《香港注册会计师公会综合考试考生答题表现fpe_dec05_paper_ii_com》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《香港注册会计师公会综合考试考生答题表现fpe_dec05_paper_ii_com（6页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、FPE (December 2005 Session) Page 1 of 6 Paper II CPA QP Examination Panelists Report Final Professional Examination (December 2005 Session) Paper II (The main purpose of the following report is to summarise candidates common weaknesses and make recommendations to help future candidates improve their
2、 examination performance) Paper II Section A Case Questions General Comments The case required candidates to discuss issues involved in performance evaluation and revenue recognition. Questions were set on the computation of ratios and discussion on performance evaluation, balanced scorecard measure
3、s, revenue recognition, taxation and professional ethics issues. Candidates performed satisfactorily in computing the ratios and discussing the professional ethics issues. However, they had trouble in tackling some topical issues like the balanced scorecard, revenue recognition and deferred taxation
4、. Specific Comments Question 1(a) The question asked candidates to evaluate the performance for each of the three divisions and for JML as a whole. Three common ratios were required, namely the return on investment (ROI), return on sales and investment turnover. Most candidates performed well in thi
5、s part. However, some candidates neglected to write the answer in the memorandum format as was particularly required. In addition, some candidates only used ROI in evaluating the performance and some others only evaluated the performance of the three divisions. As a result, they failed to spot some
6、ratios and hence overlooked relevant analysis on some areas. This demonstrated that candidates had not read the question carefully and thus not identified clearly the requirements of the question. FPE (December 2005 Session) Page 2 of 6 Paper II Question 1(b) The question required candidates to show
7、 the impact of the proposed installation of new equipment and comment on it. Candidates performance was average. Some candidates calculated the ROI and residual income but did not make any comment, and vice versa. This supported the contention that candidates had not read the question carefully. We
8、also found that many candidates had difficulties in ascertaining the exact result of the residual income. Question 1(c) Candidates performance in this part was not satisfactory. Most candidates did not apply the concept of the balanced scorecard to the case. They copied whatever they had in their re
9、ference material without any further elaboration or application to the materials. This limited the number of marks that they could obtain from the question. The question had purposely required “specific” perspective and measures that may be “applied to” the Gold Division. The candidates should have
10、analysed the case information and identified the specific areas that they should apply to the model. Question 1(d) Candidates performance was not satisfactory in this part and they could not identify the problems faced by the division. The case clearly stated that Ms Chan was “frustrated” and had co
11、mplained about the new performance evaluation system. Her problem was thus with the performance evaluation system or measures. However, most candidates focused on the operational issues, which were not the problems identified by Ms Chan. Since the problems had not been properly identified, the candi
12、dates could not formulate or suggest measures to help remedy the problems. Question 1 (e)(i) The question asked for the revenue recognition on the “initial franchisee fee”. Some candidates read the question too hastily and had spent a lot of time discussing the subsequent annual fee and sales of goo
13、ds. This was not asked in the question. Some candidates termed the fee as revenue generated from sale of goods and services rendered and did not arrive at a clear conclusion. In fact, they lost marks by following this approach as they were required to set out their judgment. Most candidates did not
14、mention that there was a case enclosed in the Appendix of HKAS 18 for the analysis of franchise fee. This case was a good example for their reference. FPE (December 2005 Session) Page 3 of 6 Paper II Question 1(e)(ii) Performance in this question was also not satisfactory. While candidates could pro
15、duce a comprehensive analysis on the issues, they had to make proper calculations as specifically required by the question. Some candidates did not realise that they were only required to provide the calculation for 2005 and they wasted time in calculating the revenue for subsequent annual fee. Ques
16、tion 1(f)(i) Once again, candidates performance on deferred tax was not satisfactory. On one hand, they might have difficulties in handling this type of question. On the other hand, the poor performance in the proper identification of the revenue recognised in Question 1(e) made it difficult for the candidates to answer the deferred tax implication of the revenue received in advance. Question 1(f)(ii) While Ques
