了解一下!如何申请ACCA准会员证书？

正确答案：
(c) A management buyout represents a change in ownership rather than a change in strategy. However it should, as suggested
above, lead to a comprehensive review of the customers and product groups the firm chooses to supply and the basis on
which it seeks to achieve competitive advantage. In terms of the strategy pursued prior to the buyout, Bonar Paint seems to
be trying to achieve a differentiation focus strategy but without being able to achieve the higher profit margins associated with
the successful implementation of such a strategy.
If as seems likely Bonar Paint chooses to become a more focused company through product range reduction and serving fewer
customers, implementation of such a strategy will have clear implications for the whole of the organisation. Using the
McKinsey 7S model strategy change will lead to changes in the structure of the organisation. The departure of Bill and Jim
Bonar will have major repercussions for the roles taken by the three senior managers. Decisions will be needed on who is to
lead the company and the responsibilities of the other two managers. Bonar Paint has a very traditional functional structure
with the managers being responsible for discrete areas of activity. The change in ownership gives a major opportunity to see
whether this structure continues to be an appropriate one for handling the challenges of an increasingly competitive
environment. Any significant change to the product and/or customer portfolio as proposed by Tony Edmunds will need to be
implemented through a change to the structure. Product divisions may need to be set up if there is a decision to enter the
market for D-I-Y paints.
Systems will also need to change to accommodate any reduction in the product range and numbers of customers. Reference
has already been made to the impact on the production side of the business of such a strategic decision and the associated
consequences for areas such as sales and finance. Clearly, the lack of marketing information on product sales, customers and
profitability needs to be quickly addressed before any divestment decisions are taken. Making strategic decisions using poor
or inadequate information is a recipe for disaster. Decisions on new product development also will require a system that better
integrates the interests and information of the key functional areas.
Staff are the critical resource without which the buyout will not succeed. The change in ownership will cause uncertainty and
the buyout managers will need to spell out the changes that are both necessary and needed. Changes to the product and
customer portfolio will have a significant impact on some members of staff. Issues of redundancy/redeployment are best
addressed early, along with opportunities the change in strategy will create. Closely linked to staff are the skills those staff
will need to implement chosen strategy. The need to have a greater awareness of customer and competitor activity will require
new skills in the marketing area. Any investment in new production technology will affect the type of skills needed to use it.
The links between strategic decisions and human resource strategy need to be appreciated.

Style. concerns the way the three buyout managers carry out their new roles and communicate with staff. There is a significant
difference between leading and managing the business and each of the buyout managers will need to communicate a clear
sense of where the firm is going and inspiring staff to follow their vision and mission. This links closely with the concept of
shared values and the overall culture of the firm. The exit of the founders of the business could potentially create a cultural
void, which could lead to staff uncertainty. Unless quickly addressed good staff may leave the firm and adversely affect the
strategic change the new owners and managers are trying to introduce.
In implementing a chosen strategy there is a danger that the ‘hard’ Ss of strategy, structure and systems are attended to while
the soft Ss of staff, skills, style. and shared values are largely ignored. There is compelling evidence to suggest that it is thesoft Ss which will determine the success or otherwise of the management buyout.

正确答案：
(b) Property is sometimes sold with a degree of continuing involvement by the seller so that the risks and rewards of ownership
have not been transferred. The nature and extent of the buyer’s involvement will determine how the transaction is accounted
for. The substance of the transaction is determined by looking at the transaction as a whole and IAS18 ‘Revenue’ requires
this by stating that where two or more transactions are linked, they should be treated as a single transaction in order to
understand the commercial effect (IAS18 paragraph 13). In the case of the sale of the hotel, theme park and casino, Norman
should not recognise a sale as the company continues to enjoy substantially all of the risks and rewards of the businesses,
and still operates and manages them. Additionally the residual interest in the business reverts back to Norman. Also Norman
has guaranteed the income level for the purchaser as the minimum payment to Conquest will be $15 million a year. The
transaction is in substance a financing arrangement and the proceeds should be treated as a loan and the payment of profits
as interest.
The principles of IAS18 and IFRIC13 ‘Customer Loyalty Programmes’ require that revenue in respect of each separate
component of a transaction is measured at its fair value. Where vouchers are issued as part of a sales transaction and are
redeemable against future purchases, revenue should be reported at the amount of the consideration received/receivable less
the voucher’s fair value. In substance, the customer is purchasing both goods or services and a voucher. The fair value of the
voucher is determined by reference to the value to the holder and not the cost to the issuer. Factors to be taken into account
when estimating the fair value, would be the discount the customer obtains, the percentage of vouchers that would be
redeemed, and the time value of money. As only one in five vouchers are redeemed, then effectively the hotel has sold goods
worth ($300 + $4) million, i.e. $304 million for a consideration of $300 million. Thus allocating the discount between the
two elements would mean that (300 ÷ 304 x $300m) i.e. $296·1 million will be allocated to the room sales and the balance
of $3·9 million to the vouchers. The deferred portion of the proceeds is only recognised when the obligations are fulfilled.
The recognition of government grants is covered by IAS20 ‘Accounting for government grants and disclosure of government
assistance’. The accruals concept is used by the standard to match the grant received with the related costs. The relationship
between the grant and the related expenditure is the key to establishing the accounting treatment. Grants should not be
recognised until there is reasonable assurance that the company can comply with the conditions relating to their receipt and
the grant will be received. Provision should be made if it appears that the grant may have to be repaid.
There may be difficulties of matching costs and revenues when the terms of the grant do not specify precisely the expense
towards which the grant contributes. In this case the grant appears to relate to both the building of hotels and the creation of
employment. However, if the grant was related to revenue expenditure, then the terms would have been related to payroll or
a fixed amount per job created. Hence it would appear that the grant is capital based and should be matched against the
depreciation of the hotels by using a deferred income approach or deducting the grant from the carrying value of the asset
(IAS20). Additionally the grant is only to be repaid if the cost of the hotel is less than $500 million which itself would seem
to indicate that the grant is capital based. If the company feels that the cost will not reach $500 million, a provision should
be made for the estimated liability if the grant has been recognised.

正确答案：
(ii) If the directors agree to disclose the note, it should be reviewed by the auditors to ensure that it is sufficiently detailed.
In evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure in the note, the auditor should consider whether the disclosure explicitly
draws the reader’s attention to the possibility that the entity may not be able to continue as a going concern in the
foreseeable future. The note should include a description of conditions giving rise to significant doubt, and the directors’
plans to deal with the conditions. If the note provided contains adequate information then there is no breach of financial
reporting standards, and so no disagreement with the directors.
If the disclosure is considered adequate, then the opinion should not be qualified. The auditors should consider a
modification by adding an emphasis of matter paragraph to highlight the existence of the material uncertainties, and to
draw attention to the note to the financial statements. The emphasis of matter paragraph should firstly contain a brief
description of the uncertainties, and also refer explicitly to the note to the financial statements where the situation has
been fully described. The emphasis of matter paragraph should re-iterate that the audit opinion is not qualified.
However, it could be the case that a note has been given in the financial statements, but that the details are inadequate
and do not fully explain the significant uncertainties affecting the going concern status of the company. In this situation
the auditors should express a qualified opinion, disagreeing with the preparation of the financial statements, as the
disclosure requirements of IAS 1 have not been followed.