In: Accounting
Problem 3:
Google Apple’s Income Statements for 2016 and 2015. Note that Apple’s financial year ends on the last working day in September. Also google their Balance Sheets for 2016, 2015, and 2014. We suggest you use the www.nasdaq.com website, which provides all the statements you need—when you click on “Income Statement”, the balance sheet can also be accessed. Now calculate the company’s average collection period for 2016 and 2015, rounding up to the nearest day. (Note the balances in the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts were immaterial and may be ignored.) Apple offers its customers (primarily retailers) terms of net/30. Analyse Apple’s average collection period. Apple is not subject to GST.
If the balances in the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts had been material, how would that have affected your analysis in 1) above?
ans 1 | ||||
Assuming allowance for doubtful accounts are immaterial and ignored. Hence | ||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||
Accounts Receivable | 15807 | 16931 | 17546 | |
(15754+53) | (16849+82) | (17460+86) | ||
Average Accounts receivable | 16369 | 17238.5 | ||
(15807+16931)/2 | (16931+17546)/2 | |||
Net sales | 215639 | 233715 | ||
Average collection period | ||||
Average Accounts receivable/NEt sales*365 | 28 | 27 | ||
(16369/215639)*365 | ||||
The average collection period is within 30 days which shows that the customer | ||||
pay on time. The average collection period increased from 2015 to 2016 from one day. | ||||
But still it is within the control limits. Hence company is doung well in collecting | ||||
cash from its cutomers | ||||
ans 2 | ||||
Assuming allowance for doubtful accounts were material than average collection | ||||
period would have been more. But in case of apple it is not material | ||||
2016 | 2015 | 2014 | ||
Accounts Receivable | 15754 | 16849 | 17460 | |
Average Accounts receivable | 16301.5 | 17154.5 | ||
Net sales | 215639 | 233715 | ||
Average collection period | ||||
Average Accounts receivable/NEt sales*365 | 28 | 27 | ||
(16369/215639)*365 |