听力原文：M: There are several reasons why careful analysis of financial statements is necessary. What are they?W: First, financial statements are general-purpose statements. Secondly, the relationships between amounts on successive financial statements are no

正确答案：
(b) The contributions payable by Savage to the trustees will not count as an asset for the purposes of the valuation of the fund.
IAS19 (paragraph 103) states that plan assets should not include unpaid contributions due from the reporting entity to the
fund. Thus in the financial statements of Savage the contributions would be shown as an amount payable to the trustees
and there may be legal repercussions if the amount is not paid within a short period of time. Following the introduction of
changes to a defined benefit plan, a company should recognise immediately past service costs where the benefit has vested.
In the case where the benefits have not vested then the past service costs will be recognised as an expense over the averageperiod until the benefits vest. The company will therefore recognise $125 million at 1 November 2004.

正确答案：

(b) IAS21 ‘The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates’ requires goodwill arising on the acquisition of a foreign operation
and fair value adjustments to acquired assets and liabilities to be treated as belonging to the foreign operation. They should
be expressed in the functional currency of the foreign operation and translated at the closing rate at each balance sheet date.
Effectively goodwill is treated as a foreign currency asset which is retranslated at the closing rate. In this case the goodwillarising on the acquisition of Briars would be treated as follows:

At 31 May 2006, the goodwill will be retranslated at 2·5 euros to the dollar to give a figure of $4·4 million. Therefore this
will be the figure for goodwill in the balance sheet and an exchange loss of $1·4 million recorded in equity (translation
reserve). The impairment of goodwill will be expensed in profit or loss to the value of $1·2 million. (The closing rate has been
used to translate the impairment; however, there may be an argument for using the average rate.)
The loan to Briars will effectively be classed as a financial liability measured at amortised cost. It is the default category for
financial liabilities that do not meet the definition of financial liabilities at fair value through profit or loss. For most entities,
most financial liabilities will fall into this category. When a financial liability is recognised initially in the balance sheet, the
liability is measured at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which a liability can be settled, between knowledgeable, willing
parties in an arm’s length transaction. In other words, fair value is an actual or estimated transaction price on the reporting
date for a transaction taking place between unrelated parties that have adequate information about the asset or liability being
measured.
Since fair value is a market transaction price, on initial recognition fair value generally is assumed to equal the amount of
consideration paid or received for the financial asset or financial liability. Accordingly, IAS39 specifies that the best evidence
of the fair value of a financial instrument at initial recognition generally is the transaction price. However for longer-term
receivables or payables that do not pay interest or pay a below-market interest, IAS39 does require measurement initially at
the present value of the cash flows to be received or paid.
Thus in Briars financial statements the following entries will be made:

参考答案：D

正确答案：
(b) Management judgement may have a greater impact under IFRS than generally was the case under national GAAP. IFRS
utilises fair values extensively. Management have to use their judgement in selecting valuation methods and formulating
assumptions when dealing with such areas as onerous contracts, share-based payments, pensions, intangible assets acquired
in business combinations and impairment of assets. Differences in methods or assumptions can have a major impact on
amounts recognised in financial statements. IAS1 expects companies to disclose the sensitivity of carrying amounts to the
methods, assumptions and estimates underpinning their calculation where there is a significant risk of material adjustment
to their carrying amounts within the next financial year. Often management’s judgement is that there is no ‘significant risk’
and they often fail to disclose the degree of estimation or uncertainty and thus comparability is affected.
In addition to the IFRSs themselves, a sound financial reporting infrastructure is required. This implies effective corporate
governance practices, high quality auditing standards and practices, and an effective enforcement or oversight mechanism.
Therefore, consistency and comparability of IFRS financial statements will also depend on the robust nature of the other
elements of the financial reporting infrastructure.
Many preparers of financial statements will have been trained in national GAAP and may not have been trained in the
principles underlying IFRS and this can lead to unintended inconsistencies when implementing IFRS especially where the
accounting profession does not have a CPD requirement. Additionally where the regulatory system of a country is not well
developed, there may not be sufficient market information to utilise fair value measurements and thus this could lead to
hypothetical markets being created or the use of mathematical modelling which again can lead to inconsistencies because of
lack of experience in those countries of utilising these techniques. This problem applies to other assessments or estimates
relating to such things as actuarial valuations, investment property valuations, impairment testing, etc.
The transition to IFRS can bring significant improvement to the quality of financial performance and improve comparability
worldwide. However, there are issues still remaining which can lead to inconsistency and lack of comparability with those
financial statements.

正确答案：
(a) Reliability and Measurement
Fair value can be defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability. The fair value can
be thought of as an ‘exit price’. A fair value measurement assumes that the transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability
occurs in the principal market for the asset or liability or, in the absence of a principal market, the most advantageous market
for the asset or liability which is the market in which the reporting entity would sell the asset or transfer the liability with the
price that maximises the amount that would be received or minimises the amount that would be paid. IAS39 ‘Financial
Instruments: Recognition and Measurement’ requires an entity to use the most advantageous active market in measuring the
fair value of a financial asset or liability when multiple markets exist whereas IAS41 ‘Agriculture’ requires an entity to use the
most relevant market. Thus there can be different approaches for estimating exit prices. Additionally valuation techniques and
current replacement cost could be used.
A hierarchy of fair value measurements would have to be developed in order to convey information about the nature of the
information used in creating the fair values. For example quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets would provide better
quality information than quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities in active markets which would provide better quality
information than prices which reflect the reporting entity’s own thinking about the assumptions that market participants would
use in pricing the asset or liability. Enron made extensive use of what it called ‘mark-to-market’ accounting which was based
on valuation techniques and estimates. IFRSs currently do not have a single hierarchy that applies to all fair value measures.
Instead individual standards indicate preferences for certain inputs and measures of fair value over others, but this guidance
is not consistent among all IFRSs.
Some companies, in order to effectively manage their businesses, have already developed models for determining fair values.
Businesses manage their operations by managing risks. A risk management process often requires measurement of fair values
of contracts, financial instruments, and risk positions.
If markets were liquid and transparent for all assets and liabilities, fair value accounting clearly would give reliable information
which is useful in the decision making process. However, because many assets and liabilities do not have an active market,
the inputs and methods for estimating their fair value are more subjective and, therefore, the valuations are less reliable. Fair
value estimates can vary greatly, depending on the valuation inputs and methodology used. Where management uses
significant judgment in selecting market inputs when market prices are not available, reliability will continue to be an issue.
Management can use significant judgment in the valuation process. Management bias, whether intentional or unintentional,
may result in inappropriate fair value measurements and consequently misstatements of earnings and equity capital. Without
reliable fair value estimates, the potential for misstatements in financial statements prepared using fair value measurements
will be even greater.
Consideration must be given to revenue recognition issues in a fair value system. It must be ensured that unearned revenue
is not recognised early as it recently was by certain high-tech companies.
As the variety and complexity of financial instruments increases, so does the need for independent verification of fair value
estimates. However, verification of valuations that are not based on observable market prices is very challenging. Users of
financial statements will need to place greater emphasis on understanding how assets and liabilities are measured and how
reliable these valuations are when making decisions based on them.
Disclosure
Fair values reflect point estimates and do not result in transparent financial statements. Additional disclosures are necessary
to bring meaning to these fair value estimates. These disclosures might include key drivers affecting valuations, fair-valuerange
estimates, and confidence levels. Another important disclosure consideration relates to changes in fair value amounts.
For example, changes in fair values on securities can arise from movements in interest rates, foreign-currency rates, and credit
quality, as well as purchases and sales from the portfolio. For users to understand fair value estimates, they must be given
adequate disclosures about what factors caused the changes in fair value. It could be argued that the costs involved in
determining fair values may exceed the benefits derived therefrom. When considering how fair value information should be
presented in the financial statements, it is important to consider what type of financial information investors want. There are
indications that some investors desire both fair value information and historical cost information. One of the issues affecting
the credibility of fair value disclosures currently is that a number of companies include ‘health warnings’ with their disclosures
indicating that the information is not used by management. This language may contribute to users believing that the fair value
disclosures lack credibility.

正确答案：
(ii) There is objective evidence of impairment because of the financial difficulties and reorganisation of Bromwich. The
impairment loss on the loan will be calculated by discounting the estimated future cash flows. The future cash flows
will be $100,000 on 30 November 2007. This will be discounted at an effective interest rate of 8% to give a present
value of $85,733. The loan will, therefore, be impaired by ($200,000 – $85,733) i.e. $114,267.
(Note: IAS 39 requires accrual of interest on impaired loans at the original effective interest rate. In the year to
30 November 2006 interest of 8% of $85,733 i.e. $6,859 would be accrued.)

正确答案：

正确答案：D

正确答案：
(a) The transition to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) involves major change for companies as IFRS introduces
significant changes in accounting practices that often were not required by national GAAPs. For example financial instruments
and share-based payment plans in many instances have appeared on the statements of financial position of companies for
the first time. As a result IFRS financial statements are often significantly more complex than financial statements based on
national GAAP. This complexity is caused by the more extensive recognition and measurement rules in IFRS and a greater
number of disclosure requirements. Because of this complexity, it can be difficult for users of financial statements which have
been produced using IFRS to understand and interpret them, and thus can lead to inconsistency of interpretation of those
financial statements.
The form. and presentation of financial statements is dealt with by IAS1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’. This standard
sets out alternative forms or presentations of financial statements. Additionally local legislation often requires supplementary
information to be disclosed in financial statements, and best practice as to the form. or presentation of financial statements
has yet to emerge internationally. As a result companies moving to IFRS have tended to adopt IFRS in a way which minimises
the change in the form. of financial reporting that was applied under national GAAP. For example UK companies have tended
to present a statement of recognised income and expense, and a separate statement of changes in equity whilst French
companies tend to present a single statement of changes in equity.
It is possible to interpret standards in different ways and in some standards there is insufficient guidance. For example there
are different acceptable methods of classifying financial assets under IAS39 ‘Financial Instruments: Recognition and
Measurement’ in the statement of financial position as at fair value through profit or loss (subject to certain conditions) or
available for sale.
IFRSs are not based on a consistent set of principles, and there are conceptual inconsistencies within and between standards.
Certain standards allow alternative accounting treatments, and this is a further source of inconsistency amongst financial
statements. IAS31 ‘Interests in Joint Ventures’ allows interests in jointly controlled entities to be accounted for using the equity
method or proportionate consolidation. Companies may tend to use the method which was used under national GAAP.
Another example of choice in accounting methods under IFRS is IAS16 ‘Property, Plant and equipment’ where the cost or
revaluation model can be used for a class of property, plant and equipment. Also there is very little industry related accounting
guidance in IFRS. As a result judgement plays an important role in the selection of accounting policies. In certain specific
areas this can lead to a degree of inconsistency and lack of comparability.
IFRS1, ‘First time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards’, allows companies to use a number of exemptions
from the requirements of IFRS. These exemptions can affect financial statements for several years. For example, companies
can elect to recognise all cumulative actuarial gains and losses relating to post-employment benefits at the date of transition
to IFRS but use the ‘corridor’ approach thereafter. Thus the effect of being able to use a ‘one off write off’ of any actuarial
losses could benefit future financial statements significantly, and affect comparability. Additionally after utilising the above
exemption, companies can elect to recognise subsequent gains and losses outside profit or loss in ‘other comprehensive
income’ in the period in which they occur and not use the ‘corridor’ approach thus affecting comparability further.
Additionally IAS18 ‘Revenue’ allows variations in the way revenue is recognised. There is no specific guidance in IFRS on
revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables. Transactions have to be analysed in accordance with their economic
substance but there is often no more guidance than this in IFRS. The identification of the functional currency under IAS21,
‘The effects of changes in foreign exchange rates’, can be subjective. For example the functional currency can be determined
by the currency in which the commodities that a company produces are commonly traded, or the currency which influences
its operating costs, and both can be different.
Another source of inconsistency is the adoption of new standards and interpretations earlier than the due date of application
of the standard. With the IASB currently preparing to issue standards with an adoption date of 1 January 2009, early adoption
or lack of it could affect comparability although IAS8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’
requires a company to disclose the possible impact of a new standard on its initial application. Many companies make very
little reference to the future impact of new standards.

正确答案：
(b) Increased information disclosure benefits users by reducing the likelihood that they will misallocate their capital. This is
obviously a direct benefit to individual users of corporate reports. The disclosure reduces the risk of misallocation of capital
by enabling users to improve their assessments of a company’s prospects. This creates three important results.
(i) Users use information disclosed to increase their investment returns and by definition support the most profitable
companies which are likely to be those that contribute most to economic growth. Thus, an important benefit of
information disclosure is that it improves the effectiveness of the investment process.
(ii) The second result lies in the effect on the liquidity of the capital markets. A more liquid market assists the effective
allocation of capital by allowing users to reallocate their capital quickly. The degree of information asymmetry between
the buyer and seller and the degree of uncertainty of the buyer and the seller will affect the liquidity of the market as
lower asymmetry and less uncertainty will increase the number of transactions and make the market more liquid.
Disclosure will affect uncertainty and information asymmetry.
(iii) Information disclosure helps users understand the risk of a prospective investment. Without any information, the user
has no way of assessing a company’s prospects. Information disclosure helps investors predict a company’s prospects.
Getting a better understanding of the true risk could lower the price of capital for the company. It is difficult to prove
however that the average cost of capital is lowered by information disclosure, even though it is logically and practically
impossible to assess a company’s risk without relevant information. Lower capital costs promote investment, which can
stimulate productivity and economic growth.
However although increased information can benefit users, there are problems of understandability and information overload.
Information disclosure provides a degree of protection to users. The benefit is fairness to users and is part of corporate
accountability to society as a whole.
The main costs to the preparer of financial statements are as follows:
(i) the cost of developing and disseminating information,
(ii) the cost of possible litigation attributable to information disclosure,
(iii) the cost of competitive disadvantage attributable to disclosure.
The costs of developing and disseminating the information include those of gathering, creating and auditing the information.
Additional costs to the preparers include training costs, changes to systems (for example on moving to IFRS), and the more
complex and the greater the information provided, the more it will cost the company.
Although litigation costs are known to arise from information disclosure, it does not follow that all information disclosure leads
to litigation costs. Cases can arise from insufficient disclosure and misleading disclosure. Only the latter is normally prompted
by the presentation of information disclosure. Fuller disclosure could lead to lower costs of litigation as the stock market would
have more realistic expectations of the company’s prospects and the discrepancy between the valuation implicit in the market
price and the valuation based on a company’s financial statements would be lower. However, litigation costs do not
necessarily increase with the extent of the disclosure. Increased disclosure could reduce litigation costs.
Disclosure could weaken a company’s ability to generate future cash flows by aiding its competitors. The effect of disclosure
on competitiveness involves benefits as well as costs. Competitive disadvantage could be created if disclosure is made relating
to strategies, plans, (for example, planned product development, new market targeting) or information about operations (for
example, production-cost figures). There is a significant difference between the purpose of disclosure to users and
competitors. The purpose of disclosure to users is to help them to estimate the amount, timing, and certainty of future cash
flows. Competitors are not trying to predict a company’s future cash flows, and information of use in that context is not
necessarily of use in obtaining competitive advantage. Overlap between information designed to meet users’ needs and
information designed to further the purposes of a competitor is often coincidental. Every company that could suffer competitive
disadvantage from disclosure could gain competitive advantage from comparable disclosure by competitors. Published figures
are often aggregated with little use to competitors.
Companies bargain with suppliers and with customers, and information disclosure could give those parties an advantage in
negotiations. In such cases, the advantage would be a cost for the disclosing entity. However, the cost would be offset
whenever information disclosure was presented by both parties, each would receive an advantage and a disadvantage.
There are other criteria to consider such as whether the information to be disclosed is about the company. This is both a
benefit and a cost criterion. Users of corporate reports need company-specific data, and it is typically more costly to obtain
and present information about matters external to the company. Additionally, consideration must be given as to whether the
company is the best source for the information. It could be inefficient for a company to obtain or develop data that other, more
expert parties could develop and present or do develop at present.
There are many benefits to information disclosure and users have unmet information needs. It cannot be known with any
certainty what the optimal disclosure level is for companies. Some companies through voluntary disclosure may have
achieved their optimal level. There are no quantitative measures of how levels of disclosure stand with respect to optimal
levels. Standard setters have to make such estimates as best they can, guided by prudence, and by what evidence of benefits
and costs they can obtain.