[jeff]

Welcome to the Q3 2016 CPA Exam Study Group for AUD.

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

[aatoural]

@zyx11 – Becker page A5-40 – One report containing both an opinion on the FS and an opinion on IC all in the opinion paragraph.

Also A5-41-42 has a sample of how the combine report looks like.

BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBS

[HoosierCPA]

I always get these 2 concepts mixed up: “Risk of Incorrect Rejection” and “Risk of Assessing Control Risk too low” Does anyone have a simple way of distinguishing these 2?

FAR - 78
REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
BEC - 82
AUD - Aug 16

[Anonymous]

I don't know if it will help, but here's what I think:

Type 1 (Alpha) = inefficient = I incorrectly reject and do more substantive testing than I need to.

Type 2 (Beta – very very Bad) = ineffective = I trust I/C when I shouldn't, set CR too low, don't do enough testing to realize there are material weaknesses and issue an incorrect opinion.

[HoosierCPA]

@allaboard so if we take the type 2 a step further. In the simulation that I was doing issuing an incorrect opinion would not be an incorrect acceptance that would have been audit risk (the risk of issuing an unmodified opinion when in fact it should have been modified).

So incorrect acceptance relates to a particular account (ex. saying AR is fairly stated when its not) and as a whole if we say the financials are fairly stated and they aren't then that's audit risk?

Does that sound correct?

FAR - 78
REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
BEC - 82
AUD - Aug 16

[Anonymous]

Just to make sure I'm reading that correctly:

my options are either to classify an incorrect opinion as

a. incorrect acceptance; or
b. audit risk

right?

Based on that, yes – an incorrect opinion on the overall FS would be audit risk.

Incorrect acceptance would be control or account specific. Meaning I had a sample that made me think the entire group was good, when in reality that entire group was bad. (Type 2 or Beta sampling risk)

[HoosierCPA]

Alright that helps!

So for the type 1 and type 2..where can I find this in becker? I have forgotten about them and don't remember seeing it at all!

FAR - 78
REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
BEC - 82
AUD - Aug 16

[aatoural]

A5 – 6

BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBS

[HoosierCPA]

Thanks for the quick responses!

FAR - 78
REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
BEC - 82
AUD - Aug 16

[aatoural]

No problem I was actually working on the SIMS for this chapter

BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBS

[patelhj1]

Im working on A4 doing all Becker questions and reading chapter. Will be on A5 tomorrow..

side note if i come across pensions in A4 I will post where it is.

BEC 78 08/2015
REG 71 11/2015, RETAKE 83 01/2016
FAR 75! 5/2016
AUD ? 8/2016

Becker with Nonstop NINJA MCQ
Google most difficult professional exam

[.]

Oh god. I hope I don't get a ratio simulation or a DRS. Not prepared for those.

FAR - June 2016 - 88
REG - July 2016 - 89
AUD - Aug 2016 - review phase currently
BEC - Sep 2016 -

Wiley CPA Excel & Ninja MCQ

[aatoural]

@carcadian – from what Ive noticed on the DRS as long as you read carefully the Exhibits you are good to go

BEC - PASSED
AUD - 8/29/16
FAR - TBS
REG - TBS

[mckan514w]

Can someone help me out here- what have I missed in the wording of these questions that causes one to only disclose and the other to adjust the financials? the way I am reading it is they both had outstanding receivables year 1 and went bankrupt in year 2- but one you only disclosed and the other you adjusted– any insight would be great thanks!

Question 1
Which of the following items would most likely require an adjustment to the financial statements for the year ended December 31, Year 1?

A. Uninsured loss of inventories purchased in Year 1 as a result of a flood in Year 2
B. Settlement of litigation in Year 2 over an event that occurred in Year 2
C. Loss on an uncollectible trade receivable recorded in Year 1 from a customer that declared bankruptcy in Year 2– CORRECT ANSWER
D.Proceeds from a capital stock issuance in Year 2 that was being approved by the board of directors in Year 1

Question 2
Zero Corp. suffered a loss that would have a material effect on its financial statements on an uncollectible trade account receivable due to a customer's bankruptcy. This occurred suddenly due to a natural disaster 10 days after Zero's balance sheet date, but one month before the issuance of the financial statements and the auditor's report. Under these circumstances:
I the financial statements should be adjusted.
II the event requires financial statement disclosure, but no adjustment.
III the auditor's report should be modified for a lack of consistency.
A.I only
B. Both I and III
C. Both II and III
D.II only- CORRECT ANSWER

and they ask me why I drink...

FAR- 61-next time I'll ask for lube instead of a calculator
REG-75- Never been so happy to see such a low grade
BEC- 8/11
AUD- 9/2

[Larry]

@patel and everyone else… pension is on A4-46 on the bottom for presentation and disclosure assertion. Now, I am looking for pension in A6.

REG - 82
FAR - 78
BEC - 76
AUD - 8/27/16

[Anonymous]

I think it has something to do with the natural disaster. I'm not sure if this is right, but what I'm thinking is if someone declares bankruptcy because business is bad, that could've been predicted and you should adjust; but if someone declares bankruptcy because a tornado destroyed the factory, there's no way anyone could predict that would happen, but you still need to let investors know.

[Author]

Replies