ACCA AFM December 2026: Why "NPV Is Positive, So Accept" Scores Almost Nothing

Writing "NPV is positive, so accept" earns almost nothing in AFM. The marks sit in what the number means, how fragile it is, and whether you'd stake the company's money on it.

What ACCA actually says

ACCA's own AFM useful-tips guidance is blunt: generic, rote-learnt answers gain minimal technical credit. It lists the repeat offenders: stating figures without interpreting them, listing risks without saying why they matter in this decision, and misreading the requirement.

For "advise", "recommend" or "evaluate" requirements, the guidance says your advice must be visibly based on your calculations, you should discuss the factors that complicate the decision, and you must justify the final recommendation. A number on its own is not advice.

It also tells you to challenge the scenario. If the board assumes 4% perpetual growth or a stable cost of capital, an unrealistic assumption is a mark waiting to be picked up, not a fact to copy down.

The stakes are real. Third-party trackers put AFM pass rates at roughly 44% to 46% across recent sittings, and ACCA's tips point to the narrative half of the paper as a place candidates drop marks, because they practise calculations and skip the writing.

Wrong answer vs right answer

Illustrative scenario: a project has a base-case NPV of +$2.4m, but 70% of the present value comes from the terminal value, which assumes 3% perpetual growth.

Wrong: "The NPV is positive at $2.4m so the project should be accepted."

Right: "The base-case NPV is +$2.4m, but around 70% of the value sits in the terminal value, which relies on 3% perpetual growth in a competitive market. At 1% growth the NPV falls to roughly zero, so the margin of safety is thin. I recommend acceptance only if the board can secure contracted revenues for the first three years, and I'd run a sensitivity on growth and the discount rate before committing capital."

Same calculation. The second answer interprets, challenges an assumption, and lands a conditional recommendation. That is where the professional skills marks live.

What to do

1. Use the three-part sentence. For every result: what it is, what drives it, what you'd do about it. If a sentence stops at the figure, it isn't finished.

2. Attack one assumption per scenario. Pick the most aggressive input (growth, exchange rate, discount rate, synergy) and say what happens if it is wrong.

3. Budget time for the writing. A good rule of thumb is 1 to 2 marks per relevant point. Match your narrative length to the marks, and stop polishing a calculation that is already worth full marks.

The bottom line

With a pass rate hovering in the mid-40s, the candidates who pass are rarely the ones with the prettiest spreadsheet. They're the ones who tell the board what the numbers mean.

A calculation tells the board what happened. Your advice tells them what to do.