Forum Replies Created
- Posts
@vind1994 said:
Can’t there be 2 different risks under intangibles? 1 being the R&D costs not being capitalized accordingly. And the other being amortization with a definite life. I think the Question said the software or something was amortized for a period of 15 years. And as the Co dealt with innovation, 15 years was way too long and so the amort expense being understated?And also regarding the redundancy provision which you have mentioned. Can’t we say the provision being under disclosed and as a result of that profits being over stated?
I don’t think we should talk about risk of under-disclosure because the requirement stated clearly that we should not talk about disclosure.
@raoul7370 said:
where did you get that 60% from? I have never heard of it. Adverse is where the misstatement is pervasive, which usually means it affects most of the balances in the FS (or affects the overall view that shareholders would take when reading the FS). If a mistake meant that a $5m profit should in fact be a $4m loss (i.e. it entirely wiped out profit) then maybe, but generally if there is only 1 mistake a qualified “except for” opinion is almost certainly the right option.To raoul7370:
So Examiner separate all the misstatements without giving us chance to say if all misstatements are aggregated. So in isolation, I still think the unrecodred provision is Material rather Pervasive as it affects only 2 balances, again in isolation.
I aggree with Kaffie that u did not fit for this exam but u scolded all the candidates. U may not have how pressurised to us in exam. I hope u could understand and not blame us anymore.
@jmmyjimmy said:
Regarding case 2, I have put pervasive as the misstatement represents 50% of pbt. Do you think it is a mistake?What I learn is that if the misstatement isnore than 60% of PBT, it should be adverse. So less than 60%, I think still Qualified.
@reazdusmahomed said:
There is a question on lease which state that the lease agreement do not permit the firm to purchase the asset. that implies it will never be in control on the equipment. As fat as i know it is an operating lease, but in the question it had been classified as finance?anyone can clear this pls>?
No more operating or finance lease for Lessee. All are accounted the same for Lessee if it is a lease.
@raoul7370 said:
most exchange differences on retranslating a sub go to P or L, not OCI. But these harder accounting issues are not what fails people so are best not worrying about.The moment you see a new sub acquired, that is overseas, even if story says same year end, they use IFRS and have same acc policies, and even with story saying ignore disclosure risks (I did not do the exam but am told it said that?), you have at least 4 audit risks (initial GW, impaired GW at y/e, forex retranslation, pre v post acqn reserves calc). That is 8 marks if well explained. Add on 6 for ratios, 3 for Prof Marks, and surely there are 4 standard goodwill tests on any company and you have 21 already having barely touched the scenario (if at all). No controls testing, and use of IA staff, must be worth at least 2 easy marks? That’s 23 and still haven’t read the story that everyone will always say is too long.
Pass the question on easy to get marks first. Read 3-4 paragraphs of scenario to find another 3-4 accounting areas for audit risks, then ditch Q1 completely, or alternatively tell yourself you are safe, stop Q1 after 97.5 mins, and job done.
But if you have fallen foul to overrunning due to a failure to do the above, worry not (well not too much). So many people will have done the same, and surely ACCA want a pass rate no worse than 30%? If you have written answers in a decent technique then even if you haven’t finished I am sure you will be safely through 🙂
Per Stow Group in December 2013, it also talks about exchange difference arises from translating Subsi that gain/loss goes to OCI, not P/L. I think you should check it.
I calculated only 5 ratio like: OPM, ROCE, Interest cover, Tax rate, Current ratio. But I talked only about OPM and ROCE together, Tax rate, and Current ratio. But m not sure if I talked about Current ratio right or not.
I am also prepared for Analytical Procedures question, but when in exam, I feel so nervous that I almost forgot what I need to do. Really pressurised.
Any idea?
@jmmyjimmy said:
Regarding case 2, I have put pervasive as the misstatement represents 50% of pbt. Do you think it is a mistake?What I learn is that if the misstatement is more than 60% of PBT, it should be adverse. So less than 60%, I think still Qualified.
Q1
I also mentioned about
– Detection risk as it is new client,
– opening balance could be misstated,
– R&D cost could be mixed up,
– Tax rate is lower so could understate liability and expenses.
– OPM increased but revenue decreased so understate expenses.
– exachange difference on subsi should go to OCI.Q2
1. Lease: Qualified Opinion as it is material misstatement but not pervasive
2. Provision: also Qualified Opinion as it is highly material to SOPL but not pervasive. We can nor offet provision and contingent assets confirmed by insurance company, IAS37.
3. Impairment: not material, so opinion is not modified.
I think it is auditor’s new client, so u can talk about
1. detection risk and possible misstatement in opening balance.
2. Also, the group is LISTED, so there is management bias as revenue falls but OPM increased.a. Audit risk: 24
b. Audit procedure for GW: 8
c. Evaluation if audit strategy of component Auditor: 8
d. EPI: 6
Professional mark: 4I have check the note, but there is no mention of current issue?:Can you clarify the page? Or summarize?
Is the threshold of identifying significant component in Group different from significant company in a listed company? Because as I know for listed company, if its segment more than 10% of revenue or assets or Profit, it is significant component and should be disclosed separately?
I mean that $5m Debenture should have reduced at year end because it should be subsequently meased using Amortised coat meithod. That’s y I think Debenture could be understated if finance cost is charged at the end if each year. I think this is ROMM too, but examiner does not mention about this audit risk.
1. Can you share me the link for Current issue?
2. I have looked at Bpp kits jun2018, but I still have trouble understanding their explanation.
If GC threat is properly disclosed under MURGC, no modifications for Audit opinion.
If there is GC threat but not disclosed or not properly disclosed, then it is a material misstatement. Need to modify opinion, ie. Qualifed “except for” opinion. Audit report should include “Qualified Opinion” paragraph immediately followed but “Basis for Qualified Opinion” paragraph with reasons for modifications. D quantification of misstatement on FS.
1. Business risk
2. Audit riskMainly, examiner published only past exams with Audit risks.
Personally, I think if non-audit services will MATERIALLY impact on FS, they should not be privided to Listed entity. Therefore, we may need to calculate Materiality.
Does tangible and intangible assets have different concept when come to depreciation? I mean based on above Tangible is depreciated when IT IS READY FOR USE NOT WHEN IT IS USED. For intangible assets, if say it has 10 years useful life, but cannot be used until 1 year later, it should be depreciated from next year over 9 years period?