你是不是听说过考完ACCA之后还要继续教育？

正确答案：
(d) Environmental management accounting (EMA) involves the generation and analysis of both financial and non-financial
information in order to support internal environmental management processes. It is complementary to the conventional
management accounting approach, with the aim to develop appropriate mechanisms that assist the management of
organisations in the identification and allocation of environmentally related costs.
Organisations that alter their management accounting practices to incorporate environmental concerns will have greater
awareness of the impact of environment-related activities on their profit and loss accounts and balance sheets. This is because
conventional management accounting systems tend to attribute many environmental costs to general overhead accounts with
the result that they are ‘hidden’ from management. It follows that organisations which adopt EMA are more likely to identify
and take advantage of cost reduction and other improvement opportunities. A concern with environmental costs will also
reduce the chances of employing incorrect pricing of products and services and taking the wrong options in terms of mix and
development decisions. This in turn may lead to enhanced customer value whilst reducing the risk profile attaching to
investments and other decisions which have long term consequences.
Reputational risk will also be reduced as a consequence of adopting (EMA) since management will be seen to be acting in
an environmentally responsible manner. Organisations can learn from the Shell Oil Company whose experience in the much
publicised Brent Spar incident cost the firm millions in terms of lost revenues as a result of a consumer boycott.

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.

正确答案：

(c) The type of payment might influence the success of the bid. Paxis is proposing a share for share exchange which offers a continuation in ownership of the entity, albeit as part of the successful bidder. However, relative share prices will change during the period of the bid, and the owner of shares in the potential victim company will not know the precise postacquisition value of the bid. An alternative might be cash payments which provides a known, precise sum, and might be favoured for this reason. However, in some countries payment in cash might lead to an immediate capital gains tax liability for the investor.

The effective price offered would of course be a major influence. Paxis would need to offer a premium over the existing share price, but the size of the premium that would be acceptable is unknown. Informal discussions with major shareholders of Wragger might assist in determining this (subject to such discussions being permitted by the regulatory authorities).