THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN

EXAMINERS’ COMMENTS

SUBJECT SESSION
Financial Reporting and Assurance Multi Subject Assessment - 1 Examination
Professional Competence (MSA-1) - Summer 2019

Passing %

Question-wise Overall
1ai 1aii 1b 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b
58%
81% 44% 46% 76% 81% 10% 58% 54%

General comments

The overall passing ratio was 58% as compared to 41% in the last attempt. Better
performance was witnessed in questions based on financial reporting whereas
performance in questions based on auditing was average. Although many examinees
performed well, some shortcomings such as lack of practice, poor presentation,
unorganized answers, etc. were commonly noted in most scripts.

Question-wise common mistakes observed

Question 1(a)(i)

Examinees could not identify that the issue underlying valuation of Investment Property
was related to IFRS 13. They restricted their discussions to IAS 40 and other standards.

Question 1(a)(ii)

 Discussion on covenants was skipped.

 Materiality level of each type of error was not analyzed / discussed which was vital to
determine the resolution of the outstanding issues.

Question 1(b)

The discussions were often correct but incomplete. Examinees are advised to focus on
discussing the issue from all relevant aspects.

Question 2(a) & (b)

While discussing sales and leaseback transaction, many examinees concluded that the
sale had actually taken place, resulting in altogether wrong answers to this part.

Page 1 of 2
 Examiners’ Comments on Financial Reporting and Assurance Professional Competence –
MSA-1 Examination Summer 2019

Question 2(c)

 Financial ratios were not computed to support the analysis which were necessary for
any meaningful analysis.
 While analyzing the financial statements, the reasons for variation were not
corroborated with the key points given in the questions.
 Additional information required to complete the analysis was not provided.

Question 3(a)

Examinees did not discuss whether issue relating to capitalized development costs was
prior period error or change in accounting estimates. They directly concluded that it was
a prior period error.

Question 3(b)

Examinees did not discuss the significance / materiality of MM Silk in relation to the
overall group structure. Hence, extended audit procedures that would be required were
also not discussed.

(THE END)

Page 2 of 2