- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
- Posts
I would like you to rate my these answers… Kobain(Dec 2012).I understand that to base audit evidence on fact,date and amount can easily anable one to secure a pass when face with an accounting standard which you dont have much knowledge about.
1.Copy of sales contract agreement to verify half of the goods are sold to external vendors and also confirm that Kobain retains the ability to change the selling price of the jewellery and also to verify that the vendor is required to return any unsold items after a period of nine months.
2.Copy of the financial statement to verify that on delivery to the external vendors kobain co recognizes revenue of $4m and derecognizes inventory of $3m, this will help to confirm that kobain co recognise revenue too early in the income statement(overstate revenue) and derecognises inventory(understate inventory) in the financial position at the year end 31 July 2012..
3.copy of correspondence with customers to verify the actual goods sold and goods not sold after a period of nine months to determine obsolete goods etc.
Thanks to be there for us…
Is this part b), part c) or both
Whatever, there’s not enough. Part b) alone is worth 6 marks and you’re not giving yourself the chance of getting up there. What you have is quality but you’re lacking in quantity. One obvious omission is “The results of an examination of last year’s figures (from client’s own working papers) to determine extent of possible adjustment to opening figures” (whenever the examiner tells you that it’s “a new audit client of your firm” you should be thinking of last year’s figures (or even correspondence with previous auditor))
Another obvious one to go missing is “The results of communication directly with the (selected) vendors to confirm the existence of the consignment inventory”
And another easy one to have got into your answer would be “Discussions with management to establish the “normal” rate of return of consignment inventory. This would give an indication of the extent of the problem of obsolescence”
Your point number 2 would not of itself confirm neither the recognition of revenue nor the de-recognition of inventory! What your point maybe should have said would be an”The results of an examination of accounting records to confirm the stated accounting treatment ….” but a “copy of the financial statements” would be as much use as a chocolate teapot for the purposes of verifying the treatment carried out.
Your point number 1) has TWO “and also’s” Don’t you think that you could have made separate points out of these “and also’s” That would at least have given the impression of greater length and greater number of points! My instant reaction was “6 marks, 3 points, not enough!”
It’s a game! Putting all your points into one long paragraph would not be doing yourself the greatest of favours. On the contrary, it would be a MAJOR dis-service to yourself.
Less so if you split that one paragraph into two.
And even less if you break it down even further.
Clearly, there is an optimum point – I’m certainly not suggesting that each WORD should represent its own paragraph.
But you need to adopt the mindset that says “Here’s a question for 6 marks. I should be aiming to have 6 separate, relevant, correct, markable points to gain these 6 marks”
Hope all that helps!
More!
(whenever the examiner tells you that it’s “a new audit client of your firm” you should be thinking of last year’s figures (or even correspondence with previous auditor) – and if the examiner does NOT tell you that it’s a new audit client for the firm, you should always bring in as a valid comment “Look at last year’s file to determine (if nothing else) consistency of treatment and accuracy of brought forward figures”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.