*** ACCA P1 June 2017 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***

i feel the same, easy paper, ran out of time so may have written rubbish !

Well got confused withe question one from the beginning….the very first question threw me off the way it was phrased and this put a damper on the entire exam……..Somehow I always get the Mendelow Matrix confused in terms of plotting and whether it’s interest or influence over power.

The questions in itself wasn’t too difficult its just the way it was phrased and the pressure for time. We are told to plan our question etc before answering but how realistic is this when you are trying to read a two page scenario and wondering how much time has passed you buy and you are still reading?

I think I made a complete mess of the compulsory question and this carried onto the other questions as I am always thinking…..nah i don’t think that’s how that’s supposed to be answered……..

Question 2 wasn’t too bad, though I got stuck with the ICGN part of the question and diversity question.

All in all I won’t be surprised if I have to do a retake…..

Really? and that’s next on my agenda….I better start practicing lol

hi

@nidsy said:
Doctor – high interest low power

The funding agency – high interest and high power

The health authority – high interest low power ( I wrote this cos question first said doctors were concerned abt it but couldn’t do much abt it and ‘similarly the authority was also forced to reduce budget’ or something like that..) I mentioned that explicitly which is y i took them with low power. I also said if they could demonstrate higher power they will be key players like the funding agency.

________________________________________________________________
Your answer was the same to me. But i changed Health Authorities from High Interest+Low Power into High Interest+ High Power. But i think I got it wrong, coz m not still not clear ”Health Authority” here, the question refer to ONLY Oldshires or refer to health authorities in that country in the question generally.

@tayyabom said:
there were three stake holders:

1) RICE – High Power – Low Interest
2) Oldshires – Low Power – High Interest
3) Doctors – Low Power – High Interest

That’s what I wrote. RICE low interest because there is no hint that they opposed this reduction. If they were pro-health care then why they didn’t take any action? that was my opinion anyway.

Agree with you, put down the same

@nomonet said:
It asked to explain the benefits of diversification across the fund managers trans-national portfolio, if I remember correctly.

I definitely recall it asking ways to use diversification to reduce financial risk when choosing investments?

That’s why you can never be overconfident with this exam or the opposite, my thoughts too on this one, no point trying to compare answers as people may have answered completely differently but still made valid points and still gained marks.

Just never know.

Overall, the exam was ok, but certainly a very long read and 3 hours 15 mins is just so short a time to put the answers together, if you’re a slow reader like me, it’s certainly a struggle to complete. I made my plan for the first question but didn’t on the other 2 due to timing issues.

Anyway, I attempted about 95%, so I am hoping that a nice marker will appreciate my effort. I mainly used my own words in answering although I did memorise the theories, but probably only used a few which are overtly mentioned in the questions. Other than that, it was all application and linking answers to the case.

Pass or Fail, I certainly find all the lessons in my learning process invaluable.

Hope everyone gets a pass!

@kireeti said:
It was more on the lines with How diversification is useful to reduce the risk…Q2

Btw, in q3, was the investigators’ allegation against Honeybuzz stated as untrue?

Even so, answers to that basically mean show ways it can be reduced which shows how it is useful.

Q3 – The investors allegation was said to be false by operations director, doesn’t mean it was true. But it can affect the credibility of the environmental footprint and hence the environmental report as asked for in the last part.

@eagledave said:
I

The published reports were independently audited so therefore the claim was unfounded, and the company was taking their strategic CSR very seriously.

Thats something i put in the second to last part which spoke about environmental and social audit and the benefits of it in the integrated report.

But the last part was about the environmental footprint and report specifically. Therefore, its possible to put the argument across that even though they are branding natural honey which improves footprint, the fact that people in the production process stated themselves of still using honey can undermine that.

I don’t think these questions are about absolution. It requires points with justification to back it up.

.I don’t think these questions are about absolution. It requires points with justification to back it up.

Yes that is true, I think whichever way, as long as we justify the answer, I am sure we will be given marks for every valid points.

@eagledave said:
Yes I hear you, I don’t have a brilliant memory myself, so I may have misunderstood it too so don’t feel bad.. Let’s hope we made enough valid points to get enough marks 🙂

Absolutely! Results will be released before we know it…fingers crossed we pass.