In this knowledge question, candidates were required to list the possible contents of a management representation letter.

The question was worth 3 marks. The question had only one requirement verb, namely list. As six items were required in the answer, there was obviously six points to get worth 0.5 of a mark each. The verb list also implied literally listing the contents or headings of the letter.

Most candidates followed this guidance and provided a clear list of management representation letter contents. A minority of candidates again provided lengthy answers which were simply not required in this question.

Example comments provided and reasons why those comments did not obtain a pass standard are noted below:

Answer comment
“Auditor states the nature of the control weakness”

Examiners assessment of comment
This comment was indicative of confusion between a management representation letter and a management letter or letter of weakness. This was a common error in this question.

Answer comment
“Title, date, address of company, signature of director”.

Examiners assessment of comment
This answer was indicative of candidates not knowing the specific contents of a management representation letter. 0.5 of a mark was generally awarded for recognising that the letter came from the directors.

Other common errors included:
• As for 2a, writing too much
• Explaining the contents of other letters. In this respect, the engagement letter and management letter were listed by a significant minority of candidates.
• Including items in the answer that would not normally be included in a management letter. For example, calculation of accruals and prepayments or confirmation of a bank balance.

As with part (a) of this question, the overall standard was reasonable.