FAE September 2014

LOccitane · 03-09-2014 4:43pm

20 Times 20 Times wrote: »

I did this - I am so glad someone else did this

I can definitely see the Ethical issue if backdated/falsified but I have just re-read the case again and the Invoice was not backdated, simply the Revenue wanted to be invoiced pre year end. It is premature revenue recognition for sure but not backdating. Anyway I could be totally wrong. It seems to be about 1/2 who went for the ethics aspect from the people I've spoken to....

laser08 · 03-09-2014 4:46pm

ashmcg9 wrote: »

Yeah does anyone know if you get RC and NC in a subject with two indicators what that will get you?

You get overall of rc. So one rc and one nc will do u

20 Times 20 Times · 03-09-2014 4:48pm

LOccitane wrote: »

I can definitely see the Ethical issue if backdated/falsified but I have just re-read the case again and the Invoice was not backdated, simply the Revenue wanted to be invoiced pre year end. It is premature revenue recognition for sure but not backdating. It seems to be about 1/2 who went for the ethics aspect from the people I've spoken to....

So should they of recongised the revenue ?

Dr Revenue 200k
Cr Debtors 200k

CR COGS 140
DR Stock 140

thats what i did

maninblack · 03-09-2014 4:48pm

I saw problems with all revenue recognition so I reversed all 3 sales and put the stock back where necessary but I was kinda working off a "2 are prob wrong here.... just reverse all 3 to be safe!" methodology

galway321 · 03-09-2014 4:50pm

Just thought of this now - why have the second company got inventory?

If they are selling licences and IP what is their inventory??

LOccitane · 03-09-2014 4:50pm

20 Times 20 Times wrote: »

So should they of recongised the revenue ?

Dr Revenue 200k
Cr Debtors 200k

Dr COGS 140
CR Stock 140

thats what i did

I agree - I reversed the sale but I:

Dr Stock 140
Cr COGS 140

Because we were reversing a sale and the related cost of sale...

I had an overall reversal to Revenue of EUR 700. To COGS 490. Reversed Sales 1 and 2... Left the third but mentioned discounting.

20 Times 20 Times · 03-09-2014 4:53pm

LOccitane wrote: »

I agree - I reversed the sale but I:

Dr Stock 140
Cr COGS 140

Because we were reversing a sale and the related cost of sale...

I had an overall reversal to Revenue of EUR 700. To COGS 490. Reversed Sales 1 and 2... Left the third but mentioned discounting.

Thats what I did - i put the wrong journals up - why did you reverse it ?

Also what did you do for the crazy M.A indicator ??

Philip1988 · 03-09-2014 4:57pm

LOccitane wrote: »

I agree - I reversed the sale but I:

Dr Stock 140
Cr COGS 140

Because we were reversing a sale and the related cost of sale...

I had an overall reversal to Revenue of EUR 700. To COGS 490. Reversed Sales 1 and 2... Left the third but mentioned discounting.

Why inventory when the haven't even produced the item yet?

LOccitane · 03-09-2014 4:58pm

20 Times 20 Times wrote: »

Thats what I did - i put the wrong journals up - why did you reverse it ?

Also what did you do for the crazy M.A indicator ??

I reversed the first because we had not even produced the fuel pre year end. We still had effective managerial control over the goods and their delivery. Transfer of title is only an incidental aspect to Revenue Recognition. That was my argument.

Destroyed the MA. I had 10 minutes for it so I said:

Monthly Board pack and quarterly reporting. PL and BS in all. Weekly analysis of net cash position and any bad debts. Geographic segmentation of Revenues. Actual V forecast. Cost per functional centre monitored monthly. Return on our investment plus return on investment in new developments.

Then I listed off a set of non financials also to be included:

New customers. Technological downtime on the development and any interruption to service. New developments in the pipeline.

Was literally writing whatever came into my head. Definitely RC. I hope I can pull PM on AAFRP, Consolidation yesterday and IAS 18 today - 3/5. If not, I'm gone on that too.

LOccitane · 03-09-2014 5:02pm

Philip1988 wrote: »

Why inventory when the haven't even produced the item yet?

Very true. I assumed that at that stage they were booked though, post year end with FY 2013 effective date that the goods had been produced and that inventory had been hit. Oh well....

20 Times 20 Times · 03-09-2014 5:06pm

LOccitane wrote: »

Very true. I assumed that at that stage they were booked though, post year end with FY 2013 effective date that the goods had been produced and that inventory had been hit. Oh well....

How can we say that the inventory wasn't produced ?

danko2012 · 03-09-2014 5:07pm

cian twomey wrote: »

did anyone mentioned credit for intangible assets patents copyrights in tax?,

Thought I was the only one it was what I based most of my tax indicator on as book specifically mentioned patents, copyrights, etc as qualifying unsure if this is right though as rushed my answer!

LOccitane · 03-09-2014 5:11pm

20 Times 20 Times wrote: »

How can we say that the inventory wasn't produced ?

I think the question said it will be produced/was produced post year end or something along those lines.

Glad the CORE is done with now, for this year anyway :-/ - Going to do a small amount of study for AAE in the morning.

TheDoctor · 03-09-2014 5:12pm

I cant believe core is over, after all those weeks of work, boom its over

m1ck007 · 03-09-2014 5:12pm

Anyone else say an internal auditor should be hired to produce the mgt accounts and keep the company in order during its initial phases of growth?? Im really worried about finance now. I messed up my company valuation big time, think i made a good attempt at the working capital problems in sim 1 and messed up the currency hedging yday. Im fairly happy with BL, PM, Tax, Auditing and didnt see any imp indicators. Would one C and two NCs be enough for finance??

barbie_j · 03-09-2014 5:22pm

i said ' myself' is the best candidate and discussed why. like the threats to independence…. very angry at myself.. SIM 2 is just not my cup of tea, messed up nearly everything!!! what a laugh, after 3 months studying, i still can't figure out what they are looking for…oh, and missed the IMP!!

barbie_j · 03-09-2014 5:24pm

i don't even want to go to the AAE tomorrow, like what's the point? if i failed core, i will never ever do this stupid thing again.. then why go to the exam tomorrow

LOccitane · 03-09-2014 5:25pm

barbie_j wrote: »

i said ' myself' is the best candidate and discussed why. like the threats to independence…. very angry at myself.. SIM 2 is just not my cup of tea, messed up nearly everything!!! what a laugh, after 3 months studying, i still can't figure out what they are looking for…oh, and missed the IMP!!

I actually suggested 'myself' as well. Thought about it a while but stressed that I had no personal investment in the soon to be incorporated entity, had accumulated a solid level of knowledge of the project so far and provided I could be suitably relieved from my role in the VC company for the duration of the project. I really did think what the hell when I was writing that but there you go...

Nermal · 03-09-2014 5:28pm

LOccitane wrote: »

I actually suggested 'myself' as well. Thought about it a while but stressed that I had no personal investment in the soon to be incorporated entity, had accumulated a solid level of knowledge of the project so far and provided I could be suitably relieved from my role in the VC company for the duration of the project. I really did think what the hell when I was writing that but there you go...

I said it as well, constantly wondering was I being deliberately tripped up...

BigMawn12 · 03-09-2014 5:29pm

There are people who have come out of FAEs 100% positive they've failed and still passed. Defo wouldn't bank on a fail or a pass.

TheDoctor · 03-09-2014 5:30pm

No you can never tell with FAE, keep positive

maninblack · 03-09-2014 5:30pm

The more I think about this IMP, I'm fascinated to see what their "The candidate..." will say.

It's SUCH a reach IMO and I just didn't see any meat whatsoever to warrant a full indicator. I did build it heavily into my SWOT under both strengths and weaknesses so I'm just praying there's enough in there to maybe scrape an RC. But like, there's no way in hell 75% took that up as a full IMP indicator... so what does that mean? They start bumping everyone up to C on the indicator yesterday?

This exam is such a joke. You can slave away for 3 months learning your IASs/ISAs/Tax Reliefs inside-fcking-out and some piece of trash like IMP takes a dump on the whole thing! I don't care what anyone says, this exam is just not fair for that very reason

Philip1988 · 03-09-2014 5:31pm

If you wrote about 6 lines on the R amd D credit and said they are entitled and said you needed further details...

But did not mention that they were a sole trader etc

Would that be an RC at least?

maninblack · 03-09-2014 5:32pm

Philip1988 wrote: »

If you wrote about 6 lines on the R amd D credit and said they are entitled and said you needed further details...

But did not mention that they were a sole trader etc

Would that be an RC at least?

I'd def say RC for R&D credit will be just mentioning it and running through qualifying investor and qualifying company

for C you'll need things like its not applicable, possible key employee benefits, specific sections of the code etc. RC be handy enough

20 Times 20 Times · 03-09-2014 5:35pm

I suggested myself and said that spread the time 50/50 between the two jobs and if this cant be done then hire a qualified ACA

Nonamerequired · 03-09-2014 5:35pm

What did you say if it was audit,

TheDoctor wrote: »

The report to Tommy Little?

galway321 · 03-09-2014 5:39pm

On a positive note at least I didn't waste any time reading the Financial Times for the last year!!

m1ck007 · 03-09-2014 5:39pm

The directors responsibility to shareholders is to maximise shareholder wealth. Nothing to do with an audit indicator i think.

TheDoctor · 03-09-2014 5:43pm

I told them to stay well clear of Public Accountants, they always mess up the cases

PhilipLuke · 03-09-2014 5:44pm

TheDoctor wrote: »

Thats what I said

Yeah I said that GG would qualify for R & D credits once it was incorporated and as this was intended once KVC invested then they should claim them in 2014 but that previous spend was not allowable as it belonged to the sole trade

maninblack · 03-09-2014 5:45pm

TheDoctor wrote: »

I told them to stay well clear of Public Accountants, they always mess up the cases

Ha I said to go with an auditor as they'd be use to looking at accounts and knowing whats required etc etc

But I made a clear caveat that they MUST be ACA

Heaven forbid we hire a CPA

Nonamerequired · 03-09-2014 5:46pm

Ya reckon the statutory and common law duties of directors wud get ya over the treshold oh no feel pretty **** now after reading people comments!! -

m1ck007 wrote: »

The directors responsibility to shareholders is to maximise shareholder wealth. Nothing to do with an audit indicator i think.

LOccitane · 03-09-2014 5:48pm

Nonamerequired wrote: »

Ya reckon the statutory and common law duties of directors wud get ya over the treshold oh no feel pretty **** now after reading people comments!! -

It was an Audit indicator, it had to be. If not, what was it...? I mentioned statutory, common law and then generally about acting in interests of all stakeholders, making appropriate disclosure to them of significant events etc.

m1ck007 · 03-09-2014 5:49pm

Nonamerequired wrote: »

Ya reckon the statutory and common law duties of directors wud get ya over the treshold oh no feel pretty **** now after reading people comments!! -

It might do...who knows. I for one have messed up finance.

Philip1988 · 03-09-2014 5:50pm

PhilipLuke wrote: »

Yeah I said that GG would qualify for R & D credits once it was incorporated and as this was intended once KVC invested then they should claim them in 2014 but that previous spend was not allowable as it belonged to the sole trade

If you missed this whole concept amd said they are entitled... How would you fair?

20 Times 20 Times · 03-09-2014 5:51pm

LOccitane wrote: »

It was an Audit indicator, it had to be. If not, what was it...? I mentioned statutory, common law and then generally about acting in interests of all stakeholders, making appropriate disclosure to them of significant events etc.

I did this .

Nonamerequired · 03-09-2014 5:51pm

Yeah I had fairly similar to you said the same thing...had to be audit thank god cause I screwed up ydays audit

LOccitane wrote: »

It was an Audit indicator, it had to be. If not, what was it...? I mentioned statutory, common law and then generally about acting in interests of all stakeholders, making appropriate disclosure to them of significant events etc.

suref · 03-09-2014 5:52pm

I took the directors question as responsibility under common and statute - this was covered in sfma last year and think it was a bl indicator rather than audit but could be wrong. Hope it was bl because think I did well in it!

Nermal · 03-09-2014 5:52pm

LOccitane wrote: »

It was an Audit indicator, it had to be. If not, what was it...?

BL - corporate governance?

Anyway the key is at the end - 'to the shareholders'. Not the general responsibilities of directors. That restricts what you write about.

m1ck007 · 03-09-2014 5:53pm

LOccitane wrote: »

It was an Audit indicator, it had to be. If not, what was it...? I mentioned statutory, common law and then generally about acting in interests of all stakeholders, making appropriate disclosure to them of significant events etc.

It was a management accounting indicator. Think 'agency theory'. It said specific duties to shareholders not the reporting requirements of financial statements. The audit indicator was using internal audit to prepare the mgt accounts and control the company during its start up phase......lol what do i know ur probably right.

Mark1916 · 03-09-2014 5:53pm

Nonamerequired wrote: »

Yeah I had fairly similar to you said the same thing...had to be audit thank god cause I screwed up ydays audit

Same here had Kerry groups accounts with me and went straight to directors responsibilities and took the points from that all of which are the same as mentioned above!

20 Times 20 Times · 03-09-2014 5:57pm

suref wrote: »

I took the directors question as responsibility under common and statute - this was covered in sfma last year and think it was a bl indicator rather than audit but could be wrong. Hope it was bl because think I did well in it!

Has to be two Audit indicators - What was the other one if this wasnt it??

LOccitane · 03-09-2014 5:58pm

Nermal wrote: »

BL - corporate governance?

Anyway the key is at the end - 'to the shareholders'. Not the general responsibilities of directors. That restricts what you write about.

I take the point, but where is the second Audit indicator then? We have to prepare as Directors financial statements that give a true and fair view of company's financial position - shareholders use these to gauge the financial health of their investment. That's the slant I took but who knows at this stage...

m1ck007 · 03-09-2014 5:59pm

20 Times 20 Times wrote: »

Has to be two Audit indicators - What was the other one if this wasnt it??

There doesnt have to be two, there was 3 finance indicators and no imp indicators. Paul said they would be hard on us on audit this year. One indicator one shot.

PhilipLuke · 03-09-2014 6:00pm

maninblack wrote: »

The more I think about this IMP, I'm fascinated to see what their "The candidate..." will say.

It's SUCH a reach IMO and I just didn't see any meat whatsoever to warrant a full indicator. I did build it heavily into my SWOT under both strengths and weaknesses so I'm just praying there's enough in there to maybe scrape an RC. But like, there's no way in hell 75% took that up as a full IMP indicator... so what does that mean? They start bumping everyone up to C on the indicator yesterday?

This exam is such a joke. You can slave away for 3 months learning your IASs/ISAs/Tax Reliefs inside-fcking-out and some piece of trash like IMP takes a dump on the whole thing! I don't care what anyone says, this exam is just not fair for that very reason

The Fae cases make no sense at all!! You spend an hour figuring out what the hell is going on and is this an indicator and is that an indicator!!

The institute said not to focus as much on the indicators but focus on the case dealing with the business issues.

Fine give us a real life scenario. In real life people specifically relay what they are looking for, they do not ramble on and do not try to confuse you in that way

GR3YFOXXX · 03-09-2014 6:00pm

Has to have been audit...

20 Times 20 Times · 03-09-2014 6:00pm

m1ck007 wrote: »

There doesnt have to be two, there was 3 finance indicators and no imp indicators. Paul said they would be hard on us on audit this year. One indicator one shot.

Your a Troll !

Nermal · 03-09-2014 6:01pm

GR3YFOXXX wrote: »

Has to have been audit...

Why?

TheDoctor · 03-09-2014 6:02pm

Lets just all agree to hate the institute

20 Times 20 Times · 03-09-2014 6:02pm

There has to be at least two indicators in the 4 smaller subjects. If people dont know this after sitting the exam , Give up.

FAE September 2014

Comments