FAE September 2012

notanocelot

Bill Williams wrote: »

I'm ridiculously tired and I need a beer.

I feel like I just played a match for four and a half hours at full pelt.

Feel half way there though (see Core and Elective as totally separate and aren't worried about Elective).

Get yourself that beer. What harm can it do?
Wish I was in the same boat re Elective.

Username2011

Chin up. You cannot fail on one indicator. A crazy number of people last year missed the tax indicator and pass rate was still 75%. I know a lot of people who missed the tax indicator day 1 and came out with green overall.

It's better to know, and make up for it tomorrow.
Tomorrows a new day!
Good luck

ferike1

I despise that old woman who announces the exams. I am sure she is a nice person but her voice and every time she talks makes me hate her more. Leave the exam hall so we can set up for tomorrow. FSCK OFF. lol

Username2011

Does anyone know what the tax impact of offering share options to employees would be?
I gotta feeling....!

Accrual Intentions

I feel like its half-time in the Championship final and we've fu<ked up and let in some sloppy goals and theres now 6 points in it and we're kicking into a stiff breeze in the second half. Gonna take one hell of an effort and a lot of luck to turn it around.

Or, dare I say it, I feel like its half-time in the European Cup final and we're 3-0 down against the 7 time European champions AC Milan...

Username2011

Bill Williams wrote: »

RC in the AAFRP really is a f..ker.

3 Cs in PM required.

No way I got Cs in the two (or three) PM indicators today.

Just realising that I'm probably f..ked.

Horrible.

Bill from the sounds of it, your answer was really good. Worrying about recommending the worldwide patent or the marketing position is for the HC'ers. My unbiased view of your summary was that it was impressive and you hit the major points. Try not to focus on the little things.

Accrual Intentions

Username2011 wrote: »

Bill from the sounds of it, your answer was really good. Worrying about recommending the worldwide patent or the marketing position is for the HC'ers. My unbiased view of your summary was that it was impressive and you hit the major points. Try not to focus on the little things.

Plus its possible that 2 C's could end up being enough, or that there could be 3 PMs tomorrow to have a go at - we just don't know.

lar05

Bill Williams wrote: »

RC in the AAFRP really is a f..ker.

3 Cs in PM required.

No way I got Cs in the two (or three) PM indicators today.

Just realising that I'm probably f..ked.

Horrible.

Same situation as yourself, so difficult to pass these if you only got RC in the AAFRP, i think i have a chance of C in the FR indicator but not a hope in the Mgmt Acc one , had no time to answer it, so im probably at a fail just because of that, heartbreaking!

LR987654

was the internal website an indicator, I thought the point of that paragraph was Bill. The Strategic review itself could have been all of the indicators.

notanocelot

lar05 wrote: »

Same situation as yourself, so difficult to pass these if you only got RC in the AAFRP, i think i have a chance of C in the FR indicator but not a hope in the Mgmt Acc one , had no time to answer it, so im probably at a fail just because of that, heartbreaking!

Not true. This year about 50% of people got RC in the assessment. Last year about 40% of people did. Yet clearly the majority of people who got RC in the assessment last year still ended up with a green in PM!

It's 1 indicator, that's all it is. And we were told 2 Cs might do the trick - it depends.

Dee29

What to you think - revenue audit indicator because the company didn't operate employment taxes due to economic downturn along with a bit of fraud?

haribo12

What did people do for the last indicator for management today

Would really appreciate if if some outlined what they did

haribo12

What did people do for the last indicator for management today

Would really appreciate if if some outlined what they did

supernova84

The Institute release a sneak preview of tomorrow's paper

http://cdn.steampowered.com/v/gfx/apps/47890/header.jpg?t=1331168573

Accrual Intentions

haribo12 wrote: »

What did people do for the last indicator for management today

Would really appreciate if if some outlined what they did

Honestly think its best not to concentrate and dwell on specifics right now. Lets focus on tomorrow. Knowing where we messed up today will help us with our time management tomorrow since we know there are particular areas that we must get right (IMP for me at least).

For what its worth, I took out amortisation and the fact that revenue was calculated using the figure at the end of the quarter rather than an average. I stated that because it had a positive contribution it should not be discontinued and I also queried what way the indirect costs were being allocated.

Accrual Intentions

Bill Williams wrote: »

That's more or less what I did. I suggested that Link could just charge those customers more (as I2A do) or try and upsell stuff like that "Revenue" income stream to them or try and get them online.

Not being funny, but you folks all seen very clued in. I spoke with a few people in the car park and I was shocked at the stuff they were saying (shocked in a bad way - for them).

We need to remember that "C" is well short of the perfect answer.

Whilst that is definitely true, what annoys me and always got me in practice cases is that often there can be literally one sentence, picking up on tiny point, that is the difference between RC and C and no matter what you do then if you don't see that one point you can't get C.

ferike1

I am surprised that reo hasn't been here yet. Was looking forward to his/her breakdown!

ferike1

Ha,

After that paper, I have this to say

See ya'll again next year

R0N BURGUNDY

sh1t -was driving home there thinking = were u supposed to talk about IFRS5 when disposing of the assets or shares? didn't even mention it = whoops!!!

notanocelot

Seems like everyone agrees BL was horrendous today and not exactly fab yesterday either. REMEMBER TO LET CASSI KNOW and to answer questions about the exams tomorrow when the lecturers go around asking for feedback.

They *will* dumb down the level of response needed to get C in an indicator based on feedback. So let's do it!

Signing off now because it was so hard to tell indicators apart today that I know it's just depress me to hear people's breakdowns.

Good luck tomorrow for those of you joining me in the Elective.

And remember what the psychiatrist of the mental group would say when House was in the asylum... "We wish him/her the best of luck and hope to Never See Them Again!"

Acc7777

Mother of God! I think I'm low on indicators...How many were in that Mandalay case?!

ferike1

Yeah I got the IFRS 5 and mentioned IAS 37 as well as IFRS 3.

I didn't see much finance on the paper today. There was the discussion of the NPV but that could be linked to the IMP indicator.

Financial implications of the sale = IFRS 5 and stuff like recovery of debtors. What do people think?

Tax = asset vs share sale
Tax implications of fraud.

I am willing to do a slight post mortem today as its over and elective is separate

WTF was up with that communication strategy and case 3 was tough I thought overall. Also I thought it was funny that the company gets a 20m capital investment and they expect you to staff the change management team.

Also when I saw the institute dude walking around all smug in his suit I wanted to deck him.

R0N BURGUNDY

Balls - let's hope my C in AAFRP gets me over the edge

ferike1

Honestly I am more worried about fscking up on audit, tax or finance. That would be the ultimate kick in the balls

That was harder than yesterday.
I think the 3 sims is tougher than one long case. Your mind is jumping all over the place.

R0N BURGUNDY

Noticed the company didn't qualify for SSE on sale of subsidiary because it was to an international party

Szewinska

think i left a bit of f rep out of sim 2. balls.

anybody reckon going concern an issue in last sim??

ferike1

Big time. They have cashflow issues and pressure from competitors.

ucd.1985

R0N BURGUNDY wrote: »

Noticed the company didn't qualify for SSE on sale of subsidiary because it was to an international party

Company also derived greater part of value from land in the state.

Username2011

Well that wasn't very nice was it.
A stab at the indicators would be:

Sim 1:
1 PM performance measures, what exactly were they lookin for here
2 BL change mgmt te
3 IMP evaluate the two systems on a non financial basis

Sim 2
1 TAX asset v share sale. Question was it right that they didn't qualify for participation exemption as it wasn't a "trade",.also if you went asset sale are u entitled to terminal loss relief
2 FINANCE financial and non financial issues
3 BL. Communication strategy

Sim 3
Can't really remember what the indicators were but I discussed

Audit bonus accrual understated and impact on audit report and controls in payroll were bad and potential fraud and going concern
Pm they haven't met employment grant criteria so a provision is required to repay
Then had a speel about hr too

ferike1

R0N BURGUNDY wrote: »

Noticed the company didn't qualify for SSE on sale of subsidiary because it was to an international party

Is that relevant?

Just says the sub must be in the EU. Says nothing about who you are selling it to.