FAE Advanced Audit elective

Dellboy2007

Confused Accountant wrote: »

I would have thought the same as that's what you'd do at work generally if you don't have control reliance. I don't think the solution explains it that well. The only thing I can figure is that they are assuming that it's such a big cost, there's so many employees and therefore probably a very high number of transactions that no amount of substantive testing is going to give you sufficient evidence (except if you do loads which leads to an inefficient audit). Whereas, it's such a routine automated/mechanical transaction, controls reliance would be the main part of sufficient audit evidence. What do ye think?

Yeah I'd agree with that. I suppose a learning point from it would be that don't automatically assume you will be able to gain sufficient evidence through substantive work. i think the solution should have noted that given the level of employees, etc, it is not be efficient or feasible to carry out tests of detail and therefore will have the following impact on opinion...

Confused Accountant

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Yeah I'd agree with that. I suppose a learning point from it would be that don't automatically assume you will be able to gain sufficient evidence through substantive work. i think the solution should have noted that given the level of employees, etc, it is not be efficient or feasible to carry out tests of detail and therefore will have the following impact on opinion...

The institute giving a badly laid out/worded solution? Shocking stuff!

20 Times 20 Times

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Yeah I'd agree with that. I suppose a learning point from it would be that don't automatically assume you will be able to gain sufficient evidence through substantive work. i think the solution should have noted that given the level of employees, etc, it is not be efficient or feasible to carry out tests of detail and therefore will have the following impact on opinion...

I think the solution does point to that haven't got it handy as I'm out :-)

AuditAgain

Just did 'Red Ireland Limited' and came out with a worryingly different answer to the one provided. As in barely any indicators matched up. I went for (1) client acceptance / ethics (2) risks and responses and (3) communication to component auditor.

They went 'note to skip client acceptance', (1) inherent (business) risks with what I would not consider 'procedures', (2) basically the whole topic of group audits, (3) accounting treatment of properties and audit programme.

Jesus I miss having actual questions.

bored2014

Anyone know why they have not considered ES PASE in 2015 mock Fashwear Ltd?

Turnover is below the threshold, could we not request Balance sheet and employees figures and hopefully become exempt from Mngt and advocacy threat?

AuditAgain

I'd say they'd need to give you all the figures before they're directing the indicator to ES PASE. If it's a possibility (based on info in the question) and you go that route, I assume you'd have to get credit for it.

I wouldn't be surprised if ES PASE came up this year. It's on my list of half predicted topics that I need to look back over.

20 Times 20 Times

AuditAgain wrote: »

I'd say they'd need to give you all the figures before they're directing the indicator to ES PASE. If it's a possibility (based on info in the question) and you go that route, I assume you'd have to get credit for it.

I wouldn't be surprised if ES PASE came up this year. It's on my list of half predicted topics that I need to look back over.

But how can they ask it ??

AuditAgain

As part of the case they inquire as to whether we can accept engagement where we already do a few things prohibited under ES5 (e.g. Accounting Services where we're undertaking the role of management) and there's information in the background info that shows ES PASE would apply. Or they mention a former AEP joined the company.

Response being that yes we can as long as:

1)we discuss it with TCWG and confirm that management take responsibility for decisions, and
2)we disclose the non audit services/fact partner joined in the Audit Report.

Iwantcoffeenai

Doe anyone know if the 2012 past paper answers are updated for this year? I downloaded it from the website and the grade boundaries were not filled in

Dellboy2007

PASE could also come up with an other engagement to review FS, popular nowadays with the increase in audit exemption.

colint104

does anyone if I can write on the rough papers of the answer booklet during the reading time?

sgs

colint104 wrote: »

does anyone if I can write on the rough papers of the answer booklet during the reading time?

You can't unfortunately

AuditAgain

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

PASE could also come up with an other engagement to review FS, popular nowadays with the increase in audit exemption.

How do you mean by that sorry?

Do you mean a type of engagement where an audit client wants some kind of other review of their financial statements?

AuditAgain

Just spotted that "what elective should I do?" thread and got filled with rage.

APM can seriously go ****.

Energy Star

What do we realistically need to know for legal liability? Have a mountain of notes on it!

Dellboy2007

AuditAgain wrote: »

How do you mean by that sorry?

Do you mean a type of engagement where an audit client wants some kind of other review of their financial statements?

Exactly - ISAE 3000.

Dellboy2007

Energy Star wrote: »

What do we realistically need to know for legal liability? Have a mountain of notes on it!

Doubt that's going to come up, they don't tend to ask obscure things. Can't see how they would ask it also considering you have bannerman paragraph in engagement letter

Energy Star

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Doubt that's going to come up, they don't tend to ask obscure things. Can't see how they would ask it also considering you have bannerman paragraph in engagement letter

Thanks. What is the general position currently? No liability to anyone other than shareholders as a group if you have appropriate disclaimers in engagement letter?

AuditAgain

I feel a bit like I must have lost sight of things.

I keep thinking 'how did I muck up last year'. It seems so do-able at the minute. Whereas the pass rate and my performance last year say otherwise.

Energy Star

Are we allowed to use internal auditors for direct assistance?

20 Times 20 Times

Energy Star wrote: »

Are we allowed to use internal auditors for direct assistance?

There's is rules ! See isa610.

AuditAgain

Pretty sure it's completely disallowed in UK and Ireland now!

donnem33

How are people approaching the first 30 mins for planning?

Are you going to use this time on one of the cases and plan out your answer properly, or will you read all 3 and make a decision which one to attempt first?

Cant wait for this to be over!! Im envious of you who just have the elective, I have the core aswell

Torres999

In practice I've been just reading all 3 and highlighting the indicators, don't have time for much planning in the Elective, I'll probably read all 3 and then spend the first 5-10 mins of each Sim doing a quick plan

donnem33 wrote: »

How are people approaching the first 30 mins for planning?

Are you going to use this time on one of the cases and plan out your answer properly, or will you read all 3 and make a decision which one to attempt first?

Cant wait for this to be over!! Im envious of you who just have the elective, I have the core aswell

AuditAgain

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Exactly - ISAE 3000.

Sorry, do you mean an internal controls review or something like that in line with ISAE 3000? Just can't really see why an audit client would want any type of assurance review over financial information (other than prospective) if they already get audited.

I'm crap with this area of the syllabus.

Would an internal control review fall under ISAE 3000? was thinking an indicator based on Tesco could be a bit of a nightmare (although it's ready made for them). We're the new auditor after the previous set were kicked out when fraudulent reporting (or just misstatements) went undetected, and they also want us to do some kind of review (either to see the extent of the problem, or some kind of control review). Would have (1) Fraud (impact on risk assessment), (2) accounting issue risk and response, and then (3) other engagement.

AuditAgain

donnem33 wrote: »

How are people approaching the first 30 mins for planning?

Are you going to use this time on one of the cases and plan out your answer properly, or will you read all 3 and make a decision which one to attempt first?

Cant wait for this to be over!! Im envious of you who just have the elective, I have the core aswell

Think I usually read all three just noting the indicators and any key information - then decide which to go first with.

I don't think I've asked this question since I was about 15, but how long are people's answers generally? I've had to really restrict the amount I write in order to get my timing in a half decent shape. I find if I'm writting more than about 1.5 pages I'm cutting into the next indicator (timewise). Once factoring in reading time it's about 20 mins or so an indicator which really isn't much.

cson

After hearing from someone who was talking to one of the past students they road test the paper on that this year is as hard if not harder apparently.

Heavy on FR & seemingly they had to delete an indicator & appendix to make it manageable timewise. :eek:

Dellboy2007

cson wrote: »

After hearing from someone who was talking to one of the past students they road test the paper on that this year is as hard if not harder apparently.

Heavy on FR & seemingly they had to delete an indicator & appendix to make it manageable timewise. :eek:

No wonder they are reducing elective cases next year to 2. This is great news on a Monday.

20 Times 20 Times

cson wrote: »

After hearing from someone who was talking to one of the past students they road test the paper on that this year is as hard if not harder apparently.

Heavy on FR & seemingly they had to delete an indicator & appendix to make it manageable timewise. :eek:

Was there any need to post this !!!

Torres999

I really hope this isn't true, heavy on FR like 😳

Should have just got the questions while they were at it 😊

Also anyone have a quick list of additional considerations for listed companies? I know a lot of the standards have additional points for listed companies, anyone have a list that brings them all together?

cson wrote: »

After hearing from someone who was talking to one of the past students they road test the paper on that this year is as hard if not harder apparently.

Heavy on FR & seemingly they had to delete an indicator & appendix to make it manageable timewise. :eek: