ACCAer 怎样才能摆脱 49分的尴尬？必看！

正确答案：
(b) Financial statement risks
Assets
■ There is a very high risk that inventory could be materially overstated in the balance sheet (thereby overstating profit)
because:
? there is a high volume of metals (hence material);
? valuable metals are made more portable;
? subsidy gives an incentive to overstate purchases (and hence inventory);
? inventory may not exist due to lack of physical controls (e.g. aluminium can blow away);
? scrap metal in the stockyard may have zero net realisable value (e.g. iron is rusty and slow-moving);
? quantities per counts not attended by an auditor have increased by a third.
■ Inventory could be otherwise misstated (over or under) due to:
? the weighbridge being inaccurate;
? metal qualities being estimated;
? different metals being mixed up; and
? the lack of an independent expert to identify/measure/value metals.
■ Tangible non-current assets are understated as the parts of the furnaces that require replacement (the linings) are not
capitalised (and depreciated) as separate items but treated as repairs/maintenance/renewals and expensed.
■ Cash may be understated due to incomplete recording of sales.
■ Recorded cash will be overstated if it does not exist (e.g. if it has been stolen).
■ Trade receivables may be understated if cash receipts from credit customers have been misappropriated.
Liabilities
■ The provision for the replacement of the furnace linings is overstated by the amount provided in the current and previous
year (i.e. in its entirety).
Tutorial note: Last replacement was two years ago.
Income statement
■ Revenue will be understated in respect of unrecorded cash sales of salvaged metals and ‘clinker’.
■ Scrap metal purchases (for cash) are at risk of overstatement:
? to inflate the 15% subsidy;
? to conceal misappropriated cash.
■ The income subsidy will be overstated if quantities purchased are overstated and/or overvalued (on the quarterly returns)
to obtain the amount of the subsidy.
■ Cash receipts/payments that were recorded only in the cash book in November are at risk of being unrecorded (in the
absence of cash book postings for November), especially if they are of a ‘one-off’ nature.
Tutorial note: Cash purchases of scrap and sales of salvaged metal should be recorded elsewhere (i.e. in the manual
inventory records). However, a one-off expense (of a capital or revenue nature) could be omitted in the absence of
another record.
■ Expenditure is overstated in respect of the 25% provision for replacing the furnace linings. However, as depreciation
will be similarly understated (as the furnace linings have not been capitalised) there is no risk of material misstatement
to the income statement overall.
Disclosure risk
■ A going concern (‘failure’) risk may arise through the loss of:
? sales revenue (e.g. through misappropriation of salvaged metals and/or cash);
? the subsidy (e.g. if returns are prepared fraudulently);
? cash (e.g. if material amounts stolen).
Any significant doubts about going concern must be suitably disclosed in the notes to the financial statements.
Disclosure risk arises if the requirements of IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’ are not met.
■ Disclosure risk arises if contingent liabilities in connection with the dumping of ‘clinker’ (e.g. for fines and penalties) are
not adequately disclosed in accordance with IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’.
Appropriate audit approach
Tutorial note: In explaining why AN audit approach is appropriate for Indigo it can be relevant to comment on the
unsuitability of other approaches.
■ A risk-based approach is suitable because:
? inherent risk is high at the entity and financial assertion levels;
? material errors are likely to arise in inventory where a high degree of subjectivity will be involved (regarding quality
of metals, quantities, net realisable value, etc);
? it directs the audit effort to inventory, purchases, income (sales and subsidy) and other risk areas (e.g. contingent
liabilities).
■ A systems-based/compliance approach is not suited to the risk areas identified because controls are lacking/ineffective
(e.g. over inventory and cash). Also, as the audit appointment was not more than three months ago and no interim
audit has been conducted (and the balance sheet date is only three weeks away) testing controls is likely to be less
efficient than a substantive approach.
■ A detailed substantive/balance sheet approach would be suitable to direct audit effort to the appropriate valuation of
assets (and liabilities) existing at balance sheet date. Principal audit work would include:
? attendance at a full physical inventory count at 31 December 2005;
? verifying cash at bank (through bank confirmation and reconciliation) and in hand (through physical count);
? confirming the accuracy of the quarterly returns to the local authority.
■ A cyclical approach/directional testing is unlikely to be suitable as cycles are incomplete. For example the purchases
cycle for metals is ‘purchase/cash’ rather than ‘purchase/payable/cash’ and there is no independent third party evidence
to compensate for that which would be available if there were trade payables (i.e. suppliers’ statements). Also the cycles
are inextricably inter-related to cash and inventory – amounts of which are subject to high inherent risk.
■ Analytical procedures may be of limited use for substantive purposes. Factors restricting the use of substantive analytical
procedures include:
? fluctuating margins (e.g. as many factors will influence the price at which scrap is purchased and subsequently
sold, when salvaged, sometime later);
? a lack of reliable/historic information on which to make comparisons.

正确答案：C

正确答案：
(b)(i)Price/earningsratiomethodEarningspershareofNGN=80cpersharePrice/earningsratioofKFPCo=8SharepriceofNGN=80x8=640cor$6·40NumberofordinarysharesofNGN=5/0·5=10millionsharesValueofNGN=6·40x10m=$64millionHowever,itcanbearguedthatareductionintheappliedprice/earningsratioisneededasNGNisunlistedandthereforeitssharesaremoredifficulttobuyandsellthanthoseofalistedcompanysuchasKFPCo.Ifwereducetheappliedprice/earningsratioby10%(othersimilarpercentagereductionswouldbeacceptable),itbecomes7·2timesandthevalueofNGNwouldbe(80/100)x7·2x10m=$57·6million(ii)DividendgrowthmodelDividendpershareofNGN=80cx0·45=36cpershareSincethepayoutratiohasbeenmaintainedforseveralyears,recentearningsgrowthisthesameasrecentdividendgrowth,i.e.4·5%.Assumingthatthisdividendgrowthcontinuesinthefuture,thefuturedividendgrowthratewillbe4·5%.Sharepricefromdividendgrowthmodel=(36x1·045)/(0·12–0·045)=502cor$5·02ValueofNGN=5·02x10m=$50·2million(c)Adiscussionofcapitalstructurecouldstartfromrecognisingthatequityismoreexpensivethandebtbecauseoftherelativeriskofthetwosourcesoffinance.Equityisriskierthandebtandsoequityismoreexpensivethandebt.Thisdoesnotdependonthetaxefficiencyofdebt,sincewecanassumethatnotaxesexist.Wecanalsoassumethatasacompanygearsup,itreplacesequitywithdebt.Thismeansthatthecompany’scapitalbaseremainsconstantanditsweightedaveragecostofcapital(WACC)isnotaffectedbyincreasinginvestment.Thetraditionalviewofcapitalstructureassumesanon-linearrelationshipbetweenthecostofequityandfinancialrisk.Asacompanygearsup,thereisinitiallyverylittleincreaseinthecostofequityandtheWACCdecreasesbecausethecostofdebtislessthanthecostofequity.Apointisreached,however,wherethecostofequityrisesataratethatexceedsthereductioneffectofcheaperdebtandtheWACCstartstoincrease.Inthetraditionalview,therefore,aminimumWACCexistsand,asaresult,amaximumvalueofthecompanyarises.ModiglianiandMillerassumedaperfectcapitalmarketandalinearrelationshipbetweenthecostofequityandfinancialrisk.Theyarguedthat,asacompanygearedup,thecostofequityincreasedataratethatexactlycancelledoutthereductioneffectofcheaperdebt.WACCwasthereforeconstantatalllevelsofgearingandnooptimalcapitalstructure,wherethevalueofthecompanywasatamaximum,couldbefound.Itwasarguedthattheno-taxassumptionmadebyModiglianiandMillerwasunrealistic,sinceintherealworldinterestpaymentswereanallowableexpenseincalculatingtaxableprofitandsotheeffectivecostofdebtwasreducedbyitstaxefficiency.Theyrevisedtheirmodeltoincludethistaxeffectandshowedthat,asaresult,theWACCdecreasedinalinearfashionasacompanygearedup.Thevalueofthecompanyincreasedbythevalueofthe‘taxshield’andanoptimalcapitalstructurewouldresultbygearingupasmuchaspossible.Itwaspointedoutthatmarketimperfectionsassociatedwithhighlevelsofgearing,suchasbankruptcyriskandagencycosts,wouldlimittheextenttowhichacompanycouldgearup.Inpractice,therefore,itappearsthatcompaniescanreducetheirWACCbyincreasinggearing,whileavoidingthefinancialdistressthatcanariseathighlevelsofgearing.Ithasfurtherbeensuggestedthatcompanieschoosethesourceoffinancewhich,foronereasonoranother,iseasiestforthemtoaccess(peckingordertheory).Thisresultsinaninitialpreferenceforretainedearnings,followedbyapreferencefordebtbeforeturningtoequity.TheviewsuggeststhatcompaniesmaynotinpracticeseektominimisetheirWACC(andconsequentlymaximisecompanyvalueandshareholderwealth).TurningtothesuggestionthatdebtcouldbeusedtofinanceacashbidforNGN,thecurrentandpostacquisitioncapitalstructuresandtheirrelativegearinglevelsshouldbeconsidered,aswellastheamountofdebtfinancethatwouldbeneeded.Earliercalculationssuggestthatatleast$58mwouldbeneeded,ignoringanypremiumpaidtopersuadetargetcompanyshareholderstoselltheirshares.Thecurrentdebt/equityratioofKFPCois60%(15m/25m).Thedebtofthecompanywouldincreaseby$58minordertofinancethebidandbyafurther$20maftertheacquisition,duetotakingontheexistingdebtofNGN,givingatotalof$93m.Ignoringotherfactors,thegearingwouldincreaseto372%(93m/25m).KFPCowouldneedtoconsiderhowitcouldservicethisdangerouslyhighlevelofgearinganddealwiththesignificantriskofbankruptcythatitmightcreate.ItwouldalsoneedtoconsiderwhetherthebenefitsarisingfromtheacquisitionofNGNwouldcompensateforthesignificantincreaseinfinancialriskandbankruptcyriskresultingfromusingdebtfinance.