- This topic has 104 replies, 73 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
self review, self interest, familiarity, advocacy, and intimidation
question 4 was pretty much F8!
thought it was a good paper (and the people asking about the Kohlberg stuff – there were three people in the case, and there will always be one of each level!!)
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 6
- ☆
I found the paper OK. For Q1a I went down the COSO framework for effective internal controls, control envir, risk assess, control activities, info & communication and monitoring and built my answer around that and also mentioned NED’s and some of the committee’s. I also attempted Q1,2 & 4. Did anyone try Q3? Now the long wait for the results but P3 on Wednesday for me too.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 18
- ☆
Open tuition is the best…. P1 was everything I expected, and the only reason I was well prepared is due to this site and the ppl on the forum; the documents section is amazing.
I don’t buy books nor do I attend classes; OPEN TUITION TO THE WORLD….
Oh no, did question 4a ask for 5 ethical threats?? I thought it said 5 ethical principles so I said professional behaviour, integrity, professional competence, confidentiality and objectivity! Oh no, that was the only question I was confident on 🙁
In Q1 I put CEO – pre-conv, FD – pre-conv and Kathy – conv.
CEO and FD – pre-conv. because they were thinking only abouth the wealth (the shareholder’s wealth and their personal bonuses).
Kathy – conv, because she understood the legal norms and moral principles, however she completed the project. So, she allowed people to die!!!
If Kathy did not complete the job in the allowed time, and did not allow to lunch the new car, I could put Kathy to post-conv level! However, unfortunately, she only though about possible crashes, but did not stop it.
I wrote CEO level 1 stage 2
Vim = Level 1 stage 1 as reward and punishment. He mentioned about how much benefit vs cost was there in two option. He also mentioned about directors bonus.
Kathy Yao- Level 2 stage 2. as she did not mention anything about principals rather she was concerned about company’s’ image. SO it is the selfish approach, you scratch my back, i will scratch your. Or it is an approach when someone consider society in order to present his own good image.- Topics: 0
- Replies: 3
- ☆
Guys I think some of the post-mortems going on are a bit unhelpful. With ethical & moral stances there is probably not a right and wrong answer – it will depend on the validity of your reasoning and argument.
And do not get too disheartened (like someone did when they put down principles instead of threats for Q4) when you realise you may have done something wrong – dissecting the paper like this will put you under unnecessary pressure – you are looking for a 50% pass mark – losing out on a few marks is neither here nor there, the quality of your answers may pull you through. Try and stay positive as reading posts like this one can easily get you down and make you think you have done worse than you actually have.
In question 4 there was a requirement asking about accountant behavior and for public interest. That q was for 10 points so most probably the examiner wanted to write a lot. Any ideas?
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 3
- ☆
The paper was an easy paper. I feel I was totally prepared for this exam. I am confident that it is a pass for me.
Reading the part of the Dynamic nature of risk was very important as it was easy marks in the question.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 3
- ☆
I must be the only person who actually tackled Question 3!
I did question 3 too.. hopefully we will get a additional minority answer mark or something!!! I read the recent article on non corportae governance but ended up not remembering much of the article except the Value for money audit and the 3 e’s.
TOTAL Disaster for me, I found the whole thing to be a bit confusing to be honest, i felt in some cases i quite wasn’t sure what the questions were getting at but i did not do as much prep as i intended and maybe wasn’t used to the question style- my own fault though will have to prepare better for December. The controls for Q1… my mind went totally blank, i am so disappointed in myself at the moment. 🙁
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 1
- ☆
I got the wrong end of the stick for Q4. I listed the 5 fundamental principles instead of the 5 ethical threats. I then went on to talk about how each of the principles could be threatened by the facts.
It has been a long time since I sat an exam (I am returning to it now after a gap of many years). So – the question I have is, should I expect zero marks for this entire part? Or in the experience of people who have taken exams more recently, it is possible that I might be penalised with zero marks for one area, in identifying the fundamental principles instead of the ethical threats, but might gain something for applying the facts of the case as threats to the 5 areas I mistakenly listed?
Just wondering.
Thanks.
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 9
- ☆
I did Q1, 2 & 4 as well~ But sadly, I dun think I can score~ T_T
Seems like have to re-sit again~- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
it was an easy paper i say…i am not sure if i have done it correctly or not but i found myself comfortable with it. i did q1,2,3 and took 4 extra sheets…:)
there were too many things in q1 to contemplate…i tried to highlight as many as i cud…don no if i waz at a right track…in q1 i mentioned (NEDS) role as there part waz missin when the directors/board were takin decisions and than again audit committee role waz missin too…kohlberg waz grand…i put tsavos at pre con level, kathy con and fin director at post…
kathy @ conventional stage 3 : good interpersonal relationships bcuz she iz the only one having soft corner about the society and people…though she waz i guess loving her job more than anything else…- Topics: 0
- Replies: 3
- ☆
@squalk2008 said:
I got the wrong end of the stick for Q4. I listed the 5 fundamental principles instead of the 5 ethical threats. I then went on to talk about how each of the principles could be threatened by the facts.It has been a long time since I sat an exam (I am returning to it now after a gap of many years). So – the question I have is, should I expect zero marks for this entire part? Or in the experience of people who have taken exams more recently, it is possible that I might be penalised with zero marks for one area, in identifying the fundamental principles instead of the ethical threats, but might gain something for applying the facts of the case as threats to the 5 areas I mistakenly listed?
Just wondering.
Thanks.
I did the same thing also. I am hoping that the examiner goes easy on me as well as yourself
@tzxsean said:
q1) internal control measure + explanation
Kohlberg 3 levels
AGM vs EGM
usefulness of EGM on whistleblower issue
CEO statement on EGM
roles of CEO
argue decision based on pristine capitalist perspectiveq2) criticise about beliefs on risk assessment
TARA on risks
what are related risks? prove risks E&F as positive correlatedq3) did not attempt
a) difference between charities and public listed companies. and how these differences influence the governance structure (9marks)
b) define ‘transparency’. case for ‘transparency’ in HHO (8marks)
c) how AC could assist to mitigate the internal control deficiencies in HHO (8marks)q4) IFAC 5 ethical threats
explain some they arises due to excessive gifts and hospitality in the case
critics behaviour
explain how it conflict with duty of uphold public interest
what is insider trading?
why unethical/illegalHi u have a good memory~ haha~
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 1
- ☆
I think this sitting was better compared to the last, this was my first attempt though.
Hoping for a pass. should be alright.explain how it conflict with duty of uphold public interest..is it this Q we should write about the fiduciary duty and conflict of interest..all is about the duty of agent right?
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
I think it was easy, but not sure I’ve passed
out of time as usual…
I wonder how some people could attempt all questions, and have 10-15 minutes at the end to review the answers…- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
Hi there, the paper was OK.
The problem was only time. It wasn’t as tough as I thought it will be considering the trend from 2007 to 2010. The trap is spending too much time answering q1. I totally got caught up with q1, running over time…. leaving 1 question (question2) completely blank! i didn’t attempt it at all but had scribbled the answers in the question paper during the reading and noting time. It is extremely disappointing. now i just couldn’t focus for p3.
nway…. good luck to all!- Topics: 0
- Replies: 2
- ☆
This exam I’ve started with Q 2,3
Q1 – at the end.@queenie said:
explain how it conflict with duty of uphold public interest..is it this Q we should write about the fiduciary duty and conflict of interest..all is about the duty of agent right?
I wrote about the public expectations of professional behaviour and gave a shortened version of IFAC’s definition of ‘the public interest’.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.