Case Study July 2015 Examiners Report and MP Combined FINAL

CASE STUDY – JULY 2015
EXAMINERS’ COMMENTS AND MARK PLAN
Contents
Page
Part 1: Executive summary
Introduction 1
Overview of performance 2
Part 2: The Case Study examination
Scenario for the paper (Advance Information) 4
Analysis of Advance Information (AI) 4
Information provided in the Exam Paper (EP) 7
Exam requirements 7
Analysis of Exam Paper information 7
Summary of grades available 9
Part 3: Commentary on candidates’ performance
Overview of professional skills 10
Executive summary 11
Requirement 1: Review of TechBod’s financial performance 12
Requirement 2: Evaluation of Wilson contract 13
Requirement 3: Evaluation of insurance recruitment opportunity 14
Overall paper: Appendices 15
Overall paper: Report 15
Part 4: Appendices
Appendix 1: Financial statement analysis: TechBod’s financial performance (including KPI 3) 16
Appendix 2: Financial data analysis: Wilson contract revenue, gross profit & contribution 17
Part 5: Marking key
Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 1 of 17

PART 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
This report covers the July 2015 Case Study (CS) exam. It is issued in conjunction with two illustrative scripts and
related Examiners’ commentaries. The first script was within the top 25% of all assessed scripts; the second failed the
exam. In reviewing these documents, it is important to be aware that it is rare for a script to be uniformly ‘bad’ or
uniformly ‘good’: a successful script will often present detailed coverage of all requirements but include errors of
calculation, spelling or logic; an unsuccessful script may contain one or two strong sections or several excellent points
but be let down by poor or incomplete text elsewhere. Unsuccessful candidates will also find helpful guidance in the
ICAEW Learning Materials.
Attached to this report are two appendices with examples of the sort of work that candidates did, or might have done,
under ‘financial analysis’. The two illustrative scripts offer further insights into this area.
Overview of performance
The pass rate was 75.5%, compared with 74.4% in July 2014 and 74.8% in November 2014. As always, successful
candidates demonstrated their higher skills and used the four hours effectively so as to cover all key aspects of the
exam. They approached the tasks methodically and produced well-balanced, relevant answers addressing the
principal components of each requirement with high-quality financial analysis and mature judgement; clear
appendices; and succinct, focused executive summaries. They revealed an ability to assimilate the case material into
a report, together with commercial knowhow and appropriate professional scepticism. They had clearly prepared well
for the exam, making the necessary effort to master the Advance Information for themselves and to hone their exam
technique.
The subject of the case is Bod Limited, a recruitment company based in London. Bod operates solely in the financial
sector, placing permanent and temporary staff. It has three divisions: FinBod (accounting & finance – permanent staff
only); TechBod (IT – both permanent and temporary staff); and AceBod (administrative support – temporary staff
only). Total revenue for the year ended 30 June 2014 was £14.3 million. The candidate is in the role of Sandy Liu, a
final-year trainee ICAEW Chartered Accountant based in the Advisory Services department at the London office of
Bowen, Gilbert & Co ICAEW Chartered Accountants and reporting to a partner, Stella Kyriakos.
The exam requirements comprised:
1. An analysis of TechBod’s financial performance for the year ended 30 June 2015 by comparison with the
previous year, including an analysis of one of its performance measures (KPI 3).
2. An evaluation of the implications for FinBod of the recruitment by Wilson (Bod’s largest client) for 80 permanent
staff at its new operation in Leeds.
3. An assessment of an opportunity for AceBod to tender for a new client, Lytham, based in insurance (a segment
with which Bod has had no past experience). It included overseas operations (of which, again, Bod has no prior
experience) and permanent staff recruitment (a new departure for AceBod).
There was therefore one requirement per division. As always, each contained several parts: candidates had to identify
these and then tackle them in an orderly manner.
 At Requirement 1, the tasks to be performed by candidates (including calculations and discussion in relation to
KPI 3) were clearly set out.
 At Requirement 2, they had to perform calculations, assess the adequacy of assumptions and discuss a number
of ‘other considerations’ (which included some ethical issues).
 At Requirement 3, they had to consider the financial, operational and strategic benefits and risks – effectively in
relation to three ‘dimensions’ (ie, insurance, overseas, permanent staff), and refer to any ethical and business
trust issues arising.
As always, the three main elements of the report were equal in importance: a candidate spending too much time on
any one section was likely to have missed the opportunity to gain passing grades in others. Many candidates
produced a strong answer to Requirement 2, but their coverage of the rest of the exam was variable, with average
marks for the Executive Summary and Requirement 1 being lower than usual.
Candidates who failed included (as always) those with poor time management, leading to unbalanced scripts
(incomplete Requirement 3; rushed executive summary). They would have benefited from planning at the outset how
best to structure each part, enabling them to reflect on their analysis and imbue it with added value. As a result, the
most common cause of failure at this sitting lay with the skill of Applying Judgement. The bottom end of the cohort was
characterised by an inability, across all three requirements, to extend what was often satisfactory analysis work into
reasoned evaluation. This in turn led among the weakest candidates to uncommercial advice – resulting in further low

grades for Conclusions & Recommendations. A number of candidates used the technique of beginning the answer to
each requirement with a ‘background’ section; while this was successful in garnering some credit under Assimilating &
Using Information, the facts were not then brought forward into the discussion, removing the opportunity for Applying
Judgement marks.
Requirement 1 was “conventional” (as one tutor put it) in testing financial statement analysis skills. There was a need
to focus on one division – TechBod – with its two business streams and its key clients, and to compute, benchmark
and discuss one of the three KPIs used by Bod to measure performance. Candidates tackled the first part effectively,
many gaining passing grades for their numerical work; unsuccessful ones misread the requirement and wasted time
on parts of the company that they were not supposed to analyse.
Requirement 2 produced by far the best results at this sitting. Most candidates adopted the intended approach to
produce revenue, gross profit and contribution figures. They therefore achieved passing grades for the basic number-
work. They were much better than is often the case with the ‘working assumptions’: the obvious technique here was to
comment in turn on each item listed. Many went on to flex one or more of their derived figures to show the possible
impact of varying an assumption. A majority also gained passing grades for their discussion on the commercial and
ethical aspects of the ‘other considerations’.
Requirement 3, not for the first time, yielded the lowest scores of the three requirements. As always, it assessed
wider business skills, including a discussion of the ethical and business trust aspects of the scenario presented. Less
organised candidates had overrun on the rest of the exam, resulting in sparse answers, with an absence of
conclusions / recommendations (and then also little or no coverage in the executive summary). There was also not
enough attempt to work with the modest set of financial data provided. While it was possible to achieve reasonable
grades by focusing on the new material at Exhibits 17/18, the better scripts displayed a deep awareness of the AI and
of the wider context for this opportunity and went on to evaluate the risks, benefits and ethical issues that they had
identified.
In summary, in the words of one tutor: “The content of the exam requirements was clear and unambiguous, (with
more guidance in Requirement 1 than usual), there was nothing unexpected and there was plenty of information in the
Exam Paper for students to use in their discussions. [Candidates] were not asked to do anything unusual, unfair or
outside their capabilities, but they will need to have been well organised to complete it in the time allocated.”
Another tutor commented that it “was a straightforward set of requirements which cleverly covered each of the three
divisions in turn. The challenge ... was ensuring sufficient time to complete all tasks. As ever, good time management
skills will have been critical in creating a well-balanced report.”
A third tutor stated that there was “a comprehensive number of clearly defined links between the AI and the new
information provided”, adding: “Candidates who had spent sufficient time analysing the AI should have really felt the
benefit of their analysis when attempting the exam.”
The Examiners concur with all these assessments.

PART 2: THE CASE STUDY EXAMINATION
Scenario for the paper (Advance Information)
The case relates to Bod Limited, a recruitment company based in London. Bod operates solely in the financial sector,
placing permanent and temporary staff. It has three divisions: FinBod (accounting & finance – permanent staff only);
TechBod (IT – both permanent and temporary staff); and AceBod (administrative support – temporary staff only). Total
revenue for the year ended 30 June 2014 was £14.3 million. You, the candidate, are in the role of Sandy Liu, a final-
year trainee ICAEW Chartered Accountant based in the Advisory Services department at the London office of Bowen,
Gilbert & Co ICAEW Chartered Accountants and reporting to a partner, Stella Kyriakos.
Four weeks prior to the examination, candidates were provided with a package of information, containing a series of
exhibits relating to Bod and the industry in which it operates, comprising:
1 You (Sandy Liu), your employer (Bowen, Gilbert & Co) and your client (Bod Limited)
2 The recruitment industry: An overview
3 The recruitment industry: A closer look
4 Bod: Company overview
5 Bod: Review of the business for the two years ended 30 June 2014
6 Bod: Management accounts for the three years ended 30 June 2014
7 Bod: The three divisions and their clients
8 Bod: Competitors
9 Bod: Business plan
10 Overview of the UK financial sector
11 The REC code of practice
12 Media coverage
Analysis of Advance Information (AI)
By carefully studying and analysing the 40 pages of the AI candidates should have formed a detailed picture of Bod
and the industry, using facts and figures from across the material and taking account of the revised rubric, with
emphasis on doing their own preparation. Candidates should be aware of the main contents so that they can easily
locate key topics in the exam hall – another piece of guidance freshly emphasised in the updated rubric. Key points
are summarised below: further Examiner commentary is in italics, with emphasis on connections between exhibits.
Exhibit 1 explains the candidate’s role and previous work. It highlights inter alia the need “to show at all times your
added value as a prospective ICAEW Chartered Accountant by displaying your skill with numbers when analysing and
evaluating problems for which numerical data is provided” – indicating the importance of using the figures provided for
more discursive parts of the exam, especially at Requirement 3.
Exhibit 2 presents an overview of the UK recruitment industry. It highlights the pre-eminence of temporary and
permanent recruitment among the range of services supplied, as well as giving some statistical data on recent and
expected changes in the market and the economy.
This provides context for the case and creates a ‘level playing-field’ so that candidates do not have to carry out
extensive research of their own. One key to a full appreciation of the AI is an ability to relate the general industry
issues to the company’s circumstances and to other material in the AI.
Exhibit 3 details the business model for recruitment, setting out the processes for recruiting permanent and temporary
staff, as well as the methods for determining fees and for collecting these fees from clients.
As well as offering further background and explanation of the industry, these set the context in which the later
information about Bod itself can be understood. In addition to the financial and operational aspects, the exhibit alludes
to a number of ethical issues, to be considered in the light of subsequent material about both Bod’s and the industry’s
codes of conduct (see below re Exhibits 4 and 11). As in this case, ethical issues may be introduced into the AI without
being specifically described as such, eg: adverts should be genuine and relate to a job that actually exists; employers
in the UK ... must not discriminate by reference to specified criteria (eg, age, gender) when recruiting new employees
(both p11); an agency [may] encourage a job-seeker not to accept a job offer but to continue searching for a higher-
paid position, thereby maximising the agency’s fee (p12).

Exhibit 4 documents Bod’s history, key personnel, current position and some important features, as well as
introducing the management accounts and KPIs.
 Bod was founded in 2007 by Sophie Bell and Ryan O’Dare, recruitment consultants specialising in accounting &
finance and IT respectively. Bod’s current SMT comprises Sophie (Managing Director), Ryan (Sales &
Marketing Director), Virat Solkar (Finance Director); Lindsey Atherton (HR Director); Neville Purdy (Head of
FinBod), Gregor Pushkin (Head of TechBod); Angela Rich (Head of AceBod).
 The recruitment process varies by client, number of positions and applicants, and complexity. Thus, recruiting
100 permanent staff for a new business can mean up to 10 person-days of consultant time to fill each position,
with 50 applicants and up to 30 interviews per position. (See also Exhibit 7 below.)
 New clients (and major one-off projects) are often won by tender. Tendering costs can be substantial.
 As a member of the REC, Bod and its employees must abide by both the REC’s code of practice (Exhibit 11)
and ‘How We Behave’ – Bod’s own rules of business conduct and ethical guidelines. The latter cover a number
of areas, including: confidentiality; fairness in advertising; not working outside fields of expertise; entertainment
and hospitality; and whistleblowing.
 IT is integral to Bod’s business, eg online applications; database maintenance; client relationship management;
website. Consultants, clients and applicants make use of social media.
 The SMT monitor the management accounts closely, especially revenue, gross profit and contribution. These
are calculated for each business stream. Contribution is also important when a new project is to be undertaken.
(This is supplemented by an illustrative calculation.)
 The SMT additionally monitor three KPIs, published on Bod’s website. They are calculated both for Bod as a
whole and for each division and they are measured against industry benchmarks, compiled for the year to 31
December 2013 from a sample of 100 financial sector recruitment agencies. Many factors influence the KPIs
(eg, salaries for positions being filled, fee percentages and mark-ups).
This sets the scene for the next two exhibits, as well as linking ahead to later exhibits.
Analysis of Exhibit 5 (business review for the last two years) and Exhibit 6 (June 2014 management accounts, with
comparatives for both 2012 and 2013), would reveal the following for 2014.
Income statement – revenue, gross profit and contribution
 After rising by 3.1% in 2013, revenue grew more strongly in 2014, from £12,937k to £14,341k (10.9%).
 Revenue was also up in each division / revenue stream, reflecting several significant new pieces of work:
o a large project in TechBod for an established FinBod client, Dollond (see Exhibit 7)
o a number of wins in AceBod (this was also reflected in gross profit)
 Wilson generated £4 million revenue – a record for a single client (see Exhibit 7).
 Gross profit margin was down (from 59.1% to 58.4%), again with variations across individual parts of the
business: the two permanent streams (for which gross profit is typically very close to revenue – see Exhibit 3)
were slightly down but the two temporary streams both showed increases.
 Consequently, the figures revealed small changes in mix, with the permanent business now representing 51.7%
(2013: 53.2%) and 85.6% (2013: 87.7%) of revenue and gross profit respectively.
 Contribution and operating profit – stated after administrative expenses attributable to the divisions – returned to
2012 levels, having dropped sharply in 2013.
 Permanent placements were up 8% to exceed 1,500; temporary placements were up 11% to 253.
 Average salary costs per consultant were down from £56.5k to £55.5k. (Note: These including training and
related costs and so do not just represent the remuneration received by employees.)
KPIs
 All three KPIs overall were below the (newly-devised) 31 December 2013 industry benchmark.
 Individually they showed mostly small movements, both up and down, from Bod’s 2013 figures, reflecting
several factors, eg, new client wins, fee levels, consultants’ efficiency and seniority of staff being recruited.
Statements of financial position and cash flow
 There were additions of £175k (2013: £195k) to PPE and depreciation of £107k, resulting in a rise in carrying
value overall from £264k to £328k. The additions reflected Bod’s continued investment in IT.
 After a large increase in 2013, trade receivables fell, with enhanced credit control and payment terms.
 A sharp rise in prepayments and accrued income reflected the level of placements made near year-end.
 Year-end cash, at around £1.6 million, was up £0.5 million on 2013, mainly from cash generated by operations.
There are no overdrafts or loans.

The management accounts and business review gave ample data on which to carry out in-depth analysis on Bod prior
to the exam. As always, time spent on these exhibits would have been invaluable. As well as the primary statements
and disclosure notes, the accounts set out clearly the basis on which revenue, cost of sales and contribution are
determined. Candidates needed to understand the different business models and figures for permanent and
temporary, especially fees and margins, and attribution of administrative expenses. (Note: In the absence of Bod’s
actual fee rates, it was not possible from the data provided to work out average salaries of recruits, but sensible
approximations could be made using typical industry rates at Exhibit 3.) They should have realised the need to digest
the notes on placement numbers and their link to the financial data. The accounts also enabled them to prove the KPIs
tabulated at Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 7 provides information about Bod’s five largest clients, all of which generated revenue for two or more revenue
streams. It tabulates the revenue earned by client and by division/stream, with a single ‘Other’ line to provide a
reconciliation to revenue in the management accounts. (No margin information by client is given.) These are essential
figures for a better understanding of Bod’s accounts and business model. The exhibit sets out the history and current
status of the client relationships, with facts and figures that can be linked back to other case material (eg, use of social
media, typical fee rates, abuse of entertainment budgets, tendering and in-house recruitment), as well as the costs
associated with some previous projects.
It should be apparent that this is a critical exhibit, linking back to earlier information at Exhibits 4, 5 and 6.
Exhibit 8 outlines Bod’s five main competitors: YourJob (mentioned in Exhibit 7 as Bod’s rival when bidding for work
from Dollond); Career Care, which provides a full range of recruitment services; DBJ (accounting & finance), with a
success rate of 60% in tenders against Bod and a new office in Paris; PredICT (IT), a new online agency with a fee-
cutting strategy which threatens TechBod; and White Graham (support), an established agency with prestigious clients
(mainly in insurance and asset management), a presence in Hong Kong and New York, and two sought-after senior
consultants (Eric Rathbone and Sarah Grant).
These vignettes provide additional depth to the case scenario, drawing attention to issues that could prove problematic
for Bod.
Exhibit 9 presents Bod’s business plan, highlighting the imminent recruitment of a Business Development Director
(BDD) to help meet “the increasing challenge from online agencies in particular”. Opportunities to diversify include:
permanent support staff recruitment; new segments (eg, insurance); new sectors (eg, hospitality & leisure); new
activities (eg, HR consulting); and international expansion. Exhibit 9 also stresses the need to improve cross-selling
between divisions; add more value to clients; reassess both client fee structures and consultants’ pay; and improve
Bod’s tendering record, if necessary by increasing marketing and entertainment budgets and sponsoring industry
events, such as the recent ‘TechBod IT Skills Show’.
Exhibits of this nature give broad ideas of possible strategic developments and help further with candidates’
understanding of the business. Once again, there are points that echo other sections, eg online agencies (Exhibit 2);
fee structures (Exhibit 3); cross-selling, consultants’ pay, tendering, entertainment (Exhibit 4).
Exhibit 10 describes the UK financial sector, grouping it into five segments: banking (retail and investment);
insurance; asset/investment management; financial planning; and financial IT development. Jobs are in a range of
skills, eg accounting & finance, IT, support (ie, the three in which Bod operates) and more specialist areas. Some are
seasonal. The sector’s 30,000 businesses provide 7% of all UK employment (both in London and in other centres such
as Leeds); some larger ones are multinational, with opportunities to work overseas.
This short exhibit provides crucial links to other information in the case: the segments, skills and locations where key
clients operate, and those where Bod is not currently active, notably insurance (see Exhibit 9).
Exhibit 11 portrays a brief history of the Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) and then sets out its code
of practice, with which all members (including Bod) are required to comply. This is governed by ten ‘General
Principles’, such as: respect for honesty and transparency; respect for diversity; respect for prompt and accurate
payment; respect for ethical international recruitment; and respect for confidentiality and privacy.
There is a clear overlap here with Bod’s “How We Behave” guidelines (Exhibit 4), but the two lists, while both
containing ten points, are by no means identical. Between them, they should have given candidates the clear
indication that ethics are an important feature of this industry. This impression would be reinforced further by some of
the media coverage at Exhibit 12. As always with articles provided in the AI, these shed more light – and a different
perspective – on issues mentioned elsewhere, eg, employment trends, KPIs and bonuses, as well as introducing new
ethical topics for debate (email abuse, discrimination, database abuse). Exhibit 12(ii) in particular, with its clear links
back to earlier material on KPIs, should have grabbed students’ attention.
Overall, as one tutor remarked, “the AI provided students with a good understanding of the company and industry. The
information was presented in such a way as to encourage further analysis and research.”

Information provided in the Exam Paper (EP)
The Exam Paper contained six new exhibits, comprising nine pages of new information:
13 Email dated 22 July 2015 from Rhiannon Willis to you

14 Email dated 22 July 2015 from Virat Solkar to Rhiannon Willis
15 Bod: Draft management accounts for the year ended 30 June 2015
16 Email dated 21 July 2015 from Neville Purdy to Rhiannon Willis
17 Email dated 20 July 2015 from Eric Rathbone to Rhiannon Willis
18 Media coverage
Exam requirements
I would like you to draft for my review a report addressed to the Bod board. This should comprise the following.
1. An analysis of TechBod’s financial performance for the year ended 30 June 2015 by comparison with the
previous year, as requested by Eric Rathbone.
Your analysis should be based on the management accounts (Exhibit 15) and on the client table and other
information at Exhibit 14. It should cover revenue, gross profit and contribution (both for TechBod overall and
separately for permanent and temporary), as well as KPI 3. For KPI 3, you should calculate TechBod’s figure for
the year ended 30 June 2015; explain both the movement in this figure since the year ended 30 June 2014 and
why it might differ from the latest industry benchmark (year ended 31 December 2014); and advise on what can
be done to improve TechBod’s performance as measured by KPI 3.
2. An evaluation of the implications for FinBod of Wilson’s new operation (Exhibit 16).
You should prepare calculations to show FinBod’s expected revenue, gross profit and contribution from the
initial recruitment assignment at Wilson’s new operation in Leeds, based on the working assumptions provided.
You should also assess the adequacy of these working assumptions and explain the commercial and ethical
consequences for Bod of the ‘other considerations’.
3. An assessment of the new insurance recruitment opportunity for AceBod (Exhibit 17).
Your assessment should cover the strategic, financial and operational benefits and risks that AceBod needs to
address in taking this first step into recruitment for the insurance industry and in tendering for the Lytham
contract (recruitment of support staff in the UK and Hong Kong). You should also identify and advise on the
ethical and business trust issues that might arise for Bod in this context.
Candidates were also told to include an executive summary and to balance their report across the three main
requirements, with other familiar guidance on time allocation; inclusion of ethical issues; and the need to cover at each
requirement all four skills areas: Assimilating and Using Information (A&UI), Structuring Problems and Solutions
(SP&S), Applying Judgement (AJ) and Conclusions & Recommendations (C&R). They should have spent time
studying Exhibit 13 carefully so as to understand the key elements of each requirement; digest the other new exhibits;
and identify the related AI exhibits to integrate into their answers.
For Requirement 1, they should then have begun a more detailed review of Exhibit 14, enabling them to assess
TechBod’s 2015 results (Exhibit 15) in light of their analysis of 2014 (including the table of client revenue) carried out
in preparation for the exam, together with calculations and discussion on KPI 3 – for which the AI had offered ample
scope for practice. For Requirement 2, it was essential to read Exhibit 16 carefully to determine the format for the
calculation, and to identify all critical estimates, assumptions and other issues to be discussed. Finally, for
Requirement 3, candidates had to relate Exhibits 17/18 to relevant material within the AI – notably, the business plan,
competitors, codes of conduct and press articles.
Analysis of Exam Paper information
From an initial reading of the new exhibits, candidates should have established that:
 TechBod’s results reflect a mixed story in terms of revenue and profit growth, with temporary now reporting a
negative contribution.
 The opportunity to carry out a new assignment for Wilson (its largest client), while providing significant revenue
for FinBod, comes with some ‘wrinkles’ that need to be assessed.
 Bod has been approached by a prospective client to tender for work that would enable it to fulfil three strategic
objectives at the same time.

A more detailed review of the EP should then have elicited the key facts to be addressed in the exam.
Candidates should have recognised that, for the first part of Requirement 1, they were to concentrate on the revenue,
gross profit and contribution for TechBod overall, the permanent and temporary revenue streams and key clients (for
which they had only revenue data but could make some inferences about margins from the other facts given), and that
they did not have to discuss the statement of financial position or cash flow. (This did not stop some candidates from
including gratuitous references to cash and working capital, not just at Requirement 1 but throughout their scripts.)
They should have realised the importance of making relevant use of the statistical data on permanent and temporary
placements at Notes 3 and 7 to the management accounts: they should have been familiar with the equivalent figures
provided in the AI.
Comparing the 2015 management accounts against the original 2014 management accounts (Exhibit 6) and client
table (Exhibit 7) in the AI would then reveal that:
 Total TechBod revenue is up £208k (3.5%) to £6,221k – above expected annual industry growth of 9%.
 The two areas have performed differently – permanent: down £131k (3.7%) to £3,386k; temporary: up £339k
(13.6%) to £2,835k. Mix is now: permanent 54.4% (2014: 58.5%), temporary 45.6% (2014: 41.5%).
 Permanent placements are down from 784 to 759, while temporary placements are up from 71 to 84.
 Among clients, a large rise in Hedgedge across both areas has been offset by falls in Dollond and Ochre.
 Gross profit has fallen by £173k (4.4%) to £3,720k; margin, from 64.7% to 59.8%. This reflects:
o permanent – down £72k (2.1%) to £3,347k; margin up from 97.2% to 98.8%
o temporary – down £101k (21.3%) to £373k; margin down from 19.0% to 13.2%.
Permanent now accounts for 90.0% of TechBod’s gross profit (up from 87.8%).
 Consultants:
o Temporary costs are up £44k to £321k and headcount is up from 7 to 9 – meaning that average salary costs
are down from £39.6k to £35.6k, reflecting the junior grades of the new appointees.
o Permanent costs are down 5.0% to £1,930k, but headcount is up from 33 to 34 – hence a lower average.
(This is also relevant for the KPI analysis below.)
 Marketing in temporary is up by £67k to £116k – largely reflecting unbudgeted costs of £75k.
 Contribution is down £179k (12.1%) to £1,300k, with margin falling from 24.6% to 20.9%. Poor performance by
temporary has driven the overall decline:
o permanent: up £33k (2.5%) to £1,364k; margin up from 37.8% to 40.3%
o temporary: down £212k (143.2%) to £(64)k; margin down from 10.0% to (4.9)% – ie, negative.
In short, the higher revenue in temporary has come at a significant overall cost to TechBod. Temporary margins have
been affected by the resumption of Hedgedge work and competition from PredICT, coupled with increased tendering
costs, as well as higher consultant numbers/salaries that appear not to have generated a good return. As a result,
temporary contribution is now negative – a worrying sign unless it is a one-off or was necessary in order to limit the
damage from greater competition.
Exhibit 15 confirms that Bod has now appointed its new BDD, Eric Rathbone, head-hunted from rival agency White
Graham (WG) – see Exhibit 8. Eric has asked for a review of Techbod’s results, including KPI 3, as he is concerned
that this is lagging behind the industry benchmark. A detailed revenue breakdown by client is provided (in the same
format as at Exhibit 7), together with some further facts about key events in the year, referring both to specific clients
(Hedgedge and Ochre) and to costs (marketing and staffing). For KPI 3, the updated benchmark is given, with clear
guidance to candidates on the analysis to be conducted.
Candidates will have expected to analyse the 2015 management accounts, and to deal with the two areas of business
activity, plus KPIs and key clients, as these were all well signposted in the AI. The choice of a single KPI should have
allowed them to provide a structured discussion rather than just making superficial comments.
Exhibit 16 explains that Wilson would like FinBod to recruit 80 new permanent accounting & finance staff by 1
October for its new Leeds operation. Information is given on salaries; fees to be paid; interview time/costs; and likely
advertising and entertainment expenditure. Other issues include: a rumour that the quoted salaries may exclude a
50% bonus; the fact that Wilson’s office will be next door to another Bod client, Dollond; the possible need for extra
entertainment to attract sufficient suitable applicants; and the proposed fee payment schedule.
This exhibit gave candidates a clear set of data with which to work for the three parts of the requirement: calculation;
assessment of assumptions; and discussion of ‘other considerations’. An initial read should have revealed that: a
logical approach was needed for the calculation, especially on consultant salary costs (for which a clear template had
been provided in the AI, p17); there were a number of assumptions to query; and there were several issues for Bod to
address of a commercial and/or ethical nature. As well as the salary calculation, many of the points raised should have
rung bells from the rest of the case material, notably: Exhibit 3 (typical fee rates and payment practices); Exhibit 4
(Bod’s internal guidance on entertainment expenditure); Exhibit 7 (Wilson’s ‘Favoured Provider’ status; previous

assignment with Dollond – costs and issues arising); Exhibit 14 (resolution of the Hedgedge bonus dispute). In
addition, there was good scope to make use of past work carried out on the management accounts by deriving gross
profit and contribution margins – and even KPIs – from this assignment and then comparing them with FinBod norms.
From Exhibit 17, we learn that:
 Bod, via Eric Rathbone, has been approached by an insurance company, Lytham (Bod’s own current insurance
provider – AI, p17), to tender against WG – Bod’s rival and Eric’s ex-employer – for its support staff contract
with effect from 1 January 2016.
 The tender covers permanent recruitment in Hong Kong – Bod’s first overseas venture (WG already has a
presence in Hong Kong (Exhibit 8)) – and both permanent and temporary recruitment in the UK, including
Lytham’s expanding customer complaints department. (As well as the international angle, Bod has no existing
clients in insurance and AceBod does no permanent recruitment. All three of these departures would be
consistent with Bod’s business plan at Exhibit 9.)
 Bod may subsequently be asked to tender for Lytham’s accounting & finance contract, currently held with DBJ –
a key rival but also the subject of a current dispute with Lytham (see below).
Details are given on Lytham’s recent fees to WG and mark-ups (apparently using Eric’s insider knowledge).
With proper preparatory work on the AI, candidates should have been ready for a requirement of this type. The
challenge lay in identifying all the strands and weaving them into a seamless tapestry.
From Exhibit 18 (press articles), we learn of a fraud perpetrated on Lytham by some employees falsifying their CVs,
with possible repercussions for the agency involved, DBJ (compare Bod’s standard procedures – AI, p17); background
to the Hong Kong insurance industry and general working environment, with a quote from Lytham; and a warning to
agencies expanding overseas to “do their homework” first.
The EP develops a number of features of Bod’s business from the AI, each needing a different technique for advising
the board. Exhibit 13 sets out the route to be followed in writing the report:
 Requirement 1 entails a clear focus on financial statement analysis, covering all the items specified.
 Requirement 2 involves financial data analysis, together with a broader business perspective, a strong element
of professional scepticism, and the need to address some wider commercial and ethical issues.
 Requirement 3 comprises strategic and ethical analysis. To do justice to this, familiarity with Bod’s objectives
and the wider scenario is needed.
In all cases, a logical approach with careful planning was necessary. With proper time allocation, candidates should
have been able to complete these tasks within the four hours available to write the appropriate report.
Summary of grades available
Grades were awarded under five topics, corresponding to the requirements: Executive summary; Review of TechBod’s
financial performance; Evaluation of Wilson contract; Evaluation of insurance recruitment opportunity; Overall paper.
For each topic, under each of the four Professional Skills, there were a number of ‘boxes’ representing specific areas
in which the skill was to be demonstrated. At each box, one of five available grades was awarded: CC (Clearly
Competent); SC (Sufficiently Competent); IC (Insufficiently Competent); ID (Insufficiently Demonstrated); NA (Not
Addressed). The total number of boxes per topic and skill (below) reflects (i) an even balance between the three main
requirements and (ii) higher weighting towards SP&S and AJ, as indicated in the Exam Paper rubric. It is consistent
with recent sittings.
A&UI SP&S AJ C&R Total

 Executive summary 1 2 1 2 6
 Review of TechBod’s financial performance 2 3 3 2 10
 Evaluation of Wilson contract 2 3 3 2 10
 Evaluation of insurance recruitment opportunity 2 3 3 2 10
7 11 10 8 36
 Overall paper – Report: structure, style and language 2
 Overall paper – Appendices: content and style 2
40

PART 3: COMMENTARY ON CANDIDATES’ PERFORMANCE
Overview of professional skills
Assimilating and Using Information (A&UI)
In each of the three main requirements, there were two skills boxes available under A&UI, one for use of the case
information and the other for referring to Bod’s business issues and the wider context.
For Requirements 1 and 2, the first box covered the underlying calculations needed as a basis for analysis. In
Requirement 3, it referred primarily to Bod’s business plan (Exhibit 9). The vast majority of candidates achieved
passing grades for Requirements 1 and 2, displaying the ability to tackle computational work effectively, but only
around a quarter did so for Requirement 3.
The themes to be identified for each requirement had to be contextualised and integrated into the report with a
meaningful link to their impact on Bod. This could mostly be done from the case material. For the second box at each
of Requirements 2 and 3, over half of all candidates achieved a passing grade, but at Requirement 1 it differentiated
between those who had familiarised themselves with the wider context (notably TechBod’s importance to Bod as a
whole) and those who had not.
Better candidates used their own research effectively (eg, economic statistics; agency openings/closures; recent
results reported by major agencies). But a word of caution: some candidates include a separate ‘market background’
section at the start of each requirement. This can be a good technique for introducing the answer and earning A&UI
marks, but often it is done in isolation and then forgotten about, depriving the candidate of grades towards the right of
the key for evaluating the issues arising in context (see AJ below).
Structuring Problems and Solutions (SP&S)
Candidates generally displayed excellent SP&S skills, with a majority of passing grades being earned in each box.
This is largely because they followed the instructions:
 Requirement 1: Financial analysis on revenue, gross profit, contribution and KPI 3

 Requirement 2: Calculation of revenue, gross profit and contribution with comments on assumptions and ‘other
considerations’
 Requirement 3: Identification of benefits and risks, plus ethical and business trust issues
Further detail can be found in the section on each main requirement below.
Applying Judgement (AJ)
AJ was again the poorest skill across all three requirements. A significant majority of candidates failed to extend what
was often satisfactory analysis work into sensible evaluation – or any evaluation whatsoever. Those who skip the
judgement elements in any of the requirements risk failing (and do fail) those requirements.
As always, the best scripts contained reasonable, balanced and appropriate judgements built on analysis and
demonstrating a logical flow of decision-making and real understanding of the case.
For all three boxes at Requirement 1, fewer than half of all candidates achieved passing grades, and most of these
were SC. The reasons varied. In box 1, there were three bullets available for referring to market changes – bad news
for those candidates who mentioned these in an introductory ‘background’ section and then forgot about them (see
above). Box 2 required an appreciation of the dynamics within the temporary stream, with revenue rising but margins
falling and hence a negative contribution. Box 3 rewarded those who had fully got to grips with KPI 3. Even if they had
not specifically ‘practised’ their understanding of KPI 3 for TechBod, any preparatory work on KPIs overall for Bod
overall should have stood them in good stead here.
At Requirement 2, a majority of candidates gained a passing grade for evaluating their calculations (box 1) and the
‘other considerations’ (box 3), but they did rather less well on working assumptions.
For Requirement 3, the majority of candidates simply failed to evaluate adequately the benefits, risks and ethical
issues that they had identified.

Conclusions and Recommendations (C&R)
As often, conclusions were better than recommendations – on this occasion, significantly better: only a small
proportion of candidates at Requirements 1 and 3 achieved a passing grade for recommendations. A feature
throughout was a lack of commerciality: the recommendations on the marking key followed logically from the foregoing
work, yet too many candidates failed to make them.
For Requirement 1, candidates often did not restate revenue, GP and contribution figures and so missed easy marks.
Fewer still included revenue changes for clients or concluded on KPI 3. Recommendations were generally poor, as
often at Requirement 1, with maybe just the misdirected and unrealistic advice to “get more sales”. The 5th bullet, with
its generous menu of options (review staffing levels / commission structure / monitor utilisation) was often the only one
credited.
For Requirement 2, conclusions were done well. Most candidates included at least one of the figures for the new
proposal, concluded whether or not to proceed and discussed the assumptions / other considerations, and so
achieved a passing grade. Recommendations were also good, with ‘negotiate inclusion of bonus in fee structure’ and
‘set budget/guidelines for extra entertaining costs’ being awarded the most frequently.
Most candidates achieved a passing grade for the first C&R box at Requirement 3 by giving a benefit and risk and
concluding on whether to proceed. As these had to be main benefits/risks, those referring to minor issues (eg, forex)
were penalised. Recommendations were weaker: perhaps not by coincidence, the bullet with three choices (visit HK
prior to tender / ‘do homework’ / verify costs) was again awarded the most.
Executive summary
It is clear that, as the executive summary represents 15% of total grades available, failure to give it the appropriate
attention is a high-risk strategy. Consequently, the skills required to prepare succinct, focused summaries have
improved. That said, there was the customary variation in quality, especially in respect of Requirements 1 and 3, with
significantly more candidates obtaining a passing grade for the top box than for the bottom box. For Requirement 2, on
which the overall performance was very strong, marks across the two boxes were more even. As always, weaker
candidates ran out of time, leading to a very short summary, in some cases with parts – notably Requirement 3 –
being excluded altogether.
Overall, marks were lower than usual. In particular, there were fewer CC grades than in recent sittings. This was
partly because the Examiners had included under each requirement a specific, critical issue which they expected
candidates to identify: negative contribution (Requirement 1); little choice but to accept (Requirement 2); likelihood of
Bod winning the tender (Requirement 3). In each case, only around 5% of candidates identified the issue. For the first,
a fair number noted that contribution was negative, but did not follow this through with a qualitative comment, or
described it unprofessionally (‘a major shock’). For the second, better answers included the necessary emphasis:
“Wilson is Bod's largest client (27%) of total revenues, and every effort must be made to keep their work, whilst the
opportunity to grow in Leeds is also favourable.” For the third, most considered WG more likely to win.
Among weaker candidates, the Requirement 1 section of the executive summary contained very few (or even no)
figures. There were frequently no numbers for revenue by client and sometimes the TechBod revenue movement was
just expressed in percentage terms. The bottom box was characterised by such bland comments as “revenue has
increased due to Hedgedge” – not very useful without the reason (resolved dispute) being mentioned. Candidates did
better in explaining the change in GP/GP% as they did discuss lower-margin work or marketing spend. In respect of
KPI 3, candidates often provided a figure but did not give a recommendation relating to the KPI.
Under Requirement 2, most candidates gave figures for revenue and contribution, but not for GP. Very few went on to
state the wider financial impact. Coverage of the working assumptions and ‘other considerations’ differed in quality:
weaker candidates only stated the facts, with no questioning as to their suitability. Virtually all candidates discussed
the way forward and went on to provide a valid commercial recommendation.
For Requirement 3, most candidates mentioned two benefits (often diversification and revenue) and at least one risk
(experience), thereby achieving a passing grade here. Most also concluded on the way forward and made a
recommendation, while only the better candidates made a recommendation on the ethical issues.

Requirement 1: Review of TechBod’s financial performance
Requirement 1 was mainly “a conventional' analysis … and given all the divisional and customer information in the AI,
this was straightforward and it would have made Appendix 1 much simpler” (one tutor). Candidates should been well
prepared for a review of the 2015 management accounts, though perhaps not the required focus on TechBod. For
those programmed to provide superficial analysis across all divisions as a way of passing, rather than delving more
deeply into just one, this was quite a challenge. Some, on finding that an analysis of the whole company was not
needed, still felt it their right and duty to produce long appendices that earned only limited marks. Time spent on these
could have been more usefully occupied in developing analysis into judgement. (In fact, as is shown below, candidates
could have made judicious use of the management accounts when considering the FinBod and AceBod opportunities
at Requirements 2 and 3 respectively.) Overall, marks at Requirement 1 were thus lower than is often the case, with a
smaller majority of passing grades.
Revenue, gross profit and contribution
Better candidates tackled this part effectively, and most gained passing grades at A&UI box 1 and at SP&S boxes 2
and 3. However, a sizeable proportion of candidates did not read the requirement carefully (a fatal mistake in any
exam) and as a result did their financial analysis for the whole of Bod. Even some candidates who had clearly realised
that they needed to write about TechBod could not resist a section on FinBod and AceBod for each of revenue, gross
profit and contribution. Sometimes this added up to the equivalent of two pages of manuscript, and all it did was waste
valuable time and obtain no credit.
In addition, weaker candidates gave no analysis by client, despite this being specifically requested, and even though a
table was provided in the same format as had been seen in the AI. Some pointers were helpfully provided at Exhibit
14, but these were meant as a stimulus for discussion that would include the other clients as well, rather than as facts
to be restated without any further development. Again the quality of the discussion varied, with weaker candidates just
stating that revenue from a client was up or down; better ones also provided a reason. Only the best candidates
discussed all clients. There was also scope to refer to placement numbers (“temporary placement numbers increased
by 13 (18.3%) to 84 and this surpassed the 5.6% growth in placements seen between 2009 and 2013 [AI, p8]”) – but
this eluded most of the cohort.
For gross profit and contribution, stronger candidates referred to the change in revenue mix affecting margins and the
lower temporary margins from Hedgedge. Weaker ones, however, did not extend their financial analysis (however
comprehensive) into reasons and explanations. The critical issue here was the negative contribution in the temporary
stream: “Marketing is up by £67k to £116k. This reflects unbudgeted tendering and other costs of £75k, incurred as
part of the strategy to take market share from competitors. If the £75k is excluded, underlying contribution becomes
positive – but only just, and so it remains a cause for concern.” This should have been easy to identify but it escaped
those who could not see the bigger picture. Candidates who did examine the marketing costs did not generally look at
their connection with revenue or whether they had generated a return on investment.
KPI 3
“Unsurprisingly”, noted one tutor, “the requirements included a calculation of KPI 3 to ensure candidates have fully
understood the importance of improving KPIs to [Bod’s] success”. Another commented: “Given the amount of
information in the AI on KPIs, the inclusion of a calculation and discussion relating to them was to be expected.”
Moreover, the inclusion of exact historical figures in the AI should have meant that candidates could not only ‘prove’
these figures but also rehearse their calculation technique beforehand. Consequently, most candidates calculated
TechBod’s KPI correctly and compared it with the benchmark. They thus generally earned credit under SP&S but
struggled with the evaluation points under AJ, with many only considering the staffing aspect. Some candidates
attempted to compute KPI 3 for TechBod’s temporary business: it should have been very clear from the AI that this
was a permanent-only measure.
Too few candidates addressed the appropriateness of the benchmark, although there were some very good
discussions here. Commentary such as the following was well rewarded: “While the benchmark is for the financial
sector, there will be variations in the size of agencies; in starting salaries between (say) banking and insurance; in
skills areas; and seniority of staff being placed. With regard to gross profit, agencies may vary in revenue recognition
policies or the extent of other income (eg, recharges) included within revenue. In addition, the benchmarks are
computed for calendar years and so they lag six months behind Bod’s data.” Candidates did not always look at the
wider implications of their suggestions for improving KPI 3: “Bod may make redundancies to push back into the
psychologically important £100k level.”
In conclusion, candidates should have been able to explain TechBod’s performance in their own words and been
aware of the factors most likely to influence 2015. They should have been well prepared to comment on revenue,
gross profit and contribution, as well as the KPIs. Overall, the Examiners consider that this was a fair requirement
which showed clear differentiation.

Requirement 2: Evaluation of Wilson contract
Requirement 2 produced comfortably the best results at this session. There were in effect three elements:
 Revenue, gross profit and contribution calculation

 Discussion of assumptions (professional scepticism)
 Evaluation of ‘other considerations’
Candidates scored fairly consistently across all skills areas, with AJ (especially the middle box – ‘evaluates working
assumptions’) being the weakest.
Revenue, gross profit and contribution calculation
As one tutor observed, “the information for evaluating the contract for Wilson in Leeds was clearly set out in Exhibit
16. The structure of the contribution calculation was pretty simple”. Only one aspect of the calculation (salary costs)
had been specifically rehearsed in the AI, but the other components should have been easy to deal with if candidates
had sufficiently familiarised themselves with Bod’s finances from the AI. Virtually all scripts contained a calculation,
and most cases earned passing grades at the relevant places (AU&I box 1, SP&S box 1). A sizeable minority arrived
at the exact answers shown on the back page of the marking key and many others were close. In general, candidates
appear to have heeded the repeated message of the Examiners to work with the numbers given and only then to
discuss the underlying assumptions and to consider flexing their calculations. However, a few ignored this principle
and so, for example, computed revenue based on salaries that included bonuses. There were several other recurrent
areas for error, without which grades would have been even higher:
 misallocation of costs, resulting in an incorrect GP figure (a close reading of the narrative notes in the AI should
have removed any ambiguity here);
 absence of a GP figure, which was disappointing as it was specifically asked for;
 failure to apply the salary cost formula from the AI (the most common variation here was to use the indicative
figure of £60k rather than to do a computation based on the FinBod actual data for 2015);
 application of FinBod’s reported gross profit margin to the reported revenue rather than deducting the cost of
sales actually provided.
Relatively few compared expected revenue with current revenue (to gauge the size of the task) or worked out gross
profit and/or contribution margins or, even better, KPIs: “The expected gross margin of 84.5% is lower than the 97.3%
achieved in 2015 and lower generally than usual for permanent business, indicating a smaller proportion of costs
being passed on to the client” and “The project if successful would generate a figure of £5,500 (£440k / 80) for KPI 2,
consistent with that achieved currently by FinBod (£4,024k / 738 = £5,453) and above the 2013 industry benchmark
(£5,050).” This would have provided the best way of comparing the project with existing work.
Discussion of assumptions (professional scepticism)
Having done their initial calculation, candidates were expected to go on and look at the key assumptions and comment
on each. As one tutor remarked, “candidates had been given some detailed information about ... Wilson, and should
have fully appreciated the importance of this client. The assignment was also to place staff in Leeds, rather than
London. However, candidates should not have been surprised by this as Leeds had been mentioned on a number of
occasions in the AI.” Some candidates in fact asserted that Bod had no experience in Leeds. (Others were similarly
concerned that Bod might not have Skype facilities.)
There was much here for well-prepared candidates to discuss, including in some cases the interrelationship between
variables. Indeed, overall they did much better than is often the case and thus they secured an SC or CC at SP&S box
2. A key to success – but by no means a guarantee of it – was to recognise that some of these issues had arisen on
previous client assignments (Exhibit 7) and/or that they featured in Bod’s day-to-day business. At the bottom of the
cohort, many did not question the assumptions at all, or just selected one or two, typically the 8 person-days and/or
the £30 interview cost, with a superficial comment. They were happy simply to repeat facts given in the scenario,
without making any comparisons with those involving Dollond at Exhibit 7. Good analysis here was to compare the 8
person-days with FinBod’s figure of 9 for 2015, which could be derived from the accounts.
Candidates were less adept at developing their thinking here (AJ box 2). Where no corroborative or contradictory
evidence was provided about an area of expenditure, they did not attempt to question why they may be different.
Better candidates were able to apply lateral thought: “Average interview expenses of £30 compare with £40 on the
Dollond assignment in Leeds. As applicants can come from anywhere in the UK, the actual cost could be higher (to
cover overnight accommodation and meals), or lower (for a current Dollond employee). The previous work with
Dollond may indicate the typical geographical spread of applicants for financial sector jobs in Leeds.”

Candidates also failed to consider the implications of some of the wider issues, such as why Wilson might not want to
transfer any staff internally, or why Bod was being expected to bear a high proportion of costs that would normally be
borne by clients – and whether this might have an impact on the fee scales. Few wondered whether the timetable
could be met: “Bod must ensure that it can staff this project adequately: 8 days per position would represent 640 days
of consultants’ time over 2 months, over half of the 1,160 (29 x 240 x 2/12) days available to them. Thus, to fulfil this
assignment and meet Wilson’s tight deadline, Bod may need to transfer consultants from other divisions or bring in
temps, as before with Dollond. If Bod does not bring to bear all available resources for its largest client, there could be
an adverse effect on the relationship.”
A large number of candidates went on to do some form of sensitivity to show the impact of changing one or more
variables. The most common was to add bonuses to the salaries on which fees were to be determined.
‘Other considerations’
Candidates were specifically asked to explain the commercial and ethical consequences for Bod of the ‘other
considerations’ identified at Exhibit 18. These all had echoes in content that candidates should have recalled from the
rest of the case material:
 Inclusion of bonuses in salary costs – Hedgedge at Exhibit 7 and Requirement 1.

 Proximity to Dollond – Dollond’s own conflict with Ives & King (Exhibit 7).
 Entertainment budgets – ‘How We Behave’ (Exhibit 4).
 Payment schedules – standard fee arrangements (Exhibit 3).
A majority gained a passing grade here. On the conflict issue, some candidates made use of Exhibit 3 with comments
such as “There has been no consideration of clawbacks, which may happen if people leave”. They usually did not go
on to consider the likelihood of this in view of the loyalty bonus being offered.
Again, the inclusion of a list of bullet points offered a clear pathway; but again, some chose to comment on only one or
two of the bullets, usually bonuses and/or entertainment budgets. Where these were discussed, candidates were quite
good at extending the discussion, realising the impact of excluding the bonus on the fees, and the potential for
unethical behaviour with the entertainment expenses. Among those who also covered the two other bullets, shrewder
observations included the following on the delayed payment of fees for the final 40 positions: “There is no guarantee
that the project will be successfully completed, so Bod should negotiate payment terms in line with usual practice.”
Requirement 3: Evaluation of insurance recruitment opportunity
Not for the first time, this section produced the lowest scores of the three requirements, with AJ being the poorest. As
one tutor remarked, “candidates should have had no shortage of issues to discuss for this requirement. However, this
may have caused time management concerns.” Indeed, as is frequently the case, weaker candidates did not organise
their four hours effectively and so failed to accord sufficient time to Requirement 3. This led to an absence of
conclusions / recommendations, as well as perhaps no coverage in the Executive Summary (see above).
As for the other requirements, there were a number of components. Candidates needed to cover, within a cohesive
narrative, both risks and benefits under the headings of ‘strategic’, ‘financial’ and ‘operational’, as well as ethical and
business trust issues. While it was possible to achieve reasonable grades – particularly at SP&S – by focusing on the
new material at Exhibits 17/18, better scripts displayed a strong awareness of the AI and the wider context for this
opportunity and went on to evaluate the issues that they had identified.
Candidates were asked to evaluate an opportunity to tender for a project that entailed expanding into insurance
recruitment, with an overseas dimension, and placing permanent support staff. These were all listed as possibilities in
the AI, along with information about the client involved (Lytham) and Bod’s competitor (White Graham). In the words of
another tutor, “there was nothing here that should have caused students concern”. It was therefore something of a
surprise that many candidates did not refer to Bod’s business plan and thus failed to achieve what should have been
an ‘easy’ passing grade in the top A&UI box. The other A&UI box (business issues and wider context) was done
reasonably well.
For benefits, the most popular were diversification (in its various guises) and the increase in revenue. Candidates were
worried that AceBod had no permanent recruitment experience, rather than realising that expertise was available
within the company and so it was not a problem. Evaluation rarely extended beyond a consideration of cross-selling or
of possible further work – hence a minority of passing grades at AJ box 1.
With risks, they were keen to include extensive detail on language, forex and culture. Soft issues of this type are
always popular with Case Study candidates and, as often, for weaker ones they formed the main focus of the answer,
rather than something more important and specific to the case, such as lack of experience. Generalised comments of

this nature attract few, if any, marks. Many made comments about Hong Kong that were unduly negative: “... the
notorious cultural differences will result in unprecedented challenges ... as well as adjusting to Hong Kong’s way of
life.” Again, evaluation was poor, with nearly one-third of the cohort – the highest proportion for any box on the entire
marking key – scoring NA for AJ box 2. This also reflected an inversion of the norm as candidates are usually better at
risks than benefits.
The case scenario included at Exhibit 17 some simple fee and mark-up data, which should have served as a
springboard for the ‘financial’ part of the requirement (‘strategic, financial and operational benefits and risks’).
“Hopefully” – one tutor added – “they will have also taken the advice given in the AI to pay attention to the numbers
provided when commenting on the financial benefits and risks”. This was an allusion to the final bullet at Exhibit 1:
“You are also expected to show at all times your added value as a prospective ICAEW Chartered Accountant by
displaying your skill with numbers when analysing and evaluating problems for which numerical data is provided.”
However, while better candidates extrapolated the likely fees by applying the lower mark-ups that Lytham was
expected to impose, and went on to comment on their scale by reference to AceBod’s current revenue, the majority
failed to follow the advice in the AI about the use of numbers. Instead, they treated the fees as an intrusion on their
thinking. Another calculation that could have been done, but which was attempted by only a very tiny minority, was an
estimate of placement numbers making use of data from across the case material: “On Bod’s 2015 results, £600k
permanent revenue would equate to £600k / (£4,024k + £3,386k) x 1,497 = 121 permanent placements, while £600k
temporary revenue would equate to £600k / £5,106k x 201 = 24 temporary staff. In fact, there are likely to be more
than 121 permanent placements as their average salaries will probably be lower than for accounting & finance and IT,
even allowing for the 10% higher salaries in Hong Kong.”
Two pieces of information in the Exam Paper – the 10% salary premium in Hong Kong and the relocated customer
complaints department – had multiple implications, but candidates generally did not look beyond the obvious. The
salary premium had an impact not only on the fees that Bod might earn but also on the scale of recruitment activity
and on the costs for any of its own staff who might move (or want to move) to Hong Kong; while the growth in
customer complaints not only created future recruitment work but also at the same time cast doubts on the quality of
Lytham as a company.
Ethics and business trust
The scenario gave rise to a number of business trust and ethical issues, of varying degrees of severity and
controllability by Bod: inside knowledge; database abuse; discrimination; compliance with both Bod’s and the REC’s
codes of conduct; reciprocity; exaggeration on job applications; customer service. Some of these linked back to – or
had arisen in – the AI, both within the media coverage at Exhibit 12 and elsewhere. Thus to score well here, a good
knowledge of the AI was essential.
Candidates were good at identifying the issues but less so at evaluation (apart from reputation, which always earns an
honourable mention). Not many candidates identified that Lytham was Bod’s current insurance provider; of those who
did, the majority seemed to want to do some sort of fee offset arrangement (in which HMRC might have been
interested). Others were patronising or gave unrealistic recommendations: “We recommend you remind Lytham of
employment laws around the issue of diversification.”
Overall paper: Appendices
Appendices on the whole were clear and well laid out. The first, relating to Requirement 1, was mostly well done and
at a sufficient level of detail, showing key movements, with both absolute and percentage figures. Where lower grades
were awarded, this was usually because calculations by client were not shown. The second appendix tended to be
weaker, but more than half of the cohort still gained a passing grade.
Overall paper: Report
The vast majority of candidates achieved passing grades for the two boxes here. Under ‘Structure’, quite a few
candidates still failed to number their pages, despite the very clear guidance now included in the front-page rubric.
Some poor scripts lost marks by not doing basic things like dividing their Executive Summary into any headings at all
(ie, not indicating the split between requirements). Illegibility remains a problem.
With regard to ‘Style and language’, markers continue to perform a consistently excellent task by reading beyond
errors of spelling and grammar and going to the essence of the report before penalising such errors.
Tactlessness was, as often, prevalent. A particular challenge in this case lay in how best to refer to Eric Rathbone,
who would be one of the readers of the report but who was implicated, directly or indirectly, in a number of the ethical
and business trust issues arising. Better candidates handled the situation sensitively; weaker ones jumped to
inappropriate conclusions: “Eric also has personal links with George Abbott. He may be acting unethically if he
reduces Bod's rates to give George a favourable rate.”

PART 4: APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS: TechBod’s financial performance (incl. KPI 3)
(a) Overall financial analysis
Revenue 2015 2014 Change Change 2015 2014

£000 £000 £000 % Mix % Mix %
Perm 3,386 3,517 (131) (3.7)% 54.4% 58.5%
Temp 2,835 2,496 339 13.6% 45.6% 41.5%
6,221 6,013 208 3.5% 100.0% 100.0%
Gross profit 2015 2014 Change Change 2015 2014 2015 2014
£000 £000 £000 % Mix % Mix % Margin % Margin %
Perm 3,347 3,419 (72) (2.1)% 90.0% 87.8% 98.8% 97.2%
Temp 373 474 (101) (21.3)% 10.0% 12.2% 13.2% 19.0%
3,720 3,893 (173) (4.4)% 100.0% 100.0% 59.8% 64.7%
Staff costs 2015 2014 Change Change
£000 £000 £000 %
Perm 1,930 2,032 (102) (5.0)%
Temp 321 277 44 15.9%
2,251 2,309 (58) (2.5)%
Contribution 2015 2014 Change Change 2015 2014 2015 2014

£000 £000 £000 % Mix % Mix % Margin % Margin %
Perm 1,364 1,331 33 2.5% 104.9% 90.0% 40.3% 37.8%
Temp (64) 148 (212) (143.2)% (4.9)% 10.0% (2.3)% 5.9%
1,300 1,479 (179) (12.1)% 100.0% 100.0% 20.9% 24.6%
(b) Revenue (including mix and growth) analysis by client
Total Share Change Change

Perm Temp Total Perm Temp Total
£000 % £000 £000 £000 % % %
Wilson 1,524 24.5% 51 17 68 5.3% 3.5% 4.7%
Dollond 735 11.8% (373) (181) (554) (45.4)% (38.8)% (43.0)%
Hedgedge 1,701 27.3% 334 372 706 56.7% 91.6% 71.0%
Assetus 371 6.0% - 54 54 - 17.0% 17.0%
Ochre 721 11.6% (186) (152) (338) (28.7)% (36.9)% (31.9)%
Subtotal 5,052 81.2% (174) 110 (64) (5.8)% 5.3% (1.3)%
Other 1,169 18.8% 43 229 272 8.7% 56.7% 30.3%
6,221 100.0% (131) 339 208 (3.7)% 13.6% 3.5%
(c) KPI 3: Gross profit for permanent business per average consultant headcount
2015 2014
Gross profit £3,347k £3,419k
Consultants 34 33
Change Change
£000 £000 £000 %
KPI 3: 98,441 103,606 (5,165) (5.0)%
Benchmark 125,000 120,000 5,000 4.2%

APPENDIX 2: FINANCIAL DATA ANALYSIS: Wilson contract revenue, gross profit & contribution
£000
Fee
First 40 recruits = £40,000 x 15% x 40 240
Second 40 recruits = £40,000 x 12.5% x 40 200
Revenue 440
Cost of sales
Advertising (20)
Interview expenses = £30 x 80 x 20 (48)
Gross profit (margin = 84.5%) 372
Attributable administrative expenses
Salary costs (see below) (151)
Entertainment (40)
Contribution (margin = 41.1%) 181
Working: Salary costs (based on illustration (AI, p17))
Total number of consultants in FinBod 29

Total consultant working days in a year (29 @ 48 weeks x 5 days per week) 6,960
Total consultant salary and related costs for the year (2015 accounts) £1,638,000
Total expected consultant days on project (80 positions @ 8 days per position) 640
Thus salary costs allocated to assignment (640 / 6,960 x £1,638,000) £150,621

July 2015 - Bod Ltd
First Marking
DATE CANDIDATE NO.
TIME MARKER NUMBER
ES Req 1 Req 2 Req 3 Overall TOTAL
CC
SC
IC
ID
NA
Total 6 10 10 10 4 40
Abbreviations used:
Perm: recruitment of permanent staff/permanent jobs
Temp: recruitment of temporary staff/temporary jobs
C%: contribution margin
SUPERVISOR CHECKER
SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
Changes made? c
ID = Insufficiently Demonstrated 1w
IC = Insufficiently Competent 2w
SC = Sufficiently Competent 3w
CC = Clearly Competent 4w
Executive summary
Review of TechBod's financial performance Implications of Wilson's new operation
w Comments on TechBod revenue v 2014 (£ AND %) w Gives estimated revenue from project (with figure)
w Comments on Perm/Temp revenue v 2014 (with figure) w Gives estimated GP AND contribution from project (with figures)
w Comments on revenue by client v 2014 (with figure) w Comments on financial impact (eg 11% of revenue / lower margin / KPI)
w Comments on GP/GP% AND contribution v 2014 (with figures) w Professional scepticism on working assumptions
NA ID IC SC CC NA ID IC SC CC
w Explanation of change in revenue w Comments on implications of other considerations
w Explanation of change in GP / GP% w Concludes on way forward
w Qualitative comment on negative contribution in Temp w Bod has little choice but to accept (because Wilson is key client)
w KPI 3: comparison (with figure) AND recommendation w Makes commercial recommendations
Assessment of insurance recruitment opportunity
w Comments on one main benefit
w Comments on a second main benefit
w Comments on one main risk
w Comments on a second main risk
NA ID IC SC CC
w Concludes on way forward / whether to proceed
w Considers likelihood of Bod winning tender
w Makes recommendations on ethical / business trust issue
w Makes other commercial recommendations
NA ID IC SC CC
CC
SC
IC
ID
NA
Total 6
REQUIREMENT 1 - Review of TechBod's financial performance
ASSIMILATING & USING INFORMATION STRUCTURING PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS
Uses relevant AI & EP information (report / appendix) Financial analysis: revenue v 2014 by client (comment)
w TechBod revenue v 2014: up £208k AND up 3.5% w Dollond: down £554k AND reason (one-off / tender)
w Perm revenue: down £131k AND down 3.7% w Hedgedge: up £706k AND reason (dispute resolved)
w Temp revenue: up £339k AND up 13.6% w Ochre: down £338k AND reason (lost to PredICT)
w TechBod GP: down £173k AND 4.4% OR w Wilson/Assetus/Other: up AND reason

GP%: down 59.8% v 64.7%
w Change in revenue mix by client

w TechBod contribution: down £179k AND 12.1% OR eg Hedgedge now largest (27.3% v 16.5%)
Contribution%: down 20.9% v 24.6%
Identifies business issues and wider context Analysis of GP/contribution v 2014 (comment in report)
w Bod revenue: up (£1,010k / 7.0%) w Perm GP: down £72k / 2.1% OR GP% up 98.8% v 97.2%
w TechBod revenue: largest division (40.5%) w Temp GP: down £101k / 21.3% OR GP% down 13.2% v 19.0%
w Industry: highly competitive / use of internet/social media w Perm cont: up £33k / 2.5% OR C% up 40.3% v 37.8%
w Decline in tender success / increased marketing eg Skills Show w Temp cont: down £212k / 143.2% OR C% down (4.9%) v 10%
w Own research w Comment on staff: numbers / costs / average costs

-
w Comment on marketing costs (£75k)
Calculation and analysis of change in KPI 3 v 2014
w KPI 3: £98,441 AND down (£5,165 / 5%)
w KPI 3 benchmark: up £5,000 / 4.2%
w KPI 3 remains below benchmark
w Affected by lower GP AND higher number of consultants
w Now below 'psychologically important' £100k level
NA ID IC SC CC
APPLYING JUDGEMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Evaluation of analysis on Perm/Temp revenue v 2014 Draws conclusions (under a heading)
w TechBod: below ind 9% / growth slower (3.5% v 9.8%) w Revenue change: TechBod / Perm AND Temp (with figures)
w Perm: reason for decline (fall in placements/market decline) w Revenue change by client (with figure)
w Perm: strategy to target higher-paid positions not successful w GP/GP% AND contribution/contribution% (with figures)
w Temp: reason for growth (more temps/consultants/mkt growth) w Concludes on KPI 3 (with figure)
w Temp: average revenue per Temp down £1.4k / 4%
w Mix: Perm 54.4% v 58.5% / Temp 45.6% v 41.5%
Evaluation of analysis on GP/contribution Makes recommendations
w TechBod: revenue up BUT GP/contribution down w Investigate areas of decline in performance
w Change in mix to low-margin Temp lowers TechBod GP% w Review tender strategy/success / return on marketing spend
w Perm: Hedgedge bonus inclusion increases GP/GP% w Maximise cross-selling between divisions
w Perm: successful in controlling/passing on costs w Monitor competitors eg pricing strategy
w Temp: lower margins agreed with/imposed by Other clients w Review staffing levels / commission structure / monitor utilisation
w Temp: negative contribution gives cause for concern w Consider whether other KPIs might be more suitable
NA ID IC SC CC
w Other recommendations
Evaluation of analysis on KPI 3
w Industry benchmark may not be appropriate for TechBod
w Benchmark basis: wider issues (eg time-lag, segment/size) NA ID IC SC CC
w Benchmark basis: company factors (eg a/c policy, skills area)

CC
SC
w GP: reason for decline (in context of KPI 3)
IC
ID
w Staff: inefficiencies / low utilisation / may be demotivated
NA
Total 10
w May not be in Bod's interest to publish KPIs on website
NA ID IC SC CC
REQUIREMENT 2 - Implications of Wilson's new operation
ASSIMILATING AND USING INFORMATION STRUCTURING PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS
Use of AI/EP in calculation (report / appendix) Calculation of expected revenue/GP/contribution
w Interview exps: £30 x 80 positions x 20 interviews/£48k w Revenue: £440k = (40 x £40k x 15%) + (40 x £40k x 12.5%)
w Total work days: 29 consultants x 48 weeks x 5 days/6,960 w COS: advertising £20k AND interviews £48k
w Project working days: 80 positions x 8 days/640 w Admin: salary £151k AND entertaining £40k
w Total consultant salaries: £1,638k/average £56,483 w GP AND contribution stated (figures)
w GP% (84.5%) / contribution% (41.2%) calculated
Describes business issues and wider context Comments on adequacy of working assumptions
w Wilson: Bod has Favoured Provider status w Salaries: average may be higher/lower than £40k
w Dollond: previous work in Leeds / Ives & King conflict w Fees: only proposed / not agreed
w No more recruitment till 2017 / no TechBod/AceBod work w 8 person-days: estimated figure / actual may be different
w Incidental costs normally recharged to clients w Interviews: estimated figures for number and cost / actual may be different
w REC code of conduct / "How We Behave" w Advertising: estimated figure / actual may be different
w Own research w Entertaining: estimated figure / actual may be different

-
NA ID IC SC CC
Comments on other considerations
w Salaries: artificially low so may not attract candidates
NA ID IC SC CC w 50% bonus: excluded from fee calculation
w Proximity to Dollond: movement of employees between clients
w Extra entertaining: unknown level of additional costs
w Fee: paid at two different rates (15%/12.5%)
w Cash flow: only 2 tranches / fully paid only when all 80 positions filled
NA ID IC SC CC
Evaluates calculation of revenue/GP/contribution Draws conclusions (under a heading)
w Revenue 11% of FinBod / increases reliance on Wilson w Gives revenue/GP/contribution of project (with figure)
w Compares GP%/contribution% to rest of business w Concludes on working assumptions
w Considers timescale / capacity / no. of consultants w Concludes on other considerations
w Considers impact on FinBod's KPIs w Concludes that Bod should proceed (little choice but to accept)
w T&C less favourable than before, weakening relationship?
w Changing assumptions will impact contribution
Evaluates working assumptions Makes recommendations
w Salaries: affected by local economy / supply and demand w Need backup for all working assumption figures
w Fees: upper end of 10-15% industry norm w Ensure sufficient consultants available in Leeds/FinBod
w 8 p-days: Dollond 10 / 9 in 2014 / depends on efficiencies w Negotiate inclusion of bonus in fee structure
w Interviews: Dollond 30 interviews / £40 each w Review procedures re conflict of interest between clients
w Advertising: use of internet/social media may reduce £20k w Set budget/guidelines for extra entertaining costs
w Entertaining: unclear what £40k includes w Negotiate T&C (payment terms / responsibility for costs)
NA ID IC SC CC
w Other recommendations
Evaluates other considerations
w Salaries: difficulties recruiting would increase Bod's costs
w 50% bonus: including (like Hedgedge) increases revenue

NA ID IC SC CC
w Proximity: client conflict of interest / potential clawback
w Entertaining: potential for unethical behaviour CC

SC
IC
w Fee: filling £60k jobs FIRST would increase total revenue
ID
NA
w CF: 2 needs funding / what if only partially completed?
Total 10
NA ID IC SC CC
REQUIREMENT 3 - Assessment of insurance recruitment opportunity
ASSIMILATING & USING INFORMATION STRUCTURING PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS
Uses AI and EP effectively Benefits - strategic, financial and operational
w Strategy: stated objective 2 → insurance w S: diversification into insurance/HK
w S: improve Bod's market share / reduce reliance on Wilson

w Strategy: stated objective 5 → overseas
w F: potential increase in revenue (with figure eg £1,200k)
w Strategy: stated objective 1 → Perm for AceBod w F: will be 8% of Bod's existing revenue / significant amount
w O: Bod has relevant Perm experience in TechBod/FinBod

w Bod specifically invited to tender
w O: Eric Rathbone's experience of Lytham/White Graham/insurance
w Does calc (estimate) of placement numbers w
Describes business issues and wider context Risks - strategic, financial and operational
w Timescale: set up by 2016 w S: tendering will be time-consuming / absorb management time
w S: lack of insurance/overseas experience

w Tendering against White Graham
w F: Lytham looking to reduce mark-up (20% →15%)
w White Graham: HK presence / entertaining budget w F: tendering/setting up in HK will be expensive / higher salaries
w O: HK business model/process/recruitment different from UK

w HK insurance market expected to double in 2016
w O: different culture / time zone / regulations / language / forex
w UK has large insurance industry / 300k jobs w
w Own research
-
NA ID IC SC CC
Business trust and ethical issues
w Eric Rathbone using insider knowledge (ex-client/ex-employer)
NA ID IC SC CC
w Abuse of database (WG) / not checking CVs (DBJ)
w Compliance with "How We Behave" (expertise)
w Compliance with REC code (diversity / international standards)
w Lytham: sex & age discrimination / poor level of customer service
w Lytham: current insurance provider to Bod
NA ID IC SC CC
Evaluation of benefits Draws conclusions (under a heading)
w S: enhanced reputation for Bod via HK/insurance sector w Concludes on main benefit
w S: break clause after 1 year gives flexibility w Concludes on main risk
w F: Lytham growing / WG fee trend is upwards w Concludes on ethical / business trust issues
w F: likely to generate a good margin w Concludes on way forward / whether to proceed
w O: possible further work / cross-selling with TechBod/FinBod
w O: considers likelihood of Bod winning tender
Evaluation of risks Makes recommendations
w S: may adversely impact existing business w Need to know number of placements involved
w S: failure to deliver contract causes reputational damage w Clarify/negotiate T&C
w F: placement nos. unknown / internal transfers reduce fees w Visit HK prior to tender / 'do homework' / verify costs
w F: unknown future running costs / impact on GP/KPIs w Need bilingual consultants
w O: lack of HK networks/database hinders recruitment work w Due diligence on Lytham
w O: Bod must operate in global market to compete w Other recommendations
NA ID IC SC CC
Evaluation of ethical issues (and recommendations)
w Check for any restrictive covenants between Eric and WG
w Ensure proper checking of CVs NA ID IC SC CC
w Ensure sufficient trained consultants available
CC
w Ensure processes in line with REC code/"How We Behave" SC
IC
w Possible reputational damage by association with Lytham ID
NA
w No issue with reciprocity if transactions at arm's length Total 10
NA ID IC SC CC
Appendices Main Report
Appendices R1: Content and style Report: Structure
w Well presented table of £s AND %s w Sufficient appropriate headings
w Calculations of TechBod overall AND Perm AND Temp w Appropriate use of paragraphs / sentences
w Calculations by client w Legible
w Calculations of KPI 3 w Correctly numbered pages
Appendices R2: Content and style Report: Style and language
w Numbers clearly derived AND well presented w Relevant disclaimer report AND from BG&Co
w Uses given figures for calculation w Formal language for the board
w Revenue £440k AND GP £372k AND contribution £181k w Tactful / ethical comments
w Calculation of GP% / contribution% / sensitivity / KPIs w Reasonable spelling / grammar
CC
SC
IC
ID
NA
Total 4

Case Study July 2015 Examiners Report and MP Combined FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study July 2015 Examiners Report and MP Combined FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE STUDY – JULY 2015

EXAMINERS’ COMMENTS AND MARK PLAN

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 1 of 17

PART 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The exam requirements comprised:

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 2 of 17

The Examiners concur with all these assessments.

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 3 of 17

PART 2: THE CASE STUDY EXAMINATION

Scenario for the paper (Advance Information)

Analysis of Advance Information (AI)

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 4 of 17

Income statement – revenue, gross profit and contribution

Statements of financial position and cash flow

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 5 of 17

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 6 of 17

Information provided in the Exam Paper (EP)

13 Email dated 22 July 2015 from Rhiannon Willis to you

Analysis of Exam Paper information

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 7 of 17

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 8 of 17

From Exhibit 17, we learn that:

Summary of grades available

A&UI SP&S AJ C&R Total

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 9 of 17

PART 3: COMMENTARY ON CANDIDATES’ PERFORMANCE

Overview of professional skills

Assimilating and Using Information (A&UI)

Structuring Problems and Solutions (SP&S)

 Requirement 1: Financial analysis on revenue, gross profit, contribution and KPI 3

Applying Judgement (AJ)

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 10 of 17

Conclusions and Recommendations (C&R)

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 11 of 17

Requirement 1: Review of TechBod’s financial performance

Revenue, gross profit and contribution

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 12 of 17

Requirement 2: Evaluation of Wilson contract

 Revenue, gross profit and contribution calculation

Revenue, gross profit and contribution calculation

Discussion of assumptions (professional scepticism)

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 13 of 17

 Inclusion of bonuses in salary costs – Hedgedge at Exhibit 7 and Requirement 1.

Requirement 3: Evaluation of insurance recruitment opportunity

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 14 of 17

Ethics and business trust

Overall paper: Appendices

Overall paper: Report

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 15 of 17

APPENDIX 1: FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS: TechBod’s financial performance (incl. KPI 3)

(a) Overall financial analysis

Revenue 2015 2014 Change Change 2015 2014

Contribution 2015 2014 Change Change 2015 2014 2015 2014

(b) Revenue (including mix and growth) analysis by client

Total Share Change Change

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 16 of 17

Working: Salary costs (based on illustration (AI, p17))

Total number of consultants in FinBod 29

Copyright © The ICAEW 2015 Page 17 of 17

DATE CANDIDATE NO.

TIME MARKER NUMBER

ES Req 1 Req 2 Req 3 Overall TOTAL

w Explanation of change in revenue w Comments on implications of other considerations

w Explanation of change in GP / GP% w Concludes on way forward