|
CIMA考官对Nov 2009考试的评价供广大战友分享
CIMA EXAMINERS – marks out of 10 for the November 2010 exams
With the help of experts at BPP we turn the tables on the examiners – how fair were the November exams?
PQ magazine’s EXAMINER’S REPORT
P1 – a challenging test 7/10
P2 – managing time is everything 7/10
P3 – too much of the IT crowd 6/10
P4 – all very manageable 8/10
P5 – a balanced approach 7/10
P6 – a more difficult paper, but why? 6/10
P7 – no major surprises 7/10
P8 – was it easier this time around? 7/10
P9 – a fair test 8/10
TOPCIMA – an uncomplicated case 7/10
P1 Performance Evaluation
The last sitting of the trickiest paper (according to pass rates) would have been a challenge to many students. Section A included some tricky definition questions, some brought-forward knowledge and 8-markers (yes – eight) on joint products and the further processing thereof.
Section B saw the first 4 questions based on a very basic scenario. This provided little detail to relate answers to, but a lot of students are likely to benefit from this as general answers are likely to score reasonably well. The final 5-mark question saw the end of process costing beyond CIMA Certificate Level. Section C was definitely a tale of two questions. Question 3 was a variance-based question, similar to what has been seen before though with more straightforward calculations. Question 4 was a strange one. The first 11 marks for effectively calculating the impacts of some working capital management felt very much like a P7 question, or the P1 2010 syllabus arriving 6 months early. The remaining 19 marks were for brought forward knowledge and Beyond Budgeting – if you knew your stuff this could have been a winner, but definitely not the question to pick if you were hoping to ‘wing it’.
P2 Decision Management
Section A focussed heavily on investment appraisal. Questions were relatively straightforward. Section B started with risk & uncertainty. The calculations should not have posed problems as these involved filling in missing numbers enabling candidates to sense check their approach for other combinations given. The interpretation required has been examined on a number of occasions so students should have been well practised in this.
Straightforward learning curve and JIT questions followed. The first section C question on limiting factors had just 10 marks for graphical linear programming which was likely to put candidates under time pressure. The second question, whilst not complex, featured an unusual tabular profit maximisation scenario along with limiting factors, discussion of shadow prices and ABC cost classifications. The final NPV question included inflation (via index numbers) and sensitivity. For the first time under this syllabus a discussion of how Pareto analysis could be used was also examined.
P3 Risk & Control Strategy
Compared to previous sittings, this paper covered a good range of topics, although it emphasised IT and contained fewer general requirements to discuss risks and controls. The compulsory question focused on IT for the first time ever (ERP of course). It should have been manageable, although challenging to generate enough ideas from the scenario to score well. As with most IT-based questions, assumed knowledge of project management from P5 would have helped. Section B included two straightforward questions - a knowledge-based one on corporate governance and one on swaps and interest rate risk. A further scenario was set in accounts receivable, continuing a series of questions set in accounting functions, but again the scenario lacked enough clues to justify the marks allocated. Finally, another question on financial risk focused on treasury and included a bizarre requirement to discuss steps in recruitment for 12 marks – more P4 than P3.
P4 Organisational Management & IS
As usual the P4 exam covered a range of topics from the syllabus but was a very manageable paper. The MCQs in section A were in the main very straightforward, examining core knowledge areas. The other 5 questions in section A, which required a written response with a 50 word limit, were more difficult but well-prepared students should have been able to score good marks. Section B was a system-based scenario with crossover to the HR syllabus content. The scenario should have provided students with lots of ideas for their answer so there was the opportunity to score highly on application. The two questions in section C provided students with a good choice, one focusing on marketing and quality and the other on recruitment and selection. There were 20 marks available for advantages and disadvantages of online CVs, which hopefully students could approach practically. The scenario for the marketing question would have been harder to apply in an answer as there were not enough specifics about the company and its industry.
P5 Integrated Management
There weren’t really any surprises in this paper and being the last sitting under the current syllabus it could have been a lot worse! The paper provided a balanced coverage of the syllabus across the three sections. Section A was fairly straightforward and the well-prepared student will score well. It was nice to see Mintzberg’s configurations making an appearance for a very easy 2 marks. Section B provided opportunities for students to score close to full marks on some questions, for example, an accurate network diagram, well presented with duration and float time specified for 10 marks. The other section B questions offer similar opportunities; covering problems with groups and workforce flexibility. The latter needed a little more thought and application. The theme continued in section C with questions 5 and 7 covering topics that students seem to like and historically score well on. Question 6 was probably the most challenging question on the paper at first glance, but once the question had been broken down into the individual requirements it was more than manageable.
P6 Business Strategy
The November exam was in the mould of recent sittings, however it did seem to represent a significant increase in difficulty. Section A focused on a small consultancy firm in Africa which had staff retention issues. Requirements (a) and (b) covered the concept and advantages of Knowledge Management. This would have been challenging for most candidates. Parts (c) and (d) were more straightforward, structured around the more familiar models of The Balanced Scorecard and Porter’s Five Forces. A recurring theme in section B was the requirement to evaluate and recommend strategies. In order to do this a good knowledge of Ansoff and Lynch would have been required in Q4, as well as the application of Johnson & Scholes ‘SAF’ framework in questions 2, 4 and 5.
P7 Financial Accounting & Tax Principles
Overall this was a fair paper, with no major surprises. Section A provided a good mix of questions from across the syllabus. Although unpopular with students, no-one should have been surprised to be asked to calculate yield to maturity or by the deferred tax questions.
Section B was probably the toughest part of this paper. The IASB framework question was on the purpose of the Framework. There was a question about acquired intangibles. The examiner reported a poor performance when this topic was touched on in a previous exam.
Section C was a straightforward accounts preparation question.
P8 Financial Analysis
This paper was very much in line with previous sittings. Overall it was slightly easier than this May’s paper. Section A tested group accounting, foreign currency translation, pensions, EPS, IASB/FASB convergence and limitations of ratio analysis. Section B covered group accounting (a consolidated income statement with a subsidiary acquired mid-year and an associate), discussion of accounting treatments applying the definition of control from IAS 27 and the concept of functional currency from IAS 21, and a question on classification and measurement of two financial instruments. Section C contained two interpretation questions and one consolidated cash flow statement. The cash flow statement was as hard as any set before in this paper but contained plenty of easy marks for students who had practised similar examples. The first interpretation question involved a report to an investor and some discussion on the usefulness of segmental reporting. The other combined a report to the board about a potential takeover target with discussion on current developments in narrative reporting.
P9 Financial Strategy
This was fair test of a candidate’s skills, and was easier than recent sittings of this paper.
Question 1 concerned an acquisition. Parts (a) and (b) focussed on DCF techniques. The report in part (c) required a discussion of a range of values for the bid, and also of financing and whether it would help the firm achieve its objectives. All of these issues have been seen in previous questions. Question 2 concerned the evaluation of a rights issue, and a discussion of dividends versus buy backs. Question 3 required a calculation of the cost of three types of debt finance, and a discussion. Question 4 focussed on the calculation and discussion of a cost of capital; and also a discussion of the key considerations when installing a new IT system. Finally, question 5 required the evaluation of an overseas investment under different exchange rate scenarios.
| 
加JingGuanBbs
京公网安备 11010802022788号
论坛法律顾问：王进律师
知识产权保护声明
免责及隐私声明
发帖
雷达卡
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
