ACCA证书注册及领取知识！

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.

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：
(d) One of the most widely used models to identify excellence is that of Peters and Waterman developed in their research into
excellent American companies. Interestingly, they agreed with Leavitt in that the companies identified as excellent, whether
they were manufacturers or service businesses, could be seen as offering an excellent service to their customers. This required
them to understand what their customers really valued and then put in place the resources, competences and decision making
processes that delivered the desired attributes. Excellence was positively associated with innovation. Using their checklist of
excellent attributes, Universal could see to be excellent in the following ways:
A bias for action – there is evidence to suggest that both Matthew and Simon are action orientated. They showed an admirable
willingness to experiment and develop a service that added significant value to the customer experience.
Hands-on, value driven – again, the commitment to deliver a quality service – one that they are totally familiar with and able
to deliver themselves – suggests that this value is communicated and shared with staff. The use of self employed installers
and sales people make this commitment particularly important.
Close to the customer – all the evidence points to a real and deep understanding of customer needs. The opportunity for the
business stems from the poor customer service provided by their small competitors. Systems are designed to achieve the ‘no
surprises’ service, which leads to significant levels of customer recommendation and advocacy.
Autonomy and entrepreneurship – there is evidence of a strong belief that individuals and teams should be encouraged to
compete with one another, but not in ways that compromise the quality of the service delivered.
Simple form. – lean staff – Universal is a small functionally managed firm. There is no evidence of creating a large
headquarters, since managers are closely involved with the day-to-day management of their function.
Productivity through people – people are key to the service provided and there is recognition that teams are crucial to the
firm’s growth and success.
Simultaneous loose-tight properties – more difficult to identify in a small company, but there is clearly commitment to shared
values and giving people the freedom to achieve results within this value framework.
These measures of excellence again show the importance of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ factors in achieving outstanding performance.
An alternative interpretation is to see these attributes as critical success factors, which if achieved, are clearly linked to key
performance indicators. Universal’s growth shows the link between strategy and the qualities needed to achieve this growth.
The ubiquitous balanced scorecard could also be used to measure four key criteria of company performance and
benchmarking the company against the major installers could also provide evidence of excellence. The recent gaining of a
government award for Universal’s contribution to inner city job creation is also a useful indicator of all round excellence.