Questions
(a)Based on MFRS 101 Presentation of Financial Statements, state FOUR (4) criteria where a liability should...

(a)Based on MFRS 101 Presentation of Financial Statements, state FOUR (4) criteria where a liability should be classified as a current liability?

(b)Usaha Jaya Bhd has a RM50,000 short-term obligation due on 1 March 2020. The Manager discussed with its lender to extend the payment to 1 March 2022. The company’s reporting date is on 31 December 2019 and the financial statements are authorised for issuance on 1 April 2020.

     REQUIRED:

Discuss how the date of the agreement signed to extend the loan terms of the obligation’s maturity from 1 February 2020, to 1 March 2022 affected the classification of said obligation as current liability or non-current liability.

(c)Sintok Electrical Bhd provides a 2-year warranty for its stand fan. The fan was first sold in 2019 in which the company spent RM30,000 servicing warranty claims. At year-end, Sintok Electrical Bhd estimates that an additional RM50,000 will be spent in the future to service warranty claims related to 2019 sales.

REQUIRED:

Prepare Sintok Electrical Bhd’s related journal entries for 2019. (Assume the company’s financial year ends 31 December).

In: Accounting

The pretax financial income of Sweet Company differs from its taxable income throughout each of 4...

The pretax financial income of Sweet Company differs from its taxable income throughout each of 4 years as follows.

Year

Pretax
Financial Income

Taxable Income

Tax Rate
2020 $277,000 $184,000 35 %
2021 291,000 233,000 20 %
2022 336,000 272,000 20 %
2023 402,000 560,000 20 %


Pretax financial income for each year includes a nondeductible expense of $32,900 (never deductible for tax purposes). The remainder of the difference between pretax financial income and taxable income in each period is due to one depreciation temporary difference. No deferred income taxes existed at the beginning of 2020.

Part 1

Prepare journal entries to record income taxes in all 4 years. Assume that the change in the tax rate to 20% was not enacted until the beginning of 2021. (Credit account titles are automatically indented when amount is entered. Do not indent manually. If no entry is required, select "No Entry" for the account titles and enter 0 for the amounts.)

Date

Account Titles and Explanation

Debit

Credit

2020

2021
(To record the adjustment for the decrease in the enacted tax rate.)
(To record income taxes for 2021.)

2022

2023

In: Accounting

On 30 April 2020 Chen & Chan Ltd had a cash balance as per company records...

On 30 April 2020 Chen & Chan Ltd had a cash balance as per company records of $5,644.50 debit. The bank statement from Brisbane Bank on that date showed a credit balance of $7,825.35. A comparison of the statement with the cash account revealed the following facts:

  1. The bank statement included a debit entry of $60 for bank fees.
  2. Unpresented cheques at 30 April totalled $1,276.25, and outstanding deposits were $795.40.
  3. Included with the cheques paid was a cheque issued by Smith Pty Ltd to R. Thomas for $600 that was incorrectly charged to Chen and Chan Ltd by the bank.
  4. A $3,000 note receivable was collected by the bank for Chen & Chan Ltd on 30 April plus $80 interest. The bank charged a collection fee of $20. No interest has been accrued on the note.
  5. On 30 April the bank statement showed a dishonoured cheque of $700 that had been issued by C. Rogers, a customer to Chen & Chan Ltd.

Required:

  1. Prepare the bank reconciliation for Chen & Chan Ltd as at 30 April 2020.
  2. Prepare the necessary adjusting entries for Chen & Chan Ltd as at 30 April 2020.
  3. Narrations are not required.

In: Accounting

True or false: If false explain. 1. The Jordan company applies manufactory overhead based on direct...

True or false: If false explain.

1. The Jordan company applies manufactory overhead based on direct labor hours. Current and budgeted information related to direct labor and overhead for 2020 are listed below for indirect manufacturing costs.
Budget: Direct labor hours 300,000 Manufactory overhead 360,000

Actual results: DL 380,000 Manufactory Overhead 350,000

So, the cost are underapplied for $20,000. Answer: ???

2. Audi Company's indirect manufacturing costs were over applied by 27,000 in 2020. In that year, a total manufactory overhead of 508,000 had been budgeted and manufactury overhead of 496,000 was applied. The overhead that was currently incurred in 2020 is 469,000. Answer: ???

3. The process of allocating costs to a particular production, order, or service to a customer is known as job costing. Answer: ???

4. The debit from the manufacturing overhead account will reflect Actual costs of direct labor accounts and indirect manufacturing costs. Answer:???

5. Assuming that the normal costing system is used and is based on direct labor, the application rate for indirect manufacturing costs could be calculated by dividing: Budgeted manufacturing overhead between current direct labor hours. Answer: ???

In: Accounting

“Diamond Company” is preparing a budget for the first quarter of year 2020. The following information...

“Diamond Company” is preparing a budget for the first quarter of year 2020. The following information is available:

  • Total expected sales for last two months of 2019 and four months of 2020 are (in 000’s LE)

    November

    December

    January

    February

    March

    April

    Sales

    200

    200

    160

    160

    180

    150
  • All sales are on credit and collections from sales are 60% in the month of sales, 30% in the next month, and 10% in the following month.
  • Cost of goods sold is 70% of sales.
  • The desired ending inventory every month is 30% of the next month's cost of goods sold.
  • It is expected that ending inventory of December, 2019, will be valued at LE 33 600.
  • All purchases are paid in the month of purchases.
  • All cash operating expenses are paid when incurred and the following are the budgeted expenses per month:

  • Wages LE 31 000, Advertising LE 5 000, Depreciation LE 16 000, Rent 12 000.

  • It is planned to pay, for other cash operating expenses, the amount of LE 16 000 in January and LE 43 800 in February 2020.required : prepare cash pudget

In: Accounting

People tend to evaluate the quality of their lives relative to others around them. In a...

People tend to evaluate the quality of their lives relative to others around them. In a demonstration of this phenomenon, Frieswijk, Buunk, Steverink, and Slaets (2004) conducted fictitious interviews with frail elderly people. In the interview, each person was compared with others who were worse off. After the interviews, the elderly people reported more satisfaction with their own lives (the hypothetical data are reported below). The scores are measures on a life satisfaction scale for a sample of n = 9 elderly people who completed the interview are: 18, 23, 24, 22, 19, 27, 23, 26, 25.

Assume that the average score on this scale is m= 20. Are the data sufficient to conclude that the people in this sample are significantly more satisfied than others in the general population? Use a = .05.

In: Statistics and Probability

1. What are the implications of requiring the auditor to seek reappointment on an annual basis?...

1. What are the implications of requiring the auditor to seek reappointment on an annual basis?
2. An auditor of a limited company has to remain independent from the directors of that company yet the directors represent the auditor’s client for most practical purposes. Discuss this potential conflict.
3. How might Audit Committees help to enhance the independence of statutory auditors?
4. a) What are the main reasons that the auditing profession is regulated?
b) Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the main options available for regulation of statutory auditors
5.​Compare and contrast the regulatory approach to the regulation of statutory auditor independence in the UK and US.
​Which approach do you prefer and why?

In: Accounting

Suppose your selected company(choose one of the two) just paid a dividend of $ 2.20 per...

Suppose your selected company(choose one of the two) just paid a dividend of $ 2.20 per share. The dividend are to calculate the share's expected return. You observe that the risk-free rate of return on us treasuries is 2% p.a, the market risk premium is 7 % and the company's equity has a current beta of 1.285. what is the market value of the company's shares? Compare the actual closing price of your selected company's share on the balance sheet date. Why might the actual share price differ from the calculated price? explain. I choose Woolworth ltd in australia and the other company is Wesfarmers Ltd

In: Finance

First, read the attached article. What’s worse: monopoly power or government intervention? Politicians of all stripes...

First, read the attached article.

What’s worse: monopoly power or government
intervention?
Politicians of all stripes increasingly agree with Karl Marx on one point –
that monopolies are an inevitable consequence of free-market
capitalism, and must be broken up. Are they right? Stuart Watkins isn’t
so sure.
by: Stuart Watkins
1 OCT 2020
MoneyWeek
Free markets left to themselves in a capitalist context are great at producing wealth, but will
inevitably tend to concentrate that wealth in ever fewer hands, leading to increasing inequalities
of income, power and wealth, and undermining the benefits that might be supposed to flow to
consumers, such as cheaper prices. The logic inherent in market exchange must, in other words,
progressively undermine the very qualities that the champions of the market promise they will
deliver.
This, at least, was the view of Karl Marx. Perhaps surprisingly, it is also the mainstream view
today. It is not all that easy to find a mainstream commentator, economist, think-tanker or
policymaker who will raise a squeak of protest against the idea. All the main political parties –
particularly in the US, where the problem is deemed to be particularly acute – agree that
something must be done to curb the rise of the monopolies, namely that the state should step in
and break them up, or at least restrain them.
Indeed, “Market Power, Inequality and Financial Instability” – a new paper by Federal Reserve
Board economists Isabel Cairo and Jae Sim – argues that the concentration of market power in a
handful of companies, and the resulting decline in competition, explains the deepening of
inequality and financial instability in the US, as Craig Torres reports on Bloomberg. They blame
the rising market power of big companies for the decline in the share of wealth that goes to
workers, the rise in inequalities of wealth and income, and the growing debt burden. The authors
call for policies that will redistribute wealth to the poor, perhaps by gradually raising the tax on
dividend income from zero to 30%. They suggest that such policies might help to slow the rise of
inequality and the growth in debt, and make financial crises less likely.
The paper is just the latest voice in a rising chorus. Towards the end of last year, The Great
Reversal, a book by economist Thomas Philippon, presented a detailed empirical analysis of the
question and argued that America can no longer be considered a free-market economy in any real sense. As well as confirming that the trends already sketched are indeed in play, he concludes
that the main explanation is political – namely, that politicians have not enforced competition
policy as they should, thanks in part to lobbying and campaign contributions. The result, to quote
just one example, is that the price of broadband access in the US is roughly double that of
comparable countries, leading to predictably higher profits.
The year before Philippon’s book, a similar one by Jonathan Tepper and Denise Hearn (The
Myth of Capitalism) made the same point. “I realised that particularly in the US, which is
probably the most advanced in this trend, you’re seeing more and more industrial concentration,”
he said in an interview with MoneyWeek at the time of publication. That gives companies
pricing power over consumers, more power over workers as they don’t have to bid against rivals
for their labour, and power over suppliers. The result is that a small number of huge companies
are capturing very high profit margins. Tepper, too, blames lax enforcement of competition laws
for the problem.
The problem may be about to get worse. The response of governments to the coronavirus
pandemic has led to a huge economic crisis, and their response to what they have caused is to
throw money at it. The combined effect will be to push smaller firms out of business, quenching
the fires of creative destruction, and for the well-connected, better organised larger companies to
obtain all the government cash and bolster their already dominant position. Low interest rates
may also contribute, as bigger companies are in a better position to get hold of cheap credit and
invest it in expansion. If rising concentration and monopolies are a problem, it’s one that seems
set to get worse.
The case for the defense
Are Marx and his mainstream followers correct? The answer, as ever, is – it’s complicated. A
sounder tradition in economics would lead us to be cautious about the claims from first
principles. As Edmond Bradley, a writer for the Mises Institute, put it back when Microsoft was
the monopolistic bogeyman in the early 2000s, “the fear of industrial concentration is the last
refuge of socialist theory” and the idea that governments must step in to save us from it is
“wildly incorrect”. A company operating in a market economy might look like a monopoly
“under myopically static analysis”, but a broader and historical view will reveal that even very
large, dominant companies face intense competitive pressure – whether from the fear of potential
competition from new entrants eyeing their high profits; or from competitors offering products
and services of a different but nevertheless substitutable kind; or from losing customers
altogether, should they decide they’d rather do without what is being offered.
And if that’s what first principles tell us, there are plenty of reasons to be sceptical about what
the real-world data are showing, too. A roundtable discussion of the subject by experts, hosted by
the OECD group of wealthy nations in 2018, concluded that although market power did indeed
appear to be rising in many countries, the causes were unclear. It might reflect a reduction in
competitive intensity, but it might equally be the outcome of intense competition. If the causes
are unclear, then there’s no way to be confident about what the correct policy response should
be.
In any case, the rise in industrial concentration may not be all it appears to be. As a 2019 paper
by Alessandra Bonfiglioli, Rosario Crinò and Gino Gancia for the Centre for Economic Policy
Research notes, all the existing evidence for the increase in industrial concentration and the fear
that this will usher in a new era of monopolies has been based on national data. They find that when competition from foreign imports is included, the overall level of competition may in fact
have intensified rather than fallen – even if the number of firms from the home country entering
the market falls. So increased global competition and greater national concentration may be two
sides of the same coin – “growing global competition may force unproductive firms to exit and
top firms to consolidate on their best products”.
Is monopoly such a bad thing anyway?
Amazon is one of the companies charged with unfairly exploiting its dominant position to crush
competition and hence harm customers. Indeed, its boss, Jeff Bezos, was recently dragged before
the US Congress and had to defend his firm from hostile questioning. But if Amazon is a
monopoly, then the first question that arises is, is that such a bad thing? Amazon started out as an
idea in Bezos’s mind, which he put into action using money he raised himself from family and
investors, working from his basement and carrying parcels to the post office. It was, from the
beginning, a high-risk venture, deemed by most to be almost certain to fail. Yet by consistently
offering consumers what they didn’t know they wanted, and winning their approval and then
loyalty, Amazon rose above its competitors by sheer excellence. It’s not as if its customers have
been forced into anything.
Moreover, even in its current dominant position, Amazon faces plenty of intense competition. As
Bezos pointed out in his testimony to Congress, customer trust is hard to win and easy to lose.
Amazon’s globe-spanning dominance would end very quickly should that trust disappear. There
are plenty of competitors snapping at its heels. Amazon accounts for less than 1% of the $25trn
global retail market, according to Bezos, and less than 4% of retail in the US. There are more
than 80 retailers in the US alone that earn more than $1bn in annual revenue – that includes
Walmart, which is more than twice Amazon’s size and whose online sales grew 74% in the first
quarter. In the wake of the pandemic, plenty of other companies are competing with Amazon in
the race for online orders for goods, including Shopify and Instacart.
The briefest review of relatively recent history should be enough to show that large companies of
the kind that draw fire from those concerned about monopolies are in reality always in danger of
having their profits competed away at any moment – witness Kodak and Myspace, to take just
two commonly cited examples. As those economists who most consistently defend free markets
insist, monopolies are only ever really a threat, not as a result of companies operating in free
markets, but as a result of government interference – particularly, in our day, as a result of
money printing and ultra-low interest rates. What is needed, then, is not more government
interference to solve the problems they have created, but less. In this sense, the rising threat of
monopoly as a result of the coronavirus pandemic is a clue to the real source of the problem.

QUESTIONS: What do you think of the article? Do you think the author's examples of monopolies are actually that? Is there such a thing as "excess profits"? Are the firms mentioned truly monopolies, in that they are the ONLY providers for that good or service? Do we need more regulation, or less? Why?

In: Economics

1. interview objectives include all of the following except a) determining a reasonable pay level for...

1. interview objectives include all of the following except
a) determining a reasonable pay level for the candidate
b) providing candidates with information about the job and expected duties and responsibilities
c) determining how well tahe applicants would fit into the organization
d) assessing applicants qualification and observing relevant aspects of applicants behaviour

2. which of the following is an example of a situational interview question?
a) if you had a fellow programmer who was supposed to be working with you on a collaborative project but would not respond to your emails, what would you do?
b) describe your computer programming skills
c) in the past, what starategies you have used to keep organized?
d) what are your key strengths?

3. key advantages of a panel interview include all of the following except
a) an increased likehood that the information provided will be heard and recorded accurately
b) varied questions pertaining to each interviewres area of expertise
c) that they are generally considered less effective than one-on-one interviews
d) a reduced likehood of human rights/employment equity violations since an HR representatives is usually on the panel

4.which of the following is not a common interviewing mistake
a) poor planning
b) too large a panel
c) poor knowledge of the job
d) snap judgments

5. research has indicated that atleast one-third of job applicats lie in their job application/resume and/ or interview. reference checks are therefore helpful to confirm which of the following?
a) reason for leaving previous employment, dates of employment, and previous job title
b) reasons for leaving previous employment m, previous job titles, and any disabilities
c) previous job titles, salary, dates of employment, and age
d) the applicats fit with the prospective job, previous job, previous employment and marital status

In: Accounting