ACCA和CPA，想要具体了解在考试科目有哪些...

正确答案：
(iii) Warranty provision
■ Agree the principal assumptions in management’s estimate of liabilities under warranties to the terms of warranty
as set out in contracts for sale of vehicle. For example:
– the period for which warranties are given;
– whether for parts replacement only or parts and labour;
– exclusion clauses, perhaps for vehicles sold into a particular market, or used in a specified industry (e.g. filmmaking).
■ Agree the reasonableness of management’s assumptions in the calculation of the provision. For example, the
proportion of vehicles for which claims are made within three months, three to six months, six to nine months, etc.
■ Substantiate the economic reality of the basis of management’s calculations. For example:
– agree the number of vehicles sold each month to a summary sales report;
– agree the calculation of average cost of a repair under warranty to job records;
– test costs of repair on a sample basis (e.g. parts replaced to price lists and labour charges to hours worked
(per job records) and charge-out rates).
■ Consider the reasonableness of management’s estimate by comparing:
– the actual cost of after-date repairs (say for three months) against the appropriate proportion of the provision
made;
– current year provision per vehicle sold against prior provision per vehicle sold.
■ Assess management’s ability to make reliable estimates in this area by comparing last year’s provision with the
actual repairs under warranty costs incurred during the year in respect of sales made in previous years.
Tutorial note: The basis of management’s estimate may tend to overstate or understate the provision required
and should be revised accordingly.
■ Agree the extent to which the provision takes account of (has been reduced by) any recourse to suppliers (e.g. in
respect of faulty parts). For example:
– by reviewing terms of purchases from major suppliers;
– by examining records of replacement parts received free of charge.

正确答案：B
430,000 x 5% = 21,500 – 18,000 + 28,000

正确答案：
(ii) Effective delegation can be achieved by assigning agreed tasks to the subordinate, ensuring that resources are allocated and by specifying expected performance levels and ensuring that they are understood. In addition, it is necessary to ensure that the subordinate has the ability and experience to undertake the tasks by maintaining frequent contact and ensuring that the subordinate has authority to do the job. Sufficient authority must be delegated to fulfil the task. This authority in turn may be specific or general; the scenario suggests that the authority of the managers and supervisors is specific. The subordinate should not refer decisions upwards, and the superior should not expect this. In addition there should be no doubts over boundaries; they must be clearly defined as to who holds what authority and who accounts to whom. Therefore there must be clarity as to departmental functions and individual authority, which is at the root of the problem at Flavours Fine Foods.

正确答案：

(a) An annual cash flow account compares the estimated cash flows receivable from the property against the liabilities within the securitisation process. The swap introduces leverage into the arrangement.

The holders of the certificates are expected to receive $3·17million on $18 million, giving them a return of 17·6%. If the cash flows are 5% lower than the non-executive director has predicted, annual revenue received will fall to $20·90 million, reducing the balance available for the subordinated certificates to $2·07 million, giving a return of 11·5% on the subordinated certificates, which is below the returns offered on the B and C-rated loan notes. The point at which the holders of the certificates will receive nothing and below which the holders of the C-rated loan notes will not receive their full income will be an annual income of $18·83 million (a return of 9·4%), which is 14·4% less than the income that the non-executive director has forecast.

(b) Benefits

The finance costs of the securitisation may be lower than the finance costs of ordinary loan capital. The cash flows from the commercial property development may be regarded as lower risk than Moonstar Co’s other revenue streams. This will impact upon the rates that Moonstar Co is able to offer borrowers.

The securitisation matches the assets of the future cash flows to the liabilities to loan note holders. The non-executive director is assuming a steady stream of lease income over the next 10 years, with the development probably being close to being fully occupied over that period.

The securitisation means that Moonstar Co is no longer concerned with the risk that the level of earnings from the properties will be insufficient to pay the finance costs. Risks have effectively been transferred to the loan note holders.

Risks

Not all of the tranches may appeal to investors. The risk-return relationship on the subordinated certificates does not look very appealing, with the return quite likely to be below what is received on the C-rated loan notes. Even the C-rated loan note holders may question the relationship between the risk and return if there is continued uncertainty in the property sector.

If Moonstar Co seeks funding from other sources for other developments, transferring out a lower risk income stream means that the residual risks associated with the rest of Moonstar Co’s portfolio will be higher. This may affect the availability and terms of other borrowing.

It appears that the size of the securitisation should be large enough for the costs to be bearable. However Moonstar Co may face unforeseen costs, possibly unexpected management or legal expenses.

(c) (i) Sukuk finance could be appropriate for the securitisation of the leasing portfolio. An asset-backed Sukuk would be the same kind of arrangement as the securitisation, where assets are transferred to a special purpose vehicle and the returns and repayments are directly financed by the income from the assets. The Sukuk holders would bear the risks and returns of the relationship.

The other type of Sukuk would be more like a sale and leaseback of the development. Here the Sukuk holders would be guaranteed a rental, so it would seem less appropriate for Moonstar Co if there is significant uncertainty about the returns from the development.

The main issue with the asset-backed Sukuk finance is whether it would be as appealing as certainly the A-tranche of the securitisation arrangement which the non-executive director has proposed. The safer income that the securitisation offers A-tranche investors may be more appealing to investors than a marginally better return from the Sukuk. There will also be costs involved in establishing and gaining approval for the Sukuk, although these costs may be less than for the securitisation arrangement described above.

(ii) A Mudaraba contract would involve the bank providing capital for Moonstar Co to invest in the development. Moonstar Co would manage the investment which the capital funded. Profits from the investment would be shared with the bank, but losses would be solely borne by the bank. A Mudaraba contract is essentially an equity partnership, so Moonstar Co might not face the threat to its credit rating which it would if it obtained ordinary loan finance for the development. A Mudaraba contract would also represent a diversification of sources of finance. It would not require the commitment to pay interest that loan finance would involve.

Moonstar Co would maintain control over the running of the project. A Mudaraba contract would offer a method of obtaining equity funding without the dilution of control which an issue of shares to external shareholders would bring. This is likely to make it appealing to Moonstar Co’s directors, given their desire to maintain a dominant influence over the business.

The bank would be concerned about the uncertainties regarding the rental income from the development. Although the lack of involvement by the bank might appeal to Moonstar Co's directors, the bank might not find it so attractive. The bank might be concerned about information asymmetry – that Moonstar Co’s management might be reluctant to supply the bank with the information it needs to judge how well its investment is performing.