FAE 2011 Where to begin

123theplacetob

anybody know how to calculate the latent gains in Devaney Car Parts in indicator one? says its in appendix 1 but its not. £101,865?

thanks in advance

MW2011

123theplacetob wrote: »

anybody know how to calculate the latent gains in Devaney Car Parts in indicator one? says its in appendix 1 but its not. £101,865?

thanks in advance

its in the attachments on this

123theplacetob

MW2011 wrote: »

its in the attachments on this

probably a stupid question but how do i find it?

eoferrall

123theplacetob wrote: »

probably a stupid question but how do i find it?

in the accountancy forum before you click on this thread, there is a paper clip over to the right of the title. click that and all attachments in the thread are listed.

Madeline M

Would anyone have a soft copy of the new ISA 265. I cant download it from the IFAC website for some reason.... Thanks!!

Madeline M

Madeline M wrote: »

Would anyone have a soft copy of the new ISA 265. I cant download it from the IFAC website for some reason.... Thanks!!

Found it!!

Clanno

would anyone have a list of the revised ISA's that were changed recently?

acahopeful

Madeline M wrote: »

In the 2010 comprehensive paper the directors loan (in current assets) is 500 and net assets are 2,889. So the loan is greater than 10% of net assets. Isn't this illegal??? Yet it isn't mentioned in the solution at all. Have I missed something??

Yeah I am suprised it wasn't mentioned either but it was within the 10% of net assets in the previous year. If it appears this year then there are a few things to note -

Because the value of the company's assets has fallen, the directors are required to amend the terms of the arrangements to bring them within the 10% limit with in two months. Failure to do so is NOT an offence and is therefore NOT reportable to the ODCE by the auditor. However, failure to amend the terms of the arrangement does entitle the company to render the arrangement void.

Hope this helps.....

RonaldRayGun

Clanno wrote: »

would anyone have a list of the revised ISA's that were changed recently?

There are 12 Clarity ISA's and 2 new ones and they are all in here with some explanatory spiel, though you will need to break out the highlighter to pick out the numbers.

The Audit Report ones - ISA 700, 705, and 706 - are notable. ROI students are supposed to use the Old standard for ISA 700 (the Opacity standard) which was issued in 2004 and is in the Resource Pack or last year's APB book.

NI students ONLY are required to know/use the Clarity ISAs 700, 705 and 706 . ROI students can ignore ISA 705 and 706 completely.

So says the competency statement, anyway, for both Core and Elective.

Alternatively, there's a section in this year's (2010) APB book on pg 190 about the revised standards and an appendix to this on pg 205.

Madeline M

acahopeful wrote: »

Yeah I am suprised it wasn't mentioned either but it was within the 10% of net assets in the previous year. If it appears this year then there are a few things to note -

Because the value of the company's assets has fallen, the directors are required to amend the terms of the arrangements to bring them within the 10% limit with in two months. Failure to do so is NOT an offence and is therefore NOT reportable to the ODCE by the auditor. However, failure to amend the terms of the arrangement does entitle the company to render the arrangement void.

Hope this helps.....

Thanks!!! But wouldn't you think that would be an indicator or at least be mentioned somewhere in the solution as part of an indicator. . . Why bother to have the loan > 10% of assets this year if it wasn't intended to be an addressed! U cud waste 5/10 mins in the exam talking about that (as I did last year!) and it'd be a total waste of time......

the_big_dawg

Madeline M wrote: »

Thanks!!! But wouldn't you think that would be an indicator or at least be mentioned somewhere in the solution as part of an indicator. . . Why bother to have the loan > 10% of assets this year if it wasn't intended to be an addressed! U cud waste 5/10 mins in the exam talking about that (as I did last year!) and it'd be a total waste of time......

Are we sure that this level of knowledge is required for core? Do you guys do AAE? I hadn't ever heard of it to be honest, but worried I might use my vast knowledge of tax (sarcasm) in the core exams...

Moorstown

Why???? wrote: »

is any1 else just completely depressed right now??? Like seriously I'm actually verging on depression & crying constantly that i actually have to put myself through the 4 hours of sitting them torturing myself. Won't be sitting them next year if i don't succeed! So not worth it!

Kid, don't be worrying about it, it's not worth it. As they say sure "Twill be all the same in 100 years!!!!"

Madeline M

the_big_dawg wrote: »

Are we sure that this level of knowledge is required for core? Do you guys do AAE? I hadn't ever heard of it to be honest, but worried I might use my vast knowledge of tax (sarcasm) in the core exams...

Its core - i've seen it mentioned in one of the case studies. Its also in the resource pack - in the 'guide to transactions involving directors' leaflet so we're def meant to know it.

Stabshauptmann

Do any APM students out there have anything on section 3.4 of the syllabus, emerging issues to business decisions?

Environmental Management Accounting, Management Accounting in supply chains etc?

Dont see it in the session notes, or in any of the case studies.

okdune

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Do any APM students out there have anything on section 3.4 of the syllabus, emerging issues to business decisions?

Environmental Management Accounting, Management Accounting in supply chains etc?

Dont see it in the session notes, or in any of the case studies.

Nope - nothing in the notes and nothing in the case studies. I actually had that section down as a common sense section, or even an understanding of contemporary international business and developments...

Have been pretty thorough with APM so really don't know what it is meant to include.

okdune

Stabshauptmann wrote: »

Do any APM students out there have anything on section 3.4 of the syllabus, emerging issues to business decisions?

Environmental Management Accounting, Management Accounting in supply chains etc?

Dont see it in the session notes, or in any of the case studies.

OK very weird - have been through this simulation and didnt note it - have a look at SIM 2 of last years paper, Kebabs, second indicator.

Vaioer

Aye, there is a bit in the book about EMA/Triple bottom line etc.

Nidot

Ok 48 hours to go and I really don't feel too stressed. Don't know if that's a good sign or not. Just kind of feel apathetic, I've studied a bit, completed al the past papers an case studies, I've indexed all the ropics in both my notes and the case studies, and I've reviewed the content of all the books.

So how is everyone else set? And what are people doing with 48 hours until lift-off?

I just wana get them done an over with now.

ahtfulal

Yeh there's not really much more a person can do at this stage bar referencing and knowing where to find stuff.

Just hoping for well written cases with indicators that can be found fairly easily!

Bring on the wall!

123theplacetob

eoferrall wrote: »

in the accountancy forum before you click on this thread, there is a paper clip over to the right of the title. click that and all attachments in the thread are listed.

Cheers

MW2011

acahopeful wrote: »

Yeah I am suprised it wasn't mentioned either but it was within the 10% of net assets in the previous year. If it appears this year then there are a few things to note -

Because the value of the company's assets has fallen, the directors are required to amend the terms of the arrangements to bring them within the 10% limit with in two months. Failure to do so is NOT an offence and is therefore NOT reportable to the ODCE by the auditor. However, failure to amend the terms of the arrangement does entitle the company to render the arrangement void.

Hope this helps.....

This that not just for a puclic company and if it is a close company then it is against Company law and does have to be reported to the ODCE???

MW2011

In this case it talks about Director's loans and the Income tax exposure to the Company??

Surely the Income tax exposure on a Directors Loan in a close company is just the Withholding Tax at 20%. If the loan is not repaid then the Directors is liable to income tax on the loan and the Company loses the Withholding tax and this is given as a credit to the Director??

Fairly sure this is right but of course there is an answer which completely contradicts this!!

lisa39

Hey,

Saw a few pages back there someone saying the pricing was a finance indicator.... was pretty sure it would be a management indicator?! Like for PM?

What do people think?

okdune

lisa39 wrote: »

Hey,

Saw a few pages back there someone saying the pricing was a finance indicator.... was pretty sure it would be a management indicator?! Like for PM?

What do people think?

There appears to be no hard fast distinction between the management accounting element of PM and Finance in a lot of the case studies.

Madeline M

acahopeful wrote: »

Yeah I am suprised it wasn't mentioned either but it was within the 10% of net assets in the previous year. If it appears this year then there are a few things to note -

Because the value of the company's assets has fallen, the directors are required to amend the terms of the arrangements to bring them within the 10% limit with in two months. Failure to do so is NOT an offence and is therefore NOT reportable to the ODCE by the auditor. However, failure to amend the terms of the arrangement does entitle the company to render the arrangement void.

Hope this helps.....

From the Dodgy Construction Ltd Case --

Section 31 of the Companies Act, 1990 introduced as general prohibition whereby companies are prohibited from granting loans to directors. There are a number of exceptions to the general prohibition, one of which is that a loan to a director is permitted provided it does not exceed 10% of the companies “relevant assets” or net assets. It is unclear whether the loan to the director in this case is below the threshold. Furthermore, it may be the case that the loan was below the threshold at the time that it was advanced, but due to increasing debts and falling asset values it may no longer be within the allowed limits. It will be necessary to review net assets to determine whether the loan is in breach of company law. Where a company is not in compliance with the provision of Section 31, civil and criminal consequences can ensue. As auditors, we are required to report to the ODCE if we form the opinion that the company has committed an offence under the Companies Acts. Furthermore, if DCL does not provide all the required disclosures, the auditors have an obligation to include the required information in their report.

But in the resource pack it says -- if the loan exceeds 10% of net assets at some stage after the loan was granted the directors are required to amend the terms of the arrangements to bring them within the 10% limit with in two months. " While failure to amend the terms within 2 months is not an offence, it does render the arrangement voidable at the instance of the company"

????? Is it reportable or not? Prob not a huge issue but its really just annoying me!!

acahopeful

Madeline M wrote: »

From the Dodgy Construction Ltd Case --

Section 31 of the Companies Act, 1990 introduced as general prohibition whereby companies are prohibited from granting loans to directors. There are a number of exceptions to the general prohibition, one of which is that a loan to a director is permitted provided it does not exceed 10% of the companies “relevant assets” or net assets. It is unclear whether the loan to the director in this case is below the threshold. Furthermore, it may be the case that the loan was below the threshold at the time that it was advanced, but due to increasing debts and falling asset values it may no longer be within the allowed limits. It will be necessary to review net assets to determine whether the loan is in breach of company law. Where a company is not in compliance with the provision of Section 31, civil and criminal consequences can ensue. As auditors, we are required to report to the ODCE if we form the opinion that the company has committed an offence under the Companies Acts. Furthermore, if DCL does not provide all the required disclosures, the auditors have an obligation to include the required information in their report.

But in the resource pack it says -- if the loan exceeds 10% of net assets at some stage after the loan was granted the directors are required to amend the terms of the arrangements to bring them within the 10% limit with in two months. " While failure to amend the terms within 2 months is not an offence, it does render the arrangement voidable at the instance of the company"

????? Is it reportable or not? Prob not a huge issue but its really just annoying me!!

My understanding is as follows:

If the loan is greater than 10% when the loan is issued then yes you report to ODCE. But if after a few years with assets fallin in value it becomes greater than 10% then its not reportable but its best practice to being it below 10% because the company can render it void. I could be completely wrong.

In the case of DCL, (my thoughts again) we didnt know if it was in breach of the 10% or if it was in breach of company law when the loan was issued - therefore examine net assets and if in breach when loan was issued report to ODCE. Again only my interpretation.

Its horrible not knowing if this is right as I do think it could be an indicatior this year

acahopeful

MW2011 wrote: »

This that not just for a puclic company and if it is a close company then it is against Company law and does have to be reported to the ODCE???

Don't know to be honest...

ohgodd

campbell q,FR case book...is that a joke yeah?

I reckon itd take me the full 4.5 hours to do the EPS part of that on its tod!also, does anyone have any tips on mgmt acc?obviously no one knows,but any key areas to breeze over?fell v unprepared on this

Madeline M

acahopeful wrote: »

My understanding is as follows:

If the loan is greater than 10% when the loan is issued then yes you report to ODCE. But if after a few years with assets fallin in value it becomes greater than 10% then its not reportable but its best practice to being it below 10% because the company can render it void. I could be completely wrong.

In the case of DCL, (my thoughts again) we didnt know if it was in breach of the 10% or if it was in breach of company law when the loan was issued - therefore examine net assets and if in breach when loan was issued report to ODCE. Again only my interpretation.

Its horrible not knowing if this is right as I do think it could be an indicatior this year

What you're saying makes sense so I'll go with that Thanks!!

SL10

Hey guys,

Just wondering for AAE how much work are people doing on the ISRE's and ISAE's?

I'm a bit confused over these- for instance when are they used? Does anyone have a practicable example? I dont think I have come across any questions on them in the case studies.

Thanks