江西省考生们！2020年ACCA国际会计师考试科目、考试题题型题量！

正确答案：
(b) Strategic and operational risks
Strategic risks
These arise from the overall strategic positioning of the company in its environment. Some strategic positions give rise to
greater risk exposures than others. Because strategic issues typically affect the whole of an organisation and not just one or
more of its parts, strategic risks can potentially concern very high stakes – they can have very high hazards and high returns.
Because of this, they are managed at board level in an organisation and form. a key part of strategic management.
Operational risks
Operational risks refer to potential losses arising from the normal business operations. Accordingly, they affect the day-to-day
running of operations and business systems in contrast to strategic risks that arise from the organisation’s strategic positioning.
Operational risks are managed at risk management level (not necessarily board level) and can be managed and mitigated by
internal control systems.
The secrecy option would be a strategic risk for the following reasons.
It would radically change the environment that SHC is in by reducing competition. This would radically change SHC’s strategic
fit with its competitive environment. In particular, it would change its ‘five forces’ positioning which would change its risk
profile.
It would involve the largest investment programme in the company’s history with new debt substantially changing the
company’s financial structure and making it more vulnerable to short term liquidity problems and monetary pressure (interest
rates).
It would change the way that stakeholders view SHC, for better or worse. It is a ‘crisis issue’, certain to polarise opinion either
way.
It will change the economics of the industry thereby radically affecting future cost, revenue and profit forecasts.
There may be retaliatory behaviour by SHC’s close competitor on 25% of the market.
[Tutorial note: similar reasons if relevant and well argued will attract marks]

正确答案：

(a) (i) Leaving the service of a board
Resignation with or without notice. Any director is free to withdraw his or her labour at any time but there is normally
a notice period required to facilitate an orderly transition from the outgoing chief executive to the incoming one.
Not offering himself/herself for re-election. Terms of office, which are typically three years, are renewable if the director
offers him or herself for re-election and the shareholders support the renewal. Retirement usually takes place at the end
of a three-year term when the director decides not to seek re-election.
Death in service when, obviously, the director is unable to either provide notice or seek retirement.
Failure of the company. When a company fails, all directors’ contracts are cancelled although this need not signal the
end of the directors’ involvement with company affairs as there may be ongoing legal issues to be resolved.
Being removed e.g. by being dismissed for disciplinary offences. It is relatively easy to ‘prove’ a disciplinary offence but
much more difficult to ‘prove’ incompetence. The nature of disciplinary offences are usually made clear in the terms and
conditions of employment and company policy.
Prolonged absence. Directors unable to perform. their duties owing to protracted absence, for any reason, may be
removed. The length of qualifying absence period varies by jurisdiction.
Being disqualified from being a company director by a court. Directors can be banned from holding directorships by a
court for a number of reasons including personal bankruptcy and other legal issues.
Failing to be re-elected if, having offered him or herself for re-election, shareholders elect not to re-appoint.
An ‘agreed departure’ such as by providing compensation to a director to leave.

(ii) Discuss Miss Hoiku’s statement
The way that directors’ contracts and company law are written (in most countries) makes it difficult to remove a director
such as Mr Smith from office during an elected term of office so in that respect, Miss Hoiku is correct. Unless his contract
has highly specific performance targets built in to it, it is difficult to remove Mr Smith for incompetence in the
short-term as it is sometimes difficult to assess the success of strategies until some time has passed. If the alleged
incompetence is within Mr Smith’s term of office (typically three years) then it will usually be necessary to wait until the
director offers himself for re-election. The shareholders can then simply not re-elect the incompetent director (in this
case, Mr Smith). The most likely way to achieve the departure of Mr Smith within his term of office will be to ‘encourage’
him to resign by other directors failing to support him or by shareholders issuing a vote of no confidence at an AGM or
EGM. This would probably involve offering him a suitable financial package to depart at a time chosen by the other
members of the board or company shareholders.
(b) Importance of the chairman’s statement
The chairman’s statement (or president’s letter in some countries) is an important and usually voluntary item, typically carried
at the very beginning of an annual report. In general terms, it is intended to convey important messages to shareholders in
general, strategic terms. As a separate section from other narrative reporting sections of an annual report, it offers the
chairman the opportunity to inform. shareholders about issues that he or she feels it would be beneficial for them to be aware
of. This independent communication is an important part of the separation of the roles of CEO and chairman.
In the case of TQ Company, the role of the chairman is of particular importance because of the dominance of Mr Smith.
Miss Hoiku had a particular responsibility to use her most recent statement to inform. shareholders about going concern issues
notwithstanding the difficulties that might cause in her relationship with Mr Smith. Miss Hoiku has an ethical as well as an
agency responsibility to express her independence in the chairman’s statement and convey issues relevant to company value
to the company’s shareholders. She can use her chairman’s statement for this purpose.

(c) Criticise the structure of the reward package that Mr Smith awarded himself
The balance between basic to performance related pay was very poor. Mr Smith, perhaps being aware that the prospect of
gaining much performance related income was low, took the opportunity to increase the fixed element of his income to
compensate. This was not only unprofessional and unethical on Mr Smith’s part, but it also represented very bad value for
shareholders. Having exercised his share options and sold the resulting shares, there was now no element of alignment of
his package with shareholder interests at all. His award to himself of an ‘excessively’ expensive company car was also not
in the shareholders’ interests. The fact that he exercised and sold all of his share options means that he will now have no
personal financial motivation to take strategic decisions intended to increase TQ Company’s share value. This represents a
poor degree of alignment between Mr Smith’s package and the interests of TQ’s shareholders.
(d) Criticise Miss Hoiku’s performance as chairman of TQ Company
The case describes a particularly poor performance by a company chairman. It is a key function of the chairman to represent
the shareholders’ interests in the company and Miss Hoiku has clearly failed in this duty.
A key reason for her poor performance was her reported inability or unwillingness to face up to Mr Smith who was clearly a
domineering personality. A key quality of a company chairman is his or her ability and willingness to personally challenge the
chief executive if necessary.
She failed to ensure that a committee structure was in place, allowing as she did, the remunerations committee to atrophy
when two members left the company.
Linked to this, it appears from the case that the two non-executive directors that left were not replaced and again, it is a part
of the chairman’s responsibility to ensure that an adequate number of non-executives are in place on the board.
She inexplicably allowed Mr Smith to design his own rewards package and presided over him reducing the performance
related element of his package which was clearly misaligned with the shareholders’ interests.
When Mr Smith failed to co-ordinate the other directors because of his unspecified business travel, she failed to hold him to
account thereby allowing the company’s strategy to fail.
There seems to have been some under-reporting of potential strategic problems in the most recent annual report. A ‘future
prospects’ or ‘continuing business’ statement is often a required disclosure in an annual report (in many countries) and there is evidence that this statement may have been missing or misleading in the most recent annual report.

正确答案：
(b) Reward scheme
(i) Matters
■ If the entire year’s revenue ($303m) attracted store points then the cost of the reward scheme in the year is at
most $3·03m. This represents 1% of revenue, which is material to the income statement and very material
(31·9%) to profit before tax (PBT).
■ The proportion of customers who register for loyalty cards and the percentage of revenue (and profit) which they
represent (which may vary from store to store depending on customer profile).
■ In accordance with the assumption of accruals, which underlies the preparation and presentation of financial
statements (The Framework/IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’), the expense and liability should be
recognised as revenue is earned. (It is of the nature of a discount.)
■ Any restrictions on the terms for converting points (e.g. whether they expire if not used within a specified time).
■ To the extent that points have been awarded but not redeemed at 31 March 2005, Volcan will have a liability at
the balance sheet date.
■ Agree the total balance due to customers at the year end under the reward scheme to the sum of the points on
individual customer reward cards.
■ The proportion of reward points awarded which are not expected to be claimed (e.g. the ‘take up’ of points awarded
may be only 80%, say).
■ Whether reward points are valued at selling price or cost. For example, if the average gross profit margin is 20%,
one point is equivalent to 0·8 cents of goods at cost.
(ii) Audit evidence
■ New/updated systems documentation explaining how:
– loyalty cards (and numbers) are issued to customers;
– points earned are recorded at the point of sale; and
– points are later redeemed on subsequent purchases.
■ Walk-through tests (e.g. on registering customer applications and issuing loyalty cards, awarding of points on
special offer items).
■ Tests of controls supporting the extent to which audit reliance is placed on the accounting and internal control
system. In particular, how points are extracted from the electronic tills (cash registers) and summarised into the
weekly/monthly financial data for each store which underlies the financial statements.
■ Analytical procedures on the value of points awarded by store per month with explanations of variations (‘variation
analysis’). For example, similar proportions (not exceeding 1% of revenue) of points in each month might be
expected by store – possibly increasing following any promotion of the ‘loyalty’ scheme.
Tutorial note: Within a close community, for example, a high proportion of customers might be expected to sign
up for the reward scheme. However, in big cities, where a large proportion of the customers might be transitory
(e.g. tourists or other visitors) the proportion may be much lower.
■ Tests of detail on a sample of transactions with customers undertaken at store visits. For example, for a sample of
copy till receipts:
– check the arithmetic accuracy of points awarded (1 per $1 spent + special offers);
– agree points awarded for special offers to that week’s special offers;
– for cash discounts taken confirm the conversion of points is against the opening balance of points awarded
(not against purchases just made).

正确答案：
(b) Implications for auditor’s report
(i) Selective revaluation of premises
The revaluations are clearly material to the balance sheet as $1·7 million and $5·4 million represent 5·5% and 17·6%
of total assets, respectively (and 23·1% in total). As the effects of the revaluation on line items in the financial statements
are clearly identified (e.g. revalued amount, depreciation, surplus in statement of changes in equity) the matter is not
pervasive.
The valuations of the nine properties after the year end provide additional evidence of conditions existing at the year end
and are therefore adjusting events per IAS 10 Events After the Balance Sheet Date.
Tutorial note: It is ‘now’ still less than three months after the year end so these valuations can reasonably be expected
to reflect year end values.
However, IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment does not permit the selective revaluation of assets thus the whole class
of premises would need to have been revalued for the year to 31 March 2007 to change the measurement basis for this
reporting period.
The revaluation exercise is incomplete. Unless the remaining three properties are revalued before the auditor’s report on
the financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2007 is signed off:
(1) the $7·1 revaluation made so far must be reversed to show all premises at depreciated cost as in previous years;
OR
(2) the auditor’s report would be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement regarding non-compliance with IAS 16.
When it is appropriate to adopt the revaluation model (e.g. next year) the change in accounting policy (from a cost model
to a revaluation model) should be accounted for in accordance with IAS 16 (i.e. as a revaluation).
Tutorial note: IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors does not apply to the initial
application of a policy to revalue assets in accordance with IAS 16.
Assuming the revaluation is written back, before giving an unmodified opinion, the auditor should consider why the three
properties were not revalued. In particular if there are any indicators of impairment (e.g. physical dilapidation) there
should be sufficient evidence on the working paper file to show that the carrying amount of these properties is not
materially greater than their recoverable amount (i.e. the higher of value in use and fair value less costs to sell).
If there is insufficient evidence to confirm that the three properties are not impaired (e.g. if the auditor was prevented
from inspecting the properties) the auditor’s report would be qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of limitation on scope.
If there is evidence of material impairment but management fail to write down the carrying amount to recoverable
amount the auditor’s report would be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement regarding non-compliance with IAS 36
Impairment of Assets.