FAE Audit Elective 2014

Yeah.

I personally found the slides a bit more helpful than the way he covered it in the lecture. But different people might disagree. It's more about getting a general idea so incase it comes up you can reference your material. That's the idea he seemed to be putting across anyway (or that's how I picked it up).

For the last ten minutes he talks about the directors remuneration report and then says he doesn't really think it's examinable (i.e. not on competency statement) and he would argue with the examiner if it came up. I just find things like that a bit unhelpful. Although I'm sure he meant well.

That online lecture 4 - how did people find that?

I've covered Other Assurance reports in the textbook so I'm tempted to just go over the notes. But if people found it helpful I have a few hours tonight so I could watch it.

LOccitane

Well that Paper took any enthusiasm I had left for Audit from me...

At least half of the indicators were so open ended... The volume of information in the Appendices...

What an end to an awful week. Hope it went well for others..

The gulf between that Paper and anything in the past I felt was unfair. 'Business Risks' in Question 1.. These were clearly ultimately Audit Risks in most cases.

But finally we are done! :-)

sineadio

Does anyone know the pass rate for 2013? Question 2 nearly killed me

Chris Partlow

Its usually around the 70% mark. 2011 was 59% but that seems to have been a once off.

Also thought Case 2 was horrendous. Information overload!

cian twomey

thought that SIM 3 was ok, SIM tough but 2 of the indicators were manageable SIM 1 very tough and was running out of time so left it till last, touch and go

LOccitane

sineadio wrote: »

Does anyone know the pass rate for 2013? Question 2 nearly killed me

It was insane. I was very confident going in to that paper but it was bad. To be honest I didn't even know what I was saying for some of Sim 2.

Ran with pervasive limitation of scope re going concern and consolidation of subsidiary if we were to sign the audit opinion now. But I don't know really and don't care anymore.

Gonna go from Decile 1 in the Mock to a Fail..! What a joke...

Enjoy folks anyway, we are done for now at least :-)

That was shocking. AWFUL. So disappointed. Passed the mock with decile 1, not a hope of passing that.

mark_m360

That was a fairly heavy and open ended paper. Structure and writing was a bit messy as I felt the time pressure. Hopefully did enough to get over the line but you never know with audit.

From anyone I have spoken to, we have all different opinions so if you made some sort of logical conclusions, I'm sure they'll take them on board. Can't fail us all can they?!

Soap_Soup

Completely gutted.

Put my life on hold for a year for that exam. You can only reasonably prepare based on the level of past papers (I sat one of them for Christ sake), and that was a different level.

Read through and couldn't be sure of what the indicators even were or what they were getting at. That mixed with awkward topics coming up (the ones I at least recognised) and I completely panicked. Ruined myself for time and that was it.

'with no further audit work what would the audit opinion be'? Well considering I haven't a clue of how much works been performed to date, how the **** would I know. Stupid indicator. I assumed they were just taking going concern into account for that one.

Grab a beer it's over.

Soap_Soup wrote: »

Completely gutted.

Put my life on hold for a year for that exam. You can only reasonably prepare based on the level of past papers (I sat one of them for Christ sake), and that was a different level.

Read through and couldn't be sure of what the indicators even were or what they were getting at. That mixed with awkward topics coming up (the ones I at least recognised) and I completely panicked. Ruined myself for time and that was it.

'with no further audit work what would the audit opinion be'? Well considering I haven't a clue of how much works been performed to date, how the **** would I know. Stupid indicator. I assumed they were just taking going concern into account for that one.

Just out if interest, how did you find today's one compared to the other one you sat?

Soap_Soup

And was the report required an assurance report? A few people mentioned AUP afterwards but I thought if they were preparing the info and they wanted a level of assurance (indicated from their draft report) it couldn't be AUP?

Soap_Soup wrote: »

And was the report required an assurance report? A few people mentioned AUP afterwards but I thought if they were preparing the info and they wanted a level of assurance (indicated from their draft report) it couldn't be AUP?

I said AUP but I wasn't sure at all, by process of elimination I decided on AUP.

Soap_Soup wrote: »

And was the report required an assurance report? A few people mentioned AUP afterwards but I thought if they were preparing the info and they wanted a level of assurance (indicated from their draft report) it couldn't be AUP?

I went AUP

ucd man

Just for piece of mind, what were indicators people got?

1. Business risks:
Stock valuation i.e stock going off

Cashflow i.e. decrease in stock

Property plant and equip i.e. assets using lease finance should not be capitalised as operating lease??

International dimension to businesss (fx risk)

2. Impairment Review

3. Review of pro forma report: Agreed upon procedures enggement?? (therefore dont use certify, true and fair view, etc? and procddures (retotal, agree to stock listing).

Case 2:
1. Some key risks not identified (RPTs, need written reps for fraud)?? not sure here what was wanted?

2. Review of group reporting document and guarantee documents???
Review of guarantee (not dated, objetcive??) (not sure what was wanted here??)

3.
Implications for audit report (disclaimer, as significant parts of work not done)

Case 3.
1. We can accept the audit, provided some safueguards e.g. make sure cont fee paid up, no invovkement from tax partner in audit engagement, etc.

2. Inventory system controls 7 recomenndations (self explaanatory here)

Anybody agree/differ on the above??

cian twomey

on sim 3 was there an indicator of what else we had to look at in the audit communication with previous auditor etc

Soap_Soup

For the letter of support I concentrated on the fact that we hadn't reviewed the parents ability to support them. Said we needed to review their financials /forecasts etc. and that we needed letter that management thought it appropriate to use going concern basis.

Anybody else mention the Dutch sub wasn't IFRS? I said adjustments would need to be audited.

20 Times 20 Times

LOccitane wrote: »

It was insane. I was very confident going in to that paper but it was bad. To be honest I didn't even know what I was saying for some of Sim 2.

Ran with pervasive limitation of scope re going concern and consolidation of subsidiary if we were to sign the audit opinion now. But I don't know really and don't care anymore.

Gonna go from Decile 1 in the Mock to a Fail..! What a joke...

Enjoy folks anyway, we are done for now at least :-)

I did the same

Other issues in Sim 3

Audit stock take a month before year end
ISQC 1
ISA 510

EDudder wrote: »

Anybody else mention the Dutch sub wasn't IFRS? I said adjustments would need to be audited.

What exactly were we required to do with that Dutch audit report? It wasn't in IFRS, we had no idea of what work was done etc.

ASOT2012

womandriver wrote: »

What exactly were we required to do with that Dutch audit report? It wasn't in IFRS, we had no idea of what work was done etc.

Yeah I said that too!!

Did anyone see the long association threat in Sim 1 ? Wondering did I go down the wrong track there. they were auditors 9 years!

LOccitane

ASOT2012 wrote: »

Yeah I said that too!!

Did anyone see the long association threat in Sim 1 ? Wondering did I go down the wrong track there. they were auditors 9 years!

Whichever case it was in I referenced it yeah and said a QRP might need to be appointed. Think it was Sim 2? My mind is shot at this stage!

For Sim 3 I mentioned ISA 501 Existence of Stock roll forward would be required.

ISA 240 if there was a fraud or manipulation going on at one of the branches.

I was reduced to bullets (had 5 mins) so can't really remember. Forgot ISA 510, great point! Feck it anyway...!

Yeah I mentioned the long assoc in respect of both the parent who was listed and Stockard, Stockard isn't listed tho so no issue till 10 years and it didn't say if the AEP was same throughout.

I just didn't know what the point of the Dutch audit report was. I critiqued it against an IFRS one but I know that was wrong as they weren't IFRS so it wouldn't be same anyway. I said disclaimer re. Going concern but didn't say any impact of Dutch report, left it last and ran out of time. Hopefully disclaimer will cover both, I dunno.

womandriver wrote: »

What exactly were we required to do with that Dutch audit report? It wasn't in IFRS, we had no idea of what work was done etc.

I outlined everything a component auditor should be giving us. And then mentioned the IFRS bit.

But it was a mess. I couldn't tell if we were the group auditors or the overall parent was. We had no idea what had been requested of them/what materiality they used. So it might have had no audit report implications (if you assumed they had been given correct materiality etc and we just need their extra documentation). Or it could have meant completely adverse opinion because we had no idea what work they had done or to what materiality.

I think an indicator to give an adverse opinion basically because the q doesn't give us enough info is really unusual.

Sean Murray gave out about people jumping to audit report implications when it wouldn't be realistic in the real world. And in your job you would never turn around to a partner and say 'here, we need to qualify that audit report. The Dutch lads sent something on but I've no idea what they've done'.

redgerry 86

EDudder wrote: »

I outlined everything a component auditor should be giving us. And then mentioned the IFRS bit.

But it was a mess. I couldn't tell if we were the group auditors or the overall parent was. We had no idea what had been requested of them/what materiality they used. So it might have had no audit report implications (if you assumed they had been given correct materiality etc and we just need their extra documentation). Or it could have meant completely adverse opinion because we had no idea what work they had done or to what materiality.

I think an indicator to give an adverse opinion basically because the q doesn't give us enough info is really unusual.

Sean Murray gave out about people jumping to audit report implications when it wouldn't be realistic in the real world. And in your job you would never turn around to a partner and say 'here, we need to qualify that audit report. The Dutch lads sent something on but I've no idea what they've done'.

I assume the intangible asset valuation was all to do with management experts isa 620 and looking at of we can rely on their work? I then went on to say we may need to employ an auditors expert to verify this measurement on the brand?

I assumed that's what they were after