FAE September 2013

chursy

Lol2013 wrote: »

I do not want to see another Derry Cotter notes and books after the AAFRP I just want to dump them lol

I am afraid you will have to Myfriend!

Lol2013

chursy wrote: »

Hi All

I have attached an index of all the cases along with a colour coding system that i used for common themes for all the casestudies todate. Its certainly will help you track all the casestudies out there in the past 3 years or so, which certainly will give you more material to practice.

My Take on the 2012 - case studies ( last year) was that they were really bad, extremely difficult and definately very vague. I would strong recommend that you practice the 2010/2011 cases along with the real past papers. Mocks exams are also very difficult and doesn't reflect the real standard in the exam. Paul is full of Sh**** at times. He said last year to focus heavily on management accounting and made these ridiculous case studies which there is no way you can do in an exam scenario!!! Its going to put your morale and confidence down ( Nothing to worry about) hence my advice focus on the 2011/2010 case studies more.

I have passed my exam and want maximum number of people to pass and here to help . Also to download all these cases i suggest you use previos years FAE threads which should be here. There is a paper clip icon as you hover on the main thread - Click on it and you will see all the attachements which will be useful to navigate and download all attachements. Will upload the index i did for AUdit Elective too

I am taking a look at your attachments.
Are they just questions over the years and the indicators in them

Lol2013

What does everyone think about the AAFRP exam yesterday. Did it go well/indifferent/bad.

Lol2013

applehunter wrote: »

Caught a bit for time with the AAFRP.

Got bogged down in a couple of questions and suddenly I was rushing.

Think a mock AARFP wouldn't go astray in future years even if they did it in the class.

You are right a mock would definitely help future students.
I didnt finish the construction contract question myself but I didn care I figured I had done enough

womandriver

Lol2013 wrote: »

What does everyone think about the AAFRP exam yesterday. Did it go well/indifferent/bad.

Thought section 2 was tough and made a mess of question 1 in section one.

What did you think?

Lol2013

chursy wrote: »

Attached is the AUDIT ELECTIVE CASE Studies Index. - Will help you as a starting point to update and organise your files. GoodLuck.

If you need any help in approaching the exam. Please feel free to PM me.

My Approach was
- View all Sean Murrays Lectures ( stream them), I couldnt focus in class its very difficult to keep up with him and Read the paragraphs that he says and in the order he says. I used to pause his lectures and read the paragraphs and use his notes. NO need to make your own. You will definately fail!

-Spiral bind all the Sean Murrays notes with an index in the front - His notes are very good and you cant pass this exams if you cant follow his notes.

- There is no need to learn anything - You need to place heavy reliance on his notes. I made notes on the points in his notes so everytime a question came i didnt have to open the standards book, follow the index and i am there.

- This approach has to be done once and is time consuming but once you jump to questions its very easy - You can easily pick up what standard is being referred to and pretty much all the standards automatically come to your finger tips.

If you are doing audit elective and Core, You will need to keep these Elective and Financial Reporting going on the side while you prepare for other subjects.
Good luck !

_____________________________________________________________

'''''''I made notes on the points in his notes so everytime a question came i didnt have to open the standards book, follow the index and i am there.''''
Just in relation to the above - making notes to his notes is akin to rewriting the standards book, I find that it is nigh impossible to summarise the standards book'''''

Lol2013

womandriver wrote: »

Thought section 2 was tough and made a mess of question 1 in section one.

What did you think?

---

I think I spent a long time on section two. I did that first cos I have always found section 2 easy.

Then I did sec 3. I saw the construction contract question and left it till last cos i do not understand them.

That maximus question with issues that happen after the year end i spent too long on it cos i was getting confused. I finished that section anyway.

I think halfway into section one the lady was like you have 20mins and im like omg got to finish this.

In any case I had like 5mins to finish the construction contract question which meant that i did not do it but i was like ahh i think i av done enough so i dont care.


I dont want to see anymore financial reporting question anymore lol

womandriver

Lol2013 wrote: »

---

I think I spent a long time on section two. I did that first cos I have always found section 2 easy.

Then I did sec 3. I saw the construction contract question and left it till last cos i do not understand them.

That maximus question with issues that happen after the year end i spent too long on it cos i was getting confused. I finished that section anyway.

I think halfway into section one the lady was like you have 20mins and im like omg got to finish this.

In any case I had like 5mins to finish the construction contract question which meant that i did not do it but i was like ahh i think i av done enough so i dont care.


I dont want to see anymore financial reporting question anymore lol

I had a quick flick though paper for 2 mins at start to see what in each section. Started on s 3. Though it was reasonable but spent way too long on contract question. Then section 2 which I thought was difficult enough. The grant question in the section was ok. Didn't like he related party one. Spent too long trying to figure out if they were related or not. In the end I decided they weren't. Forgot to check if any extra disclosure was needed in relation to the director remuneration.
Ticked the no adjustment box for that one.

Also s.2 question about the subsidiary, the future payment issue threw me. Just included it as a disclosure.

Can't remember anything else that stood out too much except question 1 in section 1 about the land and buildings at fair value and the two values. Made a mess of that. Ended up taking he lower of the two valuations instead of the higher even tho I knew the rule. Was rushing I guess and got confused.

Hard to know how much damage a bad performance in s.2 will do to me over all, but it's done now so no point worrying about it.

Lol2013

womandriver wrote: »

I had a quick flick though paper for 2 mins at start to see what in each section. Started on s 3. Though it was reasonable but spent way too long on contract question. Then section 2 which I thought was difficult enough. The grant question in the section was ok. Didn't like he related party one. Spent too long trying to figure out if they were related or not. In the end I decided they weren't. Forgot to check if any extra disclosure was needed in relation to the director remuneration.
Ticked the no adjustment box for that one.

Also s.2 question about the subsidiary, the future payment issue threw me. Just included it as a disclosure.

Can't remember anything else that stood out too much except question 1 in section 1 about the land and buildings at fair value and the two values. Made a mess of that. Ended up taking he lower of the two valuations instead of the higher even tho I knew the rule. Was rushing I guess and got confused.

Hard to know how much damage a bad performance in s.2 will do to me over all, but it's done now so no point worrying about it.

I was not sure about the future payment too, YOU R RITE IT SHUD PROB HAVE BEEN A DISCLOSURE as they didn provide a cost of capital in order to get pv.

omg the related part one took forever.

Ya you are right, cant wait for the result and the answer to the questions

Joziburg

womandriver wrote: »

I had a quick flick though paper for 2 mins at start to see what in each section. Started on s 3. Though it was reasonable but spent way too long on contract question. Then section 2 which I thought was difficult enough. The grant question in the section was ok. Didn't like he related party one. Spent too long trying to figure out if they were related or not. In the end I decided they weren't. Forgot to check if any extra disclosure was needed in relation to the director remuneration.
Ticked the no adjustment box for that one.

Also s.2 question about the subsidiary, the future payment issue threw me. Just included it as a disclosure.

Can't remember anything else that stood out too much except question 1 in section 1 about the land and buildings at fair value and the two values. Made a mess of that. Ended up taking he lower of the two valuations instead of the higher even tho I knew the rule. Was rushing I guess and got confused.

Hard to know how much damage a bad performance in s.2 will do to me over all, but it's done now so no point worrying about it.

I got really confused with that first question in section 1 - I knew how to revalue to the correct amount but because it said something to the effect of "it will be first time land and buildings are recognised in the FS" that I thought they should be at cost (the whole measurement at recognition = cost)!??

Whemair0128

Lol2013 wrote: »

I do not want to see another Derry Cotter notes and books after the AAFRP I just want to dump them lol

I totally agree, wish i could dump it right now, was not at all happy wit my time mgt yesterday, literally started on section 2, den 3, spent too long ere and rushin section 1 ( which i hate de fact here that you get no attempt marks and between rushin to get it done, i feel all in all i really messed up) but gotta get over it and move on & get ready 4 de main one!

Triapin

From going through last year's FAE thread, I see a lot of reference to summary notes from a guy from Deloitte who placed? Could someone possibly put these notes up here?

myshirt

Go back a page or two; they are posted up by chursy there again.

Lol2013

Whemair0128 wrote: »

I totally agree, wish i could dump it right now, was not at all happy wit my time mgt yesterday, literally started on section 2, den 3, spent too long ere and rushin section 1 ( which i hate de fact here that you get no attempt marks and between rushin to get it done, i feel all in all i really messed up) but gotta get over it and move on & get ready 4 de main one!

Ya i know what u mean the lady was like u av 20MINS LEFT and i think i was on first question of sec 1. I felt i rushed a bit too. Then she was like you have some extra minutes to cos we started late and i had not even started the construction question.

I went with that tactic as well sec 2 first, 3 next 1 last. The maximus question in sec 3 took my time.

Cant wait for the real one to be over

srm23

Lol2013 wrote: »

I was not sure about the future payment too, YOU R RITE IT SHUD PROB HAVE BEEN A DISCLOSURE as they didn provide a cost of capital in order to get pv.

omg the related part one took forever.

Ya you are right, cant wait for the result and the answer to the questions

what do you think took forever about it,
i just lashed down the director remunerations and
disclosed the directors who had shares in the debtors/creditors.

i put in the 50k as part of consideration in the acquisition one, then asterixed it and disclosed it was to do with the future profits. was that wrong?

i think i got 3 of the section 1 correct an two wrong, and made a decent go of section 3 the contstruction contract i did nearly all correct, not sure about other 2 in section 3.
from reading this not sure how section 2 went!

annoying not having the paper after to look through.

Lol2013

srm23 wrote: »

what do you think took forever about it,
i just lashed down the director remunerations and
disclosed the directors who had shares in the debtors/creditors.

i put in the 50k as part of consideration in the acquisition one, then asterixed it and disclosed it was to do with the future profits. was that wrong?

i think i got 3 of the section 1 correct an two wrong, and made a decent go of section 3 the contstruction contract i did nearly all correct, not sure about other 2 in section 3.
from reading this not sure how section 2 went!

annoying not having the paper after to look through.

I felt like i was writing a lot in sec 2 question 1. it was the first question i did. I also also disclosed the transactions etc.
ya i did dat with the 50k too. I was not sure tho.

The maximus question re the financial assets held for sale i put it in trade receivable and cr FA HFS. that question took alot of my time too.


Ya its frustrating when you dont have the paper
And its so annoying cos no one has the real answers.

Lol2013

Joziburg wrote: »

I got really confused with that first question in section 1 - I knew how to revalue to the correct amount but because it said something to the effect of "it will be first time land and buildings are recognised in the FS" that I thought they should be at cost (the whole measurement at recognition = cost)!??

"it will be first time land and buildings are recognised in the FS"
Ya what was that about?????????

Lol2013

Is anyone doing the Blackwater presentation. Also how are we meant to know the people in our subgroups without contact details. Just shout out names in class and ask 'Who is JOE BLOGGS'.

srm23

Lol2013 wrote: »

The maximus question re the financial assets held for sale i put it in trade receivable and cr FA HFS. that question took alot of my time too.

this the question in section 1, that was no adjustment necessary i think.

Tricky1979

when are the AARFP results out?

Lol2013

srm23 wrote: »

this the question in section 1, that was no adjustment necessary i think.

I did that with the one u r talkin about.
But no the maximus one was in sec 3 in relation to all the material events that happened after the year end. the breach of contract etc

Lol2013

does anyone know where to get multi d questions i heard they r really good for BL

Whemair0128

srm23 wrote: »

this the question in section 1, that was no adjustment necessary i think.

i did an adjustment for this based on the fact dat on the SOFP date, the condition of the planning permission was not granted and dat per ifrs 5, the nca must be available for immediate sale, ( i thought de description ere was rather vague & u cud go either way)

well to be honest i am probaly wrong, i just felt i rushed it through and perhaps didnt tink clearly

Joziburg

Lol2013 wrote: »

does anyone know where to get multi d questions i heard they r really good for BL

What are they?

srm23

Whemair0128 wrote: »

i did an adjustment for this based on the fact dat on the SOFP date, the condition of the planning permission was not granted and dat per ifrs 5, the nca must be available for immediate sale, ( i thought de description ere was rather vague & u cud go either way)

well to be honest i am probaly wrong, i just felt i rushed it through and perhaps didnt tink clearly

so you didnt put any questions as no adjustment?
i would say that would be unusual & i didnt see anything at the time in that
which i thought looked out of place so went for that one with no adjustment

Whemair0128

srm23 wrote: »

so you didnt put any questions as no adjustment?
i would say that would be unusual & i didnt see anything at the time in that
which i thought looked out of place so went for that one with no adjustment

for this maximus question in s3, de part with de fall in de investments i did not adjust for, i adjusted for the breach of contract & de nca held for sale cos dere was some condition on de sale which was not granted until 5th jan 2013, to be honest cant really rem de rest. at dis stage i wud be just glad to get over de line

Lol2013

Joziburg wrote: »

What are they?

They are Multi disciplinary papers, I think they use to be the papers for old prof 3. Apparently they are good for practicing questions

R0N BURGUNDY

lol @ results out on 28th of June. WTF.

EDudder

For the related party question the only thing I added in was the pension and shares of the CEO. Anyone else do that?

I'm pretty sure that one of the books specifically states you don't have to disclose just because two companies trading together have a director in common. I may have read that wrong though.

The post balance sheet events q where planning permission was given was very confusing. I'm starting to think maybe we were supposed to adjust that as they had put it as held for trading. But at the time I was thinking having it as held for sale would be the truest reflection realistically as they were actively seeking to sell it and it was sold soon after year end. Wish I would have stated that assumption. Was that section 1 or 2?

Does anyone know approx. when the results come out?

WeeDeee

Does anyone know where to get the sample exam papers on the institutes website?

WeeDeee

EDudder wrote: »

For the related party question the only thing I added in was the pension and shares of the CEO. Anyone else do that?

I'm pretty sure that one of the books specifically states you don't have to disclose just because two companies trading together have a director in common. I may have read that wrong though.

The post balance sheet events q where planning permission was given was very confusing. I'm starting to think maybe we were supposed to adjust that as they had put it as held for trading. But at the time I was thinking having it as held for sale would be the truest reflection realistically as they were actively seeking to sell it and it was sold soon after year end. Wish I would have stated that assumption. Was that section 1 or 2?

Does anyone know approx. when the results come out?

End of June

R0N BURGUNDY

R0N BURGUNDY wrote: »

lol @ results out on 28th of June. WTF.

EDudder wrote: »

Does anyone know approx. when the results come out?

read much?

Joziburg

EDudder wrote: »

For the related party question the only thing I added in was the pension and shares of the CEO. Anyone else do that?

I'm pretty sure that one of the books specifically states you don't have to disclose just because two companies trading together have a director in common. I may have read that wrong though.

The post balance sheet events q where planning permission was given was very confusing. I'm starting to think maybe we were supposed to adjust that as they had put it as held for trading. But at the time I was thinking having it as held for sale would be the truest reflection realistically as they were actively seeking to sell it and it was sold soon after year end. Wish I would have stated that assumption. Was that section 1 or 2?

Does anyone know approx. when the results come out?

'Held for Trading' - I didn't notice that it said that, it said held for sale I thought.

Also anyone still wondering about that question 1 of section 1 - first time land and buildings will be recognised in the FS"...I thought they should be at cost then.

EDudder

Held for sale was what I meant to say, sorry.

Clarise123

Hi guys,

In relation to one of the questions in section 1 of the AAFRP exam we had to net of the provision against the re-imbursement.. How did u treat this?? Derry cotters notes said that you reduce the required provision by the re-imbursement amount however, I am just after checking the IFRS book & it says that u have to recognise the re-imbursement as a separate asset?? Which is the correct way? I can't remember if there was an option to recognise it as a asset..

Thanks

mandacos

EDudder wrote: »

For the related party question the only thing I added in was the pension and shares of the CEO. Anyone else do that?

I'm pretty sure that one of the books specifically states you don't have to disclose just because two companies trading together have a director in common. I may have read that wrong though.

The post balance sheet events q where planning permission was given was very confusing. I'm starting to think maybe we were supposed to adjust that as they had put it as held for trading. But at the time I was thinking having it as held for sale would be the truest reflection realistically as they were actively seeking to sell it and it was sold soon after year end. Wish I would have stated that assumption. Was that section 1 or 2?

Does anyone know approx. when the results come out?

I did the exact same for the second question of Section 2. Just stuck in the pension and shares of the CEO. I really don't think anything else was needed.
Well hope not, kinda panicked in the exam which wasn't good!!

Lol2013

WeeDeee wrote: »

Does anyone know where to get the sample exam papers on the institutes website?

there you go

http://students.charteredaccountants.ie/Student-Information/Exams/Papers-Solutions-Reports/Papers/

Lol2013

Joziburg wrote: »

'Held for Trading' - I didn't notice that it said that, it said held for sale I thought.

Also anyone still wondering about that question 1 of section 1 - first time land and buildings will be recognised in the FS"...I thought they should be at cost then.

You are right but it was already recorded at cost initially I think at 7mil and 1.6 or somn like that then they chose to go the fair value or was it revaluation model. Because if they had said fair value then that means i got the whole question wrong as fair value is for investment property. Darn. lol.

Lol2013

Clarise123 wrote: »

Hi guys,

In relation to one of the questions in section 1 of the AAFRP exam we had to net of the provision against the re-imbursement.. How did u treat this?? Derry cotters notes said that you reduce the required provision by the re-imbursement amount however, I am just after checking the IFRS book & it says that u have to recognise the re-imbursement as a separate asset?? Which is the correct way? I can't remember if there was an option to recognise it as a asset..

Thanks

I rememeber this netting off issue from one of the financial reporting classes alright but I cant remember if it was with derry or brian. I recognised them separately. But im not sure of the correct way to do that. What does the standard say?

Lol2013

EDudder wrote: »

For the related party question the only thing I added in was the pension and shares of the CEO. Anyone else do that?

I'm pretty sure that one of the books specifically states you don't have to disclose just because two companies trading together have a director in common. I may have read that wrong though.

The post balance sheet events q where planning permission was given was very confusing. I'm starting to think maybe we were supposed to adjust that as they had put it as held for trading. But at the time I was thinking having it as held for sale would be the truest reflection realistically as they were actively seeking to sell it and it was sold soon after year end. Wish I would have stated that assumption. Was that section 1 or 2?

Does anyone know approx. when the results come out?

Ya you are right about the common director thing. Didnt think of that darn.
But I disclosed it because the trading was a significant portion of there annual revenue and purchases and they get heavy discounts as well.

It was in section 3. It was already HFS before the year end. I didnt know how to adj that. As it was sold after the year end i put the value of the asset in receivables and credited HFS. Prob proper wrong.

Lol2013

mandacos wrote: »

I did the exact same for the second question of Section 2. Just stuck in the pension and shares of the CEO. I really don't think anything else was needed.
Well hope not, kinda panicked in the exam which wasn't good!!

I think at this rate we can all be discussing the exam issues til 28th of June and we'll get nowhere. We should prob just focus on the real thing and aim to pass that

Joziburg

Lol2013 wrote: »

You are right but it was already recorded at cost initially I think at 7mil and 1.6 or somn like that then they chose to go the fair value or was it revaluation model. Because if they had said fair value then that means i got the whole question wrong as fair value is for investment property. Darn. lol.

True...only thing about that is, and this annoyed me, the question said the building was complete ON IN December - typical institute to leave things ambiguous!!

If you took that as being building was complete ON 31st December then would it not be cost!??

Lol2013

Joziburg wrote: »

True...only thing about that is, and this annoyed me, the question said the building was complete ON IN December - typical institute to leave things ambiguous!!

If you took that as being building was complete ON 31st December then would it not be cost!??

You are prob right. But now I am confused lol. But as I said in my previous post we can be here till the 28th of June when the results come out debating what we think the correct answers are and we'll get nowhere.

We should prob just give up altogether and focus on the real one and aim to pass that one.

EDudder

Lol2013 wrote: »

I rememeber this netting off issue from one of the financial reporting classes alright but I cant remember if it was with derry or brian. I recognised them separately. But im not sure of the correct way to do that. What does the standard say?

This was in section 1 wasn't it?

I had thought that this was a contingent asset and therefore shouldn't be recognised, even if it is probable. No?

The asset at fair value question is definitely confusing. But surely there's a straight right/wrong way to deal with it. The standard just seems a bit ambiguous. But as there was a market value at 31 December 2012, I thought it only seemed right to recognised it at fair value, and recognise the gain or loss.

Clarise123

EDudder wrote: »

This was in section 1 wasn't it?

I had thought that this was a contingent asset and therefore shouldn't be recognised, even if it is probable. No?

The asset at fair value question is definitely confusing. But surely there's a straight right/wrong way to deal with it. The standard just seems a bit ambiguous. But as there was a market value at 31 December 2012, I thought it only seemed right to recognised it at fair value, and recognise the gain or loss.

I don't think it was a contingent asset as it was virtually certain..

However, I think that the asset and liability should have been recognised separately (ie the provision and the re-imbursement) in the balance sheet and the net amount recognised in the P or L however, Derry Cotters notes said to recognise it as a reduction in the provision...

Lol2013

EDudder wrote: »

This was in section 1 wasn't it?

I had thought that this was a contingent asset and therefore shouldn't be recognised, even if it is probable. No?

The asset at fair value question is definitely confusing. But surely there's a straight right/wrong way to deal with it. The standard just seems a bit ambiguous. But as there was a market value at 31 December 2012, I thought it only seemed right to recognised it at fair value, and recognise the gain or loss.

It wasn't a contingent asset as it was virtually certain. I know that for sure lol. If it is a liability it has to be probable but the question said likely in relation to the liability which if I remember correctly derry said that means probable.
So in that question they should have been provided for. But what I am not sure about is whether they had to be netted off. I know [IAS 1.32] Assets and liabilities, and income and expenses, may not be offset unless required or permitted by an IFRS. What I don't know is whether IAS37 allows it tho. Too lazy to check.

Also I agree with your thinking on the fair value issue. That's the way i treated it anyway.

At this stage don't really care anymore lol

Lol2013

Confirmation re netting off issue in provision question


If some or all of the expenditure required to settle a provision is expected to be reimbursed by another party, the reimbursement should be recognised as a separate asset, and not as a reduction of the required provision, when, and only when, it is virtually certain that reimbursement will be received if the entity settles the obligation. The amount recognised should not exceed the amount of the provision. [IAS 37.53]

Clarise123

Lol2013 wrote: »

Confirmation re netting off issue in provision question


If some or all of the expenditure required to settle a provision is expected to be reimbursed by another party, the reimbursement should be recognised as a separate asset, and not as a reduction of the required provision, when, and only when, it is virtually certain that reimbursement will be received if the entity settles the obligation. The amount recognised should not exceed the amount of the provision. [IAS 37.53]

So do you reckon 0 marks if one netted these off?? Very frustrating as Derrys notes just simply explained it as a reduction in the provision..:o

lexluthor

hi all.. guys would anyone be kind enough to put up Lecture Notes/Slides (not the induction notes) for Tax (core), Audit (core) and IMP to date (again not the induction notes rather the material you'd have on your Course Material page) for repeaters as we dont have access to current notes?
thanks a lot in advance..

lexluthor

particularly the updated class questions and answers for tax (core)