FAE September 2015

Debs23 · 24-04-2015 2:17pm

Does anyone know what the suggested time allocation is for the 3 sections in the AAFRP exam tomorrow?

deejer · 24-04-2015 2:42pm

Debs23 wrote: »

Does anyone know what the suggested time allocation is for the 3 sections in the AAFRP exam tomorrow?

From last years exam the suggested breakdown was:

Section 1: 44
Section 2: 30
Section 3: 36

Then we got that email in March that stated:

There is no change in the standard of the AAFRP 2015 examination
There is no change to the format or style of the paper for 2015
There will be up to an additional 10 minutes allocated to Section 2 of the examination and up to 10 minutes less allocated to Section 1 of the paper. This is to benefit students and will allow additional time to read, absorb and consider the disclosure requirements in Section 2. Clearly the requirements in Section 1 will reflect the slightly reduced allocated time.

I don't think there was anything else after that, but not certain.

lolly87 · 24-04-2015 8:33pm

Hi Guys is the aafrp exam in the RDS tmrw - i am a repeat and never got an email confirming it

thanks

Rickamania1 · 24-04-2015 8:39pm

lolly87 wrote: »

Hi Guys is the aafrp exam in the RDS tmrw - i am a repeat and never got an email confirming it

thanks

Hall 8C, Simmonscourt, RDS. 10am.

Dellboy2007 · 25-04-2015 2:03pm

How did people find the aafrp? I heard it was handy enough. Some questions word for word from sample papers. Is this true?

Kevint30 · 25-04-2015 2:24pm

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

How did people find the aafrp? I heard it was handy enough. Some questions word for word from sample papers. Is this tru

Section 3 was similiar enough to sample/past papers deferred.. tax and construction contracts. I was happy enough with it to be fair.

AllonRed22 · 25-04-2015 2:30pm

Kevint30 wrote: »

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

How did people find the aafrp? I heard it was handy enough. Some questions word for word from sample papers. Is this tru

Section 3 was similiar enough to sample/past papers deferred.. tax and construction contracts. I was happy enough with it to be fair.

I thought section 3 was okay. found section two very difficult. Was not sure what to do for the disclosures question 2.2 and 2.3

donnem33 · 25-04-2015 2:55pm

does anyone know what date the results are out for the AAFRP?

Cagney87 · 25-04-2015 4:15pm

Waltpugalier wrote: »

Anyone know if you were meant to recognise provision or not in Q1.4?

Also was there goodwill in the disclosure business combination question?

Cheers

Ya you were meant to recognise a provision. It says in the standard that in a lawsuit if the party is willing to settle that gives a present obligation to make a provision if the other recognition criteria are met. Was a really tricky one because there was no legal obligation at the year end

Crabapple11 · 26-04-2015 11:57am

Cagney87 wrote: »

Ya you were meant to recognise a provision. It says in the standard that in a lawsuit if the party is willing to settle that gives a present obligation to make a provision if the other recognition criteria are met. Was a really tricky one because there was no legal obligation at the year end

I'm not sure the recognition criteria was met given that the question stated "in the region" relating to the amount. In my opinion, the provision could not be measured reliably and therefore no Adjustment was required in 1.4. This was the only no adjustment required in the paper from what I had and based on previous years there is always one. But that is no guarantee that this year was the same.

Kevint30 · 26-04-2015 1:58pm

Crabapple11 wrote: »

I'm not sure the recognition criteria was met given that the question stated "in the region" relating to the amount. In my opinion, the provision could not be measured reliably and therefore no Adjustment was required in 1.4. This was the only no adjustment required in the paper from what I had and based on previous years there is always one. But that is no guarantee that this year was the same.

I completed the cassi survey for this aafrp exam and noted that 1.4 was pretty vague regarding the provision. If possible anyone who had issues with the provision recognition should state it in the survey and the examiners may be lenient.

SpongeBOB2012 · 26-04-2015 2:04pm

Did anyone else find that q3:3 on deferred tax gave the NBV of the property at 9m in 2014 and 8m in 2013, and stated that the property was not revalued? How could a single property's NBV increase without being revalued?

SpongeBOB2012 · 26-04-2015 2:05pm

Did anyone else find that q3:3 on deferred tax gave the NBV of the property at 9m in 2014 and 8m in 2013, and stated that the property was not revalued? How could a single property's NBV increase without being revalued?

Rickamania1 · 26-04-2015 2:14pm

SpongeBOB2012 wrote: »

Did anyone else find that q3:3 on deferred tax gave the NBV of the property at 9m in 2014 and 8m in 2013, and stated that the property was not revalued? How could a single property's NBV increase without being revalued?

Additions would increase property nbv. Its not one property, its all of their property.

Kevint30 · 26-04-2015 2:25pm

SpongeBOB2012 wrote: »

Did anyone else find that q3:3 on deferred tax gave the NBV of the property at 9m in 2014 and 8m in 2013, and stated that the property was not revalued? How could a single property's NBV increase without being revalued?

Good point. I didnt notice that. Maybe there could have been an extension, or upgrade of some sort.

Iwantcoffeenai · 26-04-2015 2:28pm

Crabapple11 wrote: »

I'm not sure the recognition criteria was met given that the question stated "in the region" relating to the amount. In my opinion, the provision could not be measured reliably and therefore no Adjustment was required in 1.4. This was the only no adjustment required in the paper from what I had and based on previous years there is always one. But that is no guarantee that this year was the same.

I also thought this and noted this assumption with my answer. I was also swayed like yourself that there is normally one no adjustment in every exam.

iluvfatfrogs · 27-04-2015 8:26am

Has anyone got a link to the survey?
Also does anyone know what date the results are out?

I marked Q1.4 as no journal necessary - i read it as there was no legal case = no provision

prettyrestless · 27-04-2015 8:43am

iluvfatfrogs wrote: »

I marked Q1.4 as no journal necessary - i read it as there was no legal case = no provision

I also marked it as no provision. Although they obviously would be liable if a case was taken against them, I didn't think this alone was sufficient to require a provision.

Kevint30 · 27-04-2015 10:01am

iluvfatfrogs wrote: »

Has anyone got a link to the survey?
Also does anyone know what date the results are out?

I marked Q1.4 as no journal necessary - i read it as there was no legal case = no provision

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/AAFRP2015Email

Cagney87 · 27-04-2015 11:19am

thanks for posting the link its awful hard to find on the website!
I think that provisions question can be viewed both ways really. It really isn't clear whether in the region of is or isnt a reliable estimate. I wouldnt mind if it wasnt mentioned in the standard but it is like! I left some feedback about it anyway. Hope it doesnt cost me getting a C!

iluvfatfrogs · 27-04-2015 11:51am

Cagney87 wrote: »

thanks for posting the link its awful hard to find on the website!
I think that provisions question can be viewed both ways really. It really isn't clear whether in the region of is or isnt a reliable estimate. I wouldnt mind if it wasnt mentioned in the standard but it is like! I left some feedback about it anyway. Hope it doesnt cost me getting a C!

Will they only accpet one answer in Section 1?

Surely if there is no legal case , there is no provision? (irrelevant of being able to estimate how much any potential damages could be?

Cagney87 · 27-04-2015 11:58am

No the standard says there doesnt have to be a legal obligation at the year end re a law suit.

16. In almost all cases it will be clear whether a past event has given rise to a present obligation. In rare cases, for example in a law suit, it may be disputed either whether certain events have occurred or whether those events result in a present obligation. In such a case, an entity determines whether a present obligation exists at the end of the reporting period by taking account of all available evidence, including, for example, the opinion of
experts. The evidence considered includes any additional evidence provided by events after the statement of financial position date. On the basis of such evidence:
(a) where it is more likely than not that a present obligation exists at the end of the reporting period, the
entity recognises a provision (if the recognition criteria are met)

Just think it can be viewed both ways!

AllonRed22 · 27-04-2015 12:38pm

Cagney87 wrote: »

No the standard says there doesnt have to be a legal obligation at the year end re a law suit.

16. In almost all cases it will be clear whether a past event has given rise to a present obligation. In rare cases, for example in a law suit, it may be disputed either whether certain events have occurred or whether those events result in a present obligation. In such a case, an entity determines whether a present obligation exists at the end of the reporting period by taking account of all available evidence, including, for example, the opinion of
experts. The evidence considered includes any additional evidence provided by events after the statement of financial position date. On the basis of such evidence:
(a) where it is more likely than not that a present obligation exists at the end of the reporting period, the
entity recognises a provision (if the recognition criteria are met)

Just think it can be viewed both ways!

Could anyone please explain what was required in section 2.2 and 2.3. In particular the consideration amount for 2.3? should it been at the FV of 200k and what we had to do with the contingent liability. Many thanks to anyone who could shed any light on it.

iluvfatfrogs · 27-04-2015 12:50pm

Cagney87 wrote: »

No the standard says there doesnt have to be a legal obligation at the year end re a law suit.

16. In almost all cases it will be clear whether a past event has given rise to a present obligation. In rare cases, for example in a law suit, it may be disputed either whether certain events have occurred or whether those events result in a present obligation. In such a case, an entity determines whether a present obligation exists at the end of the reporting period by taking account of all available evidence, including, for example, the opinion of
experts. The evidence considered includes any additional evidence provided by events after the statement of financial position date. On the basis of such evidence:
(a) where it is more likely than not that a present obligation exists at the end of the reporting period, the
entity recognises a provision (if the recognition criteria are met)

Just think it can be viewed both ways!

Thanks very much for that! I'm surprised they put up such a vague scenario in Section 1!

iluvfatfrogs · 27-04-2015 12:56pm

AllonRed22 wrote: »

Could anyone please explain what was required in section 2.2 and 2.3. In particular the consideration amount for 2.3? should it been at the FV of 200k and what we had to do with the contingent liability. Many thanks to anyone who could shed any light on it.

I included €500,000 as a contingent consideration. I found a paragraph in the standard book on the day in IRFS 3, saying that in contradiction to IAS 37, upon acquistion, the full contingent consideration must be included.

Kevint30 · 27-04-2015 1:27pm

iluvfatfrogs wrote: »

I included €500,000 as a contingent consideration. I found a paragraph in the standard book on the day in IRFS 3, saying that in contradiction to IAS 37, upon acquistion, the full contingent consideration must be included.

I used the fv of 200k as we were uncertain at year end what the future profits would be.

Lou26 · 27-04-2015 1:51pm

Reading back on the standard I think we were meant to recognise the provision.

I didn't as I got swayed with past papers as there is always a no adjustment included.

Can anybody tell me what they did for question 3.2 the telecommunications network?

Results are not out until 19th June

iluvfatfrogs · 27-04-2015 2:50pm

Lou26 wrote: »

Reading back on the standard I think we were meant to recognise the provision.

I didn't as I got swayed with past papers as there is always a no adjustment included.

Can anybody tell me what they did for question 3.2 the telecommunications network?

Results are not out until 19th June

Although some of work colleagues treated it as intangible, i capitalised the €275,000 & €40,000 and expensed the €250,000 & €300,000

donnem33 · 27-04-2015 2:53pm

Does anyone know when the solutions will go up online?

Lou26 · 27-04-2015 3:27pm

donnem33 wrote: »

Does anyone know when the solutions will go up online?

I don't think they will put the solution up until we get our results

AllonRed22 · 27-04-2015 5:06pm

iluvfatfrogs wrote: »

I included €500,000 as a contingent consideration. I found a paragraph in the standard book on the day in IRFS 3, saying that in contradiction to IAS 37, upon acquistion, the full contingent consideration must be included.

Thanks for this. What did you do with the 50k contingent liability, was unsure about this? I was unsure so I put in the FV of €200,000.

Crabapple11 · 27-04-2015 7:36pm

Lou26 wrote: »

Reading back on the standard I think we were meant to recognise the provision.

I didn't as I got swayed with past papers as there is always a no adjustment included.

Can anybody tell me what they did for question 3.2 the telecommunications network?

Results are not out until 19th June

I think the crux of the question lies with whether the provision can be reliably estimated. The question states that it is difficult to assess the damages but the clinic would expect the damage payable to be in the region of 250k. In my opinion, the wording of this does not give rise to a reliable measure of a potential liability and therefore the provision should not be made and the pending legal case is irrelevant as the outcome could not be reliably measured. That's just my take on it, I'm sure others would disagree. I also struggle to see where the present obligation comes in. Didn't one of the questions in the toolkit not involve a verbal argument where someone was going to take someone to court but the hadn't received any written confirmation and therefore no provision could be made because you need to look how these cases would be dealt with. I.e. Via legal letters. In a 1.4 it states no such letters had been received post year end. I just find it would be strange if there wasn't at least one no adjustment on the paper.

As for 3.2, My take on it was that the 250k feasibility study was correctly written to p/l so no adjustment necessary. The cost of 150k for selecting a suitable site location is not allowable under ias16. So this needed written to p/l.
Ias16 allows employee benefits attributable to the installation which includes wages wtc. So 30k of the engineers salary could be capitalised along with the sub contracting costs. Staff training was correctly written to p/l.

Kevint30 · 27-04-2015 9:06pm

Crabapple11 wrote: »

I think the crux of the question lies with whether the provision can be reliably estimated. The question states that it is difficult to assess the damages but the clinic would expect the damage payable to be in the region of 250k. In my opinion, the wording of this does not give rise to a reliable measure of a potential liability and therefore the provision should not be made and the pending legal case is irrelevant as the outcome could not be reliably measured. That's just my take on it, I'm sure others would disagree. I also struggle to see where the present obligation comes in. Didn't one of the questions in the toolkit not involve a verbal argument where someone was going to take someone to court but the hadn't received any written confirmation and therefore no provision could be made because you need to look how these cases would be dealt with. I.e. Via legal letters. In a 1.4 it states no such letters had been received post year end. I just find it would be strange if there wasn't at least one no adjustment on the paper.

As for 3.2, My take on it was that the 250k feasibility study was correctly written to p/l so no adjustment necessary. The cost of 150k for selecting a suitable site location is not allowable under ias16. So this needed written to p/l.
Ias16 allows employee benefits attributable to the installation which includes wages wtc. So 30k of the engineers salary could be capitalised along with the sub contracting costs. Staff training was correctly written to p/l.

I also included 30k for engineer cost but concluded that the 40 k contractor costs is correctly expensed as it does not directly relate to telecommunications network

bualadh bos · 28-04-2015 5:22pm

Anyone having problems viewing the online recordings?

When I click into the lecture recording I get Microsoft Silverlight icon, which asks to install the latest version, I downloaded it but it still appears on my page.

I checked my work computer too and It has the same thing..was hoping to catch up on a lecture!

Cagney87 · 29-04-2015 4:59pm

Does anyone know if the institute give the exam days for repeating the FAE or do you have to take them out of your holidays?

AuditAgain · 29-04-2015 7:41pm

Is FRS 102 examinable this year??

I'm resitting audit and I had just assumed it wouldn't be relevant as the rest of the exams have been IFRS focused.

prettyrestless · 30-04-2015 8:50am

Cagney87 wrote: »

Does anyone know if the institute give the exam days for repeating the FAE or do you have to take them out of your holidays?

As far as I know, the Institute don't provide any recommendations for repeat study leave for FAE (although they do for CAP2), so I would assume you have to take them out of your holidays/agree something with your employer.

prettyrestless · 30-04-2015 8:56am

AuditAgain wrote: »

Is FRS 102 examinable this year??

I'm resitting audit and I had just assumed it wouldn't be relevant as the rest of the exams have been IFRS focused.

This is taken from the competency statement for Core for 2014/2015:

"FRS 100
Understand the differences between FRS 100 and IFRS with particular reference to:
 Scope
 Terminology used
 Components & Layout of Statutory Accounts

FRS 101
Understand the differences between FRS 101 and IFRS with particular reference to scope of this standard.

FRS 102
Understand the key similarities/differences between accounting treatments examinable at FAE Core under IFRS and the equivalent elements of FRS 102. For 2014/2015, the following sections are specifically excluded:
 Section 12
 Section 31
 Section 34 – all aspects out of scope except for Agriculture"

I can't see anything about FRS 102 in the section about the audit elective - just ISAs, ethical standards, etc. I'm not doing the audit elective though, so maybe someone who is could give you a more informed answer

Kevint30 · 04-05-2015 10:16pm

bualadh bos wrote: »

Anyone having problems viewing the online recordings?

When I click into the lecture recording I get Microsoft Silverlight icon, which asks to install the latest version, I downloaded it but it still appears on my page.

I checked my work computer too and It has the same thing..was hoping to catch up on a lecture!

im having the same problem.

Miller1990 · 05-05-2015 7:07am

Kevint30 wrote: »

im having the same problem.

Silverlight wont work on google chrome any more, if you use explorer it should work.

bualadh bos · 05-05-2015 9:22am

Miller1990 wrote: »

Silverlight wont work on google chrome any more, if you use explorer it should work.

Yeah I emailed the institute and they said the same, to use internet explorer or firefox and it works :-)

9qwas1 · 11-05-2015 3:45pm

Haylcyp wrote: »

Hello.

I just wanted to write in this to offer my folders and books from FAE. I originally did the FAEs in 2013, failed the core, and passed in 2014. I made sure to study the relevant areas of the elective even for the repeats to cover me for Audit core.

Anyways, my notes and folders for every subject, with exams papers, Chartered Grind School notes ( used these for technical material for finance and management accounting), AAFRP notes and papers, and any cheat sheets and checklists.

I have every folder indexed and tabd and updated it for my repeats last year (althou v little changed except for tax) with case study and exam paper solutions, CGS notes, lectures and summary check lists that I printed down for every subject from someone who placed the year before me (real good for IMP, BL and Finance).

If you want all of this then PM as they are just collecting dust at this stage. But if you want the folders I prefer if you took it all with you. They are all exactly as I had them in the exam.

I have moved to the US now but will arrange with you to collect these. If not, best of luck with the exams.

hey

Bit late with this, but jsut wondering do you still have the folders availbale ?

Thanks,

Glas134 · 16-05-2015 1:55pm

Hey guys! Would anybody have the solutions for challenging questions for this year tax core book? Thanks

myshirt · 18-05-2015 7:41pm

I am just looking at the Tower case once more. Small bit of a head melter. Two questions for anyone who has managed to grasp it:

1. The cash at hand at the end of Q3 is an overdraft of €600k. The solution however seems to treat the cash on hand as positive €600k. Am I seeing this right?
2. Does anyone see any issue with the calculations for the projected outcome in respect of the Primary Covenant? I cannot follow the logic of what they are doing at all.

NoChance14 · 19-05-2015 6:15pm

Case day 3, am I correct in saying that's Claddagh workshop?

Adjustment15 · 20-05-2015 7:25pm

Hi doing the AAFRP in June, can anyone indicate what came up in the April paper?

lowenstein · 22-05-2015 9:06am

Any repeat students know where the revision course case day 3 is on? haven't seen any announcement on it. Thanks.

Torres999 · 22-05-2015 10:17am

Anyone do the Christy Kearney revision course for the audit elective last year? I am a repeat student I did the CGS one and found it ok but I want to do another this year as I haven't looked at audit yet so need some sort of revision. Is the Christy K one any good? Good notes and stuff?