, then P5 will be difficult for you too. P5 is more theoretical, and if you love calculations then I would be suggest you go for P4. P4 needs a good teacher, and Mr. John is very good here on P4.
I haven’t received the e-mail from ACCA too. It usually says “examination survey e-mail” but I haven’t got any e-mail asking me to take part in the survey.
I think I’ll get it later this week. @nizarsalleh why don’t you write to the exams department via myACCA and they will consider your circumstances
I don’t think q2 (b) required a discussion of Harmon but rather just a discussion of whether the process should be outsourced or not! It wasn’t so much about Harmon but rather an in shoring vs off shoring issue
Using calculations here was the key
Too time pressured. Didn’t have time to do the 15 mark question on the Swim lane diagram!
Also, the 5 mark question on the regression was just impossible.
Q1 (b) on price and differentiation was impossible too. Too much too write for 10 marks but not enough points in the scenario. The scenario for question one was just too lengthy!
The swim lane diagram story didn’t make much sense and there were too many marks for the process advice! Too bad ! I’m not happy!
The paper was fair overall however the Q1 (b) put me off. There were 40 marks for Q1 (a) too much too write for a very big scenario. Too time pressured, the examiner needs to consider this when writing his questions. Not everyone has a computer to type answers like he does!
On a separate issue, here’s the examiner’s report from June 2008 relating to the above question:
The second part of the question required candidates to discuss the treatment of discount vouchers and government grants. The treatment of customer loyalty programmes is the subject of IFRIC 13.The examination will require candidates to have knowledge of certain IFRIC’s to supplement the accounting treatment required by the standard. Candidates performed quite well on this part of the question and applied their knowledge of IAS 18 very well to the cases in point
Is the above still relevant in 2014? I mean do “present day P2 students” also need knowledge of IFRIC’s? Because I think the exam has changed in style a bit and above all, no IFRIC’s are mentioned in the examinable documents for Dec 2014 so are they necessary?
I keep reading such comments in the examiner’s report:
Students should read widely and not be dependent upon a textbook or manual. The latter are a good source of material but there is a need to gain a wider understanding and to contextualise the knowledge gain.
It is not possible to prepare for this type of question by simply reading a manual and learning notes or by listening to a lecture.
What does our examiner want? If we can’t pass using notes/lectures/textbooks then what else do we read? How will this examiner be satisfied? Technical articles? Or whatever?
Hi Mike,
Should I wait for a few more days, please let me know when I should check back. Thanks,.
https://becker-atc.com/shop/p5-study-materials/study-system-and-study-question-bank-p5/
here you go. That’s the link for Becker (an approved ACCA learning provider). That link allows you to buy both the study text and question bank for P5.
Below the page to that link you will find many other P5 packages and materials. Select the one that best suites you.
I’m not sure that I understand what you are asking here. Could you make your query more clearer?
Yes but then could you explain to me what this line meant in the question,
[ The above figures have not been taken into account for the year ended 31 May 2013 except for the contributions paid which have been entered in cash and the defined benefit obligation]
I understand cash was credited but what was debited? Isn’t it the pension asset {defined benefit obligation} that he talks about above?
Dear Mike,
It’s ME here, I still don’t understand. With regard to my above query of calculating goodwill in Minny and Trailer, what’s the liability thing you referred to above. Could you please explain?
Yes that makes sense but with regard to note 7, the question reads as:
The following information relates to the group pension plan of Trailer:
1 June 2012 ($m) 31 May 2013 ($m)
Fair value of plan assets 28 29
Actuarial value of defined benefit obligation 30 35The contributions for the period received by the fund were $2 million and the employee benefits paid in the year amounted to $3 million. The discount rate to be used in any calculation is 5%. The current service cost for the period based on actuarial calculations is $1 million. The above figures have not been taken into account for the year ended 31 May 2013 except for the contributions paid which have been entered in cash and the defined benefit obligation
We are told the “that everything was not taken into account EXCEPT the contributions paid of $2million” so why in the answer to this note, they add contributions of 2 under the asset column? See for pension workings we usually follow the standard proforma and the asset and liability columns are separate. So why in the working, in the asset column for pensions they are adding the contributions paid, when in fact, it had already been taken into account, isn’t that double counting?
I understand Kerri totally, I have the same problem. You see Mike let me make the problem clearer to you. In Trailer we are told “Goodwill of Park and Caller was impairment tested at 31 May 2013. There was no impairment relating to Caller. The recoverable amount of the net assets of Park was $2,088 million. There was no impairment of the net assets of Park before this date and any impairment loss has been determined to relate to goodwill and property, plant and equipment.”
So when we want to get the impairment here we take the net assets at y/e & then we add goodwill (and proportional goodwill, in this case because we are told to use the proportional goodwill method, but otherwise we wouldn’t gross it up). So we take 2255 + 133.3 (goodwill, grossed up in total) and then compare this with the recoverable amount of 2088 to get impairment of 300.3
Now in Minny, we don’t follow this style or this method. Why?
In Minny, we are told as follows:
“Both Bower and Heeny were impairment tested at 30 November 2012. The recoverable amounts of both cash generating units as stated in the individual financial statements at 30 November 2012 were Bower, $1,425 million, and Heeny, $604 million, respectively. The directors of Minny felt that any impairment of assets was due to the poor performance of the intangible assets. The recoverable amount has been determined without consideration of liabilities which all relate to the financing of operations.”
Now the net assets, at y/e of Heeny, for instance, were $400 and then the goodwill for Heeny was 23 so why not just add this two figures together to get 423 and compare with 604 to get no impairment since recoverable amount is greater than carrying value.
Instead, what the answer does, is that it look on to the “total assets” in the original balance sheet (or statement of financial position, given in the question above) so in the published balance sheet of Heeny in the original questions for total assets is that we are given ” 595″ + goodwill of “23” and then fair value adjustments of “36” and then compare the total of all these figures (654) with 604 to then get an impairment (50) to set off against goodwill and then intangible assets .
Why are there two different approaches to impairments? Why this discrepancy between the 2012 Dec exam and the 2013 June exam? How will we know in the exam to decide which approach to follow. There are two methods, conflicting with each other and giving differing results. Could you kindly explain this to me and Kerry, please?
Yes the above is exactly clearing my confusion. I got confused because the examiner used the word “interest received” so I thought there was interest income recorded in the P&L but you I think now my doubts have gone. Thank you for being there.
Just for clarification, the line read ” The only accounting entries which have been made for the year ended 31 May 2013 are the cash entries for the loan and interest received which have resulted in a balance of $48·5 million being shown as a financial asset.”
So yes, careful reading was required to get the correct line of thought, because even though he says “interest received” he then later states “.. which have resulted in a balance of $48.5 million…” so the above makes perfect sense.
Thanks,
G
I’m so sorry about that second post. Actually, I was just stressed out. I apologize once again.
I get the entries but what I’m not comfortable with is the fact that if the Basic interest ($ 1.5) was recorded as investment income in the P&L before then why do we recognize the full effective income (from amortizing) of 2.76. Already 1.5 is there, we need to recognize 2.76 so why not just recognize the difference (2.76-1.5) which leads to only 1.26 being recognized, so why double count and recognize the full 2.76.