ACCA考试科目报名考试顺序怎么搭配好呢？

正确答案：
(a) To: Board of directors
From: Management Accountant
Date: 8 June 2007
The potential benefits of the adoption of a balanced scorecard approach to performance measurement within GER are as
follows:
A broader business perspective
Financial measures invariably have an inward-looking perspective. The balanced scorecard is wider in its scope and
application. It has an external focus and looks at comparisons with competitors in order to establish what constitutes best
practice and ensures that required changes are made in order to achieve it. The use of the balanced scorecard requires a
balance of both financial and non-financial measures and goals.
A greater strategic focus
The use of the balanced scorecard focuses to a much greater extent on the longer term. There is a far greater emphasis on
strategic considerations. It attempts to identify the needs and wants of customers and the new products and markets. Hence
it requires a balance between short term and long term performance measures.
A greater focus on qualitative aspects
The use of the balanced scorecard attempts to overcome the over-emphasis of traditional measures on the quantifiable aspects
of the internal operations of an organisation expressed in purely financial terms. Its use requires a balance between
quantitative and qualitative performance measures. For example, customer satisfaction is a qualitative performance measure
which is given prominence under the balanced scorecard approach.
A greater focus on longer term performance
The use of traditional financial measures is often dominated by financial accounting requirements, for example, the need to
show fixed assets at their historic cost. Also, they are primarily focused on short-term profitability and return on capital
employed in order to gain stakeholder approval of short term financial reports, the longer term or whole life cycle often being
ignored.
The limitations of a balanced scorecard approach to performance measurement may be viewed as follows:
The balanced scorecard attempts to identify the chain of cause and effect relationships which will provide the stimulus for
the future success of an organisation.
Advocates of a balanced scorecard approach to performance measurement suggest that it can constitute a vital component
of the strategic management process.
However, Robert Kaplan and David Norton, the authors of the balanced scorecard concept concede that it may not be suitable
for all firms. Norton suggests that it is most suitable for firms which have a long lead time between management action and
financial benefit and that it will be less suitable for firms with a short-term focus. However, other flaws can be detected in
the balanced scorecard.
The balanced scorecard promises to outline the theory of the firm by clearly linking the driver/outcome measures in a cause
and effect chain, but this will be difficult if not impossible to achieve.
The precise cause and effect relationships between measures for each of the perspectives on the balanced scorecard will be
complex because the driver and outcome measures for the various perspectives are interlinked. For example, customer
satisfaction may be seen to be a function of several drivers, such as employee satisfaction, manufacturing cycle time and
quality. However, employee satisfaction may in turn be partially driven by customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction
may partially drive manufacturing cycle time. A consequence of this non-linearity of the cause and effect chain (i.e., there is
non-linear relationship between an individual driver and a single outcome measure), is that there must be a question mark
as to the accuracy of any calculated correlations between driver and outcome measures. Allied to this point, any calculated
correlations will be historic. This implies that it will only be possible to determine the accuracy of cause and effect linkages
after the event, which could make the use of the balanced scorecard in dynamic industries questionable. If the market is
undergoing rapid evolution, for example, how meaningful are current measures of customer satisfaction or market share?
These criticisms do not necessarily undermine the usefulness of the balanced scorecard in presenting a more comprehensive
picture of organisational performance but they do raise doubts concerning claims that a balanced scorecard can be
constructed which will outline a clear cause and effect chain between driver and outcome measures and the firm’s financial
objectives.

正确答案：
(i)IAS18Revenuerequiresthatwheresalesrevenueincludesanamountforaftersalesservicingandsupportcoststhenaproportionoftherevenueshouldbedeferred.Theamountdeferredshouldcoverthecostandareasonableprofit(inthiscaseagrossprofitof40%)ontheservices.Astheservicingandsupportisforthreeyearsandthedateofthesalewas1October2008,revenuerelatingtotwoyears’servicingandsupportprovisionmustbedeferred:($1·2millionx2/0·6)=$4million.Thisisshownas$2millioninbothcurrentandnon-currentliabilities.

正确答案：
(ii) Recycling is an issue for both the current performance statements and the single statement. Recycling occurs where an
item of financial performance is reported in more than one accounting period because the nature of the item has in some
way changed. It raises the question as to whether gains and losses originally reported in one section of the statement
should be reported in another section at a later date. An example would be gains/losses on the retranslation of the net
investment in an overseas subsidiary. These gains could be reported annually on the retranslation of the subsidiary and
then again when the subsidiary was sold.
The main arguments for recycling to take place are as follows:
1. when unrealised items become realised they should be shown again
2. when uncertain measurements become certain they should be reported again
3. all items should be shown in operating or financing activities at some point in time as all items of performance are
ultimately part of operating or financing activities of an entity.
There is no conceptual justification for recycling. Once an item has been recognised in a statement of financial
performance it should not be recognised again in a future period in a different part of that statement. Once an item is
recognised in the statement there is an assumption that it can be reliably measured and therefore it should be recognised
in the appropriate section of the statement with no reason to show it again.
Gains and losses should not be based on the notion of realisation. Realisation may have been a critical event historically
but given the current financial exposures of many entities, such a principle has limited value. A realised gain reflects the
same economic gain as an unrealised gain. Items should be classified in the performance statement on the basis of
characteristics which are more useful than realisation. The effect of realisation is explained better in the cash flow
statement. Realisation means different things in different countries. In Europe and Asia it refers to the amount of
distributable profits but in the USA it refers to capital maintenance. The amount of distributable profits is not an
accounting but a legal issue, and therefore realisation should not be the overriding determinant of the reporting of gains
and losses.
An alternative view could be that an unrealised gain is more subjective than a realised gain. In many countries, realised
gains are recognised for distribution purposes because of their certainty because this gives more economic stability to
the payment of dividends.