I AM LOOKING FOR THE  UPDATED MATERIALS FOR 141R WHO HAS THE BEST EXPLAINED VERSION

YAEGER OR

BISK

I SPOKE TO THE BISK PEOPLE AND THEY SAID 141R WAS JUST RELEASED BY  THEM

DID ANYONE HAD A TRY PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND HOW ABOUT YAEGER DID HE GO INTO DETAILS OR IS HE STILL SAYING ARIGHT, ARIGHT, ARIGHT, ARIGHT

PLESE LET ME KNOW

The 2009 Wiley FAR book goes into a lot of detail on SFAS 141r.  Wiley has half a chapter dedicated to SFAS 141r, along with a case study and a whole bunch of MCQs.

Yaeger has a 3.5 hour video presentation on SFAS 141r, with a large handout and MCQs.

http://www.yaegercpareview.com/product/yaeger-homestudy-fina ncial-accounting-2008-update-156.cfm

A-diddy wrote: I am taking a grad course on consolidations right now. We are learning 141 and 141R because the professor seems to think that both will be on the July exam. My approach has been to try not to learn 141 and skip class the days we will go over it. Does anyone know whether or not both are testable? Also, if everything is 141R wouldn't most of them need to be test questions that don't count anyways? My thinking is to pretty much ignore consolidations other than the things that do not change. (Removing interco sales and receivables, ext.) Anyone else have thoughts on this?

SFAS 141R (acquisition method) only applies to consolidation accounting for business combinations where the acquisition date is December 15, 2008 or later. Any combination effected prior to this date would continue to retroactively utilize the purchase method. IMO you're doing yourself a grand disservice by not at least familiarizing yourself with the purchase (SFAS 141) method. I hope for your sake you're not fooling yourself into thinking purchase method questions aren't fair game; they most certainly are.

I'll probably end up purchasing a review cram of some sort on the subject, as my 2008-2009 book does not cover it.

God, I wish the AICPA wouldn't do this......it just leads to us having to spend more money than we've already spent. Hell, we already spent considerable amounts of money on our review materials, and now they are going to go hog wild within FAR on some revised FASB just because they can?

Really petty and ticky-tack of them, if you ask me.