- This topic has 68 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
- Posts
What a terrible failure on my part.
Struggled with question 1 and didn’t give myself nearly enough time to complete easy marks in part B of the paper(options 3 & 4)My own fault.
Didn’t think it was an evil paper so I’ve voted for ‘ok’. I could’ve done better but I don’t like group audits. Fingers crossed that I have written enough for a 50!
@silentman said:
How many points would be enough for the requirement professional skepticismIt was 9 marks wasn’t it? I’d say 4 well explained points would’ve been enough. i think I wrote 5 just to be on the safe side.
Hey! I did the Uk variant of the paper-unfortunately you don’t get the mark scheme. Can anyone remember the breakdown for question 1 please? Thank you!!
Q3 is QC, implications on the audit and actions and communication with Mgt and TCWG.
Q4 is ethical questionsi did the UK variant as well. mark allocation would have made things a lot better.
i think Q1 requirement was;
– audit risk
– areas requiring more professional scepticism
– xxx don’t remember, something else here i think
– using work of the component auditornot easy with such limited time!
Wasn’t really disclosed, but they gave 8 marks for part C in total, therefore it’s likley it was worth 4 marks.
Did you calculate the currency to dollars and then say if it was above or below 15% threshold or not, ie significant component
I didn’t think the questions were that hard but i seriously struggled with time. I started with Q3 Ethics and then did Q2 Client Due dilligence and PFI. Think i did quite well with those but then I only had 75 minutes to do Q1 and Q4 which was never going to be enough so i ended up not having enough time to properly think my answers through.
I’m pretty sure I’ve failed this one, for the third time and its my final paper. I have never struggled like this with any other paper. Its just so frustrating.
Good luck to everybody
@arvind111 said:
Wasn’t really disclosed, but they gave 8 marks for part C in total, therefore it’s likley it was worth 4 marks.Did you calculate the currency to dollars and then say if it was above or below 15% threshold or not, ie significant component
Ah ok, thank you!
Nope, just remember converting it and then working out the percentage compared to total group assets. Didn’t say a lot for it as I wasn’t 100% what it was.What kinds of points did people write for Q1, part B –
Explain what professional scepticism was?
Corporate governance issue
Lack of accounting knowledge from management?So, what i did was calculated the percentage by converting it with 4 Oska rate and it was 68/4 which was 17 and 20% of Group Assets. I also did something different, i calculated the average rate because of the fluctuations and calculated the assets that way as well. It was still significant.
@arvind111 said:
What kinds of points did people write for Q1, part B –Explain what professional scepticism was?
Corporate governance issue
Lack of accounting knowledge from management?What I wrote was management was relying on industry norms rather than calculations. Moreover, they were just not agreeing to impair the intangibles even though a huge part of their assets consisted of them. Talked about goodwill impairment as well, along with the foreign subsidiary and maybe hedging is used with complex derivatives and financial instruments, which are difficult to understand.
For professional scepticism, I wrote about the management judgement for the forecast information about the new systems- might be bias/ over optimisic and how the 10 years for the royalty part wasn’t based on anything? Might be completely wrong???
Yeah that was a tricky part really – think you could have taken it many ways.
What did people write for audit risks
1. New client – detection risks
2. Opening balances – Rom
3. Translation risks
4. Use of other auditor for sub
5. Software amortisation or review for impairment at year end as nothing was said to be done for the purchased bits
6. Operating segments – separate disclosures
7. Transfer of assets between group – inter company eliminations so that balance not held in both companies???Anything else
I believe this was a very fair paper. However, time pressures made it almost impossible to answer all questions in detail. Fingers crossed for a 50. P5 left.
@arvind111 said:
Yeah that was a tricky part really – think you could have taken it many ways.What did people write for audit risks
1. New client – detection risks
2. Opening balances – Rom
3. Translation risks
4. Use of other auditor for sub
5. Software amortisation or review for impairment at year end as nothing was said to be done for the purchased bits
6. Operating segments – separate disclosures
7. Transfer of assets between group – inter company eliminations so that balance not held in both companies???Anything else
I dont recall it being a new client, I didn’t write any points related to that. Mine were
1- Intragroup Transactions – 20 subsidiaries and a lot of volume and about the software worth $1m transferred at $5.4m which was inappropriate.
2- Intangible Assets – A lot of intangible assets and not correct treatments
3- Goodwill Impairment
4- Revaluation by management rather than Expert.
5- Foreign Subsidiary – IAS 21 Closing Rate
6- Fluctuation – Derivates/Financial Instruments
- The topic ‘*** ACCA P7 March 2018 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***’ is closed to new replies.