- This topic has 36 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 5 days ago by
.
- Posts
Exam was ok. I had group audit 50 marks, forensic audit 25 marks and final accounts sign off- material misstatement 25 marks
Think this is the same as what I had. section B question 1 in relation to payroll fraud and question 2 investment property & management extending the useful life of machinery equipment
What audit opinion did you give ? If I may ask on the investment property, useful life of machinery equipment and directors gift company car to his daughter
I gave adverse as material misstatement in terms of the equipment and missing disclosures re related parties so impacting multiple areas of the FS.
What audit opinion did you give ? If I may ask on the investment property, useful life of machinery equipment and directors gift company car to his daughter
I had the second question on due diligence and warranty procedures and 3rd one on redundancy and PPE. Anyone else here with the same paper?
I had due diligence redundancy and PPE
Due diligence not learned. I tried my best
Part 1 was ok but unusual. Section A was ok did in 25 min. No time ! Hope to pass this timeI had group audit, forensic and final accounts too!
Spent ages on group audit and found it hard to identify the matters!For final accounts I gave adverse opinion too cos material by quantity and by nature too.. weird exam but I hope I passed cos I don’t want to do it again ??
I had group audit, forensic and final accounts too!
Spent ages on group audit and found it hard to identify the matters! Kind of feel like I waffled on so much!For final accounts I gave adverse opinion too cos material by quantity and by nature too.. weird exam… had a question about terms of engagement too and I just talked about fees timings expectations nature and reporting..
I belief i had the same, Q1 a bit unusual like your saying a family owned business as opposed to the usual group scenario… we played our role lets let God to play his…Amen
Same as me. I too said it was qualified as it was material by nature/ quality given it was the directors relatives and by quantity
Also for the afternoon exam did you work out materiality? I used thresholds 0.5-1% of revenue think it was like between 225,000 and 450,000 or something like that?
AAA Int’l. Section A
Q1
(a)Business Risk- 10marks
(b) ROMM- 16 marks
(c) Data Analytic procedure for inventory – 6 marks
(d) ethics – 8 marksSection B
Q2 matters and audit evidence for
Closure provisions -6 marks
PPE – 6 marks
Operational cost presentation -4 marks
Opinion -4 marksQ3
MTC for due diligence assignment -10 marks
Why warranty is significant -6 marks
Recommendation 4mstksI had same figures for materiality. I found the asset was incorrectly capitalised and one of the capital expenditure was expensed. The net effect was 10m. I argued the most material item was the 22 million provision for the legal claim as this was not yet probably. I said more evidence is needed and it is possible so maybe a contingent liability should be disclosed. Could be wrong???
do you remember any of your answers for Q1 i want to see if any are similar to what i had?
I said for the legal claim that I didn’t think that it was enough because the loans/credit terms were for tradesmen doinf long term work and £800 per tradesman was not a lot so said it might not be sufficient etc.
I think I also said that some things should’ve been expended like Labour and redecoration as that could be assumed to be part of normal wear and tear not capex.
Also said that there was an issue with them having a before exception and after exception profit figure as the exception items should be been capitalised and also the before figure is what was used to calculate executive director bonus which was okie 30m increase or something and the after figure increase was 2, so wasn’t a good measurement and risk that it was purposely done. Also said tax implications are that less tax might be paid if profits were massively reduced etc..
Not sure I feel like I made issues out of nothing? Anyone else get these?I had the one around redundancy etc as well.Was the redundancy one Q2 a listed entity? (Cherry co probably)
I remember Q1 and 3 being unlisted with the Q1 entity being in the lieu of getting listed.I left a comment yesterday but it seems it did not get posted. Too bad.
I also got the one with due dilligence, the one that wants to close 3 of the facilities in Europe and the one with business risk, materiality and data analytics (clothes retailer).
Good luck, everyone, fingers crossed!@jazzy. I mentioned similar points except for provision, I did not write anything on that. What did you mention for inventory?
For inventory I think I mentioned lots of hardware stores and lots of transactions so risk there, I also said risk that trends change quickly and stuff becomes obsolete so potentially overstated if not impaired for fashion changes etc
Otherwise the accounting treatment was accurate right, I got so confused when it stated tools and equipments. I was thinking at first what if this should be treated as ppe because they mentioned professional builders . Too much time passed on this one
Yeah the treatment was right, I just tried not to say too much about it cos it wasn’t a significant issue but just mentioned there was a risk it wasn’t maintained through changes in trends and obsolescence etc!
Think it mentioned internally generated brand name but they didn’t recognise that so I didn’t really talk about that cos it’s right not to recognise internally generated..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.