来看看本文，告诉你ACCA是否即将成为财务行业主流选择

正确答案：

(d) A provision under IAS37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent assets’ can only be made in relation to the entity’s
restructuring plans where there is both a detailed formal plan in place and the plans have been announced to those affected.
The plan should identify areas of the business affected, the impact on employees and the likely cost of the restructuring and
the timescale for implementation. There should be a short timescale between communicating the plan and starting to
implement it. A provision should not be recognised until a plan is formalised.
A decision to restructure before the balance sheet date is not sufficient in itself for a provision to be recognised. A formal plan
should be announced prior to the balance sheet date. A constructive obligation should have arisen. It arises where there has
been a detailed formal plan and this has raised a valid expectation in the minds of those affected. The provision should only
include direct expenditure arising from the restructuring. Such amounts do not include costs associated with ongoing business
operations. Costs of retraining staff or relocating continuing staff or marketing or investment in new systems and distribution
networks, are excluded. It seems as though in this case a constructive obligation has arisen as there have been detailed formal
plans approved and communicated thus raising valid expectations. The provision can be allowed subject to the exclusion of
the costs outlined above.
Although executory contracts are outside IAS37, it is permissible to recognise a provision that is onerous. Onerous contracts
can result from restructuring plans or on a stand alone basis. A provision should be made for the best estimate of the excess
unavoidable costs under the onerous contract. This estimate should assess any likely level of future income from new sources.
Thus in this case, the rental income from sub-letting the building should be taken into account. The provision should be

正确答案：

(c) (i) For the secrecy option
Important developments at SHC
This is an exciting time for the management and shareholders of Swan Hill Company. The research and development
staff at SHC have made a groundbreaking discovery (called the ‘sink method’) that will enable your company to produce
its major product at lower cost, in higher volumes and at a much higher quality than our competitors will be able to
using, as they do, the existing production technology. The sink process also produces at a lower rate of environmental
emissions which, as I’m sure shareholders will agree, is a very welcome development.
When considering the options following the discovery, your board decided that we should press ahead with the
investment needed to transform. the production facilities without offering the use of the technology to competitors under
a licensing arrangement. This means that once the new sink production comes on stream, SHC shareholders can, your
board believes, look forward to a significant strengthening of our competitive position.
The business case for this option is overwhelming. By pushing ahead with the investment needed to implement the sink
method, the possibility exists to gain a substantial competitive advantage over all of SHC’s competitors. It will place SHC
in a near monopolist position in the short term and in a dominant position long term. This will, in turn, give the company
pricing power in the industry and the likelihood of superior profits for many years to come. We would expect SHC to
experience substantial ‘overnight’ growth and the returns from this will reward shareholders’ loyalty and significantly
increase the value of the company. Existing shareholders can reasonably expect a significant increase in the value of
their holdings over the very short term and also over the longer term.
Ethical implications of the secrecy option
In addition to the overwhelming business case, however, there is a strong ethical case for the secrecy option. SHC
recognises that it is the moral purpose of SHC to make profits in order to reward those who have risked their own money
to support it over many years. Whilst some companies pursue costly programmes intended to serve multiple stakeholder
interests, SHC recognises that it is required to comply with the demands of its legal owners, its shareholders, and not
to dilute those demands with other concerns that will reduce shareholder returns. This is an important part of the agency
relationship: the SHC board will always serve the best economic interests of its shareholders: its legal owners. The SHC
board believes that any action taken that renders shareholder returns suboptimal is a threat to shareholder value and an
abuse of the agency position. Your board will always seek to maximise shareholder wealth; hence our decision to pursue
the secrecy option in this case. The secrecy option offers the possibility of optimal shareholder value and because
shareholders invest in SHC to maximise returns, that is the only ethical action for the board to pursue. Happily, this
option will also protect the employees’ welfare in SHC’s hometown of Swan Hill and demonstrate its commitment to the
locality. This, in turn, will help to manage two of the key value-adding resources in the company, its employees and its
reputation. This will help in local recruitment and staff retention in future years.
(ii) For the licensing option
Important developments at SHC
Your board was recently faced with a very difficult business and ethical decision. After the discovery by SHC scientists
of the groundbreaking sink production method, we had a choice of keeping the new production technology secret or
sharing the breakthrough under a licensing arrangement with our competitors. After a lengthy discussion, your board
decided that we should pursue the licensing option and I would like to explain our reasons for this on both business and
ethical grounds.
In terms of the business case for licensing, I would like shareholders to understand that although the secrecy option may
have offered SHC the possibility of an unassailable competitive advantage, in reality, it would have incurred a number
of risks. Because of the speed with which we would have needed to have acted, it would have necessitated a large
increase in our borrowing, bringing about a substantial change in our financial structure. This would, in turn, increase
liquidity pressures and make us more vulnerable to rising interest rates. A second risk with the secrecy option would
involve the security of the sink technology ‘secret’. If the sink process was leaked or discovered by competitors and
subsequently copied, our lack of a legally binding patent would mean we would have no legal way to stop them
proceeding with their own version of the sink process.
As well as avoiding the risks, however, the licensing option offers a number of specific business advantages. The royalties
from the licences granted to competitors are expected to be very large indeed. These will be used over the coming years
to extend our existing competitive advantage in the future. Finally, the ‘improvement sharing’ clause in the licensing
contract will ensure that the sink process will be improved and perfected with several manufacturers using the
technology at the same time. SHC’s sink production may, in consequence, improve at a faster rate than would have
been the case were we to have pursued the secrecy option.
Ethical implications of the licensing option
In addition to the business case, there is also a powerful ethical case for the decision we have taken. As a good,
responsible corporate citizen, Swan Hill Company acknowledges its many stakeholders and recognises the impacts that
a business decision has on others. Your board recognises that in addition to external stakeholders having influence over
our operations, our decisions can also affect others. In this case, we have carefully considered the likelihood that keeping
the new technology a secret from our competitors would radically reshape the industry. The superior environmental
performance of the sink process over existing methods will also mean that when fully adopted, the environmental
emissions of the entire industry will be reduced. SHC is very proud of this contribution to this reduction in overall
environmental impact.
There seems little doubt that the secrecy option would have had far-reaching and unfortunate effects upon our industry
and our competitors. The licensing option will allow competitors, and their employees and shareholders, to survive. It
is a compassionate act on our part and shows mercy to the other competitors in the industry. It recognises the number
of impacts that a business decision has and would be the fairest (and most just) option given the number of people
affected.

正确答案：
(c) Ways in which each of the problems might be overcome are as follows:
Meeting only the lowest targets
– To overcome the problem there must be some additional incentive. This could be through a change in the basis of bonus
payment which currently only provides an incentive to achieve the 100,000 tonnes of output.
Using more resources than necessary
– Overcoming the problem may require a change in the bonus system which currently does not provide benefit from any
output in excess of 100,000 tonnes. This may not be perceived as sufficiently focused in order to achieve action. It may
be that engendering a culture of continuous improvement would help ensure that employees actively sought ways of
reducing idle time levels.
Making the bonus – whatever it takes
– It is likely that efforts to change the ‘work ethos’ at all levels is required, while not necessarily removing the concept of
a bonus payable to all employees for achievement of targets. This may require the fostering of a culture for success within
the company. Dissemination of information to all staff relating to trends in performance, meeting targets, etc may help
to improve focus on continuous improvement.
Competing against other divisions, business units and departments
– The problem may need some input from the directors of TRG. For example, could a ‘dual-cost’ transfer pricing system
be explained to management at both the Bettamould division and also the Division with spare capacity in order to
overcome resistance to problems on transfer pricing and its impact on divisional budgets and reported results? In this
way it may be possible for the Bettamould division to source some of its input materials at a lower cost (particularly from
TRG’s viewpoint) and yet be acceptable to the management at the supplying division.
Ensuring that what is in the budget is spent
– In order to overcome the problem it may be necessary to educate management into acceptance of aspects of budgeting
such as the need to consider the committed, engineered and discretionary aspects of costs. For example, it may be
possible to reduce the number of salaried staff involved in the current quality checking of 25% of throughput on a daily
basis.
Providing inaccurate forecasts
– In order to overcome this problem there must be an integrated approach to the budget setting process. This may be
achieved to some extent through all aspects of the budget having to be agreed by all functions involved. For example,
engineers as well as production line management in reaching the agreed link between percentage process losses and
the falling efficiency of machinery due to age. In addition, TRC may insist an independent audit of aspects of budget
revisions by group staff.
Meeting the target but not beating it
– To overcome the problem may require that the bonus system should be altered to reflect any failure to control costs per
tonne at the budget level.
Avoiding risks
– In order to overcome such problems, TRC would have to provide some guarantees to Bettamould management that the
supply would be available during the budget period at the initially agreed price and that the quality would be maintained
at the required level. This would remove the risk element that the management of the Bettamould division may consider
currently exists.