Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Hello,
My personal experience. Passed always at first attempt from F2 to P3 (only one exception). Usually doing various exams in the same session. Full time working and studying online.
Until I arrived to P5… first time I fail an exam (47) in my whole life, while I was confident I passed. To be honest, I did not study too much (I passed P3 on the same session).
P5 is very tricky even though the subject looks simple when you study it for first time. You can think you have done well but fail due to taking the wrong approach on the question. Also, sometimes is not clear how marking is done, as examiner rewards critical and correct applications to the case answers and not just theory filling, requiring to use your brain in a way that is not usual in acca exams. That is the reason a lot of people is frustrated trying to pass it over and over…
On the other hand, the subject is extremely interesting and it is important if you work on management accounting.
P4 is complex but it is more like other previous acca exams you have already done. In fact, for me is quite straightforward, with a lot of marking linked to practical exercises that if you master them, you will by sure do well, assuring a pass. Personally, I felt P2 much more difficult, but I’m still waiting for P4 results :).
In summary, if you study P4 you will pass by sure. It will just require effort. Concerning P5, be careful, studying could not be enough! Read the forum to understand the main issues with this exam. Then take a look at some past exams just with your P3 knowledge, your experience and you common sense… Then read the answers.
Only then you will understand why P5 is complex. Did you still feel confident? Go ahead, it will be one of the most interesting subjects you will approach, it fits your background and you will learnt a lot!
@prad41 said:
Hey, yes I did the same, Market value of equity was not changing only the debt due to proposal 1 and 2 stating either increase or decrease debt. The tricky and annoying part was calculation of Cost of debt as I felt it was quite confusing especially depending on the proposal different interest rate was paid and the calculation were extremely repetitive by the third time I did it I was exhausted! lolAnyhow, I think the correct recommendation to directors was that even though more debt was taken in Proposal 2 the WACC of company has reduced further. This is in line with M&M theory, where it states debt is good for company as they have to pay tax and increases their income. I can’t think from top of my head what were my WACC but I think proposal 2 had the lowest, hence I recommended that.
Same answer!!!
However, I stated in the conclusion that the assumption of not change in share price was not realistic. Also that the increase in gearing was risky in real life.
@ish123 said:
For question 2, can anyone remember the mark split for A and B?Also how did you guys do the FX part for A? I knew it will consume lot of time so took a shortcut by looking at the percentage increase from 1.4 to 1.5 meaning 7% decrease in COS and as it applies to only 50% of the COS I just decreased total COS by 3.5% (I know its not the correct way but hoping after rounding the figure should be close)
I think that exchange rate changed from 1.5 to 1.4 so making raw materials more expensive. In the narrative explained something in this sense also.
I attempted Q2 also.
The part B looked quite straight forward. Recommend to change for luxury, stay the same for diary. Explains pros and cons of both budgeting methods applied to the case.
For part A, some calculations looked tricky, even if simple. Price and volume split. Delivery costs (6% and increased by taxation). COS to be levelled by level of activity as well the exchange rate increase?
I think I missed some important points (and marks) on this part. Hopefully the small recommendation of overoptimism on revenues and cost cuts will add some to both of us 😉
Hello yinka, I followed the same approach.
However, not using these % of demand. I’m sure there is something missing. Michal approach look coherent to me, except for the fact of not getting the maximum outcome option, not matter of the probability.
You are right that Maximax was an overkill. I think the same and I’m almost sure I miss the question.
However, in your calculations you do not take into account at any moment the appetite for risk of the board? Looks as a neutral risk approach to me.
In section B there is always a question about consolidation. The other one not sure. In the exam was to build a pnl. Anyway Anyway, there are explanations about exam structure in the corresponding opentuition F3 section.
I’m reviewing Q10 of GLO (I think is the same for ENG variant) and I’m confused about this sentence: “[they] carried on trading although this meant unilaterally ignoring the limit on their agreed overdraft with Just Bank plc, and delaying the payments on their other outstanding contracts.”
I say that it was wrongful trading but Just Bank mabe can ask the court for fraudulent trading as they ignore unilaterally their agreement.
What do you think?