- This topic has 21 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 2 days ago by
.
- Posts
Idk if the prepopulated spreadsheet was incomplete since it only had an equity section for the Group SOFP but yeah.. overall exam was challenging again
Which question is this?
I got this paper
q1 SOFP adjustment but only on equity (share capital, retained earnings, NCI) was in the spreadsheet
– fx difference
– 10% investment to 25% investment
– warrantiesq2 ethics
– ifrs18 aggregating goodwill impairment with admin expenses
– leasesq3
– investment in loan notes
– business combinations
– fair value measurementq4
– ifrs 15 at point /over time
– ifrs 15 financing component
– sustainability report – metrics & targets (14 marksQ1:
– Explain why exchange difference arises; Calculate the exchange difference; Explain the accounting treatment related to the exchange difference (10 marks) (I remember the PP currency is keeping weakened to Dollar so there will be exchange difference loss)– Financial asset to Associate (10 marks) (I remember my calculation for the Investment in associate in 31/12/20×7 is 1,240,500)
– Warranty and SOFP adjustment (there is only the equity section given which makes me very confused, and I have to make any calculation and adjustment that I can think of lol)
Q2:
– IFRS 18 aggregation principle (goodwill impairment loss must be presented separately and not included in admin expense) (12 marks)– I remember it asked about why this is an operating lease and the lessor accounting (still recognize the underlying asset) (8 marks)
Q3:
– Financial asset (Investment in loan notes) (11 marks) (I think the business model is FVOCI because it said the cash flow is for short and medium term investment, and the contractual term of the loan note is longer than the investment period, then in the end the loan note is sold -> both collecting contractual cash flows and selling financial assets -> FVOCI; When disposal, gain on disposal go to P/L and because it is a debt instrument, cumulative OCI will be reclassified to P/L)– Business acquisition or asset acquisition (8 marks) (related to concentration test) (I think it is a business acquisition because concentration test is not met, there is also an input and substantive process to create output)
– Fair value adjustment of a block from residential use to hotel use (6 marks). The block is applied fair value model. (It is a non-financial asset so fair value is based on highest and best use)
Q4:
– Criteria for revenue to be recognized at a point in time or over time (5 marks) (I remember 2 of the 3 criteria are met so revenue should be recognized over time)– Significant financing components in transaction price (6 marks) (I think Contract 1 has significant financing components while Contract 2 has a contract liability)
– IFRS S1, S2 about greenhouse gases emission metrics and targets (14 marks)
Overall, I regret not taking the IFRS 18, S1, S2 articles more seriously. I made some relevant points in the test but if I had written it more techincally, that would secure a pass. Now just hope for the best and the examiner will be easy on marking.
This is exactly what i got – all the best to everyone involved.
Fingers are kept crossed.
Thank you.Same feeeling……… I never saw that type of question I took 25 minutes to settle my mind
Review of the December 2025 SBR Exam – Version Imbalance
I’m posting this because the difference between the two versions of the December 2025 SBR exam was far too big to ignore. Many of us who sat the version with SOFP, FX, a tiny equity extract, warranty adjustment, significant financing, and a narrow sustainability question genuinely felt the paper was a lot harder than the other version that focused on SOPL, operating segments, and a more straightforward structure.
This imbalance made the experience feel unfair. Students prepare based on the weighting and breadth of the syllabus, and when one version leans heavily on niche areas while the other stays closer to the core content, it puts one group at a clear disadvantage.
I think students should email ACCA and give feedback about this sitting. If enough people raise the issue, ACCA may at least review the performance data for each version and ensure that both papers meet the same standard of difficulty.
We all understand that ACCA must produce different versions, but the difficulty level should still be aligned. This sitting didn’t feel consistent, and it’s important that the concerns are heard.
This is exactly how I felt. The difference in the papers was quite unfair. My paper was heavily based on niche areas which is okay if there was not another version that was given that contained core contents. I found it very unfair.
exactly this I felt. The difference in the papers was quite unfair compared to the Mock exam and exams in the practice platform there is big difference my paper same as you
It very difficult and im disappointed
I agree to send emails to the accai already raised this point with ACCA in my previous feedback – sitting in September. The mocs are outdated, not focused on Sustainability and Climate change, now new IFRS18. Very little to practise on the recent matters and because of that, exams seems to be harder and harder. All i can recommend to you all, please find Mr. Tom Clendon on youtube/podcast. He is brilliant and explains the topics very well (easy language if you like). Good luck y`all 🙂
You will pass man. I am impressed by your ability to remember this much of the exam. For Q1, I didn’t calculate Investment in Associate, but the share of associate profit. I guess I have the same answer as yours.
For warranty, I think we just adjust the RE and that’s it.
Investment in loan notes is horrible for me calculation-wise… Because I initially recognised the financial assets using amortised cost (PV of future cash flows) rather than the cash payment + transaction costs.
I literally just wrote definition of FV and didn’t write about any valuation methods/approaches. Glad you enlightened me about highest and best use cuz I couldn’t think of that during exam and decided to move on to Q4.
For significant financing components, I concluded the otherwise. I concluded that Contract 1 does not have significant financing components while Contract 2 has significant financing components.
We will pass.
Could you explain the reasons for your answers in the significant financing components? Honestly, I cannot remember all the detail of that part now.
Hi! Contract 1 does not contain significant financing components, I wrote that the total monthly payments are not significantly different from the deferred payment. I remember there are two options so I compared those two amounts.
I forget about Contract 2 but I wrote there is a significant financing component because the company saves collection costs and the customers are not likely to renew contracts if the customers have to pay in instalments.
You’re right about Contract 2 because I found out that the saving collection costs should not be a reason for significant financing components.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.