FAE September 2012

ferike1

Haha. No wonder these companies are all in trouble. The directors are all clueless.

Each case answer should start with.

I believe we should replace the finance director/MD/CEO, with me preferably

tt1

I know its easier said than done Ferike1 but you should put it too the back of your head!!

Absolutely no one knows how these fools will mark are exams and will be luck to fall either side to their subjective pass/fail mark.

Hopefully they will lower the bar an be a little kind cause of all the waffle indicators but ya never know with the institute! Least its done n relax n hav a life for 2 months at least!!

Acc7777

Can someone run through what the finance indicators were?

Was it:

Core - company valuation
Sim 2 - financial and non financial implication for the group

If so what did people write for the Sim 2 one?

I mentioned IFRS 5 and then implications of redundancies etc. Didn't think there was much to say from a finance viewpoint. Looking back most worried about finance now unfortunately. Ironic because I feel it's one of my strongest areas:(

ferike1

Yeah from an actual Finance perspective there was little to say I felt on the sale

nightpark

I didnt see much finance today either so they could hardly only ask one finance and loads of BL.

ferike1

Just thinking about it

Accepting the share sale. International client. FX risk?

nightpark

If thats the case then I reckon practically everyone missed those ones.

Daizy0

Was there a need to accrue also for 10.75% for employers prsi on bonuses? I did assuming all employees wer on over €356 weekly?? Also would it be ok that I wrote that there was a section 40 issue as net assets wer negative but stated if they changed their buildings valuation method this would bring them to a positive position & therefore no need for an egm??

Ne ways no matter what I wrote I'll b back next year cuz of BL & IMP

Daizy0

Accounts Student wrote: »

Username2011 wrote: »

Actually on second look it does say that he looked at the accrual at year end for payroll
taxes...but wouldnt they have to accrue for taxes on 6 months of the bonus too?

Yea - I think your right. Didn't think of that either.

- but normally C is just "makes a reasonable effort at journals" or something of the like - so even if you neglected that I think your ok as you got that far!

Would it be ok that I stated that the accrual should be provided for and the junior didn't appear to have noticed it, therefore his other work should also be examined?? Freaked out by all d diff approaches that could have been taken

ferike1

Bill Williams wrote: »

Nah...Euro transaction

So what were the finance implications.

Like actual finance from competency statement.

Daizy0

Username2011 wrote: »

Someone mentioned there couldn't be 6 PM (INCL AAFRP). Well there were six PM and six BL in 2010

There was no aafrp in 2010, last year was the 1st year

Accrual Intentions

Nom-IzZ wrote: »

That point was more of any audit area, we were asked to identify other issues by the partner, eg going concern, adverse opinion, increase in testing due to poor internal controls and also need to review the reasonableness that the grant may be repaid given the pressure the business is under, the may have lost x ee but it did not say if any were gained, I firmly believe it was an audit issue rather then a pm issue

The owner/director specifically said that they had been unable to take on any new employees due to the cashflow/financial position of the business.

I'm not going to say whether this was a PM or an Audit indicator but, without doubt, the grant conditions were broken in August 2011 and at that point the grant became repayable as per IAS 20 and we can only assume it had been treated correctly when it was received so a journal was required here. The only possible relevance that the employee leaving numbers could have had in the case was in relation to breaking the conditions of the employee grant otherwise there would be no reason for it being there.

Like I say I don't know whether the institute were treating this as an indicator.

What I did was treat this as part of an overall PM indicator for the two FR issues - this as well as the journal required for the unrecorded bonus payments.

I also treated all the FR issues in the comp yesterday as one indicator as only really the intangibles was big enough for an indicator on its own.

Therefore this would be two PM-FR indicators and another two PM indicators in the profitiability analysis yesterday and performance measures today (could be forgetting something).

4 PM indicators - which is to be expected/reasonable.

ferike1

My worry is the lack of tax and finance. Very easy to fsck up

Like lets say you miss 1 indicator
That is NA
You need RC...

Little scope for mistakes.

thisguy

Acc7777 wrote: »

Can someone run through what the finance indicators were?

Was it:

Core - company valuation
Sim 2 - financial and non financial implication for the group

If so what did people write for the Sim 2 one?

I mentioned IFRS 5 and then implications of redundancies etc. Didn't think there was much to say from a finance viewpoint. Looking back most worried about finance now unfortunately. Ironic because I feel it's one of my strongest areas:(

Yea im thinking if I go down its most likely going to be on finance not sure if i wrote enough on finance/non financial implications and not that sure about the company valuation either.never mentioned ifrs 5, had it written down on the exam paper but never put it into the answer booklet!

R0N BURGUNDY

Wonder could you enter both - I mean if u failed the Xmas sitting in acca, just go back to fae. Would help u keep your hand in lol

FAE_UCH

Szewinska wrote: »

must be very few exams out there where candidates come out with such various things that they answered on in the exam

There must also be very few exams where

1. You don't know the question
2. You don't know what subjest it relates to
3. You don't know how long to spend doin that entire Part (CASE OK you know when you get in there but not before hand to prepare) or Question (Inicator)
4. You don't know how many Questions there will be
5. You don't know how much to write because you don't know how much it's worth or what they are expecting

mrduffy

can some one be my pacemaker (study buddy) ??? really at a loss how to study business leadership !

Szewinska

wonder how non boards people got on. maybe we are the 25% who fail

haribo12

Ya if u made a balls a sim 3 whsts the story would a man be in serious trouble ??

daddydick

BESman wrote: »

None of the lecturers, examiners or anyone in the Institute has actually qualified through this system. How do they expect us to? They can't teach it or mark it. Ridiculous.

That's the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard - they've spent 5 years putting the course together and believe you me, if you don't pass there is a reason, be it a lack of knowledge or a lack of ability to get your point across. They don't just fail you for no reason! On your view no exam should ever change structure without the creators having to pass it first?!?!

Best of luck to everyone tomorrow, nearly there!!!

ferike1

daddydick wrote: »

That's the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard - they've spent 5 years putting the course together and believe you me, if you don't pass there is a reason, be it a lack of knowledge or a lack of ability to get your point across. They don't just fail you for no reason! On your view no exam should ever change structure without the creators having to pass it first?!?!

Best of luck to everyone tomorrow, nearly there!!!

I am going to put this as nicely as possible. Most of us are down in the dumps at the moment, even if you are right a lot of us have put in a lot of work (some more than a year) and we want to rant a bit. We want to tear into the institute for the arbitrary & look how different we can be to the acca nature of the exam.

Now I am not saying we have it in any way bad as cancer patients, I know this is an only an exam but would you go up to a patient who has recently been diagnosed with cancer and say its your own damn fault you got cancer, you got cancer for a reason?

Please save it. Right now, rational doesn't work for some of us.

But if you want rational...

I did a Masters in finance. I got a first. I think I might fail this on finance/tax (as there was little in these two). Are you seriously telling me I am not competent/knowledgeable in finance? There was very little to go on in finance apart from the obvious valuation yesterday. I know a girl who lives and breathes tax and thought the tax was tricky and very little, is she not competent? Such a small section of your knowledge is tested its almost laughable.

Here's the real kicker. I'd say the large majority of us work in finance, tax or audit. These are the sections that are examined the least, how is that rational?

pepp

Good luck today everyone

Accrual Intentions

Szewinska wrote: »

wonder how non boards people got on. maybe we are the 25% who fail

:pac: I've often thought this too!

kitten_k

Best of luck today. I am dreading it. Have been reading about the Core papers and if the elective is as complicated as them I am screwed again!!

ferike1

Lol

Thinking about it. I prepared 4 calculators just in case the worst happened and I'd be left without a calculator in the exam.

How naive I was....

LR987654

you doing auditing today ferike1?

ferike1

Fsck no! APM

I hate audit!

ManwitaPlan

daddydick wrote: »

That's the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard - they've spent 5 years putting the course together and believe you me, if you don't pass there is a reason, be it a lack of knowledge or a lack of ability to get your point across. They don't just fail you for no reason! On your view no exam should ever change structure without the creators having to pass it first?!?!

Best of luck to everyone tomorrow, nearly there!!!

Daddydick,

Stick to your original assessment:

daddydick wrote: »

I really feel the system is completely flawed, there are quite a number of people with whom I work who failed the audit elective in particular. These are some of the most intelligent people I have ever met and I struggle to understand how they did not get the elective. The answer is obviously the system. The exams should be set up in such a way whereby your talent and ability is reflected in the results. This is not the case with the current system.

The Institute needs to look at the way the system is set up, particularly the audit elective, which again has proved to be exceptionally more difficult than the other electives.

Elective repeats seem the obvious answer, but I cant see it being implemented any time soon.

Best of luck to everyone in the future.

Agree with your points in bold 100%

ferike1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fPQG7-TNZE

ManwitaPlan owned you....

notanocelot

ferike1 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fPQG7-TNZE

ManwitaPlan owned you....

Community reference?
I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Off to spend an hour slightly curling my hair now before the exam.