nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

CAP2 Exams

Mark1916

Hi,

Thought id set up a thread so people can air their views, problems, tips etc for the up comming exams!

Ill start off and say I think Cash Flows are a high possibility for the Financial Exam!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Spot_the_Dog

leanne249 wrote: »

2009 April Advanced Corporate Reporting

So it was even last years!! ffs they are ripping the piss.

Actually yeah i see it in the CPA paper now - absolutely raging cos i took those papers out of my folder yesterday evening as thought it was a waste of time bringing them :mad:. Stupidly thought I'd be better off with my notes and actual knowledge than just bringing past papers, I should've known better with the ICAI

julio arca

Can someone post this paper, or post a link to it

Spot_the_Dog

julio arca wrote: »

Can someone post this paper, or post a link to it

http://www.cpaireland.ie/displaycontent.aspx?node=202&groupid=202&headerid=513

ManwitaPlan

mountcarmel wrote: »

Came to Q3

Had looked over the stuf in the notes but wasnt sure of defined benefit (10 marks - 10% of ENTIRE course)....

...so whip open notes at IAS 19 - employee benefits

a bloody one pager with in BOLD writing at the end:

"Defined benefit scheme/ final salary schemes (NOT EXAMINABLE AT CAP 2)

Is this some sort of sick joke??????? Says it all really, Institute are a bunch of absolute kn0bjockeys

Eh so it was'nt just me then?

What a fvcking joke....I decided to look at the employee benefit stuff on Monday, was about to crack into defined benefits (which looked like an absolute nightmare) and then seen it (apparently) was'nt examinable and left it.

I mean this is such bad form its just a joke.

Then they go and lift a question word from word from a cpa paper...lazy, incompetant institute. Worst part is Im breaking my ballsack here to join an organisation that is so lacklustre and incompetant its an embarassment.

Honestly should've joined the fvcking Garda.:mad:

Hackysack

mountcarmel wrote: »

...so whip open notes at IAS 19 - employee benefits

a bloody one pager with in BOLD writing at the end:

"Defined benefit scheme/ final salary schemes (NOT EXAMINABLE AT CAP 2)

Yeah I have that as well. It's on the competency statement. I mean what the **** is it all about. It's absolutely ridiculous. They say that 3 areas on the ENTIRE course aren't examinable and they go ahead and throw a question on it.

Like are they actually taking the piss?

I don't really know how I got on. I made an absolute balls of question 2 which i'm sad to say. I spent ages trying to fix it up and that cut into my time for question one big time. I left the cashflow til the very last and I got it half done. I'm raging because I know I missed out on such easy marks like the simple workings. I got as far as Investing activities at least.

I thought Q4 was alright because I did a lot of work on the individual IAS', I recognised IAS 40 elements when I was reading it but I forgot to write it down but I think I did alright.

EPS was a bit hit or miss. I wasn't sure if there were any incremental earnings with the Options (there usually isn't, but it says they exercised the shares before the year end). I probably should have left it as Nil.

And what was the Revenue Recognition question all about really? Was it just me, or did they not really explain the 'Aggressive Strategy' at all?

But I think some guy who was sitting behind me was reading Q1 at the same time as me because I heard a laugh. "As you casually talked about fashion and politics with a cup of tea on a wet Saturday morning".

I guess it's all pointing more and more to the institute's sense of humour because a lot of that paper was a joke!

But I felt i missed out on so many marks because of my timing. Which is REALLY pissing me off.

mountcarmel

Spot_the_Dog wrote: »

http://www.cpaireland.ie/displaycontent.aspx?node=202&groupid=202&headerid=513

That is an absolute disgrace

18 per cent of the entire course for the people who had completed this example and had it handy in the exam. Didn't bring in exam papers as I relied on my knowledge of subject and my own notes. Didn't think I would have time to look or exam questions.

So this means that anybody who had this answer got 18/18 for it meaning they needed 32 more marks out of 82 - 39% on the rest of the paper!!!!!

Absolute joke

luco123

i was one of the unlucky one not to have the paper. was it given out in dublin lectures?

prinz

Hackysack wrote: »

But I think some guy who was sitting behind me was reading Q1 at the same time as me because I heard a laugh. "As you casually talked about fashion and politics with a cup of tea on a wet Saturday morning"..

The worst thing is I can't remember the last Saturday that I spent drinking tea and chatting with friends, because of fecking studying for these exams :mad:

Hackysack

prinz wrote: »

The worst thing is I can't remember the last Saturday that I spent drinking tea and chatting with friends, because of fecking studying for these exams :mad:

Was there a friend named Ian? Because if there was I think you've prettymuch got full marks.

ManwitaPlan

Oh yeah and note to the institute...when my wrist is hanging off from speedwriting and my head is spinning trying to consolidate a large quantity of information in as short a time as possible I dont want to hear about meeting Ian in a fvcking coffee shop on Saturday morning whilst the kiddies are at the pool. What in the name of god was that about?

I mean honestly feck testing our intelligence its the people setting these exams I would worry about...just what are they thinking?

R0N BURGUNDY

so basically guaranteed 18% of the exam. that is the kind of luck i could have done with. is the examiner on drugs? what was he thinking? i am happy for those who had it in front of them but very jealous i have to admit.

Rickyroma

R0N BURGUNDY wrote: »

is the examiner on drugs? what was he thinking?

Ok I have the Competency Statement in front of me. Appendix 3 - page 45.

"Not examinable - the measurement of defined benefit obligations and the assesment of actuarial assumptions."

Erm...am I missing something here? Was that not exactly what we were asked to do?

johns123

thought the q1 was ok - in dublin group 3 - lecturer had said that cashflows were due up and he had given out that CPA question so ok in that. Happy with q2 and though q4 was tricky but attempted it

Flange/Flanders

Oh for fcuk sake, I was in the class that got the CPA questions, never bothered reading over them. dont i feel like a d*ck.

Ok people, I hope everyone is going emailing CASSD or whatever it is to air your grievances, after SFMA and todays revelations I most certainly will be.

Altaglusgan Lad

johns123 wrote: »

thought the q1 was ok - in dublin group 3 - lecturer had said that cashflows were due up and he had given out that CPA question so ok in that. Happy with q2 and though q4 was tricky but attempted it

By any chance did your lecturer write the exam, or maybe see it in advance? Maybe he/she is best buddies with the examiner and is trying to score brownie points with the institute!!:mad:

Hackysack

I think it's because it's a huge topic and it hasn't been examined at CAP2 level yet.

Still, I didn't expect it.

With a good template you could have cleaned up with some cheap and easy marks, that's why I was so annoyed with my timing

prinz

Altaglusgan Lad wrote: »

By any chance did your lecturer write the exam, or maybe see it in advance? Maybe he/she is best buddies with the examiner and is trying to score brownie points with the institute!!:mad:

Goes to show how much luck is involved tbh. There's no consistency at all, in the syllabus, in the exams, in the lecturers....

John Cincinnati

Don't know what to think of the paper today. The paper was very light on accounting standards.

The Consolidated Cash Flow (35 marks), "aggressive revenue recognition" interpretation/ ethics question (10 marks) and consol question (18 marks) were all standard enough. So that was 60% of the paper which was alright and fine if you were prepared.

The rest of it was just badly written, wordy and obscure. Funny thing is, I was really prepared, practiced a lot of ACCA papers at F7 and P2 - and I thought I'd seen every EPS question you could see. The EPS was horribly presented, nasty. Then it turns out it was similar to a CPA question.

It's expected that examiners look at other exam papers to check out questions and the standard examinabe, but the ACA copy questions from other institute, reword them, add in some flowry scenarios and overcomplicate them to test your ability to pick out the numbers and relevant info from the crap.

I'd prefer if they asked tough questions, written clearly, and I could say "fair game, didn't study that hard enough". Thing is, I like the subject but the ACA papers are just hard to follow. You can't prepare for questions like that unless you've practiced an identical questions.

Anyway, rant over. 70% of the paper was fine. The rest was rushed. Even if I did work faster, I doubt I would have scored a lot of marks anyway on the EPS and Q4 cause they were so odd.

Fingers crossed. Please complain to the institute, I can't be bothed anymore. ACCA are exemplary for preparig question packs, clear solutios and exams that you can respect. The ACA try to do it their own away, over complicated the whole study process and annoy everone involved.

I expect o hear pleny of complaints from the examine saying students have "time mangement issues", "don't undestand basic consolidation or examinable standards". Try yourself to do some of those questions in 20-30 mins.

susie-q

i had that bloody question with me and all and didnt even consider it today.. absolutely ragin..

R0N BURGUNDY

prinz wrote: »

Goes to show how much luck is involved tbh. There's no consistency at all, in the syllabus, in the exams, in the lecturers....

yeah, there totally is a fair amount of luck involved. things couldnt have gone any worse for me this week luck wise. its devastating.

susie-q

wait no i didnt have that paper after all.. just as blind sighted as everyone else

ManwitaPlan

Rickyroma wrote: »

Ok I have the Competency Statement in front of me. Appendix 3 - page 45.

"Not examinable - the measurement of defined benefit obligations and the assesment of actuarial assumptions."

Erm...am I missing something here? Was that not exactly what we were asked to do?

Hang on, why are people not making more of this.

People are bitching about the CPA question (which in itself is horrendous incompetance on the institutes part) but to put something on the exam that was clearly stated as not examinable is inexcusable and practically voids the exam.

Im not up on the topic so can anybody confirm that was asked was actually was'nt on the syllabus?...if this is the case it is inexcusable and the Institute should be ashamed on itself.

Just cant get over this (if it is indeed the case).

SL10

I actually didnt think they paper was the worst- but am very afraid that I found it a bit too easy so I prob didnt know enough to recognise that it was hard!!!

Q2 was handy enough, Q4 was ok- confusing and i missed out on a couple of things but made a good stab at it.

Thought the cashflow was ok- but I was basic with it and kinda ignored anything I didnt understand! EPS could barely figure out what they were trying to say- made a stab at it but would be surprised if i get more than 5 out of the 18 marks (which is annoying cos i thought i knew that topic quite well!)

The ten mark ethics question was annoying and was a lot of waffle but i figure whatever you say cant really be wrong so hopefully picked up some marks there. I'm in group 3 too and so annoyed i never looked at that CPA question! Just didnt get time

Also hopefully picked up the 5 marks for presentation cos I tried to be immaculate- fingers crossed i did enough to get across the line

prinz

ManwitaPlan wrote: »

Just cant get over this (if it is indeed the case).

Looks to be the case. Question 3(a): Calculate the defined benefit scheme asset/liability, expense and explain the movement.

Guide to syllabus IAS19 Employee Benefits. Not examinable - the measurement of defined benefit obligations....

Joke.

Spot_the_Dog

SL10 wrote: »

Thought the cashflow was ok- but I was basic with it and kinda ignored anything I didnt understand!

Snap!! When in doubt, leave it out!!

John Cincinnati

i think the actuarial calcs aren't examinable, but the rest is. that's what i thought anyway.

i've seen plenty of ias 19 questions which are alright - it's just knowing how to estimate the provision needed and if the beneft obligation has accrued. it's normally a 3-4 marker aan adjutment in a consol question, not a big part of a quesiton like it was today. again, no questions like it in aca questions as i was saying. so it was a surprise.

it's a really theoretical topic thogh, and it seems lke they are the ones that the examiner likes to test and overcomplicate - you'd think it would be the opposite.

so_bored.com

how is everyone feeling about tomoro?

what areas are you's focusing on this evening?

Dell2009

John Cincinnati wrote: »

i think the actuarial calcs aren't examinable, but the rest is. that's what i thought anyway.

Yes I think you are right about this. No calculations on acturial assumptions on todays paper.

prinz

John Cincinnati wrote: »

i think the actuarial calcs aren't examinable, but the rest is. that's what i thought anyway.
i've seen plenty of ias 19 questions which are alright - it's just knowing how to estimate the provision needed and if the beneft obligation has accrued. it's normally a 3-4 marker aan adjutment in a consol question, not a big part of a quesiton like it was today. again, no questions like it in aca questions as i was saying. so it was a surprise..

Accounting for employee benefits is fine.

This is word for word..

"Not examinable - the measurement of defined benefit obligations and the assessment of actuarial assumptions."

Rickyroma

Dell2009 wrote: »

Yes I think you are right about this. No calculations on acturial assumptions on todays paper.

Have to say I disagree.

"Not examinable - the measurement of defined benefit obligations and the assesment of actuarial assumptions."

What were we asked to do if not to measure the obligation? The phrase on the paper is "calculate the defined benefit scheme - asset or liability".

I'm certainly going to raise the matter and to be honest I think it's pretty clear cut. It's not examinable.