2021年度ACCA考试FM知识点-风险调整的折现率

正确答案：
(c) There are many reasons that could be discussed in support of the view that net present value (NPV) is superior to other
investment appraisal methods.
NPV considers cash flows
This is the reason why NPV is preferred to return on capital employed (ROCE), since ROCE compares average annual
accounting profit with initial or average capital invested. Financial management always prefers cash flows to accounting profit,
since profit is seen as being open to manipulation. Furthermore, only cash flows are capable of adding to the wealth of
shareholders in the form. of increased dividends. Both internal rate of return (IRR) and Payback also consider cash flows.
NPV considers the whole of an investment project
In this respect NPV is superior to Payback, which measures the time it takes for an investment project to repay the initial
capital invested. Payback therefore considers cash flows within the payback period and ignores cash flows outside of the
payback period. If Payback is used as an investment appraisal method, projects yielding high returns outside of the payback
period will be wrongly rejected. In practice, however, it is unlikely that Payback will be used alone as an investment appraisal
method.
NPV considers the time value of money
NPV and IRR are both discounted cash flow (DCF) models which consider the time value of money, whereas ROCE and
Payback do not. Although Discounted Payback can be used to appraise investment projects, this method still suffers from the
criticism that it ignores cash flows outside of the payback period. Considering the time value of money is essential, since
otherwise cash flows occurring at different times cannot be distinguished from each other in terms of value from the
perspective of the present time.
NPV is an absolute measure of return
NPV is seen as being superior to investment appraisal methods that offer a relative measure of return, such as IRR and ROCE,
and which therefore fail to reflect the amount of the initial investment or the absolute increase in corporate value. Defenders
of IRR and ROCE respond that these methods offer a measure of return that is understandable by managers and which can
be intuitively compared with economic variables such as interest rates and inflation rates.
NPV links directly to the objective of maximising shareholders’ wealth
The NPV of an investment project represents the change in total market value that will occur if the investment project is
accepted. The increase in wealth of each shareholder can therefore be measured by the increase in the value of their
shareholding as a percentage of the overall issued share capital of the company. Other investment appraisal methods do not
have this direct link with the primary financial management objective of the company.
NPV always offers the correct investment advice
With respect to mutually exclusive projects, NPV always indicates which project should be selected in order to achieve the
maximum increase on corporate value. This is not true of IRR, which offers incorrect advice at discount rates which are less
than the internal rate of return of the incremental cash flows. This problem can be overcome by using the incremental yield
approach.
NPV can accommodate changes in the discount rate
While NPV can easily accommodate changes in the discount rate, IRR simply ignores them, since the calculated internal rate
of return is independent of the cost of capital in all time periods.
NPV has a sensible re-investment assumption
NPV assumes that intermediate cash flows are re-invested at the company’s cost of capital, which is a reasonable assumption
as the company’s cost of capital represents the average opportunity cost of the company’s providers of finance, i.e. it
represents a rate of return which exists in the real world. By contrast, IRR assumes that intermediate cash flows are reinvested
at the internal rate of return, which is not an investment rate available in practice,
NPV can accommodate non-conventional cash flows
Non-conventional cash flows exist when negative cash flows arise during the life of the project. For each change in sign there
is potentially one additional internal rate of return. With non-conventional cash flows, therefore, IRR can suffer from the
technical problem of giving multiple internal rates of return.

正确答案：
(c) (i) Organic Foods Ltd (OFL) with a market share of 6·66% is the market leader at 30 November 2005 and is forecast to
have a market share of 8% by 30 November 2007. Operating profits appear to be healthy and therefore it seems
reasonable to regard OFL as a current ‘strength’ of Diverse Holdings Plc. This is supported by the fact that OFL has built
up a very good reputation as a supplier of quality produce.
Haul Trans Ltd was acquired on 1 December 2005 and has a demonstrable record of recent profitability. It is noticeable
that the profitability of HTL is forecast to increase by 40% (excluding inflation) during its first two years of ownership.
No one organisation appears to dominate the market. Forecast profits are expected to grow significantly from an almost
static turnover and thus more information is required regarding how this increase in profitability is to be achieved.
Management may have identified opportunities for achieving significant cost savings and/or forming business
relationships with new and more profitable customers, while ceasing to service those customers who are less profitable.
Kitchen Appliances Ltd (KAL) has been identified as both a weakness and threat. KAL’s market is slowly contracting,
but its share is falling more quickly. It was almost the market leader at 30 November 2005. Judging by its fall in the
level of operating profit KAL is carrying heavy fixed costs which must make it more difficult to compete. Indeed, it is
forecast to make a loss during the year ending 30 November 2007. KAL has suffered from squeezed margins as a
consequence of competition from low cost imports. The situation may be further exacerbated as competition from abroad
intensifies.
Paper Supplies Ltd (PSL) has stood still in a growing market, one which is dominated by a single supplier. PSL appears
to be struggling to achieve any growth in turnover, profits and therefore cash flow. PSL cannot really compete with a
narrow range of products and only two customers.
Office Products Ltd (OPL) is growing but appears unable to increase its operating profit in % terms. It appears to be
operating in a high-growth market but unable to achieve a reasonable market share in spite of the fact that its products
are highly regarded by health and safety experts.

正确答案：
(b) Property is sometimes sold with a degree of continuing involvement by the seller so that the risks and rewards of ownership
have not been transferred. The nature and extent of the buyer’s involvement will determine how the transaction is accounted
for. The substance of the transaction is determined by looking at the transaction as a whole and IAS18 ‘Revenue’ requires
this by stating that where two or more transactions are linked, they should be treated as a single transaction in order to
understand the commercial effect (IAS18 paragraph 13). In the case of the sale of the hotel, theme park and casino, Norman
should not recognise a sale as the company continues to enjoy substantially all of the risks and rewards of the businesses,
and still operates and manages them. Additionally the residual interest in the business reverts back to Norman. Also Norman
has guaranteed the income level for the purchaser as the minimum payment to Conquest will be $15 million a year. The
transaction is in substance a financing arrangement and the proceeds should be treated as a loan and the payment of profits
as interest.
The principles of IAS18 and IFRIC13 ‘Customer Loyalty Programmes’ require that revenue in respect of each separate
component of a transaction is measured at its fair value. Where vouchers are issued as part of a sales transaction and are
redeemable against future purchases, revenue should be reported at the amount of the consideration received/receivable less
the voucher’s fair value. In substance, the customer is purchasing both goods or services and a voucher. The fair value of the
voucher is determined by reference to the value to the holder and not the cost to the issuer. Factors to be taken into account
when estimating the fair value, would be the discount the customer obtains, the percentage of vouchers that would be
redeemed, and the time value of money. As only one in five vouchers are redeemed, then effectively the hotel has sold goods
worth ($300 + $4) million, i.e. $304 million for a consideration of $300 million. Thus allocating the discount between the
two elements would mean that (300 ÷ 304 x $300m) i.e. $296·1 million will be allocated to the room sales and the balance
of $3·9 million to the vouchers. The deferred portion of the proceeds is only recognised when the obligations are fulfilled.
The recognition of government grants is covered by IAS20 ‘Accounting for government grants and disclosure of government
assistance’. The accruals concept is used by the standard to match the grant received with the related costs. The relationship
between the grant and the related expenditure is the key to establishing the accounting treatment. Grants should not be
recognised until there is reasonable assurance that the company can comply with the conditions relating to their receipt and
the grant will be received. Provision should be made if it appears that the grant may have to be repaid.
There may be difficulties of matching costs and revenues when the terms of the grant do not specify precisely the expense
towards which the grant contributes. In this case the grant appears to relate to both the building of hotels and the creation of
employment. However, if the grant was related to revenue expenditure, then the terms would have been related to payroll or
a fixed amount per job created. Hence it would appear that the grant is capital based and should be matched against the
depreciation of the hotels by using a deferred income approach or deducting the grant from the carrying value of the asset
(IAS20). Additionally the grant is only to be repaid if the cost of the hotel is less than $500 million which itself would seem
to indicate that the grant is capital based. If the company feels that the cost will not reach $500 million, a provision should
be made for the estimated liability if the grant has been recognised.

正确答案：

The Company Directors Disqualification Act (CDDA) 1986 was introduced to control individuals who persistently abused the various privileges that accompany incorporation, most particularly the privilege of limited liability. The Act applies to more than just directors and the court may make an order preventing any person (without leave of the court) from being:
(i) a director of a company;
(ii) a liquidator or administrator of a company;
(iii) a receiver or manager of a company’s property; or
(iv) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned with or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company.
The CDDA 1986 identifies three distinct categories of conduct, which may, and in some circumstances must, lead the court to disqualify certain persons from being involved in the management of companies.
(a) General misconduct in connection with companies
This first category involves the following:
(i) A conviction for an indictable offence in connection with the promotion, formation, management or liquidation of a company or with the receivership or management of a company’s property (s.2 of the CDDA 1986). The maximum period for disqualification under s.2 is five years where the order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction, and 15 years in any other case.

(ii) Persistent breaches of companies legislation in relation to provisions which require any return, account or other document to be filed with, or notice of any matter to be given to, the registrar (s.3 of the CDDA 1986). Section 3 provides that a person is conclusively proved to be persistently in default where it is shown that, in the five years ending with the date of the application, he has been adjudged guilty of three or more defaults (s.3(2) of the CDDA 1986). This is without prejudice to proof of persistent default in any other manner. The maximum period of disqualification under this section is five years.
(iii) Fraud in connection with winding up (s.4 of the CDDA 1986). A court may make a disqualification order if, in the course of the winding up of a company, it appears that a person:
(1) has been guilty of an offence for which he is liable under s.993 of the CA 2006, that is, that he has knowingly been a party to the carrying on of the business of the company either with the intention of defrauding the company’s creditors or any other person or for any other fraudulent purpose; or
(2) has otherwise been guilty, while an officer or liquidator of the company or receiver or manager of the property of the company, of any fraud in relation to the company or of any breach of his duty as such officer, liquidator, receiver or manager (s.4(1)(b) of the CDDA 1986).
The maximum period of disqualification under this category is 15 years.(b) Disqualification for unfitness
The second category covers:
(i) disqualification of directors of companies which have become insolvent, who are found by the court to be unfit to be directors (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Under s. 6, the minimum period of disqualification is two years, up to a maximum of 15 years;
(ii) disqualification after investigation of a company under Pt XIV of the CA 1985 (it should be noted that this part of the previous Act still sets out the procedures for company investigations) (s.8 of the CDDA 1986). Once again, the maximum period of disqualification is 15 years.
Schedule 1 to the CDDA 1986 sets out certain particulars to which the court is to have regard in deciding whether a person’s conduct as a director makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. In addition, the courts have given indications as to what sort of behaviour will render a person liable to be considered unfit to act as a company director. Thus, in Re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd (1988), it was stated that:
‘Ordinary commercial misjudgment is in itself not sufficient to justify disqualification. In the normal case, the conduct complained of must display a lack of commercial probity, although . . . in an extreme case of gross negligence or total incompetence, disqualification could be appropriate.’

(c) Other cases for disqualification
This third category relates to:
(i) participation in fraudulent or wrongful trading under s.213 of the Insolvency Act (IA)1986 (s.10 of the CDDA 1986);
(ii) undischarged bankrupts acting as directors (s.11 of the CDDA 1986); and
(iii) failure to pay under a county court administration order (s.12 of the CDDA 1986).
For the purposes of most of the CDDA 1986, the court has discretion to make a disqualification order. Where, however, a person has been found to be an unfit director of an insolvent company, the court has a duty to make a disqualification order (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Anyone who acts in contravention of a disqualification order is liable:
(i) to imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine, on conviction on indictment; or
(ii) to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, on conviction summarily (s.13 of the CDDA 1986).