*** P7 June 2012 Exam was … Comments and Instant Poll ***

@junaid72724 said:
Funny, I didn’t find time management a problem at ALL. Infact, I mismanaged and had like 15 minutes to spare. But maybe that’s cuz of the fact that I couldn’t identify enough misstatement risks in Question 1.

Hoping to pass.
Expect no less than 20 in the first question. Maybe around 15-18 in the second question. Chose question 4 and 5. Expect like 8-12 marks in q4. I thought there wasn’t much to write for ethics. And audit reporting was a TREAT. Expect atleast 10-13 there.

what is the answer to q5-b audit report?

Beautiful paper:
Question 1 – As expected question on groups and risk of material misstatement. The Examiner latest article in April 2012 was a good hint. Two easy ethical issues for 6 marks. The group contains good stuff for materialy and interest points on Goodwill abd Financial Liabilities.
Qustion 2 – Terms of audit engagement in refernce to PFI for loan purposes. It easy to notice inconsistency, viz stagnant deferred tax amount, nca of 37m where loan amount of 30m, finance charge understated, retained earnings not reconciled with income statement, so on.
Question – 4 Requires commom sense! in answering the social & envirnmental issues and the metrics to measure KPIs
Qustion – 5 The easiest indeed with Borrowing Cost and IAS 19 employee benefit. Both coupled with materiality.

Well prepared students having common sense cannot fail this paper. Thanks you Lisa…. We are proud of you. Students and lecturers should be to the standard…. Very practical paper . Could easily get at least 60!

Thanks to LORD GANESHA. If all of you BELIEVE in HIM, you will SUCCEED.

Jai Hind.

You should have used efficiently your planning time. You could have easily get 4 marks out 6….

not a difficult paper if thee had been four hours to do it rather than three. I know that I lost a lot of points on question 2 due to simply running out of time whilst knowing that there were good easy marks to be picked up on questions 3 and 4 (which I did in the reverse order).

Think that I’ve dropped at least 20% of the marks from simply not having enough time to get everything down on paper.

Sometimes at this level it feels as though you can be overprepared in that if you go into the exam knowing too much you seem to lose more points due to not having the time to get it down on paper rather than not knowing enough (or knowing just enough) and being able to give half answers to everything… And of course, half the points gets you a pass.

I feel like having a campaign to have the exams one hour longer for the P level papers but I recccon that ACCA would just then make them two hours more difficult! (Similar to when we got the 15 minutes reading time).

Oh well, looks like I’ll be back retaking the paper in December 🙁

what was question 5a) i cant remember it.

@junaid72724 said:
There were 3 broad issues as i remember

1 — The opinion expressed should have been an except for modification and not an adverse opinion because the misstatement was not so pervasive that it would have rendered the statements useless.

2 — The structure was wrong. The basis for opinion paragraph should be ABOVE the opinion paragraph. The opinion paragraph is below the basis for opinion paragraph because it is only logical to provide reasons and THEN the opinion and not the other way round.

3 — Wordings. The basis for opinion was worded wrong. It should have been ‘Basis for Adverse opinion’ or ‘Basis for except for opinion’. It should have also quantified the effects of the misstatement (under-statement of liabilities). It should have also referred to the IAS which had not been applied properly (IAS 19 – Employee Benefits in this case).
The line ‘management’s deliberate omission is against IFRS’ should also have not been included.

I think this was sufficient for 7 marks 😀

i guess not enough information was provided to assess whether opinion should have been just qualify or adverse.

@junaid72724 said:
Err, you can use your common sense to see if the misstatement only related to one class or several amounts. In this case, it related SOLELY to the SOFP and the effect was ONLY on liabilities. This means the misstatement was not pervasive (where the misstatement present a VERY different picture and affect alot of transactions/classes).

This, I think, should have been sufficient to show you that the adverse opinion provided was TOO harsh and an ‘except for’ opinion was more appropriate.

Nevermind, just gave them the nod for adverse opinion stating that depending on the materiality/pervasiveness, opinion should be either qualified or adverse.

Does anyone know answer 2 b?

@orla333 said:
Does anyone know answer 2 b?

Procedures for Forecasts

i wrote mostly along the lines of written representations, discussions, few analytical procedures etc..

Very true that question is just playing on my mind!!

orla it was about procedures relating to the closure of the factory and they were restructuring and relocating, so i guess iFRS 5 applied?

I’m guessing my Q2 c is different coz I did the Irish variant, and it was insolvency I just wanted to know were we supposed to talk about liquidation and examinership. Nurgul I didn’t do q4 was the surgeon not being qualified and lawsuit again hospital for negligence?