ACCA考试预约了还能退吗?是否可以更换考点?

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)

正确答案：
(c) Market risk
Definition of market risk
Market risks are those arising from any of the markets that a company operates in. Most common examples are those risks
from resource markets (inputs), product markets (outputs) or capital markets (finance).
[Tutorial note: markers should exercise latitude in allowing definitions of market risk. IFRS 7, for example, offers a technical
definition: ‘Market risk is the risk that the fair value or cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate due to changes in
market prices. Market risk reflects interest rate risk, currency risk, and other price risks’.]
Why non-compliance increases market risk
The lack of a fully compliant committee structure (such as having a non-compliant audit committee) erodes investor
confidence in the general governance of a company. This will, over time, affect share price and hence company value. Low
company value will threaten existing management (possibly with good cause in the case of Gluck and Goodman) and make
the company a possible takeover target. It will also adversely affect price-earnings and hence market confidence in Gluck and
Goodman’s shares. This will make it more difficult to raise funds from the stock market.

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.