FAE September 2012

ferike1 · 25-09-2012 10:37am

Taking their time!

reo49 · 25-09-2012 10:13pm

Better late than never http://www.cassi.ie/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2012-FAE-Programme-Report.pdf

Pawwed Rig · 25-09-2012 10:31pm

That report seems to touch all the concerns I had. Hopefully the ICAI take some notice

notanocelot · 25-09-2012 11:39pm

FINALLY!

I was hoping they'd put in a stronger recommendation for us being given credit for justified answers. But it certainly fits the complaints I've heard on this board!

ferike1 · 26-09-2012 12:10am

Yup pretty accurate consensus

R0N BURGUNDY · 26-09-2012 12:31am

85% sure I've failed now that I've read that. I think it's fair to say I am fooked.

ferike1 · 26-09-2012 12:35am

Why so certain??? Missed indicators?

Gotta stay positive man.

R0N BURGUNDY · 26-09-2012 12:44am

I just feel that I was weak in a few areas and I totally flapped on the change management stuff and my answer is going to kill me. Ah well. At least I know for sure I failed APM - totally mangled that paper!!

ferike1 · 26-09-2012 12:47am

Well hopefully after reading that the paper will be marked easier. 75% of people passed core last year. That is my ray of hope.

shery · 26-09-2012 3:27pm

Not that I have blind faith in the rest but tax indicators are scaring the crap out of me. I completely missed revenue audit one in sim 3 and did not do much calculations for sim 2 tax indicator. Mentioned pros and cons of both approaches (shares vs asset sale), suggested application of participation exemption, touched on Stamp duty etc but without much calculation or anything. I would need a miracle would I or even miracle wont save me?!

notanocelot · 27-09-2012 8:32pm

shery wrote: »

Not that I have blind faith in the rest but tax indicators are scaring the crap out of me. I completely missed revenue audit one in sim 3 and did not do much calculations for sim 2 tax indicator. Mentioned pros and cons of both approaches (shares vs asset sale), suggested application of participation exemption, touched on Stamp duty etc but without much calculation or anything. I would need a miracle would I or even miracle wont save me?!

If there's only 2 tax indicators, and for one of them you got an RC, then you pass the breadth test. Based on your description it sounds like you would definitely have got an RC in the share vs. assets one.

ferike1 · 27-09-2012 11:05pm

There is very little scope for error then! In the whole paper there seemed to be 2 finance and 2 tax indicators! One RC in each...

shery · 28-09-2012 10:29am

You mean one RC across each of these two areas or an RC in each of the 4 indicators?

notanocelot · 01-10-2012 4:03pm

They say feck-all. Last year was much more comprehensive.
I wish there was a way to directly contact them and say that re more case studies, we DON'T need more Core, we DO need more Elective case studies. Nobody I know finished all the case studies!

Interesting comment re the controversial specified Irish assets thing though.

http://www.cassi.ie/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/2012-CAI-Response-to-CASSI-FAE-Report.pdf

notanocelot · 01-10-2012 4:06pm

ALSO a feeling of ultimate horror...

CAI said that customer profitability analysis had been included on the mock. Do they mean that the CPA in the exam was supposed to be answered using contribution per limiting factor? Cause if so I think many of us are screwed.

ferike1 · 01-10-2012 4:07pm

They always have some generic response.

chursy · 01-10-2012 6:17pm

notanocelot wrote: »

ALSO a feeling of ultimate horror...

CAI said that customer profitability analysis had been included on the mock. Do they mean that the CPA in the exam was supposed to be answered using contribution per limiting factor? Cause if so I think many of us are screwed.

I think most people took the contribution per unit and analysed anyways so if this is the case I think most people will be fine in this indicator.

Szewinska · 02-10-2012 10:09pm

sorry i didnt respond. i am on the cassi regional committee for my area and saw a report so thought all had it.

every now and then i remember these results are coming and it hits like a ton of bricks.

EveT · 03-10-2012 5:12pm

do we still need to do ACE? I didnt think we did but when I click on admission to membership (just looking!!), it asks what date you passed it!!

Pawwed Rig · 03-10-2012 5:26pm

It was scrapped last year. This years FAE students didn't have to do it.

Elle2012 · 04-10-2012 4:01pm

Quick question..

Have many people signed up to ACCA?

ferike1 · 04-10-2012 4:04pm

No money!

Elle2012 · 04-10-2012 4:07pm

Thinking of just bitting the bullet and registering!!

I wonder are they more do able though?!

ferike1 · 04-10-2012 4:41pm

1 Million % yes

Elle2012 · 04-10-2012 4:53pm

Yeah the exam papesr do seem somewhat more normal alright!!

Think I only have 4/5 to do so not so bad I guess...

hooch-85 · 04-10-2012 5:13pm

I wonder how difficult it would be to readjust to non open book again though? Even thinking about having to study for more exams is enough to make me nauseous

RT2010 · 05-10-2012 1:09pm

Would I be correct in saying it would cost the guts of €900 to €1000 between paying for membership, exemptions and other fees before registering for exams and buying any materials?

Still probably worth it to never have to deal with FAE again!

chursy · 05-10-2012 1:24pm

EMAIL RESPONSE I GOT FROM SEAN MURRAY ON AUDIT ELECTIVE SIM 1

Thank you for your recent e-mail in relation to Sim 1 in the recent FAE Audit Elective examination. Your query relates to whether the appropriate response to the question was the utilisation of ISRS 4400. Yours is not the first query I have received in that particular respect and I set out my views below:-

1. Paragraph 3 of the Sim states “… that she requires engagements such as this to be structured as agreed upon procedures engagements in accordance with International Standards on Related Services (ISRS 4400) …”.

2. Arising from 1. above, it is understood that it is the firm’s policy to handle engagements of this nature as AUP engagements.

3. Accordingly, the orthodox response to the question is to deal with the engagement as an AUP engagement, utilising ISRS 4400.

4. However, paragraph 2 indicates that the client (Happy Holidays) “… have been seeking assurances regarding the financial stability of the company and its service providers”. This may imply that the client wants some type of “assurance” engagement as distinct from an AUP engagement.

5. The possibility referred to in 4. above may be further encouraged by the commentary contained in paragraph 4 of the Sim which, inter alia, asks for:-

· Your consideration and views on whether or not the firm should accept the engagement.

· The content of any engagement letter which may be required.

· Any comments you have on the nature/requirements of the report forwarded by John.

· Including an alternative draft report if you deem the existing one unsuitable.

6. Arising from 5. above (and in the absence of Siobhan O’Kane (Partner)), it is not unreasonable that you, in your capacity as audit manager, might decide to structure it as an assurance engagement. In such circumstances, the appropriate authority would be ISAE 3300 and, in the circumstances described, would almost certainly be a “limited assurance” engagement.

Arising from 4 to 6 above, provided you set out your consideration of the fact that you felt an assurance engagement was required and/or more appropriate in the circumstances (as contrasted to an AUP engagement) and proceeded to deal with the issues in the Sim on that basis, I would consider such approach to be acceptable.

7. An acceptable approach drafted on the basis of it being a “limited assurance” engagement would be expected to deal with the indicators as follows:-

· Primary indicator no. 1 – engagement acceptance
The issues arising here would be no different in an assurance engagement as compared to an AUP engagement.

· Primary indicator no. 2 – form and content of the required engagement letter
The form and content of the required engagement letter would be in line with the content of paragraphs 10 and 11 of ISAE 3000 (which in the themselves are not particularly informative); consequently, the content of the letter would also require one to draw from the matters set out in paragraphs 12 to 40. In this context, it would sufficient for a student to make summary comment in relation to the subject matter (para. 18), suitability of criteria (paras. 19/20), materiality (paras. 22/23), experts (paras. 26/32), evidence (paras. 35/36) and representations (paras. 38/40).

· Primary indicator no. 3 – nature/requirements of the report
This information would draw on paragraph 49 of ISAE 3000.

· Primary indicator no. 4 – matters to be ascertained through discussions with the client in advance of fieldwork
This would involve consideration of issues such as:

- Does the Holiday Industry Association have specific criteria that they wish to be used?

- Does the Holiday Industry Association have a materiality threshold when analysing the split between the different levels of turnover?

- How does a client analyse the data to provide the information required by Holiday Industry Association?

- To what extent has an analysis of categories of turnover been done in the audit work that has been completed?

- Did any issues arise during the recently completed audit that casts doubt on the veracity of the figures or the controls in place in relation to the recording of turnover?

- Has adequate time/fee levels been determined for the likely time input required to complete the assignment?

I have had an opportunity with the FAE Board and have related by views to the Board as outlined above.