- This topic has 128 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
What i don’t understand is if ACCA know we struggle with the time allocated to answer all the questions, why do they feel the need to put in ridiculous, complicated, long company names for both the client and the auditors?? ‘Lemon Quartz’, ‘Amerite’ or something similarly silly, ‘Turquoise’. I just have the time to keep going back and looking at the company name. Keep it simple please ACCA!!
@yasir280110 said:
in Q 4 it says Test of DETAILS..DETAILS are different from CONTROL.. test the details of what??. i think its not correct..thts what i think…analytical procedures are under TEST OF CONTROLTest of controls are Enquire, Inspect, Observe and Recalculate. Analytical procedures are not a test of control
What was the answer to walk through MCQ? Was it Walk through test or analytical?? cuz both can be used to obtain an understanding of a entity..
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 4
- ☆
Mostly audit risks was examined.
was it addition of new Ned was correct answer for mcq. how about analytical procedure at audit risk assessment
does anyone wrote the procedure to ‘ obtain written representation ‘ in audit report question? 1st issue-when systems hackd
was stack on that question as well. addition was need to make a balance but what about the fact that all the NED were former employees of the company
@saajan said:
what deficiencies you guys identified?
mine were
1. counters from warehouse dept
2. inventory sheets contains quantities
3. separate sheets not sequentially numbered (assumed, as there were no indicator of being numbered)
4. areas once counted were then not flagged.
5. counters had given code to access the inventory system where higher value of FG were there.NUMBER 3 IS WRONG . you missed it, it was clearly stated sequentially numbered
what about the inventory of 3rd parties which were scatterd everywhere
@harisssshh said:
It wasn’t pervasive as only inventory records were destroyedthought the same as well
@tafadzwak said:
NUMBER 3 IS WRONG . you missed it, it was clearly stated sequentially numberedThe original count sheet was sequentially numbered, but the second one which was used to record the 3rd party inventory wasn’t. I included this deficiency too
@stevencachia said:
The original count sheet was sequentially numbered, but the second one which was used to record the 3rd party inventory wasn’t. I included this deficiency tooAgree with you on that point. I also think this is the deficiency
@seishirou said:
Agree with you on that point. I also think this is the deficiencyI also included this one ?
@tafadzwak said:
NUMBER 3 IS WRONG . you missed it, it was clearly stated sequentially numberedwhat about the inventory of 3rd parties which were scatterd everywhere
Dear 3rd one is deficiency nd i have confirmed
- The topic ‘*** F8 June 2016 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***’ is closed to new replies.