2010年12月ACCA考試考官報告(F5)(1)

　　總體評價：作為一名F5考試的新主考官，這是我的第一篇報告。這次考試的教學大綱和之前的差不多，試卷的結(jié)構(gòu)也沒有變化，同樣還是5題，每題20分，不同的是，本次考試有一道20分的討論題。這樣做的目的是為了平衡整份試卷：因為問題二有大量信息需要吸收，問題三里也有相當多的計算，盡管這些計算都非?；A(chǔ)。

General Comments
This was my first paper as the new examiner for F5 but the syllabus remained exactly the same as in previous sittings.The structure of the paper also remained the same–five questions worth 20 marks each–although,in this paper,there was a twenty mark discussion question.The purpose of this was to balance the paper;there was quite a lot of information to absorb in question 2 and there were quite a few calculations to perform in question 3,albeit basic ones.

By the time candidates got to question five,it was felt that they would benefit from a chance to display their understanding of budgeting without having to absorb much information.As accountants,we often have to write reports that include little or no numerical analysis.This need for clarity of expression is explicitly required at the professional level papers,so it seems a good idea to start preparing candidates more for this now.

The pass rate on this paper saw a drop from previous recent sessions.I believe that the reason for this is primarily that candidates tried to question spot.So,for example,because linear programming came up in June 2010,the belief was that it would not come up again in December 2010.The lesson to be learnt is that you can’t question spot in these exams.You have to make sure that you are comfortable with every area of the syllabus;otherwise you may be caught out.Anyone who watched the ‘Examiners’ Special’ online in September would have got this message.

The paper was 54% computational and 46% narrative,since within question two there were a certain number of marks available for the calculations.On the whole,question four was the best answered,although there were still a surprising number of candidates uncomfortable with the area of activity based costing.In every question,the candidate had the opportunity to earn some easy marks quickly,and well prepared candidates attempted these parts first.

　　具體評價：問題一涉及到方差分析的基礎(chǔ)領(lǐng)域。問題二是一個典型的績效評估問題

Specific Comments
Question One
This question covered the fundamental area of variance analysis.Part (a) started off with some basic calculations for sales variances and materials variances,followed by some more tricky calculations on labour variances.There were plenty of easy marks in this question,but if anyone didn’t understand variances properly,they would have struggled with the labour variances,which required a little bit of thought.The sales and materials variance calculations were thankfully well performed by candidates,but the attempts at the labour variances were poor.

The question clearly stated that the labour variance related solely to the temporary workers.This meant that it was necessary to work out exactly how many hours the temporary workers had worked for.The calculation was not particularly difficult,but it did require an understanding of the scenario.Since permanent workers only had the capacity to work 2,200 hours and a total of 2,475 hours was needed for production,the initial calculation required was that there was a shortfall of 275 hours.However,the question stated that temporary workers took twice as long as permanent workers and therefore the temporary workers would be needed for 550 hours.Approximately one fifth of candidates worked this out and went on to calculate the variances correctly.

Part (b) was the written part of the question,asking for an explanation of the reasons why Carad Co would be interested in the material price planning and the material price operational variance.The most common error was that candidates didn’t read the requirement properly.They expected it to be asking them how the manager had performed and this was what they wrote about.Every exam sitting,this proves a problem–candidates pre-empting the question and not reading it properly.It should not be assumed that every single variance question will give you some variances,maybe ask you to calculate some more,and then ask for a discussion of management’s performance.

Exam papers cannot be allowed to become that predictable as examinees would then start to only partly prepare for them,on the basis that they know what will be examined,more or less.Candidates that did read the question,however,tended to make a reasonable attempt at this part.

Question Two
This was a typical performance measurement question.There was quite a lot of information to absorb but I strongly believe that,unless you are given plenty of information to work with,it is only possible to make very generalised,insipid comments.This is not what F5 is all about.I want candidates to be able to handle information and make some quality analysis about it.It requires common sense and ability to link information.This should not be too much to ask of a part-qualified accountant,who would have to exhibit these qualities in the workplace.

Needless to say,answers were poor.Anyone who had read my article on this area,or indeed my predecessor’s article on this area,would know that insipid comments such as ‘turnover decreased by 8.3%,which is poor’ will score only a calculation mark,for working out the 8.3%.Is this decrease in turnover poor?Well,it depends on the market in which the company is operating.You have to read the scenario.When you take into account the fact that there has been a 20% decline in the demand for accountancy training,AT Co’s 8.3% looks relatively good.You must link information;this is an essential skill for any accountant.Nothing is ever what it seems...ask any auditor!

Let me also take the opportunity to distinguish between an acceptable comment,which might earn one mark,compared to a good point,which might earn two marks.Cost of sales fell by $10.014m in the year.Part of this reduction was down to a fall in freelance lecture costs.A good candidate would have commented that,whilst the company requested that freelance lecturers reduce their fees by 10%,the actual fee reduction gained was 15%,a strong performance.A comment such as this would have earned two marks.A less observant comment,earning one mark,would have been that the reduction in cost of sales was partly due to the fact that the company requested freelance lecturers to reduce their fees by 10%.

I hope that this question will serve as a good revision question to future examinees of F5.The information given is there to help you make worthwhile comments.It is not there to trip you up.When planning the question,you should annotate it carefully,cross-referencing different parts of the question,linking financial and non-financial information etc.