*** ACCA Paper AAA June 2019 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***

I thought the paper was relatively easy. I self-studied for AAA. I spent about 2 months studying this paper and I bought second-hand notes from Carousell. I rewrote the entire textbook in bullet points (my technique to understand the concepts), used it to review nearer to my exams. I also printed ALL technical articles and read all of them briefly (wrote small notes). I also reviewed some of the exam papers and I paid more attention to the latest papers with the new syllabus (Sep 2018/Dec 2018 Q1 especially) (which is of significant help).

[Below are my thoughts on the different questions. They may not be correct!!]

Q1.
Business Risk and RMM (30marks). This was very similar to Dec 2018. If you take a brief look at the answer key, you could actually use some of the points and structure there. There was a trick to the financial figures given I believe. The 20X9 figures are 10 months prior to the YE, thus when looking at SOPL items, you may need to be more careful.

Ethical issues (6 marks). The audit committee wanted the old auditor to develop the new payroll system AND also help out with the audit for payroll -> obvious self-review threat. I stated that they can help with the development but the current auditor (given that they have the resources) should still complete the audit for payroll. Then, the low-fee could also pose another ethical threat.

Related-party transaction (10ish marks). Why is it hard to identify such transactions?
– Complex group structures
– Poor disclosure
– Poor internal system at identifying new related party transactions
– Poor authorisation process for significant items
There is a CPD article on this: https://www.accaglobal.com/an/en/member/discover/cpd-articles/audit-assurance/related-parties15.html

Q2.
(a) Critique the report. Some points i came out with:

-Missing title, addressee, signature, date of auditors report
-Order of opinion and basis for opinion
-Opinion paragraph: did not state what opinion was given?
-Material uncertainty for GC: shouldnt this be a KAM instead? Does failure to get loan financing cause a company to have GC problem? No alternatives of financing? What did auditors do to confirm this? These details are not explicit in the paragraph.
-Missing KAM which is compulsory for listed company
-Basis for opinion paragraph referred to responsibility of auditors paragraph, which is missing

(b) Communicating with those charged with governance
There is a technical article that explains about this. But for all 3 matters that are shown in the exam, I reasoned to communicate those matters to those charged with governmance.
https://www.accaglobal.com/sg/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/p7/technical-articles/auditors-reports-governance.html

Q3.
(a)
If you read the technical article, this 8 marks could be easily gained.
Link:
https://www.accaglobal.com/sg/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/p7/technical-articles/iaasb-ed.html

(b)
The remaining 17 marks.
This is a useful technical article to guide you.
https://www.accaglobal.com/sg/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/p7/technical-articles/audit-of-estimates.html

To answer RMM questions, there was also a technical article to guide you how marks are given.
https://www.accaglobal.com/sg/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/p7/technical-articles/exam-tech2.html

Please let me know on your thoughts and whether you agree/disagree with my answers.

Cheers!!

I had spent too much time on Q1 and left with 1 hour to do question 2 and 3. The questions were fair, some had been examined before but the requirements are just insane. Too much to write in just 3 hours. Hoping to get at least a pass this time

I think it was ok, just didn’t expect so much IFRS interpretation and so little financial information on Q1. Totally missed the point of adjusting figures for the 10 months as well.
I was very hesitant about what analytical procedures to apply. I think I messed that up.
As for the question 3, wouldn’t it be that the point is that in order to revalue the building there has to be a change in used? Change from PPE to Investment Property, therefore derecognise it altogether and recognise it at FV as investment, but not until the change in use happened.

@eneltonsatria said:
I thought the paper was relatively easy. I self-studied for AAA. I spent about 2 months studying this paper and I bought second-hand notes from Carousell. I rewrote the entire textbook in bullet points (my technique to understand the concepts), used it to review nearer to my exams. I also printed ALL technical articles and read all of them briefly (wrote small notes). I also reviewed some of the exam papers and I paid more attention to the latest papers with the new syllabus (Sep 2018/Dec 2018 Q1 especially) (which is of significant help).

[Below are my thoughts on the different questions. They may not be correct!!]

Q1.
Business Risk and RMM (30marks). This was very similar to Dec 2018. If you take a brief look at the answer key, you could actually use some of the points and structure there. There was a trick to the financial figures given I believe. The 20X9 figures are 10 months prior to the YE, thus when looking at SOPL items, you may need to be more careful.

Ethical issues (6 marks). The audit committee wanted the old auditor to develop the new payroll system AND also help out with the audit for payroll -> obvious self-review threat. I stated that they can help with the development but the current auditor (given that they have the resources) should still complete the audit for payroll. Then, the low-fee could also pose another ethical threat.

Related-party transaction (10ish marks). Why is it hard to identify such transactions?
– Complex group structures
– Poor disclosure
– Poor internal system at identifying new related party transactions
– Poor authorisation process for significant items
There is a CPD article on this: https://www.accaglobal.com/an/en/member/discover/cpd-articles/audit-assurance/related-parties15.html

Q2.
(a) Critique the report. Some points i came out with:

-Missing title, addressee, signature, date of auditors report
-Order of opinion and basis for opinion
-Opinion paragraph: did not state what opinion was given?
-Material uncertainty for GC: shouldnt this be a KAM instead? Does failure to get loan financing cause a company to have GC problem? No alternatives of financing? What did auditors do to confirm this? These details are not explicit in the paragraph.
-Missing KAM which is compulsory for listed company
-Basis for opinion paragraph referred to responsibility of auditors paragraph, which is missing

(b) Communicating with those charged with governance
There is a technical article that explains about this. But for all 3 matters that are shown in the exam, I reasoned to communicate those matters to those charged with governmance.
https://www.accaglobal.com/sg/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/p7/technical-articles/auditors-reports-governance.html

Q3.
(a)
If you read the technical article, this 8 marks could be easily gained.
Link:
https://www.accaglobal.com/sg/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/p7/technical-articles/iaasb-ed.html

(b)
The remaining 17 marks.
This is a useful technical article to guide you.
https://www.accaglobal.com/sg/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/p7/technical-articles/audit-of-estimates.html

To answer RMM questions, there was also a technical article to guide you how marks are given.
https://www.accaglobal.com/sg/en/student/exam-support-resources/professional-exams-study-resources/p7/technical-articles/exam-tech2.html

Please let me know on your thoughts and whether you agree/disagree with my answers.

Cheers!!

I think the problem with the material uncertainty regarding going concern is that since it wasn’t disclosed in the statements at all, an unqualified opinion wasn’t suitable.
This paragraph can only be used to emphasize the issues of going concern whet they have been disclosed already.
That’s my understanding!

I did the same way though didnnt mention about adverse opinion. All were qualified except for

Wasnt the plan to change the buildings use to residential to happen in the following accounting year? ie nothing had happened yet, no expenditure had been incurred yet.

I was confused as well for 3iii…..

Yes, then the revaluation shouldn’t have been recognised as it was based on its development value, not current value in use.
No change in value until you derecognise the ppe and recognise the investment property.
That’s what I think!
As a procedure I put obtain minutes of the meeting when change in use was authorized. (Besides checking costs, etc)

Only 30% will pass, you could be one of them.

For the building I just said you cant revalue it as an investment property before the conversion happens. you can only revalue it in the current period based on its current use. I didnt consider the project at all or do any calculation with the figures as they were not relevant to the current period. For procedures i said – confirm that a gain has not been posted to the P/L as this would overstate profit. Is this wrong?

@dennis98 said:
For the building I just said you cant revalue it as an investment property before the conversion happens. you can only revalue it in the current period based on its current use. I didnt consider the project at all or do any calculation with the figures as they were not relevant to the current period. For procedures i said – confirm that a gain has not been posted to the P/L as this would overstate profit. Is this wrong?

Would you mind discussing part 1 and 2? I am interested in your views?

no worries. is it true to say for a groups question (question 1) there was almost nothing to say that was groups related ? except to confirm that Bronte is not an associate, to confirm that they have 18% but dont have significant influence

@dennis98 said:
no worries. is it true to say for a groups question (question 1) there was almost nothing to say that was groups related ? except to confirm that Bronte is not an associate, to confirm that they have 18% but dont have significant influence

I think they do have significant influence, as substance over form prevail: They don’t have the 20% but they excercise significant influence. There is a member of the group assigned there for the whole purpose of development technology which benefits the group. I think they need to consider it an associate and use equity accounting.
I should probably have suggested that the composition of the rest of the shareholding needed to be checked. If the remaining 82% were in the hands of one investor, then probably not much influence! But if it’s spread over a large number of investors that 18% would definitely give them the significant influence.