Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Passed with 50%! I was thinking I might fail. What a close call, my goodness! Glad to see so many people who passed as well (to think that so many of us felt it was hard). To those who failed, don’t give up! I can’t give any better advice than to continue working hard at it. Read the technical articles, make sure you get the basics right first (as Chris would say), read Student Accountants for additional insights, attend all the webinars and practice more.
p.s.
Finally done with all my papers! Congrats to the others who have too. My effort hasn’t gone wasted. All those boring study nights, long-rear classes and my self discipline have become fruitful. I sincerely hope this qualification will help me get the best out of my profession (still some miles to go before I fulfill my PER though). I would like to thank Mike, Ken and Chris for the lectures (other than ATX, I self-studied all the while with OT; without them this would have been impossible). These are honestly not the best lectures, but are the best for free. Although, I do hope that OT gets more funds and allows the lectures to be improved (purely from my experience, they’re still insufficient if you don’t combine them with other materials).Again, all the best to those who are still fighting. You CAN do it!!
Can’t believe this thread is still so inactive!
Q1 was okay for me (hope this is not the Dunning–Kruger effect lol). I had the most trouble with Q3, where the first two parts (joint arrangement and FVTOCI) were completely alien to me since they weren’t my focuses in my revision. I might have figured out more if I had more time but the time was just enough for me to at least answer each question (except FVTOCI – left that one empty; and I couldn’t answer 100% for each question). I could answer the other questions, but I feel I missed quite some points. Fingers crossed.
Agreed with most people’s view that the first question was too lengthy. Though I do not think we were expected to make use of all information; there was simply too much and I think in the end the technique should still the same: you gain credit as long as you give sensible answers. I personally did not have the time to calculate all applicable ratios (heck, by the time I finished reading I had to start writing) and focused on trend analysis and explanation instead. Spotting trends is much easier than calculating ratios. I see that a lot of people spent 2h+ for the first question, which shouldn’t have been the practice. No matter how long the question is and how much you still have to write, YOU MOVE ON WHEN THE TIME IS UP. This is easily the most important technique but one that is easily disposed of during the exam (honestly I spent 2-3 extra minutes after the time was up for one question and had to slap myself so that I moved on).
I can’t be sure whether I’ll pass; it was challenging and regretfully I had one or two knowledge gaps since I didn’t do P2/SBR before AAA. The rest of the questions felt fine though. Hope all goes well.
You’re right; the whole idea of self-study is only as good as you’re motivated. I don’t think that’d be a problem for me because, heck, I’d be more motivated to study without constraints than to force myself to fit in any tuition schedule. It’s just that there’s uncertainty in my expected working hours. I’ve heard that during peak season, auditors are required to work minimum 60 hours a week. I just did some simple calculation and found that I might have more than enough time to prepare for P1 and P3 (about 90 hours for each of P1 and P3). In extreme scenarios I may have to work 80 hours a week, but even with all weeks 80-hour weeks I’ll have 78 hours for each paper. I suppose that suffices, too? All these analyses assume that all goes according to the plan, of course… I just hope that I won’t get burnout, haha.
Thank you for sharing!
Well for you it may be better to self-study since you prefer a faster pace. This makes sense but I personally am worried that my own method won’t work out, particularly because I expect a busy work schedule and can’t exercise much flexibility, making no difference in the end.
@kengarrett said:
The other year’s marketing is added to CE in the answer so as to correct the calculation.Sorry sir, the question clearly says that the marketing expense was “spent each year for the LAST TWO YEARS”, not “these two years”, meaning the years ended 30 June 2013 and 2014. So the capital employed brought forward to this year (year ended 30 June 2015) should have both LAST TWO years’ marketing added to it (i.e. $23.1m*2 = $46.2m). Therefore the official answer’s adjusted CE should have been $2,420.1 + $23.1m = $2,443.2m. This also means that the NOPAT should not include a $23.1m as NO marketing was spent for this year, hence no need to add back.
Please clarify, as OP’s doubt has not been cleared.