技巧丨避免出现48、49分的尴尬情况，你需要这样做

正确答案：C
83,600 + 18,000 – 4,500 = 97,100

正确答案：C

正确答案：
(b) Illustration of use of analytical procedures as audit evidence
Tutorial note: Note that ‘as audit evidence’ requires consideration of substantive analytical procedures rather that the
identification of risks (relevant to part (a)).
Revenue
Analytical procedures may be used in testing revenue for completeness of recording (‘understatement’). The average selling
price of a vehicle in 2005 was $68,830 ($526·0 million ÷ 7,642 vehicles). Applying this to the number of vehicles sold
in 2006, might be projected to generate $698·8 million ($68,830 × 10,153) revenue from the sale of vehicles. The draft
financial statements therefore show a potential shortfall of $110·8 million ($(698·8 – 588·0) million) that is, 15·6%.
This should be investigated and substantiated through more detailed analytical procedures. For example, the number of
vehicles sold should be analysed into models and multiplied by the list price of each for a more accurate estimate of potential
revenue. The impact of discounts and other incentives (e.g. 0% finance) on the list prices should then be allowed for. If
recorded revenue for 2006 (as per draft income statement adjusted for cutoff and consignment inventories) is materially lower
than that calculated, detailed substantive procedures may be required in order to show that there is no material error.
‘Proof in total’/reasonableness tests
The material correctness, or otherwise, of income statement items (in particular) may be assessed through appropriate ‘proof
in total’ calculations (or ‘reasonableness’ tests). For example:
■ Employee benefits costs: the average number of employees by category (waged/salaried/apprenticed) × the average pay
rate for each might prove that in total $91·0 million (as adjusted to actual at 31 December 2006) is not materially
misstated. The average number of employees needs to be checked substantively (e.g. recalculated based on the number
of employees on each payroll) and the average pay rates (e.g. to rates agreed with employee representatives).
Tutorial note: An alternative reasonableness might be to take last year’s actual adjusted for 2006 numbers of
employees grossed-up for any pay increases during the year (pro-rated as necessary).
■ Depreciation: the cost (or net book value) of each category of asset × by the relevant straight-line (or reducing balance)
depreciation rate. If a ‘ballpark’ calculation for the year is materially different to the annual charge a more detailed
calculation can be made using monthly depreciation calculations. The cost (or net book value) on which depreciation
is calculated should be substantively tested, for example by agreeing brought forward balances to prior year working
papers and additions to purchase invoices (costings in respect of assets under construction).
Tutorial note: Alternatively, last year’s depreciation charge may be reconciled to this year’s by considering depreciation
rates applied to brought forward balances with adjustments for additions/disposals.
■ Interest income: an average interest rate for the year can be applied to the monthly balance invested (e.g. in deposit
accounts) and compared with the amount recognised for the year to 31 December 2006 (as adjusted for any accrued
interest per the bank letter for audit purposes). The monthly balances (or averages) on which the calculation is
performed should be substantiated to bank deposit statements.
■ Interest expense: if the cash balances do not go into overdraft then this may be similar expenses (e.g. prompt payment
discounts to customers). If this is to particular dealers then a proof in total might be to apply the discount rate to the
amounts invoiced to the dealer during the period.
Immaterial items
For immaterial items analytical procedures alone may provide sufficient audit evidence that amounts in the financial
statements are not materially misstated so that detailed substantive procedures are not required. For example, a comparison
of administration and distribution, maintenance and insurance costs for 2006 compared with 2005 may be sufficient to show
that material error is highly unlikely. If necessary, further reasonableness tests could be performed. For example, considering
insurance costs to value of assets insured or maintenance costs to costs of assets maintained.
Ratio analysis
Ratio analysis can provide substantive evidence that income statement and balance sheet items are not materially misstated
by considering their inter-relationships. For example:
■ Asset turnover: Based on the draft financial statements property, plant and equipment has turned over 5·2 times
($645·5/124·5) compared with 5·9 times in 2005. This again highlights that income may be overstated, or assets
overstated (e.g. if depreciation is understated).
■ Inventory turnover: Using cost of materials adjusted for changes in inventories this has remained stable at 10·9 times.
Tutorial note: This is to be expected as in (a) the cost in the income statement has increased by 9% and the value of
inventories by 8·5%.
Inventories represent the smallest asset value on the balance sheet at 31 December 2006 (7·8% of total assets).
Therefore substantive procedures may be limited to agreeing physical count of material items (vehicles) and agreeing
cutoff.
■ Average collection period: This has increased to 41 days (73·1/645·5 × 365) from 30 days. Further substantive analysis
is required, for example, separating out non-current amounts (for sales on 0% finance terms). Substantive procedures
may be limited to confirmation of amounts due from dealers (and/or receipt of after-date cash) and agreeing cutoff of
goods on consignment.
■ Payment periods: This has remained constant at 37 days (2005 – 38 days). Detailed substantive procedures may be
restricted to reconciling only major suppliers’ statements and agreeing the cutoff on parts purchased from them.

正确答案：

(b) Carrying out a systematic PESTEL analysis is a key step in developing alternative scenarios about the future. Johnson and
Scholes define scenarios as ‘detailed and plausible views of how the business environment of an organisation might develop
in the future based on groupings of key environmental influences and drivers of change about which there is a high level of
uncertainty’. In developing scenarios it is necessary to isolate the key drivers of change, which have the potential to have a
significant impact on the company and are associated with high levels of uncertainty. Development of scenarios enables
managers to share assumptions about the future and the key variables shaping that future. This provides an opportunity for
real organisational learning. They are then in a position to monitor these key variables and amend strategies accordingly. It
is important to note that different stakeholder groups will have different expectations about the future and each may provide
a key input to the process of developing scenarios. By their very nature scenarios should not attempt to allocate probabilities
to the key factors and in so doing creating ‘spurious accuracy’ about those factors. A positive scenario is shown below and

should provide a shared insight into the external factors most likely to have a significant impact on Airtite‘s future strategy.
For most companies operating in global environments the ability to respond flexibly and quickly to macro-environmental
change would seem to be a key capability.
The scenario as illustrated below, clearly could have a major impact on the success or otherwise of Airtite’s strategy for the
future. The key drivers for change would seem to be the link between technology and global emissions, fuel prices and the
stability of the global political environment. Through creating a process which considers the drivers which will have most
impact on Airtite and which are subject to the greatest uncertainty, Airtite will have a greater chance of its strategy adaptingto changing circumstances.