KASNEB CA24 common mistakes
KASNEB CA24 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Preparing only the statement of profit or loss and statement of financial position in an integrated question, omitting the statement of cash flows or statement of changes in equity that the question also requires.
Candidates read the first line of the requirement, recognise a familiar financial-statement task, and start writing before reading all sub-requirements; marks for the remaining statements are then lost even though the numbers were already computed.
What to do instead
Before writing anything, list every required output as a numbered tick-list on the answer booklet and allocate minutes to each; tick each off as it is completed so no required statement is left blank.
Presenting ledger workings as the final answer, with unlabelled figures, no headings, and no cross-references between workings and the face of the financial statements.
Under time pressure candidates treat workings as scratch paper and skip labelling, so markers cannot follow the logic and cannot award method marks even where the final figure is correct.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed layout: number each working (W1, W2), give it a descriptive title, show the opening figure, the movement and the closing figure, and reference the working number beside the corresponding line in the statement.
Computing an investment appraisal or valuation answer as a single figure without stating the decision rule, the assumptions, or the treatment of inflation and tax.
Candidates focus on the arithmetic of discounting and treat narrative marks as optional, when examiners allocate marks to the interpretation and to consistent treatment of inflation, tax and working capital.
What to do instead
Structure every appraisal answer as: assumptions stated, cash flows laid out by year, discount rate justified, NPV or IRR computed, then an explicit recommendation paragraph referring back to the numbers.
Using the wrong discount rate or mixing nominal cash flows with a real discount rate, and ignoring the timing of working capital recovery.
Candidates memorise formulas without tracking whether inputs are pre-tax or post-tax, real or nominal, and they forget that working capital is recovered at the end of the project.
What to do instead
Write a one-line 'consistency check' at the top of the answer stating whether flows and rate are nominal or real and pre- or post-tax, and always include a final-year working capital recovery line.
Confusing the various credit ratios and applying a formula to the wrong base, for example computing the receivables collection period on credit sales using total sales or on a 365-day versus 360-day basis inconsistently.
Candidates memorise ratio formulas as isolated strings and do not anchor them to the definition of the base figure, so a defensible number is marked wrong because the base is wrong.
What to do instead
For each ratio, write the formula in words alongside the numbers before substituting, and state the day-count convention used so the marker can follow and credit the method.
Answering a credit-assessment question with a generic list of factors rather than applying the specific data given, such as a customer's financial statements or payment history, to reach a recommendable credit limit or terms.
Candidates fall back on memorised frameworks like the five Cs and describe them abstractly, missing the application marks that require using the figures in the scenario.
What to do instead
Use the framework only as headings, and under each heading quote the specific figure from the scenario and convert it into a conclusion, ending with a stated credit limit, terms and monitoring condition.
Describing corporate governance principles in the abstract without linking them to the specific board composition, committee structure or conflict described in the scenario.
Governance questions look like essay questions, so candidates write textbook definitions and never name the actual directors, committees or breaches in the case.
What to do instead
For each governance point, use a three-sentence pattern: name the principle, quote the specific fact from the scenario, then state the recommended action or consequence.
Confusing the roles of the board, the audit committee and external audit, for example recommending that the audit committee prepare the financial statements or that external auditors set the risk appetite.
The functions overlap in everyday language, and candidates reproduce memorised lists of responsibilities without checking which body actually holds each duty.
What to do instead
Build a one-page responsibility matrix (board, audit committee, external audit, internal audit, management) during revision and, in the exam, check every recommendation against the correct row before writing.
Writing management answers that list theoretical models without applying them to the organisation in the scenario, and ignoring the requirement verb such as 'evaluate' or 'advise'.
Candidates manage time by writing everything they know about a topic rather than answering the specific requirement, so breadth replaces depth and application marks are lost.
What to do instead
Underline the requirement verb and the target organisation before planning, then allocate marks per point and ensure each paragraph ends with a consequence for that organisation.
Running out of time because the paper is answered in question-number order with equal time per question, leaving the compulsory or highest-mark section unfinished or unanswered.
Candidates do not convert total marks into minutes per mark, and they over-invest in the first question because it feels familiar.
What to do instead
In the first two minutes, compute minutes per mark, rank questions by marks and confidence, answer in that order, and stop each question at its allotted time even if incomplete.