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

R0N BURGUNDY

my brain is pure frazzled. tomorrow is going to make it a white wash for me

cuppatae1

Anyone else having problems remembering all the little rules and methods of doing things? Was able to do most things last week but after other exams cant remember a thing. Disaster!
Very awkward when the only closed book exam is last.Could they not just put it 1st and it might help a lot of people? Bloody institute again making it as difficult as possible for students!

leanne249

leanne249 wrote: »

I'll post separate solutions

Hope it helps

leanne249

Vaioer wrote: »

Anyone got any decent tax questions?

I can't find my toolkit, the ones in the book are too simple and I only have a couple of past papers. Need a bit more practice.

I'll post separate solutions

figrolls

Vaioer wrote: »

Anyone got any decent tax questions?

I can't find my toolkit, the ones in the book are too simple and I only have a couple of past papers. Need a bit more practice.

At this stage I'm just doing last years two papers and the three sample papers that we were given

Vaioer

Anyone got any decent tax questions?

I can't find my toolkit, the ones in the book are too simple and I only have a couple of past papers. Need a bit more practice.

John Cincinnati

what else, no join ventures, no discontinued ops, no disposals of subs. like what do they expect. i don't mind if the every part of the paper they do examine is clear to follow.

like 10 marks to waffle on revenue recognition, then 17 marks on a consolidated B/S and I/S? and then the examiner leaves out all the most examined parts of the syallabus to date and asks some weird eps IAS 33, IAS 19 and IAS 40 question. Why not test people on stuff they practiced in the mock and past papers than trying to examine every minor part of the syllaus.

Altaglusgan Lad

John Cincinnati wrote: »

what's clear is that th examiner likes examining complicated and less-examined parts of the syllabus. no real testing of leases, no construction contracts, no fair value goodwill, no impairtment (unless it was on Q4 on investment properties), no f/x, no gov grants, no inventory calcs - which were all the complicate parts of the syllabus that i'm sure most people studied a lot.

it's not like i want to be told the exam in advance, it's just that if i study hard or it, i wan't a reasonable chance of passing. there's so little margin fo error, it's not like i'm trying to get good marks.

i agree, tomarrows test will most likley be questions on the smallest parts of the material such as Redisent/OR/Domicile or pre owned asset tax (something crazey like that)

figrolls

Whats everybody doing in order to cram for Tax tonight?
The amount of theory seems so daunting, dont know where to start and anytime I look at calculations I get so annoyed with all the mistakes in the solutions...

Ah either way Im going to be back doing them in October at this rate, if I still have my job by then...

Hackysack

The more I think about the **** that happened today, the more angry I get. To have two huge, blatant screw ups. It's ridiculous.

I mean people's jobs are on the line FFs!!!!!

John Cincinnati

what's clear is that th examiner likes examining complicated and less-examined parts of the syllabus. no real testing of leases, no construction contracts, no fair value goodwill, no impairtment (unless it was on Q4 on investment properties), no f/x, no gov grants, no inventory calcs - which were all the complicate parts of the syllabus that i'm sure most people studied a lot.

it's not like i want to be told the exam in advance, it's just that if i study hard or it, i wan't a reasonable chance of passing. there's so little margin fo error, it's not like i'm trying to get good marks.

Rickyroma

Dell2009 wrote: »

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

Altaglusgan Lad wrote: »

do u have an email address for them. or will the feedback sheet which we are to get after tomarrows test enough to get the message across to them?

cassdinfo@gmail.com - for Dublin students.

Should all be on the sheet tomorrow too.

I'm actually the cassd rep, just to declare the interest.

Altaglusgan Lad

Hackysack wrote: »

Guys send your mails to the CASSI. I've been typing up my mail as we're going along. The more people that complain about the obvious cock up, the better.

do u have an email address for them. or will the feedback sheet which we are to get after tomarrows test enough to get the message across to them?

Hackysack

Guys send your mails to the CASSI. I've been typing up my mail as we're going along. The more people that complain about the obvious cock up, the better.

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.

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."

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.

so_bored.com

how is everyone feeling about tomoro?

what areas are you's focusing on this evening?

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.

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!!

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.

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

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).

susie-q

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

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

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

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.

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....

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

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: