ACCA 考试F1第三十二章试题练习（2）

正确答案：

正确答案：

 

正确答案：
(c) Examiner’s Note:
The topic of managerial motivation and budgeting has been a subject of discussion for a number of years. There are links
here to the topics of performance measurement and responsibility accounting. Discussion should be focused on the area of
budgets and the budgeting process, as specified in the question.
Setting targets for financial performance
It has been reasonably established that managers respond better in motivation and performance terms to a clearly defined,
quantitative target than to the absence of such targets. However, budget targets must be accepted by the responsible
managers if they are to have any motivational effect. Acceptance of budget targets will depend on several factors, including
the personality of an individual manager and the quality of communication in the budgeting process.
The level of difficulty of the budget target will also influence the level of motivation and performance. Budget targets that are
seen as average or above average will increase motivation and performance up to the point where such targets are seen as
impossible to achieve. Beyond this point, personal desire to achieve a particular level of performance falls off sharply. Careful
thought must therefore go into establishing budget targets, since the best results in motivation and performance terms will
arise from the most difficult goals that individual managers are prepared to accept4.
While budget targets that are seen as too difficult will fail to motivate managers to improve their performance, the same is
true of budget targets that are seen as being too easy. When budget targets are easy, managers are likely to outperform. the
budget but will fail to reach the level of performance that might be expected in the absence of a budget.
One consequence of the need for demanding or difficult budget targets is the frequent reporting of adverse variances. It is
important that these are not used to lay blame in the budgetary control process, since they have a motivational (or planning)
origin rather than an operational origin. Managerial reward systems may need to reward almost achieving, rather than
achieving, budget targets if managers are to be encouraged by receiving financial incentives.
Participation in the budget-setting process
A ‘top-down’ approach to budget setting leads to budgets that are imposed on managers. Where managers within an
organisation are believed to behave in a way that is consistent with McGregor’s Theory X perspective, imposed budgets may
improve performance, since accepting the budget is consistent with reduced responsibility and avoiding work.
It is also possible that acceptance of imposed budgets by managers who are responsible for their implementation and
achievement is diminished because they feel they have not been able to influence budget targets. Such a view is consistent
with McGregor’s Theory Y perspective, which holds that managers naturally seek responsibility and do not need to be tightly
controlled. According to this view, managers respond well to participation in the budget-setting process, since being able to
influence the budget targets for which they will be responsible encourages their acceptance. A participative approach to
budget-setting is also referred to as a ‘bottom-up’ approach.
In practice, many organisations adopt a budget-setting process that contains elements of both approaches, with senior
management providing strategic leadership of the budget-setting process and other management tiers providing input in terms
of identifying what is practical and offering detailed knowledge of their area of the organisation.

正确答案：
(b) Illustration of use of analytical procedures as audit evidence
Tutorial note: Note that ‘as audit evidence’ requires consideration of substantive analytical procedures rather that the
identification of risks (relevant to part (a)).
Revenue
Analytical procedures may be used in testing revenue for completeness of recording (‘understatement’). The average selling
price of a vehicle in 2005 was $68,830 ($526·0 million ÷ 7,642 vehicles). Applying this to the number of vehicles sold
in 2006, might be projected to generate $698·8 million ($68,830 × 10,153) revenue from the sale of vehicles. The draft
financial statements therefore show a potential shortfall of $110·8 million ($(698·8 – 588·0) million) that is, 15·6%.
This should be investigated and substantiated through more detailed analytical procedures. For example, the number of
vehicles sold should be analysed into models and multiplied by the list price of each for a more accurate estimate of potential
revenue. The impact of discounts and other incentives (e.g. 0% finance) on the list prices should then be allowed for. If
recorded revenue for 2006 (as per draft income statement adjusted for cutoff and consignment inventories) is materially lower
than that calculated, detailed substantive procedures may be required in order to show that there is no material error.
‘Proof in total’/reasonableness tests
The material correctness, or otherwise, of income statement items (in particular) may be assessed through appropriate ‘proof
in total’ calculations (or ‘reasonableness’ tests). For example:
■ Employee benefits costs: the average number of employees by category (waged/salaried/apprenticed) × the average pay
rate for each might prove that in total $91·0 million (as adjusted to actual at 31 December 2006) is not materially
misstated. The average number of employees needs to be checked substantively (e.g. recalculated based on the number
of employees on each payroll) and the average pay rates (e.g. to rates agreed with employee representatives).
Tutorial note: An alternative reasonableness might be to take last year’s actual adjusted for 2006 numbers of
employees grossed-up for any pay increases during the year (pro-rated as necessary).
■ Depreciation: the cost (or net book value) of each category of asset × by the relevant straight-line (or reducing balance)
depreciation rate. If a ‘ballpark’ calculation for the year is materially different to the annual charge a more detailed
calculation can be made using monthly depreciation calculations. The cost (or net book value) on which depreciation
is calculated should be substantively tested, for example by agreeing brought forward balances to prior year working
papers and additions to purchase invoices (costings in respect of assets under construction).
Tutorial note: Alternatively, last year’s depreciation charge may be reconciled to this year’s by considering depreciation
rates applied to brought forward balances with adjustments for additions/disposals.
■ Interest income: an average interest rate for the year can be applied to the monthly balance invested (e.g. in deposit
accounts) and compared with the amount recognised for the year to 31 December 2006 (as adjusted for any accrued
interest per the bank letter for audit purposes). The monthly balances (or averages) on which the calculation is
performed should be substantiated to bank deposit statements.
■ Interest expense: if the cash balances do not go into overdraft then this may be similar expenses (e.g. prompt payment
discounts to customers). If this is to particular dealers then a proof in total might be to apply the discount rate to the
amounts invoiced to the dealer during the period.
Immaterial items
For immaterial items analytical procedures alone may provide sufficient audit evidence that amounts in the financial
statements are not materially misstated so that detailed substantive procedures are not required. For example, a comparison
of administration and distribution, maintenance and insurance costs for 2006 compared with 2005 may be sufficient to show
that material error is highly unlikely. If necessary, further reasonableness tests could be performed. For example, considering
insurance costs to value of assets insured or maintenance costs to costs of assets maintained.
Ratio analysis
Ratio analysis can provide substantive evidence that income statement and balance sheet items are not materially misstated
by considering their inter-relationships. For example:
■ Asset turnover: Based on the draft financial statements property, plant and equipment has turned over 5·2 times
($645·5/124·5) compared with 5·9 times in 2005. This again highlights that income may be overstated, or assets
overstated (e.g. if depreciation is understated).
■ Inventory turnover: Using cost of materials adjusted for changes in inventories this has remained stable at 10·9 times.
Tutorial note: This is to be expected as in (a) the cost in the income statement has increased by 9% and the value of
inventories by 8·5%.
Inventories represent the smallest asset value on the balance sheet at 31 December 2006 (7·8% of total assets).
Therefore substantive procedures may be limited to agreeing physical count of material items (vehicles) and agreeing
cutoff.
■ Average collection period: This has increased to 41 days (73·1/645·5 × 365) from 30 days. Further substantive analysis
is required, for example, separating out non-current amounts (for sales on 0% finance terms). Substantive procedures
may be limited to confirmation of amounts due from dealers (and/or receipt of after-date cash) and agreeing cutoff of
goods on consignment.
■ Payment periods: This has remained constant at 37 days (2005 – 38 days). Detailed substantive procedures may be
restricted to reconciling only major suppliers’ statements and agreeing the cutoff on parts purchased from them.