KASNEB CS25 common mistakes
KASNEB CS25 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Computing a ratio or variance correctly in the workings but then writing the unrounded or wrongly rounded figure into the final answer, or omitting the units (%, times, Ksh) that the question demands.
Candidates treat the workings as the answer and rush the final line; mark schemes award presentation marks for format and rounding, so a numerically right but badly presented answer loses marks.
What to do instead
Before starting, note the required format and units from the question stem; reserve the last minute to restate each final answer on its own line with units and to the stated rounding.
Preparing financial statements from a trial balance without first posting the year-end adjustments (accruals, prepayments, depreciation, closing stock, drawings) into the ledger figures.
Under exam time pressure candidates jump straight to the statement format and treat adjustments as an afterthought, forgetting that each adjustment changes at least two figures.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed routine: list every adjustment in the question, journalise each one (Dr/Cr) in a working column, then build the statements from the adjusted balances.
Using the wrong discounting convention in investment appraisal and valuation: mixing nominal cash flows with a real discount rate, or annual cash flows with a mid-year factor, and ignoring the timing of the first cash flow.
Formulas are memorised without the underlying assumption that the discount rate and cash flow must be on the same basis; the first-year timing (year 0 vs year 1) is glossed over.
What to do instead
Write the consistency rule at the top of the answer ('nominal with nominal, real with real; state whether cash flows arise at start or end of year') and lay cash flows on a numbered timeline before discounting.
Calculating the weighted average cost of capital using book values or the wrong weights, and forgetting to use the after-tax cost of debt.
Candidates lift the balance sheet figures as weights and apply the coupon rate to debt without the tax shield, because the tax adjustment is a separate step easily dropped.
What to do instead
Use market values for weights where given, compute Kd as interest x (1 - tax rate) on the ex-interest market value, and show the weighting table explicitly so each component is visible.
Assessing a borrower's creditworthiness by listing the 5 Cs generically instead of applying each to the specific facts in the scenario, and failing to quantify the requested ratios or limits.
The 5 Cs are learned as a memorised list, so candidates reproduce definitions rather than analysing the named customer's actual cash flow, collateral and character evidence.
What to do instead
For each C, write one sentence linking it to a fact in the scenario, then compute the ratios the question asks for (gearing, interest cover, current ratio) and state a clear recommendation with conditions.
Confusing the roles and composition of the board, its committees and management, or attributing oversight functions to executive directors.
Governance codes use overlapping terminology (independent non-executive, audit committee, remuneration committee) and candidates blur the separation between direction and execution.
What to do instead
Build a one-page map: board (strategy and oversight) vs committees (audit, risk, remuneration, nomination) vs management (execution), and check every answer states who does what and to whom they report.
Answering a governance or ethics scenario with a general statement that something is 'wrong' rather than identifying the specific principle breached, the parties affected and the required remedial action.
Candidates are uncomfortable committing to a named principle or code provision and default to moral commentary, which earns little credit against a mark scheme keyed to principles and remedies.
What to do instead
Structure every ethics answer as: principle/code provision breached, evidence from the scenario, consequence for each stakeholder, and the specific action the director or auditor should take.
Treating internal controls as a list of control types without linking each control to the specific risk it mitigates, and describing detective controls where a preventive control is needed.
Control frameworks are memorised by category (authorisation, segregation, reconciliation) and candidates recite them without mapping to the transaction cycle in the question.
What to do instead
For each control stated, name the risk addressed, classify it as preventive or detective, and identify who performs it; apply this to the specific cycle (sales, purchases, payroll) named in the scenario.
Ignoring the data-protection and information-security dimension of IT questions, or giving a textbook definition of encryption/backup without addressing the scenario's specific threat and the legal obligation.
Candidates treat IT as hardware and software knowledge and skip the governance layer (confidentiality, integrity, availability, lawful processing) that the syllabus and mark schemes reward.
What to do instead
For every IT scenario, run a CIA check plus a legal check (what personal data is held, on what lawful basis, who may access it) and tie each recommended control to a named threat.
In the related-disciplines section, answering law or economics questions with everyday intuition instead of the precise legal rule or economic model, and failing to cite the applicable statute or principle.
These topics are studied last and lightest, so candidates rely on general knowledge and miss the technical terms (offer and acceptance, consideration, precedent, elasticity, opportunity cost) that carry the marks.
What to do instead
Keep a one-page glossary per related discipline and practise applying each rule to a two-line scenario; in the exam, name the rule or statute first, then apply it to the facts.