Follow our live feed for instant updates or
join our facebook page for further discussion

“Prospective financial management CAs(SA) achieved exceptional results in Part II of the Qualifying Examination, Financial Management (QE II), written in November 2010, with an overall pass rate of 72.5% being achieved, a marked improvement over the previous year's 64%. ”

QE II Results, PPE Results

A total of 178 candidates sat for the QE II, which is greater than the 150 candidates that sat for the exam in 2009. It was evidenced again in 2010 that African black candidates comprised the majority of candidates that sat for the QE II.

The highlight of this year's results, the continued success achieved by African black candidates, is evidenced by the pass rate that soared by 20% from 49% to 69% between 2009 and 2010. This results in a two thirds increase with an additional 68 candidates that passed QE II in comparison to 2009. The overall pass rate among Indians, African Blacks and Coloureds was 67% compared to the 52% achieved in 2009, which confirms that the SAICA initiated transformation initiatives are gaining momentum, as more successful black candidates emerge.

Matsobane Matlwa, CEO of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA), while congratulating all aspiring chartered accountants that passed the QE II examination, stressed that there was no let-up in the high standards demanded of prospective CAs(SA). "We know that maintenance of the high standards among CAs(SA) is what makes the designation so sought after across the globe."

Key statistics:

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - PART II OF THE QUALIFYING EXAMINATION: NOVEMBER 2010
2010	FAIL	PASS	TOTAL	% PASS
First timers	30	109	139	78.4%
Repeats	19	20	39	51.3%
Overall 2010	49	129	178	72.5%
�	�	�	�	�
2009	FAIL	PASS	TOTAL	% PASS
First timers	36	82	118	69.5%
Repeats	18	14	32	43.8%
Overall 2009	54	96	150	64.0%

The top ten:

PLACE	NAME	FIRM
1	Jan-Daniel Symington*	Nedbank Limited
2	Hendrik Willem Bogaards	Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd
3	Pirasath Parthipan	Standard Bank of South Africa
4	Jarred Charles Roberts	Investec Bank Ltd
5 (joint)	Elizabeth Agenbach	Investec Bank Ltd
5 (joint)	Rendani Ronald Muthelo	National Treasury
5 (joint)	Bradley Walter Smith	Nedbank Limited
8 (joint)	Mikateko Lientjie Mabasa	South African Revenue Services
8 (joint)	Zenhardt Siegfried Dedekind	Nedbank Limited
10	Wynand Jacobus Visser	Standard Bank of South Africa

With Honours*

Additional QE 2 statistics can be found on the SAICA website at www.saica.co.za.

Mr Jan-Daniel Symington from Nedbank Limited achieved honours (75% or higher) in the QE II, an immensely impressive achievement requiring talent and great commitment.

Three of the Top Ten candidates are Black (2 African and 1 Indian).

Mandi Olivier, SAICA's Senior Executive: Professional Development, is very impressed by the showing of the two candidates from the public sector who obtained joint fifth and joint eighth places respectively, in the overall top ten - a direct result of the public sector offering training facilities to prospective CAs(SA) since 2007. "The quality of the training at SARS and National Treasury suggests that they are on a par with the ability of private sector firms and corporations to deliver CAs(SA)."

"The market will now undoubtedly become aware of the quality training available to prospective CAs(SA) in the public sector� especially at such highly regarded institutions such as South African Revenue Services (SARS) and National Treasury", said Olivier.

General comments on the examination paper

1. Objective
In view of the primary objective of Part II of the Qualifying Examination (Financial Management) to test the integrated application of practical knowledge, candidates are tested on their ability to �

apply the knowledge specified in the subject areas set out in the prescribed syllabus;
identify, define and rank problems and issues;
analyse information;
address problems in an integrative manner;
exercise professional judgement;
evaluate alternatives and propose practical solutions that respond to the users' needs; and
communicate clearly and effectively.

2. Comments
From a review of candidates' answers to the two examination questions for the November 2010 examination, the following basic deficiencies were identified. These problems affected the overall performance of candidates, and it is a matter of concern that candidates annually make the same mistakes.

2.1. Layout and presentation
Candidates should allocate time to planning, layout and presentation of their answers before committing thought to paper, as the presentation marks account for approximately 5% of the total available marks. Marks are awarded for appropriate presentation, and candidates should answer questions in the required format, such as a letter, memorandum or report.

The quality of handwriting is also an ongoing problem and was of particular concern in this year's examination. It is crucial that candidates make use of proper language styles in presenting their answers as the use of "sms" language is an unacceptable form of communication for QE II.

2.2. Irrelevancy
Marks are awarded for quality, not quantity. Verbosity is no substitute for clear, concise, logical thinking and good presentation. Irrelevant knowledge will gain no marks.

2.3. Workings
It is essential that candidates show their workings and supply detailed computations to support the figures in their answers.

2.4. Recommendations/interpretations
Responses to these requirements are generally poor, either because candidates are unable to explain principles that they can apply numerically or because they are reluctant to commit themselves to one course of action. It is essential to make a recommendation when a question calls for it, and to support it with reasons.

2.5. Examination technique
Examination technique remains the key distinguishing feature between candidates that pass and those that fail. Many candidates did not address what was required by the questions and, for example, provided answers in the form of statements while calculations were required or presented financial statements where a discussion of the appropriate disclosure was required.

2.6. Basic numeracy skills
It was disappointing to note that many candidates did not display basic numeracy skills. We expect at this level that candidates are able to apply basic numeracy skills, particularly as they have already successfully completed Part I of the Qualifying Examination. Basic numeracy skills are important both in this exam and in practice, and it is important that candidates have a good grasp of these basic skills.

3. Application of knowledge
A serious problem experienced throughout the examination was that candidates were unable to apply their knowledge to the scenarios described in the questions. This is a major concern, because by the time candidates qualify for entrance to these examinations one would expect them to have assimilated the knowledge, at least to the extent of being able to apply it to simplified facts as set out in an examination question.

4. Overall comments on the paper
The examination paper was challenging overall and dealt with practical issues. It was clear from the analysis of the results that candidates found question 2 to be easier than question 1. However, the standard of Question 1 was appropriate and in line with prior years.

On the whole, comments received from universities were highly complementary on the overall paper and that the papers were of an appropriate standard for the QE II.

The examination paper covered a broad range of issues and was a fair test of candidates' ability to apply knowledge to specific scenarios. It was evident that candidates struggled with sections that required application of knowledge and/or original thought. Candidates' language usage displayed an average level of proficiency, with many spelling errors. Candidates should be careful of making contradictory statements in their answers, as this jeopardises their chances of achieving marks for logical argument.

Candidates performed poorly in the financial analysis section of the questions which required them to display a high level application. This is a concerning trend in exam performance where candidates generally are unable to apply their minds and indentify key issues in decision making.

Generally, the exam technique displayed by most candidates was disappointing. This would include:

not reading the requirements carefully;
dumping information in the hope that the examiner will award marks for something (this only irritates markers and the candidate wastes valuable time);
time management;
legible handwriting and setting out answers in a manner that is easy to read;
poor spelling and use of unintelligible abbreviations;
candidates' inability to apply their knowledge to the scenarios presented in the questions; and
clarity of expression.

In conclusion, a message to those who were unfortunately not successful in the examination:

"Start by doing what's necessary;
then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible"

St. Francis of Assisi

Please start preparing for next year's examination in good time � sufficient preparation and a review of the basics together with your training will stand you in good stead for the November 2011 examination!

Best of luck!