明年准备学习ACCA，想提前了解一下学习科目有...

正确答案：

(W1)
The cost of the labour can be calculated using learning curve principles. The formula can be used or a tabular approach would
also give the average cost of 128 chairs. Both methods are acceptable and shown here.

(b) To reduce the cost gap various methods are possible (only four are needed for full marks)
– Re-design the chair to remove unnecessary features and hence cost
– Negotiate with the frame. supplier for a better cost. This may be easier as the volume of sales improve as suppliers often
are willing to give discounts for bulk buying. Alternatively a different frame. supplier could be found that offers a better
price. Care would be needed here to maintain the required quality
– Leather can be bought from different suppliers or at a better price also. Reducing the level of waste would save on cost.
Even a small reduction in waste rates would remove much of the cost gap that exists
– Improve the rate of learning by better training and supervision
– Employ cheaper labour by reducing the skill level expected. Care would also be needed here not to sacrifice quality or
push up waste rates.
(c) The cost of the 128th chair will be:

正确答案：
(b) Increasingly, firms are becoming aware of their social responsibility and their need to develop strategies that are designed to
meet this responsibility. Such responsibility can take many forms and is not a new phenomenon – many 19th century firms
looked after the housing, education and health needs of the communities where they were located. Michael Porter and Claas
van der Linde in their article ‘Green and competitive’ show how the traditional view that there is ‘an inherent and fixed tradeoff:
ecology versus economy’ is incorrect. This traditional view sees the benefits of government imposed environmental
standards, causing industry’s private costs of prevention and clean up – ‘costs that cause higher prices and reduced
competitiveness’. Porter and Linde argue that with properly designed and implemented environmental standards, firms will
be encouraged to produce innovations that use a range of inputs more efficiently, e.g. energy, labour, raw materials, and in
so doing increase resource productivity and in offsetting the costs of environmental improvement make industry more not less
competitive. All too often in their opinion, companies resort to fighting environmental control through the courts rather than
using innovation to increase resource productivity and meet environmental standards – ‘environmental strategies must
become an issue for general managers’.
CFS are, therefore, correct in seeing environmental standards as a positive step towards becoming more not less competitive.
Key stakeholders in the form. of both government and customers are looking to their suppliers to become more ‘green’. These
challenges are increasingly international and global. Building in positive environmental strategies can help CFS differentiate
itself and through improved resource productivity become more competitive. Clearly, they will need the environmental
scanning devices to become aware of environmental legislation and change. Awareness then can lead to analysis in the
monitoring of macro environmental challenges and the development of a SWOT analysis to match the company’s strengths
and weaknesses against the threats and opportunities created by environmental standards. Tools of strategic analysis such as
PEST, five forces and value chain analysis lend themselves to understanding the significance of the environmental change
and how it can stimulate innovation and, through innovation, competitive advantage.

正确答案：
(c) Temporary staff assignments
Lending staff on a temporary basis to an audit client will create the following ethical threats:
Management involvement – Assuming that the manager or senior is seconded to the finance function of the audit client, it
is likely that the individual would be in some way involved in decision making in relation to the accounting systems,
management accounts or financial statements.
Self-review – On returning to the audit firm, a seconded individual could be a member of the audit team for the client to
which they seconded. This would create a self- review threat whereby they would be unlikely to be critical of their own work
performed or decisions made. Even if the individual were not assigned to the client where they performed a temporary
assignment, the audit team assigned may tend to over rely on areas worked on by a colleague during the period of their
temporary assignment.
Familiarity – if the individual is working at the client at any time during the audit, there will be a familiarity threat, whereby
audit team members will be unlikely to sufficiently challenge, and therefore not exercise enough professional scepticism when
dealing with work performed by the seconded individual.
In addition, due to the over-staffing problem of Becker & Co, the seconded individuals may feel that if they were not on the
secondment, they could be made redundant. This may cause them to act in such as way as not to jeopardise the secondment,
even if the action were not in the best interests of the firm.
The threats discussed above are increased where a senior person likely to make significant decisions is involved with the
temporary assignment, as in this case where audit managers or seniors will be the subjects of the proposed secondment.
In practice, assistance can be provided to clients, especially in emergency situations, but only on the understanding that the
firm’s personnel will not be involved with:
– Making management decisions,
– Approving or signing agreements or similar documents, and
– Having the authority to enter into commitments on behalf of the company.
In addition, the individual seconded to a client should not then be involved in any way with the audit of that client when they
return to the audit firm. This may be a difficult area, as presumably the client would prefer to have an individual seconded
to them who has knowledge and experience of their business, i.e. a member of the audit team, and most likely in this scenario
to be the audit manager. If this were the case the manager would then have to be reassigned to a different client, causing
internal problems for the audit firm. This problem is likely to outweigh any benefits, financial or otherwise, to Becker & Co.
If the temporary staff assignment were to a non-finance department of the client then the threats would be reduced.
If Becker & Co decides to go ahead with the secondment programme, the firm must ensure that the staff are suitably
experienced and qualified to carry out the work given to them by the client. There could be a risk to the reputation of Becker
& Co if the seconded staff are not competent or do not perform. as well as expected by the client.
One advantage of a secondment is that the individual concerned can benefit from exposure to a different type of work and
work environment. This will provide some valuable insights into accounting within a business and the individual may bring
some new skills and ideas back into the audit firm.
However, the staff seconded could be offered a permanent position at the client. This would lead to the loss of key members
of staff, and be detrimental for Becker & Co in the long run.
The other benefit for the audit firm is that a programme of secondments will ease the problem of an over-staffed audit
department, and should have cash flow benefits.
Tutorial note: In answering this question it is relevant to briefly mention corporate governance implications i.e. the client may
not be able to accept the services offered by their auditor for ethical, particularly objectivity, reasons.

正确答案：
(c) A joint audit is when two or more audit firms are jointly responsible for giving the audit opinion. This is very common in a
group situation where the principal auditor is appointed jointly with the auditor of a subsidiary to provide a joint opinion on
the subsidiary’s financial statements. There are several advantages and disadvantages in a joint audit being performed.
Advantages
It can be beneficial in terms of audit efficiency for a joint audit to be conducted, especially in the case of a new subsidiary.
In this case, Lead & Co will have built up an understanding of Maxwell Co’s business, systems and controls, and financial
statement issues. It will be time efficient for the two firms of auditors to work together in order for Chien & Co to build up
knowledge of the new subsidiary. This is a key issue, as Chien & Co need to acquire a thorough understanding of the
subsidiary in order to assess any risks inherent in the company which could impact on the overall assessment of risk within
the group. Lead & Co will be able to provide a good insight into the company, and advise Chien & Co of the key risk areas
they have previously identified.
On the practical side, it seems that Maxwell Co is a significant addition to the group, as it is expected to increase operating
facilities by 40%. If Chien & Co were appointed as sole auditors to Maxwell Co it may be difficult for the audit firm to provide
adequate resources to conduct the audit at the same time as auditing the other group companies. A joint audit will allow
sufficient resources to be allocated to the audit of Maxwell Co, assuring the quality of the opinion provided.
If there is a tight deadline, as is common with the audit of subsidiaries, which should be completed before the group audit
commences, then having access to two firms’ resources should enable the audit to be completed in good time.
The audit should also benefit from an improvement in quality. The two audit firms may have different points of view, and
would be able to discuss contentious issues throughout the audit process. In particular, the newly appointed audit team will
have a ‘fresh pair of eyes’ and be able to offer new insight to matters identified. It should be easier to challenge management
and therefore ensure that the auditors’ position is taken seriously.
Tutorial note: Candidates may have referred to the recent debate over whether joint audits increase competition in the
profession. In particular, joint audits have been proposed as a way for ‘mid tier’ audit firms to break into the market of
auditing large companies and groups, which at the moment is monopolised by the ‘Big 4’. Although this does not answer
the specific question set, credit will be awarded for demonstration of awareness of this topical issue.
Disadvantages
For the client, it is likely to be more expensive to engage two audit firms than to have the audit opinion provided by one firm.
From a cost/benefit point of view there is clearly no point in paying twice for one opinion to be provided. Despite the audit
workload being shared, both firms will have a high cost for being involved in the audit in terms of senior manager and partner
time. These costs will be passed on to the client within the audit fee.
The two audit firms may use very different audit approaches and terminology. This could make it difficult for the audit firms
to work closely together, negating some of the efficiency and cost benefits discussed above. Problems could arise in deciding
which firm’s method to use, for example, to calculate materiality, design and pick samples for audit procedures, or evaluate
controls within the accounting system. It may be impossible to reconcile two different methods and one firm’s methods may
end up dominating the audit process, which then eliminates the benefit of a joint audit being conducted. It could be time
consuming to develop a ‘joint’ audit approach, based on elements of each of the two firms’ methodologies, time which
obviously would not have been spent if a single firm was providing the audit.
There may be problems for the two audit firms to work together harmoniously. Lead & Co may feel that ultimately they will
be replaced by Chien & Co as audit provider, and therefore could be unwilling to offer assistance and help.
Potentially, problems could arise in terms of liability. In the event of litigation, because both firms have provided the audit
opinion, it follows that the firms would be jointly liable. The firms could blame each other for any negligence which was
discovered, making the litigation process more complex than if a single audit firm had provided the opinion. However, it could
be argued that joint liability is not necessarily a drawback, as the firms should both be covered by professional indemnity
insurance.