Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@a.mohamedibrahim@hotmail.co.uk said:
Viu calculated wrong by fd . I concluded that Viu should exclude restoration cost.I said VIU should exclude costs of replacing machinery
@nataly1986 said:
Has anyone discussed NOCLAR in Q1?Ya I mentioned NOCLAR and that auditor had to do specifc procedures and obtain legal framework as recommendations – and that they also had the right to report to enforcement authorities
@kireeti said:
It was non discloseur of the fact that parent agreed to support the loss making subsidiary, but there was no mention of written letter stating that(I presume only oral) . This was not discosed anywhere. In fact, if this letter s not obtained and subsidiary has going concern issues, it would give rise to adverse opinion due its pervasive nature.Was it also indicating that the Rossi brand should be potentiallty impaired because of the reduction in revenues – that being an indicator for impairment?
@kireeti said:
Subsidiary A was relate to inter group balancesSub B was related to goodwill(I screwed up here, as I said the consolidation of p/L has to be taken from year of acquisition. This completely wrong as they had control beforehand. But, I did speak about goodwill.
Subsidiary C was related to foreign currency translation(selling products globally) and letter of support and going concern threat.
But, I wish I had time to improvise this answer a bit.
I thought Sub C was in relation to non-disclosure of operational difficulties?
@donaldwhale said:
Brilliant students that I have interacted with said the exam was more tricky than Dec.2018 exams.Yes it was more tricky than Dec 2018.
@colmjulian said:
for question 3-b-i , i did not interpret the question in this way
apart from anything the question was ‘assuming you accept the tender’…so why would you then answer about risks of the DD
i talked about stuff like, checking background of firm and the foreign territoryquestion 1
regarding auditors expert, i saw no relevance of the biological asset guidance thing… i just spoke about stuff like objectivity, competence, relevance of conclusions etcFor Q1, what is in relation to the technical article on Specialised Industries? The article covered a section on using audits expert ; “n this situation, the audit firm must adhere to the requirements and principles of ISA 620, Using the Work of an Auditor’s Expert which deals with matters including the evaluation of the objectivity, competence and capabilities of the auditor’s expert, determining and communicating the scope and objectives of their work, and assessing their findings. It is particularly important that the auditor evaluates the relevance and adequacy of the expert’s findings or conclusions. There is a danger of over-reliance on the expert’s work; the fact that the audit is of a specialised nature does not mean that the auditor can pass all responsibility over to an expert. For instance, the auditor must consider whether the expert’s findings are consistent with the auditor’s understanding of the client and with the conclusions of other audit procedures. Any inconsistencies must be investigated”