湖北省考生注意：2020年ACCA考试，科目要这么选！

发布时间：2020-01-10

ACCA考试一共有13门考试科目，这对于一个刚学习ACCA的考生来说，多少有点难以下手的感觉。按照以往考霸学习经验，ACCA考试13门科目如何搭配比较合理呢?今天51题库考试学习网就给大家介绍一下吧!当然，51题库考试学习网推荐大家的报名顺序不一定是适用于每一个人的，仅供大家参考哟~大家一定要根据自己的学习能力和进度来调整报考顺序，毕竟适合自己的才是最好的。

ACCA考试科目共13科，分为四个大模块：知识模块(ACCA考试科目AB-FA)、技能模块(ACCA考试科目LW-FM)、核心模块(ACCA考试科目SBL&SBR)、选修模块(ACCA考试科目AFM-AAA)。学员只需要通过11门必修科目及2门选修科目共13门课程即可通过考试。

不过，总体来说，ACCA考试科目有两个部分：基础阶段和专业阶段。他们各自有哪些特点呢?

第一部分为基础阶段，主要分为知识课程和技能课程两个部分。知识课程主要涉及财务会计和管理会计方面的核心知识，也为接下去进行技能阶段的详细学习搭建了一个平台。技能课程共有六门课程，广泛的涵盖了一名会计师所涉及的知识领域及必须掌握的技能。

第二部分为专业阶段，主要分为核心课程和选修(四选二)课程。该阶段的课程相当于硕士阶段的课程难度，是对第一部分课程的引申和发展。该阶段课程引入了作为未来的高级会计师所必须的更高级的职业技能和知识技能。选修课程为从事高级管理咨询或顾问职业的学员，设计了解决更高级和更复杂的问题的技能。

对于ACCA考生来说，这必考的13门科目必须按模块顺序来报考，即知识模块-技能模块-核心模块-选修模块。必须按照这个顺序来报考，但是各个模块内部的科目是可以打乱顺序考的。例如：F1-F3，可以先考F3，再考F2，再考F1，后面的依此类推。

当然，ACCA每一次考试最多可以报满4科，那么可以把前面模块的都报上，报完以后还有剩余科目可以给后面模块的再报上后面模块的科目。

例如，可以一次把F1、F2、F3、F4都报上，考试结束后，F4、F3、F2都通过了，F1没通过，那么下次报F678等科目时，必须先把F1报上，如果考完了F4-F9的科目，F1还是没通过，报P阶段时，F1也必须先报上。就是说前一个模块没有考完的科目，必须在下一次报考下一个模块考试时都带上继续报考，直到通过。后面的依此类推。

F阶段的考试相对比较简单，P阶段考试科目是专业的阶段课程，相对于前面二部分是有难度的，对综合应用英语的能力和专业知识部分提出了新的挑战。ACCA考试科目P2、P4、P5偏向于计算，ACCA考试科目P1和P3的计算量较少。所以想一次性报考的话，ACCA考试科目P2、P4、P5偏向于计算，ACCA考试科目P1和P3的计算量较少，建议交叉考试分配，在告诉大家分配考试顺序之前，温馨提示一下大家：这里的可以随机顺序报考，指的是阶段内部的报考，譬如F阶段里面F1-F9你可以任意顺序报考，而硬性规定的一点就是F阶段的全部通过之后，才可以报考P阶段的考试。

这里给出的组合建议是：

1.毅力有精力有可以F6+F7+F9，然后F8+P1+P2,若是求稳，应该选择F6+F9，然后F7+F8

2.学习 F9 P2

3.学习 P1 P3

4.学习 P4 P5

为梦想孤注一掷，让努力苦尽甘来。以上信息希望可以帮助到你，最后51题库考试学习网祝你考试成功

下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题，供大家学习参考。

1 The scientists in the research laboratories of Swan Hill Company (SHC, a public listed company) recently made a very

important discovery about the process that manufactured its major product. The scientific director, Dr Sonja Rainbow,

informed the board that the breakthrough was called the ‘sink method’. She explained that the sink method would

enable SHC to produce its major product at a lower unit cost and in much higher volumes than the current process.

It would also produce lower unit environmental emissions and would substantially improve product quality compared

to its current process and indeed compared to all of the other competitors in the industry.

SHC currently has 30% of the global market with its nearest competitor having 25% and the other twelve producers

sharing the remainder. The company, based in the town of Swan Hill, has a paternalistic management approach and

has always valued its relationship with the local community. Its website says that SHC has always sought to maximise

the benefit to the workforce and community in all of its business decisions and feels a great sense of loyalty to the

Swan Hill locality which is where it started in 1900 and has been based ever since.

As the board considered the implications of the discovery of the sink method, chief executive Nelson Cobar asked

whether Sonja Rainbow was certain that SHC was the only company in the industry that had made the discovery and

she said that she was. She also said that she was certain that the competitors were ‘some years’ behind SHC in their

research.

It quickly became clear that the discovery of the sink method was so important and far reaching that it had the

potential to give SHC an unassailable competitive advantage in its industry. Chief executive Nelson Cobar told board

colleagues that they should clearly understand that the discovery had the potential to put all of SHC’s competitors out

of business and make SHC the single global supplier. He said that as the board considered the options, members

should bear in mind the seriousness of the implications upon the rest of the industry.

Mr Cobar said there were two strategic options. Option one was to press ahead with the huge investment of new plant

necessary to introduce the sink method into the factory whilst, as far as possible, keeping the nature of the sink

technology secret from competitors (the ‘secrecy option’). A patent disclosing the nature of the technology would not

be filed so as to keep the technology secret within SHC. Option two was to file a patent and then offer the use of the

discovery to competitors under a licensing arrangement where SHC would receive substantial royalties for the twentyyear

legal lifetime of the patent (the ‘licensing option’). This would also involve new investment but at a slower pace

in line with competitors. The licence contract would, Mr Cobar explained, include an ‘improvement sharing’

requirement where licensees would be required to inform. SHC of any improvements discovered that made the sink

method more efficient or effective.

The sales director, Edwin Kiama, argued strongly in favour of the secrecy option. He said that the board owed it to

SHC’s shareholders to take the option that would maximise shareholder value. He argued that business strategy was

all about gaining competitive advantage and this was a chance to do exactly that. Accordingly, he argued, the sink

method should not be licensed to competitors and should be pursued as fast as possible. The operations director said

that to gain the full benefits of the sink method with either option would require a complete refitting of the factory and

the largest capital investment that SHC had ever undertaken.

The financial director, Sean Nyngan, advised the board that pressing ahead with investment under the secrecy option

was not without risks. First, he said, he would have to finance the investment, probably initially through debt, and

second, there were risks associated with any large investment. He also informed the board that the licensing option

would, over many years, involve the inflow of ‘massive’ funds in royalty payments from competitors using the SHC’s

patented sink method. By pursuing the licensing option, Sean Nyngan said that they could retain their market

leadership in the short term without incurring risk, whilst increasing their industry dominance in the future through

careful investment of the royalty payments.

The non-executive chairman, Alison Manilla, said that she was looking at the issue from an ethical perspective. She

asked whether SHC had the right, even if it had the ability, to put competitors out of business.

Required:

(a) Assess the secrecy option using Tucker’s model for decision-making. (10 marks)

正确答案：
(a) Tucker’s framework
Is the decision:
Profitable? For SHC, the answer to this question is yes. Profits would potentially be substantially increased by the loss of all
of its competitors and the emergence of SHC, in the short to medium term at least, as a near monopolist.
Legal? The secrecy option poses no legal problems as it is a part of normal competitive behaviour in industries. In some
jurisdictions, legislation forbids monopolies existing in some industries but there is no indication from the case that this
restriction applies to Swan Hill Company.
Fair? The fairness of the secrecy option is a moral judgment. It is probably fair when judged from the perspective of SHC’s
shareholders but the question is the extent to which it is fair to the employees and shareholders of SHC’s competitors.
Right? Again, a question of ethical perspective. Is it right to pursue the subjugation of competitors and the domination of an
industry regardless of the consequences to competitors? The secrecy option may be of the most benefit to the local community
of Swan Hill that the company has traditionally valued.
Sustainable or environmentally sound? The case says that the sink method emits at a lower rate per unit of output than the
existing process but this has little to do with the secrecy option as the rates of emissions would apply if SHC licensed the
process. This is also an argument for the licensing option, however, as environmental emissions would be lower if other
competitors switched to the sink method as well. There may be environmental implications in decommissioning the old plant
to make way for the new sink method investment.

(b) Given his recent diagnosis, advise Stuart as to which of the two proposed investments (Omikron plc/Omega

plc) would be the more tax efficient alternative. Give reasons for your choice. (3 marks)

正确答案：
(b) Both companies are listed. The only difference will be in the availability of inheritance tax relief – specifically business property
relief (BPR). If Stuart and Rebecca jointly hold in excess of 50% of the share capital of a listed company, BPR will apply at
the rate of 50%. Otherwise, no BPR is available.
Stuart can only buy 1,005,000 (￡422,100/￡0·42) shares in Omikron plc. This represents a shareholding of 2·00%
(1,005,000/50,250,000). As the shares in Omikron plc are listed, a 2% holding will not qualify for BPR.
At the moment, both Stuart and Rebecca own 2,400,000 shares in Omega plc. Their shareholdings are amalgamated for
IHT purposes under the related property rules. With a joint holding of 48%, BPR is not available. A further 200,001 shares
will be required to attain a 50% holding. Assuming Stuart and Rebecca can buy these shares, they must then hold their 50%
interest in the company for the period of at least two years in order to ensure that BPR applies.
On the basis that Stuart is expected to survive for two to three years, he should therefore buy further shares in Omega plc in
order to take advantage of the BPR available.

(b) Describe five main barriers to an effective appraisal interview. (10 marks)

正确答案：
(b) The appraisal system should be well constructed and fair to both the individual and the organisation. However, there are a number of barriers, often because employees see the appraisal as one or more of the following:
Confrontation due to lack of agreement on performance, badly explained or subjective feedback, performance based on recent events or disagreement on longer term activities.
Judgement, the appraisal is seen as a one sided process based entirely on the manager’s perspective.
Chat is the worst of all worlds. The appraisal interview is seen as an informal, loosely constructed and badly managed conversation without purpose.
Unfinished business is when the appraisal is not seen as part of a continuing process of performance management.
An annual event when the appraisal is seen as largely irrelevant and simply an event to set annual targets that quickly become out of date.
A system of bureaucracy based on forms devised solely to satisfy the organisation’s human resources department so that its main purpose, that of identifying individual and organisation performance and improvement, is forgotten.

声明：本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传，本网站不拥有所有权，未作人工编辑处理，也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容，欢迎发送邮件至：contact@51tk.com 进行举报，并提供相关证据，工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你，一经查实，本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。

站内搜索
热门标签