DFS - Associates

C2XVT

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!!

sdv

C2XVT wrote: »

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 it

C2XVT

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.

sainty

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.

reddwarf

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.

jewels.p

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!

Rinske

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!

Primble

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 reason

Rachey

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.

C2XVT

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 say

sdv wrote: »

It'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.

reddwarf

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 fine

jewels.p

Rachey wrote: »

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! lol

flower

I agree. We have been advised not to even look at past papers for DFS before 2006.

reddwarf

Flower what reasons were you given? I am working backwards, so I may have a good excuse to stop after 2006!

thanks!

Rachey

reddwarf wrote: »

Flower what reasons were you given? I am working backwards, so I may have a good excuse to stop after 2006!

thanks!

Because of the change in standards, but associates is in the syllabus so could be tested. I have attempted earlier papers but just the calculation questions, not the reasons behind it, IAS's and such.

Hope this helps :-)

A-Vic

C2XVT wrote: »

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 papers

Steve Collings

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
Steve

hixie

June 2004 has definately got it in as I have just done the paper today

C2XVT

A-Vic wrote: »

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:

C2XVT wrote: »

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...

C2XVT

Thanks for the input Steve - Thats makes sense!