点击查看：

　　RELEVANT TO ACCA QUALIFICATION PAPER P2

　　EXAM TECHNIQUE FOR PAPER P2

　　The article focuses on issues of poor exam technique that show themselves repeatedly in the answers students submit for Paper P2 each sitting. These issues are not news. The examiner makes reference to these problems in his exam comments every sitting，but somehow they rear their head at the next sitting regardless.

　　The problems relate to the over enthusiasm of students and so I have written this article in an attempt to persuade students to reign this in，and utilise a little control when answering Paper P2 questions.

　　The broad problem that I will discuss is the insistence of some students in writing rambling irrelevant nonsense in the context of their answer to the narrative questions in Section B. This seems to be a particular problem with the industry or mix question. So I have used Part （c）of Question 2 from June 2010 to illustrate the problem. The question referred to an entity called Cate which operates in the software industry.

　　I have provided you with two answers. Both answers are made up by me. But both closely correlate to real answers given by students；one answer showing good exam technique and one answer with poor exam technique.

　　Here is the question：

　　At 1 April 2009 Cate had a direct holding of shares giving 70% of the voting rights in Date. In May 2010，Date issued new shares，which were wholly subscribed for by a new investor. After the increase in capital，Cate retained an interest of 35% of the voting rights in its former subsidiary Date. At the same time，the shareholders of Date signed an agreement providing new governance rules for Date. Based on this new agreement，Cate was no longer to be represented on Date’s board or participate in its management. As a consequence Cate considered that its decision not to subscribe to the issue of new shares was equivalent to a decision to disinvest in Date. Cate argued that the decision not to invest clearly showed its new intention not to recover the investment in Date principally through continuing use of the asset and was considering selling the investment. Due to the fact that Date is a separate line of business （with separate cash flows，management and customers），Cate considered that the results of Date for the period to 31 May 2010 should be presented based on principles provided by IFRS 5，Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations.

　　Required

　　Discuss whether the accounting treatment proposed by the company for the year to 31 May 2010 is acceptable under International Financial Reporting Standards.

（8 marks）

　　A poor answer

　　IAS38 financial instruments set out criteria for financial assets held for sale. First the asset must be intending to be sold，then recovery of the value cannot be through continuing use，then the asset must be available for sale meaning that company has the asset intending to be sold. The director should look at the circumstances and see if the asset is available for sale. Then the asset is a subsidiary but then it’s not. The directors are considering selling the asset. So the asset is current asset. Issue of share capital reduces the control；maybe Cate must record impairment. There is an impairment when the carrying value exceeds the recoverable value. Recoverable value is the higher of value in use and fair value less costs to sell. Reduced ownership means impairment. There is no cash flow from the sale.

　　Poor answer - commentary

　　The above makes painful reading does it not？Imagine how much worse it would look scrawled in panicked handwriting. Well，before we shred this answer to pieces，let us be positive about what it does do. First，and by far and away the most important point is that the student had a go. The above would probably score two out of eight marks. That is two more than zero. Second，the answer does pick up on some of the key issues. There is mention of ‘control’and ‘criteria’，both of which play a key part in the scenario and this would be where the two marks would be picked up. I know the English is not perfect either. Some of the sentences grate a little. But I would advise the student not to worry about this at all. Sentences are bound to come out a little skewed under exam pressure.

　　But turning to the downside，the answer is utterly chaotic. Do you get the feeling that the student half read the scenario and then bashed down any old rubbish in a mad frenzy of sweat and fear？Do you get the feeling that the student does know something，but the mad panic resulted in the chaos above？That is how it reads to me. I want to tell the student to breathe，relax and loosen the shoulders. Now let us look at three specific problems.

　　Problem 1：IFRS numbers

　　The reference to IAS 38 is not a good start. Of course，it is IAS 39 that refers to financial instruments. Anyway， the IFRS regarding non-current assets held for sale is IFRS 5. We know this because it says so in the scenario. This is further evidence that the student did not read the scenario to the end. I suggest that when you answer the narrative questions that you concentrate on answering the question and not peppering your answer with irrelevant IFRS numbers. If you like IFRS numbers and can remember them，then use those IFRS numbers. If you are not certain of your IFRS numbers then do not guess. It is incredible how many students who do put in IFRS numbers get them wrong，especially around IAS 36，37，38 and 39. Unfortunately，this can undermine an answer that was perfectly adequate without the incorrect IFRS number. But more significantly，those students who focus on the IFRS numbers frequently forget about answering the actual question.