Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    MSA 2 Winter 2019 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Suman Urooj
    The examiners' comments summarize the results of the Management Professional Competence exam from the winter 2019 session. [1] The overall pass rate declined to 34% from 41% in the previous session. [2] Performance was relatively higher on numerical questions (up to 77%) than on questions requiring interpretation, evaluation and recommendations (as low as 2%). [3] Examinees are advised to review suggested answers to improve their analysis and discussion of case studies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    MSA 2 Winter 2019 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Suman Urooj
    111 views4 pages
    The examiners' comments summarize the results of the Management Professional Competence exam from the winter 2019 session. [1] The overall pass rate declined to 34% from 41% in the previous session. [2] Performance was relatively higher on numerical questions (up to 77%) than on questions requiring interpretation, evaluation and recommendations (as low as 2%). [3] Examinees are advised to review suggested answers to improve their analysis and discussion of case studies.

    Original Title

    MSA-2-Winter-2019 (2).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The examiners' comments summarize the results of the Management Professional Competence exam from the winter 2019 session. [1] The overall pass rate declined to 34% from 41% in the previous session. [2] Performance was relatively higher on numerical questions (up to 77%) than on questions requiring interpretation, evaluation and recommendations (as low as 2%). [3] Examinees are advised to review suggested answers to improve their analysis and discussion of case studies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    111 views4 pages

    MSA 2 Winter 2019 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Suman Urooj
    The examiners' comments summarize the results of the Management Professional Competence exam from the winter 2019 session. [1] The overall pass rate declined to 34% from 41% in the previous session. [2] Performance was relatively higher on numerical questions (up to 77%) than on questions requiring interpretation, evaluation and recommendations (as low as 2%). [3] Examinees are advised to review suggested answers to improve their analysis and discussion of case studies.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN

    MULTI SUBJECT ASSESSMENT EXAMINATION


    EXAMINERS’ COMMENTS

    SUBJECT SESSION
    Management Professional Competence Winter 2019

    Passing %

    Question-wise
    Overall
    1(a) 1(b) 1(c) 1(d)(i) 1(d)(ii) 1(e) 2(a) 2(b)(i) 2(b)(ii) 2(b)(iii) 3(a) 3(b) 3(c)
    50% 25% 15% 77% 27% 2% 75% 73% 30% 12% 30% 77% 40% 34%

    General Comments

    The passing percentage in this session has declined to 34% as compared to 41% in the
    previous session. The performance on numerical parts of the questions was relatively
    much higher (as high as 77%) as compared to less than satisfactory performance (as low
    as 2%) on parts of the questions requiring interpretation of numerical results, evaluation
    of the existing strategies and recommendations on future course of action. This has been
    the trend in all previous exams of MSA-2 as well. Examinees are therefore, advised to
    refer suggested answers to understand how to analyze and discuss the given case studies
    to meet the performance expected from them at this level of exams.

    Question-wise common mistakes observed

    Question 1(a)

     Many examinees restricted the comparison of divisional performances in terms of


    calculating ratios and interpreting the resultant ratios as to which division performed
    better.
     Some examinees only discussed whether the particular ratio had increased or
    decreased as compared to last year and did not interrogate the probable factors
    contributing to that increase or decrease in the ratio.
     In many cases, recommendation of matters to be addressed by the board and
    divisional management was too general and had remote or no link to the given case
    study.
     Some examinees offered the same recommendation (achievement of cost efficiencies)
    with different wordings to meet the requirement of recommendation of four matters
    in the question.

    Page 1 of 4
    Examiners’ Comments on Management Professional Competence
    MSA-2 Examination Winter 2019
    Question 1(b)

     The advantages of supplier integration, sharing of inventory information and ease of


    coordinating system updates by offering a single e-business platform were missing in
    most of the answers.
     Many examinees restricted the discussion of e-marketing opportunities to access to
    wider audience and data mining only whereas other important e-marketing
    opportunities such as customized offers to individual customers, improved customer
    feedback and customer survey engagement were missing.

    Question 1(c)

     Many examinees were clueless and opted for guesswork.


     Some examinees discussed types of benchmarking and benefits of benchmarking in
    general instead of benefits specific to improve product integrity and staff turnover.
     Only few examinees used the given scenario to discuss the benefits of benchmarking
    to improve staff turnover.

    Question 1(d)(i)

    Discussion of reservations on directors’ assumptions mostly restricted to the expected


    growth of sales and constant profit margins over the life of investment.

    Question 1(d)(ii)

     Many examinees could not differentiate between suitability, acceptability and


    feasibility and therefore, discussed factors under these headings interchangeably.
     Some examinees offered the similar discussion with different wordings under the
    headings of suitability, acceptability and feasibility.

    Question 1(e)

     Most of the examinees were clueless in this part of the question as large number of
    examinees either did not attempt this part or failed to obtain any marks.
     Some examinees discussed the implementation of Code of Conduct for PBPS in
    general rather than specific to suppliers of PBPS.
     Many examinees could not use the information given in the case study properly and
    most of their discussion was based on self-generated assumptions.

    Question 2(a)

     Many examinees restricted their answers to identification of expansion methods only


    without comparing them in terms of probable pros and cons under the given scenario.
     Some examinees could discuss one or two methods only.

    Page 2 of 4
    Examiners’ Comments on Management Professional Competence
    MSA-2 Examination Winter 2019
    Question 2(b)(i)

     While computing net cash flows, some examinees ignored the scrap value which was
    to be realized at the end of year 4.
     Some examinees either ignored or incorrectly computed forecasted exchange rates.
     While computing costs of bank loan as well as irredeemable bonds, many examinees
    used pre-tax interest amount instead of post-tax interest amount.
     While computing cost of irredeemable bonds, many examinees used cum-interest
    market value instead of using ex-interest market value.
     Many examinees either skipped or made invalid discussion in respect of additional
    relevant consideration associated with the project.

    Question 2(b)(ii)

    Most of the examinees suggested that the project should be financed by combination of
    debt and equity but could not discuss the practical considerations such as availability of
    debt finance, matching issues and quality of security in case of debt finance and issue
    cost, control dilution and more regulations to comply with, in case of equity finance.

    Question 2(b)(iii)

     Many examinees did not consider that timing and size of the dividend are within the
    control of the entity so it can wait until the exchange rate is relatively favorable and
    remit accordingly.
     Most of the examinees identified the hedging methods only and did not comment on
    their suitability under the given scenario.

    Question 3(a)

     Most of the examinees did not realize that KCL was in service business and would
    have significant intangible assets not being part of balance sheet. Therefore, premium
    return should also be included in the asset-based valuation method to account for
    those intangible assets.
     While determining valuation based on P/E ratio, many examinees used industry’s P/E
    ratio and ignored the information about doubling SGIL’s P/E ratio to account for
    above industry average growth rate of SGIL.
     Many examinees performed the calculations only and did not comment on
    appropriateness of those valuation methods in the given scenario.

    Page 3 of 4
    Examiners’ Comments on Management Professional Competence
    MSA-2 Examination Winter 2019
    Question 3(b)

     Many examinees discussed the tax implication of one scenario only i.e. acquisition of
    100% shareholding and ignored the tax implication of other possibility i.e. acquisition
    of less than 100% shareholding.
     While discussing tax implication in case of 100% shareholdings, some examinees
    ignored tax implication of inter-company dividend.

    Question 3(c)

     Many examinees failed to mention the obvious integration risks involved in the given
    scenario like loss of key personnel and risks related to systems’ integration.
     While discussing change management program, most of the examinees restricted
    their answers to discussion of staff participation only and ignored other important
    points such as retention of key staff and clarity of direction.

    (THE END)

    Page 4 of 4

    You might also like