如何快速通过ACCA考试？

正确答案：
(a) To: Joe Lawson, Managing Director, Lawson Engineering
From:
Business case for financial support
The treatment of intangible resources is an area of considerable concern to the financial community and in many ways the
situation that Lawson Engineering finds itself, is typical of the current confusion surrounding the value placed on intangible
resources. This in turn reflects a traditional concern that the strategic health and the financial health of a business are not
one and the same thing. Intangible resources cover a wide variety of assets and skills found in the business. These include
the intellectual property rights of patents; brands; trademarks; trade secrets etc through to people-determined assets such as
know-how; internal and external networks; organisational culture and the reputation of the company.
It is important for you to present a case which shows how the investment in intangible resources is just as important a source
of value creation for the customer as is investment in tangible assets such as plant and finance which are traditionally focused
on in financial statements of the firm’s well being. As one source expresses it, ‘for most companies, intangible resources
contribute much more to total asset value’. Kaplan and Norton in a 2004 article on intangible assets go further and argue
that ‘measuring the value of such intangible assets is the holy grail of accounting’. The increasing importance of service
businesses and service activities in the firm’s value chain compound the problems faced in getting a true reflection of the
firm’s ability to create value. One view is that the key value creation activity lies in the relationships a firm has with its key
stakeholders – its customers, suppliers and employees. These relationships develop into distinctive capabilities, defined as
‘something it can do that its competitors cannot’. These distinctive capabilities only become competitive advantage(s) when
the capability is applied to a relevant market. Firms attain a sustainable competitive advantage when they consistently
produce products or services with attributes that align with the key buying criteria for the majority of customers in the chosen
market.
Competitive advantage, to be strategically significant, must have the twin virtues of sustainability and appropriability.
Sustainability means the ability to sustain an advantage over a period of time. Fairly obviously, assets such as plant and
technology may be easily obtainable in the open market, however it is only when they are combined with less tangible
resources that advantages become sustainable over time because competitors cannot easily copy them. Equally significant
are intangible resources such as reputation and organisational culture in that they influence the firm’s ability to hold on to
or appropriate some of the value it creates. If other stakeholders both inside and outside the firm are able to take more than
their fair share of value created – for example customers forcing down prices or employees demanding excessive wage
increases – this will reduce the funds available for the firm to invest in further development of its intangible resources, and
as a consequence begin to weaken its competitive advantage.

Essentially, intangible resources can be separated into those capabilities that are based on assets and those that are based
on skills. As one source puts it asset based advantages are derived from ‘having’ a particular asset and skills based advantages
stem from the ability to be ‘doing’ things competitors are unable to do. Assets are those things that the firms ‘owns’ – the
intellectual property as embodied in patents, trademarks and associated brands, copyrights, recognised by law and
defendable against copying under that law. It is worth noting the effort and investment that many companies are putting into
defending their intellectual property against the threat of copying and piracy. A more recent asset that many firms spend
considerable time and effort in developing are databases on key activities in the firm’s value chain – customer databases are
only one of the possible sources of firm information and know-how. One of the most prized intangible assets is that of the
firm’s reputation which may reflect the power of the brands it has created. Reputation may be easier to maintain than create
and meets the key tests of sustainability. The capability to produce innovation consistently may be instrumental in creating
in the minds of customers the longer-term competitive advantage of reputation. Reputation is argued to represent the
knowledge and emotions the customer may associate with a firm’s product range and can therefore be a major factor in
securing the competitive advantage derived through effective differentiation.
A positive organisational culture, staff know-how and networks are equally important intangible sources of competitive
advantage. These by their very nature may be more dynamic than asset based intangibles and the know-how of employees
in particular is an intangible resource that results in the distinctive capabilities which differentiate the firm from its competitors.
Much has been written about the significance of organisational culture and the way it reflects the style. of top management,
the ‘can do’ culture of Lawson Engineering clearly creates a competitive advantage. One interesting study of how chief
executive officers rate their intangible resources in terms of their contribution to the overall success of the business showed
that company reputation, product reputation and employee know-how were the most highly regarded intangible resources.
Hamel and Prahalad argue that core competences rather than market position are the real source of competitive advantage.
They gave three tests to identify a core competence – firstly the competence should provide potential access to a wide variety
of markets and thus be capable of being leveraged to good effect, secondly, it should be relevant to the customer’s key buying
criteria and thirdly, it should be difficult for competitors to imitate.
The disadvantages of intangibles stem from the differing value placed on such assets and competences by the various
interested stakeholders. How should a company’s reputation be measured? How long will that reputation yield competitive
advantage, particularly in view of how swiftly such reputations can disappear? It seems likely that the financial markets with
their ability to reflect all knowledge and information about the firm in its share price increasingly will take the contribution of
intangibles into account.
Overall the case should be clearly made that the strengths of the company rests in its unique combination of intangible
resources and the capabilities – both internal and external – that it has. Financial health is not always the same as strategichealth and by any objective measure Lawson Engineering is worthy of support.
Yours,
Strategy consultant

正确答案：
(c) An organisation considering the use of external recruitment consultants would make its decision upon the availability, level and appropriateness of expertise available within the host organisation and its likely effectiveness, together with the cost of using consultants set against the cost of using the organisation’s own staff. The organisation should consider the level of expertise required of potential employees and therefore the appropriate knowledge required of the consultants and the need for impartiality or security which may be of particular importance for some organisations. In addition, the views of internal staff as to the likely effect of using outside consultants must be considered, as is the effect the use of consultants might have on the need to develop expertise within the organisation.

正确答案：
(b) Matters to be considered (before accepting the engagement)
Tutorial note: Although candidates may approach this part from a rote-learned list of ‘matters to consider’ it is important
that answer points be tailored, in so far as the information given in the scenario permits, to the specifics of Plaza and MCM.
It is critical that answer points should not contradict the scenario (e.g. assuming that it is Plaza’s auditor who has been
asked to undertake the assignment).
■ Information about Duncan Seymour – What is the relationship of the chief finance officer to Plaza (e.g. is he on the
management board)? By what authority is he approaching Andando to undertake this assignment?
■ The purpose of the assignment must be clarified. Duncan’s approach to Andando is ‘to advise on a bid’. However,
Andando cannot make executive decisions for a client but only provide the facts of material interest. Plaza’s
management must decide whether or not to bid and, if so, how much to bid.
■ The scope of the due diligence review. It seems likely that Plaza will be interested in acquiring all of MCM’s business
as its areas of operation coincide with Plaza’s. However it must be confirmed that Plaza is not merely interested in
acquiring only the National or International business of MCM.
■ Andando’s competence and experience – Andando should not accept the engagement unless the firm has experience in
undertaking due diligence assignments. Even then, the firm must have sufficient knowledge of the territories in which
the businesses operate to evaluate whether all facts of material interest to Plaza have been identified.
Tutorial note: Candidates should be querying their competence and experience in the fields of retailing and training
as though they were dealing with highly regulated or specialist industries such as banking or insurance.
■ Whether Andando has sufficient resources (e.g. representative/associated offices), if any, in Europe and Asia to
investigate MCM’s International business.
■ Any factors which might impair Andando’s objectivity in reporting to Plaza the facts uncovered by the due diligence
review. For example, if Duncan is closely connected with a partner in Andando or if Andando is the auditor of Frontiers.
Tutorial note: Candidates will not be awarded marks for going into ‘autopilot’ on independence issues. For example,
this is a one-off assignment so size of fee is not relevant. Andando holding shares in MCM is not possible (since whollyowned).
■ Plaza’s rationale for wishing to acquire MCM. Presumably it is significant that MCM operates in the same territories as
Plaza. Plaza may be wanting to provide extensive training programs in management, communications and marketing
to its workforce.
■ The relationship, if any, between Plaza and MCM in any of the territories. Plaza may be a major client of MCM. That
is, Plaza is currently out-sourcing training to MCM. Acquiring MCM would bring training in-house.
Tutorial note: Ascertaining what a purchaser hopes to gain from an acquisition before the assignment is accepted is
important. The facts to be uncovered for a merger from which synergy is expected will be different from those relevant
to acquiring an investment opportunity.
■ Time available – Andando must have sufficient time to find all facts that would be of material interest to Plaza before
disclosing their findings.
■ The acceptability of any limitations – whether there will be restrictions on Andando’s access to information held by MCM
(e.g. if there will not be access to board minutes) and personnel.
■ The degree of secrecy required – this may go beyond the normal duties of confidentiality not to disclose information to
outsiders (e.g. if unannounced staff redundancies could arise).
■ Why Plaza’s current auditors have not been asked to conduct the due diligence review – especially as they are
responsible for (and therefore capable of undertaking) the group audit covering the relevant countries.
■ Andando should be allowed to communicate with Plaza’s current auditor:
– to inform. them of the nature of the work they have been asked to undertake; and
– to enquire if there is any reason why they should not accept this assignment.
■ In taking on Plaza as a new client Andando may have a later opportunity to offer external audit and other services to
Plaza (e.g. internal audit).