• A paper whose fairness was rooted in its consistency with previous years
• A good test of an applied skillset honed with practice

Accounting is about consistency: the application of a honed skillset within the given time. In many ways it is a very practical subject and so a fair paper is one that lets the student jump right into the work without distraction or confusion. This was a fair paper. Everything has appeared in some form before and patterns from previous years remained. Anyone who had applied themselves to practicing the past papers and kept an eye on the clock will be relieved by the exam鈥檚 conclusion.

In Section 1, students had a choice of Q1 on the preparation of Final Accounts or the option of completing two 60-mark questions. As guaranteed again this year, students who opted for Q1 were given two options and this year these related to the Limited Company and the Manufacturing Company. Both options were very straightforward and reflected similar questions asked in the past. The trial balance in both contained nothing unusual except for net discount in Q1A which related to discount allowed rather than the usual discount received so hopefully all students noted that. There were the standard nine adjustments in both questions The adjustments would all have been familiar to students and included damaged and destroyed stock, depreciation on delivery vans, goods on SOR; Patents W/O; Suspense; VAT; Revaluation; Rent prepaid, bank account amendments and provisions for amounts due and transfers. All of which are well-established in the past papers with only the particular numbers differentiating them from year-to-year. The only tricky parts requiring students to be careful were the inclusion of a scrap value in the depreciation of the delivery vans in Q1A and the patents written off commencing in 2021 as the former is not always asked and requires a set order of operations.

The three optional 60-mark questions consisted of Published accounts; Farm accounts and Depreciation which were widely anticipated. These questions did not contain any major surprises and were not so long as to disproportionally consume precious exam time, so students attempting this option would have been pleased. The depreciation question included installation charges which might have thrown some students but has been asked before in different questions so, yet again, diligent preparation would pay off. The theory element of the farm accounts was very nice asking students to consider energy savings in their financial analysis of the proposal to install solar panels.

In Section 2, students were required to complete two of the three questions, which consisted of Interpretation of accounts which had been guaranteed, Cash Flow Statements and Correction of Errors. Again, students may have been expecting most of these topics and so would have been very pleased as they could launch straight into their answers. The questions themselves were very nice and did not contain anything that students would have seen and practiced in previous years questions. The ratios in Question 5 were very straightforward and Q5(b) concerned a typical analysis as per the bank manager while part (c) concerned ordinary and preference shares. This was a very nice part (c) but it would be important that students realised it only carried 10 marks and would not require as detailed an answer as it would had it been asked in part (b). Again, with timing such a vital concern, it was important that students calibrated their responses rather than reciting an overlong response from memory.

Q6, Cash Flow Statements was anticipated and was a routine question. Again, the theory element was fairly straightforward relating to the benefits of cash flow preparation and the differences between profit and cash. Q7 on Correction of Errors was a typical question and contained nothing that students would not have come across before in previous Correction of Errors questions. Error (iii) relating to 鈥渁dvertising due鈥� and 鈥渞ent鈥� prepaid was the only tricky moment here but should have been familiar to students as it has been a feature of previous papers.

In Section 3 on Management/Cost accounting, students are required to attempt one question from Costing and Budgeting. Q8 on Flexible budgets and stock valuation was very clear and fit neatly within the allotted time. A few tricky elements asked students to calculate breakeven point and margin of safety. While all students would have known how to do this, they may have been surprised to see it asked in that particular question. This required some mental agility to navigate over topics, but this wasn鈥檛 an enigma to be cracked or deciphered: if you had the skill, it was clear where to use it. The stock valuation was straightforward, although being asked to name a second method of stock valuation at the end might have tested some students. Q9 was a cash and production budgeting combined question which was much anticipated. It was a very forthright question on the same lines as questions asked previously. The theory question used the phrase 鈥渧ariance analysis鈥� which might have thrown some students as that particular phrase might be more abstract than normally used for a very practical activity.

Overall, I think this was a very manageable and fair paper rooted in the conventions of the Accounting course. Students who had practiced their Accounting and past examination questions well over the last two years will have found themselves well-suited to the questions, relieved and a little tired after racing the clock.

The post Accounting (H): A Fair And Consistent Exam appeared first on 91制片厂.

• A fair and manageable paper but students will be pushed to complete all four questions in time.
• Anticipated topics appeared, so students familiar with previous trends will be relieved.

Accounting exams are always challenging for students as they must work right up to the borderline. Covid adjustments had allowed previous students to only answer three questions, but this was the first year to return to the four/five-question paper. This increase in pressure was well-balanced by the examiner asking accessible and transparent questions.

In Sction 1, students had a choice of Q1 on Final Accounts or the option of completing two 60-mark questions. As guaranteed again this year, students had two options for Q1 and these related to the Sole Trader and the Limited Company. Many students will have anticipated these two options and will have been happy with that. Both options for Q1 were nice and doable questions, a relief to the majority who expect to answer on Final Accounts. Neither were overly long, which means students should have been able to complete the question in the required time. The adjustments in both questions had all been seen before in previous questions but some of them were shorter than before in a welcome concession to timing. The inclusion of VAT with the goods in transit, the writing off of the patents commencing in 2020, as well as the suspense error involving an entry in the incorrect side of an account were the only parts that might have caused some students to trip up if they did not read the question carefully. As is always the case in Accounting, students that keep their heads and work through things methodically will be the most successful.

The three questions in Section 2 consisted of Interpretation of Accounts (which had been guaranteed), Published Accounts and Service Firm Accounts. Students aware of the pattern of topics from past papers may have been expecting most of these topics and so would have been very pleased. The questions themselves were very nice and did not contain anything that students would not have seen and practiced in previous year鈥檚 questions. The ratios in Q5 were very straightforward and Q5(b) concerned the debenture holders which was widely anticipated. Q6, Published Accounts was anticipated and was a very reasonable question. Q7 on service firm accounts was a very manageable question and contained nothing that students would not have come across before in previous service firm questions. The theory questions in all three were fairly straightforward. There was no twist or attempt to divert students by making them decode an awkward topical question. While there are always subtle details to be carefully read for, these were based on things that experienced students would notice and as such the paper offered an honest reflection of the years of preparation.

This trend continued into Section 3 on management/cost accounting, in which students are required to attempt one question on either Costing or Budgeting. Q8 was on Marginal Costing as widely anticipated and was a nice question, well doable in the time allowed. This question should not have posed any problems for students who had practiced this question many times. The style was similar to the marginal/absorption questions asked in recent years and included the calculation of overheads using the High/Low method. Q9 was on Cash Budgeting and was very similar in style to previously asked questions. Students would have seen this question as a much anticipated because it has not received a full question since 2015 and so was due an appearance in the rotation. The inclusion of scrap value in the calculation of depreciation has been asked before in these questions, so should not have proved problematic for students.

Overall, students will likely leave the hall tired yet content with a very manageable and fair paper. Those who had practiced their accounting and past examination questions well over the last two years, and didn鈥檛 panic under the time constraints, will be happy with this paper.

The post Accounting (H): A Fair And Manageable Paper appeared first on 91制片厂.