30878阅读
1回复

[行业资料]2010年12月ACCA考试考官报告(F8) [复制链接]

上一主题下一主题查看指定楼层

离线阿文哥

管理员

发帖: 16132

学分: 16242

经验: 2562

精华: 49

金币: 0

只看楼主倒序阅读使用道具 0楼发表于: 2012-06-04

关键词：行业资料 ACCA ACCA考试

General Comments
　　The examination consisted of five compulsory questions.Section Acontained question 1 for 30 marks and question 2 for 10 marks.Section Bcomprised three further questions of 20 marks each.
　　The majority of candidates completed all five questions;however therewas some evidence of time pressure as a significant minority of candidates didnot attempt all questions.This seemed to mainly occur for question 5 or for thequestions candidates found challenging,which are listed below.In addition asignificant minority answered question 1 last and their answers were oftenincomplete.As question 1 is the case study and represents 30 of the availablemarks,leaving this question until last can be a risky strategy,as many answerspresented were incomplete or appeared rushed.
　　Candidates performed particularly well on questions 1b,2c,3ci and4bi.The questions candidates found most challenging were questions 1a,2b,3a,3ciiand 5b.This was mainly due to a combination of failing to read the questionrequirement carefully and insufficient knowledge.A number of these areas werenew to the F8 study guide in 2010 and hence as new topic areas should have beenprioritised by candidates.
　　A number of common issues arose in some candidate’sanswers:
　　•Failing to read the question requirement clearly and thereforeproviding irrelevant answers which scored few if any marks
　　•Providing more than the required number of points
　　•Illegible handwriting and poor layout ofanswers.

Specific Comments yT8=l"-[G
Question One
　　This 30-mark question was based on a retailer of ladies clothing andaccessories,Greystone Co,and tested candidates’ knowledge of internal controldeficiencies,trade payables and internal audit.
　　Part (a) for 5 marks required candidates to explain examples ofmatters that the auditor should consider in determining whether an internalcontrol deficiency was significant.
　　This part of the question was unrelated to the Greystone Co scenarioand hence tested candidates’ knowledge as opposed to application skills.Thisquestion related to ISA 265 Communicating Deficiencies in Internal Control tothose Charged with Governance and Management,which is a new ISA and new to theF8 study guide for 2010.
　　Most candidates performed inadequately on this part of thequestion.The main reason for this is that candidates failed to read the questionproperly or did not understand what the requirement entailed.The question askedfor matters which would mean internal control deficiencies were significantenough to warrant reporting to those charged with governance.The question wasnot asking for examples of significant internal control deficiencies,howeverthis is what a majority of candidates gave.Many answers included a long list ofcontrol deficiencies such as “inadequate segregation of duties” this failed toscore marks as it was not answering the question.
　　It was apparent that many candidates had not studied the area ofsignificant control deficiencies,and as there is now an ISA dedicated to thisarea,this was unsatisfactory.
Part (b) for 14 marks required a report to management whichidentified and explained four deficiencies,implications and recommendations forthe purchasing system of Greystone Co.A covering letter was required and therewere 2 presentation marks available.
　　This part of the question was answered well by the vast majority ofcandidates with some scoring full marks.The scenario was quite detailed andhence there were many possible deficiencies which could gain credit.Wherecandidates did not score well this was mainly due to a failure to explain thedeficiency and/or the implication in sufficient detail.Some candidates simplylisted the information from the scenario such as “purchase invoices are manuallymatched to GRNs” and then failed to explain the implication of this forGreystone Co.
　　A significant minority also failed to score marks because theyprovided deficiencies which were unrelated to the purchasing system,such as“internal audit’s only role is to perform inventory counts.” This was outsidethe scope of the question requirement and hence did not gain credit.Candidatesare once again reminded that they must read the question requirementscarefully.
　　Many candidates failed to score the full 2 marks available forpresentation as they did not produce a covering letter.A significant minorityjust gave the deficiencies,implications and recommendations without any letterat all;this may be due to a failure to read the question properly.Also even whena letter was produced this was often not completed.
　　Candidates would provide the letterhead and introductoryparagraph,the detail of the deficiencies,implications and recommendations,butthen they would fail to include a concluding paragraph and letter sign off whichwould have earned a further 1 mark.In addition some candidates produced a memorather than a letter.In general,where candidates adopted a columnar approach totheir answer they tended to score well.
　　The question asked for four deficiencies,implications andrecommendations,however many candidates provided much more than the requiredfour points.It was not uncommon to see answers which had six or sevenpoints.Whilst it is understandable that candidates wish to ensure that they gaincredit for four relevant points,this approach can lead to time pressure andsubsequent questions can suffer.
　　Part (c) for 5 marks required substantive procedures the auditorshould perform on year-end trade payables.This was answered satisfactorily formany candidates.The most common mistake made by some candidates was to confusepayables and purchases and hence provide substantive tests for purchases such as“agree purchase invoices to goods received notes”.As there was no reference toyear-end payables then this test would not have scored any marks.A minorityprovided tests of controls as well as substantive procedures and again thesewould not have scored any marks.
　　The requirement verb was to “describe” therefore sufficient detailwas required to score the 1 mark available per test.Candidates are reminded thatsubstantive procedures is a core topic area and they must be able to producerelevant detailed procedures.Answers such as “discuss with management to confirmownership of payables” is far too vague to gain credit as there is noexplanation of what would be discussed and also how such a discussion could evenconfirm ownership.
　　Part (d) for 5 marks required additional procedures the internalauditors of Greystone Co could perform;this was in addition to their currentrole of performing regular inventory counts.This required candidates to usetheir knowledge of internal audit assignments and apply it to a retailerscenario.On the whole candidates performed satisfactorily on this question.Manywere able to identify assignments such as value for money audits,reviewinginternal controls,assisting the external auditors and other operational internalaudits.However some candidates restricted their answers to assignments theauditors would perform in light of the control deficiencies identified in part(b) of their answer.This meant that their answers lacked the sufficient breadthof points required to score well.
Question Two
　　This 10-mark question covered the topics of true and fairconcept,International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and auditdocumentation.
　　Part (a) for 4 marks required candidates to explain the true and fairconcept.Candidates’ performance was mixed on this question.Candidates clearlyare aware of the concept but struggled to explain it with sufficientclarity.Also many candidates failed to score full marks as they did not make asufficient number of points for 4 marks.
　　A common answer was to describe true as being"truthful"and to explainfair in relation to"fairness".This does not answer the question.In addition aminority also confused their explanations between true and fair,forexample,stating"true means unbiased”.Also a significant minority,having gainedcredit for stating that true and fair means that there are no materialmisstatements in the financial statements,then went onto a detailed descriptionof materiality which was not required.
　　Part (b) for 2 marks required an explanation of the status ofISAs.Candidates performed inadequately on this question.Many candidates did notseem to understand what was required and were confused by theword"status”.However this requirement is taken from the study guide and relatesto the authority of ISAs,what types of assignments they apply to,their contentand also how they interact with other legislation.
　　Part (c) for 4 marks required four benefits of documenting auditwork.This question was answered well by most candidates.In addition the verbof"state"was addressed by most candidates and answers were generallysuccinct.Where candidates did not score full marks this tended to be becausethey repeated points or because they gave points which related to the benefitsof audit planning rather than the benefits of documenting auditwork.
Question Three
　　This 20-mark question was based on Redsmith Co which producedprinters.The question tested the areas of risk identification,planning andacceptance of new audit engagements.
　　Part (a) for 3 marks required the process an auditor would undertakefor an assessment of whether the preconditions for an audit were present.This isa new topic from the revised ISA 210 Agreeing the Terms of AuditEngagements.
A large number of candidates did not attempt this question,andwhere it was attempted it was inadequately answered.Most candidates who providedan answer clearly did not know what the preconditions were and thereforeproceeded to write down anything they knew about new audit engagements.Mostprovided answers which covered ethical considerations for new engagements suchas contacting the outgoing auditors,or ensuring that they had an adequatelytrained audit team and other client screening procedures,also many covered thecontents of an engagement letter.
　　It was fairly apparent from the answers provided that many candidateshad simply not studied the new syllabus area of preconditions and hence wereunable to score any marks at all.In addition many candidates wrote atconsiderable length for a 3 mark requirement.This put them under significanttime pressure for later questions.Candidates must note the total number ofavailable marks and provide an answer in line with this.
Part (b) for 2 marks required 4 matters the auditor should considerin obtaining an understanding of the entity.This was unrelated to the scenarioand was a knowledge based question.In general candidates performedsatisfactorily.Where candidates did not score full marks this was because theyfocused on such areas as people they would speak to,or procedures to obtaininformation such as"reviewing the company’s website”.They should instead havefocused on the areas/matters of the company that the auditor wished to gain anunderstanding on,such as its industry,regulatory framework or customerbase.
　　Part (c) for 15 marks required a calculation of 5 ratios each for 2years and an explanation of the related audit risks and responses.The ratiosrequirement was answered well by the majority of candidates.However there were asignificant minority who did not have a calculator in the exam and hence wereunable to calculate any ratios,they failed to score any of the available 5marks.Also some candidates were unable to calculate any relevant ratios,insteadjust calculating percentage increases or producing duplicating ratios such asgross margin as well as cost of sales as percentage of revenue.In addition asignificant minority confused the calculation of inventory days using inventorydivided by revenue rather than cost of sales.Candidates are reminded that aspart of an analytical review,going concern or audit risk question they must beable to calculate and then evaluate relevant ratios.
　　The question then required audit risks and responses for 10 of the 15marks.Many candidates performed inadequately on this part of thequestion.
　　As stated in previous examiner’s reports,audit risk is a key elementof the Audit & Assurance syllabus and candidates must understand auditrisk.
　　The main area where candidates lost marks is that they did notactually understand what audit risk relates to.Hence they provided answers whichconsidered the risks the business would face or ‘business risks,’ which areoutside the scope of the syllabus.Audit risks must be related to the riskarising in the audit of the financial statements.If candidates did not do thisthen they would have struggled to pass this part of the question as there wereno marks available for business risks.
　　In addition many candidates chose to provide an interpretation ofaccounts and the ratios calculated rather than an assessment of auditrisk.Comments such as"revenue has increased by 28% this could be as a result ofthe bonus scheme introduced"would not have scored any marks as there was noidentification of the audit risk,which is overstatement ofrevenue.
　　Even if the audit risks were explained many candidates then failed toprovide a relevant response to the audit risk,most chose to give a response thatmanagement would adopt rather than the auditor.For example,in relation to therisk of valuation of receivables,as Redsmith Co had extended their credit termsto customers,many candidates suggested that customers should not be acceptedwithout better credit checks,or offering an early settlement discount toencourage customers to pay quicker.These are not responses that the auditorwould adopt,as they would be focused on testing valuation through after datecash receipts or reviewing the aged receivables ledger.Also some responses weretoo vague such as"increase substantive testing"without making it clear how,or inwhat area,this would be addressed.
　　Future candidates must take note; audit risk is and will continue tobe an important element of the syllabus and must beunderstood.
Question Four
　　This 20-mark question was based on Bluesberry hospital and testedcandidates’ knowledge of value for money,strengths of an operating environmentand substantive procedures for property,plant andequipment.
　　Part (a) for 4 marks required an explanation of the purpose of avalue for money audit.Candidates performed satisfactorily on this part of thequestion.Many candidates were able to score three of the available four marks bydefining the 3Es of economy,efficiency and effectiveness.However some confusedtheir explanations giving an explanation of effectiveness for efficiency.Thefinal mark for a general explanation of what a value for money audit actuallymeans was often not considered by candidates.In addition a significant minorityof candidates misunderstood the question and referred to ensuring value formoney for an external audit.
　　Part (b) for 10 marks required identification and explanation of fourstrengths within the hospital’s operating environment and a description of animprovement to provide best value for money for the hospital.Candidatesperformed well in the explanations of the strengths within Bluesberry with manyscoring full marks.The scenario contained a number of strengths and hence it wasrelatively straightforward for candidates to identify four.Where candidatesfailed to score well this was due to a failure to explain their strengths.Therequirement was to “identify and explain”,where a strength was identified then ½mark was available,another 1 mark was available for a clear explanation of eachstrength.In addition a significant minority misread the question requirement andidentified weaknesses rather than strengths.
　　The second part of this question required improvements to thestrengths identified.Performance on this question was adequate.The majority ofcandidates attempted this part of the question,and were able to identify a fewrelevant points.However answers were often too vague orunrealistic.
　　A significant number of candidates presented their answers to partb(i) and (ii) in a columnar format and this seemed to help them to produceconcise and relevant answers.
　　Part (c) for 6 marks required two substantive procedures each toconfirm the valuation,completeness,and rights and obligations of property,plantand equipment of Bluesberry.Candidates’ performance was mixed,with manyconfusing their assertions.It was common to have existence tests provided forcompleteness.In addition too many answers were vague,candidates are still givingsubstantive procedures such as “check the invoices.” This does not score anymarks as there is no explanation of what we are checking the invoices for.Also acommon response was to “check the title deeds” with no explanation of what inthe deeds we were checking or why.
Question Five
　　This 20-mark question was based on a manufacturing companyGreenfields Co and tested candidates’ knowledge of accounting estimates,writtenrepresentations and audit reports.
　　Part (a) for 5 marks required audit procedures for accountingestimates.This question was answered satisfactorily.The question was notspecifically related to the two issues in the scenario and so candidates whoconsidered general procedures relevant for any estimate such as legal provisionsor depreciation scored well.Many also gave examples of different estimates whenproviding their procedures.Those candidates who only considered the two issuesof the receivable balance and the warranty provision often failed to generate asufficient number of points.
　　Part (b) for 10 marks required a discussion of the appropriateness ofwritten representations and additional procedures to be performed at the finalreview stage for the two issues of the receivable balance and the warrantyprovision.A significant minority did not attempt this question,and where it wasattempted candidates’ performance was unsatisfactory.
　　In the first part of the question on written representations manycandidates wrote at length about written representations in general and whetherthey were an acceptable form of audit evidence,these answers did gain credit asthey were too general.The question asked specifically about two situations andthese needed to be addressed.In addition many candidates did not seem tounderstand the difference between the two situations in that for the receivablebalance alternative evidence should exist,for example,through a receivablescircularisation,but because of the nature of the warranty provision alternativeevidence was not generally available.Also many candidates seemed to believe thata written representation was necessary as the balances were material.Thisdisplays a lack of understanding of why written representations areused.
　　The second part of the question considered additional procedures thatshould now be performed for these two issues.Again performance wasunsatisfactory,it was clear from the scenario that the audit fieldwork hadalready been performed as it was stated that the manager was performing a finalreview of the audit.Therefore procedures needed to reflect that the main work ontesting receivables and provisions had already been undertaken and at this stageit was just a case of updating this knowledge.For receivables many candidatesprovided tests such as “agree the receivable balance to sales invoices and goodsdespatch notes” this did not gain any marks as is not a procedure undertaken aspart of a final review.
　　In addition the scenario clearly stated that management would notallow the auditors to circularise the receivable balance owing fromYellowmix.However many candidates ignored this and still stated as a procedurethat the balance should be circularised.It is not possible to send acircularisation without management’s permission.This demonstrated either afailure to read the question properly or a lack of understanding of acircularisation.
　　For the warranty provision candidates performed marginally better atproducing additional procedures.However it was still common to see answers whichrecommended that the auditor recalculate the warranty provision and test theassumptions,this was despite the fact that the scenario stated that this hadalready been undertaken.
　　Part (c) for 5 marks required the steps the auditor should nowundertake and the impact on the audit report in relation to the warrantyprovision.Candidates’ performance was satisfactory with many scoring well forthe audit report impact.However ,many candidates provided a scatter gun approachof suggesting every possible audit report implication.
　　Many used terms such as “except for”,"modified” or “qualified” butthe accompanying sentences demonstrated that candidates did not actuallyunderstand what these terms meant.Also an emphasis of matter paragraph wassuggested by a significant proportion of candidates,this demonstrates afundamental lack of understanding of emphasis of matter paragraphs and auditreports.