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

FAE Advanced Audit elective

ShellyQ123

Hi, Just wondering if anyone has a copy of last years "Steps" cases?
Thanks in advance :-D

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Kev1001

Auditresit2015 wrote: »

That 3rd case was a write off for me so I will be repeating again unless my first two cases were good. I identified some risks and one journal and few procedures to do then stopped due to time. Then gave a disclaimer. What did u guys do

I gave a disclaimer too.
I missed that you needed to reclass the credit balances to deferred income. Didn't see any other possible JEs?

AuditAgain

What were the issues with the construction contract work?

I felt like just writting "not enough documented to know what the **** is going on. I'll go over IAS11, you redo this WP and we'll try this again tomorrow".

And what were the adjustments?

Auditresit2015

AuditAgain wrote: »

What were the issues with the construction contract work?

I felt like just writting "not enough documented to know what the **** is going on. I'll go over IAS11, you redo this WP and we'll try this again tomorrow".

And what were the adjustments?

The only adjustment I had time for was to recognise the loss contract (11 I think). I thought disclaimer due to a lack of evidence from audit and the adjustment being material. Not only that the balance was always going to be material in a construction firm so if we can not obtain sufficient evidence then i assumed we couldn't give an opinion

Torres999

Sim 2 I had Audit risk, then Audit tests then for 3rd indicator other matter didn't know what to do, said there was financial situation cos the company was insolvent. Should the property that was sold have been classified from investment properties? Didn't know what was going on. Sim 3 couldn't do and tried first so really shook me, did the audit report based on an assumption that it was except for, just picked that out of nowhere

Dellboy2007

Fraud in case 2 being the directors transferring the property to the wives names yet not accounting for it (potentially). Reason being no gain or loss recognised on sale in p&l. Related party transaction also and clearly wasn't sold at arms length. The fact that the solicitor didn't have any of the deeds and the poor attitude of the director was also indicative of the fraud. It was a bit like a sean Quinn scenario.

Risk being rights and obligations of property specifically and existence.

Case three can literally go and fcuk itself.

AuditAgain

You know who will pass though? First timers who did the core with an increased level of financial reporting this year, and might not have concentrated on audit.

The pass rate among repeaters will be shocking. We didn't resit an exam - we prepared to resit an exam and then sat an exam for a new style course. Which would almost be fine if they had communicated that to us in any way shape or form.

AuditAgain

Didn't realise there was no gain/loss - assumed it was sold at carrying value.

Noted fraud risk due to attitudes of directors (and 3 different auditors) and seperately went into RPT audit talk.

Balls, was nearly there - didn't pick up on the rights n obligations.

AuditAgain

Forward contract at fair value - was that audit of estimates or was I way off?

Dellboy2007

AuditAgain wrote: »

Forward contract at fair value - was that audit of estimates or was I way off?

Well the main risk would be related to valuation, how they have valued it, more than likely a broker quote, but because it was a transaction outside the normal course of business (and a complex derivative) there was greater inherent risk in how it has been accounted for. You would also need to confirm the existence, rights and obligations with the broker also. I did not mention accounting estimates but that's not to say it is not relevant. Just depends on clients valuation methodology.

Auditresit2015

All in all it was a tough exam compared to prior year and mocks: will be hoping to get C in sim 1 and 2 and maybe the audit report in sim 3. Will be tough enough to pass I think. Not much can be done now. No way I could have prepared for ias 11

Dellboy2007

Possible pass scenarios:

- 4 C's out of sim 1 & 2 and an RC in sim 1,2 or 3

- 3 C's out of first two sims and 3 RCs out of all sims.

Torres999

But did we have to test the risks in SIM 1? It said issues arising out of the risk assessment and areas that we should concentrate field work on, for example I would have said valuation of Forward Contracts but not given how you actually audit them?

Agreed upon Procedure, I mainly criticised the report.

Did anyone think none of the indicators were 100% clear on what they wanted (Besides SIM 3, they listed what they wanted but jesus christ)

Cant be pissed off with myself study wise because no matter how much I studied it wouldnt have made a difference. Therefore I can be fully pissed off with the little pr**k who wrote it

Auditresit2015

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Possible pass scenarios:

- 4 C's out of sim 1 & 2 and an RC in sim 1,2 or 3

- 3 C's out of first two sims and 3 RCs out of all sims.

Are we not required 18 points? Or did you think there was 10 indicators?

Dellboy2007

Auditresit2015 wrote: »

Are we not required 18 points? Or did you think there was 10 indicators?

Sorry, I thought there were 9. Did I not calculate in right? 4cs = 16 plus 1rc = 18 or 3 C's plus 3rcs.

Auditresit2015

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Sorry, I thought there were 9. Did I not calculate in right? 4cs = 16 plus 1rc = 18 or 3 C's plus 3rcs.

Yea sorry u did. I just misred it. Heads still in the clouds

sorry about that.

Dellboy2007

Torres I thought it was just audit risks, ethics and AUP for sim 1 so I didn't test anything.

Torres999

Yeah so list the risk but no tests, thats what I thought. If I have any chance of a pass I need at least 2Cs from Sim 1

Torres999

Actually what was the craic with Ethics, Family member and what was the tax planning one?

Dellboy2007

Same here. That AUP was dodgy. Did everyone include the AUP as an ethical threat? What about the tax partner being a trustee shareholder, what the fcuk was that about!

You could have thrown down one for the fees also being greater than 10% for all services. Was stuck for time so didn't bother

Auditresit2015

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Sorry, I thought there were 9. Did I not calculate in right? 4cs = 16 plus 1rc = 18 or 3 C's plus 3rcs.

When you at it like that it's more than achievable but it just comes down to whether your answer is detailed enough to get C. Was fully happy with first two sims so hopefully I done enough. Hope everyone is able to chill out now and the fear will strike in Nov again lol

Torres999

I said he shouldnt be able to review any of the tax comps done by the audit team because he was no longer independent but I was clutching at straws

Auditresit2015

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Same here. That AUP was dodgy. Did everyone include the AUP as an ethical threat? What about the tax partner being a trustee shareholder, what the fcuk was that about!

You could have thrown down one for the fees also being greater than 10% for all services. Was stuck for time so didn't bother

For aup I discussed what procedures you must do before undertaking the engagement eg engagement letter, ensure we have the appropriate skills and have access as well as ethics.

For ethics I thought you could discuss es1 re the ethics partner ( as 5 partner firm), not exceeding 10-15% fees for es4. es 5 on the tax provision and the prohibitions of it, and es2 on the relationship with junior and staff. The partner being a shareholder threw me but I thought that the best thing was keep the tax team and audit team separate . What you think

AuditAgain

Failed, and pretty gutted about it.

Seeing things like the mention of a forward contract...a question on IAS11, and then not quite being able to pull together what was going on in the other sim really threw me.

Looking back if I'd just have addressed what I seen I might have picked up enough.

mhamill89

Torres999 wrote: »

I said he shouldnt be able to review any of the tax comps done by the audit team because he was no longer independent but I was clutching at straws

There's something in ES 2 about a partner having a financial interest/being a trustee. Whole paper was a shambles not clear what they were looking for anywhere.

Torres999

What really got me was doing Sim 3 first, quit halfway through and moved on and wet back for the last 30 mins. Seeing that first really shook me.

Like I actually question if I want to be in an institute that keeps doing that to people.

I wouldnt have passed that as an FR indicator in the core, wouldnt have had a clue of the adjustmensts

AuditAgain

Torres999 wrote: »

What really got me was doing Sim 3 first, quit halfway through and moved on and wet back for the last 30 mins. Seeing that first really shook me.

Like I actually question if I want to be in an institute that keeps doing that to people.

I wouldnt have passed that as an FR indicator in the core, wouldnt have had a clue of the adjustmensts

Without knowing how much was invoiced and costs etc I don't think you can formulate adjustments.

Only 2 I can see are recognising the loss and reclassing to payables?

But I haven't looked at IAS 11 calcs in 2 years. Maybe you could?

Torres999

AuditAgain wrote: »

Without knowing how much was invoiced and costs etc I don't think you can formulate adjustments.

Only 2 I can see are recognising the loss and reclassing to payables?

But I haven't looked at IAS 11 calcs in 2 years. Maybe you could?

You would think people that did both core and elective would have the advantage but in this case I actually don't think so because it was so off the wall

IR1SH RANG3R

Dellboy2007 wrote: »

Same here. That AUP was dodgy. Did everyone include the AUP as an ethical threat? What about the tax partner being a trustee shareholder, what the fcuk was that about!

You could have thrown down one for the fees also being greater than 10% for all services. Was stuck for time so didn't bother

ES2 para 21 I think about being a trustee. Was by pure luck I picked it out quick enough when scanning through. They can be trustee as long as benefits won't go to them. I said benefits go to your man's kids so should be alright but need to confirm in agreement

Torres999

Great spot on the trustee thing, jesus I only really got one ethical issue, mentioned ethics in the AUP too so surely they will count that

2ndtimelucky

glad that's over - thought it was tough but fair

on to results day now