ACCA2019-2020MA（F2）考试大纲，速看！

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) Matters to be considered
Tutorial note: Candidates at this level must appreciate that the matters to be considered when planning the nature and
scope of the examination are not the same matters to be considered when deciding whether or not to accept an
engagement. The scenario clearly indicates that the assignment is being undertaken by the current auditor rendering any
‘pre-engagement’/‘professional etiquette’ considerations irrelevant to answering this question.
This PFI has been prepared to show an external user, the bank, the financial consequences of Cusiter’s plans to help the bank
in making an investment decision. If Cusiter is successful in its loan application the PFI provides a management tool against
which the results of investing in the plant and equipment can be measured.
The PFI is unpublished rather than published. That is, it is prepared at the specific request of a third party, the bank. It will
not be published to users of financial information in general.
The auditor’s report on the PFI will provide only negative assurance as to whether the assumptions provide a reasonable basis
for the PFI and an opinion whether the PFI is:
■ properly prepared on the basis of the assumptions; and
■ presented in accordance with the relevant financial reporting framework.
The nature of the engagement is an examination to obtain evidence concerning:
■ the reasonableness and consistency of assumptions made;
■ proper preparation (on the basis of stated assumptions); and
■ consistent presentation (with historical financial statements, using appropriate accounting principles).
Such an examination is likely to take the form. of inquiry, analytical procedures and corroboration.
The period of time covered by the prospective financial information is two years. The assumptions for 2008 are likely to be
more speculative than for 2007, particularly in relation to the impact on earnings, etc of the investment in new plant and
equipment.
The forecast for the year to 31 December 2007 includes an element of historical financial information (because only part of
this period is in the future) hence actual evidence should be available to verify the first three months of the forecast (possibly
more since another three-month period will expire at the end of the month).
Cusiter management’s previous experience in preparing PFI will be relevant. For example, in making accounting estimates
(e.g. for provisions, impairment losses, etc) or preparing cash flow forecasts (e.g. in support of the going concern assertion).
The basis of preparation of the forecast. For example, the extent to which it comprises:
■ proforma financial information (i.e. historical financial information adjusted for the effects of the planned loan and capital
expenditure transaction);
■ new information and assumptions about future performance (e.g. the operating capacity of the new equipment, sales
generated, etc).
The nature and scope of any standards/guidelines under which the PFI has been prepared is likely to assist the auditor in
discharging their responsibilities to report on it. Also, ISAE 3400 The Examination of Prospective Financial Information,
establishes standards and provides guidance on engagements to examine and report on PFI including examination
procedures.
The planned nature and scope of the examination is likely to take into account the time and fee budgets for the assignments
as adjusted for any ‘overlap’ with audit work. For example, the examination of the PFI is likely to draw on the auditor’s
knowledge of the business obtained in auditing the financial statements to 31 December 2006. Analytical procedures carried
out in respect of the PFI may provide evidence relevant to the 31 December 2007 audit.

正确答案：
(c) Specific inquiries – accounting for construction contracts
Tutorial note: This answer is illustrative of the types of inquiry that should be made. Other relevant answer points will be
awarded similar credit. For each full mark to be earned an inquiry should address the specifics of Robson (e.g. that its
accounting policies are ‘generally less prudent’). The identification of asset overstatement/liability understatement may
reduce the purchase price offered by Prescott.
■ Are any constructions being undertaken without signed contracts?
Tutorial note: Any expenditure on constructions without contracts (e.g. of a speculative nature, perhaps to keep the
workforce employed) must be accounted for under IAS ‘Inventories’; revenue cannot be recognised nor profit taken.
■ Is full provision made for future losses foreseen on loss-making contracts?
Tutorial note: The information in the brief is that ‘provisions are made’. The level of provision is not indicated and
could be less than full.
■ Which contracts started during the year are likely to be/have been identified as loss-making (for which no provision has
yet been made)?
Tutorial note: Profits and losses are only determined by contract at each financial year end.
■ What are management’s assumptions and judgments on the likely future outcome on the Sarwar contract (and other
actual and contingent liabilities)?
Tutorial note: Robson would be imprudent if it underestimates the probability of an unfavourable outcome (or
overestimates the likelihood of successful recourse).
■ What claims history has Robson experienced? (What proportion of contracts have been subject to claims? What
proportion of claims brought have been successful? How have they been settled? Under insurance? Out-of-court
settlement?) How effective are the penalty clauses? (Is Robson having to pay penalties for overrunning on contracts?)
■ What are the actual useful lives of assets used in construction? What level of losses are made on disposal?
Tutorial note: If such assets are depreciated over useful lives that are estimated to be too long, depreciation costs
incurred to date (and estimated depreciation to be included in costs to completion) will be understated. This will result
in too much profit/too little loss being calculated on contracts.
■ What is the cause of losses on contracts? For example, if due to theft of building supplies Robson’s management is not
exercising sufficient control over the company’s assets.

正确答案：
(a) Typical roles of a risk management committee
The typical roles of a risk management committee are as follows:
To agree and approve the risk management strategy and policies. The design of risk policy will take into account the
environment, the strategic posture towards risk, the product type and a range of other relevant factors.
Receiving and reviewing risk reports from affected departments. Some departments will file regular reports on key risks (such
as liquidity assessments from the accounting department, legal risks from the company secretariat or product risks from the
sales manager).
Monitoring overall exposure and specific risks. If the risk policy places limits on the total risk exposure for a given risk then
this role ensures that limits are adhered to. In the case of certain strategic risks, monitoring could occur on a very frequent
basis whereas for more operational risks, monitoring will more typically occur to coincide with risk management committee
meetings.
Assessing the effectiveness of risk management systems. This involves getting feedback from departments and the internal
audit function on the workings of current management and risk mitigation systems.
Providing general and explicit guidance to the main board on emerging risks and to report on existing risks. This will involve
preparing reports on apparent risks and assessing their probability of being realised and their potential impact if they do.
To work with the audit committee on designing and monitoring internal controls for the management and mitigation of risks.
If the risk committee is part of the executive structure, it will likely have an advisory role in respect of its input into the audit
committee. If it is non-executive, its input may be more directly influential.
[Tutorial note: other roles may be suggested that, if relevant, will be rewarded]