2021年度ACCA考试FR知识点-每股收益的优势与局限性

发布时间：2021-01-16

距离ACCA考试时间越来越近，为了大家更好的备考，51题库考试学习网今天为大家带来关于ACCA考试FR知识点的相关分享，希望能够帮到大家!

Advantages and disadvantages-EPS

Advantages

EPS promotes comparison of same entity in different periods and different entities in same period

EPS provides a more accurate indication of profitability by showing the trend of EPS from year to year

EPS helps to produce a stock market indicator of performance – P/E ratio

Disadvantages

It does not take account of inflation

It is based on historical information and therefore it does not necessarily have predictive value

The comparison of EPS may be affected by the choice of different accounting policies

Self-constructed assets :

(same principles as for acquired assets)

Materials

Direct labor costs

Direct attributable costs (normal level)

Excluding: Abnormal costs ( wasted material , labour or downtime costs)

An example: a company builds its own head office

以上就是51题库考试学习网为大家带来的关于ACCA考试每股收益的优势与局限性知识点的相关分享，希望大家能够认真学习，全身心备考，争取顺利通过ACCA考试。

下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题，供大家学习参考。

10 Which of the following factors would cause a company’s gearing ratio to fall?

1 A bonus issue of ordinary shares.

2 A rights issue of ordinary shares.

3 An issue of loan notes.

4 An upward revaluation of non-current assets.

A 1 and 3

B 2 and 3

C 1 and 4

D 2 and 4

正确答案：D

1 The scientists in the research laboratories of Swan Hill Company (SHC, a public listed company) recently made a very

important discovery about the process that manufactured its major product. The scientific director, Dr Sonja Rainbow,

informed the board that the breakthrough was called the ‘sink method’. She explained that the sink method would

enable SHC to produce its major product at a lower unit cost and in much higher volumes than the current process.

It would also produce lower unit environmental emissions and would substantially improve product quality compared

to its current process and indeed compared to all of the other competitors in the industry.

SHC currently has 30% of the global market with its nearest competitor having 25% and the other twelve producers

sharing the remainder. The company, based in the town of Swan Hill, has a paternalistic management approach and

has always valued its relationship with the local community. Its website says that SHC has always sought to maximise

the benefit to the workforce and community in all of its business decisions and feels a great sense of loyalty to the

Swan Hill locality which is where it started in 1900 and has been based ever since.

As the board considered the implications of the discovery of the sink method, chief executive Nelson Cobar asked

whether Sonja Rainbow was certain that SHC was the only company in the industry that had made the discovery and

she said that she was. She also said that she was certain that the competitors were ‘some years’ behind SHC in their

research.

It quickly became clear that the discovery of the sink method was so important and far reaching that it had the

potential to give SHC an unassailable competitive advantage in its industry. Chief executive Nelson Cobar told board

colleagues that they should clearly understand that the discovery had the potential to put all of SHC’s competitors out

of business and make SHC the single global supplier. He said that as the board considered the options, members

should bear in mind the seriousness of the implications upon the rest of the industry.

Mr Cobar said there were two strategic options. Option one was to press ahead with the huge investment of new plant

necessary to introduce the sink method into the factory whilst, as far as possible, keeping the nature of the sink

technology secret from competitors (the ‘secrecy option’). A patent disclosing the nature of the technology would not

be filed so as to keep the technology secret within SHC. Option two was to file a patent and then offer the use of the

discovery to competitors under a licensing arrangement where SHC would receive substantial royalties for the twentyyear

legal lifetime of the patent (the ‘licensing option’). This would also involve new investment but at a slower pace

in line with competitors. The licence contract would, Mr Cobar explained, include an ‘improvement sharing’

requirement where licensees would be required to inform. SHC of any improvements discovered that made the sink

method more efficient or effective.

The sales director, Edwin Kiama, argued strongly in favour of the secrecy option. He said that the board owed it to

SHC’s shareholders to take the option that would maximise shareholder value. He argued that business strategy was

all about gaining competitive advantage and this was a chance to do exactly that. Accordingly, he argued, the sink

method should not be licensed to competitors and should be pursued as fast as possible. The operations director said

that to gain the full benefits of the sink method with either option would require a complete refitting of the factory and

the largest capital investment that SHC had ever undertaken.

The financial director, Sean Nyngan, advised the board that pressing ahead with investment under the secrecy option

was not without risks. First, he said, he would have to finance the investment, probably initially through debt, and

second, there were risks associated with any large investment. He also informed the board that the licensing option

would, over many years, involve the inflow of ‘massive’ funds in royalty payments from competitors using the SHC’s

patented sink method. By pursuing the licensing option, Sean Nyngan said that they could retain their market

leadership in the short term without incurring risk, whilst increasing their industry dominance in the future through

careful investment of the royalty payments.

The non-executive chairman, Alison Manilla, said that she was looking at the issue from an ethical perspective. She

asked whether SHC had the right, even if it had the ability, to put competitors out of business.

Required:

(a) Assess the secrecy option using Tucker’s model for decision-making. (10 marks)

正确答案：
(a) Tucker’s framework
Is the decision:
Profitable? For SHC, the answer to this question is yes. Profits would potentially be substantially increased by the loss of all
of its competitors and the emergence of SHC, in the short to medium term at least, as a near monopolist.
Legal? The secrecy option poses no legal problems as it is a part of normal competitive behaviour in industries. In some
jurisdictions, legislation forbids monopolies existing in some industries but there is no indication from the case that this
restriction applies to Swan Hill Company.
Fair? The fairness of the secrecy option is a moral judgment. It is probably fair when judged from the perspective of SHC’s
shareholders but the question is the extent to which it is fair to the employees and shareholders of SHC’s competitors.
Right? Again, a question of ethical perspective. Is it right to pursue the subjugation of competitors and the domination of an
industry regardless of the consequences to competitors? The secrecy option may be of the most benefit to the local community
of Swan Hill that the company has traditionally valued.
Sustainable or environmentally sound? The case says that the sink method emits at a lower rate per unit of output than the
existing process but this has little to do with the secrecy option as the rates of emissions would apply if SHC licensed the
process. This is also an argument for the licensing option, however, as environmental emissions would be lower if other
competitors switched to the sink method as well. There may be environmental implications in decommissioning the old plant
to make way for the new sink method investment.

(b) Explain the corporation tax and value added tax (VAT) implications of the following aspects of the proposed

restructuring of the Rapier Ltd group.

(i) The immediate tax implications of the restructuring. (6 marks)

正确答案：
(b) The tax implications of the proposed restructuring of the Rapier Ltd group
(i) Immediate implications
Corporation tax
Rapier Ltd and its subsidiaries are in a capital gains group as Rapier Ltd owns at least 75% of the ordinary share capital
of each of the subsidiary companies. Any non-exempt items of plant and machinery owned by the subsidiaries will
therefore be transferred to Rapier Ltd at no gain, no loss.
No taxable credit or allowable debit will arise on the transfer of the subsidiaries’ goodwill to Rapier Ltd because the
companies are in a capital gains group.
The trading losses brought forward in Dirk Ltd will be transferred with the trade to Rapier Ltd as the effective ownership
of the three trades will not change (Rapier Ltd owns the subsidiaries which own the trades and, following the
restructuring, will own the three trades directly). The losses will be restricted to being offset against the future trading
profits of the Dirk trade only.
There will be no balancing adjustments in respect of the plant and machinery transferred to Rapier Ltd. Writing down
allowances will be claimed by the subsidiaries in respect of the year ending 30 June 2007 and by Rapier Ltd in respect
of future periods.
Value added tax (VAT)
No VAT should be charged on the sales of the businesses to Rapier Ltd as they are outside the scope of VAT. This is
because the trades are to be transferred as going concerns to a VAT registered person with no significant break in trading.
Switch Ltd must notify HM Revenue and Customs by 30 July 2007 that it has ceased to make taxable supplies.

(c) State the tax consequences for both Glaikit Limited and Alasdair if he borrows money from the company, as

proposed, on 1 January 2006. (3 marks)

正确答案：
(c) Alasdair is not employed, nor is he a director, of Glaikit Limited. As he holds 25% of the shares in Glaikit Limited, he is a
participator in a close company and therefore the special close company provisions will apply. Thus Alsadair will be taxed
under the ‘loans to participator’ rules.
When the loan is written off, the amount waived will be treated as a gross distribution of ￡16,667 (￡15,000 x 10/9). This
will be assessed in the tax year in which the loan is written off (expected to be 2006/07 or 2007/08). To the extent that this
additional income makes Alasdair a higher rate taxpayer in that year, he will have to pay additional income tax of 32·5% of
the gross amount, less the available 10% tax credit.
From the company’s perspective, Glaikit Limited will have to pay 25% of the net value of any loan made to Alasdair which
has not been repaid to the company (or written off) within nine months of the year end. As the loan will remain outstanding
as at 31 March 2006, Glaikit Limited will have to pay ￡3,750 (25% x ￡15,000) to the Revenue by 1 January 2007. This
amount will not be repaid until the loan is repaid or written off. This usually takes place nine months after the year end in
which the loan is written off, so Glaikit Limited should ensure that any write-off occurs prior to 31 March 2007, or else the
repayment may be delayed for up to one year.
As the loan is tax free, the Revenue may also seek to tax Alasdair under the beneficial loan rules. If the Revenue were to seek
an assessment in this manner, the value of the benefit would be calculated and taxed as a deemed distribution. However, as
Alasdair has no connection with the company other than as an investor, it is unlikely that the beneficial loan benefit will lead
to such a deemed distribution.

声明：本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传，本网站不拥有所有权，未作人工编辑处理，也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容，欢迎发送邮件至：contact@51tk.com 进行举报，并提供相关证据，工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你，一经查实，本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。

站内搜索
热门标签