宁夏考生：2020年ACCA国际会计师考试时间是如何安排的？

正确答案：
(ii) There is objective evidence of impairment because of the financial difficulties and reorganisation of Bromwich. The
impairment loss on the loan will be calculated by discounting the estimated future cash flows. The future cash flows
will be $100,000 on 30 November 2007. This will be discounted at an effective interest rate of 8% to give a present
value of $85,733. The loan will, therefore, be impaired by ($200,000 – $85,733) i.e. $114,267.
(Note: IAS 39 requires accrual of interest on impaired loans at the original effective interest rate. In the year to
30 November 2006 interest of 8% of $85,733 i.e. $6,859 would be accrued.)

正确答案：
(c) The Shirtmaster Group has decided to structure itself using two divisions who are dealing with very different markets,
customers and buying behaviours. In so doing the intention is to provide more value to the customer through a better
understanding of their needs. The existence of the two divisions also reflects the origins of the two family businesses.
Mintzberg in his work on organisation design and structure sees divisional configurations as being appropriate in relatively
simple and static environments where significant strategic power is delegated from the ‘strategic apex’ to the ‘middle line‘
general managers with responsibility for the performance of the division. Indeed one of the benefits cited for divisionalised
companies is their ability to provide a good training ground in strategic decision making for general managers who can then
progress to senior positions at company headquarters. Tony Masters’s reluctance to delegate real strategic decision making
power to the senior managers in the Shirtmaster division may be preventing those managers developing key managerial skills.
Using the Boston Box model one could classify the Shirtmaster division as a ‘dog’ with low market share in a market exhibiting
change but little growth. The Corporate Clothing division, by contrast, can be regarded as a ‘problem child’ having a small
share but of a growing market. Porter’s ‘better-off test’ needs to be met – are the two divisions better off being in the same
Group? As it stands there seems little synergy between the two divisions – there seems to be little evidence of the two divisions
sharing resources or transferring skills or learning between the two divisions. Their two value chains and systems are both
separate and different though on the face of it there are many activities that are similar. Operating independently may
encourage healthy competition between the two divisions and consequently better performance through better motivated staff.
Specialised competences such as Corporate Clothing division’s on-line response to customer orders and design changes are
more easily developed within a divisionalised structure. Performance can be clearly identified and controlled and resources
channelled to those areas showing potential. However, this may be at the expense of costly duplication of resources and an
inability to get the necessary scale to compete in either of their separate markets. Certainly, the lack of co-operation betweenthe divisions in areas such as information systems may lead to higher costs and poorer performance.

正确答案：
(d) Professional accountant’s liability
Liability for reporting on PFI
Independent accountants may be required to report on PFI for many reasons (e.g. to help secure a bank loan). Such forecasts
and projections are inherently unreliable. If the forecast or projection does not materialise, and the client or lenders (or
investors) consequently sustain financial loss, the accountant may face lawsuits claiming financial loss.
Courts in different jurisdictions use various criteria to define the group of persons to whom independent accountants may be
held liable for providing a report on an inaccurate forecast or projection. The most common of these are that an accountant
is liable to persons with whom there is proximity:
(i) only (i.e. the client who engaged the independent accountant);
(ii) or whose relationship with the accountant sufficiently approaches privity;
(iii) and to persons or members of a limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance the accountant supplied the
information or knew that the recipient of the information intended to supply it;
(iv) and to persons who reasonably can be foreseen to rely on the information.
Measures to reduce liability
As significant assumptions will be essential to a reader’s understanding of a financial forecast, the independent accountant
should ensure that they are adequately disclosed and clearly stated to be the management’s responsibility. Hypothetical
assumptions should be clearly distinguished from best estimates.
The introduction to any forecast (and/or report thereon) should include a caveat that the prospective results may not be
attained. Specific and extensive warnings (‘the actual results … will vary’) and disclaimers (‘we do not express an opinion’)
may be effective in protecting an independent accountant sued for inaccuracies in forecasts or projections that they have
reported on.
Any report to a third party should state:
■ for whom it is prepared, who is entitled to rely on it (if anyone) and for what purpose;
■ that the engagement was undertaken in accordance with the engagement terms;
■ the work performed and the findings.
An independent accountant’s report should avoid inappropriate and open-ended wording, for example, ‘we certify …’ and ‘we
obtained all the explanations we considered necessary’.
Engagement terms to report on PFI should include an appropriate liability cap that is reasonable given the specific
circumstances of the engagement.
The independent accountant may be able to obtain indemnity from a client in respect of claims from third parties. Such ‘hold
harmless’ clauses obligate the client to indemnify the independent accountant from third party claims.

正确答案：
(b) An illustration of each of the problems using the data from the Battamould division/TRG scenario is as follows:
Meeting only the lowest targets
– In the scenario, the budgeted variable cost of $200 per tonne has been agreed. There is no specific incentive for the
Bettamould division to try to achieve a better level of performance.
Using more resources than necessary
– In the scenario, the current budget allows for 5% machine idle time. There is evidence that a move to outsourcing
machine maintenance from a specialist company could help reduce idle time levels and permit annual output in excess
of 100,000 tonnes.
Making the bonus – whatever it takes
– At present, the only sanction/incentive is to achieve 100,000 tonnes of output. There is no mention of any sanction for
example, if processing losses (and hence costs) rise to 20% of material inputs.
Competing against other divisions, business units and departments
– At present, the Bettamould division sources its materials from chosen suppliers who have been used for some years.
There is evidence that materials of equal specification could be sourced for 40% of the annual requirement from another
TRG division which has spare capacity. Why has this not been investigated?
Ensuring that what is in the budget is spent
– In the Bettamould scenario, there is a fixed cost budget allowance of $50,000,000. We are told in the question that
salaries of all employees and management are paid on a fixed salary basis. Bettamould’s management will not want a
reduction in the fixed budget allowance, since this could lead to the need to reduce the number of employees, which
they may see as having a detrimental effect on the ability of the division to meet its annual budget output target of
100,000 tonnes.
Providing inaccurate forecasts
– In the scenario there may have been deliberate efforts to increase the agreed budget level of aspects of measures and
costs. For example, by putting forward the argument that the budget requirement of 15% processing losses is acceptable
because of the likelihood that ageing machinery will be less effective in the coming budget period.
Meeting the target but not beating it
– In the scenario the bonus of 5% of salary is payable as long as the 100,000 tonnes of output is achieved. This does
not require that actual results will show any other aspects of the budget being improved upon. For example there is no
need to consider a reduction in the current level of quality checks (25% of daily throughput) to the 10% level that current
evidence suggests is achieved by competitor companies. The current budget agreement allows the Bettamould division
to transfer its output to market based profit centres at $200 + $500 = $700 per tonne. There is no specified penalty
if costs exceed this target level.
Avoiding risks
– Bettamould has not yet incorporated the changes listed in note 4 in the question. For example why has the sourcing of
40% of required materials from another TRC division not been quantified and evaluated. It is possible that the division
with spare capacity could supply the material at cost (possibly based on marginal cost) which would be less than
currently paid to a supplier external to TRC. It may be that Bettamould have not pursued this possibility because of risk
factors relating to the quality of the material transferred or its continued availability where the supplying division had an
upturn in the level of more profitable external business.