ACCA考试是一定要报培训班吗？

正确答案：
(c) One of the main qualitative benefits that may arise from an investment in a new IT system by Moffat Ltd is the improved level
of service to its customers in the form. of reduced waiting times which may arise as a consequence of better scheduling of
appointments, inventory management etc. This could be assessed via the introduction of a questionnaire requiring customers
to rate the service that they have received from their recent visit to a location within Moffat Ltd according to specific criteria
such as adherence to appointment times, time taken to service the vehicle, cleanliness of the vehicle, attitude of staff etc.
Alternatively a follow-up telephone call from a centralised customer services department may be made by Moffat Ltd
personnel in order to gather such information.
Another qualitative benefit of the proposed investment may arise in the form. of competitive advantage. Improvements in
customer specific information and service levels may give Moffat Ltd a competitive advantage. Likewise, improved inventory
management may enable costs to be reduced thereby enabling a ‘win-win’ relationship to be enjoyed with its customers.

正确答案：D

正确答案：

(a) New ventures are notoriously risky and it is vital that the group has a clear idea of the factors that will be critical to the
restaurant’s success and the capabilities and competences needed to achieve their critical success factors. Johnson, Scholes
and Whittington define critical success factors as ‘those product (or service) features that are particularly valued by a group
of customers, and, therefore where the organisation must excel to outperform. the competition’. The group have chosen to
enter a highly competitive market and one where it is very difficult to create a distinctive product or service for the customer.
It is important in establishing what factors are important that they know the features their potential customers will particularly
value in the restaurant business. All too often firms design products or services on the basis of what the ‘expert’ inside the
company thinks the customer wants. One of the major problems in setting up a new restaurant is that customers can easily
compare one restaurant with another. Often they are in close proximity making all aspects of the service, particularly price,
easily open to customer evaluation.
Clearly, service will be a critical factor but precisely how will it be defined? Does the customer look for fast food service with
an emphasis on being served quickly? This seems unlikely and a more likely requirement is that the table service replicates
the friendly ambience experienced at restaurants on the Mediterranean. Many of their customers will have experienced this
first-hand and this would reinforce the Mediterranean theme. To deliver this service the waiters/waitresses will need
appropriate training. The menu and quality of food will be key factors – they lie at the heart of the reason for setting up the
business. How is distinctiveness to be achieved? The quality of the chef and kitchen staff will determine the quality of the
food served. The design of the restaurant and its layout and seating are also features, which it is important to get right. Aboveall, there is the need to create a price/value combination that is difficult for competitors to beat.

The critical success factors will stem from using the restaurant’s resources in a distinctive way. In Hamel and Prahalad’s
terms, there are three tests that can identify core competences in a company. Firstly, the core competence has the potential
for transfer across a variety of markets – less likely in a small business. Secondly, a core competence should make a significant
contribution to the perceived customer benefits of the end product or service. Finally, the core competence will be difficult for
a competitor to imitate. In service businesses such as restaurants, imitation of less tangible factors such as the quality of tableservice may be much more difficult to copy than the features designed into a tangible product.

正确答案：
(b) Implications for the auditor’s report
(i) Corruption of perpetual inventory records
■ The loss of data (of physical inventory quantities at the balance sheet date) gives rise to a limitation on scope.
Tutorial note: It is the records of the asset that have been destroyed – not the physical asset.
■ The systems failure in October 2005 is clearly a non-adjusting post balance sheet event (IAS 10). If it is material
(such that non-disclosure could influence the economic decisions of users) Jinack should disclose:
– the nature of the event (i.e. systems failure); and
– an estimate of its financial effect (i.e. the cost of disruption and reconstruction of data to the extent that it is
not covered by insurance).
Tutorial note: The event has no financial effect on the realisability of inventory, only on its measurement for the
purpose of reporting it in the financial statements.
■ If material this disclosure could be made in the context of explaining how inventory has been estimated at
30 September 2005 (see later). If such disclosure, that the auditor considers to be necessary, is not made, the
audit opinion should be qualified ‘except for’ disagreement (over lack of disclosure).
Tutorial note: Such qualifications are extremely rare since management should be persuaded to make necessary
disclosure in the notes to the financial statements rather than have users’ attention drawn to the matter through
a qualification of the audit opinion.
■ The limitation on scope of the auditor’s work has been imposed by circumstances. Jinack’s accounting records
(for inventory) are inadequate (non-existent) for the auditor to perform. tests on them.
■ An alternative procedure to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence of inventory quantities at a year end is
subsequent count and ‘rollback’. However, the extent of ‘roll back’ testing is limited as records are still under
reconstruction.
■ The auditor may be able to obtain sufficient evidence that there is no material misstatement through a combination
of procedures:
– testing management’s controls over counting inventory after the balance sheet date and recording inventory
movements (e.g. sales and goods received);
– reperforming the reconstruction for significant items on a sample basis;
– analytical procedures such as a review of profit margins by inventory category.
■ ‘An extensive range of inventory’ is clearly material. The matter (i.e. systems failure) is not however pervasive, as
only inventory is affected.
■ Unless the reconstruction is substantially completed (i.e. inventory items not accounted for are insignificant) the
auditor cannot determine what adjustment, if any, might be determined to be necessary. The auditor’s report
should then be modified, ‘except for’, limitation on scope.
■ However, if sufficient evidence is obtained the auditor’s report should be unmodified.
■ An ‘emphasis of matter’ paragraph would not be appropriate because this matter is not one of significant
uncertainty.
Tutorial note: An uncertainty in this context is a matter whose outcome depends on future actions or events not
under the direct control of Jinack.
2006
■ If the 2005 auditor’s report is qualified ‘except for’ on grounds of limitation on scope there are two possibilities for
the inventory figure as at 30 September 2005 determined on completion of the reconstruction exercise:
(1) it is not materially different from the inventory figure reported; or
(2) it is materially different.
■ In (1), with the limitation now removed, the need for qualification is removed and the 2006 auditor’s report would
be unmodified (in respect of this matter).
■ In (2) the opening position should be restated and the comparatives adjusted in accordance with IAS 8 ‘Accounting
Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’. The 2006 auditor’s report would again be unmodified.
Tutorial note: If the error was not corrected in accordance with IAS 8 it would be a different matter and the
auditor’s report would be modified (‘except for’ qualification) disagreement on accounting treatment.