2010年12月ACCA考試考官報(bào)告(F5)(3)

　　問題五可能會(huì)有點(diǎn)令人意外，因?yàn)樗且粋€(gè)純粹的討論題，但是這樣可以幫助覺得時(shí)間比較緊的考生。在過去一年半里閱讀過ACCA學(xué)員月刊的人可能看到了關(guān)于增量預(yù)算與零基預(yù)算的文章。這些文章絕不是即將到來的會(huì)議發(fā)生什么的指示，但是可以作為一個(gè)有用資源。

Question Five
This question may have been unexpected in that it was a pure discussion question but this should have helped candidates who were feeling bit pressed for time.Again,anyone who reads Student Accountant would have seen an article in this over the past year and a half on incremental vs.zero based budgeting.These articles are never meant as an indicator of what is going to be examined in a forthcoming session but should be seen as a useful resource,there to supplement the study materials being used.They are there to help broaden your knowledge;if you fail to prepare you prepare to fail.

Part (a) of question five asked candidates to discuss the difficulties encountered in budgeting in the public sector compared to the private sector,drawing comparisons between the two organisations.There were some reasonable attempts at this,although too many candidates simply compared the two types of organisation without relating it to budgeting.Similarly,a significant number of candidates were clearly confused about the difference between public sector organisations as opposed to publicly listed companies,and answered the question entirely incorrectly!

Part (b) asked for an explanation of the terms ‘incremental budgeting’ and ‘zero based budgeting’.These were the easy marks in the question and most candidates got them.

Part (c) asked for the key steps in zero based budgeting.These were also easy marks for those who had revised well;answers here were again quite good,with only a minority of candidates making no attempt.

Finally,part (d) asked for a consideration of the statement that there is no longer a place for incremental budgeting,particularly in the public sector.There were some reasonable attempts at this,although,as with part (a),some answers focused purely on the benefits and drawbacks of both methods without relating it back to the statement.

In summary,a mixed set of comments on the different questions.Question 2 was poor,with much improvement still needed in this area;question 3 was really disappointing,showing a lack of revision;and the other three questions were a mix of good and bad,but – for many – not good enough to make up for the difficulties encountered with the other two questions.