FAE Advanced Audit elective

cson

I think 2011 was the hardest prior to last year and they got gifted 2012 as a result. Hopefully similar thinking will prevail.

Anyway best of luck to everyone.

AuditAgain

How much are people generally writing per indicator?

I've significantly cut back on my previous approach in order get better time management. Just want to check I'm not obliviously writing half the amount most others are.

cson

Obviously depends on the size of your writing but Sean Murray specifically stated in his exam preview notes that 1-1.5 pages per indicator is generally sufficient (not that you'd guess by the length of his solution to the mock!).

Ultimately I think the thing to keep in mind is that HC is worth the same as C and the law of diminishing returns applies big time in these exams - your first question will invariably be better answered than your last.

So what I'll be doing is being a serious time Nazi and just moving on. Get the main points down, link insofar as possible, clearly state assumptions and draw a conclusion. Giving myself 25mins per indicator and rigidly sticking to that.

Be wary of trying to get down everything you know on that exam paper. 4 HCs will see you fail if you don't do enough on the rest of the indicators. And I'd say that's a very easy trap to fall into.

Abbey14

All of the insurance engagements are confusing me...

To confirm - which ones can we not be the auditor for? ISRE2400 is one of them. ISAE 3000 they also refer to us as the practitioner so can we be the auditor here?

I can't post links on this but if you google reports for ISAE 3000 there is a good KPMG Allianz one if anyone wants to print for the file as there is no example in the book..

AuditAgain

ISAE3000 we can be the auditor. ISRE2400 is the only one (but I'm open to correction) that we definitely wouldn't be - and for that reason I can't see how it could ever be examined (Unless it's a standalone case with 2 indicators both on ISRE2400).

I think if ISAE3000 comes up it will have to be clear as **** that no kind of AUP will be appropriate. And even then I'd still think it would be a badly answered indicator.

AuditAgain

cson wrote: »

Obviously depends on the size of your writing but Sean Murray specifically stated in his exam preview notes that 1-1.5 pages per indicator is generally sufficient (not that you'd guess by the length of his solution to the mock!).

Ultimately I think the thing to keep in mind is that HC is worth the same as C and the law of diminishing returns applies big time in these exams - your first question will invariably be better answered than your last.

So what I'll be doing is being a serious time Nazi and just moving on. Get the main points down, link insofar as possible, clearly state assumptions and draw a conclusion. Giving myself 25mins per indicator and rigidly sticking to that.

Be wary of trying to get down everything you know on that exam paper. 4 HCs will see you fail if you don't do enough on the rest of the indicators. And I'd say that's a very easy trap to fall into.

Yeah big time. That's the approach I've been taking pretty much.

Once I think I've generally addressed the overall point of the indicator, and it's hitting 20 mins, I'm moving on even where there's bits from the case which I've left out. 1-1.5 pages sounds right.

And you're right, the length of the solutions to this years mock are outrageous. They contain loads of (irrelevant) theory (as in, it's relevant to the overall topic, but you don't need it to address the issue) which I can only assume was put in to help people understand the logic, because these kinds of topics are being examined more and more.

Abbey14

AuditAgain wrote: »

ISAE3000 we can be the auditor. ISRE2400 is the only one (but I'm open to correction) that we definitely wouldn't be - and for that reason I can't see how it could ever be examined (Unless it's a standalone case with 2 indicators both on ISRE2400).

I think if ISAE3000 comes up it will have to be clear as **** that no kind of AUP will be appropriate. And even then I'd still think it would be a badly answered indicator.

Thanks - I know this was mentioned above... but to be clear.. if ISAE 3000 came up as say "review controls" - can this be accepted as auditor? or would we only be able to accept if ESPASE applied.. Cos I imagine we are relying on controls for our audit it would be a conflict of interest?

Thanks.. think I just need to stop at this stage - over thinking!

Abbey14

Abbey14 wrote: »

Thanks - I know this was mentioned above... but to be clear.. if ISAE 3000 came up as say "review controls" - can this be accepted as auditor? or would we only be able to accept if ESPASE applied.. Cos I imagine we are relying on controls for our audit it would be a conflict of interest?

Thanks.. think I just need to stop at this stage - over thinking!

I presume for ISRS 4410 - ESPASE would also have to apply...

AuditAgain

I think for ISRS4410 ESPASE would have to apply yes.

In terms of a review of internal controls - That's one of the things I haven't been able to get an answer on really.

I'm not sure whether the answer is that (A) you can accept, as the objectives of the engagement are closely aligned to objectives of the audit, and involve audit-like procedures etc. , or (B) you can't accept because you could be seen to rely on the output of the engagement when conducting your audit (self review threat).

I think I'm leaning towards (B).

The more I think about it though, the more I don't think they would bring in an internal controls review under ISAE3000. It would be just about the worst thing they could bring in - there's zero coverage of it in all the different notes and text books, sample cases etc. available.

Abbey14

AuditAgain wrote: »

I think for ISRS4410 ESPASE would have to apply yes.

In terms of a review of internal controls - That's one of the things I haven't been able to get an answer on really.

I'm not sure whether the answer is that (A) you can accept, as the objectives of the engagement are closely aligned to objectives of the audit, and involve audit-like procedures etc. , or (B) you can't accept because you could be seen to rely on the output of the engagement when conducting your audit (self review threat).

I think I'm leaning towards (B).

The more I think about it though, the more I don't think they would bring in an internal controls review under ISAE3000. It would be just about the worst thing they could bring in - there's zero coverage of it in all the different notes and text books, sample cases etc. available.

Brilliant - thanks.. Well i wouldn't put anything past them but its more that if anything strange comes up i'm sure people will try a number of different approaches and as a result they will have to accept all logics - once they are written down... Nearly there!

AuditAgain

Did someone mention the audit of a charity before?

Is there a link to notes on this?

Abbey14

AuditAgain wrote: »

Did someone mention the audit of a charity before?

Is there a link to notes on this?

BallyVauhgan Credit union is a case... and 2010 Sim3 is another good case

Energy Star

Is there a standard going concern note 1 containing the required info anywhere?

AuditAgain

reading through that Saturn case - I never would have picked up on the written reps bit.

2ndtimelucky

Long time lurker, thanks for all the tips.

Good luck tomorrow whether first timer or repeater .....

Dellboy2007

Best of luck everyone.

If there's an indicator which is off the wall (which there probably will be):

1) take a step back and think in real life terms
2) state the issue
3) what it conflicts with (ISA/IAS/Companies act)
4) the impact on materiality
5) the impact on the audit report
6) conclusion

AuditAgain

Best of luck tomorrow!

Especially so to the repeaters on here who have put more time and effort in than ever should be required for the feckin elective.

Good luck to everyone!

Torres999

Can't get worse than last year hah!

Torres999

Like even the procedures on AUP I didn't know exactly what the **** they wanted

AuditAgain

What the actual ****?

cson

If they wanted to see how low they can bring the audit pass rate they've had a fair oul crack at it.

Perhaps rename it the Audit & financial reporting elective.

AuditAgain

Yeah AUP seemed like the most straightforward indicator - but was it a bit of misdirection? Like, my response was more a critique of the report than anything to do with procedures.

Construction contracts - I was revising for an audit exam, not FR, so couldn't even work out what was going on.

The last one - what were the indicators?

Where was the fraud? And the outside parties (internal audit, experts, component auditors etc)? What is the point of Sean Murray et al. if they build you up for one style of exam and then throw a completely different type at us?

anon9173

What did everyone get as indicators for Sim 2.

I had risks & procedures, fraud and going concern(might have been included as part of risks)

Louised86

anon9173 wrote: »

What did everyone get as indicators for Sim 2.

I had risks & procedures, fraud and going concern(might have been included as part of risks)

Got that but I didn't get fraud?

anon9173

I said fraud based on pressures from the bank , and poor attitude by the director , not sure if that is one , just took a stab because it was the potential indicator i could see...

IAS11 was a write off , how where we meant come up with adjustments on the info provided ?

AuditAgain

What was the fraud though? Just general disagreements with bankers and a related party transaction? I said there was a risk of fraud but that was just because I was looking for it. Couldn't spend time on it because I was so unsure it was an indicator.

cson

Re fraud the second sim they more than likely sold the property to the wives and didn't account for it & at a discount

Auditresit2015

AuditAgain wrote: »

What was the fraud though? Just general disagreements with bankers and a related party transaction? I said there was a risk of fraud but that was just because I was looking for it. Couldn't spend time on it because I was so unsure it was an indicator.

I thought there was fraud due to the purchases being potential related party, the attitude of owners and wanting to extract cash. Sad of 1.5m asset with no recognition in p and l

Auditresit2015

That 3rd case was a write off for me so I will be repeating again unless my first two cases were good. I identified some risks and one journal and few procedures to do then stopped due to time. Then gave a disclaimer. What did u guys do

AuditAgain

I said if we didn't get evidence of one of the contract balances there would be limitation of scope - need to discuss with directors and try alternative procedures.

Then that due to c. €1m reclass needed on the BS and €350k loss needed to be posted to p&l I'd give an adverse opinion.

I came up with those adjustments not knowing what was going on though.