FAE 2017

jus_tin4 · 23-08-2017 07:57PM

james83 wrote: »

yes

That's good to know!least it might be only core ðŸ™ˆ

Faecanditate · 23-08-2017 08:12PM

james83 wrote: »

as long as you divided the building cost by 2 to take out the manufacturing part of it (only the RD part of the building counts towards the tax credit), then you will definitely get to BC

.

james83 · 23-08-2017 08:27PM

jus_tin4 wrote: »

anyone a link to see what you need to pass? I have an idea from the lectures and all but just want to see it in black and white.

Thanks

you need at least one BC in MA, AUD, FI, TX and 3 C in BL and FR and a sufficiency score of 2*number of indicators, most likely 16 indicators by 2= 32

jus_tin4 · 23-08-2017 08:28PM

james83 wrote: »

you need at least one BC in MA, AUD, FI, TX and 3 C in BL and FR and a sufficiency score of 2*number of indicators, most likely 16 indicators by 2= 32

Thanks! Just got it there now after spending 20 mins on the flipping aca site!

Humour Me · 23-08-2017 08:30PM

Sufficiency is over 17 indicators as AAFRP is included, so 34 marks required.

jus_tin4 · 23-08-2017 08:32PM

Humour Me wrote: »

Sufficiency is over 17 indicators as AAFRP is included, so 34 marks required.

Looking like i will fail on FR...

ffoxylady · 23-08-2017 08:35PM

james83 wrote: »

you need at least one BC in MA, AUD, FI, TX and 3 C in BL and FR and a sufficiency score of 2*number of indicators, most likely 16 indicators by 2= 32

You need 2 C in BL not 3

AgentZigZag · 23-08-2017 08:53PM

For anyone worried about FR catching them out - 44% failed to get a C in the AAFRP so nearly half of us needed 3 C's out of 4.

So if the pass rate is to be anywhere near last years 80% they would have to mark FR easy enough.

s15r330 · 23-08-2017 08:57PM

AgentZigZag wrote: »

For anyone worried about FR catching them out - 44% failed to get a C in the AAFRP so nearly half of us needed 3 C's out of 4.

So if the pass rate is to be anywhere near last years 80% they would have to mark FR easy enough.

With a bit of luck! Thoughts of having to do that again!

james83 · 23-08-2017 09:08PM

AgentZigZag wrote: »

For anyone worried about FR catching them out - 44% failed to get a C in the AAFRP so nearly half of us needed 3 C's out of 4.

So if the pass rate is to be anywhere near last years 80% they would have to mark FR easy enough.

yes your dead right, i would imagine correct standards, substantially correct treatment of the issue and correct disclosure will be good enough for C in all FR indicators

Qwert6 · 23-08-2017 09:10PM

AgentZigZag wrote: »

For anyone worried about FR catching them out - 44% failed to get a C in the AAFRP so nearly half of us needed 3 C's out of 4.

So if the pass rate is to be anywhere near last years 80% they would have to mark FR easy enough.

This is after making me feel better as I'm worrying so much about this!! Never thought of it like that. Didn't realise there was almost half of us needing 3/4. Hopefully they mark us nicely

jus_tin4 · 23-08-2017 09:18PM

Qwert6 wrote: »

This is after making me feel better as I'm worrying so much about this!! Never thought of it like that. Didn't realise there was almost half of us needing 3/4. Hopefully they mark us nicely

Same as! Going to hope my consol was good enough! I fecked up the sale and lease back! Got confused! Tried to go one way and tbh no idea what I really did now! Got the g/w and tried to post the journals so hopefully consol gets me through...all in all core was pretty okay!

james83 · 23-08-2017 09:25PM

jus_tin4 wrote: »

Same as! Going to hope my consol was good enough! I fecked up the sale and lease back! Got confused! Tried to go one way and tbh no idea what I really did now! Got the g/w and tried to post the journals so hopefully consol gets me through...all in all core was pretty okay!

for FR today, if you were able to get the initial recognition of the sale and leaseback, and the disclosures correct, i reckon that will be competent. the question is slightly open to interpretation so if you accounted for it as an operating lease and followed through correctly with journals and disclosure i would imagine there is a strong chance that will be awarded competent aswell because the indicator was obscure and there is argument for recognising it in both categories, but it was definitely a finance lease

Qwert6 · 23-08-2017 09:28PM

jus_tin4 wrote: »

Same as! Going to hope my consol was good enough! I fecked up the sale and lease back! Got confused! Tried to go one way and tbh no idea what I really did now! Got the g/w and tried to post the journals so hopefully consol gets me through...all in all core was pretty okay!

I think so many people didn't know what was going on in the sale and leaseback hopefully they will be nice. The wording could have been interpreted differently I think anyway. Hoping my consol gets me across the line too. Also got gw and journals so pray for us! Rest of core was ok anyway.

Qwert6 · 23-08-2017 09:31PM

james83 wrote: »

for FR today, if you were able to get the initial recognition of the sale and leaseback, and the disclosures correct, i reckon that will be competent. the question is slightly open to interpretation so if you accounted for it as an operating lease and followed through correctly with journals and disclosure i would imagine there is a strong chance that will be awarded competent aswell because the indicator was obscure and there is argument for recognising it in both categories, but it was definitely a finance lease

When I looked back on it now I'm actually laughing at how the feck did I think it would be an operating lease for 50years 😂 But I'm pretty sure disclosure and journals are correct so let's pray they will be nice to us!!

jus_tin4 · 23-08-2017 09:50PM

james83 wrote: »

for FR today, if you were able to get the initial recognition of the sale and leaseback, and the disclosures correct, i reckon that will be competent. the question is slightly open to interpretation so if you accounted for it as an operating lease and followed through correctly with journals and disclosure i would imagine there is a strong chance that will be awarded competent aswell because the indicator was obscure and there is argument for recognising it in both categories, but it was definitely a finance lease

Tbh i don't nearly know what i did at this stage! I attempted it at the start, left it and came back but i was still confused! Really praying tbh!

MrSzyslak · 23-08-2017 09:50PM

james83 wrote:

did anyone get a negative NPV for the working capital/operating cycle in the SIM today?

Make sure an fill out the Casi report on Friday afternoon lads and state the confusion with the lease. Even-though it will be time to get drunk. The board often make accomodation for marking in areas that weren't very clear.

Can't wait for that first pint :-)

jus_tin4 · 23-08-2017 09:53PM

MrSzyslak wrote: »

Make sure an fill out the Casi report on Friday afternoon lads and state the confusion with the lease. Even-though it will be time to get drunk. The board often make accomodation for marking in areas that weren't very clear.

Can't wait for that first pint :-)

Just out of curiosity, anyone else think the the solutions you get to the exams are next to impossible to achieve? Fair play if you did! 25 min is feck all to get theses sorta answer down,I know those are HC but even still!

Qwert6 · 23-08-2017 09:55PM

MrSzyslak wrote: »

Make sure an fill out the Casi report on Friday afternoon lads and state the confusion with the lease. Even-though it will be time to get drunk. The board often make accomodation for marking in areas that weren't very clear.

Can't wait for that first pint :-)

They're going to be the nicest pints I've ever drank. Don't intend on being sober until I'm back to work

Qwert6 · 23-08-2017 09:56PM

jus_tin4 wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, anyone else think the the solutions you get to the exams are next to impossible to achieve? Fair play if you did! 25 min is feck all to get theses sorta answer down,I know those are HC but even still!

They're impossible. They are HHHC in my opinion. I didn't even get to finish comp paper!

james83 · 23-08-2017 09:57PM

Qwert6 wrote: »

When I looked back on it now I'm actually laughing at how the feck did I think it would be an operating lease for 50years 😂 But I'm pretty sure disclosure and journals are correct so let's pray they will be nice to us!!

just got a manager in works opinion on the leasing question and his opinion was that it a finance lease issue that needed to be dealt with but he said there is valid ground to argue it could be an operating lease...this is a big grey area in accounting and open to interpretation, i would imagine this will blow up into a big issue and candidates awarded C for both approaches

james83 · 23-08-2017 10:00PM

Qwert6 wrote: »

They're impossible. They are HHHC in my opinion. I didn't even get to finish comp paper!

so unrealistic, bullet points with specific points was my strategy this week, the time pressure is too extreme

Qwert6 · 23-08-2017 10:07PM

james83 wrote: »

just got a manager in works opinion on the leasing question and his opinion was that it a finance lease issue that needed to be dealt with but he said there is valid ground to argue it could be an operating lease...this is a big grey area in accounting and open to interpretation, i would imagine this will blow up into a big issue and candidates awarded C for both approaches

Ok sweet as that's really good to know! Thanks for that

I think I can put my mind at ease until October anyway and worry then if I have to. Time to just focus on elective...

MrSzyslak · 23-08-2017 10:19PM

They didn't give a useful life for the property or an interest rate to calculate PV of MLP or put in the usual option to extend the lease at nominal value. I think this is what threw people. As risk and rewards of ownership was not clearly outlined as it usually would be.

There is also a solution for a sale and lease back for a car park in the Rocket case of the Derry Cotter book that results in an operating lease over 50 years. which as it is to Land , has a infinite life and therefore results in an operating sale and lease back transaction. So could be argued a substantial amount of the premises value was made up of land?

I gave both solutions which would probably looks stupid but needed it on paper to try get another C in FR. Was worried about negative marking of "sitting on the fence" but given the confusion I should be okay I hope.

madhouse2 · 23-08-2017 10:39PM

What do you think is the min to get Bc in the core?

John.burke · 23-08-2017 11:09PM

Guys, at the end of the day it's a test of competence. Therefore you can't reach C if you've incorrectly understated the sofp to the tune of 7mil. Also, deciding to amortise is also an illustration of competence. Disclosure will be used to determine HC . Anything else will be clutching at straws I feel

Jsmac67 · 24-08-2017 06:42AM

There was also no FV given in the question so it was impossible to determine what the lower of minimum lease payments and FV was for recognition.

All round mess of an indicator.

Qwert6 · 24-08-2017 06:55AM

Jsmac67 wrote: »

There was also no FV given in the question so it was impossible to determine what the lower of minimum lease payments and FV was for recognition.

All round mess of an indicator.

Agreed. Open to interpretation. Hopefully it will be Cs all round. Just praying the the confusion will mean they will mark it nice.

Qwert6 · 24-08-2017 06:58AM

MrSzyslak wrote: »

They didn't give a useful life for the property or an interest rate to calculate PV of MLP or put in the usual option to extend the lease at nominal value. I think this is what threw people. As risk and rewards of ownership was not clearly outlined as it usually would be.

There is also a solution for a sale and lease back for a car park in the Rocket case of the Derry Cotter book that results in an operating lease over 50 years. which as it is to Land , has a infinite life and therefore results in an operating sale and lease back transaction. So could be argued a substantial amount of the premises value was made up of land?

I gave both solutions which would probably looks stupid but needed it on paper to try get another C in FR. Was worried about negative marking of "sitting on the fence" but given the confusion I should be okay I hope.

Yes it wasn't clear at all once my opinion. Let's hope we can get across the line with C on it.

unknown1990 · 24-08-2017 08:13AM

I don't think it was made clear that the lease obligation arose on the 31st of July or from first of August making it an obligation in the following year's accounts. That's the impression I took from it. Also we didn't know the discount rate to determine if the fair value or the present value of the market minimum lease payments was lower. More than likely it was the 7 million but it's impossible to know if the 7 million equated fair value or was just an offer received in the market which I don't think is the same. If payments were to commence from 1 August I would think no lease obligation existed in the 2017 accounts. To be honest I think we're over complicating it here. What the key point was to make was that the gain had to be in a deferred income account and released to the sploci over 50 years and couldn't be fully recognised in 2017. Also there's no negative marking so if you answered for a finance and operating lease I'd say it's fine. It was a very poorly worded indicator but I think it was actually less complicated than we're assuming here.

FAE 2017

Comments