现在ACCA发展前景好吗？

正确答案：
4 (i) Proposed dividend
The dividend was proposed after the balance sheet date and the company, therefore, did not have a liability at the balance
sheet date. No provision for the dividend should be recognised. The approval by the directors and the shareholders are
enough to create a valid expectation that the payment will be made and give rise to an obligation. However, this occurred
after the current year end and, therefore, will be charged against the profits for the year ending 31 October 2006.
The existence of a good record of dividend payments and an established dividend policy does not create a valid expectation
or an obligation. However, the proposed dividend will be disclosed in the notes to the financial statements as the directors
approved it prior to the authorisation of the financial statements.
(ii) Disposal of subsidiary
It would appear that the loss on the sale of the subsidiary provides evidence that the value of the consolidated net assets of
the subsidiary was impaired at the year end as there has been no significant event since 31 October 2005 which would have
caused the reduction in the value of the subsidiary. The disposal loss provides evidence of the impairment and, therefore,
the value of the net assets and goodwill should be reduced by the loss of $9 million plus the loss ($2 million) to the date of
the disposal, i.e. $11 million. The sale provides evidence of a condition that must have existed at the balance sheet date
(IAS10). This amount will be charged to the income statement and written off goodwill of $12 million, leaving a balance of
$1 million on that account. The subsidiary’s assets are impaired because the carrying values are not recoverable. The net
assets and goodwill of Krup would form. a separate income generating unit as the subsidiary is being disposed of before the
financial statements are authorised. The recoverable amount will be the sale proceeds at the date of sale and represents the
value-in-use to the group. The impairment loss is effectively taking account of the ultimate loss on sale at an earlier point in
time. IFRS5, ‘Non-current assets held for sale and discontinued operations’, will not apply as the company had no intention
of selling the subsidiary at the year end. IAS10 would require disclosure of the disposal of the subsidiary as a non-adjusting
event after the balance sheet date.
(iii) Issue of ordinary shares
IAS33 ‘Earnings per share’ states that if there is a bonus issue after the year end but before the date of the approval of the
financial statements, then the earnings per share figure should be based on the new number of shares issued. Additionally
a company should disclose details of all material ordinary share transactions or potential transactions entered into after the
balance sheet date other than the bonus issue or similar events (IAS10/IAS33). The principle is that if there has been a
change in the number of shares in issue without a change in the resources of the company, then the earnings per share
calculation should be based on the new number of shares even though the number of shares used in the earnings per share
calculation will be inconsistent with the number shown in the balance sheet. The conditions relating to the share issue
(contingent) have been met by the end of the period. Although the shares were issued after the balance sheet date, the issue
of the shares was no longer contingent at 31 October 2005, and therefore the relevant shares will be included in the
computation of both basic and diluted EPS. Thus, in this case both the bonus issue and the contingent consideration issue
should be taken into account in the earnings per share calculation and disclosure made to that effect. Any subsequent change
in the estimate of the contingent consideration will be adjusted in the period when the revision is made in accordance with
IAS8.
Additionally IFRS3 ‘Business Combinations’ requires the fair value of all types of consideration to be reflected in the cost of
the acquisition. The contingent consideration should be included in the cost of the business combination at the acquisition
date if the adjustment is probable and can be measured reliably. In the case of Metalic, the contingent consideration has
been paid in the post-balance sheet period and the value of such consideration can be determined ($11 per share). Thus
an accurate calculation of the goodwill arising on the acquisition of Metalic can be made in the period to 31 October 2005.
Prior to the issue of the shares on 12 November 2005, a value of $10 per share would have been used to value the
contingent consideration. The payment of the contingent consideration was probable because the average profits of Metalic
averaged over $7 million for several years. At 31 October 2005 the value of the contingent shares would be included in a
separate category of equity until they were issued on 12 November 2005 when they would be transferred to the share capital
and share premium account. Goodwill will increase by 300,000 x ($11 – $10) i.e. $300,000.
(iv) Property
IFRS5 (paragraph 7) states that for a non-current asset to be classified as held for sale, the asset must be available for
immediate sale in its present condition subject to the usual selling terms, and its sale must be highly probable. The delay in
this case in the selling of the property would indicate that at 31 October 2005 the property was not available for sale. The
property was not to be made available for sale until the repairs were completed and thus could not have been available for
sale at the year end. If the criteria are met after the year end (in this case on 30 November 2005), then the non-current
asset should not be classified as held for sale in the previous financial statements. However, disclosure of the event should
be made if it meets the criteria before the financial statements are authorised (IFRS5 paragraph 12). Thus in this case,
disclosure should be made.
The property on the application of IFRS5 should have been carried at the lower of its carrying amount and fair value less
costs to sell. However, the company has simply used fair value less costs to sell as the basis of valuation and shown the
property at $27 million in the financial statements.
The carrying amount of the property would have been $20 million less depreciation $1 million, i.e. $19 million. Because
the property is not held for sale under IFRS5, then its classification in the balance sheet will change and the property will be
valued at $19 million. Thus the gain of $7 million on the wrong application of IFRS5 will be deducted from reserves, and
the property included in property, plant and equipment. Total equity will therefore be reduced by $8 million.
(v) Share appreciation rights
IFRS2 ‘Share-based payment’ (paragraph 30) requires a company to re-measure the fair value of a liability to pay cash-settled
share based payment transactions at each reporting date and the settlement date, until the liability is settled. An example of
such a transaction is share appreciation rights. Thus the company should recognise a liability of ($8 x 10 million shares),
i.e. $80 million at 31 October 2005, the vesting date. The liability recognised at 31 October 2005 was in fact based on the
share price at the previous year end and would have been shown at ($6 x 1/2) x 10 million shares, i.e. $30 million. This
liability at 31 October 2005 had not been changed since the previous year end by the company. The SARs vest over a twoyear
period and thus at 31 October 2004 there would be a weighting of the eventual cost by 1 year/2 years. Therefore, an
additional liability and expense of $50 million should be accounted for in the financial statements at 31 October 2005. The
SARs would be settled on 1 December 2005 at $9 x 10 million shares, i.e. $90 million. The increase in the value of the
SARs since the year end would not be accrued in the financial statements but charged to profit or loss in the year ended31 October 2006.

正确答案：
(b) (i) Principal audit procedures – measurement of share-based payment expense
– Obtain management calculation of the expense and agree the following from the calculation to the contractual
terms of the scheme:
– Number of employees and executives granted options
– Number of options granted per employee
– The official grant date of the share options
– Vesting period for the scheme
– Required performance conditions attached to the options.
– Recalculate the expense and check that the fair value has been correctly spread over the stated vesting period.
– Agree fair value of share options to specialist’s report and calculation, and evaluate whether the specialist report is
a reliable source of evidence.
– Agree that the fair value calculated is at the grant date.
Tutorial note: A specialist such as a chartered financial analyst would commonly be used to calculate the fair value
of non-traded share options at the grant date, using models such as the Black-Scholes Model.
– Obtain and review a forecast of staffing levels or employee turnover rates for the duration of the vesting period, and
scrutinise the assumptions used to predict level of staff turnover.
– Discuss previous levels of staff turnover with a representative of the human resources department and query why
0% staff turnover has been predicted for the next three years.
– Check the sensitivity of the calculations to a change in the assumptions used in the valuation, focusing on the
assumption of 0% staff turnover.
– Obtain written representation from management confirming that the assumptions used in measuring the expense
are reasonable.
Tutorial note: A high degree of scepticism must be used by the auditor when conducting the final three procedures
due to the management assumption of 0% staff turnover during the vesting period.

正确答案：
(c) Market risk
Definition of market risk
Market risks are those arising from any of the markets that a company operates in. Most common examples are those risks
from resource markets (inputs), product markets (outputs) or capital markets (finance).
[Tutorial note: markers should exercise latitude in allowing definitions of market risk. IFRS 7, for example, offers a technical
definition: ‘Market risk is the risk that the fair value or cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate due to changes in
market prices. Market risk reflects interest rate risk, currency risk, and other price risks’.]
Why non-compliance increases market risk
The lack of a fully compliant committee structure (such as having a non-compliant audit committee) erodes investor
confidence in the general governance of a company. This will, over time, affect share price and hence company value. Low
company value will threaten existing management (possibly with good cause in the case of Gluck and Goodman) and make
the company a possible takeover target. It will also adversely affect price-earnings and hence market confidence in Gluck and
Goodman’s shares. This will make it more difficult to raise funds from the stock market.

正确答案：
(b) The contributions payable by Savage to the trustees will not count as an asset for the purposes of the valuation of the fund.
IAS19 (paragraph 103) states that plan assets should not include unpaid contributions due from the reporting entity to the
fund. Thus in the financial statements of Savage the contributions would be shown as an amount payable to the trustees
and there may be legal repercussions if the amount is not paid within a short period of time. Following the introduction of
changes to a defined benefit plan, a company should recognise immediately past service costs where the benefit has vested.
In the case where the benefits have not vested then the past service costs will be recognised as an expense over the averageperiod until the benefits vest. The company will therefore recognise $125 million at 1 November 2004.