- This topic has 84 replies, 47 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
- Posts
@raoul7370 said:
relax, the difference between “procedure” and “evidence” is immaterial and markers ignore it.Technical articles and trainee emphasys the importance to undestand this defference. Procedure – action, evidence – result of action.
@dianaspb said:
Technical articles and trainee emphasys the importance to undestand this defference. Procedure – action, evidence – result of action.Well what I wrote for evidence is what i expected to find (to be collected from the client) and the purpose of this evidence. I took the literal meaning of evidence. Hence i didn’t say exactly that “obtain detailed fixed asset schedule and cast for arithmetical accuracy or reference prior year balances”. Don’t know if the markers will give me credit for that.
Niche business. Adults only.
Luxury business. Economic Recession ultimate hit.
Farland; political instability.
Hotel Complex – Prohibition of usage.I wrote them four. Because there were 10 marks. So 5 were enough. 2 mark each.
@spud said:
For matters I put down materiality, was it material etc! Then the accounting standards to be adhered to for that area and what they have to do. Also if there was a risk of material misstatement.
I used the same 3 of those for all 3 parts of the Q for the matters to be considered and tried to add one or 2 more where I could to get as many marks as possible ?Matters to consider question was based on estimates in all three parts of it. One really can’t put IAS 37 into a provisioning matter, IAS 16 into a depreciation matter or IFRS 9 into a receivable matter. They’re all talking about estimates. Estimation itself is based on judgement and is prone to ROMM. Further, management bias had to included in depreciation and receivable matters. Because directly impacts profits (Bad debt expense, depreciation expense) and profits could be linked to bonuses.
@doublej2 said:
I also wrote about the danger of water sports – If not maintained properly, might be dangerous for the guest.
2 hotels affected by hurricane. – If insurance cannot be used to cover, they risk GC because of lack of cash.GC really? They had a chain of hotels, and only two of them were situated in hurricane prone area. But yes you could’ve used that point in a sense that losing a major customer base, had they located those two hotels somewhere else. (Opportunity cost)
@vnoonanirl said:
https://www.ifrsbox.com/decommissioning-provision-ifrs/I didn’t get this right but I did say management shouldn’t have been coming up with estimate themselves as it’s very complex
Never saw this on past exam papers
Me too talked about estimates. If you go back into the last attempt’s matter to consider, he asked a matter related to inventory in which a candidate required to explain absorption costing method. But contrary to it, examiner answer was way to simple and mainstream. Management bias, complexity and estimates. That’s how you roll by reading past papers.
They are also points to enter, anything that can be consider a matter to consider for that area is markable. I had covered this heavily with my lecturer who advised that this way was how the examiner liked to see it answered (and he is one of the markers of the paper) so I’m pretty happy with that approach! But any matters relevant should get points no doubt
Best of luck to all on the results ?
For one of the business risks, I said the client was exposed to liabilty because guests could consume “Unlimited” food and drink, presumably alcohol. And engaging in extreme sports in water … increases risk of an accident occurring while intoxicated. Unforseen liability which could prevent company from maximizing profits.
Honestly I am struggling to pass this exam. 46 to 47 in two sittings. I just need 50. Reading the comments, I dont think I pushed over the edge this time either. I know the material, I just find it really tricky to get through all of the information. Its a little heartbreaking.
I scored over 70 in F8. But it took me more than two attempts aswell.I like your point about ”unlimited” food and drink 🙂 what if some guests eat the hotel out of food? will definitely put a smile on examiners face 🙂 but I suppose it is a valid risk.
I think so too. I mean examiner could have just said food and drink. The extra unlimited word had to mean something. It reminded me of when I went to a resort in Spain and it was unlimited and I ate all around me. Haha. Oh well. I guess time will tell. Results come around fast since the additional 2 sittings per year.
regarding the comment about mean markers and scores of 49% earlier…
as someone who has previously marked, this is simply not true and spreads a very negative and false message. Anyone getting 49 has been checked multiple times, and if a marker believes a 49 deserved a pass then no doubt an extra mark would be found if at all possible.
A well practised student, with nothing better than mediocre audit and accounting technical knowledge, can score 55-60 on any P7 sitting. As I have said numerous times, for an exam that sets essentially the same questions every sitting, it is all about technique to maximise the return on whatever technical knowledge you have.
@dianaspb said:
Technical articles and trainee emphasys the importance to undestand this defference. Procedure – action, evidence – result of action.At the recent tutor conference I asked the P7 (and F8) examiner about this and was told it doesn’t matter (which it never has).
@krazzy said:
Niche business. Adults only.
Luxury business. Economic Recession ultimate hit.
Farland; political instability.
Hotel Complex – Prohibition of usage.I wrote them four. Because there were 10 marks. So 5 were enough. 2 mark each.
Business risks rarely attract 2 marks, typically up to 1.5 (and that is if they are explained in decent depth). Audit risks and risks of material misstatement can get up to 2 marks, but not business risks.
@raoul7370 said:
regarding the comment about mean markers and scores of 49% earlier…as someone who has previously marked, this is simply not true and spreads a very negative and false message. Anyone getting 49 has been checked multiple times, and if a marker believes a 49 deserved a pass then no doubt an extra mark would be found if at all possible.
A well practised student, with nothing better than mediocre audit and accounting technical knowledge, can score 55-60 on any P7 sitting. As I have said numerous times, for an exam that sets essentially the same questions every sitting, it is all about technique to maximise the return on whatever technical knowledge you have.
I know what you are saying, but I’d rather fail with 30% than 49%, it’s just heartbreaking…
@sssymba said:
I like your point about ”unlimited” food and drink 🙂 what if some guests eat the hotel out of food? will definitely put a smile on examiners face 🙂 but I suppose it is a valid risk.I mentioned this risk too. Said something like if cost control was not good, this “unlimited” business model might be loss-making.
This is really a very time pressure paper, ACCA should increase time of specially optional papers, it is not manageable paper in 3h and 15m. ACCA should increase P7 time by half an hour.
Good luck to every one.
Rashid
The exam was ok, but time pressured which made me not to answer all the questions especially that question 1 demands that you go through several times
@babybupe said:
The exam was ok, but time pressured which made me not to answer all the questions especially that question 1 demands that you go through several timesI agree, exam questions were ok, but if I don’t pass it’s going to be purely because of my time management, which was brutal…like many others, I got carried away with Q1 and Q2 leaving only 40min to answer other 2 questions, which should be approx. 40min for each question. Well, at least if I have to re-sit, I’ll only have to practice on time management 🙂
@sssymba said:
I know what you are saying, but I’d rather fail with 30% than 49%, it’s just heartbreaking…I totally understand that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.