FAE September 2014

cian twomey

autumnbelle wrote: »

I'm doing one now too, I think it could be my only hope to even get rc as I did most things wrong looking at the paper, the question saying to ig:( nore the depreciation I never even read that right defered income I entered 750:( turbine never got to do. The related party trans I put the restructuring as a provision. So disappointed. Realistically is it possible to pass the exam in total with an nc in this?

im in the same boat with an Rc I feel I would have a chance but with an Nc im toast, might as well just enjoy the summer off

qwabercd

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

I did this as well. It was announced in a formal plan so I assumed it met the criteria of IAS 37.

Quote:

"Closure or reorganisation: recognise a provision only after a detailed formal plan is adopted and has started being implemented, or announced to those affected. A board decision of itself is insufficient."

It was after year end though, and is not an adjusting event. The provision was for the onerous lease provision. 120k of loss to provide for. Disclose all the other after year end stuff.

Dellboy2007

sodabread wrote: »

What question was this in? Please say it wasn't in section 1 or 3.

2.1

Aidodub87

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

I did this as well. It was announced in a formal plan so I assumed it met the criteria of IAS 37.

Quote:

"Closure or reorganisation: recognise a provision only after a detailed formal plan is adopted and has started being implemented, or announced to those affected. A board decision of itself is insufficient."

The question said it's announced intention to restructure... I assumed this meant no formal plan in place

cson

TheDoctor wrote: »

What was the point of the second script?

Some of the workings spaces were over the page from the questions - I was using the second script to have the question in front of me while I was working on it.

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

I did this as well. It was announced in a formal plan so I assumed it met the criteria of IAS 37.

Quote:

"Closure or reorganisation: recognise a provision only after a detailed formal plan is adopted and has started being implemented, or announced to those affected. A board decision of itself is insufficient."

It was the end of January 2014 they came to this decision yeah? I just said they'd kicked out the FS good and early, assumed authorised by directors before the plan & flood occured therefore did not exist @ SOFP date = no provision/contingencies.

Cheeky but I don't think that's wrong.

sodabread

qwabercd wrote: »

It was after year end though, and is not an adjusting event. The provision was for the onerous lease provision. 120k of loss to provide for. Disclose all the other after year end stuff.

was there something about 30K likely settlement for a lawsuit?

Did you disclose the damaged building that happened post year end?

PhilipLuke

TheDoctor wrote: »

What was the point of the second script?

The first was the script with the workings and space for solutions, the second was the script with just the questions!!

The point is they handed them out too early and the person beside me started the exam no later that quarter to! No bull****

TheDoctor

30K in the lawsuit was POSSIBLE

Contingent liability so disclose, dont provide

Has to be probable for a provision

PhilipLuke

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

I did this as well. It was announced in a formal plan so I assumed it met the criteria of IAS 37.

Quote:

"Closure or reorganisation: recognise a provision only after a detailed formal plan is adopted and has started being implemented, or announced to those affected. A board decision of itself is insufficient."

Detailed formal plan was drawn up and committed to in 2014, therefore no provision at 31 Dec 2013

TheDoctor

Thats what I said, formal plan wasnt in place until 2014.

Was not in place at the BS date

I did put a disclosure in place though

Dellboy2007

qwabercd wrote: »

It was after year end though, and is not an adjusting event. The provision was for the onerous lease provision. 120k of loss to provide for. Disclose all the other after year end stuff.

Apologies, I was a little confused there, I didn't actually input it as a provision for the year end accounts. I do think it is a provision but not for the year end accounts as it happened in January, therefore was not an adjusting event. However i did disclose it as I believed it impacted the decisions of any users of the accounts.

cian twomey

so much detail in the questions so little time impossible to get everything in

sodabread

anyone have any ideas about the various weightings of the sections?

More I think about it I reckon section 2 was a writeoff- be lucky to get competent in section 1 and 3 combined.

suref

cian twomey wrote: »

can anyone remember what the answer they put for question 5 section 1

I debited p/l 3k and credited intangible 3k. We were told he'd capitalised 3k and that he plans to amortise so this hasn't happened and think it was to deceive people.

Timing was a joke! Was sailing through the papers in practice and this destroyed me.

Good luck guys, no point in stressing what we did and didn't do - everyone just get the emails in and the marking curve might be adjusted due to the inconsistency of standards year on year

ASOT2012

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Apologies, I was a little confused there, I didn't actually input it as a provision for the year end accounts. I do think it is a provision but not for the year end accounts as it happened in January, therefore was not an adjusting event. However i did disclose it as I believed it impacted the decisions of any users of the accounts.

Didn't it say that they had moved out and sub let the property on 31 Dec?? That's how I read it anyway and recognised the 120k discounted future losses on the onerous contract!

TheDoctor

FIGHT THE POWER

PhilipLuke

Make sure to mention in the email that it always seems to be the financial reporting exams that students are complaining about.

Love to know what the person writing the financial reporting scripts is on

Dellboy2007

suref wrote: »

and that he plans to amortise so this hasn't happened and think it was to deceive people

Sneaky FCKING Russians. That's it I'm going on the beer.

TheDoctor

PhilipLuke wrote: »

Make sure to mention in the email that it always seems to be the financial reporting exams that students are complaining about.

Love to know what the person writing the financial reporting scripts is on

A power trip

cson

I think its probably a little defeating to be carrying out post mortems too; in reality there is probably no one right answer for S2&S3 - depending on your assumptions you could generate a number of (correct) answers. I think that's a huge part of the exam that they're looking for - judgement. Make a judgement and back it up with the accounting disclosures/journals.

Pulling the positives what today has done is (a) given me a decent grounding in FR to build upon and (b) emphasized the importance of timing in the exams for September. I'll be basing a huge proportion of my study leave tuning up on exam questions, knowing the fundamentals of each of the Super Six inside out and having the ancillary information as concise and easy to access in my notes as possible.

sodabread

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Sneaky FCKING Russians. That's it I'm going on the beer.

If that question was in section 3 and you stated your assumption that he had actually amortised it then you'd get credit for it.

ASOT2012

suref wrote: »

I debited p/l 3k and credited intangible 3k. We were told he'd capitalised 3k and that he plans to amortise so this hasn't happened and think it was to deceive people.

I didn't know what to make of the wording there so stated an assumption that your man amortised. Thats what they kept telling us if in doubt state an assumption right!!

20 Times 20 Times

The more i read this thi thread the more dishearten i get , not one person mentioned my problem with the "COWS"

surely these shouldnt of been held under inventory at the first place.

galway321

The 'cows' are biological assets but as there was no space provided for biological assets they had to be included as inventory.
The issue I had was that the 'heifers' were being bred for slaughter so an increase in value is a gain in the year, but the other cows were milk producing - is the value of these cows not just cost, with the milk provided each year being the gain recognised each year? maybe I'm looking too much into this...

sodabread

galway321 wrote: »

The 'cows' are biological assets but as there was no space provided for biological assets they had to be included as inventory.
The issue I had was that the 'heifers' were being bred for slaughter so an increase in value is a gain in the year, but the other cows were milk producing - is the value of these cows not just cost, with the milk provided each year being the gain recognised each year? maybe I'm looking too much into this...

They should have fallen under IAS41 but like you said the entries related to Inventory so there was no choice. The very few people I spoke to dr inventory cr sploci by 725K. Who knows if thats even correct....

galway321

sodabread wrote: »

They should have fallen under IAS41 but like you said the entries related to Inventory so there was no choice. The very few people I spoke to dr inventory cr sploci by 725K. Who knows if thats even correct....

Thats the journal I posted so I'm hoping it's right

Androma1984

725,000 here too

TheDoctor

Same

20 Times 20 Times

Well onwards and upwards now, no point dwelling any longer on it.

TheDoctor

Can only go upwards to be honest! But yes time to move on