Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@rogman228 said:
Having read the technical article the examiner uploaded on the 2nd of August about IFRS 16 I am confident I judged the bikes correctly given their term was 12 months or less and they are typically a low value item like tablets and telephones would be. The fact they were unlikely to extend the lease term was important.Don’t stress over it though you only lost 3 marks max if you got that part wrong I bet. Plenty of other areas you could have made up for it.
@rogman228 said:
Having read the technical article the examiner uploaded on the 2nd of August about IFRS 16 I am confident I judged the bikes correctly given their term was 12 months or less and they are typically a low value item like tablets and telephones would be. The fact they were unlikely to extend the lease term was important.Don’t stress over it though you only lost 3 marks max if you got that part wrong I bet. Plenty of other areas you could have made up for it.
Hi.
I explained that the lease term was expected to end after 12 months and that if it was to be extended, then it would no longer meet the lease term exemption criteria – I’m very confident I explained the lease term exemption well 🙂I’m very concerned about the asset value exemption though, I mentioned that the total cost of $60,000 and a 12 month lease term would not qualify as a lease under IFRS 16 but that if the lease term was extended beyond the existing 12 months, then it would qualify as $60,000 exceeds the low asset threshold value?
I’m really hoping I scored full marks (or close to) for Q4 as my Cash flow question was a disaster.
Why do we put ourselves through this 🙂
I notice some people saying that the bicycles qualified for an exemption under IFRS 16 and should be expensed to the P/L as they are of low value? Low value is $5k or less from most readings I have found…
My logic was 100 bicycles at $600 each = $60,000 and this would qualify as a lease if the 12 month lease period was extended
Did anyone else come to the same conclusion?
I hope I haven’t thrown marks away :/
Found the paper far too time pressured! Definitely wasn’t the worse paper (based on the requirements) but the sheer volume of info provided (particularly in Q1) was a major cause for concern! 2 full pages of narrative and another full page of financial information. I think most students would agree that there was so much pointless information in the narrative about the owner (the details of his flight? Nobody cares)! 7m for PESTEL, 13 m for 5 forces, 18m for Suitability & Acceptability of acquisition, 8m for strategic alliance and the standard 4 professional marks.
I opted for Q2 and Q3 like most people – again requirements weren’t the worse but both had reasonably long narratives as well and I’m sure most would agree that these perhaps could have been a little shorter considering the ridiculous length of Q1.
Q2 wasn’t the worse for those who have a reasonable understanding of Project Management. Part a for 16m was an assessment of the project and the risks associated for the council and the Tram company. 9m in part b for analysis of 3 stakeholders – this and the PESTEL were probably the easiest marks available on the paper (IMO).
Q3 was both good and bad for me. 16m in part a for analysis of 5 internal contextual features – had this covered well and would be confident of 12-14 marks. Part b for 9m was much worse. I didn’t study boundary organizations and will probably pay a heavy price for this. Time pressure was intense at this stage and I answered this with reference to Harmon’s process strategy – didn’t spend too much time on this and will very likely score a zero for this section.
Did anybody reference Harmon for part b in their answers?
All in all, a passable paper at a glance but time management was crucial. I Fell into the examiners ‘time traps’ and I’m sure there are many others would will feel the same.