Forum Replies Created
- Posts
57% and I’m done with ACCA after 38% in December.
However, this paper is taught poorly IMO (by BPP for sure) as it is over-complicated. The basis for passing this paper is to approach it from a management perspective and NOT a strategic perspective. However, this doesn’t provide any clarity – not for me at least.
Nevertheless, after researching quite substantially after my fail …. I realised that this paper will give minimal credit unless providing your own insight. Basically, state the theory and REGURGITATE POINTS THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO THE SCENARIO. In effect, providing there is some logic to your answer, there are endless answers that will be given credit.
For example … implementing a new integrated CRM will be great for collaborative working as per the text book – BUT … this may have an impact on staff levels and thus creativity duen to the cost impact.
That’s a very basic example, but my point is that requirements can be simplified. We are told only 20-30% relates to theory, so this is all you need to know. The other 70-80% will be in respect of what we can come up with. And in that sense, there are almost limitless correct answers.
Good luck for all those who have not passed! Perseverance is key here.
It was given in the last sitting, which was pretty straight forward, but I’d advise giving it a go (at least once) so if it does appear, you won’t be flustered.
@chris165 said:
A maximax calculation does not use probabilities as it is a technique for dealing with uncertainty.The probabilities are for expected value analysis which is a technique for dealing with risk
Hmm – seems harsh that probabilities were given to throw us. Information is almost always given to aid us?
Also, the question stated that the organisation were risk seeking, so an expected value analysis will surely be accepted (as would a MaxiMax).
@irondan11 said:
For Maxi max, Maxi min, and regret, you do not need to do the probabilities. Only on neutral you do expected values ? The figures were all the same on the performance report in Q1 as it was a template that the franchisees use. Was quite nice that it missed out all the non financials so it gave us an opportunity to comment on loads of them hinted at in scenario( Quality, clean etc).probability question made me chasing my tail for the rest of the exam as it took ages I found. Managed to finish everything to the standard I would have wanted just hope it’s enough ! Only thing I had to miss was the exchange rate on Q2 so probably lost 2-3 marks but hey ho ! The fuel had something like 70% related to distribution. So extracted the 30% to add in after, then did the increase in fuel to 59 and 63% in the relevant quarters then added the 30% in at the end again.
For the G score I thought it was a lot of marks for what it was. I did a calculation just doing one of them (G2 or G3 I think it was) as PBIT instead of EBITDA and it actually reduced the score to at risk of failure and then started slating into EBITDA for masking performance (maybe not relevant). Using EBITDA I think I got 4.17 or something like that overall.
For anyone else who this is their last exam good luck ! Hard to forget about it when these forums are around lol. Even if people have different answers follow through will be key along with ensuring we commented on whatever answers we got sufficiently. GOOD LUCK !
These forums are actually a nightmare for convincing yourself that you’ve messed everything up. I guess the Maximax calculation (that I wasn’t aware of) appears to be the right approach to answer Q1 … just looked at a past question in the BPP revision kit and there’s a similar style to be fair with the above approach! :-/
I’m not sure how this will translate into the marking scheme, whether the students that applied Expected Values will be completely penalised – I’ll need some healthy marks on my calculations to have a chance at passing this paper.
Anyway, hopefully the vast majoirty of us pass! Final one and I feel so drained. Really don’t want to do another exam ever again.
I see someone mentioning all three projects just over $200k which is what I got. Wasn’t particularly comfortable with this area but there was my approach:
Revenue avg per customer: $4
Customers: 1200
Daily revenue: $4800
Yearly revenue (x365): $1,752,000
Contribution (multiplied the above by this rate – something like 58%): $1,016,160
Less fixed costs ($900k): $116,160
Multiply by probability (10%)
EV = $16,160Then repeated process for the other two demand levels and added up as my EV. Repeated this process for project B and C.
I assumed MaxiMax would be the project with the highest return, regardless how low that percentage.
Then vise versa for MaxiMin.
But appears we needed to use the annuity tables for this, according to some comments? :/
The above were pasted straight from PQ Magazine.
Personally, I am expecting the Performance Pyramid to show its face.
However, it’d be great to hear from students who have been on a revision course with BBP or particularly Kaplan?
Cheers
Ryan@accastudent66 said:
Glad I wasn’t the only one to think that. I was re-reading that several times and it just simply didn’t make sense. Poorly constructed grammar.I am going to comment about this in the exam survey that comes out later. I would advocate everyone to do the same for moderation purposes.
Yeah I’ll do the same. It definitely didn’t make sense!!
Are these the surveys that are sent to us via email? I usually ignore them…
@nickinackynoo1 said:
What was question 4 part a trying to ask? The requirement didn’t make any sense, I talked about how csfs focus the organisation but couldn’t really come up with much else!The scenarios were too long, when I picked up the paper I thought it felt thicker than usual (this is my 4th sitting)
I felt really prepared for this sitting but just could digest the scenarios quick enough, seriously thinking of switching to P7 now!
@nickinackynoo1 said:
What was question 4 part a trying to ask? The requirement didn’t make any sense, I talked about how csfs focus the organisation but couldn’t really come up with much else!The scenarios were too long, when I picked up the paper I thought it felt thicker than usual (this is my 4th sitting)
I felt really prepared for this sitting but just could digest the scenarios quick enough, seriously thinking of switching to P7 now!
I genuinely think Q4) a) was missing a verb.
It didn’t read clearly, and didn’t actually make sense.
I read, re-read and then again – convinced the word ‘COULD’ was missing. Can’t remember the exact question, but I was that confused I wrote my concern before attempting to answer.
@nickinackynoo1 said:
What was question 4 part a trying to ask? The requirement didn’t make any sense, I talked about how csfs focus the organisation but couldn’t really come up with much else!The scenarios were too long, when I picked up the paper I thought it felt thicker than usual (this is my 4th sitting)
I felt really prepared for this sitting but just could digest the scenarios quick enough, seriously thinking of switching to P7 now!
I’m convinced there was a word missing from this – Part 4a did not read clearly, in fact it didn’t actually make sense. I even wrote the question out. I think the word ‘COULD’ was absent?
Anyone else feel this?
@Minaa said:
Was lean info system about The 5 S model? For CoQ I wrote about cost of prevention, detection, internal failure and external failure.I wrote random stuff about the BSC too. Also mentioned EVA and market share. I compared all the profits under the part that mentioned return on investments. And I wrote that taking just equity is not appropriate for the calculation of ROCE or ROI. As cost of equity is higher and secondly if debt is completely ignored the company might be tempted to take even more loans which will make its gearing position bad. For this same part I also mentioned Residual income.
I mentioned about VFM and 3Es somewhere in question one as well. :S
There will be people on here better placed to answer that.
I just thought Lean info was the Right Info > Right People > Right time by focusing on end-user, avoiding info overload and one other I’ve forgotten. I then linked it to an ERP system as I’m sure there was something on this in the Q???
Ahhh I thought to myself the VFM was the 3 E’s but then convinced myself it wasn’t…
That’s so frustrating!!First time sitting P5 for me, so not entirely sure how harsh the marking is.
Q1 was tough. I’d hope for some decent marks for the Lean Info and CoQ/TQM. BS weaknesses wasn’t really an area I had revised, so just went with conflicting info and excludes external stakeholders whilst rambling on about the model. Capital Measurements was tough. Just made an educated guess. The performance measurements used / proposed didn’t really apply to maximising S/H wealth. I just threw out EVA and RI definition and moved swiftly on.
Q2 was Benchmarking, and it was basically the NHS vs Bupa from what I could make out. Some of the measures were relevant, but didn’t really have much time to suggest alternatives. The Bupa type firm was a poor fit, but the tax office call centre was obviously a good comparative – hopefully some easyish marks there.
Q4 was Transfer Pricing. I just applied the GAP mnemonic and tried to link to scenario. Then explained the weaknesses with a Market rate. Part (a) I’m convinced was missing a verb as the sentence didn’t read clearly. Was to do with CSF’s and KPI’s. Just threw whatever I could get down with 6 minutes to go.
Not super confident, but sitting P7 Monday was definitely to the detriment of this. Just praying it’s good news in October, sick to death of exams.
Good luck everyone.
Passed with 67%.
Now P5 and P7 one month from today!!!
Can’t wait for this to be over – P2 was certainly a very challenging (and large) syllabus. Good luck to all who have to re-sit.
Hopefully second time lucky for me. Large parts of the exam were educated guesses.
Personally, the SCF wasn’t too bad – there were maybe 10-15 marks available within the question itself.
IMO you had to revise SCF and leases as they were tipped last time and didn’t show (but if you hadn’t have known – then it’s hard to predict).
How Kaplan can tip something for almost certain in March (SCF), and then go with P+L in June after a no-show, is beyond me!
And in my opinion, you cannot ignore the current issue questions. I hear people saying that they didn’t even bother to revise as its too much and they’d prefer to concentrate on just the standards … that’s just crazy as the EASY marks are in the current issues for sure!!! If you have to re-sit (like I did) – read the technical articles that haven’t been examined and just have knowledge of them. I’ve not looked at leases for 2 weeks and it was pretty easy to regurgitate.
Here’s my breakdown:
Q1) CSF with disposal of sub, tax, financial instrument and a Goodwill aspect. I’ve forgotten the rest. Working capital took a few minutes to work out with the disposal too. :-/Q3) registration of football players (ias 16 – pretty sure that’s wrong) & registration fees / variable bonus (ias 37?) etc, naming rights (ias 38?) of a stadium and Borrowing Costs (ias 23) for the purchase of a stadium in respect of interest.
However, the borrowing costs were not directly attributable to the stadium and had arisen due to other borrowing costs. It did also say that the entity would not have required additional borrowings if not for the construction?
Q4) Leases IAS17, Leases IFRS 16 (right of use / > 12 months / non-material exempt such as printers), Application of IFRS 16 to the scenario.
The other question looked really confusing. I’m guessing between 44-60 so fingers crossed.
Oh and the UK Variant has about 2 sides of A4 that compares maybe a dozen features of differences between IFRS SMEs and the U.K. GAAP equivalent. It’s guaranteed 15 marks and you can literally revise it in a few hours. There’s only FOUR practice questions in the Kaplan revision book and 2 of them are 8 marks.
If you’re struggling, I HUGELY advise doing the UK variant. It’s a guaranteed 15 marks that is probably easier than the ethics.
Good luck everyone, here’s hoping as many of us pass as possible. It’s a truly disgusting exam!
Hopefully second time lucky for me. Large parts of the exam were educated guesses.
Personally, the CF wasn’t too bad – there were maybe 10-15 marks available within the question itself.
IMO you had to revise SCF and leases as they were tipped last time and didn’t show (but if you hadn’t have known – then it’s hard to predict).
How Kapln can tip something almost for certain in March (SCF), and then go with P+L in June after a no-show, is beyond me!
And in my opinion, you cannot ignore the current issue questions. I hear people saying that they didn’t even bother to revise as its too much and they’d prefer to concentrate on just the standards … that’s just crazy as the EASY marks are in the current issues for sure!!! If you have to re-sit (like I did) – read the technical articles that haven’t been examined and just have knowledge of them. I’ve not looked at leases for 2 weeks and it was pretty easy to regurgitate.
Here’s my breakdown:
Q1) CSF with disposal of sub, tax, financial instrument and a Goodwill aspect. I’ve forgotten the rest. Working capital took a few minutes to work out with the disposal too. :-/Q3) registration of football players (ias 16 – pretty sure that’s wrong) & registration fees / variable bonus (ias 37?) etc, naming rights (ias 38?) of a stadium and Borrowing Costs (ias 23) for the purchase of a stadium in respect of interest.
However, the borrowing costs were not directly attributable to the stadium and had arisen due to other borrowing costs. It did also say that the entity would not have required additional borrowings if not for the construction?
Q4) Leases IAS17, Leases IFRS 16 (right of use / > 12 months / non-material exempt such as printers), Application of IFRS 16 to the scenario.
The other question looked really confusing. I’m guessing between 44-60 so fingers crossed.
Oh and the UK Variant has about 2 sides of A4 that compares maybe a dozen features of differences between IFRS SMEs and the U.K. GAAP equivalent. It’s guaranteed 15 marks and you can literally revise it in a few hours. There’s only FOUR practice questions in the Kaplan revision book and 2 of them are 8 marks.
If you’re struggling, I HUGELY advise doing the UK variant. It’s a guaranteed 15 marks that is probably easier than the ethics.
Good luck everyone, here’s hoping as many of pass as possible. It’s a truly disgusting exam!
@hassandiamond said:
For adoption of IFRS 1 i mentioned alot of the IFRS 1 main headings; EG Recognition of Items permitted under IFRS which weren’t before. Derecognition of items that aren’t permitted by IFRS that were before. Measuring items in accordance with IFRS. Reclassifying items in accordance with IFRS. Transition date and how it must go back 2 years in order to provide a comparison year. Also importantly, the Gains/Losses have to go direct to Retained earnings and not PNL. Then spouted a little about audit risk/ethical challenges of moving to a principles based model.I’m a little confused about your other qn? I remember a provision to settle an onerous contract. And also an Inventory write down, because the NRV had fallen below the Cost?
When I mention the provision, it’s probably easier to look at at Shriq’s comment. It was cheaper to manufacture the inventory and sell it, rather than settle the ‘onerous’ contract for the direct materials.
I wish that I used the IFRS 1 headings that you mention.
However, I’m clutching a little in that these are pretty technical aspects whilst the question asked for practical considerations.
What did people do in respect of 4a and the practical considerations of moving to a new IFRS?
I just stated the obvious e.g audit risk, governance, new systems, expertise/consultation and a few others … I’m banking on that being correct as I messed up a large proportion of the exam up, with consolidation being the worst (I did however move straight on after 1.5 hours).#
Also, with IFRS 13 I just mentioned the 3 level hierarchy and then worked out that B was the market to calculate the Fair Value as it had the highest volume. I ignored market A as the estimation given by the farmer needed more evidence to support this (I have a feeling this was incorrect?)
Finally (1a), when calculating whether to issue a provision for the materials that were used in the product (that made a loss) … were we supposed to calculate the cost of selling the product? I calculated this at around a $2.5m loss with was significantly less than the $3/$3.5m fine(?)
I’m hoping the above is right, as I need all 3 of them to provide me with shed loads of marks and then the majority of the professional marks to help push it up 🙁