KASNEB CS33 common mistakes
KASNEB CS33 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writes only the final figures into the answer booklet for accounting questions, with no workings column, T-account or journal entry shown, so a single arithmetic slip (or an examiner who cannot follow the logic) wipes out the entire mark allocation.
Candidates revise by reading model answers rather than writing full solutions under timed conditions, so they come to believe only the final number is marked and that workings are wasted time.
What to do instead
Rule: every calculation gets a workings column. Practise three trial-balance-to-financial-statements questions a week writing every journal line and every adjustment, then self-mark against the method marks, not just the final figure.
Prepares the income statement and statement of financial position on a cash basis - revenue recorded when cash is received, with accruals, prepayments, depreciation, capital versus revenue distinctions and closing inventory adjustments omitted or misposted.
Everyday budgeting habits are cash-based, and passive reading of textbook chapters makes the accrual adjustments feel obvious without ever having been practised under exam pressure.
What to do instead
Use a fixed closing checklist before submitting any final-accounts answer: accruals, prepayments, depreciation, closing inventory, drawings/capital, loan interest apportioned. Apply the same checklist to five full questions until it is automatic.
Uses accounting profit or cash receipts instead of incremental after-tax cash flows when appraising a project, and forgets the depreciation/capital allowance tax shield, working capital investment and its recovery, and terminal/scrap values.
The profit figure is already sitting at the bottom of the income statement, so it is the path of least resistance; the tax and working capital adjustments are taught late and are the first things dropped under time pressure.
What to do instead
Build every investment appraisal as a standard cash-flow table with fixed rows: initial outlay, operating cash flows, tax on taxable profit, capital allowances, working capital outflow and recovery, terminal value. Do not start computing until the table skeleton is drawn.
Conflates NPV and IRR decision rules - accepting a project because its IRR looks high even when NPV is negative or when two mutually exclusive projects conflict, or omitting a stated accept/reject criterion and recommendation entirely.
IRR is easier to compute and feels intuitive as a percentage; candidates also treat the appraisal question as pure calculation when the marks are heavily weighted to interpretation and the recommendation.
What to do instead
Write the decision rule in words before calculating ('accept if NPV > 0 at the cost of capital; where NPV and IRR conflict on mutually exclusive projects, follow NPV because it measures absolute value added'). Close every appraisal answer with an explicit accept/reject sentence and one stated assumption.
Answers credit-assessment scenarios by reciting the '5 Cs of credit' or a list of ratio names, with no evidence drawn from the facts given in the scenario and no resulting lending decision or condition.
Learners memorise the framework as a list of headings because that is how it is presented in notes, and never practise the harder step of mapping case facts onto each heading.
What to do instead
Use a three-column table: factor | evidence from the case | lending condition/verdict. No row is complete without a fact copied or paraphrased from the question. Finish with a decision stated in one sentence (approve, approve with conditions, decline) and the conditions specified.
Computes credit and liquidity ratios with mismatched numerators and denominators - e.g. annual sales over closing receivables when opening and closing balances are both given, or 365 days applied to the wrong base - then draws a lending conclusion from the incorrect ratio.
Candidates substitute numbers into a remembered formula shape without writing the formula down, and ignore the instruction that average balances are to be used when opening balances are available.
What to do instead
Write the formula in full, with the period basis stated, before any substitution. Where both opening and closing balances are given, use averages and say so. Cross-check each ratio against the prior-year figure and ask whether the movement is economically plausible before commenting on it.
Answers governance questions by describing day-to-day operational management - what the managing director does, how departments are run - and never distinguishes the board from management, or mentions non-executive directors, independence, segregation of the chair and CEO, or board committees.
The governance/management distinction is conceptual rather than procedural, and candidates fall back on their work experience, where the two are blurred in day-to-day reality.
What to do instead
Memorise a one-page governance layer map (shareholders - board - board committees - CEO - executive management - internal control/audit) and open every governance answer by naming the layer at issue. For each recommendation, state whether it is a board, committee or management responsibility.
Gives generic recommendations such as 'the board should be more effective', 'staff should be trained' or 'controls should be strengthened', without naming the relevant code principle, statutory provision, committee or control, and without saying who acts, by when, or how the fix would be monitored.
Candidates know the shape of the answer but not the named authority behind it, so they write filler to fill space and run out of specific things to say.
What to do instead
Build a reference sheet of named principles, code provisions and statutory sections as you study, and quote the name in the answer. Force every recommendation into the form: (named body/person) will (specific action) by (date/period), monitored through (report/committee).
Writes IT-control answers as a technical glossary - describing firewalls, encryption, backups or access rights in isolation - without stating the risk each control addresses, how it would be tested, or what evidence an auditor would look for.
Technical vocabulary is the easiest thing to recall under pressure and feels impressive, so candidates write it out instead of doing the harder analytical work the question is asking for.
What to do instead
Write every IT answer as a risk-control-test triplet, one per paragraph: the risk if the control fails, the specific control, and the test/evidence (e.g. sample of access-change tickets, review of backup restore logs). If a sentence has no risk and no test attached, cut it.
Misclassifies controls - calling a backup a preventive control, an access-rights review a corrective control, or a firewall a detective control - and recommends detective controls where the scenario calls for prevention (or vice versa).
The categories are learned as definitions rather than as a classification habit, and the labels are never tested against unfamiliar examples.
What to do instead
Draw the four-way grid (preventive / detective / corrective / directive) and force-classify fifteen real controls from a case study into it, justifying each placement by the timing of the control relative to the event. In the exam, state the classification explicitly before discussing the control's effectiveness.