FAE 2016

daisy chain

I think the E. coli provision yesterday were two separate indicators- audit and FR?

So one audit yesterday and one audit today

Three finance of covenants is finance

2 MA, 2 tax

BL- 3: ethics, corporate governance, SWOT

FR- IAS 17, IAS 20, IFRS 2 and IAS 37 so five indicators with the AAFRP?

Rusty91

daisy chain wrote: »

I think the E. coli provision yesterday were two separate indicators- audit and FR?

So one audit yesterday and one audit today

Three finance of covenants is finance

2 MA, 2 tax

BL- 3: ethics, corporate governance, SWOT

FR- IAS 17, IAS 20, IFRS 2 and IAS 37 so five indicators with the AAFRP?

Could be just 4 FR and a higher weighting for BL?

15YemenRoad

daisy chain wrote: »

I think the E. coli provision yesterday were two separate indicators- audit and FR?

So one audit yesterday and one audit today

Three finance of covenants is finance

2 MA, 2 tax

BL- 3: ethics, corporate governance, SWOT

FR- IAS 17, IAS 20, IFRS 2 and IAS 37 so five indicators with the AAFRP?

Yeah it's really hard to tell.
I don't think there could have two indicators with the E.Coli thing.
I think FR was AAFRP, Ethics/Conceptual Framework, IFRS 2, and then the two today.
BL - SWOT, Outsourcing, Governance.

I used Hodgson's for the accrual ethics but thinking about it there's not really an "ethical dilemma" and it violates accruals concept in conceptual framework. Think they were looking for more stuff on Chartered accountants ethics and duties etc. Writing this one off but hoping rest of FR was ok.

I know people say there's no point in mapping them and just answer the question but it kinda does matter if you're using frameworks etc.

Bk158

In sim 1 did anyone mention ethical considerations re ES 4 and ES 5 - to ensure that fees are less than 10-15% of EAs total income? Not sure if it was a hidden indicator.

galwaygent

I found there to be 4 - FR 4 - BL 3 FIN and 2 in AA MA TAX.

Breakdown was:

FR:
1. AAFRP
2. Operating Lease (5 year lease on building would not suggest finance lease)
3. IFRS 2
4. Grant

BL:
1. Ethics (as was clearly an ethical issue - He has a "plan" to not post an expense, which by doing so will "help them meet their covenant").
2. Corporate Governance
3. Business plan
4. Outsourcing payroll

Finance:
1. Covenant ratios
2. Interest swap
3. NPV

Tax:
1. Cash extraction/ Retirement planning
2. CT Comp and capital allowances

Audit:
1. Legal claim with correcting journal
2. Controls over revenue/receivables and ethics

Management:
1. Bonus payment - how to set bonus
2. Staff performance - BSC

Anybody else seeing the same?

Found it strange that management accounting had 2 performance measurement indicators.
Shocked with 3 finance but all fair.
Not a fan of tax today, however yesterday was vague enough I'd imagine so RC should be achievable.
Audit seemed fair - ISA 501 has a section for litigation as well as inventory. Anybody else use this?
BL was strange. Hoping I got enough on ethics and corp gov or outsourcing. Didn't like business plan.
FR seemed challenging but at the end of the day cant complain with no consolidation.

y0ssar1an22

TG860 wrote: »

Agreed. I didn't see anything that would indicate a finance lease.
I think the trick to that question was how you treated the rent free period.
There's a little standard in the standards book called SIC 15 which explains how to approach that and I'd say is where they got the idea from.
I took the the total payments of the lease (so 80% of the 2014 rent x 4 years) and divided that by 5 years to get the annual cost to recognise.
Then proposed a journal to recognise 6 months of that for 2015 as it started in July.

Agree with others that it's been quite hard to judge which subjects some of the indicators are falling under.
It does feel like the 2 days were quite finance heavy.

this is what i did but but never apportioned 6 months to the current period - I did 12 . Hopefully enough for a C.

Would have skewed my CT comp as well, but done think they would hold that against me a 2nd time.

GusFring

galwaygent wrote: »

I found there to be 4 - FR 4 - BL 3 FIN and 2 in AA MA TAX.

Breakdown was:

FR:
1. AAFRP
2. Operating Lease (5 year lease on building would not suggest finance lease)
3. IFRS 2
4. Grant

BL:
1. Ethics (as was clearly an ethical issue - He has a "plan" to not post an expense, which by doing so will "help them meet their covenant").
2. Corporate Governance
3. Business plan
4. Outsourcing payroll

Finance:
1. Covenant ratios
2. Interest swap
3. NPV

Tax:
1. Cash extraction/ Retirement planning
2. CT Comp and capital allowances

Audit:
1. Legal claim with correcting journal
2. Controls over revenue/receivables and ethics

Management:
1. Bonus payment - how to set bonus
2. Staff performance - BSC

Anybody else seeing the same?

Found it strange that management accounting had 2 performance measurement indicators.
Shocked with 3 finance but all fair.
Not a fan of tax today, however yesterday was vague enough I'd imagine so RC should be achievable.
Audit seemed fair - ISA 501 has a section for litigation as well as inventory. Anybody else use this?
BL was strange. Hoping I got enough on ethics and corp gov or outsourcing. Didn't like business plan.
FR seemed challenging but at the end of the day cant complain with no consolidation.

I agree 100% with your mapping of the indicators!

Guin92

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

this is what i did but but never apportioned 6 months to the current period - I did 12 . Hopefully enough for a C.

Would have skewed my CT comp as well, but done think they would hold that against me a 2nd time.

CA seem to be quite clear that students shouldn't be penalised twice. In fact youll proably gain credit for linking the indicators.

Btw120

Completely forgot about the 25% markup line in the Npv calculation and therefore my Npv ended up a lot higher than what it should have been (in that I only included the revenue figure each year and not the cost of materials etc) ......would this put me into NC?

davidblake

Just wondering did anyone think that as the accounts were IFRS the general bad debt provision should have bee removed

Rusty91

does anyone know what you'd have to do to get an RC with the tax comp?

superb choice of username

davidblake wrote: »

Just wondering did anyone think that as the accounts were IFRS the general bad debt provision should have bee removed

Yes I did journal to reverse provision, was nice little hidden 'nugget' to hopefully make up for some other mistake

superb choice of username

Rusty91 wrote: »

does anyone know what you'd have to do to get an RC with the tax comp?

No noone does, the grading isn't decided on until after they have reviewed scripts to make sure enough pass. If everyone did great, then the bar gets higher

Uncle Mclovin

galwaygent wrote: »

I found there to be 4 - FR 4 - BL 3 FIN and 2 in AA MA TAX.

Breakdown was:

FR:
1. AAFRP
2. Operating Lease (5 year lease on building would not suggest finance lease)
3. IFRS 2
4. Grant

BL:
1. Ethics (as was clearly an ethical issue - He has a "plan" to not post an expense, which by doing so will "help them meet their covenant").
2. Corporate Governance
3. Business plan
4. Outsourcing payroll

Finance:
1. Covenant ratios
2. Interest swap
3. NPV

Tax:
1. Cash extraction/ Retirement planning
2. CT Comp and capital allowances

Audit:
1. Legal claim with correcting journal
2. Controls over revenue/receivables and ethics

Management:
1. Bonus payment - how to set bonus
2. Staff performance - BSC

Anybody else seeing the same?

Found it strange that management accounting had 2 performance measurement indicators.
Shocked with 3 finance but all fair.
Not a fan of tax today, however yesterday was vague enough I'd imagine so RC should be achievable.
Audit seemed fair - ISA 501 has a section for litigation as well as inventory. Anybody else use this?
BL was strange. Hoping I got enough on ethics and corp gov or outsourcing. Didn't like business plan.
FR seemed challenging but at the end of the day cant complain with no consolidation.

The two management accounting indicators were a pile of bollox. Hopefully I scrape a BC in of them.

Other than that I thought the two papers were fair enough.

ALDon88

superb choice of username wrote: »

Yes I did journal to reverse provision, was nice little hidden 'nugget' to hopefully make up for some other mistake

Ahhhh, totally didn't get that !! Good spot!! I wonder how much that will cost me , I have an Rc coming from the aafrp cannot afford to mess up FR!!

Nearly there folks woo!

trooperdx3117

superb choice of username wrote: »

No noone does, the grading isn't decided on until after they have reviewed scripts to make sure enough pass. If everyone did great, then the bar gets higher

Ugh that's so aggravating, its almost pot luck more than actual knowledge that helps you pass an exam.

Guin92

Anyone know how many indicators tomorrow for audit. I heard it was 9 (10 in total). Thought it was a bit much for 2 cases?? And we have a get BC overall to pass ?

davidblake

Guin92 wrote: »

Anyone know how many indicators tomorrow for audit. I heard it was 9 (10 in total). Thought it was a bit much for 2 cases?? And we have a get BC overall to pass ?

We were told 4 indicators in each case so 8 tomorrow

superb choice of username

You heard it from where? Per the FAE marking and adjudication document, it can be between 7 and 9 indicators.

It makes life easier when it is split 4 indicators per sim, but there surely can not be any guarantee of how many? It's not like many people have seen the paper?

Edit:
And yes Guin, overall BC (or easier to think of as an overall mark of 50%)

Guin92

superb choice of username wrote: »

You heard it from where? Per the FAE marking and adjudication document, it can be between 7 and 9 indicators.

It makes life easier when it is split 4 indicators per sim, but there surely can not be any guarantee of how many? It's not like many people have seen the paper?

Edit:
And yes Guin, overall BC (or easier to think of as an overall mark of 50%)

I heard it from a unreliable source so had my doubts about it. 4 each seems more logical.

Thanks for the confirmation

davidblake

superb choice of username wrote: »

You heard it from where? Per the FAE marking and adjudication document, it can be between 7 and 9 indicators.

It makes life easier when it is split 4 indicators per sim, but there surely can not be any guarantee of how many? It's not like many people have seen the paper?

Edit:
And yes Guin, overall BC (or easier to think of as an overall mark of 50%)

From the lecturer Sinead after the mock review

Squareball2010

davidblake wrote: »

From the lecturer Sinead after the mock review

Yeah 8 is what's expected - 4 in each sim coming away from the mock review, given they had feedback from the examiners. Be surprised if it's anything different...

jkiamasnake

In Audit - for company law - what kind of things could we be asked? do we reference 2012 or 2014?

ACA2015

jkiamasnake wrote: »

In Audit - for company law - what kind of things could we be asked? do we reference 2012 or 2014?

The Companies Ac 2014. If you are seeing text with 2012 mentioned it's out of date. It used to be the Companies Act 1963-X but the 2014 Act cleared that up. Some of the audit things of note from the 2014 Act are here https://www.pwc.ie/media-centre/assets/publications/articles/2015/2015_pwc_ireland_companies_act_2014_and_implications_for_financial_reporting.pdf

Kristina F

See for the outsourcing payroll indicator..did anyone just talk about outsourcing payroll or did you do the general outsourcing too? I thought it would be the same so I didn't put them separately at all..I just applied it to payroll..wat did everyone do?

valowilliams

Kristina F wrote: »

See for the outsourcing payroll indicator..did anyone just talk about outsourcing payroll or did you do the general outsourcing too? I thought it would be the same so I didn't put them separately at all..I just applied it to payroll..wat did everyone do?

I applied mainly to payroll as I thought the points are the same, but said that you shouldn't outsource your core activities

HereFor

valowilliams wrote: »

I applied mainly to payroll as I thought the points are the same, but said that you shouldn't outsource your core activities

I did general pros/cons then a separate list specific to the company. Recommended that they outsource it as not core competency of the company.

giftgrub1991

Same,but completely forgot to make the recommendation so that's me screwed.

Obrieski

HereFor wrote: »

I did general pros/cons then a separate list specific to the company. Recommended that they outsource it as not core competency of the company.

Went along the same lines myself. Then ended up saying your one wants to go from a 5 day week to a 3 day week, hardly enough in itself for a whole outsourcing job remembering they were a small company. Seemed excessive considering that I felt. Hate these wishy washy indicators where it can go so many ways!

Oh well, roll on tomorrow!

ACA2015

Obrieski wrote: »

Went along the same lines myself. Then ended up saying your one wants to go from a 5 day week to a 3 day week, hardly enough in itself for a whole outsourcing job remembering they were a small company. Seemed excessive considering that I felt. Hate these wishy washy indicators where it can go so many ways!

Oh well, roll on tomorrow!

Important thing to remember is that you can make different recommendations and still come out with C! It's just your opinion and there is no where near enough information provided to make it definitive, or at least somewhat obvious which way they should go (there was an outsourcing case in the integrated study pack which gave you figures on what it would cost, for example). That explanation is as reasonable as any. Some really good pros and cons I imagine could get someone a C anyway, depending on the overall standard.

Kristina F

What's the chances of them failing ppl on business leadership? I answered all the Qs but I don't think I put what they wanted into them. I didn't mention the whistleblowing thing under corporate governance as I thought she was just asking about the board composition and I didn't put the general pros&cons for outsourcing..it's driving me mad thinking I couldav failed just because of them kinda wishy washy questions

Legwinski

Kristina F wrote: »

What's the chances of them failing ppl on business leadership? I answered all the Qs but I don't think I put what they wanted into them. I didn't mention the whistleblowing thing under corporate governance as I thought she was just asking about the board composition and I didn't put the general pros&cons for outsourcing..it's driving me mad thinking I couldav failed just because of them kinda wishy washy questions

98% of people "passed" BL in 2014 apparently so in general it appears to be marked generously.
I thought I failed BL last year but actually got a Green!

15YemenRoad

Yeah would be disgusted if I went down on BL.
I'd say they'll have to be generous marking the SWOT anyway as they gave very little to actually write about. I'd say outsourcing should be ok if you just had a few points and decided one way or the other, I said they shouldn't do it.

daisy chain

I thought that as we were a secondee from their audit firm that we couldn't provide management advice, we could only merely state the facts and it was up to the company to decide?

15YemenRoad

daisy chain wrote: »

I thought that as we were a secondee from their audit firm that we couldn't provide management advice, we could only merely state the facts and it was up to the company to decide?

Ugh... yep you're right, it does say that in ES2.
Probably another C gone there. Just annoying as all the lecturers kept warning about sitting on the fence in your answer so I just went straight ahead with the recommendation.
Right no more boards for me, good luck to everyone for the elective.

Kristina F

15YemenRoad wrote: »

Ugh... yep you're right, it does say that in ES2.
Probably another C gone there. Just annoying as all the lecturers kept warning about sitting on the fence in your answer so I just went straight ahead with the recommendation.
Right no more boards for me, good luck to everyone for the elective.

We were from an accountancy firm not an audit firm so you don't need to mention ES2

superb choice of username

Kristina F wrote: »

What's the chances of them failing ppl on business leadership? I answered all the Qs but I don't think I put what they wanted into them.

I feel the same! Gave them all a good go but now having doubts about what I wrote.

Out of interest, for the one where we had to do the strengths and opportunities, how many said along the lines of "as this is for a business plan for the bank, we need to include risks, aka weaknesses and threats to, and these are.....

I feel that I messed up as some of the threats I put weren't really appropriate to write to a bank

Then separately, how did you's approach the board composition question? It was a bit confusing the current board make up (I.e there was a nomination committee now but no indication of who was on it?) So we just had to give generic answer? I.e there should be ined/there should be diversity etc???

And finally the whistleblowing mechanism was a bit ****? What did you's do for that? The only thing I could come up with was basically email address to someone with authority and independence, I.e a ined, which should be chairman?? Couldn't find anything in the notes to help!

Stupid business leadership, it feels too touch and go

valowilliams

superb choice of username wrote: »

I feel the same! Gave them all a good go but now having doubts about what I wrote.

Out of interest, for the one where we had to do the strengths and opportunities, how many said along the lines of "as this is for a business plan for the bank, we need to include risks, aka weaknesses and threats to, and these are.....

I feel that I messed up as some of the threats I put weren't really appropriate to write to a bank

Then separately, how did you's approach the board composition question? It was a bit confusing the current board make up (I.e there was a nomination committee now but no indication of who was on it?) So we just had to give generic answer? I.e there should be ined/there should be diversity etc???

And finally the whistleblowing mechanism was a bit ****? What did you's do for that? The only thing I could come up with was basically email address to someone with authority and independence, I.e a ined, which should be chairman?? Couldn't find anything in the notes to help!

Stupid business leadership, it feels too touch and go

I recommended putting in weaknesses & threats too as said it needed to be balanced but didn't give any!
With the whistle blowing basically said there needed to be a charter in place, a route to bypass certain management & also said about false allegations that there should be consequences for that. BL it's so hard to know what to put down, I felt the lectures were a load of waffle with very little cases covered but that's just my opinion

TG860

Have to say I found the Audit elective pretty frustrating.
It seemed like some of the indicators were very similar, especially the first case.

Obrieski

TG860 wrote: »

Have to say I found the Audit elective pretty frustrating.
It seemed like some of the indicators were very similar, especially the first case.

Audit elective was very strange and annoying paper. Was repeating myself a lot alright in sim 1. No AUP or non audit engagements, no ethics really.

Risks and procedures again, after it being in interim. Frustrated leaving the exam but sure look, it's all over!!
And I see a nice email from CASSI about a survey to fill in!!

ACA2015

Audit Exam was a very very tough paper, the mock was more manageable I thought.

Let's just hope they go easy on the marking (they never do on audit though, it's the sacrificial lamb to bring down the pass rate :rolleyes:). If I sneak a C in one indicator I might get over the line.

Squareball2010

Audit was a very unusual paper alright it must be said. Sim 1 was very controls heavy and there was definitely elements of repetition in relation to the controls weaknesses & audit risks PI and the info re implications/recommendations for use in management letter.

Sim 2 - very vague in respect of what they wanted. How much focus on group audit for eg. Also how did people treat the line relating to the report to the central bank? Hardly enough in itself to warrant a full indicator on other engagements as it was literally a throw away remark...?

Lack of an ethics/client acceptance/other eng indicator was very surprising....

Anyway least it's done I guess! 🙄

Guin92

My take on the audit elective.
Sim 1
1. Controls issues
2. Risks
3. Responses to those risks
4. Fraud

Sim 2
1. Addional procedures/ journals
2. Audit report
3. Planning on the parent
4. Work of auditors expert. Struggled to get 4, so guessed that this was an indicator

donnem33

Squareball2010 wrote: »

Audit was a very unusual paper alright it must be said. Sim 1 was very controls heavy and there was definitely elements of repetition in relation to the controls weaknesses & audit risks PI and the info re implications/recommendations for use in management letter.

Sim 2 - very vague in respect of what they wanted. How much focus on group audit for eg. Also how did people treat the line relating to the report to the central bank? Hardly enough in itself to warrant a full indicator on other engagements as it was literally a throw away remark...?

Lack of an ethics/client acceptance/other eng indicator was very surprising....

Anyway least it's done I guess! 🙄

I said it was one of the audit risks - comply with laws/regulations

FAE2015.2

What was the general opinion on the tax elective paper (ROI)....?

moleary20

FAE2015.2 wrote: »

What was the general opinion on the tax elective paper (ROI)....?

Awful, most others said the same :-(

FAE1

FAE2015.2 wrote: »

What was the general opinion on the tax elective paper (ROI)....?

Very hard. Do you know if that was the overall opinion? It is hard to know if what I wrote is even remotely correct and even at that the my standard compared to other years solutions was no way near for me.

moleary20

FAE1 wrote: »

Very hard. Do you know if that was the overall opinion? It is hard to know if what I wrote is even remotely correct and even at that the my standard compared to other years solutions was no way near for me.

Everyone around me in my centre felt the same anyway. Nothing like previous papers and answers were very much chancing my arm rather than anything solid!

FAE2015.2

moleary20 wrote: »

Everyone around me in my centre felt the same anyway. Nothing like previous papers and answers were very much chancing my arm rather than anything solid!

This is making me feel much better - I'm repeating, missed it by one grade last year & Sim 2 this year was so bad I think I may have failed again! So so hard, nothing like what is seen before / what I had in my material!

FAE2015.2

moleary20 wrote: »

Awful, most others said the same :-(

Small mercies but that's a relief.. Thought it was just me! Nothing like I'd seen before - Sim 2 was a killer..