2010年12月ACCA考试考官报告(F8)(3)

　　20分的问题四是以Bluesberry医院为基础的。它主要考察考生对现金交易价格、经营环境优势、和固定资产实质性程序的理解。

Question Four
This 20-mark question was based on Bluesberry hospital and tested candidates’ knowledge of value for money,strengths of an operating environment and substantive procedures for property,plant and equipment.

Part (a) for 4 marks required an explanation of the purpose of a value for money audit.Candidates performed satisfactorily on this part of the question.Many candidates were able to score three of the available four marks by defining the 3Es of economy,efficiency and effectiveness.However some confused their explanations giving an explanation of effectiveness for efficiency.The final mark for a general explanation of what a value for money audit actually means was often not considered by candidates.In addition a significant minority of candidates misunderstood the question and referred to ensuring value for money for an external audit.

Part (b) for 10 marks required identification and explanation of four strengths within the hospital’s operating environment and a description of an improvement to provide best value for money for the hospital.Candidates performed well in the explanations of the strengths within Bluesberry with many scoring full marks.The scenario contained a number of strengths and hence it was relatively straightforward for candidates to identify four.Where candidates failed to score well this was due to a failure to explain their strengths.The requirement was to “identify and explain”,where a strength was identified then ½ mark was available,another 1 mark was available for a clear explanation of each strength.In addition a significant minority misread the question requirement and identified weaknesses rather than strengths.

The second part of this question required improvements to the strengths identified.Performance on this question was adequate.The majority of candidates attempted this part of the question,and were able to identify a few relevant points.However answers were often too vague or unrealistic.

A significant number of candidates presented their answers to part b(i) and (ii) in a columnar format and this seemed to help them to produce concise and relevant answers.

Part (c) for 6 marks required two substantive procedures each to confirm the valuation,completeness,and rights and obligations of property,plant and equipment of Bluesberry.Candidates’ performance was mixed,with many confusing their assertions.It was common to have existence tests provided for completeness.In addition too many answers were vague,candidates are still giving substantive procedures such as “check the invoices.” This does not score any marks as there is no explanation of what we are checking the invoices for.Also a common response was to “check the title deeds” with no explanation of what in the deeds we were checking or why.