Cap 2 SFMA Assessment Study Group

blizzard13 · 26-06-2013 03:31PM

awful awful paper, i hate to be negative, but without a shadow of a doubt ill be repeating that one

littlemiss123 · 26-06-2013 03:33PM

blizzard13 wrote: »

awful awful paper, i hate to be negative, but without a shadow of a doubt ill be repeating that one

I'll see you there

haha

mark_m360 · 26-06-2013 03:33PM

I need to cram FX risk as I have done so little in it.

Does anyone think Interest Rate Risk is due up?

It has not been asked since Summer 2010 and I don't think it's that difficult.

autumnbelle · 26-06-2013 03:34PM

I am the exact same and it's such a downer cos I was hoping first 2 would go ok. I was nearly crying leaving today

ASOT2012 · 26-06-2013 03:37PM

mark_m360 wrote: »

Does anyone think Interest Rate Risk is due up?

It has not been asked since Summer 2010 and I don't think it's that difficult.

It came up in the last paper. Autumn 2012.

PhilipLuke · 26-06-2013 03:42PM

littlemiss123 wrote: »

The inventory totally threw me too! Only answered half the last question....that was not a good paper at all :-/

No energy again now for SFMA study....great! Think I'm just gonna review the company in difficulty, FX risk and company valuation and call it a day.

One of the inventory products had to be written down as the cost was lower than NRV.

I was disappointed controls didnt come up that was a low blow seeing as they totally left them out altogether

littlemiss123 · 26-06-2013 03:43PM

autumnbelle wrote: »

I am the exact same and it's such a downer cos I was hoping first 2 would go ok. I was nearly crying leaving today

Same as but like mark_m360 said....chin up, tis done now, we're only wasting energy worrying about them!

We'll save all the worrying for the sleepless night of Thursday 15th August.

blizzard13 · 26-06-2013 03:44PM

and the whole area or RISK!!! wtf like? completely left out

littlemiss123 · 26-06-2013 03:46PM

blizzard13 wrote: »

and the whole area or RISK!!! wtf like? completely left out

I know!! Two very very strange papers so far....

I wouldn't go as far as to say they were harder than other years but definitely different to other years. The institute are up to something......

Blarney92 · 26-06-2013 03:48PM

PhilipLuke wrote: »

One of the inventory products had to be written down as the cost was lower than NRV.

I was disappointed controls didnt come up that was a low blow seeing as they totally left them out altogether

Don't mean to start dissecting an exam but they didn't give us an NRV- they gave us your man's estimated costs from the start of the year and then the actual costs per recent invoices.

So I ended up comparing cost estimates versus actual costs and hadn't a clue what to do then bar update for the most recent cost. Didn't see NRV mentioned anywhere unless I misread it as I rushed.

ASOT2012 · 26-06-2013 03:50PM

littlemiss123 wrote: »

I know!! Two very very strange papers so far....

I wouldn't go as far as to say they were harder than other years but definitely different to other years. The institute are up to something......

Yep definitely. Especially tax. They knew everyone would focus on losses so they didn't put it on. And none of the topical issues that are all over the news came up..makes you wonder ...

PhilipLuke · 26-06-2013 03:50PM

Think I will do section b first tommorrow!! Any thoughts?

Debs23 · 26-06-2013 03:55PM

Blarney92 wrote: »

Don't mean to start dissecting an exam but they didn't give us an NRV- they gave us your man's estimated costs from the start of the year and then the actual costs per recent invoices.

So I ended up comparing cost estimates versus actual costs and hadn't a clue what to do then bar update for the most recent cost. Didn't see NRV mentioned anywhere unless I misread it as I rushed.

Yeah I did the same as you. There was no NRV mentioned!

littlemiss123 · 26-06-2013 04:04PM

Debs23 wrote: »

Yeah I did the same as you. There was no NRV mentioned!

Without dissecting the exam....what threw me was that it said in part d "for EACH of the issues identified in part c...." whereas I only got one issue so I know I buggered up....

tumbledown · 26-06-2013 04:04PM

Balls of a paper, pretty gutted now.

Couldn't even work out what I was being asked at times. I even took the provision to be assessed as being per annum as opposed to the 1 month which seems to be more likely now upon reflection.

Thought I would never finish Q1 and my time keeping was completely blown as a result.

Weird weird paper, October here I come

PhilipLuke · 26-06-2013 04:05PM

Debs23 wrote: »

Yeah I did the same as you. There was no NRV mentioned!

I think that came up in a prior exam and they wrote down the inventory to the lower of the two prices!!

Thats what I did although it could have been a trick!! I took the price in the inventory list as their NRV and the recent purchases as the cost and wrote down one of the items in inventory

I could have been totally wrong

autumnbelle · 26-06-2013 04:08PM

tumbledown wrote: »

Balls of a paper, pretty gutted now.

Couldn't even work out what I was being asked at times. I even took the provision to be assessed as being per annum as opposed to the 1 month which seems to be more likely now upon reflection.

Thought I would never finish Q1 and my time keeping was completely blown as a result.

Weird weird paper, October here I come

It was for the year I thought?

Debs23 · 26-06-2013 04:08PM

littlemiss123 wrote: »

Without dissecting the exam....what threw me was that it said in part d "for EACH of the issues identified in part c...." whereas I only got one issue so I know I buggered up....

Same. I just started guessing for the second one saying that if inventory value was to increase then the provision would need to increase but that Brian was not giving any more information so that there was a limitation of scope!

Hopefully ill get a mark for trying

tumbledown · 26-06-2013 04:12PM

autumnbelle wrote: »

It was for the year I thought?

Who knows? I was doubting my own name at the end. I hate when I'm not sure what is being asked of you - at least if your asked and you don't know the answer you can either have a stab at it and move on or else leave it. Unclear requirements do my nut it as you keep rehashing them in your head.

V best of luck to everyone tomorrow

autumnbelle · 26-06-2013 04:17PM

Debs23 wrote: »

Same. I just started guessing for the second one saying that if inventory value was to increase then the provision would need to increase but that Brian was not giving any more information so that there was a limitation of scope!

Hopefully ill get a mark for trying

I said that it was lower of cost and Nrv but that the cost was higher and I didn't have Nrv so I increased to the higher cost and for my effects on audit report an except for qualification

PhilipLuke · 26-06-2013 04:21PM

autumnbelle wrote: »

I said that it was lower of cost and Nrv but that the cost was higher and I didn't have Nrv so I increased to the higher cost and for my effects on audit report an except for qualification

In hindsight I think you are correct, adjust inventory to reflect latest prices

littlemiss123 · 26-06-2013 04:33PM

PhilipLuke wrote: »

In hindsight I think you are correct, adjust inventory to reflect latest prices

Ok!! No more auditing dissections allowed cos we'll only start beating ourselves up!! It's done now!!

Just started doing an SFMA question but I actually can't write my hand is so sore....

autumnbelle · 26-06-2013 04:33PM

PhilipLuke wrote: »

In hindsight I think you are correct, adjust inventory to reflect latest prices

I don't think it's right I think there's a different answer as it was only a few marks:/ so not pushed with doing anything for tommorrow now. Thank god were nearly done.

autumnbelle · 26-06-2013 04:34PM

littlemiss123 wrote: »

Ok!! No more auditing dissections allowed cos we'll only start beating ourselves up!! It's done now!!

Just started doing an SFMA question but I actually can't write my hand is so sore....

Haha did u write loads today?? Rest it before tommorrow:)

autumnbelle · 26-06-2013 05:25PM

Also wondering if u run out of pages on that answer book do they give you another one

DaUmpire · 26-06-2013 05:32PM

guys cramming for sfma here so going need a lot of help this evening. First issue in the summer 2012 solution for the options contract they have worked out the proceeds to be £1,180,461 and £1,408,498 after taking account of the option premium but in the summary table below these numbers are replaced with £1,337,307 and £1,181,435 respectively. Am i missing something as to why the numbers have changed? or is this a mistake.

Thanks

George Huxley 1983 · 26-06-2013 05:46PM

Did anyone else think that for the inventory question they were using a standard cost system so you would need to capitalise the variances? Or am I way off?

Transfer pricing and interest rate risk tomorrow I reckon

autumnbelle · 26-06-2013 05:49PM

George Huxley 1983 wrote: »

Did anyone else think that for the inventory question they were using a standard cost system so you would need to capitalise the variances? Or am I way off?

Transfer pricing and interest rate risk tomorrow I reckon

it honestly could have been I don't know

PhilipLuke · 26-06-2013 05:53PM

George Huxley 1983 wrote: »

Did anyone else think that for the inventory question they were using a standard cost system so you would need to capitalise the variances? Or am I way off?

Transfer pricing and interest rate risk tomorrow I reckon

If you follow the pattern of the first two exams expect a different exam to previous years.

Prob NPV, WAAC, Transfer Pricing, EVA and FX

CW1989 · 26-06-2013 06:34PM

DaUmpire wrote: »

guys cramming for sfma here so going need a lot of help this evening. First issue in the summer 2012 solution for the options contract they have worked out the proceeds to be £1,180,461 and £1,408,498 after taking account of the option premium but in the summary table below these numbers are replaced with £1,337,307 and £1,181,435 respectively. Am i missing something as to why the numbers have changed? or is this a mistake.

Thanks

Typos because the other figures are also wrong in the table!

Cap 2 SFMA Assessment Study Group

Comments