ICAG Level 2 · Paper 2.4ICAG Paper 2.4 Financial Management past questions

• Done wellGeneralThere was further improvement in giving suitable answers that matched what the model solutions expected.
• Done wellQ1(a)(i)Computing the cost of a term loan, rights issue and corporate bond and recommending the best option was fairly well answered.
• MistakeQ1(a)(ii)On how interest rate and exchange rate volatility, regulation and foreign currency liquidity influence profitability, most candidates stressed only how profitability improves, not both sides.
• MistakeQ2(b)Most candidates treated the real cash flows given as if inflation had already been applied, using them without converting them to nominal terms.
• Done wellQ3(b)Answers on the PEFA framework for public expenditure and financial accountability were generally moderate to good.

Source: ICAG's July 2026 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellQ1(a)The working capital financing decision and the advantages of credit referencing and collateral registry systems drew good to excellent answers.
• MistakeQ2(b)A few candidates failed to isolate the relevant figures for the new machine, using the combined output of the old and new machines instead.
• AdviceQ2(b)Focus more on identifying the relevant costs to use in any decision-making computation.
• Done wellQ2(c)Answers distinguishing risk from uncertainty generally showed sound understanding and were of a good standard.
• Done wellQ3(a)(i)Computing the effective interest rate and showing the FRA payoffs at the two possible rates drew average to good answers.
• MistakeQ3(a)(i)Some candidates struggled to link the 14% and 18% rates to the 15% FRA rate to reach a meaningful conclusion.
• Done wellQ5(a)Answers on working capital management, through changes to inventory, receivable and payable days, were average to good.

Source: ICAG's March 2026 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellQ1(a)(ii)Candidates generally did better on the essay-based part on macroeconomic factors in the financing decision.
• Done wellQ1(b)Candidates generally did better on the essay-based part on the benefits of complying with ESG standards.
• AdviceQ1(a)(i)Do more work on computing the cost of financing options.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Capital rationing with indivisible projects received only average responses.
• Done wellQ2(c)Candidates who understood the requirement for the monthly loan instalment scored full marks.
• AdviceQ2(c)Put more effort into computing monthly loan instalments.
• Weak areaQ3(a)Choosing the right hedging strategy, futures, options or either, for each scenario was answered only averagely.
• Done wellQ3(b)International trade payment methods drew a range of good answers, showing candidates had read widely.
• Done wellQ5Question 5 was the best answered question.

Source: ICAG's November 2025 Paper 2.4 file

• Exam techniqueGeneralWorkings in answer booklets were not properly labelled, and rough work was not cancelled.
• Exam techniqueGeneralA few candidates answered the same question more than once.
• Done wellQ1Candidates clearly understood what Question 1 required and answered it well, as the examiner expected.
• Done wellQ1(a)(iv)The Islamic finance sources part was generally answered well.
• Done wellQ2(c)Answers explaining the option to delay and the option to expand, and when to use them, were average to good.
• Done wellQ3(a)Hedging answers were average; candidates got some computations right and earned marks, particularly when calculating the result in Ghana cedis.
• Done wellQ3(a)(iii)Answers on settling the trade by letter of credit were generally good.
• MistakeQ3(a)(iii)Some candidates did not know what a letter of credit was.
• Done wellQ4(b)Answers on the Public Financial Management and value for money part were average to good.
• AdviceQ5(a)Give more attention to the cash conversion cycle, EOQ and Miller-Orr model to improve performance.
• Done wellQ5(b)Answers assessing the educational support programme through value for money analysis were average to good.

Source: ICAG's July 2025 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellQ1All parts of Question 1 were generally answered well apart from the share valuation part.
• AdviceQ2Future candidates should focus more on this area to avoid a repeat of the poor performance.
• Done wellQ4(a), Q4(b)Some candidates gave fairly good answers on valuing the stock and on the dividend discount model's limitations; others tried the method and earned some marks.
• Done wellQ4(c)The JIT purchasing and hospital implementation problems part drew the best answers in Question 4.
• Done wellQ5(a)Some candidates performed extremely well on the working capital requirement computation and earned full marks.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Answers analysing the public expenditure variance and what it means for public financial management (PFM) were average.

Source: ICAG's March 2025 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellGeneralCandidates generally showed their workings for each question and labelled them clearly as workings.
• MistakeQ1(a)Candidates struggled to work out the number of shares after the rights issue.
• MistakeQ1(a)Candidates struggled to work out the revised share price under the equity and debt financing options.
• MistakeQ1(a)Candidates could not give any advice on which financing option suited the planned expansion.
• Done wellQ1(a)A small number of candidates performed well, giving the required advice on the financing method supported by their computations.
• Done wellQ1(b)Answers on ethics in financial management were generally average to good.
• Done wellQ2Overall performance was moderate. Good answers were few, but the candidates who gave them earned very good marks.

Source: ICAG's November 2024 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellGeneralSome few candidates appeared to be of good calibre, as the standard of their answers showed.
• Exam techniqueGeneralCandidates answered in pencil, against the examination instructions.
• Exam techniqueGeneralWrite in permanent ink pens, not pencils.
• Done wellQ1(a)Answers on profit versus share price maximisation and whether the dividend made up for the share price fall ranged from very good to average.
• Weak areaQ1(b)Answers on the principles and types of Islamic finance were average.
• Done wellQ3(b)Some candidates managed to set up a reasonable options hedge and earned some marks.
• MistakeQ3Some candidates did not attempt the financial mathematics and options hedging question at all.
• Weak areaQ4(b)Answers on the forms of market efficiency varied widely, from very good to poor.
• Done wellQ5(a)Some good answers were given, and in general candidates knew roughly what the EOQ and cash conversion cycle question required.
• Weak areaQ5(b)A number of candidates struggled to explain the Ghana Stock Exchange Composite Index well.
• Done wellQ5(b)Some few candidates knew the Ghana Stock Exchange Composite Index well and scored full marks.

Source: ICAG's July 2024 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellGeneralThe quality of candidates' answers improved.
• Done wellGeneralCandidates made better use of the Institute's learning materials and its past examination questions and answers.
• Done wellQ1Answers on corporate governance and on the placement, offer for sale by tender and offer for sale methods were good, showing sound application of knowledge.
• Done wellQ2A small number of very strong candidates handled all the computation parts, scoring maximum marks.
• Done wellQ3(a)(iii)Answers computing the aggregate present value for payments under the credit purchase option were mixed, though some candidates earned good marks.
• Done wellQ3(b)(i)Most candidates correctly identified whether the exchange rate quotations were direct or indirect.
• Weak areaQ3(b)(ii)Most candidates found it hard to choose between the bid rate and the ask rate quoted, an area needing further improvement.
• Done wellQ4(b)Most candidates computed the required return using CAPM correctly.
• MistakeQ4(b)Most candidates struggled to interpret the required return against the project's expected return when advising.
• Weak areaQ5(a)(i)Answers on the factoring option were mixed.
• MistakeQ5(a)(ii)A good number of those answering reversed the meanings of with recourse and without recourse factoring.
• Done wellQ5(a)(ii)Some candidates explained the two factoring agreements well and scored full marks.

Source: ICAG's March 2024 Paper 2.4 file

• Exam techniqueGeneralPresent answers properly and keep them in an orderly arrangement in the booklet.
• MistakeQ1(a)(i)A few candidates recognised the policy scenario but could not tell expansionary and contractionary monetary policy apart.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Answers valuing the target with the dividend valuation approach were mixed, with well-prepared candidates doing better.
• Weak areaQ2(c)Answers valuing the subsidiary with the P/E ratio method were mixed, with well-prepared candidates doing better.
• Done wellQ3(a)Answers on choosing the best insurance pay-out option were average to good, with candidates using varied approaches.
• Done wellQ3(b)Answers on the deposits needed to repay the loan principal were moderate to good.
• Done wellQ4This question, combining theory and calculations, was well answered across its parts.
• Done wellQ4(a)Answers explaining business, financial and systematic risk were good.
• Done wellQ4(c)Answers explaining the Modigliani and Miller and traditional views on WACC and gearing were average to good.
• MistakeQ5(b)Answers were average, as most candidates focused only on currency risk when explaining the financial risks treasury manages.
• Done wellQ5(b)A small number of candidates understood treasury risk management and performed very well.

Source: ICAG's November 2023 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellGeneralA small number of candidates showed some good understanding of the quantitative questions, which carried most of the marks, and of the theory questions.
• Done wellQ1(a)Answers on conflicts between shareholders and management, and on the costs to shareholders of appointing managers, varied, ranging between average and very good.
• Done wellQ3(a)Answers on the loan maturity value, sinking fund deposits and annuity due versus ordinary annuity were average to good.
• Done wellQ4(b)Answers on primary and secondary markets and why the secondary market matters more to investors were good.
• Done wellQ5(b)Answers justifying the choice of currency futures over currency options were good.

Source: ICAG's July 2023 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellGeneralA small number of candidates, probably those resitting the paper, showed a sound understanding and grasp of the subject.
• Done wellGeneralCandidates' research ability and coverage of the syllabus showed some improvement.
• Done wellGeneralA small number of candidates made use of the tuition opportunities offered by tuition providers.
• Exam techniqueGeneralImprove how you plan and manage your time.
• Done wellQ1(a)Answers on the investment, financing, dividend and liquidity decisions were good, with candidates explaining their understanding in their own words.
• Done wellQ1(b)Answers on valuing the share were moderate, with stronger candidates earning good marks.
• Done wellQ4(a)Answers on the stages of the capital investment decision process were generally good.

Source: ICAG's March 2023 Paper 2.4 file

• Exam techniqueGeneralStay calm in the exam and answer the questions you find easiest first, to build confidence and use time productively.
• AdviceGeneralLearn and use finance terminology as you study, and apply it in the exam to show your understanding.
• MistakeQ2(a)(iii)In the cash flow valuation, some candidates discounted at the cost of capital alone, without adding the risk premium.
• Done wellQ3(a)A small number of well-prepared candidates understood the requirement, produced excellent computations and scored full marks.
• Done wellQ3(b)Answers explaining how a credit rating benefits a company and what rating agencies consider when rating it were good.
• Done wellQ4(c)Answers on the factors to weigh when deciding which kind of debt finance to use and from which source were good.

Source: ICAG's December 2022 Paper 2.4 file

• AdviceGeneralKeep researching and using new study material in Financial Management.
• Exam techniqueGeneralSome candidates planned poorly and misunderstood questions, leading to many cancellations that wasted time and marks.
• Exam techniqueGeneralLet the marks for each question guide how much detail you give.
• Exam techniqueGeneralMake your reasoning flow logically so the examiner can follow it and award maximum marks.
• Done wellQ1(a)(i)A number of candidates correctly explained public sector objectives as economy, efficiency and effectiveness (the 3Es).
• MistakeQ1(a)(i)Candidates generally answered by listing goods and services that government bodies provide.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Answers calculating the acquisition gain and the cost of paying in cash or in shares were average.
• Done wellQ2(b)Candidates who grasped the question earned full marks.
• Done wellQ4(a)Candidates generally did very well on reasons for leasing and the lease or buy NPV decision, with some gaining full marks.
• Done wellQ4(b)Questions on the benefits of a Ghana Stock Exchange listing were well answered.
• Done wellQ4Question four, on lease or buy and stock exchange listing, was answered best of all questions.
• Done wellQ5Candidates handled the cash management question second best of all the questions on the paper.
• Done wellQ5(b)A small number of candidates excelled on motives for holding cash and gained full marks.
• Done wellQ5The majority who attempted the cash management question earned good marks.

Source: ICAG's August 2022 Paper 2.4 file

• AdviceGeneralSpend time studying both the theoretical content and the calculation areas, since the paper tests both.
• Done wellGeneralVaried but good explanations showed candidates had drawn on many sources of study material and research.
• AdviceGeneralKeep abreast of local and global developments relevant to Financial Management.
• AdviceGeneralDo not study only past questions, as this makes it hard to answer questions asked differently.
• Weak areaGeneralCandidates faced time constraints because preparation time was shortened in the first sitting of the three-sittings-a-year programme.
• Done wellQ1(b)The majority of candidates did most of the capital structure and required earnings calculations correctly.
• Done wellQ1Question one was answered best of all questions in the paper.
• Done wellQ2(a)Candidates handled the price-earnings ratio valuation better than the dividend growth valuation.
• MistakeQ2(a)Candidates found it hard to calculate the dividend growth rate and then use it in the model.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Answers discussing the concerns the target company's management could raise about each valuation method were average.
• MistakeQ3(a)(i)Some candidates wrongly applied simple interest instead of quarterly compounding.
• Done wellQ3(a)(iii)Identifying whether the interest was simple or compound received good answers.
• Done wellQ3(b)Candidates who understood the requirement obtained some good marks.
• Done wellQ4(b)(ii)A good number gave sound advice after comparing each project's Accounting Rate of Return with the target return.
• MistakeQ4(b)(i)A number of candidates misunderstood the data and took the initial investment off each project's net cash flows, distorting their results and decisions.

Source: ICAG's April 2022 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellGeneralAnswer quality was good, especially among candidates who scored well overall or on particular questions.
• Weak areaGeneralCandidates knew very few alternative methods for questions that can be solved in more than one way.
• AdviceGeneralExplore the different approaches to answering questions across all parts of the syllabus.
• Done wellQ1(a)Almost every candidate answered the functions of Ghana's Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and National Insurance Commission well, and some scored full marks. It was among the best-answered parts.
• Done wellQ2(b)Some good answers were given on distinguishing a company's value from its market capitalisation.
• Done wellQ2(c)Some good answers were given on the challenges of valuing an unlisted company.
• MistakeQ3(b)Many candidates were confused and wrongly advised on whether to lag collection of the yen receivable, though they earned some marks for explaining leading and lagging.
• Done wellQ3(b)Candidates who understood the leading and lagging question scored full marks.
• Done wellQ4(a)Answers on what capital investment decisions are and which spending counts as capital investment were good.
• Weak areaQ5Question 5 again challenged candidates, as at the previous sitting.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Answers on whether the Baumol model suited the company, given the preamble, earned average marks.
• Done wellQ5(c)Answers on two conditions to weigh before putting short-term surplus cash into investments were good.

Source: ICAG's November 2021 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellGeneralCandidates sitting the paper were of a higher calibre and quality than before.
• Done wellQ1(b)(iii)Most who attempted the distinction between an annuity due and an ordinary annuity scored good marks.
• Done wellQ1Overall, question one was among the best answered questions.
• Done wellQ2(a)Distinguishing market price from value in business valuation received some good answers.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Explaining why valuation is described as subjective produced average answers.
• Weak areaQ2(d)The assets-based valuation of the printing segment received average answers.
• Done wellQ3(a)Explaining difficulties faced by highly geared companies drew good answers, and most candidates did very well.
• Done wellQ3Question three, on gearing, WACC and factoring, was answered better than any other question.
• Done wellQ4Question four ranked second best among all questions.
• Weak areaQ5Some candidates found the inventory, financing and hedging question challenging.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Advice on borrowing to take the early settlement discount drew a mix of strong and weak answers; overall performance was average.
• Done wellQ5(b)Candidates who grasped this part earned full marks.
• Done wellQ5(c)Candidates who grasped the question earned good marks.

Source: ICAG's May 2021 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellGeneralStrong candidates understood each requirement and knew which formulas to use for each question.
• Done wellQ3(a)The choice between cash purchase and credit purchase options attracted good answers.
• Done wellQ3(b)Calculating the option's intrinsic value month by month was also well answered.
• Weak areaQ3(b)Few candidates struggled to interpret whether the option was in, at or out of the money.
• Done wellQ3(c)The theory question on liquidity risk and credit risk received good answers.
• Done wellQ4(a)Candidates showed good understanding of computing and interpreting the equivalent annual cost to find the optimal replacement cycle.
• Weak areaQ4(b)Some candidates struggled to explain practical ways to deal with capital rationing.
• Done wellQ4(c)Candidates displayed some good grasp of the Modigliani and Miller irrelevance view and the traditional view on dividends.
• Weak areaQ5(a)Candidates struggled to work out the relevant figures for choosing between factoring and bank finance, and performance on this part was poor.
• Exam techniqueQ5(a)Candidates computed the figures either annually or monthly, and both approaches were accepted.
• MistakeQ5(b)Some candidates confused internal hedging techniques with general methods of managing exchange rate risk and went off the point.
• Done wellQ3Question three, on payment options, option intrinsic value and credit and liquidity risk, ranked second overall for how well it was answered.

Source: ICAG's November 2020 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellQ1(a)Performance on the essay about investment, financing and dividend decision areas and external factors was above average.
• Weak areaQ1(b)Most candidates struggled to compute and interpret the degrees of operating and financial leverage and to advise on capital structure.
• Done wellQ1(b)A small number of candidates managed the computation, interpretation and advice on leverage and scored maximum marks.
• Done wellQ2(i)The P/E ratio valuation received moderate answers.
• Done wellQ3(b)Some candidates filled in the swap table very well, showing fixed interest, variable interest and net settlement as amounts.
• MistakeQ3(b)Others completed the swap table in percentages instead of computing interest amounts on the notional principal.
• MistakeQ4(a)Some candidates mishandled tax allowable depreciation, which weakened their answers.
• Done wellQ4(c)Answers on the theory of market volatility were good.
• Done wellQ5(c)Candidates performed above average when explaining how a currency swap differs from an interest rate swap.
• Done wellQ4Question four, on NPV, payback, market volatility and bear and bull markets, ranked second overall for how well it was answered.
• Done wellQ5Question five, on cash motives, credit policy and swaps, drew the best answers and performance in the paper.

Source: ICAG's May 2020 Paper 2.4 file

• Weak areaGeneralCandidates lacked the depth of subject knowledge and understanding that some questions demanded.
• Done wellQ1(a)The theory part on the role of Ghana's SEC and its regulatory implications was the best answered part.
• Weak areaQ3(d)Some students struggled to calculate the 3-month and 6-month forward rates.
• Done wellQ3(d)Some students calculated the forward rates well and scored maximum marks.
• Exam techniqueQ3(d)Students who treated the quoted interest rates as rates for the specific tenors rather than annual rates were also credited, as the question was silent.
• Done wellQ5(c)The majority of students answered well on why firms hold stock and what holding it costs.
• Done wellQ4Question four, on NPV, IRR, sensitivity and capital rationing, was among the best answered questions in the paper.

Source: ICAG's November 2019 Paper 2.4 file

• Weak areaGeneralStudents had prepared poorly on the fundamental theory of finance.
• MistakeGeneralStudents concentrated on answering direct questions, which the examiner listed as a reason for poor performance.
• AdviceGeneralStudy the essay-type areas of the syllabus, not only the quantitative aspects.
• Weak areaQ1(a)Students on the whole found it hard to apply financial measures and measures of economy, efficiency and effectiveness to the library value for money case, earning low to medium marks.
• Done wellQ1(b)Students answered well on bankers' acceptances, commercial paper, repurchase agreements and term deposits.
• Weak areaQ2(a)Students had difficulty working out the share price, which was central to both the market capitalisation and WACC parts.
• Done wellQ2(b)Performance on share repurchase and the situations where it is useful was generally good.
• Done wellQ2(c)Students answered well on convertible debt and why it can appeal to a company more than a similar-term bank loan.
• Exam techniqueQ3(a)Some students did not use the annuity factor and worked through a longer detailed approach instead.
• MistakeQ3(b)Some students' decisions on whether to exercise each option contradicted their own calculations.
• Exam techniqueQ4(a)Some students calculated the figures well but struggled to present them in one consolidated format clearly contrasting the status quo with using the factor.
• Done wellQ4(b)Students gave good, original answers on the benefits of managing working capital well.
• Weak areaQ5(a)(i)Although the bond pricing needed only a simple calculation, students struggled to understand it.
• Weak areaQ5(a)(ii)Students did not know or appreciate how changes in interest rates affect bond values.
• Weak areaQ5(b)The question on the dividend growth model's limitations was poorly answered, and responses suggested students had not expected it.

Source: ICAG's May 2019 Paper 2.4 file

• Weak areaQ1(c)Answers on why share price maximisation is preferred to sales maximisation varied widely, and performance was only average.
• MistakeQ2(a)Confused by the unusually high dividend figures given, most candidates left their cost of equity and WACC answers unconverted to percentages.
• Done wellQ2(c)Candidates handled the effects on a shareholder's wealth of selling, exercising or ignoring rights well, which helped their marks on Question 2.
• Done wellQ5(a)Candidates generally covered the three degrees of efficiency of stock markets well.

Source: ICAG's May 2018 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellQ2(b)Q2(b), on the problems small firms face in raising capital, was well attempted and candidates generally scored good marks.
• Done wellQ3(a)Performance on ROI advantages and safeguards was generally above average, though the question seemed unexpected and required broader thinking.
• Done wellQ3(b)Candidates who answered the capital rationing question correctly scored full marks.
• Done wellQ4(b)Candidates who read this question carefully and properly understood it performed very strongly.

Source: ICAG's November 2017 Paper 2.4 file

• Exam techniqueGeneralMost candidates concentrated their time on the more straightforward questions, particularly the written ones, which brought them the highest marks.
• Done wellGeneralCandidates maximised their marks on the easier theory and calculation questions, which helped offset low marks elsewhere.
• Weak areaGeneralQuestions 4 and 5 drew the weakest answers on the paper, with low average marks.
• Exam techniqueGeneralCandidates who did well gave most of their time to Questions 1 to 3, which carried 70 marks and were more straightforward.
• Exam techniqueGeneralCandidates who did well gave less time to the last two questions, which were harder but worth only 30 marks between them.
• Done wellQ1Almost all candidates attempted Q1, on value for money and financial markets, and it was generally well answered.
• Done wellQ1All average candidates passed this question, and good candidates scored excellent marks.
• Done wellQ2(b)The part on factors that lenders and borrowers consider in lending or borrowing decisions was straightforward and well answered.
• Done wellQ2Overall performance on Q2, worth 25 marks, was excellent.
• Weak areaQ3(b)Answers on calculating NPV and making the investment decision were of average standard.
• MistakeQ3(b)Candidates differed on when the given price and variable cost applied, some treating the current year as year 0, others as year 1. An alternative solution covered both.
• Done wellQ3(c)The part on currency risk and foreign exchange losses was well answered.
• Done wellQ3Taken as a whole, Q3, worth 25 marks, was answered well in general.
• Weak areaQ4(a)Answers distinguishing factoring from invoice discounting were of average standard.
• Weak areaQ5Q5 was the hardest question for candidates, and they scored very poor marks on it.
• Done wellQ5(a)The part on valuing a company by net assets, dividend growth and earnings yield methods drew somewhat better answers than Q5(b).
• Weak areaQ5(b)Candidates generally did poorly on Q5(b), computing dividend cover, EPS and the P/E ratio from data that also needed a tax computation.

Source: ICAG's May 2017 Paper 2.4 file

• Done wellQ1Almost every candidate attempted Q1 on agency problems, non-financial objectives and currency hedging, and answers ranged from average to excellent, making it among the best answered.
• MistakeQ2(a)Most candidates described the symptoms of overcapitalisation and overtrading rather than giving their causes, as the question required.
• Done wellQ2(a)Some candidates understood the requirement and answered it by giving the causes of overcapitalisation and overtrading.
• Weak areaQ2(a)Candidates generally struggled to set out the causes of overcapitalisation and overtrading.
• Done wellQ3(a)A small number of brilliant candidates got the NPV and IRR investment appraisal right.
• Done wellQ3(b)Candidates generally thought outside the box about what was expected on venture capital conditions and answered appropriately.
• Done wellQ3(b)Nearly every candidate attempted the venture capital part, and answers were of a fairly good standard.
• Weak areaQ4(c)Repos, reverse repos and the related repurchase price calculation were answered only to an average standard.
• Done wellQ4Overall, Q4 was one of the well attempted questions.
• Done wellQ2(c)Q2(c), on stock splits, scrip issues and why a company makes a scrip issue, was straightforward and widely attempted.

Source: ICAG's November 2016 Paper 2.4 file

• Weak areaQ1Students performed poorly on this question overall.
• MistakeQ2(a)Students calculated only a few ratios to support their overtrading conclusion, rather than the detailed ratio computations expected.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Students struggled to calculate all the decision variables for the early settlement discount and to reach an overall decision.
• MistakeQ2(b)Answers were only average because students computed just some of the variables.
• Done wellQ2(d)Students answered the part on easing cash shortages fairly well.
• MistakeQ3(b)Students covered only certain aspects of the valuation, making it hard to earn full marks on all the computations.
• Done wellQ4(a)Students answered the pecking order and capital structure part fairly well.

Source: ICAG's May 2016 Paper 2.4 file

• MistakeQ1(a)Few candidates mistook the question as asking for the finance manager's role rather than factors showing organisational success.
• Weak areaQ1(b)Most candidates did poorly on computing common size ratios.
• Done wellQ1(c)Answers on why government policy targets matter to a business generally addressed what the question required.
• Done wellQ1(d)Answers explaining financial intermediation and disintermediation were generally good.
• Done wellQ2(c)Most candidates correctly calculated the average rate of dividend growth.
• Done wellQ3(a)Overall performance was excellent on how a Municipal Assembly's investment appraisal differs from a mining company's.
• Weak areaQ3(c)Most candidates lacked knowledge of Islamic finance and gave incorrect explanations of Mudaraba, Musharaka and Murabaha contracts.
• Done wellQ4(a)(ii)Almost all candidates handled well the benefits of term loans compared with overdraft facilities.
• Weak areaQ4(c)Most candidates could not state the key assumptions of random walk theory and scored no marks.
• Weak areaQ5(a)Most candidates did poorly explaining purchasing power parity and interest rate parity.
• Done wellQ5(a)Some few candidates explained both parity theories well enough to score full marks.
• Done wellQ5(b)Some candidates earned full marks on calculating profit or loss on the foreign currency import transaction.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Few candidates found the profit or loss calculation on the transaction difficult.
• Done wellQ5(d)The majority of candidates did very well calculating the return on shares and their value.

Source: ICAG's November 2015 Paper 2.4 file