SBR*** ACCA Paper SBR December 2018 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***

I have a question for ACCA... Under IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with customers (including students): how should you account for examination fees that have been collected for a SBR examination that doesn't faithfully represent the study material that you have approved? If the performance obligation of producing a fair examination has not been fulfilled, should students be entitled to a refund? If so, will you be reporting a significant reversal in the cumulative revenue you have recognised?

By email: [email protected] Please provide your full name and ACCA registration number in your email. I've sent an email. Anyone else?

You are not the only one. I thought it was all about the investment property and the FV element and how it was going to affect the gearing ratio, as the £6m surplus would have gone to OCE part of the revaluation surplus account. I assumed the $28m figure was included in the figures that were listed above, therefore if we reduced the Equity by $6m it would cause the gearing ratio to go past and beyond the 50% threshold, which in turn would make the bank loan repayable instantly. I didn't even catch the fact about it being a lease, because what bearing does a lease have on the gearing ratio? This has really got me.

Yep I have just sent a complaint via email. This was so unfair that students put so much time and effort into the exam to then be faced with an exam like this!

Extremely disappointed with this SBR exam, no consolidation, no proper ifrs testing, was this more of a general paper? From where should we learn all these frameworks , they are not described in detail in revision kits, nor books. To say the least, today's exam was not at all the Business reporting exam.

Hi guys. think we are all in the same boat here unfortunately. Very hard paper and lots of curveballs. Q4 was a killer. can anyone please advise on how the fair value of the coal would have been accounted for? I talked about fair values level 1 2 and 3 but wasn't sure if I am honest. Could they have met the criteria of a Derivitive? HORRID paper

@sr100 said: You are not the only one. I thought it was all about the investment property and the FV element and how it was going to affect the gearing ratio, as the £6m surplus would have gone to OCE part of the revaluation surplus account. I assumed the $28m figure was included in the figures that were listed above, therefore if we reduced the Equity by $6m it would cause the gearing ratio to go past and beyond the 50% threshold, which in turn would make the bank loan repayable instantly. I didn't even catch the fact about it being a lease, because what bearing does a lease have on the gearing ratio? This has really got me.

The lease comes into play because you can recognise an Investment property under IAS40 if it is leased for the majority of its useful life. Think it was thrown in to try and veer people off

@kbourne said: The lease comes into play because you can recognise an Investment property under IAS40 if it is leased for the majority of its useful life. Think it was thrown in to try and veer people off

But what affect would a lease have on the gearing ratio?

@sr100 said: But what affect would a lease have on the gearing ratio?

it wouldn't. the valuation of 28m affected the ratio as it would have increased equity and reduced gearing. I just double checked on ifrs.org and actually think I am wrong about the long term lease. I think this would result in property being classified as owner occupied under IAS16...and not IAS40. wish I hadn't looked!

@kbourne said: Hi guys. think we are all in the same boat here unfortunately. Very hard paper and lots of curveballs. Q4 was a killer. can anyone please advise on how the fair value of the coal would have been accounted for? I talked about fair values level 1 2 and 3 but wasn't sure if I am honest. Could they have met the criteria of a Derivitive? HORRID paper

I'd like to know the answer to this as well. What on earth do you do with the inventory, if you know its going to lose 20% of its value in 3 years time. I didn't know what to write, so assumed it must be similar to CGU type of units, where you class the different grades of coal and measure them as individual groups at NRV, and if you know the price will drop then take out a futures contract. Didn't have a clue on this. Also, I know i went wrong on the control element vs business combination stuff. Totally through me in that. I said the company should treat the Coal mine as a subsidiary if they purchase the additional 24% as they would have 52% in total, and any decision to be made requires 72% at least. So if every decision requires the parent company's approval, then it is basically a sub.

Yep that's how I went with it. I started by saying it is a joint arrangement as it required unanimous consent of all parties. Acquisition of the additional 24% would have prevented the other parties from having control so it would meet the criteria for control under IFRS10 and therefore can be accounted for as a subsidiary

@kbourne said: it wouldn't. the valuation of 28m affected the ratio as it would have increased equity and reduced gearing. I just double checked on ifrs.org and actually think I am wrong about the long term lease. I think this would result in property being classified as owner occupied under IAS16...and not IAS40. wish I hadn't looked!

Didn't we have to work out the gearing ration using the figures listed above. There was like a balance sheet extract? Why else would they have put these figures in for? I worked it out at 49% using the figures above, but assumed it included the $28m and when we reduced it down to $22m, it affected the equity by reducing the value, which tipped the ratio into 52% region. The only long term debt item was the bank loan at $50k. Then the equity came in at something like $10k+$70k+$20k ish. Then if that equity included the $6m revaluation gain in OCE and we removed it, then the equity figure reduced down to less than $100k and the gearing ratio was at 52%. I probably totally made that up, but seemed to make sense to me in the moment. Anybody else recall their answer?

@lynchpeter1 said: By email: complaints@accaglobal.com Please provide your full name and ACCA registration number in your email. I've sent an email. Anyone else?

I have sent a very long email thanks for the link ?

@sr100 said: Didn't we have to work out the gearing ration using the figures listed above. There was like a balance sheet extract? Why else would they have put these figures in for? I worked it out at 49% using the figures above, but assumed it included the $28m and when we reduced it down to $22m, it affected the equity by reducing the value, which tipped the ratio into 52% region. The only long term debt item was the bank loan at $50k. Then the equity came in at something like $10k+$70k+$20k ish. Then if that equity included the $6m revaluation gain in OCE and we removed it, then the equity figure reduced down to less than $100k and the gearing ratio was at 52%. I probably totally made that up, but seemed to make sense to me in the moment. Anybody else recall their answer?

am sure it said when the MD realised that the gearing ratio was 51%....he revalued the property to 22m. ignoring the financial reporting standards. I got 49 using the provided figures too.

@kbourne said: am sure it said when the MD realised that the gearing ratio was 51%....he revalued the property to 22m. ignoring the financial reporting standards. I got 49 using the provided figures too.

maybe i made a mistake in reading it. I thought it was included at 28m, because if it was included at 22m and the gearing ratio came out at 49%, then there wouldn't be an issue. 49% is less than 50%.

Same here

In a nutshell Robert (your question to ACCA) I have also sent an email to express disappointment of c£2k, hundreds of hours, missed family time, annual leave from work all wasted. Anyone know how to transfer to an alternative professional body with higher pass rates and so likely more fair exam papers. Totally in shock at the depth beyond any study material.

@sr100 said: maybe i made a mistake in reading it. I thought it was included at 28m, because if it was included at 22m and the gearing ratio came out at 49%, then there wouldn't be an issue. 49% is less than 50%.

sorry - yes...28! that was his own valuation wasn't it? and the professional valuation was 22m. 50/104 gives you 49%....so you are correct it includes the entity own valuation of 28m. however it should have been 22m which would result in 50/98 giving you 51%.

Ive complained and sent a long email to ACCA as well. This paper was a joke. If I was a head of an organisation, I would not hire someone who passed this paper cos simply it was not fair. Hiring someone who just knows conceptual framework but doesn’t test them on consolidation, IFRS and IAS but instead just IAS 12 (12-14 marks). ACCA is coming across as a scam whilst other people under CIMA and ACA are qualifying. There must be a reason why CIMA is quite popular now...

[email protected] (send a complaints to ACCA by this email)

This exam was a disaster for me, as for question 1 and 4 really tricky. i wonder which study material would prepare me better for SBR, thought Kaplan was better.

@sr100 said: But what affect would a lease have on the gearing ratio?

IFRS 16 Leases states that a lease is probably a finance lease if one or more of the following apply: 1) The lease term (including any secondary periods) is for the major part of the asset's economic life 2) At the inception of the lease, the present value of the lease payments amounts to at least substantially all of the fair value of the leased asset Both of these were found within the scenario text. The property could therefore be de-recognised as an asset, and re-recognised as a receivable discounted to present value. The discounting will lower the value of non-current assets and push gearing over the allowed limit. Further, the receivable is broken into non-current and current, again affecting the gearing ratio. I think this question is open to interpretation, perhaps the examiner will just want to see your point, and that it is well explained. I certainly appreciate the argument with regards to level 1 and 2 inputs. Personally, I found the IFRS 13 Fair Values element to be more useful in the ethical issues part of the question.

@jamioio said: IFRS 16 Leases states that a lease is probably a finance lease if one or more of the following apply: 1) The lease term (including any secondary periods) is for the major part of the asset's economic life 2) At the inception of the lease, the present value of the lease payments amounts to at least substantially all of the fair value of the leased asset Both of these were found within the scenario text. The property could therefore be de-recognised as an asset, and re-recognised as a receivable discounted to present value. The discounting will lower the value of non-current assets and push gearing over the allowed limit. Further, the receivable is broken into non-current and current, again affecting the gearing ratio. I think this question is open to interpretation, perhaps the examiner will just want to see your point, and that it is well explained. I certainly appreciate the argument with regards to level 1 and 2 inputs. Personally, I found the IFRS 13 Fair Values element to be more useful in the ethical issues part of the question.

A receivable has no impact on the gearing ratio

@moo123 said: If anyone interested, SBR december exam is now added to past exams papers on ACCA website.

Thanks for heads up. That's quick!

@moo123 said: If anyone interested, SBR december exam is now added to past exams papers on ACCA website.

Question 3 is worded marginally different to the exam I sat

I think you are all right. This is very unfair. If they want to test this type of material it should be included in the books and articles so we can all get prepared for the exam. As all of you I have practiced all the consolidation examples and lernt as much as I could the theory trying to answer as many quaestions as possible but yesterday when I left the exam I fel very dissapointed :( I tried to make the most of the questions we had but not sure if I will pass, not sure they will give me enough marks for what I wrote there. I understand they want to have more analysis and interpretation but the materials we have used do not include the types of question we had yesterday

@ritaalbu said: What did you say in Q3 - b, recognizing the provision? and indicator of impairment? I said do not recognize the 3m provision as there is no obligation, and decline in price is an external indicator of impairment ..

Ok I’m very concerned now, my question 3 was completely different to this one, same company Fill but my question 2 included a question about how NCI should be measured, is this because I sat a uk variant or? Personally I prefer the question 3 on the website. Or did I just get a duff paper

I said that a provision should be included because although there was no legal obligation, there was still a constructive obligation but I am probably completely wrong!

I said that a provision should be included because although there was no legal obligation, there was still a constructive obligation but I am probably completely wrong!

@ritaalbu said: What did you say in Q3 - b, recognizing the provision? and indicator of impairment? I said do not recognize the 3m provision as there is no obligation, and decline in price is an external indicator of impairment ..

Pls. do the survey if you think that the questions set was not upto the standard pattern. At least we can register our words what we have felt yesterday. Dear Student We’d really like to hear your feedback on the exams you took at the December 2018 session. It’s part of our quality assurance process before we start marking and helps us make sure that our exams are fair and a reasonable test of your knowledge. The survey takes around 20 minutes. Your feedback is for our information only and we promise that your responses will be treated anonymously. Hope you all got the email, please do the survey when you get time. Thanks