FAE Advanced Audit elective

20 Times 20 Times

Torres999 wrote: »

Audit should go up a bit though, anyway if I was decile 6 last year and knew feck all, I should be able to sneak into decile 4 or 5

I am hoping the same for myself the standard will be tough though !! Lots repeating !!

AuditAgain

Yeah with so many repeating, and the new comers being aware of the change in standard (and being way better at FR than our years would have been) I'm worried it's going to be getting judged on a whole new level.

Hopefully they just wise the **** up and be fair.

AuditAgain

Plugging a few gaps today and tomorrow.

Other engagements - I think we'd be tempting fate to hope that AUP will come up again.

Prospective info will be easy to spot, historic reviews - I'm not too sure how they could come up given that we'll be the auditors, and for interim they'll tell us. I think the biggest risk is ISAE 3000. When would we know from a description that they want an ISAE 3000 engagement and not an AUP? You can turn almost any request for assurance into an AUP by changing it a bit, but when would that be wrong?

Torres999

AuditAgain wrote: »

Plugging a few gaps today and tomorrow.

Other engagements - I think we'd be tempting fate to hope that AUP will come up again.

Prospective info will be easy to spot, historic reviews - I'm not too sure how they could come up given that we'll be the auditors, and for interim they'll tell us. I think the biggest risk is ISAE 3000. When would we know from a description that they want an ISAE 3000 engagement and not an AUP? You can turn almost any request for assurance into an AUP by changing it a bit, but when would that be wrong?

I was literally just thinking the same about ISAE 3000, only printed it off this morning and was thinking how they would ask it. Can't see AUP again really, surely they'll have to ask something else. I wouldn't mind 3400 but it came up in the mock, coming to think of it I wouldn't mind the mock!

20 Times 20 Times

Torres999 wrote: »

I was literally just thinking the same about ISAE 3000, only printed it off this morning and was thinking how they would ask it. Can't see AUP again really, surely they'll have to ask something else. I wouldn't mind 3400 but it came up in the mock, coming to think of it I wouldn't mind the mock!

After four weeks of study I have no idea how or what way isae3000 can be asked that comes up were ****ed

Torres999

20 Times 20 Times wrote: »

After four weeks of study I have no idea how or what way isae3000 can be asked that comes up were ****ed

I think it's assurance on:

Risk assessment
Performance Measurement
Systems reliability
E Commerce
Social and Environmental
Reviews of internal Control
Ethical supply chain
Best value/value for money

And I seriously doubt it will come up

AuditAgain

If they say 'we want a review of controls over xxx' (or almost any possible isae3000 scenario) and provide you with a template assurance report, is the correct approach to treat it as ISAE3000 or to say 'change report and we'll do test 1, 2 and 3 and report on factual findings'?

That's what confuses me.

AuditAgain

Bit of research and I found an example that would be a clear ISAE 3000 I think - voluntary disclosure of KPI's in the annual report.

I think the best deciding factor I can think of is maybe - if it's going in a document that will be published (like sustainability report etc) - ISAE 3000. Whereas if it's for a specific use and certain parties - go AUP?

Torres999

AuditAgain wrote: »

Bit of research and I found an example that would be a clear ISAE 3000 I think - voluntary disclosure of KPI's in the annual report.

I think the best deciding factor I can think of is maybe - if it's going in a document that will be published (like sustainability report etc) - ISAE 3000. Whereas if it's for a specific use and certain parties - go AUP?

I agree with the above, I just hope they make it very clear, I find I'm only thinking about things like ISAE 3000 because I'm not doing the core and therefore have time to look at everything in detail. Also things like the extended audit report above, there no way people doing the core would have a chance to look at this stuff in detail. I really just hope it's a straight forward assurance question.

The things that seem to get me are stupid things like review the work of a junior or assess the controls around bank and treasury just in terms of wasting time coming up with things , I think if any tough things like ISAE 3000 comes up it the questions should be straight forward, I can imagine a lot of people not even identifying it correctly

AuditAgain

I think the worst questions are the likes of 'assess controls' (anything controls related actually) or 'list things we should request'. They're far too vague. It's a creative writing exercise where you're hoping what you came up with is someway close to what the examiner comes up with.

Like that Avef question in 2013. List of up to 25 pieces of random information. That's a terrible way to examine IMO.

Torres999

I assume we won't get groups so if it was in Core

AuditAgain

Wonder what kind of group scenario came up in core.

Does anyone have any knowledge of the link between steps cases, mocks, and actual exam? Are they written with input from each other or anything?

I.e. Should the type of topics in steps and the mock be seen as indicative, or is there no interaction between who writes the mock and the exam writers? There's definitely a trend between steps and the mock - but if they're both written by lecturers, and then the exams written by someone else, that trend could be very misleading.

Torres999

I just heard they were acquiring a company and becoming a group.

AuditAgain

The stuff they're talking about in the other thread are things I vaguely remember from CAP2. They'd want to stay well away from those areas of FR in audit!

Louised86

AuditAgain wrote: »

The stuff they're talking about in the other thread are things I vaguely remember from CAP2. They'd want to stay well away from those areas of FR in audit!

Just did core today. For fr we had step acquisition ifrs 3, intangibles ias38, sale and leaseback ias 17, and ias 33 eps

20 Times 20 Times

I was thinking about it - I hope that he doesn't ask Non - audit engagements . Gets rid of any ambiguity with the decision.

Dellboy2007

I don't think it was asked in 2013 so it's possible.

One thing I want to know is, does the person writing the exam change every year? If it was the same he might be a bit sounder this year after seeing how many failed. Wishful thinking.

AuditAgain

I'd be happy enough with interim or prospective I think. Or if it's AUP make it totally clear.

ISAE3000 or any ambiguity would be very unfair.

20 Times 20 Times

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

I don't think it was asked in 2013 so it's possible.

One thing I want to know is, does the person writing the exam change every year? If it was the same he might be a bit sounder this year after seeing how many failed. Wishful thinking.

The more I think about it , the less likely a NAE will come up.

I hope today went well for you

AuditAgain

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

I don't think it was asked in 2013 so it's possible.

One thing I want to know is, does the person writing the exam change every year? If it was the same he might be a bit sounder this year after seeing how many failed. Wishful thinking.

Realistically they really do need to address the ridiculousness of last years pass rate. I honestly think if it even only increased a few % there would still be outcry. It's audit, it shouldn't be that tough at all. The pass rate needs to go back up if the institute want to be taken seriously.

Torres999

I think it is the same guy as last year, I'm not 100% but I think I remember that Umesh fella saying it at the cork mock review. The pass rate should be around 65-70 in line with the core, they need to realise how much it affects and postpones people's careers and travel plans!

AuditAgain

If there's a few misstatements just above materiality (affecting unrelated accounts) would you just qualify except for and list the different scenarios out?

Or would several accounts being misstated be considered pervasive?

Torres999

AuditAgain wrote: »

If there's a few misstatements just above materiality (affecting unrelated accounts) would you just qualify except for and list the different scenarios out?

Or would several accounts being misstated be considered pervasive?

I think you'd qualify except for as the account still give a true and fair view.

Dellboy2007

If there were multiple balances materially misstated I don't think you could say this wasn't pervasive.

Torres999

Maybe take the total misstatement amount in that particular case and make a judgement call

AuditAgain

Watched a bit of the Mock Exam review stream there this evening. Someone asks Big Sean about the Money Laundering answer being a 'bit generic'. And his response is that it's not generic in the slightest.

What a dick. There's literally nothing in that answer that's specific to that case apart from slipping in the word 'Perforex'. And there's actually loads in it that's so generic you could say it's irrelevant.

I hate that they keep telling us to only include relevant information that directly responds to the case - then sometimes they throw in the biggest load of generic irrelevant 'lists' to their answer.

20 Times 20 Times

AuditAgain wrote: »

Watched a bit of the Mock Exam review stream there this evening. Someone asks Big Sean about the Money Laundering answer being a 'bit generic'. And his response is that it's not generic in the slightest.

What a dick. There's literally nothing in that answer that's specific to that case apart from slipping in the word 'Perforex'. And there's actually loads in it that's so generic you could say it's irrelevant.

I hate that they keep telling us to only include relevant information that directly responds to the case - then sometimes they throw in the biggest load of generic irrelevant 'lists' to their answer.

I told him it was generic ;-)

Torres999

Bet bet is the just throw the name of the company in as much as possible. Dunno what to do today now with a day left. Said I'd go through FR but my FR folder looks pretty intimidating now

AuditAgain

20 Times 20 Times wrote: »

I told him it was generic ;-)

Haha was that you?

Think I'll spend a bit of time later today doing a very high level review of FR. I've a book with 1 page summaries of most of the key standards which I'm going to try to flick through.

There's a few audit cases I didn't get to as well - if I have time I'll just take a read through the solutions for them.

One thing I really don't want to look at again on the FR side is accounting for acquisitions/ goodwill calculations. Surely we wouldn't need that kind of stuff would we?

Torres999

AuditAgain wrote: »

Haha was that you?

Think I'll spend a bit of time later today doing a very high level review of FR. I've a book with 1 page summaries of most of the key standards which I'm going to try to flick through.

There's a few audit cases I didn't get to as well - if I have time I'll just take a read through the solutions for them.

One thing I really don't want to look at again on the FR side is accounting for acquisitions/ goodwill calculations. Surely we wouldn't need that kind of stuff would we?

Nah surely not that detail. My new thinking is the exam is gonna be absolutely grand, last year was the toughest ever and looking back it actually wasn't that bad