2010年12月ACCA考试考官报告(P7)(2)

　　问题一共有32分，要求考生从审计负责人的角度，参与新的审计业务约定，涉及到经营风险的评估、相关财务报表风险的识别与说明、以及对商标名称的审计程序。整体看来，考生愿意做这类的题，尤其是经营风险。然而，还是有许多考生没有很好回答一些具体的问题，导致失分。

Specific Comments
Question One
This question was for 32 marks,and involved a new audit engagement,with the candidate placed in the position of the audit manager.Requirements involved a business risk evaluation,identification and explanation of relevant financial statement risks,and audit procedures relating to a brand name.

On the whole,candidates seemed to like this question,especially the business risk evaluation.However,many candidates failed to answer the specific question requirements,thereby denying themselves of marks.

Requirement (a) asked for an evaluation of business risks,for 15 marks.The audit client operated in the retail industry and had recently initiated several strategies aimed at expansion,including e-commerce.It was clear that most candidates were prepared for this type of requirement,and on the whole performed well.Answers tended to display reasonable application skills,with some candidates prioritising the risks identified,and reaching an overall conclusion.There was much less evidence here of ‘knowledge-dumping’ than in answers to other requirements.Some answers worked through the scenario,and for each risk identified explained the potential impact on the business.Some answers also made connections between different aspects of the client’s business,for example,that joining the Fair Trade Initiative would have cost repercussions at a time when profit margins were reducing.

However,answers still left a lot of room for improvement.Common weaknesses in answers to the requirement included:
•Repeating large chunks of text from the scenario with no explanation provided
•Not actually explaining or evaluating a risk identified – just saying ‘this is a risk’
•Providing detailed definitions of business risk,which was not asked for
•Providing audit procedures for risks,again not asked for

There was far too much emphasis on going concern risk,often raised indiscriminately for every risk area identified.
In addition,it is worth noting that very few candidates used the figures provided in the scenario to identify risk exposure.The client’s revenue and profit had fallen from the previous year,and some simple financial analysis could have revealed falling profit margins and worsening interest cover.This type of analysis is not difficult or time consuming,and is something that demonstrates mark-generating application skills.

Finally,some candidates simply failed to answer the question requirement.A minority of candidates took the opportunity to provide many pages of answer which just described how you would plan an audit in general,including descriptions of contacting the previous auditor,determining materiality levels,and meeting the client to discuss the engagement.All of this was totally irrelevant,and failed to generate any marks..Candidates are reminded that they must answer the specific question requirement,and not the requirement they would like to have been asked.

There were 2 professional marks available in connection with requirement (a).Most candidates attempted the briefing notes format by including an appropriate heading and introduction.It seemed that by the end of their answer however,candidates had forgotten about the professional marks,as it was rare to see a conclusion provided on the business risk evaluation.Candidates are reminded that resources are available on ACCA’s website providing guidance on the importance of professional marks.

Requirement (b) was for 10 marks,and asked candidates to identify and explain five financial statement risks from the scenario.The quality of answers to this requirement was unsatisfactory.The minority of candidates who scored well on this requirement provided a succinct explanation of the financial statement risk,clearly stating the potential impact of the risk identified on the financial statements.Some answers,which were by far the majority,tended to just outline an accounting treatment with no mention of the actual risk itself.Another common weakness was to discuss the detection risk which may arise with a new audit client,which is not a financial statement risk.Given that financial statement risks have featured in several previous examinations it was somewhat surprising that the majority of candidates could not provide a satisfactory answer,especially when requirement (a) had asked for a business risk evaluation,which should then lead into the identification of financial statement risks as part of audit methodology.

Some candidates used the financial information provided to identify financial statement risks,rarely with any success.Common statements of this type were along the lines of ‘revenue is reduced,so there is a risk of understatement’.

Finally,there was a tendency for candidates to provide more than the required number of financial statement risks,which is clearly a waste of time.

Requirement (c) asked candidates to recommend principal audit procedures in relation to the valuation of a purchased brand name,which was recognised at cost in the financial statements.Some candidates scored well here,providing well written procedures specific to the valuation of an intangible asset.Some answers recognised that procedures should focus on determining whether or not the brand was impaired and whether the non-amortisation policy was appropriate.The most common errors here included:
•Mis-reading the scenario and thinking the brand was internally generated (the scenario clearly stated that the brand had been purchased several years ago).
•Mis-reading the scenario and thinking the brand was amortised (the scenario clearly states it is not amortised).
•Providing detailed explanations of the requirements of IAS 38 Intangible Assets (not asked for).

There were a lot of standard tests provided which did not fit the scenario,like checking management calculations on amortisation,and checking the qualifications of the valuer.

Candidates are reminded that audit procedures must be tailored to the facts of the scenario provided and must be sufficiently detailed to make sense.‘Get management rep’,'discuss with management’ and ‘review cost’ are examples of meaningless ‘procedures’ which earn no credit without further development.In addition there were many instances where candidates were obviously trying to generate procedures using a list of words as a prompt.For example 'observe the asset’ or ‘inquire about the asset’.Candidates must think carefully and not just use words as a prompt if they make no sense.Candidates are encouraged to read the examiner’s article on exam technique in answering questions on audit procedures,published in September 2009 and available on ACCA’s website.

Overall,question one and requirement (a) in particular was reasonably answered by a large proportion of candidates.However,answers to requirement (b) were unsatisfactory.