FAE September 2012

Ex 88

Anyone else just feel that there was too much in the case and it was so hard to get everything down in a structured way? I really think we need to get on to CASSI about the length of the paper! I've always been good for my time management and it was just impossible in there today

Szewinska

Chalk_Farm wrote: »

Not sure if anybody has already mentioned this but WTF was with the way the paper was organised....shower of blind folded chimpanzees could have done a better job!!

Complaint shall be sent to the Institute about that!!

highly awkward

ferike1

Haha it was like a fold out map! I was all over the place with it! I nearly missed the fact they put Link financials up there too. What is wrong with a normal booklet??

Ha, this is why I hate post-mortems. Mentioned everything about IAS 38, feasibility etc etc specifically linked to the case but didn't say the patent was controlled by Ken not the company. That could mean NC if they deem it to be enough of an issue.

And I was so happy coming out of that exam.

RT2010

I addressed the IAS 38 indicator to Rob kinda separately as it said that Rob would appreciate a response to that. Hopefully examiner can see that too as Im not so sure now! Basically that previously expensed research costs can not then be capitalized as per IAS 38 if they subsequently then satisfy the 6 criteria of development costs

R0N BURGUNDY

http://www.helicoptergame.net/

supernova84

Chalk_Farm wrote: »

Not sure if anybody has already mentioned this but WTF was with the way the paper was organised....shower of blind folded chimpanzees could have done a better job!!

Complaint shall be sent to the Institute about that!!

Haha yeh it was like opening a restaurant menu. Maybe if it included a drinks section we would all have been better off.

ferike1

Distance: 1709

lol

supernova84

Robbery Bob app very entertaining

Elle2012

Anyone else need a holiday?!!

belle101

So what do we think for tomorrow? Def tax 2 if not 3 indicators! Corporate governance is also bound to raise its head along with ethics....

figrolls

What's the story with the Irish annex for Corp governance? What are the specifics of this we need to watch out for? Kinda messed up audit this morning so need to make sure I have a good run at it tomorrow!

upnorthchick

i f'd up big style wi audit exemption indicator !!!!

FAET

Re the exam booklet .. I just saw page 7. For the first time. Two minutes ago.

yybaby2011

FAE2012 wrote: »

lala1987 wrote: »

I did the same thing, went through the treatment of the intangible being incorrect originally as it had included research costs previously expensed and research costs can't be capitalised, then I showed a journal entry to adjust the it.

I then, however, went into how in order for a company to recognise an intangible under IAS 38 there are 3 conditions, one of which is they must have control over the intangible, and as they do not have control over it, Ken does, it should not be recognised in their accounts as it doesn't meet one of the criteria.

Hopefully I will get some credit for it. Got HC in the AAFRP so hoping this will make up for it.

Although company doesn't own the patent,Ken can license the use of patent to 12A and earn patent income,that's normally for an inventor to protect his own invention.Thus,the company controls the use of patent,can be capitalized.The whole appendix 6 stays for reason,i.e,reinstatement can't change to capitalized.I'm open for suggestions.

notanocelot

Re tax reliefs: as far as I'm concerned EIIS was unapproved when they wrote our syllabus, BES and Seed Capital relief are in this year's Tax textbook, so I'm using BES and Seed Capital.

Cannot see any way where they would mark us down for using BES/Seed Capital OR for EIIS.

upnorthchick

Bill Williams wrote: »

Some weird stuff too...

How can the audit exemption question and the ethics question be two audit indicators?

The audit exemption one is a 3 or 4 liner.

And how can the FR acquisition costs one be an indicator? It's very short.

And yer man Bill mentions capitalising research costs which is a no no. Yet we weren't asked to deal with that? I just mentioned it as a two or three liner in another indicator.

It was a pile of dung, as for bills one liner thats probably classed as one of those indirect indicators but to be dealt with within the other FR indicator if you know what i mean. very very sneaky the whole thing

As for the layout - someones head should roll, i actually think they are making eejits out of us and also they have started advertising for CA's wtf - anyone ive talked to that wants to do it ive told them to go get there head examined.... this isnt worth jack!

ferike1

FAET wrote: »

Re the exam booklet .. I just saw page 7. For the first time. Two minutes ago.

I am sorry but that exam booklet was a joke

If you have a professional report and hand it to your partner in that state they'd laugh you out the room.

It was very unprofessional.

BESman

Bill Williams wrote: »

I think that it's important for us to do post mortems 'cause it helps the decision making process for tomorrow.

I identified the following indicators and broadly answered as follows:

- Strategic analysis of proposed purchase. Broadly speaking, it makes sense.

- Financial reporting treatment of IP in I2A. Errors in their workings. Can't reinstate previously expensed costs and there were two items (training was one) that shouldn't ever be capitalised. Also doubt whether any of it should be capitalised at all as the CEO owns the patents. Either way, prior period errors IAS 8 stuff. Can't see people being penalised for not mentioning that as we're not advising I2A so who cares? More of an academic point.

- Valuation. Briefly mentioned net assets. Calculated maintainable EBITDA, reduced the multiple to 6 for non plc and came up with €3.5m. Revenue based valuation was also 3.5m. Dismissed the CEO's assessment of IP valuation and mentioned that revaluation model not appropriate anyway as no active market.

- FR re acquisition. You expense the costs. Per IFRS 3, some continents liabilities such as the restructuring costs are recognised without satisfying "normal" IAS 37 criteria. Not 100% sure about that but think that you do capitalise under IFRS 3 in certain circumstances (for employee benefits and provisions with a less onerous requirement for the provisions).

- Info management - Extend the patent. Get Bill to document everything. Linked their bad info management to I2A's good. Suggested generic stuff like restricting access (passwords etc), controlling new intranet and and Data Protection around consumer data for the CRM stuff.

- Marketing - Put formal plan in place. Train sales staff. Cross sell. Dont price all stuff the same. Follow I2A's example re pricing. Focus on profitable customer groups. Focus on the profitable "revenue" income stream. Monitor spend.

- Customer analysis - Didn't really recalculate. Just analysed. Pointed out amortisation shouldn't be charged for non
Web. Queried basis for allocation. Suggested average customers rather than customers at period end better. Concluded non web unprofitable so suggested either dumping them or increasing prices or getting them signed up to "revenue".

- Audit exempt - Listed the criteria and Said they wouldnt cause group companies can't be but also said that even if you took the amounts combined they'd be over limits.

- Ethics - Focussed on ES4 re contingent fees and mentioned general threats of self interest and conflict of interest in ES1 and CAI guidelines. Suggested chatting with ethics partner and potential audit engagement partner. Suggested general chat with Kate re statutory audits and auditor's role / independence.

Annoyed now that I didn't recommend seeking a worldwide patent (rather than just for Ireland and the UK which they have now). Also annoyed that I didn't recommend putting the CEO of I2A in charge of marketing. Thought long and hard re an indicator on retaining Bill. Figured it was more about information protection though as he has shared anyway so hard to incentivise him more. Still threw in something about persuading him to stay with incentives.

All in all, very tough. Way too long and way too detailed.

Answered very much along your lines Bill. Bit worried about the CPA. Like you, I didn't really recaculate but discussed it instead and made similar recommendations. As a PM indicator, I reckon they might have wanted more. Hope we did enough!

Overall, most people here seem to be on consensus with indicators, etc so that has to be a good sign! And it was a bloody tough paper which isn't such a bad thing either when it comes to correcting..

ferike1

If everyone makes the same mistake then it will be taken into account for the solutions

nightpark

I thought the exam paper was a joke, I made a mess of the imp stuff as well was sure the knowledge indicator was a hr one to do yer man leaving.

BESman

upnorthchick wrote: »

As for the layout - someones head should roll, i actually think they are making eejits out of us and also they have started advertising for CA's wtf - anyone ive talked to that wants to do it ive told them to go get there head examined.... this isnt worth jack!

I might be exaggerating but Chartered Accountancy has to be one of the most needlessly difficult professions to qualify in. Does anyone know harder exams than these? I know for a fact that Law Society and Kings Inn are nowhere near this difficult.

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE SOOOO HARD?!

R0N BURGUNDY

I mentioned something about Apple V Samsung court cases recently (lol) - does that add value?

Scuba_Steve84

R0N BURGUNDY wrote: »

I mentioned something about Apple V Samsung court cases recently (lol) - does that add value?

I did mention that aswell actually! hopefully it does add value as i don't think the rest of my answer did ...

supernova84

Bill Williams is in the house. Hope things are going well at Locust

funkymonkey9

Was the paper laid out like that in prior years do the repeaters know?if they only changed it this year I can't see why,is it because the pass rates were high last year and they want to doubly make sure that it doesn't reach the same level this year?it's ridiculous to hear that someone missed a whole page and I'm sure you're not alone,very easily done,tomorrow can't be laid out like that could it?if so,I'll be tearing it up and putting it in order,I definitely spent 5 minutes at least trying to find the page I was looking for!

supernova84

BESman wrote: »

I might be exaggerating but Chartered Accountancy has to be one of the most needlessly difficult professions to qualify in. Does anyone know harder exams than these? I know for a fact that Law Society and Kings Inn are nowhere near this difficult.

WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE SOOOO HARD?!

The funny thing is that the pass rate for core come November will be in or around 75%. Love to know how they really mark these. Has to be a good element of luck involved.

Scuba_Steve84

Bill Williams wrote: »

I'm here in Locust Towers looking at today's Customer Profitability Analysis. Massive spike in sales from a very small outlet run under our lesser known "Inspire" brand. It's in the RDS. Can't explain it. Will email some newly qualified dogsbody tomorrow just to say hi but if he doesn't immediately cop that "Hi" means "send me a memo about Customer Profitability Analysis (and cc my sister)", I'll have him fired.

is Locust Towers like the sphinx? Only a giant locust?

supernova84

funkymonkey9 wrote: »

Was the paper laid out like that in prior years do the repeaters know?

No it wasn't as bad last year, stapled together better. God knows what sort of shape the sims paper will be in 2moro.

ferike1

Also coloured like vomit!

Accrual Intentions

Ex 88 wrote: »

Anyone else just feel that there was too much in the case and it was so hard to get everything down in a structured way? I really think we need to get on to CASSI about the length of the paper! I've always been good for my time management and it was just impossible in there today

Definitely! Everyone should do this on Friday.