ICAG Level 3 · Paper 3.1ICAG Paper 3.1 Corporate Reporting past questions

• AdviceQ2(b)This part was tricky. Apartments actively used for celebrity marketing are owner-occupied property, and IAS 40 investment property classification is prohibited because of the operational links.
• AdviceQ2(c)(i)For the DDEP bonds, first explain that a qualitative assessment and a quantitative 10% test decide whether the cash flows have substantially changed under IFRS 9.
• Done wellQ3Most candidates scored very high marks on Question 3, and some achieved full marks.
• Weak areaQ4(a)Most candidates seemed not to expect a capital reconstruction question, although such questions fall within the syllabus.
• Done wellQ4(a)Most candidates showed a good grasp of what the capital reconstruction question was about.
• MistakeQ4(a)Most candidates concentrated on opening separate accounts and entering the opening balances from the given statement of financial position.
• MistakeQ4(a)Most candidates could not work out the preference dividends in arrears.
• MistakeQ4(a)Most candidates could not calculate how many new shares arise and what the new share capital is worth.
• MistakeQ4(a)Most candidates could not work out how to treat the debentures in the reconstruction.
• Done wellQ4(b)Most candidates could give one or more of the four IFRS 10 conditions that exempt a parent from consolidation.
• Done wellQ4(b)Many candidates correctly gave the condition that the parent is itself a subsidiary, wholly or partly owned by another entity.
• MistakeQ4(b)Those candidates then omitted the condition that the other owners must be told and raise no objection to the exemption.
• MistakeQ5(a)Most candidates computed ratios only on reported figures, so wrongly concluded that performance had worsened when the continuing business had actually improved.
• MistakeQ5(a)Candidates ignored the sustainability metrics or covered them only as reported, so missed that the energy saving was real while training investment fell.
• AdviceQ5Practise analysis questions that call for computations both with and without adjustments.
• AdviceQ5Bring non-financial indicators into your evaluation of performance.
• Exam techniqueQ5Manage your time so the discursive requirement gets adequate attention.
• AdviceQ2(c)(i)If the terms are substantially modified, derecognise the old bonds and record the replacement bonds at fair value; otherwise recalculate the gross carrying amount using the original effective interest rate.

Source: ICAG's July 2026 Paper 3.1 file

• AdviceQ1On the full disposal of Pra, recognise the GH¢2.4 million loss in retained earnings and correct the GH¢30 million gain Firaw wrongly recorded in OCI.
• MistakeQ1Some candidates were unable to calculate the non-controlling interest's fair value from the discounted price to earnings multiple.
• MistakeQ1Unprepared candidates had difficulty computing the finance lease receivable, PPE, retained earnings and stated capital.
• AdviceQ2(a)Decide whether Osae controlled the specialised equipment and whether IFRS 16 treated the arrangement as a lease. Its cost could be an IFRS 15 contract fulfilment asset, not a lease.
• AdviceQ2(b)Treat the GH¢0.2m cost of defining project requirements as research, expensed at once. Capitalise the GH¢1m development cost only if all six IAS 38 criteria are met.
• AdviceQ2(b)IAS 38 prohibits recognising internally generated brands, so expense the GH¢100,000 brand name design cost immediately.
• Done wellQ3(a)Most candidates found computing the goodwill very simple.
• MistakeQ3(b)Some candidates repeated their positive impacts as the benefits and their negative impacts as the risks or challenges of these technologies.
• Done wellQ3Most candidates scored very highly on Question 3, and some achieved full marks.
• Weak areaQ4(a)Most candidates found the share valuation question the hardest, even though it was a standard business valuation question.
• AdviceQ4(b)If the GH¢5 price of the preferred shares is the benchmark for valuing the ordinary shares, adjust under IFRS 13 for seniority, dividend preference, control, marketability and subordination.
• MistakeQ5(a)(i)Most candidates managed to calculate just the first two ratios.
• Done wellQ5(a)(ii)Despite difficulties with the ratios, candidates still managed to write a report.
• Done wellQ5(b)The majority of candidates answered the double materiality part very well.
• Done wellQ5(b)Most candidates explained both financial and impact materiality, why they matter for sustainability and ESG reporting, and their link to impacts and dependencies.
• Exam techniqueGeneralEven moderately difficult ratio and business valuation questions require working through complex adjustments before reaching the final value per share or ratios.
• AdviceQ2(c)Under IFRS 9, a convertible bond investment fails the SPPI test, which means FVTPL measurement whatever the business model.
• AdviceQ3(a)Work out how much of the goodwill exchange difference belongs to the parent and how much to the NCI.
• AdviceQ4(b)Under IFRS 13, reflect market participant assumptions: Kankani's ordinary shares are non-controlling, so apply a minority discount and a discount for lack of marketability.

Source: ICAG's March 2026 Paper 3.1 file

• Weak areaQ3(b)The IFRS 17 question on what an insurance contract is was poorly answered.
• Done wellQ3(c)Students generally showed knowledge of IFRS S1 and IFRS S2.
• Done wellQ3Overall, Question Three on IFRS 15, IFRS 17 and sustainability reporting was well answered.
• Weak areaQ4(b)Answers on accounting for contingent payments to acquire the non-controlling interest were weak, showing a poor understanding of the relevant standards.
• MistakeQ5(a)(ii)Most candidates did not group the ratios under gearing, liquidity, profitability and efficiency as required, and analysed each ratio on its own.
• MistakeQ5(a)(ii)Most candidates did not explain the meaning and purpose of each ratio before linking it to the case.

Source: ICAG's November 2025 Paper 3.1 file

• Weak areaQ1Most candidates knew little or nothing about consolidated statements of cash flows.
• MistakeQ1Candidates with some cash flow knowledge still placed items under the wrong headings of the statement of cash flows.
• MistakeQ2(d)Most candidates did not attempt the sub-question on how biological assets are recognised and measured under IAS 41.
• Done wellQ3(a)Some candidates clearly identified and distinguished the two types of joint arrangement under IFRS 11: joint ventures and joint operations.
• Done wellQ3(a)These candidates concluded from the facts and circumstances that the arrangement was a joint operation.
• MistakeQ3(a)Most candidates missed that the classification would not change merely because each party transmitted and sold its share of the power to its own customers.
• AdviceQ3(b)Know that under IFRS 8 a segment is reportable if it reaches 10% of combined segment revenue, profit or loss (larger absolute total), or assets.
• Done wellQ3(b)Candidates understood the concept of reportable segments under IFRS 8 well.
• MistakeQ3(b)Most candidates could not apply the IFRS 8 thresholds correctly to the segments in the question.
• Done wellQ3(b)Most candidates managed to state one or more of the IFRS 8 quantitative thresholds, which earned them some marks.
• Done wellQ3(c)Candidates performed well on the recall question about the roles of GRI, SASB and TCFD in sustainability reporting.
• MistakeQ4(b)Only a few candidates left sub-question (b) unanswered.
• MistakeQ5(a)(i)Some candidates struggled to compute current liabilities because they could not divide the government grant between current and non-current portions, despite a footnote, which also distorted capital employed.
• MistakeQ5(a)(i)Some candidates left out the non-controlling interest when calculating equity, which distorted their debt/equity ratio.
• Done wellQ5(b)The majority of students answered the part on descriptive, predictive and prescriptive analytics well.

Source: ICAG's July 2025 Paper 3.1 file

• Weak areaQ2(d)Most candidates scored low marks on IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies.
• MistakeQ2(b)Most candidates could not show the adjustment to opening equity needed on first-time adoption of IFRS under IFRS 1.
• Done wellQ3(a)Most candidates stated the basic IFRS 13 principle on the principal market and the most advantageous market.
• MistakeQ3(a)Candidates often confused the two, treating the most advantageous market like the principal market.
• MistakeQ3(a)Over half of candidates deducted transaction costs when measuring fair value under IFRS 13.
• MistakeQ3(a)This led most candidates to base fair value on the net benefit in the Northern zone.
• Done wellQ3(b)Most candidates stated two or more of the IAS 38 criteria for capitalising development costs, which earned them some marks.
• MistakeQ3(b)Candidates did not mention that concerns about the drug's market could indicate possible impairment.
• Done wellQ3(b)Most candidates correctly stated that the cost of adding new functionality to the device should be expensed.
• MistakeQ3(c)Some candidates could not tell social impacts apart from environmental concerns.
• Weak areaQ4(b)Almost all candidates answered poorly on what typically characterises an investment entity, and only exceptional candidates got it right.
• Done wellQ5(a)Because the ratios were given, most candidates found the memo on profitability, gearing, liquidity, investment and efficiency relatively easy to attempt.

Source: ICAG's March 2025 Paper 3.1 file

• MistakeQ1A small number of candidates failed to recognise what type of group structure this vertical group represented.
• Weak areaQ1Some candidates were weak at making the impairment and depreciation adjustments in the consolidation.
• Weak areaQ1Some candidates were weak at adjusting for the due diligence cost incurred before acquiring the sub-subsidiary.
• MistakeQ1Some candidates, though not many, added only the parent's share of subsidiaries' assets and liabilities instead of adding them in full (100%).
• MistakeQ2(a)Candidates who managed to compute the right-of-use asset together with the lease liability failed to translate them correctly into Ghana cedis, the functional currency, under IAS 21.
• Done wellQ2(b)The IAS 37 provisions part was answered better than the lease part.
• Done wellQ2(c)Most candidates answered the IAS 19 part and earned full marks on it.
• MistakeQ2(b)A few candidates could not state the IAS 37 recognition criteria for a provision or apply them to the scenario.
• Done wellQ3(b)Most candidates attempted the part on digital technology challenges and achieved a pass mark in it.
• MistakeQ3(b)(i)Some candidates failed to explain the digital technology challenges under each area the question named: cybersecurity, ethical dilemmas, digital transition and regulatory compliance.
• Done wellQ4(a)(i)For the capital reduction account, most candidates used the net approach; either the gross or the net approach was acceptable.
• MistakeQ4(b)Some candidates were unable to explain how differing parent and subsidiary reporting dates affect the figures used on consolidation.
• MistakeQ5(a)When computing the ratios, most candidates failed to adjust the profit figures for the group's share of the year's profit.

Source: ICAG's November 2024 Paper 3.1 file

• Done wellQ1Candidates gave fair answers on the subsidiaries' net assets workings, non-controlling interest, goodwill and retained earnings.
• MistakeQ1Candidates measured the sub-subsidiary's held-for-sale land at fair value at acquisition, instead of fair value less costs to sell under IFRS 3 and IFRS 5.
• Weak areaQ4(b)The IFRS 3 part, on whether Shanzy Plc acquired a business or only a group of assets, drew poor answers.
• Done wellQ4(b)A small number of candidates managed to explain correctly that the purchase was of a business.
• MistakeQ4(b)A lot of candidates wrongly concluded that the purchase was not a business.
• Exam techniqueQ4(b)Other candidates did not attempt the IFRS 3 part at all.
• AdviceQ5Ratio analysis is a regular question, so prepare for it seriously and expect to score good marks.
• Done wellQ5(a)A few candidates made the adjustments and correctly calculated net asset turnover, gross profit margin and operating profit margin.
• MistakeQ5(d)Many candidates explained what each ratio means instead of commenting on the actual results they had calculated.
• Weak areaQ5Although ratio analysis is a regular question, candidates' performance on it was only average.

Source: ICAG's July 2024 Paper 3.1 file

• Weak areaQ1Candidates generally did not understand the opening group equity balances provided in the question or how to use them.
• MistakeQ1Candidates did not see that closing retained earnings, other equity and NCI equal the opening figures plus shares of this year's adjusted profit and other comprehensive income.
• MistakeQ1Most candidates tried to work out the equity balances from acquisition date onwards, which the limited information in the question made impossible.
• MistakeQ1The generality of candidates recalculated goodwill from the cost of investment instead of simply adding the two full goodwill figures given, less impairment.
• Weak areaQ1Most candidates struggled with the building rented by the parent, Sankom, to its subsidiary, Makpa.
• MistakeQ1Candidates generally missed that a building held as IAS 40 investment property by the parent but used by a subsidiary is property, plant and equipment for the group.
• Done wellQ3(a)Performance on the related parties part was good, and most candidates correctly identified the related parties.
• Weak areaQ4(b)Most candidates could not give the factors for deciding whether reacquired rights are an identifiable intangible asset.
• MistakeQ1For the group, the rented building needed to be reclassified as property, plant and equipment, its fair value gain reversed and depreciation charged in the books of the parent.

Source: ICAG's March 2024 Paper 3.1 file

• Done wellQ1Generally, candidates correctly identified Agingo's two acquisitions, Telemo and Zimbo.
• Done wellQ1Candidates recognised that Telemo was acquired during the year, so only its four post-acquisition months of income and expenses were consolidated.
• MistakeQ1Candidates who attempted it calculated NCI's portion of net assets, a statement of financial position figure, rather than its share of the year's profit and comprehensive income.
• Weak areaQ1Candidates found it hard to show how Agingo's extra purchase of Zimbo shares affected the consolidated SOCI.
• MistakeQ1Some candidates wrongly read the extra Zimbo purchase as requiring Zimbo's SOCI income and expenses to be prorated.
• MistakeQ1Other candidates ignored the extra Zimbo purchase entirely.
• MistakeQ1Candidates did not realise the extra Zimbo purchase changed how Zimbo's profit was shared between NCI and the parent's owners.
• AdviceQ1Split Zimbo's adjusted profit into before and after the extra purchase, and allocate each part using the shareholdings that applied in that period.

Source: ICAG's November 2023 Paper 3.1 file

• AdviceQ1Compare the given gross recoverable amount with goodwill grossed up for Zinko's notional 20% NCI, or deflate the recoverable amount for that NCI.
• Done wellQ1Candidates were able to calculate the bargain purchase gain arising in Tooli, the sub-subsidiary.
• Weak areaQ1Candidates struggled to decide how to treat the bargain purchase gain once calculated.
• MistakeQ1Some candidates added the bargain purchase gain to, or netted it off against, positive goodwill.
• MistakeQ1Other candidates could not work out how to treat the bargain purchase gain at all.
• AdviceQ1Add a bargain purchase gain to group retained earnings.
• MistakeQ1On average, candidates used the wrong cost of investment when calculating the sub-subsidiary's goodwill.
• MistakeQ1Most candidates took the subsidiary's full investment rather than the parent's proportionate share of it when computing the sub-subsidiary's goodwill.
• MistakeQ1Candidates generally did not reverse Banky's write-down of intra-group inventory to NRV or make the PUP adjustment in Zinko's books.
• AdviceQ1Where cost is below NRV the inventory is not impaired, so reverse the write-down in the buyer's books and make the PUP adjustment in the seller's.
• MistakeQ2Candidates did not identify the relationship in the scenario, focusing instead on which standards applied.
• MistakeQ4(b)Many candidates did not answer Question 4(b) on consolidation theory at all.
• Exam techniqueQ4(b)Read the requirement: explain how an acquirer gains control without transferring consideration, for example when the acquiree buys back enough of its own shares.
• Weak areaQ5Most candidates were unfamiliar with analysing common-sized financial statements.
• MistakeQ5Candidates were too focused on the five main accounting ratio categories, such as profitability, liquidity and gearing.

Source: ICAG's July 2023 Paper 3.1 file

• Weak areaQ1Candidates struggled with how to treat preference shares issued by the subsidiaries.
• MistakeQ1The generality of candidates did not add subsidiaries' preference share capital held outside the parent to non-controlling interest.
• MistakeQ1Instead, they showed this preference capital as a separate equity line in the SOFP.
• MistakeQ1Candidates wrongly included the subsidiaries' preference share capital in net assets at acquisition.
• MistakeQ1Candidates did not realise that a subsidiary's fair value at acquisition is assessed from the equity shareholders' viewpoint only.
• Weak areaQ3Candidates could not show enough understanding of how IAS 36, IFRS 13, IAS 2, IAS 12 and IAS 21 treat the transactions.
• MistakeQ4(a)Most candidates could not decide how to share the loss among the stakeholders.
• Weak areaQ4(b)Almost all candidates answered the protective rights part poorly.
• MistakeQ5(a)Most candidates therefore got both ROCE and the operating profit margin wrong.

Source: ICAG's March 2023 Paper 3.1 file

• Weak areaQ4(a)Some candidates handled the share valuation question poorly because they struggled to apply IFRS 13 and IFRS 9 when valuing the shares.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Most candidates answered the part on the effect of converting the convertible bond poorly.

Source: ICAG's December 2022 Paper 3.1 file

• MistakeQ1Some candidates still consolidated the disposed subsidiary's assets and liabilities.
• AdviceQ1Learn the correct calculation of the group gain or loss whenever a disposal leads to loss of control.
• Done wellQ3(a)The majority were familiar with IAS 21 functional currency and could discuss the factors that determine it.
• MistakeQ3(a)Only a few candidates went on to state what the subsidiary's functional currency actually was.
• Weak areaQ4Although expected to be among the easiest, the share and business valuation question was not answered properly by some candidates.
• MistakeQ4(b)(ii)In working out Dingo's P/E ratio, candidates wrongly used Tinto's EPS instead of using Dingo's own figures consistently.
• Done wellQ4(b)(iii)Most candidates made a good attempt at the dividend growth method.

Source: ICAG's August 2022 Paper 3.1 file

• MistakeQ1Some candidates did not consolidate the sub-subsidiary's assets and liabilities, showing it instead as a single line investment in associate.
• Weak areaQ1Candidates generally struggled to reflect that the subsidiary had already recorded the fair value uplift on property, plant and equipment in its own books.
• MistakeQ1Some candidates added the GH¢320 million fair value adjustment to consolidated assets a second time.
• MistakeQ1Candidates did not recognise the GH¢320 million as part of the GH¢960 million revaluation surplus, an amount that had to be excluded when computing the parent's post-acquisition share.
• AdviceQ1Alternatively, show the fair value adjustment as a separate line in the subsidiary's net assets working at acquisition date only, with nothing at reporting date.
• Weak areaQ1Some candidates found it hard to account for the deferred consideration that arose when the indirect subsidiary was acquired.
• MistakeQ1Candidates struggled to pick the correct deferred consideration figure for the goodwill calculation.
• Weak areaQ1Some candidates did not realise that goodwill is measured using assets and liabilities at their acquisition-date values, not reporting-date values.
• MistakeQ1Some candidates did not account correctly for the unwound interest on the deferred consideration.
• MistakeQ1Candidates generally failed to include the unwound interest in consolidated retained earnings.
• MistakeQ1Candidates generally also failed to show the GH¢416 million deferred consideration as a current liability.
• MistakeQ1Candidates who did include the unwound interest in retained earnings failed to split it 60% to the parent and 40% to the non-controlling interest.
• Exam techniqueQ5The quarterly figures given alongside the year-end profit or loss figures distracted some candidates.
• MistakeQ5Some candidates wrongly used quarterly figures to compute ratios that relate to the statement of financial position.
• MistakeQ5Some candidates skipped calculating the company's own ratios and based their analysis only on the sector ratios given in the question.

Source: ICAG's April 2022 Paper 3.1 file

• Done wellQ2(b)Some candidates gave average answers on revenue from a contract with a customer.
• Done wellQ2(c)Some candidates gave average answers on the intangible assets part.
• MistakeQ3(a)Most candidates answered the part on the effects of changes in foreign exchange rates poorly.
• MistakeQ3(b)Most candidates answered the factoring of receivables part under financial instruments poorly.
• MistakeQ4(b)Almost all candidates answered poorly on the disclosures needed when an exempt parent prepares separate financial statements instead of consolidated ones.
• Weak areaQ5Most candidates lacked familiarity with analysing statements of cash flows.
• Done wellQ5Candidates drew on their general financial statement analysis knowledge to give average answers.
• Done wellQ5(i)Some candidates based comments on both entities' cash flow performance and position on the statements of cash flows given.
• AdviceQ5Remember that financial statement analysis in the syllabus is not limited to the statement of profit or loss and statement of financial position.

Source: ICAG's November 2021 Paper 3.1 file

• Weak areaGeneralA few candidates failed to show enough understanding of the relevant concepts and principles.
• MistakeQ1Many candidates did not properly treat the trade investment held as an equity instrument under IFRS 9.
• MistakeQ1Candidates took the whole GH¢17.4 million fall in fair value to retained earnings instead of first offsetting the earlier GH¢1.5 million gain, as IFRS 9 requires.
• Weak areaQ1Candidates struggled with the fair value changes on the Charity Ltd investment held before the extra 15% made it an associate.
• MistakeQ1Candidates did not recognise that when equity accounting started, fair value changes recorded under IFRS 9 became realised, as though the asset had been sold.
• MistakeQ1Most candidates did not transfer the GH¢1 million gain from other components of equity to retained earnings.
• MistakeQ2(a)Most candidates skipped the IAS 36 part of this question.
• MistakeQ2(a)(ii)Most candidates overlooked the depreciation effect.
• Done wellQ2(b)Most candidates who attempted the IFRS 5 and IAS 16 part performed averagely.
• MistakeQ2(b)Candidates did not properly classify the CGU's various assets and liabilities.
• MistakeQ3(b)Most candidates could not identify the IAS 24 paragraph 25 exemption for government-related entities.
• Weak areaQ4(a)Candidates lacked a basic grasp of how accounts carry debit and credit balances.
• MistakeQ4(a)Candidates debited the bank overdraft in the cash book when it should have been credited.
• Done wellQ4(b)Most candidates made a fair attempt at deciding whether the investor controlled the investee.
• MistakeQ4(b)Some candidates did not answer in line with what IFRS 10 requires.
• Done wellQ5Candidates were able to write a report supporting the ratios they computed.
• MistakeQ5Most candidates did not consider how the contingencies and discontinued operations affected, or might affect, overall performance.
• Exam techniqueQ5Always attempt the financial statement analysis question first.

Source: ICAG's May 2021 Paper 3.1 file

• Done wellQ3(c)Candidates could pick out the ethical issues in the scenario.
• MistakeQ4(a)(iv)Most candidates went wrong in applying the net cash flow approach to the discounted cash flow valuation.
• MistakeQ4(a)(iv)Most candidates added depreciation back to forecast profits that were already stated before depreciation, so earned no marks for that work.
• AdviceQ4(a)(iv)Where forecast profit before tax is already before depreciation, discount it directly without adjusting it.
• AdviceGeneralFocus your preparation on the relevant IFRSs and on the concepts behind preparing consolidated financial statements.

Source: ICAG's November 2020 Paper 3.1 file

• Done wellGeneralStrong overall results came mainly from very good answers on financial statement analysis, capital reduction and the ethics question.
• Exam techniqueGeneralCandidates who failed lacked the technique for answering exam questions or had simply not prepared adequately.
• Weak areaQ2The majority performed poorly on IAS 20 government grants, IAS 23 borrowing costs and IAS 19 employee benefits, perhaps from inadequate preparation and IFRS understanding.
• Done wellQ5The majority found this financial statements analysis question easier than the other questions and than earlier analysis questions.

Source: ICAG's May 2020 Paper 3.1 file

• MistakeQ1Most candidates just listed line items with some figures but did not total them.
• Weak areaQ2Candidates were clearly unprepared for the IFRS questions.
• Weak areaQ2(a)Most candidates could not properly tell apart the translation of monetary and non-monetary balances under IAS 21.
• MistakeQ4(b)Most candidates struggled to work out the set-off against the trade debt due to Banda Ltd, wrongly converting at GH¢1 rather than per GH¢200 of debt.
• MistakeQ5A few candidates failed to properly identify what needed analysing, so their answers drifted into general commentary.
• Done wellQ1Despite these difficulties, performance on the complex group consolidation question was above average overall.

Source: ICAG's November 2019 Paper 3.1 file

• Exam techniqueGeneralMore than 95% of candidates fell well short of finishing all questions, and most handled only about three adequately, suggesting poor timing strategy or not knowing what to do.
• Exam techniqueQ1Most candidates did not make a proper attempt at Q1.
• Exam techniqueQ1Poor presentation was the main weakness in answers to Q1.
• MistakeQ2Most candidates did not use the figures provided in the question, even though they were given to be applied.
• AdviceQ2Work through the suggested answer to Q2 and build your skill in applying IFRS principles and concepts to cases and scenarios.
• Weak areaQ3(a)Candidates did not know how to use the relevant IFRS to measure assets and liabilities properly.
• MistakeQ3Many candidates could not use IFRS to restate the financial statements before carrying out the valuation on the revised figures.
• MistakeQ4The majority of candidates were unsure whether the newly acquired subsidiary's results were already included in the financial statements, which caused them much difficulty.
• Weak areaQ4(c)Most candidates were unable to analyse the cash flow position properly.
• MistakeQ4(c)Candidates focused only on current and quick ratios rather than properly explaining the cash flow position.
• Done wellQ5Candidates did very well in Q5 on ethics, the conceptual framework and non-financial reporting.
• Done wellQ5Well-prepared candidates gave sensible answers to Q5.

Source: ICAG's May 2019 Paper 3.1 file

• Weak areaGeneralCandidates were unable to apply the right accounting standards to the specific issues raised in the questions.
• Weak areaQ1Many candidates struggled with the group pension scheme, the two restructuring plans and the office accommodation, answering them poorly or not at all.
• MistakeQ2Candidates either answered Question 2 poorly or skipped it entirely.
• MistakeQ2(a)Some candidates brought in Altman's Z-score, which the examiner found strange in a question on closing a division.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Candidates found it hard to calculate the loan's fair value and the grant element, and to account for both under IFRS 9.
• MistakeQ2(c)Only a few candidates discussed the three levels set out in IFRS 13.
• MistakeQ2(d)Candidates calculated the intangible assets' carrying amount under IAS 38 incorrectly.
• Exam techniqueQ2(d)Candidates failed to tie their answers to the question's requirements.
• Done wellQ3(a)Answers on factors to consider when valuing assets under the net assets approach were generally satisfactory.
• MistakeQ3(c)A large number of candidates presented only Wunam Bank's acquired assets and liabilities, failing to combine them with those of GCC Bank.
• MistakeQ4(a)Some candidates calculated return on equity instead of return on capital employed.
• MistakeQ4(a)Some candidates calculated inventory turnover as a ratio instead of the inventory turnover period.
• Weak areaQ4(a)Some candidates struggled to work out the receivables collection period.
• Exam techniqueQ4(a)Some candidates computed the ratios without showing the formulas they used.
• MistakeQ4(b)Analyses generally failed to show how the ratios were linked to one another.
• MistakeQ4(b)Many candidates drew up cash flow statements, possibly because the examiner said cash flow rather than liquidity or financial position.
• Done wellQ5Some candidates gave very good answers to Question 5.
• Done wellQ5(c)Many candidates earned high marks advising on using an exposure draft's proposed standard to prepare the financial statements.

Source: ICAG's November 2018 Paper 3.1 file

• MistakeQ1(a)Some candidates multiplied the foreign currency amounts by the exchange rate instead of dividing by it.
• Weak areaQ1(a)Many candidates had difficulty splitting total comprehensive income to find the amount attributable to the parent's owners.
• Weak areaQ1(a)Candidates performed poorly on the income surplus extract of the statement of changes in equity.
• Done wellQ1(b)Many candidates who attempted it calculated the consolidated gain or loss on disposing of the 60% interest correctly.
• Done wellQ2(e)Many candidates computed the land revaluation correctly.
• Weak areaQ3Many candidates left Question 3, on reorganising a microfinance company, unattempted.
• Weak areaQ3(a)What few marks were earned came from evaluating Scheme 1; candidates gained almost nothing on Scheme 2.
• MistakeQ4(a)This part was poorly answered. Candidates wrote about historical profit but failed to argue why profit can be a better appraisal measure than cash flow.
• Exam techniqueQ4(c)Some candidates copied out the examiner's list of ratios for both companies again before answering.
• Done wellQ5Many candidates earned very good marks on Question 5.
• Done wellQ5(a)Most candidates showed adequate understanding of integrated reporting and of both sustainability and financial reporting.
• Weak areaQ5(a)Candidates' difficulty lay in explaining how integrated reporting brings sustainability and financial reporting together.
• Weak areaQ5(b)(i)Not many candidates explained clearly how the inventory manipulation affected profit and why that made it an ethical breach.
• MistakeQ5(b)(ii)Answers focused too much on stock-count procedures and inventory valuation rather than on resolving the ethical issue.
• MistakeQ5(b)(ii)A number of candidates overlooked organisational hierarchy, proposing that the subordinate Finance Manager undo the Finance Director's adjustment.
• Exam techniqueQ5(b)(ii)Some candidates repeated points in the hope the examiner would miss it, which simply wasted their time.
• Weak areaQ5(c)Answers on approaches to defining a reporting entity were poor. Candidates clearly had not studied the Conceptual Framework discussion paper on the reporting entity.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Answers on the significance of the EPS figure to analysing company performance were generally only average.

Source: ICAG's May 2018 Paper 3.1 file

• Exam techniqueGeneralA number of candidates wrote informal abbreviations, such as k for 1,000 and b4 for before.
• Done wellQ2(a)Candidates who did the calculations and also explained the treatment scored high marks.
• Done wellQ2(b)Candidates who explained why related party disclosures matter scored very good marks.
• Done wellQ2(c)Candidates who explained the IAS 38 treatment and applied it to the scenario scored high marks.
• MistakeQ2(d)Many candidates skipped the IAS 10 part on post year-end information about whether a debt was recoverable.
• Weak areaQ2(d)Those who attempted the IAS 10 debt recoverability part gave poor answers.
• MistakeQ2(d)Candidates failed to address the impairment loss arising on the receivable.
• MistakeQ2(e)A fair number of candidates left the IFRS 9 bond part unattempted.
• Done wellQ2(e)Candidates who used fair value measurement and correctly dealt with the carrying amount, fair value loss and interest income earned good marks.
• Weak areaQ3(a)Candidates could not adequately recall the Ghana Stock Exchange listing requirements, so this part was poorly answered.
• MistakeQ3(b)Several candidates applied assorted formulae without linking their calculations to the facts of the question.
• MistakeQ4(a)Many candidates did not attempt the statement of changes in equity.
• Done wellQ4(a)The few candidates who attempted this part scored very high marks.
• AdviceQ4(a)Remember that the statement of changes in equity is a Level 2 Financial Reporting topic and can still be examined here.
• Weak areaQ4(b)The examiner suggested these weaknesses in ratio analysis could stem from inadequate preparation.
• Done wellQ5Many candidates earned very good marks on Question 5.
• Exam techniqueQ5In many instances, introductions were long-winded and largely restated the question or points already made.
• MistakeQ5(a)(i)Many candidates focused on report preparation costs and lack of expertise, but the limitations of financial reporting for social and environmental impacts go wider than this.
• MistakeQ5(a)(ii)These candidates did not show how the projects they described appear in company financial reports.
• Done wellQ5(b)Answers on the need for an agreed international conceptual framework were generally good.
• Weak areaQ5(b)Not many candidates realised that a conceptual framework cannot be expected to settle every practical accounting question.
• Done wellQ5(c)Answers on the audit firm's objectivity, where a partner's wife was a client's Finance Director, were satisfactory.
• MistakeQ5(c)Many candidates supported the other partners' decision, ignoring the fact that he was not the audit's reporting partner.
• AdviceQ5(c)Recognise that the firm could have declined the engagement rather than forcing the partner to take compulsory leave.
• Done wellQ5(d)Answers on the implications of complying or not complying with the ethical code were generally good.

Source: ICAG's November 2017 Paper 3.1 file

• MistakeQ5Many candidates gave lengthy answers covering only the professional or only the ethical aspects of Q5(a) and Q5(b), neglecting the other.
• MistakeQ5(b)One candidate defined bribery and wrote nearly a page on its evils, which earned no marks and wasted time.
• Weak areaQ1(a)Candidates struggled to compute post-acquisition figures for the subsidiary to include in the group statement of comprehensive income.
• MistakeQ1(a)A common error was not splitting the subsidiary's income statement figures between pre-acquisition and post-acquisition periods.
• MistakeQ1A common error was using three months instead of four as the post-acquisition period of the subsidiary.
• MistakeQ1A common error was treating Narrow Ltd as an indirect subsidiary (sub-subsidiary).
• AdviceQ1Note that control can sometimes exist with 50% or less, but only treat an investee as a subsidiary where the question gives evidence.
• MistakeQ1A common error was applying the wrong ratios to the share-for-share and loan note exchanges.
• MistakeQ1A common error was ignoring the share exchange when calculating Broad Ltd's share capital.
• MistakeQ1A common error was calculating the purchase consideration incorrectly.
• Weak areaQ2(a)The IAS 17 sale and leaseback question was very poorly answered.
• MistakeQ2(a)Most candidates got the debit and credit entries for the lease wrong.
• MistakeQ2(a)Most candidates were unsure how to deal with the disposal gain from derecognising and reinstating the building.
• MistakeQ2(a)Most candidates missed that the lease rental payment gave rise to a cash flow item.
• MistakeQ2(b)Most candidates did not attempt the IAS 19 pension cost accounting question at all.
• Weak areaQ2(c)Most candidates failed to understand fair value accounting for financial instruments, here a bond, and performed poorly.
• MistakeQ2(d)Many candidates could not identify which assets had been impaired under IAS 36.
• MistakeQ2(e)Not many candidates knew that heavy economic dependence on a major customer does not by itself make it a related party.
• MistakeQ2(e)Many candidates wrongly treated Zico, the major customer, as a related party.
• Done wellQ4(a)Candidates generally did well explaining what accounting ratios are used for and their limitations.
• Exam techniqueQ4(b)Several candidates wrote long, overlapping answers that over-elaborated on issues.
• Weak areaQ5(a)The question on the financial accountant's ethical and professional dilemma over lease classification was very poorly answered.
• Weak areaQ5(b)The question on the chief accountant's professional and ethical conflicts was poorly answered.
• MistakeQ5(b)Most candidates could not tell how Q5(b) differed from Q5(a).
• MistakeQ5(b)One candidate submitted a single answer to cover both Q5(a) and Q5(b).
• Done wellQ5(c)Candidates generally did well on the benefits of IFRS adoption for Ghanaian companies.
• Weak areaQ5(d)The question on constraints limiting relevance and faithful representation was poorly answered.
• Weak areaQ5(d)Most candidates did not understand relevance and faithful representation well enough to discuss their constraints.
• MistakeQ5(e)Several candidates wrote all they knew about integrated reporting without explaining how it evolved from earlier reporting.

Source: ICAG's November 2016 Paper 3.1 file

• Done wellQ1(a)Candidates generally answered well on treating different shareholdings in group accounts and scored many marks.
• MistakeQ1(a)Some candidates merely stated that an investee needed consolidating, without explaining the method.
• Done wellQ1(b)Candidates tried hard when working out the amount of borrowing cost to capitalise.
• Weak areaQ1(b)Some candidates did not grasp the topic of capitalising borrowing costs.
• Exam techniqueQ1(b)A number of candidates did not attempt the borrowing costs part.
• Done wellQ2(a)Candidates generally answered well on determining impairment of assets under IAS 36.
• MistakeQ2(a)Many candidates explained impairment losses but then failed to set out the circumstances that lead to them.
• Weak areaQ2(b)Answers were poor and incoherent, failing to explain the effect of each situation on the group's consolidated accounts.
• MistakeQ2(b)(i)Many candidates could not tell apart an IFRS 3 revised adjustment for later, more detailed valuation information and an impairment loss from post-acquisition physical damage.
• MistakeQ3(a)Those candidates scarcely discussed the company's relationships and its resources.
• Exam techniqueQ3(a)Candidates spent a lot of energy and time writing down all they knew on environmental reporting.
• Weak areaQ3(b)The question comparing compliance-based and integrity-based approaches to ethics was very poorly handled, since most candidates had no idea what the terms meant.
• MistakeQ3(b)Some answers wrongly described the integrity-based approach as resting on the individual or on accounting knowledge they had gained.
• Weak areaQ3(b)Many candidates were unaware the compliance-based approach mainly ensures the company obeys the law, with violations prevented, detected and punished.
• Weak areaQ3(b)Many candidates were unaware that the integrity-based approach joins respect for the law with managers taking responsibility for ethical behaviour.
• MistakeQ4(a)Some candidates wrongly took dividends paid off profit after tax when working out earnings per share.
• MistakeQ4(a)Some candidates used the discounted cash flow method even though there was not enough information to apply it.
• MistakeQ4(a)Some candidates took the GH¢48.8m present value of loan repayments, divided it by the share count and reported it as a discounted cash flow price.
• Exam techniqueQ4(a)Although the question required advice to the directors, many candidates gave none and lost those marks.
• Done wellQ4(b)Candidates generally answered well on comparability, relevance and faithful representation.
• MistakeQ5(a)Some candidates analysed performance without calculating or using any ratios.
• Weak areaQ5(b)The part on how commitments, contingent liabilities, income in advance, deposits, accruals and provisions affect future cash flows was not well answered.
• MistakeQ5(b)Most candidates gave general explanations of the terms without linking them to their effect on liquidity or future cash flows, as required.

Source: ICAG's May 2016 Paper 3.1 file