||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
您现在的位置：&&>&&>&&>&&>&正文
2013年6月ACCA专业会计师（P1）考题解析1
来源：　 10:22:59　【】　
考试吧为大家推荐2013年6月ACCA专业会计师（P1）考题解析，希望大家在考试吧学习愉快！
　　点击查看：
　　2009年6月是P1这门课程自2007年12月课程改革新设以来的第四次考试，该课程是全主观、全论述的考试，是专业课的第一门课程。考生需要在15分钟的阅读时间和三个小时的正式考试时间内完成一道50分必答案例分析大题，以及三选二的25分小案例分析题。一般第一大道必答题的问题覆盖课程三个部分的内容，会有5-8个小问题，还包含针对答案(尤其是应用文写作)在形式、层次、逻辑等方面4-5分的专业技术分;三选二的三个题目一般是针对课程大纲三部分内容，一部分一道考题为主、涉及其他部分内容为辅的考题，一般会有3-5个小问题。纵观ACCA的考试，中国考生较擅长计算题，对这样全主观的文字论述考题在语言文字表达上显得往往力不从心。
　　总结考生在P1考试中遇到的问题或表现不好的方面主要有：
　　1、专业技术分难以拿到，而这几分往往是很多考生通过或不通过考试的关键所在;
　　2、英文书面表达能力不够好，考试感觉自己经常出现重复问题或重复使用同样词汇的情况，罗列答案关键词，不能很好的展开叙述;
　　3、理论结合实际(案例)分析问题和评价观点的能力欠缺，不能很好地将理论模型或课程知识与案例情景有机结合起来进行分析评价;
　　4、未能准确把握不同等级动词的答题深度与差异要求;
　　5、课程第三部分“道德”的内容与其他两部分相比较弱;
　　6、存在猜题、押题现象，未对大纲进行整体的认真学习。
　　针对以上问题或不足，可以从以下方面进行改善和提高：
　　1、对于上述第一、二类问题应注意平时基本功的训练，尤其是英文阅读与写作功底的提高，非一日之功。可以总结留意各类应用文的形式要素、结构内容，尽可能多地获得专业技术分。增加英文材料的阅读量，提高英语语感、词汇量与表达能力;
　　2、深入理解理论知识、模型的实质，加强理论联系实际的能力，将问题、答案与案例内容有机结合，展示考生分析解决问题的能力;
　　3、认真审题，看清问题中所要求的动词及问题中“and”的连接以免漏答，根据给出的动词等级高低及含义，来决定回答的深度、方式、正反面等内容。一般P1考试问题中常用到的动词及等级有：
　　Define(level 1)、 List, identify( level 1)、Describe(level 1 or 2)、Explain(level 1 or 2)、Discuss(level 2 or 3)、Compare, distinguish, Contrast:(level 2)、Apply(level 2)、Assess(level 2 or 3)、Analyze(level 2 or 3)、Explore:(level 3)、Evaluate(level 3)、Comment(level 3)、Criticize(level 3)、Recommend(level 3)(注Level 1: knowledge and comprehensive知识与领会;Level 2: application and analysis应用与分
　　析;Level 3: synthesis and evaluation综合与评价);
　　4、由于课程第三部分“道德”内容与第一部分“公司治理”和第二部分”内部控制与风险管理”相比来讲，一般考生在日常工作学习中接触较少、理论模型较晦涩难以理解，但考试经常要求解释该部分的理论再用其分析案例，所以应在复习中对该部分多下点功夫，可以结合教材讲义中列举的案例进行强化理解与记忆，达到考试的要求;
　　5、对课程全面复习，掌握大纲所有内容基础上突出重点，切忌猜题与押题。从四次考试的考题可以看出，考题覆盖面均很广，以前考过的下次不排除还考，对一个理论上次考其中一部分下次考另外部分。因此考生须学习复习大纲所有内容，对以前的所有考题进行反复练习。
　　6、关注考官在官方杂志发表的文章。
　　下面将逐题解析每一个问题的要求、考点及建议的答题内容。P1已经是专业阶段课程，对考试要求有较高的分析能力、逻辑思维能力及表达能力，因此官方答案仅是参考答案，而非标准答案。下面的考题案例分析中以下划线的方式将重要信息标注出来，给出相应的分析与解题思路，希望能给广大考生一定的启发。
　　Section A C This ONE question is compulsory and MUST be attempted 1 Global-bank is a prominent European bank with branches throughout Europe and investment arms in many locations throughout the world. It is regarded as one of the world’s major international banks. Through its network of investment offices throughout the world, fund managers trade in local investment markets and equities. Futures and derivative traders also operate. Its primary listing is in London although it is also listed in most of the other global stock markets including New York, Hong Kong, Frankfurt and Singapore. As with similar banks in its position, Global-bank’s structure is complicated and the complexity of its operations makes the strategic
　　management of the company a demanding and highly technical process. Up until the autumn of 2008, investors had a high degree of confidence in the Global-bank board as it had delivered healthy profits for many years.
　　In the autumn of 2008, it came to light that Jack Mineta, a Global-bank derivatives trader in the large city office in Philos, had made a very large loss
　　dealing in derivatives over a three-month period. It emerged that the losses arose from Mr Mineta’s practice of ignoring the company trading rules which placed limits on, and also restricted, the type of financial instruments and derivatives that could be traded.
　　The loss, estimated to be approximately US$7 billion, was described by one analyst as ‘a huge amount of money and enough to threaten the survival of the whole company’.
　　As soon as the loss was uncovered, Mr Mineta was suspended from his job and the police At a press conference after Mr Mineta’s arrest, Global-bank’s chief executive, Mrs Barbara Keefer, said that her first priority would be to ask the Philos office why the normal internal controls had not been effective in monitoring Mr Mineta’s activities. It emerged that Mr Mineta had in the past been one of Global-bank’s most profitable derivatives traders. Some journalists suggested to Mrs Keefer that the company was happy to ignore normal trading rules when Mr Mineta was makingprofits because it suited them to do so.
　　Another derivatives trader in the Philos office, Emma Hubu, spoke to the media informally.She said that Mr Mineta was brilliant and highly motivated but that he often said that he didn’t care about the trading rules. Miss Hubu explained that Mr Mineta didn’t believe in right and wrong and once told her that ‘I’m in this job for what I can get for myself C big risks bring big returns and big bonuses for me.’ She also explained that the
　　culture of the Philos office was driven by Mr Mineta’s line manager, Juan Evora. She said that Mr Evora knew that Mr Mineta was breaking trading rules but was also very profits driven and kept compliance information from head office so that the nature of Mr Mineta’s trading was not uncovered. The compliance information was required by head office but several failures to return the information had not been acted upon by
　　head office. Mr Evora’s bonus was directly linked to the size of the Philos office’s profits and all of the derivatives traders, including Mr Mineta, were regularly reminded about the importance of taking risks to make big returns. Miss Hubu said that trading rules were not enforced and that head office never got involved in what went on in Philos as long as the annual profits from the Philos derivative traders were at or above
　　expectations.It emerged that the lack of correct information from Philos and elsewhere meant that Globalbank’s annual report statement of internal control effectiveness was not accurate and gave an unduly favourable impression of the company’s internal controls.
　　In addition, the company’s audit committee had been recently criticised by the external auditors for a lack of thoroughness. Also, the audit committee had recently lost two non-executive members that had not been replaced.
　　The amount lost by Mr Mineta made it necessary to refinance the Global-bank business and when the board recommended a US$5 billion rights issue, some of the institutional investors demanded an extraordinary general meeting (EGM). Global-bank’s largest single shareholder, the Shalala Pension Fund, that held 12% of the shares, was furious about the losses and wanted an explanation from Mrs Keefer on why internal controls were so ineffective.When the Shalala trustees met after the losses had been reported, it was decided to write an urgent letter to Mrs Keefer expressing the trustees’ disappointment at her role in the internal control failures at Global-bank. The letter would be signed by Millau Haber, the chairman of the Shalala trustees.
　　At the EGM, Mrs Keefer made a statement on behalf of the Global-bank board. In it she said that Mineta had been a rogue trader who had wilfully
　　disregarded the company’s internal controls and was, in breaking the company’s trading rules, criminally responsible for the theft of company assets. She denied that the main Global-bank board had any responsibility for the loss and said that it was a ‘genuinely
　　unforeseeable’ situation.
　　(a) Kohlberg’s theory of the development of moral reasoning contains three levels, with each level containing two stages or ‘planes’. It is a useful framework for understanding the ways in which people think about ethical issues.
　　Required:
　　(i) Explain the three levels of Kohlberg’s theory. (6 marks)
　　(ii) Identify the level that Mr Mineta operated at and justify your choice using evidence from the case. (4 marks)
　　(iii) Identify, with reasons, the stage (or ‘plane’) of Kohlberg’s moral development most appropriate for a professional bank employee such as Mr
　　Mineta as he undertakes his trading duties. (2 marks)
　　(b) Explain FIVE typical causes of internal control failure and assess the internal control performance of Global-bank in the case scenario. (10 marks)
　　(c) Analyse the agency relationship that exists between the board of Global-bank and the trustees of the Shalala Pension Fund.
　　(4 marks)
　　(d) Distinguish between narrow and wide stakeholders and identify three narrowstakeholders in Global-bank (based on Evan & Freeman’s definition) from information in the case. Assess the potential impact of the events described on each narrow stakeholder dentified. (10 marks)
　　(e) You have been asked to draft a letter from Millau Haber, chairman of the Shalala trustees, to Mrs Keefer as a result of concerns over the events
　　described in the case. The letter should explain the roles and responsibilities of the chief executive in internal control, and criticise Mrs Keefer’s
　　performance in that role. (10 marks)
　　Professional marks are available in part (e) for the structure, content, style and layout of the letter.(4 marks)
　　(50 marks)
1&&&& 　　相关推荐：
文章责编：zhangyadan0411&　看了本文的网友还看了
?&&( 10:23:02)?&&( 10:23:01)?&&( 10:23:00)?&&( 10:46:46)?&&( 10:46:45)?&&( 9:32:24)
Payton Yang
在线名师：
　　 ACCA(国际特许公认会计师)、 FRM (全球金融风险管理师)、CIMA(国际...[]
? ? 　 ? ? 　 ? ? 　 ? ? 　 ? ?
? ? 　 ? ? 　 ?
? 　 ? ? 　　 ? ? 　 ? ? 　 ? ? 　 ? ?
? ? 　 ? ?
实用工具 |
| 大全 | 大全
　　　　 |
版权声明：如果网所转载内容不慎侵犯了您的权益，请与我们联系，我们将会及时处理。如转载本内容，请注明出处。
Copyright & 2004-
　网　All Rights Reserved　
中国科学院研究生院权威支持(北京)　电 话：010-　传 真：010-2015年6月 （-）模拟题及解析
World Engines (WE) is one of the largest producers of aircraft and ship engines in the world. It has assets in excess of $600bn. It is currently considering improvements to its marine engine production facilities. These improvements include the introduction of specialist hardware and software engine testing technology. Two companies have been shortlisted for supplying this technology.
　　Amethyst is a well-established company whose product provides sophisticated testing facilities and costs $7m. The software that supports the product is written in a conventional programming language. The solution is widely used,but it is relatively inflexible and it has an out-of-date user interface. Amethyst has been trading profitably for 20 years and currently has an annual turnover of $960m.
　　Topaz is a relatively new company (formed three years ago) whose product is more expensive ($8m) but it offers significant advantages in high volume performance and stress testing. It has a modular software design that allows it to be easily maintained and upgraded. It is written in a relatively new powerful programming language and it also has an attractive and contemporary user interface. Topaz currently has a turnover of $24m per year. Some WE executives are concerned about purchasing from such a young, relatively small company, although externally commissioned credit reports show that Topaz is a profitable, liquid and lightly geared company.
　　On a recent evaluation visit to Amethyst, WE&s complete evaluation team of five people, including the financial specialist, were killed when their aircraft crashed on its approach to landing. It was a small, 12 seat commuter aircraft that was flying the WE team on a short 100 km flight from the international airport to a small rural airport close to Amethyst&s base. It later emerged that small commuter airlines and aircraft were subject to less stringent safety procedures than larger aircraft used by established airlines.
　　Later that year, one of the divisional directors of WE was given responsibility for picking up and running the testing technology evaluation project. He has found the following table (Figure 1) produced by the financial specialist in the evaluation team who was killed in the air crash. The divisional director recalls that these returns were based on &tangible benefits resulting from the two options. The returns reflect the characteristics of the two products. Topaz produces better returns if demand for testing is high, but is less effective in low demand circumstances. This is a reflection of the fact that the two solutions differ slightly in terms of their functional scope and power&.
　　Figure 1: expected returns for three demand and supplier combinations.
　　Option Supplier IF High demand IF Low demand
　　A Amethyst $3m per annum $0&5m per annum
　　B Topaz $4m per annum $0&1m per annum
　　The divisional director also recalls a workshop convened to consider future market demand.
　　&Demand in the marine industry is currently affected by global economic uncertainty and it is increasingly difficult to predict demand. I remember that we were also asked to estimate demand for our marine products for the next six years. We eventually came up with the following figures, although it was relatively hard to get everyone to agree and debate at the workshop became a little heated&.
　　& High demand for six years: probability p = 0&4
　　& Low demand for six years: probability p = 0&4
　　& High demand for three years, followed by low demand for three years: probability p = 0&2
　　These figures are confirmed by a document also recovered from the air crash site. &As I recall&, said the divisional director, &the financial specialist intended to develop a decision tree to help us evaluate the Amethyst and Topaz alternatives. However, there is no evidence that he ever constructed it, which is a pity because we could have taken the procurement decision on the basis of that decision tree&.
　　Required:
　　(a) Develop a decision tree from the information given in the scenario and discuss its implications and shortcomings.Ignore the time value of money in your analysis. (9 marks)
　　(b) The divisional director suggests that the procurement decision could have been taken on the evidence of the decision tree.
　　Discuss what other factors (not considered by the decision tree analysis) should also be taken into consideration when deciding which option to select. (6 marks)
　　(c) WE executives are concerned about the risk of Topaz, as a relatively new company, going out of business. They have also expressed concern about the loss of the evaluation team in a fatal accident and they believe that this should lead to a review of the risks associated with employee travel.
　　Discuss how EACH of the above risks (supplier business failure and employee travel) might be avoided or mitigated. (10 marks)(25 marks)
　　Answer:
　　(a) A decision tree for the information in the scenario is given below.
　　The expected value of Amethyst is:
　　($18m x 0&4) + ($3m x 0&4) + ($10&5m x 0&2) = $10&5m MINUS cost of $7m = $3&5m
　　The expected value of Topaz is:
　　($24m x 0&4) + ($0&6m x 0&4) + ($12&3m x 0&2) = $12&3 MINUS cost of $8m = $4&3m
　　The analysis suggests that the Topaz option should be chosen.
　　This decision tree is based on the information available at this point in time. The probabilities set in the workshop are subjective and are not based on an analysis of past statistical data. As the divisional director recalls in the scenario, &it was relatively hard to get everyone to agree and debate at the workshop became a little heated.& The sensitivity of the outcome to slight alterations in probability assessments should be undertaken. It is also unlikely that the predicted returns will be completely accurate. The basis of these estimates is not given, but a further sensitivity analysis, this time focusing on returns, would be valuable. The predicted annual return of Topaz ($4m per annum) under conditions of high demand needs particular attention. This value (and its associated probability) contributes about 78% of the total expected value of this option. If the annual returns are overestimated by 10% (say $3&6m per annum not $4&0m), then this ceases to be the best option.Software prices may also be negotiable, and changes in prices and structure may also need to be experimented with. The decision tree will have been just one input into the procurement decision.
　　(b) As highlighted in the first part of the answer, the decision tree is only one input to the procurement decision. The scenario states that the returns used in the decision tree analysis were based on tangible benefits. The business case for each option would also have to state intangible benefits offered by each option. For example, the Topaz option offers a more contemporary user interface and this may provide intangible benefits associated with a better user experience. Intangible benefits need to be identified and listed for each option.
　　Importantly, the risk associated with each option will also have to be considered and documented. An element of this is reflected in the scenario. Amethyst, a well-established supplier, is perceived as a less risky option than the relatively newly formed, smaller Topaz. The relative supplier risk is not reflected in the decision tree. This risk, and other risks identified for each option, must be documented in the business case.
　　Amethyst option
　　Topaz option
　　High p = 0&4
　　Low p = 0&4
　　High then low p = 0&2
　　High p = 0&4
　　Low p = 0&4
　　High then low p = 0&2
　　6 x $0&1m
　　6 x $4m
　　3 x $4m + 3 x $0&1m
　　6 x $0&5m
　　6 x $3m
　　3 x $3m + 3 x $0&5m
　　It may also be necessary to assess the relative impact on the organisation of each option. The options appear to differ in their functional scope and power and these differences might have disproportionate effects on the degree of change necessary within the organisation to accommodate the solution and the effect that each option has on organisational processes and the people with responsibility for those processes.
　　Finally, an effective selection process should allocate appropriate weight to features associated with the supplier of the solution. This is not just financial robustness, but also factors such as the availability of support, the presence and effectiveness of a user group, process certification etc. Similarly, the product needs to be assessed for functional fitness and for overall product characteristics, such as usability, flexibility and its overall design philosophy. We are told that Topaz is modular and up-to-date and this may be in its favour, but it will not be reflected in the decision tree analysis.
　　(c) The risk assessment for Topaz has documented concerns about the long-term viability and stability of the supplier. Current financial analysis reveals a profitable, liquid and lowly geared company. However, the company is relatively young and it has a very small turnover compared to WE. It also has to be recognised that WE intends to enter a long-term relationship with this supplier. Hence the continuing success and viability of Topaz is important to WE. A risk avoidance strategy would be to avoid purchasing from small, newly-established companies. Hence Topaz would not be considered.
　　Should this risk actually take place, and Topaz goes out of business, then its impact may be mitigated by the following:
　　& The software used in the product is perceived to be innovative, modular and up-to-date. WE should ensure that this software is lodged in an escrow agreement. In such an agreement the source code is stored with an independent third party. If Topaz goes out of business, then their customers (including WE) have access to the software source code which should allow them, or their appointed agents, to maintain and support it.
　　& WE should also consider establishing in-house expertise in the programming language used by the Topaz product. This could have two objectives:
　　(1) As a basis for developing a long-term in-house software application that could be used to replace the software elements of the product offered by Topaz. The team could also be used to develop other significant applications required by the company. The software is contemporary and powerful and so other applications within WE should not be difficult to find.
　　(2) To provide a basis for enacting the escrow agreement if Topaz goes out of business. Access to the source code is particularly appropriate if an in-house team is able to pick up the software, maintain it and develop it.
　　& WE is a very significant company, with considerable assets. It should be relatively easy for it to maintain funds which could be used for purchasing Topaz should it run into difficulties. Many large companies take this approach as it secures software supply and potentially severs the supply, in this case, of the software to competitors.
　　WE need to maintain a contingency plan for moving to an alternative supplier or an in-house team. This contingency plan could be linked to monitoring the financial performance of Topaz. Many financial organisations offer a continuous monitoring facility to ensure that suppliers are not just evaluated at the point of purchase, but throughout the subsequent business relationship. This is particularly important when the supplier&s application is business-critical to the customer and any interruption in supply would have significant implications.
　　The key lessons learned from the fatal air crash should result in WE developing risk avoidance or mitigation actions to make sure that such catastrophic events do not happen again, or, if they do happen, that they have less impact on the organisation.
　　Potential actions include:
　　1. Not permitting teams to travel together & the complete evaluation team was in the aircraft. Many organisations insist that key employees do not travel together to conferences and meetings.
　　2. Looking for safer transport alternatives & the fatal journey was on a small commuter plane travelling a distance which might have been undertaken by car or train. The riskiness of different ways of travelling needs to be considered. Small commuter airlines and aircraft may have less stringent safety procedures than larger, mainstream airlines. Again, this would have to be investigated.
　　3. Eliminating unnecessary travel & was the journey necessary? Encouraging employees to work from the home or the office reduces the risk of travel accidents by avoiding travel in the first place. The company might not only consider electronic meetings as a way of cutting costs, but also as a way of reducing the chance of fatal travel accidents.
　　4. Finally, ensuring that all documentation is up-to-date and self-explanatory, so that it can be picked up easily by other employees of the organisation, hence avoiding the situation described in the scenario where the divisional director has to piece together fragments of documentation left by the unfortunate team.
& & & & & & & & & & & &
与本文相关的文章
发表我的评论