[khonkean]

YEE HAAA…. Thankyou Mike for the lectures and thankyou Kaplan for the great study texts…

After too many disappointments on the journey now an affiliate (options P5 and P7 int).

[khonkean]

@05008967
but read back through those posts. Thats not arguement on my part, that was a completely legitimate post that I made followed by a lot of pointless slander on the back of keyboard reading insult into a post where there was non.
Where my post was only constructive I cannot for the life of me see the cause of that unwarranted attack on myself unless post exam stress is being vented here with myself the unlucky one to have dared to have a differing opinion.
Now it just seems that KB wants to continue purely as he/she is too embarrassed to admit that they were wrong.
Just go back one page and read the flow and you’ll see what I mean.
Yes, I have since passed a couple of mildly snide comments in responses but see if you can see where the justification was for that initial unprovoced attack which was personal and derogatory.
In the last thirty four years in this business I can quite honestly say that I have never been spoken to with such unwarranted disrespect before.
I suppose that its the issue with the medium that people feel that they can say what they like without fear of repurcussion but regardless of how invisible one is behind a site userid one should still be respectful of fellow professionals.
Note that even though I am in no way to blame for this, twice I have offered an olive branch of forgetting the unprovoced rant only to get the above “You may be ok with me but I am not ok with you”.
This is not the sort of behaviour that I would expect of someone at this level of the qualification.
And before you say that it takes two to argue, as I say, go back to page 9 and reread the thread and tell me that I am in any way to blame for this.
I’m quite happy to put this down to post exam stress on KB’s part and draw a line under it.

[khonkean]

I think that your just embarrassing yourself now keyboard.

[khonkean]

Hi Gwen,
I know what you mean. The whole thrust of the article seemed totally at odds with the ACCA periodic statment about being disappointed at various pass rates at the professional level.
The article has disappeared from their news feed so it would mean me going back through old copies of the mag to find the relevant article. If I get chance tonight I’ll see if I can dig it out and I’ll post the month of the article.
kind regards,
Shaun.

[khonkean]

And you went on the defencive on the assumption that I was attacking you where I was attempting to have a well considered conversation.
Thats a two way thing. You made your points, I made mine. You were supposed to come back with measured debate.
Tell me one thing in my post that deserved the infantile diatribe that you regurgitated on the preceding page?
As I say, just because people do not agree with your point of view does not make the other people wrong.
I personally believe that you should appologise for your terrible behaviour that is not at all becoming of someone at this level of the qualification.
As I have said before, if you will now start talking reasonably and respectfully towards others I for one am quite willing to let your previous outbursts be bygones.

[khonkean]

My understanding is that for the typical briefing notes with four professional marks the breakdown is :

1 mark for headings
1 mark for strength of conclusion
1 mark for sub headings (basically a mark for making the markers life easier)
1 mark for general format and flow.

[khonkean]

Hi Michael,
I agreee, I’ve said on here before several times that for the P level papers at current complexity we need four hours to do them properly.
But of course such move would come with issues of its own.
I remember when the 15 mins reading time was introduced. I am sure that the papers became more than 15 minutes more complex so if another hour was given you can bet your cotton socks that the papers would not stay at the same complexity.
Also of course, what about the coplaints that would come in from those who had already passed the paper about the next generation getting it so much easier than they had by having another hour in the hall.
Would it not be unfair on them that those who follow get a simpler exam format?
And what if the extra hour came at the price of the pass mark moving from 50% to 75% in order to appease those already members?
I think that when it comes to professional qualifications its like a big game of kerplunk or Jenga where making even the smallest changes could bring the whole thing tumbling down.
I hope that you pass this sitting but if not I’ve found that the only way to really improve performance is to do lots of old exam papers under exem conditions on the run up to the day.
I’ve failed P7 before due to running out of time where I had all of the knowledge and with another hour I could have answered everything and like yourself my initial thoughts were that we needed more time but the more that you think of the repurcussions of the ACCA granting such the more that you realise that its us that need to be faster and more efficient in our writing.
Others have passed this. At least 30 out of every 100 at every sitting pass this. There is no reason at all that with a lot of effort and practice we cannot pass this.
By the way, you make a very good point about the F and P level papers only being allocated the same time. But of course, at the P level stage the ACCA expect so much more of us which I think is reflected in the increased complexity with no additional time.
At the end of the day we are no longer the fresh faced trainee’s that we once were when taking the F papers… lol, actually, I’m currently feeling more like one of those vietnam veterans with the distant look in their eye’s only shared by those who have been there done that.
On the results side of things I believe that is the ACCA’s intent which of course would fit in with the intent of moving to four sittings a year

[khonkean]

And hopfully now that you seem to have calmed down a little in answer to specific points made in your previous posts

1) The difficulty hike in papers has been phased in post 2007 to reflect that P7 now comes after P2 rather than before it so P2 is expected knowledge which explains the steadily increasing difficulty levels of the paper.
I did not think that this question paper was any better or worse than the last 4 or 5 sittings.

2) having an alternate opinion that disagree’s with yours is called debate. It is not simply “dashing out” someone elses opinion.

3) The statement over pass rates is a regurgitation of fact not opinion. Read PQ magazine article on when 50% is not 50%. You seemed to take that as me suggesting that was what should be rather than what is.

4) 15 years ago was pre Enron. The world and audit has changed a lot since then and we now seem to be on a path to being less watchdog and more bloodhound. (As Lisa has stated, the Kingston cotton mill case was from 1896 and is no longer appropriate).

5) People are free to judge me (and you) but I hope that they will do such from the perspective of reading what I wrote rather than filling in gaps as seems to have been done by yourself here.

Let us not forget that I was replying to a post where you have put in a complaint about the exam and by association the examiner to the ACCA which I for one feel was entirely unwarranted for this paper which was to my mind excellently constructed and delivered.
I for one do not want to see a change of examiner on this paper or a dumbing down of the qualification.
Anything worth having has to be difficult to achieve or it loses worth.

[khonkean]

Is someone having anger management issues.
What makes you think that I was sorry for my post? My response was well considered, unbiased and gave good arguement in favour of the quality of this paper.
If you want to have serious discussion and debate matters then fine as far as I’m concerned the above rant of yours which was a personal attack on myself is a bygones as I’m a grown up and thats what we do.
As for my opinion, simply because it does not agree with yours does not make mine the wrong one.

[khonkean]

Actually audit is becoming increrasingly litigous with the auditing oversight board commenting that (this may not be word perfect, please look it up yourselves) :

– Auditors seeking evidence to corroborate rather than challenge management
– Auditors placing over reliance on management representations
– Auditors accepting unreliable, inconsistent and contradictory evidence as sufficient and appropriate

There have been several major mid and top tier audits that have failed reviews by the board and the above were the findings.
With this background is it surprising that audit exams are keen to ensure that those taking them are really on top of their game.
Whether one uses audit in the future or not is immaterial in that the fact that you are taking the exam means that the audit door has been opened and ACCA need to be careful who they let through it.
You make a good point over not making partner without many years of practice but I think that yuou miss that often the person that you may become is the one that the audit partner is reviewing in many of the questions and to see that person as superiors see them helps to hone the skills for mid level roles.
I think that overall this was a very fair exam, well thought out, well timed. In parts challenging yes but no more so than should be expected at this level.
I for one would not like to see it changed and I do not think that the ACCA should alter there current stance of allowing more than 30(ish) percent through on any sitting otherwise the market becomes flooded with ACCA people and the qualification becomes devalued.
That may actually be something else that you are missing. Did you read the PQ article on when is 50% not 50%?
If too many people are getting through then the pass mark is adjusted until the numbers getting through come down to an acceptable level.
It is always supposed to be the best 30-40 percent that get through at each sitting.
The average pass rates (all figures rounded down) since change of exam in 2007 has been :
P4 – 34%
P5 – 36%
P6 – 40%
P7 – 33%
Lowest pass rates in that period were :
P4 – 30%
P5 – 29%
P6 – 35%
P7 – 31%
Just my two penneth as I do not think that this paper is one that should be complained about…. Actually, I think that regardless as to whether I pass or fail it’s one that Lisa should be complimented on as it seemed well thought out, well structured and well timed.
The fact that there were hidden levels to all of the questions was particularly well thought through in that where most would be able to answer the questions there were hidden twists between the lines of the questions.
At this stage of the qualification the last thing that I want is to be getting used to the question style of another new examiner so please will others join me in saying well done to Lisa before she gets fed up of only getting negative feedback.
kind regrads,
Shaun.

[khonkean]

@lillythepink
I would imagine that they will be qualified accountants not least because those that they use to play test the exams will need to maintain the utmost secrecy in relation to what they just sat so it would make sense to only use those with something substantial to lose.
I assume that the arguement behind the likes of P5 and P7 being so time pressured in that once past these papers we are the accountants who are supposed to know the subject.
There should be no major difference between people at this level who have just spent months revising for the particular paper and accountants in practice who whilst they will use much of this in their day to day work will not have spent months on exam prep.
Seems like swings and roundabouts in that both the student and the experienced accountant come to the table with relative strengths in that scenario.

[khonkean]

I agree with the ACCA on this one.
I’ve run out of time in exams before (too many times), normally by answering too much on things not relevant to the question.
On the two weeks run up to this one I did nine past papers under exam conditions (I had intended to do thirteen but decided instead to ease off a little in the last few days as was approaching burn out) and as a result on the day I finished almost to the minute.
My view is that this paper was fair both in terms of content and time allocation and to me it seemed apparent that the paper had been well play tested under exam conditions.
That said, there is no flexibility in the papers at this level and if one needs to take a step back and think about matters (as we do in the real world) then you know that you are dropping points as you will never be able to make the time up again.
If I fail this time (I think that I’ve passed but I’ve been severely disappointed before) I will definitely repeat the paper per day under exam conditions approach as on the day time management was greatly improved.

[khonkean]

Think that the thread is getting confused that Due Dilligence is either one thing or the other where it can actually be either / both dependant upon the requirements.
Due dilligence can be conducted as either an assurance engagement (limited assurance / negative assurance on assertions) or an agreed upon procedure (no assurance / factual findings only).
See Kaplan study text, chapter 15, Other Assignments, section of Due dilligence. It even emphasises in bold that it can be conducted as either.

[khonkean]

p.s. has everyone noticed that the questions are now available on the ACCA site here :

https://www.accaglobal.com/en/student/acca-qual-student-journey/qual-resource/acca-qualification/p7/past-exam-papers/international-stream.html

[khonkean]

Hi Slumber,
but surely the arguement is that if one does not want to think about the exam then one would not read this thread.
The act of reading the thread therefore equates to wanting to ponder and discuss performance.

[khonkean]

Hi Toosh007,
Your probably right.
A day later and some of the parts of questions have started to meld together in my mind so I may have forgotten important chunks of questions (and my answers to them) and may have inadvertantly moved parts of questions into slots in my memory that they do not belong in.
On the P&L in Q2 I calculated the trends in revenue and operating as a percentage of revenue. That aside there seemed little to play with there (but such was sufficient to know that the venture capitalists wanted to be rid of the business as whilst healthy the investment seemed to be approaching the maturity stage of its life cycle).
Oh, I did also use the P&L to calculate out the revenue generated from the lists as the lists themselves whilst internally generated becomes an seperatable intangibe as part of the purchase.

[khonkean]

Hi Toosh007
We were already the auditor of the client but the question was whether to continue the engagement. I commented on that one that in order to continue with the audit we would require a payment on account.
I said no to hand holding the client at the bank due to third party perception of our stance..
I also suggested that in response to the threat of putting the audit out to tender we would have no problem with that (I am personally much happier not being paid for not doing the work than not being paid for doing it and missing the opportunity cost of other work).
Damn it… In hindsight I cannot for the life of me remember writing the word advocacy in that part of the answer… Hindsights a great thing isn’t it!

[khonkean]

I must be some sort of freak as I seem to be the only one here who loved Q2.
I approached it from the angle that the main reason for buying the subsidiary was for the expertise and there was no guarantee that they would remain with the business which was being sold from under them by the venture capalist company who were attempting to make the business seem attractive whilst they could as year on year growth was slowing (330%, 60%, 23% respectively).
There was loads in that question to get your teeth into if you disected the question and looked at the commercial reality under the hood.
Quite often I think that P7 papers are set based on P2 knowledge but as the examiner has said before she can call on any expected prior knowledge and as such this question seemed more born of P3 (and to a certain extent P5) type knowledge.
Q5 I think that there was a twist on the opinion at the end as there were two options, either the management improve the note or they don’t and I gave the opinions for both scenarios with arguement.
I almost did Q3 and missed Q4 but glad I went Q4 as once I started writing every point seemed to lead to other matters and that one that I almost skipped was possibly the best of the bunch on the day.
I do not think that I did so well in question 1. Fingers crossed I picked up at least half the marks but I had difficulty writing at length about anything other thtn the overseas acquisition and even then, much that I wanted to write for foreign acquisitions did not seem applicable to the scenario and I’ve made that mistake before where I go off writing everything that I know and lose time.
Also, there were 4 points for presentation of the briefing notes which would give one point for a conclusion but it wasn’t the sort of answer where a conclusion seemed appropriate as there were too many disjointed facts.
On the time side I finished just as the exam ended so at least not my usual of hoping to gain a pass from only attempting 70-80% of the paper! (It seems to have taken to here to realise that trying for perfection doesn’t work when exams that could easily take 4 hours need to be sat in 3).
Have I passed? No idea and not going to hazard a guess as I’ve had my hopes absolutely dashed before on wrong assumptions (my worst score ever was from the exam that I felt most prepared for). But, I gave it my best and enjoyed question 2,4 and 5… Just wished that Q1 had been more intuitive for me.
Good luck to everyone espechially those like myself where this one is the final hurdle.
Kind regards,
Shaun.

[khonkean]

Thanks Eackary, I figure that we’re all in this together so whatever help, advice and support I can give I’m always happy to share.
My fingers will be crossed for you on the 9th.
good luck,
Shaun.

[khonkean]

Don’t think of it as 400 pages. think of it as 30, then another 30, then another.
One doesn’t eat a sandwich in a single mouthful but rather breaks it down into a series of bites that aree much easier to swallow.
I travel a lot with work, often doing the same journeys several times a week and very quickly you stop thinking of it as (say) being Birmingham to Edinburgh but rather Birmingham to the bit of the M6 when the lights disappear, then there to Scotland (where M6 becomes the A74M), then to the A702, then to Edinburgh.
The key is that one does not look at it as a single journey but rather a series of smaller ones and in the same way one should look at study texts in a similar fashion.
All that matters is one chapter… Or even one page.
When you’ve finished that its gone and then all that matters is one chapter / page.
And so on.
Think of it that way and you will get through the books in no time.
And its an awful lot less stressful thinking that you have to understand the contents of 30 pages than 400.
Good luck for December Marla, sure that you’ll get through that book a lot faster and remember a lot more than you think that you will at the moment.
kind regards,
Shaun.

[khonkean]

I think that from the exam perspective the number of points for writing down the number of the ISA is inconsequential (maybe 0.5 points if your lucky) so in a way the examiner saying remembering the numbers doesn’t matter is a legitimate statement.
However, from our perspective not knowing the numbers and being able to whizz through them quickly in sequence in our head would be a distinct disadvantage.
All in all, bit of a dangerous statement I think in this instance from Lisa (Just realised, even her name has ISA in it, lol) not from the perspective of writing it in on the day but from the perspective that it may be perceived that such is not required base knowledge.
That of course is just my take on things but it sounds as though you found my original arguement convincing that knowledge of the reference numbers for the standards is required knowledge even if you do not relay the number on paper in the exam (although if you are thinking in those terms why not write them down in passing as that 0.5 points could be the 0.5 points that makes the difference).
Good luck for December,
kind regards,
Shaun.

[khonkean]

Hi littlemissy,
I think htat the issue is that Anna was looking to use only OT materials and nothing else.
Whilst I think that the OT materials are brilliant, in your own case think how much case law you memorised from the Kaplan text.
I think that with OT it should be regarded as complimentary study or even the driving study but I don’t think that it would be wise to make it the only study.
Thinking of an example from my own studies P2 comes to mind. I think that I passed it because of the OT materials (espechially Mikes lectures) but I do not think that I would have been prepared for it had I not worked through the examples in the Kaplan study text that have an approach of try then repeat with more complexity in a slightly different scenario and keep building on that.
More than once Mikes lecturesgave clarity to subjects that I had found difficult. In my own case seeing him work through a group cashflow sttement made me step back and think how the heck did I find that difficult.
However, I still don’t believe that at the P level you could, or indeed should, pass simply by studying a single source of material.
My view is that if you are going to self study then the perfect kit is BPP I-Learn CD to get you started, OT lectures and course notes, Kaplan study text, Kaplan or BPP revision kit plus around eight past papers from the ACCA site sat under exam conditions before the day.
If one is paying £94 (£100 from next sitting) to sit the exam then the expectation of investing £80(ish) in study materials is not unreasonable… Mmm, thinks of the books of the likes of scholes and Whittington, Drury, Melville etc. sitting amongst others in seven full size billy bookcases behind me crammed with accountancy texts… £80 per paper… In my dreams, lol.
kind regards,
Shaun.
p.s. Littlemissy F5 isn’t a bad one to sit at the same time as F4 or F9.
Try to match F7 and F8 in the same sitting and unless you work in tax I would try to handle F6 separately.
When you get to the P papers, P1, P3 and P5 are all closely linked.
P2 and P7 should be done together if possible.
P6 again I would only sit with others if you do dark side tax in the day job.

[khonkean]

Hi Mia,
they’re all on cards (and a white board) so will take some time to type them all in (but will be a good revision excercise for me to do it).
Can’t do it tonight but I’ll try to get a fair few typed in and send them over before the weekend.
Some may gel with you, others won’t but it’s always nice seeing what other people feel is important enough to make a mnemonic out of.
For some others such as R&D capitalisation criteria, Criteria for non current assets held for resale, Revenue recognition, functional currency rules, etc. I don’t actually have mnemonics but rather simply remember the points in sequence as just couldn’t make a meaningful and memorable mnemonic for them.
Just to keep you going until I write the list out here’s a nice short one for ISA505.

R – Reliability of confirmations
A – Alternate Evidence
N – Nature and cause of exceptions

Talk later,

Shaun.

[khonkean]

Hi Eackary,
started to get very frustrated with the booking system after three days of trying.
Today even lost the left hand pane of the home screen but after much pulling of hair and gnashing of teeth all sorted now and I’m signed up for P7 Int in Brum.
Fingers (and every other part of the anatomy) crossed for December.

[khonkean]

God, got loads of them. I’ve installed a serious size white board in the bathroom with the top fourty on it so that I can go through them whilst lieing int the bath.
ok, start the ball rolling. For ISA315. The Auditor is required to gain an understanding of :

B – Business Risks
O – ownership
O – Operations
G – Governance
I – Industry Specific Matters

R – Regulatory Envirionment
I – Internal Contol
F – Financing
F – Financial Performance

S – Sturcture
O – Objectives
S – Strategy

Looking forwards to hearing other peoples.

Shaun.

[Author]

Posts