北京市ACCA考试成绩查询时间

正确答案：
(b) Unmodified auditor’s reports
Ethical and professional issues
■ An unmodified opinion means, inter alia, that:
– there are no material matters giving rise to disagreement with the auditor; and
– the auditor’s report does not include an emphasis of matter paragraph (e.g. regarding going concern).
■ By implication the auditor must have obtained sufficient appropriate evidence that notwithstanding the losses:
– the going concern basis is appropriate to Ayora’s financial statements and any related matters (e.g. parental
support) are adequately disclosed therein;
– goodwill in Chatam’s consolidated financial statements is not materially impaired.
■ Management’s written representation (that the goodwill is not impaired) must have been necessary (otherwise it should
not have been asked for). This means that Bartolome does not have sufficient other audit evidence. This seems dubious
as management should have carried out an impairment test to satisfy themselves that goodwill is not impaired. This
test should similarly have satisfied Bartolome.
■ If there is evidence that goodwill is impaired management’s refusal to write it down might be considered a fraud.
■ The matter may cast doubt on the quality of audit evidence obtained in other areas. All other matters on which
management representations have been obtained should be reviewed by another audit partner/manager.
■ Charles Barrington is retiring next year and his share options would presumably be worth less if goodwill were written
down. His position in this long-standing client suggests a familiarity threat.
■ Bartolome may be threatened by self-interest to accept the representation as sufficient in order to retain the client.
■ Bartolome may be unduly influenced by a combination of factors (familiarity and previous experience) and failing to
exercise the necessary degree of professional scepticism.
Implications for continuation with assignment
There is no reason why the audit should not be continued. However, a change in senior audit staff and audit manager may
be overdue. The unmodified auditor’s reports should be subject to a cold review and any quality control issues raised with
the staff who conducted the audit.

正确答案：
(c) A joint audit is when two or more audit firms are jointly responsible for giving the audit opinion. This is very common in a
group situation where the principal auditor is appointed jointly with the auditor of a subsidiary to provide a joint opinion on
the subsidiary’s financial statements. There are several advantages and disadvantages in a joint audit being performed.
Advantages
It can be beneficial in terms of audit efficiency for a joint audit to be conducted, especially in the case of a new subsidiary.
In this case, Lead & Co will have built up an understanding of Maxwell Co’s business, systems and controls, and financial
statement issues. It will be time efficient for the two firms of auditors to work together in order for Chien & Co to build up
knowledge of the new subsidiary. This is a key issue, as Chien & Co need to acquire a thorough understanding of the
subsidiary in order to assess any risks inherent in the company which could impact on the overall assessment of risk within
the group. Lead & Co will be able to provide a good insight into the company, and advise Chien & Co of the key risk areas
they have previously identified.
On the practical side, it seems that Maxwell Co is a significant addition to the group, as it is expected to increase operating
facilities by 40%. If Chien & Co were appointed as sole auditors to Maxwell Co it may be difficult for the audit firm to provide
adequate resources to conduct the audit at the same time as auditing the other group companies. A joint audit will allow
sufficient resources to be allocated to the audit of Maxwell Co, assuring the quality of the opinion provided.
If there is a tight deadline, as is common with the audit of subsidiaries, which should be completed before the group audit
commences, then having access to two firms’ resources should enable the audit to be completed in good time.
The audit should also benefit from an improvement in quality. The two audit firms may have different points of view, and
would be able to discuss contentious issues throughout the audit process. In particular, the newly appointed audit team will
have a ‘fresh pair of eyes’ and be able to offer new insight to matters identified. It should be easier to challenge management
and therefore ensure that the auditors’ position is taken seriously.
Tutorial note: Candidates may have referred to the recent debate over whether joint audits increase competition in the
profession. In particular, joint audits have been proposed as a way for ‘mid tier’ audit firms to break into the market of
auditing large companies and groups, which at the moment is monopolised by the ‘Big 4’. Although this does not answer
the specific question set, credit will be awarded for demonstration of awareness of this topical issue.
Disadvantages
For the client, it is likely to be more expensive to engage two audit firms than to have the audit opinion provided by one firm.
From a cost/benefit point of view there is clearly no point in paying twice for one opinion to be provided. Despite the audit
workload being shared, both firms will have a high cost for being involved in the audit in terms of senior manager and partner
time. These costs will be passed on to the client within the audit fee.
The two audit firms may use very different audit approaches and terminology. This could make it difficult for the audit firms
to work closely together, negating some of the efficiency and cost benefits discussed above. Problems could arise in deciding
which firm’s method to use, for example, to calculate materiality, design and pick samples for audit procedures, or evaluate
controls within the accounting system. It may be impossible to reconcile two different methods and one firm’s methods may
end up dominating the audit process, which then eliminates the benefit of a joint audit being conducted. It could be time
consuming to develop a ‘joint’ audit approach, based on elements of each of the two firms’ methodologies, time which
obviously would not have been spent if a single firm was providing the audit.
There may be problems for the two audit firms to work together harmoniously. Lead & Co may feel that ultimately they will
be replaced by Chien & Co as audit provider, and therefore could be unwilling to offer assistance and help.
Potentially, problems could arise in terms of liability. In the event of litigation, because both firms have provided the audit
opinion, it follows that the firms would be jointly liable. The firms could blame each other for any negligence which was
discovered, making the litigation process more complex than if a single audit firm had provided the opinion. However, it could
be argued that joint liability is not necessarily a drawback, as the firms should both be covered by professional indemnity
insurance.

正确答案：
(c) In order to assess the quality of patient care provided by the Dental Health Partnership the following performance measures
might be used:
– The percentage of ‘on time’ treatment of those patients who arrived prior to their appointment time would provide an
indication regarding the effectiveness of the scheduling of appointments by the Dental Health Partnership.
– the percentage of patient appointments which were re-arranged at the request of the Dental Health Partnership.
Rearranged appointments represent the provision of a lower level of service provision to clients who may, as a result,
switch to an alternative dental practice.
– the percentage of patients who return for treatment after their first appointment would provide an indication that they
were satisfied with the service they received.
– the percentage of patients who were able to gain an appointment at their preferred date and time is an indication of the
availability of the service to clients.
Note: Candidates were only required to discuss three measures.