YOUR CART

  • BOOK CHILDREN

    1 x $ 254,00

  • BOOK FOR KIDS

    1 x $ 254,00

SUBTOTAL: $ 754,00

FILTER PRICE

BEST BOOKS

  • BOOK STUDENT

  • BOOK EDUCATION

  • BOOK PRIMARY

SEARCH YOUR BOOKS

PRODUCTS TAGS

The "Dont's" of Case Writing

Published March 1, 2016 by Michael Levi

A while back we wrote about what "to do" when writing a case.  We put together our top 10 list of "Do's" to maximize your chances to get competent and get the marker on your side.

In our CFE prep course we stress both what candidates should do and should not do.  Sometimes the "don'ts" are even more important as one loses credibility when doing a lot of the wrong things.

So now....let's look at the other side.  What should you "not do"?  What irritates markers and wastes valuable time?

Here is our top ten list of "Dont's" when you are writing a case:

1.   Not enough use of case facts throughout the response


2.  Confusing quantitative and qualitative discussion.  Candidates think they are providing a balanced response between quants and qualitative, but much of what they think constitutes qualitative analysis, is really quantitative


3.  Avoiding or addressing in a very superficial manner, more complicated accounting topics


4.  Not using the relevant sources of technical information available – i.e. the Handbook


5.  Attempting to discuss alternatives where none exist or inventing alternatives that are impractical or unrealistic


6.  Not enough elaboration on assumptions in quantitative schedules


7.   For assurance – (a) creating procedures that do not address risk areas identified; (b) identifying assertions and then providing a procedure that does not address the assertion; (c) providing insufficient detail on how to perform the procedure, so the marker is unsure if the candidate actually understands how to perform the test/procedure; and (d) failing to consider user needs when discussing reporting options – discussion is too dumpy


8.  When discussing controls, inability to consistently discuss both the implications and recommendations for control weaknesses


9.  Inadequate technical knowledge for taxation


10. Considerable difficulty in identifying pervasive issues, particularly where a high degree of integration is necessary  


So there you have it.  Stay away from these pitfalls and your response will be much more focused and the marker will start to give you the benefit of the doubt when things can go either way.

COMMENTS

SHARE THIS PAGE