STANDARD OF THE PAPER The November 2017 examinations examined candidates in such areas as Investment Appraisal using discounted cash flow techniques, Budget Preparations, Product Costing using Absorption and Activity Based costing methods, Break Even Analysis and preparation of profit statements and Standard costing using variance analysis. The questions were well spread to cover the entire syllabus based on the recommended weightings except that the theory questions formed just about 26% of the total marks. The questions were not beyond the capability of an average candidate at this level of the professional examination. Generally there were no errors in the questions that were set; however in question 1(a) under capital budgeting, the cost per unit was given under the absorption costing technique but the question did not provide the normal production level that should be used to determine the fixed cost per year. As a result most candidates treated the fixed cost as if it were a variable cost. Again the timing of the bad debt in question 2 (b) was not clear. While some think it should be spread over the collection period others think it should be treated when the third installment is due. Also in question 3 (a), the requirement was not clear as to whether it is cost per unit or total cost, (calculate the prime cost for each product). Some students calculated the total cost for each product. In question 4, under cost volume profit analysis with multiproduct, it was assumed that the fixed cost could be apportioned. Once that is done, then each product could stand alone and analysis could be on single product basis. These shortfalls were not expected to adversely affect candidates’ performance.

PERFORMANCE OF CANDIDATES Performance was almost equally spread. For instance almost all the candidates failed to answer question 4 satisfactorily. Attempts at other questions were generally at the same level of understanding. There were however a few exceptional students who did very well in all the questions. The overall performance by candidates was poor. Candidates failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in the various topics that would enable them to solve the problems. The questions were not difficult relative to the level of the professional examination. Lack of preparation may have accounted for the bad performance.