关于2020年ACCA考前的注意事项,考生们速来查看!

发布时间:2020-02-14


参加了2020ACCA考试的考生们注意啦!51题库考试学习网今天为大家分享了ACCA考试的注意事项,一起来看看吧!

1. 考生入场时请出示:

身份证件、准考证及计算器。(如考生携带个人物品,请将其放至指定区域。)

2. 考试规则:

考生在到达考场并进行签到后,如因特殊原因需要离场,请主动联系监考人员,请勿擅自离开。

可接受的证件类型包括有效期内的护照、驾照和身份证。过期证件、学生证等非国家官方发布的证件不属于有效证件。

请勿携带贵重物品前往考场。

入场前请提前将手机及其他电子产品关闭,包括闹钟及任何提示音,并放在指定区域,请勿随身携带。如考试期间发现随身携带有手机及其他智能电子产品,将被视为违规行为。

任何书籍、笔记、或者其他与考试相关材料都需存放在指定区域,不可带入考试座位。如在考试期间发现随身携带任何此类相关材料,将被视为违规行为。

考试中可以使用不具备编程功能、无线通讯功能和文字存储功能的科学计算器,有其他额外功能的计算器不允许使用,监考人员有权暂时收走不符合要求的计算器。计算器请提前准备好,现场没有备用计算器提供,考试期间也不能互相借用。

入场后请根据监考指示,按照座位上的号码对号入座,并将身份证件和准考证放在桌角,以便监考进行二次核对。

考生入座后切勿随意触碰键盘鼠标等考试物品,以免影响考试正常开始。

考试开始之后,监考会给每位考生发放一张草稿纸,考试结束后会收回。如果考试期间需要更多的草稿纸,请举手向监考申请。请勿在草稿纸以外的区域书写,比如在准考证或者其他纸张上打草稿等。

3. 迟到及提早交卷规定:

在开考后1小时内(上午10:00前,下午14:30前,晚上18:30前)到达的迟到考生可以入场,但不能补偿考试时间。开考1小时以后到达的考生不能入场。

考试开始后不可以提前离场。

好的,以上就是由51题库考试学习网为您带来的有关ACCA考试的相关信息,51题库考试学习网祝准备参加考试的同学考试顺利,一次过关。


下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题,供大家学习参考。

(iii) Flexibility. (3 marks)

正确答案:
(iii) Flexibility may relate to the company being able to cope with flexibility of volume, delivery speed or job specification. In
this particular context, flexibility appears to have been problematic for HLP as evidenced by the fact that 320
consultations relating to commercial were subcontracted during the year. This could be due to the lack of the ability of
HLP advisors to be able to provide consultations to a potentially wide-range of commercial clients, i.e. the variability in
the ‘job specification’ requires greater flexibility than HLP can deliver. Furthermore, a total of 600 consultations relating
to litigation work were also subcontracted throughout the year. These subcontract consultations might be due to the
inability of HLP to deal with fluctuations in demand.

(ii) Calculate the probability of the net profit being less than £75 million. (2 marks)

正确答案:


(b) Using the information contained in Appendix 1.1, discuss the financial performance of HLP and MAS,

incorporating details of the following in your discussion:

(i) Overall client fees (total and per consultation)

(ii) Advisory protection scheme consultation ‘utilisation levels’ for both property and commercial clients

(iii) Cost/expense levels. (10 marks)

正确答案:

(ii) As far as annual agreements relating to property work are concerned, HLP had a take up rate of 82·5% whereas MAS
had a take up rate of only 50%. Therefore, HLP has ‘lost out’ to competitor MAS in relative financial terms as regards
the ‘take-up’ of consultations relating to property work. This is because both HLP and MAS received an annual fee from
each property client irrespective of the number of consultations given. MAS should therefore have had a better profit
margin from this area of business than HLP. However, the extent to which HLP has ‘lost out’ cannot be quantified since
we would need to know the variable costs per consultation and this detail is not available. What we do know is that
HLP earned actual revenue per effective consultation amounting to £90·90 whereas the budgeted revenue per
consultation amounted to £100. MAS earned £120 per effective consultation.
The same picture emerges from annual agreements relating to commercial work. HLP had a budgeted take up rate of
50%, however the actual take up rate during the period was 90%. MAS had an actual take up rate of 50%. The actual
revenue per effective consultation earned by HLP amounted to £167 whereas the budgeted revenue per consultation
amounted to £300. MAS earned £250 per effective consultation.
There could possibly be an upside to this situation for HLP in that it might be the case that the uptake of 90% of
consultations without further charge by clients holding annual agreements in respect of commercial work might be
indicative of a high level of customer satisfaction. It could on the other hand be indicative of a mindset which says ‘I
have already paid for these consultations therefore I am going to request them’.
(iii) Budgeted and actual salaries in HLP were £50,000 per annum, per advisor. Two additional advisors were employed
during the year in order to provide consultations in respect of commercial work. MAS paid a salary of £60,000 to each
advisor which is 20% higher than the salary of £50,000 paid to each advisor by HLP. Perhaps this is indicative that
the advisors employed by MAS are more experienced and/or better qualified than those employed by HLP.
HLP paid indemnity insurance of £250,000 which is £150,000 (150%) more than the amount of £100,000 paid by
MAS. This excess cost may well have arisen as a consequence of successful claims against HLP for negligence in
undertaking commercial work. It would be interesting to know whether HLP had been the subject of any successful
claims for negligent work during recent years as premiums invariably reflect the claims history of a business. Rather
worrying is the fact that HLP was subject to three such claims during the year ended 31 May 2007.
Significant subcontract costs were incurred by HLP during the year probably in an attempt to satisfy demand and retain
the goodwill of its clients. HLP incurred subcontract costs in respect of commercial properties which totalled £144,000.
These consultations earned revenue amounting to (320 x £150) = £48,000, hence a loss of £96,000 was incurred
in this area of the business.
HLP also paid £300,000 for 600 subcontract consultations in respect of litigation work. These consultations earned
revenue amounting to (600 x £250) = £150,000, hence a loss of £150,000 was incurred in this area of the business.
In contrast, MAS paid £7,000 for 20 subcontract consultations in respect of commercial work and an identical amount
for 20 subcontract consultations in respect of litigation work. These consultations earned revenue amounting to
20 x (£150 + £200) =£7,000. Therefore, a loss of only £7,000 was incurred in respect of subcontract consultations
by MAS.
Other operating expenses were budgeted at 53·0% of sales revenue. The actual level incurred was 40·7% of sales
revenue. The fixed/variable split of such costs is not given but it may well be the case that the fall in this percentage is
due to good cost control by HLP. However, it might simply be the case that the original budget was flawed. Competitor
MAS would appear to have a slightly superior cost structure to that of HLP since its other operating expenses amounted
to 38·4% of sales revenue. Further information is required in order to draw firmer conclusions regarding cost control
within both businesses.


声明:本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传,本网站不拥有所有权,未作人工编辑处理,也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容,欢迎发送邮件至:contact@51tk.com 进行举报,并提供相关证据,工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你,一经查实,本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。