CAP2 Audit Exam

jm1985

So...what did people think of the exam today??
Totally ran out of time, Q1 was soo long and I did really badly in it....panicked and wasted too much time looking throught notes and books Dont think I passed that one anyways

wardso84

thought it was better than it could have been. Still have no idea whether I've passed or not even saying that! Thought I'd def fail before hand, now I think I'm borderline.

Q1 was pretty vague in bits
Q2 was ok i thought
Q4 was mostly ok

didn't do Q3

noveltea

I thought Question 1 was really long but ok.I did question 2 and 4 as well.Did not have enought time at all.I think I relied to much on my notes. I defo did not pass. I say I got around the 47 alltogether.

Prezatch

Did Q1 ok apart from the ethics part (ran out of time)
Did Q3 a bit vaguely and I thought Q4 was quite easy

Hopefully passed, needed 48.2! Hopefully they'll round that down

Hanley

I thought it was a fair paper, regardless of how I end up doing....

Q1 was tricky in parts. Like they twisted some of the more straight forward stuff like the debtors circs. Thought the cash sales/rtns & ethics part was nice - fairly obvious what they were looking for I think.

Q2 was a decent challenege, don't think I did really well in it, but there was a good mix of topics which should let most ppl pick up marks

Q4 was one of those ones that seems straight forward but probably isn't.

Anyone know what the story was with the new equipment not in use at B.S date? Should or should it not have been capitalised?? I liked the way they wanted additional proceedures for the €200k in house costs. Not something you'd read in a book, but something ya should be able to work out if you have an understanding of audit proceedures. HOPE I said the right things tho!!

And with the directors loans what did everyone say?? I said qualified - L.O.S on the basis that directors transactions and cash are always material, even if they're not above materiality. Mentioned how in light of Anglo et al any dubious directors transactions would be looked upon very dimily by the other shareholders, even tho it's an ltd co.

I needed 45 to pass thanks to CA. Very hopeful that I got that.

47 tomorrow's gonna be triiiiiiiicky.

Pisco Sour

I think the exam could have been a lot worse. It's still very hit and miss as auditing is so random and subjective but I reckon I probably just about did enough. Probably around the 52-53 zone, and I need 48 to pass. Having said that you just dont know how auditing will be marked. For the mocks some people were given marks for giving answers which werent on the ICAI set solutions and got 60% or so, while my paper was corrected strictly by the set solutions and I got 21%. If that happens in the real exam then its grossly unfair!

Was wondering am I the only one who was well and truely drained after the exam today? I tried to study sfma today but nothing was going in. The heat, humidity and my brain turning to mush right after the exam ensured that I got nothing done today. So I've decided to watch Wimbledon for the rest of the evening. Will probably do me more good, as I need to have some chill time after that 3.5 hour marathon today. I've been studying for 10 weeks or so, surely 1 day of no study is hardly going to make much difference. Anyone else having a similar experience?

Prezatch

Hanley wrote: »

Anyone know what the story was with the new equipment not in use at B.S date? Should or should it not have been capitalised??

And with the directors loans what did everyone say?? I said qualified - L.O.S on the basis that directors transactions and cash are always material, even if they're not above materiality. Mentioned how in light of Anglo et al any dubious directors transactions would be looked upon very dimily by the other shareholders, even tho it's an ltd co.

Capitalisation must cease when the asset is brought into use. So all of the development costs should have been capitalised basically. Similar question came up in 2007 Summer Q2.

For the directors I just said the same thing you'd say for directors bonus - has to be disclosed under companies acts blah blah except for opinion blah

Prezatch

04072511 wrote: »

Was wondering am I the only one who was well and truely drained after the exam today? I've been studying for 10 weeks or so, surely 1 day of no study is hardly going to make much difference. Anyone else having a similar experience?

I went for a nap for an hour and drank a litre of water, feel much better.

Hackysack

Thank God! Other people who thought it was alright! I thought it was fair myself while everyone else I spoke to thought it was a nightmare.

There were definitely tricky parts to it but there were some areas which you could really pick up marks. I thought question 2 was pretty tricky as far as short questions go but I was running short on time so I lashed any oul thing in.

Question 3 looked a bit of a mankey question. And the audit reports question (4b) was a bit of a gift in my opinion.

There were definitely tricky parts but I think there were some questions there for you to get your marks here and there. Hopefully i'll have picked up enough.

I'm a bit screwed for tomorrow though.

edit: Damn it! I completely forgot to write about the cut-off about the new machine. I was too rushed at the time. I had written it on my answer paper but forgot to write it. Damn it. That annoys me.

Hanley

JoeyD wrote: »

Capitalisation must cease when the asset is brought into use. So all of the development costs should have been capitalised basically. Similar question came up in 2007 Summer Q2.

For the directors I just said the same thing you'd say for directors bonus - has to be disclosed under companies acts blah blah except for opinion blah

Phew.. should get some marks there so!! I either did really well, or really badly!

I wasn't in bad shape today after hte exam surprisingly. Went home, grubbed up, watched some TV, organised my notes for tomorrow and went for a run. Having some more food now and then to bed!!

Anyway leaving pretty much all the books at home?? They're shiiiiiiit.

prinz

Was it just me or did anyone else think there wasn't that much emphasis put on auditing payroll in the notes or books to justify a full question? Did Question 3 and ended up chancing my arm for a lot of it - trying to twist creditors info to make it fit for a payroll and bullsh*tting my way through it tbh. Is there some section regarding specific payroll tests etc that I missed

Ideo

payroll is mentioned in the cosserat book, its not in the yellow book!

prinz

Ideo wrote: »

payroll is mentioned in the cosserat book, its not in the yellow book!

that explains a lot suppose i shouldve brought that book to the exam so.

Ideo

yeah didn't answer that qs myself but its in cosserat alright. and the notes too!

DC86

I honestly think that anyone that had not studied at all for auditing over the past few weeks would have had an equal chance of doing the exam just as well.

Very unreflective of what we had been doing all year.

ahtfulal

I did auditing in the prof 3's. Its one exam where you think you did well but then get ur result and realise its totally below what u expected. Be warned is all I have to say about it. Be glad if you pass it.

Onearmedbandit

Audit is a weird exam I always think im doing very well and then I get a **** mark.

I thought the paper was fair with enough variety that you weren't f*cked if you didn't review something.

At the end of the day most of us do it every day and that helps when it comes to this exam.

manafana

i thought was ok exam, agree bit with comments about studying so much of stuff is a mixture of common sense and using book, rarely did i used knowledge i had picked up in last few weeks studying. I would made hard work of it without book i suppose.