How to pass CMA Part 2: a complete preparation plan
Prepare for CMA Part 2 by connecting financial statement analysis, corporate finance and business decision analysis, then applying risk, investment and ethics judgments. Build cash-flow timelines and explicit assumptions before calculating. Keep scenario practice in the weekly routine.
| Phase | Part 2 priority | Evidence to produce |
|---|---|---|
| Foundations | Statements and financial analysis | Explain what a ratio change means and what could distort it. |
| Decision engine | Finance, CVP and relevant costs | Model the incremental effect of an alternative. |
| Judgment | Risk, investments and ethics | Make a supported choice and state its limiting assumption. |
| Final review | Mixed work and scenarios | Reproduce the method under time pressure with fresh inputs. |
The 12-week Part 2 plan
This is an illustrative plan for one selected part: 12 weeks × 12 hours = 144 hours, followed by six buffer days. It is not an IMA minimum, a promise that 144 hours is sufficient, or a plan to complete both parts simultaneously.
| Week | Hours | Topic focus | Practice and review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 · days 1-7 | 12 hours | Financial statements, cash flow and ratio foundations | 6h learn/apply · 4h questions and scenario work · 2h cumulative review |
| Week 2 · days 8-14 | 12 hours | Ratio interpretation and comparability | 6h learn/apply · 4h questions and scenario work · 2h cumulative review |
| Week 3 · days 15-21 | 12 hours | Working capital and short-term funding | 6h learn/apply · 4h questions and scenario work · 2h cumulative review |
| Week 4 · days 22-28 | 12 hours | Cost of capital and financing choices | 6h learn/apply · 4h questions and scenario work · 2h cumulative review |
| Week 5 · days 29-35 | 12 hours | CVP, relevant costs and special orders | 6h learn/apply · 4h questions and scenario work · 2h cumulative review |
| Week 6 · days 36-42 | 12 hours | Product mix, pricing and constraints | 6h learn/apply · 4h questions and scenario work · 2h cumulative review |
| Week 7 · days 43-49 | 12 hours | Enterprise risk and responses | 6h learn/apply · 4h questions and scenario work · 2h cumulative review |
| Week 8 · days 50-56 | 12 hours | Capital budgeting and dated cash flows | 6h learn/apply · 4h questions and scenario work · 2h cumulative review |
| Week 9 · days 57-63 | 12 hours | Professional ethics and cumulative review | 6h learn/apply · 4h questions and scenario work · 2h cumulative review |
| Week 10 · days 64-70 | 12 hours | Mixed practice and full-format rehearsal | 4h rehearsal or repair · 6h diagnosis and retest · 2h recall and logistics |
| Week 11 · days 71-77 | 12 hours | Repair the rehearsal errors and retest | 4h rehearsal or repair · 6h diagnosis and retest · 2h recall and logistics |
| Week 12 · days 78-84 | 12 hours | Second rehearsal, final repairs and taper | 4h rehearsal or repair · 6h diagnosis and retest · 2h recall and logistics |
Part 2 checkpoints that expose weak understanding
These tasks are original editorial checkpoints based on the official outcome scope. They are not official exam questions or guaranteed question predictions.
| Topic | You should be able to... | Common trap |
|---|---|---|
| Analysis | Explain how accounting choices affect comparisons. | Ranking firms on one ratio in isolation. |
| Finance | Match financing costs and cash-flow definitions. | Mixing pretax and after-tax inputs. |
| Decisions | Identify avoidable costs and capacity opportunity cost. | Including allocated common costs that will not change. |
| Investment | Place tax, working capital and disposal flows in time. | Discounting all cash flows as if they occur immediately. |
| Ethics | Name the issue and a proportionate resolution step. | Jumping to an unsupported public disclosure. |
What to produce before leaving each Part 2 phase
In the analysis phase, write a short explanation of a ratio change, including alternative causes and comparability limits. In the finance phase, connect the funding choice to the cash need and risk. A technically correct ratio or rate is incomplete when the interpretation uses incompatible inputs.
In decision analysis, build an incremental table with capacity and opportunity cost visible. In investments, draw the dated cash-flow timeline before discounting. For risk and ethics, produce a justified response to specific facts instead of reciting a framework without an action.
Let the failed output determine the repair. If your NPV method is correct but the cash flows are wrong, practise selecting incremental flows. If you can identify an ethical standard but cannot choose a next step, compare actions against policy, confidentiality and the facts supplied by the case.
Example: change the Part 2 review allocation after a rehearsal
The final weeks should respond to evidence without abandoning whole-syllabus coverage. Categorize misses by cause, then choose a small number of repairs that can be retested. Reserve time for strong domains too, because familiarity can fade when all attention goes to one weakness.
Suppose a rehearsal exposes incorrect project cash flows and weak financial-statement interpretations, while contribution calculations are stable. The table gives one possible twelve-hour repair week. The investment weight alone does not determine how much repair time this candidate needs.
| Work block | Hours | Exit evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Project cash-flow repair | 3 | Working capital, tax and terminal flows sit at the correct dates. |
| Ratio interpretation | 2 | Explain a change using evidence and plausible alternatives. |
| Mixed MCQs across all domains | 3 | Include risk and ethics as well as calculation-heavy topics. |
| Applicable scenario practice | 2 | State the decision and assumptions, then complete the outputs. |
| Delayed retests and planning | 2 | The repair survives a fresh task and a time limit. |
Checkpoint: rank by the scarce resource
Solve before reading the working, then change one input and repeat.
Original worked example
Product A earns $36 contribution using 3 machine hours. Product B earns $28 using 2 hours. With one constrained machine and sufficient demand, which gets priority?
B: $28 / 2 = $14 per machine hour, compared with A at $36 / 3 = $12.
The higher contribution per unit is not the right ranking when machine time is scarce. This conclusion assumes no other constraint or relevant product-mix interaction.
Use evidence to adjust the plan
Advance when you can explain the method and apply it to fresh inputs. A calendar, repeated-question score or confidence rating cannot certify readiness.
| Evidence | Interpretation | Next action |
|---|---|---|
| Correct answer but no explanation | Possibly recall or a guess | Rebuild the reasoning without choices. |
| Repeated setup errors | The model or units are not secure | Work a small untimed example, then a changed-input retest. |
| Accurate but unfinished timed work | Pacing needs rehearsal | Use timed mixed blocks with explicit checkpoints. |
| Errors across several domains | The remaining calendar may be too short | Extend the runway and check official rescheduling rules before committing. |
Common questions
- Is Part 2 easier?
- There is no universal answer. Compare your recent experience with the six domains and attempt fresh problems. Familiarity in one topic does not remove the need to cover the others.
- Is 12 weeks enough?
- It depends on your starting knowledge, available hours and progress on fresh tasks. The schedule is an example, not a validated minimum. Extend it if several domains still need repair.
- Should I leave scenarios until the end?
- No. Include small scenario tasks throughout, using CBQs or essays as required by your booked sitting. MCQ familiarity alone does not rehearse the required response format.
Sources and editorial notes
Source check: . MiloPrep editorial team. Official facts and provider offer claims are identified below. Study schedules, examples and recommendations are editorial; they are not official questions, a required study-hour total or a passing guarantee.
- IMA Content Specification Outlines (PDF) ↗
Effective September 2024; page 5 lists the twelve domain weights. Use the newer handbook for question format.
- IMA Learning Outcome Statements (PDF) ↗
Expected knowledge and application within each domain; not a question bank or a study-hour requirement.
- IMA CMA Handbook, March 2026 (PDF) ↗
Pages 4-6: certification deadlines; 7-9: format, windows, older registration cutoffs and appointment changes; 10-13: exam day, scoring and reports. The current CBQ purchase page describes a different, eight-month authorization period.
- IMA certification steps and resources ↗
Part order, recurring windows and certification steps. Its brief deadline summary conflicts with the detailed handbook; see the requirements guide.
- IMA English CBQ purchase and eligibility window ↗
Current purchase page: eight months from invoice purchase date to sit; eligibility dates confirmed in Prometric. This differs from the March handbook’s fixed-window registration wording.
MiloPrep is an independent study resource and is not affiliated with or endorsed by IMA or the providers discussed. Editorial methodology · About the editorial team.
Notes
- * Quick answers: This preparation sequence is editorial. IMA defines the syllabus and exam rules, not these phases or study hours. Taking the exam in 2027? Choose a January/February, May/June or September/October target using IMA’s annual pattern, then check the language-specific format and actual authorization dates. The blueprint guide has the booking, fee and result planning tables. ↩ Return to content