- This topic has 76 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
- Posts
@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 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.
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?
I did Irish version, but for me it was about not disclosing possibilities of subsidary not being a going concern
@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?
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 9
- ☆
@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?
- Topics: 1
- Replies: 9
- ☆
@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
Found the exam overall fair.
First question got me staggered at first glance as biological assets would be last thing I thought would come up lol
Time pressure stifling as usual but the last 2 questions were as expected, there are lots of similar questions in the bpp p&r kit.Fingers crossed for everyone!
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 kireetiAs 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
@nataly1986 said:
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, conclusionsMe too. I wrote about the competence, objectivity, capability…
maybe others had a different experience
but for me, i did not mention biological assets
for example the question about the auditors expert, i just put competency, objectivity etc, but found it difficult tying in the biological assets thing to my answerYes write on law and regulations as the email from the production Mgr centre around the company applying prohibited chemicals, the firm a duty to report as there are no breach of confidentiality.
i forgot to mention NOCLAR, regarding Len’s email
i basically replied, auditor should find the facts, be discreet, speak to management, see if they have anything else to say, qualified opinion if they dont sort the issue out and beyond that he needs to question his duty to society and whether this should be reportsanyone else have a different answer ?
@nataly1986 said:
Has anyone discussed NOCLAR in Q1?Ya I mentioned NOCLAR and that auditor had to do specifc procedures and obtain legal framework as recommendations – and that they also had the right to report to enforcement authorities
i put qualified , ‘except for’
it would be strange to have an adverse opinion.. it would need to be something massiveRisk of material misstatements, everyone ?
i put , from memory :
business expanding so staff make expenses
development and reseach may not be accouned for correctly
loan should be split between NCL and CLdamage to factory – for me the VIU should have been in the SOFP instead of the carrying amount
Viu calculated wrong by fd . I concluded that Viu should exclude restoration cost.
@a.mohamedibrahim@hotmail.co.uk said:
Viu calculated wrong by fd . I concluded that Viu should exclude restoration cost.I said VIU should exclude costs of replacing machinery
Did anybody notice that the first case of the subsidiary in Q1 literally had little or NO information on RoMM?? Everything written about the subsidiary was just about a single line on their principal activity and nothing much of importance, I think.
The other two subsidiary actually had More details and more points to talk about!!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.