Forum Replies Created
- Posts
<cite> @nevyana said:</cite>
What about the impairment? I first impaired the goodwill and the residual distributed to PPE?Yes that was what the Q asked us to do. 80m against GW and balance to PPE. Think my total Impairment was 277
Cr GW 80
Cr PPE 197
Dr Cons Ret Ear 166.2 (60%*277)
Dr NCI 110.8 (40%*277)Very, Very confused how I got 73%.
This paper felt like a disaster and I didn’t attempt 10 mark seasonal variation part of Q.
Oh well, happy days!
@saiflalani said:
No Actual 10….
I started in December 2011. Wanted to get a designation. I did not have any credits.
I found doing CMA-US gives you 7 out 14 credits for ACCA. So I took exam 1 in January 2012 and exam 2 in February 2012. Also took Canadian Tax course to transfer to ACCA for F6 and then took F7 and P3 in June.At what point can you start doing P papers? I thought you had to complete all F level first?
I urge everyone to fill in this. It is ACCA official feedback on the june 2012 sitting.
They take this into consideration prior to marking is done
This isn’t the first time this paper has caused uproar. December was as bad.
My issue is the weighting of marks to areas of the syllabus that are far from core. Dec 2011 had a monster amount of marks for a discussion on particapative budgeting.
Not a problem with written areas on budgeting coming up, but it’s the number of marks behind it.
Participative budgeting barely mentioned in BPP books.
Again this time, with time-series, TQM and to some extent 20 marks on target costing.
There was definitely goodwill. I imagine people forgot the cash deferred consideration
Also had a loss on Q2. In terms of answering the EPS bit if you got the profit wrong from previous part that won’t matter.
But you had to use the $1.20 to get the cum rights price/theoretical ex rights price and work out the weighted average of shares as there was an issue in year.
Happy with Q2 as I gave the lease bit a good go and confident with the tax/deferred tax part and all other non current assets revaluations etc.
Q1 was fine apart from the cash in transit/unrecorded rec’bles/payables. But thats going to be like 4 marks tops and I gave it a go so should get something.
Q3 cashflow was reasonable seemed quite short as not much going on in terms of complications. Second part for 14 marks ratios ok calculated about 6, written part not my strongest.
Q4 – BOOM. Great question for me Impairments I hope to get at least 10 marks on this. Really happy with my answers, might have just missed the cash/receivabbles being at fair value and therefore could not impair. However all the others were fine.
Q5 – pushed for time but got bullet point answers for both parts. 3 or 4 marks and I’ll be happy.
Overall, quite tough and challenging but worked through the best I could and would be disappointed to fail even if I don’t think it will be a confident pass.
Her reports are right in that we should not question spot and I didn’t at all. I covered the syllabus fully.
One thing nagging is the labour efficiency variance in Q4. There was no Labour rate variance as stated per Q. And the given variance from the table for Labour was 1760(F). This is all related to the efficiency but for the life of me could not get this answer.
The way I approach is say how may hours did they actually work for the 960 actual units produced. And compare to how many units should they have worked for the for the 960 units using standard hrs per unti which was 2. So 2 x 960 = 1920 hours.
They actually worked per the Q 1824 (or something similar) so there is a favourable variance of 96 hours. Multiply this by standard hourly rate which is $10 so 96 x $10 = $960……. not the 1760….
I do not think we had to restate the standard costs and show planning and operational variances as this was not the nature of the Q. It was just a standard Variance Q but proved quite baffling.
I decided to apply the correct methodology and assume they all reconciled to the actual contribution as the question asked.
I guess I’ll get some credit for workings…
I agree this is the toughest of Fundamental level. No doubt. The nature of the exams are odd.
I covered the syllabus in its entirety and practiced questions non stop on all areas.
Apart from the odd Q we may as well call this exam a discursive one.
Q1 make or buy had 8 marks discussion
Q2 10 marks
Q3 20 marks
Q4 10 marks
Q5 12 marksAnd that is from memory I think there is more than that. If it wasn’t for the calc in Q1 and Q5 which in fairness were not worth much it’s all written.
Don’t have a problem with that but don’t load up the syllabus and provide a formula sheet if all is required is discussion.
I am borderline thinking that the syllabus is perhaps now too big
The exams are becoming more bizarre. The written sections are far outweighing calculations. Not 50/50 I’m sure.
Seriously the topics are getting slimmer. You may as well not bother with core areas and just look at periphery areas.
The target costing Q involved ZERO calculations. Just using the text to answer how they may approach target costs.
6 marks for discussing service v manufacturing industries.
Real periphery stuff. No ABC, Throughput, Lin Prog, Learn Curve, Mix/Yield, Planning/Op Variances.
I mean really Time series analysis?? WTF?
Overall very strange exam for me. Q5 I did very well in the rest I answered ok apart from seasonal Q
@batholomew
Environmental accounting will be a written segment. Use the Open tuition notes and basically memorise them. This will be enough for the exam. Maximum marks available for this topic is 8 if it gets examined.
Financial/Non Financial performance analysis will definitely be examined as it wasn’t in last sittings and is normally at every sitting.
Cr Asset so Asset Value reduces to new value.
With the loss being shown in the I/S, unless it is reversing a previous gain in which case the loss is recognised in OCI section
Q1 Consolidation is all about practice, practice, practice.
The examiner will always throw something in there to complicate matters. This complication if you get it right is only worth 1-2 marks.
50% of the marks in the Q is getting the basic things right. So, on a S of FP question for 25 marks if you just added all assets and liabilites together and stated equity correctly then you would get around 11-12 marks.
The added complications of Parent hasn’t recorded £2000 of cash in transit or Parent sold S £1000 of stock of which S sold £500, will score you extra marks to get you closer to the 25. But in essence if you can do the basics right you are half way there.
Of course you need to understand the complications bit as typically I believe students who pass this paper tend to get 18+ marks on Q1 and struggle on Q4 and Q5
Passed 64%. Happy with that.
Thanks to opentuition. I only used Opentuition lecture notes and videos for F6, then booked a revision course.
Thank you for all the materials and quality lectures. Top notch
45% fail.
thought it would be touch and go as felt the paper was very harsh. Ran out of time on the Learning curve Q, and spent too long on Mix/Yield Variance Q.
Can the Dec 2011 Revision text still be used for June 2012?
As the Study materials have now been released for F5 for June 2012, and they are identical to Dec 2011, I assume the syllabus has remained identical?
If this is the case, can I purchase the revision kit textbook for the Dec 2011 sitting as nothing has changed?
Just about got it done.
Q1 Income tax. was very easy indeed. SPlit up nicely and the NIC element was easy easy marks
Q2 CT. not bad. Easy marks for VAT I thought compared to some past papers.
Q3 CGT, ok quite a few areas where marks can be picked up even if all figs are not correct.
Q4 – lengthy, lengthy but again marks are there to be picked up for each bit
Q5 – didn’t do much on the losses bit , but the CT including Double Tax Relief was ok and again the IHT was okBe disappointed if I do not get 50. Considering I put in serious work into this paper.
Thanks to opentuition though
Slightly aggrieved that nothing came up on
1) Cost-Volume-Profit
2) Financial & Non Financial Performance measures
3) Environmental AccountingThe budgeting question was right out of left field. In detail I know ZBB, Incremental etc. This one was unknown to me. At least I put in planning, control and motivation for 3 of the 6 discussion points. Who knows maybe half marks.
TRansfer pricing 1st part was easy the maximal profit bit was a bit tricky to come up with a range of prices due to both having external customers. GAve it a good fist though.
Q1 – relevant costing, again, another from left field, but coped ok with it. Hopefully enough for half marks.
The learning curve but for 11 marks is probably a bit weak due to time constraints, but nailed the life cycle cost and answered as well as I could the final 3/4 mark bit.
Q5 Variances I think straight forward. DEfinitely used the right principles, so evenif answers not right should get some credit.
OVerall I’m not too happy with the exam, considering I put in some serious hours.
One last thing on the environmental accounting issue – I think everyone worked incredibly hard on this topic and had read the technical paper inside out. Gauling when it isn’t examined
Tips?
Judging by those given by BPP you need to know the entire syllabus, which should actually be learnt anyway.
Always look at last sittings past paper (June 2011) you can be sure that not much of that will crop up in December 2011, they generally alternate what they are examining.