备考资料：2020年ACCA考试审计与认证业务知识点(3)

正确答案：
5 Dexter Co
(a) Responsibilities of management and auditors
Responsibilities
ISA 570 Going Concern provides a clear framework for the assessment of the going concern status of an entity, and
differentiates between the responsibilities of management and of auditors. Management should assess going concern in order
to decide on the most appropriate basis for the preparation of the financial statements. IAS 1 Presentation of Financial
Statements (revised) requires that where there is significant doubt over an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, the
uncertainties should be disclosed in a note to the financial statements. Where the directors intend to cease trading, or have
no realistic alternative but to do so, the financial statements should be prepared on a ‘break up’ basis.
Thus the main focus of the management’s assessment of going concern is to ensure that relevant disclosures are made where
necessary, and that the correct basis of preparation is used.
The auditor’s responsibility is to consider the appropriateness of the management’s use of the going concern assumption in
the preparation of the financial statements and to consider whether there are material uncertainties about the entity’s ability
to continue as a going concern that need to be disclosed in a note.
The auditor should also consider the length of the time period that management have looked at in their assessment of going
concern.
The auditor will therefore need to come to an opinion as to the going concern status of an entity but the focus of the auditor’s
evaluation of going concern is to see whether they agree with the assessment made by the management. Therefore whether
they agree with the basis of preparation of the financial statements, or the inclusion in a note to the financial statements, as
required by IAS 1, of any material uncertainty.
Evaluation techniques
In carrying out the going concern assessment, management will evaluate a wide variety of indicators, including operational
and financial. An entity employing good principles of corporate governance should be carrying out such an assessment as
part of the on-going management of the business.
Auditors will use a similar assessment technique in order to come to their own opinion as to the going concern status of an
entity. They will carry out an operational review of the business in order to confirm business understanding, and will conduct
a financial review as part of analytical procedures. Thus both management and auditors will use similar business risk
assessment techniques to discover any threats to the going concern status of the business.
Auditors should not see going concern as a ‘completion issue’, but be alert to issues affecting going concern throughout the
audit. In the same way that management should continually be managing risk (therefore minimising going concern risk),
auditors should be continually be alert to going concern problems throughout the duration of the audit.
However, one difference is that when going concern problems are discovered, the auditor is required by IAS 570 to carry out
additional procedures. Examples of such procedures would include:
– Analysing and discussing cash flow, profit and other relevant forecasts with management
– Analysing and discussing the entity’s latest available interim financial statements
– Reviewing events after the period end to identify those that either mitigate or otherwise affect the entity’s ability to
continue as a going concern, and
– Reading minutes of meetings of shareholders, those charged with governance and relevant committees for reference to
financing difficulties.
Management are not explicitly required to gather specific evidence about going concern, but as part of good governance would
be likely to investigate and react to problems discovered.

正确答案：

(c) Issue of bond
This form. of financing a football club’s operations is known as ‘securitisation’. Often in these cases a special purpose vehicle
is set up to administer the income stream or assets involved. In this case, a special purpose vehicle has not been set up. The
benefit of securitisation of the future corporate hospitality sales and season ticket receipts is that there will be a capital
injection into the club and it is likely that the effective interest rate is lower because of the security provided by the income
from the receipts. The main problem with the planned raising of capital is the way in which the money is to be used. The
use of the bond for ground improvements can be commended as long term cash should be used for long term investment but
using the bond for players’ wages will cause liquidity problems for the club.
This type of securitisation is often called a ‘future flow’ securitisation. There is no existing asset transferred to a special purpose
vehicle in this type of transaction and, therefore, there is no off balance sheet effect. The bond is shown as a long term liability
and is accounted for under IAS39 ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’. There are no issues of
derecognition of assets as there can be in other securitisation transactions. In some jurisdictions there are legal issues in
assigning future receivables as they constitute an unidentifiable debt which does not exist at present and because of this
uncertainty often the bond holders will require additional security such as a charge on the football stadium.
The bond will be a financial liability and it will be classified in one of two ways:
(i) Financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss include financial liabilities that the entity either has incurred for
trading purposes and, where permitted, has designated to the category at inception. Derivative liabilities are always
treated as held for trading unless they are designated and effective as hedging instruments. An example of a liability held
for trading is an issued debt instrument that the entity intends to repurchase in the near term to make a gain from shortterm
movements in interest rates. It is unlikely that the bond will be classified in this category.
(ii) The second category is financial liabilities measured at amortised cost. It is the default category for financial liabilities
that do not meet the criteria for financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss. In most entities, most financial
liabilities will fall into this category. Examples of financial liabilities that generally would be classified in this category are
account payables, note payables, issued debt instruments, and deposits from customers. Thus the bond is likely to be
classified under this heading. When a financial liability is recognised initially in the balance sheet, the liability is
measured at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which a liability can be settled between knowledgeable, willing
parties in an arm’s length transaction. Since fair value is a market transaction price, on initial recognition fair value will
usually equal the amount of consideration received for the financial liability. Subsequent to initial recognition financial
liabilities are measured using amortised cost or fair value. In this case the company does not wish to use valuation
models nor is there an active market for the bond and, therefore, amortised cost will be used to measure the bond.
The bond will be shown initially at $50 million × 95%, i.e. $47·5 million as this is the consideration received. Subsequentlyat 31 December 2007, the bond will be shown as follows:

正确答案：
(b)Thealgebraicmodelrequiresseveralassumptionstobetrue.First,theremustbeaconsistentrelationshipbetweenprice(P)anddemand(Q),sothatademandequationcanbeestablished,usuallyintheform.P=a–bQ.Here,althoughthereisaclearrelationshipbetweenthetwo,itisnotaperfectlylinearrelationshipandsomorecomplicatedtechniquesarerequiredtocalculatethedemandequation.ItalsocannotbeassumedthatalinearrelationshipwillholdforallvaluesofPandQotherthanthefivegiven.Similarly,theremustbeaclearrelationshipbetweendemandandmarginalcost,usuallysatisfiedbyconstantvariablecostperunitandconstantfixedcosts.Thechangingvariablecostsperunitagaincomplicatetheissue,butitisthechangesinfixedcostswhichmakethealgebraicmethodlessusefulinJewel’scase.Thealgebraicmodelisonlysuitableforcompaniesoperatinginamonopolyanditisnotclearherewhetherthisisthecase,butitseemsunlikely,soany‘optimum’pricemightbecomeirrelevantifJewel’scompetitorschargesignificantlylowerprices.Othermoregeneralfactorsnotconsideredbythealgebraicmodelarepoliticalfactorswhichmightaffectimports,socialfactorswhichmayaffectcustomertastesandeconomicfactorswhichmayaffectexchangeratesorcustomerspendingpower.Thereliabilityoftheestimatesthemselves–forsalesprices,variablecostsandfixedcosts–couldalsobecalledintoquestion.

正确答案：
(iii) If attendance = 100 then management would opt for room size A which would produce a contribution of ￡832,000 x
0·2 = ￡166,400.
If attendance = 200 then management would opt for room size B which would produce a contribution of ￡2,163,200
x 0·5 = ￡1,081,600.
If attendance = 400 then management would opt for room size D which would produce a contribution of ￡6,656,000
x 0·3 = ￡1,996,800.
Therefore the expected value of perfect information would be the sum of the expected values of the three possible
outcomes which amounts to ￡3,244,800. Thus, if the information is correct then management should be willing to pay
up to ￡3,244,800 – ￡1,497,600 = ￡1,747,200 for the information. In practice, it is unlikely that perfect information
is obtainable. The management of Envico Ltd are really buying an information system that will provide them with a signal
which may prove to be correct or incorrect! For example, the consultants may predict that demand will be for 300
seminar places, however there still remains the fact that there is a likelihood of actual demand being for either 100,
200 or 400 seminar places. One should be mindful that imperfect information which may be, say only 75% reliable,
might still be worth obtaining. Other than when the value of imperfect and perfect information are equal to zero, the
value of perfect information will always be greater than the value of imperfect information.