[nav1980]

Passed second attempt – 66% – easily the most challenging paper to maange time and put relevant answers…

A couple of things that I picked up from speaking to a P5 marker that might help people score those vital 1/2 more points or create more time for question 1 to scrape a pass:

1. Don’t ever write a conclusion

Despite the examiner comments about “extra credit given where reasonably attempted” – they never give the extra 1 mark, 4 presentation marks require the standard titles, introduction and the use of sub headings. The introduction is important, if done properly, no concluding statement is even required as you are telling the reader what to expect and where it ends. You won’t for example get 4 marks if you forget to do a basic introduction but put a good conclusion with loads of writing.

Report
Date
From
To
Subject

Introduction

Heading 1

Heading 2

2. If you have a calculation question, you must write something – it is a report, if you just put the figure in without writing a sentence or 2 to explain to the reader the significance – you will be throwing away marks. You may even get credit for your explanation even if you got the calculation wrong – you must give a recommendation or answer if directed to in the question (e.g. the board is considering 1 of 2 options).

Just calculating the break-even without saying anything about it probably throws away 2 marks.

Good luck everyone

[nav1980]

A couple of things that I picked up from speaking to a P5 marker that might help people score those vital 1/2 more points or create more time for question 1 to scrape a pass:

1. Don’t ever write a conclusion, despite the examiner comments about “extra credit given where reasonably attempted” – they actually never give the extra 1 mark, 4 presentation marks require the standard titles, introduction and the use of sub headings. The introduction is important, if done properly, no concluding statement is even required as you are telling the reader what to expect and where it ends. You won’t for example get 4 marks if you skip a basic introduction but put a good conclusion with loads of writing.

Report
Date
From
To
Subject

Introduction

Heading 1

Heading 2

2. If you have a calculation question, you must write something – it is a report, if you just put the figure in without writing a sentence or 2 to explain to the reader the significance – you will be throwing away marks. You may even get credit for your explanation even if you got the calculation wrong – you must give a recommendation or answer if directed to in the question (e.g. the board is considering 1 of 2 options).

Just calculating the break-even without saying anything about it probably throws away 2 marks.

Good luck everyone

[nav1980]

Thankfully I can kiss this awful exam goodbye – 66% second attempt.

Finally its all over.

Good luck everyone.

[nav1980]

I did P7 – passed that at 52%, all other papers first time via opentuition self study.

[nav1980]

Okay here are the facts:

The lowest pass rates for any ACCA paper since 2011 when Alex Watt took over:

P4 – 1
P5 – 4 + 1 tied bottom
P6 – 0
P7 – 3 + 1 tied bottom

So benchmarking P5 we see it scores top of the league table for difficulty

However lets look at the % difference between P5 and the next paper in each case over those sittings

Dec 2011 – 2%
Jun 2013 – tied bottom, bet lowest paper – 3%
Dec 2013 – 3%
Jun 2014 – 7%
Dec 2014 – 3%

SO I would say apart from Jun 2014 – there is only a 3% variance in being what is deemed the “most difficult” or “unfair” – does the presentation or bases for benchmarking obscure the understanding?

What should Alex Watt do? Does the cost of changing his exam creation technique outweigh the benefit? What impact will this have on the ACCA qualification? What systems will need to be changed and processes with markers?

Should he undertake a BPR initiative or look for linkages across the papers using the value chain?

Does the benchmarking take into account demographic factors? Should the exam be benchmarked internally or externally with CIMA? Should Alex Watt be benchmarked on controllable factors – he has to award 4 professional marks – are these marks controllable?

More of these exciting insights to follow after my September re-sit….

[nav1980]

Yes results are out on 1st August, deadline for september sitting entry is the10th August, on ACCA website – the idea is to give the 70% of students who fail P5 the chance to relive the dream every 3 months.

[nav1980]

“What about within the constraints that CFo had said? Like there should be only 5 measures on the dashboard?
It really was bad!”

I’m on my 3rd beer…

Let me walk you through my thought process (disclaimer: I’ve had 3 beers and may have got the answercompletely wrong anyway)

1. Anything over 2 metrics under design and brand awareness – won’t score – need to suggest 1 only that uses SWOT as per question or maybe suggest replacing 1 with another

2. How do you get a metric for the threat – ambassador tripping over laces – what section:

Three areas: Financial, Design, Brand awareness

So the laces must be a design issue – but what metric? Do you measure quality – but hold on, that is not design – that is a supplier quality issue that is being discussed later on in the question “qualitative impact” – and hold on a minute a quality measure won’t prevent him tripping – why has Alex Watt been specific about tripping on laces – is he saying it might not be a quality issue as he tied the shoes wrong himself and directing me to say a specific answer or is he simply leaving it to interpretation? How can you ensure quality of laces? How can a quality inspection prevent someone lacing the shoes wrong? It can’t -okay he must be trying to force me to apply the answer to the question and be really specific….

Sh*t time is ticking….if I just put down a standard metric and justify I might get the marks, or will I??!?!?

HOw on earth can you mitigate teh negative threat of product malfunction that the user could be responsible for???!?!?!

Oh hold on – Icoudl say percentage of prodcust with laces!! Oh but wait the threat is teh ambassador leaving isn’t it -t he bad publicity – so it coudl be a general threat for any MS product right? Not just shoes and laces?

Time is ticking away, need to write something…..finally what do I come up with:

“Metric: number of complaints from sports ambassadors during trial period of new products.This is to combat the threat posed by adverse publicity from sports ambassador incidents that are likely to damage the key aim to “prevent risk of injury” and maintain the current marketing strategy. BY addressing any issues prior to launch they can be offset.”

That’s got to be a good answer surely? – it shows 1. I read the scenario 2. THe metric is addresses the SWOT analysis (i.e question) 3. The metric addresses a key aim “reduce injury” and maintains the brand image and sponsorship that is how MS does its marketing – as referenced in the opening paragraph.

I.e. multiple things from the scenario from all directions, more time thinking than writing and an answer that seems to be a bit weird or unusual – rather than “number of returns from customers” or simple “improve quality” or % defects or number of compalints.

OH damn – I’ve gone over time for this question – better speed up, oh look question 3 looks easy – what I have to do is obvious…

[nav1980]

Rawfay – I hate the riddles too – but imagine how easy it wold be if it was straightforward assessment of performance.

He can’t test it all numerically and make the calculations hard as then it becomes a maths based exam – just more F5 – which is not the point of P5.

I honestly think changing the name of the paper to “Organisational management for performance improvement” would be a way of getting into students head what is being tested.

I can’t believe that anyone found the paper “easy” – to me that means you didn’t answer the question set – its not P1 or P3….where you can as people have posted here – write sides and sides of stuff in your head or that you rote learned and score a pass…

Not trying ot put anyone off – and best of luck – but I felt like screaming half-way through the paper as he clearly laid out things you coudl score lots of marks on like EVA but then asked them in a way that meant if you went down the path of past papers – you score 0.

[nav1980]

Breakeven?… – welcome to P5 !!

The examiner litters the page with “obvious” things and numbers screaming at you to use just the way you learned, except he asks a different question…

[nav1980]

This is why I hate this exam!

Good luck I hope you passed but my undertstanding.

Q1 – I’m not sure you will get any marks for discussing historic trends – I think the marks were about the suitably of the metrics given the company has a low asset base and outsources all its activities….

8 marks for EVA around – lack of ability to control WACC, goal congruency with maximising shareholder wealth but suitably for divisional performance – in terms of controllability and comparability in teh light of the new product launch and associated marketing spend????

Q3 – are you sure – yes it was easy to do some ratios – but did you recommend and justify in the context of the scenario (not just general context) – i.e. where the marks are…

I hate P5

[nav1980]

I must have sat a different paper….

Here is what I thought:

Question 1 – wording of questions difficult to understand as always – the very first question do you “assess the metrics” and give suggestions for new ones – NO – that won’t score, as the suggestion marks are in the second part of the sentence…

So what do you say – did you say ROCE suitable for a company with a low capital base?

What can you really say about the metrics without suggesting anything – do they meet the aims and objectives – thats where you are being directed – but even then – the metrics don’t really do that – or do they indirectly? isn’t revenue an indirect measure of customer satisfaction ? BUt if you comment on the change % – you are commenting on performance not THE METRICS as per the question – Its all too subjective….

Too much of that sort of fiddlyness for my liking – you can write and write, but the marker is capped on what they can give you for a specific par tof a 16 mark question – i.e. “up to 4 marks for metrics” – “up to 4 marks for suggetsions related to SWOT” so you can end up with a poor score by putting too much suggestion and analysis in the wrong area.

Question 3 – really easy of course…..or is it? DId you talk about the impact on the METRICS as asked or financial performance in general?

Were your suggested metrics actually justified , and when it says justified – in what context – did you mention the competitors, did you tie into the objectives or did you just say “customers won’t be satisfied adn will be nagative for financial performance” – again where were the marks given EXACTLY?

Question 4 – EVA – easy – or is it – its in the context of a DIVISIONAL performance measure – do divisional managers control WACC – is it suitable? We know why its suitable as a general measure of shareholder wealth….but EVA for divisons – hard to understand – but he already said that in teh question, so you won’t score for regurgiating that…

What I have seen on re-taking this paper – after failing at 45% and getting a mock marked at 70% by an ACCA examiner – is that there are a lot of red herrings – and if you focus too much on question practice – in the exam you suddenly think “oh this is easy” and then miss the actual point that is being tested which is actually far more precise and designed to trip up people who have rote learned the subject.

I absolutely love the subject but I hate this paper so much – its the only one I have failed and its because you can’t really prepare for it – it is more a test of english and trying to get inside teh examiner’s head than anythign else…

Shoul have done P6….

[nav1980]

Hard to say.

Hopefully scrape a pass.

[nav1980]

57% – praise be to the all mighty Easter bunny whom I offered gifts of chocolate Easter eggs in order to pass this exam.

[nav1980]

Passed with 52%, minimum effort and scrape through – glad the tooth fairy granted me my wish to pass this exam in exchange for a set of molars.

[nav1980]

I got 66%

To be honest I think I scored well because of the quality of my written english and knowledge outside the P2 syllabus.

I thought the exam paper was designed poorly – very few opportunities to show P2 specific knowledge I felt – foreign currency conversion, consolidation structure effects, NCI effects…

I think foreign students are heavily disadvantaged when they use subjective or easily misconstrued english language in the questions.

Obviously marksnad grades are “adjusted”.

–

In any case I always sacrfice a chicken, drink its blood and pray to Satan before exams – so this may be the reason why I manage to pass.

[nav1980]

57% – didn’t write anything properly for question 3, finished 15 minutes early because I had been looking at the wrong clock and gave up – left feeling depressed.

Think I passed because:
a) did question 4 + 5 first – to give the impression I knew the subject and because I knew hardly anyone would do those properly – therefore examiner may be keen to give me marks.

b) made TONS of mistakes on question 1 + 2 but left workings half crossed through – in case I could pick up “follow through marks” or credit for logical workings.

c) made question 3 look as if I knew what i was supposed to be doing but ran out of times – i hadn’t learned cash flows – gambled on ratios coming up.

Anyway that was hell.

[nav1980]

Tough but fair – without the time pressure – you can sit and hazard guesses and double check. Without the difficulty – you could slap down some pro-formas you rote-learn of financial statements and score marks.

Time pressure caused me too lose my nerve and screw things up and make mistakes on simple things – would prefer 3 REALLY hard questions with tons of adjustments than 5 as i got too tied up in waffling, question hopping and entered into poor exam technique.

or how about 1 massive question involving published accounts of a parent, consolidation of a subsidiary and analysis of its performance via cash flow and ratios….no doubt that will be Q1 of 5 on P2…!

Better exam technique and i would have been guaranteed a pass.

[nav1980]

I’m switching to iCAEW, was thinking of doing it anyway – the exams are 4 sittings a year and the first 6 testing the fundamental basics are multiple choice – the equivalent for this tax paper you can sit any time – after all its simply testing your ability to remember and apply arbitary facts, it means you don’t waste 3 months revising to get done over by a bad paper then have to wait 6 months to try again – you can re-take 3 months later in the next sitting and spread topics over the year….makes much much more sense to me.

[nav1980]

not “hard” – exam was badly constructed in terms of the skill of constructing an exam – Examiner fancied a change so mixed it all up and make up for it by asking non-tax specific easy questions like tax evasion etc that gave away silly marks….to compensate

But he didn’t put in place ways for the marker to see the student intentionally left out red herrings and figures – was that not the point of asking for £0 in adjustment questions??

Result –
bad students get guess marks and can deceive the marker they know the subject

good students didn’t get the opportunity to evidence the correct thought processes

i am sure there will be bad feedback from the markers – I looked at my paper and after 3 hours, knowing the subject inside out – there was hardly anything written on it, just not the opportunity to say much to the marker….

[nav1980]

unfair in terms of mixing up questions and subjects with red herrings, and to make things worse there were theory questions for 4 and 5 which means you could easily waste time – no clearly structured question to help settle into the paper and apportion time.

Looking at past papers – they were structured to clearly define sections – e.g. VAT separated clearly and partnership separated clearly as well, with at least one big question – 25 marker in a standard format.

Also lots of little marks here and there strewn over the syllabus with little real depth to reward students who had understood and studied the topic fully.

very disappointed with the examiner.

[nav1980]

thanks, got it – thanks for your help.

i can now sleep!

[nav1980]

Sorry that still doesn;t explain it –

1.2m a year support costs:
1st year – recognize 1.2m
then don’t recognise the second and third years – 1.2 + 1.2 = 2.4m, so how comes the deffered amount is £4m…it says specifcally in the question ignore the time value of money.

why take 1.2 x 2/0.6.

[nav1980]

someone explained one is a mark-up the other a gross profit margin – that explains different treatment but to me that still doesn’t make any sense – why divide 2 by 0.6?? I could understand if you multiplied 1.2 by 0.6 to remove the profit margin of 40% – but why would you divide the number of years by 0.6?

also in Bpp book it says:

servicing fees included in the price
the sales price of a product may include an identifiable amount for subsequent servicing. in this case, that amount is deferred and recognised as revenue over the period during which the service is performed. The amount deferred must cover the cost of those services with a reasonable profit on those services.

So why remove the profit margin at all or multiply the figure by a % or fraction (0.6)? Is the text in the BPP a recent revision to IAS 18 revenue and the exam question old rules?

[nav1980]

thanks, that explains different but to me that still doesn’t make any sense – why divide 2 by 0.6?? I could understand if you multiplied 1.2 by 0.6 to remove the profit margin of 40% – but why would you divide the number of years by 0.6?

also in Bpp book it says:

servicing fees included in the price
the sales price of a product may include an identifiable amount for subsequent servicing. in this case, that amount is deferred and recognised as revenue over the period during which the service is performed. The amount deferred must cover the cost of those services with a reasonable profit on those services.

So why remove the profit margin at all or multiply the figure by a % or fraction (0.6)? Is the text in the BPP a recent revision to IAS 18 revenue and the exam question old rules?

[Author]

Posts