[complicated]

Oh dear, I am so sorry for getting your name mixed up.

Would symbols include verbal representations as well? BPP study text includes this under the definition of symbols: “verbal representation like language and titles can symbolise the nature of an organisation”

It then uses an example of “Mechanics use jargon which customer don’t understand to describe parts and problems” to describe “language”.

What is the purpose of identifying this? How does it define the culture of the organisation?

Hoping you could help me on this, thank you once again, Ken.

[complicated]

Oh dear, I am so sorry for getting your name mixed up.
Would symbols include verbal representations as well? BPP study text includes this under the definition of symbols: “verbal representation like language and titles can symbolise the nature of an organisation”

It then uses an example of “Mechanics use jargon which customer don’t understand to describe parts and problems” to describe “language”.

What is the purpose of identifying this? How does it define the culture of the organisation?

Hoping you could help me on this, thank you once again, Ken.

[complicated]

I tried to answer using approach 1 today and it is so much easier now. Thanks for the help again 🙂

[complicated]

Sorry about this. Looks like the system finally decided to post the question I typed 6 days ago.

[complicated]

That’s great. Thank you for the amazing help as always 🙂

[complicated]

I’m sorry Ken, for some odd reason I couldn’t post anything on this forum. Even if I could I could only post one paragraph – if I tried a longer paragraph my post would have not gone through. I’ve been trying to post something here since yesterday.

The above post was not complete- I’m sorry again. I don’t think I can post the full question here for your easy reference now, so I’ll get to the point. What I meant to ask was:

My question:
I do not understand how “three monthly meeting between franchisee and representative” could be classified under “service”. Shouldn’t it have been under “outbound logistics” instead?

Whereas in BPP revision kit, the answer says that that should be under “Marketing and sales” because it is because of this ordering process that persuades the neighborhood shops to enter into a contract with Perfect Shopper.

I am so terribly confused right now..

Hoping for your help on this, thank you!

[complicated]

Hello Ken,

I am confused with the identification of the primary activities in the value chain of this company:

Question:
Local neighbourhood shops are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with supermarkets. However, three years ago, the Perfect Shopper franchise group was launched that allowed these neighbourhood shops to join the group and achieve cost savings on tinned and packaged goods, particularly groceries. Perfect Shopper purchases branded goods in bulk from established food suppliers and stores them in large purpose-built warehouses, each designed to serve a geographical region. When Perfect Shopper was established it decided that deliveries to these warehouses should be made by the food suppliers or by haulage contractors working on behalf of these suppliers. Perfect Shopper places orders with these suppliers and the supplier arranges the delivery to the warehouse. These arrangements are still in place. Perfect Shopper has no branded goods of its own.

[complicated]

Thanks for your response Ken. What if we are asked to “assess” or “explain”? Will we be awarded marks for writing a concluding paragraph even if these aren’t professional marks?

[complicated]

@april04 said:
84% pass…. great result! Comgratulations!
I got only 66% myself. I am still happy;)

Thank you! Congrats to you, those are great results too 🙂

[complicated]

Got 84%, still reasonable.

[complicated]

@abdiaziz said:
Did we have to use the ratios to identify audit risks? there were many audit risks even without looking at the ratio. what if somebody used the general audit risks on the question?

I think you do have to mention the calculated ratios in some of the audit risks answers like the receivables, inventory, cost of sales vs operating expenses. But I think if your answers are detailed enough you should be able to get 1 mark for each point made even without relating to the ratios. I’ve read some examiner reports and the examiners have never mentioned the problem of students not relating to the ratios calculated.

[complicated]

@samthomas901 said:
Nah was material. Was over 1% of revenue and the question even stated that the audit materiality was based on revenue.

On another note, how grim were the McQ’s! Averaged 20/30 in most of the past papers but don’t think I was 100% on any of the ones I put.

I agree. The MCQs in this sitting were quite thought provoking. They were usually very straightforward in the past papers but in this exam I had to think thoroughly before answering them. Luckily the section B made up for it.

[complicated]

@tomlloyd393 said:
Yeah i did the same with regards to the material question I put a qualified opinion as i concluded it was material but not pervasive. I think we have got that one wrong though as I think it actually was unfortunately immaterial.

Why do you think that that was immaterial?

[complicated]

@andreashat said:
If you mean for the 5 marks question it was given also the Revenue figure which for that was material.

For the question 10 regarding the adovacy threat I have understandfrom the statement that the client was promoting the services of the Audit firm!

For that marketing scenario in question 10, I believe it was self-interest threat, rather than advocacy threat.

[complicated]

@tomlloyd393 said:
I think I put ADDDD which I felt was most likely wrong due to the amount of D’s ?

Mine was ADDDD too (I think?). Pretty sure they were right. Fingers crossed.

For the materiality question on trade payables and accrual, anyone said that the understatement was material? I almost said that it was immaterial, but the misstatement represented 1% of total revenue and 3% of total liabilities after all. Seemed like material to me, but this has been bugging me since the exam.

[complicated]

The exams just ended and it was quite okay, thank you for taking your time in clarifying my doubts for the past 6 months!
🙂 🙂

[complicated]

I am sorry for bringing this up again, if an engagement partner leaves the audit firm last year to join the audit client, how will it give rise to a self interest threat? I’m confused as to how the ex-engagement partner could influence the current year audit team without linking to familiarity threat.

[complicated]

You are a life saviour, thank you!

[complicated]

I see, Thank you so much!

[complicated]

Okay, thank you for the detailed explanation!

[complicated]

So saying this would give rise to a familiarity threat (rather than a self interest threat) is more appropriate, is that correct?

[complicated]

Perfect, thank you for the help 🙂

[complicated]

That’s great, thank you!

[complicated]

Okay, I can understand it better now. Many thanks for your help again 🙂

[complicated]

I see. In the exam, if such a situation (example 2 above) comes up, can I disclaim an opinion (assuming the effects are pervasive) and include an OM paragraph explaining what was included in the directors’ report?

[Author]

Posts