- This topic has 21 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Q1 audit risks (18 marks)
Assess why trade receivables is a significant risk of mat misstatement (12 marks)
Not able to remember restQ2
Investment property matters & audit procedures (7 marks)
Defined contribution matters & audit procedures (7 marks)
What opinion/report we should provide assuming management doesnt rectify their errors (6)Q3 Engagement quality review, ethical and professional implications (maybe 10?)
If anyone remembers more please comment
Got groups in Q1 and Q2 (quality management) and Q3 on PFI profit forecast.
Q1 was pure 22 marks of audit risk. Now that I think about it it was a disaster. Lots of jumbled up points, and many of of those points have little to evaluate with. Very different from the past papers that I practiced.
I was hoping to get scenario information on management bias.. or an FS level risk. But I couldn’t.
Other than that, I made do with common sense for any other questions that I encountered.
I think I did fine. For what it’s worth, the questions were straightforward.
Haha, a little upset that Ben Wilson’s tips did not help me a single bit. But at the same time I’m glad, because he was tipping the hard questions (money laundering, fraud, MURGC, sustainability assurance). He mentioned group audits were extensively tested last time, so low probability of it coming out. And mine had two questions on group audits!
Btw, I’m not discrediting Ben Wilson, this just shows how you can’t rely on tips (I didn’t!)
I am surprised sustainability assurance did not show up at all. I prepped for it to mastery. (or not)
I am also glad that I did not get any pure knowledge questions in my paper.
Fair question overall. I’m glad I did Q1 last. It was the only tricky part of the paper.
Exam was ok but came away feeling disappointed. The questions didnt give you lots of extra stuff to include from the scenario so felt like i was just repeating myself.
Also question on defined pension benefit but said ignore competence etc of the expert and all other items had been confirmed by the audit team. How was you supposed to squeeze 7 marks out of that. (Had, audit risk, trade receivables, ethics for Q1)Exam was ok but came away feeling disappointed. The questions didnt give you lots of extra stuff to include from the scenario so felt like i was just repeating myself.
Also question on defined pension benefit but said ignore competence etc of the expert and all other items had been confirmed by the audit team. How was you supposed to squeeze 7 marks out of that. (Had, audit risk, trade receivables, ethics for Q1)Honestly, the paper was okay and quite doable. The questions were pretty direct, I think?
Q1
a.ROMM (22 marks)
Materiality was already given (3 marks), so I think 6–7 risks were expected.
FVNA – Hinder liability not recognised
Goodwill – Possible impairment issue
Customer loyalty points – Potential contingent liability
Accounting policy – Signs of management bias
License – Should be an intangible asset
Refurbishment cost – No breakdown; maintenance costs shouldn’t be capitalised
b. Internal Control
c. Audit procedures in the acquisition calculation
d. Ethical issue
Q2
Quality management (15marks)
This one took my time a lot as there was so many points that can discuss. However i only make 10-12? I cant even remember. (Confused the verb comment and discuss lmao)
Audit opinion
I wrote disclaimer as it was material and the deferred revenue can impact the whole fs include sofp,sopl, and cf.
Q3
Term of agreement of the profit forecast assurance? I think so
Internal control
Audit procedures on the profit forecast.
Anyone got this variant like this? Whats your thoughts on that paper?Please can someone tell me the mark allocation for Q1 which had the receivables question.
As far as I remember the first part was 18 marks
The receivables question was 12 marks
The ethics question was 6 marks
So was there another question for 4 marks or was the ethics question 10 marks?
Hi, I think the distribution was:
ROMM 18
Trade AR 14
Ethics 8Did anybody else feel like Q2 or 3 was identical with published pre-exam mock? 😮
I had absolutely the same variant.
Everything was OK, except for the time constraints as usual)
In connection to capitalisation also include risk on incorrect depreciation charge, but forgot to include a risk on translation which need to be recognised in OCI instead of PL.
Also was thinking about specific focus in scenario to CF disclosure, but except for the fact that it should be included to invest activities and strange fact that purchase net of cash acquired = cash consideration.
I was a little bit confused with Q1 (c) because it was specifically mentioned about valuation of brand not acquisition as a whole.Q2 was too load by facts, but i remember only overreliance on trial DA tool and these construction contracts you already mentioned. I gave a qualified opinion due to limitation of scope which is material but not pervasive on both levels (component and Group). Honestly, i was confused by the fact that if you provide an adverse opinion on component, how it can impact on group opinion?
Q3 (a) there were a lot of marks allocated but all standard point such as nature, purpose and intended use of forecast were clearly described in scenario. I have realised it too soon and made no corrections(For the trade receivables question, the allocation was romm 18, trade receivables 12, ethics 10 as for as I rmr
Section A:
Question 1: Group of hotel companies with the parent company called Mortimer who owned Winthrope. They acquired Ophelia as well.Mortimer was luxury hotels for people who wanted to unwind and relax.
Winthorpe hotels was mostly used by people who were on work trips.
Winthorpe had refurbishments of its hotels and they bought a license so they can sell food and beverages at the hotel for 24 hours a day.Ophelia was acquired because it had budget friendly hotels.
Cash consideration of acquiring Ophelia = around $142m
FV of net assets = around $120m
Goodwill = $22mExhibit related to Ethics:
The group had requested assistance from the firm in preparing financial information that would be presented at board meetings.They also requested something for designing new KPIs (not sure, i dont remember)
Note: Mortimer was NOT a listed company.
Requirements:
a) ROMM (22 marks)
b) Audit Procedures on acquisition of Ophelia (5 marks)
c) Describe Internal Controls (6 marks)
d) Ethics question (7 marks)Section B:
Question 2
Completion and Reportinga) Evaluate the sufficiency and appropriateness of the audit evidence collected by the auditors (15 marks)
Then they told us about an event which affected the audit opinion where they could not collect SAE.
b) What would be the impact on the audit opinion because of this event (5 marks)
Question 3:
a) Quality management, professional and ethical issues question (14 marks)
b) Corporate Governance Deficiencies (6 marks)
So this is all that I remember from the exam that I had.
From what I discussed with my friends, we had the same Section A but we did not have same Section B. If anyone had the same Section B as me, please let me know.The ethics part in q1. was for 10 marks. In my afternoon paper.
Audit risks :18 markd
T receivables, Audit procedures: 12 marks
Ethicsc: 10, giving
Total of 40 + 10 prof =50 marks for q1.Exam was pretty much okay based on my assessment and in comparison to prior papers. However time management was critical. I was begging the computer for 15 more minutes at the last 5 seconds. I had so much more i could’ve written. ?
If you actually finished that paper you are a sure winnerExam was pretty much okay based on my assessment and in comparison to prior papers. However time management was critical. I was begging the computer for 15 more minutes at the last 5 seconds. I had so much more i could’ve written. ?
If you actually finished that paper you are a sure winnerQ1 Unlisted group, high end jewellery seller, had acquired a perfume brand in the year who was audited by a component (Oud Co) and had seasonal sales. Already has a sub, Karat Co
Audit Risks – 21 marks, materiality on assets. Struggled finding audit risk which was disappointing!
Procedures on inventory
Can’t remember this question, something to do with component auditor
Ethical and professional issuesQ2
Matters to discuss & audit evidence we would expect to form part of the audit report:
Investment Properties – 7 marks
Defined pension contributions – 7 marks
Question on audit opinion, and if they didn’t make adjustments what opinion would we give
Adjustment was about an investment property, $3m, which was incorrectly accounted for, 1/3 of the costs should of been PPE and management didn’t want to adjust. Gave qualified opinion as material but not pervasive as only affected two accounted, but noted that if it had been impaired then it would be pervasive as it hits the P&L. No idea if that’s a valid mark though.Q3
Pure knowledge question, no link to the scenario on ISQM2 & what an engagement quality reviewer did – 8 marks! which seemed a lotQuality management question for two companies – 6 marks each
Pearl C was the EQR but had previously audited the company
one had an assistant auditor, and the audit report was submitted without collecting all evidenceThe ISQM2 question completely stumped me but was able to give a bit about the EQR. Had just watched the ACCA pre-june workshop before my exam, which looked at ISQM1
Q1 Unlisted group, high end jewellery seller, had acquired a perfume brand in the year who was audited by a component (Oud Co) and had seasonal sales. Already has a sub, Karat Co
Audit Risks – 21 marks, materiality on assets. Struggled finding audit risk which was disappointing!
Procedures on inventory
Can’t remember this question, something to do with component auditor
Ethical and professional issuesQ2
Matters to discuss & audit evidence we would expect to form part of the audit report:
Investment Properties – 7 marks
Defined pension contributions – 7 marks
Question on audit opinion, and if they didn’t make adjustments what opinion would we give
Adjustment was about an investment property, $3m, which was incorrectly accounted for, 1/3 of the costs should of been PPE and management didn’t want to adjust. Gave qualified opinion as material but not pervasive as only affected two accounted, but noted that if it had been impaired then it would be pervasive as it hits the P&L. No idea if that’s a valid mark though.Q3
Pure knowledge question, no link to the scenario on ISQM2 & what an engagement quality reviewer did – 8 marks! which seemed a lotQuality management question for two companies – 6 marks each
Pearl C was the EQR but had previously audited the company
one had an assistant auditor, and the audit report was submitted without collecting all evidenceThe ISQM2 question completely stumped me but was able to give a bit about the EQR. Had just watched the ACCA pre-june workshop before my exam, which looked at ISQM1
I got this same paper.
Q1 .
a) Audit Risks – Unlisted group, high end jewellery seller – Mid year acquisition – I got 4 Audit risks that i was Certain about – rest i had to nitpick (Materiality 3M – 19 Marks Audit Risks)
b) Inventory Valuation or Count(Existence) Procedures – either of these assertion was in focus for procedure – (Not 100% sure)
c) Reliance on component auditors/ Quality of their work – they made some wrong assumptions and treatments (Not 100% sure)
d)Ethics and Professional issues – Management asked for key Advice on finding suitable target acquisition firms for the parent – assuming management responsbility – self reviewQ2
a)Matters to discuss & audit evidence
– Investment Property – matters and evidences – 1/3 of asset – owner used – IAS 16 incorrect classifed as IP – 7 marks
– Defined Contribution Plans – matters and evidences – Acturial gian/loss posted to Profit instead of OCI – incorrect IAS 19 treatment – 7 marksb) Implications on Audit Report for the issues in a) if it was not corrected post communication to TCWG – Material but not pervasive – Modified report/ Qualified Except for
Q3
– a) ISQM 2 – Eligilbility of EQR before a EQCR – Not related to any exhibit – 8 marks – Only got 7 points
– b) Exhibit a – EQR Contradictions with ISQM2 – Striking part was that Partner was working on the engagement for 15 Years lol.
– c) Ethics and ISQM – Auditor Expert – Who was a cousin to a Director of a company
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.