CAP 2 Exams 2012

swn · 27-06-2012 02:14PM

Can't say it was too bad. How did you all treat the journal entries for the process in qs 1?

EDudder · 27-06-2012 03:10PM

Methods of identifying audit risk - is that just review minutes of meetings/ contact previous auditors etc?

Thought that was a bit of a wierd question. Was kind of what I expected from audit. But it was a lot less general than the past papers I found.

apeking · 27-06-2012 03:19PM

Another paper that I will be very lucky to pass, only myself to blame really.

Got caught up in q1 trying to do the journal entries....feckers and I cant even remember what I put in for them.

the two easier ones over and I reckon I only for 40marks in each

Doesnt look like it is going to be a good week

myshirt · 27-06-2012 03:19PM

Factors to consider when determining appropriate benchmark for materiality...

hadn't a clue.

Did not go so well for me.

EDudder · 27-06-2012 03:22PM

myshirt wrote: »

Factors to consider when determining appropriate benchmark for materiality...

hadn't a clue.

Did not go so well for me.

Probably because it wasn't taught as part of the course.

srm23 · 27-06-2012 03:38PM

EDudder wrote: »

Methods of identifying audit risk - is that just review minutes of meetings/ contact previous auditors etc?

Thought that was a bit of a wierd question. Was kind of what I expected from audit. But it was a lot less general than the past papers I found.

i think i had

- assess nature of business & if its susceptible to risk
- assess possibility of control risk
- inquire of management of any fraud implications,
prob wrong

i completely forgot to do the materiality bit of q1 so ill be raging if i barely fail now having thrown away 14 marks. at last min i guessed & wrote operating profit as the answer so if its right hopefully even get 2 for it

Nermal · 27-06-2012 03:52PM

myshirt wrote: »

Factors to consider when determining appropriate benchmark for materiality...

hadn't a clue.

Did not go so well for me.

It's in ISA320, A3 (pg. 546) and does actually link back to other information in the case study, e.g. analyst paid most attention to operating profit before tax, so that should be considered...

Identifying audit risk was ISA315, pg 494.

I found the case study easier than the other questions. In Q2 I had to stop myself copying out lists of procedures from notes and remind myself to tailor them. In Q4 I just don't know if I have got down what the marking scheme is looking for.

Shane732 · 27-06-2012 04:01PM

Nermal wrote: »

It's in ISA320, A3 (pg. 546) and does actually link back to other information in the case study, e.g. analyst paid most attention to operating profit before tax, so that should be considered...

I used ISA 320 A3 as well.

Aren't you meant to compare materality using various benchmarks and consider which is the most appropriate for the job?

I assume materality was to be based on Operating Profit before Tax? The question very much seemed to be suggesting that anyway. What % do you use for materality?

Nermal · 27-06-2012 04:04PM

Shane732 wrote: »

I used ISA 320 A3 as well.

Aren't you meant to compare materality using various benchmarks and consider which is the most appropriate for the job?

I assume materality was to be based on Operating Profit before Tax? The question very much seemed to be suggesting that anyway. What % do you use for materality?

That's what I picked, though noted it was somewhat volatile. I didn't actually calculate a figure, I think you just had to pick the benchmark.

Shane732 · 27-06-2012 04:11PM

Nermal wrote: »

That's what I picked, though noted it was somewhat volatile. I didn't actually calculate a figure, I think you just had to pick the benchmark.

What was the second part of the materiality question - did it not ask you to calculate materiality?

EDudder · 27-06-2012 04:11PM

The question definitely seemed to want you to pick profit before tax.

To be honest, revenue would have given a lower materiality and IMO would actually have been what was used as the benchmark.

But I wrote profit before tax based on the background info.

EDudder · 27-06-2012 04:12PM

Shane732 wrote: »

What was the second part of the materiality question - did it not ask you to calculate materiality?

Nope, asked you what the benchmark should be. I doubt you would lose any marks for putting in a calculation though.

First part was factors to consider.

Nermal · 27-06-2012 04:13PM

Shane732 wrote: »

What was the second part of the materiality question - did it not ask you to calculate materiality?

Possibly, didn't take the paper with me! If so... marks lost for me.

^^^^
Phew...

Shane732 · 27-06-2012 04:17PM

Shane732 wrote: »

What was the second part of the materiality question - did it not ask you to calculate materiality?

Ignore that. I'm in my own little world at this stage!

I didn't think the materiality question was too bad. If you managed to hit ISA 320 A3 then you should be ok.

The operating profit before tax was the logical figure to use for materality based on the information in the question, even if you had never looked at materality before. Hope it wasn't a trick question!!

Shane732 · 27-06-2012 04:18PM

Nermal wrote: »

Possibly, didn't take the paper with me! If so... marks lost for me.

^^^^
Phew...

No it wasn't. My mistake remembering the paper.

The Big Red Button · 27-06-2012 05:25PM

I really feel for anyone doing all four exams this week.

It's absolutely ridiculous, four four-hour exams in four days. It's basically an endurance test, really, and that's not fair, it's not what it's supposed to be about. If they spread the exams over two weeks, the pass rate would be so much higher.

But I guess, then, they'd miss out on so much revenue from the repeats. :rolleyes:

srm23 · 27-06-2012 05:27PM

EDudder wrote: »

Nope, asked you what the benchmark should be. I doubt you would lose any marks for putting in a calculation though.

First part was factors to consider.

it was which benchmark to use & why for 4 marks, id no time left so wrote only "operating profit before tax". yous reckon ill get two marks? :P

Anerak · 27-06-2012 05:33PM

chatterpillar wrote: »

I really feel for anyone doing all four exams this week.

It's absolutely ridiculous, four four-hour exams in four days. It's basically an endurance test, really, and that's not fair, it's not what it's supposed to be about. If they spread the exams over two weeks, the pass rate would be so much higher.

But I guess, then, they'd miss out on so much revenue from the repeats. :rolleyes:

Its so true ACCA are much better spread out depending on subjects of course but it would make such a difference.

Roll on Friday

Shane732 · 27-06-2012 06:22PM

srm23 wrote: »

it was which benchmark to use & why for 4 marks, id no time left so wrote only "operating profit before tax". yous reckon ill get two marks? :P

You'll get something anyway.

I did the two parts together due to misreading the question - I covered all the points, recommended the operating profit before tax and give reasons. I reckon I'll lose a couple of marks due to misreading that part of the question but overall I'm happy.

The paper was slightly different to previously years in that there wasn't as much compulsorily substantive testing.

Overall I'm happy.

Shane732 · 27-06-2012 06:23PM

chatterpillar wrote: »

I really feel for anyone doing all four exams this week.

It's absolutely ridiculous, four four-hour exams in four days. It's basically an endurance test, really, and that's not fair, it's not what it's supposed to be about. If they spread the exams over two weeks, the pass rate would be so much higher.

But I guess, then, they'd miss out on so much revenue from the repeats. :rolleyes:

Only the toughest survive!

srm23 · 27-06-2012 06:29PM

what did everyone do for the journals?
my friend was saying he did all sorts of entries for contingent liabilities

imo that is FR not audit

i reckon if ive that wrong too ive failed

ted2767 · 27-06-2012 06:36PM

srm23 wrote: »

what did everyone do for the journals?
my friend was saying he did all sorts of entries for contingent liabilities
imo that is FR not audit

i reckon if ive that wrong too ive failed

First entry
dr bank 1000
Cr deferred income 1000
this is cause rev is deferred until event bet is on

after that
dr deferred income 1000
Cr revenue 1000

Pretty straight forward after that

At least thats what I did

Nermal · 27-06-2012 07:01PM

srm23 wrote: »

what did everyone do for the journals?
my friend was saying he did all sorts of entries for contingent liabilities
imo that is FR not audit

i reckon if ive that wrong too ive failed

I kept it very general and would be interested to know what people had. Never know what level of detail they're expecting with these.

For the bet:
Db Bank 1000
Cr Customer A/C 1000

Bet won & withdrawn (bet won and left is just first two entries):
Cr Customer A/C 10000
Db SOCI 10000
Cr Bank 11000
Db Customer A/C 11000

Bet lost:
Db Customer A/C 1000
Cr SOCI 1000

This would have the effect of not recognising income till the event is over, and assumes the win of 11000 is actually a return of 10000 plus the stake.

Shane732 · 27-06-2012 07:09PM

Nermal wrote: »

I kept it very general and would be interested to know what people had. Never know what level of detail they're expecting with these.

For the bet:
Db Bank 1000
Cr Customer A/C 1000

Bet won & withdrawn (bet won and left is just first two entries):
Cr Customer A/C 10000
Db SOCI 10000
Cr Bank 11000
Db Customer A/C 11000

Bet lost:
Db Customer A/C 1000
Cr SOCI 1000

This would have the effect of not recognising income till the event is over, and assumes the win of 11000 is actually a return of 10000 plus the stake.

No deferred income?

EDudder · 27-06-2012 07:10PM

Someone mentioned to me after that it was a credit card so first step was debit receivables, not bank. I'd assume they give marks for either.

I was thinking about the provision/liability side of it after as well. I didn't put anything down for that side of things. To be honest that's way beyond the scope of audit. And sure if you think about it, the odds for this bet were 10/1 so it would be an unlikely event anyway so you wouldn't recognise a contingent liability for it :pac:

srm23 · 27-06-2012 07:14PM

i was unsure whether to use deferred revenue in the entries as that was only mentioned in the "controls" section on the right. well looking at the entries above i might have picked up an attempt mark or two.

my friend was saying things like

debited contingent asset and credited deferred revenue
then stage two i reversed that when he won and dr operating expenses with 11k and credited bank with 11k
and then when he lost i debited bank and credited revenue

EDudder · 27-06-2012 07:15PM

Dr Receivable/Bank 1,000
Cr Deferred Revenue 1,000

Dr Cost of Sales 11,000
Cr Bank 11,000
Dr Deferred Revenue 1,000
Cr Revenue 1,000

If they don't withdraw, it's cr payable instead of bank

if they lose just debit Deferred revenue, Credit Revenue.

That's what I got.

Nermal · 27-06-2012 07:16PM

Shane732 wrote: »

No deferred income?

Nope... probably should have had something in there along those lines in retrospect, given it was specifically mentioned in the question.

Shane732 · 27-06-2012 07:20PM

EDudder wrote: »

Dr Receivable/Bank 1,000
Cr Deferred Revenue 1,000

Dr Cost of Sales 11,000
Cr Bank 11,000
Dr Deferred Revenue 1,000
Cr Revenue 1,000

If they don't withdraw, it's cr payable instead of bank

if they lose just debit Deferred revenue, Credit Revenue.

That's what I got.

I'm along these lines.

The question is at what point we recognize income.If we lose the bet then have we ever really received any income?

lauma · 27-06-2012 07:36PM

how's everyone set for tomorrow? Any guesses what is coming up?

I feel like I know nada for SFMA and FR. I did study a lot and don't feel confident at all. seriously how do people pass these subjects?????

CAP 2 Exams 2012

Comments