FAE 2017

james83

did anyone use FRS102 in the comp??

james83

Alfred Borden wrote: »

Anyone find MA tough over the two days?

really struggled in the COMP, didnt understand the flexing... thought the Target costing was okay today

Alfred Borden

james83 wrote: »

really struggled in the COMP, didnt understand the flexing... thought the Target costing was okay today

Calculating the right selling price and getting the break even will surely be enough for BC with the difficulty people seemed to have with it?

james83

Alfred Borden wrote: »

Calculating the right selling price and getting the break even will surely be enough for BC with the difficulty people seemed to have with it?

for the Breakeven yesterday, i calculated €55 as the 25 percent mark up and €44 as breakeven. wasnt able to do anything with flexing the budget, would you say that would be enough to get BC?

Stern1234

james83 wrote: »

for the Breakeven yesterday, i calculated €55 as the 25 percent mark up and €44 as breakeven. wasnt able to do anything with flexing the budget, would you say that would be enough to get BC?

Yes that should be enough to get a bc

AtticusFinch86

james83 wrote: »

for the Breakeven yesterday, i calculated €55 as the 25 percent mark up and €44 as breakeven. wasnt able to do anything with flexing the budget, would you say that would be enough to get BC?

As long as you didn't just calculate them and did nothing else (e.g. a small bit of narrative) you''ll be fine. From reading the past papers, the bar for a BC is low enough, so that should be plenty.


On the lease, I thought it was blatantly a finance lease. The term was 50 years and the total lease payments were about €12m, which would be substantially all of the value of the premises (and then some).

I can see that the examiner might give a BC for treating it as an operating lease but I'd be surprised if they'd give a C. I could be wrong though. If lots of people assumed it was an operating lease, they may change the marking to allow that assumption

Alfred Borden

james83 wrote: »

for the Breakeven yesterday, i calculated €55 as the 25 percent mark up and €44 as breakeven. wasnt able to do anything with flexing the budget, would you say that would be enough to get BC?

Got the same selling price but did break even in units which doesnt look like it was required so probably lost that indicator!

james83

AtticusFinch86 wrote: »

As long as you didn't just calculate them and did nothing else (e.g. a small bit of narrative) you''ll be fine. From reading the past papers, the bar for a BC is low enough, so that should be plenty.


On the lease, I thought it was blatantly a finance lease. The term was 50 years and the total lease payments were about €12m, which would be substantially all of the value of the premises (and then some).

I can see that the examiner might give a BC for treating it as an operating lease but I'd be surprised if they'd give a C. I could be wrong though. If lots of people assumed it was an operating lease, they may change the marking to allow that assumption

it definitely was an Finance lease, once i accounted for the sale and leaseback. i calculated the lease interest from total lease payments minus the cash price to find lease interest, so had 12500-7000=5500/50=110k per year, anyone else do question like this?

Faecanditate

Pool17 wrote: »

Howd people find Bl?

It was OK. I had the code ready to a tee. Was surprised no plc came up. Bit generic for my liking, I think if I fail it'll be on that which is a pain!! Hopefully the C isn't too hard to get!

AtticusFinch86

Faecanditate wrote: »

It was OK. I had the code ready to a tee. Was surprised no plc came up. Bit generic for my liking, I think if I fail it'll be on that which is a pain!! Hopefully the C isn't too hard to get!

What do you mean by code, was there a CG indicator I didn't pick up on?

Faecanditate

AtticusFinch86 wrote: »

What do you mean by code, was there a CG indicator I didn't pick up on?

Sorry no!!! I meant I had it ready to go if needed but it didn't come up!

james83

AtticusFinch86 wrote: »

What do you mean by code, was there a CG indicator I didn't pick up on?

no there was no CORP governance

Deilginis_1

Lease question was very similar to the Rocket case from Cotter book

james83

did anyone get a negative NPV for the working capital/operating cycle in the SIM today?

Deilginis_1

I also said that they could provide for the restructuring costs assuming the detailed plan and disclosure to staff take place before signing of the financial statements, assume you can say both once you can argue

james83

Deilginis_1 wrote: »

I also said that they could provide for the restructuring costs assuming the detailed plan and disclosure to staff take place before signing of the financial statements, assume you can say both once you can argue

no, IAS 10, a non adjusting event- announcing, or commencing major restructuring

Deilginis_1

Silly mistake to make . Think I was fine on the rest

james83 wrote: »

no, IAS 10, a non adjusting event- announcing, or commencing major restructuring

Qwert6

Looking back lease was clearing finance but went around it cause it was operating and did journal and disclosure note. Think I am feeling like failing FR now as I fecked up on consol and needed 3 Cs in total as aafrp was bc.
BL was so strange not sure if I went around business plan correct and PESTEL was a total write off as well as breakeven. Disaster for me anyway

james83

Deilginis_1 wrote: »

Silly mistake to make . Think I was fine on the rest

you will be fine mate, you can make that mistake and still get a C for the indicator

CAIBoyz

Unbelievably frustrated, treated the sale and leaseback as an operating lease so that's at best a BC and the other FR indicator forgot the contingent liability and said to make the redundancy provision which is probably a BC as well.

Faecanditate

Alfred Borden wrote: »

Got the same selling price but did break even in units which doesnt look like it was required so probably lost that indicator!

I did break even in units too.

Deilginis_1

From memory - in marking scheme for either 2016 paper or Repeat last year, the marking scheme for a similar style FR indicator gave HC for getting all of the journals correct, and a C for getting "most". On that basis , a C should be relatively easy to achieve for this indicator - so not really worried myself and did the same as you. Hard to know how they will mark this year

CAIBoyz wrote: »

Unbelievably frustrated, treated the sale and leaseback as an operating lease so that's at best a BC and the other FR indicator forgot the contingent liability and said to make the redundancy provision which is probably a BC as well.

Qwert6

I did the exact same. I'm absolutely raging I needed 3Cs in FR

Qwert6

CAIBoyz wrote: »

Unbelievably frustrated, treated the sale and leaseback as an operating lease so that's at best a BC and the other FR indicator forgot the contingent liability and said to make the redundancy provision which is probably a BC as well.

I did the exact same. Absolute rage. And I needed 3 Cs in FR. So that's me repeating

Faecanditate

I assume if I talked about R&D credits for the expenditure and building (25% against CT plus usual trading deduction) it would be enough for a BC? Just realised that I multiplied the whole lot at 12.5% too where I think it should be the expenditure only! I assume though that to get a BC I should have done enough...I completely messed tax up day one so hinging on this one.
..

james83

Faecanditate wrote: »

I assume if I talked about R&D credits for the expenditure and building (25% against CT plus usual trading deduction) it would be enough for a BC? Just realised that I multiplied the whole lot at 12.5% too where I think it should be the expenditure only! I assume though that to get a BC I should have done enough...
..

did you mention capital allowances on the buildings?

Faecanditate

james83 wrote: »

did you mention capital allowances on the buildings?

No! Unfortunately not. I wrote about R&D, about a qualifying company and qualifying expenditure (35% building rule etc). I then added the expenditure and building cost x 25% which can be used directly against CT. I then multiplied the same amount by 12.5 for the trading deduction in a rush but now realise the building would be capitalised so not a charge to P&L. So annoying.

jus_tin4

Can you get a credit for elective?

james83

Faecanditate wrote: »

No! Unfortunately not. I wrote about R&D, about a qualifying company and qualifying expenditure (35% building rule etc). I then added the expenditure and building cost x 25% which can be used directly against CT. I then multiplied the same amount by 12.5 for the trading deduction in a rush but now realise the building would be capitalised so not a charge to P&L. So annoying.

as long as you divided the building cost by 2 to take out the manufacturing part of it (only the RD part of the building counts towards the tax credit), then you will definitely get to BC

james83

jus_tin4 wrote: »

Can you get a credit for elective?

yes

jus_tin4

james83 wrote: »

yes

That's good to know!least it might be only core 🙈

Faecanditate

james83 wrote: »

as long as you divided the building cost by 2 to take out the manufacturing part of it (only the RD part of the building counts towards the tax credit), then you will definitely get to BC

.

james83

jus_tin4 wrote: »

anyone a link to see what you need to pass? I have an idea from the lectures and all but just want to see it in black and white.

Thanks

you need at least one BC in MA, AUD, FI, TX and 3 C in BL and FR and a sufficiency score of 2*number of indicators, most likely 16 indicators by 2= 32

jus_tin4

james83 wrote: »

you need at least one BC in MA, AUD, FI, TX and 3 C in BL and FR and a sufficiency score of 2*number of indicators, most likely 16 indicators by 2= 32

Thanks! Just got it there now after spending 20 mins on the flipping aca site!

Humour Me

Sufficiency is over 17 indicators as AAFRP is included, so 34 marks required.

jus_tin4

Humour Me wrote: »

Sufficiency is over 17 indicators as AAFRP is included, so 34 marks required.

Looking like i will fail on FR...

ffoxylady

james83 wrote: »

you need at least one BC in MA, AUD, FI, TX and 3 C in BL and FR and a sufficiency score of 2*number of indicators, most likely 16 indicators by 2= 32

You need 2 C in BL not 3

AgentZigZag

For anyone worried about FR catching them out - 44% failed to get a C in the AAFRP so nearly half of us needed 3 C's out of 4.

So if the pass rate is to be anywhere near last years 80% they would have to mark FR easy enough.

s15r330

AgentZigZag wrote: »

For anyone worried about FR catching them out - 44% failed to get a C in the AAFRP so nearly half of us needed 3 C's out of 4.

So if the pass rate is to be anywhere near last years 80% they would have to mark FR easy enough.

With a bit of luck! Thoughts of having to do that again!

james83

AgentZigZag wrote: »

For anyone worried about FR catching them out - 44% failed to get a C in the AAFRP so nearly half of us needed 3 C's out of 4.

So if the pass rate is to be anywhere near last years 80% they would have to mark FR easy enough.

yes your dead right, i would imagine correct standards, substantially correct treatment of the issue and correct disclosure will be good enough for C in all FR indicators

Qwert6

AgentZigZag wrote: »

For anyone worried about FR catching them out - 44% failed to get a C in the AAFRP so nearly half of us needed 3 C's out of 4.

So if the pass rate is to be anywhere near last years 80% they would have to mark FR easy enough.

This is after making me feel better as I'm worrying so much about this!! Never thought of it like that. Didn't realise there was almost half of us needing 3/4. Hopefully they mark us nicely

jus_tin4

Qwert6 wrote: »

This is after making me feel better as I'm worrying so much about this!! Never thought of it like that. Didn't realise there was almost half of us needing 3/4. Hopefully they mark us nicely

Same as! Going to hope my consol was good enough! I fecked up the sale and lease back! Got confused! Tried to go one way and tbh no idea what I really did now! Got the g/w and tried to post the journals so hopefully consol gets me through...all in all core was pretty okay!

james83

jus_tin4 wrote: »

Same as! Going to hope my consol was good enough! I fecked up the sale and lease back! Got confused! Tried to go one way and tbh no idea what I really did now! Got the g/w and tried to post the journals so hopefully consol gets me through...all in all core was pretty okay!

for FR today, if you were able to get the initial recognition of the sale and leaseback, and the disclosures correct, i reckon that will be competent. the question is slightly open to interpretation so if you accounted for it as an operating lease and followed through correctly with journals and disclosure i would imagine there is a strong chance that will be awarded competent aswell because the indicator was obscure and there is argument for recognising it in both categories, but it was definitely a finance lease

Qwert6

jus_tin4 wrote: »

Same as! Going to hope my consol was good enough! I fecked up the sale and lease back! Got confused! Tried to go one way and tbh no idea what I really did now! Got the g/w and tried to post the journals so hopefully consol gets me through...all in all core was pretty okay!

I think so many people didn't know what was going on in the sale and leaseback hopefully they will be nice. The wording could have been interpreted differently I think anyway. Hoping my consol gets me across the line too. Also got gw and journals so pray for us! Rest of core was ok anyway.

Qwert6

james83 wrote: »

for FR today, if you were able to get the initial recognition of the sale and leaseback, and the disclosures correct, i reckon that will be competent. the question is slightly open to interpretation so if you accounted for it as an operating lease and followed through correctly with journals and disclosure i would imagine there is a strong chance that will be awarded competent aswell because the indicator was obscure and there is argument for recognising it in both categories, but it was definitely a finance lease

When I looked back on it now I'm actually laughing at how the feck did I think it would be an operating lease for 50years 😂 But I'm pretty sure disclosure and journals are correct so let's pray they will be nice to us!!

jus_tin4

james83 wrote: »

for FR today, if you were able to get the initial recognition of the sale and leaseback, and the disclosures correct, i reckon that will be competent. the question is slightly open to interpretation so if you accounted for it as an operating lease and followed through correctly with journals and disclosure i would imagine there is a strong chance that will be awarded competent aswell because the indicator was obscure and there is argument for recognising it in both categories, but it was definitely a finance lease

Tbh i don't nearly know what i did at this stage! I attempted it at the start, left it and came back but i was still confused! Really praying tbh!

MrSzyslak

james83 wrote:

did anyone get a negative NPV for the working capital/operating cycle in the SIM today?

Make sure an fill out the Casi report on Friday afternoon lads and state the confusion with the lease. Even-though it will be time to get drunk. The board often make accomodation for marking in areas that weren't very clear.

Can't wait for that first pint :-)

jus_tin4

MrSzyslak wrote: »

Make sure an fill out the Casi report on Friday afternoon lads and state the confusion with the lease. Even-though it will be time to get drunk. The board often make accomodation for marking in areas that weren't very clear.

Can't wait for that first pint :-)

Just out of curiosity, anyone else think the the solutions you get to the exams are next to impossible to achieve? Fair play if you did! 25 min is feck all to get theses sorta answer down,I know those are HC but even still!

Qwert6

MrSzyslak wrote: »

Make sure an fill out the Casi report on Friday afternoon lads and state the confusion with the lease. Even-though it will be time to get drunk. The board often make accomodation for marking in areas that weren't very clear.

Can't wait for that first pint :-)

They're going to be the nicest pints I've ever drank. Don't intend on being sober until I'm back to work

Qwert6

jus_tin4 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, anyone else think the the solutions you get to the exams are next to impossible to achieve? Fair play if you did! 25 min is feck all to get theses sorta answer down,I know those are HC but even still!

They're impossible. They are HHHC in my opinion. I didn't even get to finish comp paper!