FAE September 2014

lowenstein

20 Times 20 Times wrote: »

I dont think you needed to mention IFRS5 today - see Para 32 of the standard.

The subsidiary only worked out of 7% of the irish revenue.

I fecked up finance only spoke about one option - Money Market did small calculation - advised noting else = NC

would that be a strict nc? might reach rc for 1 correct strategy?

TheDoctor

Aidodub87 wrote: »

Maybe retirement relief... Hard to know... From a group perspective today, EIIS last year.... What else?

Revenue audits come up yet in core?

LOccitane

Just in terms of tomorrow.. Material that appeared today was emphasised in lectures. Disposal case was specifically covered as was FX risk as was TP as was Participation Exemption - all through specific questions beyond general reading.

Other specific questions included.... Company Valuations, IFRS 2, IAS 17/19. ISA 600 has been emphasised subsequently. Might one of the cases tomorrow focus around an acquisition and valuation? We'll soon know...

Goodnight everyone. Best of luck :-)

LOccitane

lowenstein wrote: »

would that be a strict nc? might reach rc for 1 correct strategy?

Look at the CORE 2013. Interest Rate Risk came up and I believe candidates had the same problem. To get RC all you had to do was to identify (confirm) there was an exposure with some points OR make a reasonable attempt to calculate one method of limiting exposure.. I would really hope that the same is applied to today.

arnie_ni

maninblack wrote: »

Anyone else say to keep all 3 open?

I said that OK, it's loss making, but the situation is improving

mentioned the onerous leases and the fact that we're already committed to sunk costs here irregardless.

Store 1 = we're going to directly lose 1.5mil to a competitor. poor from a group perspective to lose any territory from a competitor.
Store 2 = took an ethical approach to this. how can we promote 'luxury for all' when we pull the plug on a disadvantaged area?
Store 3 = unwise to close an outlet in a prime location such as a business park. being undercut by discount stores. maybe change our approach? raise TP and then promote the luxury aspects of the brand?

I dno, was kinda talking out of my ass on the strategic aspects of that one tbh and heard a lot of people saying to scrap all 3 stores which had me worried.

Was the 1.5 mil not contribution to another store I the jessen group?

arnie_ni

What's the onerous lease all about? Is this the rental of the stores?

acastudent

20 Times 20 Times wrote: »

I dont think you needed to mention IFRS5 today - see Para 32 of the standard.

The subsidiary only worked out of 7% of the irish revenue.

I fecked up finance only spoke about one option - Money Market did small calculation - advised noting else = NC

Oh God , I mentioned IFRS 5

maninblack

arnie_ni wrote: »

Was the 1.5 mil not contribution to another store I the jessen group?

ah balls, prob was. :rolleyes:

arnie_ni

acastudent wrote: »

Oh God , I mentioned IFRS 5

I mentioned it as well, it was talking about disclosures, I didn't think there was enough in the answer not to mention it.

20 Times 20 Times

arnie_ni wrote: »

I mentioned it as well, it was talking about disclosures, I didn't think there was enough in the answer not to mention it.

7%

Mark1916

arnie_ni wrote: »

I mentioned it as well, it was talking about disclosures, I didn't think there was enough in the answer not to mention it.

I stated that because it was the companies biggest divestment strategy in 12 years that it was a significant part of the business and therefore warranted the disclosure! Anyway doesn't matter now what's done is done! Good luck tomorrow everyone!

arnie_ni

20 Times 20 Times wrote: »

7%

So what did you talk about? Did you just say the profit goes on p and l and because such small part it doesn't need separately disclosed per ifrs 5?


If that's the case, it's bound to be a fundamental error on my part. That's me screwed.

On a side note, I spent all night following on falcao and not studying and I'm guessing you did.

20 Times 20 Times

arnie_ni wrote: »

So what did you talk about? Did you just say the profit goes on p and l and because such small part it doesn't need separately disclosed per ifrs 5?


If that's the case, it's bound to be a fundamental error on my part. That's me screwed.

On a side note, I spent all night following on falcao and not studying and I'm guessing you did.

For Fr i did

Disposal of sub to associate
IFRS10 requirements ( FV)
IFRS12 Disclosures
Onerous leases ( IAS 37 )

qwabercd

Damn didn't spot the onerous provision - knew I shouldn't have checked this thread.

20 Times 20 Times

Anyone else find that the case and the scenario was not based what is happening in Ireland now and was two years late.

redgerry 86

U r right! I stupidly did ifrs 5 also however calculated the profit on disposal correctly and mentioned ifrs 10 and mentioned onerous leases plus threw in ifrs 8 (listed); possibility of restructuring ias 37and ias19. Journals were wrong bar dr bank and crediting profit on disposal! Just hoping that's enough for at least yellow

iwishihadaname

redgerry 86 wrote: »

U r right! I stupidly did ifrs 5 also however calculated the profit on disposal correctly and mentioned ifrs 10 and mentioned onerous leases plus threw in ifrs 8 (listed); possibility of restructuring ias 37and ias19. Journals were wrong bar dr bank and crediting profit on disposal! Just hoping that's enough for at least yellow

I knew in the exam it couldn't be IFRS5 but I couldn't figure out what it was supposed to be instead. So I went with IFRS 5 and stated that I considered 7% to be significant for a listed company. Pure sh*t* talk but might get away with it

IR1SH RANG3R

Why did everyone mention the onerous leases for FR? As I took up the indicator we were supposed to look at the accounting implications of the divestment in BUNIS? I'm not saying ye are wrong as they are clearly onerous leases but I don't see where we HAD to mention this in the context of the case unless it's mentioned as part of your strategy indicator NOT FR? (I could be way off the mark, that's just my reading of it)

20 Times 20 Times

IR1SH RANG3R wrote: »

Why did everyone mention the onerous leases for FR? As I took up the indicator we were supposed to look at the accounting implications of the divestment in BUNIS? I'm not saying ye are wrong as they are clearly onerous leases but I don't see where we HAD to mention this in the context of the case unless it's mentioned as part of your strategy indicator NOT FR? (I could be way off the mark, that's just my reading of it)

If you decided to close one shop it would give rise to an onerous lease, as a chartered accountant what would you do?? You can't just ignore that.

Anyway that's my take on it, I fecked up finance :-(

TheDoctor

IMP?

Torres999

TheDoctor wrote: »

IMP?

Valuing intellectual property

vnervous

Nooooo!!!!

TheDoctor

Torres999 wrote: »

Valuing intellectual property

More finance than IMP from where I'm standing

kenner24

Audit??

TheDoctor

kenner24 wrote: »

Audit??

The report to Tommy Little?

iwishihadaname

Torres999 wrote: »

Valuing intellectual property

If that's the case that must be the most indirect indicator in the history of indicators.

I hate you FAE's.

acastudent

Just when you think that things can't go any worse

kenner24

iwishihadaname wrote: »

If that's the case that must be the most indirect indicator in the history of indicators.

I hate you FAE's.

Ah they cant fail us all on not seeing an IMP indicator as its not on next years syllabus!

kookies

I have definetely failed so!

kenner24

TheDoctor wrote: »

The report to Tommy Little?

Thats what i was hoping...just wasnt very audity....paul monahan was wrong was counting on a good audit as i tanked yesterday!

acastudent

kookies wrote: »

I have definetely failed so!

Same

TheDoctor

Failing the Final Accouting Exam on a subject that isn't accounting and won't be on the exam next year


One for the grand kids!

arnie_ni

What did yous think the indicators where?

Case 1

Bl strategy in choosing options.
Pm Fr on treatment of sales
Bl ethics in backdating invoice
Finance factoring vs discount

Case 2

Fiance determining value company
Auditing responsibilities of directors?
Swot anal was bl strategy
Imp built into the intellectual property
Pm MA in management accounts? Im not sure
Tax with r and d relief.

BigMawn12

Value the IP? Where was that? I just valued the company based on projected cash flows and came up with a NPV and equity % for the £2m investment with a 18% rate. Think I came up with 41-43% of the equity to be negotiated.

Wrote on the wrong bloody numbered answer books like last year but scribbled out the numbers. Hope they don't hate me for that. ****.

Debs23

BigMawn12 wrote: »

Value the IP? Where was that? I just valued the company based on projected cash flows and came up with a NPV and equity % for the £2m investment with a 18% rate. Think I came up with 41-43% of the equity to be negotiated.

Wrote on the wrong bloody numbered answer books like last year but scribbled out the numbers. Hope they don't hate me for that. ****.

I cane up with 43% equity put said they should take 55% as they were bearing majority of the risk and they would have control over everything 😳

Philip1988

Did anybody think there was Ethics on sim1 today? I ignored it but hoping it's not... In particular on the revenue section about invoices

Debs23

Philip1988 wrote: »

Did anybody think there was Ethics on sim1 today? I ignored it but hoping it's not

No i just stated it in the strategy options as they had not decided to take on that option!

arnie_ni

Debs23 wrote: »

I cane up with 43% equity put said they should take 55% as they were bearing majority of the risk and they would have control over everything 😳

i got 43 percent as well but said to take 40 because all the value of the compant was the ip, which was patented on that guys on name so we need to ensure to get it trf to the company and yo ensure he does that, give him a greater shareholding.

Torres999

The finance indicator was the IMP indicator, there wasn't 2 indicators, if you answered it as a finance indicator you won't fail

Debs23

What did people write for tommys responsiblities? I didnt say much! I only mentioned that he had to act in the best interest of the shareholders and maximise their wealth.

Dont see how thats audit

Torres999

Like for ethics in sim 1 I mentioned the ethics in option 1 and with the backdating of invoices but didn't do a framework as I didn't think we had enough info

arnie_ni

Torres999 wrote: »

The finance indicator was the IMP indicator, there wasn't 2 indicators, if you answered it as a finance indicator you won't fail

I thought the imp was built into the swot. It was a threat that if we lose tommy we'd lose the patent and his knowledge. So we had to embed him the patent and knowledge into the company. Very similar indicator in 2012 exam which i used for my answer

danko2012

That's not too bad I got something like 48% equity and thought I was going mad, feel a bit better now though!

Where was auditing? Unless built into directors responsibilities or independent on hiring of role to manage the comany?

Seemed like about 6 indicators in the 2nd sim, missed the back dated invoice think I took that up wrong as only now realise that they hadn't supplied to them in the revenue!
Paul M has screwed a lot of people with the amount of finance in the paper this year

Debs23

Torres999 wrote: »

The finance indicator was the IMP indicator, there wasn't 2 indicators, if you answered it as a finance indicator you won't fail

Did they not say they we valuing it on furture revenues and sale after 6yrs.

Therefore i didnt value they patent

arnie_ni

Torres999 wrote: »

Like for ethics in sim 1 I mentioned the ethics in option 1 and with the backdating of invoices but didn't do a framework as I didn't think we had enough info

Backdating invoice is falseyfying records which is a breach of company law snd therfore unethical. Do not do. I reversed the sale and put items back into stock.

Reversed sale i second one as well ias 2 consignment stock.

The third one i said was ok as long as they set up a debtor

danko2012

arnie_ni wrote: »

I thought the imp was built into the swot. It was a threat that if we lose tommy we'd lose the patent and his knowledge. So we had to embed him the patent and knowledge into the company. Very similar indicator in 2012 exam which i used for my answer

Likewise this being my 3rd attempt and failing on IMP in 2012 I ensured that tommy was to be retained and his IP was to be transferred to the company!

Very indirect indicators I though in some parts today

Torres999

arnie_ni wrote: »

What did yous think the indicators where?

Case 1

Bl strategy in choosing options.
Pm Fr on treatment of sales
Bl ethics in backdating invoice
Finance factoring vs discount

Case 2

Fiance determining value company
Auditing responsibilities of directors?
Swot anal was bl strategy
Imp built into the intellectual property
Pm MA in management accounts? Im not sure
Tax with r and d relief.

I had case 1:

FR IAS 18
Strategy
Financing vs Discounting

Case 2:

PM management accounts
Strategy Swot thing
IMP valuation property, took it as IMP not finance
Tax r and d
Directors responsibilites

arnie_ni

danko2012 wrote: »

That's not too bad I got something like 48% equity and thought I was going mad, feel a bit better now though!

Where was auditing? Unless built into directors responsibilities or independent on hiring of role to manage the comany?

Seemed like about 6 indicators in the 2nd sim, missed the back dated invoice think I took that up wrong as only now realise that they hadn't supplied to them in the revenue!
Paul M has screwed a lot of people with the amount of finance in the paper this year

id love to know of in comp you wrre certain you nailed the finance indicator could you effectively have ignored finance today, allowing more time to do other indicators.

Risky though

Shorty11857

arnie_ni wrote: »

Backdating invoice is falseyfying records which is a breach of company law snd therfore unethical. Do not do. I reversed the sale and put items back into stock.

Reversed sale i second one as well ias 2 consignment stock.

The third one i said was ok as long as they set up a debtor

Did they actually backdate the invoice though? As far I could tell they just agreed to take title and be invoiced before they received the goods, pretty sure there's a similar question in the case study pack

BigMawn12

I assumed that the 18% return covered the risk.

So was yesterday's question an IMP question or marketing do yas reckon?