The Hindu Business Line : A manageable ordeal

Mix: Of the 100 marks 56 per cent constituted on the topics of valuation and consolidation, 24 per cent on Accounting Standards and the balance 20 per cent on the topics of impact EPS, EVA and ROI.

Nature of questions: Questions on Valuation and Consolidation namely 1, 2, 5(b) and 6 have all been asked in earlier exams with minor modifications. The questions on Accounting Standards were relatively new. The questions on impact on EPS and others were quite simple.

Time: Considering the nature of questions, the students would have found it difficult to solve them in three hours. The majority would have solved between 4-5 problems i.e., attempted questions for about 80 marks.

Standard: Overall the questions set were straightforward.

Specific comments: There were no questions on contemporary areas such as value added, human resource accounting, environment accounting etc. This is indeed a welcome sign.

It is interesting to note that are two different exchange rates were given for the dollar as on 31-03-2005. In Q 1, the closing rate is Rs 39 per dollar where as Q 3(a) it is Rs 48!

Management Accounting and Financial Analysis

Mix: If you count the 120 marks for which the paper was set 75 per cent of it was assigned to problems and the balance 25 per cent marks to theory. That's a healthy mix given the fact that MAFA is a practical subject. In terms of spread of topics, this has been excellent. Only "Mergers and Acquisitions" and "Leasing" have been left out. That is as it should be, given that these two topics received exceptional favour from the examiners in the past! (See Table)

Nature of questions: In general, the questions haven't been sourced from previous exams and therefore refreshing. The problem on Risk Analysis is open to multiple interpretations. The Dividend question is a standard textbook question. The problem on mutual funds is very arithmetical. "Derivatives" carries a surprise question on the Black Scholes model. At 28 marks, International Finance looks top heavy but should not pose much of a problem for the student to crack.

The questions on ROI, leverage could have been avoided as these are tested in PE 2.

Time: If take away 20 minutes for a student to read the questions, (that time of reading is a must in the light of the spread of the paper) and about 10 minutes (very conservative estimate) to revise the answers, we are looking at 150 minutes for 100 marks or 1.5 marks per minute.

Many questions cannot be cracked in that kind of time. From that perspective the paper is voluminous, time consuming involving a number of calculations.

Standard: In general the paper is of a very good standard. But students are likely to have found it hard to do, since some of the questions are calculation-oriented.

Specific comments: A good paper should carry questions from all topics. This paper covers almost all topics and should be the model for other exam papers as well.

Company Law, Secretarial Practice

Mix: Of the 150 marks 80 per cent constituted theory and 20 per cent were problems. It is surprising that the paper has allocated 16 per cent for managerial remuneration, which appears to be disproportionate.

The paper could have also tested the student on other relevant areas in directors such as disqualifications and audit committee.

Nature of questions: Not only were there no repeats from the previous exams, a few questions are uniquely worded and are from sections that have hitherto never been tested in the exams.

For example: Q 2 (c) on Competition Act which expects the students to be aware of Section 15, otherwise known as "Ganga clause."

Time: An average student should be able to complete the paper within 2 to 2.5 hours as the required answers in most instances run to four-five lines.

Standard: The questions are culled from areas of the syllabus, which even a well- prepared student would normally not read.

Specific comments: The quality of the questions has improved and the student is being tested on common sense and application of knowledge rather than extensive content knowledge.

Nevertheless, the examiner could have avoided testing the student on core content from the PE 2 syllabus, which no final student is expected to read.

Advanced Auditing

The question paper was a straightforward one with a good mix of questions from the topics professional conduct and ethics, auditing and assurance standards, CARO etc.

Most of the questions were from Revision Test Papers (RTP) and well within the comprehension of the students.

Overall time was not a restriction and the student could have handled it in 2.5 hours.

Q 3(a) on drafting was interesting and practical.

The question paper could have contained more issues regarding bank audit and CARO instead of directly asking mere provisions.

On balance, the question papers in Group 1 were easily comprehensible for an average student who has prepared from the study material and RTP.

They should have had no difficulty in getting through the Group.

(Prime Academy, Chennai)