ACC1100

• 当然可以。我先按你这两份“考前宝典”把两门课拆成两张期末复习地图：
  • ACCT90013（Financial Accounting Theory）：核心是“理论解释 + 情景应用 + 小论文”，分数在推理链条，不是背概念名词。[2]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfHOW TO USE THIS BOOK Argue, don't recite; apply, don't list 要论证,别背诵;要应用,别罗列 A theory subject - the marks are in the reasoning, not the label 一门理论课 -- 分数在于推理,而非贴标签 This is not a transcript of the self-paced decks or a re-run of the GenAI workshops. It is a self-contained course in the accounting theory ACCT90013 examines - each idea stated plainly, each mechanism shown on a worked scenario, each classic mislabel flagged. The seminars run as cases and data exercises; the exam tests whether you can read a situation, name the right theory, apply it to the facts, weigh the competing explanation, and conclude. That is what these pages drill. 这不是自学课件的逐字稿,也不是GenAl 工作坊的重播。它是一门自成体系的课程,专讲 ACCT90013 所考的会计理论 每个观点都讲得明白,每条机制都用一个演算情景展示,每个经典的贴错标签都被标出。研讨课以案例和数据练习的形式进 行;而考试考查的是你能否读懂一个情境、点出正确的理论、把它应用到事实上、权衡相互竞争的解释,并得出结论。这正是 本书反复演练的内容。 A 1 . LEARN 1·学 You haven't met the topic yet. Read a chapter top to bottom. Every idea opens with a one-line TL;DR, then state ++ picture/formula - mechanism - worked scenario - trap. The diagrams are original schematics of the standard theory canon - learn the picture cold. 你还没碰过这个主题。把一章从 头读到尾。每个观点都以一行 TL;DR(太长不看的摘要)开 场,然后是陈述 → 图示/公式 → 机制→例题情景 →陷阱。 这些示意图是标准理论经典的原 创图解 -- 把图记到滚瓜烂熟。 B 2 . DRILL 2· 练 You've seen the seminar. Cover the worked answers and re-build each one with the four-move skeleton. The exam pays for the applied sentence that anchors the theory to the facts, not for generic theory recital. 你已经看过研讨课了。盖住范例 答案,用四步骨架把每一题重新 搭一遍。考试付费给那句把理论 扣到事实上的应用性句子,而不 是泛泛的理论背诵。 C 3 . EXAM 3·考 It's revision / SWOT-vac. The TL;DRs, the trap boxes and the recurring answer shape are your map. The blueprint overleaf shows the weights, the closed- book MST and the question template. 现在是复习 /考前突击周 (SWOT-vac)。那些 TL;DR、陷 阱框和反复出现的答案形状就是 你的地图。背面的蓝图列出了权 重、闭卷期中测验(MST)和题目 模板。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 i The single engine that runs every applied answer 驱动每一道应用题的唯一引擎 Master one move-set and the whole applied half collapses into a pattern. Whatever the prompt - an asymmetry to diagnose, a hypothesis to fire, a price reaction to read, a contract to critique - you run the same four moves. Internalise the skeleton and a fresh scenario cannot surprise you: you already know the shape of the answer before you read the facts. 掌握一套招式,整个应用的那一半课程就坍缩成一个套路。无论题目是什么 -- 一个要诊断的不对称、一条要触发的假 设、一个要读懂的价格反应、一份要批判的契约 -- 你都跑同样的四步。把骨架内化,一个全新的情景就吓不住你:在 你读完事实之前,你就已经知道答案的形状了。 THE ANSWER SHAPE STATE -> APPLY -> EVALUATE -> CONCLUDE ✓ Think like a researcher - puzzle - mechanism - competing theory 像研究者一样思考 -- 谜题→机制→竞争性理论 The subject is built in the research tradition (Scott; Watts & Zimmerman). Every topic is a puzzle (why do managers smooth earnings? why does price move before the announcement?), explained by a mechanism (incentives, information asymmetry, market efficiency), and almost always shadowed by a competing theory (efficient vs opportunistic, information vs measurement, shareholder vs stakeholder). Strong answers name both sides and adjudicate.[6]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf闭卷状态仅就期中测验得到确认。这场3 小时期末的 开闭卷状态在我们能看到的任何官方材料里都没有说 明。请按你必须把理论背到滚瓜烂熟来准备 -- 这是 安全的默认,而且本来也正是一场应用理论考试所奖 励的。考试当天前请在你自己的LMS上确认。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ★ The exam format - concept + applied theory, NOT a calc paper 考试形式 -- 概念+理论应用,而非计算卷 A 3-hour written paper. Expect concept explanations, applied-theory scenarios and short essays - diagnose an information asymmetry, fire a PAT hypothesis, read a price reaction, critique a contract, argue relevance vs reliability or shareholder vs stakeholder. A thin, bounded quantitative layer exists (expected utility, a Bayesian update, CAPM expected return, ERC ordering) - but the marks live in the reasoning around the number. Approved calculator: Casio FX-82. 一场3 小时的笔试。预期会有概念阐释、应用理论情 景题和短论文 -- 诊断一个信息不对称、触发一条 PAT 假设、读懂一个价格反应、批判一份契约、论证 相关性对可靠性或股东对利益相关者。存在薄而有界 的定量层(期望效用、一次贝叶斯更新、CAPM 期望 回报、ERC 排序) -- 但分数活在数字周围的推理 里。批准使用的计算器:Casio FX-82。 ✓ The strategy this dictates 由此决定的应试策略 The final is 60% and tests applied reasoning, so over-invest in the four-move skeleton on every topic. Treat the assignment and presentation as exam practice with a deadline: the same diagnose-and- argue skill is rewarded. Know the canon cold; write the applied sentence every time. 期末占 60% 且考查应用性推理,所以要在每个主题上 对四步骨架超额投入。把作业和展示当作有截止期限 的考试练习:被奖励的是同一种诊断并论证的技能。 把经典背到滚瓜烂熟;每一次都写出那句应用性句 子。 i What the exam is really testing - the recurring chains 考试真正考查什么 -- 那些反复出现的逻辑链 A handful of chains carry most marks: positive vs normative - classify & exemplify; diagnose the asymmetry (adverse selection vs moral hazard) - match the mitigation; read a price reaction via EMH + ERC; fire a PAT hypothesis - predict the direction; critique a contract (agency costs, sensitivity vs precision, covenants, conservatism); argue a perspective (relevance vs reliability; shareholder vs stakeholder). Every chapter is built to make those chains automatic. 少数几条链条承载了大部分分数:实证对规范→分类并举例;诊断不对称(逆向选择对道德风险)→匹配缓解手段; 通过 EMH + ERC 读懂价格反应;触发一条 PAT 假设→ 预测方向;批判一份契约(代理成本、敏感性对精确性、契约 条款、稳健性);论证一种视角(相关性对可靠性;股东对利益相关者)。每一章都被设计来把这些链条变成自动反应。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 CONTENTS - CONTENTS One argument, four parts 一条论证,四个部分 Foundations - Markets & measurement -> Contracts - Frontier 基础→ 市场与计量 →合约→ 前沿 Ch Topic Core ideas Part I . Foundations (Weeks 1-2) 1 Foundations of accounting theory → positive vs normative . scientific method . dual roles . the asymmetry problem 2 The rational individual & information → economics decision theory . expected utility . Bayesian revision · adverse selection vs moral hazard Part II . Markets & measurement (Weeks 3-5)
  • ACCT90014（Auditing & Assurance）：核心是“审计判断 + 把 ASA/原则扣到事实 + 给出行动/程序/意见”，开卷也拼检索速度 + 应用句。[15]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfREAD FIRST * Built for the ACCT90014 open-book 3-hr digital final (60%, all topics) - so this is a fast-application reference, not rote memory. Marks: Mid-sem 20% (Wk5, ~1hr, lockdown browser, effectively closed- book, Topics 1-4 only), Group assignment 20% (CaseWare, real company), Final 60% open-book. Confirm in your current Subject Guide. The lecturer's line: "having the materials may help, but your ability to apply concepts to practical situations is what matters most. " So drill the answer shape (Side 2) and the decision boxes, not paragraphs. SIA - Open-book # easy. Markers punish students who quote a standard but never link it to the facts. Speed comes from knowing where each rule lives - that's what this sheet gives you. 1 . Assurance Landscape T1 . ASA 200 Assurance engagement · a practitioner expresses a conclusion to enhance users' confidence about a subject matter vs criteria. 5 elements: 3-party relationship (practitioner · responsible party . users) . subject matter . criteria . evidence . written report. Objective of an audit (ASA/ISA 200. 11): obtain reasonable assurance the financial report as a whole is free of material misstatement (fraud or error) > express an opinion it complies with the framework (AU = AASB standards + Corporations Act 2001). 1b · Levels of Assurance EXAMINED AS A CONTRAST REASONABLE (AUDIT) LIMITED (REVIEW) HIGH, not absolute MODERATE / lower positive form ("presents fairly") negative ("nothing came to our attention") full procedures mainly enquiry + analytical Inherent limitations (sampling, judgement, estimates, fraud collusion) mean no audit is a guarantee . 1c . The Expectation LITIGATION Gap DRIVER The gap between what users think auditors do (detect all fraud, guarantee solvency, certify accuracy) and what auditors actually do - reasonable assurance on a historical report.[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Cash - existence/R&O. > bank confirmation, reperform bank rec, cut-off (kiting/window- dressing) Direction of bias matters: revenue tends to be overstated (test occurrence/existence) while payables tend to be understated (test completeness) - match the procedure to the likely error. Real-world hooks the decks cite: Wirecard (€1. 9bn fake cash), Wells Fargo, Tesco rebates, Parmalat (forged confirmations). Melbourne Electronics case (Wk9): the integrated I/S & B/S exercise - apply assertions, materiality & risk and design procedures across accounts. It mirrors the exam/assignment style: a scenario, not recall. Practise writing one full risk -> assertion -> procedure line per material account. 10 . Completion T11 . CH10 Misstatement Qualified Adverse (disagreement) "except for" Disclaimer Pervasive (705. 05): effects not confined to specific items; OR a substantial proportion of the FR; OR fundamental to users' understanding. Basis for [opinion] paragraph goes before the opinion. First take all reasonable steps (alt procedures) - a limit isn't a scope limit if alt evidence is obtainable. Frequency reality: qualified is rare in practice; adverse & disclaimer are very rare. Classic adverse = FR on a going-concern basis but the auditor concludes continuation is highly improbable. Comparatives (710): corresponding figures (opinion on current period) vs comparative reports - used in AU - (opinion on each period). Other info (720): read the annual report for material inconsistencies > Other Matter para if uncorrected. GS 006: electronic publication mustn't imply assurance over unaudited website content. 12 . The Exam Answer THE RUBRIC Shape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time.
• （可选）如果你愿意，我也可以把你“最怕的三块 + 最常错陷阱”记住，之后你每次来我就优先带你复习。

你必须先搞清的“考试蓝图”（决定复习策略）

• ACCT90013

  • 期末：3 小时笔试，60%（大头）。[3]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf本科目建立在研究传统之上(Scott; Watts & Zimmerman)。每个主题都是一个谜题(管理者为何 平滑利润?价格为何在公告之前就动?),由一个机制 (激励、信息不对称、市场效率)来解释,并几乎总 有一个竞争理论在旁边投下阴影(高效对机会主义、 信息对计量、股东对利益相关者)。强的答案会把两边 都点名并加以裁断。 ! The mistake that caps theory marks 限制理论题得分的那个错误 Reciting the theory without anchoring it to the scenario. "Adverse selection is hidden information" earns almost nothing on its own. "Here the seller knows the asset is impaired and the buyer does not - that hidden information, pre-deal, is adverse selection" earns the marks. Always map the theory's variables onto the named facts. 背理论却不把它扣到情景上。“逆向选择是隐藏的信 息”单凭这句几乎拿不到分。“这里卖方知道资产已减 值而买方不知道 -- 那个隐藏的、交易前的信息,就 是逆向选择”才拿得到分。永远把理论的变量映射到题 中点名的事实上。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 i How this book was built - and the two-layer rule 本书如何构建 -- 以及双层规则 The standard theory canon (positive vs normative, decision theory, Bayes, information asymmetry, the EMH, agency theory, Positive Accounting Theory) is stated openly - it is universal scholarship in the Scott / Watts-Zimmerman lineage. The lecturer's named cases and example numbers are paraphrased and re-authored; every worked scenario here uses our own invented firms and figures. Framing is Australian (AASB-adopted IFRS; ASIC / AUASB / FRC; CPA Australia & CA ANZ). Book status: the mid-semester test is closed-book (confirmed); the final's book- status is not officially stated - treat it as unknown and check your unit outline / exam timetable on the LMS. 标准理论经典(实证对规范、决策理论、贝叶斯、信息不对称、EMH、代理理论、实证会计理论)是公开陈述的 -- 它 在 Scott/ Watts-Zimmerman 一脉中是通用学术内容。讲师点名的案例和示例数字都经过改写与重新撰写;这里每一 道例题情景都用我们自创的企业与数字。框架是澳大利亚式的(经 AASB 采纳的 IFRS; ASIC / AUASB / FRC; CPA Australia & CA ANZ)。开闭卷状态:期中测验是闭卷(已确认);期末的开闭卷状态未官方说明 -- 把它当作未知,并 在 LMS 上核对你的课程大纲 / 考试时间表。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 THE BLUEPRINT - THE EXAM BLUEPRINT FINAL 60% . THE BIG ONE 60% in one 3-hour sitting 一场 3 小时考试占 60% MST 15% (closed). Group assignment 15% . Presentation 10% . Final 60% 期中测验 15%(闭卷)· 小组作业 15% · 课堂展示 10% · 期末 60% Your mark is built from four pieces, and one dominates. The final exam is 60% in a single 3-hour individual sitting in the formal exam period - nearly two-thirds of your grade at once. The mid-semester test is the only confirmed closed-book checkpoint; the rest is group work. Plus up to 5 bonus points on the final mark for seminar prep / participation & paper-pitch presentations. 你的成绩由四部分构成,其中一项占主导。期末考试在正式考试周内,是一场3 小时的个人考试,占 60% -- 一次性占据近 三分之二的分数。期中测验是唯一确认的闭卷检查点;其余皆为小组作业。此外,研讨课的预习/参与 & 论文推介展示还能 为最终分数带来最多 5分的加分。 60% FINAL EXAM (3 HR) 期末考试(3小时) 15% MST - CLOSED BOOK, WK 6 期中测验 -- 闭卷,第6周 25% GROUP ASSIGNMENT + PRESENT 小组作业 + 展示 +5 BONUS PARTICIPATION PTS 额外的参与分 The four assessment pieces 四项考核构成 Component Weight[4]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfWhen / detail Final examination - individual, 3 hr, written 60% Formal exam period Mid-semester test (individual, 45 min, MCQ / T-F / short) 15% Week 6 . CLOSED book Group assignment (~3,000 words, groups of 4-5) 15% Submission ~Wk 10-12 Group presentation (10 min + 5 min Q&A) 10% ~Week 11 Seminar prep / paper pitches (bonus) +5 Across the pts semester Book-status - what is actually confirmed 教材状态 -- 究竟哪些已确认 Assessment Book status Mid-semester test (Wk 6) CLOSED book - confirmed (Respondus lockdown) Final exam (3 hr) Not officially stated - treat as unknown What to do Check the unit outline / exam timetable on the LMS ! Do NOT assume the final is open-book 切勿假定期末是开卷 The closed-book status is confirmed only for the mid-semester test. The 3-hour final's book-status is not stated in any official material we can see. Prepare as if you must know the theory cold - that is the safe default and exactly what an applied-theory exam rewards anyway. Confirm on your own LMS before exam day.
  • 题型风格：概念阐释 + 理论应用情景题 + short essay；有“薄薄一层定量”，但分在解释数字的那句话。[6]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf闭卷状态仅就期中测验得到确认。这场3 小时期末的 开闭卷状态在我们能看到的任何官方材料里都没有说 明。请按你必须把理论背到滚瓜烂熟来准备 -- 这是 安全的默认,而且本来也正是一场应用理论考试所奖 励的。考试当天前请在你自己的LMS上确认。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ★ The exam format - concept + applied theory, NOT a calc paper 考试形式 -- 概念+理论应用,而非计算卷 A 3-hour written paper. Expect concept explanations, applied-theory scenarios and short essays - diagnose an information asymmetry, fire a PAT hypothesis, read a price reaction, critique a contract, argue relevance vs reliability or shareholder vs stakeholder. A thin, bounded quantitative layer exists (expected utility, a Bayesian update, CAPM expected return, ERC ordering) - but the marks live in the reasoning around the number. Approved calculator: Casio FX-82. 一场3 小时的笔试。预期会有概念阐释、应用理论情 景题和短论文 -- 诊断一个信息不对称、触发一条 PAT 假设、读懂一个价格反应、批判一份契约、论证 相关性对可靠性或股东对利益相关者。存在薄而有界 的定量层(期望效用、一次贝叶斯更新、CAPM 期望 回报、ERC 排序) -- 但分数活在数字周围的推理 里。批准使用的计算器:Casio FX-82。 ✓ The strategy this dictates 由此决定的应试策略 The final is 60% and tests applied reasoning, so over-invest in the four-move skeleton on every topic. Treat the assignment and presentation as exam practice with a deadline: the same diagnose-and- argue skill is rewarded. Know the canon cold; write the applied sentence every time. 期末占 60% 且考查应用性推理,所以要在每个主题上 对四步骨架超额投入。把作业和展示当作有截止期限 的考试练习:被奖励的是同一种诊断并论证的技能。 把经典背到滚瓜烂熟;每一次都写出那句应用性句 子。 i What the exam is really testing - the recurring chains 考试真正考查什么 -- 那些反复出现的逻辑链 A handful of chains carry most marks: positive vs normative - classify & exemplify; diagnose the asymmetry (adverse selection vs moral hazard) - match the mitigation; read a price reaction via EMH + ERC; fire a PAT hypothesis - predict the direction; critique a contract (agency costs, sensitivity vs precision, covenants, conservatism); argue a perspective (relevance vs reliability; shareholder vs stakeholder). Every chapter is built to make those chains automatic. 少数几条链条承载了大部分分数:实证对规范→分类并举例;诊断不对称(逆向选择对道德风险)→匹配缓解手段; 通过 EMH + ERC 读懂价格反应;触发一条 PAT 假设→ 预测方向;批判一份契约(代理成本、敏感性对精确性、契约 条款、稳健性);论证一种视角(相关性对可靠性;股东对利益相关者)。每一章都被设计来把这些链条变成自动反应。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 CONTENTS - CONTENTS One argument, four parts 一条论证,四个部分 Foundations - Markets & measurement -> Contracts - Frontier 基础→ 市场与计量 →合约→ 前沿 Ch Topic Core ideas Part I . Foundations (Weeks 1-2) 1 Foundations of accounting theory → positive vs normative . scientific method . dual roles . the asymmetry problem 2 The rational individual & information → economics decision theory . expected utility . Bayesian revision · adverse selection vs moral hazard Part II . Markets & measurement (Weeks 3-5)
  • 开闭卷：官方材料里没明确，务必按“要背熟理论”准备，且去 LMS 确认。[4]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfWhen / detail Final examination - individual, 3 hr, written 60% Formal exam period Mid-semester test (individual, 45 min, MCQ / T-F / short) 15% Week 6 . CLOSED book Group assignment (~3,000 words, groups of 4-5) 15% Submission ~Wk 10-12 Group presentation (10 min + 5 min Q&A) 10% ~Week 11 Seminar prep / paper pitches (bonus) +5 Across the pts semester Book-status - what is actually confirmed 教材状态 -- 究竟哪些已确认 Assessment Book status Mid-semester test (Wk 6) CLOSED book - confirmed (Respondus lockdown) Final exam (3 hr) Not officially stated - treat as unknown What to do Check the unit outline / exam timetable on the LMS ! Do NOT assume the final is open-book 切勿假定期末是开卷 The closed-book status is confirmed only for the mid-semester test. The 3-hour final's book-status is not stated in any official material we can see. Prepare as if you must know the theory cold - that is the safe default and exactly what an applied-theory exam rewards anyway. Confirm on your own LMS before exam day.[6]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf闭卷状态仅就期中测验得到确认。这场3 小时期末的 开闭卷状态在我们能看到的任何官方材料里都没有说 明。请按你必须把理论背到滚瓜烂熟来准备 -- 这是 安全的默认,而且本来也正是一场应用理论考试所奖 励的。考试当天前请在你自己的LMS上确认。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ★ The exam format - concept + applied theory, NOT a calc paper 考试形式 -- 概念+理论应用,而非计算卷 A 3-hour written paper. Expect concept explanations, applied-theory scenarios and short essays - diagnose an information asymmetry, fire a PAT hypothesis, read a price reaction, critique a contract, argue relevance vs reliability or shareholder vs stakeholder. A thin, bounded quantitative layer exists (expected utility, a Bayesian update, CAPM expected return, ERC ordering) - but the marks live in the reasoning around the number. Approved calculator: Casio FX-82. 一场3 小时的笔试。预期会有概念阐释、应用理论情 景题和短论文 -- 诊断一个信息不对称、触发一条 PAT 假设、读懂一个价格反应、批判一份契约、论证 相关性对可靠性或股东对利益相关者。存在薄而有界 的定量层(期望效用、一次贝叶斯更新、CAPM 期望 回报、ERC 排序) -- 但分数活在数字周围的推理 里。批准使用的计算器:Casio FX-82。 ✓ The strategy this dictates 由此决定的应试策略 The final is 60% and tests applied reasoning, so over-invest in the four-move skeleton on every topic. Treat the assignment and presentation as exam practice with a deadline: the same diagnose-and- argue skill is rewarded. Know the canon cold; write the applied sentence every time. 期末占 60% 且考查应用性推理,所以要在每个主题上 对四步骨架超额投入。把作业和展示当作有截止期限 的考试练习:被奖励的是同一种诊断并论证的技能。 把经典背到滚瓜烂熟;每一次都写出那句应用性句 子。 i What the exam is really testing - the recurring chains 考试真正考查什么 -- 那些反复出现的逻辑链 A handful of chains carry most marks: positive vs normative - classify & exemplify; diagnose the asymmetry (adverse selection vs moral hazard) - match the mitigation; read a price reaction via EMH + ERC; fire a PAT hypothesis - predict the direction; critique a contract (agency costs, sensitivity vs precision, covenants, conservatism); argue a perspective (relevance vs reliability; shareholder vs stakeholder). Every chapter is built to make those chains automatic. 少数几条链条承载了大部分分数:实证对规范→分类并举例;诊断不对称(逆向选择对道德风险)→匹配缓解手段; 通过 EMH + ERC 读懂价格反应;触发一条 PAT 假设→ 预测方向;批判一份契约(代理成本、敏感性对精确性、契约 条款、稳健性);论证一种视角(相关性对可靠性;股东对利益相关者)。每一章都被设计来把这些链条变成自动反应。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 CONTENTS - CONTENTS One argument, four parts 一条论证,四个部分 Foundations - Markets & measurement -> Contracts - Frontier 基础→ 市场与计量 →合约→ 前沿 Ch Topic Core ideas Part I . Foundations (Weeks 1-2) 1 Foundations of accounting theory → positive vs normative . scientific method . dual roles . the asymmetry problem 2 The rational individual & information → economics decision theory . expected utility . Bayesian revision · adverse selection vs moral hazard Part II . Markets & measurement (Weeks 3-5)

• ACCT90014

  • 期末：3 小时 digital final，open-book，60%（但仍要会用）。[15]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfREAD FIRST * Built for the ACCT90014 open-book 3-hr digital final (60%, all topics) - so this is a fast-application reference, not rote memory. Marks: Mid-sem 20% (Wk5, ~1hr, lockdown browser, effectively closed- book, Topics 1-4 only), Group assignment 20% (CaseWare, real company), Final 60% open-book. Confirm in your current Subject Guide. The lecturer's line: "having the materials may help, but your ability to apply concepts to practical situations is what matters most. " So drill the answer shape (Side 2) and the decision boxes, not paragraphs. SIA - Open-book # easy. Markers punish students who quote a standard but never link it to the facts. Speed comes from knowing where each rule lives - that's what this sheet gives you. 1 . Assurance Landscape T1 . ASA 200 Assurance engagement · a practitioner expresses a conclusion to enhance users' confidence about a subject matter vs criteria. 5 elements: 3-party relationship (practitioner · responsible party . users) . subject matter . criteria . evidence . written report. Objective of an audit (ASA/ISA 200. 11): obtain reasonable assurance the financial report as a whole is free of material misstatement (fraud or error) > express an opinion it complies with the framework (AU = AASB standards + Corporations Act 2001). 1b · Levels of Assurance EXAMINED AS A CONTRAST REASONABLE (AUDIT) LIMITED (REVIEW) HIGH, not absolute MODERATE / lower positive form ("presents fairly") negative ("nothing came to our attention") full procedures mainly enquiry + analytical Inherent limitations (sampling, judgement, estimates, fraud collusion) mean no audit is a guarantee . 1c . The Expectation LITIGATION Gap DRIVER The gap between what users think auditors do (detect all fraud, guarantee solvency, certify accuracy) and what auditors actually do - reasonable assurance on a historical report.[19]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfACCT90014 Auditing & Assurance Services UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE . POSTGRADUATE EXAM CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 1 OF 2 built for the open-book final SIDE 1/2 ASSURANCE . ETHICS . LIABILITY . RISK . CONTROL . ASSERTIONS . Reasonable vs limited . APES 110 . 5 threats . Duty-breach-loss . AR = IR x CR x DR |OPEN-BOOK FINAL 0 . How to Use This READ FIRST * Built for the ACCT90014 open-book 3-hr digital final (60%, all topics) - so this is a fast-application reference, not rote memory. Marks: Mid-sem 20% (Wk5, ~1hr, lockdown browser, effectively closed- book, Topics 1-4 only), Group assignment 20% (CaseWare, real company), Final 60% open-book. Confirm in your current Subject Guide. The lecturer's line: "having the materials may help, but your ability to apply concepts to practical situations is what matters most. " So drill the answer shape (Side 2) and the decision boxes, not paragraphs. SIA - Open-book # easy. Markers punish students who quote a standard but never link it to the facts. Speed comes from knowing where each rule lives - that's what this sheet gives you. 1 . Assurance Landscape T1 . ASA 200 Assurance engagement · a practitioner expresses a conclusion to enhance users' confidence about a subject matter vs criteria. 5 elements: 3-party relationship (practitioner · responsible party . users) . subject matter . criteria . evidence . written report. Objective of an audit (ASA/ISA 200. 11): obtain reasonable assurance the financial report as a whole is free of material misstatement (fraud or error) > express an opinion it complies with the framework (AU = AASB standards + Corporations Act 2001). 1b · Levels of Assurance EXAMINED AS A CONTRAST REASONABLE (AUDIT) LIMITED (REVIEW) HIGH, not absolute MODERATE / lower positive form ("presents fairly")
  • 老师强调：有材料不等于会得分；不会把标准扣到事实会被罚。[15]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfREAD FIRST * Built for the ACCT90014 open-book 3-hr digital final (60%, all topics) - so this is a fast-application reference, not rote memory. Marks: Mid-sem 20% (Wk5, ~1hr, lockdown browser, effectively closed- book, Topics 1-4 only), Group assignment 20% (CaseWare, real company), Final 60% open-book. Confirm in your current Subject Guide. The lecturer's line: "having the materials may help, but your ability to apply concepts to practical situations is what matters most. " So drill the answer shape (Side 2) and the decision boxes, not paragraphs. SIA - Open-book # easy. Markers punish students who quote a standard but never link it to the facts. Speed comes from knowing where each rule lives - that's what this sheet gives you. 1 . Assurance Landscape T1 . ASA 200 Assurance engagement · a practitioner expresses a conclusion to enhance users' confidence about a subject matter vs criteria. 5 elements: 3-party relationship (practitioner · responsible party . users) . subject matter . criteria . evidence . written report. Objective of an audit (ASA/ISA 200. 11): obtain reasonable assurance the financial report as a whole is free of material misstatement (fraud or error) > express an opinion it complies with the framework (AU = AASB standards + Corporations Act 2001). 1b · Levels of Assurance EXAMINED AS A CONTRAST REASONABLE (AUDIT) LIMITED (REVIEW) HIGH, not absolute MODERATE / lower positive form ("presents fairly") negative ("nothing came to our attention") full procedures mainly enquiry + analytical Inherent limitations (sampling, judgement, estimates, fraud collusion) mean no audit is a guarantee . 1c . The Expectation LITIGATION Gap DRIVER The gap between what users think auditors do (detect all fraud, guarantee solvency, certify accuracy) and what auditors actually do - reasonable assurance on a historical report.[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Cash - existence/R&O. > bank confirmation, reperform bank rec, cut-off (kiting/window- dressing) Direction of bias matters: revenue tends to be overstated (test occurrence/existence) while payables tend to be understated (test completeness) - match the procedure to the likely error. Real-world hooks the decks cite: Wirecard (€1. 9bn fake cash), Wells Fargo, Tesco rebates, Parmalat (forged confirmations). Melbourne Electronics case (Wk9): the integrated I/S & B/S exercise - apply assertions, materiality & risk and design procedures across accounts. It mirrors the exam/assignment style: a scenario, not recall. Practise writing one full risk -> assertion -> procedure line per material account. 10 . Completion T11 . CH10 Misstatement Qualified Adverse (disagreement) "except for" Disclaimer Pervasive (705. 05): effects not confined to specific items; OR a substantial proportion of the FR; OR fundamental to users' understanding. Basis for [opinion] paragraph goes before the opinion. First take all reasonable steps (alt procedures) - a limit isn't a scope limit if alt evidence is obtainable. Frequency reality: qualified is rare in practice; adverse & disclaimer are very rare. Classic adverse = FR on a going-concern basis but the auditor concludes continuation is highly improbable. Comparatives (710): corresponding figures (opinion on current period) vs comparative reports - used in AU - (opinion on each period). Other info (720): read the annual report for material inconsistencies > Other Matter para if uncorrected. GS 006: electronic publication mustn't imply assurance over unaudited website content. 12 . The Exam Answer THE RUBRIC Shape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time.

ACCT90013 期末复习地图（Financial Accounting Theory）

1）全卷通用的“唯一答题引擎”（背到条件反射）

• 四步骨架（每题都用）：
  • STATE：点名理论 + 讲清核心机制（“定义/机制”，不是只贴标签）
  • APPLY：把题干事实逐条映射到理论变量（这是最多分）
  • EVALUATE：给出限制/边界条件/竞争性解释（“我也考虑了另一种读法”）
  • CONCLUDE：一句话明确站队、下结论
  • 只背理论不扣事实，分会被封顶。[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.[3]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf本科目建立在研究传统之上(Scott; Watts & Zimmerman)。每个主题都是一个谜题(管理者为何 平滑利润?价格为何在公告之前就动?),由一个机制 (激励、信息不对称、市场效率)来解释,并几乎总 有一个竞争理论在旁边投下阴影(高效对机会主义、 信息对计量、股东对利益相关者)。强的答案会把两边 都点名并加以裁断。 ! The mistake that caps theory marks 限制理论题得分的那个错误 Reciting the theory without anchoring it to the scenario. "Adverse selection is hidden information" earns almost nothing on its own. "Here the seller knows the asset is impaired and the buyer does not - that hidden information, pre-deal, is adverse selection" earns the marks. Always map the theory's variables onto the named facts. 背理论却不把它扣到情景上。“逆向选择是隐藏的信 息”单凭这句几乎拿不到分。“这里卖方知道资产已减 值而买方不知道 -- 那个隐藏的、交易前的信息,就 是逆向选择”才拿得到分。永远把理论的变量映射到题 中点名的事实上。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 i How this book was built - and the two-layer rule 本书如何构建 -- 以及双层规则 The standard theory canon (positive vs normative, decision theory, Bayes, information asymmetry, the EMH, agency theory, Positive Accounting Theory) is stated openly - it is universal scholarship in the Scott / Watts-Zimmerman lineage. The lecturer's named cases and example numbers are paraphrased and re-authored; every worked scenario here uses our own invented firms and figures. Framing is Australian (AASB-adopted IFRS; ASIC / AUASB / FRC; CPA Australia & CA ANZ). Book status: the mid-semester test is closed-book (confirmed); the final's book- status is not officially stated - treat it as unknown and check your unit outline / exam timetable on the LMS. 标准理论经典(实证对规范、决策理论、贝叶斯、信息不对称、EMH、代理理论、实证会计理论)是公开陈述的 -- 它 在 Scott/ Watts-Zimmerman 一脉中是通用学术内容。讲师点名的案例和示例数字都经过改写与重新撰写;这里每一 道例题情景都用我们自创的企业与数字。框架是澳大利亚式的(经 AASB 采纳的 IFRS; ASIC / AUASB / FRC; CPA Australia & CA ANZ)。开闭卷状态:期中测验是闭卷(已确认);期末的开闭卷状态未官方说明 -- 把它当作未知,并 在 LMS 上核对你的课程大纲 / 考试时间表。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 THE BLUEPRINT - THE EXAM BLUEPRINT FINAL 60% . THE BIG ONE 60% in one 3-hour sitting 一场 3 小时考试占 60% MST 15% (closed). Group assignment 15% . Presentation 10% . Final 60% 期中测验 15%(闭卷)· 小组作业 15% · 课堂展示 10% · 期末 60% Your mark is built from four pieces, and one dominates. The final exam is 60% in a single 3-hour individual sitting in the formal exam period - nearly two-thirds of your grade at once. The mid-semester test is the only confirmed closed-book checkpoint; the rest is group work. Plus up to 5 bonus points on the final mark for seminar prep / participation & paper-pitch presentations. 你的成绩由四部分构成,其中一项占主导。期末考试在正式考试周内,是一场3 小时的个人考试,占 60% -- 一次性占据近 三分之二的分数。期中测验是唯一确认的闭卷检查点;其余皆为小组作业。此外,研讨课的预习/参与 & 论文推介展示还能 为最终分数带来最多 5分的加分。 60% FINAL EXAM (3 HR) 期末考试(3小时) 15% MST - CLOSED BOOK, WK 6 期中测验 -- 闭卷,第6周 25% GROUP ASSIGNMENT + PRESENT 小组作业 + 展示 +5 BONUS PARTICIPATION PTS 额外的参与分 The four assessment pieces 四项考核构成 Component Weight

2）最“高产”的必背对比组（考的就是你会不会区分）

• 实证 vs 规范（positive vs normative）[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.[12]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfCONCLUDE。(i)实证且可检验;(ii)规范且负载价值。考试奖励点名为什么,而不只是贴标签。 i The meta-point 更高层的要点 Most of ACCT90013 is positive (it predicts behaviour - PAT, EMH, agency theory), but the conceptual framework and standard-setting are largely normative. Knowing which mode you are in tells you whether to reach for evidence or for an objective. ACCT90013 的大部分是实证的(它预测行为 -- PAT、EMH、代理理论),但概念框架与准则制定在很大程度上 是规范的。知道你身处哪种模式,就知道该去伸手抓证据还是抓一个目标。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 SCIENTIFIC METHOD - THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH Puzzle - hypothesis - evidence 谜题→假设→ 证据 How positive theory is built - and why 'think like a researcher' is the exam mindset 实证理论如何构建 -- 以及为何「像研究者一样思考」是应试心态 Positive accounting theory is built like any empirical science. The subject trains you to think like a researcher: start from a puzzle in observed behaviour, propose a mechanism that would explain it, derive a testable hypothesis, and confront it with evidence. Theory that survives evidence earns confidence; theory that fails is revised. 实证会计理论(Positive Accounting Theory)的构建方式与任何经验科学无异。这门课训练你像研究者一样思考:从所观察行 为中的一个谜题出发,提出一个能解释它的机制,推导出一个可检验的假设,再用证据来对它进行检验。经得起证据检验的理 论赢得信心;不通过检验的则被修正。 The research loop - learn it as your essay engine too 研究循环 -- 也把它当作你的论文写作引擎 1 Puzzle / observation. Something in practice looks odd or patterned - e. g. firms near a debt covenant seem to report higher earnings. Why? 谜题/观察。实务中有什么看起来反常或有规律 -- 例如临近债务契约的企业似乎报告了更高的利润。为什么? 2 Theory / mechanism. Propose the economic reason - managers act on incentives; an accounting-based covenant creates an incentive to relax the constraint via income-increasing choices. 理论/机制。提出经济上的原因 -- 管理者按激励行事;一条基于会计的契约制造出一个动机,要通过调增利润的选择去放 松约束。 3 Hypothesis. State a testable, directional prediction - 'firms closer to covenant violation choose more income-increasing accounting'. 假设。陈述一个可检验的、有方向的预测 -- ‘越接近违反契约的企业越会选择更多调增利润的会计’。 4 Evidence. Gather data, run the test, control for confounds, and judge whether the evidence supports or rejects the hypothesis. 证据。收集数据、跑检验、控制混淆因素,并判断证据是支持还是否定该假设。 5 Revise / generalise. Update the theory; a competing explanation may fit the same evidence (efficiency vs opportunism) - the researcher adjudicates. 修订/推广。更新理论;一个竞争性解释可能拟合同一份证据(效率对机会主义) -- 研究者来裁断。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ✓ Correlation is not causation - the researcher's reflex 相关不等于因果 -- 研究者的本能反应
• 逆向选择 vs 道德风险（adverse selection vs moral hazard）[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.[17]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfTHE CLASSIFY YOU CANNOT GET WRONG adverse selection = hidden information (pre-contract) moral hazard = hidden action (post-contract) ! The signature mislabel 标志性的贴错标签 Mixing up the two is the most punished error in the asymmetry questions. Anchor on timing and what is hidden: before the deal, hidden facts = adverse selection; after the deal, hidden behaviour = moral hazard. Then match the mitigation: disclosure/signalling for adverse selection, monitoring/incentives for moral hazard. 把这两者弄混是不对称题里被扣分最狠的错误。锚定在时点与被隐藏的是什么上:交易之前,隐藏的是事实 =逆向选 择;交易之后,隐藏的是行为=道德风险。然后匹配缓解手段:逆向选择用披露/信号,道德风险用监督/激励。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 EX 1. 3 Diagnose the asymmetry - the incentive-scandal scenario Diagnose Scenario. At retail bank Coastline Mutual, head office sets aggressive product-sales targets and ties branch bonuses to accounts opened. Months later it emerges that staff opened thousands of accounts customers never asked for. Separately, when Coastline raised new equity last year, management knew of a looming loan- loss problem that investors did not. 情景。在零售银行 Coastline Mutual,总部设定了激进的产品销售目标,并将分行奖金与开户数挂钩。数月后曝出,员 工开立了数千个客户从未要求过的账户。另外,去年 Coastline 增发新股时,管理层已知一项迫近的贷款损失问题,而 投资者并不知情。 1 STATE. Information asymmetry takes two forms: moral hazard (hidden action after a contract, mitigated by monitoring + incentive design) and adverse selection (hidden information before a deal, mitigated by disclosure + signalling). - STATE。信息不对称有两种形式:道德风险(合同后的隐藏行动,由监督+激励设计缓解)与逆向选择(交易前的隐藏 信息,由披露+信号传递缓解)。 - 2 APPLY. The fake accounts are moral hazard: staff took a hidden, unobservable action in response to the incentive, after the pay contract was set. The equity raise is adverse selection: management held hidden information (the loan losses) before the transaction with new investors. APPLY。那些虚假账户是道德风险:员工在薪酬契约定下之后,针对激励采取了隐藏的、不可观察的行动。那次股权募 集是逆向选择:管理层在与新投资者交易之前持有隐藏的信息(贷款损失)。 3 EVALUATE. Note the incentive scheme itself created the moral hazard - a badly designed performance measure can backfire. And disclosure that would cure the adverse selection (revealing the loan-loss risk) was precisely what management suppressed. EVALUATE。注意激励方案本身制造了道德风险- 一个设计糟糕的绩效指标会反噬。而能治愈逆向选择的那种披露 (揭示贷款损失风险)恰恰是管理层所压制的。 4 CONCLUDE. Two distinct problems, two distinct fixes: redesign incentives + tighten monitoring/governance for the moral hazard; mandate full, timely disclosure (and credible audit) for the adverse selection. CONCLUDE。两个截然不同的问题,两个截然不同的修补:为道德风险重新设计激励+收紧监督/治理;为逆向选择强 制完整、及时的披露(和可信的审计)。 i Where this goes 接下来通向何处 Moral hazard reappears as the heart of agency theory and compensation design (Ch 4); adverse selection reappears in signalling, the EMH and disclosure regulation (Ch 3, 6). This one page is the seed of half the course. 道德风险作为代理理论与薪酬设计的核心再度出现(第4章);逆向选择在信号传递、EMH 与披露监管中再度出现 (第3、6章)。这一页就是半门课的种子。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ★ Chapter recap - the Week-1 reflexes 本章回顾––第1周的条件反射 (1) Hunt the verb: should/ought => normative; is/predicts => positive. (2) Run the research loop: puzzle - mechanism - hypothesis - evidence (and name the competing explanation). (3) Frame every debate as valuation vs stewardship (relevance vs reliability). (4) Classify asymmetry by timing: hidden info pre-deal = adverse selection; hidden action post-deal = moral hazard - then match the mitigation. Always write the four-move answer. (1) 猎动词:should/ought(应该/应当)⇒ 规范;is/predicts(是/预测)⇒实证。(2)跑研究循环:谜题→机制→ 假设→证据(并点名竞争性解释)。(3)把每场辩论都框成估值对受托管理(相关性对可靠性)。(4)按时点分类不对 称:交易前隐藏信息 = 逆向选择;交易后隐藏行动=道德风险- -然后匹配缓解手段。永远写出四步答案。
• EMH 三种形式（弱式/半强式/强式）[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.[16]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf★ Chapter recap - the Week-2 reflexes 本章回顾––第2周的条件反射 (1) Risk-averse investor - pick the act with highest EU (weight utilities, not dollars). (2) Information changes the decision via Bayes: build the marginal P(signal) first, then the posterior, then re-decide. (3) Useful = can change the act (decision-usefulness). (4) Diagnose asymmetry by timing: hidden info pre-deal = adverse selection (cure: disclosure/signalling); hidden action post-deal = moral hazard (cure: monitoring/incentives). (5) Disclosure's economic payoff: narrows the gap, lowers cost of capital. Always write the four-move answer. (1) 风险厌恶投资者 →选期望效用 EU 最高的行动(为各效用加权,而非各美元)。(2)信息通过贝叶斯改变决策:先建 边际 P(信号),再算后验,再重新决策。(3)有用=能改变行动(决策有用性)。(4)按时点诊断不对称:交易前隐藏信息 = 逆向选择(解药:披露/信号);交易后隐藏行动=道德风险(解药:监督/激励)。(5)披露的经济回报:收窄差距、 降低资本成本。永远写出四步答案。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 EMH . OVERVIEW - CH . EMH & CAPITAL MARKETS WEEK 2-3 How markets price accounting information 市场如何为会计信息定价 W2-3 - Let's start with the market . Cracks in the mirror (the valuation role) 第 2-3 周 -- 从市场说起 · 镜中裂痕(估值角色) The whole subject splits accounting into two jobs - a valuation/information role (help investors price the firm) and a stewardship/contracting role (write & enforce contracts). This chapter owns the valuation half. The single organising question: when an accounting number is released, does the market move, and why? The answer runs through the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH), the evidence that earnings carry information (Ball & Brown), the coefficient that measures how much they move price (the ERC), and the anomalies that say the market is not always right. 整门课把会计拆成两项工作 -- 估值 /信息角色(帮助投资者为公司定价)和受托责任/缔约角色(订立 &执行合约)。本 章专攻估值这一半。贯穿全章的核心问题:当一个会计数字公布时,市场会不会变动,又是为什么?答案要经过有效市场假说 (EMH)、盈余携带信息的证据(Ball & Brown)、衡量盈余在多大程度上推动股价的系数(盈余反应系数 ERC),以及那些表明 市场并非总是正确的异象。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 一句话总结 -- 本章的四步动作 (1) EMH - prices reflect an information set, three nested forms (weak c semi-strong c strong). (2) Substance over form - in an efficient market a cosmetic policy change with no cash-flow effect moves no price; what is disclosed matters, not where. (3) Ball & Brown + ERC - the market reacts to the unexpected, and the size of the reaction is governed by persistence, growth, risk & quality. (4) Cracks - PEAD and the accruals anomaly show efficiency is an approximation, not a law. (1) EMH -- 价格反映一个信息集;三种嵌套的形式(弱式 c 半强式 c 强式)。(2)实质重于形式 -- 在有效市场中,一 项无现金流影响的表面政策变更不会让价格移动;要紧的是被披露了什么,而非记在哪里。(3) Ball & Brown + ERC -- 市场对未预期的部分作出反应,而反应的大小由持续性、增长、风险与质量所支配。(4)裂缝 -- 盈余公告后漂移 (PEAD)与应计异象表明效率是一个近似、而非一条定律。 1 Decision-usefulness - the market 1 决策有用性→ 市场 A single rational, risk-averse investor uses accounting information because it changes their probabilities about future payoffs (Bayesian revision) and hence their best action. Scale that up: when many such investors trade, their information is aggregated into the price. The market becomes the device that turns private information into a public signal - and the EMH is the theory of how well it does that. 单个理性、风险厌恶的投资者之所以使用会计信息,是因为它改变了他对未来收益的概率(贝叶斯修正),进而改变了他的最 优行动。把这一点放大:当众多这样的投资者进行交易时,他们的信息被汇聚进价格。市场就成了把私人信息转化为公共信号 的装置 -- 而有效市场假说正是关于它做得有多好的理论。 - The two roles of accounting Valuation / information Stewardship / contracting Question it answers What is the firm worth? Did the manager perform / can we trust the numbers?
• 信息视角 vs 计量视角（information vs measurement perspective）[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.
• PAT 三条假设（three PAT hypotheses）[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.[7]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf3 EMH & capital-markets research three forms . Ball & Brown . ERC & its determinants . behavioural cracks → 4 Measurement & Positive Accounting Theory relevance vs reliability . fair value . the three PAT hypotheses . agency → theory Part III . Contracts & practice (Weeks 7-8) 5 Earnings management & disclosure patterns & methods . the iron law . efficiency vs opportunism → Part IV . Regulation & the frontier (Weeks 9-10) 6 Regulation & the conceptual framework public-interest vs capture vs private-interest . the framework debates → 7 Contemporary issues - CSR & sustainability legitimacy & stakeholder theory · integrated reporting → Walk in ready 8 Glossary & theory map every term · which theory, when → 9 Practice bank & model answers the four-move skeleton on fresh scenarios → i Why this order - the dual-role spine 为何按此顺序 -- 双角色主线 The subject runs on one big idea: financial accounting plays two roles - a valuation / information role (help markets price the firm: EMH, value relevance, ERC, fair value) and a stewardship / contracting role (write & enforce contracts: compensation, debt covenants - agency theory, PAT, earnings management). These two roles conflict - the relevance-vs-reliability and efficiency-vs-opportunism tensions recur every week, and Part IV finally questions the shareholder-primacy assumption itself. We keep the week order because exam questions walk the same spine on fresh facts. 本科目运行在一个大想法上:财务会计扮演两个角色 -- 一个估值/信息角色(帮助市场为企业定价:EMH、价值相关 性、ERC、公允价值)与一个受托管理/契约角色(撰写并执行契约:薪酬、债务契约→代理理论、PAT、盈余管 理)。这两个角色相互冲突 -- 相关性对可靠性、效率对机会主义这两组张力每周复现,而第四部分最终质疑股东至上这 一假设本身。我们保留这个周次顺序,因为考题会在全新的事实上沿着同一根主干行走。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 FOUNDATIONS . WHY THEORY WEEK 1 CH 1 . FOUNDATIONS OF ACCOUNTING THEORY What the numbers are for 会计数字到底为何而存在 Part I - Foundations . Week 1: Setting the Stage 第一部分––基础 · 第1周:搭建舞台 Before any standard, any ratio, any disclosure, one question sets the whole subject: why does financial accounting information exist, and what work does it do? ACCT90013 answers in the research tradition - accounting is not a bookkeeping ritual but an economic institution that helps markets price firms and helps contracting parties discipline managers. Theory is the lens that explains why the numbers matter and predicts what people do with them. 在任何准则、任何比率、任何披露之前,有一个问题为整门课定下基调:财务会计信息为何存在,它又发挥什么作用? ACCT90013 以研究传统来作答 -- 会计不是一套记账仪式,而是一种经济制度(economic institution),它帮助市场为公司 定价,也帮助缔约各方约束管理者。理论是一面透镜,解释数字为何重要,并预测人们会如何使用它们。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 一句话总结 -- 本章的四步动作 (1) Accounting theory = a coherent set of propositions that explain & predict (positive) or prescribe (normative). (2) Research follows the scientific method: puzzle - hypothesis - evidence. (3) Accounting plays dual roles - valuation/information and stewardship/contracting - which conflict. (4) The friction that motivates everything is information asymmetry: adverse selection (hidden info, pre-deal) and moral hazard (hidden action, post-deal). (1) 会计理论=一组连贯的命题,要么解释并预测(实证),要么规定(规范)。(2)研究遵循科学方法:谜题→假设→ 证据。(3)会计扮演双重角色 -- 估值/信息与受托管理/契约 -- 二者冲突。(4)推动一切的摩擦是信息不对称:逆向选 择(隐藏的信息,交易前)与道德风险(隐藏的行动,交易后)。
• 好 vs 坏的盈余管理（good vs bad earnings management）[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.[5]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfQ15 (a). STATE/APPLY -- 该模型仅在清洁盈余下精确,价值由异常利润()驱动。平滑把报告净利润在各期间重新 分配,但按铁律总额不变 -- 所以如果分析师预测整个区间,内在价值不受影响;危险在于被持续性误导、把平滑的趋 势过度外推为更高的未来异常利润,从而高估 Verde。(b) EVALUATE/CONCLUDE -- 平滑可以是好的(信号传递) 盈余管理:一位掌握内部信息的管理者平滑到一个持续、可信的水平,降低信息不对称、降低权益成本 -- 这会合法地 提升价值。如果它把报告利润推到超过可持续水平以误导,则是坏的,因为应计必须反转、修正日后会到来。判别器是 被平滑的数字是否追踪真实持续盈利能力 -- 与驱动 ERC 的是同一个可靠性问题。 Pick the theory from the facts - map the scenario onto its variables - qualify with a competing reading / boundary condition - commit. Every number ends in an interpretation sentence - that is where the marks are. 从事实挑出理论→把情景映射到它的变量上→用一个竞争性读法/边界条件加以限定→表态。每个数字都以一句阐 释句收尾 -- 分数就在那里。 ACCT90013 . THE PATTERN BEHIND EVERY EXAM QUESTION ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ✓ Final-exam workflow 期末考试流程 Read the stem twice; underline the incentive / asymmetry / event; name the theory it triggers; write STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE; for any number, finish with what it means, not just the value. Over-learn the four 'distinguish' sets: adverse selection vs moral hazard, the 3 PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory. 把题干读两遍;划出激励/不对称/事件;点名它触发的理论;写 STATE→APPLY→EVALUATE→CONCLUDE;对 任何数字,都以它意味着什么收尾,而非只给数值。过度学习四组‘区分’:逆向选择对道德风险、3条 PAT 假设、好对 坏的盈余管理,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 AskSia Library STUDY BIBLE . ASKSIA FACULTY OF BUSINESS & ECONOMICS SEMESTER 1 . 2026 SIGNAL - P A - THE COMPLETE STUDY BIBLE Financial Accounting Theory & Practice 财务会计理论与实务 WHY THE NUMBERS EXIST, WHO THEY DISCIPLINE, AND WHAT THE MARKET DOES WITH THEM - THE WHOLE SUBJECT AS ONE ARGUMENT. 完整双语学习圣经 ACCT90013 . UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE 中英双语版 · BILINGUAL EDITION 英文主讲,中文随行 一 考试要点与术语保留英文原词 This is a theory subject. Marks are won by thinking like a researcher - spot the puzzle, name the mechanism, weigh the competing theory, and take a position. Every applied answer runs the same engine: STATE the theory -> APPLY to the facts - EVALUATE / critique - CONCLUDE. The final is 60% in one 3-hour sitting; the closed-book MST is the mid-semester checkpoint. This book drills exactly that. Independent study companion. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the University of Melbourne. Corrections: takedowns@asksia. ai PREFACE
• 监管三视角：公共利益 vs 俘获 vs 私人利益（public-interest vs capture vs private-interest）[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.[7]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf3 EMH & capital-markets research three forms . Ball & Brown . ERC & its determinants . behavioural cracks → 4 Measurement & Positive Accounting Theory relevance vs reliability . fair value . the three PAT hypotheses . agency → theory Part III . Contracts & practice (Weeks 7-8) 5 Earnings management & disclosure patterns & methods . the iron law . efficiency vs opportunism → Part IV . Regulation & the frontier (Weeks 9-10) 6 Regulation & the conceptual framework public-interest vs capture vs private-interest . the framework debates → 7 Contemporary issues - CSR & sustainability legitimacy & stakeholder theory · integrated reporting → Walk in ready 8 Glossary & theory map every term · which theory, when → 9 Practice bank & model answers the four-move skeleton on fresh scenarios → i Why this order - the dual-role spine 为何按此顺序 -- 双角色主线 The subject runs on one big idea: financial accounting plays two roles - a valuation / information role (help markets price the firm: EMH, value relevance, ERC, fair value) and a stewardship / contracting role (write & enforce contracts: compensation, debt covenants - agency theory, PAT, earnings management). These two roles conflict - the relevance-vs-reliability and efficiency-vs-opportunism tensions recur every week, and Part IV finally questions the shareholder-primacy assumption itself. We keep the week order because exam questions walk the same spine on fresh facts. 本科目运行在一个大想法上:财务会计扮演两个角色 -- 一个估值/信息角色(帮助市场为企业定价:EMH、价值相关 性、ERC、公允价值)与一个受托管理/契约角色(撰写并执行契约:薪酬、债务契约→代理理论、PAT、盈余管 理)。这两个角色相互冲突 -- 相关性对可靠性、效率对机会主义这两组张力每周复现,而第四部分最终质疑股东至上这 一假设本身。我们保留这个周次顺序,因为考题会在全新的事实上沿着同一根主干行走。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 FOUNDATIONS . WHY THEORY WEEK 1 CH 1 . FOUNDATIONS OF ACCOUNTING THEORY What the numbers are for 会计数字到底为何而存在 Part I - Foundations . Week 1: Setting the Stage 第一部分––基础 · 第1周:搭建舞台 Before any standard, any ratio, any disclosure, one question sets the whole subject: why does financial accounting information exist, and what work does it do? ACCT90013 answers in the research tradition - accounting is not a bookkeeping ritual but an economic institution that helps markets price firms and helps contracting parties discipline managers. Theory is the lens that explains why the numbers matter and predicts what people do with them. 在任何准则、任何比率、任何披露之前,有一个问题为整门课定下基调:财务会计信息为何存在,它又发挥什么作用? ACCT90013 以研究传统来作答 -- 会计不是一套记账仪式,而是一种经济制度(economic institution),它帮助市场为公司 定价,也帮助缔约各方约束管理者。理论是一面透镜,解释数字为何重要,并预测人们会如何使用它们。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 一句话总结 -- 本章的四步动作 (1) Accounting theory = a coherent set of propositions that explain & predict (positive) or prescribe (normative). (2) Research follows the scientific method: puzzle - hypothesis - evidence. (3) Accounting plays dual roles - valuation/information and stewardship/contracting - which conflict. (4) The friction that motivates everything is information asymmetry: adverse selection (hidden info, pre-deal) and moral hazard (hidden action, post-deal). (1) 会计理论=一组连贯的命题,要么解释并预测(实证),要么规定(规范)。(2)研究遵循科学方法:谜题→假设→ 证据。(3)会计扮演双重角色 -- 估值/信息与受托管理/契约 -- 二者冲突。(4)推动一切的摩擦是信息不对称:逆向选 择(隐藏的信息,交易前)与道德风险(隐藏的行动,交易后)。
• 合法性 vs 利益相关者 vs 制度理论（legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory）[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.[8]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf1 STATE. Legitimacy theory: firms disclose social / environmental information to maintain a social licence to operate - to show conformity with society's norms and close a legitimacy gap opened by an event that threatens that licence. Disclosure is often reactive and image-repairing. STATE。合法性理论(Legitimacy theory): 企业披露社会 / 环境信息以维持经营的社会许可(social licence to operate) -- 展示自己与社会规范一致,并弥合一个合法性缺口,该缺口由一桩威胁此许可的事件所撕开。披露往往是 反应式的、修复形象的。 2 APPLY. The facts fit legitimacy theory almost perfectly: a decade of minimal disclosure, then a sudden surge immediately after a scandal + media + regulator attention - a textbook legitimacy gap being closed. Institutional theory also fires (joining the industry council = mimetic / normative isomorphism - looking like a 'responsible miner' peer). The ESG-in-pay target is a signal, but apply the W5 lens: emissions-intensity is gameable (can fall while total emissions rise), so it is low-sensitivity to the real outcome. APPLY。事实几乎完美拟合合法性理论:十年的最低限度披露,然后在一桩丑闻+媒体 +监管关注之后立即出现突然 激增 -- 一个被弥合的、教科书式的合法性缺口。制度理论也被触发(加入行业理事会 =模仿性/规范性同形 -- 把自 己装扮成‘负责任矿企’的同行)。那项ESG 入薪的目标是一个信号,但套用第5周的透镜:排放强度是可操纵的(可以 在总排放上升时下降),所以它对真实结果低敏感。 3 EVALUATE. The classmate's 'stakeholder-led' reading is weak: stakeholder theory predicts disclosure aimed at powerful groups as ongoing accountability, not a one-off post-scandal spike. The timing and the gameable metric point to symbolic adoption / greenwashing, not substantive change. Boundary condition: it could be substantive if the report carried audited, outcome-based, comparable metrics and the leak triggered genuine operational change - evidence we don't yet have. EVALUATE。那位同学‘利益相关者主导’的读法很弱:利益相关者理论预测的是瞄准有权势群体的、作为持续问责的披 露,而不是一次性的丑闻后骤升。时点和那个可操纵的指标都指向象征性采纳/洗绿,而非实质性改变。边界条件:如 果报告携带了经审计的、基于结果的、可比的指标,且那次泄漏触发了真正的运营改变,它有可能是实质性的 -- 但这 些证据我们还没有。 4 CONCLUDE. The disclosure is best explained by legitimacy theory (supported by institutional isomorphism), and on the available evidence is symbolic rather than substantive. To call it substantive we would need outcome-based, verifiable metrics and real behavioural change - not a reactive report and a gameable pay target. CONCLUDE。该披露最好用合法性理论来解释(由制度同形支持),而就现有证据看是象征性而非实质性的。要称它实 质性,我们需要基于结果的、可验证的指标和真实的行为改变 -- 而不是一份反应式报告和一个可操纵的薪酬目标。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 Name the theory - map the firm's facts onto it - test substantive vs symbolic with the sensitivity / gameability lens - commit to a position. That is the whole W10 essay. 点名理论→ 把企业的事实映射到它上面→用敏感性/可操纵性透镜检验实质对象征→明确表态。这就是整篇第 10 周论文。 ACCT90013 . THE DISCLOSURE-ARGUMENT TEMPLATE ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 GLOSSARY CHAPTER . GLOSSARY 1 EN + 中文 Bilingual glossary - every examinable term 双语术语表 -- 每一个可考术语 English term . X . one-line meaning - grouped by the subject spine 英文术语 · 中文 · 一句话释义 -- 按课程主线分组 A fast reference for the vocabulary ACCT90013 actually examines, ordered by the theory spine - foundations - information economics - EMH / capital markets - measurement - agency / PAT - earnings management - regulation - ESG. The +X column is filled in the bilingual build; for now cover the right-hand meaning and recite the term, then flip and recall the meaning from the term. Over-learn the distinguish pairs - they are tested almost verbatim. 这是 ACCT90013 真正会考的词汇的快速参照表,按理论主干排序 -- 基础→信息经济学→ EMH/资本市场→计量→ 代理 / PAT→ 盈余管理→监管→ESG。中文一栏在双语版里填好;现在先盖住右侧的释义、由术语背出含义,再翻过来 由术语回想含义。把那些区分对子过度学习 -- 它们几乎是被逐字考的。 - Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Theory foundations 理论基础 Accounting theory — A coherent set of propositions used to explain & predict (positive) or prescribe (normative) practice. Positive theory — Describes / explains / predicts actual accounting behaviour ("what is"); empirically testable. Normative theory

复习方法：你不要“把一章背完”，而是把这些对比组练到——给你一段情景，你能立刻说：这是 A 不是 B，因为……。[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.[6]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf闭卷状态仅就期中测验得到确认。这场3 小时期末的 开闭卷状态在我们能看到的任何官方材料里都没有说 明。请按你必须把理论背到滚瓜烂熟来准备 -- 这是 安全的默认,而且本来也正是一场应用理论考试所奖 励的。考试当天前请在你自己的LMS上确认。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ★ The exam format - concept + applied theory, NOT a calc paper 考试形式 -- 概念+理论应用,而非计算卷 A 3-hour written paper. Expect concept explanations, applied-theory scenarios and short essays - diagnose an information asymmetry, fire a PAT hypothesis, read a price reaction, critique a contract, argue relevance vs reliability or shareholder vs stakeholder. A thin, bounded quantitative layer exists (expected utility, a Bayesian update, CAPM expected return, ERC ordering) - but the marks live in the reasoning around the number. Approved calculator: Casio FX-82. 一场3 小时的笔试。预期会有概念阐释、应用理论情 景题和短论文 -- 诊断一个信息不对称、触发一条 PAT 假设、读懂一个价格反应、批判一份契约、论证 相关性对可靠性或股东对利益相关者。存在薄而有界 的定量层(期望效用、一次贝叶斯更新、CAPM 期望 回报、ERC 排序) -- 但分数活在数字周围的推理 里。批准使用的计算器:Casio FX-82。 ✓ The strategy this dictates 由此决定的应试策略 The final is 60% and tests applied reasoning, so over-invest in the four-move skeleton on every topic. Treat the assignment and presentation as exam practice with a deadline: the same diagnose-and- argue skill is rewarded. Know the canon cold; write the applied sentence every time. 期末占 60% 且考查应用性推理,所以要在每个主题上 对四步骨架超额投入。把作业和展示当作有截止期限 的考试练习:被奖励的是同一种诊断并论证的技能。 把经典背到滚瓜烂熟;每一次都写出那句应用性句 子。 i What the exam is really testing - the recurring chains 考试真正考查什么 -- 那些反复出现的逻辑链 A handful of chains carry most marks: positive vs normative - classify & exemplify; diagnose the asymmetry (adverse selection vs moral hazard) - match the mitigation; read a price reaction via EMH + ERC; fire a PAT hypothesis - predict the direction; critique a contract (agency costs, sensitivity vs precision, covenants, conservatism); argue a perspective (relevance vs reliability; shareholder vs stakeholder). Every chapter is built to make those chains automatic. 少数几条链条承载了大部分分数:实证对规范→分类并举例;诊断不对称(逆向选择对道德风险)→匹配缓解手段; 通过 EMH + ERC 读懂价格反应;触发一条 PAT 假设→ 预测方向;批判一份契约(代理成本、敏感性对精确性、契约 条款、稳健性);论证一种视角(相关性对可靠性;股东对利益相关者)。每一章都被设计来把这些链条变成自动反应。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 CONTENTS - CONTENTS One argument, four parts 一条论证,四个部分 Foundations - Markets & measurement -> Contracts - Frontier 基础→ 市场与计量 →合约→ 前沿 Ch Topic Core ideas Part I . Foundations (Weeks 1-2) 1 Foundations of accounting theory → positive vs normative . scientific method . dual roles . the asymmetry problem 2 The rational individual & information → economics decision theory . expected utility . Bayesian revision · adverse selection vs moral hazard Part II . Markets & measurement (Weeks 3-5)

3）全课主线（用来组织所有题）：会计的“双角色冲突”

• 会计信息两份工作：[7]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf3 EMH & capital-markets research three forms . Ball & Brown . ERC & its determinants . behavioural cracks → 4 Measurement & Positive Accounting Theory relevance vs reliability . fair value . the three PAT hypotheses . agency → theory Part III . Contracts & practice (Weeks 7-8) 5 Earnings management & disclosure patterns & methods . the iron law . efficiency vs opportunism → Part IV . Regulation & the frontier (Weeks 9-10) 6 Regulation & the conceptual framework public-interest vs capture vs private-interest . the framework debates → 7 Contemporary issues - CSR & sustainability legitimacy & stakeholder theory · integrated reporting → Walk in ready 8 Glossary & theory map every term · which theory, when → 9 Practice bank & model answers the four-move skeleton on fresh scenarios → i Why this order - the dual-role spine 为何按此顺序 -- 双角色主线 The subject runs on one big idea: financial accounting plays two roles - a valuation / information role (help markets price the firm: EMH, value relevance, ERC, fair value) and a stewardship / contracting role (write & enforce contracts: compensation, debt covenants - agency theory, PAT, earnings management). These two roles conflict - the relevance-vs-reliability and efficiency-vs-opportunism tensions recur every week, and Part IV finally questions the shareholder-primacy assumption itself. We keep the week order because exam questions walk the same spine on fresh facts. 本科目运行在一个大想法上:财务会计扮演两个角色 -- 一个估值/信息角色(帮助市场为企业定价:EMH、价值相关 性、ERC、公允价值)与一个受托管理/契约角色(撰写并执行契约:薪酬、债务契约→代理理论、PAT、盈余管 理)。这两个角色相互冲突 -- 相关性对可靠性、效率对机会主义这两组张力每周复现,而第四部分最终质疑股东至上这 一假设本身。我们保留这个周次顺序,因为考题会在全新的事实上沿着同一根主干行走。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 FOUNDATIONS . WHY THEORY WEEK 1 CH 1 . FOUNDATIONS OF ACCOUNTING THEORY What the numbers are for 会计数字到底为何而存在 Part I - Foundations . Week 1: Setting the Stage 第一部分––基础 · 第1周:搭建舞台 Before any standard, any ratio, any disclosure, one question sets the whole subject: why does financial accounting information exist, and what work does it do? ACCT90013 answers in the research tradition - accounting is not a bookkeeping ritual but an economic institution that helps markets price firms and helps contracting parties discipline managers. Theory is the lens that explains why the numbers matter and predicts what people do with them. 在任何准则、任何比率、任何披露之前,有一个问题为整门课定下基调:财务会计信息为何存在,它又发挥什么作用? ACCT90013 以研究传统来作答 -- 会计不是一套记账仪式,而是一种经济制度(economic institution),它帮助市场为公司 定价,也帮助缔约各方约束管理者。理论是一面透镜,解释数字为何重要,并预测人们会如何使用它们。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 一句话总结 -- 本章的四步动作 (1) Accounting theory = a coherent set of propositions that explain & predict (positive) or prescribe (normative). (2) Research follows the scientific method: puzzle - hypothesis - evidence. (3) Accounting plays dual roles - valuation/information and stewardship/contracting - which conflict. (4) The friction that motivates everything is information asymmetry: adverse selection (hidden info, pre-deal) and moral hazard (hidden action, post-deal). (1) 会计理论=一组连贯的命题,要么解释并预测(实证),要么规定(规范)。(2)研究遵循科学方法:谜题→假设→ 证据。(3)会计扮演双重角色 -- 估值/信息与受托管理/契约 -- 二者冲突。(4)推动一切的摩擦是信息不对称:逆向选 择(隐藏的信息,交易前)与道德风险(隐藏的行动,交易后)。[9]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfMost accounting evidence is archival / observational, not from a randomised experiment. So a found association supports 'is associated with', and a competing explanation (a confounder, reverse causality) must always be entertained. Naming the alternative is the EVALUATE move worth real marks. 大多数会计证据是档案式 / 观察式的,而非来自随机 实验。所以一个发现的关联支持的是‘与 . . 相关’,而 且必须永远考虑一个竞争性解释(混淆因素、反向因 果)。点名那个替代解释,就是值真金白银分数的 EVALUATE 招式。 i Why 'named papers are not examinable' still matters 为何「不考具名论文」仍然重要 You won't be asked to cite a specific study from memory. You will be asked to reproduce the research logic - identify the puzzle, the mechanism, the testable prediction, and the threat to the inference. Learn the shape of the argument, not the reference list. 考试不会要你凭记忆引用某项具体研究。它会要你重 现那套研究逻辑 -- 识别谜题、机制、可检验的预 测,以及对该推断的威胁。学论证的形状,而不是参 考文献清单。 ★ The research loop IS the essay skeleton 研究循环就是论文骨架 Notice the loop maps straight onto the answer shape: puzzle >> the question, mechanism -> STATE, apply to facts > APPLY, competing explanation -> EVALUATE, verdict -> CONCLUDE. Thinking like a researcher and writing a top answer are the same discipline. 注意这个循环正好映射到答案的形状:谜题→题目本身,机制→STATE,应用到事实←APPLY,竞争性解释 ← EVALUATE,裁决←CONCLUDE。像研究者一样思考,与写出一份顶尖答案,是同一项修炼。 "Don't ask 'what is the rule?' Ask 'what behaviour does this rule produce, and how would I know?'" “别问‘规则是什么?’要问‘这条规则会产生什么行为,以及我怎么知道?’” THE THINK-LIKE-A-RESEARCHER REFLEX ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 DUAL ROLES THE DUAL ROLES & THE ROLE OF THEORY IN PRACTICE Valuation vs stewardship - and why they fight 估值 vs 受托责任 -- 以及二者为何冲突 The organising frame for the whole subject - this tension recurs every week 贯穿整门课的组织框架 -- 这一张力每周都会重现 Financial accounting does two jobs at once, and the subject's central tension is that the two jobs pull in different directions. Recognise this frame and almost every later debate - relevance vs reliability, fair value vs historical cost, efficiency vs opportunism - becomes a special case of it. 财务会计同时承担两项工作,而整门课的核心张力在于:这两项工作拉向不同方向。一旦认清这个框架,后续几乎所有的争论 -- 相关性 vs 可靠性、公允价值 vs 历史成本、效率 vs 机会主义 -- 都会成为它的一个特例。 Role 1 - valuation / information 角色 --- 估值/ 信息 Help investors price the firm: reduce information asymmetry, supply numbers that help forecast future cash flows. This role prizes information that is relevant and forward-looking - current/fair values, timely disclosure. 帮助投资者为公司定价:降低信息不对称(information asymmetry),提供有助于预测未来现金流的数字。这一角 色看重相关且前瞻的信息 -- 现行/公允价值、及时披露。 Role 2 - stewardship / contracting 角色二 -- 受托责任 / 缔约 Supply numbers to write and monitor contracts (compensation, debt) and hold managers accountable. This role prizes information that is reliable, verifiable and hard to manipulate - conservative, audited. 提供数字以订立和监督合约(薪酬、债务),并让管理者承 担问责。这一角色看重可靠、可验证且难以操纵的信息 -- 稳健的、经审计的。 THE CONFLICT THAT RECURS ALL SEMESTER
  • 估值/信息（valuation/information）：帮助市场给公司定价 → 更偏相关性/及时性/前瞻
  • 受托/契约（stewardship/contracting）：写合约、约束管理层 → 更偏可靠性/可验证/难操纵
• 几乎所有争论都是它的特例：
  • relevance vs reliability、fair value vs historical cost、efficiency vs opportunism…[7]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf3 EMH & capital-markets research three forms . Ball & Brown . ERC & its determinants . behavioural cracks → 4 Measurement & Positive Accounting Theory relevance vs reliability . fair value . the three PAT hypotheses . agency → theory Part III . Contracts & practice (Weeks 7-8) 5 Earnings management & disclosure patterns & methods . the iron law . efficiency vs opportunism → Part IV . Regulation & the frontier (Weeks 9-10) 6 Regulation & the conceptual framework public-interest vs capture vs private-interest . the framework debates → 7 Contemporary issues - CSR & sustainability legitimacy & stakeholder theory · integrated reporting → Walk in ready 8 Glossary & theory map every term · which theory, when → 9 Practice bank & model answers the four-move skeleton on fresh scenarios → i Why this order - the dual-role spine 为何按此顺序 -- 双角色主线 The subject runs on one big idea: financial accounting plays two roles - a valuation / information role (help markets price the firm: EMH, value relevance, ERC, fair value) and a stewardship / contracting role (write & enforce contracts: compensation, debt covenants - agency theory, PAT, earnings management). These two roles conflict - the relevance-vs-reliability and efficiency-vs-opportunism tensions recur every week, and Part IV finally questions the shareholder-primacy assumption itself. We keep the week order because exam questions walk the same spine on fresh facts. 本科目运行在一个大想法上:财务会计扮演两个角色 -- 一个估值/信息角色(帮助市场为企业定价:EMH、价值相关 性、ERC、公允价值)与一个受托管理/契约角色(撰写并执行契约:薪酬、债务契约→代理理论、PAT、盈余管 理)。这两个角色相互冲突 -- 相关性对可靠性、效率对机会主义这两组张力每周复现,而第四部分最终质疑股东至上这 一假设本身。我们保留这个周次顺序,因为考题会在全新的事实上沿着同一根主干行走。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 FOUNDATIONS . WHY THEORY WEEK 1 CH 1 . FOUNDATIONS OF ACCOUNTING THEORY What the numbers are for 会计数字到底为何而存在 Part I - Foundations . Week 1: Setting the Stage 第一部分––基础 · 第1周:搭建舞台 Before any standard, any ratio, any disclosure, one question sets the whole subject: why does financial accounting information exist, and what work does it do? ACCT90013 answers in the research tradition - accounting is not a bookkeeping ritual but an economic institution that helps markets price firms and helps contracting parties discipline managers. Theory is the lens that explains why the numbers matter and predicts what people do with them. 在任何准则、任何比率、任何披露之前,有一个问题为整门课定下基调:财务会计信息为何存在,它又发挥什么作用? ACCT90013 以研究传统来作答 -- 会计不是一套记账仪式,而是一种经济制度(economic institution),它帮助市场为公司 定价,也帮助缔约各方约束管理者。理论是一面透镜,解释数字为何重要,并预测人们会如何使用它们。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 一句话总结 -- 本章的四步动作 (1) Accounting theory = a coherent set of propositions that explain & predict (positive) or prescribe (normative). (2) Research follows the scientific method: puzzle - hypothesis - evidence. (3) Accounting plays dual roles - valuation/information and stewardship/contracting - which conflict. (4) The friction that motivates everything is information asymmetry: adverse selection (hidden info, pre-deal) and moral hazard (hidden action, post-deal). (1) 会计理论=一组连贯的命题,要么解释并预测(实证),要么规定(规范)。(2)研究遵循科学方法:谜题→假设→ 证据。(3)会计扮演双重角色 -- 估值/信息与受托管理/契约 -- 二者冲突。(4)推动一切的摩擦是信息不对称:逆向选 择(隐藏的信息,交易前)与道德风险(隐藏的行动,交易后)。[9]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfMost accounting evidence is archival / observational, not from a randomised experiment. So a found association supports 'is associated with', and a competing explanation (a confounder, reverse causality) must always be entertained. Naming the alternative is the EVALUATE move worth real marks. 大多数会计证据是档案式 / 观察式的,而非来自随机 实验。所以一个发现的关联支持的是‘与 . . 相关’,而 且必须永远考虑一个竞争性解释(混淆因素、反向因 果)。点名那个替代解释,就是值真金白银分数的 EVALUATE 招式。 i Why 'named papers are not examinable' still matters 为何「不考具名论文」仍然重要 You won't be asked to cite a specific study from memory. You will be asked to reproduce the research logic - identify the puzzle, the mechanism, the testable prediction, and the threat to the inference. Learn the shape of the argument, not the reference list. 考试不会要你凭记忆引用某项具体研究。它会要你重 现那套研究逻辑 -- 识别谜题、机制、可检验的预 测,以及对该推断的威胁。学论证的形状,而不是参 考文献清单。 ★ The research loop IS the essay skeleton 研究循环就是论文骨架 Notice the loop maps straight onto the answer shape: puzzle >> the question, mechanism -> STATE, apply to facts > APPLY, competing explanation -> EVALUATE, verdict -> CONCLUDE. Thinking like a researcher and writing a top answer are the same discipline. 注意这个循环正好映射到答案的形状:谜题→题目本身,机制→STATE,应用到事实←APPLY,竞争性解释 ← EVALUATE,裁决←CONCLUDE。像研究者一样思考,与写出一份顶尖答案,是同一项修炼。 "Don't ask 'what is the rule?' Ask 'what behaviour does this rule produce, and how would I know?'" “别问‘规则是什么?’要问‘这条规则会产生什么行为,以及我怎么知道?’” THE THINK-LIKE-A-RESEARCHER REFLEX ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 DUAL ROLES THE DUAL ROLES & THE ROLE OF THEORY IN PRACTICE Valuation vs stewardship - and why they fight 估值 vs 受托责任 -- 以及二者为何冲突 The organising frame for the whole subject - this tension recurs every week 贯穿整门课的组织框架 -- 这一张力每周都会重现 Financial accounting does two jobs at once, and the subject's central tension is that the two jobs pull in different directions. Recognise this frame and almost every later debate - relevance vs reliability, fair value vs historical cost, efficiency vs opportunism - becomes a special case of it. 财务会计同时承担两项工作,而整门课的核心张力在于:这两项工作拉向不同方向。一旦认清这个框架,后续几乎所有的争论 -- 相关性 vs 可靠性、公允价值 vs 历史成本、效率 vs 机会主义 -- 都会成为它的一个特例。 Role 1 - valuation / information 角色 --- 估值/ 信息 Help investors price the firm: reduce information asymmetry, supply numbers that help forecast future cash flows. This role prizes information that is relevant and forward-looking - current/fair values, timely disclosure. 帮助投资者为公司定价:降低信息不对称(information asymmetry),提供有助于预测未来现金流的数字。这一角 色看重相关且前瞻的信息 -- 现行/公允价值、及时披露。 Role 2 - stewardship / contracting 角色二 -- 受托责任 / 缔约 Supply numbers to write and monitor contracts (compensation, debt) and hold managers accountable. This role prizes information that is reliable, verifiable and hard to manipulate - conservative, audited. 提供数字以订立和监督合约(薪酬、债务),并让管理者承 担问责。这一角色看重可靠、可验证且难以操纵的信息 -- 稳健的、经审计的。 THE CONFLICT THAT RECURS ALL SEMESTER

4）期末最常考“逻辑链条”（按链条练，拿分最快）

• 链条 A：不对称诊断 → 对症下药

  • 交易前隐藏信息 = 逆向选择 → 解药：披露/信号（disclosure/signalling）
  • 交易后隐藏行动 = 道德风险 → 解药：监督/激励（monitoring/incentives）
  • 混淆这俩是“扣分最狠错误”。[16]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf★ Chapter recap - the Week-2 reflexes 本章回顾––第2周的条件反射 (1) Risk-averse investor - pick the act with highest EU (weight utilities, not dollars). (2) Information changes the decision via Bayes: build the marginal P(signal) first, then the posterior, then re-decide. (3) Useful = can change the act (decision-usefulness). (4) Diagnose asymmetry by timing: hidden info pre-deal = adverse selection (cure: disclosure/signalling); hidden action post-deal = moral hazard (cure: monitoring/incentives). (5) Disclosure's economic payoff: narrows the gap, lowers cost of capital. Always write the four-move answer. (1) 风险厌恶投资者 →选期望效用 EU 最高的行动(为各效用加权,而非各美元)。(2)信息通过贝叶斯改变决策:先建 边际 P(信号),再算后验,再重新决策。(3)有用=能改变行动(决策有用性)。(4)按时点诊断不对称:交易前隐藏信息 = 逆向选择(解药:披露/信号);交易后隐藏行动=道德风险(解药:监督/激励)。(5)披露的经济回报:收窄差距、 降低资本成本。永远写出四步答案。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 EMH . OVERVIEW - CH . EMH & CAPITAL MARKETS WEEK 2-3 How markets price accounting information 市场如何为会计信息定价 W2-3 - Let's start with the market . Cracks in the mirror (the valuation role) 第 2-3 周 -- 从市场说起 · 镜中裂痕(估值角色) The whole subject splits accounting into two jobs - a valuation/information role (help investors price the firm) and a stewardship/contracting role (write & enforce contracts). This chapter owns the valuation half. The single organising question: when an accounting number is released, does the market move, and why? The answer runs through the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH), the evidence that earnings carry information (Ball & Brown), the coefficient that measures how much they move price (the ERC), and the anomalies that say the market is not always right. 整门课把会计拆成两项工作 -- 估值 /信息角色(帮助投资者为公司定价)和受托责任/缔约角色(订立 &执行合约)。本 章专攻估值这一半。贯穿全章的核心问题:当一个会计数字公布时,市场会不会变动,又是为什么?答案要经过有效市场假说 (EMH)、盈余携带信息的证据(Ball & Brown)、衡量盈余在多大程度上推动股价的系数(盈余反应系数 ERC),以及那些表明 市场并非总是正确的异象。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 一句话总结 -- 本章的四步动作 (1) EMH - prices reflect an information set, three nested forms (weak c semi-strong c strong). (2) Substance over form - in an efficient market a cosmetic policy change with no cash-flow effect moves no price; what is disclosed matters, not where. (3) Ball & Brown + ERC - the market reacts to the unexpected, and the size of the reaction is governed by persistence, growth, risk & quality. (4) Cracks - PEAD and the accruals anomaly show efficiency is an approximation, not a law. (1) EMH -- 价格反映一个信息集;三种嵌套的形式(弱式 c 半强式 c 强式)。(2)实质重于形式 -- 在有效市场中,一 项无现金流影响的表面政策变更不会让价格移动;要紧的是被披露了什么,而非记在哪里。(3) Ball & Brown + ERC -- 市场对未预期的部分作出反应,而反应的大小由持续性、增长、风险与质量所支配。(4)裂缝 -- 盈余公告后漂移 (PEAD)与应计异象表明效率是一个近似、而非一条定律。 1 Decision-usefulness - the market 1 决策有用性→ 市场 A single rational, risk-averse investor uses accounting information because it changes their probabilities about future payoffs (Bayesian revision) and hence their best action. Scale that up: when many such investors trade, their information is aggregated into the price. The market becomes the device that turns private information into a public signal - and the EMH is the theory of how well it does that. 单个理性、风险厌恶的投资者之所以使用会计信息,是因为它改变了他对未来收益的概率(贝叶斯修正),进而改变了他的最 优行动。把这一点放大:当众多这样的投资者进行交易时,他们的信息被汇聚进价格。市场就成了把私人信息转化为公共信号 的装置 -- 而有效市场假说正是关于它做得有多好的理论。 - The two roles of accounting Valuation / information Stewardship / contracting Question it answers What is the firm worth? Did the manager perform / can we trust the numbers?[17]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfTHE CLASSIFY YOU CANNOT GET WRONG adverse selection = hidden information (pre-contract) moral hazard = hidden action (post-contract) ! The signature mislabel 标志性的贴错标签 Mixing up the two is the most punished error in the asymmetry questions. Anchor on timing and what is hidden: before the deal, hidden facts = adverse selection; after the deal, hidden behaviour = moral hazard. Then match the mitigation: disclosure/signalling for adverse selection, monitoring/incentives for moral hazard. 把这两者弄混是不对称题里被扣分最狠的错误。锚定在时点与被隐藏的是什么上:交易之前,隐藏的是事实 =逆向选 择;交易之后,隐藏的是行为=道德风险。然后匹配缓解手段:逆向选择用披露/信号,道德风险用监督/激励。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 EX 1. 3 Diagnose the asymmetry - the incentive-scandal scenario Diagnose Scenario. At retail bank Coastline Mutual, head office sets aggressive product-sales targets and ties branch bonuses to accounts opened. Months later it emerges that staff opened thousands of accounts customers never asked for. Separately, when Coastline raised new equity last year, management knew of a looming loan- loss problem that investors did not. 情景。在零售银行 Coastline Mutual,总部设定了激进的产品销售目标,并将分行奖金与开户数挂钩。数月后曝出,员 工开立了数千个客户从未要求过的账户。另外,去年 Coastline 增发新股时,管理层已知一项迫近的贷款损失问题,而 投资者并不知情。 1 STATE. Information asymmetry takes two forms: moral hazard (hidden action after a contract, mitigated by monitoring + incentive design) and adverse selection (hidden information before a deal, mitigated by disclosure + signalling). - STATE。信息不对称有两种形式:道德风险(合同后的隐藏行动,由监督+激励设计缓解)与逆向选择(交易前的隐藏 信息,由披露+信号传递缓解)。 - 2 APPLY. The fake accounts are moral hazard: staff took a hidden, unobservable action in response to the incentive, after the pay contract was set. The equity raise is adverse selection: management held hidden information (the loan losses) before the transaction with new investors. APPLY。那些虚假账户是道德风险:员工在薪酬契约定下之后,针对激励采取了隐藏的、不可观察的行动。那次股权募 集是逆向选择:管理层在与新投资者交易之前持有隐藏的信息(贷款损失)。 3 EVALUATE. Note the incentive scheme itself created the moral hazard - a badly designed performance measure can backfire. And disclosure that would cure the adverse selection (revealing the loan-loss risk) was precisely what management suppressed. EVALUATE。注意激励方案本身制造了道德风险- 一个设计糟糕的绩效指标会反噬。而能治愈逆向选择的那种披露 (揭示贷款损失风险)恰恰是管理层所压制的。 4 CONCLUDE. Two distinct problems, two distinct fixes: redesign incentives + tighten monitoring/governance for the moral hazard; mandate full, timely disclosure (and credible audit) for the adverse selection. CONCLUDE。两个截然不同的问题,两个截然不同的修补:为道德风险重新设计激励+收紧监督/治理;为逆向选择强 制完整、及时的披露(和可信的审计)。 i Where this goes 接下来通向何处 Moral hazard reappears as the heart of agency theory and compensation design (Ch 4); adverse selection reappears in signalling, the EMH and disclosure regulation (Ch 3, 6). This one page is the seed of half the course. 道德风险作为代理理论与薪酬设计的核心再度出现(第4章);逆向选择在信号传递、EMH 与披露监管中再度出现 (第3、6章)。这一页就是半门课的种子。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ★ Chapter recap - the Week-1 reflexes 本章回顾––第1周的条件反射 (1) Hunt the verb: should/ought => normative; is/predicts => positive. (2) Run the research loop: puzzle - mechanism - hypothesis - evidence (and name the competing explanation). (3) Frame every debate as valuation vs stewardship (relevance vs reliability). (4) Classify asymmetry by timing: hidden info pre-deal = adverse selection; hidden action post-deal = moral hazard - then match the mitigation. Always write the four-move answer. (1) 猎动词:should/ought(应该/应当)⇒ 规范;is/predicts(是/预测)⇒实证。(2)跑研究循环:谜题→机制→ 假设→证据(并点名竞争性解释)。(3)把每场辩论都框成估值对受托管理(相关性对可靠性)。(4)按时点分类不对 称:交易前隐藏信息 = 逆向选择;交易后隐藏行动=道德风险- -然后匹配缓解手段。永远写出四步答案。

• 链条 B：决策有用性（decision-usefulness）→ 贝叶斯更新 → 解释“信息为什么值钱”

  • 定义核心：信息之所以有价值，是因为它能改变概率（beliefs），从而改变最优行动（act）。[14]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf0. 60 0. 48 4 APPLY - recompute EU(shares). EU(a2 | L) = 0. 20v4900 +0. 80\400 = 0. 20(70) + 0. 80(20) = 14+16 =30 APPLY (应用)––重算 EU(股票)。 EU(a2 | L) =0. 20v4900 +0. 80v400=0. 20(70) + 0. 80(20) = 14+16 =30 5 EVALUATE. The Low signal pushed Mira's belief in Good down from 0. 40 to 0. 20, dragging EU(shares) from 40 to 30, now well below bonds' 40. The signal was informative because the likelihoods differ sharply (0. 30 vs 0. 80) - a Low reading is strong evidence of a Bad firm. EVALUATE。这个低信号把 Mira 对好的信念从 0. 40 推到 0. 20,把 EU(股票)从 40 拖到30,如今远低于债券的 40。该信号有信息含量是因为似然值差异显著 (0. 30 对 0. 80) 一个低读数是坏企业的有力证据。 6 CONCLUDE. Mira switches to bonds. The report had genuine decision value: it changed the posterior enough to flip the optimal act. Had the likelihoods been equal (uninformative), the posterior would equal the prior and the decision would not move. CONCLUDE。Mira 转向债券。该报告有真正的决策价值:它把后验改变到足以翻转最优行动。倘若似然值相等(无信 息),后验就会等于先验,决策也不会移动。 - ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 i The lesson the calc is really teaching 这道计算真正想教的道理 Financial information is valuable only because, and to the extent that, it can change a decision. That is decision-usefulness made precise - and the reason a more informative (separating) disclosure system is worth more than a noisy one. 财务信息之所以有价值,仅仅是因为、且仅以它能改变一个决策的程度。这就是把决策有用性说精确 -- 也是为什 么一个更有信息含量的(分离的)披露系统比一个充满噪声的更值钱。 Forgetting the total-probability denominator ! 漏掉全概率分母 The commonest Bayesian error is dividing by a likelihood instead of the marginal P(signal). Always build P(signal) as the sum over both states first - drawing the two-branch tree makes it automatic and stops you forgetting the Bad- firm path. 最常见的贝叶斯错误是用某个似然去除、而非用边际 P(信号)去除。永远先把 P(信号)构建为对两个状态求和 -- 画那 棵两分枝的树会让它变成自动反应,并阻止你忘掉“坏企业”那条路径。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 DECISION - USEFULNESS - THE DECISION - USEFULNESS APPROACH Useful = capable of changing a decision 有用=能够改变决策 From one investor's EU to the purpose of financial reporting 从单个投资者的期望效用到财务报告的目的 The decision-theory model delivers a precise, examinable definition: accounting information is decision- useful if it helps a rational investor make a better investment decision - operationally, if it can shift the posterior enough to change the act. This reframes the accountant's job and launches the information perspective. 决策理论模型给出了一个精确、可考的定义:如果会计信息能帮助理性投资者做出更好的投资决策,它就是决策有用的 -- 从 操作层面讲,就是它能将后验移动到足以改变行动的程度。这重新定义了会计师的工作,并开启了信息观(information perspective). - ✓ What follows from the definition 由定义可推出什么 If usefulness = capacity to change beliefs, then reporting should maximise informativeness - supply timely, relevant signals and let users update. The information perspective (Ch 3) takes this further: trust an efficient market to do the pricing; the accountant's job is to supply useful information, not to value the firm. 如果有用性= 改变信念的能力,那么报告就应当最大 化信息含量 -- 供给及时、相关的信号,让用户去更 新。信息视角(information perspective)(第3章) 把这一点推得更远:信任一个有效市场去定价;会计 师的工作是供给有用信息,而不是去给企业估值。[16]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf★ Chapter recap - the Week-2 reflexes 本章回顾––第2周的条件反射 (1) Risk-averse investor - pick the act with highest EU (weight utilities, not dollars). (2) Information changes the decision via Bayes: build the marginal P(signal) first, then the posterior, then re-decide. (3) Useful = can change the act (decision-usefulness). (4) Diagnose asymmetry by timing: hidden info pre-deal = adverse selection (cure: disclosure/signalling); hidden action post-deal = moral hazard (cure: monitoring/incentives). (5) Disclosure's economic payoff: narrows the gap, lowers cost of capital. Always write the four-move answer. (1) 风险厌恶投资者 →选期望效用 EU 最高的行动(为各效用加权,而非各美元)。(2)信息通过贝叶斯改变决策:先建 边际 P(信号),再算后验,再重新决策。(3)有用=能改变行动(决策有用性)。(4)按时点诊断不对称:交易前隐藏信息 = 逆向选择(解药:披露/信号);交易后隐藏行动=道德风险(解药:监督/激励)。(5)披露的经济回报:收窄差距、 降低资本成本。永远写出四步答案。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 EMH . OVERVIEW - CH . EMH & CAPITAL MARKETS WEEK 2-3 How markets price accounting information 市场如何为会计信息定价 W2-3 - Let's start with the market . Cracks in the mirror (the valuation role) 第 2-3 周 -- 从市场说起 · 镜中裂痕(估值角色) The whole subject splits accounting into two jobs - a valuation/information role (help investors price the firm) and a stewardship/contracting role (write & enforce contracts). This chapter owns the valuation half. The single organising question: when an accounting number is released, does the market move, and why? The answer runs through the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH), the evidence that earnings carry information (Ball & Brown), the coefficient that measures how much they move price (the ERC), and the anomalies that say the market is not always right. 整门课把会计拆成两项工作 -- 估值 /信息角色(帮助投资者为公司定价)和受托责任/缔约角色(订立 &执行合约)。本 章专攻估值这一半。贯穿全章的核心问题:当一个会计数字公布时,市场会不会变动,又是为什么?答案要经过有效市场假说 (EMH)、盈余携带信息的证据(Ball & Brown)、衡量盈余在多大程度上推动股价的系数(盈余反应系数 ERC),以及那些表明 市场并非总是正确的异象。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 一句话总结 -- 本章的四步动作 (1) EMH - prices reflect an information set, three nested forms (weak c semi-strong c strong). (2) Substance over form - in an efficient market a cosmetic policy change with no cash-flow effect moves no price; what is disclosed matters, not where. (3) Ball & Brown + ERC - the market reacts to the unexpected, and the size of the reaction is governed by persistence, growth, risk & quality. (4) Cracks - PEAD and the accruals anomaly show efficiency is an approximation, not a law. (1) EMH -- 价格反映一个信息集;三种嵌套的形式(弱式 c 半强式 c 强式)。(2)实质重于形式 -- 在有效市场中,一 项无现金流影响的表面政策变更不会让价格移动;要紧的是被披露了什么,而非记在哪里。(3) Ball & Brown + ERC -- 市场对未预期的部分作出反应,而反应的大小由持续性、增长、风险与质量所支配。(4)裂缝 -- 盈余公告后漂移 (PEAD)与应计异象表明效率是一个近似、而非一条定律。 1 Decision-usefulness - the market 1 决策有用性→ 市场 A single rational, risk-averse investor uses accounting information because it changes their probabilities about future payoffs (Bayesian revision) and hence their best action. Scale that up: when many such investors trade, their information is aggregated into the price. The market becomes the device that turns private information into a public signal - and the EMH is the theory of how well it does that. 单个理性、风险厌恶的投资者之所以使用会计信息,是因为它改变了他对未来收益的概率(贝叶斯修正),进而改变了他的最 优行动。把这一点放大:当众多这样的投资者进行交易时,他们的信息被汇聚进价格。市场就成了把私人信息转化为公共信号 的装置 -- 而有效市场假说正是关于它做得有多好的理论。 - The two roles of accounting Valuation / information Stewardship / contracting Question it answers What is the firm worth? Did the manager perform / can we trust the numbers?
  • 贝叶斯更新“套路五步”：先验→似然→边际 $P(signal)$→后验→重算 EU 看行动是否翻转。[11]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfThe recipe - draw the tree, then update 套路 -- 先画决策树,再做更新 1 Priors. State P(Good) and P(Bad) before the signal. 先验。在信号之前陈述 P(好)与 P(坏)。 2 Likelihoods. State how informative the signal is: P(signal | Good) and P(signal | Bad) - how often each type produces this signal. 似然。陈述信号有多大信息含量:P(信号 |好)与 P(信号|坏) -- 每个类型产生该信号的频率。 3 Marginal P(signal). Total probability: sum the two paths that produce the signal. 边际 P(信号)。全概率:把产生该信号的两条路径相加。 4 Posterior. Divide the matching joint path by the marginal - this is the revised belief. 后验。用匹配的联合路径除以边际 -- 这就是修正后的信念。 5 Re-decide. Recompute EU with the posterior and check whether the chosen act changes. If it does, the information had decision value. 重新决策。用后验重算 EU,检查所选行动是否改变。若改变了,信息就有了决策价值。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 EX 2. 2 Mira reads the annual report - a full Bayesian update Update & re-decide Continue EX 2. 1 (priors P(Good)=0. 40, P(Bad)=0. 60; bonds EU = 40). Before deciding, Mira reads the report, which comes out as a Low (weak) signal. The disclosure system: a Good firm shows a Low signal only 30% of the time, P(Low | Good) = 0. 30; a Bad firm shows Low 80% of the time, P(Low | Bad) = 0. 80. Update, then re- decide. 接续例题 2. 1(先验 P(好)=0. 40,P(坏)=0. 60;债券的期望效用= 40)。在决策前,Mira 阅读了报告,结果呈现为一个 Low (偏弱)信号。披露系统:好公司仅有 30% 的时间出现 Low 信号,P(Low |好)= 0. 30;坏公司有 80% 的时间出 现 Low,P(Low | 坏)= 0. 80。先更新,再重新决策。 1 STATE. Information changes the decision by revising priors to posteriors via Bayes; re-run EU on the posterior to see if the act flips. STATE。信息通过经由贝叶斯把先验修正为后验来改变决策;在后验上重跑 EU 看行动是否翻转。 2 APPLY - marginal P(Low). P(L) = 0. 40(0. 30) + 0. 60(0. 80) = 0. 12 + 0. 48 = 0. 60 APPLY (应用) -- 边际 P(低)。 P(L) = 0. 40(0. 30) + 0. 60(0. 80) = 0. 12 + 0. 48 = 0. 60 3 APPLY - posteriors. P(G | L) == 0. 20, 0. 12 0. 60 P(B | L) = 0. 48 0. 60 =0. 80 APPLY(应用) -- 后验。 0. 12 P(G | L) = 0. 60 -= 0. 20, P(B | L) =- == 0. 80
  • 最常见错误：忘了全概率分母（把似然当分母）。[14]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf0. 60 0. 48 4 APPLY - recompute EU(shares). EU(a2 | L) = 0. 20v4900 +0. 80\400 = 0. 20(70) + 0. 80(20) = 14+16 =30 APPLY (应用)––重算 EU(股票)。 EU(a2 | L) =0. 20v4900 +0. 80v400=0. 20(70) + 0. 80(20) = 14+16 =30 5 EVALUATE. The Low signal pushed Mira's belief in Good down from 0. 40 to 0. 20, dragging EU(shares) from 40 to 30, now well below bonds' 40. The signal was informative because the likelihoods differ sharply (0. 30 vs 0. 80) - a Low reading is strong evidence of a Bad firm. EVALUATE。这个低信号把 Mira 对好的信念从 0. 40 推到 0. 20,把 EU(股票)从 40 拖到30,如今远低于债券的 40。该信号有信息含量是因为似然值差异显著 (0. 30 对 0. 80) 一个低读数是坏企业的有力证据。 6 CONCLUDE. Mira switches to bonds. The report had genuine decision value: it changed the posterior enough to flip the optimal act. Had the likelihoods been equal (uninformative), the posterior would equal the prior and the decision would not move. CONCLUDE。Mira 转向债券。该报告有真正的决策价值:它把后验改变到足以翻转最优行动。倘若似然值相等(无信 息),后验就会等于先验,决策也不会移动。 - ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 i The lesson the calc is really teaching 这道计算真正想教的道理 Financial information is valuable only because, and to the extent that, it can change a decision. That is decision-usefulness made precise - and the reason a more informative (separating) disclosure system is worth more than a noisy one. 财务信息之所以有价值,仅仅是因为、且仅以它能改变一个决策的程度。这就是把决策有用性说精确 -- 也是为什 么一个更有信息含量的(分离的)披露系统比一个充满噪声的更值钱。 Forgetting the total-probability denominator ! 漏掉全概率分母 The commonest Bayesian error is dividing by a likelihood instead of the marginal P(signal). Always build P(signal) as the sum over both states first - drawing the two-branch tree makes it automatic and stops you forgetting the Bad- firm path. 最常见的贝叶斯错误是用某个似然去除、而非用边际 P(信号)去除。永远先把 P(信号)构建为对两个状态求和 -- 画那 棵两分枝的树会让它变成自动反应,并阻止你忘掉“坏企业”那条路径。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 DECISION - USEFULNESS - THE DECISION - USEFULNESS APPROACH Useful = capable of changing a decision 有用=能够改变决策 From one investor's EU to the purpose of financial reporting 从单个投资者的期望效用到财务报告的目的 The decision-theory model delivers a precise, examinable definition: accounting information is decision- useful if it helps a rational investor make a better investment decision - operationally, if it can shift the posterior enough to change the act. This reframes the accountant's job and launches the information perspective. 决策理论模型给出了一个精确、可考的定义:如果会计信息能帮助理性投资者做出更好的投资决策,它就是决策有用的 -- 从 操作层面讲,就是它能将后验移动到足以改变行动的程度。这重新定义了会计师的工作,并开启了信息观(information perspective). - ✓ What follows from the definition 由定义可推出什么 If usefulness = capacity to change beliefs, then reporting should maximise informativeness - supply timely, relevant signals and let users update. The information perspective (Ch 3) takes this further: trust an efficient market to do the pricing; the accountant's job is to supply useful information, not to value the firm. 如果有用性= 改变信念的能力,那么报告就应当最大 化信息含量 -- 供给及时、相关的信号,让用户去更 新。信息视角(information perspective)(第3章) 把这一点推得更远:信任一个有效市场去定价;会计 师的工作是供给有用信息,而不是去给企业估值。

• 链条 C：EMH + ERC → 读懂“价格为什么动/动多少”

  • EMH：价格反映信息集（弱/半强/强三层）。[16]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf★ Chapter recap - the Week-2 reflexes 本章回顾––第2周的条件反射 (1) Risk-averse investor - pick the act with highest EU (weight utilities, not dollars). (2) Information changes the decision via Bayes: build the marginal P(signal) first, then the posterior, then re-decide. (3) Useful = can change the act (decision-usefulness). (4) Diagnose asymmetry by timing: hidden info pre-deal = adverse selection (cure: disclosure/signalling); hidden action post-deal = moral hazard (cure: monitoring/incentives). (5) Disclosure's economic payoff: narrows the gap, lowers cost of capital. Always write the four-move answer. (1) 风险厌恶投资者 →选期望效用 EU 最高的行动(为各效用加权,而非各美元)。(2)信息通过贝叶斯改变决策:先建 边际 P(信号),再算后验,再重新决策。(3)有用=能改变行动(决策有用性)。(4)按时点诊断不对称:交易前隐藏信息 = 逆向选择(解药:披露/信号);交易后隐藏行动=道德风险(解药:监督/激励)。(5)披露的经济回报:收窄差距、 降低资本成本。永远写出四步答案。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 EMH . OVERVIEW - CH . EMH & CAPITAL MARKETS WEEK 2-3 How markets price accounting information 市场如何为会计信息定价 W2-3 - Let's start with the market . Cracks in the mirror (the valuation role) 第 2-3 周 -- 从市场说起 · 镜中裂痕(估值角色) The whole subject splits accounting into two jobs - a valuation/information role (help investors price the firm) and a stewardship/contracting role (write & enforce contracts). This chapter owns the valuation half. The single organising question: when an accounting number is released, does the market move, and why? The answer runs through the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH), the evidence that earnings carry information (Ball & Brown), the coefficient that measures how much they move price (the ERC), and the anomalies that say the market is not always right. 整门课把会计拆成两项工作 -- 估值 /信息角色(帮助投资者为公司定价)和受托责任/缔约角色(订立 &执行合约)。本 章专攻估值这一半。贯穿全章的核心问题:当一个会计数字公布时,市场会不会变动,又是为什么?答案要经过有效市场假说 (EMH)、盈余携带信息的证据(Ball & Brown)、衡量盈余在多大程度上推动股价的系数(盈余反应系数 ERC),以及那些表明 市场并非总是正确的异象。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 一句话总结 -- 本章的四步动作 (1) EMH - prices reflect an information set, three nested forms (weak c semi-strong c strong). (2) Substance over form - in an efficient market a cosmetic policy change with no cash-flow effect moves no price; what is disclosed matters, not where. (3) Ball & Brown + ERC - the market reacts to the unexpected, and the size of the reaction is governed by persistence, growth, risk & quality. (4) Cracks - PEAD and the accruals anomaly show efficiency is an approximation, not a law. (1) EMH -- 价格反映一个信息集;三种嵌套的形式(弱式 c 半强式 c 强式)。(2)实质重于形式 -- 在有效市场中,一 项无现金流影响的表面政策变更不会让价格移动;要紧的是被披露了什么,而非记在哪里。(3) Ball & Brown + ERC -- 市场对未预期的部分作出反应,而反应的大小由持续性、增长、风险与质量所支配。(4)裂缝 -- 盈余公告后漂移 (PEAD)与应计异象表明效率是一个近似、而非一条定律。 1 Decision-usefulness - the market 1 决策有用性→ 市场 A single rational, risk-averse investor uses accounting information because it changes their probabilities about future payoffs (Bayesian revision) and hence their best action. Scale that up: when many such investors trade, their information is aggregated into the price. The market becomes the device that turns private information into a public signal - and the EMH is the theory of how well it does that. 单个理性、风险厌恶的投资者之所以使用会计信息,是因为它改变了他对未来收益的概率(贝叶斯修正),进而改变了他的最 优行动。把这一点放大:当众多这样的投资者进行交易时,他们的信息被汇聚进价格。市场就成了把私人信息转化为公共信号 的装置 -- 而有效市场假说正是关于它做得有多好的理论。 - The two roles of accounting Valuation / information Stewardship / contracting Question it answers What is the firm worth? Did the manager perform / can we trust the numbers?
  • ERC：衡量“意外盈余”推动价格的强度；讨论时强调持续性、增长、风险、质量等决定因素。[16]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf★ Chapter recap - the Week-2 reflexes 本章回顾––第2周的条件反射 (1) Risk-averse investor - pick the act with highest EU (weight utilities, not dollars). (2) Information changes the decision via Bayes: build the marginal P(signal) first, then the posterior, then re-decide. (3) Useful = can change the act (decision-usefulness). (4) Diagnose asymmetry by timing: hidden info pre-deal = adverse selection (cure: disclosure/signalling); hidden action post-deal = moral hazard (cure: monitoring/incentives). (5) Disclosure's economic payoff: narrows the gap, lowers cost of capital. Always write the four-move answer. (1) 风险厌恶投资者 →选期望效用 EU 最高的行动(为各效用加权,而非各美元)。(2)信息通过贝叶斯改变决策:先建 边际 P(信号),再算后验,再重新决策。(3)有用=能改变行动(决策有用性)。(4)按时点诊断不对称:交易前隐藏信息 = 逆向选择(解药:披露/信号);交易后隐藏行动=道德风险(解药:监督/激励)。(5)披露的经济回报:收窄差距、 降低资本成本。永远写出四步答案。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 EMH . OVERVIEW - CH . EMH & CAPITAL MARKETS WEEK 2-3 How markets price accounting information 市场如何为会计信息定价 W2-3 - Let's start with the market . Cracks in the mirror (the valuation role) 第 2-3 周 -- 从市场说起 · 镜中裂痕(估值角色) The whole subject splits accounting into two jobs - a valuation/information role (help investors price the firm) and a stewardship/contracting role (write & enforce contracts). This chapter owns the valuation half. The single organising question: when an accounting number is released, does the market move, and why? The answer runs through the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH), the evidence that earnings carry information (Ball & Brown), the coefficient that measures how much they move price (the ERC), and the anomalies that say the market is not always right. 整门课把会计拆成两项工作 -- 估值 /信息角色(帮助投资者为公司定价)和受托责任/缔约角色(订立 &执行合约)。本 章专攻估值这一半。贯穿全章的核心问题:当一个会计数字公布时,市场会不会变动,又是为什么?答案要经过有效市场假说 (EMH)、盈余携带信息的证据(Ball & Brown)、衡量盈余在多大程度上推动股价的系数(盈余反应系数 ERC),以及那些表明 市场并非总是正确的异象。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 一句话总结 -- 本章的四步动作 (1) EMH - prices reflect an information set, three nested forms (weak c semi-strong c strong). (2) Substance over form - in an efficient market a cosmetic policy change with no cash-flow effect moves no price; what is disclosed matters, not where. (3) Ball & Brown + ERC - the market reacts to the unexpected, and the size of the reaction is governed by persistence, growth, risk & quality. (4) Cracks - PEAD and the accruals anomaly show efficiency is an approximation, not a law. (1) EMH -- 价格反映一个信息集;三种嵌套的形式(弱式 c 半强式 c 强式)。(2)实质重于形式 -- 在有效市场中,一 项无现金流影响的表面政策变更不会让价格移动;要紧的是被披露了什么,而非记在哪里。(3) Ball & Brown + ERC -- 市场对未预期的部分作出反应,而反应的大小由持续性、增长、风险与质量所支配。(4)裂缝 -- 盈余公告后漂移 (PEAD)与应计异象表明效率是一个近似、而非一条定律。 1 Decision-usefulness - the market 1 决策有用性→ 市场 A single rational, risk-averse investor uses accounting information because it changes their probabilities about future payoffs (Bayesian revision) and hence their best action. Scale that up: when many such investors trade, their information is aggregated into the price. The market becomes the device that turns private information into a public signal - and the EMH is the theory of how well it does that. 单个理性、风险厌恶的投资者之所以使用会计信息,是因为它改变了他对未来收益的概率(贝叶斯修正),进而改变了他的最 优行动。把这一点放大:当众多这样的投资者进行交易时,他们的信息被汇聚进价格。市场就成了把私人信息转化为公共信号 的装置 -- 而有效市场假说正是关于它做得有多好的理论。 - The two roles of accounting Valuation / information Stewardship / contracting Question it answers What is the firm worth? Did the manager perform / can we trust the numbers?

• 链条 D：ESG/可持续披露：实质 vs 象征（greenwashing）

  • 合法性理论：为维持“社会许可”，事件触发后做反应式披露、修复形象。[8]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf1 STATE. Legitimacy theory: firms disclose social / environmental information to maintain a social licence to operate - to show conformity with society's norms and close a legitimacy gap opened by an event that threatens that licence. Disclosure is often reactive and image-repairing. STATE。合法性理论(Legitimacy theory): 企业披露社会 / 环境信息以维持经营的社会许可(social licence to operate) -- 展示自己与社会规范一致,并弥合一个合法性缺口,该缺口由一桩威胁此许可的事件所撕开。披露往往是 反应式的、修复形象的。 2 APPLY. The facts fit legitimacy theory almost perfectly: a decade of minimal disclosure, then a sudden surge immediately after a scandal + media + regulator attention - a textbook legitimacy gap being closed. Institutional theory also fires (joining the industry council = mimetic / normative isomorphism - looking like a 'responsible miner' peer). The ESG-in-pay target is a signal, but apply the W5 lens: emissions-intensity is gameable (can fall while total emissions rise), so it is low-sensitivity to the real outcome. APPLY。事实几乎完美拟合合法性理论:十年的最低限度披露,然后在一桩丑闻+媒体 +监管关注之后立即出现突然 激增 -- 一个被弥合的、教科书式的合法性缺口。制度理论也被触发(加入行业理事会 =模仿性/规范性同形 -- 把自 己装扮成‘负责任矿企’的同行)。那项ESG 入薪的目标是一个信号,但套用第5周的透镜:排放强度是可操纵的(可以 在总排放上升时下降),所以它对真实结果低敏感。 3 EVALUATE. The classmate's 'stakeholder-led' reading is weak: stakeholder theory predicts disclosure aimed at powerful groups as ongoing accountability, not a one-off post-scandal spike. The timing and the gameable metric point to symbolic adoption / greenwashing, not substantive change. Boundary condition: it could be substantive if the report carried audited, outcome-based, comparable metrics and the leak triggered genuine operational change - evidence we don't yet have. EVALUATE。那位同学‘利益相关者主导’的读法很弱:利益相关者理论预测的是瞄准有权势群体的、作为持续问责的披 露,而不是一次性的丑闻后骤升。时点和那个可操纵的指标都指向象征性采纳/洗绿,而非实质性改变。边界条件:如 果报告携带了经审计的、基于结果的、可比的指标,且那次泄漏触发了真正的运营改变,它有可能是实质性的 -- 但这 些证据我们还没有。 4 CONCLUDE. The disclosure is best explained by legitimacy theory (supported by institutional isomorphism), and on the available evidence is symbolic rather than substantive. To call it substantive we would need outcome-based, verifiable metrics and real behavioural change - not a reactive report and a gameable pay target. CONCLUDE。该披露最好用合法性理论来解释(由制度同形支持),而就现有证据看是象征性而非实质性的。要称它实 质性,我们需要基于结果的、可验证的指标和真实的行为改变 -- 而不是一份反应式报告和一个可操纵的薪酬目标。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 Name the theory - map the firm's facts onto it - test substantive vs symbolic with the sensitivity / gameability lens - commit to a position. That is the whole W10 essay. 点名理论→ 把企业的事实映射到它上面→用敏感性/可操纵性透镜检验实质对象征→明确表态。这就是整篇第 10 周论文。 ACCT90013 . THE DISCLOSURE-ARGUMENT TEMPLATE ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 GLOSSARY CHAPTER . GLOSSARY 1 EN + 中文 Bilingual glossary - every examinable term 双语术语表 -- 每一个可考术语 English term . X . one-line meaning - grouped by the subject spine 英文术语 · 中文 · 一句话释义 -- 按课程主线分组 A fast reference for the vocabulary ACCT90013 actually examines, ordered by the theory spine - foundations - information economics - EMH / capital markets - measurement - agency / PAT - earnings management - regulation - ESG. The +X column is filled in the bilingual build; for now cover the right-hand meaning and recite the term, then flip and recall the meaning from the term. Over-learn the distinguish pairs - they are tested almost verbatim. 这是 ACCT90013 真正会考的词汇的快速参照表,按理论主干排序 -- 基础→信息经济学→ EMH/资本市场→计量→ 代理 / PAT→ 盈余管理→监管→ESG。中文一栏在双语版里填好;现在先盖住右侧的释义、由术语背出含义,再翻过来 由术语回想含义。把那些区分对子过度学习 -- 它们几乎是被逐字考的。 - Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Theory foundations 理论基础 Accounting theory — A coherent set of propositions used to explain & predict (positive) or prescribe (normative) practice. Positive theory — Describes / explains / predicts actual accounting behaviour ("what is"); empirically testable. Normative theory
  • 制度同形：coercive/mimetic/normative 导致“看起来像同行”。[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.[8]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf1 STATE. Legitimacy theory: firms disclose social / environmental information to maintain a social licence to operate - to show conformity with society's norms and close a legitimacy gap opened by an event that threatens that licence. Disclosure is often reactive and image-repairing. STATE。合法性理论(Legitimacy theory): 企业披露社会 / 环境信息以维持经营的社会许可(social licence to operate) -- 展示自己与社会规范一致,并弥合一个合法性缺口,该缺口由一桩威胁此许可的事件所撕开。披露往往是 反应式的、修复形象的。 2 APPLY. The facts fit legitimacy theory almost perfectly: a decade of minimal disclosure, then a sudden surge immediately after a scandal + media + regulator attention - a textbook legitimacy gap being closed. Institutional theory also fires (joining the industry council = mimetic / normative isomorphism - looking like a 'responsible miner' peer). The ESG-in-pay target is a signal, but apply the W5 lens: emissions-intensity is gameable (can fall while total emissions rise), so it is low-sensitivity to the real outcome. APPLY。事实几乎完美拟合合法性理论:十年的最低限度披露,然后在一桩丑闻+媒体 +监管关注之后立即出现突然 激增 -- 一个被弥合的、教科书式的合法性缺口。制度理论也被触发(加入行业理事会 =模仿性/规范性同形 -- 把自 己装扮成‘负责任矿企’的同行)。那项ESG 入薪的目标是一个信号,但套用第5周的透镜:排放强度是可操纵的(可以 在总排放上升时下降),所以它对真实结果低敏感。 3 EVALUATE. The classmate's 'stakeholder-led' reading is weak: stakeholder theory predicts disclosure aimed at powerful groups as ongoing accountability, not a one-off post-scandal spike. The timing and the gameable metric point to symbolic adoption / greenwashing, not substantive change. Boundary condition: it could be substantive if the report carried audited, outcome-based, comparable metrics and the leak triggered genuine operational change - evidence we don't yet have. EVALUATE。那位同学‘利益相关者主导’的读法很弱:利益相关者理论预测的是瞄准有权势群体的、作为持续问责的披 露,而不是一次性的丑闻后骤升。时点和那个可操纵的指标都指向象征性采纳/洗绿,而非实质性改变。边界条件:如 果报告携带了经审计的、基于结果的、可比的指标,且那次泄漏触发了真正的运营改变,它有可能是实质性的 -- 但这 些证据我们还没有。 4 CONCLUDE. The disclosure is best explained by legitimacy theory (supported by institutional isomorphism), and on the available evidence is symbolic rather than substantive. To call it substantive we would need outcome-based, verifiable metrics and real behavioural change - not a reactive report and a gameable pay target. CONCLUDE。该披露最好用合法性理论来解释(由制度同形支持),而就现有证据看是象征性而非实质性的。要称它实 质性,我们需要基于结果的、可验证的指标和真实的行为改变 -- 而不是一份反应式报告和一个可操纵的薪酬目标。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 Name the theory - map the firm's facts onto it - test substantive vs symbolic with the sensitivity / gameability lens - commit to a position. That is the whole W10 essay. 点名理论→ 把企业的事实映射到它上面→用敏感性/可操纵性透镜检验实质对象征→明确表态。这就是整篇第 10 周论文。 ACCT90013 . THE DISCLOSURE-ARGUMENT TEMPLATE ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 GLOSSARY CHAPTER . GLOSSARY 1 EN + 中文 Bilingual glossary - every examinable term 双语术语表 -- 每一个可考术语 English term . X . one-line meaning - grouped by the subject spine 英文术语 · 中文 · 一句话释义 -- 按课程主线分组 A fast reference for the vocabulary ACCT90013 actually examines, ordered by the theory spine - foundations - information economics - EMH / capital markets - measurement - agency / PAT - earnings management - regulation - ESG. The +X column is filled in the bilingual build; for now cover the right-hand meaning and recite the term, then flip and recall the meaning from the term. Over-learn the distinguish pairs - they are tested almost verbatim. 这是 ACCT90013 真正会考的词汇的快速参照表,按理论主干排序 -- 基础→信息经济学→ EMH/资本市场→计量→ 代理 / PAT→ 盈余管理→监管→ESG。中文一栏在双语版里填好;现在先盖住右侧的释义、由术语背出含义,再翻过来 由术语回想含义。把那些区分对子过度学习 -- 它们几乎是被逐字考的。 - Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Theory foundations 理论基础 Accounting theory — A coherent set of propositions used to explain & predict (positive) or prescribe (normative) practice. Positive theory — Describes / explains / predicts actual accounting behaviour ("what is"); empirically testable. Normative theory
  • 判断实质/洗绿的透镜：指标是否“可操纵（gameable）”、是否基于结果、可验证可比。[8]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf1 STATE. Legitimacy theory: firms disclose social / environmental information to maintain a social licence to operate - to show conformity with society's norms and close a legitimacy gap opened by an event that threatens that licence. Disclosure is often reactive and image-repairing. STATE。合法性理论(Legitimacy theory): 企业披露社会 / 环境信息以维持经营的社会许可(social licence to operate) -- 展示自己与社会规范一致,并弥合一个合法性缺口,该缺口由一桩威胁此许可的事件所撕开。披露往往是 反应式的、修复形象的。 2 APPLY. The facts fit legitimacy theory almost perfectly: a decade of minimal disclosure, then a sudden surge immediately after a scandal + media + regulator attention - a textbook legitimacy gap being closed. Institutional theory also fires (joining the industry council = mimetic / normative isomorphism - looking like a 'responsible miner' peer). The ESG-in-pay target is a signal, but apply the W5 lens: emissions-intensity is gameable (can fall while total emissions rise), so it is low-sensitivity to the real outcome. APPLY。事实几乎完美拟合合法性理论:十年的最低限度披露,然后在一桩丑闻+媒体 +监管关注之后立即出现突然 激增 -- 一个被弥合的、教科书式的合法性缺口。制度理论也被触发(加入行业理事会 =模仿性/规范性同形 -- 把自 己装扮成‘负责任矿企’的同行)。那项ESG 入薪的目标是一个信号,但套用第5周的透镜:排放强度是可操纵的(可以 在总排放上升时下降),所以它对真实结果低敏感。 3 EVALUATE. The classmate's 'stakeholder-led' reading is weak: stakeholder theory predicts disclosure aimed at powerful groups as ongoing accountability, not a one-off post-scandal spike. The timing and the gameable metric point to symbolic adoption / greenwashing, not substantive change. Boundary condition: it could be substantive if the report carried audited, outcome-based, comparable metrics and the leak triggered genuine operational change - evidence we don't yet have. EVALUATE。那位同学‘利益相关者主导’的读法很弱:利益相关者理论预测的是瞄准有权势群体的、作为持续问责的披 露,而不是一次性的丑闻后骤升。时点和那个可操纵的指标都指向象征性采纳/洗绿,而非实质性改变。边界条件:如 果报告携带了经审计的、基于结果的、可比的指标,且那次泄漏触发了真正的运营改变,它有可能是实质性的 -- 但这 些证据我们还没有。 4 CONCLUDE. The disclosure is best explained by legitimacy theory (supported by institutional isomorphism), and on the available evidence is symbolic rather than substantive. To call it substantive we would need outcome-based, verifiable metrics and real behavioural change - not a reactive report and a gameable pay target. CONCLUDE。该披露最好用合法性理论来解释(由制度同形支持),而就现有证据看是象征性而非实质性的。要称它实 质性,我们需要基于结果的、可验证的指标和真实的行为改变 -- 而不是一份反应式报告和一个可操纵的薪酬目标。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 Name the theory - map the firm's facts onto it - test substantive vs symbolic with the sensitivity / gameability lens - commit to a position. That is the whole W10 essay. 点名理论→ 把企业的事实映射到它上面→用敏感性/可操纵性透镜检验实质对象征→明确表态。这就是整篇第 10 周论文。 ACCT90013 . THE DISCLOSURE-ARGUMENT TEMPLATE ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 GLOSSARY CHAPTER . GLOSSARY 1 EN + 中文 Bilingual glossary - every examinable term 双语术语表 -- 每一个可考术语 English term . X . one-line meaning - grouped by the subject spine 英文术语 · 中文 · 一句话释义 -- 按课程主线分组 A fast reference for the vocabulary ACCT90013 actually examines, ordered by the theory spine - foundations - information economics - EMH / capital markets - measurement - agency / PAT - earnings management - regulation - ESG. The +X column is filled in the bilingual build; for now cover the right-hand meaning and recite the term, then flip and recall the meaning from the term. Over-learn the distinguish pairs - they are tested almost verbatim. 这是 ACCT90013 真正会考的词汇的快速参照表,按理论主干排序 -- 基础→信息经济学→ EMH/资本市场→计量→ 代理 / PAT→ 盈余管理→监管→ESG。中文一栏在双语版里填好;现在先盖住右侧的释义、由术语背出含义,再翻过来 由术语回想含义。把那些区分对子过度学习 -- 它们几乎是被逐字考的。 - Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Theory foundations 理论基础 Accounting theory — A coherent set of propositions used to explain & predict (positive) or prescribe (normative) practice. Positive theory — Describes / explains / predicts actual accounting behaviour ("what is"); empirically testable. Normative theory[1]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfFirms converge on similar practices via isomorphism (coercive / mimetic / normative) - risk of symbolic adoption. ESG / sustainability reporting — Environmental, Social, Governance disclosure; vehicles incl. integrated reporting. Greenwashing / symbolic adoption — ESG metrics # outcomes; weak, gameable measures optimise the proxy, not real stakeholder welfare. Voluntary vs mandatory disclosure Market-driven (signalling, can be withheld) vs regulator-required (corrects under- production). AASB S1 / S2 — Australia's sustainability / climate-related disclosure standards - the live AU mandatory-ESG instance. Organizational identification — UM= U(W)- C(e)+OU(VF); intrinsic identity utility complements extrinsic incentives. i How to use this glossary in revision 复习时如何使用本术语表 The terms run in teaching order - the same spine the final walks. Two passes: EN-meaning (cover the right column), then meaning-EN (cover the term). The high-yield distinguish sets to over-learn: positive vs normative, adverse selection vs moral hazard, the three EMH forms, information vs measurement perspective, the three PAT hypotheses, good vs bad EM, public-interest vs capture vs private-interest, and legitimacy vs stakeholder vs institutional theory - the exam tests these contrasts directly. 这些术语按教学顺序排列 -- 与期末行走的是同一根主干。两遍:EN→含义(盖住右栏),然后含义→EN(盖住术语)。 要过度学习的高产区分组:实证对规范、逆向选择对道德风险、EMH 三种形式、信息对计量视角、PAT 三条假设、好 对坏的盈余管理、公共利益对规制俘获对私人利益,以及合法性对利益相关者对制度理论 -- 考试直接考这些对比。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 — PRACTICE Q1-Q3 - CHAPTER . PRACTICE BANK & WORKED SOLUTIONS MIRRORS THE 60% FINAL Drill the whole theory, exam-style 以考试方式演练全部理论 Fifteen fresh problems - theory-application across the 8 task types + a thin quant layer, each worked STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 十五道全新题 -- 覆盖 8 种题型的理论应用+薄薄一层定量,每题按陈述→应用→评价→结论演算 The one-line takeaway. The ACCT90013 final is concept-explanation + theory-application: read a scenario, name the right theory, map the facts onto it, qualify it, and commit to a position. The thin quant layer (utility / Bayes / mean-variance / ERC ordering / CAPM) is always wrapped in interpretation - the marks live in the reasoning around the number. This bank gives one fresh problem per recurring move. Cover the solution, write the answer shape on paper, then check. 一句话要点。ACCT90013 期末是概念阐释+理论应用:读一个情景,点名正确的理论,把事实映射到它上面,加以限定, 并明确表态。那薄薄一层定量(效用/贝叶斯/均值-方差 /ERC 排序/ CAPM)总是被包裹在阐释里 -- 分数活在数字周 围的推理里。本题库为每一个反复出现的招数给出一道全新的题目。盖住解答,在纸上写出答案的形状,然后再核对。 ★ The answer shape - use it on every theory question 答题结构 -- 每道理论题都用它 STATE the theory & its core mechanism (define, don't just label) - APPLY by mapping the scenario's facts onto the theory's variables (this is where most marks live) - EVALUATE with a limitation / competing explanation / boundary condition - CONCLUDE with a decisive one-line position. Generic theory recital with no anchoring to the facts scores low.

5）ACCT90013 你要背的“定义句”（写出来就给分那种）

• Positive theory（实证理论）：描述/解释/预测“实际会计行为”，可被经验证据检验。[8]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf1 STATE. Legitimacy theory: firms disclose social / environmental information to maintain a social licence to operate - to show conformity with society's norms and close a legitimacy gap opened by an event that threatens that licence. Disclosure is often reactive and image-repairing. STATE。合法性理论(Legitimacy theory): 企业披露社会 / 环境信息以维持经营的社会许可(social licence to operate) -- 展示自己与社会规范一致,并弥合一个合法性缺口,该缺口由一桩威胁此许可的事件所撕开。披露往往是 反应式的、修复形象的。 2 APPLY. The facts fit legitimacy theory almost perfectly: a decade of minimal disclosure, then a sudden surge immediately after a scandal + media + regulator attention - a textbook legitimacy gap being closed. Institutional theory also fires (joining the industry council = mimetic / normative isomorphism - looking like a 'responsible miner' peer). The ESG-in-pay target is a signal, but apply the W5 lens: emissions-intensity is gameable (can fall while total emissions rise), so it is low-sensitivity to the real outcome. APPLY。事实几乎完美拟合合法性理论:十年的最低限度披露,然后在一桩丑闻+媒体 +监管关注之后立即出现突然 激增 -- 一个被弥合的、教科书式的合法性缺口。制度理论也被触发(加入行业理事会 =模仿性/规范性同形 -- 把自 己装扮成‘负责任矿企’的同行)。那项ESG 入薪的目标是一个信号,但套用第5周的透镜:排放强度是可操纵的(可以 在总排放上升时下降),所以它对真实结果低敏感。 3 EVALUATE. The classmate's 'stakeholder-led' reading is weak: stakeholder theory predicts disclosure aimed at powerful groups as ongoing accountability, not a one-off post-scandal spike. The timing and the gameable metric point to symbolic adoption / greenwashing, not substantive change. Boundary condition: it could be substantive if the report carried audited, outcome-based, comparable metrics and the leak triggered genuine operational change - evidence we don't yet have. EVALUATE。那位同学‘利益相关者主导’的读法很弱:利益相关者理论预测的是瞄准有权势群体的、作为持续问责的披 露,而不是一次性的丑闻后骤升。时点和那个可操纵的指标都指向象征性采纳/洗绿,而非实质性改变。边界条件:如 果报告携带了经审计的、基于结果的、可比的指标,且那次泄漏触发了真正的运营改变,它有可能是实质性的 -- 但这 些证据我们还没有。 4 CONCLUDE. The disclosure is best explained by legitimacy theory (supported by institutional isomorphism), and on the available evidence is symbolic rather than substantive. To call it substantive we would need outcome-based, verifiable metrics and real behavioural change - not a reactive report and a gameable pay target. CONCLUDE。该披露最好用合法性理论来解释(由制度同形支持),而就现有证据看是象征性而非实质性的。要称它实 质性,我们需要基于结果的、可验证的指标和真实的行为改变 -- 而不是一份反应式报告和一个可操纵的薪酬目标。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 Name the theory - map the firm's facts onto it - test substantive vs symbolic with the sensitivity / gameability lens - commit to a position. That is the whole W10 essay. 点名理论→ 把企业的事实映射到它上面→用敏感性/可操纵性透镜检验实质对象征→明确表态。这就是整篇第 10 周论文。 ACCT90013 . THE DISCLOSURE-ARGUMENT TEMPLATE ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 GLOSSARY CHAPTER . GLOSSARY 1 EN + 中文 Bilingual glossary - every examinable term 双语术语表 -- 每一个可考术语 English term . X . one-line meaning - grouped by the subject spine 英文术语 · 中文 · 一句话释义 -- 按课程主线分组 A fast reference for the vocabulary ACCT90013 actually examines, ordered by the theory spine - foundations - information economics - EMH / capital markets - measurement - agency / PAT - earnings management - regulation - ESG. The +X column is filled in the bilingual build; for now cover the right-hand meaning and recite the term, then flip and recall the meaning from the term. Over-learn the distinguish pairs - they are tested almost verbatim. 这是 ACCT90013 真正会考的词汇的快速参照表,按理论主干排序 -- 基础→信息经济学→ EMH/资本市场→计量→ 代理 / PAT→ 盈余管理→监管→ESG。中文一栏在双语版里填好;现在先盖住右侧的释义、由术语背出含义,再翻过来 由术语回想含义。把那些区分对子过度学习 -- 它们几乎是被逐字考的。 - Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Theory foundations 理论基础 Accounting theory — A coherent set of propositions used to explain & predict (positive) or prescribe (normative) practice. Positive theory — Describes / explains / predicts actual accounting behaviour ("what is"); empirically testable. Normative theory
• Normative theory（规范理论）：带价值判断，规定“应该怎样”。（材料强调“点名为什么，不只是贴标签”。）[12]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfCONCLUDE。(i)实证且可检验;(ii)规范且负载价值。考试奖励点名为什么,而不只是贴标签。 i The meta-point 更高层的要点 Most of ACCT90013 is positive (it predicts behaviour - PAT, EMH, agency theory), but the conceptual framework and standard-setting are largely normative. Knowing which mode you are in tells you whether to reach for evidence or for an objective. ACCT90013 的大部分是实证的(它预测行为 -- PAT、EMH、代理理论),但概念框架与准则制定在很大程度上 是规范的。知道你身处哪种模式,就知道该去伸手抓证据还是抓一个目标。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 SCIENTIFIC METHOD - THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN ACCOUNTING RESEARCH Puzzle - hypothesis - evidence 谜题→假设→ 证据 How positive theory is built - and why 'think like a researcher' is the exam mindset 实证理论如何构建 -- 以及为何「像研究者一样思考」是应试心态 Positive accounting theory is built like any empirical science. The subject trains you to think like a researcher: start from a puzzle in observed behaviour, propose a mechanism that would explain it, derive a testable hypothesis, and confront it with evidence. Theory that survives evidence earns confidence; theory that fails is revised. 实证会计理论(Positive Accounting Theory)的构建方式与任何经验科学无异。这门课训练你像研究者一样思考:从所观察行 为中的一个谜题出发,提出一个能解释它的机制,推导出一个可检验的假设,再用证据来对它进行检验。经得起证据检验的理 论赢得信心;不通过检验的则被修正。 The research loop - learn it as your essay engine too 研究循环 -- 也把它当作你的论文写作引擎 1 Puzzle / observation. Something in practice looks odd or patterned - e. g. firms near a debt covenant seem to report higher earnings. Why? 谜题/观察。实务中有什么看起来反常或有规律 -- 例如临近债务契约的企业似乎报告了更高的利润。为什么? 2 Theory / mechanism. Propose the economic reason - managers act on incentives; an accounting-based covenant creates an incentive to relax the constraint via income-increasing choices. 理论/机制。提出经济上的原因 -- 管理者按激励行事;一条基于会计的契约制造出一个动机,要通过调增利润的选择去放 松约束。 3 Hypothesis. State a testable, directional prediction - 'firms closer to covenant violation choose more income-increasing accounting'. 假设。陈述一个可检验的、有方向的预测 -- ‘越接近违反契约的企业越会选择更多调增利润的会计’。 4 Evidence. Gather data, run the test, control for confounds, and judge whether the evidence supports or rejects the hypothesis. 证据。收集数据、跑检验、控制混淆因素,并判断证据是支持还是否定该假设。 5 Revise / generalise. Update the theory; a competing explanation may fit the same evidence (efficiency vs opportunism) - the researcher adjudicates. 修订/推广。更新理论;一个竞争性解释可能拟合同一份证据(效率对机会主义) -- 研究者来裁断。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ✓ Correlation is not causation - the researcher's reflex 相关不等于因果 -- 研究者的本能反应
• 信息不对称两类：逆向选择（交易前隐藏信息）/道德风险（交易后隐藏行动）。[17]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfTHE CLASSIFY YOU CANNOT GET WRONG adverse selection = hidden information (pre-contract) moral hazard = hidden action (post-contract) ! The signature mislabel 标志性的贴错标签 Mixing up the two is the most punished error in the asymmetry questions. Anchor on timing and what is hidden: before the deal, hidden facts = adverse selection; after the deal, hidden behaviour = moral hazard. Then match the mitigation: disclosure/signalling for adverse selection, monitoring/incentives for moral hazard. 把这两者弄混是不对称题里被扣分最狠的错误。锚定在时点与被隐藏的是什么上:交易之前,隐藏的是事实 =逆向选 择;交易之后,隐藏的是行为=道德风险。然后匹配缓解手段:逆向选择用披露/信号,道德风险用监督/激励。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 EX 1. 3 Diagnose the asymmetry - the incentive-scandal scenario Diagnose Scenario. At retail bank Coastline Mutual, head office sets aggressive product-sales targets and ties branch bonuses to accounts opened. Months later it emerges that staff opened thousands of accounts customers never asked for. Separately, when Coastline raised new equity last year, management knew of a looming loan- loss problem that investors did not. 情景。在零售银行 Coastline Mutual,总部设定了激进的产品销售目标,并将分行奖金与开户数挂钩。数月后曝出,员 工开立了数千个客户从未要求过的账户。另外,去年 Coastline 增发新股时,管理层已知一项迫近的贷款损失问题,而 投资者并不知情。 1 STATE. Information asymmetry takes two forms: moral hazard (hidden action after a contract, mitigated by monitoring + incentive design) and adverse selection (hidden information before a deal, mitigated by disclosure + signalling). - STATE。信息不对称有两种形式:道德风险(合同后的隐藏行动,由监督+激励设计缓解)与逆向选择(交易前的隐藏 信息,由披露+信号传递缓解)。 - 2 APPLY. The fake accounts are moral hazard: staff took a hidden, unobservable action in response to the incentive, after the pay contract was set. The equity raise is adverse selection: management held hidden information (the loan losses) before the transaction with new investors. APPLY。那些虚假账户是道德风险:员工在薪酬契约定下之后,针对激励采取了隐藏的、不可观察的行动。那次股权募 集是逆向选择:管理层在与新投资者交易之前持有隐藏的信息(贷款损失)。 3 EVALUATE. Note the incentive scheme itself created the moral hazard - a badly designed performance measure can backfire. And disclosure that would cure the adverse selection (revealing the loan-loss risk) was precisely what management suppressed. EVALUATE。注意激励方案本身制造了道德风险- 一个设计糟糕的绩效指标会反噬。而能治愈逆向选择的那种披露 (揭示贷款损失风险)恰恰是管理层所压制的。 4 CONCLUDE. Two distinct problems, two distinct fixes: redesign incentives + tighten monitoring/governance for the moral hazard; mandate full, timely disclosure (and credible audit) for the adverse selection. CONCLUDE。两个截然不同的问题,两个截然不同的修补:为道德风险重新设计激励+收紧监督/治理;为逆向选择强 制完整、及时的披露(和可信的审计)。 i Where this goes 接下来通向何处 Moral hazard reappears as the heart of agency theory and compensation design (Ch 4); adverse selection reappears in signalling, the EMH and disclosure regulation (Ch 3, 6). This one page is the seed of half the course. 道德风险作为代理理论与薪酬设计的核心再度出现(第4章);逆向选择在信号传递、EMH 与披露监管中再度出现 (第3、6章)。这一页就是半门课的种子。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ★ Chapter recap - the Week-1 reflexes 本章回顾––第1周的条件反射 (1) Hunt the verb: should/ought => normative; is/predicts => positive. (2) Run the research loop: puzzle - mechanism - hypothesis - evidence (and name the competing explanation). (3) Frame every debate as valuation vs stewardship (relevance vs reliability). (4) Classify asymmetry by timing: hidden info pre-deal = adverse selection; hidden action post-deal = moral hazard - then match the mitigation. Always write the four-move answer. (1) 猎动词:should/ought(应该/应当)⇒ 规范;is/predicts(是/预测)⇒实证。(2)跑研究循环:谜题→机制→ 假设→证据(并点名竞争性解释)。(3)把每场辩论都框成估值对受托管理(相关性对可靠性)。(4)按时点分类不对 称:交易前隐藏信息 = 逆向选择;交易后隐藏行动=道德风险- -然后匹配缓解手段。永远写出四步答案。
• Decision-useful：能改变决策（能把后验推到足以翻转行动）。[14]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf0. 60 0. 48 4 APPLY - recompute EU(shares). EU(a2 | L) = 0. 20v4900 +0. 80\400 = 0. 20(70) + 0. 80(20) = 14+16 =30 APPLY (应用)––重算 EU(股票)。 EU(a2 | L) =0. 20v4900 +0. 80v400=0. 20(70) + 0. 80(20) = 14+16 =30 5 EVALUATE. The Low signal pushed Mira's belief in Good down from 0. 40 to 0. 20, dragging EU(shares) from 40 to 30, now well below bonds' 40. The signal was informative because the likelihoods differ sharply (0. 30 vs 0. 80) - a Low reading is strong evidence of a Bad firm. EVALUATE。这个低信号把 Mira 对好的信念从 0. 40 推到 0. 20,把 EU(股票)从 40 拖到30,如今远低于债券的 40。该信号有信息含量是因为似然值差异显著 (0. 30 对 0. 80) 一个低读数是坏企业的有力证据。 6 CONCLUDE. Mira switches to bonds. The report had genuine decision value: it changed the posterior enough to flip the optimal act. Had the likelihoods been equal (uninformative), the posterior would equal the prior and the decision would not move. CONCLUDE。Mira 转向债券。该报告有真正的决策价值:它把后验改变到足以翻转最优行动。倘若似然值相等(无信 息),后验就会等于先验,决策也不会移动。 - ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 i The lesson the calc is really teaching 这道计算真正想教的道理 Financial information is valuable only because, and to the extent that, it can change a decision. That is decision-usefulness made precise - and the reason a more informative (separating) disclosure system is worth more than a noisy one. 财务信息之所以有价值,仅仅是因为、且仅以它能改变一个决策的程度。这就是把决策有用性说精确 -- 也是为什 么一个更有信息含量的(分离的)披露系统比一个充满噪声的更值钱。 Forgetting the total-probability denominator ! 漏掉全概率分母 The commonest Bayesian error is dividing by a likelihood instead of the marginal P(signal). Always build P(signal) as the sum over both states first - drawing the two-branch tree makes it automatic and stops you forgetting the Bad- firm path. 最常见的贝叶斯错误是用某个似然去除、而非用边际 P(信号)去除。永远先把 P(信号)构建为对两个状态求和 -- 画那 棵两分枝的树会让它变成自动反应,并阻止你忘掉“坏企业”那条路径。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 DECISION - USEFULNESS - THE DECISION - USEFULNESS APPROACH Useful = capable of changing a decision 有用=能够改变决策 From one investor's EU to the purpose of financial reporting 从单个投资者的期望效用到财务报告的目的 The decision-theory model delivers a precise, examinable definition: accounting information is decision- useful if it helps a rational investor make a better investment decision - operationally, if it can shift the posterior enough to change the act. This reframes the accountant's job and launches the information perspective. 决策理论模型给出了一个精确、可考的定义:如果会计信息能帮助理性投资者做出更好的投资决策,它就是决策有用的 -- 从 操作层面讲,就是它能将后验移动到足以改变行动的程度。这重新定义了会计师的工作,并开启了信息观(information perspective). - ✓ What follows from the definition 由定义可推出什么 If usefulness = capacity to change beliefs, then reporting should maximise informativeness - supply timely, relevant signals and let users update. The information perspective (Ch 3) takes this further: trust an efficient market to do the pricing; the accountant's job is to supply useful information, not to value the firm. 如果有用性= 改变信念的能力,那么报告就应当最大 化信息含量 -- 供给及时、相关的信号,让用户去更 新。信息视角(information perspective)(第3章) 把这一点推得更远:信任一个有效市场去定价;会计 师的工作是供给有用信息,而不是去给企业估值。

6）ACCT90013 的“薄定量”——你要会的公式/算式（但要写解释句）

• 期望效用（Expected Utility）：按概率加权“效用”，不是按美元加权。
  • 形式：$EU=\sum p_i , U(x_i)$（材料强调：别对 payoffs 取平均替代 utilities）。[10]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf3 APPLY - shares. EU(a2) = 0. 40v4900 + 0. 60v400 = 0. 40(70) + 0. 60(20) = 28 + 12 = 40 APPLY (应用)-一股票。 EU (a2) = 0. 40v4900 + 0. 60v400 = 0. 40(70) + 0. 60(20) = 28 + 12 = 40 4 EVALUATE. They tie at EU = 40. But note the shares carry far more risk (payoff swings $400-$4,900) for the same expected utility - a strictly risk-averse investor who dislikes variance beyond what U already captures would lean to bonds, and any new information could break the tie. EVALUATE。它们在 EU= 40 处打平。但注意股票携带远多得多的风险(收益在 $400-$4,900间摆动)却换来同样 的期望效用 -- 一个严格风险厌恶、厌恶U已捕捉以外波动的投资者会倾向债券,而任何新信息都能打破这个平局。 CONCLUDE. On EU alone Mira is indifferent; the decision is poised - exactly the situation where a financial report (information) has the most value, because a small belief revision will flip the choice. That sets up the Bayesian update overleaf. - - CONCLUDE。仅就EU 而言 Mira 无差异;这个决策是临界态 -- 恰恰是财务报告(信息)最有价值的情形,因为一次 小小的信念修正就会翻转选择。这为背面的贝叶斯更新埋下伏笔。 i The exam point, not the number 考点在道理,而非数字 Examiners reward the setup and interpretation: correct states, correct probability weighting, and the sentence about risk and when information matters. A bare 'EU = 40' with no reading scores poorly. 评分者奖励的是设定与阐释:正确的状态、正确的概率加权,以及那句关于风险与信息何时要紧的句子。一个光秃 秃的‘EU= 40’而无任何解读,得分很低。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ! Don't average payoffs instead of utilities 别对收益取平均,要对效用取平均 The risk-averse calc weights utilities by probability, not dollars. The expected payoff of the shares is 0. 4(4900)+0. 6(400) = $2,200 > $1,600 - yet the expected utility only ties. That gap is the risk premium. Computing EU on raw dollars erases the whole point of risk aversion. 风险厌恶的计算是用概率为各效用加权,而非为各美元加权。股票的期望收益是 0. 4(4900)+0. 6(400)= $2,200 > $1,600 -- 可期望效用却只是打平。这个差距就是风险溢价。在原始美元上算 EU,会抹掉风险厌恶的全部要点。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 BAYESIAN REVISION - BAYESIAN REVISION OF BELIEFS Prior - information - posterior 先验→信息 → 后验 The high-frequency calc: update, then re-decide - and say whether the act changes 高频计算:先更新,再重新决策 -- 并说明行动是否改变 Information is evidence with the potential to change a decision - it works by changing the investor's probabilities. After observing a signal (say, a financial disclosure that reads strong or weak), the investor revises priors into posteriors using Bayes' theorem. This is the most-tested quantitative move in the subject. 信息是有潜力改变决策的证据 -- 它通过改变投资者的概率而起作用。在观察到一个信号(比如一份读起来偏强或偏弱的财务 披露)后,投资者用贝叶斯定理(Bayes' theorem)将先验修正为后验。这是本课中最常考的定量操作。 BAYES' THEOREM (TOTAL PROBABILITY IN THE DENOMINATOR) P(G) P(s | G) P(G | s) = P(s) , P(s) = P(G) P(s | G) + P(B) P(s | B)
• 贝叶斯定理（更新）：
  • $P(G|s)=\dfrac{P(G)P(s|G)}{P(s)}$，且 $P(s)=P(G)P(s|G)+P(B)P(s|B)$（全概率分母）。[10]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf3 APPLY - shares. EU(a2) = 0. 40v4900 + 0. 60v400 = 0. 40(70) + 0. 60(20) = 28 + 12 = 40 APPLY (应用)-一股票。 EU (a2) = 0. 40v4900 + 0. 60v400 = 0. 40(70) + 0. 60(20) = 28 + 12 = 40 4 EVALUATE. They tie at EU = 40. But note the shares carry far more risk (payoff swings $400-$4,900) for the same expected utility - a strictly risk-averse investor who dislikes variance beyond what U already captures would lean to bonds, and any new information could break the tie. EVALUATE。它们在 EU= 40 处打平。但注意股票携带远多得多的风险(收益在 $400-$4,900间摆动)却换来同样 的期望效用 -- 一个严格风险厌恶、厌恶U已捕捉以外波动的投资者会倾向债券,而任何新信息都能打破这个平局。 CONCLUDE. On EU alone Mira is indifferent; the decision is poised - exactly the situation where a financial report (information) has the most value, because a small belief revision will flip the choice. That sets up the Bayesian update overleaf. - - CONCLUDE。仅就EU 而言 Mira 无差异;这个决策是临界态 -- 恰恰是财务报告(信息)最有价值的情形,因为一次 小小的信念修正就会翻转选择。这为背面的贝叶斯更新埋下伏笔。 i The exam point, not the number 考点在道理,而非数字 Examiners reward the setup and interpretation: correct states, correct probability weighting, and the sentence about risk and when information matters. A bare 'EU = 40' with no reading scores poorly. 评分者奖励的是设定与阐释:正确的状态、正确的概率加权,以及那句关于风险与信息何时要紧的句子。一个光秃 秃的‘EU= 40’而无任何解读,得分很低。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ! Don't average payoffs instead of utilities 别对收益取平均,要对效用取平均 The risk-averse calc weights utilities by probability, not dollars. The expected payoff of the shares is 0. 4(4900)+0. 6(400) = $2,200 > $1,600 - yet the expected utility only ties. That gap is the risk premium. Computing EU on raw dollars erases the whole point of risk aversion. 风险厌恶的计算是用概率为各效用加权,而非为各美元加权。股票的期望收益是 0. 4(4900)+0. 6(400)= $2,200 > $1,600 -- 可期望效用却只是打平。这个差距就是风险溢价。在原始美元上算 EU,会抹掉风险厌恶的全部要点。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 BAYESIAN REVISION - BAYESIAN REVISION OF BELIEFS Prior - information - posterior 先验→信息 → 后验 The high-frequency calc: update, then re-decide - and say whether the act changes 高频计算:先更新,再重新决策 -- 并说明行动是否改变 Information is evidence with the potential to change a decision - it works by changing the investor's probabilities. After observing a signal (say, a financial disclosure that reads strong or weak), the investor revises priors into posteriors using Bayes' theorem. This is the most-tested quantitative move in the subject. 信息是有潜力改变决策的证据 -- 它通过改变投资者的概率而起作用。在观察到一个信号(比如一份读起来偏强或偏弱的财务 披露)后,投资者用贝叶斯定理(Bayes' theorem)将先验修正为后验。这是本课中最常考的定量操作。 BAYES' THEOREM (TOTAL PROBABILITY IN THE DENOMINATOR) P(G) P(s | G) P(G | s) = P(s) , P(s) = P(G) P(s | G) + P(B) P(s | B)
• 考试得分点：正确设定状态/概率 + 一句话解释风险、信息何时有价值。[10]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf3 APPLY - shares. EU(a2) = 0. 40v4900 + 0. 60v400 = 0. 40(70) + 0. 60(20) = 28 + 12 = 40 APPLY (应用)-一股票。 EU (a2) = 0. 40v4900 + 0. 60v400 = 0. 40(70) + 0. 60(20) = 28 + 12 = 40 4 EVALUATE. They tie at EU = 40. But note the shares carry far more risk (payoff swings $400-$4,900) for the same expected utility - a strictly risk-averse investor who dislikes variance beyond what U already captures would lean to bonds, and any new information could break the tie. EVALUATE。它们在 EU= 40 处打平。但注意股票携带远多得多的风险(收益在 $400-$4,900间摆动)却换来同样 的期望效用 -- 一个严格风险厌恶、厌恶U已捕捉以外波动的投资者会倾向债券,而任何新信息都能打破这个平局。 CONCLUDE. On EU alone Mira is indifferent; the decision is poised - exactly the situation where a financial report (information) has the most value, because a small belief revision will flip the choice. That sets up the Bayesian update overleaf. - - CONCLUDE。仅就EU 而言 Mira 无差异;这个决策是临界态 -- 恰恰是财务报告(信息)最有价值的情形,因为一次 小小的信念修正就会翻转选择。这为背面的贝叶斯更新埋下伏笔。 i The exam point, not the number 考点在道理,而非数字 Examiners reward the setup and interpretation: correct states, correct probability weighting, and the sentence about risk and when information matters. A bare 'EU = 40' with no reading scores poorly. 评分者奖励的是设定与阐释:正确的状态、正确的概率加权,以及那句关于风险与信息何时要紧的句子。一个光秃 秃的‘EU= 40’而无任何解读,得分很低。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 ! Don't average payoffs instead of utilities 别对收益取平均,要对效用取平均 The risk-averse calc weights utilities by probability, not dollars. The expected payoff of the shares is 0. 4(4900)+0. 6(400) = $2,200 > $1,600 - yet the expected utility only ties. That gap is the risk premium. Computing EU on raw dollars erases the whole point of risk aversion. 风险厌恶的计算是用概率为各效用加权,而非为各美元加权。股票的期望收益是 0. 4(4900)+0. 6(400)= $2,200 > $1,600 -- 可期望效用却只是打平。这个差距就是风险溢价。在原始美元上算 EU,会抹掉风险厌恶的全部要点。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 BAYESIAN REVISION - BAYESIAN REVISION OF BELIEFS Prior - information - posterior 先验→信息 → 后验 The high-frequency calc: update, then re-decide - and say whether the act changes 高频计算:先更新,再重新决策 -- 并说明行动是否改变 Information is evidence with the potential to change a decision - it works by changing the investor's probabilities. After observing a signal (say, a financial disclosure that reads strong or weak), the investor revises priors into posteriors using Bayes' theorem. This is the most-tested quantitative move in the subject. 信息是有潜力改变决策的证据 -- 它通过改变投资者的概率而起作用。在观察到一个信号(比如一份读起来偏强或偏弱的财务 披露)后,投资者用贝叶斯定理(Bayes' theorem)将先验修正为后验。这是本课中最常考的定量操作。 BAYES' THEOREM (TOTAL PROBABILITY IN THE DENOMINATOR) P(G) P(s | G) P(G | s) = P(s) , P(s) = P(G) P(s | G) + P(B) P(s | B)

ACCT90014 期末复习地图（Auditing & Assurance Services）

1）开卷期末的真相：拼的是“应用链条”，不是抄标准

• 老师路线：材料帮你查到规则，但最重要是把概念用到具体情境。[15]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfREAD FIRST * Built for the ACCT90014 open-book 3-hr digital final (60%, all topics) - so this is a fast-application reference, not rote memory. Marks: Mid-sem 20% (Wk5, ~1hr, lockdown browser, effectively closed- book, Topics 1-4 only), Group assignment 20% (CaseWare, real company), Final 60% open-book. Confirm in your current Subject Guide. The lecturer's line: "having the materials may help, but your ability to apply concepts to practical situations is what matters most. " So drill the answer shape (Side 2) and the decision boxes, not paragraphs. SIA - Open-book # easy. Markers punish students who quote a standard but never link it to the facts. Speed comes from knowing where each rule lives - that's what this sheet gives you. 1 . Assurance Landscape T1 . ASA 200 Assurance engagement · a practitioner expresses a conclusion to enhance users' confidence about a subject matter vs criteria. 5 elements: 3-party relationship (practitioner · responsible party . users) . subject matter . criteria . evidence . written report. Objective of an audit (ASA/ISA 200. 11): obtain reasonable assurance the financial report as a whole is free of material misstatement (fraud or error) > express an opinion it complies with the framework (AU = AASB standards + Corporations Act 2001). 1b · Levels of Assurance EXAMINED AS A CONTRAST REASONABLE (AUDIT) LIMITED (REVIEW) HIGH, not absolute MODERATE / lower positive form ("presents fairly") negative ("nothing came to our attention") full procedures mainly enquiry + analytical Inherent limitations (sampling, judgement, estimates, fraud collusion) mean no audit is a guarantee . 1c . The Expectation LITIGATION Gap DRIVER The gap between what users think auditors do (detect all fraud, guarantee solvency, certify accuracy) and what auditors actually do - reasonable assurance on a historical report.
• 最通用答题骨架（每个情景都能套）：
  • I.C.A.C.R：IDENTIFY（问题）→ CITE（标准/原则/案例）→ APPLY（扣事实）→ CONCLUDE（结论：意见/责任等）→ RESPOND（你要做什么：程序/ safeguard/行动）[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Cash - existence/R&O. > bank confirmation, reperform bank rec, cut-off (kiting/window- dressing) Direction of bias matters: revenue tends to be overstated (test occurrence/existence) while payables tend to be understated (test completeness) - match the procedure to the likely error. Real-world hooks the decks cite: Wirecard (€1. 9bn fake cash), Wells Fargo, Tesco rebates, Parmalat (forged confirmations). Melbourne Electronics case (Wk9): the integrated I/S & B/S exercise - apply assertions, materiality & risk and design procedures across accounts. It mirrors the exam/assignment style: a scenario, not recall. Practise writing one full risk -> assertion -> procedure line per material account. 10 . Completion T11 . CH10 Misstatement Qualified Adverse (disagreement) "except for" Disclaimer Pervasive (705. 05): effects not confined to specific items; OR a substantial proportion of the FR; OR fundamental to users' understanding. Basis for [opinion] paragraph goes before the opinion. First take all reasonable steps (alt procedures) - a limit isn't a scope limit if alt evidence is obtainable. Frequency reality: qualified is rare in practice; adverse & disclaimer are very rare. Classic adverse = FR on a going-concern basis but the auditor concludes continuation is highly improbable. Comparatives (710): corresponding figures (opinion on current period) vs comparative reports - used in AU - (opinion on each period). Other info (720): read the annual report for material inconsistencies > Other Matter para if uncorrected. GS 006: electronic publication mustn't imply assurance over unaudited website content. 12 . The Exam Answer THE RUBRIC Shape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time.[30]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfShape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time. 12b . Exam Traps DON'T LOSE THESE · Vouching vs tracing - vouch (record-> source) = occurrence/overstatement; trace (source->record) = completeness/understatement. Get the direction right. Qualified vs adverse vs disclaimer - adverse = misstatement material & pervasive; disclaimer = evidence limit material & pervasive. Qualified = "except for" (not pervasive). · Existence vs completeness - opposite directions; pin overstatement vs understatement. · Reasonable # absolute assurance; enquiry alone never sufficient. Worked shape - ethics vignette: auditor holds shares in the client -> I: self-interest threat -> C: APES 110 conceptual framework > A: financial interest impairs objectivity, a reasonable 3rd party would doubt independence -> C: significant, not at an acceptable level -> R: dispose of the interest or withdraw from the engagement. 13 . Contemporary & ESG T13-14 · Private-firm audit - Corporations Act thresholds; scalable assurance for SMES · Experts (ASA 620) - auditor stays responsible > assess the specialist's competence, capability & objectivity · SSCs & skills - offshoring low-risk tasks erodes junior skills (long-run quality concern) · Digital auditing / AI - full-population testing, anomaly detection (e. g. KPMG Clara); risk of over- reliance & black-box models AU bodies to name-drop: AUASB (sets ASA, harmonised with the ISA) . AASB (accounting standards) . ASIC (regulator) · CPA Australia / CA ANZ (via APESB > APES 110) . ASX (governance principles) . PCAOB (US comparison). Worked shape - reporting vignette: a material, isolated inventory misstatement management won't correct -> cause = misstatement; material but not pervasive -> Qualified "except for", with a Basis-for- Qualified paragraph before the opinion. If it were pervasive -> Adverse instead.
• “APPLY 才给分”：不扣事实的标准背诵分很低。[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Cash - existence/R&O. > bank confirmation, reperform bank rec, cut-off (kiting/window- dressing) Direction of bias matters: revenue tends to be overstated (test occurrence/existence) while payables tend to be understated (test completeness) - match the procedure to the likely error. Real-world hooks the decks cite: Wirecard (€1. 9bn fake cash), Wells Fargo, Tesco rebates, Parmalat (forged confirmations). Melbourne Electronics case (Wk9): the integrated I/S & B/S exercise - apply assertions, materiality & risk and design procedures across accounts. It mirrors the exam/assignment style: a scenario, not recall. Practise writing one full risk -> assertion -> procedure line per material account. 10 . Completion T11 . CH10 Misstatement Qualified Adverse (disagreement) "except for" Disclaimer Pervasive (705. 05): effects not confined to specific items; OR a substantial proportion of the FR; OR fundamental to users' understanding. Basis for [opinion] paragraph goes before the opinion. First take all reasonable steps (alt procedures) - a limit isn't a scope limit if alt evidence is obtainable. Frequency reality: qualified is rare in practice; adverse & disclaimer are very rare. Classic adverse = FR on a going-concern basis but the auditor concludes continuation is highly improbable. Comparatives (710): corresponding figures (opinion on current period) vs comparative reports - used in AU - (opinion on each period). Other info (720): read the annual report for material inconsistencies > Other Matter para if uncorrected. GS 006: electronic publication mustn't imply assurance over unaudited website content. 12 . The Exam Answer THE RUBRIC Shape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time.

2）最核心的“审计定义/对比”（必背必会用）

• 审计目标（ASA/ISA 200.11）：取得合理保证财报整体无重大错报（舞弊或差错）→ 对其是否符合框架发表意见。[15]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfREAD FIRST * Built for the ACCT90014 open-book 3-hr digital final (60%, all topics) - so this is a fast-application reference, not rote memory. Marks: Mid-sem 20% (Wk5, ~1hr, lockdown browser, effectively closed- book, Topics 1-4 only), Group assignment 20% (CaseWare, real company), Final 60% open-book. Confirm in your current Subject Guide. The lecturer's line: "having the materials may help, but your ability to apply concepts to practical situations is what matters most. " So drill the answer shape (Side 2) and the decision boxes, not paragraphs. SIA - Open-book # easy. Markers punish students who quote a standard but never link it to the facts. Speed comes from knowing where each rule lives - that's what this sheet gives you. 1 . Assurance Landscape T1 . ASA 200 Assurance engagement · a practitioner expresses a conclusion to enhance users' confidence about a subject matter vs criteria. 5 elements: 3-party relationship (practitioner · responsible party . users) . subject matter . criteria . evidence . written report. Objective of an audit (ASA/ISA 200. 11): obtain reasonable assurance the financial report as a whole is free of material misstatement (fraud or error) > express an opinion it complies with the framework (AU = AASB standards + Corporations Act 2001). 1b · Levels of Assurance EXAMINED AS A CONTRAST REASONABLE (AUDIT) LIMITED (REVIEW) HIGH, not absolute MODERATE / lower positive form ("presents fairly") negative ("nothing came to our attention") full procedures mainly enquiry + analytical Inherent limitations (sampling, judgement, estimates, fraud collusion) mean no audit is a guarantee . 1c . The Expectation LITIGATION Gap DRIVER The gap between what users think auditors do (detect all fraud, guarantee solvency, certify accuracy) and what auditors actually do - reasonable assurance on a historical report.
• 合理保证 vs 有限保证（高频对比题）：
  • 合理保证（audit）：高但非绝对；正面表述（presents fairly）；程序更全面
  • 有限保证（review）：中等/更低；负面表述（nothing came to our attention）；主要询问+分析程序
  • 审计有固有限制（抽样、判断、估计、舞弊串通），不保证“抓到所有舞弊”。[15]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfREAD FIRST * Built for the ACCT90014 open-book 3-hr digital final (60%, all topics) - so this is a fast-application reference, not rote memory. Marks: Mid-sem 20% (Wk5, ~1hr, lockdown browser, effectively closed- book, Topics 1-4 only), Group assignment 20% (CaseWare, real company), Final 60% open-book. Confirm in your current Subject Guide. The lecturer's line: "having the materials may help, but your ability to apply concepts to practical situations is what matters most. " So drill the answer shape (Side 2) and the decision boxes, not paragraphs. SIA - Open-book # easy. Markers punish students who quote a standard but never link it to the facts. Speed comes from knowing where each rule lives - that's what this sheet gives you. 1 . Assurance Landscape T1 . ASA 200 Assurance engagement · a practitioner expresses a conclusion to enhance users' confidence about a subject matter vs criteria. 5 elements: 3-party relationship (practitioner · responsible party . users) . subject matter . criteria . evidence . written report. Objective of an audit (ASA/ISA 200. 11): obtain reasonable assurance the financial report as a whole is free of material misstatement (fraud or error) > express an opinion it complies with the framework (AU = AASB standards + Corporations Act 2001). 1b · Levels of Assurance EXAMINED AS A CONTRAST REASONABLE (AUDIT) LIMITED (REVIEW) HIGH, not absolute MODERATE / lower positive form ("presents fairly") negative ("nothing came to our attention") full procedures mainly enquiry + analytical Inherent limitations (sampling, judgement, estimates, fraud collusion) mean no audit is a guarantee . 1c . The Expectation LITIGATION Gap DRIVER The gap between what users think auditors do (detect all fraud, guarantee solvency, certify accuracy) and what auditors actually do - reasonable assurance on a historical report.

3）断言（Assertions）是“审计题的操作系统”（必练到反射）

• 高频题型：

  • “这段话的错报风险是哪个 assertion？”→ “用什么程序测试它？”[18]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfCompleteness trace · search for unrecorded items R& inspect title/contracts; consignment terms Valuation recompute allowance, NRV, impairment Cut-off test transactions either side of year-end Occurrence vouch to source documents Relevant assertions differ by account: receivables -> existence & valuation; payables -> completeness; inventory -> existence, valuation & R&O; cash -> existence & R&O; revenue -> occurrence & cut-off; payroll > occurrence (ghost employees) & accuracy. Exam staple: "which assertion is at risk?" for a described misstatement, then "map a procedure to it. " Each procedure tests a specific assertion - confirmation = existence, search-for-unrecorded = completeness, recalculation = valuation, attend-stocktake = existence + completeness. open-book final . 80% exams . check your current Subject Guide . @ 2026 flip - for side 2 . evidence, sampling, completion & opinions asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ unimelb-acct90014 . side 1/2 AskSia CHEAT SHEET SERIES · 60% Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the ACCT90014 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/unimelb-acct90014 · · ACCT90014 Auditing & Assurance Services UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE . POSTGRADUATE EXAM CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 evidence . cycles . opinions SIDE 2/2 exam answer shape . traps 7 . Audit Evidence ASA 500[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfRelevant assertions differ by account: receivables -> existence & valuation; payables -> completeness; inventory -> existence, valuation & R&O; cash -> existence & R&O; revenue -> occurrence & cut-off; payroll > occurrence (ghost employees) & accuracy. Exam staple: "which assertion is at risk?" for a described misstatement, then "map a procedure to it. " Each procedure tests a specific assertion - confirmation = existence, search-for-unrecorded = completeness, recalculation = valuation, attend-stocktake = existence + completeness. open-book final . 80% exams . check your current Subject Guide . @ 2026 flip - for side 2 . evidence, sampling, completion & opinions asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ unimelb-acct90014 . side 1/2 AskSia CHEAT SHEET SERIES · 60% Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the ACCT90014 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/unimelb-acct90014 · · ACCT90014 Auditing & Assurance Services UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE . POSTGRADUATE EXAM CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 evidence . cycles . opinions SIDE 2/2 exam answer shape . traps 7 . Audit Evidence ASA 500 * Audit evidence . info used to test assertions. Must be sufficient AND appropriate. Relevance - does it address the specific assertion? (confirming receivables tests existence, not completeness). The two interrelate: higher RMM or lower-quality evidence = more evidence needed; more-reliable evidence = less of it needed. RELIABILITY HIERARCHY External > internal auditor-generated > client-generated written > oral . original > copy strong controls > weak controls So a bank confirmation or reperformed control beats an enquiry; enquiry alone always needs corroboration. Evidence is usually persuasive rather than conclusive - the auditor weighs cost vs the assurance gained, gathering more where risk is higher. 7b . The 7 Procedures PROCEDURE NOTE

• 方向感（超高频陷阱）：

  • 收入常见偏差：高估（overstatement）→ 多测 occurrence/existence
  • 应付/负债常见偏差：低估（understatement）→ 多测 completeness
  • 先钉“高估/低估”，再选程序。[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Cash - existence/R&O. > bank confirmation, reperform bank rec, cut-off (kiting/window- dressing) Direction of bias matters: revenue tends to be overstated (test occurrence/existence) while payables tend to be understated (test completeness) - match the procedure to the likely error. Real-world hooks the decks cite: Wirecard (€1. 9bn fake cash), Wells Fargo, Tesco rebates, Parmalat (forged confirmations). Melbourne Electronics case (Wk9): the integrated I/S & B/S exercise - apply assertions, materiality & risk and design procedures across accounts. It mirrors the exam/assignment style: a scenario, not recall. Practise writing one full risk -> assertion -> procedure line per material account. 10 . Completion T11 . CH10 Misstatement Qualified Adverse (disagreement) "except for" Disclaimer Pervasive (705. 05): effects not confined to specific items; OR a substantial proportion of the FR; OR fundamental to users' understanding. Basis for [opinion] paragraph goes before the opinion. First take all reasonable steps (alt procedures) - a limit isn't a scope limit if alt evidence is obtainable. Frequency reality: qualified is rare in practice; adverse & disclaimer are very rare. Classic adverse = FR on a going-concern basis but the auditor concludes continuation is highly improbable. Comparatives (710): corresponding figures (opinion on current period) vs comparative reports - used in AU - (opinion on each period). Other info (720): read the annual report for material inconsistencies > Other Matter para if uncorrected. GS 006: electronic publication mustn't imply assurance over unaudited website content. 12 . The Exam Answer THE RUBRIC Shape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time.[28]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfTutorial control set (Shady Oaks): pre-numbered EFT requisition -> invoice matched to receiving report > matched to authorised PO ( 3-way match ) -> cheque requisition reviewed & authorised by senior staff -> passed to AP. ToC confirmed it effective, lowering CR. 5c . Client Acceptance T3 . ASA 210/315 & Planning Acceptance/continuation - evaluate management integrity, independence & competence to serve, client risk, predecessor-auditor communication, acceptable framework; re-evaluate each year. Engagement letter (ASA 210) - written terms: objective/scope, management's & auditor's responsibilities, framework, reporting; baseline for contractual liability. Understand the entity (ASA 315) - industry, regulation, nature, policies, objectives & business risks, and internal control -> drives risk assessment. Then set audit strategy & plan (combined vs substantive approach). Professional scepticism throughout - a questioning mind, critical of evidence. 6 . Management Assertions ASA 315 CH6 Management's explicit/implicit claims about the FR. Auditors use them to assess RMM & design procedures, gathering evidence for each relevant assertion. Deck cues: "we own these" (R&O), "all recorded" (completeness), "recorded items are real" (occurrence/existence), "valuation accurate" (V&A). TRANSACTIONS & EVENTS Occurrence (recorded items are real) . Completeness (nothing omitted) . Accuracy . Cut-off (right period) . Classification · Presentation. ACCOUNT BALANCES Existence . Completeness . Rights & Obligations Accuracy, Valuation & Allocation (e. g. inventory at lower of cost & NRV; doubtful-debt allowance) . Classification · Presentation. 6b . The Confused Pairs HIGH EXAM YIELD · Completeness vs Occurrence - "is anything missing?" (understatement) vs "is anything recorded that shouldn't be?" (overstatement) · Existence vs Rights & Obligations - it physically/legally exists vs it belongs to the entity (consignment inventory exists but isn't owned) · Classification vs Presentation - where recorded vs how shown/grouped/disclosed (related-party sale in revenue V but not separately disclosed X) SIA - Overstatement risk - test existence/occurrence; understatement risk - test completeness. Pin the direction first, then pick the procedure. 6c . Assertion - Procedure MAP IT ASSERTION TYPICAL PROCEDURE Existence confirm / inspect asset / vouch

• 账户—断言高频配对（你至少要熟这些）：

  • 应收：existence & valuation
  • 应付：completeness
  • 存货：existence、valuation、rights & obligations
  • 现金：existence、rights & obligations
  • 收入：occurrence、cut-off
  • 工资：occurrence（ghost employees）、accuracy
  • 题最爱考：“哪条断言在风险”+“对应程序”。[18]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfCompleteness trace · search for unrecorded items R& inspect title/contracts; consignment terms Valuation recompute allowance, NRV, impairment Cut-off test transactions either side of year-end Occurrence vouch to source documents Relevant assertions differ by account: receivables -> existence & valuation; payables -> completeness; inventory -> existence, valuation & R&O; cash -> existence & R&O; revenue -> occurrence & cut-off; payroll > occurrence (ghost employees) & accuracy. Exam staple: "which assertion is at risk?" for a described misstatement, then "map a procedure to it. " Each procedure tests a specific assertion - confirmation = existence, search-for-unrecorded = completeness, recalculation = valuation, attend-stocktake = existence + completeness. open-book final . 80% exams . check your current Subject Guide . @ 2026 flip - for side 2 . evidence, sampling, completion & opinions asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ unimelb-acct90014 . side 1/2 AskSia CHEAT SHEET SERIES · 60% Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the ACCT90014 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/unimelb-acct90014 · · ACCT90014 Auditing & Assurance Services UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE . POSTGRADUATE EXAM CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 evidence . cycles . opinions SIDE 2/2 exam answer shape . traps 7 . Audit Evidence ASA 500[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfRelevant assertions differ by account: receivables -> existence & valuation; payables -> completeness; inventory -> existence, valuation & R&O; cash -> existence & R&O; revenue -> occurrence & cut-off; payroll > occurrence (ghost employees) & accuracy. Exam staple: "which assertion is at risk?" for a described misstatement, then "map a procedure to it. " Each procedure tests a specific assertion - confirmation = existence, search-for-unrecorded = completeness, recalculation = valuation, attend-stocktake = existence + completeness. open-book final . 80% exams . check your current Subject Guide . @ 2026 flip - for side 2 . evidence, sampling, completion & opinions asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ unimelb-acct90014 . side 1/2 AskSia CHEAT SHEET SERIES · 60% Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the ACCT90014 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/unimelb-acct90014 · · ACCT90014 Auditing & Assurance Services UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE . POSTGRADUATE EXAM CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 evidence . cycles . opinions SIDE 2/2 exam answer shape . traps 7 . Audit Evidence ASA 500 * Audit evidence . info used to test assertions. Must be sufficient AND appropriate. Relevance - does it address the specific assertion? (confirming receivables tests existence, not completeness). The two interrelate: higher RMM or lower-quality evidence = more evidence needed; more-reliable evidence = less of it needed. RELIABILITY HIERARCHY External > internal auditor-generated > client-generated written > oral . original > copy strong controls > weak controls So a bank confirmation or reperformed control beats an enquiry; enquiry alone always needs corroboration. Evidence is usually persuasive rather than conclusive - the auditor weighs cost vs the assurance gained, gathering more where risk is higher. 7b . The 7 Procedures PROCEDURE NOTE

4）程序库（ASA 500）与证据强弱（会被直接问）

• 审计证据：用来测试断言的信息；必须“充分（sufficient）且适当（appropriate）”。[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfRelevant assertions differ by account: receivables -> existence & valuation; payables -> completeness; inventory -> existence, valuation & R&O; cash -> existence & R&O; revenue -> occurrence & cut-off; payroll > occurrence (ghost employees) & accuracy. Exam staple: "which assertion is at risk?" for a described misstatement, then "map a procedure to it. " Each procedure tests a specific assertion - confirmation = existence, search-for-unrecorded = completeness, recalculation = valuation, attend-stocktake = existence + completeness. open-book final . 80% exams . check your current Subject Guide . @ 2026 flip - for side 2 . evidence, sampling, completion & opinions asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ unimelb-acct90014 . side 1/2 AskSia CHEAT SHEET SERIES · 60% Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the ACCT90014 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/unimelb-acct90014 · · ACCT90014 Auditing & Assurance Services UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE . POSTGRADUATE EXAM CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 evidence . cycles . opinions SIDE 2/2 exam answer shape . traps 7 . Audit Evidence ASA 500 * Audit evidence . info used to test assertions. Must be sufficient AND appropriate. Relevance - does it address the specific assertion? (confirming receivables tests existence, not completeness). The two interrelate: higher RMM or lower-quality evidence = more evidence needed; more-reliable evidence = less of it needed. RELIABILITY HIERARCHY External > internal auditor-generated > client-generated written > oral . original > copy strong controls > weak controls So a bank confirmation or reperformed control beats an enquiry; enquiry alone always needs corroboration. Evidence is usually persuasive rather than conclusive - the auditor weighs cost vs the assurance gained, gathering more where risk is higher. 7b . The 7 Procedures PROCEDURE NOTE

• 可靠性层级（大方向）：外部 > 内部 auditor 生成 > 客户生成书面 > 口头；原件 > 复印件；强控制下证据更可靠。[22]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfRelevant assertions differ by account: receivables -> existence & valuation; payables -> completeness; inventory -> existence, valuation & R&O; cash -> existence & R&O; revenue -> occurrence & cut-off; payroll > occurrence (ghost employees) & accuracy. Exam staple: "which assertion is at risk?" for a described misstatement, then "map a procedure to it. " Each procedure tests a specific assertion - confirmation = existence, search-for-unrecorded = completeness, recalculation = valuation, attend-stocktake = existence + completeness. open-book final . 80% exams . check your current Subject Guide . @ 2026 flip - for side 2 . evidence, sampling, completion & opinions asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ unimelb-acct90014 . side 1/2 AskSia CHEAT SHEET SERIES · 60% Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the ACCT90014 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/unimelb-acct90014 · · ACCT90014 Auditing & Assurance Services UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE . POSTGRADUATE EXAM CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 evidence . cycles . opinions SIDE 2/2 exam answer shape . traps 7 . Audit Evidence ASA 500 * Audit evidence . info used to test assertions. Must be sufficient AND appropriate. Relevance - does it address the specific assertion? (confirming receivables tests existence, not completeness). The two interrelate: higher RMM or lower-quality evidence = more evidence needed; more-reliable evidence = less of it needed. RELIABILITY HIERARCHY External > internal auditor-generated > client-generated written > oral . original > copy strong controls > weak controls So a bank confirmation or reperformed control beats an enquiry; enquiry alone always needs corroboration. Evidence is usually persuasive rather than conclusive - the auditor weighs cost vs the assurance gained, gathering more where risk is higher. 7b . The 7 Procedures PROCEDURE NOTE

• 确认函（confirmations）：positive（总要回）更可靠；negative（只在不同意才回）更弱，仅限低风险小额同质。[26]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfweak alone - must corroborate Inspection records or physical asset (existence) watch a process; point-in-time only Reperformance redo the control - strong Recalculation redo the numbers - strong Confirmation Analytical relationships vs expectation Confirmation: positive (reply always - reliable) vs negative (reply only if disagree - weak; low-risk small homogeneous balances only). Confirmations can still fail - they may be forged or intercepted (Parmalat). 7c . Vouching vs Tracing DIRECTION = ASSERTION THE DIRECTION RULE VOUCH: record - source doc = tests OCCURRENCE (overstatement) TRACE: source doc - record = tests COMPLETENESS (understatement) Lecturer drills the contrasts: inspect (examine evidence/asset) vs observe (watch process); reperform (redo control) vs recalculate (redo numbers); enquiry (broad) vs confirmation (formal written 3rd-party verify). Data analytics / digital auditing (T5/9/14) - full- population testing, anomaly detection (e. g. KPMG Clara) raises coverage & efficiency but adds over- reliance & evidence-reliability concerns. It supplements, not replaces, professional judgement. 8 · Controls vs Substantive T7-9- CH7-9 · Risk-assessment procedures - understand entity & assess RMM (not enough alone) · Substantive procedures - detect misstatement at assertion level; always required for material classes, balances & disclosures regardless of control reliance Two substantive sub-types: substantive analytical (efficient for large predictable relationships) . tests of details (vouch, trace, confirm, recalculate for high-risk or less-predictable balances).

• Vouching vs Tracing（必考陷阱，方向=断言）：[26]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfweak alone - must corroborate Inspection records or physical asset (existence) watch a process; point-in-time only Reperformance redo the control - strong Recalculation redo the numbers - strong Confirmation Analytical relationships vs expectation Confirmation: positive (reply always - reliable) vs negative (reply only if disagree - weak; low-risk small homogeneous balances only). Confirmations can still fail - they may be forged or intercepted (Parmalat). 7c . Vouching vs Tracing DIRECTION = ASSERTION THE DIRECTION RULE VOUCH: record - source doc = tests OCCURRENCE (overstatement) TRACE: source doc - record = tests COMPLETENESS (understatement) Lecturer drills the contrasts: inspect (examine evidence/asset) vs observe (watch process); reperform (redo control) vs recalculate (redo numbers); enquiry (broad) vs confirmation (formal written 3rd-party verify). Data analytics / digital auditing (T5/9/14) - full- population testing, anomaly detection (e. g. KPMG Clara) raises coverage & efficiency but adds over- reliance & evidence-reliability concerns. It supplements, not replaces, professional judgement. 8 · Controls vs Substantive T7-9- CH7-9 · Risk-assessment procedures - understand entity & assess RMM (not enough alone) · Substantive procedures - detect misstatement at assertion level; always required for material classes, balances & disclosures regardless of control reliance Two substantive sub-types: substantive analytical (efficient for large predictable relationships) . tests of details (vouch, trace, confirm, recalculate for high-risk or less-predictable balances).[30]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfShape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time. 12b . Exam Traps DON'T LOSE THESE · Vouching vs tracing - vouch (record-> source) = occurrence/overstatement; trace (source->record) = completeness/understatement. Get the direction right. Qualified vs adverse vs disclaimer - adverse = misstatement material & pervasive; disclaimer = evidence limit material & pervasive. Qualified = "except for" (not pervasive). · Existence vs completeness - opposite directions; pin overstatement vs understatement. · Reasonable # absolute assurance; enquiry alone never sufficient. Worked shape - ethics vignette: auditor holds shares in the client -> I: self-interest threat -> C: APES 110 conceptual framework > A: financial interest impairs objectivity, a reasonable 3rd party would doubt independence -> C: significant, not at an acceptable level -> R: dispose of the interest or withdraw from the engagement. 13 . Contemporary & ESG T13-14 · Private-firm audit - Corporations Act thresholds; scalable assurance for SMES · Experts (ASA 620) - auditor stays responsible > assess the specialist's competence, capability & objectivity · SSCs & skills - offshoring low-risk tasks erodes junior skills (long-run quality concern) · Digital auditing / AI - full-population testing, anomaly detection (e. g. KPMG Clara); risk of over- reliance & black-box models AU bodies to name-drop: AUASB (sets ASA, harmonised with the ISA) . AASB (accounting standards) . ASIC (regulator) · CPA Australia / CA ANZ (via APESB > APES 110) . ASX (governance principles) . PCAOB (US comparison). Worked shape - reporting vignette: a material, isolated inventory misstatement management won't correct -> cause = misstatement; material but not pervasive -> Qualified "except for", with a Basis-for- Qualified paragraph before the opinion. If it were pervasive -> Adverse instead.

  • Vouch：record → source doc ⇒ 测 occurrence（偏高估）
  • Trace：source doc → record ⇒ 测 completeness（偏低估）

5）审计风险模型（你要会写出链条）

• 审计风险：$AR=IR\times CR\times DR$（题会让你据情景说“哪高哪低、怎么改 DR、加什么程序”）。[20]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Misstatement eval (ASA 450) - accumulate (factual/judgemental/projected); request correction; evaluate uncorrected individually & in aggregate against materiality; communicate to TCWG Also: overall analytical review, legal letters (confirm litigation/claims completeness to counsel), evaluate sufficiency of evidence, the EQ review. Uncorrected misstatements immaterial = unmodified opinion. MATERIAL, NOT PERVASIVE MATERIAL AND PERVASIVE Can't get evidence (scope limit) Qualified "except for" OPEN-BOOK FINAL . 60% Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the ACCT90014 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/unimelb-acct90014 open-book final . check your current Subject Guide . @ 2026 good luck. identify . cite . apply . conclude . respond. Enquiry Observation ASA 500 direct 3rd-party reply - very reliable EVIDENCE - CONTROLS Vs SUBSTANTIVE - SAMPLING + CYCLES + COMPLETION - REPORTING . ASA 500 . vouching vs tracing . the opinion matrix . the ACCT90014 Auditing & Assurance Services UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE . POSTGRADUATE EXAM CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 1 OF 2 built for the open-book final SIDE 1/2 ASSURANCE . ETHICS . LIABILITY . RISK . CONTROL . ASSERTIONS . Reasonable vs limited . APES 110 . 5 threats . Duty-breach-loss . AR = IR x CR x DR |OPEN-BOOK FINAL 0 . How to Use This

6）报告意见矩阵（705/706/700 系列的“结论题”）

• 你要掌握的判别框架（材料给了最核心对比）：[20]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Misstatement eval (ASA 450) - accumulate (factual/judgemental/projected); request correction; evaluate uncorrected individually & in aggregate against materiality; communicate to TCWG Also: overall analytical review, legal letters (confirm litigation/claims completeness to counsel), evaluate sufficiency of evidence, the EQ review. Uncorrected misstatements immaterial = unmodified opinion. MATERIAL, NOT PERVASIVE MATERIAL AND PERVASIVE Can't get evidence (scope limit) Qualified "except for" OPEN-BOOK FINAL . 60% Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the ACCT90014 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/unimelb-acct90014 open-book final . check your current Subject Guide . @ 2026 good luck. identify . cite . apply . conclude . respond. Enquiry Observation ASA 500 direct 3rd-party reply - very reliable EVIDENCE - CONTROLS Vs SUBSTANTIVE - SAMPLING + CYCLES + COMPLETION - REPORTING . ASA 500 . vouching vs tracing . the opinion matrix . the ACCT90014 Auditing & Assurance Services UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE . POSTGRADUATE EXAM CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 1 OF 2 built for the open-book final SIDE 1/2 ASSURANCE . ETHICS . LIABILITY . RISK . CONTROL . ASSERTIONS . Reasonable vs limited . APES 110 . 5 threats . Duty-breach-loss . AR = IR x CR x DR |OPEN-BOOK FINAL 0 . How to Use This[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Cash - existence/R&O. > bank confirmation, reperform bank rec, cut-off (kiting/window- dressing) Direction of bias matters: revenue tends to be overstated (test occurrence/existence) while payables tend to be understated (test completeness) - match the procedure to the likely error. Real-world hooks the decks cite: Wirecard (€1. 9bn fake cash), Wells Fargo, Tesco rebates, Parmalat (forged confirmations). Melbourne Electronics case (Wk9): the integrated I/S & B/S exercise - apply assertions, materiality & risk and design procedures across accounts. It mirrors the exam/assignment style: a scenario, not recall. Practise writing one full risk -> assertion -> procedure line per material account. 10 . Completion T11 . CH10 Misstatement Qualified Adverse (disagreement) "except for" Disclaimer Pervasive (705. 05): effects not confined to specific items; OR a substantial proportion of the FR; OR fundamental to users' understanding. Basis for [opinion] paragraph goes before the opinion. First take all reasonable steps (alt procedures) - a limit isn't a scope limit if alt evidence is obtainable. Frequency reality: qualified is rare in practice; adverse & disclaimer are very rare. Classic adverse = FR on a going-concern basis but the auditor concludes continuation is highly improbable. Comparatives (710): corresponding figures (opinion on current period) vs comparative reports - used in AU - (opinion on each period). Other info (720): read the annual report for material inconsistencies > Other Matter para if uncorrected. GS 006: electronic publication mustn't imply assurance over unaudited website content. 12 . The Exam Answer THE RUBRIC Shape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time.
  • 错报（disagreement）：若 material & pervasive → adverse
  • 取证受限（scope limitation）：若 material & pervasive → disclaimer
  • material 但不 pervasive → 常见是 qualified “except for”
• “pervasive” 的判据（705.05 口径）：影响不局限于特定项目，或占财报很大比例，或对使用者理解是根本性的。[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Cash - existence/R&O. > bank confirmation, reperform bank rec, cut-off (kiting/window- dressing) Direction of bias matters: revenue tends to be overstated (test occurrence/existence) while payables tend to be understated (test completeness) - match the procedure to the likely error. Real-world hooks the decks cite: Wirecard (€1. 9bn fake cash), Wells Fargo, Tesco rebates, Parmalat (forged confirmations). Melbourne Electronics case (Wk9): the integrated I/S & B/S exercise - apply assertions, materiality & risk and design procedures across accounts. It mirrors the exam/assignment style: a scenario, not recall. Practise writing one full risk -> assertion -> procedure line per material account. 10 . Completion T11 . CH10 Misstatement Qualified Adverse (disagreement) "except for" Disclaimer Pervasive (705. 05): effects not confined to specific items; OR a substantial proportion of the FR; OR fundamental to users' understanding. Basis for [opinion] paragraph goes before the opinion. First take all reasonable steps (alt procedures) - a limit isn't a scope limit if alt evidence is obtainable. Frequency reality: qualified is rare in practice; adverse & disclaimer are very rare. Classic adverse = FR on a going-concern basis but the auditor concludes continuation is highly improbable. Comparatives (710): corresponding figures (opinion on current period) vs comparative reports - used in AU - (opinion on each period). Other info (720): read the annual report for material inconsistencies > Other Matter para if uncorrected. GS 006: electronic publication mustn't imply assurance over unaudited website content. 12 . The Exam Answer THE RUBRIC Shape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time.

最省命的“冲刺复习安排”（你照着做就会快）

• 第 1 轮（搭骨架）

  • ACCT90013：每个主题写 1 份“STATE-APPLY-EVALUATE-CONCLUDE 模板句”，重点练 APPLY。[2]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdfHOW TO USE THIS BOOK Argue, don't recite; apply, don't list 要论证,别背诵;要应用,别罗列 A theory subject - the marks are in the reasoning, not the label 一门理论课 -- 分数在于推理,而非贴标签 This is not a transcript of the self-paced decks or a re-run of the GenAI workshops. It is a self-contained course in the accounting theory ACCT90013 examines - each idea stated plainly, each mechanism shown on a worked scenario, each classic mislabel flagged. The seminars run as cases and data exercises; the exam tests whether you can read a situation, name the right theory, apply it to the facts, weigh the competing explanation, and conclude. That is what these pages drill. 这不是自学课件的逐字稿,也不是GenAl 工作坊的重播。它是一门自成体系的课程,专讲 ACCT90013 所考的会计理论 每个观点都讲得明白,每条机制都用一个演算情景展示,每个经典的贴错标签都被标出。研讨课以案例和数据练习的形式进 行;而考试考查的是你能否读懂一个情境、点出正确的理论、把它应用到事实上、权衡相互竞争的解释,并得出结论。这正是 本书反复演练的内容。 A 1 . LEARN 1·学 You haven't met the topic yet. Read a chapter top to bottom. Every idea opens with a one-line TL;DR, then state ++ picture/formula - mechanism - worked scenario - trap. The diagrams are original schematics of the standard theory canon - learn the picture cold. 你还没碰过这个主题。把一章从 头读到尾。每个观点都以一行 TL;DR(太长不看的摘要)开 场,然后是陈述 → 图示/公式 → 机制→例题情景 →陷阱。 这些示意图是标准理论经典的原 创图解 -- 把图记到滚瓜烂熟。 B 2 . DRILL 2· 练 You've seen the seminar. Cover the worked answers and re-build each one with the four-move skeleton. The exam pays for the applied sentence that anchors the theory to the facts, not for generic theory recital. 你已经看过研讨课了。盖住范例 答案,用四步骨架把每一题重新 搭一遍。考试付费给那句把理论 扣到事实上的应用性句子,而不 是泛泛的理论背诵。 C 3 . EXAM 3·考 It's revision / SWOT-vac. The TL;DRs, the trap boxes and the recurring answer shape are your map. The blueprint overleaf shows the weights, the closed- book MST and the question template. 现在是复习 /考前突击周 (SWOT-vac)。那些 TL;DR、陷 阱框和反复出现的答案形状就是 你的地图。背面的蓝图列出了权 重、闭卷期中测验(MST)和题目 模板。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 i The single engine that runs every applied answer 驱动每一道应用题的唯一引擎 Master one move-set and the whole applied half collapses into a pattern. Whatever the prompt - an asymmetry to diagnose, a hypothesis to fire, a price reaction to read, a contract to critique - you run the same four moves. Internalise the skeleton and a fresh scenario cannot surprise you: you already know the shape of the answer before you read the facts. 掌握一套招式,整个应用的那一半课程就坍缩成一个套路。无论题目是什么 -- 一个要诊断的不对称、一条要触发的假 设、一个要读懂的价格反应、一份要批判的契约 -- 你都跑同样的四步。把骨架内化,一个全新的情景就吓不住你:在 你读完事实之前,你就已经知道答案的形状了。 THE ANSWER SHAPE STATE -> APPLY -> EVALUATE -> CONCLUDE ✓ Think like a researcher - puzzle - mechanism - competing theory 像研究者一样思考 -- 谜题→机制→竞争性理论 The subject is built in the research tradition (Scott; Watts & Zimmerman). Every topic is a puzzle (why do managers smooth earnings? why does price move before the announcement?), explained by a mechanism (incentives, information asymmetry, market efficiency), and almost always shadowed by a competing theory (efficient vs opportunistic, information vs measurement, shareholder vs stakeholder). Strong answers name both sides and adjudicate.[3]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf本科目建立在研究传统之上(Scott; Watts & Zimmerman)。每个主题都是一个谜题(管理者为何 平滑利润?价格为何在公告之前就动?),由一个机制 (激励、信息不对称、市场效率)来解释,并几乎总 有一个竞争理论在旁边投下阴影(高效对机会主义、 信息对计量、股东对利益相关者)。强的答案会把两边 都点名并加以裁断。 ! The mistake that caps theory marks 限制理论题得分的那个错误 Reciting the theory without anchoring it to the scenario. "Adverse selection is hidden information" earns almost nothing on its own. "Here the seller knows the asset is impaired and the buyer does not - that hidden information, pre-deal, is adverse selection" earns the marks. Always map the theory's variables onto the named facts. 背理论却不把它扣到情景上。“逆向选择是隐藏的信 息”单凭这句几乎拿不到分。“这里卖方知道资产已减 值而买方不知道 -- 那个隐藏的、交易前的信息,就 是逆向选择”才拿得到分。永远把理论的变量映射到题 中点名的事实上。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 i How this book was built - and the two-layer rule 本书如何构建 -- 以及双层规则 The standard theory canon (positive vs normative, decision theory, Bayes, information asymmetry, the EMH, agency theory, Positive Accounting Theory) is stated openly - it is universal scholarship in the Scott / Watts-Zimmerman lineage. The lecturer's named cases and example numbers are paraphrased and re-authored; every worked scenario here uses our own invented firms and figures. Framing is Australian (AASB-adopted IFRS; ASIC / AUASB / FRC; CPA Australia & CA ANZ). Book status: the mid-semester test is closed-book (confirmed); the final's book- status is not officially stated - treat it as unknown and check your unit outline / exam timetable on the LMS. 标准理论经典(实证对规范、决策理论、贝叶斯、信息不对称、EMH、代理理论、实证会计理论)是公开陈述的 -- 它 在 Scott/ Watts-Zimmerman 一脉中是通用学术内容。讲师点名的案例和示例数字都经过改写与重新撰写;这里每一 道例题情景都用我们自创的企业与数字。框架是澳大利亚式的(经 AASB 采纳的 IFRS; ASIC / AUASB / FRC; CPA Australia & CA ANZ)。开闭卷状态:期中测验是闭卷(已确认);期末的开闭卷状态未官方说明 -- 把它当作未知,并 在 LMS 上核对你的课程大纲 / 考试时间表。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 THE BLUEPRINT - THE EXAM BLUEPRINT FINAL 60% . THE BIG ONE 60% in one 3-hour sitting 一场 3 小时考试占 60% MST 15% (closed). Group assignment 15% . Presentation 10% . Final 60% 期中测验 15%(闭卷)· 小组作业 15% · 课堂展示 10% · 期末 60% Your mark is built from four pieces, and one dominates. The final exam is 60% in a single 3-hour individual sitting in the formal exam period - nearly two-thirds of your grade at once. The mid-semester test is the only confirmed closed-book checkpoint; the rest is group work. Plus up to 5 bonus points on the final mark for seminar prep / participation & paper-pitch presentations. 你的成绩由四部分构成,其中一项占主导。期末考试在正式考试周内,是一场3 小时的个人考试,占 60% -- 一次性占据近 三分之二的分数。期中测验是唯一确认的闭卷检查点;其余皆为小组作业。此外,研讨课的预习/参与 & 论文推介展示还能 为最终分数带来最多 5分的加分。 60% FINAL EXAM (3 HR) 期末考试(3小时) 15% MST - CLOSED BOOK, WK 6 期中测验 -- 闭卷,第6周 25% GROUP ASSIGNMENT + PRESENT 小组作业 + 展示 +5 BONUS PARTICIPATION PTS 额外的参与分 The four assessment pieces 四项考核构成 Component Weight
  • ACCT90014：把 I.C.A.C.R 模板写成“空白表格”，见题就填。[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Cash - existence/R&O. > bank confirmation, reperform bank rec, cut-off (kiting/window- dressing) Direction of bias matters: revenue tends to be overstated (test occurrence/existence) while payables tend to be understated (test completeness) - match the procedure to the likely error. Real-world hooks the decks cite: Wirecard (€1. 9bn fake cash), Wells Fargo, Tesco rebates, Parmalat (forged confirmations). Melbourne Electronics case (Wk9): the integrated I/S & B/S exercise - apply assertions, materiality & risk and design procedures across accounts. It mirrors the exam/assignment style: a scenario, not recall. Practise writing one full risk -> assertion -> procedure line per material account. 10 . Completion T11 . CH10 Misstatement Qualified Adverse (disagreement) "except for" Disclaimer Pervasive (705. 05): effects not confined to specific items; OR a substantial proportion of the FR; OR fundamental to users' understanding. Basis for [opinion] paragraph goes before the opinion. First take all reasonable steps (alt procedures) - a limit isn't a scope limit if alt evidence is obtainable. Frequency reality: qualified is rare in practice; adverse & disclaimer are very rare. Classic adverse = FR on a going-concern basis but the auditor concludes continuation is highly improbable. Comparatives (710): corresponding figures (opinion on current period) vs comparative reports - used in AU - (opinion on each period). Other info (720): read the annual report for material inconsistencies > Other Matter para if uncorrected. GS 006: electronic publication mustn't imply assurance over unaudited website content. 12 . The Exam Answer THE RUBRIC Shape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time.[30]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfShape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time. 12b . Exam Traps DON'T LOSE THESE · Vouching vs tracing - vouch (record-> source) = occurrence/overstatement; trace (source->record) = completeness/understatement. Get the direction right. Qualified vs adverse vs disclaimer - adverse = misstatement material & pervasive; disclaimer = evidence limit material & pervasive. Qualified = "except for" (not pervasive). · Existence vs completeness - opposite directions; pin overstatement vs understatement. · Reasonable # absolute assurance; enquiry alone never sufficient. Worked shape - ethics vignette: auditor holds shares in the client -> I: self-interest threat -> C: APES 110 conceptual framework > A: financial interest impairs objectivity, a reasonable 3rd party would doubt independence -> C: significant, not at an acceptable level -> R: dispose of the interest or withdraw from the engagement. 13 . Contemporary & ESG T13-14 · Private-firm audit - Corporations Act thresholds; scalable assurance for SMES · Experts (ASA 620) - auditor stays responsible > assess the specialist's competence, capability & objectivity · SSCs & skills - offshoring low-risk tasks erodes junior skills (long-run quality concern) · Digital auditing / AI - full-population testing, anomaly detection (e. g. KPMG Clara); risk of over- reliance & black-box models AU bodies to name-drop: AUASB (sets ASA, harmonised with the ISA) . AASB (accounting standards) . ASIC (regulator) · CPA Australia / CA ANZ (via APESB > APES 110) . ASX (governance principles) . PCAOB (US comparison). Worked shape - reporting vignette: a material, isolated inventory misstatement management won't correct -> cause = misstatement; material but not pervasive -> Qualified "except for", with a Basis-for- Qualified paragraph before the opinion. If it were pervasive -> Adverse instead.

• 第 2 轮（只抓高频链条）

  • ACCT90013：不对称二分 + 贝叶斯更新 + EMH/ERC + ESG（实质vs象征）。[16]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf★ Chapter recap - the Week-2 reflexes 本章回顾––第2周的条件反射 (1) Risk-averse investor - pick the act with highest EU (weight utilities, not dollars). (2) Information changes the decision via Bayes: build the marginal P(signal) first, then the posterior, then re-decide. (3) Useful = can change the act (decision-usefulness). (4) Diagnose asymmetry by timing: hidden info pre-deal = adverse selection (cure: disclosure/signalling); hidden action post-deal = moral hazard (cure: monitoring/incentives). (5) Disclosure's economic payoff: narrows the gap, lowers cost of capital. Always write the four-move answer. (1) 风险厌恶投资者 →选期望效用 EU 最高的行动(为各效用加权,而非各美元)。(2)信息通过贝叶斯改变决策:先建 边际 P(信号),再算后验,再重新决策。(3)有用=能改变行动(决策有用性)。(4)按时点诊断不对称:交易前隐藏信息 = 逆向选择(解药:披露/信号);交易后隐藏行动=道德风险(解药:监督/激励)。(5)披露的经济回报:收窄差距、 降低资本成本。永远写出四步答案。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 EMH . OVERVIEW - CH . EMH & CAPITAL MARKETS WEEK 2-3 How markets price accounting information 市场如何为会计信息定价 W2-3 - Let's start with the market . Cracks in the mirror (the valuation role) 第 2-3 周 -- 从市场说起 · 镜中裂痕(估值角色) The whole subject splits accounting into two jobs - a valuation/information role (help investors price the firm) and a stewardship/contracting role (write & enforce contracts). This chapter owns the valuation half. The single organising question: when an accounting number is released, does the market move, and why? The answer runs through the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH), the evidence that earnings carry information (Ball & Brown), the coefficient that measures how much they move price (the ERC), and the anomalies that say the market is not always right. 整门课把会计拆成两项工作 -- 估值 /信息角色(帮助投资者为公司定价)和受托责任/缔约角色(订立 &执行合约)。本 章专攻估值这一半。贯穿全章的核心问题:当一个会计数字公布时,市场会不会变动,又是为什么?答案要经过有效市场假说 (EMH)、盈余携带信息的证据(Ball & Brown)、衡量盈余在多大程度上推动股价的系数(盈余反应系数 ERC),以及那些表明 市场并非总是正确的异象。 i TL; DR - the four moves of this chapter 一句话总结 -- 本章的四步动作 (1) EMH - prices reflect an information set, three nested forms (weak c semi-strong c strong). (2) Substance over form - in an efficient market a cosmetic policy change with no cash-flow effect moves no price; what is disclosed matters, not where. (3) Ball & Brown + ERC - the market reacts to the unexpected, and the size of the reaction is governed by persistence, growth, risk & quality. (4) Cracks - PEAD and the accruals anomaly show efficiency is an approximation, not a law. (1) EMH -- 价格反映一个信息集;三种嵌套的形式(弱式 c 半强式 c 强式)。(2)实质重于形式 -- 在有效市场中,一 项无现金流影响的表面政策变更不会让价格移动;要紧的是被披露了什么,而非记在哪里。(3) Ball & Brown + ERC -- 市场对未预期的部分作出反应,而反应的大小由持续性、增长、风险与质量所支配。(4)裂缝 -- 盈余公告后漂移 (PEAD)与应计异象表明效率是一个近似、而非一条定律。 1 Decision-usefulness - the market 1 决策有用性→ 市场 A single rational, risk-averse investor uses accounting information because it changes their probabilities about future payoffs (Bayesian revision) and hence their best action. Scale that up: when many such investors trade, their information is aggregated into the price. The market becomes the device that turns private information into a public signal - and the EMH is the theory of how well it does that. 单个理性、风险厌恶的投资者之所以使用会计信息,是因为它改变了他对未来收益的概率(贝叶斯修正),进而改变了他的最 优行动。把这一点放大:当众多这样的投资者进行交易时,他们的信息被汇聚进价格。市场就成了把私人信息转化为公共信号 的装置 -- 而有效市场假说正是关于它做得有多好的理论。 - The two roles of accounting Valuation / information Stewardship / contracting Question it answers What is the firm worth? Did the manager perform / can we trust the numbers?[14]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf0. 60 0. 48 4 APPLY - recompute EU(shares). EU(a2 | L) = 0. 20v4900 +0. 80\400 = 0. 20(70) + 0. 80(20) = 14+16 =30 APPLY (应用)––重算 EU(股票)。 EU(a2 | L) =0. 20v4900 +0. 80v400=0. 20(70) + 0. 80(20) = 14+16 =30 5 EVALUATE. The Low signal pushed Mira's belief in Good down from 0. 40 to 0. 20, dragging EU(shares) from 40 to 30, now well below bonds' 40. The signal was informative because the likelihoods differ sharply (0. 30 vs 0. 80) - a Low reading is strong evidence of a Bad firm. EVALUATE。这个低信号把 Mira 对好的信念从 0. 40 推到 0. 20,把 EU(股票)从 40 拖到30,如今远低于债券的 40。该信号有信息含量是因为似然值差异显著 (0. 30 对 0. 80) 一个低读数是坏企业的有力证据。 6 CONCLUDE. Mira switches to bonds. The report had genuine decision value: it changed the posterior enough to flip the optimal act. Had the likelihoods been equal (uninformative), the posterior would equal the prior and the decision would not move. CONCLUDE。Mira 转向债券。该报告有真正的决策价值:它把后验改变到足以翻转最优行动。倘若似然值相等(无信 息),后验就会等于先验,决策也不会移动。 - ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 i The lesson the calc is really teaching 这道计算真正想教的道理 Financial information is valuable only because, and to the extent that, it can change a decision. That is decision-usefulness made precise - and the reason a more informative (separating) disclosure system is worth more than a noisy one. 财务信息之所以有价值,仅仅是因为、且仅以它能改变一个决策的程度。这就是把决策有用性说精确 -- 也是为什 么一个更有信息含量的(分离的)披露系统比一个充满噪声的更值钱。 Forgetting the total-probability denominator ! 漏掉全概率分母 The commonest Bayesian error is dividing by a likelihood instead of the marginal P(signal). Always build P(signal) as the sum over both states first - drawing the two-branch tree makes it automatic and stops you forgetting the Bad- firm path. 最常见的贝叶斯错误是用某个似然去除、而非用边际 P(信号)去除。永远先把 P(信号)构建为对两个状态求和 -- 画那 棵两分枝的树会让它变成自动反应,并阻止你忘掉“坏企业”那条路径。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 DECISION - USEFULNESS - THE DECISION - USEFULNESS APPROACH Useful = capable of changing a decision 有用=能够改变决策 From one investor's EU to the purpose of financial reporting 从单个投资者的期望效用到财务报告的目的 The decision-theory model delivers a precise, examinable definition: accounting information is decision- useful if it helps a rational investor make a better investment decision - operationally, if it can shift the posterior enough to change the act. This reframes the accountant's job and launches the information perspective. 决策理论模型给出了一个精确、可考的定义:如果会计信息能帮助理性投资者做出更好的投资决策,它就是决策有用的 -- 从 操作层面讲,就是它能将后验移动到足以改变行动的程度。这重新定义了会计师的工作,并开启了信息观(information perspective). - ✓ What follows from the definition 由定义可推出什么 If usefulness = capacity to change beliefs, then reporting should maximise informativeness - supply timely, relevant signals and let users update. The information perspective (Ch 3) takes this further: trust an efficient market to do the pricing; the accountant's job is to supply useful information, not to value the firm. 如果有用性= 改变信念的能力,那么报告就应当最大 化信息含量 -- 供给及时、相关的信号,让用户去更 新。信息视角(information perspective)(第3章) 把这一点推得更远:信任一个有效市场去定价;会计 师的工作是供给有用信息,而不是去给企业估值。[8]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf1 STATE. Legitimacy theory: firms disclose social / environmental information to maintain a social licence to operate - to show conformity with society's norms and close a legitimacy gap opened by an event that threatens that licence. Disclosure is often reactive and image-repairing. STATE。合法性理论(Legitimacy theory): 企业披露社会 / 环境信息以维持经营的社会许可(social licence to operate) -- 展示自己与社会规范一致,并弥合一个合法性缺口,该缺口由一桩威胁此许可的事件所撕开。披露往往是 反应式的、修复形象的。 2 APPLY. The facts fit legitimacy theory almost perfectly: a decade of minimal disclosure, then a sudden surge immediately after a scandal + media + regulator attention - a textbook legitimacy gap being closed. Institutional theory also fires (joining the industry council = mimetic / normative isomorphism - looking like a 'responsible miner' peer). The ESG-in-pay target is a signal, but apply the W5 lens: emissions-intensity is gameable (can fall while total emissions rise), so it is low-sensitivity to the real outcome. APPLY。事实几乎完美拟合合法性理论:十年的最低限度披露,然后在一桩丑闻+媒体 +监管关注之后立即出现突然 激增 -- 一个被弥合的、教科书式的合法性缺口。制度理论也被触发(加入行业理事会 =模仿性/规范性同形 -- 把自 己装扮成‘负责任矿企’的同行)。那项ESG 入薪的目标是一个信号,但套用第5周的透镜:排放强度是可操纵的(可以 在总排放上升时下降),所以它对真实结果低敏感。 3 EVALUATE. The classmate's 'stakeholder-led' reading is weak: stakeholder theory predicts disclosure aimed at powerful groups as ongoing accountability, not a one-off post-scandal spike. The timing and the gameable metric point to symbolic adoption / greenwashing, not substantive change. Boundary condition: it could be substantive if the report carried audited, outcome-based, comparable metrics and the leak triggered genuine operational change - evidence we don't yet have. EVALUATE。那位同学‘利益相关者主导’的读法很弱:利益相关者理论预测的是瞄准有权势群体的、作为持续问责的披 露,而不是一次性的丑闻后骤升。时点和那个可操纵的指标都指向象征性采纳/洗绿,而非实质性改变。边界条件:如 果报告携带了经审计的、基于结果的、可比的指标,且那次泄漏触发了真正的运营改变,它有可能是实质性的 -- 但这 些证据我们还没有。 4 CONCLUDE. The disclosure is best explained by legitimacy theory (supported by institutional isomorphism), and on the available evidence is symbolic rather than substantive. To call it substantive we would need outcome-based, verifiable metrics and real behavioural change - not a reactive report and a gameable pay target. CONCLUDE。该披露最好用合法性理论来解释(由制度同形支持),而就现有证据看是象征性而非实质性的。要称它实 质性,我们需要基于结果的、可验证的指标和真实的行为改变 -- 而不是一份反应式报告和一个可操纵的薪酬目标。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 Name the theory - map the firm's facts onto it - test substantive vs symbolic with the sensitivity / gameability lens - commit to a position. That is the whole W10 essay. 点名理论→ 把企业的事实映射到它上面→用敏感性/可操纵性透镜检验实质对象征→明确表态。这就是整篇第 10 周论文。 ACCT90013 . THE DISCLOSURE-ARGUMENT TEMPLATE ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 GLOSSARY CHAPTER . GLOSSARY 1 EN + 中文 Bilingual glossary - every examinable term 双语术语表 -- 每一个可考术语 English term . X . one-line meaning - grouped by the subject spine 英文术语 · 中文 · 一句话释义 -- 按课程主线分组 A fast reference for the vocabulary ACCT90013 actually examines, ordered by the theory spine - foundations - information economics - EMH / capital markets - measurement - agency / PAT - earnings management - regulation - ESG. The +X column is filled in the bilingual build; for now cover the right-hand meaning and recite the term, then flip and recall the meaning from the term. Over-learn the distinguish pairs - they are tested almost verbatim. 这是 ACCT90013 真正会考的词汇的快速参照表,按理论主干排序 -- 基础→信息经济学→ EMH/资本市场→计量→ 代理 / PAT→ 盈余管理→监管→ESG。中文一栏在双语版里填好;现在先盖住右侧的释义、由术语背出含义,再翻过来 由术语回想含义。把那些区分对子过度学习 -- 它们几乎是被逐字考的。 - Term (EN) 中文 One-line meaning Theory foundations 理论基础 Accounting theory — A coherent set of propositions used to explain & predict (positive) or prescribe (normative) practice. Positive theory — Describes / explains / predicts actual accounting behaviour ("what is"); empirically testable. Normative theory
  • ACCT90014：断言→程序映射 + vouch/trace 方向 + opinion matrix（qualified/adverse/disclaimer）。[18]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfCompleteness trace · search for unrecorded items R& inspect title/contracts; consignment terms Valuation recompute allowance, NRV, impairment Cut-off test transactions either side of year-end Occurrence vouch to source documents Relevant assertions differ by account: receivables -> existence & valuation; payables -> completeness; inventory -> existence, valuation & R&O; cash -> existence & R&O; revenue -> occurrence & cut-off; payroll > occurrence (ghost employees) & accuracy. Exam staple: "which assertion is at risk?" for a described misstatement, then "map a procedure to it. " Each procedure tests a specific assertion - confirmation = existence, search-for-unrecorded = completeness, recalculation = valuation, attend-stocktake = existence + completeness. open-book final . 80% exams . check your current Subject Guide . @ 2026 flip - for side 2 . evidence, sampling, completion & opinions asksia. ai/cheatsheet/ unimelb-acct90014 . side 1/2 AskSia CHEAT SHEET SERIES · 60% Compiled by AskSia . mapped to the ACCT90014 syllabus . asksia. ai/cheatsheet/unimelb-acct90014 · · ACCT90014 Auditing & Assurance Services UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE . POSTGRADUATE EXAM CHEAT SHEET Sem 1 2026 . SIDE 2 OF 2 evidence . cycles . opinions SIDE 2/2 exam answer shape . traps 7 . Audit Evidence ASA 500[26]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdfweak alone - must corroborate Inspection records or physical asset (existence) watch a process; point-in-time only Reperformance redo the control - strong Recalculation redo the numbers - strong Confirmation Analytical relationships vs expectation Confirmation: positive (reply always - reliable) vs negative (reply only if disagree - weak; low-risk small homogeneous balances only). Confirmations can still fail - they may be forged or intercepted (Parmalat). 7c . Vouching vs Tracing DIRECTION = ASSERTION THE DIRECTION RULE VOUCH: record - source doc = tests OCCURRENCE (overstatement) TRACE: source doc - record = tests COMPLETENESS (understatement) Lecturer drills the contrasts: inspect (examine evidence/asset) vs observe (watch process); reperform (redo control) vs recalculate (redo numbers); enquiry (broad) vs confirmation (formal written 3rd-party verify). Data analytics / digital auditing (T5/9/14) - full- population testing, anomaly detection (e. g. KPMG Clara) raises coverage & efficiency but adds over- reliance & evidence-reliability concerns. It supplements, not replaces, professional judgement. 8 · Controls vs Substantive T7-9- CH7-9 · Risk-assessment procedures - understand entity & assess RMM (not enough alone) · Substantive procedures - detect misstatement at assertion level; always required for material classes, balances & disclosures regardless of control reliance Two substantive sub-types: substantive analytical (efficient for large predictable relationships) . tests of details (vouch, trace, confirm, recalculate for high-risk or less-predictable balances).[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Cash - existence/R&O. > bank confirmation, reperform bank rec, cut-off (kiting/window- dressing) Direction of bias matters: revenue tends to be overstated (test occurrence/existence) while payables tend to be understated (test completeness) - match the procedure to the likely error. Real-world hooks the decks cite: Wirecard (€1. 9bn fake cash), Wells Fargo, Tesco rebates, Parmalat (forged confirmations). Melbourne Electronics case (Wk9): the integrated I/S & B/S exercise - apply assertions, materiality & risk and design procedures across accounts. It mirrors the exam/assignment style: a scenario, not recall. Practise writing one full risk -> assertion -> procedure line per material account. 10 . Completion T11 . CH10 Misstatement Qualified Adverse (disagreement) "except for" Disclaimer Pervasive (705. 05): effects not confined to specific items; OR a substantial proportion of the FR; OR fundamental to users' understanding. Basis for [opinion] paragraph goes before the opinion. First take all reasonable steps (alt procedures) - a limit isn't a scope limit if alt evidence is obtainable. Frequency reality: qualified is rare in practice; adverse & disclaimer are very rare. Classic adverse = FR on a going-concern basis but the auditor concludes continuation is highly improbable. Comparatives (710): corresponding figures (opinion on current period) vs comparative reports - used in AU - (opinion on each period). Other info (720): read the annual report for material inconsistencies > Other Matter para if uncorrected. GS 006: electronic publication mustn't imply assurance over unaudited website content. 12 . The Exam Answer THE RUBRIC Shape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time.

• 第 3 轮（仿真输出）

  • 每题都强迫自己写：
    • “这句话把理论/标准扣到题干哪个事实上？”
    • “我的结论是什么？我建议的行动/程序是什么？”[3]Source: unimelb-acct90013-financial-accounting-theory-bible.bi.pdf本科目建立在研究传统之上(Scott; Watts & Zimmerman)。每个主题都是一个谜题(管理者为何 平滑利润?价格为何在公告之前就动?),由一个机制 (激励、信息不对称、市场效率)来解释,并几乎总 有一个竞争理论在旁边投下阴影(高效对机会主义、 信息对计量、股东对利益相关者)。强的答案会把两边 都点名并加以裁断。 ! The mistake that caps theory marks 限制理论题得分的那个错误 Reciting the theory without anchoring it to the scenario. "Adverse selection is hidden information" earns almost nothing on its own. "Here the seller knows the asset is impaired and the buyer does not - that hidden information, pre-deal, is adverse selection" earns the marks. Always map the theory's variables onto the named facts. 背理论却不把它扣到情景上。“逆向选择是隐藏的信 息”单凭这句几乎拿不到分。“这里卖方知道资产已减 值而买方不知道 -- 那个隐藏的、交易前的信息,就 是逆向选择”才拿得到分。永远把理论的变量映射到题 中点名的事实上。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 i How this book was built - and the two-layer rule 本书如何构建 -- 以及双层规则 The standard theory canon (positive vs normative, decision theory, Bayes, information asymmetry, the EMH, agency theory, Positive Accounting Theory) is stated openly - it is universal scholarship in the Scott / Watts-Zimmerman lineage. The lecturer's named cases and example numbers are paraphrased and re-authored; every worked scenario here uses our own invented firms and figures. Framing is Australian (AASB-adopted IFRS; ASIC / AUASB / FRC; CPA Australia & CA ANZ). Book status: the mid-semester test is closed-book (confirmed); the final's book- status is not officially stated - treat it as unknown and check your unit outline / exam timetable on the LMS. 标准理论经典(实证对规范、决策理论、贝叶斯、信息不对称、EMH、代理理论、实证会计理论)是公开陈述的 -- 它 在 Scott/ Watts-Zimmerman 一脉中是通用学术内容。讲师点名的案例和示例数字都经过改写与重新撰写;这里每一 道例题情景都用我们自创的企业与数字。框架是澳大利亚式的(经 AASB 采纳的 IFRS; ASIC / AUASB / FRC; CPA Australia & CA ANZ)。开闭卷状态:期中测验是闭卷(已确认);期末的开闭卷状态未官方说明 -- 把它当作未知,并 在 LMS 上核对你的课程大纲 / 考试时间表。 ACCT90013 · 墨尔本大学 THE BLUEPRINT - THE EXAM BLUEPRINT FINAL 60% . THE BIG ONE 60% in one 3-hour sitting 一场 3 小时考试占 60% MST 15% (closed). Group assignment 15% . Presentation 10% . Final 60% 期中测验 15%(闭卷)· 小组作业 15% · 课堂展示 10% · 期末 60% Your mark is built from four pieces, and one dominates. The final exam is 60% in a single 3-hour individual sitting in the formal exam period - nearly two-thirds of your grade at once. The mid-semester test is the only confirmed closed-book checkpoint; the rest is group work. Plus up to 5 bonus points on the final mark for seminar prep / participation & paper-pitch presentations. 你的成绩由四部分构成,其中一项占主导。期末考试在正式考试周内,是一场3 小时的个人考试,占 60% -- 一次性占据近 三分之二的分数。期中测验是唯一确认的闭卷检查点;其余皆为小组作业。此外,研讨课的预习/参与 & 论文推介展示还能 为最终分数带来最多 5分的加分。 60% FINAL EXAM (3 HR) 期末考试(3小时) 15% MST - CLOSED BOOK, WK 6 期中测验 -- 闭卷,第6周 25% GROUP ASSIGNMENT + PRESENT 小组作业 + 展示 +5 BONUS PARTICIPATION PTS 额外的参与分 The four assessment pieces 四项考核构成 Component Weight[21]Source: asksia-cheatsheet-acct90014.pdf· Cash - existence/R&O. > bank confirmation, reperform bank rec, cut-off (kiting/window- dressing) Direction of bias matters: revenue tends to be overstated (test occurrence/existence) while payables tend to be understated (test completeness) - match the procedure to the likely error. Real-world hooks the decks cite: Wirecard (€1. 9bn fake cash), Wells Fargo, Tesco rebates, Parmalat (forged confirmations). Melbourne Electronics case (Wk9): the integrated I/S & B/S exercise - apply assertions, materiality & risk and design procedures across accounts. It mirrors the exam/assignment style: a scenario, not recall. Practise writing one full risk -> assertion -> procedure line per material account. 10 . Completion T11 . CH10 Misstatement Qualified Adverse (disagreement) "except for" Disclaimer Pervasive (705. 05): effects not confined to specific items; OR a substantial proportion of the FR; OR fundamental to users' understanding. Basis for [opinion] paragraph goes before the opinion. First take all reasonable steps (alt procedures) - a limit isn't a scope limit if alt evidence is obtainable. Frequency reality: qualified is rare in practice; adverse & disclaimer are very rare. Classic adverse = FR on a going-concern basis but the auditor concludes continuation is highly improbable. Comparatives (710): corresponding figures (opinion on current period) vs comparative reports - used in AU - (opinion on each period). Other info (720): read the annual report for material inconsistencies > Other Matter para if uncorrected. GS 006: electronic publication mustn't imply assurance over unaudited website content. 12 . The Exam Answer THE RUBRIC Shape Past students "have been poor at linking the principle to the situation. " Win marks with this skeleton for every scenario: I . C . A . C . R IDENTIFY the issue (threat / assertion / event) CITE the standard / principle / case APPLY it to the specific facts CONCLUDE (e. g. which opinion / liable?) RESPOND - the safeguard / procedure / action The APPLY step earns the marks - generic theory without facts scores low. Use professional scepticism & logical development, "not guesses and leaps of faith. " State your conclusion and the recommended response - markers reward the full chain, not a half- answer. SIA - For a legal/ethics vignette: name the threat/case + apply to facts - conclude - recommend the safeguard. For a reporting vignette: cause - material? - pervasive? ++ opinion. For a risk vignette: fact - IR/CR - RMM - DR - procedure. Same shape every time.

你回我 3 个信息，我就能给你做“按天排的 final 冲刺计划”

• 你的 final 是哪一天（具体日期）？

• 你两门课里最怕的 3 块分别是什么？（比如：90013 的 Bayes/EMH/PAT；90014 的 assertions/opinions/evidence）

• 你更想要：

  • A）我给你“可直接背的答题句模板”，还是
  • B）你贴 1-2 道题（或情景），我按 rubric 帮你改成高分答案骨架？

• （可选）如果你想，我也能把你“最怕的三块 + 你的易错点”记住，之后复习我就自动按这个优先级带你。