ACCA考试时准考证应该怎么打印呢?

正确答案：
(ii) Advantages and disadvantages of being non-executive rather than executive
The UK Combined Code, for example, allows for risk committees to be made up of either executive or non-executive
members.
Advantages of non-executive membership
Separation and detachment from the content being discussed is more likely to bring independent scrutiny.
Sensitive issues relating to one or more areas of executive oversight can be aired without vested interests being present.
Non-executive directors often bring specific expertise that will be more relevant to a risk problem than more
operationally-minded executive directors will have.
Chen’s four members, being from different backgrounds, are likely to bring a range of perspectives and suggested
strategies which may enrich the options open to the committee when considering specific risks.
Disadvantages of non-executive membership (advantages of executive membership)
Direct input and relevant information would be available from executives working directly with the products, systems
and procedures being discussed if they were on the committee. Non-executives are less likely to have specialist
knowledge of products, systems and procedures being discussed and will therefore be less likely to be able to comment
intelligently during meetings.
The membership, of four people, none of whom ‘had direct experience of Chen’s industry or products’ could produce
decisions taken without relevant information that an executive member could provide.
Non-executive directors will need to report their findings to the executive board. This reporting stage slows down the
process, thus requiring more time before actions can be implemented, and introducing the possibility of some
misunderstanding.

正确答案：
(a) The IASB wish their standards to be ‘principles-based’ and in order for this to be the case, the standards must be based on
fundamental concepts. These concepts need to constitute a framework which is sound, comprehensive and internally
consistent. Without agreement on a framework, standard setting is based upon the personal conceptual frameworks of the
individual standard setters which may change as the membership of the body changes and results in standards that are not
consistent with each other. Such a framework is designed not only to assist standard setters, but also preparers of financial
statements, auditors and users.
A common goal of the IASB is to converge their standards with national standard setters. The IASB will encounter difficulties
converging their standards if decisions are based on different frameworks. The IASB has been pursuing a number of projects
that are aimed at achieving short term convergence on certain issues with national standard setters as well as major projects
with them. Convergence will be difficult if there is no consistency in the underlying framework being used.
Frameworks differ in their authoritative status. The IASB’s Framework requires management to expressly consider the
Framework if no standard or interpretation specifically applies or deals with a similar and related issue. However, certain
frameworks have a lower standing. For example, entities are not required to consider the concepts embodied in certain
national frameworks in preparing financial statements. Thus the development of an agreed framework would eliminate
differences in the authoritative standing of conceptual frameworks and lead to greater consistency in financial statements
internationally.
The existing concepts within most frameworks are quite similar. However, these concepts need revising to reflect changes in
markets, business practices and the economic environment since the concepts were developed. The existing frameworks need
developing to reflect these changes and to fill gaps in the frameworks. For example, the IASB’s Framework does not contain
a definition of the reporting entity. An agreed international framework could deal with this problem, especially if priority was
given to the issues likely to give short-term standard setting benefits.
Many standard setting bodies attempted initially to resolve accounting and reporting problems by developing accounting
standards without an accepted theoretical frame. of reference. The result has been inconsistency in the development of
standards both nationally and internationally. The frameworks were developed when several of their current standards were
in existence. In the absence of an agreed conceptual framework the same theoretical issues are revisited on several occasions
by standard setters. The result is inconsistencies and incompatible concepts. Examples of this are substance over form. and
matching versus prudence. Some standard setters such as the IASB permit two methods of accounting for the same set of
circumstances. An example is the accounting for joint ventures where the equity method and proportionate consolidation are
allowed.
Additionally there have been differences in the way that standard setters have practically used the principles in the framework.
Some national standard setters have produced a large number of highly detailed accounting rules with less emphasis on
general principles. A robust framework might reduce the need for detailed rules although some companies operate in a
different legal and statutory context than other entities. It is important that a framework must result in standards that account
appropriately for actual business practice.
An agreed framework will not solve all accounting issues, nor will it obviate the need for judgement to be exercised in resolving
accounting issues. It can provide a framework within which those judgements can be made.
A framework provides standard setters with both a foundation for setting standards, and concepts to use as tools for resolving
accounting and reporting issues. A framework provides a basic reasoning on which to consider the merits of alternatives. It
does not provide all the answers, but narrows the range of alternatives to be considered by eliminating some that are
inconsistent with it. It, thereby, contributes to greater efficiency in the standard setting process by avoiding the necessity of
having to redebate fundamental issues and facilitates any debate about specific technical issues. A framework should also
reduce political pressures in making accounting judgements. The use of a framework reduces the influence of personal biases
in accounting decisions.
However, concepts statements are by their nature very general and theoretical in their wording, which leads to alternative
conclusions being drawn. Whilst individual standards should be consistent with the Framework, in the absence of a specific
standard, it does not follow that concepts will provide practical solutions. IAS8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting
Estimates and Errors’ sets out a hierarchy of authoritative guidance that should be considered in the absence of a standard.
In this case, management can use its judgement in developing and applying an accounting policy, albeit by considering the
IASB framework, but can also use accounting standards issued by other bodies. Thus an international framework may nottotally provide solutions to practical accounting problems.

正确答案：D