FAE 2011 Where to begin

Hanley

I used ISAE 3000 as well even tho the book said it wasn't examinable.

It covers assurance engagements in the context of adherence to contractual obligations so I said the review was under that to ensure they were complying with the terms in their franchisee agreement which is essentially a contract.

Clanno

Colts wrote: »

Agree 100%. so much harder than last years paper, alot of the subjects weren't covered in the book or the lecture notes, ridiculous!

I concurr... what type a paper was that - so pissed off...

SL10

I think ISAE 3000 was ok to use (or maybe im just hoping!). I just looked at my notes there from the lecture when it was covered and it said that it was pretty much the same as M39 (as in for writing reports and the format is the same. Sean Murray said to use M9 for the reports as it was easier to understand) so hopefully it will be ok. I was looking at all the other reports in the exam and none of the others seemed to fit for what was being asked. I was wondering about M39 but then I didnt think it was right cos the report wasnt to a 3rd party.

I dont think you can fail the audit elective on just one indicator (I hope not anyways). And it is also gonna be marked on a curve so hopefully it will be ok

SL10

Hanley wrote: »

I used ISAE 3000 as well even tho the book said it wasn't examinable.

It covers assurance engagements in the context of adherence to contractual obligations so I said the review was under that to ensure they were complying with the terms in their franchisee agreement which is essentially a contract.

Just checked and its examinable on the competency statement. That is extremely annoying that the book says it wasnt examinable

Hanley

SL10 wrote: »

I think ISAE 3000 was ok to use (or maybe im just hoping!). I just looked at my notes there from the lecture when it was covered and it said that it was pretty much the same as M39 (as in for writing reports and the format is the same. Sean Murray said to use M9 for the reports as it was easier to understand) so hopefully it will be ok. I was looking at all the other reports in the exam and none of the others seemed to fit for what was being asked. I was wondering about M39 but then I didnt think it was right cos the report wasnt to a 3rd party.

I dont think you can fail the audit elective on just one indicator (I hope not anyways). And it is also gonna be marked on a curve so hopefully it will be ok

If I'm remembering correctly M39 only applies if the company (ie Executive Motors) asked you to reply to the 3rd party (Chevall). But it was an engagement directly from Chevall therefore M39 doesn't apply.

SL10 wrote: »

Just checked and its examinable on the competency statement. That is extremely annoying that the book says it wasnt examinable

Wow. Not surprised at all tbh!!

SL10

Hanley wrote: »

If I'm remembering correctly M39 only applies if the company (ie Executive Motors) asked you to reply to the 3rd party (Chevall). But it was an engagement directly from Chevall therefore M39 doesn't apply.

Sorry yeah I should have been more clear there...what he said was that the contents of the standards were pretty much the same so that if you did a report based on M39 or ISAE 3000 they would end up being very similar reports.

Hanley

SL10 wrote: »

Hanley wrote: »

If I'm remembering correctly M39 only applies if the company (ie Executive Motors) asked you to reply to the 3rd party (Chevall). But it was an engagement directly from Chevall therefore M39 doesn't apply.

Sorry yeah I should have been more clear there...what he said was that the contents of the standards were pretty much the same so that if you did a report based on M39 or ISAE 3000 they would end up being very similar reports.

That's probably the only thing I answered half well.

Actually I thought that legal case was real sneaky too. I'd say there's so much on the paper I missed tbh. Ah well - it's done.

Why????

Can anybody confirm indicators for tax elective NI for me?? Need reassurance.

Sim 1: Passing wealth to grandchildren - IIP trust - CLT &CGT (s260)
Passing cash to grandchildren - pet
Transfer of value by close company - clt
10% holding (i stupidly calculated Adam's 60% holding and was rushed at the end that i didn't calculate 10% of it. Hopefully get something for it.

sim 2:
Sale of business - ER and tax due, pre-sale planning - I said wait until next year when ER increases or gift shares to wife to use her ER limit??????
Selling property - opt to tax vs renting property(& opt to tax)
cash extraction for pension planning
loan to Kilmore wound up - totally didnt know what the effect of this was. Found out there it results in a capital loss for the individual.

Sim 3-
conditions for uk group relief & M&S caselaw
confirming the uk sub losses and the irish losses can be relieved. spanish losses cudnt. Involved adjusting the losses (i.e. add backs)
bringing cash across the border - dividend exemption for dividend from ROI sub to uk.

comments appreciated. Hope i havent missed something. wudnt mind at least passing it because i have definitely failed the others!

pepp

Why???? wrote: »

Can anybody confirm indicators for tax elective NI for me?? Need reassurance.

Sim 1: Passing wealth to grandchildren - IIP trust - CLT &CGT (s260)
Passing cash to grandchildren - pet
Transfer of value by close company - clt
10% holding (i stupidly calculated Adam's 60% holding and was rushed at the end that i didn't calculate 10% of it. Hopefully get something for it.

sim 2:
Sale of business - ER and tax due, pre-sale planning - I said wait until next year when ER increases or gift shares to wife to use her ER limit??????
Selling property - opt to tax vs renting property(& opt to tax)
cash extraction for pension planning
loan to Kilmore wound up - totally didnt know what the effect of this was. Found out there it results in a capital loss for the individual.

Sim 3-
conditions for uk group relief & M&S caselaw
confirming the uk sub losses and the irish losses can be relieved. spanish losses cudnt. Involved adjusting the losses (i.e. add backs)
bringing cash across the border - dividend exemption for dividend from ROI sub to uk.

comments appreciated. Hope i havent missed something. wudnt mind at least passing it because i have definitely failed the others!

Pretty much what I got out of it except:

sim1 bit about the son wanting to pass cash to his kids through the father still don't know the answer,

although so much detail needed don't think i'll get through couldn't write quick enough:(

FAEStudent1

Guys I am really concerned about this whole Report issue for the audit elective.

I thought that it was a statement of 'factual findings' - ISRS 440 - have I basically failed the exam?

Seriously...fuccckk. I bloody passed the mock and think I failed the actual. Such a weird paper and hard.

FAEStudent1

What is the requirements for passing the elective anyway?

Why????

pepp wrote: »

Pretty much what I got out of it except:

sim1 bit about the son wanting to pass cash to his kids through the father still don't know the answer,

although so much detail needed don't think i'll get through couldn't write quick enough:(

Thanks! i didnt no that either but just wrote i assumed it would be Adam making the cash gift and wrote about PETs. Was pissed over bout the loan thing cuz in 6 yrs of doing tax i have never come across that!

So good to have your life back isn't it?! holidays here i come!

laursy

Im so gutted with these exams. Worked my butt off all summer and i'm pretty sure i've failed both core and elective, whats frustrating is that I actually knew the stuff for core but it was way too long to actually get it down on paper.
Audit elective was a joke. Seriously the worst paper I have ever seen. I think these exams involve a massive degree of luck.
Back at work already - so depressing

VolvicWater

Hi, I done the APM elective, think the paper was alright, can anyone telll me if a price of around €166m is correct for the license in Kenya?

daddydick

laursy wrote: »

Im so gutted with these exams. Worked my butt off all summer and i'm pretty sure i've failed both core and elective, whats frustrating is that I actually knew the stuff for core but it was way too long to actually get it down on paper.

Its the same for everyone, I wouldnt give up hope yet


Audit elective was a joke. Seriously the worst paper I have ever seen. I think these exams involve a massive degree of luck.
Back at work already - so depressing

Agree, it was a total shocker

Best of luck

YaBagle

Hope everyone gives out stink in the survey for cassi. Especially about the audit and tax elective papers. You could study the whole summer for audit and still fail and someone who did nothing might pass. Pure guesswork. If that ISRE 3000 comes up in the solution I'll be ragin especially since they said that it wasn't exaiminable. I actually saw that but I dismissed it because they said it wasn't examinable and it wasn't on the competencey statement.

MD2011

YaBagle wrote: »

Hope everyone gives out stink in the survey for cassi. Especially about the audit and tax elective papers. You could study the whole summer for audit and still fail and someone who did nothing might pass. Pure guesswork. If that ISRE 3000 comes up in the solution I'll be ragin especially since they said that it wasn't exaiminable. I actually saw that but I dismissed it because they said it wasn't examinable and it wasn't on the competencey statement.

If its not on the Competency Statement and it is raised as an issue then it will be taken into consideration.

If, it is on the CS but lecturers said it wasn't examinable, there will be no leniency. CAP 2 lecturers in 2010 in FR said to leave out certain items as they were not examinable. And guess what came up? It's deemed the students responsibility to be familiar with the CS

RidiculousHair

YaBagle wrote: »

Hope everyone gives out stink in the survey for cassi. Especially about the audit and tax elective papers. You could study the whole summer for audit and still fail and someone who did nothing might pass. Pure guesswork. If that ISRE 3000 comes up in the solution I'll be ragin especially since they said that it wasn't exaiminable. I actually saw that but I dismissed it because they said it wasn't examinable and it wasn't on the competencey statement.

Thanks for the reminder, just filled it out there, had almost forgotten about it. Main issue I had highlighted overall was time/too much many issues to answer in the given time. Really pissed at the tax elective yesterday, much harder than the mocks or anything else to in the other papers cases. I've done the part 3 tax exams, which to be fair are probably a bit more technically difficult, but at least there was reasonable time to actually analyse the issues!!

Assuming everyone who fills in the cassi survey is going to say broadly the same thing (time, content etc), what weight will this actually carry with the markers, does anybody know? I'm certainly not trying to knock cassi in anyway, but would hope that if they're preparing a report of feedback, that it would actually be considered and reflected in how the exams are marked.

Anyone fancy a quess at the pass rate this year?? Higher or lower than last year's 70%??

MD2011

RidiculousHair wrote: »

Thanks for the reminder, just filled it out there, had almost forgotten about it. Main issue I had highlighted overall was time/too much many issues to answer in the given time. Really pissed at the tax elective yesterday, much harder than the mocks or anything else to in the other papers cases. I've done the part 3 tax exams, which to be fair are probably a bit more technically difficult, but at least there was reasonable time to actually analyse the issues!!

Assuming everyone who fills in the cassi survey is going to say broadly the same thing (time, content etc), what weight will this actually carry with the markers, does anybody know? I'm certainly not trying to knock cassi in anyway, but would hope that if they're preparing a report of feedback, that it would actually be considered and reflected in how the exams are marked.

Anyone fancy a quess at the pass rate this year?? Higher or lower than last year's 70%??

Timing is brought up again and again in the CAP2 feedback. If you read the CAP2 examiners reports though, they highlight that students struggled with timing but that students just need to work on technique. So don't think "timing" is accepted by the institute as a valid cause. I'd give specific instances of feedback - such as was this standard examinable, this can be interpreted this way etc etc. In the CAP2 2011 SFMA report leniency was given in one part of one question as there was a specific reason. General "timing" is too broad imo

LightningBolt

That audit paper was a kick in the bollox to anybody working in FS audit.

Anybody reading this who's in FS audit and is thinking which elective to choose I'd advise against audit.

ABCxyz 123

LightningBolt wrote: »

That audit paper was a kick in the bollox to anybody working in FS audit.

Anybody reading this who's in FS audit and is thinking which elective to choose I'd advise against audit.

Totally agree. I def think I failed the audit elective, there were no cases given to us to prepare for a paper that difficult. Seriously considering changing electives if I repeat

FAEStudent1

I've done every CAP 1, CAP 2, Prof 3, Old FAE, FAE prep audit case. That must be over 50 past papers for audit. In addition, I did every single question on the elective book and read every chapter. I also passed the mock elective and scored over 75% in the CAP 2 exam.

Despite the above coverage, I felt that that exam paper was highly unusual and I felt unprepared for it. And I reckon there is a good chance I failed it.

I did everything a student could be reasonable be expected to do. I worked really hard to not feel exactly how do now - which wondering whether I failed. The ICAI can't treat students like this.

What is the survey link?

ABCxyz 123

FAEStudent1 wrote: »

I've done every CAP 1, CAP 2, Prof 3, Old FAE, FAE prep audit case. That must be over 50 past papers for audit. In addition, I did every single question on the elective book and read every chapter. I also passed the mock elective and scored over 75% in the CAP 2 exam.

Despite the above coverage, I felt that that exam paper was highly unusual and I felt unprepared for it. And I reckon there is a good chance I failed it.

I did everything a student could be reasonable be expected to do. I worked really hard to not feel exactly how do now - which wondering whether I failed. The ICAI can't treat students like this.

What is the survey link?

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FAE

GTMAN

I think I should move away from FAE until November as I was reluctantly to stop the habit of picking up indicators even back to office now.

Distraught Betty

Hey guys, just a thought on that audit elective paper....in my opinion it wasn't M39 as it wasn't reporting to third parties! I get where ppl are saying it was agreed upon procedures but they are not examinable (only in the context of M39) so therefore I don't think that is the route to go either? Then by process of elimination you are left with ISAE 3000 and ISRE 2400 as it's not ISRE 2410 (assuming you are not the auditor)! Personally I choose the ISRE 2400, my thought process in the exam was that you were reviewing historic financial information (stock listing) for the client. In the standard it says that it is not only applicable to the review of financial statements! ISAE 3000 is like a catch all standard that deals with engagements not mentioned in another standard so I can see how that is applicable too! Tbh I think there were not enough indications in that exam to definitely say which option to go for, which is ridiculous taking into the account the amount of proof reading that these papers undergo? Im just hoping for the best to be honest now!

shery

GUYS - I committed SUCH a huge mistake with Audit Elective simulation 1. Its so frustrating. Remember the case where we had to review the audit workpaper of Junior for Executive motors, I conufsed the information provided by Chavel in the second last column assuming it was the record PER our physical inspection. I based my entire answer on that assumption comparing it against the 4th column which was stock information provided by Executive motors. Did any one else have the same problem? I feel so freakin dumb!! Somehow I thought only the first four columns were provided by client and last 4 columns were all OUR observations!

SL10

shery wrote: »

GUYS - I committed SUCH a huge mistake with Audit Elective simulation 1. Its so frustrating. Remember the case where we had to review the audit workpaper of Junior for Executive motors, I conufsed the information provided by Chavel in the second last column assuming it was the record PER our physical inspection. I based my entire answer on that assumption comparing it against the 4th column which was stock information provided by Executive motors. Did any one else have the same problem? I feel so freakin dumb!! Somehow I thought only the first four columns were provided by client and last 4 columns were all OUR observations!

Was that the column that listed the minimum requirements? I thought that case study was very confusing the way it was worked out.

shery

SL10 wrote: »

Was that the column that listed the minimum requirements? I thought that case study was very confusing the way it was worked out.

No, this was the 3rd last column that said quantity per "Chevall's records at 31 dec 2010". This is different to the Quantity listed in the 4th column from start which per the question was provided by client. The second last column was minimun quantity requirement. I mistook the 3rd last column as quantity per our observation. It was in fact the record held by Chevhall of the inventory record held by Executive Motors.

Essentially, there was no column of our physical inspection inventory numbers. The only column audit junior had added was Existence (column 5) and Comments (Last column 8).

EXTREMELY conufsing!

RonaldRayGun

I wouldn't worry too much. Sure I wrote out the whole thing as an M39 report copied almost ver batim from last years exam solution.

If you do alright in the other Sims or even in the other part of Sim 1 (the review of the juniors work) you can still pass. They can't fail us on messing up one poxy indicator alone (or two even).

SL10

shery wrote: »

No, this was the 3rd last column that said quantity per "Chevall's records at 31 dec 2010". This is different to the Quantity listed in the 4th column from start which per the question was provided by client. The second last column was minimun quantity requirement. I mistook the 3rd last column as quantity per our observation. It was in fact the record held by Chevhall of the inventory record held by Executive Motors.

Essentially, there was no column of our physical inspection inventory numbers. The only column audit junior had added was Existence (column 5) and Comments (Last column 8).

EXTREMELY conufsing!

I dont have the copy of the paper at the moment but I think I may have made the same mistake! :mad:
I definitely thought we had counted the stock anyways! Does anyone have a copy of the paper they could post up?