ACCA考试继续教育有哪些途径？

正确答案：
(ii) Disadvantages of an EVA approach to the measurement of financial performance include:
(i) The calculation of EVA may be complicated due to the number of adjustments required.
(ii) It is difficult to use EVA for inter-firm and inter-divisional comparisons because it is not a ratio measure.
(iii) Economic depreciation is difficult to estimate and conflicts with generally accepted accounting principles.
Note: Other relevant discussion would be acceptable.

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：
(d) Job rotation is an important training method and is often also seen as a means of motivation. It involves moving the trainee from one job to another and is therefore more suitable for lower level employees. The trainee is required to do different jobs in logical succession, thus broadening experience and gaining a picture of the organisation’s wider activities.

正确答案：
3 KEFFLER CO
Tutorial note: None of the issues have any bearing on revenue. Therefore any materiality calculations assessed on revenue are
inappropriate and will not be awarded marks.
(a) Landfill site
(i) Matters
■ $1·1m cost of the right represents 3·3% of total assets and is therefore material.
■ The right should be amortised over its useful life, that is just 10 years, rather than the 15-year period for which
the right has been granted.
Tutorial note: Recalculation on the stated basis (see audit evidence) shows that a 10-year amortisation has been
correctly used.
■ The amortisation charge represents 1% of profit before tax (PBT) and is not material.
■ The amortisation method used should reflect the pattern in which the future economic benefits of the right are
expected to be consumed by Keffler. If that pattern cannot be determined reliably, the straight-line method must
be used (IAS 38 ‘Intangible Assets’).
■ Using an increasing sum-of-digits will ‘end-load’ the amortisation charge (i.e. least charge in the first year, highest
charge in the last year). However, according to IAS 38 there is rarely, if ever, persuasive evidence to support an
amortisation method that results in accumulated amortisation lower than that under the straight-line method.
Tutorial note: Over the first half of the asset’s life, depreciation will be lower than under the straight-line basis
(and higher over the second half of the asset’s life).
■ On a straight line basis the annual amortisation charge would be $0·11m, an increase of $90,000. Although this
difference is just below materiality (4·5% PBT) the cumulative effect (of undercharging amortisation) will become
material.
■ Also, when account is taken of the understatement of cost (see below), the undercharging of amortisation will be
material.
■ The sum-of-digits method might be suitable as an approximation to the unit-of-production method if Keffler has
evidence to show that use of the landfill site will increase annually.
■ However, in the absence of such evidence, the audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement with the
amortisation method (resulting in intangible asset overstatement/amortisation expense understatement).
■ The annual restoration provision represents 5% of PBT and 0·3% of total assets. Although this is only borderline
material (in terms of profit), there will be a cumulative impact.
■ Annual provisioning is contrary to IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’.
■ The estimate of the future restoration cost is (presumably) $1·5m (i.e. $0·1 × 15). The present value of this
amount should have been provided in full in the current year and included in the cost of the right.
■ Thus the amortisation being charged on the cost of the right (including the restoration cost) is currently understated
(on any basis).
Tutorial note: A 15-year discount factor at 10% (say) is 0·239. $1·5m × 0·239 is approximately $0·36m. The
resulting present value (of the future cost) would be added to the cost of the right. Amortisation over 10 years
on a straight-line basis would then be increased by $36,000, increasing the difference between amortisation
charged and that which should be charged. The lower the discount rate, the greater the understatement of
amortisation expense.
Total amount expensed ($120k) is less than what should have been expensed (say $146k amortisation + $36k
unwinding of discount). However, this is not material.
■ Whether Keffler will wait until the right is about to expire before restoring the land or might restore earlier (if the
site is completely filled in 10 years).
(ii) Audit evidence
■ Written agreement for purchase of right and contractual terms therein (e.g. to make restoration in 15 years’ time).
■ Cash book/bank statement entries in April 2005 for $1·1m payment.
■ Physical inspection of the landfill site to confirm Keffler’s use of it.
■ Annual dump budget/projection over next 10 years and comparison with sum-of-digits proportions.
■ Amount actually dumped in the year (per dump records) compared with budget and as a percentage/proportion of
the total available.
■ Recalculation of current year’s amortisation based on sum-of-digits. That is, $1·1m ÷ 55 = $20,000.
Tutorial note: The sum-of-digits from 1 to 10 may be calculated long-hand or using the formula n(n+1)/2 i.e.
(10 × 11)/2 = 55.
■ The basis of the calculation of the estimated restoration costs and principal assumptions made.
■ If estimated by a quantity surveyor/other expert then a copy of the expert’s report.
■ Written management representation confirming the planned timing of the restoration in 15 years (or sooner).