FAE 2011 Where to begin

ahtfulal

I don't know how ya could pull a tax indicator from dat case. If there was I'll just have to answer tax well 2moro.

Impossible to keep track of time. Not looking forward to 3 cases

RAH1

O great St. Joseph of Cupertino who by your prayer obtained from God to be asked at your examination, the only preposition you knew. Grant that I may like you succeed in the (here mention the name of Examination eg. History paper I ) examination.

In return I promise to make you known and cause you to be invoked.


That prayer is why i passed last year.best of luck

Vaioer

Ronald,

I went with that approach as well, discussed CGT and SD on almagmation relief etc and possible S626B.

Messed up the due diligence, spent more time talking about the fact that there was a significant amount of work involved in an IPO and didn't write enough about the due diligence. Will have to go hard on the Finance indicators tomorrow.

Time, time, time as always.

ManwitaPlan

ahtfulal wrote: »

For FR implications of ipo mentioned operating segments and interim reporting standards.

**** that was it....completely blanked on it. Fvck.

Hmmm tax indicator seems very harsh. I mean I wrote two lines on it but dont know what more I could've wrote. Definitely seemed more along the lines of an organisational structure issue rather than a tax issue but could definitely see how you could get tax from it.

RonaldRayGun

I went with an Ethics indicator in relation to the budget slashing re Health & Safety, Training, etc. and said that it was dubious practice to link bonuses to PBT when you achieve it by cutting these kind of costs.

It was my first indicator and took nearly half an hour to write, which brought me nicely up to 12 o'-bleeding-clock.

Christ.

jamesgreenpark

was IFRS8 not a big issue because of the IPO...if not im screwed!

also tax issue re the patent, but as a non directive indicator.

Apart from that similar to above....

messed up the SARS bit and ran out of time re audit and due dillegence at the end so they were a bit rushed!

Hanley

I think it'd be exceedingly harsh to have a tax indicator in there.

I suggested the company restructure under the holding co as well.

Bit unsure re: PM tho...
-IAS 37 on the legal case and why it was non-adjusting but should be brought to auditor attention
-IFRS 2 for share based payments, but the calculation could not be more wrong
-Mentioned IFRS 3 and IAS 27 requirements for a possible consolidation... anyone else go there?

MW2011

Went with the holding company structure from a tax perspective. Said they should set up a holding company though instead of using the holding company that was there.

Wonder would that be a big mistake??

lisa39

Think I have made a balls of it! Thought a Co had to be a Public Limited Co before it could be listed, therefore this private limited company could become public but not listed!!

EUGH!

lisa39

Hanley wrote: »

I think it'd be exceedingly harsh to have a tax indicator in there.

I suggested the company restructure under the holding co as well.

Bit unsure re: PM tho...
-IAS 37 on the legal case and why it was non-adjusting but should be brought to auditor attention
-IFRS 2 for share based payments, but the calculation could not be more wrong
-Mentioned IFRS 3 and IAS 27 requirements for a possible consolidation... anyone else go there?

Ya i mentioned IFRS 3 and IAS 27 too..

ManwitaPlan

Actually on IFRS 8.

If ENVI and NRG remain as two seperate companies and are under control of a holding company IAS 27 applies rather than IFRS8 and it prepares consolidated statements?

If its structured as a single holding company with two segments instead of two companies IFRS 8 applies or does IFRS 8 apply regardless?

Hanley

RonaldRayGun wrote: »

I went with an Ethics indicator in relation to the budget slashing re Health & Safety, Training, etc. and said that it was dubious practice to link bonuses to PBT when you achieve it by cutting these kind of costs.

It was my first indicator and took nearly half an hour to write, which brought me nicely up to 12 o'-bleeding-clock.

Christ.

Yup I rattled on about the agency theory for a bit on that one and related how all the audit issues ultimately tied back to the cost cutting (legal case and H&S spend, high number of journal errors and cut back on training, problems with IMS and reluctancy to spend on a new one, not reaching key goal of 80% cos of downtime due to lack of spend on machine maintenance etc..)

Not sure if I went a bit over the top there but hoping to get some positive vibes for relating to the case.

Anyone else mention the lack of KPIs, irregularity of management accounts review re: the combined code and the single annual forecast only and not monthly budgets?!

Colts

On another note... I'm so tired I don't think I'm going to do anything this evening, just get a good nights sleep ahead of tomorrow.

Sims will probably be tough on tome but I prefer them to the comp. Comp is such a bitch trying to remember all the different aspects of the case and trying to link them in.

RonaldRayGun

jamesgreenpark wrote: »

was IFRS8 not a big issue because of the IPO...if not im screwed!

also tax issue re the patent, but as a non directive indicator.

Apart from that similar to above....

messed up the SARS bit and ran out of time re audit and due dillegence at the end so they were a bit rushed!

For the Financial Reporting Implications of the IPO I wrote 3 lines:

1. IFRS 1 - IFRS First time adoption because one ot the companies was using GAAP
2. IFRS 8 - Beceause they may, as a listed Co, have to report Segments
3. They will need to produce 6 monthly accounts (I think Listed Co's have to anyway - haven't chacked).

Hanley

RE: marketing costs.... what did people say there? Should be based on commercially available rates, ask for supplier to outline proportionate company costs, and do all the usual IAS 24 disclosures?!

Kingdomkerry

The indicator about commenting on cost cutting measures to achieve PBT target. Could this be a Performance Mgt indicator too?

RonaldRayGun

Hanley wrote: »

Yup I rattled on about the agency theory for a bit on that one and related how all the audit issues ultimately tied back to the cost cutting (legal case and H&S spend, high number of journal errors and cut back on training, problems with IMS and reluctancy to spend on a new one, not reaching key goal of 80% cos of downtime due to lack of spend on machine maintenance etc..)

Not sure if I went a bit over the top there but hoping to get some positive vibes for relating to the case.

Anyone else mention the lack of KPIs, irregularity of management accounts review re: the combined code and the single annual forecast only and not monthly budgets?!

OK, your ethics answer was much more linked up than mine, and now that you point out all those links I'd say you were onto a winner.

As for the other stuff, yes, I mentioned all that gear. And the bit about them not having time to look at the accounts at the end of the meeting so they left it.

Vaioer

Hanley wrote: »

Yup I rattled on about the agency theory for a bit on that one and related how all the audit issues ultimately tied back to the cost cutting

Not sure if I went a bit over the top there but hoping to get some positive vibes for relating to the case.

Anyone else mention the lack of KPIs, irregularity of management accounts review re: the combined code and the single annual forecast only and not monthly budgets?!

Yeah,

I basically started off the thing about the audit talking about how the making the profit target ended up with the issues with the audit

- Deferred training: Management errors
- Poor IMS: Delays, errors, poor management info
- Health and Safety: May have caused the accident.

Said controls were a major issues, tried to talk about what could be provided for the €100k debtor and the €60k spend to keep the auditors happy. Cracked on about ISA700, what it would mean if it was qualified, impact on the IPO. Then about controls, linked that to corporate governance issues etc.

I then linked that to my last indicator which was the lack of KPIs/poor MI/Need for revision renumeration
-CEO didn't know about the injury
-KPIs that reflect the goals(Customer service, % recycled etc)
-Need to move away from short term proft driven measures of performance as they don't promote long terms thinking.

Totally missed the thing about not reviewing the accounts! Just seen that now.

okdune

MW2011 wrote: »

Went with the holding company structure from a tax perspective. Said they should set up a holding company though instead of using the holding company that was there.

Wonder would that be a big mistake??

That's what I did - jesus if that wasn't an indicator I wasted loads of time.

Totally ****ed up the share based payment and said the provision was an adjusting event duh. F*ck if I fail this just because if screwing up PM!

ahtfulal

Can't see too many FR indicators 2moro unless they're gonna unleash a beast.

Tax definately
Finance hopefully financial analysis and no company valuations
Swot analysis wouldnt go astray for BL
There could be a sneaky ethics one like last yr.

Not looking forward to time management 2moro

kitten_k

Got the same as a few people on here but seem to have missed some.

Hopefully tomorrow will be ok and I can scrape through!! Wasn't as bad as I feared.

Best of luck tomorrow everyone.

CPJM

Very hard to tell, don't think I did enough on financial reporting, might be under pressure in PM, it could be the continuous assessment saving me..

Did anyone think they were going anywhere with the mention of the by-product, I brought it up and then related it back to transfer pricing and the group structure...

Also the CBTC, was there potentially an indicator on IMP on patents/intangible assets...this might be a bit out there, but could the R&D credit be a potential source of funding in conjunction with debt, rather than an IPO. It seemed to me that they were hell bent an IPO and didn't really appreciate the implications.

Hanley

Alright this is good, I feel a bit better today after reading everyone's comments.

I'm hoping for at least one FR indicator tomorrow just to bump up my total a bit since I'm pretty sure I'll be lucky to get RC on the share based payments one.

Expecting lots of tax, company disposal and retirement relief please.

Wouldn't mind a few more audit ones.

Some form of company valuation or financial analysis Q tomorrow would be nice, I pray for nothing interest/FX related.

Good luck to everyone tomorrow. I'm outta here til then.

LightningBolt

zzzzzz

Hanley

Oh crap, one last one - I did like 6 or 7 lines on the possibility of exploring venture capital as the company was in a high tech industry, could probably avoid dilution of ownership, would get the funds they needed and avoid all the big IPO costs. Didn't go much outside of saying the above and it's an option they should explore if they haven't already.

okdune

Hanley wrote: »

Alright this is good, I feel a bit better today after reading everyone's comments.

I'm hoping for at least one FR indicator tomorrow just to bump up my total a bit since I'm pretty sure I'll be lucky to get RC on the share based payments one.

Expecting lots of tax, company disposal and retirement relief please.

Wouldn't mind a few more audit ones.

Some form of company valuation or financial analysis Q tomorrow would be nice, I pray for nothing interest/FX related.

Good luck to everyone tomorrow. I'm outta here til then.

Am in the same boat as you - didnt leave enough time for PM accounting adjustments and totally messed them up - what you reckon you need for RC?

Vaioer

Better that we all still writing at the end, rather than going "Where can I pull another three indicators out of" with an hour to go.

It's the same as every Comp and Sims paper I have ever seen I could generally write for longer than the time allows. No point worrying about what you did/didn't write now

Jesus, the exam room I was in was like a bomb site when they called time. Books,flies,suitcase, boxes all strewn across the place.

mgsrocks

CPJM wrote: »

Also the CBTC, was there potentially an indicator on IMP on patents/intangible assets...this might be a bit out there, but could the R&D credit be a potential source of funding in conjunction with debt, rather than an IPO. It seemed to me that they were hell bent an IPO and didn't really appreciate the implications.

I mentioned the patent as part of tax (patent company exemption if it was transferred to its own company) and then went on about accounting for R&D. Even writing it though I thought I was stretching it a bit going into that much detail.

SBWife

@1256 - Didn't take the exam and haven't seen the paper...BUT...Venture Capital will want shares for in return for their investment, therefore there will still be dilution with a VC investment. The illiquidity discount means that the dilution under VC/Private Equity could easily be greater than that in the event of an IPO.

p13

I seemed to have gotten similar. Linked up audit issues to cost cutting. Mentioned better KPIs needed eg injuries, but didn't go into much depth.
I mentioned need to set up holding company re: IPO cos it wouldn't be able to single list as it was - is that sufficient?
Also mentioned better bonus structure around recycling targets etc rather than short term goals.
Briefly mentioned poor controls because he didn't know about injury.

What about audit? Would 100k debtor lead to with exception audit report?