- This topic has 76 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
- Posts
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 9
- ☆
@ysolanki said:
Paper was fair.I also agree
Is it easier than that of December
Anyone who remember the answer for the last question? Is there risk of any contingent fee?
@kireeti said:
It was not contingent fee, but low audit fee which would create the threat. Also performing due diligence review would mean advocacy and self review threat to audit assignment and, so audit assignment has to be undertaken only if such risk could b reduced tonacceptable level.Thank, I made mistakes when considering it as contingent fee. However, I have correctly, answered the remaining as you said.
How about the assessment of cash based sales when no sufficient supporting documents?
@seishirou said:
Thank, I made mistakes when considering it as contingent fee. However, I have correctly, answered the remaining as you said.How about the assessment of cash based sales when no sufficient supporting documents?
Are you refering to the question on reporting.
If it is the question, the answer will be based on the wrong use of KAM,
The lack of evidence will require a quolified opinion.
The audit report “the phrase about legal proceedings” will expose the the audit firm to legal proximity.@kireeti said:
Right. Legal proceeding is disclosed under seperate section, mostly after auditor s responsibility section. And restriction wrt to evidence is qualified opinion and basis of opinion. KAM is not used.nope, legal proceedings haven’t started and are only possible. referral to company’s activity as illegal raises litigation risk and is unprofessional.
@ndasi said:
Are you refering to the question on reporting.
If it is the question, the answer will be based on the wrong use of KAM,
The lack of evidence will require a quolified opinion.
The audit report “the phrase about legal proceedings” will expose the the audit firm to legal proximity.Are you referring to the final part of the Question 2?
@olia8 said:
nope, legal proceedings haven’t started and are only possible. referral to company’s activity as illegal raises litigation risk and is unprofessional.I thought so. I just see the risk that they may conduct the money laundering.
I think I managed to answer about 90% of the paper. It wasn’t too tough. I hope I wrote enough sensible points to pass.
I expected more than just 6 marks on reporting though.
Fingers crossed till April.
for question 3-b-i , i did not interpret the question in this way
apart from anything the question was ‘assuming you accept the tender’…so why would you then answer about risks of the DD
i talked about stuff like, checking background of firm and the foreign territoryquestion 1
regarding auditors expert, i saw no relevance of the biological asset guidance thing… i just spoke about stuff like objectivity, competence, relevance of conclusions etc@colmjulian said:
for question 3-b-i , i did not interpret the question in this way
apart from anything the question was ‘assuming you accept the tender’…so why would you then answer about risks of the DD
i talked about stuff like, checking background of firm and the foreign territoryquestion 1
regarding auditors expert, i saw no relevance of the biological asset guidance thing… i just spoke about stuff like objectivity, competence, relevance of conclusions etcI remember that I reread 3 times of the question and I understand the question ask about the matters to be consider before tender?
@kireeti said:
Yeah, I wrote about fee, timeframe, scope, customer due diligence. EtcSo what about the risk as you mentioned above? Is it the answer for Question 3 (a)?
I found Q2 the hardest. What did people write for Q2 A & B – was part a hinting at co-terminst year end? and B at contingent consideration for goodwill?
@colmjulian said:
for question 3-b-i , i did not interpret the question in this way
apart from anything the question was ‘assuming you accept the tender’…so why would you then answer about risks of the DD
i talked about stuff like, checking background of firm and the foreign territoryquestion 1
regarding auditors expert, i saw no relevance of the biological asset guidance thing… i just spoke about stuff like objectivity, competence, relevance of conclusions etcFor Q1, what is in relation to the technical article on Specialised Industries? The article covered a section on using audits expert ; “n this situation, the audit firm must adhere to the requirements and principles of ISA 620, Using the Work of an Auditor’s Expert which deals with matters including the evaluation of the objectivity, competence and capabilities of the auditor’s expert, determining and communicating the scope and objectives of their work, and assessing their findings. It is particularly important that the auditor evaluates the relevance and adequacy of the expert’s findings or conclusions. There is a danger of over-reliance on the expert’s work; the fact that the audit is of a specialised nature does not mean that the auditor can pass all responsibility over to an expert. For instance, the auditor must consider whether the expert’s findings are consistent with the auditor’s understanding of the client and with the conclusions of other audit procedures. Any inconsistencies must be investigated”
Lol. Everyone saying this exam was fair. I am not too sure if we too the exam. I prefer Dec and the older exams 10times to this one. It was sooo time demanding, I was writing asif my life depended on it. The questions were so wierd, like zero information in the case and they were requesting us to identify matters and risks with nearly no information. I was seriously confused by the way they asked questions, nothing like before. And then again, they bring up reallly technical and complicated accounting standards. I just pray I wrote enough nonsense to scare me a pass
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 9
- ☆
As far as i can remember it is increasing the holding in existing sub by 20% they have calculated the goodwill,i said its wrong rather it should be recognized in equity at the different between fv of 20% holding and consideration paid…
@opeyemiogunjimi said:
Lol. Everyone saying this exam was fair. I am not too sure if we too the exam. I prefer Dec and the older exams 10times to this one. It was sooo time demanding, I was writing asif my life depended on it. The questions were so wierd, like zero information in the case and they were requesting us to identify matters and risks with nearly no information. I was seriously confused by the way they asked questions, nothing like before. And then again, they bring up reallly technical and complicated accounting standards. I just pray I wrote enough nonsense to scare me a passThat’s ACCA. You never understand why you pass or fail.
@kireeti said:
Subsidiary A was relate to inter group balancesSub B was related to goodwill(I screwed up here, as I said the consolidation of p/L has to be taken from year of acquisition. This completely wrong as they had control beforehand. But, I did speak about goodwill.
Subsidiary C was related to foreign currency translation(selling products globally) and letter of support and going concern threat.
But, I wish I had time to improvise this answer a bit.
You should be the potential prize winner :))) of this examination.
I just hope to pass.
You may need to check the question again. What a student of mine said the question was about is ASSESSING THE NEED FOR AN EXPERT but not ASSESSING THE WORK OF AN EXPERT. The answer most students (would give) or gave (would be) or were based on ASSESSING THE WORK OF AN EXPERT.
Assessing the need for expert is trying to justify whether there’s need to expert and factors like: where there’s risk of material misstatement if the auditor does the work him/herself is one reason for an auditor to be in need of expert.
Another reason may be if there are other alternative sources of audit evidence, there wont be need for an expert.
How complex or significant the audit matter is would also determine whether there would be need for expert.
Most students would write things like competence, experience etc of the expert whereas this is quite different from what the examiner is asking.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.