最近准备学习ACCA,不知道以后发展前景怎么样...

发布时间:2021-06-09


最近准备学习ACCA,不知道以后发展前景怎么样?


最佳答案

ACCA作为全球规模最大的专业会计师组织,被公认为“国际财会界的通行证”。如今财会业的现状是,财务会计已经达到饱和,因此拥有ACCA证书的管理会计型人才一直都十分受到世界500强企业和国际国内大型知名企业的青睐。在中国,共有超过400家的国际国内知名企业是ACCA的“认可雇主企业”,如BP石油、联合利华、可口可乐、空客公司、GE等,ACCA在这些企业就职都可以获得很好的个人职业发展。


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。

(c) To correct the problems at Flavours Fine Foods, explain to Alan Jones:

(i) the need for delegation; (3 marks)

正确答案:
(c) (i) Without delegation, formal organisations could not exist. Without allocation of authority, responsibility and delegation, a formal organisation cannot be effective. They are critical aspects. Managers must delegate because of the size and complexity of the organisation (certainly an issue for Flavours Fine Foods). Delegation can help overcome the physical and mental limitations of staff, managers and supervisors and it allows management to attend to other matters since routine tasks and decision making can be passed down. However, superiors must call subordinates to account and coordinate their activities.

(b) Advise the management of SCC Ltd of THREE strategies that should be considered in order to improve the

future performance of SCC Ltd. (6 marks)

正确答案:
(b) The four quadrants of the Boston-growth share matrix summarise expected profits and resultant cash flows and recommends
an outline strategy to follow which rather simplistically may be summarised as invest in stars, scrutinise the problem children,
milk the cows and divest the dogs.
Value Chain Analysis
It is vital that the management of SCC Ltd undertake a value chain analysis of each of its divisions in order to identify and
eliminate all non-value added activities, thereby improving profitability and cash flow without necessarily increasing turnover
or market share.
Divestment of the Footwear division
Serious consideration should be given to the divestment of the Footwear division. This will enable resources to be redirected
to divisions categorised as problem children i.e. the Industrial and Children’s divisions.
Support the Stars
As far as the Fashion division is concerned, it is obviously in a growth market and currently performing well. It is vital, given
the forecast performance of the other subsidiaries that the management of SCC Ltd do not concentrate on the poor performers
to the detriment of its only star.

Explain the grounds upon which a person may be disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.(10 marks)

正确答案:

The Company Directors Disqualification Act (CDDA) 1986 was introduced to control individuals who persistently abused the various privileges that accompany incorporation, most particularly the privilege of limited liability. The Act applies to more than just directors and the court may make an order preventing any person (without leave of the court) from being:
(i) a director of a company;
(ii) a liquidator or administrator of a company;
(iii) a receiver or manager of a company’s property; or
(iv) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, concerned with or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company.
The CDDA 1986 identifies three distinct categories of conduct, which may, and in some circumstances must, lead the court to disqualify certain persons from being involved in the management of companies.
(a) General misconduct in connection with companies
This first category involves the following:
(i) A conviction for an indictable offence in connection with the promotion, formation, management or liquidation of a company or with the receivership or management of a company’s property (s.2 of the CDDA 1986). The maximum period for disqualification under s.2 is five years where the order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction, and 15 years in any other case.

(ii) Persistent breaches of companies legislation in relation to provisions which require any return, account or other document to be filed with, or notice of any matter to be given to, the registrar (s.3 of the CDDA 1986). Section 3 provides that a person is conclusively proved to be persistently in default where it is shown that, in the five years ending with the date of the application, he has been adjudged guilty of three or more defaults (s.3(2) of the CDDA 1986). This is without prejudice to proof of persistent default in any other manner. The maximum period of disqualification under this section is five years.
(iii) Fraud in connection with winding up (s.4 of the CDDA 1986). A court may make a disqualification order if, in the course of the winding up of a company, it appears that a person:
(1) has been guilty of an offence for which he is liable under s.993 of the CA 2006, that is, that he has knowingly been a party to the carrying on of the business of the company either with the intention of defrauding the company’s creditors or any other person or for any other fraudulent purpose; or
(2) has otherwise been guilty, while an officer or liquidator of the company or receiver or manager of the property of the company, of any fraud in relation to the company or of any breach of his duty as such officer, liquidator, receiver or manager (s.4(1)(b) of the CDDA 1986).
The maximum period of disqualification under this category is 15 years.(b) Disqualification for unfitness
The second category covers:
(i) disqualification of directors of companies which have become insolvent, who are found by the court to be unfit to be directors (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Under s. 6, the minimum period of disqualification is two years, up to a maximum of 15 years;
(ii) disqualification after investigation of a company under Pt XIV of the CA 1985 (it should be noted that this part of the previous Act still sets out the procedures for company investigations) (s.8 of the CDDA 1986). Once again, the maximum period of disqualification is 15 years.
Schedule 1 to the CDDA 1986 sets out certain particulars to which the court is to have regard in deciding whether a person’s conduct as a director makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company. In addition, the courts have given indications as to what sort of behaviour will render a person liable to be considered unfit to act as a company director. Thus, in Re Lo-Line Electric Motors Ltd (1988), it was stated that:
‘Ordinary commercial misjudgment is in itself not sufficient to justify disqualification. In the normal case, the conduct complained of must display a lack of commercial probity, although . . . in an extreme case of gross negligence or total incompetence, disqualification could be appropriate.’

(c) Other cases for disqualification
This third category relates to:
(i) participation in fraudulent or wrongful trading under s.213 of the Insolvency Act (IA)1986 (s.10 of the CDDA 1986);
(ii) undischarged bankrupts acting as directors (s.11 of the CDDA 1986); and
(iii) failure to pay under a county court administration order (s.12 of the CDDA 1986).
For the purposes of most of the CDDA 1986, the court has discretion to make a disqualification order. Where, however, a person has been found to be an unfit director of an insolvent company, the court has a duty to make a disqualification order (s.6 of the CDDA 1986). Anyone who acts in contravention of a disqualification order is liable:
(i) to imprisonment for up to two years and/or a fine, on conviction on indictment; or
(ii) to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, on conviction summarily (s.13 of the CDDA 1986).


15 A trader who fixes her prices by adding 50% to cost actually achieved a mark-up of 45%.

Which of the following factors could account for the shortfall?

1 Sales were lower than expected.

2 The opening inventories had been overstated.

3 The closing inventories of the business were higher than the opening inventories.

4 Goods taken from inventories by the proprietor were recorded by debiting drawings and crediting purchases with

the cost of the goods.

A All four factors

B 1, 2 and 4 only

C 2 only

D 3 and 4 only

正确答案:C

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。