[jeff]

I’ve had a few requests for April/May Study Groups…March will be here before you know it.

In order to take an early April exam, you should begin studying…now. 🙂

Jeff Elliott, CPA (KS) | Another71 | NINJA CPA | NINJA CMA | NINJA CPE

[NYCaccountant]

How are you doing on the Ninja MCQ?

FAR - 93
REG - 87
BEC - 84!!!!
AUD - 99!!!!!! CPA exam complete.

[Gabe]

Literally haven't started. I want to get through all the WTB- on the last section…then I am going to do the NINJA ones tonight or tomorrow and see. How about you?

Also, OT, but how long did you study for each section? For FAR I definitely studied too long which was detrimental to my score.

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[NYCaccountant]

77% on Ninja and 85% on Wiley. I took 2-3 months for FAR and REG, and like a month and a half for BEC. I should have taken Audit at the end of this month, but I'm not ready because I procrastinated. I'm taking it in July now, just waiting for an NTS.

FAR - 93
REG - 87
BEC - 84!!!!
AUD - 99!!!!!! CPA exam complete.

[Gabe]

Yeah I'm trying to up my WTB scores…right now in the 80s on most.

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[Gabe]

If the objective of an auditor’s test of details is to detect a possible understatement of sales, the auditor most likely would trace transactions from the

A. Sales invoices to the shipping documents.

B. Cash receipts journal to the sales journal.

C. Shipping documents to the sales invoices.

D. Sales journal to the cash receipts journal.

If it is an understatement, they are testing for completeness…right? So, I chose A. However, the answer is C because you're testing for the “existence of sales invoices.” I am confused.

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[NYCaccountant]

Transaction cycle for sales – Sales order, followed by Shipping info, followed by invoice, followed by sales journal entry.

You are trying to find sales that have not been recorded, so you must start with either a sales order, or shipping info, basically a source document that states you sold XYZ merchandise on this date. You then look at the sales journal and determine if this is actually recorded, if not, then sales is understated. Or in this case, you look whether the invoice has been recorded or not, since this is the next step in the process. I can argue that this is actually testing completeness and not existence, because existence would test whether the asset liability actually exists, which means you have to work backwards from the journal entry to the source documents.

FAR - 93
REG - 87
BEC - 84!!!!
AUD - 99!!!!!! CPA exam complete.

[JamesBJames]

When you test for completeness, it's basically a question of coverage. You can eliminate B and D quickly because you really don't trace journal to journal.

For this question, it's important to understand how the revenue cycle works and roughly what comes in what order. Here, the shipping documents are prepared first. Later, A/R uses the shipping documents and a few other things in the matching process, and they prepare the invoice; that is, the invoice comes second.

So if we're testing for completeness, we want to make sure that each shipping document (prepared first) has a corresponding invoice (prepared second). If an invoice is missing, then a sale isn't getting recorded, thus understating sales. Letter C is the correct answer.

A is what we would do if we wanted to test for existence and catch possible overstatements. We would make sure that every invoice (prepared second) has a corresponding shipping document (prepared first), essentially double-checking that there are no fictitious invoices.

FAR: May 1st, 2014 - 91
AUD: May 29th, 2014 - 97!
BEC: July 16th, 2014 - 91
REG: August 29th, 2014 - 88

Licensed December 2015

Feel free to add me on LinkedIn by clicking my username!

[zieba]

Hi guys,

Figured I'd poll, which do you think offers more value? Hitting Wiley TB MCQ's or Becker MCQ's until test day?

If I'm not doing MCQ's, I'm reading through my 100 pages of Becker final review notes which tie all the large concepts nicely. I feel like I am more effective with WTB, and I like the presentation better, but I see 40-60 questions on some large sections – like sampling – and I feel like Becker's breadth is better in these areas because of the larger number of questions.

Would anyone go as far to say that WTB is insufficient alone as a question test bank?

I am flying back home Friday night and have Sat-Sun-Mon and Tue until 3PM to continuously practice the material.

AUD - 75*, 88 done 5/14! (*exp)
BEC - 74 , 77
REG - 65 , 76 (10 point combooo!!)
FAR - 69 , 75

Dr: perseverance
Dr: intelligence
Dr: luck
. Cr: . advisory score

[Gabe]

I wouldn't say WTB is insufficient by itself, but, I have gone through all the WTB and have memorized the answers…so the scores I am getting are skewed. I'd go back and forth between the two. I do WTB questions, then when I realize I am just “going through the motions” I switch to Becker…now on to Ninja MCQs 🙂

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[Gabe]

I don't have my book in front of me, can anyone explain how a change in accounting principle vs a change in accounting estimate may modify the audit report? One of them does modify and the other doesn't but I can't recall which is which

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[JamesBJames]

I would guess change in principle requires an emphasis-of-matter paragraph and change in estimate doesn't require anything. I remember from FAR that a change in accounting principle is much more important. Estimates change all the time. As long as they're reasonable and the auditor agrees with them, there shouldn't be a need to emphasize them.

FAR: May 1st, 2014 - 91
AUD: May 29th, 2014 - 97!
BEC: July 16th, 2014 - 91
REG: August 29th, 2014 - 88

Licensed December 2015

Feel free to add me on LinkedIn by clicking my username!

[Gabe]

Thanks James! Congrats on the FAR score!!

CPA, CFE
CISA- Experience will be completed by August 2016

[zieba]

JBJ is correct, but just to add:

I've seen questions where they will give you a change in estimate as an answer choice (which is accounted for prospectively,. and as JBJ noted without fanfare) and claim that it was implemented by adjusting beginning RE. This is a violation of GAAP and would require modification.

Watch out for grenades! takes on a whole new meaning here.

AUD - 75*, 88 done 5/14! (*exp)
BEC - 74 , 77
REG - 65 , 76 (10 point combooo!!)
FAR - 69 , 75

Dr: perseverance
Dr: intelligence
Dr: luck
. Cr: . advisory score

[iddyrashy]

There is no doubt changing of principle required emphasis of the matter. However, estimates changing depends with the auditor judgement after valuation of the changes. If the changes is material and stipulate inconsistency between the period then the auditor can add the emphasis of the matters on the changes.

AUD 89 (07/06/14)
REG 83 (08/27/2015)
FAR 78 (04/27/2015)
BEC 75 (11/13/2015)

TEXAS 2016

[JamesBJames]

FINALLY done with Becker's AUD book. The last part of A6 was kinda bizarre — quality control at the very end of the book? I feel like it used to be somewhere else but then got moved around for the 2014 edition and the editors just didn't have much of a clue where to put it. Lots of repeated information in it, too. What an odd thing to wrap up with.

At any rate, I've got a good week for final review. How are you guys planning on reviewing? I was thinking I'd spend tomorrow rereading the book and going through homework questions, section by section until I feel comfortable. I forget a lot of stuff from A1-A3 because I was lazy and decided not to do any progress tests for AUD like I did for FAR.

Edit: Oh, and @gabequinn — thanks! It takes a lot of pressure off AUD. =)

FAR: May 1st, 2014 - 91
AUD: May 29th, 2014 - 97!
BEC: July 16th, 2014 - 91
REG: August 29th, 2014 - 88

Licensed December 2015

Feel free to add me on LinkedIn by clicking my username!

[Author]

Replies