*** December 2023 ACCA AAA exam – Instant Poll and comments ***

Question 1 – identify risk of material misstatement
Question was a group structure with an acquisition and disposal and lawsuit and there were deficiencies in internal control with integroup transactions

– audit procedures for the disposal
– matters to consider and procedures when using the work of a component auditor

Questions 2 – ISA 260/ 265
Example of deficiencies in internal control and whether to include them in a report to TCWG

Critique the extract from the auditors report

Question 3 – ISQM 1

I didn’t get that set of questions, I got:

Q1 Business risks 10marks, material misstatements 24 marks, further evidence of a property valuation 6 marks
Q2 Reviewing the audit file before completion – fall in an investment property portfolio, subsequent events with a drop in revenue from strikes, and I can’t remember the other section – did anyone have the same?
Q3 Engagement quality review – the eligibility of a reviewer was 8 marks and then two scenarios on files after a review

I wish I had gotten the critique of auditors report!

This is also what I got.

I made a big mistake on q1 materiality was supposed to be 3.75m but I was thinking ahead too much and put 37.5m moved the decimal point. I had the questions @samerra, the rest of the question was OK but now materiality was all messed up probably get marked down alot because of this.

I think I’ve just realised I’ve made a similar error. I had to base it off revenue and I’m sure the total value was 47.5m. I think I’ve put 4.75m as the 1% part incorrectly.
I did say 0.5% and 1% though.
Damn

@amariag1982 – I agree, time pressured!! I didn’t get to read over any of my answers either and I also agree the ISQM2 was tough for 8 marks as I hadn’t really covered much of that so deffo didn’t get high marks for this. What risks did everyone put for the JupiterLive question?

@amariag1982 for the revenue materiality my total was 52.7m which is 263,500 at 0.05% – i set materiality as lower due to this being a new client and detection risk being high

Q1

22 Mark ROMM question with no financial information or comparatives – was near enough impossible to do any sort of ratio calcs or margins to add depth to the answer

A few ROMMS I rmr were profit on disposal of 18m should not have been netted off to Opex – it should be in “other income” and it was material

Legal breach probs required either a provision or contingent liability

The disposal of sub was a IFRS 5 discountinued operation as it mentioned each sub was a major line of business

Profit likely overstated if they didn’t split this out as discontinued

For Clarke the parent provided them letter of support to repay any loan they have – needs to be provision or contingent liab probs in group financials

Revenue risk – mark up of 2 % was management estimate – might not be an arms length transaction between subs

Deficiency internal control around intragroup – risk of misstatement with regards to consolidation of recievables/payables

Yeah, just done the calc wrong. However I did use 0.5% throughout so maybe just the 1 mark lost for stupid error in the calculation.

I’ve made totally the same mistake, described range, chose lower end as listed client and control deficiencies but incorrect calculation. Should be 1 mark less and potentially incorrect conclusions on 1-2 risks on material/non-material, thus I believe potentially 3-4 marks less.

Scenarios:
Poorly given scenarios, not thorough enough. Insufficient financial information, mainly comparatives, to give more detail answer. ACCA wants to examinate business acumen but the questions were not tailored to give such answers. Impossible to give deep answers linked to scenario and business environment.

Technical issues:
The word processor doesn’t work correctly. I wrote a paragraph and wanted to change or add something in it, once I started to write the new word the old words were overwritten by the new characters. Poor technical environment provided by the examiner.

Conclusion:
Poor service provided for £180.

Had the same issue very annoying indeed