如何帮助云南省考生高效的学习ACCA考试?

(c) Explain the benefits of performance-related pay in rewarding directors and critically evaluate the implications

of the package offered to Choo Wang. (8 marks)

2 Your audit client, Prescott Co, is a national hotel group with substantial cash resources. Its accounting functions are

well managed and the group accounting policies are rigorously applied. The company’s financial year end is

31 December.

Prescott has been seeking to acquire a construction company for some time in order to bring in-house the building

and refurbishment of hotels and related leisure facilities (e.g. swimming pools, squash courts and restaurants).

Prescott’s management has recently identified Robson Construction Co as a potential target and has urgently requested

that you undertake a limited due diligence review lasting two days next week.

Further to their preliminary talks with Robson’s management, Prescott has provided you with the following brief on

Robson Construction Co:

The chief executive, managing director and finance director are all family members and major shareholders. The

company name has an established reputation for quality constructions.

Due to a recession in the building trade the company has been operating at its overdraft limit for the last 18

months and has been close to breaching debt covenants on several occasions.

Robson’s accounting policies are generally less prudent than those of Prescott (e.g. assets are depreciated over

longer estimated useful lives).

Contract revenue is recognised on the percentage of completion method, measured by reference to costs incurred

to date. Provisions are made for loss-making contracts.

The company’s management team includes a qualified and experienced quantity surveyor. His main

responsibilities include:

(1) supervising quarterly physical counts at major construction sites;

(2) comparing costs to date against quarterly rolling budgets; and

(3) determining profits and losses by contract at each financial year end.

Although much of the labour is provided under subcontracts all construction work is supervised by full-time site

managers.

In August 2005, Robson received a claim that a site on which it built a housing development in 2002 was not

properly drained and is now subsiding. Residents are demanding rectification and claiming damages. Robson

has referred the matter to its lawyers and denied all liability, as the site preparation was subcontracted to Sarwar

Services Co. No provisions have been made in respect of the claims, nor has any disclosure been made.

The auditor’s report on Robson’s financial statements for the year to 30 June 2005 was signed, without

modification, in March 2006.

Required:

(a) Identify and explain the specific matters to be clarified in the terms of engagement for this due diligence

review of Robson Construction Co. (6 marks)

The following trial balance relates to Sandown at 30 September 2009:

The following notes are relevant:

(i) Sandown’s revenue includes $16 million for goods sold to Pending on 1 October 2008. The terms of the sale are that Sandown will incur ongoing service and support costs of $1·2 million per annum for three years after the sale. Sandown normally makes a gross profit of 40% on such servicing and support work. Ignore the time value of money.

(ii) Administrative expenses include an equity dividend of 4·8 cents per share paid during the year.

(iii) The 5% convertible loan note was issued for proceeds of $20 million on 1 October 2007. It has an effective interest rate of 8% due to the value of its conversion option.

(iv) During the year Sandown sold an available-for-sale investment for $11 million. At the date of sale it had a

carrying amount of $8·8 million and had originally cost $7 million. Sandown has recorded the disposal of the

investment. The remaining available-for-sale investments (the $26·5 million in the trial balance) have a fair value of $29 million at 30 September 2009. The other reserve in the trial balance represents the net increase in the value of the available-for-sale investments as at 1 October 2008. Ignore deferred tax on these transactions.

(v) The balance on current tax represents the under/over provision of the tax liability for the year ended 30 September 2008. The directors have estimated the provision for income tax for the year ended 30 September 2009 at $16·2 million. At 30 September 2009 the carrying amounts of Sandown’s net assets were $13 million in excess of their tax base. The income tax rate of Sandown is 30%.

(vi) Non-current assets:

The freehold property has a land element of $13 million. The building element is being depreciated on a

straight-line basis.

Plant and equipment is depreciated at 40% per annum using the reducing balance method.

Sandown’s brand in the trial balance relates to a product line that received bad publicity during the year which led to falling sales revenues. An impairment review was conducted on 1 April 2009 which concluded that, based on estimated future sales, the brand had a value in use of $12 million and a remaining life of only three years.

However, on the same date as the impairment review, Sandown received an offer to purchase the brand for

$15 million. Prior to the impairment review, it was being depreciated using the straight-line method over a

10-year life.

No depreciation/amortisation has yet been charged on any non-current asset for the year ended 30 September

2009. Depreciation, amortisation and impairment charges are all charged to cost of sales.

Required:

(a) Prepare the statement of comprehensive income for Sandown for the year ended 30 September 2009.

(13 marks)

(b) Prepare the statement of financial position of Sandown as at 30 September 2009. (12 marks)

Notes to the financial statements are not required.

A statement of changes in equity is not required.

1 The board of Worldwide Minerals (WM) was meeting for the last monthly meeting before the publication of the yearend

results. There were two points of discussion on the agenda. First was the discussion of the year-end results;

second was the crucial latest minerals reserves report.

WM is a large listed multinational company that deals with natural minerals that are extracted from the ground,

processed and sold to a wide range of industrial and construction companies. In order to maintain a consistent supply

of minerals into its principal markets, an essential part of WM’s business strategy is the seeking out of new sources

and the measurement of known reserves. Investment analysts have often pointed out that WM’s value rests principally

upon the accuracy of its reserve reports as these are the best indicators of future cash flows and earnings. In order to

support this key part of its strategy, WM has a large and well-funded geological survey department which, according

to the company website, contains ‘some of the world’s best geologists and minerals scientists’. In its investor relations

literature, the company claims that:

‘our experts search the earth for mineral reserves and once located, they are carefully measured so that the company

can always report on known reserves. This knowledge underpins market confidence and keeps our customers

supplied with the inventory they need. You can trust our reserve reports – our reputation depends on it!’

At the board meeting, the head of the geological survey department, Ranjana Tyler, reported that there was a problem

with the latest report because one of the major reserve figures had recently been found to be wrong. The mineral in

question, mallerite, was WM’s largest mineral in volume terms and Ranjana explained that the mallerite reserves in

a deep mine in a certain part of the world had been significantly overestimated. She explained that, based on the

interim minerals report, the stock market analysts were expecting WM to announce known mallerite reserves of

4·8 billion tonnes. The actual figure was closer to 2·4 billion tonnes. It was agreed that this difference was sufficient

to affect WM’s market value, despite the otherwise good results for the past year. Vanda Monroe, the finance director,

said that the share price reflects market confidence in future earnings. She said that an announcement of an incorrect

estimation like that for mallerite would cause a reduction in share value. More importantly for WM itself, however, it

could undermine confidence in the geological survey department. All agreed that as this was strategically important

for the company, it was a top priority to deal with this problem.

Ranjana explained how the situation had arisen. The major mallerite mine was in a country new to WM’s operations.

The WM engineer at the mine said it was difficult to deal with some local people because, according to the engineer,

‘they didn’t like to give us bad news’. The engineer explained that when the mine was found to be smaller than

originally thought, he was not told until it was too late to reduce the price paid for the mine. This was embarrassing

and it was agreed that it would affect market confidence in WM if it was made public.

The board discussed the options open to it. The chairman, who was also a qualified accountant, was Tim Blake. He

began by expressing serious concern about the overestimation and then invited the board to express views freely. Gary

Howells, the operations director, said that because disclosing the error to the market would be so damaging, it might

be best to keep it a secret and hope that new reserves can be found in the near future that will make up for the

shortfall. He said that it was unlikely that this concealment would be found out as shareholders trusted WM and they

had many years of good investor relations to draw on. Vanda Monroe, the finance director, reminded the board that

the company was bound to certain standards of truthfulness and transparency by its stock market listing. She pointed

out that they were constrained by codes of governance and ethics by the stock market and that colleagues should be

aware that WM would be in technical breach of these if the incorrect estimation was concealed from investors. Finally,

Martin Chan, the human resources director, said that the error should be disclosed to the investors because he would

not want to be deceived if he were an outside investor in the company. He argued that whatever the governance codes

said and whatever the cost in terms of reputation and market value, WM should admit its error and cope with

whatever consequences arose. The WM board contains three non-executive directors and their views were also

invited.

At the preliminary results presentation some time later, one analyst, Christina Gonzales, who had become aware of

the mallerite problem, asked about internal audit and control systems, and whether they were adequate in such a

reserve-sensitive industry. WM’s chairman, Tim Blake, said that he intended to write a letter to all investors and

analysts in the light of the mallerite problem which he hoped would address some of the issues that Miss Gonzales

had raised.

Required:

(a) Define ‘transparency’ and evaluate its importance as an underlying principle in corporate governance and in

relevant and reliable financial reporting. Your answer should refer to the case as appropriate. (10 marks)