- This topic has 59 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
- Posts
I just mentioned TARA for the risk strategy and wrote that the company can transfer, avoid, reduce or accept the risk according to its probability and hazard…………but not linked this with the question in any way bcz of time pressure
the probability / hazard framework was for risk assessment ………and the TARA strategy was for risk control ………both required in the question
I found the paper to be quite interesting but challenging as well. Text book knowledge alone would not have seen you through! This paper required someone to think out of the box and heavily apply the cases to their answers.. I think for this sitting, the examiner really wanted to emphasise on that aspect, that its not enough to know the book from A-Z but application of concepts is key. Even without constructing a risk matrix or TARA on the risk part of Q1, one could easily get half the marks for that part of the Q provided their reasoning was logical and well explained. For the letter, highlighting the fact that Gavin Hoo was new to the job and that his policies and attitude to int control would be much better than those set by his predecessor would have been a bonus. All three options were attemptable but Q2 and 3 seemed fair. Q4 carried the small risk of saying to much with little substance and thus failing to finish on time. Not that it was any harder than the other 2.
the question is what about the other side of story.
i mean if you explained the problem from the case but didn’t refer to textbook.
like in 1a(ii): “discuss the tensions”: examiner probably required to mention stakeholders claim which i did not however discussed well.
btw: i don’t understand what’s the point in giving vague questions.
people spend more time on thinking what’s in examiner’s head than focusing on answer itself.Why in the world Gray owen and adams did not come into my mind when attempting question 3(c).. argh
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 6
- ☆
the paper was fair so lam just playing for 50%
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 53
- ☆☆
it was hard for me
I did Q1,3,4, coz I give up SoX Act
Q3(c) I thought it is about Johnson, Schloes and Whittington referring 2 out of 4 ethical stances: Short-term shareholder interests, loner-term shareholder interests, multiple stakeholder obligations and sharper of society!In that case, the charity org should be sharper of society and the so called pristine capitalist is short-term shareholder interests. I think this is the first time the examiner test about ethical stances, while past sittings are always about the 7 responsibilities of Gray, Owen, Adams… But guys, don’t get me wrong, maybe I’m the one who was wrong.
Q1(a)(ii) the sustainability thingys also f**ked me up! The only thing I remember is triple bottom line: sustainability in social, environmental, economical…then I got no idea how to apply this in the case!
Q1 (c) is the risk assessment, which is TARA, I’m pretty sure…
Well, after reading you guys comments, I know I’m f**ked up for the easy marks, for example ways to remove directors, and suggest the recommended options, I don’t know how I get the idea of: negotiate with nomination committee the severance payment upon leaving the board -,-”
OK I just hoped for 50% and that’s it!!! I can’t believe it my very first and the only paper in this sittings could be like this!
the paper was fair however the strategic answering is what i perceive lacks here with most of our answers being too bookish
- Topics: 0
- Replies: 6
- ☆
Answered questions 3&4.question 1 was very confusing for me.made so m e errors n. Couldn’t get my thoughts straight in the exam hall.mistakes were inevitable for me.fingers crossed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.