FAE September 2012

Bobby Dazzles

In all seriousness, I reckon if I get through this ordeal it'll be in no small part thanks to Paul Monahan.

He's an amusing character and seems to know FAE better than anyone. Yes he has an ego ("this is a great case...I wrote it" etc), but he does seem to work pretty tirelessly for students and acts as an advocate for students who are appealing.

I found his lectures excellent.

If I ever see him again, I'll buy him a beer.

On a different note, I just realised that the guy I thought is Gerry Gallagher isn't actually Gerry Gallagher. I thought that's who we had for Strategy. But I just saw his picture on the book and it's a different guy! Who's that mad fella that taught Strategy this year? Jesus - I think I called him Gerry a few times!

cat2011

ferike1 wrote: »

Guys I've added my extra notes on simpler financial accounting. It covers areas left out by my advanced notes. EPS and others.

Ive signed up but still dont know where to find your notes. Any tips appreciated!!
Got them!!

LR987654

ferike1 wrote: »

Wikipedia has great info on cloud computing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing#Service_models

Our IMP book is dreadful and very out of date.

There shouldn't even be a book tbh. This changes so fast that all content should be in digitial format for quick updating.

Cheers that is funny enough where I found out what Saas was

froggatt2011

Bobby Dazzles wrote: »

On a different note, I just realised that the guy I thought is Gerry Gallagher isn't actually Gerry Gallagher. I thought that's who we had for Strategy. But I just saw his picture on the book and it's a different guy! Who's that mad fella that taught Strategy this year? Jesus - I think I called him Gerry a few times!

Fearghal McHugh? Loved him. Total gem.

wheatser

Siobhang4 wrote: »

Would you be able to send me the kPI's by industry. would be a great help as i don't have anything on this. and also the checklist of main points to consider..

Should get P/E ratio by industry incase they don't supply it... notice they did this in some cases..

Hey, got this online. It gives average PE ratios for industries. (lots of industries listed but might be handy to have just in case)

7upfree

froggatt2011 wrote: »

Wow mate you have a put a lot of work into that! Thanks.

Where is says 'excellent' is that because the solution is excellent, or you just love the subject so much? :P

I'm properly scared now though. Eeek :eek:

I can't take the credit as it was passed onto me. Excellent refers to the solution. Me and these subjects don't exactly get on . I can't even remember why I thought being an accountant was a good idea.

I have resigned myself to the fact that there is a good chance that I could be back here this time next year. It will be a miracle if I pass these. I'm just hoping that if I pick out the indicators atlease if I'm struggling there might be something in the solutions.

I never rely on the books though for these exams I tend to study for them as if they are closed book to a certain extent as you can waste alot of time on looking up stuff in the exams.

ferike1

Awesome good job.
Shame we couldn't rely on the institute to get us that.

Bobby Dazzles

froggatt2011 wrote: »

Bobby Dazzles wrote: »

On a different note, I just realised that the guy I thought is Gerry Gallagher isn't actually Gerry Gallagher. I thought that's who we had for Strategy. But I just saw his picture on the book and it's a different guy! Who's that mad fella that taught Strategy this year? Jesus - I think I called him Gerry a few times!

Fearghal McHugh? Loved him. Total gem.

Ah ha...that must be the guy.

It said "Gerry Gallagher" on my timetables but the lecturer was a sort of an odd but funny character who looks nothing like the guy who wrote the textbook.

froggatt2011

wheatser wrote: »

Hey, got this online. It gives average PE ratios for industries. (lots of industries listed but might be handy to have just in case)

Brilliant! Thanks.

Food - Major Diversified 21.1
Food Wholesale 16.8

Interesting... because the Institute would have us believe 11 for food?? If I'm remembering correctly from the honey bee case.

ferike1

froggatt2011 wrote: »

Brilliant! Thanks.



Interesting... because the Institute would have us believe 11 for food?? If I'm remembering correctly from the honey bee case.

Sure they probably pulled that number out of hat.

Have you not learned yet that to be a CA you have to be able to read minds? Have the case studies taught you nothing? The institute think of something and you have to be psychic.

Its not really not competent, reaching competent etc. the real thing is CLEAR - your mind is reaching clarity, clear, highly clear. Like Scientology

Siobhang4

wheatser wrote: »

Hey, got this online. It gives average PE ratios for industries. (lots of industries listed but might be handy to have just in case)

did you notice that the P/E ratio's are quite high tend to use 6 alot in exams.. don't forget to discout them for private company.

Siobhang4

ferike1 wrote: »

Sure they probably pulled that number out of hat.

Have you not learned yet that to be a CA you have to be able to read minds? Have the case studies taught you nothing? The institute think of something and you have to be psychic.

Its not really not competent, reaching competent etc. the real thing is CLEAR - your mind is reaching clarity, clear, highly clear. Like Scientology

you have to discount for private company

pinzas

figrolls wrote: »

Industry specific KPI's from 2011 thread!

A friend sent on these to me, haven't really had a chance to look at them but people might find them of some use..

supernova84

LR987654 wrote: »

Anyone got a summary of the hot topics for IMP, had no idea what SaaS was in the mock, kind of easy really once I knew hat it actually was.

If you write anything at all half decent for IMP you should be ok. I'm sure they would even see the funny side if you mistook SaaS for The Special Air Service (SAS)

FAE4EVA

Hey Ferike,

Can you send on those notes to me..

Just want to say thanks cause you always seem to be able to answer peoples queries..

Fair play, you should have lots of good karma coming your way..

Dee29

okdune wrote: »

IFRS 9 - Replaced IAS 39 - The differences between the old and new standard I am finding hard to figure out - can anyone give me a pointer please?

What year is your IFRS book? IAS39 is slowly been rewritten as IFRS 9. If using 2010 book IAS 39 para 10-57 have been deleted and rewritten under IFRS9. The first few paragraphs related to embedded derivatives which are not examinable.

If you are using the 2010 book, I suggest you print off both standards from CHARIOT on the Institute's website and have quick look over the new wording.

levi

Dee29 wrote: »

What year is your IFRS book? IAS39 is slowly been rewritten as IFRS 9. If using 2010 book IAS 39 para 10-57 have been deleted and rewritten under IFRS9. The first few paragraphs related to embedded derivatives which are not examinable.

If you are using the 2010 book, I suggest you print off both standards from CHARIOT on the Institute's website and have quick look over the new wording.

Remember tho that IFRS 9 hasn't been ratified by the EU and therefore cannot be used in the EU and American companies dont use IFRS so I think it's unlikely that there'll be a substantial question on it...

Bobby Dazzles

Anyone else notice varying interpretations of how a company's asset based valuation should be calculated in the case study solutions?

I thought it's just the company's assets less its liabilities, but in some questions (e.g. Brilliant Bee) they seem to ignore the liabilities.

ferike1

State your assumptions. That's what I do. It's the same way Gearing can be Debt/Equity or Debt/Debt+equity. ROCE can also be interpreted in different manners.

froggatt2011

Bobby Dazzles wrote: »

Anyone else notice varying interpretations of how a company's asset based valuation should be calculated in the case study solutions?

I thought it's just the company's assets less its liabilities, but in some questions (e.g. Brilliant Bee) they seem to ignore the liabilities.

My understanding having been taught by Anne Marie Ward is the following:
Net assets less intangibles less long term liabilities.

Are there situations where you should calculate it differently??

wheatser

7upfree wrote: »

Attachment not found.

Hopefully I have done this right.

This is a List of all the different indicators and what papers they have come up on. This was passed onto me by someone who did FAE last year so it doesn't include the 2011 actual paper. I have all the solutions in a folder and going to stick this in the front of the folder. Hopefully won't need it but no harm to have it just incase.

I then just have a condensed folder with notes for each subject. Possibly bring the tax and IMS book.

I think having too much on the day can be as bad as not having enough.

Thanks a million, this is exactly what I had been doing but found it so boring compiling it all together. Saved me some time.

So is it just the 2011 paper and the mock 2012 cases that are not included in it?

supernova84

Bobby Dazzles wrote: »

Anyone else notice varying interpretations of how a company's asset based valuation should be calculated in the case study solutions?

I thought it's just the company's assets less its liabilities, but in some questions (e.g. Brilliant Bee) they seem to ignore the liabilities.

Retained Earnings plus the Share Capital does the trick

tomfoolery60

froggatt2011 wrote: »

My understanding having been taught by Anne Marie Ward is the following:
Net assets less intangibles less long term liabilities.

Are there situations where you should calculate it differently??

It actually depends what you are looking at - in theory the value of a business is the "Enterprise Value" and is equal to the value of shares and long term financing. This has to do with the debt v. equity etc...

Whereas the value of the shares in a company are the value of the assets less the liabilites (inc. LT liabilites).

7upfree

wheatser wrote: »

Thanks a million, this is exactly what I had been doing but found it so boring compiling it all together. Saved me some time.

So is it just the 2011 paper and the mock 2012 cases that are not included in it?

Hmm I think so. There could be one or two cases that I have seen people talk about on here that aren't there, but I think it would be impossible to get every single case and every single indicator into something like this.

Hopefully it might be of some help to ya.

Bobby Dazzles

froggatt2011 wrote: »

Bobby Dazzles wrote: »

Anyone else notice varying interpretations of how a company's asset based valuation should be calculated in the case study solutions?

I thought it's just the company's assets less its liabilities, but in some questions (e.g. Brilliant Bee) they seem to ignore the liabilities.

My understanding having been taught by Anne Marie Ward is the following:
Net assets less intangibles less long term liabilities.

Are there situations where you should calculate it differently??

That's what I thought.

But in the solution to Indicator 8 of Brillaint Bee, it says that the company's net assets are €7,120,000. I don't get how they arrive at that figure.

I make the net assets to be €3,520,000 (issued share capital plus retained earnings).

Bobby Dazzles

Brilliant Bee has assets of €17.756m (fixed assets of €2.512m plus current assets of €15.244m).

It has liabilities of €14.236m (current liabilities of €7.636m plus non current bank loan of €3m plus long term debenture loan of €3.6m).

The assets less the liabilities are €3.52m which equals the issued share capital plus the retained earnings (€10k plus €3.51m respectively).

But the solution days that the company's net assets are €7.12m?! It's like it ignores the long term debenture loan. Can't see why it would do that.

Eiriu

ferike1 wrote: »

If ya'll pass I am taking some of the credit.

He's after sucking you in. The notes won't be free for much longer.

Fericke......well played

Eiriu

Dee29 wrote: »

What year is your IFRS book? IAS39 is slowly been rewritten as IFRS 9. If using 2010 book IAS 39 para 10-57 have been deleted and rewritten under IFRS9. The first few paragraphs related to embedded derivatives which are not examinable.

If you are using the 2010 book, I suggest you print off both standards from CHARIOT on the Institute's website and have quick look over the new wording.

So is IAS 39 not to be used? OR should IFRS 9 just be printed off and used?

dee359

ferike1 wrote: »

Yeah you have to sign up I think. Worth it though

Would really appreciate if u could send on the notes!! Thanks ferike!

supernova84

Bobby Dazzles wrote: »

Brilliant Bee has assets of €17.756m (fixed assets of €2.512m plus current assets of €15.244m).

It has liabilities of €14.236m (current liabilities of €7.636m plus non current bank loan of €3m plus long term debenture loan of €3.6m).

The assets less the liabilities are €3.52m which equals the issued share capital plus the retained earnings (€10k plus €3.51m respectively).

But the solution days that the company's net assets are €7.12m?! It's like it ignores the long term debenture loan. Can't see why it would do that.

This is strange. I would have used 3.52 aswell. Not sure what is going on here.