甘肃省考生想知道ACCA的科目F3怎么备考?

发布时间:2020-01-10


步入2020年,离ACCA考试越来越近了,虽然在ACCA考试中F1科目是难度比较低的一个考试科目了,但还是很多ACCAer们不知道如何备考考试科目F1。不用担心,小伙伴们所遇到的问题51题库考试学习网都一一帮助大家找寻到了答案,现在就来告诉你:

F3科目介绍

F3财务会计师ACCA很重要的一个系列,主要包括财务会计的基本框架,如何运用复式记账法对企业发生的各项交易进行记录,对于考生的计算能力是一个十分巨大的挑战。试算平衡表的编制,合并报表的基本内容(该知识点在后续的F7、P2课程会有深入的学习),如何对财务报表进行分析,进一步探索报表数字背后的故事。作为财务会计基础类的一门课,要求学生夯实基础,为阶段学习打下坚实的基础。

备考心得

听网课与做题同步

报网课其实是最简单的,帮助最大的方法,听网课可以不用听直播课,但听课一定要和做题同步。

F3我就换了一种学习方式:听了一章的课程,就去做题,这样既巩固了这章课程的内容,又可以及时补漏了这章没学懂的。我觉得这种方式特别适合我这种记性不太好的人。

重难点要死磕到底

我的网课大概刷了20多天,后面报表的部分花的时间比较多,也是F3最难但又是最重要的部分。第一遍课听过去一脸懵,不知道讲了些什么,有点晕,自己又重新把讲义看了一遍,貌似悟到了一些

我是那种一个点没搞懂绝对不会放弃的人,于是又把没看懂的地方再看了一遍,然后在笔记本看自己总结的一些套路和需要注意的点,再去做BPP上的题。说实话有几个还是挺难的,它没有按套路出题,题目有些难懂,但是多读几遍,一句一句去分析还是能搞懂的。

做报表题我的思路是首先把套路写在草稿纸上然后再去一个点一个点去对应,这样子就不容易遗漏。因为我提前一个月就报名考试了,所以课上完了就没有任何可以停留的时间,就紧接着复习

讲义和刷题,孰轻孰重?

我的复习思路可能和大多数人不太一样,大部分人都把时间花在刷题上,而我是用周末整天的时间先把讲义看了一遍,边看边总结重点,每一次看讲义我都会有不同的收获,有些点之前不怎么明白的,也会在重复看讲义的时候豁然开朗,这时候也是最开心的。

考前查漏补缺不可少

第二遍BPP我只是把错题做了一遍,把一些概念性的题目总结在笔记本上。最后,考试的前一周,我就是听冲刺班的课和习题课,去查漏补缺,我个人认为这个课很重要,因为老师带着我把整本书的思路都串了一遍,这让我的整个知识框架更加得完整。

原地徘徊一千步,抵不上向前迈出第一步;心中想过无数次,不如挽起袖子大干一次。加油各位ACCAer们~


下面小编为大家准备了 ACCA考试 的相关考题,供大家学习参考。

(ii) From the information provided above, recommend the matters which should be included as ‘findings

from the audit’ in your report to those charged with governance, and explain the reason for their

inclusion. (7 marks)

正确答案:
(ii) Control weakness
ISA 260 contains guidance on the type of issues that should be communicated. One of the matters identified is a control
weakness in the capital expenditure transaction cycle. The assets for which no authorisation was obtained amount to
0·3% of total assets (225,000/78 million x 100%), which is clearly immaterial. However, regardless of materiality, the
auditor should ensure that the weakness is brought to the attention of the management, with a clear indication of the
implication of the weakness, and recommendations as to how the control weakness should be eliminated.
The auditor is providing information to help those charged with governance improve the internal systems and controls
and ultimately reduce business risk. In this case there is a high risk of fraud, as the lack of authorisation for purchase
of office equipment could allow expenditure on assets not used for bona fide business purposes.
Disagreement with accounting treatment of brand
Audit procedures have revealed a breach of IAS 38 Intangible Assets, in which internally generated brand names are
specifically prohibited from being recognised. Blod Co has recognised an internally generated brand name which is
material to the statement of financial position (balance sheet) as it represents 12·8% of total assets (10/78 x 100%).
The statement of financial position (balance sheet) therefore contains a material misstatement.
The report to those charged with governance should clearly explain the rules on recognition of internally generated brand
names, to ensure that the management has all relevant technical facts available. In the report the auditors should
request that the financial statements be corrected, and clarify that if the brand is not derecognised, then the audit opinion
will be qualified on the grounds of a material disagreement – an ‘except for’ opinion would be provided. Once the breach
of IAS 38 is made clear to the management in the report, they then have the opportunity to discuss the matter and
decide whether to amend the financial statements, thereby avoiding a qualified audit opinion.
Audit inefficiencies
Documentation relating to inventories was not always made readily available to the auditors. This seems to be due to
poor administration by the client rather than a deliberate attempt to conceal information. The report should contain a
brief description of the problems encountered by the audit team. The management should be made aware that
significant delay to the receipt of necessary paperwork can cause inefficiencies in the audit process. This may seem a
relatively trivial issue, but it could lead to an increase in audit fee. Management should react to these comments by
ensuring as far as possible that all requested documentation is made available to the auditors in a timely fashion.

You are an audit manager responsible for providing hot reviews on selected audit clients within your firm of Chartered

Certified Accountants. You are currently reviewing the audit working papers for Pulp Co, a long standing audit client,

for the year ended 31 January 2008. The draft statement of financial position (balance sheet) of Pulp Co shows total

assets of $12 million (2007 – $11·5 million).The audit senior has made the following comment in a summary of

issues for your review:

‘Pulp Co’s statement of financial position (balance sheet) shows a receivable classified as a current asset with a value

of $25,000. The only audit evidence we have requested and obtained is a management representation stating the

following:

(1) that the amount is owed to Pulp Co from Jarvis Co,

(2) that Jarvis Co is controlled by Pulp Co’s chairman, Peter Sheffield, and

(3) that the balance is likely to be received six months after Pulp Co’s year end.

The receivable was also outstanding at the last year end when an identical management representation was provided,

and our working papers noted that because the balance was immaterial no further work was considered necessary.

No disclosure has been made in the financial statements regarding the balance. Jarvis Co is not audited by our firm

and we have verified that Pulp Co does not own any shares in Jarvis Co.’

Required:

(b) In relation to the receivable recognised on the statement of financial position (balance sheet) of Pulp Co as

at 31 January 2008:

(i) Comment on the matters you should consider. (5 marks)

正确答案:
(b) (i) Matters to consider
Materiality
The receivable represents only 0·2% (25,000/12 million x 100) of total assets so is immaterial in monetary terms.
However, the details of the transaction could make it material by nature.
The amount is outstanding from a company under the control of Pulp Co’s chairman. Readers of the financial statements
would be interested to know the details of this transaction, which currently is not disclosed. Elements of the transaction
could be subject to bias, specifically the repayment terms, which appear to be beyond normal commercial credit terms.
Paul Sheffield may have used his influence over the two companies to ‘engineer’ the transaction. Disclosure is necessary
due to the nature of the transaction, the monetary value is irrelevant.
A further matter to consider is whether this is a one-off transaction, or indicative of further transactions between the two
companies.
Relevant accounting standard
The definitions in IAS 24 must be carefully considered to establish whether this actually constitutes a related party
transaction. The standard specifically states that two entities are not necessarily related parties just because they have
a director or other member of key management in common. The audit senior states that Jarvis Co is controlled by Peter
Sheffield, who is also the chairman of Pulp Co. It seems that Peter Sheffield is in a position of control/significant influence
over the two companies (though this would have to be clarified through further audit procedures), and thus the two
companies are likely to be perceived as related.
IAS 24 requires full disclosure of the following in respect of related party transactions:
– the nature of the related party relationship,
– the amount of the transaction,
– the amount of any balances outstanding including terms and conditions, details of security offered, and the nature
of consideration to be provided in settlement,
– any allowances for receivables and associated expense.
There is currently a breach of IAS 24 as no disclosure has been made in the notes to the financial statements. If not
amended, the audit opinion on the financial statements should be qualified with an ‘except for’ disagreement. In
addition, if practicable, the auditor’s report should include the information that would have been included in the financial
statements had the requirements of IAS 24 been adhered to.
Valuation and classification of the receivable
A receivable should only be recognised if it will give rise to future economic benefit, i.e. a future cash inflow. It appears
that the receivable is long outstanding – if the amount is unlikely to be recovered then it should be written off as a bad
debt and the associated expense recognised. It is possible that assets and profits are overstated.
Although a representation has been received indicating that the amount will be paid to Pulp Co, the auditor should be
sceptical of this claim given that the same representation was given last year, and the amount was not subsequently
recovered. The $25,000 could be recoverable in the long term, in which case the receivable should be reclassified as
a non-current asset. The amount advanced to Jarvis Co could effectively be an investment rather than a short term
receivable. Correct classification on the statement of financial position (balance sheet) is crucial for the financial
statements to properly show the liquidity position of the company at the year end.
Tutorial note: Digressions into management imposing a limitation in scope by withholding evidence are irrelevant in this
case, as the scenario states that the only evidence that the auditors have asked for is a management representation.
There is no indication in the scenario that the auditors have asked for, and been refused any evidence.

(c) Using information from the case, assess THREE risks to the Giant Dam Project. (9 marks)

正确答案:
(c) Assessment of three risks
Disruption and resistance by Stop-the-dam. Stop-the-dam seems very determined to delay and disrupt progress as much as
possible. The impact of its activity can be seen on two levels. It is likely that the tunnelling and other ‘human’ disruption will
cause a short-term delay but the more significant impact is that of exposing the lenders. In terms of probability, the case says
that it ‘would definitely be attempting to resist the Giant Dam Project when it started’ but the probability of exposing the
lenders is a much lower probability event if the syndicate membership is not disclosed.
Impact/hazard: low
Probability/likelihood: high
The risk to progress offered by First Nation can probably be considered to be low impact/hazard but high probability. The case
says that it ‘would be unlikely to disrupt the building of the dam’, meaning low impact/hazard, but that ‘it was highly likely
that they would protest’, meaning a high level of probability that the risk event would occur.
Impact: low
Probability: high
There are financing risks as banks seems to be hesitant when it comes to lending to R&M for the project. Such a risk event,
if realised, would have a high potential for disruption to progress as it may leave R&M with working capital financing
difficulties. The impact would be high because the bank may refuse to grant or extend loans if exposed (subject to existing
contractual terms). It is difficult to estimate the probability. Perhaps there will be a range of attitudes by the lending banks
with some more reticent than others (perhaps making it a ‘medium’ probability event).
Impact: medium to high (depending on the reaction of the bank)
Probability: low to medium (depending on how easy it would be to discover the lender)

声明:本文内容由互联网用户自发贡献自行上传,本网站不拥有所有权,未作人工编辑处理,也不承担相关法律责任。如果您发现有涉嫌版权的内容,欢迎发送邮件至:contact@51tk.com 进行举报,并提供相关证据,工作人员会在5个工作日内联系你,一经查实,本站将立刻删除涉嫌侵权内容。