- This topic has 15 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 19 hours 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
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.