March 2026 ACCA Exams Results

Discuss the March results, paper by paper. See the discussion →

Save 20% on ACCA & CIMA Books

Interactive BPP books for the June 2026 exams. Get the discount code →

jingdong

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 25 posts – 1 through 25 (of 114 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #709325
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Hi, I am interested either!

    #709303
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Requirements:
    • explain why the cash-generating units should have been tested for impairment; and

       • discuss whether the methods used to calculate the value in use and discount rate are acceptable.

    I just comfused about its answer’s some explaining:

    1. “Value in useThe lease payment outflows have been discounted at 5% for value in use (VIU) purposes whereas the interest rate implicit in the lease is 4%. Thus, the lease payment outflows would be stated at a lesser amount than the lease liabilities. This would therefore mean that the VIU is higher using Jobon Co’s method which could mean that the asset is under impaired.”

    2. “In accordance with IAS 36, it may be necessary to consider liabilities to determine the recoverable amount of a CGU. This can occur if the disposal of a CGU requires the buyer to assume the liability. If this is the case, the carrying amount of the liability is deducted from both the CGU’s VIU and its carrying amount. Jobon Co has deducted the lease liabilities from the carrying amount of the CGU but has not deducted the same amount from the VIU of the CGU. Therefore, the lease payment outflows should be excluded from the determination of VIU and the carrying amount of the lease liabilities should be deducted instead.”

    #709302
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    This was SBR-INT March/June 2024 past paper , question 3:

    Jobon Co is a lessee. It leases a number of commercial properties which it uses as retail stores. As a result of an increase in customer online shopping, Jobon Co’s revenue from these retail stores has halved. Each retail store is a cash-generating unit (CGU) and comprises right-of-use assets, fixtures and fittings and allocated central assets.Jobon Co calculated that a total impairment loss of $50 million should be recognised in relation to the retail store CGUs.Jobon Co deducted the lease liabilities when calculating the net carrying amount of the CGUs for impairment purposes. Jobon Co assessed value in use (VIU) to be the recoverable amount. Instead of deducting the lease liabilities from VIU, Jobon Co included contractual lease payments within the future estimated net cash flows of the CGU.The future estimated net cash flows used to calculate VIU were determined using internal management forecasts covering the next 10 years. These future estimated net cash flows also included costs of $5 million to install advertising technology in the properties to enhance the CGU’s performance.The future estimated net cash flows were discounted at 5%. This is the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) of another company in the retail sector which purchased rather than leased its commercial properties. The interest rate implicit in the lease was 4%.

    #706472
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Thanks

    #706007
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Thanks, do you mean the acca website’s anwer is right?

    #705716
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Thanks, its original answer is right, I mistakely treated the Fx loss as Fx gain. thanks again!

    #705437
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    9,191 to reverse out of retained earnings(CR)
    5,515 to foriegn exchange reserve(DR)
    3,677 to NCI(DR)

    sorry it is my typing mistake, its original anwer is like above.

    #705436
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    It said that : to reverse out of retained earnings, but it’s double entry logo is “CR”

    #705435
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Originally, its draft consolidated statement didn’t have Foriegn exchange reserve, because they put all of profit and exchange different into retained earning at that time.
    do you think is it possible this answer is wrong!

    #705434
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    the above is its answer and said that:
    9,191 to reverse out of retained earnings(CR)
    5,515 to foriegn exchange reserve(DR)
    5,515 to foriegn exchange reserve(DR)

    very confused about, is it a specific rule behind it?

    Many thanks

    #705433
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    $000 Retranslate Zian’s FS (W1) Retranslate goodwill FS (W2)
    Assets
    Non-current assets
    Property,plant and equipment 384,600
    Financial Assets 22,300
    Goodwill 3,300 -550
    Current Assets 29,000

    Total Assets 439,200

    Equity

    Share capital 60,000
    Other component of equity 30,000
    Foriegn exchange reserve -5,515 -550
    Retained earnings 119,400 9,192
    209,400

    Non controlling interest 19,800 -3,677
    Total equity 229,200
    Liabilities
    Non-Current liabilities 94,000
    Current liabilities 116,000

    Total liabilities 210,000
    Total equities and liabilities 439,200

    #705411
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    This question is from acca study hub. practice question 1 Ribby Co

    Many thanks

    #694214
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Dear Sir and Madam, I have logged in ACCA Practice Platform, I can only practice questions, I can’t find any answer of it! would you please help me?

    Many thanks

    #673550
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Thanks

    #673465
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    The answer said that Contingent liabilities after initial recognition must be measured at the higher of the amount that would be recognised under IAS 37 provision, contingent liabilities and contingent assets and the amount initially recognised under IFRS3, I am confused it.
    accordingly the answer choose $6m.

    However later in the end of calculation goodwill, there is last row item shown as : Contingent liability: $6m-$5m (1).

    basically based on answer logical like these: when calculating net asset of entity at acquisition date, choose $6m; while when calculating goodwill especially in the last row minus $1m. I don’t understand what theory it included.

    would you please explain a bit further?

    Many thanks

    #673464
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Many thanks, but why the answer is $6m?

    #673162
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆
    #672886
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Thanks, the Lease liability 1.9 with accumulated interest 10% deducts 5 years payment 5×500,000, in the end the lease liability will be nill.

    However if Dr Lease liability 0.2; Cr Prepayment 0.2, in the end lease liability will be Debit side balance 0.2, how to deal with it?
    Many thanks

    #669473
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Many thanks

    #666773
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    I think the impairment should be allocated by this priority: Firstly PPE 20; Secondly Good will 10. If the information didn’t mention PPE’s recoverable amount, and impairment allocation priority will be: Good will 30. Many thanks if there has second opinion!

    #662403
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Dear Stephen, the answer in the amortised value section also said that initial loan: 47×1.05 for 5 years=59.98; new loan 45×1.074 for 4 years=59.89, which they are almost identical on 30/11/2009. do you think this is an evidence of level 1 active market to measure both loan fare value as 45 at 31/11/2005?
    Many thanks

    #659717
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Dear Stephen, many thanks! I will not do it, but actually I type them manually one by one.

    Another question is that is the expensing contributions an another normal treatment for DB schemes?

    The answer that you gave me previously mentioned error, do you think expensing contribution in P/L was mistake, and later correction by revering the expense.
    Do I understand in right way?

    Best Regards

    #659526
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    opening liability $15 m
    net interest cost ($15mx8%) $1.2 m
    Current service cost $5m
    Gain on curtainment ($4m-$3m) ($1m)
    Cash contribution ($6m)
    subtotal $14.2
    Loss on remeasurement $2.8
    Closing liability $17m

    Correct double entry:
    Debit: OCI (and OCE) $2.8m
    Credit: P/L 1.2+5-6-1 $0.8m
    Credit: Non-current liabilities $2m

    #659524
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Thanks, however I have to type all relevant question in here:
    Bubble operates a defined benefit scheme for its employees but has yet to record anything for the current year except to expense the cash contribution which were $6 million. the opening position was a net liability of $15 million which is included in the non-current liabilities of Bubble in its draft financial statements. Current service costs for the year were $5 million and interest rates on good quality corporate bonds fell from 8% at the start of the year to 6% by 31/10/2005. in addition, a payment of $3 million was made out of the cash of the pension scheme in relation to employees who left the scheme. the reduction in the pension scheme liability as a result of the curtainment was $4 million. the actuary has assessed that scheme is in deficit by $17 million as at 31/10/2005.

    The answer relevant to cash contribution said that : the cash contributions of $6 million will need to be reversed from P/L and will reduce the net obligation on the pension scheme.

    would you please explain what it is? many thanks

    #659512
    Avatarjingdong
    Participant
    • Topics: 88
    • Replies: 115
    • ☆☆☆

    Thanks, but in an question, its double entry like that: Dr Pension assets; Cr P/L, would you please help me what situation could cause this kind of double entry?

    Many thanks

Viewing 25 posts – 1 through 25 (of 114 total)

Announcement

June 2026 exam prep is live

All updated notes, lectures and tests are now available for the June 2026 sitting. Start studying →