Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hey all,

    Was wondering if anyone here took the ICAEW ACA CR exam today? If so, how'd you find it? I initially found questions 1 & 2 alright but question 3 really killed me and now I'm questioning everything I know about life (including what I'd initially thought of the first 2 questions!).

    Am freaking out a little bit here so was wondering if anyone else thought the same? Misery does love company.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Thought it was a *****y paper over all tbh! Didnt have enough time for all the questions! And didnt put much down for the explanation bit of the questions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I agree, it was an absolute awful paper.I had a mock a few days before and felt happy how it went. But there was no core topics tested in the paper today. I can't believe we didn't need to calculate any goodwill or net assets/NCI etc (the calculations is what I prefer)Instead we had awful questions on whether we should include brand name, goodwill and a general allowance for recevables which there wasnt much to write on!One if the questions might have been 2 asked for the FR treatment of the 4 issues in exibit 2 but it actually meant the attachment in exibit 2!! So i started writing about the wrong things..I know loads have people did this as well so i don't think the question was clear.I think the paper was awful, i went over July 17 and thought it was quite a nice paper compared to that ours was awful so I don't have high hopes of passing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Absolute shocker of a paper, how there can be such a disparity in difficulty between July and November in the Same year amazes me. Only topics tested were marginal and not representative of their weighting in the syllabus or the amount of teaching hours allocated to them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ryanbeacall)
    I agree, it was an absolute awful paper.I had a mock a few days before and felt happy how it went. But there was no core topics tested in the paper today. I can't believe we didn't need to calculate any goodwill or net assets/NCI etc (the calculations is what I prefer)Instead we had awful questions on whether we should include brand name, goodwill and a general allowance for recevables which there wasnt much to write on!One if the questions might have been 2 asked for the FR treatment of the 4 issues in exibit 2 but it actually meant the attachment in exibit 2!! So i started writing about the wrong things..I know loads have people did this as well so i don't think the question was clear.I think the paper was awful, i went over July 17 and thought it was quite a nice paper compared to that ours was awful so I don't have high hopes of passing.
    Omg, I'm now freaking out even more! I didn't realise there was an attachment in exhibit 2...? I wrote on the 4 issues, i.e. brand, goodwill, investment property, and one last one that I can't remember lol. Were those not the 4 issues...???

    [Edit] Oh I just re-read your post and realised I might be mistaken, sorry! I thought the 4 issues were in Q1 and related to the brand, goodwill etc. that you mentioned. I thought that Q2 was about the financial instruments (AFS & FVTPL), deferred income, and deferred tax on revaluation of PPE + the other two. Not sure what attachment in exhibit 2 you're referring to...?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    yes they were the 4 issues but in the main exibit there was information on the pension, and provision for staff closures so i started writing about them not realising that if i turned over the page the 4 issues it meant were there!!

    I know a lot of people who made this error and wasted time. I think they should have just done two seperate exibits and not an attachment within an exibit..maybe its just me being stupid.

    The last FR issue was the general allowance for receivables which i didnt think thsre was much to write about.

    And the report to the bank...seemed more like SBM and the audit issues on Q3 payables weren't nice either..im not hopeful!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ryanbeacall)
    yes they were the 4 issues but in the main exibit there was information on the pension, and provision for staff closures so i started writing about them not realising that if i turned over the page the 4 issues it meant were there!!

    I know a lot of people who made this error and wasted time. I think they should have just done two seperate exibits and not an attachment within an exibit..maybe its just me being stupid.

    The last FR issue was the general allowance for receivables which i didnt think thsre was much to write about.

    And the report to the bank...seemed more like SBM and the audit issues on Q3 payables weren't nice either..im not hopeful!!
    Oh yes I found that really weird as well! I wasn't sure whether they wanted us to discuss those issues because they definitely did have an FR focus but I wasn't sure where they were going with that? I just wrote a couple of sentences on them anyway because my accountant brain couldn't handle the fact that there were unadjusted FR issues in my face.

    It does seem like an awful paper overall, but I've been doing some googling and it seems that everyone always complains about the CR paper being ridiculously difficult and yet a lot of them still pass and are surprised that they did. So hopefullyyyyy the ICAEW does some scaling to balance it all out?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah the pension part related to the audit bit of the question I think but i couldn't see why we needed to know about staff redundancy etc...

    I was planning on doing Q2 first as its the main FR issues but as soon as i saw the cashflow i panicked and did Q3 first.

    Never done a share option were they had the choice before so I rushed that and didn't really get anywhere with it.

    Meh I i'm going to need some pretty big scaling to happen ahah so frustating, if only I had sat it in July.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Also found the CR exam to be a shambles. Very unlike any of the mocks and the stuff they examined seemed to be fairly judgemental with so much discussion needed rather than the usual FR calculations. Also, just weird requirements like the report for the bank and the brand/goodwill/receivables which didn't require very much. There was also nothing nice and predictable that we could bank on- DB scheme accounting, straight-forward share based payment, leases/loan calculations, no consolidation calcs! Just didn't feel happy with any part of the paper.

    Did anyone sit the SBM paper today? What are people's thoughts? I found it pretty tough and very time pressured! The second question should have been worth much more than the 42 marks they gave it considering the amount of time and work needed!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chester.)
    Also found the CR exam to be a shambles. Very unlike any of the mocks and the stuff they examined seemed to be fairly judgemental with so much discussion needed rather than the usual FR calculations. Also, just weird requirements like the report for the bank and the brand/goodwill/receivables which didn't require very much. There was also nothing nice and predictable that we could bank on- DB scheme accounting, straight-forward share based payment, leases/loan calculations, no consolidation calcs! Just didn't feel happy with any part of the paper.

    Did anyone sit the SBM paper today? What are people's thoughts? I found it pretty tough and very time pressured! The second question should have been worth much more than the 42 marks they gave it considering the amount of time and work needed!
    Totally agree that there wasn't anything in the CR paper that I am absolutely certain I nailed.

    Did SBM today as well and I too found it ridiculous. I had no idea what kind of assurance we could offer, and I was completely thrown off by the FR treatment of a JV and subsidiary. There just doesn't seem to be much to write about a subsidiary from the parent's POV, not from a group POV so you can't write anything about consolidation either. Really worried about these two. I've got case tomorrow as well and I can't focus on it as I'm still really bothered by these two!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm glad it's not just me who felt the exact same!! I was really banking on a nice consol that I could proper get into, a forex one would have been best!

    Shame that we all had to sit such an awful paper and hopefully as msub94 said the pass mark will come down.

    Also did SBM today, it definitely went a lot better than CR but that wasn't a difficult task!! It was very very time pressured. I started off on Q2 and had to stop myself, the first part when it asked you to reconcile...I managed to do a few calcs and chat about a few things but there was no way you could get it fully reconciled in the time space as well as talk about it and the hedging!

    The second part of Q2 was pretty straight forward BS chat, so I liked that.

    Q1 I found a bit odd, managed to do some attempt at the cashflow's but after reading it further re paying off the debt each year I just ignored that. The second part the risks & benefits I found strange. To me there wasn't much you could write about other than the obvious...risk = you lose your investment...benefit = you make money. Obviously there was a bit more to it than that but didn't seem a very good question.

    The sale and leaseback part was quite nice, funny enough the SBM had better CR stuff than CR!! What a joke!

    I'm a lot more hopeful on SBM than CR though, that's for sure.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by msub94)
    Totally agree that there wasn't anything in the CR paper that I am absolutely certain I nailed.

    Did SBM today as well and I too found it ridiculous. I had no idea what kind of assurance we could offer, and I was completely thrown off by the FR treatment of a JV and subsidiary. There just doesn't seem to be much to write about a subsidiary from the parent's POV, not from a group POV so you can't write anything about consolidation either. Really worried about these two. I've got case tomorrow as well and I can't focus on it as I'm still really bothered by these two!
    I was scrambling for time in the final parts of Q2 so my FR treatment was very light! Copied some fluff out of my open book for JV and just went down the consolidation accounting route for the sub- just said that the parent has control so they can consolidate and they can recognise the investment in their own single co. accounts. Didn't say a whole lot more. After that funky budget/actual profit reconciliation I had so little time left. So annoyed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I believe FR Treatment for the JV was just the forex and having to translate it and also the PPE of £38million I wrote as it was a non-monetary asset wouldn't be subject to re translation were as receivables etc would be.

    For the Sub we had a Financial Asset as we provided them with a loan, so I just spoke about having it held at amortised cost and having to re-translate at the year end using the Closing rate and any interest at the Average rate. (I think that was right)


    (Original post by msub94)
    Totally agree that there wasn't anything in the CR paper that I am absolutely certain I nailed.

    Did SBM today as well and I too found it ridiculous. I had no idea what kind of assurance we could offer, and I was completely thrown off by the FR treatment of a JV and subsidiary. There just doesn't seem to be much to write about a subsidiary from the parent's POV, not from a group POV so you can't write anything about consolidation either. Really worried about these two. I've got case tomorrow as well and I can't focus on it as I'm still really bothered by these two!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ryanbeacall)
    I'm glad it's not just me who felt the exact same!! I was really banking on a nice consol that I could proper get into, a forex one would have been best!

    Shame that we all had to sit such an awful paper and hopefully as msub94 said the pass mark will come down.

    Also did SBM today, it definitely went a lot better than CR but that wasn't a difficult task!! It was very very time pressured. I started off on Q2 and had to stop myself, the first part when it asked you to reconcile...I managed to do a few calcs and chat about a few things but there was no way you could get it fully reconciled in the time space as well as talk about it and the hedging!

    The second part of Q2 was pretty straight forward BS chat, so I liked that.

    Q1 I found a bit odd, managed to do some attempt at the cashflow's but after reading it further re paying off the debt each year I just ignored that. The second part the risks & benefits I found strange. To me there wasn't much you could write about other than the obvious...risk = you lose your investment...benefit = you make money. Obviously there was a bit more to it than that but didn't seem a very good question.

    The sale and leaseback part was quite nice, funny enough the SBM had better CR stuff than CR!! What a joke!

    I'm a lot more hopeful on SBM than CR though, that's for sure.
    Haha! I thought the same! The FR stuff in this paper was lovely compared to CR- a nice bit on held for sale and discontinued operations and then the sale and leaseback!

    But I thought the same for the first part. I harped on about recouping your investment or either losing your investment. I even found the ethics bit pretty grim. It wasn't hugely obvious and I didn't quite grasp the ethical issue. My actions were pretty much "The directors need to all sit down, have a chat and be transparent about stuff". Proper advanced level stuff there!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chester.)
    Haha! I thought the same! The FR stuff in this paper was lovely compared to CR- a nice bit on held for sale and discontinued operations and then the sale and leaseback!

    But I thought the same for the first part. I harped on about recouping your investment or either losing your investment. I even found the ethics bit pretty grim. It wasn't hugely obvious and I didn't quite grasp the ethical issue. My actions were pretty much "The directors need to all sit down, have a chat and be transparent about stuff". Proper advanced level stuff there!
    Yeah Ethics bit was awful as well...pretty much said the same and the...Venture capitalist (can't remember their name) may have not invested if they had known that Geoff wasn't going to be giving this MBO his full attention. AH well!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ryanbeacall)
    Yeah Ethics bit was awful as well...pretty much said the same and the...Venture capitalist (can't remember their name) may have not investment if they had known that Geoff wasn't going to be giving this MBO his full attention. AH well!
    Think I tried to say the same as well- We need Geoff to not be distracted as we need him as the FD to guide the financial success of the company otherwise we'll lose our investment. Also tried to spin something like Geoff as an ICAEW member has the duty of professional competence and due care so he needs to ensure he gives his proper attention to the company. Was really gasping for anything to write that fit into the ICAEW mould of ethics!
    I was really just hoping for a nice obvious intimidation threat, maybe some advocacy threats and the good old self interest. Nope, no such luck.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chester.)
    Think I tried to say the same as well- We need Geoff to not be distracted as we need him as the FD to guide the financial success of the company otherwise we'll lose our investment. Also tried to spin something like Geoff as an ICAEW member has the duty of professional competence and due care so he needs to ensure he gives his proper attention to the company. Was really gasping for anything to write that fit into the ICAEW mould of ethics!
    I was really just hoping for a nice obvious intimidation threat, maybe some advocacy threats and the good old self interest. Nope, no such luck.
    Yeah I noticed he was a member as well, they always add that in! What did you think of the due-dilligence procedures? My open book had things to write for the Financial aspect, and a bit on Commercial, but unfortunately had no details of operating procedures and I couldn't think so just left it blank. I suspect, hopefully, that wasn't worth many marks that bit.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ryanbeacall)
    Yeah I noticed he was a member as well, they always add that in! What did you think of the due-dilligence procedures? My open book had things to write for the Financial aspect, and a bit on Commercial, but unfortunately had no details of operating procedures and I couldn't think so just left it blank. I suspect, hopefully, that wasn't worth many marks that bit.
    I had tabbed up a question in the QB that had split the due diligence procedures into those headings so I blindly followed that structure. For operational I think I went along the lines of looking into the staff cuts and how this could affect the stores (costs can be be cut, but morale, staff numbers etc could then impact operations). Not sure what else I said, but operational procedures was definitely my lightest bit.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 7, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Guide to finance and bankingGuide to accountancy

    Featured recruiter profiles:

    Deutsche Bank logo

    Deutsche Bank is recruiting

    "Thrive in an international banking environment"

    ICAEW logo

    ICAEW

    "Choose a career journey with limitless possibilities."

    Quick link:

    Unanswered finance and accountancy threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.