Relevant to: Paper 1.1Professional scheme
The overall performance of candidates in
this examination was reasonable,
with the usual weakness in the
noncomputational questions in Section B.
Most candidates were able to complete
the paper, failure to do so being more the result of
lack of knowledge than of lack of time. One problem
that arose more than it has in the past was that too
many candidates did not provide workings. This meant
that marks were lost unnecessarily. As explained in the
notes on Question 3 in Section B below, the provision of
workings is vital to allow markers to give some credit for
partially correct figures. Perhaps the universal use of calculators
encourages this failure to give workings. There is no need to go to
the opposite extreme and provide ledger accounts for every single
figure in a profit and loss account/income statement,
as some candidates do. Workings need to be
brief to save time for candidates, and clear to enable
markers to give due credit.
Section A
As usual, the 25 multiple-choice questions
(MCQs) in Section A ranged across most of the
syllabus, with limited coverage of topics examined
in Section B. Questions deliberately differ in their level
of difficulty. The percentage of candidates getting a question
correct was usually between 40% and 80%. Questions that
candidates found particularly difficult were as follows:
Question 16, company financial statements - many
candidates thought that a disclosure note was necessary for
all adjusting events after the balance sheet date. A moments
reflection should convince you that this cannot be so.
Question 25, consolidated accounts - this question concerned
the inclusion of companies in group
accounts. Many candidates had obviously not studied this.
There is still a minority of candidates who fail
to answer the Section A MCQs properly on the form provided.
Some still gave their answers in the booklet
intended for the Section B answers.
Section B
Question 1
The examination almost always requires the preparation
of a profit and loss account/income statement or balance
sheet for one type of entity or another. This time it was a
company profit and loss account for internal use, with the
usual adjustments. The question was generally fairly well
completed. Points that proved difficult for candidates were:
Calculation of the figure for bad and doubtful debts.
Calculation of depreciation. Clear instructions were given in
the question, but many candidates proved unable to follow
them. Others penalised themselves by failing to provide workings
Treatment of the proposed dividend. UK Stream candidates
were expected to show it as a deduction from the final profit,
while International Stream candidates had to explain, in part (b),
that the proposed dividend was to be disclosed by note,
following IAS 10. Many candidates included the
dividend among the expenses.
Question 2
An essential basic skill for an accountant is the recording
of transactions in ledger accounts or journal entries.
This question presented two errors, whose corrections were to be
recorded. The first was relatively simple and many candidates got it
completely correct. There was a sizeable minority
who could not handle it,
however. The second problem was more difficult.
Although it dealt with an
area that should have been familiar - the disposal of a vehicle - few
managed to find their way through it
Question 3
Question 3 called for a cash flow statement, and it was much better
done than similar questions have been in the past.
There were two common weaknesses here:
Failure to show workings. The biggest working
was that for calculating the cost of
fixed/noncurrent assets purchased.
Candidate after candidate included a figure
without explanation. As explained earlier,
workings enable the marker
to give credit for the correct parts of an incorrect answer.
Omission of one or more of the figures making up the cost
of fixed/non-current assets purchased.
Question 4
Question 4 was based on the same information as Question 3.
The first part called for the calculation of three ratios, and the
second part for comments on the ratios and other aspects of the
financial statements.The ratios were, as usual, well done.
The first, the stock/inventory holding period, was the least well done,
with a variety of misunderstandings. One point that arose was that some
candidates, through an arithmetical error, came up with an answer in the
thousands of days, instead of the expected figure of 60 to 90 or so. They
then went on to discuss the result as if it was a feasible situation that
customers were taking (say) 4,000 days
(approximately 11 years) to settle their accounts.
In part (b), comment was required, and the
standard appeared better than
in previous sessions. In 4(b)(ii), candidates had to comment on the
movement in the return on capital
employed. Most of the comments given referred to
factors affecting the profit,
and few to factors affecting the capital employed,
which changed as a result
of a share issue and a revaluation. Full credit was,
of course, given to candidates
who explained two valid factors affecting the profit.
Question 5
Question 5 asked for an explanation of
comparability, and the contribution of
accounting standards in promoting it.
Candidates had to do three things:
1. Explain the term ’comparability’. It is hard to find
a synonym for the word and thus explain it
without using the word compare’.
Markers were asked not to be too pedantic
about this in assessing answers.
2. Give two examples of types of comparison.
The published answer refers
to comparison from one period to another and between companies.
Many candidates did this, but full credit was given to those who
indicated two figures in financial statements that would be compared.
3. Explain how accounting standards aid comparability.
Candidates proved weaker in this aspect. Few mentioned the
requirements to disclose accounting policies and changes in them.
Overall, this question was somewhat better answered than similar
questions have been in previous years.
The overall performance of candidates in
this examination was reasonable,
with the usual weakness in the
noncomputational questions in Section B.
Most candidates were able to complete
the paper, failure to do so being more the result of
lack of knowledge than of lack of time. One problem
that arose more than it has in the past was that too
many candidates did not provide workings. This meant
that marks were lost unnecessarily. As explained in the
notes on Question 3 in Section B below, the provision of
workings is vital to allow markers to give some credit for
partially correct figures. Perhaps the universal use of calculators
encourages this failure to give workings. There is no need to go to
the opposite extreme and provide ledger accounts for every single
figure in a profit and loss account/income statement,
as some candidates do. Workings need to be
brief to save time for candidates, and clear to enable
markers to give due credit.
Section A
As usual, the 25 multiple-choice questions
(MCQs) in Section A ranged across most of the
syllabus, with limited coverage of topics examined
in Section B. Questions deliberately differ in their level
of difficulty. The percentage of candidates getting a question
correct was usually between 40% and 80%. Questions that
candidates found particularly difficult were as follows:
Question 16, company financial statements - many
candidates thought that a disclosure note was necessary for
all adjusting events after the balance sheet date. A moments
reflection should convince you that this cannot be so.
Question 25, consolidated accounts - this question concerned
the inclusion of companies in group
accounts. Many candidates had obviously not studied this.
There is still a minority of candidates who fail
to answer the Section A MCQs properly on the form provided.
Some still gave their answers in the booklet
intended for the Section B answers.
Section B
Question 1
The examination almost always requires the preparation
of a profit and loss account/income statement or balance
sheet for one type of entity or another. This time it was a
company profit and loss account for internal use, with the
usual adjustments. The question was generally fairly well
completed. Points that proved difficult for candidates were:
Calculation of the figure for bad and doubtful debts.
Calculation of depreciation. Clear instructions were given in
the question, but many candidates proved unable to follow
them. Others penalised themselves by failing to provide workings
Treatment of the proposed dividend. UK Stream candidates
were expected to show it as a deduction from the final profit,
while International Stream candidates had to explain, in part (b),
that the proposed dividend was to be disclosed by note,
following IAS 10. Many candidates included the
dividend among the expenses.
Question 2
An essential basic skill for an accountant is the recording
of transactions in ledger accounts or journal entries.
This question presented two errors, whose corrections were to be
recorded. The first was relatively simple and many candidates got it
completely correct. There was a sizeable minority
who could not handle it,
however. The second problem was more difficult.
Although it dealt with an
area that should have been familiar - the disposal of a vehicle - few
managed to find their way through it
Question 3
Question 3 called for a cash flow statement, and it was much better
done than similar questions have been in the past.
There were two common weaknesses here:
Failure to show workings. The biggest working
was that for calculating the cost of
fixed/noncurrent assets purchased.
Candidate after candidate included a figure
without explanation. As explained earlier,
workings enable the marker
to give credit for the correct parts of an incorrect answer.
Omission of one or more of the figures making up the cost
of fixed/non-current assets purchased.
Question 4
Question 4 was based on the same information as Question 3.
The first part called for the calculation of three ratios, and the
second part for comments on the ratios and other aspects of the
financial statements.The ratios were, as usual, well done.
The first, the stock/inventory holding period, was the least well done,
with a variety of misunderstandings. One point that arose was that some
candidates, through an arithmetical error, came up with an answer in the
thousands of days, instead of the expected figure of 60 to 90 or so. They
then went on to discuss the result as if it was a feasible situation that
customers were taking (say) 4,000 days
(approximately 11 years) to settle their accounts.
In part (b), comment was required, and the
standard appeared better than
in previous sessions. In 4(b)(ii), candidates had to comment on the
movement in the return on capital
employed. Most of the comments given referred to
factors affecting the profit,
and few to factors affecting the capital employed,
which changed as a result
of a share issue and a revaluation. Full credit was,
of course, given to candidates
who explained two valid factors affecting the profit.
Question 5
Question 5 asked for an explanation of
comparability, and the contribution of
accounting standards in promoting it.
Candidates had to do three things:
1. Explain the term ’comparability’. It is hard to find
a synonym for the word and thus explain it
without using the word compare’.
Markers were asked not to be too pedantic
about this in assessing answers.
2. Give two examples of types of comparison.
The published answer refers
to comparison from one period to another and between companies.
Many candidates did this, but full credit was given to those who
indicated two figures in financial statements that would be compared.
3. Explain how accounting standards aid comparability.
Candidates proved weaker in this aspect. Few mentioned the
requirements to disclose accounting policies and changes in them.
Overall, this question was somewhat better answered than similar
questions have been in previous years.