SBL*** ACCA P3 June 2017 Exam was.. Instant Poll and comments ***

Here's a 300 % answer relevant to IR from part (c). Can't remember where I got this note from, think it might have been a technical article or a P5 textbook from Kaplan. "The integrated report also provides a vehicle for illustrating progress through relevant measures of strategic performance. Failure to meet set targets can be commented upon and remedial actions, if appropriate, can be outlined. Central to this will be a discussion of the CSFs and the KPIs which have been identified to measure business performance. KPIs will have associated performance objectives which can be reported in the integrated report. Thus, the report not only restates the KPI and its associated performance objective, it also reports on whether that performance objective has been met and, if it has not, discusses reasons for failure and the actions which are being taken to ensure that this objective is met in the next reporting period."

For IR question it was also asked in sept/dec 2015

Ok exam

@rogman228 said: Here's a 300 % answer relevant to IR from part (c). Can't remember where I got this note from, think it might have been a technical article or a P5 textbook from Kaplan. "The integrated report also provides a vehicle for illustrating progress through relevant measures of strategic performance. Failure to meet set targets can be commented upon and remedial actions, if appropriate, can be outlined. Central to this will be a discussion of the CSFs and the KPIs which have been identified to measure business performance. KPIs will have associated performance objectives which can be reported in the integrated report. Thus, the report not only restates the KPI and its associated performance objective, it also reports on whether that performance objective has been met and, if it has not, discusses reasons for failure and the actions which are being taken to ensure that this objective is met in the next reporting period."

I didnt write as clear as yours. my points from scenario was weak in this part c of the answer. did you pick any CSF of MPF and its related KPIs. I was trying to identify those. somehow i tried to connect some CSfs to integrated reporting. But, flow of information was too weak, bad. My answers for project were too weak again. I couldnt relate much to the scenario. I tried my best and wrote few points. contents of PID, Business case, steps in project plan, Tara all written but could not relate to scenario. I was nervous whether I will pass or not.

what were the political factors of MPF? my points were , customers were too concerned of foriegn investment, also fat managers. likelihood of some regulations from governemnt side on those factors. But, i am not sure whether I will get any marks for my points on political factors. two legal factors already given in scenario. so, for legal factors I wrote from them.

@vipin70 said: I didnt write as clear as yours. my points from scenario was weak in this part c of the answer. did you pick any CSF of MPF and its related KPIs. I was trying to identify those. somehow i tried to connect some CSfs to integrated reporting. But, flow of information was too weak, bad. My answers for project were too weak again. I couldnt relate much to the scenario. I tried my best and wrote few points. contents of PID, Business case, steps in project plan, Tara all written but could not relate to scenario. I was nervous whether I will pass or not.

Yeah I identified some CSFs (customer satisfaction) and KPIs (customers surveys and number of complaints) and discuss how these can be monitored and and taken account of when setting strategy. Then mentioned how they can use integrated report to communicate progression of KPIs and achievement of CSFs to stakeholders and other blah blah. It was difficult indeed to link the 20 marker for project management back to the scenario. I tried my best, saying things like how project planning will up up Rachael's street because she's a visionary manager, but yes it was not easy.

Four hints in Q1 that I remember from the top of my head: 1). Some (but not all) of SFP's customers were also shareholders of the co-operative. This affects level of their committment when hard times strike, which is the case in the scenario. 2). The co-operative ran both supermarket business and smaller shops. It was explicitly stated that consumers start to turn away from supermarkets, so SFP was the only market player who had a back-up strategy so to speak (+ its smaller shops were located all over the country) 3). Government proposed a 5% mandatory pension contribution. It was stated in the text that payroll expenses of SFP are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than expenses of their competitors. If follows that CF would be heavily affected (adverse effect) had the legislation been adopted. 4). Retail sector was very concentrated with a lot of competing supermarket chains. The biggest one ONLY enjoyed 13-14% of market share If I remember correctly. Retail market grew considerably year on year, so this is "growth" stage and as we all know competitors are eager to enter the market during this stage.

@vipin70 said: what were the political factors of MPF? my points were , customers were too concerned of foriegn investment, also fat managers. likelihood of some regulations from governemnt side on those factors. But, i am not sure whether I will get any marks for my points on political factors. two legal factors already given in scenario. so, for legal factors I wrote from them.

The big Political was the implementing of pension schemes being mandatory for employees and employers having to pay a matching amount on top of that leading to higher costs for employers. The legal factors was the new law regarding disabled people and this was the most obvious thing in the case study indeed.

@gmpo12 said: Four hints in Q1 that I remember from the top of my head: 1). Some (but not all) of SFP's customers were also shareholders of the co-operative. This affects level of their committment when hard times strike, which is the case in the scenario. 2). The co-operative ran both supermarket business and smaller shops. It was explicitly stated that consumers start to turn away from supermarkets, so SFP was the only market player who had a back-up strategy so to speak (+ its smaller shops were located all over the country) 3). Government proposed a 5% mandatory pension contribution. It was stated in the text that payroll expenses of SFP are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than expenses of their competitors. If follows that CF would be heavily affected (adverse effect) had the legislation been adopted. 4). Retail sector was very concentrated with a lot of competing supermarket chains. The biggest one ONLY enjoyed 13-14% of market share If I remember correctly. Retail market grew considerably year on year, so this is "growth" stage and as we all know competitors are eager to enter the market during this stage.

Some excellent points indeed. I actually mentioned their poor technology as a weakness when discussing the payroll thing as well as they'll probably have to invest in better technology to make the deductions to 100% accuracy but that might have been me trying too hard to link the factor back to a strength or weakness as per the requirement.

I have not calculated the ratios on answer booklet just comented on them as per their percentage can i will get the marks for them and i have calculated only 7 ratios for 15 marks

@silentman said: I have not calculated the ratios on answer booklet just comented on them as per their percentage can i will get the marks for them and i have calculated only 7 ratios for 15 marks

Yes though you may lose some marks for not showing the workings. I figured the marking scheme was as follows: 5 ratios 1/2 mark for each 2016 ratio 1/2 mark for each 2015 ratio 2 points/comments made on concerns from each ratio at 1 mark per point made. So in summary 5 ratios give 5 marks then 2 comments on each ratio at 1 mark each. Just my guess of course.

@chullbulla said: Can anybody remember what they wrote for Q4 part 1 and 2?

I have mentioned.

Ok exam overall....however it should be 4 h ?

the ratios i took were current ratio, interest cover, gross profit margin,net profit margin. the current ratio is healthy. interest cover dropped form 6 to 2.5 change in gross profit margin is not considerable. change in net profit margin is considerable. cash in hand is too low. employee turnover is too high and i established that the company redundant the employees to meet cash flow requirements. Also, the working capital is financed by a shot term loan. company is facing liquidity issues. very clear. those were my points.

Do you remember how exactly was the question about pricing in Q4..As it was written i thought that it was about taking into consideration customers competition cost and company s objectives..

question 2 software was more about the following 1. compatibility of the new software to interface/link with the current system 2. usability/ user friendliness of the system 3. after sale service / support from the software provider 4. software update 5. and the long term cost of the software for the support service

@chullbulla said: For Q2 I thought that part b also require the analysis of SOP :( my mistake so I wrote some analysis under part b which can easily fit in part a, will marker show any mercy or will mark as zero? any idea any one? that can be a crucial point between my pass and fail

I think as long as you wrote the question number (1,2,3 or 4) clearly at the top of the script you should not be worried about it. Examiners are not robots, they are human and should be able to figure how you mistakingly labelled part A as part B in the heat of an exam. Everyone makes mistakes in exams, nobody ever gets 100, so relax. 50% of us will get away with any error we made in the heat of the moment this morning. Keep the faith.

but what I think they are asking is that they did the analysis for SOP instead of the software company. Which it seems many people did (including myself - I was so tired, and I remember thinking why is there some of this stuff in a non profit?) My ratios were still the same, and other than one or two comments directly relating to SOP (the money they lost on the deposit, and the fact that they should not purchase the software unless they can raise the money..) the analysis from the numbers (ROCE, Net Assets, Receivables, Payables, Gross Profit vs Operating Profit) were all the same..so I guess what we are asking is will this mess up the whole 15 points, or just a few?

@afaith10 said: but what I think they are asking is that they did the analysis for SOP instead of the software company. Which it seems many people did (including myself - I was so tired, and I remember thinking why is there some of this stuff in a non profit?) My ratios were still the same, and other than one or two comments directly relating to SOP (the money they lost on the deposit, and the fact that they should not purchase the software unless they can raise the money..) the analysis from the numbers (ROCE, Net Assets, Receivables, Payables, Gross Profit vs Operating Profit) were all the same..so I guess what we are asking is will this mess up the whole 15 points, or just a few?

I'd be surprised if it does it ruin all 15 marks that would be very harsh indeed. I would say you could still at least pass with 7.5 marks if you fell into that trap, but got your ratio correct and made one or two general comments on them that could still apply if there was a name switch.

Sorry, still tired, answered that wrong... I did the financial analysis and for some very stupid reason thought it was for the pet company when it was for the software company. Same results though, and it seems some others did the same thing. Stupid mistake on my part I don't even know how I did that.

Q1, Q2 is pretty ok for me. I am pretty screwed up for Q4. I use Bowman strategy clock for part a&b. for part b, other than bowman, I added demand conditions, factor conditions, targeting, positioning and etc. Part c, for promotion, I use sponsor on car events, environmental events as the car is environmental friendly. They can advertise at car magazines and use their awards to attract customers. For place, I say open sales and service branch near housing areas. For physical evidence, I write the company can introduce test drive for customersand etc. Just hope I can pass the paper then I can proceed my P6.

Do you remember if Q4 a) question asked for the pricing policy that the company should follow or the pricing criteria?I think that the clock is about positioning policies and that is not the proper answer...but I Don t know which is the right one..

I had thought it might be PESTEL for this exam so I worked hard on those questions - and it paid off! I was delighted with q1 although I did think Political was a bit sketchy?? completely messed up on CSF, KPI's and I never remember what IR is about!! I did q3 as I had worked hard on Project management (our lecturer said it comes up often so I studied PM quite well) and that was okay. A bit of a strange project but I did back it as being a project (start/end date, budget, scope etc). Not sure about the cost/benefits?? Maybe increase in sales for the mud range? I had to choose between q2 and q4 and now i'm questioning if I should have done q4 instead of q2. The numbers were really weird and i ended up saying to avoid Itras as they appear to be going insolvent... I think I might pass though.. fingers crossed!!

@rogman228 said: Yes though you may lose some marks for not showing the workings. I figured the marking scheme was as follows: 5 ratios 1/2 mark for each 2016 ratio 1/2 mark for each 2015 ratio 2 points/comments made on concerns from each ratio at 1 mark per point made. So in summary 5 ratios give 5 marks then 2 comments on each ratio at 1 mark each. Just my guess of course.

I'm hoping that's not the case as I also didn't bother with writing the formulas, I just quickly worked them on my calculator and used my results in the answer. There was an answer in the BPP txt book to a similar question and they did't show the calculations, rather just start talking about the answers. I think at P3 level its assumed that you know these ratios and how to do very basic maths so more important how you apply these

@kevikraze said: I'm hoping that's not the case as I also didn't bother with writing the formulas, I just quickly worked them on my calculator and used my results in the answer. There was an answer in the BPP txt book to a similar question and they did't show the calculations, rather just start talking about the answers. I think at P3 level its assumed that you know these ratios and how to do very basic maths so more important how you apply these

Yeah you're probably right, but it depends. Maybe you'll only get half a mark full stop for getting the ratio right, or maybe not even one. Maybe the BPP solution the ratio are obviously 100% correct so they'd still get credit because their figures right. But if you get it wrong, but show workings, maybe you'll still get some credit. We can only guess it's very hard to read examiners' minds. I got all formula right except asset turnover use total assets over capital employed instead of sales over capital employed. Whoops.

Can anyone share what he wrote for portor 5 forces?

The past exams marking schemes (last page in answers) says 0.5 mark for ratio calculations. And I think is logical to show the calculations. By working them directly in the calculator there is the risk of making calculation error and without showing the working, the marker will see only a number which is wrong on one hand and on the other hand doesn't know where it came from (since no workings performed in the answer sheet).

I meant 0.5 mark per ratio calculations.

I thought it might be PESTEL and 5 forces so I worked hard on those questions - paid off well! I thought the paper was quite easy but is that just because we all practised so hard?? I had to decide between q2 and q4 as I did q3 straight after q1. Not sure I made the right choice but the financial analysis was quite interesting to say the least... definitely waived SOP off from Itras due to possible insolvency problems. It was an interesting question!! I liked q3 as our lecturer said Project management always comes up so that was another one I really concentrated on. Delighted - will also be surprised if I fail. Hope I don't jinx myself now...

@kevikraze said: Thought question 1 was OK with the pestle and porters, Question 2 I didn't like that the software company didn't seem in too bad a state, it would have been easier if they were worse, I found profit ratios had worsened but receiveable and payable days had improved, main concern was that they had both increased long term debt and cut back much of their work force, I thought this suggested they may have used their savings in wages and dent finance to pay off their large payables. Anyone else take this line? Software focused on Fit for purpose, ease of use, security features, compatibility with other systems, strength of software company for maintenance and updates, training Q3) Said difference of project was one off not planned business, different from main strategy, to take a new unforseen opportunity Then I described each stage of the project, what I found hard was relating it back to the scenario which question asked, didn't much like their project, also got confused as I thought the business case was part of the PID not a separate document

In regards to the financial analysis, i concluded liquidity problems. Better ratios could have suggested that they force customers to pay faster because of the liquidity issues, payables could have fallen because suppliers see the risk. Gearing increases, long term debt funding short term finance, cash also fell, profitability also fell. Staff also fell, for a service company, could be aligned to a manufacturing company selling fixed assets,a sign of downsizing i think. etc etc