2010年12月ACCA考試考官報告(F8)(1)

　　總體評價：本次考試包括5個必答題。A部分包括30分的問題1和10分的問題2。B部分包括三個更深入的問題，每題20分。大部分考生完成了5個題目，然而還是有少部分沒有完成問題的考生，這表明考試是有時間壓力的。

General Comments
The examination consisted of five compulsory questions.Section A contained question 1 for 30 marks and question 2 for 10 marks.Section B comprised three further questions of 20 marks each.

The majority of candidates completed all five questions;however there was some evidence of time pressure as a significant minority of candidates did not attempt all questions.This seemed to mainly occur for question 5 or for the questions candidates found challenging,which are listed below.In addition a significant minority answered question 1 last and their answers were often incomplete.As question 1 is the case study and represents 30 of the available marks,leaving this question until last can be a risky strategy,as many answers presented were incomplete or appeared rushed.

Candidates performed particularly well on questions 1b,2c,3ci and 4bi.The questions candidates found most challenging were questions 1a,2b,3a,3cii and 5b.This was mainly due to a combination of failing to read the question requirement carefully and insufficient knowledge.A number of these areas were new to the F8 study guide in 2010 and hence as new topic areas should have been prioritised by candidates.

A number of common issues arose in some candidate’s answers:
•Failing to read the question requirement clearly and therefore providing irrelevant answers which scored few if any marks
•Providing more than the required number of points
•Illegible handwriting and poor layout of answers.

Specific Comments
Question One
This 30-mark question was based on a retailer of ladies clothing and accessories,Greystone Co,and tested candidates’ knowledge of internal control deficiencies,trade payables and internal audit.

Part (a) for 5 marks required candidates to explain examples of matters that the auditor should consider in determining whether an internal control deficiency was significant.

This part of the question was unrelated to the Greystone Co scenario and hence tested candidates’ knowledge as opposed to application skills.This question related to ISA 265 Communicating Deficiencies in Internal Control to those Charged with Governance and Management,which is a new ISA and new to the F8 study guide for 2010.

Most candidates performed inadequately on this part of the question.The main reason for this is that candidates failed to read the question properly or did not understand what the requirement entailed.The question asked for matters which would mean internal control deficiencies were significant enough to warrant reporting to those charged with governance.The question was not asking for examples of significant internal control deficiencies,however this is what a majority of candidates gave.Many answers included a long list of control deficiencies such as “inadequate segregation of duties” this failed to score marks as it was not answering the question.

It was apparent that many candidates had not studied the area of significant control deficiencies,and as there is now an ISA dedicated to this area,this was unsatisfactory.

Part (b) for 14 marks required a report to management which identified and explained four deficiencies,implications and recommendations for the purchasing system of Greystone Co.A covering letter was required and there were 2 presentation marks available.

This part of the question was answered well by the vast majority of candidates with some scoring full marks.The scenario was quite detailed and hence there were many possible deficiencies which could gain credit.Where candidates did not score well this was mainly due to a failure to explain the deficiency and/or the implication in sufficient detail.Some candidates simply listed the information from the scenario such as “purchase invoices are manually matched to GRNs” and then failed to explain the implication of this for Greystone Co.

A significant minority also failed to score marks because they provided deficiencies which were unrelated to the purchasing system,such as “internal audit’s only role is to perform inventory counts.” This was outside the scope of the question requirement and hence did not gain credit.Candidates are once again reminded that they must read the question requirements carefully.

Many candidates failed to score the full 2 marks available for presentation as they did not produce a covering letter.A significant minority just gave the deficiencies,implications and recommendations without any letter at all;this may be due to a failure to read the question properly.Also even when a letter was produced this was often not completed.

Candidates would provide the letterhead and introductory paragraph,the detail of the deficiencies,implications and recommendations,but then they would fail to include a concluding paragraph and letter sign off which would have earned a further 1 mark.In addition some candidates produced a memo rather than a letter.In general,where candidates adopted a columnar approach to their answer they tended to score well.

The question asked for four deficiencies,implications and recommendations,however many candidates provided much more than the required four points.It was not uncommon to see answers which had six or seven points.Whilst it is understandable that candidates wish to ensure that they gain credit for four relevant points,this approach can lead to time pressure and subsequent questions can suffer.

Part (c) for 5 marks required substantive procedures the auditor should perform on year-end trade payables.This was answered satisfactorily for many candidates.The most common mistake made by some candidates was to confuse payables and purchases and hence provide substantive tests for purchases such as “agree purchase invoices to goods received notes”.As there was no reference to year-end payables then this test would not have scored any marks.A minority provided tests of controls as well as substantive procedures and again these would not have scored any marks.

The requirement verb was to “describe” therefore sufficient detail was required to score the 1 mark available per test.Candidates are reminded that substantive procedures is a core topic area and they must be able to produce relevant detailed procedures.Answers such as “discuss with management to confirm ownership of payables” is far too vague to gain credit as there is no explanation of what would be discussed and also how such a discussion could even confirm ownership.

Part (d) for 5 marks required additional procedures the internal auditors of Greystone Co could perform;this was in addition to their current role of performing regular inventory counts.This required candidates to use their knowledge of internal audit assignments and apply it to a retailer scenario.On the whole candidates performed satisfactorily on this question.Many were able to identify assignments such as value for money audits,reviewing internal controls,assisting the external auditors and other operational internal audits.However some candidates restricted their answers to assignments the auditors would perform in light of the control deficiencies identified in part (b) of their answer.This meant that their answers lacked the sufficient breadth of points required to score well.