FAE Advanced Audit elective

Torres999

2ndtimelucky wrote: »

glad that's over - thought it was tough but fair

on to results day now

Fair??? You ****ing insane

2ndtimelucky

Torres999 wrote: »

Fair??? You ****ing insane

No

But you think differently?

AuditAgain

Did anyone notice the senior had calculated a materiality level that didn't make sense in the first sim?

Energy Star

AuditAgain wrote: »

Did anyone notice the senior had calculated a materiality level that didn't make sense in the first sim?

Didn't even bother with it cos partner had approved it.

Audit4Lyf

AuditAgain wrote: »

Did anyone notice the senior had calculated a materiality level that didn't make sense in the first sim?

How did they calculate it?

AuditAgain

Energy Star wrote: »

Didn't even bother with it cos partner had approved it.

No they hadn't.

The senior said "I have calculated performance materiality to be £250k and as a result consider stock to be a key risk area".

Based on revenue materiality should be around £50-90k. PBT was way lower again.

Senior shouldn't be carrying out risk assessment based on their own materiality level. It's a partner call (and they'd got it wrong).

Torres999

AuditAgain wrote: »

No they hadn't.

The senior said "I have calculated performance materiality to be £250k and as a result consider stock to be a key risk area".

Based on revenue materiality should be around £50-90k. PBT was way lower again.

Senior shouldn't be carrying out risk assessment based on their own materiality level. It's a partner call (and they'd got it wrong).

Oh yeah it was sim 3 where Judy approved it, didn't really think of that actually in Sim 1.

Did anyone say misappropriation of stock due to the fact it was a warehouse in the country with access to main roads

AuditAgain

Is that what that was getting at?

There was a lot of commentary in each of the sims that I couldn't really work out the reason for including it. I ended up having to ignore a lot of it.

Torres999

AuditAgain wrote: »

Is that what that was getting at?

There was a lot of commentary in each of the sims that I couldn't really work out the reason for including it. I ended up having to ignore a lot of it.

Don't know, heard on the radio the other day people were targeting warehouses with good access, said I'd lob it down

AuditAgain

It's so key that all repeaters fill out the CASSI survey so we're represented in the report to the board!

There's 50% of people who failed last years exam (around 500?) - an exam that was largely seen as the toughest they'd ever set. And the resit exam was in a different style (which we weren't told about). This really needs to be fed back to the exam board. They clearly changed the exam style to focus more on FR this year - that was a change in the Core course, not the elective. They should have told us if they were changing the course we were resitting.

Resitters have been put at a seriously unfair disadvantage, and they won't get that unless enough of us roar at them about it.

Auditresit2015

AuditAgain wrote: »

Did anyone notice the senior had calculated a materiality level that didn't make sense in the first sim?

I mentioned this as part of my review as they said they calculated pm but didn't mention materiality. I thought it should be based on 1-3% revenue and that pm was much lost than the seniors estimate.

Torres999

AuditAgain wrote: »

It's so key that all repeaters fill out the CASSI survey so we're represented in the report to the board!

There's 50% of people who failed last years exam (around 500?) - an exam that was largely seen as the toughest they'd ever set. And the resit exam was in a different style (which we weren't told about). This really needs to be fed back to the exam board. They clearly changed the exam style to focus more on FR this year - that was a change in the Core course, not the elective. They should have told us if they were changing the course we were resitting.

Resitters have been put at a seriously unfair disadvantage, and they won't get that unless enough of us roar at them about it.

Did the survey right after the exam, can't help but feel it's on deaf ears though, they don't give a ****

Dellboy2007

Institute and their stupid planning. I reckon that cost me a lot of time that I could have wasted writing stuff I don't know about construction contracts!

There's no way you can do out plans for 3 sims and write full indicators IMO. Especially when you've got two audit risks.

Torres999

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Institute and their stupid planning. I reckon that cost me a lot of time that I could have wasted writing stuff I don't know about construction contracts!

There's no way you can do out plans for 3 sims and write full indicators IMO. Especially when you've got two audit risks.

Didn't think we had to do as much planning in the elective, i did all mine on an external sheet, my planning for construction contracts was me writing and crossing out journal for 2 pages

AuditAgain

I didn't do a plan in the exam paper - did it in rough paper.

Someone in the other thread got feedback from their mock exam saying it wasn't needed for the elective, which I'd agree with.

Torres999

2ndtimelucky wrote: »

I don't see the "change in style". Was there more than one indicator on FR? I only saw the ias11 journals. Preparing journals has always been on the syllabus so will complaining about it help?

The things was though you needed to get the journals in indictor 2 to answer indicator 2 Which messed up 2/3 indicators, and you even needed FR for indictor 1 really

2ndtimelucky

Torres999 wrote: »

The things was though you needed to get the journals in indictor 2 to answer indicator 2 Which messed up 2/3 indicators, and you even needed FR for indictor 1 really

Fair point, I'm hoping they mark ind 3 on basis of journals I've worked out and conclusions drawn from them rather than treating them as separate answers

Torres999

2ndtimelucky wrote: »

Fair point, I'm hoping they mark ind 3 on basis of journals I've worked out and conclusions drawn from them rather than treating them as separate answers

Hopefully a good ol assumption be grand for the audit report

AuditAgain

Yes, "preparing journals" is on the syllabus, and I'm sure an understanding of FR is assumed. But it wouldn't be reasonable to say "here's information on how they've accounted for complex derivatives - propose adjustments".

Technically they can ask whatever the **** they want. They should, however, be reasonable and relatively consistent. You can't properly prepare for an exam without having an understanding of the format.

Prior years were much more ISA orientated.

And as mentioned above - unless you were up to scratch on construction contracts, you were screwed on most of that question, not just one indicator.

AuditAgain

Torres999 wrote: »

Didn't think we had to do as much planning in the elective, i did all mine on an external sheet, my planning for construction contracts was me writing and crossing out journal for 2 pages

I don't want to look back at that question (it'll depress me), but were there loads of journals coming out of the information provided does anyone know?

I knew I wouldn't have time to go through and remind myself of IAS11 calculations so had to make a decision to leave it. But were there examples where the "contract balance" was incorrect?

I noticed the last 1 where the loss should be recognised, and assuming all balances were right the credits should be as payables, but made no attempt to see if the actual balances were incorrect.

LastTime15

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:

Someone mentioned this to me after the exam yesterday. Excuse me, but am I reading this correctly?

People saw the exam paper and were talking to students/their friends about it??

That's absolutely shocking! Anyone know who or what department it would be best to report this to in the institute?

Torres999

LastTime15 wrote: »

Someone mentioned this to me after the exam yesterday. Excuse me, but am I reading this correctly?

People saw the exam paper and were talking to students/their friends about it??

That's absolutely shocking! Anyone know who or what department it would be best to report this to in the institute?

Doubt think it's true but I do not believe that guys like Paul Monahan and Sean Murray know nothing, they 100% have to, they are always lurking around the institute, wouldn't have made a difference to the exam, but we under ISA 240 I'm very skeptical

LastTime15

It was Financial Reporting heavy, was as hard or harder than last year, and one case only had 2 indicators (appendix removed?) whereas the last 3 years it was 9 indicators.

Come off it, this persons info was accurate.

At a minimum some people obviously received info about it being Financial Reporting heavy which is completely unfair!

I imagine these people will actually have told their friends a lot more details as well and obviously just wouldn't post it on here.

I'm shocked. This is supposed to be a professional institution. This is Mickey Mouse ****.

Dellboy2007

LastTime15 wrote: »

It was Financial Reporting heavy, was as hard or harder than last year, and one case only had 2 indicators (appendix removed?) whereas the last 3 years it was 9 indicators.

Come off it, this persons info was accurate.

At a minimum some people obviously received info about it being Financial Reporting heavy which is completely unfair!

I imagine these people will actually have told their friends a lot more details as well and obviously just wouldn't post it on here.

I'm shocked. This is supposed to be a professional institution. This is Mickey Mouse ****.

Which sim had two indicators? I had three for each.

LastTime15

Crystal Group 1 Audit risks and procedures, 2 fraud risk. What'd you get?

Dellboy2007

LastTime15 wrote: »

Crystal Group 1 Audit risks and procedures, 2 fraud risk. What'd you get?

Oh right, I just presumed the risks and the procedures were split

Audit4Lyf

AuditAgain wrote: »

This really needs to be fed back to the exam board. They clearly changed the exam style to focus more on FR this year - that was a change in the Core course, not the elective.

Resitters have been put at a seriously unfair disadvantage, and they won't get that unless enough of us roar at them about it.

Don't mean to sound harsh but if you go into an audit exam without knowing your FR standards you're asking to fail.

Also your complaint will go no where as you are expected to have the same level of FR knowledge as everyone else (first time and repeats)

Abbey14

I know we need to know for and how to post journals but something so specific was cruel. anyway my issue was what were we looking at? What was the schedule? Was it a control account? I failed again and am so gutted.... I knew so much FR but it's more I had no idea what I was looking at- what they were tryin to tell me and as all indicators relied me knowing what was going on I couldn't answer anything..

AuditAgain

Audit4Lyf wrote: »

Don't mean to sound harsh but if you go into an audit exam without knowing your FR standards you're asking to fail.

Also your complaint will go no where as you are expected to have the same level of FR knowledge as everyone else (first time and repeats)

Funny enough that level of FR knowledge would have been fine for any other year.

If someone predicted construction contracts coming up in the audit elective last year they'd have been laughed at.

It's easily the most complex FR scenario that's been included in an FAE audit elective paper. If you're preparing for the audit elective it would have seemed nuts to spend time going back to heavier FR standards.

AuditAgain

Abbey14 wrote: »

I know we need to know for and how to post journals but something so specific was cruel. anyway my issue was what were we looking at? What was the schedule? Was it a control account? I failed again and am so gutted.... I knew so much FR but it's more I had no idea what I was looking at- what they were tryin to tell me and as all indicators relied me knowing what was going on I couldn't answer anything..

I thought this as well. I was staring at it wondering what "contract balance" was. Was it the revenue to date, the receivable/payable balance, or a control account?

I assumed it was the receivable/payable balance in the end. But it definitely could have been clearer.