题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
(c) mandatory continuing professional development (CPD) requirements. (5 marks)
如果结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
更多“（c) mandatory continuing profe…”相关的问题
(d) Corporate annual reports contain both mandatory and voluntary disclosures.
Required:
(i) Distinguish, using examples, between mandatory and voluntary disclosures in the annual reports of
public listed companies. (6 marks)
A.Soft logic
B.Hard logic
C.An external dependency
D.A mandatory dependency
E.A lost cause
B.Service specifications are required
C.A service master number is required
D.An account assignment is mandatory
E.The item category is D (service).
A．辅助通气（assisted ventilation,AV）
B．控制通气（controlled ventilation,CV）
C．辅助—控制通气（assit-controlled ventilation,A-CV）
D．间歇指令通气（intermittent mandatory ventilation,IMV）
E．压力支持通气（pressure support ventilation,PSV）
Section B – TWO questions ONLY to be attempted
Bob Wong was fortunate to inherit some money and decided he wanted to invest for the long term in one or more investments so he would have a higher income in retirement. He was not a specialist in accounting and had little understanding of how investments worked.
Bob studied an investment website which suggested that he needed to be aware of the level of risk in an investment and also that he needed to know what his basic attitude to risk would be. This meant he needed to decide what his risk appetite was and then select investments based on that.
When Bob studied share listings in newspapers, he noticed that they were subdivided into sectors (e.g. banks, pharmaceuticals, mining, retail). He noticed that some sectors seemed to make higher returns than others and he wanted to know why this was. One website suggested that risks also varied by sector and this was partly explained by the different business and financial risks which different sectors are exposed to.
One website said that if a potential investor wanted to know about any given company as a potential investment, the company’s most recent annual report was a good place to start. This was because, it said, the annual report contained a lot of voluntary information, in addition to the financial statements. Bob could use this information to gain an understanding of the company’s strategy and governance. The website suggested that the contents of the corporate governance section of the annual report would be particularly helpful in helping him decide whether or not to buy shares in a company.
Required:
(a) Explain ‘risk appetite’ and ‘risk awareness’, and discuss how Bob’s risk appetite might affect his choice of investments.
(8 marks) (b) Explain ‘business risk’ and ‘financial risk’ and discuss why risks might vary by sector as the website indicated. (8 marks)
(c) Distinguish, with examples, between mandatory and voluntary disclosure in annual reports, and assess the usefulness of corporate governance disclosure to Bob in selecting his investments. (9 marks)
costs in several currencies. The group develops, manufactures and markets products in the medical sector. The growth
of the group has been achieved by investment and acquisition. It is organised into three global business units which
manage their sales in international markets, and take full responsibility for strategy and business performance. Only
five per cent of the business is in the country of incorporation. Competition in the sector is quite fierce.
The group competes across a wide range of geographic and product markets and encourages its subsidiaries to
enhance local communities by reinvestment of profits in local educational projects. The group’s share of revenue in a
market sector is often determined by government policy. The markets contain a number of different competitors
including specialised and large international corporations. At present the group is awaiting regulatory approval for a
range of new products to grow its market share. The group lodges its patents for products and enters into legal
proceedings where necessary to protect patents. The products are sourced from a wide range of suppliers, who, once
approved both from a qualitative and ethical perspective, are generally given a long term contract for the supply of
goods. Obsolete products are disposed of with concern for the environment and the health of its customers, with
reusable materials normally being used. The industry is highly regulated in terms of medical and environmental laws
and regulations. The products normally carry a low health risk.
The Group has developed a set of corporate and social responsibility principles during the period which is the
responsibility of the Board of Directors. The Managing Director manages the risks arising from corporate and social
responsibility issues. The group wishes to retain and attract employees and follows policies which ensure equal
opportunity for all the employees. Employees are informed of management policies, and regularly receive in-house
training.
The Group enters into contracts for fixed rate currency swaps and uses floating to fixed rate interest rate swaps. The
cash flow effects of these swaps match the cash flows on the underlying financial instruments. All financial
instruments are accounted for as cash flow hedges. A significant amount of trading activity is denominated in the
Dinar and the Euro. The dollar is its functional currency.
Required:
(a) Describe the principles behind the Management Commentary discussing whether the commentary should be
mandatory or whether directors should be free to use their judgement as to what should be included in such
a commentary. (13 marks)
for advice on the impact of IFRS3 (Revised) ‘Business Combinations’ and IAS27 (Revised) ‘Consolidated and Separate
Financial Statements’. The company is particularly concerned about the impact on earnings, net assets and goodwill
at the acquisition date and any ongoing earnings impact that the new standards may have.
The company is considering purchasing additional shares in an associate, Josey, a public limited company. The
holding will increase from 30% stake to 70% stake by offering the shareholders of Josey, cash and shares in
Marrgrett. Marrgrett anticipates that it will pay $5 million in transaction costs to lawyers and bankers. Josey had
previously been the subject of a management buyout. In order that the current management shareholders may remain
in the business, Marrgrett is going to offer them share options in Josey subject to them remaining in employment for
two years after the acquisition. Additionally, Marrgrett will offer the same shareholders, shares in the holding company
which are contingent upon a certain level of profitability being achieved by Josey. Each shareholder will receive shares
of the holding company up to a value of $50,000, if Josey achieves a pre-determined rate of return on capital
employed for the next two years.
Josey has several marketing-related intangible assets that are used primarily in marketing or promotion of its products.
These include trade names, internet domain names and non-competition agreements. These are not currently
recognised in Josey’s financial statements.
Marrgrett does not wish to measure the non-controlling interest in subsidiaries on the basis of the proportionate
interest in the identifiable net assets, but wishes to use the ‘full goodwill’ method on the transaction. Marrgrett is
unsure as to whether this method is mandatory, or what the effects are of recognising ‘full goodwill’. Additionally the
company is unsure as to whether the nature of the consideration would affect the calculation of goodwill.
To finance the acquisition of Josey, Marrgrett intends to dispose of a partial interest in two subsidiaries. Marrgrett will
retain control of the first subsidiary but will sell the controlling interest in the second subsidiary which will become
an associate. Because of its plans to change the overall structure of the business, Marrgrett wishes to recognise a
re-organisation provision at the date of the business combination.
Required:
Discuss the principles and the nature of the accounting treatment of the above plans under International Financial
Reporting Standards setting out any impact that IFRS3 (Revised) ‘Business Combinations’ and IAS27 (Revised)
‘Consolidated and Separate Financial Statements’ might have on the earnings and net assets of the group.
Note: this requirement includes 2 professional marks for the quality of the discussion.
(25 marks)
1.Students usually have dorm life for at least one year because ().
A.they have to
B.they like to try something new
C.they want to make new friends
D.their dorm life is quite satisfying
2.Which of the following is NOT true according to the passage？()
A.Students can have other residence choices after their fist-year dorm life
B.It's not necessary that you share a room with your classmates
C.Maybe boys are only allowed to visit girls at fixed time
D.No one would like to go on with their dorm life after first-year dorm life experience
3.Which of the following is probably NOT the reason why students end their dorm life as soon as possible？()
A.Rooms are too small
B.Their roommates are not friendly
C.They don't like the many rules there
D.It is more expensive.
4.What does the author want to tell us in the last paragraph？()
A.All students do enjoy their dorm life
B.Some students become the enforcers of rules
C.Though many students move out, there are some students who stay on
D.Students are allowed to stay on
5.What is the best title for the passage？()
A.Most U.S. Students Move Our of the Dorm
B.U.S. University Students Today
C.University Life in the U.S.
D.The U.S. University Students Need More Freedom
Section A – This ONE question is compulsory and MUST be attempted
Coastal Oil is one of the world’s largest petrochemical companies. It is based in Deeland and is responsible alone for 10% of Deeland’s total stock market value. It employs 120,000 people in many countries and has an especially strong presence in Effland because of Effland’s very large consumption of oil and gas products and its large oil reserves. Coastal Oil is organised, like most petrochemical companies, into three vertically integrated business units: the exploration and extraction division; the processing and refining division; and the distribution and retailing division.
Because of the risks and the capital investment demands, Coastal Oil has joint venture (JV) agreements in place for many of its extraction operations (i.e. its oil and gas rigs), especially those in the deep-water seas. A joint venture is a shared equity arrangement for a particular project where control is shared between the JV partners. In each of its JVs, Coastal Oil is the largest partner, although operations on each rig are divided between the JV member companies and the benefits are distributed according to the share of the JV.
As a highly visible company, Coastal Oil has long prided itself on its safety record and its ethical reputation. It believes both to be essential in supporting shareholder value. Its corporate code of ethics, published some years ago, pledges its commitment to the ‘highest standards’ of ethical performance in the following areas: full compliance with regulation in all jurisdictions; safety and care of employees; transparency and communication with stakeholders; social contribution; and environmental responsibility. In addition, Coastal Oil has usually provided a lot of voluntary disclosure in its annual report and on its website. It says that it has a wide range of stakeholders and so needs to provide a great deal of information.
One of the consequences of dividing up the different responsibilities and operations on an oil or gas rig is that Coastal Oil does not have direct influence over some important operational controls. The contractual arrangements on any given oil rig can be very complex and there have often been disagreements between JV partners on some individual legal agreements and responsibilities for health and safety controls. Given that Coastal Oil has JV interests in hundreds of deep-water oil and gas rigs all over the world, some observers have said that this could be a problem should an accident ever occur.
This issue was tragically highlighted when one of its deep-water rigs, the Effland Coastal Deep Rig, had an explosion earlier this year. It was caused by the failure of a valve at the ‘well-head’ on the sea floor. The valve was the responsibility of Well Services, a minor partner in the JV. Eight workers were killed on the rig from the high pressure released after the valve failure, and oil gushed into the sea from the well-head, a situation that should have been prevented had the valve been fully operational. It was soon established that Well Services’ staff failed to inspect the valve before placing it at the well-head at the time of installation, as was required by the company’s normal control systems. In addition, the valve was attached to a connecting part that did not meet the required technical specification for the water depth at which it was operating. The sea bed was 1,000 metres deep and the connecting part was intended for use to a depth of up to 300 metres. There was a suggestion that the need to keep costs down was a key reason for the use of the connecting part with the inferior specification.
Reports in the media on the following day said that the accident had happened on a rig ‘belonging to Coastal Oil’ when in fact, Coastal Oil was technically only a major partner in the joint venture. Furthermore, there was no mention that the accident had been caused by a part belonging to Well Services. A journalist did discover, however, that both companies had operated a more lax safety culture on the deep-water rigs than was the case at facilities on land (the ‘land-side’). He said there was a culture of ‘out of sight, out of mind’ on some offshore facilities and that this meant that several other controls were inoperative in addition to the ones that led to the accident. Information systems reporting back to the ‘land-side’ were in place but it was the responsibility of management on each individual rig to enforce all internal controls and the ‘land-side’ would only be informed of a problem if it was judged to be ‘an exceptional risk’ by the rig’s manager.
The accident triggered a large internal argument between Coastal Oil and Well Services about liability and this meant that there was no public statement from Coastal Oil for seven days while the arguments continued. Lawyers on both sides pointed out that liability was contractually ambiguous because the documentation on responsibilities was far too complex and unclear. And in any case, nobody expected anything to go wrong. In the absence of any official statement from Coastal Oil for those seven days, the media had no doubts who was to blame: Coastal Oil was strongly criticised in Effland with the criticism growing stronger as oil from the ruptured valve was shown spilling directly into the sea off the Effland coast. With no contingency plan for a deep-water well-head rupture in place, the ruptured valve took several months to repair, meaning that many thousands of tonnes of crude oil polluted the sea off Effland. Images of seabirds covered in crude oil were frequently broadcast on television and thousands of businesses on the coast reported that the polluted water would disrupt their business over the vital tourist season. Public statements from Coastal Oil that it was not responsible for the ruptured valve were seemingly not believed by the Effland public. Senior legislators in Effland said that the accident happened on ‘a rig belonging to Coastal Oil’ so it must be Coastal Oil’s fault.
A review by the Coastal Oil board highlighted several areas where risk management systems might be tightened to reduce the possibility of a similar accident happening again. Finance director, Tanya Tun, suggested that the company should disclose this new information to shareholders as it would be value-relevant to them. In particular, she said that a far more detailed voluntary statement on environmental risk would be material to the shareholders. The annual report would, she believed, be a suitable vehicle for this disclosure.
Because of the high media profile of the event, politicians from Effland involved themselves in the situation. Senator Jones’s constituency on the coast nearest the rig was badly affected by the oil spill and many of his constituents suffered economic loss as a result. He angrily retorted in a newspaper interview that Coastal Oil’s CEO, Susan Ahmed, ‘should have known this was going to happen’, such was the poor state of some of the internal controls on the Effland Coastal Deep Rig.
As the oil spill continued and the media interest in the events intensified, CEO Mrs Ahmed was summoned to appear before a special committee of the Effland national legislature ‘to explain herself to the citizens of Effland’. The Coastal Oil board agreed that this would be a good opportunity for Mrs Ahmed to address a number of issues in detail and attempt to repair some of the company’s damaged reputation. The board agreed that Mrs Ahmed should provide as full a statement as possible on the internal control failures to the special committee.
Required:
(a) Describe the general purposes of a corporate code of ethics and evaluate Coastal Oil’s performance against its own stated ethical aims as set out in its code of ethics. (10 marks)
(b) Explain, using examples, the difference between voluntary and mandatory disclosure, and assess Tanya Tun’s proposition that additional voluntary disclosure on environmental risk management would be material to the shareholders. (10 marks)
(c) In preparing to appear before the special committee of the Effland national legislature, CEO Mrs Ahmed has been informed that she will be asked to explain the causes of the accident and to establish whether she can give assurances that an accident of this type will not re-occur.
Required:
Prepare a statement for Mrs Ahmed to present before the committee that explains the following:
(i) The internal control failures that gave rise to the accident; (10 marks)
(ii) The difference between subjective and objective risk assessment (using examples). Argue against Senator Jones’s view that Mrs Ahmed ‘should have known this was going to happen’; (8 marks)
(iii) ‘Health and safety’ risk and the factors that can increase this risk in an organisation; (4 marks)
(iv) Why Coastal Oil cannot guarantee the prevention of further health and safety failures, using the ALARP (as low as reasonably practicable) principle; (4 marks)
Professional marks will be awarded in part (c) for logical flow, persuasiveness, format and tone of the answers. (4 marks)
