FAE September 2014

Dellboy2007

m1ck007 wrote: »

Dont know, something on the role of the audit or remuneration committee. Heard our paul goin on about it once.

Paul always puts whatever he thinks is coming up that year on the mock papers so if you want an idea of how often he's right compare the actual paper with the mock paper.

Dellboy2007

ashmcg9 wrote: »

Could someone please explain what exactly the decile and sufficiency rankings mean? I got a decile 2 and sufficiency 7 in the mocks for core and not sure if that's a good or bad thing?

http://students.charteredaccountants.ie/Global/exam%20regulations/EXPLANATORY%20INFORMATION%20for%20results.pdf

ashmcg9

Thanks a million

JoanH

Can somebody please tell me how to attach a file to a post. myshirt asked me to PM a copy of some notes I made for APM and I can't do it! Brainfreeze but maybe it's a boards thing.

cian twomey

anyone know of any good questions for transfer pricing, had a look at full metal jacket but very narrative based, any computational questions out there

Reddzer2002

JoanH wrote: »

Can somebody please tell me how to attach a file to a post. myshirt asked me to PM a copy of some notes I made for APM and I can't do it! Brainfreeze but maybe it's a boards thing.

I dont think you can send any attachments or links until you have 50 posts. I am having the same problem!

JoanH

Well that explains that I guess. I've only posted on here a few times. Sounds like a silly rule to me. What say you boards.ie?

IR1SH RANG3R

m1ck007 wrote: »

This is what i think may come up in day 1. Consol, audit of consol, transfer pricing, change mgt, cg, group losses, cant think of anything else

What kind of stuff could they ask on audit of consol? Not much extra to a normal audit just them new standards 6-something or other?

acastudent

Any ideas what could come up for IMP ???

littlemiss123

Can someone clarify something for me with regards IAS 11 construction contracts. I have just done the Datatech case and got confused when the contract is expected to make a loss and you have to recognise the full loss straight away in the SOCI.

So the contract is expected to make a loss of €2,000 (Revenues of €100k and Cost of €102k). We are given the stage of completion as 350 hours completed out of a total of 680 hours @ €150/hr. Therefore I calculated a cost so far of €52,500 (350 * €150) and thus recognised revenue of €50,500 to give me a €2k loss recognised in the SOCI.

However, the solution takes 350/680 = 51.417% complete and multiplies this by the total contract revenue of €100k, recognising revenue of €51,471 and then recognises costs of €53,471.

Which way round is correct?

acastudent

cian twomey wrote: »

anyone know of any good questions for transfer pricing, had a look at full metal jacket but very narrative based, any computational questions out there

Do you have access to Cap 2 notes?

littlemiss123

acastudent wrote: »

Any ideas what could come up for IMP ???

Given the possibility of consolidation coming up I think something around combining two IMS/finding a suitable IMS for a group etc.

Tyrone2014

Your ability to judge what will be on the exams is amazing...highly competent for you!

acastudent

littlemiss123 wrote: »

Can someone clarify something for me with regards IAS 11 construction contracts. I have just done the Datatech case and got confused when the contract is expected to make a loss and you have to recognise the full loss straight away in the SOCI.

So the contract is expected to make a loss of €2,000 (Revenues of €100k and Cost of €102k). We are given the stage of completion as 350 hours completed out of a total of 680 hours @ €150/hr. Therefore I calculated a cost so far of €52,500 (350 * €150) and thus recognised revenue of €50,500 to give me a €2k loss recognised in the SOCI.

However, the solution takes 350/680 = 51.417% complete and multiplies this by the total contract revenue of €100k, recognising revenue of €51,471 and then recognises costs of €53,471.

Which way round is correct?

I think the solution is right . First you calculate revenue based on completion , then write loss and the cost of sales being balancing figure .

littlemiss123

acastudent wrote: »

I think the solution is right . First you calculate revenue based on completion , then write loss and the cost of sales being balancing figure .

It just seems a bit strange that you would recognise €53,471 in costs when in fact only €52,500 have been incurred to date!

myshirt

The difference is WIP!

Great case on transfer pricing is Tekron, Vortechs, or an APM case called Global.

galway321

myshirt wrote: »

The difference is WIP!

Great case on transfer pricing is Tekron, Vortechs, or an APM case called Global.

Where is the Vortechs case?

littlemiss123

myshirt wrote: »

The difference is WIP!

Great case on transfer pricing is Tekron, Vortechs, or an APM case called Global.

So basically always calculate the revenue first based on completion and then have the cost as the 'plug' to reach the total loss figure?

Not even gonna bother questioning it, I'll just do that in the exam if it comes up. The online lecturer for IAS 11 specifically said to do it the way I thought, but that method has proved wrong for 2 questions I have come across now! Love the institute and their excellent technical knowledge :P

myshirt

galway321 wrote: »

Where is the Vortechs case?

You'll get it on last years thread.

Philip1988

myshirt wrote: »

The difference is WIP!

Great case on transfer pricing is Tekron, Vortechs, or an APM case called Global.

Where is the Tekron case?

I see one in the Liffey Case Day but can't see and TP in it!

womandriver

womandriver wrote: »

Can somebody please post the slides/notes for the Core audit online corporate governance lecture please?

Thanks

Can someone post these notes pretty please

Dreaming of sunshine

womandriver wrote: »

Can someone post these notes pretty please

There wasn't any he just went through the UK Code of Corporate Governance in the lecture with us.

Dreaming of sunshine

PhilipLuke wrote: »

In the Hamcam cross marking paper how is anyone in their right mind supposed to work out the contribution for year 2 from the figures presented!!!

If a junior gave me that garbage I would kick him out the door of the office and half way down the street!!

It's on this thread somewhere...I'll try find it for you because I needed help with it too!

acastudent wrote: »

Production cost 60 over 80 , gives 20 then multiplied by projected sales for year 2 which is 10000. The contribution is 200
For hamCo the same 80 prod cost over 110 as per product costing multiplied by 1000 sales

I hope it make sence . Sorry for typos , on my phone

Ps. In product costing appendix 1 for cost of manufacture should be note 3 (payable to MetFab)

womandriver

Dreaming of sunshine wrote: »

There wasn't any he just went through the UK Code of Corporate Governance in the lecture with us.

Thanks, I had a look at the lecture and he's using notes relating to the now UK Code. Was hoping to get those. Thanks anyway.

Dreaming of sunshine

womandriver wrote: »

Thanks, I had a look at the lecture and he's using notes relating to the now UK Code. Was hoping to get those. Thanks anyway.

Which session? Let me have a look and see what I have...it was a long time ago.

From memory Session 1 he just used to CG code and the Irish Annex, Session 2 was the ethics book. The folder on the student page only has the code in it and a case study.

womandriver

Dreaming of sunshine wrote: »

Which session? Let me have a look and see what I have...it was a long time ago.

From memory Session 1 he just used to CG code and the Irish Annex, Session 2 was the ethics book. The folder on the student page only has the code in it and a case study.

There's a full Core corporate governance lecture, a standalone lecture, about an hour long. it's not part of the core sessions 1-10. Similarly there's one for the elective and notes to accompany it. I can access the elective version but not the core notes. Thanks.

NBA1998

Just did my first timed SIM case. 2010- did it in 5 hours, which is really worrying as my general standard of answer was RC, at best, in comparison to the suggested solution. Is anyone else finding this the same?

Dreaming of sunshine

Oh...apologies, I must have different access to you. I've gone through all the recorded sessions folders but I only have three corporate governance lectures Session 1, Session 2 and Session 3&4 all of which only use the Code/Ethics book as far as I can tell - can't see any CG notes on my student page either. Sorry I can't help - maybe someone else can shed some light on this?

womandriver

Dreaming of sunshine wrote: »

Oh...apologies, I must have different access to you. I've gone through all the recorded sessions folders but I only have three corporate governance lectures Session 1, Session 2 and Session 3&4 all of which only use the Code/Ethics book as far as I can tell - can't see any CG notes on my student page either. Sorry I can't help - maybe someone else can shed some light on this?

That's grand, thanks. I have the elective ones anyway so I'll prob be grand with those.

jaybeeveedub

deleted

littlemiss123

Is it correct that an executive summary is only required for a report? I remember someone bringing this up already but can't remember the answer.

Not a tall

What is a dotted line reporting relationship?

I've seen a few cases where it is "you are reporting to Mr X, with a dotted line to Mr Y", but I'm still not sure what means

Not a tall

littlemiss123 wrote: »

Is it correct that an executive summary is only required for a report? I remember someone bringing this up already but can't remember the answer.

I think its needed in a memo as well.

I've been putting in summaries at the start of emails, briefing papers, etc as well but I don't know how correct that is.

littlemiss123

Not a tall wrote: »

What is a dotted line reporting relationship?

I've seen a few cases where it is "you are reporting to Mr X, with a dotted line to Mr Y", but I'm still not sure what means

Did one of these questions yesterday and had to google it! Found this:

"The solid line reporting relationship is similar to a traditional line management role. The solid line manager tends to look after the objective setting and performance evaluation processes and in the event of a dispute is the manager to whom the individual will tend to defer.

The dotted line reporting relationship is a weaker relationship. The dotted line manager still has a formal right to some part of the individual’s time and attention and will usually set some of goals. But it is not a strong relationship as a solid line."

Source: http://www.global-integration.com/matrix-management/matrix-structure/solid-line-reporting-dotted-line-reporting-matrix-organization-structure/

Dellboy2007

Had another look at my mock paper yesterday. I don't think the papers were corrected right at all. The amount of people that got the same sufficiency and decile is too coincidental. For example, I ran out of time and missed one of the tax indicators but got a yellow (fair enough). BUT, I got "excellent" and "very good" answers on audit indicators and still got a red.

Just venting, I know they don't have much time to mark them but it does seem a little stupid that they even bother grading them, they should just give feedback on your indicators.

littlemiss123

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Had another look at my mock paper yesterday. I don't think the papers were corrected right at all. The amount of people that got the same sufficiency and decile is too coincidental. For example, I ran out of time and missed one of the tax indicators but got a yellow (fair enough). BUT, I got "excellent" and "very good" answers on audit indicators and still got a red.

Just venting, I know they don't have much time to mark them but it does seem a little stupid that they even bother grading them, they should just give feedback on your indicators.

Mocks are such a waste of time! They are these to scare us, simple as.

littlemiss123

Anyone think variance interpretation is a possibility for the exam?

Cagney87

ya i think its a good bet! They would never get us to calculate them? that and transfer pricing theory, wish they were over now to be honest!!

galway321

Anyone else just lost the motivation to do anything at this point?

Struggling to even read over/reorganise notes now

littlemiss123

galway321 wrote: »

Anyone else just lost the motivation to do anything at this point?

Struggling to even read over/reorganise notes now

I'm currently watching The Jeremy Kyle Show, stretched out on the couch. I think that says it all....

PhilipLuke

galway321 wrote: »

Anyone else just lost the motivation to do anything at this point?

Struggling to even read over/reorganise notes now

I feel much the same!!

The Little Fella

iwishihadaname

Just doing some of the pre 2010 fae papers in the Derry Cotter book. What I wouldn't give to have a time machine to go back and do these exams then, p**sh easy.

vnervous

Think everyone is hitting that wall at this stage....

littlemiss123

In the GlobalTech case the solution refers to the first time adoption of IFRS, that if the company was acquired on 1 January 2014, under IFRS 1 the date of transition would be 1 January 2013 and an opening statement would have to be prepared at that date.

Is the 2013 a typo? Should this be 2014?

mark_m360

littlemiss123 wrote: »

In the GlobalTech case the solution refers to the first time adoption of IFRS, that if the company was acquired on 1 January 2014, under IFRS 1 the date of transition would be 1 January 2013 and an opening statement would have to be prepared at that date.

Is the 2013 a typo? Should this be 2014?

The date of transition is the commencement date of the prior period.

FlyingSolo13

What was the general consensus re the steps case ARGON can anyone fill me in on what was going on with the R&D expenditure>? Was it an impairment??????

acastudent

littlemiss123 wrote: »

In the GlobalTech case the solution refers to the first time adoption of IFRS, that if the company was acquired on 1 January 2014, under IFRS 1 the date of transition would be 1 January 2013 and an opening statement would have to be prepared at that date.

Is the 2013 a typo? Should this be 2014?

Just checked my notes and it says : transition date= 1st day in comparative day in Financial statements . So if 2014 is first year of adoption then 1st January of 2013 is the transition date

littlemiss123

mark_m360 wrote: »

The date of transition is the commencement date of the prior period.

acastudent wrote: »

Just checked my notes and it says : transition date= 1st day in comparative day in Financial statements . So if 2014 is first year of adoption then 1st January of 2013 is the transition date

Thanks for confirming!

jaybeeveedub

FlyingSolo13 wrote: »

What was the general consensus re the steps case ARGON can anyone fill me in on what was going on with the R&D expenditure>? Was it an impairment??????

The prior expenditure on R&D is impaired as the release of 835K deferred exceeds the contribution of 621K (if I remember the figures right)....

I cant see how he worked out the 500K impairment though!

The vertical or improvement R&D is to be monitored carefully, ie once the new version of the products are selling, we need to ascertain if the contribution over 4 years will match or exceed what we have deferred