General Comments

This paper consisted of twenty 2 mark (40 marks in total) multiple choice questions (MCQs) in Section A which are electronically marked and a 60 mark Section B with two 15 mark and one 30 mark question which are professionally marked. Candidates’ performance on both sections was closely correlated and the overall performance has maintained the satisfactory performance of recent diets.

The paper was regarded by most commentators as a fair test of familiar topics which a well-prepared candidate should have comfortably passed. Section A

As may be expected, the scores on individual MCQs varied considerably and the following comments relate to two questions that were not very well answered.

Question 3

Although most items in financial statements are shown at their historical cost, increasingly the IASB is requiring or allowing current cost to be used in many areas of financial reporting. Question 19

This question involves a finance lease and an operating lease which require different treatments. The requirement is for the amount of the charge to the profit or loss account for both leases. Observing the dates given, the finance lease charge is based on a full year and comprises of depreciation of the fair value of the plant plus a finance cost; whereas the operating lease charge is an apportionment of the annual rental as it covers only nine months of the current year. Section B

The questions in section B covered the areas which in past papers were usually regarded as 'core' topics and as such were generally well answered, particularly Q3 on consolidation.

A welcoming feature of this diet, perhaps due to the new structure, is that most candidates attempted all the required questions in section B, although question 1 was the most often omitted when not all questions were attempted.

Despite the above, there were still some areas of poor examination technique, in particular, not reading (or thinking about) the question requirements carefully enough. This was particularly true of Q1 (ratio calculation and interpretation) where a number of candidates calculated and discussed ratios that were not required and provided a revised statement of financial position. This wasted considerable time and, no matter how accurate the calculations may be and how good their interpretation, this gained no marks.

Other familiar poor examination technique issues were: a lack of understandable workings for figures and poor handwriting that many markers struggled to read.