*** P7 June 2013 Exam was.. Post your comments ***

I attempted Q1 – Q4

Hi, does any one know if our question papers are submitted with our answer scripts for marking. I made the analytical procedure calculations on my question papers during the fifteen minutes review period. Unfortunately, I could not write them on my answer scripts completely. So I am thinking the examiner would see my calculations on the question paper and give me credits for it. Anyone with an opinion on this?

IN QSTN 1 WHEN ASKED TO EVALUATE ADDTIONAL INFORMATION OTHEN PRE ANA PROC AND AUDIT RISK ..IN THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I TALKED ABOUT RELYANCE ON PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANT AND THAT CONTROL WEAKNESS.ANY1 TELL ME AM I RIGHT ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?

Did anyone notice that in Q1 the 2013 statements were projections, and not actual results? I don’t know the impact it could have on the answer

And for those who attempted Q4, i think it really was not about subsequent adjusting/non adjusting events. I think it was just a trick, the question was really about auditors responsibilities in relation to fraud. Am i right?

<cite>@adeyemi83 said:</cite>
Hi, does any one know if our question papers are submitted with our answer scripts for marking. I made the analytical procedure calculations on my question papers during the fifteen minutes review period. Unfortunately, I could not write them on my answer scripts completely. So I am thinking the examiner would see my calculations on the question paper and give me credits for it. Anyone with an opinion on this?

You get zero marks for annotating the question paper I’m afraid. Always start the question with a ratio appendix.

Haahaah Disaster

<cite> @waqasazaz said:</cite>

Analytical procedures normally take place before a year end and so projected draft statements are always required. The difference between forecast and projection as terms are negligible in under one year timeframe.

Q1 note 1) why was advertisement fine taken in cost of sales? And only 200k instead of the probable 400k?

I actually LOL when I read the examiner ALWAYS asking for 1) Quality answers 2) expects us to write everything 3) good hand writing and 4) enough points. its impossible!! Either way, hoping for an unmodified opinion by the marker this time.

1)a. analytical procedures – I compared figures of the current year to previous year (ratios are fine too I hear) and said its required by ISA 315…8 marks probably
-Audit Risks….plenty of them. Wasn’t sure whether I should be writing about under and over value effect in the SOFP since its FS Risk but I ended up writing those as well. 12 marks probably
-Other Information asked for “other information was needed for evaluation” so i asked for more info on advertising fines, bank loan details etc 4 marks?
b) Ethics, confidentiality threat if co provides info to client A without communicating to client B, self interest threat. 7 marks permission from the client etc
Prof marks 4 …#Luck

2) a) straight forward, manager messed it up, and juniors needed training…poor planning etc
b) i) I thought the question was rather confusing…so wrote random points on planning of the fraud
ii) I think it asked for “comment” on matters to consider so I wrote about whether the fraud actually took place etc

3) Assets held for sale, sale and leaseback and license…matters to consider and evidence. Since it didnt ask for Procedures I wrote on materiality, whether the appr standards were used and evidence

4) a. Management v Auditors…it was debatable. auditors didnt perform the duties but fraud could be by the client again it asked for “matters to consider” and not procedures so had to be careful with what i wrote

b. Financial instruments challenging…complex, subjective, market volantile etc and IAS 21 for foreign exchange risk…forgot what i wrote there

Didnt even have time read question 5 because i used 15mins reading time for question 1

Hoping for 50!! Please?

<cite> @kk84 said:</cite>
Did anyone here sit the UK variant paper?

Basically, my paper for Q1 and Q5 wasn’t broken down in marks per requirement? did everyone sitting the UK variant find this was the case? I only realised this wasn’t how all the papers were because of what people have written here.

Q1 on my paper was in email format as expected and all the requirments were in the body of the email, as expected but there was no breakdown of marks againt it. It just said ‘respond to the email’ 31 marks. the email did not have any marks allocated to say audit risk was 24 marks.

reading above, it seems that the paper was broken down into each requirments and marks against it.

I am super worried now that my paper had printing errors or something.

Please let me know ASAP. Much appreciated.

I am in exactly the same position as you. The UK variant did not show a breakdown of marks in the first question – which is why I was getting confused reading peoples answers above.

Actually i don’t recall it on the second question either!

The Irish version was the same
Q1 31 marks & 4 professional
Q2 25 marks
Q3 12marks & 8 marks
Q4 20 marks for 3 separate audit opinions

Personally, the less said about this exam the better – my final exam and put everything into it, time pressure was immense. pulled of q1 after an hour – did 12 audit risks but missed easy ones too.
did q4 and q5 ok. went back to q2 – did the plannin ok, but wrote little than a few lines for the forensic investigation (time pressure again) – and the bpp had a question identical to it – q1 in mock paper 1 and i knew it but didnt have time to bang it down in the paper. I have only myself to blame – tried my best to stay within time with each question but couldnt. its an exam that requires great skill in reading the scenario CAREFULLY and pulling from it the main things and then answering exactly what is required. I failed, simply to exam technique

What analytical procedures were to be conducted in q1(a)??? Ratios???

What about q5(a) & (c)???