MBA Financial Analysis & Control, Module BST511 (Full-Time)

Feedback Report for January 2013 examination

Overall Module

Overall marks for the examination are good, the average module mark was 56%, (2012:
52%) for the Full Time MBA students, resit students averaged 40% (2012: 46%). The
pass rate, students scoring 50% or more, was 70% (2012: 69%) and students scoring
above 45%, the threshold for compensation was 77%. Students scoring 70% or more, the
distinction threshold, was 52 or 23% (2012: 12 or 4.9%).

The majority of students coped well with the calculation sections of numerical questions;
of much more concern has been the cohort’s generally poor showing in discussion-based
work, both in the discussion sections of numerical problem questions and in full essay
questions. The average mark for numerical questions was 67.5%, (2012: 62.9%)
compared to an average mark for essay questions of 35.5% (2012: 31.2%). As numerical
questions have a heavier weighting, representing two thirds of the final mark, compared
to essay questions, the strong performance in numerical questions has more than offset
the poor performance in the essay questions, helping to improve the overall average mark
and pass rates.

Module Examination statistics

Marks 0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90+
2013
226 2 2 7 23 35 50 55 34 17 1
100% 0.9% 0.9% 3.1% 10.2% 15.5% 22.1% 24.3% 15% 7.5% 0.4%
2011
245 1 3 8 17 48 100 56 12 - -
100% 0.4% 1.2% 3.3% 6.9% 19.6% 40.8% 22.9% 4.9% - -

The lowest module mark was 6% (2012: 7%) and the highest 96% (2012: 77%). The
standard deviation was 16.087 (2012: 12.092).
Analysis of performance by question

The examination consisted of 6 questions, divided into three sections of two questions
each. Students were required to answer 3 questions, 1 from each section. The first two
sections were numerical questions, with mark schemes covering numerical/discussion
elements that varied from 100/0 to 70/30. The third section consisted of two essay
questions. A brief analysis of results by question is provided below.

Q1 (Cash and profit: marks were split 100/0 between calculations and discussion).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
72.8% 99% 30% 6.884 192 85%

Q2 (Ratio analysis: marks were split 60/40 between calculations and discussion).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
66.9% 96% 30% 5.875 34 15%

Q3 (Decision-relevance: marks were split 60/40 between calculations and discussion).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
49.7% 84% 24% 5.431 38 17%

Q4 (CVP: marks were split 70/30 between calculations and discussion).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
65.7% 96% 3% 6.312 186 83%

Q5 (Essay on financial reporting).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
37.1% 96% 9% 6.507 134 59%

Q6 (Essay on management accounting).

Average High Low Std Deviation Attempt % Attempted

s
33.2% 84% 6% 6.035 88 39%
Overview

It is apparent that overall performances were much better on numerical questions than
essays, in deed the strong performance on question 1 is due to the heavy numerical
weighting. What is not clear from the analyses above, however, is that the discussion
sections of numerical questions were often not well handled. The majority of marks,
even those from students who performed relatively well, were gained on calculations.

In the discussion sections of numerical questions, and much more so in full-scale essays,
too often much of the discussion was not relevant to the question being asked, one had
the impression that many such “information-dumps” would have been the same,
irrespective of the ‘angle’ of the question asked, for any given topic. Even for discussion
that was relevant students missed out on scoring high marks due to a lack of depth of
discussion and evaluation of some of the statements made. Students seem to find it
difficult to move beyond the level of purely descriptive writing, to treat subjects critically
and evaluate findings.

Specific Question Comments:

Question 1

Students demonstrated a clear understanding of how to prepare the three main financial
statements. Common minor points that came up were:
 Not correctly calculating the accrual and prepayment element of rates and utilities
 Miscalculating / confusing sales revenue and cash received from customers.
 Not being able to correctly calculate the allowance for receivables
 Showing the inventory write off as an expense rather than a cost of sales
adjustment
 Not accounting for the revaluation in the equity section of the SOFP however
most students were able to correctly amend the asset side, however a few students
reported the gain as income in the IS.
Overall a very pleasing demonstration of accounts preparation showing a clear
understanding of the practicalities of preparation. The SOFP was a new requirement for
this year, and students demonstrated they were able to cope with this with ease, scoring
very highly on that component.

Question 2

Students coped well with calculations of ratios, many scoring virtually full marks.
However, many students failed to provide a clear interpretation and explanation of the
ratios and scenario. Many students spent an inordinate amount of time providing a
narrative account of the direction and magnitude of the ratios with no explanation as to
why a change may have occurred.

Question 3

In the main students were able to identify types of cost and whether or not these costs
were relevant. A number of students failed to identify all costs and the vast majority of
students applied a markup when setting the selling price, the question asked for a profit
margin. The discussion part of the question was not well answered, students failing to
discuss commercial factors in any great depth and in the context of the information
provided in the question.

Question 4

In the main students answered parts a, b and c of the question well, however a significant
proportion of students treated the fixed costs as variable costs leading to incorrect
answers in parts b and c of the question. With regard to part d of the question most
students were able to discuss the relationship between fixed costs, breakeven and margin
of safety, however discussion of risk and reward in the context of operational gearing and
profit sensitivity was not well answered. With regard to part e of the question many
students failed to answer the question from the context of a scarce resource, labour hours.

Question 5

Overall a fair attempt was made by students at this question, but generally it was
addressed in a very generic, descriptive fashion demonstrating little critical evaluation of
how useful financial statements are, particularly in the context of how accounting
concepts contribute to the goal of providing information that is relevant, reliable,
comparable and understandable. Students failed to draw on the conceptual framework
despite this being a subject area for discussion at earlier tutorial sessions. A pass mark
was generally achieved by a discussion of the objective of FS, and a discussion of the
main accounting concepts and this was usually the extent to which the essay was
answered. One point of concern was students failing to answer the question set and
writing pages of descriptive narrative details of what elements make up the financial
statements, this was largely irrelevant.

Question 6

A significant number of students assumed that traditional management accounting

referred to financial accounting and proceeded to compare and contrast financial and
management accounting. This is not what the question asked, the question asked for the
differences between traditional and strategic management accounting. A significant
number of students failed to discuss or assess strategic management accounting
techniques.