[Lentilcounter]

During one of the most recent AICPA/NASBA webinars, the AICPA presenter bought up the CPA exam blueprints available on the AICPA website. He said that we should reference these blueprints in preparing for the exams and then there should be no surprises. He also said that any content group/topic that is tested at the analysis level is fair game for a simulation. I have created a short summary below. While the language in the blueprints can be somewhat vague, I think if you at least have a mastery of the topics below, simulations shouldn’t scare you.

Balance sheet/statement of financial position
A) detect, investigate and correct discrepancies while agreeing the balance sheet amounts to supporting documentation
B) calculate fluctuations and ratios and interpret the results while reviewing comparative balance sheets

Income statement/statement of profit or loss
A) detect, investigate and correct discrepancies while agreeing the income statement amounts to supporting documentation
B) calculate fluctuations and ratios and interpret the results while reviewing comparative income statements

Statement of comprehensive income
A) detect, investigate and correct discrepancies while agreeing the statement of comprehensive amounts to supporting documentation

Statement of changes in equity
A) detect, investigate and correct discrepancies while agreeing the statement of changes in equity to supporting documentation

Statement of cash flows
A) detect, investigate and correct discrepancies while agreeing the statement of cash flows to supporting documentation
B) derive the impact of transactions on the statement of cash flows

Notes to the financial statements
A) compare the notes to the financial statements to the financial statements and supporting documentation to identify inconsistencies and investigate those inconsistencies

Consolidated financial statements (including wholly owned subsidiaries and noncontrolling interests)
A) detect, investigate and correct discrepancies while agreeing the consolidated financial statement amounts to supporting documentation

Cash and cash equivalents
A) reconcile the cash balance per the bank statement to the general ledger
B) investigate unreconciled cash balances to determine whether an adjustment to the general ledger is necessary

Trade receivables
A) prepare a rollforward of the trade receives account balance using various sources of information
B) reconcile and investigate differences between the subledger and general ledger for trade receives to determine whether an adjustment is necessary

Inventory
A) reconcile and investigate differences between the subledger and general ledger for inventory to determine whether an adjustment is necessary
B) prepare a rollforward of the inventory account balance using various sources of information

Property, Plant, and Equipment
A) prepare a rollforward of the property, plan, and equipment account balance using various sources of information
B) reconcile and investigate differences between the subledger and general ledger for property, plant, and equipment to determine whether an adjustment is necessary

Payables and accrued liabilities
A) reconcile and investigate differences between the subledger and general ledger for accounts payable and accrued liabilities to determine whether an adjustment is necessary

Revenue Recognition
A) interpret agreements, contracts and/or other supporting documentation to determine the amount and timing of revenue to be recognized in the financial statements
B) reconcile and investigate the differences between the sales subledger and the general subledger to determine whether an adjustment is necessary

Account changes and error corrections
A) derive the impact to the financial statements and related note disclosure of an accounting change or an error correction

Contingencies and commitments
A) review supporting documentation to determine whether a commitment or contingency requires recognition or disclosure in the financial statements

Leases
A) interpret agreements, contracts and/or other supporting documentation to determine the appropriate accounting treatment of a leasing arrangement and prepare the journal entries that a lessee should record.

Subsequent events
A) derive the impact to the financial statements and required note disclosues due to identified subsequent events

BEC = 79

AUD = 79

FAR = 84

REG = 86

Prayer + AICPA blueprints = my success

BEC = 72 (6/08/16)
FAR = ?
REG = ?
AUD = ?

[Recked]

Noticing Pensions/PBO has no analysis box checked.
I find this awfully suspicious.

Memento Mori - Kingston NY CPA & EA (SUNY Albany 2002)

FAR-93 11/9/17 (10wks, 250 hrs, Roger 1800+ MCQs, Gleim TB 600+MCQs, SIMs)
AUD-88 12/7/17 (3 wks, 85 hrs, Roger 1000 MCQs no SIMs hail mary)
REG-96 1/18/18 (6 wks, 110 hrs, 1400 MCQs, no SIMs)
BEC-91 2/16/18 (4wks, 90 hrs, 1240 MCQs)

[Ana]

it doesn't but you should be rightfully suspicious. it might just pop up in a sim. don't disregard it.

BEC - 78
AUD - 75
REG - 64, 77
FAR - 73, 73, 73, 82
Ethics: 74, 84, 98
Finally done after 23 months.

[Will]

Took FAR for 2nd time yesterday (first time in September) and can confirm that this list is nearly verbatim from what I saw on the exams. I have to admit that Roger and Ninja review give you easier versions of what I saw on the exam.

Also, for MCQs, Roger, another 71, and Wiley give you ample multiple choice questions to practice. I blew right through the MCQs w/out a sweat.

AUD - 75
BEC - NINJA in Training
FAR - 76
REG - 79

Will Norling

[Lentilcounter]

@Will

Hope you passed and I hope you got to see this list before your exam! Thanks for the confirmation about what you saw.

BEC = 79

AUD = 79

FAR = 84

REG = 86

Prayer + AICPA blueprints = my success

BEC = 72 (6/08/16)
FAR = ?
REG = ?
AUD = ?

[Bluetoothray]

Has anyone sorted out the Ninja SIM #s that correspond to this list yet?

AUD - Passed

BEC - Passed

REG - Passed

FAR - Passed

CPA - VA

[Wannafree]

@will , you mean SIM matched verbatim with Blueprint ,isn't it ?

WannaB

[PNS2CLT]

Honestly, I appreciate Lentilcounter's efforts, but none of the sims in Becker, Ninja, etc. replicate the current TBS. Know the material and do the AICPA sample test and you'll do well. Shortcut it… and you won't.

[Bluetoothray]

@PNS2CLT I don't really know how “Doing the AICPA sample test” is all that helpful. It's a handful of questions with a handful of sims, not very representative of the actual exam IMHO

AUD - Passed

BEC - Passed

REG - Passed

FAR - Passed

CPA - VA

[Anonymous]

I think the sample test just gives you a flavor of what may be….the SIMS in review courses are nothing like the actual test, but practicing them still helps. Even though for REG I would agree they were largely useless in my prep….I am going to focus on JE ones mostly because that's the part I am most nervous about. Everything else can be viewed as an extension of the MCQ.

[Ana]

@pns have you passed far in the new format?

BEC - 78
AUD - 75
REG - 64, 77
FAR - 73, 73, 73, 82
Ethics: 74, 84, 98
Finally done after 23 months.

[PNS2CLT]

@Bluetoothray – the practice simulations are far more representative of the exam than the simulations in Becker, Ninja, etc. Everyone's looking for practice simulations that will mimic those on the exam but they don't exist. But the sample simulations ARE representative of the styling you'll see come exam day.

IMO, practice simulations are a waste of time. Spinning your wheels trying to learn a two hour, comprehensive, “original” simulation in which nothing close to it will be on the exam is just not productive. Straight forward questions from your old college textbook are far more useful for those tricky topics …. but that's just me.

[PNS2CLT]

@Ana – I just sat for FAR, but the simulations I had heavily differed from the Becker simulations suggested here, as well as those (in general) within Ninja; practicing those just wouldn't have been as productive as hammering out MCQ or straight up studying concepts that I was weak on. Also, there have been reports of people receiving simulations that the listing suggests wouldn't be tested. Thus, I think it's very dangerous to focus on it.

[Wannafree]

some folks are saying “Verbatim and one is saying “very dangerous to focus on it”.What a contrast .

WannaB

[Wannafree]

@lentil ,did you feel the emails were too long compared to Becker's or it was not that many ?basically wanted to know if t=it took lot of time ?

WannaB

[Lentilcounter]

I'm a little surprised by the variation in feedback from these FAR exams. Some are saying that the blueprints and Becker sims (if you have the software) lined up with their test day experience. Some are saying that the blueprints didn't match at all. This was my 4th and hopefully final time taking this test. I have taken the test now two times under the new format. Unfortunately, I won't know my score until December to establish credibility with you all. Also, some are saying that the AICPA practice exam is a waste of time. All I am saying is be open-minded.

I thought the AICPA practice test was a waste of time until I did it before my most recent re-take. Not only is it the best representation of the SIMs on the actual test, but I had one repeat itself with different numbers, different story, etc. It is true that there really isn't a prep company that has SIMs which are indicative of the actual test. I think Becker SIMs are closer to the actual test experience than Ninja SIMs.

Bottom line: I am not telling people to disregard MCQ. I still think you need to hammer these out for everything that is being tested in FAR and know it well. However, if you are strong in MCQ and keep missing a pass grade by a few points because of SIMs, then take a look at these SIMs. Yes, even I had one or maybe two sims that weren't in the blueprints out of 8! But I recognized the other 6 from the blueprints and the practice exam.

BEC = 79

AUD = 79

FAR = 84

REG = 86

Prayer + AICPA blueprints = my success

BEC = 72 (6/08/16)
FAR = ?
REG = ?
AUD = ?

[Author]

Replies