- This topic has 119 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
saif2589 wrote:b) challenging the ED on his view about responsible leadership on wider stakeholders And public interest stating to QH why environment is important to them?
Oki oki but this was not in slide as far as I remeber you needed to write a memoradum…there is one technical article about responsible leadership basically you need to fit it with QH I think some of what you mentioned suits good 🙂 like this point protecting the envrioment would increase public awareness for QH. this in turn would allow investors to invest in the company leading to high profits
All great points. I added the ability for Exec Directors to be on the risk committee, whereas the audit committee of a listed company should comprise independent NEDs, allowing the Exec Directors to bring their knowledge and experience to addressing the risk issues raised.
Thanks, what about the risk and mitigation. For that I wrote
Loss of workforce
Due to the economic condition within the country there could be recession due to which it would be difficult to find skillful workforce and recession would lead to unemploymentMitigation
To develop the skills and expertise and ensure that the workforce last within the company for a longer period of time to utilities there skills for longerClimate change
Due to change in the weather climiatr it could be difficult to construct houses such as in rainy weatherMitigation
To ensure workforce has being provided with necessary work equipment such as safety boot and jacketsAvailability of land
As QH is planning to construct houses on green spaces and gardens there could be lack of availability of landMitigation
To consult with government and local council for get permission for the availability of land m
Hope this is correct as well?nighteyes wrote:Hmmm, the more I read in this thread, the more I think I completely ballsed up the QH case study. Bloody hell…
It is definitely interesting to read different answers but I think it can be very subjective too in the marking
I usually don’t come here if the exam went bad because it makes me feel worse….But exam was ok
Ignore the thread. Everyone wants to confirm their bias here so that they don’t panic lol.
nighteyes wrote:Hmmm, the more I read in this thread, the more I think I completely ballsed up the QH case study. Bloody hell…
Nobody can tell you if you’re correct. We’re all students. The examiner will decide if you’re correct.
saif2589 wrote:Thanks, what about the risk and mitigation. For that I wrote
saif2589 wrote:Thanks, what about the risk and mitigation. For that I wrote
Bro the requirement was impact of risk on QH’s strategic objectives not strategic position
Getting skilled workforce and availability of land are strategic objectives for QH and without those two resources the company can’t run
Clarify me if I’m wrong?
What did you write?No we had to write how lack of skilled labour, land and climate would affect our strategic objectives (which were sustainable housing, maintaining financial position, building good quality houses and one more which I can’t recall)
From what i understood
We had to link risks to objectives
like loss of skilled workforce how it affects our objective of maintaining existing financial position or ability to build good quality housessaif2589 wrote:Getting skilled workforce and availability of land are strategic objectives for QH and without those two resources the company can’t run
Idk maybe I’m wrong but I still feel that skills of worker, the climate and government planning would play a vital role in achieving the objectives of OH in order to build sustainable and good quality housing
saif2589 wrote:Idk maybe I’m wrong but I still feel that skills of worker, the climate and government planning would play a vital role in achieving the objectives of OH in order to build sustainable and good quality housing
Well sbl is highly subjective paper so there is no clear distinction between right or wrong as long your direction is correct
True, one final thing for the benefits of QH and stakeholders of benefits of protecting the environment with a wider view on public interest?
We had to write both the benefits to stakeholders and QH?
Such as the benefit to government would be that they can implement a low cost fee to the garden which would generate revenue for them and could be used for other beneficial purpose for other stakeholders such as free education and health
The people could use the garden for excercise which reduces illness and diesease
Good community place would increase public awareness which would increase investors confidence and they would invest in QH leading to high profits
Does this make sense? Are the points correct ?
I used just PESTEL.
Any idea what the strategy matrix question was about, must’ve dropped a fair few marks there.
Also what were the general benefits & costs for splitting the Audit & Risk committee’s?
seperation of audit/risk committee slides i wrote
benefits
-independence of thought and decision not involved in self interest threat
-segregation of duties as both committies duties will be divided
-reduces conflict of interest as both committes would know who they would be accountable to
challenges
-unity of both committee rather than one committee
-more knowledge and skills would be spread if both committies are joinedfor the benefits of QH and stakeholders of benefits of protecting the environment with a wider view on public interest?
We had to write both the benefits to stakeholders and QH?
What did you write?are my above points correct ?
saif2589 wrote:True, one final thing for the benefits of QH and stakeholders of benefits of protecting the environment with a wider view on public interest?
I don’t think we had the same requirement mine was what are the benefit of preparing integrated reporting to QH and also to wider stakeholders
Challenging the ED on his view about responsible leadership on wider stakeholders And public interest?
Was the question something like this? If not then we had different requirements?
Agree Tara19!
Q1 started with the board planning for the next 5 years.
So I applied PESTEL to analyse external environment impact in the next 5 years. Like government was very pressured to build houses and given planning permission quite easy. Customer change taste, single owners, elderly and proximity to city. Population growth rate, etc
Q2 about <IR> . The CEO wanted to implement <IR> so wanted to know th role and how could benefit QH and stakeholders.
Here I used the 6 capitals. Loads about improving reputation
The order of the next questions I don’t remember but covered
-Benefits and challenges of separation of Audit and Risk committees – 2 slides
– Ethical impact and potential issues with behaviour of one of the Site Developer controller
-memo to the Site Development Managers about the strategic importance of the cost and management controls
– the last question didn’t have the chance to answer, run out of time. Asked about strategic product? Also about the role of the Project Sponsor… no idea about these 2 topics.
saif2589 wrote:seperation of audit/risk committee slides i wrote
benefits<br>-independence of thought and decision not involved in self interest threat<br>-segregation of duties as both committies duties will be divided<br>-reduces conflict of interest as both committes would know who they would be accountable to<br>challenges<br>-unity of both committee rather than one committee<br>-more knowledge and skills would be spread if both committies are joinedI also wrote the roles Audit and risk are very demanding and the existing committee was already taking care of a lot of task probably no given enough attention to the risks like the overspend issue the had so weak cost controls
saif2589 wrote:Challenging the ED on his view about responsible leadership on wider stakeholders And public interest?
Nope different requirement for me
lcadena wrote:Agree Tara19!
I got these
Weak points overall. You didn’t apply to the scenario.
For weaknesses your answer should be something like
– There are 3NEDs and as a result splitting the committees would lead to a dilution in the BoD which could lead to changes in operations and cultural issues.– The Internal Audit Department reports to both the audit and Risk committee hence splitting could lead to confusion as to the work the IAD department is supposed to undertake and could lead to issues regarding work of the IAD.
Benefits
– Risks are more dynamic in nature and would need to be monitored consistently as the government legislations and risks are ever changing compared to audit where financial statements are prepared on an annual basis. (Splitting would therefore mean that risks are priotized)And so on….
saif2589 wrote:seperation of audit/risk committee slides i wrote
benefits<br>-independence of thought and decision not involved in self interest threat<br>-segregation of duties as both committies duties will be divided<br>-reduces conflict of interest as both committes would know who they would be accountable to<br>challenges<br>-unity of both committee rather than one committee<br>-more knowledge and skills would be spread if both committies are joinedSegregation, conflict of interest are more associated with benefits of splitting the role of the Chairman and CEO.
saif2589 wrote:seperation of audit/risk committee slides i wrote
benefits<br>-independence of thought and decision not involved in self interest threat<br>-segregation of duties as both committies duties will be divided<br>-reduces conflict of interest as both committes would know who they would be accountable to<br>challenges<br>-unity of both committee rather than one committee<br>-more knowledge and skills would be spread if both committies are joinedAfter a careful read of most of the comments, i have come to the conclusion that we aren’t all talking about the same exam.
Certainly, the name of the company is QH (Qualita Homes), and the country is Morlia. I’m certain that the overview was the same with what i have read so far BUT i think the exhibits and requirements were different.massandumbe wrote:After a careful read of most of the comments, i have come to the conclusion that we aren’t all talking about the same exam.
Certainly, the name of the company is QH (Qualita Homes), and the country is Morlia. I’m certain that the overview was the same with what i have read so far BUT i think the exhibits and requirements were different.Yes definitely the same company but 2 possibly 3 variants with different questions !
Lol..My thoughts exactly.lts not advisable to come here especially if you had another paper after this one.
does anyone retake the exam on 13sept due to the technical issues? I think the exam question is much more harder than on 6sept, i cant understand the ques 2 about the weakness on the book of the dr and review process.
they ask for weakness on supplier and recommendation whether to continue use this existing supplier, my i know what supplier they are asking for? I write the weakness i found on the audit report and conversation with the ex staff is that correct?Yes I was made to sat in the retake session due to technical issue…. The question on the weaknesses and quality control or review process was to test our knowledge around the issues with the publishing of book written by famous historian, one main issue I recall that he was publicly criticized by the fellow historians, along with lack of contractual bindings whereby he could have been prohibited from presenting TV Series on the work on which book shall be based on.
Regarding supplier i remember he was selected by the director by bypassing or not following the protocols.
- The topic ‘*** September 2022 ACCA SBL exam – Instant Poll and comments ***’ is closed to new replies.