听说ACCA考试挺难，是真的吗？

正确答案：
(b) International Standards on Auditing (ISAs)
The groundwork for an international set of auditing standards began in 1969 with a number of reports published by the
Accountants International Study Group that compared the situation in Canada, the UK, and US. The establishment of the
International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), in 1973, generated calls for a similar body to be set up for auditing.
In the late 1970s the Council of International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) created the International Auditing Practices
Committee (IAPC) as a standing committee of the IFAC Council. (Subsequently the IFAC Board.)
Tutorial note: The IFAC Council was renamed the IFAC Board in May 2000.
The first ISA was issued in 1991. The codified core set released in 1994, which has remained the series to the present day,
has been increasingly accepted by national standard setters and auditors involved in global reporting and cross-border
financing transactions.
In July 2001, IFAC sought comment on the role of IASC3 and the future of ISAs. As a result of the review, in 2002, the IAPC
was renamed the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). IAASB has made available, on its website,
the full text of ISAs since 2003.
Further, the growth of non-audit assurance services has led to the development of a new framework (‘The International
Framework for Assurance Engagements’) effective for assurance reports issued on or after 1 January 2005.
The hope that the take up of ISAs should follow the lead set by International Accounting Standards (IASs), following their
endorsement by IOSCO (the International Organization of Securities Commissions), has been expressed by many professional
bodies including ACCA and FEE (the Fédération des Experts Comptables Européens). FEE has been leading the debate on
the future of ISAs in Europe since 2001.
ISAs provide for the international harmonisation of national standards and the adoption of a global framework approach. As
a member of CCAB (the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies) ACCA is committed to consulting its members on
the adoption of ISAs in the UK, and working with FEE, the European Commission (EC) and others.
In response to the move in the profession, away from the ‘traditional audit risk’ model, to a business risk model, IAASB issued
ISA 315 ‘Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement,’ ISA 330 ‘The
Auditor’s Procedures in Response to Assessed Risks’ and ISA 500 (Revised) ‘Audit Evidence’. These standards (and
conforming amendments) are effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2004.
That is, they will be applicable to financial statements for periods beginning on or after 1 January 2005 that in the European
Economic Area (EEA) and elsewhere will be adopting International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) for the first time.
The adoption of ISAs has been welcomed by professional bodies as providing a robust approach to risk, fraud and quality
control that is particularly important in the light of recent events (Enron/Worldcom/Parmalat). For example, ISA 315 provides
additional guidance on the assessment of risks of material misstatement at the financial statement level and at the assertion
level.
Tutorial note: Recent developments could validly be illustrated with reference to other standards. For example, ISA 240
(Revised) ‘The Auditor’s Responsibility to Consider Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements’ that became effective from
1 January 2005 has raised auditor awareness of earnings management and the greater need for professional skepticism.
ISA 700 (Revised) ‘The Independent Auditor’s Report on a Complete Set of General Purpose Financial Statements’ is effective
for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2005. This proposed significant changes to
the auditor’s report to help promote consistency in reporting practices worldwide.
The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) is in discussion with IAASB about the possible
endorsement of ISAs (similar to its endorsement of IASs).
Practicing professionals must keep themselves up to date on auditing standards if they are to provide quality audits. Failure
to do so could result in negligence claims and/or disciplinary action (e.g. by ACCA’s disciplinary committee). A survey by FEE
has demonstrated that the European accountancy bodies broadly comply with ISAs. However, an earlier survey4 of IFAC
member bodies showed that 14% had some significant differences (usually relating to reporting). IFAC needs to require its
member bodies to act rather than merely encourage implementation. A set of global ethical requirements will help improve
the implementation of ISAs as well as reduce the expectation gap in performing audits of financial statements.

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：
Totalsalesrevenue=(280,000x$55)+(420,000x$45)=$15·4m+18·9m=$34·3m.NoteTheexpectedprofithasbeencalculatedusinglifecyclecostingnotrelevantcosting.Hence,the$20,000salarycostincludedinpatentcostsshouldbeincludedinthelifecyclecost.Similarly,theopportunitycostof$800,000isnotincludedusinglifecyclecostingwhereasifrelevantcostingwasbeingusedtodecideonaparticularcourseofaction,theopportunitycostwouldbeincluded.Working1Expectedmarketingcostinyear1:(0·2x$2·2m)+(0·5x$2·6m)+(0·3x$2·9m)=$2·61mExpectedmarketingcostyear2:(0·3x$1·8m)+(0·4x$2·1m)+(0·3x$2·3m)=$2·07mTotalexpectedmarketingcost=$4·68m

正确答案：
(b) The three strategic goals are to become the leading premium ice cream brand in the UK; to increase sales to ￡25 million;
and to achieve a significant entry into the supermarket sector. On the basis of performance to date these goals will certainly
be stretching. All three strategies will involve significant growth in the company. Johnson and Scholes list three success criteria
against which the strategies can be assessed, namely suitability, acceptability and feasibility. Suitability is a test of whether a
strategy addresses the situation in which a company is operating. In Johnson and Scholes’ terms it is the firm’s ‘strategic
position’, an understanding of which comes from the analysis done in the answer to the question above. Acceptability is
concerned with the likely performance outcomes of the strategy and in particular whether the return and risk are in line with
the expectations of the stakeholders. Feasibility is the extent to which the strategy can be made to work and is determined
by the strategic capability of the company reflecting the resources available to implement the strategy. It is interesting to see
that the three growth related goals are compatible in that becoming the leading premium brand will involve increased market
penetration, product development and market development. If achieved it will increase sales and necessitate a successful
entry into the supermarket sector. Time will be an important influence on the success or otherwise of these growth goals –
five years seems to be a reasonable length of time to achieve these ambitious targets.
Suitability – Churchill is currently a small but significant player at the premium end of the market. This segment is becoming
more significant and is attractive because of the high prices and high margins attainable. This is leading to more intense
competition with global companies. One immediate question that springs to mind is what precisely does ‘leading brand’
mean? The most obvious test is that of market share and unless Churchill achieve the access to the supermarkets looked for
in the third strategic goal, seems difficult to achieve. If ‘leading brand’ implies brand recognition this again looks very
ambitious. On the positive side this segment of the ice cream market is showing significant growth and Churchill’s success
in gaining sponsorship rights to major sporting events is a step in the right direction. The combination of high price and high
quality should position the company where it wants to be. Achieving sales of ￡25 million represents a quantum shift in
performance in a company that has to date only achieved modest levels of sales growth.
Acceptability – as a family owned business the balance between risk and return is an important one. The family to date has
been ‘happy’ with a modest rate of growth and modest return in terms of profits. The other significant stakeholder group is
the professional managers headed up by Richard Smith. They seem much more growth orientated and may be happier with
the risks that the growth strategy entails. The family members seem more interested in the manufacturing side than the
retailing side of the business and their bad previous experiences with growing the business through international market
development may mean they are risk averse and less willing to invest the necessary resources.
Feasibility – again this is linked to how ‘leading brand’ is defined. If as seems likely the brand becomes more widely known
through increasing the number of company owned ice cream stores then a significant investment in retail outlets will be
necessary. Increasing the number of franchised outlets will reduce the financial resources required but may be at the expense
of the brand’s reputation. Certainly there would seem to be a need for increased levels of advertising and promotion –
particularly to gain access to the ice cream cabinets in the supermarket chains. This is likely to mean an increase in the
number of sales and marketing staff. Equally important will be the ability to develop and launch new products in a luxury
market shaped by impulse buying and customers looking to indulge themselves.
Overall, becoming the leading brand of premium ice cream may well be the key to achieving the desired presence in the
supermarket ice cream cabinets, which in turn is a pre-requisite for increasing company sales to ￡25 million. So the three
strategic goals may be regarded as consistent and compatible with one another. However each strategic goal will have to be
broken down into its key elements. For example in achieving sales of ￡25 million what proportion of sales will come from its
own ice cream stores and what proportion from other outlets including the supermarkets? Sales to date of Churchill ice cream
are dominated by impulse purchases but in achieving sales of ￡25 million penetrating the take home market will be essential.
Finally, what proportion of these take home sales will be under the supermarkets own label brands? Over reliance on own
label sales will seriously weaken Churchill’s desire to become the leading national brand of premium ice cream. It looks to
be an ambitious but attainable strategy but will require a significant planning effort to develop the necessary resources andcapabilities vital to successful implementation of the strategy.