Bendigo Pottery Ltd is a wholesale distributor of hand-made glazed garden pots to retail stores. All garden pots are identical. Details for January 2020 are shown below.

Additional information:

1. Freight costs from the supplier to the Bendigo Pottery Ltd.’s warehouse is $4 for each garden pot.
2. One hundred and eighty (180) of the garden pots on hand at 31 January have imperfections in the glazing and can only be sold for $30 each after handling and repackaging of $10 for each pot.
3. The latest selling price of the garden pots is $84 each.
4. Bendigo Pottery Ltd prepares monthly reports and applies the periodic (physical) and the weighted average cost (WAC) method.

Required:

1. Briefly explain why Bendigo Pottery Ltd uses the weighted average cost flow method for its glazed garden pots.

2. Calculate the value of total closing inventory at 31 January 2020 as provided for in AASB 102. Justify all assumptions and calculations.

3. Prepare the general journal entry at 31 January 2020 for any inventory write down.

The following events occurred in independent cases, but in each instance, the event happened after the close of the fiscal year under the audit but before the financial statements were authorised for the issue, which is also the audit report date. For each case, state what impact, if any, you would expect on the financial statements (and notes). The balance sheet in each instance is December 31, 2019.

Case1. On December 31, the commodities handled by the company had been traded on the open market for $1.40 per kilogram. this price had prevailed for two weeks, following an official market report that predicted vastly enlarged supplies; however, no purchases were made $1.40. The price throughout the preceding year, and several prior years, had been about $2. On January 18, 2020, the price returned to $2, following disclosure of an error in the official calculations of the prior December- correction of which destroyed the expectation of excessive supplies. Inventory at December 31, 2019, had been valued on a LCNRN (lower of cost and net realizable value) basis, using the prevailing price known at that time, $1.40.

Case 2. On February 1, 2020, the board of directors adopted a resolution accepting an investment banker’s offer to guarantee the marketing of $100 million of preferred shares.

Case3. On January 22, 2020, one of the auditee’s three major plants burned down, a $50 million loss that was covered to $40 million by insurance.

The Role of Information Technology in Health Care reading outlines a number of different forms of technology. Write a 2 page review of the types of technology in healthcare. Be sure name the technology and how it is intended to improve care and (or) workflow.

Virtual Reality

• What is the basic purpose of this technology?
• In what types of mobile applications can this technology be effectively used and why?
• What are the pros and cons of this technology?
• Are there any other important aspects of this technology that should be provided?

Digital Currency What is the basic purpose of this technology? In what types of mobile applications can this technology be effectively used and why? What are the pros and cons of this technology? Are there any other important aspects of this technology that should be provided?

King Fisher Aviation is considering an investment in a new technology for a drone project with a price of $16 million. Their current technology has a book value of $5 million and a market value of $5 million. The new technology is expected to have a five (5) year life, and the old technology has three (3) years left in which it can be expected to be used. If the firm replaces the old technology with the new technology it expects to save $5.7 million in operating costs each year over the next four years. If the firm purchases the new technology, it will also need an investment of $300,000 in net working capital. The required return on the investment is 12 percent, and the tax rate is 39 percent.

What are your recommendations for investment in the new technology?

King Fisher Aviation is considering an investment in a new technology for a drone project with a price of $16 million. Their current technology has a book value of $5 million and a market value of $5 million. The new technology is expected to have a five (5) year life, and the old technology has three (3) years left in which it can be expected to be used. If the firm replaces the old technology with the new technology it expects to save $5.7 million in operating costs each year over the next four years. If the firm purchases the new technology, it will also need an investment of $300,000 in net working capital. The required return on the investment is 12 percent, and the tax rate is 39 percent. What are the NPV and IRR of the decision to replace the old technology?

1. Solve the following questions.

a) Suppose Rosie's mum is considering purchasing a financial asset that promises to pay $2,500 per year for six years, with the first payment one year from now. The required return is 11% per year. How much should Rosie's mum pay for this asset?

b) For the year 2000, Coca-Cola Company, recorded net sales of $7,368 million. For 2010, Coca-Cola recorded net sales of $11,245 million. Over the ten-year period from the end of fiscal year 2000 to the end of 2010, What is the Coca-Cola's growth rate?

c) Leo is planning to purchase a home for $550,000 in Charleston, SC. He intends making a down payment of $50,000 and borrowing the remaining amount with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage with monthly payments. The first payment is due a month from now. The current mortgage rates are quoted at 4% per year with a monthly compounding. How much would Leo's monthly mortgage payment be?

d) Clementine is the lucky winner of the Georgia lottery of $50 million after taxes. He invests his winnings in a 10-year certificate of deposit (CD) at the Lawrenceville Credit Union. The CD promises to pay 6% per year, compounded quarterly. The credit union allows investors to reinvest the interest at that rate for the duration of the CD. How much will Clementine have at the end of ten years if his money remains invested at 6% for ten years with no withdrawals?

e) Caillou is interested in determining how long it will take an investment of $20,000 to double. The current interest rate is an interest rate of 10%?

Iceland has no minimum wage. Instead, employers negotiate salaries with collective groups or unions who represent the employees. You must be 18 to work full-time in Iceland. However, mandatory school ends at age 16 and teen workers between the ages of 15 and 18 are highly unemployed. Salaries are high in Iceland because of the small population, universal health care, the high cost of living, and the fact that 88% of the population lives in and around the capital, Reykjavik. Still it is one of the poorest countries in Europe. Youth unemployment is extremely high. Josh has discovered that if he hires young people between the ages of (15-18) part-time or no more than 40 hours a week, he can negotiate a much lower salary. The average salary amounts to $12.50 an hour.. Josh staffs young people exclusively and lets them go before they reach the age of 19. Two recent lay-offs has brought this practice to the attention of the staff who feel the practice is not ethical. The workers feel Josh is trying to use the system to avoid paying the workers a decent wage or to gain full time employment. If Josh does not settle this issue quickly, because the workers will go back to the Collective to ask for higher wages and a guarantee of work after they turn 19. Worse yet, if Jolly Jump’s US teens get wind of the hourly salary difference, they may very well come to expect a large raise.

Are Josh’s employment practices unethical?

Would his actions be considered unethical in the United States?

Discuss the ethics of doing business in another country and cultural relativism.

please paraphrase the following in your own words;

1. Sustainability reporting policy: Shell first voluntarily reported sustainability starting the year 1997 before others were practically forced. The reports on sustainability in line with the guidelines of GRI G3 and IPIECA. On the GRI reporting scale, the corporation is considered an A+ level on a scale of six grades going from C to A+. It means Shell reports on specific core and sector-related indicators and it also provides management disclosure together with explanations for indicators not calculated. GRI is an independent network-based sustainability reporting framework that was established in 1997 by a not-for-profit organization called CERES (Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies) in partnership with UN’s Environment Programme. Shell is an organizational stakeholder, in other words, a member whose rights include election of members of the Board of Directors or the Stakeholder Council. Shell is also a member of IPIECA, who together with OGP (International Association of Oil and Gas Producers) and API (American Petroleum Institute) formulated the oil and gas industry’s sustainability reporting framework called the IPIECA standards. According to Shell, they are collaborating with GRI in further developing the sector specific indicators for the oil and gas industry. While this initiative is admirable, it raises a question of how objective the company can be in designing indicators that will be used to measure its own sustainability engagement. In addition to the guidelines followed, the annual Sustainability report is audited by an external reviewing committee. This has been done for the past six years in order to ensure transparency. The committee, whose members are changed every year, are experts in fields, such as environmental, conservation, sustainability or ethics. Their job is to assess the ‘content and the process of producing the Sustainability report’, not to verify its accuracy. Although this practice is good, the extension of duties of the external reviewing committee is not sufficient. On one hand, the efforts of alignment to several reporting standards place Shell in a favorable light. On the other hand, the fact that it is voting member in some makes the effort to seem less objective. In addition, the reporting standards of GRI and IPIECA come with three major faults: ‘there is no minimum reporting standard’; companies do not report on targets; and ‘they do not provide a vision’ and a plan for dealing with energy and other concerns in the future.

3. Investment in sustainable research initiatives: The investment in sustainable research is not calculated separately from the total R&D (Research & Development) expense. It amounted to $1.0 billion in 2010. However, Shell highlights that $2.1 billion has been spent on sustainable research (developing alternative energies and CCS) in the past five years. This means that Shell invested 5% of its net income of 2010 in R&D. Over the past 5 years, sustainable research represented 2% of its total net income of $117.89 billion from 2006-2010. Although there is no guideline on how much a company such as Shell should invest in research or sustainable research, there should be a clear report that includes all sustainable research initiatives and the resources allocated to them. 4. Partnerships and alliances in research for sustainable innovations Shell is involved in partnerships with different scientific institutions and companies for the development of alternative energy technologies and sustainable solutions for the future. For instance, Shell has contributed $25 million to a 5-year research project at the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in 2010. The research looks into nanotechnology, biofuels, and CO2 management. In addition, Shell was one of the first energy companies to have invested in biofuel research. Given this, it dedicates a lot of time and money in research for more efficient biofuels, such as biofuels from non-edible crops and crop waste. For example, Shell partnered with the Canadian biotechnology company Iogen Energy for the development of a technology that uses enzymes to break down cellulose and turns it to ethanol. It also has another partnership regarding enzymes and ethanol with the American corporation Codexis. In this case, the enzymes are destined for the faster conversion of non-edible crops or plant waste to ethanol and similar chemical components. Another partnership in the US is with Virent. Shell and Virent work together on a technology that transforms sugars directly into fuels. Shell also invests in CCS research since it believes it is one of the main ways of reducing CO2 emissions into the future. According to IEA (International Energy Agency) it is estimated that the rapid development of CCS technologies up to 2020, might lead to a reduction of up to 19% of CO2 emissions by 2050. On one hand, Shell contribution to such research is important and its usage will have a positive impact on the environment. But on the other hand, some environmentalists might argue that developing CCS technologies will lead to an incentive to emit more CO2 with the hopes of capturing it later. As an observation, most research is done in North America. Shell should try to balance the placement of research with the location of its most important operations. In this way, it would be able to share the benefits with the community, while utilizing its resources. It is also important to note that Shell sold its interest in a joint-venture designed to research technologies that convert algae into biofuel. The reason for this is that the corporation wants to focus on other biofuel research that better fits their strategy and vision. Algae are considered to be one of the main prime materials for biofuels of the future. There is a sense of high hopes in the research community regarding its potential, thus many alike companies invest in algae research projects. The corporation’s decision is unpleasantly surprising. Although Shell has research projects in other biofuel materials, this could be seen as a step back on the path of sustainability. In our view, the corporation should invest even more in algae research, because of its potential to improve our future. We believe they made a compromise between medium and long-term interests.

5. Number of patents in sustainable innovations: Like any other large corporation that invests billion of dollars in R&D, Shell holds my patents worldwide. However, it does not make any reference to patents in its Sustainability report for 2010. Research on the corporate website, led to the conclusion that there is no global account of the patents held. In our view, it is understandable that the company does not aggregate at global level its patent holdings, since the size of the company and everyday activities would make this process challenging. However, we also find it concerning that Shell does not refer to any patents, more or less sustainable in its Sustainability report, which is a document that should contain a company’s most important sustainable achievements. Due to this, in our view, we believe the number of patents for sustainable innovations to be small relative to all patents held. One of the latest and most important patents is owned by Shell Oil, the American subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell Plc. The patent is for the invention of a new catalyst that removes sulfur from oil and gas, thus making the fuel less harmful for the environment. Although it is a beneficial invention, some environmentalists might argue that this technology would only decrease CO2 emissions while promoting the use of even more fossil fuel. Thus, more investments and patents are needed in renewable energies, rather than improvement of non-renewables.

6. Long-term energy plan The long-term energy plan includes a mix of cleaner non-renewables and renewables. Unfortunately, the focus is on producing more of the former, not the latter. This is because it is estimated that the energy demand will go up as more countries continue to develop.

According to some agencies, most of the energy will be provided from non-renewable sources, namely fossil fuels. Thus, Shell’s strategic energy plan resonates in accordance with this expectation. For instance, deep water extraction of oil and gas ‘will remain crucial’ to Shell. In addition, the natural gas production will be gradually increased, since it is the cleanest fossil fuel. Burning natural gas produces 50-70% less CO2 emissions than a coal plant. In addition, if this is combined with CCS technologies, then CO2 emissions fall by 90% when compared to coal. By 2012, natural gas will account for 50% of Shell’s total energy output. Moreover, it is estimated that the supplies of natural gas are abundant, meaning that they can be exploited at the current rate for another 250 years. To sum up, the long term-energy plan is a mix of the following: natural gas, deep water extractions, advanced biofuels, CCS projects, and improved energy efficiency of own operations. It is worrying that there is no reference made to renewable sources of energy, such as wind or solar power. Although renewables are a part of the strategy, their proportion is very small, making their impact almost negligible. In other view, the corporation’s energy plan for the future resumes to producing cleaner fossil fuel rather than clean energies. So, they are tacking sustainability by exploiting more non-renewables. Although, it is much cleaner, in our eyes, this approach only contributes to the global problems.