ACCA考试P3每日一练(2019-01-04)

正确答案：
(b) There are a number of potential problems which the directors of HFG need to recognise. These are as follows:
(i) There needs to exist a sufficient incentive for SFO to share their information with HFG as the success of any
benchmarking programme is dependent upon obtaining accurate information about the comparator organisation. This is
not an easy task to accomplish, as many organisations are reluctant to reveal confidential information to competitors.
The directors of HFG must be able to convince the directors of SFO that entering into a benchmarking arrangement is a
potential ‘win-win situation’.
(ii) The value of the exercise must be sufficient to justify the cost involved. Also, it is inevitable that behavioural issues will
need to be addressed in any benchmarking programme. Management should give priority to the need to communicate
the reasons for undertaking a programme of benchmarking in order to gain the full co-operation of its personnel whilst
reducing the potential level of resistance to change.
(iii) Management need to handle the ethical implications relating to the introduction of benchmarking in a sensitive manner
and should endeavour, insofar as possible, to provide reassurance to employees that their status, remuneration and
working conditions will not suffer as a consequence of the introduction of any benchmarking initiatives.

正确答案：
(b) Principal audit work – useful life of rig platforms
Tutorial notes: The platforms are just one item of each rig. Candidates should not be awarded marks here for the matters
to be considered in the assessment of useful lives (since this is illustrated in the scenario). No marks will be awarded for
criticising management for estimating useful lives on a per platform. basis or for audit work on depreciation charges/carrying
amounts unrelated to the determination of useful lives.
■ Review of management’s annual assessment of the useful life of each rig at 31 December 2005 and corroboration of
any information that has led to a change in previous estimates. For example, for the abandoned rig, where useful life
has been assessed to be at an end, obtain:
? weather reports;
? incident report supported by photographs;
? insurance claim, etc.
■ Consider management’s past experience and expertise in estimating useful lives. For example, if all lives initially
assessed as short (c. 15 years) are subsequently lengthened (or long lives consistently shortened) this would suggest
that management is being over (under) prudent in its initial estimates.
■ Review of industry comparatives as published in the annual reports of other oil producers.
■ Comparison of actual maintenance costs against budgeted to confirm that the investment needed in maintenance, to
achieve expected life expectancy, is being made.
■ Comparison of actual output (oil extracted) against budgeted. If actual output is less than budgeted the economic life
of the platform. may be:
? shorter (e.g. because there is less oil to be extracted than originally surveyed); or
? longer (e.g. because the rate of extraction is less than budgeted).
Tutorial note: An increase in actual output can be explained conversely.
■ A review of the results of management’s impairment testing of each rig (i.e. the cash-generating unit of which each
platform. is a part).
■ Recalculations of cash flow projections (based on reasonable and supportable assumptions) discounted at a suitable
pre-tax rate.
Tutorial note: As the rigs will not have readily determinable net selling prices (each one being unique and not available
for sale) any impairment will be assessed by a comparison of value in use against carrying amount.
■ Review of working papers of geologist/quantity surveyor(s) employed by Shire supporting estimations of reserves used
in the determination of useful lives of rigs.

正确答案：
(c) There are many reasons that could be discussed in support of the view that net present value (NPV) is superior to other
investment appraisal methods.
NPV considers cash flows
This is the reason why NPV is preferred to return on capital employed (ROCE), since ROCE compares average annual
accounting profit with initial or average capital invested. Financial management always prefers cash flows to accounting profit,
since profit is seen as being open to manipulation. Furthermore, only cash flows are capable of adding to the wealth of
shareholders in the form. of increased dividends. Both internal rate of return (IRR) and Payback also consider cash flows.
NPV considers the whole of an investment project
In this respect NPV is superior to Payback, which measures the time it takes for an investment project to repay the initial
capital invested. Payback therefore considers cash flows within the payback period and ignores cash flows outside of the
payback period. If Payback is used as an investment appraisal method, projects yielding high returns outside of the payback
period will be wrongly rejected. In practice, however, it is unlikely that Payback will be used alone as an investment appraisal
method.
NPV considers the time value of money
NPV and IRR are both discounted cash flow (DCF) models which consider the time value of money, whereas ROCE and
Payback do not. Although Discounted Payback can be used to appraise investment projects, this method still suffers from the
criticism that it ignores cash flows outside of the payback period. Considering the time value of money is essential, since
otherwise cash flows occurring at different times cannot be distinguished from each other in terms of value from the
perspective of the present time.
NPV is an absolute measure of return
NPV is seen as being superior to investment appraisal methods that offer a relative measure of return, such as IRR and ROCE,
and which therefore fail to reflect the amount of the initial investment or the absolute increase in corporate value. Defenders
of IRR and ROCE respond that these methods offer a measure of return that is understandable by managers and which can
be intuitively compared with economic variables such as interest rates and inflation rates.
NPV links directly to the objective of maximising shareholders’ wealth
The NPV of an investment project represents the change in total market value that will occur if the investment project is
accepted. The increase in wealth of each shareholder can therefore be measured by the increase in the value of their
shareholding as a percentage of the overall issued share capital of the company. Other investment appraisal methods do not
have this direct link with the primary financial management objective of the company.
NPV always offers the correct investment advice
With respect to mutually exclusive projects, NPV always indicates which project should be selected in order to achieve the
maximum increase on corporate value. This is not true of IRR, which offers incorrect advice at discount rates which are less
than the internal rate of return of the incremental cash flows. This problem can be overcome by using the incremental yield
approach.
NPV can accommodate changes in the discount rate
While NPV can easily accommodate changes in the discount rate, IRR simply ignores them, since the calculated internal rate
of return is independent of the cost of capital in all time periods.
NPV has a sensible re-investment assumption
NPV assumes that intermediate cash flows are re-invested at the company’s cost of capital, which is a reasonable assumption
as the company’s cost of capital represents the average opportunity cost of the company’s providers of finance, i.e. it
represents a rate of return which exists in the real world. By contrast, IRR assumes that intermediate cash flows are reinvested
at the internal rate of return, which is not an investment rate available in practice,
NPV can accommodate non-conventional cash flows
Non-conventional cash flows exist when negative cash flows arise during the life of the project. For each change in sign there
is potentially one additional internal rate of return. With non-conventional cash flows, therefore, IRR can suffer from the
technical problem of giving multiple internal rates of return.