DFS - Associates
C2XVT
Registered Posts: 62 Regular contributor ⭐
I'm looking for a pointer...
Does anyone know which DFS papers have questions on 'Associates' in them
I just feel this is a bit of a red herring topic i should get familiar with just incase.
cheers!!
Does anyone know which DFS papers have questions on 'Associates' in them
I just feel this is a bit of a red herring topic i should get familiar with just incase.
cheers!!
0
Comments
-
Does anyone know which DFS papers have questions on 'Associates' in them
It's not been tested in the past. It is however in the syllabus. It could be tested, but it's not a chuncky enough.
Consolidated Income Statement has more then Associates and IS has only been tested twice or 3 times since Dec2003.
It could be a sod's law this year, so don't over look it0 -
Wrong!
Its imperative that if you do not know the answer, you should not state your guess, thats how the forums fill up with non-factual tripe.
I've trawled through the papers and have seen the following
Wednesday 15 June 2005 (morning) - EXAMINATION
(a) Calculate the amount of the investment in the associate, Grant Ltd, that will
appear in the consolidated balance sheet of Bell plc as at 31 March 2005.
(b) Define an “associate” making reference to relevant accounting standards.0 -
DFS Associates
Our tutor is of the opinion that this will not appear on the paper as there were no practice questions in the Osbourne Books relating to it only a Case Study. the case study is even more complex than the ordinary consolidated financial statements. i noticed the question in the past paper but couldn't really understand how it was done.0 -
Hmmmm that imperative if not one I am aware of, surely this is our forum and we have a constructive obligation to fill if up with tripe should we so wish!!! One man's tripe is another man's food for thought.0
-
I thought that tripe comment was nasty but I know that most of the so called "TRIPE" posted on here has helped me all the way through my studies. I try to help when I can and maybe sometimes I get it wrong but as far as I am concerned we are all LEARNING and although some of the advice people give maybe wrong on occasion at least they are trying to help others while learning themselves as they go along!0
-
Isn't the point of the forum to fill it up with tripe?
And seriously, SDV thank you for answering a question, even though apparently you were slightly incorrect (I would not expect anyone to know what exam it has come up in, if any), we now all know that it was assessed in the June 2005 paper, so those of us that now want to have a look, can find it back without having to check every single paper!0 -
OMG how rude for a new member. we all make mistakes and need people to point out where we went wrong. that is the point of posting on a forum that aides studying. I am always dubious going that far back on past papers as so many things change and take a logic that if it is on the sylabus it is there for a reason0
-
I've never heard anything so rude in all my life. Please SDV do not be offended by that, you're posts have been so valuable to my studies I cannot begin to explain.
I have completed the Grant Ltd Question he referred to and I recommend everybody reading this has a bash at it, as it isn't too complicated and it doesn't get any harder, so if you take half an hour to do that question and it does come up, bobs your uncle. And if you do the question and it doesn't come up, you've lost half an hour and you never know, it may come up in future studies and you'll be one step ahead.0 -
Apologies for any offence caused. I don’t think it matters about the how long someone has been on the forum. I was just slightly disappointed that someone would turn around and categorically sayIt's not been tested in the past
When in actual fact it turns out it has been. It can be argued that I should have looked for myself at all off the papers before posting, but I wanted to save some time, and get a pointer.
Again apologies for offending anyone…I am a straight talking person, and have posted as such.0 -
That was not 'straight talking' it was condescending, arrogant emotive language which we don't use on this forum.
As long as you follow that imperative you shoud be fine0 -
I've never heard anything so rude in all my life. Please SDV do not be offended by that, you're posts have been so valuable to my studies I cannot begin to explain.
I have completed the Grant Ltd Question he referred to and I recommend everybody reading this has a bash at it, as it isn't too complicated and it doesn't get any harder, so if you take half an hour to do that question and it does come up, bobs your uncle. And if you do the question and it doesn't come up, you've lost half an hour and you never know, it may come up in future studies and you'll be one step ahead.
I did the question yesterday too Rachey.........................but today for the life of me cant remember anything about it that is how much my brain hurts at the minute! lol0 -
I agree. We have been advised not to even look at past papers for DFS before 2006.0
-
Flower what reasons were you given? I am working backwards, so I may have a good excuse to stop after 2006!
thanks!0 -
Flower what reasons were you given? I am working backwards, so I may have a good excuse to stop after 2006!
thanks!
Hope this helps :-)0 -
Wrong!
Its imperative that if you do not know the answer, you should not state your guess, thats how the forums fill up with non-factual tripe.
I've trawled through the papers and have seen the following
Wednesday 15 June 2005 (morning) - EXAMINATION
(a) Calculate the amount of the investment in the associate, Grant Ltd, that will
appear in the consolidated balance sheet of Bell plc as at 31 March 2005.
(b) Define an “associate” making reference to relevant accounting standards.
well one thing i would like to know if your such an expert why even ask the question please feel free to visit my troll group
and yes we were also told last year to not go beyound 2006 papers0 -
You can't go beyond 2006 papers because they don't examine IFRS. I have had a number of students on my revision days tell me they are doing papers from 2004!! Unless the paper you are doing examines IFRS then you are wasting your time. Granted, there are not many differences between current UK GAAP and IFRS, but there are some differences - for example look at FRS 1 cash flow statements compared to IAS 7 statement of cash flows!!
If you're not working an IFRS paper for DFS, you might as well be studying another paper!!
Good luck for June.
Best wishes
Steve0 -
June 2004 has definately got it in as I have just done the paper today0
-
well one thing i would like to know if your such an expert why even ask the question please feel free to visit my troll group
and yes we were also told last year to not go beyound 2006 papers
ref:It can be argued that I should have looked for myself at all off the papers before posting, but I wanted to save some time, and get a pointer.
A-vic, it sounds like you need to pay another visit to your own troll group...0 -
Thanks for the input Steve - Thats makes sense!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.2K Books to buy and sell
- 2.3K General discussion
- 12.5K For AAT students
- 325 NEW! Qualifications 2022
- 160 General Qualifications 2022 discussion
- 11 AAT Level 2 Certificate in Accounting
- 56 AAT Level 3 Diploma in Accounting
- 95 AAT Level 4 Diploma in Professional Accounting
- 8.9K For accounting professionals
- 23 coronavirus (Covid-19)
- 273 VAT
- 92 Software
- 274 Tax
- 138 Bookkeeping
- 7.2K General accounting discussion
- 202 AAT member discussion
- 3.8K For everyone
- 38 AAT news and announcements
- 345 Feedback for AAT
- 2.8K Chat and off-topic discussion
- 582 Job postings
- 16 Who can benefit from AAT?
- 36 Where can AAT take me?
- 42 Getting started with AAT
- 26 Finding an AAT training provider
- 48 Distance learning and other ways to study AAT
- 25 Apprenticeships
- 66 AAT membership