KASNEB CS13 common mistakes
KASNEB CS13 · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Calculating a ratio or balance (e.g. current ratio, gearing, working capital) and then writing only the number as the answer without stating the formula used or interpreting what the result means for the entity.
Candidates treat quantitative questions as arithmetic tests and stop once the figure is computed, because past practice has conditioned them to chase the 'right number' rather than the analytical conclusion the marker rewards.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed three-line answer template for every computation: (1) formula, (2) substitution and result, (3) one sentence of interpretation comparing to a benchmark or prior period. Practise until the interpretation line is automatic.
Preparing final accounts and adjusting entries while ignoring accruals, prepayments, depreciation, closing stock or provision for doubtful debts, so the profit figure is stated before adjustments.
Under time pressure candidates draft the trading and profit and loss account from the trial balance as given and run out of time to process year-end adjustments, which are the part that actually tests understanding.
What to do instead
Work a standing checklist of the six common adjustments and tick each off before totalling. Do timed drills where the trial balance is deliberately 'dirty' so adjustment-hunting becomes habitual rather than an afterthought.
Answering time-value-of-money and capital-budgeting questions using simple interest or undiscounted cash flows, or mixing up the discounting of a single sum with an annuity.
Candidates who are weak on the mathematics default to the simpler method they can execute, and they do not distinguish between a lump sum received once and a series of equal receipts, so they pick the wrong factor.
What to do instead
Before computing, write down which factor is needed (PV of $1, PV of annuity, FV of annuity) and the reason. Memorise the four factor formulas and do a set of mixed questions where the type is not labelled.
Producing a cash flow forecast or working-capital analysis that lists inflows and outflows but never reconciles to an opening and closing cash balance, or omits the timing of receipts and payments.
Candidates confuse a cash budget with a profit statement and treat all transactions as occurring in the period they relate to, rather than the period cash actually moves.
What to do instead
Always lay out the budget in a columnar format by month with an explicit opening balance, net movement and closing balance row, and apply stated credit terms to each item. Reconcile the closing balance to the next month's opening balance as a self-check.
Assessing a loan applicant by listing the 5Cs of credit as headings with generic definitions, without applying each C to the specific facts of the case or recommending a decision with conditions.
Candidates memorise frameworks as lists to be reproduced and do not realise the marks sit in application and judgement, so they write textbook definitions instead of an assessment.
What to do instead
For each C, write one sentence linking it to the named applicant's figures or facts, then finish with an explicit recommendation (approve/decline/approve with conditions) and state the conditions. Practise on short caselets with named borrowers.
Confusing the roles of the board, the audit committee, management and internal audit, for example stating that the audit committee manages risk or that internal audit reports to the finance director.
The governance terms overlap in everyday language and candidates learn definitions in isolation without mapping them onto an organisational chart, so reporting lines and responsibilities blur.
What to do instead
Draw a one-page governance map showing reporting lines (internal audit to audit committee, committee to board, management to board) and test yourself by placing each function on the map. Answer role questions by naming the body, its composition and to whom it reports.
Answering questions on board committees, directors' duties or codes of conduct by copying general statements of good practice without citing the specific duty, committee composition or statutory/regulatory source the question asks about.
Candidates rely on broad ethical generalities they feel confident about and avoid the specific provisions they have not revised, hoping the marker will accept the general answer.
What to do instead
Build a one-page summary of key provisions (composition, quorum, independence criteria, fiduciary duties) and practise answering with the specific provision named first, then explanation. Where a legal source is expected, name it explicitly.
Describing an IT control or system (e.g. segregation of duties, backup, access control, ERP modules) in general terms without saying what risk it mitigates and how it would be tested or evidenced.
Candidates learn IT concepts as definitions and never connect them to the audit or control objective, so answers describe the feature but not its purpose or verification.
What to do instead
Use a risk-control-evidence structure for every IT answer: name the risk, name the control, state how an auditor would test it. Build a table of ten common IT controls in this format and revise from it.
When asked to advise on a business or regulatory scenario, restating the facts of the scenario in the introduction and then giving only one-sided arguments, with no conclusion or recommendation.
Candidates use restatement to fill space and are reluctant to commit to a recommendation in case it is wrong, so answers describe the situation instead of resolving it.
What to do instead
Skip restatement entirely; open with the issue in one line, give balanced arguments for and against, then a clear recommendation with reasons. Rehearse the structure on past-style scenarios until the conclusion becomes a fixed habit.
Mismanaging exam time by allocating equal effort to all questions, over-writing the first question and leaving the final compulsory or high-mark question unanswered or rushed.
Candidates start at question one and write until they run out of ideas, without checking the marks per question, so the time spent is unrelated to the marks available.
What to do instead
Before writing, convert marks to minutes (e.g. 1.8 minutes per mark), note the target time for each question, and keep a visible clock. Practise full papers under timing and stop writing when a question's time allocation is used.