The reason the pass rate has been so low is simple: the candidates are not giving the examiner, Kim Smith, what she is looking for.
Kim Smith has been explicit about what she expects from her candidates and how they should tackle her paper. She has written numerous articles in the magazine Student Accountant, some on technical topics (often followed by a discussion question on the same topic) and others on exam technique. These are top-priority reading for any student who wants to pass this paper: the examiner has set ideas about what she is looking for in a candidate’s answer, and the articles give us a unique insight into this. Don’t ignore these valuable resources.
Also high on the list of priorities are the examiner’s comments, which are often substantially longer than those of other examiners. You should take advantage of this excellent opportunity to ‘get to know the examiner’ better!
Danger
Many students sit Paper 3.1 at the same sitting as Paper 2.6 Audit and Internal Review. This is a dangerous strategy. It was not ACCA’s (nor the examiner’s) intention that the two papers be sat together. While there is a fair amount of overlap in terms of knowledge base, the skills being tested in the two papers are very different. Passing Paper 3.1 requires not just a solid audit and ethical foundation, but also a level of maturity and practical business experience to be able to make sensible professional commentary on the scenarios.
Standard format
Candidates have been fortunate in the past in that the paper has followed pretty much the same format since its inception. Based on the examiner’s comments at the Teachers’ Conference, the good news is that this format looks set to continue (although there is no guarantee):
Q1 Risks (audit, financial statement or business risks) and
audit evidence
Q2 Risks, again of any of the above types, and associated
controls
Q3 Audit matters to consider and audit evidence on several
Paper 2.5 accounting issues
Q4 Auditors’/assurance reports
Q5 Ethical, professional and quality control issues
Q6 Discussion question based on current auditing issues.
Questions 1 and 2 have often also included other aspects such as group auditing, audit strategy in a given scenario and performance measurement.
Risky business
The Paper 3.1 exam usually features at least one, if not two, scenarios with requirements relating to risk. Having so many past questions to attempt - and so many sittings’ worth of examiners’ comments to read - should make these a real mark winner, but many candidates fall down by discussing the wrong type of risk.
Audit risks (the most common) are, ultimately, risks that the audit opinion will be wrong for whatever reason. They are made up of inherent, control and detection risk, although that distinction, while it might be useful for generating ideas, is more of a paper 2.6 issue.
An example of an audit risk is that the value of a company’s perishable inventories might be overstated if held at cost.
Business risks are risks that the entity, not the auditor, will not achieve its objectives. Many of these translate into audit risks, hence the reason why the ‘Big 4’ auditors follow a business risk-driven approach to identifying audit risks.
However, this is not always the case. For example, an airline that does not refurbish its planes could lose custom in the future (a business risk) because flying in ‘old’ planes makes us think they are unsafe, but this has no direct impact on the financial statements in the current period. The above example of the inventories could also be mentioned as a business risk, but it would have to be worded differently, e.g. that the inventories might not be saleable because they are out of date or not stored properly.
For business risk, imagine yourself in the shoes of management, not the auditor: they might not be worried if their inventories are overstated in the balance sheet - they might just see it as accounting nonsense or might even be delighted because overstated inventories increase their profits - but they would be rightly concerned about inventories that are unsaleable.
Financial statement risks are risks that the financial statements will be wrong. Again, there is an overlap here with the other types of risk, but it is important in the exam to ‘sell’ your risks to the examiner as being financial statement ones. How? By explaining how the financial statements could be wrong if the risk occurred.
An example here is non-disclosure of a contingent liability affecting the company. In this example, the figures themselves are not affected (although they often are by financial statement risks), but there is a definite risk that the financial statements do not comply with accounting standards.
Also note that although the word ‘risk’ will appear in the requirement, it is absolutely certain that in an exam at this level, the examiner does not want you to explain the risk model in accordance with the ISA. So don’t do it.
Vague
Sometimes people leave the exam hall after sitting Paper 3.1 feeling confident – and then get an unpleasant surprise when results come out. Why is this?
The most common mistake in this paper is ‘not answering the question set’. For example, if there is a question about considerations as to whether to take on a particular assignment as an auditor, it needs to be answered in the context of the scenario in the question - very few, if any, marks will be given for listing out general considerations you may have learned. Another complaint from the examiner and markers is that points are often ‘too vague’. If you are asked to specify ‘principal audit work’, it’s not enough to just say, ‘review board minutes’ without saying what you are looking for and, whatever you do, don’t say ‘check’ unless you explain how you would do it!
Higher skills
One of the syllabus objectives of this paper is to ‘demonstrate the skills expected at Part 3’. One of those is the idea of demonstrating higher skills, and this is one of the things that distinguish the paper from Paper 2.6.
The general marking scheme for the paper awards ½ a mark for a point of knowledge, extended to 1 mark for application of that knowledge, and extended to 1½ marks for demonstrating a higher skill on the same point.
It is also worth noting that you would not be able to pass a question by listing a series of points of knowledge for ½ a mark each: marks are capped, and, indeed, the examiner explained at the conference that where a question is worded ‘Identify and explain…..’ (eg, business risks where there is ½ a mark for identification and 1 mark for explanation), in many cases the identification ½ mark cannot be given unless it is accompanied by an explanation, because the identification is implicit in the explanation itself.
Top tips for success at Paper 3.1
Read the examiner’s Student Accountant articles
Read through recent examiner’s comments
Pass paper 2.6 before attempting paper 3.1
Practise past exam questions and note down the points you didn’t get from the model answer
Get some practical business experience (if possible) and keep up to date by reading a quality newspaper
In your answer, try to go that one step further to bring out the implication, but don’t stress about trying to find it for every point
Don’t be scared of the discussion question: the marking scheme is generous
Make sure you take a calculator
Written by BPP Paper 3.1 tutors Ben Wheaton and Jennie Bruce
No comments:
Post a Comment