hi,
Just going through the SFM paper of MAy, 10 i realised that SFM paper was actually MAFA for old syllabus. I think ICAI by mistake(or intentionally) interchanged the both papers. If we go by few examples say:
Q on Capital Budgetting of SFM was a repeat from MAfa old ;Q on Derivative was a repeat from Nov09 Mafa old
1 Q on M & A too ;Q on Forex too;Q on leasing on was straight forward;Q on EVA based M & A was straight forward
On the contrary i think Mafa Old was just horrible exept Q 1.
1 Q on M & A was tough; Q on Portfolio was not heard off in old syllabus(It is given new syllabus mat), Q on Swaps was unimaginable, Q on Forex part 3 was also really tough.
Just wanted to say :
y to Discriminate the old group.
y no consistency in level of toughness in new and old.
y no consistency with previous terms.
ICAI always says we want to make paperes more practical, but i dont see what is it doing to acheive it.
For example our accounts paper, no amalgamation but 2 sums on GW, 1 on HRA.
ICAI thinks super profit method is more important than Amalgamation.
In Auditing, there was soo much hype on revised SA. But in paper we got none of the revised Q.
In Law, 40 marks from Non Co Acts. In new syllabus only 30 Marks are allocated. If ICAi thinks that is more practical Y not do the same for Old Syllabus.
Again Q of inconsistency in planning and thought process.
Actually the paper pattern is based on tricks. Say in Audit everyone expected that Revised Sa will be asked esp Sa 315, ICAI also knew that students think that way, so no q were asked.
No amalgamation in Accounts. In Nov 09 there was a horrible sum on it. Everyone knew students will work hard on it, so ICAI decided to drop this too.
Law was ok i think.
Mafa the least said the better.
Comments please.
CAclubindia
