FAE September 2012

Accrual Intentions

Accrual Intentions wrote: »

Having read the 2011 FAE Board report this is one of the things they've advised students to try and get away from - mapping. As in, trying to link an indicator back to a specific point in the competency statement. They say that indicators can overlap on points in the competency statement. Also that you may decide to deal with one indicator in two parts or you decided to deal with two indicators in one part, but you would not get marked down with this.

I think they also specifically mention Ethics in this regard with not being concerned about what part of the competency statement it is relating to.

From the report:

---

The FAE is constructed around various “indicators” or issues. Each of these indicators is mapped back to a relevant area of the FAE Competency Statement. The objective of mapping indicators is to provide a framework upon which the examination can be built and to ensure that there is reasonable coverage of the competency statement.

One piece of advice, regularly given to candidates, is to avoid getting distracted by the FAE mapping: the integrated nature of FAE inevitably means that parts of the competency statement can overlap (For example: ethics might be examined in the context of 1.1 Auditing & Assurance, 2.3 Ethics and the Chartered Accountant or 6.2 Performance Measurement). There is a danger that candidates can subconsciously limit their responses by over-focussing on “mapping”.

---

chursy

Guys

i just attempted the following cases
- Eco cartridges
- White leisure Emporium
- Locust Coffee
- Centre City College
- Bill and William

I may be wrong but i just felt that the cases were too vague and generic! primarily around strategy and kinda come up with stuff sorta answers! I have solved abour 20 odd cases from 2010/2011 - those cases are more focussed and test your technical knowledge in many respects!!! Open to your thoughts!

froggatt2011

chursy wrote: »

Guys

i just attempted the following cases
- Eco cartridges
- White leisure Emporium
- Locust Coffee
- Centre City College
- Bill and William

I may be wrong but i just felt that the cases were too vague and generic! primarily around strategy and kinda come up with stuff sorta answers! I have solved abour 20 odd cases from 2010/2011 - those cases are more focussed and test your technical knowledge in many respects!!! Open to your thoughts!

Chursy mucker I have ditched the 2011/12 cases for precisely this reason, having worked through all of them. Haven't had a chance to look at last year's cases at all. Do you recommend any in particular?

chursy

froggatt2011 wrote: »

Chursy mucker I have ditched the 2011/12 cases for precisely this reason, having worked through all of them. Haven't had a chance to look at last year's cases at all. Do you recommend any in particular?

Sure

Global Tech
Irish Italian Food
Jones Fine Furniture
MEchelec
O Reilly Mortgages
Telco
Firesec
Victoria
Motorvation
Midwest Oil (okish))

Have a go at these - I think the previous cases are better man not impressed with the 5 i did so far! Having said that i know there are alot of tough cases ahead so will see!

Chalk_Farm

Anyone try the Bay Trading one....really difficult imo

rums08

Thanks to the person who suggested Chartered Grind School. Attended the MABF and BL courses (IMP included) - the last 4 days.

Feel much more confident about these than I ever did especially IMP!

Wonder why the Institute can't get lecturers like those in CGS to lecture for FAE course! They were absolutely brilliant!

Adun5150

Hi all,

I am new to this thread. Failed my core mock( decile 1, sufficiency 8). Have looked through some posts and the information is really good. Hopefully I can add something in the next few weeks.

I have an initial query. When looking at the suggested solutions I am having trouble understanding what the scope of the answer should be. For example in the redemptoria you are the accountant for Forza but to get good marks in the tax indicator you have to discuss the tax implications for redemptoria. Items like this appear in a number of indicators. I don't understand why you would outline the tax implications for a company/person you do not work for, surely that is a task for their accountant. Does anyone have any advice on how to determine the scope of an answer?

chursy

Chalk_Farm wrote: »

Anyone try the Bay Trading one....really difficult imo

I wouldn't say try !!! I got lost with the how to distribute within the 6 guys without loosing and didn't struck me about the holding structure!! It's a tough case ! Well we know now what todo eh !

Chalk_Farm

chursy wrote: »

I wouldn't say try !!! I got lost with the how to distribute within the 6 guys without loosing and didn't struck me about the holding structure!! It's a tough case ! Well we know now what todo eh !

True and that whole Share for Undertaking transaction wtf

chursy

Chalk_Farm wrote: »

chursy wrote: »

I wouldn't say try !!! I got lost with the how to distribute within the 6 guys without loosing and didn't struck me about the holding structure!! It's a tough case ! Well we know now what todo eh !

True and that whole Share for Undertaking transaction wtf

This kinda case just makes you realize how all this can go pear shaped!

supernova84

rums08 wrote: »

Thanks to the person who suggested Chartered Grind School. Attended the MABF and BL courses (IMP included) - the last 4 days.

Feel much more confident about these than I ever did especially IMP!

Wonder why the Institute can't get lecturers like those in CGS to lecture for FAE course! They were absolutely brilliant!

Anything they focused heavily on for MABF rums? That really is my nemesis.

froggatt2011

supernova84 wrote: »

rums08 wrote: »

Thanks to the person who suggested Chartered Grind School. Attended the MABF and BL courses (IMP included) - the last 4 days.

Feel much more confident about these than I ever did especially IMP!

Wonder why the Institute can't get lecturers like those in CGS to lecture for FAE course! They were absolutely brilliant!

Anything they focused heavily on for MABF rums? That really is my nemesis.

And what did they say about IMP?

supernova84

Thank you for letting me prepare this report for you, I look forward to searching for these indicators. I'm so excited to get started I just can't fight it.

Chalk_Farm

What really irks me about these fekn exams...PI 1 on the eco cartridge solution is an indicator yet there are many other cases you could put the same response in and it wouldn't be a primary indicator. :rolleyes:

Siobhang4

Chalk_Farm wrote: »

What really irks me about these fekn exams...PI 1 on the eco cartridge solution is an indicator yet there are many other cases you could put the same response in and it wouldn't be a primary indicator. :rolleyes:

Totally agreed.. Think its about picking the top indicators.. For sims in the mocks there seemed to be four indicators per sim..

2011 5/ 4 / 4
2010 4/ 4 / 3

As examiner has changed don't know if will be changes...

But I was thinging pick main 4

if its only 3, then covered and if its 5 don't think you can go down on one indicator.

Think that corp gov and ethic seem likly indicators in alot of cases but when you look at the marking scheme the are not... usually if ethics or corp gov are issues there are a number of issues not just the one.. Could be way off beam... open to ideas. Really need to make this next few weeks count..

ferike1

Just doing Primus pet foods.

This is the kind of stuff that really gets to me.

Guy wants to spend £200k on a website. Is that too much or not enough? I am genuinely sorry but how the fsck am I supposed to know that? It sounds like a lot but I have absolutely zero idea about outsourced website design and the overall costs involved. Does this also include the advertising costs such as using Google Adwords (which can be quite expensive per click). Does it include SEO for a length of time?

R0N BURGUNDY

My mate could throw together a website for £50. Want his phone number>?

ferike1

Lol

Not for a fake case thanks. No we have made our own website too for the family business but not for a ltd company :P

Chalk_Farm

Firesec case: For retirement relief...father disposing of assets and trade of the business to his children - the solution simply says "Based on valuations, retirement relief is unlikely to be claimable"

I didn't know there were valuation limits for this?

MPBC123

Chalk_Farm wrote: »

Anyone try the Bay Trading one....really difficult imo

Just after doing bay trading there now, holy c**p if sumthin like that comes up, I'm screwed!! No amount of studying could prepare you for some parts of that case!!

Butterflyguy

Chalk_Farm wrote: »

Firesec case: For retirement relief...father disposing of assets and trade of the business to his children - the solution simply says "Based on valuations, retirement relief is unlikely to be claimable"

I didn't know there were valuation limits for this?

Yeh I picked up on this as well - I thought there was only a limit on the disposal on qualifying assets to third parties - pretty sure it's an error in the solution.

hubert_ie

Hi all,

Could somebody please upload the management accounting notes to this forum ? I am a repeat student and my ICAI website access doesn't give me access to this years notes.

Thanks in advance...

chursy

MPBC123 wrote: »

Just after doing bay trading there now, holy c**p if sumthin like that comes up, I'm screwed!! No amount of studying could prepare you for some parts of that case!!

I basically quit studying yesterday after attempting that case!! :P

ferike1

I am going to have to attempt this now (bay trading).

Man, there are some stupid ass things on some of these cases. What sort of things should be on a website for dog lovers/owners?

Excuse the ridiculously corny humour (thought I'd do it institute style) but I think the person writing that case was on the catnip!

Accrual Intentions

ferike1 wrote: »

I am going to have to attempt this now (bay trading).

Man, there are some stupid ass things on some of these cases. What sort of things should be on a website for dog lovers/owners?

Excuse the ridiculously corny humour (thought I'd do it institute style) but I think the person writing that case was on the catnip!

You're barking up the wrong tree with those sorts of jokes.

chursy

ferike1 wrote: »

I am going to have to attempt this now (bay trading).

Man, there are some stupid ass things on some of these cases. What sort of things should be on a website for dog lovers/owners?

Excuse the ridiculously corny humour (thought I'd do it institute style) but I think the person writing that case was on the catnip!

All i am worried about now is, if this is the level of stuff we should be expecting in the exams or not? because clearly Paul must have had these cases reviewed by the board ? I heard he got shafted on one of the cases in the Mocks!!! think it was sim1 he mentioned something about it in his wrap up lecture!. IF not then its the old cases we need to be focussing on man - the new ones are just pathetic!

Siobhang4

chursy wrote: »

All i am worried about now is, if this is the level of stuff we should be expecting in the exams or not? because clearly Paul must have had these cases reviewed by the board ? I heard he got shafted on one of the cases in the Mocks!!! think it was sim1 he mentioned something about it in his wrap up lecture!. IF not then its the old cases we need to be focussing on man - the new ones are just pathetic!

Think case your on about was stakabin... he said that the board wasn't happy and had to totally rewrite the case..

Accrual Intentions

chursy wrote: »

All i am worried about now is, if this is the level of stuff we should be expecting in the exams or not? because clearly Paul must have had these cases reviewed by the board ? I heard he got shafted on one of the cases in the Mocks!!! think it was sim1 he mentioned something about it in his wrap up lecture!. IF not then its the old cases we need to be focussing on man - the new ones are just pathetic!

I think we have to be prepared that this will be the standard we are expected to meet. Paul said that he thought the mocks might have generally been 10-15% tougher than what the exam should be but of course there is no guarantee of that and the exam could end up being just as tough. You just have to brace yourself for that.

The one thing we have to remember is that it is a complex and difficult exam to write and also to prepare for, thats why the marking of it is so subjective. So if the exam does happen to be that tough, and they see this after the initial marking then they will adjust accordingly. I.e., if initially were looking at a pass rate of 45% because it was such a tough paper then they'll drop the sufficiency test down until it comes closer to something like 60%. Similarly if in Business Leadership, for example, a high proportion of people missed a particular indicator or a low percentage of people achieved the standard to pass the depth test then they'll reduce that standard slightly. Though they still have standards to keep and can't just fix the results to match a target pass rate but they will tinker a bit here and there. So everyone is in the same boat and were basically all competing with each other.

ferike1

Wait so we got the rewritten case? It was still really damn hard.

Also has anyone done Tekron? I got most of the budget adjustments but they are pulling a 50% in one of the calculations and I haven't a clue. Has to do with the price decrease of 4%.

chursy

Does anyone know how the breakeven calculation in Locust coffee is calculated .