FAE Audit Elective 2014

womandriver · 05-09-2014 11:24am

LOccitane wrote: »

Hey: yeah that's it. It's in the AAE book. Basically I tied it in with the Address issue on the Report - it was open ended, exposing us to potential limitless liability.

We need to investigate whether we are in a tripartite engagement, the extent of duty of care owed etc before proceeding with the engagement. That's the approach I took anyway :-)

M39 is not examinable anymore tho, for that reason I didn't mention it. Hope it's not going to be a requirement for competent.

ucd man · 05-09-2014 12:09pm

On Sim 3, does anybody know what the issue with the stock being transferred to other branches and the abnormal level number of credit notes was about?? I guessed it was a possible fraud, but not really sure why??

danko2012 · 05-09-2014 12:45pm

ucd man wrote: »

On Sim 3, does anybody know what the issue with the stock being transferred to other branches and the abnormal level number of credit notes was about?? I guessed it was a possible fraud, but not really sure why??

I think there may have been something going on but i more focused on the controls rather than fraud as they were a bit loose of the controls!

As for the stock count, if you were working there happy days, you get the expected quantity befre you count! Zero differences to report here boss!

EDudder · 05-09-2014 3:21pm

ucd man wrote: »

On Sim 3, does anybody know what the issue with the stock being transferred to other branches and the abnormal level number of credit notes was about?? I guessed it was a possible fraud, but not really sure why??

Another horrible thing to throw in IMO.

Spent a few minutes reading back over that trying to work out if it was a weak fraud indicator or just related to the stock controls. I ended up leaving it, as you don't have a spare 20 mins to address an indicator you're not sure exists.

womandriver · 05-09-2014 3:24pm

EDudder wrote: »

Another horrible thing to throw in IMO.

Spent a few minutes reading back over that trying to work out if it was a weak fraud indicator or just related to the stock controls. I ended up leaving it, as you don't have a spare 20 mins to address an indicator you're not sure exists.

There was a comment at the end of that paragraph that said the director wanted a new auditor appointed quickly to investigate it so I made a comment in relation to it being the management and directors responsibility to detect and prevent fraud not the auditors. Otherwise I said there was a fraud risk.

EDudder · 05-09-2014 3:31pm

That's a very good point actually. Fair play for picking that up/ putting them together.

So how many indicators were there in sim 3? I only had two. But the ethics one took forever.

womandriver · 05-09-2014 3:45pm

EDudder wrote: »

That's a very good point actually. Fair play for picking that up/ putting them together.

So how many indicators were there in sim 3? I only had two. But the ethics one took forever.

I think it asked if there were any other issues and I made a 3rd indicator out of this. I said there was RPT's and it was a fraud risk so they would need to be treated as significant risks, said about the directors being responsible for detection of fraud here too.

I also said there were indicators of a risk of mms as they had started new line of business recently and I think I mentioned the weak control environment here too.

EDudder · 05-09-2014 4:01pm

That's at least one indicator I've completely missed.

womandriver · 05-09-2014 4:07pm

EDudder wrote: »

That's at least one indicator I've completely missed.

It may not be an indicator and if it makes u feel any better I totally missed the lease issue and the issue with the revaluation reserve. And I had no idea what was wrong with the cash flow re. the impairment review. Really don't see how I'll pass having not addressed those.

ASOT2012 · 05-09-2014 4:11pm

womandriver wrote: »

It may not be an indicator and if it makes u feel any better I totally missed the lease issue and the issue with the revaluation reserve. And I had no idea what was wrong with the cash flow re. the impairment review. Really don't see how I'll pass having not addressed those.

Wasnt there something else going on with impairment of their existing assets. I cant remember exactly but I think it stated something like they wanted to purchase additional buildings and they could get them for considerably less then what they paid for their existing buildings!

womandriver · 05-09-2014 4:14pm

ASOT2012 wrote: »

Wasnt there something else going on with impairment of their existing assets. I cant remember exactly but I think it stated something like they wanted to purchase additional buildings and they could get them for considerably less then what they paid for their existing buildings!

I said that alright but didn't spot the lease issue, don't know how but I guess it's cos I didn't do the core this year so my FR is not fresh in my mind.

EDudder · 05-09-2014 4:22pm

Those bits like the lease issue and reval reserves will just be bullet points within one indicator. You'll be fine, sounds like you were all over it!

The main thing I've taken from this is to learn to write much faster for next year.

womandriver · 05-09-2014 7:09pm

EDudder wrote: »

Those bits like the lease issue and reval reserves will just be bullet points within one indicator. You'll be fine, sounds like you were all over it!

The main thing I've taken from this is to learn to write much faster for next year.

I really hope so but I'm kinda doubtful I can get the required number of C's considering the things I missed

ucd man · 26-09-2014 3:44pm

Don't mean to be getting defeatist now, but the more I think about it, reckon won't pass the exam. I can't sit any more accounting exams again, ACA or ACCA, as these have taken so much time of my life at this stage!
Does anybody know are there many jobs out there for partly qualified accountants (who have no interest in doing more exams)??
I'm sure there are, but is it just going to be a case of being paid a trainee accountant's wage, regardless of having 2/3 years experience??

20 Times 20 Times · 26-09-2014 5:03pm

the exam was tough for everyone - I did every case/mock/past exam and that was the toughest going. I think you need to take away what you did good from the exam

cian twomey · 05-11-2014 10:20pm

have a sick feeling about the results on in 2 weeks especially the elective, anyone feel the same?

FAEfirsttimer · 06-11-2014 8:57am

cian twomey wrote: »

have a sick feeling about the results on in 2 weeks especially the elective, anyone feel the same?

I feel the same, my dreams are hunted my paragraphs from the exam and dreams about the result day lol

I have never prepared so much for an exam in my life, and should be feeling positive about the whole thing but the method of marking, the difference between competence and failure being so slim I really can't be sure and is worrying me beyond expectation.

We have only 2 weeks to go, although I wish it was tomorrow. The standard of this exam was crazy compared to the audit mock, but I hopefully we all got through it. I am more worried about core than this, as Audit tends to be my stronger area although I think I may be kidding myself lol.

Best of luck for the results and fingers crossed we get what we need

ucd man · 12-11-2014 6:05pm

I'm feeling exact same. I'm pretty sure there are a couple of whole indicators I missed, meaning I'm probably going to need "competent" on all of those that I did spot. I can only hope that papers are marked substantially easier than what is suggested in the marking schemes on the board reports, suggested solutions, etc.
My gut feeling is that if Sim 1 is found to be an AUP engagement I may have a chance, otherwise, not looking at all good!

FAEfirsttimer · 12-11-2014 11:27pm

ucd man wrote: »

I'm feeling exact same. I'm pretty sure there are a couple of whole indicators I missed, meaning I'm probably going to need "competent" on all of those that I did spot. I can only hope that papers are marked substantially easier than what is suggested in the marking schemes on the board reports, suggested solutions, etc.
My gut feeling is that if Sim 1 is found to be an AUP engagement I may have a chance, otherwise, not looking at all good!

I can't really remember what was on the sim 1, so can't help put you at ease. I would love to see how my paper is marked and the decisions behind teh FAE I think it would be interesting. If they mark it in line with the standard of the mock we all have a great chance of passing

fingers crossed

ucd man · 18-11-2014 1:34pm

20 Times 20 Times wrote: »

AUP is 100% right in my opinion - However Limited Assurance can be given and i went with that and the procedures that would be required to give it . I also mentioned duty of care and tripartite relationship and i redrafted the note to read as limited assurance.

I spoke to Sean Murray after the exam he said both answers would be correct the key thing is that we WOULD NOT offer reasonable assurance.

Sorry to be re-opening this one, is this what Sean Murry actually said? Just I went with AUP, and have a feeling if its not, then I have next to no chance of a pass. Just I didn't see any sign of Sean Murray around RDS after exam, and I hung around for a while.

FAE14 · 18-11-2014 2:09pm

ucd man wrote: »

Sorry to be re-opening this one, is this what Sean Murry actually said? Just I went with AUP, and have a feeling if its not, then I have next to no chance of a pass. Just I didn't see any sign of Sean Murray around RDS after exam, and I hung around for a while.

Its defo A.U.P - But I'm praying they accept Limited assurance as basically I'm in a bad place otherwise.

FAEfirsttimer · 18-11-2014 2:37pm

Aww lads, ye cant be worrying about specific questions at this stage. Let it go, and hope that you pass. Like people say about the Core, one indicator shouldnt beat you.

Fingers crossed that we have done enough regardless if it is AUP or not

ucd man · 18-11-2014 3:18pm

FAEfirsttimer wrote: »

Aww lads, ye cant be worrying about specific questions at this stage. Let it go, and hope that you pass. Like people say about the Core, one indicator shouldnt beat you.

Fingers crossed that we have done enough regardless if it is AUP or not

Sorry for the negativity, but am repeating the exam and the feeling of viewing results on results morning last year, means I would like some sort of comfort/knowledge of whether I'll pass or not, just so I can prepare myself for the best/worst!

The AUP indicator (sim 1) and audit opinion (disclaimer i suggested) on Sim 2, will probably dictate how I peform!

Soap_Soup · 18-11-2014 4:17pm

ucd man wrote: »

Sorry for the negativity, but am repeating the exam and the feeling of viewing results on results morning last year, means I would like some sort of comfort/knowledge of whether I'll pass or not, just so I can prepare myself for the best/worst!

The AUP indicator (sim 1) and audit opinion (disclaimer i suggested) on Sim 2, will probably dictate how I peform!

Are you the same, being a re-sitter you feel like you almost know the kind of standard you needed to reach in the exam?

I knew straight after the exam (based on my performance last year v. my result) that I've definitely failed. Still isn't making this week very pleasant.

I wish they'd either just have a decent turnaround time for results and have a proper resit option (i.e. results late October - resit in December...or January...or any stage closer than 12 months!), or else just not tell me until much later in the year.

It's genuinely cruel having to wait nearly 3 months for your results, then having to wait a further 9 months for a chance to resit.

Macker655 · 18-11-2014 4:27pm

Im resitting also, felt the paper went ok except for sim 2 which I did last and was rushed for timing. Is it true that you need a minimum of 5Cs to pass?

Soap_Soup · 18-11-2014 4:31pm

I have no idea I'm afraid. I've never received such clear cut information on marking from the Institute. And don't imagine I ever will.

That's good that you felt it went OK for the most part.

I think there was about 1 indicator on the exam which I felt went 'well'. The rest were either madly rushed or about as clear as mud regarding the requirements (in my head at least).

ucd man · 18-11-2014 4:36pm

Macker655 wrote: »

Im resitting also, felt the paper went ok except for sim 2 which I did last and was rushed for timing. Is it true that you need a minimum of 5Cs to pass?

From what I remember, Sean Murray said he couldnt confirm how many C's one would need but he said he would be pretty certain 6 competents out of 9 would be enough and perhaps 5.
Based on my review of my paper, I'm thinking I'll do well to get 5, so hoping for a bit(lot) of luck!!

Macker655 · 18-11-2014 4:38pm

Soap_Soup wrote: »

I have no idea I'm afraid. I've never received such clear cut information on marking from the Institute. And don't imagine I ever will.

That's good that you felt it went OK for the most part.

I think there was about 1 indicator on the exam which I felt went 'well'. The rest were either madly rushed or about as clear as mud regarding the requirements (in my head at least).

Maybe im being hopefully optimistic this week! It was certainly a paper that was way beyond anything presented by the institute previously, especially the mock papers which are worlds apart from the actual exam.

ucd man · 18-11-2014 4:41pm

Soap_Soup wrote: »

Are you the same, being a re-sitter you feel like you almost know the kind of standard you needed to reach in the exam?

I knew straight after the exam (based on my performance last year v. my result) that I've definitely failed. Still isn't making this week very pleasant.

I wish they'd either just have a decent turnaround time for results and have a proper resit option (i.e. results late October - resit in December...or January...or any stage closer than 12 months!), or else just not tell me until much later in the year.

It's genuinely cruel having to wait nearly 3 months for your results, then having to wait a further 9 months for a chance to resit.

I can relate to what you are saying, but part of me thinks that, as I was repeating this year (elective only), I was a lot more confident going into the exam and perhaps my expectations were higher than last year. Like, my performance on past papers/sample questions during study leave suggested that I was in a very good position!
Hence, the disappointment with the paper this year....

Yea, I know, I probably am overthinking it!!

Chris Partlow · 18-11-2014 5:25pm

ucd man wrote: »

Sorry for the negativity, but am repeating the exam and the feeling of viewing results on results morning last year, means I would like some sort of comfort/knowledge of whether I'll pass or not, just so I can prepare myself for the best/worst!

The AUP indicator (sim 1) and audit opinion (disclaimer i suggested) on Sim 2, will probably dictate how I peform!

As someone who is repeating the elective for the second time, unfortunately, the very nature of these exams means you don't have any knowledge of whether you passed or failed. I'm in the same boat as you, nothing we can do at this stage.

And also, always prepare for the worst... that way you won't be disappointed!

acastudent · 18-11-2014 6:21pm

ucd man wrote: »

Just I didn't see any sign of Sean Murray around RDS after exam, and I hung around for a while.

Lol , thank you for putting smile on my face

ucd man · 19-11-2014 2:28pm

FAE14 wrote: »

Its defo A.U.P - But I'm praying they accept Limited assurance as basically I'm in a bad place otherwise.

So now that that's confirmed (or is it??), whats the opinion on the audit opinion on Sim 2?

I went with disclaimer of opinion, due to multiple uncertainties. Would love some sort of peace of mind, for the next 36hours!!

FAE14 · 19-11-2014 2:58pm

ucd man wrote: »

So now that that's confirmed (or is it??), whats the opinion on the audit opinion on Sim 2?

I went with disclaimer of opinion, due to multiple uncertainties. Would love some sort of peace of mind, for the next 36hours!!

Went with the same.

Soap_Soup · 19-11-2014 3:31pm

The audit elective really shouldn't be this uncertain. Based on the subject matter (audit), it should be so much more black and white than the Core.

The fact that we still can't get consensus on the indicators shows how badly written that exam was IMO.

I know some people will be thinking 'Give over, it's over and done with now'. But continuing to accept ****e is not helping us, or future students.

Macker655 · 19-11-2014 3:34pm

ucd man wrote: »

So now that that's confirmed (or is it??), whats the opinion on the audit opinion on Sim 2?

I went with disclaimer of opinion, due to multiple uncertainties. Would love some sort of peace of mind, for the next 36hours!!

I think the audit opinion is wide open based on what you perceived the issues to be in the earlier indicators in Sim 2. I have heard of all different variations including limitation of scope and Emphasis of matter over Going concern.

ucd man · 19-11-2014 5:00pm

I don't know if it is comforting or worrying, that if I sat the exam again today, with full knowledge of what was coming up, I don't know if my script would be substantially better than what I handed up in September...

FAEfirsttimer · 19-11-2014 6:00pm

ucd man wrote: »

I don't know if it is comforting or worrying, that if I sat the exam again today, with full knowledge of what was coming up, I don't know if my script would be substantially better than what I handed up in September...

I thought this myself recently. That is what makes me nervous about these results as the structure and content of our solution will probably change depending on the day of the week or mood etc. Whereas, if you done Cap 2 you apporach the exam the same, as you have set questions which you either know or not..

The ability to go off on the wrong track is scary as it gives that doubt about whether you approached things correctly

ucd man · 20-11-2014 12:16pm

So what do we reckon, 9 indicators:

4 competents and 3 reaching competent be enough to get over the line??

Macker655 · 20-11-2014 12:23pm

ucd man wrote: »

So what do we reckon, 9 indicators:

4 competents and 3 reaching competent be enough to get over the line??

I heard the first round corrections on the papers were dismal and the solution had to be amended....could just be a housewives tale though, so not sure what impact that will have on the overall sufficiency requirement.

Do you think there is room to get NC in some of the indicators? This exam has caused more worry than anything else!

ucd man · 20-11-2014 12:29pm

Macker655 wrote: »

I heard the first round corrections on the papers were dismal and the solution had to be amended....could just be a housewives tale though, so not sure what impact that will have on the overall sufficiency requirement.

Do you think there is room to get NC in some of the indicators? This exam has caused more worry than anything else!

Well both Sean Murray and Paul Monaghan have stated in the past that it is possible to miss a whole indicator and still pass the exam i.e. one can not fail on one indicator alone.

Whether you could get away with 2 NCs is probably dependant on quality of your other indicators I'd imagine, but would hope is not impossible.

Also, this houseswives tale you heard, I'm assuming this came from some of the correctors in the firms?

I know correctors from the past 2 years, and they have said guidance is given to mark mocks paper harder than the real thing, if that means anything! Unfortunately, these same people are not correcting this year

Macker655 · 20-11-2014 12:52pm

ucd man wrote: »

Well both Sean Murray and Paul Monaghan have stated in the past that it is possible to miss a whole indicator and still pass the exam i.e. one can not fail on one indicator alone.

Whether you could get away with 2 NCs is probably dependant on quality of your other indicators I'd imagine, but would hope is not impossible.

Also, this houseswives tale you heard, I'm assuming this came from some of the correctors in the firms?

I know correctors from the past 2 years, and they have said guidance is given to mark mocks paper harder than the real thing, if that means anything! Unfortunately, these same people are not correcting this year

Typically the mocks are designed to be harder, but in this scenario they are so much easier, having passed the mock it doesn't provide any extra comfort for tomorrow.

I think the group sim was so confusing for everyone, hopefully if you gave some sort of reasonable answer that will suffice.

Soap_Soup · 20-11-2014 1:13pm

Macker655 wrote: »

I heard the first round corrections on the papers were dismal and the solution had to be amended....could just be a housewives tale though, so not sure what impact that will have on the overall sufficiency requirement.

Do you think there is room to get NC in some of the indicators? This exam has caused more worry than anything else!

That's very depressing to hear. If they hammered the majority/standard I've got 0% chance.

If the audit elective has a low pass rate I'll reach new levels of furiousness. Would be typical of the institute though.

"God very few have answered what we have on the mark scheme here".

"Reckon it's because of the stupidly unclear paper we wrote?"

"Nah, this year's class are clearly just less competent and more lazy - fail 'em".

Chris Partlow · 20-11-2014 10:33pm

Best of luck tomorrow people. Hopefully the hard work has paid off and we'll never be in this situation again!

Chris Partlow · 21-11-2014 8:00am

Ah well, off to ACCA I go...

20 Times 20 Times · 21-11-2014 9:58am

54% PASS RATE !!!!

EDudder · 21-11-2014 11:24am

Absolute ****ing *****.

That's people's futures they couldn't give a **** about.

Chris Partlow · 21-11-2014 11:31am

Does anyone have any idea if passing the core but failing the elective counts for any ACCA exemptions? Or do I still have to do all 5 final exams.

Got through to some fella in England who didn't even know who CAI were!

EDudder · 21-11-2014 11:36am

Could you let us know when you find out?

I genuinely can't give another 12 months to something that has a 50% pass rate. They're too unreliable.

SJay · 21-11-2014 1:24pm

I've been trying to find that out also but it doesn't seem to say anywhere on the website. If you find out can you let us know please?! I think CPA give exemptions for core

Whoisin thehouse · 21-11-2014 1:44pm

I cannot post link as a new member but put go to the below

portal.accaglobal.com/accrweb/faces/page/public/accreditations/enquiry/main/EnqProgrammesTable.jspx?_afPfm=wb16c1zi8

or give the guys at CGS a call, they also lecture on the ACCA courses

FAE Audit Elective 2014

Comments