你知道2020年3月ACCA考试成绩公布日吗？

正确答案：
(b) (i) Cost of investment on acquisition of Dylan Co
Matters to consider
According to the schedule provided by the client, the cost of investment comprises three elements. One matter to
consider is whether the cost of investment is complete.
It appears that no legal or professional fees have been included in the cost of investment (unless included within the
heading ‘cash consideration’). Directly attributable costs should be included per IFRS 3 Business Combinations, and
there is a risk that these costs may be expensed in error, leading to understatement of the investment.
The cash consideration of $2·5 million is the least problematical component. The only matter to consider is whether the
cash has actually been paid. Given that Dylan Co was acquired in the last month of the financial year it is possible that
the amount had not been paid before the year end, in which case the amount should be recognised as a current liability
on the statement of financial position (balance sheet). However, this seems unlikely given that normally control of an
acquired company only passes to the acquirer on cash payment.
IFRS 3 states that the cost of investment should be recognised at fair value, which means that deferred consideration
should be discounted to present value at the date of acquisition. If the consideration payable on 31 January 2009 has
not been discounted, the cost of investment, and the corresponding liability, will be overstated. It is possible that the
impact of discounting the $1·5 million payable one year after acquisition would be immaterial to the financial
statements, in which case it would be acceptable to leave the consideration at face value within the cost of investment.
Contingent consideration should be accrued if it is probable to be paid. Here the amount is payable if revenue growth
targets are achieved over the next four years. The auditor must therefore assess the probability of the targets being
achieved, using forecasts and projections of Maxwell Co’s revenue. Such information is inherently subjective, and could
have been manipulated, if prepared by the vendor of Maxwell Co, in order to secure the deal and maximise
consideration. Here it will be crucial to be sceptical when reviewing the forecasts, and the assumptions underlying the
data. The management of Rosie Co should have reached their own opinion on the probability of paying the contingent
consideration, but they may have relied heavily on information provided at the time of the acquisition.
Audit evidence
– Agreement of the monetary value and payment dates of the consideration per the client schedule to legal
documentation signed by vendor and acquirer.
– Agreement of $2·5 million paid to Rosie Co’s bank statement and cash book prior to year end. If payment occurs
after year end confirm that a current liability is recognised on the individual company and consolidated statement
of financial position (balance sheet).
– Board minutes approving the payment.
– Recomputation of discounting calculations applied to deferred and contingent consideration.
– Agreement that the discount rate used is pre-tax, and reflects current market assessment of the time value of money
(e.g. by comparison to Rosie Co’s weighted average cost of capital).
– Revenue and profit projections for the period until January 2012, checked for arithmetic accuracy.
– A review of assumptions used in the projections, and agreement that the assumptions are comparable with the
auditor’s understanding of Dylan Co’s business.
Tutorial note: As the scenario states that Chien & Co has audited Dylan Co for several years, it is reasonable to rely on
their cumulative knowledge and understanding of the business in auditing the revenue projections.

正确答案：

(c) (i) For the secrecy option
Important developments at SHC
This is an exciting time for the management and shareholders of Swan Hill Company. The research and development
staff at SHC have made a groundbreaking discovery (called the ‘sink method’) that will enable your company to produce
its major product at lower cost, in higher volumes and at a much higher quality than our competitors will be able to
using, as they do, the existing production technology. The sink process also produces at a lower rate of environmental
emissions which, as I’m sure shareholders will agree, is a very welcome development.
When considering the options following the discovery, your board decided that we should press ahead with the
investment needed to transform. the production facilities without offering the use of the technology to competitors under
a licensing arrangement. This means that once the new sink production comes on stream, SHC shareholders can, your
board believes, look forward to a significant strengthening of our competitive position.
The business case for this option is overwhelming. By pushing ahead with the investment needed to implement the sink
method, the possibility exists to gain a substantial competitive advantage over all of SHC’s competitors. It will place SHC
in a near monopolist position in the short term and in a dominant position long term. This will, in turn, give the company
pricing power in the industry and the likelihood of superior profits for many years to come. We would expect SHC to
experience substantial ‘overnight’ growth and the returns from this will reward shareholders’ loyalty and significantly
increase the value of the company. Existing shareholders can reasonably expect a significant increase in the value of
their holdings over the very short term and also over the longer term.
Ethical implications of the secrecy option
In addition to the overwhelming business case, however, there is a strong ethical case for the secrecy option. SHC
recognises that it is the moral purpose of SHC to make profits in order to reward those who have risked their own money
to support it over many years. Whilst some companies pursue costly programmes intended to serve multiple stakeholder
interests, SHC recognises that it is required to comply with the demands of its legal owners, its shareholders, and not
to dilute those demands with other concerns that will reduce shareholder returns. This is an important part of the agency
relationship: the SHC board will always serve the best economic interests of its shareholders: its legal owners. The SHC
board believes that any action taken that renders shareholder returns suboptimal is a threat to shareholder value and an
abuse of the agency position. Your board will always seek to maximise shareholder wealth; hence our decision to pursue
the secrecy option in this case. The secrecy option offers the possibility of optimal shareholder value and because
shareholders invest in SHC to maximise returns, that is the only ethical action for the board to pursue. Happily, this
option will also protect the employees’ welfare in SHC’s hometown of Swan Hill and demonstrate its commitment to the
locality. This, in turn, will help to manage two of the key value-adding resources in the company, its employees and its
reputation. This will help in local recruitment and staff retention in future years.
(ii) For the licensing option
Important developments at SHC
Your board was recently faced with a very difficult business and ethical decision. After the discovery by SHC scientists
of the groundbreaking sink production method, we had a choice of keeping the new production technology secret or
sharing the breakthrough under a licensing arrangement with our competitors. After a lengthy discussion, your board
decided that we should pursue the licensing option and I would like to explain our reasons for this on both business and
ethical grounds.
In terms of the business case for licensing, I would like shareholders to understand that although the secrecy option may
have offered SHC the possibility of an unassailable competitive advantage, in reality, it would have incurred a number
of risks. Because of the speed with which we would have needed to have acted, it would have necessitated a large
increase in our borrowing, bringing about a substantial change in our financial structure. This would, in turn, increase
liquidity pressures and make us more vulnerable to rising interest rates. A second risk with the secrecy option would
involve the security of the sink technology ‘secret’. If the sink process was leaked or discovered by competitors and
subsequently copied, our lack of a legally binding patent would mean we would have no legal way to stop them
proceeding with their own version of the sink process.
As well as avoiding the risks, however, the licensing option offers a number of specific business advantages. The royalties
from the licences granted to competitors are expected to be very large indeed. These will be used over the coming years
to extend our existing competitive advantage in the future. Finally, the ‘improvement sharing’ clause in the licensing
contract will ensure that the sink process will be improved and perfected with several manufacturers using the
technology at the same time. SHC’s sink production may, in consequence, improve at a faster rate than would have
been the case were we to have pursued the secrecy option.
Ethical implications of the licensing option
In addition to the business case, there is also a powerful ethical case for the decision we have taken. As a good,
responsible corporate citizen, Swan Hill Company acknowledges its many stakeholders and recognises the impacts that
a business decision has on others. Your board recognises that in addition to external stakeholders having influence over
our operations, our decisions can also affect others. In this case, we have carefully considered the likelihood that keeping
the new technology a secret from our competitors would radically reshape the industry. The superior environmental
performance of the sink process over existing methods will also mean that when fully adopted, the environmental
emissions of the entire industry will be reduced. SHC is very proud of this contribution to this reduction in overall
environmental impact.
There seems little doubt that the secrecy option would have had far-reaching and unfortunate effects upon our industry
and our competitors. The licensing option will allow competitors, and their employees and shareholders, to survive. It
is a compassionate act on our part and shows mercy to the other competitors in the industry. It recognises the number
of impacts that a business decision has and would be the fairest (and most just) option given the number of people
affected.

正确答案：
(c) Rights issue price = 2·45 x 0·8 = ￡1·96
Theoretical ex rights price = ((2 x 2·45) + (1 x 1·96))/3 = 6·86/3 = ￡2·29
New shares issued = 20m x 1/2 = 10 million
Funds raised = 1·96 x 10m = ￡19·6 million
After issue costs of ￡300,000 funds raised will be ￡19·3 million
Annual after-tax return generated by these funds = 19·3 x 0·09 = ￡1,737,000
New earnings of Merton plc = 1,737,000 + 4,500,000 = ￡6,237,000
New number of shares = 20m + 10m = 30 million
New earnings per share = 100 x 6,237,000/30,000,000 = 20·79 pence
New share price = 20·79 x 12 = ￡2·49
The weaknesses in this estimate are that the predicted return on investment of 9% may or may not be achieved: the priceearnings
ratio depends on the post investment share price, rather than the post investment share price depending on the
price-earnings ratio; the current earnings seem to be declining and this share price estimate assumes they remain constant;
in fact current earnings are likely to decline because the overdraft and annual interest are increasing but operating profit is
falling.
Expected gearing = 38/(60 + 19·3) = 47·9% compared to current gearing of 63%.
Including the overdraft, expected gearing = 46/(60 + 19·3) = 58% compared to 77%.
The gearing is predictably lower, but if the overdraft is included in the calculation the gearing of the company is still higher
than the sector average. The positive effect on financial risk could have a positive effect on the company’s share price, but
this is by no means certain.

正确答案：
4 Becker & Co
(a) Joint business arrangement
The business opportunity in respect of Murray Co could be lucrative if the market research is to be believed.
However, IFAC’s Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants states that a mutual business arrangement is likely to give rise
to self-interest and intimidation threats to independence and objectivity. The audit firm must be and be seen to be independent
of the audit client, which clearly cannot be the case if the audit firm and the client are seen to be working together for a
mutual financial gain.
In the scenario, two options are available. Firstly, Becker & Co could provide the audit client with finance to complete the
development and take the product to market. There is a general prohibition on audit firms providing finance to their audit
clients. This would create a clear financial self-interest threat as the audit firm would be receiving a return on investment from
their client. The Code states that if a firm makes a loan (or guarantees a loan) to a client, the self-interest threat created would
be so significant that no safeguard could reduce the threat to an acceptable level.
The provision of finance using convertible debentures raises a further ethical problem, because if the debentures are ultimately
converted to equity, the audit firm would then hold equity shares in their audit client. This is a severe financial self-interest,
which safeguards are unlikely to be able to reduce to an acceptable level.
The finance should not be advanced to Murray Co while the company remains an audit client of Becker & Co.
The second option is for a joint venture company to be established. This would be perceived as a significant mutual business
interest as Becker & Co and Murray Co would be investing together, sharing control and sharing a return on investment in
the form. of dividends. IFAC’s Code of Ethics states that unless the relationship between the two parties is clearly insignificant,
the financial interest is immaterial, and the audit firm is unable to exercise significant influence, then no safeguards could
reduce the threat to an acceptable level. In this case Becker & Co may not enter into the joint venture arrangement while
Murray Co is still an audit client.
The audit practice may consider that investing in the new electronic product is a commercial strategy that it wishes to pursue,
either through loan finance or using a joint venture arrangement. In this case the firm should resign as auditor with immediate
effect in order to eliminate any ethical problem with the business arrangement. The partners should carefully consider if the
potential return on investment will more than compensate for the lost audit fee from Murray Co.
The partners should also reflect on whether they want to diversify to such an extent – this investment is unlikely to be in an
area where any of the audit partners have much knowledge or expertise. A thorough commercial evaluation and business risk
analysis must be performed on the new product to ensure that it is a sound business decision for the firm to invest.
The audit partners should also consider how much time they would need to spend on this business development, if they
decided to resign as auditors and to go ahead with the investment. Such a new and important project could mean that they
take their focus off the key business i.e. the audit practice. They should consider if it would be better to spend their time trying
to compete effectively with the two new firms of accountants, trying to retain key clients, and to attract new accounting and
audit clients rather than diversify into something completely different.