Forums › ACCA Forums › ACCA AAA Advanced Audit and Assurance Forums › *** ACCA Paper AAA June 2019 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***
- This topic has 98 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by muhammadadil1.
- AuthorPosts
- June 5, 2019 at 3:12 am #518998
I was certain ED540 was coming up and I even mentioned this in the AAA forum.
Time management was ridiculous but I thought content was fair.
Q1 asked for ROMM but it also told you it was a new client, yet the examiner tells you everything is included for a reason, a new client is an audit risk (detection risk) but not a ROMM and if credit is given for that as a risk I will be livid.
I couldn’t find an awful lot wrong with the audit report but thought there were a couple of things right with it so answer included 6 points 4 con, 2 pro just hoping it was 2 marks per point
Good luck to you all
June 5, 2019 at 5:53 am #519004Can’t include detection risk for Romm. However could include the fact that it is a listed company.Hence IAS33 earning per share and IAS8 segment reportingfor disclosure of FS for a few more points.
It was well predicted that the technical article was coming up. It happens for all advanced papers. Fingers crossed and let’s hope pass rate improved on this occasion.
June 5, 2019 at 10:38 am #519042Here IAS 8&33 are irrelevant since it was listed 15 yrs ago.
June 5, 2019 at 12:42 pm #519086impossible time management, worst paper ever
June 5, 2019 at 1:08 pm #519093@fckadf1976 said:
Here IAS 8&33 are irrelevant since it was listed 15 yrs ago.Yes ignore the fact that it is a Listed Company. Throw away depreciation that existed donkey years ago aswell jajajajja
June 5, 2019 at 1:12 pm #519097Agree entirely on time management. You are a good communicator or you will suffer.
June 5, 2019 at 1:26 pm #519102RoMM Q – did anyone mention anything in regards to the intangible asset (broadcasting license) not being amortised based on it being renewed indefinitely? They should have amortised over the 5 years irrespective of whether it was renewed indefinitely as even in this case intangible assets should be reviewed annually for impairment? I think it was material to the FS also.
June 5, 2019 at 3:47 pm #519139What i wrote in my script with regards to:
1. Being a listed company (business risk)
I still think management pressure will always be there, especially it is a market leader for the past many years. So i would say its still a valid point2. License (RMM)
I noted that the company is currently being checked by the regulator for modifying customer contracts illegally and overcharging customers. Therefore, i raised 2 key concerns:
– possible impairment of license (intangible asset)? If their license are revoked, wouldnt there be a significant impact on their revenue and their ability to be going concern?
– indefinite life. Is there a chance that the 5 years life would be reduced, and therefore the need to recognise higher amortisation cost?Do you guys think my answer would be considered a reasonable and valid argument?
Thanks:)
June 5, 2019 at 4:23 pm #519156@hits123 said:
RoMM Q – did anyone mention anything in regards to the intangible asset (broadcasting license) not being amortised based on it being renewed indefinitely? They should have amortised over the 5 years irrespective of whether it was renewed indefinitely as even in this case intangible assets should be reviewed annually for impairment? I think it was material to the FS also.Intangibles assets should be reviewed when there are indications of impairment not annually, says standard!!
June 5, 2019 at 5:02 pm #519172Can anyone remember the property development one in q3? Had they got permission to develop the building as an investment property before the year end? If not then I assume they couldnt revalue it based on investment property values but only as a warehouse. ie highest and best use at that time.
June 5, 2019 at 5:34 pm #519176I read your comments and I realize that this paper was more accounting than audit. Based on past year papers i believe it wasn’t fair. What do you think?
June 5, 2019 at 6:07 pm #519180Annually.
June 5, 2019 at 8:55 pm #519239Was the sub with the licence issue based in different country? It said different Juridification?
June 6, 2019 at 3:39 pm #519375@dumonde said:
I was certain ED540 was coming up and I even mentioned this in the AAA forum.Time management was ridiculous but I thought content was fair.
Q1 asked for ROMM but it also told you it was a new client, yet the examiner tells you everything is included for a reason, a new client is an audit risk (detection risk) but not a ROMM and if credit is given for that as a risk I will be livid.
I couldn’t find an awful lot wrong with the audit report but thought there were a couple of things right with it so answer included 6 points 4 con, 2 pro just hoping it was 2 marks per point
Good luck to you all
It was my post you put this in, and thank god you did!
Whilst i had only skimmed it, so wasnt exactly an expert on the topic, hopefully i have done enough to pick up a crucial few marks where most people will get nil
June 8, 2019 at 5:57 pm #519882Any one remembers what were the three cases in Q2 b??
June 8, 2019 at 7:03 pm #519893It feels like ACCA set papers to make students fail. The syllabus are so bulky and time very limited. Basically no major time allow to think to write.
June 8, 2019 at 8:12 pm #519897@adil1111 said:
Bronte was not an associate and was measured at cost, however as per IFRS9 it should be valued at FV at the reporting date. Any one has any disagreement please discuss?I think there’s a risk that Bronte moved from an investment to an associate through the increased shareholding and it may not have been adjusted and then equity accounted for.
I supported my claim by the fact that the parent appointed one of their directors to Bronte’s board.June 9, 2019 at 5:19 pm #520005@ryanrocke said:
I think there’s a risk that Bronte moved from an investment to an associate through the increased shareholding and it may not have been adjusted and then equity accounted for.
I supported my claim by the fact that the parent appointed one of their directors to Bronte’s board.The appointment of director was temporary for 3 months only, what say? Does it give significant influence on the company?
June 9, 2019 at 5:22 pm #520006@lefteris said:
Q1
Biz risk (12m)
Risk of Material Misstatement (18m)
Ethical threat (6m) – advice on new payroll system, audit com ask for lower audit fees
Related Party Transaction (10m) – Difficulties to identify, Audit procedures on Related Party txnQ2
Critically appraise audit report (10m)
Report to TCG (15m)
-PPE revaluation
-Capitalisation of renovation
-Audit partner rotationQ3
ED-540 (8m)
Assess acct treatment and difficulty & Audit procedures (17m)
-Cash Based SBP (6m)
-Fine+IAS10 (6m)
-Capitalization of cost regarding development (5m)Please enlighten me what partner rotation has to do with issues reported to those charged with governance?? Would you report partner rotation to those charged with governance?? Shed some light please?
June 9, 2019 at 6:11 pm #520012Required:
(i) Evaluate the client’s accounting treatments and the difficulties which you might encounter when auditing
each of the accounting estimates described above; and
(ii) Design the audit procedures which should now be performed to gather sufficient and appropriate audit
evidence.(ii) Regulatory penalties
Awdry Co has been subject to a review by the national railways regulator following a complaint from a member of staff with safety concerns. The regulator identified breaches in safety regulations and issued a penalty notice on 30 September 20X8. Awdry Co has appealed against the initial penalty payable. Negotiations with the regulator are still ongoing and the amount payable has not yet been finalised. Awdry Co currently
estimates that the total penalty payable as a result of the breach will be $1·3 million which it expects to repay in equal annual instalments over the next ten years with the first payment falling due on 1 March 20X9. The company’s draft statement of profit or loss for the current year recognises an expense of $1·3 million and the draft statement of financial position includes a liability for the same amount.Please share your answers what your wrote??
June 10, 2019 at 6:57 am #520064For the penalty,
I explained FRS37. The risk is that the company’s estimation may be too positive in the companys favour. Thus, provision could be understated and provision expense is lower than it should be. A reliable estimate should be obtained through a direct confirmation with the regulator or lawyer, to have a best estimate figure. Auditor can also check the reasonableness of management’s estimate for this provision, and if it is reasonable, obtain a confirmation letter to claim their assumptions.How many marks do you think my answer can score? Out of 5 or 6 marks.
June 10, 2019 at 6:59 am #520065Also the auditor could check with the regulator if there is any other possible consequences, such as impairment of the existing license, and account for these adjustments appropriately.
June 24, 2019 at 8:53 pm #521234June 30, 2019 at 5:16 pm #521582Hi guys what about the link theory??? Did it work last time??
- AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘*** ACCA Paper AAA June 2019 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***’ is closed to new replies.