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

Paper was fair.

@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.

@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.

It was a fair paper but very time demanting.

@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 territory question 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

I 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. Etc

So 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 territory question 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

For 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

I agree- it was very time demanding

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 pass

That's ACCA. You never understand why you pass or fail.

@kireeti said: Subsidiary A was relate to inter group balances Sub 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.

Can someone offer the mark breakout for question 1. I was in UK version.

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.

Brilliant students that I have interacted with said the exam was more tricky than Dec.2018 exams.

@donaldwhale said: Brilliant students that I have interacted with said the exam was more tricky than Dec.2018 exams.

Yes it was more tricky than Dec 2018.

@kireeti said: Subsidiary A was relate to inter group balances Sub 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.

I thought Sub C was in relation to non-disclosure of operational difficulties?

@donaldwhale said: 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.

I remember that the question is the assessing the work of the expert as the Company used the expert to come up with the fair value of the fruit?

@kireeti said: It was non discloseur of the fact that parent agreed to support the loss making subsidiary, but there was no mention of written letter stating that(I presume only oral) . This was not discosed anywhere. In fact, if this letter s not obtained and subsidiary has going concern issues, it would give rise to adverse opinion due its pervasive nature.

Was it also indicating that the Rossi brand should be potentiallty impaired because of the reduction in revenues - that being an indicator for impairment?

@kireeti said: Actually expert has already valued the fair value as dollar 3.1 million for biological asset, so I dont think it s what you say it is. But, then again I dont remember the question to counter argue.

Can anyone remember the exact requirement?

@donaldwhale said: 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.

Can anyone remember what exactly was the requirement... i thought wat matters consider in appointing the expert such as competence, experience, independence etc...

@safrazhisam said: Can anyone remember the exact requirement?

I do not remember exactly the requirements but I agree with kireeti

stress levels soo high no idea how it went tried my very best and just too too time pressured ???

@seishirou said: I do not remember exactly the requirements but I agree with kireeti

As I remember the question was to consider the matters when using an auditors expert, so I discussed as previously stated competence, independence, the scope, conclusions