ICAG Level 2 · Paper 2.1ICAG Paper 2.1 Financial Reporting past questions

ICAG's official past questions, marking schemes and chief examiner's reports for Paper 2.1 Financial Reporting: 27 sittings, November 2015 to July 2026, newest first. Every link opens ICAG's own file on icagh.org.

Links last checked on 28 October 2026. Most recent sitting first. From November 2015, each link opens ICAG's own file on icagh.org with the questions, the marking scheme and the chief examiner's report; files marked no report hold the questions and the marking scheme only.

Paper 2.1 past questions by sitting

27 sittings, November 2015 to July 2026.

2024 to 2029 syllabus

2019 to 2024 syllabus

Earlier syllabus, to May 2019

What ICAG's chief examiners have reported on Paper 2.1

MSL has read all 26 chief examiner's reports ICAG has published for Paper 2.1, November 2015 to July 2026, and summarised every point they make about candidates' answers. Points raised in more than one sitting come first, with the sittings that raised them, most often raised at the top. Points raised in one sitting follow, under that sitting, newest first.

Each point is MSL's plain-English summary of the examiner's comments, not ICAG's own words: open that sitting's ICAG file for the full report. ICAG's Paper 2.1 file for March 2026 has no report. Reports from before the 2024 to 2029 syllabus may cover topics that have since moved or changed.

Raised in more than one sitting

Weak areaCandidates sat the paper without preparing adequately for it.16 sittings: July 2026, August 2022, April 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020, May 2020, November 2019, May 2019, November 2018, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016, May 2016, November 2015
Done wellSome candidates did well on the consolidated financial statements question.16 sittings: July 2025, March 2025, November 2024, March 2024, August 2022, April 2022, November 2021, November 2020, May 2020, November 2019, May 2019, November 2018, November 2017, November 2016, May 2016, November 2015
Weak areaCandidates lacked the grounding or foundational knowledge expected for this paper.14 sittings: July 2026, August 2022, April 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2019, May 2019, November 2018, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016, May 2016, November 2015
Done wellCandidates did well on the ratio analysis question.14 sittings: November 2024, July 2024, March 2024, November 2023, July 2023, December 2022, May 2020, November 2019, May 2019, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016, November 2015
Weak areaCandidates struggled to apply what they knew of the IFRSs to the issues and facts set in the question.10 sittings: July 2026, November 2025, July 2025, May 2021, May 2019, November 2018, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016
Weak areaCandidates showed a weak grasp of the accounting standards tested in the paper.9 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, November 2023, August 2022, April 2022, November 2020, November 2019, November 2017, November 2015
Weak areaCandidates struggled to calculate goodwill.9 sittings: July 2024, November 2023, May 2020, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016, May 2016, November 2015
AdviceCover the whole syllabus rather than studying only selected topics.8 sittings: July 2026, November 2024, March 2024, August 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020, May 2020
Weak areaCandidates struggled to understand the content of the relevant IFRSs and how to apply them.8 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025, November 2023, July 2023, December 2022, April 2022, November 2021
MistakeSome candidates did not know the basic format of the financial statements they were asked to prepare.8 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025, August 2022, April 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020
Weak areaCandidates struggled to interpret or correctly deal with the additional information notes given in the question.8 sittings: March 2025, July 2024, March 2024, April 2022, November 2021, November 2019, May 2019, May 2018
Done wellCandidates who prepared properly and came ready for the exam scored more than half of the marks.8 sittings: November 2019, May 2019, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016, May 2016, November 2015
AdviceDo not neglect consolidation and ratio analysis when preparing for the examination.8 sittings: November 2019, May 2019, November 2018, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016, May 2016
AdviceBuild on your strengths by deepening your knowledge of International Financial Reporting Standards.8 sittings: November 2019, May 2019, November 2018, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016, May 2016
MistakeSome candidates could not put the correct financial statement figures into the ratio formulae.7 sittings: July 2026, April 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020, May 2017, November 2016
MistakeCandidates did not fully apply ethical principles to the scenario facts, and many simply listed the principles or stated them in general terms.7 sittings: July 2026, August 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020, May 2020, November 2019
Weak areaCandidates performed poorly on IAS 20 government grants.7 sittings: July 2026, July 2025, December 2022, April 2022, November 2021, May 2021, May 2018
Weak areaCandidates showed a weak grasp of double entry principles.7 sittings: November 2025, May 2019, November 2018, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2015
Weak areaCandidates answered Question 2, which tested several IFRSs, poorly.7 sittings: November 2024, July 2024, March 2024, November 2023, December 2022, November 2021, May 2020
Weak areaSome candidates could not properly analyse or explain what their ratios showed.7 sittings: April 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020, November 2019, May 2019, November 2018
Done wellCandidates with a strong grasp of the accounting standards earned good or high marks.7 sittings: November 2019, May 2019, November 2018, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2015
Exam techniqueMost candidates still struggled to present their answers in an orderly and logical way.7 sittings: November 2019, May 2019, November 2018, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2015
MistakeSome candidates did not attempt Question 2 at all.7 sittings: November 2019, May 2019, November 2018, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016
Weak areaCandidates answered IAS 8 on accounting policies and estimates poorly.6 sittings: July 2026, December 2022, August 2022, November 2021, November 2018, November 2015
Weak areaThe examiners suggested that weak results may have reflected candidates having only a short period to prepare.6 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025, November 2023, July 2023, December 2022
Weak areaCandidates had difficulty presenting and structuring consolidated financial statements correctly.6 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025, November 2023, July 2023, December 2022
AdviceCover IAS 27, IAS 28, IFRS 3, IFRS 10, IFRS 11, IFRS 12 and IFRS 13 thoroughly.6 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025, November 2023, July 2023, December 2022
Weak areaCandidates found it difficult to prepare single entity financial statements in Question 3.6 sittings: November 2025, March 2025, July 2024, November 2023, November 2019, May 2018
Weak areaCandidates performed poorly on IAS 37 provisions.6 sittings: November 2025, November 2023, December 2022, August 2022, November 2020, May 2017
Exam techniqueAnswer directly what each question requires.6 sittings: July 2025, March 2025, March 2024, November 2023, July 2023, December 2022
Exam techniqueAllocate time by the marks: about 1.8 minutes per mark, so keep any 20-mark question to a maximum of 36 minutes.6 sittings: July 2025, March 2025, March 2024, November 2023, July 2023, December 2022
AdviceStudy the concepts and practise as many questions as you can.6 sittings: July 2025, March 2025, March 2024, November 2023, July 2023, December 2022
Weak areaCandidates struggled with lease accounting under IFRS 16.6 sittings: November 2023, August 2022, April 2022, May 2021, November 2019, May 2019
Weak areaCandidates struggled to apply IAS 10 to events after the reporting period.6 sittings: November 2023, May 2020, November 2019, November 2018, May 2017, November 2016
AdviceComplete the whole syllabus and practise plenty of questions before you register for the examination.6 sittings: November 2019, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016, May 2016
AdviceDo not treat the examination lightly or take it for granted.6 sittings: November 2019, May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016, May 2016
Weak areaCandidates showed weak knowledge of IAS 40 investment property.5 sittings: July 2026, April 2022, November 2020, May 2019, November 2016
Weak areaCandidates showed weak knowledge of IFRS 5 on assets held for sale and related items.5 sittings: July 2026, May 2021, May 2020, November 2017, November 2016
Done wellCandidates showed strength in preparing single company financial statements.5 sittings: November 2024, May 2020, May 2019, November 2016, May 2016
Weak areaCandidates performed poorly on the consolidated financial statements question.5 sittings: July 2024, December 2022, May 2021, May 2017, November 2016
Exam techniqueCandidates managed their time poorly, so they did not attempt every question and reduced their chances of passing.5 sittings: August 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020, May 2020
MistakeMany candidates skipped Question 3 on single company financial statements.5 sittings: August 2022, April 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020
Weak areaSome candidates seemed to have no idea how to tackle the ratio analysis question.5 sittings: November 2021, May 2021, November 2020, May 2017, November 2016
Weak areaWrong or contradictory answers arose mainly from candidates not knowing the expected content.5 sittings: November 2019, November 2018, May 2018, May 2017, November 2016
Weak areaCandidates struggled to calculate the non-controlling interest.5 sittings: May 2018, November 2017, May 2017, November 2016, May 2016
Weak areaCandidates struggled to prepare the statement of changes in equity.4 sittings: July 2026, March 2025, May 2020, May 2017
Weak areaCandidates showed a poor grasp of IFRS 15 revenue recognition.4 sittings: July 2026, July 2025, November 2021, May 2020
Weak areaCandidates performed poorly on convertible and compound financial instruments.4 sittings: July 2026, March 2025, August 2022, May 2016
Weak areaCandidates still had not grasped that passing Financial Reporting depends largely on understanding and applying the IFRSs.4 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025, November 2023
Exam techniqueShow detailed workings to support your figures.4 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025, November 2015
Weak areaCandidates struggled to prepare the IAS 7 statement of cash flows.4 sittings: July 2025, December 2022, May 2017, November 2015
Done wellCandidates showed a fair or good grasp of IAS 20 government grants.4 sittings: July 2025, November 2021, May 2020, November 2017
AdviceMake learning the IFRSs a priority: their content and application make up roughly 70% of the syllabus.4 sittings: November 2024, July 2024, March 2024, December 2022
AdviceMaster the relevant IFRSs, because success in this paper depends on it.4 sittings: November 2023, August 2022, November 2021, November 2020
Weak areaPoor performance was also linked to the standard candidates reached at the tertiary institutions they attended before.4 sittings: August 2022, April 2022, November 2021, May 2021
Weak areaQuestion 2 showed weak understanding of the IFRSs and an apparent unwillingness to learn them.4 sittings: August 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020
Weak areaCandidates' numeracy fell short of the level expected of prospective accountants.4 sittings: August 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020
Exam techniqueCandidates' written language and the legibility of their handwriting were very poor.4 sittings: August 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020
AdviceAccept that passing this paper comes only through hard work.4 sittings: August 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020
AdviceSpend enough time studying to prepare well for the paper.4 sittings: August 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020
Done wellSome candidates earned full marks on the ethics part.4 sittings: August 2022, November 2021, May 2021, November 2020
Weak areaCandidates struggled with earnings per share calculations.4 sittings: May 2021, May 2019, May 2018, May 2016
MistakeSome candidates overlooked a mid-year acquisition and did not time-apportion the subsidiary's results.4 sittings: November 2020, May 2018, November 2017, November 2015
Weak areaOver 70% of candidates either misunderstood the Question 2 requirements or lacked a basic grasp of the standards, which cost them vital marks.4 sittings: May 2019, November 2018, May 2018, November 2017
Weak areaCandidates showed weak knowledge of partnership accounts.4 sittings: November 2018, November 2017, November 2016, May 2016
Done wellCandidates stated the ratio formulae correctly.3 sittings: July 2026, March 2025, November 2016
MistakeCandidates applied the relevant IFRSs incorrectly.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
Weak areaSome candidates still struggled to apply and present IFRS correctly.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
Done wellSome candidates showed strong knowledge of financial statement analysis and group accounting.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
Done wellQuestion 5 was generally answered well.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
Exam techniqueManage your time so you cover all the required statements and their supporting calculations.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
MistakeCandidates made errors in statement formats and put items in the wrong places, losing marks.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
Exam techniqueFollow the correct statement formats, using the right headings, classifications and subtotals as IFRS presentation requires.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdviceStudy carefully how consolidated financial statements are formatted and structured under IFRS.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
Done wellSome candidates showed competence in the numerical parts of the consolidation question.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdviceWork through past questions and mock examinations to sharpen your consolidation techniques.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdvicePay particular attention to goodwill calculations, eliminating intra-group balances and non-controlling interest adjustments.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdviceUse the examination materials available on the ICAG website.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdvicePractise preparing whole statements, making sure items are correctly classified and disclosed.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdvicePractise regularly by preparing complete financial statements, working IFRS case studies and doing simulated or mock exams.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdviceGive priority not just to calculations but to well-structured presentation, understanding of concepts and applying IFRS across different scenarios.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdvicePractise past exam questions regularly to build familiarity and accuracy with similar structured questions.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdviceReview examiner reports to learn the common mistakes and what good answers look like.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdviceConcentrate on the principles underlying IFRS standards rather than memorising formulas.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdvicePractise IFRS questions that need interpretation, not just recall.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
AdviceReview the disclosure requirements in IFRS.3 sittings: November 2025, July 2025, March 2025
Weak areaCandidates showed weak knowledge of IAS 38 intangible assets.3 sittings: November 2025, May 2021, May 2018
Weak areaCandidates struggled with inventory under IAS 2.3 sittings: November 2025, November 2018, November 2017
Exam techniqueAttempt every question in the paper.3 sittings: July 2025, March 2025, November 2023
Done wellMany candidates did well on Question 5, which combined ethics with IFRS or framework topics.3 sittings: November 2024, July 2024, March 2024
Weak areaMany candidates could not answer correctly the mixed Question 5 on several standards or ethics.3 sittings: November 2023, July 2023, December 2022
Weak areaCandidates performed poorly on borrowing costs under IAS 23.3 sittings: November 2023, November 2020, November 2017
MistakeSome candidates wrote in general terms about a topic or standard instead of answering the specific point asked.3 sittings: December 2022, May 2020, May 2019
MistakeMost candidates chose to avoid Question 2, which tested only the application of IFRSs.3 sittings: April 2022, November 2021, May 2021
AdviceFinancial Reporting is a technical paper, so raise your technical standard.3 sittings: April 2022, November 2021, May 2021
Weak areaFew candidates earned good marks on Question 3, the single company financial statements question.3 sittings: April 2022, November 2021, May 2021
Done wellA few candidates scored full or maximum marks on the consolidation question.3 sittings: November 2021, November 2018, May 2017
Weak areaCandidates struggled to calculate the subsidiary's net assets.3 sittings: November 2021, May 2017, November 2016
Done wellA very small number of candidates did well on the ratio analysis question, scoring close to full marks.3 sittings: November 2021, May 2021, November 2020
MistakeSome candidates wrote the ratio formulae incorrectly.3 sittings: November 2021, May 2021, November 2020
Weak areaCandidates struggled to recognise and account for financial assets under IFRS 9.3 sittings: November 2021, May 2020, May 2019
Weak areaSome candidates struggled with asset impairment under IAS 36.3 sittings: November 2020, May 2018, November 2017
Done wellCandidates correctly calculated goodwill on acquisition.3 sittings: May 2020, November 2019, May 2019
MistakeSome candidates struggled to calculate unrealised profit.3 sittings: May 2020, November 2019, May 2019
Weak areaCandidates' standard or level of understanding appeared to be falling, leading to poor performance in the paper.3 sittings: November 2019, May 2018, May 2016
Done wellCandidates generally understood what the questions required.3 sittings: November 2019, May 2018, May 2017
Exam techniqueCross-reference any answer that continues on a later page.3 sittings: November 2019, May 2019, May 2018
MistakeSome candidates simply copied out the question instead of answering it.2 sittings: July 2026, November 2017
Done wellCandidates wrote good reports to the board.2 sittings: July 2026, May 2020
Done wellCandidates identified the ethical issue involved in the scenario.2 sittings: July 2026, November 2019
Weak areaWeaknesses in applying IFRS pointed to shallow conceptual understanding, not to exam pressure or shortage of time.2 sittings: November 2025, July 2025
Weak areaSome candidates were poorly prepared on the Question 5 area of the syllabus and so scored under 10 marks.2 sittings: November 2025, July 2025
Weak areaWidespread presentation weakness suggested candidates had paid too little attention to how financial statements are structured when preparing.2 sittings: November 2025, March 2025
Exam techniqueCandidates' workings lacked a clear, logical structure.2 sittings: November 2025, March 2025
MistakeMost candidates could not carry required adjustments through into their ratio results.2 sittings: November 2025, March 2025
MistakeSome candidates recalculated figures already given in the question, wasting time.2 sittings: July 2025, April 2022
Exam techniqueTime yourself on past questions to build speed and accuracy.2 sittings: July 2025, March 2025
AdviceStudy how different standards work together in practical business scenarios.2 sittings: July 2025, March 2025
AdviceUse case studies and past exam questions that test how IFRSs apply in real-world situations.2 sittings: July 2025, March 2025
AdviceUnderstand how financial statements are structured and how to present the required disclosures.2 sittings: July 2025, March 2025
AdviceFocus on both understanding and applying IFRS principles.2 sittings: July 2025, March 2025
AdviceConcentrate on IFRS principles, particularly the most frequently examined standards.2 sittings: July 2025, March 2025
AdviceRead the IFRS Standards themselves regularly to strengthen your understanding.2 sittings: July 2025, March 2025
AdviceSuccess needs knowledge of IFRS as well as skill in applying it across varied scenarios.2 sittings: July 2025, March 2025
Weak areaA greater number of candidates showed they did not understand how to apply the relevant IFRS when preparing financial statements.2 sittings: November 2024, March 2024
AdviceUse the recommended study manuals when preparing.2 sittings: November 2024, December 2022
Exam techniqueStart with the questions you find easiest to build confidence and stay focused through the three hours.2 sittings: March 2024, December 2022
Done wellCandidates were able to deal with the limitations of ratios.2 sittings: November 2023, November 2019
Weak areaQuestion 2, which tested several standards, was answered worse than any other question on the paper.2 sittings: July 2023, November 2020
Weak areaContingent consideration and reversing an unwound discount seemed new or unfamiliar to candidates in the consolidation question.2 sittings: July 2023, December 2022
Done wellA small number of candidates seemed ready for the paper.2 sittings: August 2022, November 2020
MistakeMost candidates either skipped the IFRS questions or wrote answers unrelated to the relevant IFRSs.2 sittings: August 2022, November 2020
Exam techniqueSome candidates wrote their answers partly in ink and partly in pencil.2 sittings: August 2022, November 2020
MistakeCandidates simply guessed their answers on parts testing a standard.2 sittings: August 2022, November 2020
Weak areaCandidates appeared not to have expected questions on some standards.2 sittings: August 2022, November 2020
Weak areaCandidates still found it hard to present financial statements properly.2 sittings: August 2022, May 2021
AdviceAttend classes that offer quality tuition.2 sittings: August 2022, November 2020
MistakeSome candidates got the group structure or shareholding wrong.2 sittings: April 2022, November 2015
AdviceFollow the approach shown in the marking scheme when preparing consolidation answers.2 sittings: April 2022, November 2021
Weak areaCandidates showed weak knowledge of deferred tax.2 sittings: April 2022, May 2017
Weak areaThe examiner found no clear area in which candidates showed notable strength in the sitting.2 sittings: November 2021, May 2021
Exam techniqueCandidates generally had a very weak grasp of how to set out answers to IFRS questions.2 sittings: November 2021, May 2021
MistakeSome candidates left the consolidation question unattempted.2 sittings: November 2021, May 2021
MistakeSome candidates set out the IFRS 15 five-step model but did not apply it to the facts in the question.2 sittings: November 2021, May 2020
MistakeCandidates did not attempt the IFRS 15 part.2 sittings: November 2021, May 2020
Done wellA sizeable number of candidates did well on impairment under IAS 36.2 sittings: November 2021, November 2018
Weak areaCandidates performed very badly on the indicators of significant influence, even though the question was straightforward.2 sittings: November 2021, May 2021
Weak areaSome candidates performed poorly on the qualitative characteristics in the IASB Conceptual Framework.2 sittings: May 2021, November 2015
Weak areaCandidates struggled to deal correctly with functional currency.2 sittings: May 2020, May 2016
Done wellCandidates showed strength on the standards tested in Questions 2 and 5.2 sittings: November 2019, May 2018
Weak areaSome candidates struggled to choose or apply the right exchange rate when translating amounts into cedis.2 sittings: November 2019, May 2017
Exam techniqueSome candidates did not record the question numbers properly on their answers.2 sittings: May 2019, November 2015
MistakeMost candidates calculated the ratios incorrectly.2 sittings: May 2019, November 2018
Weak areaMost candidates were unable to interpret the given financial statements.2 sittings: May 2019, November 2018
Weak areaCandidates could not explain or account for an over or under provision of income tax.2 sittings: May 2019, May 2017
MistakeSome candidates wrongly consolidated an associate.2 sittings: November 2018, November 2017
Done wellThe statement of cash flows was an area of strength for candidates.2 sittings: November 2018, May 2017

Raised in one sitting

Open a sitting to see its points.

July 202624 points

Done wellGeneralCandidates showed a reasonable grasp of the usual consolidation adjustments, such as intra-group trading, unrealised profit in inventory and property, plant and equipment adjustments.
Done wellGeneralCandidates described well how intangible assets are recognised and measured under IAS 38.
Done wellQ3In Question 3, candidates made good fair value adjustments to non-current assets under IAS 16 and worked out deferred tax liabilities under IAS 12 well.
Weak areaGeneralIgnorance of IFRS 12 was widespread, particularly the disclosures required for unconsolidated structured entities.
MistakeGeneralAlmost all candidates put the bank overdraft under current assets when it belongs under current liabilities.
Weak areaGeneralCandidates had little exposure to new or rarely tested requirements, which contributed to poor performance.
Done wellQ1Candidates showed a reasonable understanding of what Question 1 required.
MistakeQ2Candidates seemed to misunderstand what the Question 2 requirements were asking for.
MistakeQ2(d)Candidates mostly skipped the IFRS 12 disclosure requirement or answered it incorrectly.
MistakeQ3Candidates produced wrong figures because they could not justify how their computations were arrived at.
MistakeQ3In Question 3, candidates wrongly put the bank overdraft under current assets instead of current liabilities.
AdviceQ3Know local laws on preparing financial statements, for example the Companies Act 2019 (Act 992).
AdviceQ4Build a solid foundation in adjusting financial statements for the notes given, applying IFRS.
AdviceQ4Knowing ratio formulas is not enough. Learn to analyse the resulting figures so you can reach the right decisions.
Done wellQ5Candidates generally understood what Question 5 required.
MistakeQ5Candidates drifted away from the requirements and gave answers that contradicted what was asked.
AdviceQ5(a)Build a practical grasp of ethical principles. Instead of memorising general rules, practise applying them to particular scenarios and identifying the specific concerns each one raises.
Done wellQ5(c)Candidates could work out the fall in inventory value under weighted average costing.
AdviceGeneralBuild a solid, not superficial, understanding of IFRS 5, IAS 40, IFRS 12, IFRS 15, IAS 32/IFRS 9, IAS 20 and IAS 8.
AdviceGeneralRevise basic accounting concepts, making sure items such as bank overdrafts are shown as current liabilities.
AdviceGeneralIn ethics, practise making ethical decisions, actively using the relevant principles on the specific facts in each scenario.
AdviceGeneralAdjust the underlying financial figures correctly before you calculate any financial ratios.
AdviceGeneralKnow the local laws governing how financial statements are prepared in Ghana, for example the Companies Act 2019 (Act 992).
AdviceGeneralTheory alone is not enough. Practical application of knowledge is what leads to success in later examinations.

Source: ICAG's July 2026 Paper 2.1 file

November 20259 points

Weak areaQ4Candidates found Question 4 difficult because several financial statement items needed adjusting.
AdviceQ1Practise preparing complete financial statements and make sure you understand IFRS disclosure requirements.
AdviceQ1Apply equity accounting where it is required.
Exam techniqueQ1Put clarity and accuracy first when preparing financial statements.
Done wellQ2Most candidates did well in Question 2 and understood the core ideas of IAS 37, IAS 2, IAS 38 and IAS 21 well.
AdviceQ3Understand IFRS principles thoroughly, with particular attention to IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements.
AdviceQ3Apply correct treatments for income tax expense, PPE revaluation and depreciation, deferred tax, provisions, leases and intangible assets.
Done wellQ4(a)Most candidates could state the adjusting entries the due diligence findings required.
AdviceQ4Practise ratio analysis questions that involve correcting errors and fraud.

Source: ICAG's November 2025 Paper 2.1 file

July 20258 points

Weak areaQ4Question 4 on common-size statements, needing critical analysis of figures given as percentages, was very hard for most candidates, who had not practised such questions.
Done wellQ2(c)Most candidates did well on part (c), showing they grasped the core concepts.
AdviceQ2(a)Improve your understanding of the IFRS 15 five-step model.
AdviceQ3Understand IFRS principles thoroughly, focusing on the presentation format in IAS 7 Statement of Cash Flows.
AdviceQ3Apply correct treatments, taking care with adjustments for deferred tax, revaluations, depreciation and disposals.
AdviceQ4Practise questions involving common-size analysis as well as ratio analysis.
Done wellQ4(b)Most candidates answered part (b) on the advantages of value added statements well.
Done wellQ4(c)Most candidates answered part (c) on the drawbacks of value added statements well.

Source: ICAG's July 2025 Paper 2.1 file

March 202510 points

Weak areaQ5(d)Part (d) of Question 5 on foreign currency transactions was the exception and was not answered well.
Done wellQ2(a)A small number of candidates did well in part (a) on IAS 2; those who did understood the core concepts well.
Done wellQ2(b)A small number of candidates did well in part (b) on IAS 23; those who did understood the core concepts well.
MistakeQ2(c)Many candidates skipped the part on IAS 12 disclosure requirements and therefore scored zero.
AdviceQ2(d)Study convertible bonds, classifying instruments as equity or liability, and how financial instruments are presented.
AdviceQ2(d)Work numerical examples on splitting convertible debt into its components and on how it is later measured and recognised.
MistakeQ3Some candidates applied the relevant standards wrongly, especially for tax accounting, IFRS 5 and sale or return transactions.
AdviceQ3Understand IFRS principles thoroughly, focusing on IFRS 15 revenue, IFRS 5 discontinued operations, IAS 16 property, plant and equipment, and IAS 12 taxation.
AdviceQ3Apply correct treatments, watching the adjustments for inventory valuation, deferred tax, depreciation, disposals and revaluations.
Done wellQ4(b)Some candidates assessed the entity's performance and position well.

Source: ICAG's March 2025 Paper 2.1 file

July 20241 point

Done wellGeneralAnswers to Question 5 were fairly good compared with the other questions.

Source: ICAG's July 2024 Paper 2.1 file

November 20235 points

Weak areaGeneralA greater number of candidates attempted Question 5(b) and (c), both based on the IFRSs, poorly.
Done wellQ2(c)Candidates answered the investment property part well, scoring good marks of about 5 out of 7.
MistakeQ4(b)Some candidates failed to recommend which of the two companies was the better acquisition target.
Weak areaQ5Most candidates showed weak knowledge of the definitions given in the IFRSs.
AdviceQ5Learn Standard definitions word for word. When asked to define a term from a Standard, only the exact wording earns marks.

Source: ICAG's November 2023 Paper 2.1 file

December 20221 point

Weak areaQ3The examiner suggested weak IAS 7 answers may reflect that no cash flow statement question had been set since the current syllabus took effect.

Source: ICAG's December 2022 Paper 2.1 file

August 20222 points

Weak areaQ2(b)Candidates clearly did not treat theory questions seriously.
Done wellQ4Performance on the ratio analysis question was average, and very few candidates did well enough to score almost full marks.

Source: ICAG's August 2022 Paper 2.1 file

April 202210 points

Done wellQ4The majority of passing candidates earned very high marks on Question 4.
Done wellQ5The majority of passing candidates earned very high marks on Question 5.
Weak areaQ2Performance on Question 2 showed that candidates did not appreciate International Financial Reporting Standards.
Exam techniqueGeneralCandidates' language and presentation lacked technical substance.
Weak areaGeneralCandidates' grasp of the subject needed considerable improvement.
AdviceQ1Practise consolidation adjustments and their correct accounting treatment under timed exam conditions.
Exam techniqueQ1Some candidates used very old consolidation methods. These were not wrong, but they could not finish in time and scored very low marks.
MistakeQ2Over 95% of candidates did not answer Question 2 or did not answer it properly.
Done wellQ2(a)(i)A small number of candidates scored full marks on the IAS 12 deferred tax calculation.
MistakeQ5(c)Most candidates explained the fundamental ethical principles rather than safeguards that remove or reduce the threats.

Source: ICAG's April 2022 Paper 2.1 file

November 20213 points

MistakeQ1A good number of the candidates failed to derive fair value adjustments by comparing carrying amounts with the fair values of the inventory, receivables and properties.
AdviceQ2Question 2 normally tests IFRSs, so expect this and use the relevant standards when answering it.
MistakeQ2(c)Some candidates left the IAS 36 cash-generating unit impairment part unanswered.

Source: ICAG's November 2021 Paper 2.1 file

May 20217 points

Weak areaGeneralPerformance was equally weak where Questions 3 and 5 required candidates to apply IFRSs.
Weak areaQ1Faced for the first time with separating a subsidiary's results from the group figures, most candidates were at a loss.
AdviceQ2Question 2 normally tests IFRSs, so expect this and use the relevant standards when answering it.
MistakeQ2(a)(i)Some candidates explained the everyday meaning of the words disposal group instead of its IFRS 5 meaning.
Done wellQ2(c)A small number of those who tried the IAS 33 part managed to work out basic earnings per share correctly.
Done wellQ2(d)A sizeable number of candidates tried the IFRS 16 lease part and earned a pass mark.
Weak areaQ4With no specific ratios set, candidates were unsure which ratios, and how many, they should calculate.

Source: ICAG's May 2021 Paper 2.1 file

November 202015 points

MistakeQ1Almost all candidates were unable to correctly allocate the year's profit and total comprehensive income to the owners of the parent and to the non-controlling interest.
Weak areaQ1Few candidates were completely lost on the consolidation question.
MistakeQ1Some candidates wrote (P+S) as their answers without putting in any figures.
MistakeQ1Others wrongly pro-rated the closing assets and liabilities of the subsidiary, which should not be time-apportioned.
Done wellQ2(a)A very small number of candidates attempted the IAS 37 provision part well.
MistakeQ2(b)Most candidates answered only yes or no on whether an impairment test was needed, giving no explanation.
Done wellQ2(c)A very small number of candidates answered the IAS 23 borrowing costs part well.
MistakeQ2(d)Some candidates just added and subtracted figures at random without a structured answer.
Done wellQ2(d)Only a handful of candidates earned high marks on the IAS 40 part, some reaching the maximum.
Weak areaQ4Most candidates performed very poorly on the ratio analysis question.
Weak areaQ5(b)Performance on the asset recognition criteria in the Conceptual Framework fell below expectation.
MistakeQ5(b)Candidates did not think critically about whether an asset or liability should be recognised.
Weak areaQ5(b)Candidates showed little grasp of the principles for recognising the elements of financial statements.
Weak areaQ5(d)Most candidates had no idea when control can exist with under 50% of voting rights and gave very odd answers.
AdviceGeneralDo not rely only on the financial reporting knowledge you gained at a tertiary institution, as it may not be enough.

Source: ICAG's November 2020 Paper 2.1 file

May 202021 points

Done wellGeneralMany candidates, in particular those who passed, understood well the appraisal of financial position and performance, the consolidated statement of profit or loss and OCI, and final accounts.
Weak areaGeneralMany candidates did poorly on the IFRSs and IASs, suggesting they had not prepared adequately in this area.
Exam techniqueGeneralSome candidates wrote in the margins of the answer booklets, including the lower margins, where they should not write.
Done wellQ2(a)A very small number of candidates understood the IFRS 15 transaction and proposed the correct accounting treatment.
MistakeQ2(b)(ii)Many candidates did not recognise that the SEC referral of the sale was outside management's control.
Done wellQ2(c)A small number of candidates succeeded; those who deducted the discount from nominal value, added transaction costs and then built an amortised cost table scored all five marks.
MistakeQ3(a)Some candidates presented the statement of profit or loss in an internal-use format even though the question required it in publishable form.
Weak areaQ3Some candidates performed poorly, suggesting they had not prepared adequately on this topic.
AdviceQ3(c)Prepare thoroughly for the statement of changes in equity, a topic the examiner says matters to every qualified accountant.
Done wellQ3(b)Candidates attempted the statement of financial position well.
Done wellQ5(a)Some candidates did well by applying ethical principles directly to the tendering scenario.
Done wellQ5(b)Some candidates correctly identified the liability and recommended its accounting treatment under the Conceptual Framework.
MistakeQ5(b)Most candidates failed to identify which part of the Conceptual Framework applied to the liability, and lost important marks.
Done wellQ5(c)Many candidates explained functional currency under IAS 21 well, earning high marks.
MistakeQ5(c)Some candidates skipped the IAS 21 part entirely, suggesting they had not prepared across the required standards.
Done wellQ5(d)Candidates generally answered well on defining consolidated financial statements and the IFRS 10 exemptions.
AdviceGeneralPrepare adequately before you sit the ICAG examination.
Weak areaGeneralMost candidates failed because their preparation was uneven: strong in some areas and weak in others.
Exam techniqueGeneralUse a proper time management strategy in the examination.
Exam techniqueGeneralLearn how to use the examination answer booklets properly.
Weak areaQ3(c)Candidates who struggled with the statement of changes in equity may lack a sound foundation from their earlier studies.

Source: ICAG's May 2020 Paper 2.1 file

November 201913 points

Done wellGeneralCandidates showed some improvement in how well they understood the Accounting Standards and double entry principles.
Done wellQ2Most candidates applied their understanding to the issues raised on the various IFRSs.
Exam techniqueQ2Weaker candidates often failed to grasp what the question required, which cost them vital marks.
MistakeQ2(a)Most candidates wrongly treated the tax account's debit balance as an overpayment of tax, and lost vital marks.
Done wellQ2(b)Most candidates calculated the revaluation amounts to be recognised.
MistakeQ2(b)Most candidates could not then present those amounts correctly in the 2017 and 2018 statements of profit or loss and other comprehensive income.
Done wellQ2(d)Most candidates could tell adjusting from non-adjusting events after the reporting period and explained how each is treated.
MistakeQ3Only a few candidates included production costs in cost of sales.
MistakeQ4(a)A few candidates were unable to work out inventory turnover and times interest earned.
Done wellQ5(a)Candidates defined equity satisfactorily.
MistakeQ5(a)Candidates could not give the reason the Conceptual Framework sets no recognition criteria for equity.
Weak areaQ5(d)Most candidates were unable to identify what gives rise to negative goodwill in a business combination.
Done wellQ5(d)A few candidates correctly stated the accounting treatment of negative goodwill in consolidated financial statements.

Source: ICAG's November 2019 Paper 2.1 file

May 201910 points

Done wellQ3Candidates' approach to preparing the publishable statement of profit or loss and statement of financial position was satisfactory.
Exam techniqueQ3A few candidates misunderstood the requirements, and some produced notes and extra schedules under Act 179 (the Companies Act) that were not asked for.
Weak areaQ5(a)Answers contrasting partnership dissolution with the dissolution of a limited liability company were poorly done.
MistakeQ5(b)Most candidates did not attempt part (b) on hire purchase accounting.
Weak areaQ5(b)Those who attempted part (b) did very badly.
Weak areaQ5(b)Candidates handled the machinery ledger account entries badly.
MistakeQ5(b)Most candidates could not work out the cost of the machinery bought under hire purchase.
MistakeQ5(b)Most candidates could not account for the repossession of the machinery under the hire purchase agreement.
Done wellQ5(c)Most candidates gave a good summary of what the IASB Conceptual Framework covers.
Done wellQ5(d)Most candidates correctly used the Conceptual Framework definitions and recognition criteria to justify the treatment of each scenario.

Source: ICAG's May 2019 Paper 2.1 file

November 201812 points

Done wellQ1(a)Part (a) on deferred and contingent consideration in a subsidiary acquisition was well handled.
MistakeQ1(a)A few candidates were unable to explain how deferred and contingent consideration is accounted for when a parent acquires a subsidiary.
Done wellQ1(b)Candidates split results properly into the periods before and after acquisition, an improvement on the previous sitting.
Done wellQ2(e)Most candidates explained temporary differences well as differences between an asset's or liability's carrying amount and its tax base.
MistakeQ3(b)A few candidates were unable to explain how cash flow information benefits users of financial statements.
MistakeQ4Some candidates were unable to work out even basic ratios, for example gross profit margin and the liquidity ratios.
MistakeQ5(a)(i)Most candidates got no further than setting up the capital accounts with the partners' brought-forward capital balances.
MistakeQ5(a)(i)A few candidates set up current accounts although the question required fluctuating capital accounts.
Exam techniqueQ5(a)(i)A few candidates did not set out the capital accounts in columns as the question required.
Done wellQ5(a)(ii)Most candidates prepared the partnership's statement of financial position successfully.
Done wellQ5(a)(iii)Most candidates outlined the contents of the prescribed registration form for the Registrar General's Department.
Weak areaQ5(b)Answers to the question on substance over form were poor.

Source: ICAG's November 2018 Paper 2.1 file

May 20187 points

Done wellQ2(e)Most candidates correctly identified the IFRS 5 conditions for an asset to qualify as held for sale.
MistakeQ4A few candidates miscalculated ratios because they could not interpret the financial statements given.
Done wellQ5(a)Candidates handled the branch accounts question to an above-average standard.
MistakeQ5(a)A few candidates did not produce financial statements covering the head office, the branch and the combined entity.
Exam techniqueQ5(a)A few candidates did not use a columnar layout, which wasted valuable time.
Done wellQ5(b)Most candidates could distinguish financial capital maintenance from physical capital maintenance.
MistakeQ5(c)Just a few candidates were unable to distinguish the cost model from the revaluation model for measuring non-current assets.

Source: ICAG's May 2018 Paper 2.1 file

November 20177 points

Done wellQ3Candidates showed strength in correcting errors in Question 3.
Weak areaQ3(a)Answers on correcting the year's profit and OCI fell far below expectation, although the question was straightforward.
MistakeQ4A few candidates calculated ratios for which the question provided no information.
MistakeQ5(a)Most candidates did not apportion transactions correctly between the partnership before and the partnership after a partner retired.
Done wellQ5(b)Answers identifying the limitations of financial statements in discharging accountability were above average.
MistakeQ5(b)Only a few candidates left this part unanswered.
Weak areaQ5(c)Answers were below average, and only a few candidates could give points in favour of adopting accounting standards.

Source: ICAG's November 2017 Paper 2.1 file

May 201715 points

Weak areaQ2(b)Only a few candidates earned full marks for working out how much of the new building's cost should be capitalised.
Done wellQ2(d)(i)Answers were above average, with candidates able to explain how to record the fair value gain on the equity investment.
Done wellQ2(d)(ii)Most candidates recorded the bond interest correctly by debiting interest receivable and crediting other income.
MistakeQ2(d)(ii)A few candidates incorrectly debited the bond investment itself, rather than interest receivable, when recording the interest earned.
Exam techniqueQ2(d)Present such IFRS 9 transactions as journal entries with narrations, which could have earned maximum marks.
Done wellQ4(b)In the report, most candidates compared the two companies' performance and related it to the industry average.
Exam techniqueQ4(a)A few candidates ignored the requirement to round ratios to two decimal places.
Done wellQ5(a)Candidates' approach to comparing and contrasting hire purchase and leasing was good.
Exam techniqueQ5(a)A few candidates wrote a whole page on the compare and contrast part, though it carried only three marks.
Done wellQ5(b)Candidates' approach to translating the Nigerian branch accounts was well above average.
MistakeQ5(b)Only a few candidates left the foreign branch question unattempted.
Weak areaQ5(c)Answers fell below average; just a few candidates could give the benefits and drawbacks of harmonising accounting standards internationally.
MistakeQ5(c)A few candidates wrongly built their answers on international trade principles.
Done wellQ5(d)Measurement bases were well handled, and most candidates who attempted the part scored full marks.
MistakeQ5(d)A few candidates listed the measurement bases without explaining them and lost vital marks.

Source: ICAG's May 2017 Paper 2.1 file

November 201611 points

Weak areaQ1(a)Candidates handled the consolidated retained earnings working poorly.
Done wellQ1Only a handful of candidates gained over half the marks on this question, which reflected their preparation.
Done wellQ1(b)Most candidates could explain and justify the way IFRS 10 decides whether an investor has control over an investee.
MistakeQ2(a)Candidates handled the lease financial statement extracts poorly because they could not work out the asset's cost, finance charge or depreciation.
Done wellQ2(b)Just a few candidates gained full marks for identifying when IAS 8 allows a change in accounting policy.
Weak areaQ3Candidates' attempts at preparing financial statements for publication fell well short of expectations.
Done wellQ3A few candidates scored full marks on the published financial statements.
Exam techniqueQ4(a)A few candidates calculated and commented on ratios of their own choosing instead of the ratios specified.
MistakeQ4(a)In the report, most candidates failed to compare the trends with the industry ratios provided.
Done wellQ5(a)Candidates understood what the question required, as their answers showed no material deviations.
Weak areaGeneralMore than 90% of candidates were ill-prepared or had quite limited prior knowledge of the subject.

Source: ICAG's November 2016 Paper 2.1 file

May 20169 points

Done wellQ1Most candidates understood what the question required of them.
Exam techniqueQ1Candidates fumbled the workings behind their answers, which cost them vital marks.
Weak areaQ1(b)Candidates' statements of financial position were poorly prepared.
Weak areaQ2(c)Most candidates could not say why the acquirer must, under IFRS 3 Business Combinations, bring in subsidiary assets and liabilities at fair value on acquisition.
Weak areaQ2(c)The failure on the IFRS 3 explanation showed how poorly candidates planned their studies for the exam.
Weak areaQ3(c)Candidates did not know how purchased goodwill and non-purchased goodwill are treated differently.
Done wellQ3(d)Most candidates attempted the IASB standard-setting process well.
Weak areaQ3(d)Candidates found it difficult to work systematically through the stages of setting a standard.
MistakeQ4The missing income statement in the question threw most candidates off the ratio computations.

Source: ICAG's May 2016 Paper 2.1 file

November 201511 points

Exam techniqueGeneralA few candidates gave final figures without supporting workings and lost vital marks, especially in Question 3.
Weak areaQ1(a)The majority of candidates could not recalculate the company's profit for the year, even though the adjustment notes were not complicated.
Weak areaQ1(b)Redrafting DX Ltd's statement of financial position after the adjustments, which should have been easy marks, went very badly.
Exam techniqueQ2(a)State the formula for each ratio you calculate, as this shows the examiner you know what you are doing.
MistakeQ2(a)A few candidates did not state the ratio formulae and so lost valuable marks.
MistakeQ2(b)Most candidates discussed industry performance instead of analysing the trend in Kack Ltd's own results.
MistakeQ3(a)A few candidates confused the classification of cash flows into financing, investing and operating activities.
Weak areaQ4(b)(i)Preparing the year-end contract extracts for profit or loss and the statement of financial position went very badly, with only a few answering satisfactorily.
MistakeQ4(b)(ii)Most candidates also failed to apply the policy and estimate distinction to the construction contract in the question.
Done wellQ4(c)Most candidates connected the question with dependent as well as independent branches.
MistakeQ4(c)Most candidates concentrated on dependent branches run by head office.

Source: ICAG's November 2015 Paper 2.1 file

MSL's examiner insights for Paper 2.1 break each report since November 2019 down question by question.

ICAG has also published mock examinations for the 2024 to 2029 syllabus as a single zip file of about 7 MB, which includes Paper 2.1.

Prepare for Paper 2.1 with MSL

MSL Paper 2.1 Financial Reporting tuition: the paper guide, class details and registration.
MSL Intervention crash course: see the papers and dates offered for the next sitting.
How to use ICAG past questions to pass: a step-by-step method for practising with these papers.
All ICAG past questions: every level, paper and sitting on one index.

Other Level 2 papers: 2.2 Management Accounting · 2.3 Audit and Assurance · 2.4 Financial Management · 2.5 Public Sector Accounting and Finance · 2.6 Principles of Taxation.

Compiled and maintained by MSL Business School, Accra. Last updated 30 October 2026.