[jeff]

Welcome to the Q2 2016 CPA Exam Study Group for AUD.

Some BLITZ videos to help your exams: https://www.another71.com/ninja-blitz

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

[Veggie]

Does anyone have a good way to remember the difference between existence and completeness for inventory/fixed assets? For some reason I can't keep them straight.

BEC (2/27) 85

CMA Part 1 (10/14) 440
CMA Part 2 (5/15) 420

[Veggie]

Does anyone have a good way to remember the difference between existence and completeness for inventory/fixed assets? For some reason I can't keep them straight.

BEC (2/27) 85

CMA Part 1 (10/14) 440
CMA Part 2 (5/15) 420

[tjy49]

I'm having trouble with assertions in general. Can anyone give any tips on how to learn which substantive procedures go with which assertion?

Ex) Observation and tracing of inventory go with completeness.

FAR-69, 65, 84 (Feb. 2016)
AUD-86 (May 2016)
BEC-TBD (Aug. 2016)
REG-TBD

Gleim didn't work for me, but Ninja did!

[Anonymous]

My first run at AUD is scheduled for 6/7. Good Luck to everyone that is studying!

[Anonymous]

@Veggie

For existence you pick from the ledger and determine if it exists. ( e.g. You take a recorded asset and trace it back to the supporting document)

For completeness, you pick from source documents and determine if it's properly recorded. (e.g. Select a sample of purchase requisitions and trace them back to detailed records of property, plant, and equipment.)

Vouch (journal/ledger DOWN to the source documents) for Existence
Trace (source documents UP to the journal/ledger) for Completeness

Hope this helps!

[If I can, u can too!]

@tjy49 i learned the substantive procedures for the assertions by reading relevant sections a couple of times and it started to click (i read through 2014 wiley text). you will see some procedures are very similar. i feel this was also the key for passing the Audit exam (finally!). read them and post related questions; and we can all try to work through them with you. gl!

Licensed CPA since Apr 16
Order in sequence of passing
FAR-71,71,79
BEC-80
REG-72,77
AUD-56,72,72,72,80! Thank you, thank you, thank you Lord!
FAR/BEC/AUD: Becker & Yaeger lectures (Wiley & Ninja MCQs). REG: Becker lectures (Ninja MCQs).

[quamikazee]

Would this be a fair statement to assume…

A deficiency or weakness in internal control does not necessarily infer a material mistatement, but a material mistatement infers a weakness or deficiency in internal control

…?

REG - 81 - 2/3/16
BEC - 87 - 4/5/16
AUD - 87 - 6/10/16
FAR - 8/29/16

Becker Self Study only

[marqzho]

quamikazee

Yes

REG 90
FAR 95
AUD 98
BEC 84

[chevylt1]

Hi everyone,

I just had this question and am confused why they call it tracing in the question when it is vouching. Is this just a trick to make me confused?

If the objective of a test of details is to detect overstatements of sales, the auditor should trace transactions from the:
a. Sales journal to the cash receipts journal.
b. Source documents to the accounting records.
c. Cash receipts journal to the sales journal.
d. Accounting records to the source documents.

Explanation
Choice “d” is correct. If the objective of a test of details is to detect overstatements of sales (existence assertion), the auditor should trace transactions from the accounting records (i.e., sales journal) to the source documents (e.g., customer order, sales order, shipping documents, etc.).
Choices “c” and “b” are incorrect. Tracing from the supporting documents to the accounting records gives assurance as to the completeness assertion (all sales are properly included).

[marqzho]

chevylt1

Yes, it happens. Some questions said tracing but instead should be a vouching, and vice versa.

REG 90
FAR 95
AUD 98
BEC 84

[Theodore]

@chevylt1 unfortunately according to becker, the examiners use the terms vouch and trace interchangeably. This is an overstatement question so you will be vouching down. you want to make sure that for ex. A/R do actually exist. anything that deals with over statements you vouch anything that deals with understatement you trace. But be careful because like i said the wording is tricky.

FAR: 66, 76!
REG: 76!
AUD: 72, 9/7/2016
BEC: TBA

Don't Stop When You Are Tired, Stop When You Are Done.

[lolo]

@marqzho & @quamikazee, The existance of material misstatement in F/S is not a material Internal control weakness unless the the internal control was unable to identify and detect that….

My Nick name is sunshine, but the fact is I have not been in touch with it since I started this CPA exam! IT HURTS

AUD - ✔ Passed Becker self study!
BEC - ✔ Passed Becker self study!
FAR - ✔ Passed Becker self study!
REG - TBD

[marqzho]

.Sunshine.

The misstatement is on the F/S NOW. of course the internal control sucks and was unable to ID and detect it. 🙂

REG 90
FAR 95
AUD 98
BEC 84

[chevylt1]

Thanks guys, yeah that is definitely something to look out for, I rushed through the question and saw tracing and picked the wrong answer. Then saw it actually meant vouching.

[lolo]

@marqzho, do use becker?

My Nick name is sunshine, but the fact is I have not been in touch with it since I started this CPA exam! IT HURTS

AUD - ✔ Passed Becker self study!
BEC - ✔ Passed Becker self study!
FAR - ✔ Passed Becker self study!
REG - TBD

[Author]

Replies