Study Zone

What examiners want

Exam reviews of F7, F8, F9, P1, P2 & P3

F7 Financial Reporting.
Examiner: Stephen Scott
Despite the improved performance in December over the June sitting the examiner believes there is still considerable room for improvement. The main fault is candidates’ lack of syllabus coverage, said Scott. This is evidenced by many sitters answering only four – sometimes three – of the five compulsory questions. Candidates did well at the first two questions on group accounting and production of financial statements. These are areas students know well. The cash flow question (Q3) was more focused this time around and students produced ‘mixed’ results.
Q4 was on non-current assets and Q5 on the different measurers of profit/ earnings performance and earnings per share calculations.
Scott also mentioned that there was evidence of time wasteful exam techniques – unnecessary and over-elaborate workings, repetition of points, etc. There were also a significant number of scripts where candidates had crossed out the first page (sometimes more) of their answer. This, felt Scott, demonstrates poor answer planning and a consequent inevitable waste of valuable time.

F8 Audit & Assurance.
Examiner: Pami Bahl
The examiner was pleased to see that most candidates attempted all parts of all five questions. There were some common issues that arose from candidates’ answers. The examiner felt some were wasting time by rewriting the question requirements out or providing lengthy introductions or definitions which were unnecessary. Failing to answer each question on a new page in the answer book was also frowned upon, as is illegible writing. Bahl stressed that failure to read the question requirements also meant some provided irrelevant answers, which scored few if any marks.

F9 Financial Management.
Examiner: Antony Head
There is no substitute for studying the whole syllabus in-depth, said Head. During revision students need to test their degree of preparation by sitting past papers under exam conditions, if at all possible. The examiner said that candidates then need to take action to strengthen areas where they find a need for more skill, knowledge and understanding. Students who are successful showed that they had studied all of the syllabus, rather than focusing on a small number of key areas.

P1 Professional Accountant.
Examiner: David Campbell
P1 contains four questions in two sections. At the last sitting section A was compulsory and contained one extended question (Q1) worth 50 marks. As in previous diets, Q1 was a multi-part requirement covering a wide range of outcomes. Section B contained three questions worth 25 marks and candidates were required to choose two from those three. The section B questions tended to be located in one area of the study guide, but as in previous papers also contained supporting requirements from other areas. All questions were based on case scenarios and marks were often awarded for application to the case material.
Last December’s paper was Campbell’s fifth. He continues to be disappointed that students fail to pick up the professional marks – December’s Q1 asked candidates for a memo. This was worth four marks and Campbell said few sitters managed to gain high professional marks. Campbell stressed: “I have made the point before that various forms of narrative communication should be taught to and learned by P1 candidates.” From the papers he is convinced PQs don’t know how to frame and draft a memo to management. In many cases, what he got was simply a letter.

P2 Corporate Reporting.
Examiner: Graham Holt
The examiner admitted December’s paper was testing, although PQs responded well, resulting in a pleasing pass rate (58%). Holt believes the results reflect the benefit of publication of articles in Student Accountant and the increased expansion of the knowledge base in certain subject areas, particularly IFRS 3 (Revised) and financial instruments. Holt was also pleased that there was less evidence of candidates trying to get through the exam by answering just two out of three questions. Finally, PQs also seem to be answering the 50-mark question better – particularly with regards to the ethics question. So Holt is a happy man indeed.

P3 Business Analysis.
Examiner: Steve Skidmore
The poor performance of candidates in section B was the main reason for the slight dip in pass rates, said the examiner. Question 3 and 4 were not well answered. Skidmore is also concerned that a significant number of candidates only answered two questions. This seems to suggest to him PQs are unfamiliar with quality and project management, two significant parts of the syllabus.
Skidmore wanted to remind PQs that this paper is not 3.5 with a new title. “There are significant new areas which must be learnt,” he said. P3 also builds on knowledge gained in paper F1. So those exempt from paper are encouraged to review the content of the F1 syllabus.

[«all Studies]