FAE September 2012

Saint Sonner

Just remembering I had cross selling in for marketing indicator and also profitability analysis and linked it back.

kitten_k

upnorthchick wrote: »

lads stop with the post mortem honestly move on. im fit for nothing this evening so im doing nothing.
the case is staying in the car...

We were always advised never study after the exam as you will be even more wrecked tomorrow plus you won't take much info in.

FAE4EVA

Indicators i found..

Valuation, and factors (4m) (Fin)
Strat suitability of I2A (BL)
IAS 38/IFRS 3 (PM)
CPA.. discontinue non web as loss making (PM)
Knowledge mgmt, said need to reinstate patent as nearly up and use crm to improve marketing (waffle) (Read as BL but prob IMP by sounds of it on here)
Marketing problems, acq will help as Ken and his troops are experts (BL)
Audit exemption and ethics of non audit (Aud)
Issue of Bill leaving/Remuneration system to keep him and key staff as noted as weakness, give him more shares to keep him (BL)

So easy to spot something and think its an indicator. Random bit in one paragraph saying bill wants research costs capitalised.

I thought it was a very Business leadership type exam, Paul would love it!

kitten_k

Sorry to hear it was another crappy paper! As was said already in the thread try to put it out of your head and focus on tomorrow. Have some time to relax and make sure you get and early night and have a good breakfast tomorrow.

Accrual Intentions

Not something to be concerned about right now obviously, but keep it in the back of your heads for the end of the week - the length of that paper was a disgrace and needs to be complained about to CASSI for their exam report. 11 pages, 7 appendices. It honestly took me 30 minutes to read it initially, then a further 35 minutes to read again and try and make sure I had all the points I wanted to make. Far too long.

If we all complain on Thursday/Friday to CASSI they'll have to take it into consideration. I know the first thing we wanna do on Thur/Fri is go on the rip but please bear this in mind.

Acc7777

Accrual Intentions wrote: »

Not something to be concerned about right now obviously, but keep it in the back of your heads for the end of the week - the length of that paper was a disgrace and needs to be complained about to CASSI for their exam report. 11 pages, 7 appendices. It honestly took me 30 minutes to read it initially, then a further 35 minutes to read again and try and make sure I had all the points I wanted to make. Far too long.

If we all complain on Thursday/Friday to CASSI they'll have to take it into consideration. I know the first thing we wanna do on Thur/Fri is go on the rip but please bear this in mind.

Didn't help that they used barf coloured paper

upnorthchick

Acc7777 wrote: »

Didn't help that they used barf coloured paper

lmao - i actually didnt know what colour of highlighter to use because it might not show properly lmao

upnorthchick

kitten_k wrote: »

We were always advised never study after the exam as you will be even more wrecked tomorrow plus you won't take much info in.

well im glad someone is thinking along the same lines as me....
food, shower, maybe a wee walk then bed... we will be more tired tomoro

danko2012

tomfoolery60 wrote: »

Agreed - they can't say "don't look at tax at all" and have a tax indicator. God knows what was going on with IMP... Or that customer profitabiliy for that matter...

Username2011 wrote: »

What is that exactly?

any member that is part of a group doesnt qualify for audit exempt no matter what the conditions of the subsidiary are

notanocelot

Acc7777 wrote: »

Didn't help that they used barf coloured paper

I liked that colour!
All my highlighters showed up too.

upnorthchick

danko2012 wrote: »

any member that is part of a group doesnt qualify for audit exempt no matter what the conditions of the subsidiary are

are you sure? well ive f'd that up....

Acc7777

My best guess as to what's in store tomorrow

BL 2 (Corporate gov + ethics likely)
Tax 3 (Feeling there might be one tax centric case with more than one tax indicator in it - incorporation or something)
Audit 2 (controls / audit reports)
Finance 2 (Sources of funding / Risk management)
FR 1 (?)
Mgmt 1 (?)
IMP 1 (Weaknesses?)

R0N BURGUNDY

So tax tomorrow for defs..

No major f*ck ups I think. Nothing answered really well either though tbf. FR was decent - mentioned IAS8 and everything.
Rolled the budget forward for year and compared to last year
Based valuation on figures presented and just made a note about adjustment re capitalisation of expenses in error. Did valuation first ffs
Didnt talk much about the fit of the 2 companies other than the marketing expertise potential.

Overall - too long. Hopefully I can give tomorrow a good rattle. Doing sweet fa tonight.

danko2012

upnorthchick wrote: »

are you sure? well ive f'd that up....

yeah we do it the whole time in work, im sure they might accept the other reason of number employees, assets, etc but thats definately the short answer!

probably the only thing i have done in work that relates to any exam i have done

BESman

Strangely enough, of all the Institute exams
I've taken so far, this was the first where I didn't feel too pushed for time. Had 15 mins or so to read over. I just wrote at a lightning pace and didnt look at my notes at all except for IFRS 3 and IAS 38. So either I'm getting better at this exam craic or I missed a load of indicators!

Saint Sonner

danko2012 wrote: »

upnorthchick wrote: »

are you sure? well ive f'd that up....

yeah we do it the whole time in work, im sure they might accept the other reason of number employees, assets, etc but thats definately the short answer!

probably the only thing i have done in work that relates to any exam i have done

That's a sneaky ****er indicator then - IMO seems like a trick question - as if the exams aren't hard enough!

danko2012

Saint Sonner wrote: »

That's a sneaky ****er indicator then - IMO seems like a trick question - as if the exams aren't hard enough!

ya as i say i didnt come across that anywhere when studying only purely beacuse i knew it...tried checking relevant ISA to reference but couldnt see it.. a sneaky one is right

BESman

FAE4EVA wrote: »

Indicators i found..

Valuation, and factors (4m) (Fin)
Strat suitability of I2A (BL)
IAS 38/IFRS 3 (PM)
CPA.. discontinue non web as loss making (PM)
Knowledge mgmt, said need to reinstate patent as nearly up and use crm to improve marketing (waffle) (Read as BL but prob IMP by sounds of it on here)
Marketing problems, acq will help as Ken and his troops are experts (BL)
Audit exemption and ethics of non audit (Aud)
Issue of Bill leaving/Remuneration system to keep him and key staff as noted as weakness, give him more shares to keep him (BL)

So easy to spot something and think its an indicator. Random bit in one paragraph saying bill wants research costs capitalised.

I thought it was a very Business leadership type exam, Paul would love it!

This is pretty much word for word how I interpreted it.

upnorthchick

Saint Sonner wrote: »

That's a sneaky ****er indicator then - IMO seems like a trick question - as if the exams aren't hard enough!

ah holy jebsus! i honestly thought taking the thresholds etc and adding the two companies together obviously they have to be audited etc fml
im sick to the back teeth of them lot in dublin....

chursy

froggatt2011 wrote: »

Grr at the knowledge management thing, didn't get that at all and had no clue about software licensing. Wrote a little bit of waffle about IP protection. Not gonna be enough.

Totally ballsed up the profit analysis - didn't really understand the requirement so wrote a load of ****e. Fail.

Did anyone else restate the P&L / B/S figures after the intangible adjustment and do the valuations based on that?

Totally raging I didn't pick up on the IMP indicator. If we don't get another crack at it tomorrow that's a big fat red for me

I adjusted the intangible and included the figure in the valuations of net assets . But there was also the fair value figure given of 1.1?so not sure if I m correct

upnorthchick

Ken hadnt the expertise to value the intangible so i didnt adjust for it.

LR987654

chursy wrote: »

I adjusted the intangible and included the figure in the valuations of net assets . But there was also the fair value figure given of 1.1?so not sure if I m correct

I adjusted but said we needed to discuss further with Kate as Ken could have been sticking any figure on it.

BESman

upnorthchick wrote: »

Ken hadnt the expertise to value the intangible so i didnt adjust for it.

Ya I reckon go with the book value. To be honest, a reasonable attempt at the valuation would probably get you at least RC in Finance. Doubt the value you take for intangibles would kill ya too much.

lar05

i knew about that loss of audit exemption aswel but i wrote it as losing the exemption as they are now part of a group!! Im guessing that would still score, would it?

Apollo_Creed

Guys,
Just a question on the Mgt Accounting.
Did anyone exclude the indirect costs and amortization and base the analysis on profitablity per user.
I then said that I would need more info on how indirect costs were allocated.
It came out then that the non web based was more profitable.

I think myself now that I probly did this wrong, so probly gonna have to hit PM hard tonight.

Anyways onwards and upwards, still fightin...

chursy

Don't understand what's the issue re audit ememption can someone explain?

So we're they to be audited now since they are acquired or it makes no impact? Can someone explain this?

Szewinska

Apollo_Creed wrote: »

Guys,
Just a question on the Mgt Accounting.
Did anyone exclude the indirect costs and amortization and base the analysis on profitablity per user.
I then said that I would need more info on how indirect costs were allocated.
It came out then that the non web based was more profitable.

I think myself now that I probly did this wrong, so probly gonna have to hit PM hard tonight.

Anyways onwards and upwards, still fightin...

This question seems to have been interpreted differently by all

chursy

There was also an ethics -es5 and es 4 to be touched upon.

BESman

chursy wrote: »

Don't understand what's the issue re audit ememption can someone explain?

So we're they to be audited now since they are acquired or it makes no impact? Can someone explain this?

A parent or a subsidiary cannot be audit exempt. Simple as that.

Ex 88

lar05 wrote: »

i knew about that loss of audit exemption aswel but i wrote it as losing the exemption as they are now part of a group!! Im guessing that would still score, would it?

That's what I did I didn't have time to write the thresholds so just said as link will be a parent and i2a a sub they would no longer be exempt! Am I right? Or do u think you'd need to write out thresholds too?