[jeff]

Free Study Planner, Notes, Audio, Flashcards: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-study-plan/

Free CPA Exam Survival Guide: https://www.another71.com/cpa-exam-survival-guide/

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

[NYCaccountant]

Geez! 12 hours?! if you can make it, that's unbelievably great!

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

[LIZZ]

Hi All,

This has to be the 4th time I joined the AUD study group. I keep picking this exam up and putting it back down. My Becker and Gliem have expired this year. I picked up the Ninja MCQ's software and working my way through the assessment phase. II took a ton of notes on with my Becker class and I am taking the time although it is painful to re-write my notes. My goal is to do 100 Q's a day and re-write my notes 1 hour a day. I also decided to take some study material with me to the gym for the cardio machines. I know I can pass I just need to put in the effort for about 4 weeks in a row.

GOOD LUCK EVERYONE!

opps i guess i better edit my signature –

AUDIT – 07.2014

FAR – 08.2014

REG/BEC – 4th Qtr

Pass before my Birthday 12/12/2014

FAR - 05/2015
AUD - 75,11/2014
REG - 07/2015
BEC - 09/2015

[Qlad]

want to master transaction cycles this weekend…still have to reach the point where i dream of aud mcqs every night…then i'm satisfied with my studies

FAR 72,71,81 🙂
AUD 64,71, 72, 75 🙂 I'm done !!!
REG 73, 74, 74, 84 🙂
BEC 76 🙂

[iddyrashy]

So I did my first simulation exam, average 83%. It take me about 3.3hrs. MCQ I average 88%. I screw up on SIMs average 76%, I missed one question 100% that drop the average. I did this exam base on CPAexcel simulation. I am planning to simulate Becker tomorrow.

In the end SIMs is a nightmare headquarter.

Breakdown

Multiple Choice Testlet 93%

Multiple Choice Testlet 90%

Multiple Choice Testlet 80%

Sims

1 80%

2 87%

3 0%

4 66%

5 100%

6 100%

7 100%

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

TEXAS 2016

[Anonymous]

Are financial ratios really tested in AUD? There are a few pages on Becker A4 appendix. Not sure if it's worth reviewing. Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

They are and they are.

tested and worth studying.

[funtiks]

know the ratios

I got 3 FAR sims on my last exam….

I suggest checking out F4 sim 1-2

F3 sim 2

seems like something they can sneak in there

FAR - 76*, 73, 85
BEC - 69, 72, 78*, 80
AUD - 72, 71, 90
REG - 71, 74, 85

AFTER 3 YEARS I'M DONE!!!

[Pumpkins]

Hey guys. Just one week away for me! Going to take the Gleim practice exam tomorrow.

Today I'm just trying to finish ALL Becker questions. They are so straightforward, I know almost all of them and feel very comfortable with the material. However, then I get to the Gleim and Wiley questions and get around 80% and 75% respectively 🙁

I think my plan is to just keep doing MCQs and focus on my weak areas.. make sure I know ratios/audit reports/assertions extremely well… then just do my best on the actual exam.

AUD- 93
BEC- 81
FAR- 1/26/2015
REG- TBD

CIA Exams Passed in March, 2014

[mjp44]

Some confusion with tracing and vouching. So basically, i know that Vouching is a test of existence and Tracing is a test of completeness. With vouching you start with the account/journal entry and work backwards to assure that the entry or balances is legit. With tracing, you start with source documents and assure that accounts are properly recorded.

I get confused because Becker implies that vouching deals with just verifying that assets/revenues exist and are not overstated and tracing deals with veryifying completeness of liabilities. However, you can actually vouch that liabilities are properly recorded as well. For instance, verifying that year-end payables were properly recorded/accrued at year-end due to vouching cash disbursements made after year-end.

Am i correct with this logic?

FAR- PASSED (11/13)
REG- PASSED (2/14)
BEC- PASSED (5/14)
AUD- PASSED (8/14)

If it's important to you, you will find a way. If it isn't, you will find an excuse.

[NYCaccountant]

In my opinion, vouching will not work for the valuation assertion. I say this because you are going from accounting records to support, but what if I neglected to even record the payable? In that case my payables would be wrong, but the test would show my payables are correct because it's only testing what I recorded. The best way to make sure the payables are properly stated at year end is looking at subsequent payments, probably looking at receiving reports, purchase orders, and seeing if they match a voucher, and then seeing if that voucher is recorded. That's just my two cents on it.

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

[JamesBJames]

I had two or three FAR SIMs on my AUD test, for what it's worth. You've gotta be comfortable with the financial topics. Adjusting journal entries and ratios seem to historically come up a lot.

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!

[NYCaccountant]

The adjusting journal entries I don't have an issue with. I do so many at work, I'm very use to them. The ratios, I took BEC before this, but AUD seems to focus solely on turnover and working capital ratios, which are the easy ones to remember since they're the most common.

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

[mjp44]

Which of the following procedures would an auditor most likely perform in searching for unrecorded liabilities?

a. Compare a sample of purchase orders issued just after year-end with the year-end accounts payable trial balance.

b. Vouch a sample of cash disbursements recorded just after year-end to receiving reports and vendor invoices.

c. Vouch a sample of accounts payable entries recorded just before year-end to the unmatched receiving report file.

d. Scan the cash disbursements entries recorded just before year-end for indications of unusual transactions.

Correct answer is B. So in this problem they are vouching for completeness? They start with look at cash disbursements recorded and vouch down to the underlying support to verify the payables were properly recorded at year-end. The reason why this is confusing is I associate vouching with testing for existence but in this instance its testing for completeness. Therefore vouching is necessarily always at test for existence and likewise tracing can be used to test for existence?

FAR- PASSED (11/13)
REG- PASSED (2/14)
BEC- PASSED (5/14)
AUD- PASSED (8/14)

If it's important to you, you will find a way. If it isn't, you will find an excuse.

[NYCaccountant]

Yes, searching for unrecorded liabilities is the completeness assertion. Assurance that payables are recorded. The thing is that you are vouching from subsequent cash payments to receiving reports to see if what they paid for was not included and why.

When you vouch from the journal entry to the supporting documentation – thats existence. Vouching can mean different things, I think it's important to note that these are two different situations.

In the first example, you vouching from accounting record to accounting record, basically.

The second you vouching from journal entry to supporting documentation.

I Remember when issuing vouchers, they match up receiving reports, invoices with vouchers, to see if it's been recorded.

If I wanted to test for completeness, technically I can look at vendor invoices, receiving reports, purchase orders and then look for vouchers, followed by following the voucher to the accounting records . I can accomplish the same thing.

I remember reading something that said don't get to caught up the meaning of vouching and tracing because they often are substituted for one another. I dig through my stuff, see if I can find it and share.

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

[NYCaccountant]

Can someone help me out with this? Is this Ninja sim incorrect? By definition, average equity is beginning equity plus ending equity divided by 2. I did that and Ninja marked me incorrect because they they took net income divided by ending equity for year 2, but in their explanation they include the definition below and then did the calc a complete different way. What am I missing?

“Return on equity = Net income less preferred dividends ÷ Average common stockholders' equity

No preferred dividends were paid.

Net income for Year 1 = $24,400,000

Stockholders' equity for Year 1 = $86,500,000

$24,400,000 ÷ $86,500,000 = 28.21% for Year 1

Net income for Year 2 = $13,815,000

Stockholders' equity for Year 2 = $100,315,000

$13,815,000 ÷ $100,315,000 = 13.77% for Year 2″

It's SIM #55 by the way.

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

[Author]

Replies