publicly traded company 3 customers 27% 74% revenue 2004 2005 2006 questions

Questions

Retail Co. reported the balance sheet for fiscal year 2015 as follows. Retail Co. Balance Sheet...

Retail Co. reported the balance sheet for fiscal year 2015 as follows.

Retail Co.
Balance Sheet
December 31, 2015
Cash	18,600
Accounts Receivable	33,000
Notes Receivable	10,000
Interest Receivable	600
Merchandise Inventory	22,000
Prepaid Insurance	4,500
Total Current Assets	88,700

Computer Systems:
At Cost	78,000
Less Accumulated Depreciation	(26,000)
Net Computer System	52,000
Total Assets	140,700

LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY
Accounts Payable	36,000
Dividends Payable	1,800
Salaries Payable	6,500
Taxes Payable	10,000
Unearned Revenue	600
Total Liabilities	54,900

Common Stock	40,000
Retained Earnings	45,800
Total Shareholders' Equity	85,800
Total Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity	140,700

Part I: Journal Entries and T-accounts

Required: Prepare Journal Entries for the below transactions occurred during fiscal year 2016. Also, post each transaction to T-accounts and prepare income staement.

a)The insurance policy cost $6,000 when the company paid the two-year insurance premium on June 30, 2015. As of December 31, 2016, the company must record the adjusting entries for fiscal year 2016 (Note that company has made adjusting entries for fiscal year 2015 and thus has a debit balance of prepaid insurance in 2015 balance sheet.b)During 2016, the company declared $6,000 of dividends, of which the firm paid $3,000 in cash to shareholders during 2016 and will pay the remainder during 2017. c)Early in 2016, the company also paid dividends of $1,800 cash that the company declared during 2015. (Note that company has a credit balance of dividend payable in 2015 balance sheet)d)On July 1, 2015, the company lent Appleton Co., $10,000 cash on a nine-month, $900 interest-bearing, note receivable. This transaction and accompanying adjusting entries were recorded at the end of 2015. On April 1, 2016, the company received $10,900 cash from Appleton Co., in full settlement of Appleton’s nine-month note. (Hint: First, calculate interest income to be realized in 2016. Also, account for remaining balances of notes receivable and interest receivable in 2015 balance sheet)e)The company purchased delivery trucks on March 1, 2016. To finance the acquisition, it gave the seller a $60,000 four-year note that bears interest of 10% per year. (Hint: Use Trucks and Notes Payable accounts)f)The company must pay interest on the note each six months ($3,000 = $60,000*10%*6/12), beginning September 1, 2016. The company made payment on this date.g)As of December 31, 2016, the company must record the adjusting entries for interest on the note as follows.h)At the end of 2016, the company depreciates the delivery trucks by $10,000.i)The computer systems are depreciated by $13,000 per yearj)The company shipped all the merchandise to customers, for which the customer had already paid in 2015 ($600).k)In 2016, the company received $1,400 from in advance paying customers for merchandise to be shipped in 2017 l)The company collected $208,600 on account from its customers m)During 2016, the company paid $115,000 on accounts payable to merchandise suppliers.n)The company paid $85,000 in cash to employees during 2016. Of this amount, $6,500 related to services that employees performed during 2015, and $4,000 related to services that employees will perform during 2017. Employees performed the remainder of the service during 2016.o)On December 31, 2016, the company owes employees $1,300 for services performed during the last several days of 2016.p)The company paid $27,000 in cash for income taxes in April 2016. Of this amount, $10,000 relates to income taxes applicable to 2015, and $3,000 relates to income taxes applicable to 2017. The remainder of payment is applicable to 2016.q)On December 31, 2016, the company learned that it owes additional $4,000 in income taxes, which will be paid off in next year.

In: Accounting

Three different companies each purchased trucks on January 1, Year 1, for $60,000. Each truck was...

Three different companies each purchased trucks on January 1, Year 1, for $60,000. Each truck was expected to last four years or 250,000 miles. Salvage value was estimated to be $5,000. All three trucks were driven 79,000 miles in Year 1, 47,000 miles in Year 2, 51,000 miles in Year 3, and 74,000 miles in Year 4. Each of the three companies earned $49,000 of cash revenue during each of the four years. Company A uses straight-line depreciation, company B uses double-declining-balance depreciation, and company C uses units-of-production depreciation.

Answer each of the following questions. Ignore the effects of income taxes.

Required

a-1. Calculate the net income for Year 1.
a-2. Which company will report the highest amount of net income for Year 1?
b-1. Calculate the net income for Year 4.
b-2. Which company will report the lowest amount of net income for Year 4?
c-1. Calculate the book value on the December 31, Year 3, balance sheet.
c-2. Which company will report the highest book value on the December 31, Year 3, balance sheet?
d-1. Calculate the retained earnings on the December 31, Year 4, balance sheet.
d-2. Which company will report the highest amount of retained earnings on the December 31, Year 4, balance sheet?

e. Which company will report the lowest amount of cash flow from operating activities on the Year 3 statement of cash flows?

In: Finance

Three different companies each purchased trucks on January 1, Year 1, for $72,000. Each truck was expected to last four years or 200,000 miles.

Three different companies each purchased trucks on January 1, Year 1, for $72,000. Each truck was expected to last four years or 200,000 miles. Salvage value was estimated to be $7,000. All three trucks were driven 67,000 miles in Year 1, 42,000 miles in Year 2, 40,000 miles in Year 3, and 62,000 miles in Year 4. Each of the three companies earned $61,000 of cash revenue during each of the four years. Company A uses straight-line depreciation, company B uses double-declining-balance depreciation, and company C uses units-of-production depreciation. Answer each of the following questions. Ignore the effects of income taxes. Required a-1. Calculate the net income for Year 1. a-2. Which company will report the highest amount of net income for Year 1? b-1. Calculate the net income for Year 4. b-2. Which company will report the lowest amount of net income for Year 4? c-1. Calculate the book value on the December 31, Year 3, balance sheet. c-2. Which company will report the highest book value on the December 31, Year 3, balance sheet? d-1. Calculate the retained earnings on the December 31, Year 4, balance sheet. d-2. Which company will report the highest amount of retained earnings on the December 31, Year 4, balance sheet? e. Which company will report the lowest amount of cash flow from operating activities on the Year 3 statement of cash flows?

In: Accounting

Briefly explain in no more than 300 words the following diagram which depicts the linkage between...

Briefly explain in no more than 300 words the following diagram which depicts the linkage between the corporation and investors in security markets. As part of your explanation, outline what are some of the types of securities which are traded in the market.

In: Finance

The basic materials stock sector, comprised of companies specializing in industrial commodities, had a very poor...

The basic materials stock sector, comprised of companies specializing in industrial commodities, had a very poor showing during the first six months of 2000. The average stock price in this sector was down an average of 27% for this period. Assume that the returns were distributed as a normal random variable with a mean of -27% and a standard deviation of 15%.

[3] If an individual stock were selected from this population, what is the probability that it would have a return of between -37 and -17%?

[3] If an individual stock were selected from this population, what is the probability that it would have made a profit – i.e. a return greater than 0.0%?

[3] If random samples, of 10 stocks were selected from this population. What proportion of the samples would have a mean return of between -37% and -17%?

[3] If random sample of 10 stocks were selected from this population, what proportion of the samples would have made a profit?

In: Statistics and Probability

Question text A researcher is interested in whether the attractiveness of the instructor influences student attendance...

Question text

A researcher is interested in whether the attractiveness of the instructor influences student attendance at the statistics lab. The independent variable is the attractiveness of the lab instructor (assuming three instructors are of the same gender and are equally competent). The dependent variable is the number of times a student attends statistics lab during one semester. There are three groups with data:
Group 1(unattractive instructor): 20, 13, 9, 22, 21
Group 2: moderately attractive instructor: 24, 27, 25, 20, 29
Group 3: attractive instructor: 30, 24, 26, 28, 27
Based on the above information, 1) what is MSbetween? 2) what is the calculated F?, and 3) which group means are significantly different from each other based on Bonferroni correction?
Group 1 – Group 2: Significant Non-significant
Group 1 – Group 3: Significant Non-significant
Group 2 – Group 3: Significant Non-significant

In: Statistics and Probability

The expected times and variances for the project activities are given below. Complete the table showing...

The expected times and variances for the project activities are given below. Complete the table showing which activities are critical.

ID	Description	Predecessor	Te	Variance	Critical?
1	Pilot Production	None	6	3	?
2	Select Channels of Distribution	None	20	4	?
3	Develope Mktg. Program	None	18	2	?
4	Test Market	1	4	2	?
5	Patent	1	17	5	?
6	Full production	4	9	10	?
7	Ad Promotion	3	16	2	?
8	Release	2,5,6,7	2	1	?

What is the probability of completing the project in 27 periods? Hint: Use the =NORM.S.DIST(z, TRUE) function in Excel to compute the probability. (Do not round intermediate calculations. Round the final answer to 3 decimal places, i.e., 0.750.)

1). What is the probability of completing the project in 27 time periods?_____

***PLEASE SHOW ALL WORK! I AM TRYING TO LEARN :)***

In: Statistics and Probability

Coke and Pepsi in India: Issues, Ethics, and Crisis Management There is nothing new about multinational...

Coke and Pepsi in India: Issues, Ethics, and Crisis Management

There is nothing new about multinational corporations (MNCs) facing challenges as they do business around the world, especially in developing nations or emerging markets. Royal Dutch Shell had to greatly reduce its production of oil in Nigeria due to guerrilla attacks on its pipelines. Cargill was forced to shut down its soy-processing plant in Brazil because of the claim that it was contributing to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Tribesmen in Botswana accused De Beers of pushing them off their land to make way for diamond mines.

Google was kicked out of China only to be later restored. Global business today is not for the faint hearted.

It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that MNC giants such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo—highly visible, multibillion dollar corporations with well-known, iconic brands around the world—would encounter challenges in the creation and distribution of their products in some countries. After all, soft drinks are viewed as discretionary and sometimes luxurious products when compared to the staples of life that are often scarce in developing countries. One of those scarce staples is water. Many observers think a shortage of water is the next burgeoning global resource crisis.

Whether it is called an issue, an ethics challenge, or a scandal, the situation confronting both Coke and Pepsi in India, beginning in 2003, richly illustrates the many complex and varied social challenges companies face once they decide to embark on other country’s shores. Their experiences in India may predict other issues they may eventually face elsewhere or trials other companies might face as well. With a billion-plus people and an expanding economy, and with markets stagnating in many Western countries, India, along with China and Russia, represent immense opportunities for growth for virtually all businesses. Hence, these companies cannot afford to ignore these burgeoning markets.

Initial Allegations

Coke and Pepsi’s serious problems in India began in 2003. In that year, India’s Center for Science and Environment (CSE), an independent public interest group, made allegations that tests they had conducted revealed dangerously high levels of pesticide residue in the soft drinks being sold all over India. The director of CSE, Sunita Narain, stated that such residues could cause cancer and birth defects as well as harm nervous and immune systems if the products were consumed over long periods of time.

Further, CSE stated that the pesticide levels in Coke’s and Pepsi’s drinks were much higher than that permitted by European Union standards. On one occasion, Narain accused Pepsi and Coke of pushing products that they wouldn’t dare sell at home.

In addition to the alleged pesticides in the soft drinks, another special interest group, India Resource Center (IRC), accused the companies of over consuming scarce water and polluting water sources due to its operations in India.

IRC intensely criticized the companies, especially Coca-Cola, by detailing a number of different “water woes” experienced by different cities and regions of the country. IRC’s allegations even more broadly accused the companies of water exploitation and of controlling natural resources, and thus communities. Examples frequently cited were the impact of Coke’s operations in the communities of Kerala and Mehdiganj.

In 2004, IRC continued its “Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola Accountable” by arguing that communities across India were under assault by Coke’s practices. Among the continuing allegations were communities’ experiencing severe water shortages around Coke’s bottling plants, significant depletion of the water table, strange water tastes and smells, and pollution of groundwater as well as soil. IRC said that in one community Coke was distributing its solid waste to farmers as fertilizer and that tests conducted found cadmium and lead in the waste, thus making it toxic waste. And the accusation of high levels of pesticides continued. According to IRC, the Parliament of India banned the sale of Coca-Cola in its cafeteria.

In December 2004, India’s Supreme Court ordered Coke and Pepsi to put warning labels on their products. This caused a serious slide in sales for the next several years.

Sunita Narain

One major reason that Indian consumers and politicians took seriously the allegations of both CSE and IRC was CSE’s director, Sunita Narain—a well-known activist in New Delhi. Narain was born into a family of freedom fighters whose support of Mahatma Gandhi goes back to the days when Gandhi was pushing for independence in India over 60 years ago. She took up environmental causes in high school. One major cause she adopted was to stop developers from cutting down trees. Her quest was to save India from the ravages of industrialization. She became the director of CSE in 2002.

According to a BusinessWeek writer, Narain strongly holds forth on the topic of MNCs exploiting the natural resources of developing countries, especially India. She manifests an alarmist tone that tends toward the end-is-near level of fervency. She is skilled at getting media attention. In 2005, she won the Stockholm Water Prize, one of a number of environmental accolades she has received.

In addition, she has been very successful in taking advantage of India’s general suspicion of huge MNCs, dating back to its tragic Bhopal gas leak in 1984. Narain claims she does not intend to hurt companies but only to spur the country to pass stricter regulations.

Sacred Water

Coke and Pepsi’s problems in India have been complicated by the fact that water carries considerable significance in India. We are often told about cultural knowledge we should have before doing business in other countries. Water is one of those issues in India. Although the country has some of the worst water in the world, due to poor sewage, pollution, and pesticide use, according to UN sources, water carries an almost-spiritual meaning to Indians. Bathing is viewed by many of them to be a sacred act, and tradition for some residents holds that one’s death is not properly noted until one’s ashes are scattered in the Ganges River. In one major poll, Indians revealed that drinking water was one of their major life activities to improve their well-being.

Indians’ sensitivity to the subject of water has undoubtedly played a role in the public’s reactions to the allegations.

Coke’s and Pepsi’s Early Responses

Initially, Coke and Pepsi denied the allegations of CSE and IRC, primarily through the media. It was observed that their response was limited at best as they got caught up in the technical details of the tests. Coke conducted its own tests, the conclusion of which was that their drinks met demanding European standards.

Over the next several years, the debate continued as the companies questioned the studies and conducted studies of their own. The companies also pointed out that other beverages and foods in the Indian food supply, and indeed water, had trace pesticide levels in it and they sought to deflect the issue in this manner.

The IRC also attacked Coke and Pepsi for not taking the crisis seriously. They argued that the companies were “destroying lives, livelihoods, and communities” while viewing the problems in India as “public relations” problems that they could “spin” away. IRC pointed out that Coca-Cola had hired a new public relations firm to help them build a new image in India, rather than addressing the real issues. According to IRC, the then-new CEO of Coke, Neville Isdell, immediately made a visit to India, but it was a “stealth” visit designed to avoid the heavy protests that would have met him had the trip been public. IRC also pointed out that Coke had just increased its marketing budget by a sizable amount in India. IRC then laid out the steps it felt Coke should take to effectively address its problems.

Pesticide Residue and Partial Bans

The controversy flared up again in August of 2006 when the CSE issued a new study. The new test results showed that 57 samples from 11 Coke and Pepsi brands contained pesticide residue levels 24 times higher than the maximum allowed by the Indian government. Public response was swift. Seven of India’s 28 states imposed partial bans on the two companies, and the state of Kerala banned the drinks completely. Officials there ignored a later court ruling reversing the ban.

During 2006, the United Kingdom’s Central Science Laboratory questioned the CSE findings. Coca-Cola sought a meeting with CSE that it denied. Also that year, India’s Union Health Ministry rejected the CSE study as “inconclusive.”

The Companies Ratchet up Their Responses

As a result of the second major flurry of studies and allegations in 2006, both Coke and Pepsi ratcheted up their responses, sometimes acting together, sometimes taking independent action. They responded almost like different companies than they were before. Perhaps they finally reckoned this issue was not going to go away and had to be addressed more forcefully.

Coke’s Response

Coke started with a more aggressive marketing campaign. It ran three rounds of newspaper ads refuting the new study. The ads appeared in the form of a letter from more than 50 of India’s company-owned and franchised Coke bottlers, claiming that their products were safe. Letters with a similar message went out to retailers and stickers were pressed onto drink coolers, declaring that Coke was “safety guaranteed.” Coke also hired researchers to talk to consumers and opinion leaders to find out what exactly they believed about the allegations and what the company needed to do to convince them the allegations were false.

Based on its research findings, Coke created a TV ad campaign that featured testimonials by well-respected celebrities. One of the ads featured Aamir Khan, a popular movie star, as he toured one of Coke’s plants. He told the people that the product was safe and that if they wanted to see for themselves they could personally do so. In August and September 2006, over 4,000 people took him up on his offer and toured the plants. Opening up the plants sent the message that the company had nothing to hide, and this was very persuasive.

The TV ads, which were targeted toward the mass audience, were followed by giant posters with movie star Khan’s picture drinking a Coke. These posters appeared in public places such as bus stops. In addition, other ads were targeted toward adult women and housewives, who make the majority of the food-purchasing decisions. One teenager was especially impressed with Khan’s ads because she knew he was very selective about which movies he appeared in and that he wouldn’t take a position like this if it wasn’t appropriate.

In a later interview, Coke’s CEO Isdell said he thought the company’s response during the second wave of controversy was the key reason the company began turning things around. After the 2003 episode, the company changed management in India to address many of the problems, both real and imagined. The new management team was especially concerned about how it would handle its next public relations crisis. Weeks later, in December 2006, India’s Health Ministry said that both Coke’s and Pepsi’s beverages tested in three different labs contained little or no pesticide residue.

Pepsi’s Response

Pepsi’s response was similar to Coke’s. Pepsi decided to go straight to the Indian media and try to build relationships there. Company representatives met with editorial boards, presented its own data in press conferences, and also ran TV commercials. Pepsi’s commercials featured the then president of PepsiCo India, Rajeev Bakshi, shown walking through a polished Pepsi laboratory.

In addition, Pepsi increased its efforts to cut down on water usage in its plants. Employees in the plants were organized into teams and used Japanese-inspired kaizens and suggested improvements to bring waste under control. The company also employed lobbying of the local government.

Indra Nooyi becomes CEO Pepsi had an advantage in rebuilding its relationships in India, because in October 2006, an Indian-born woman, Indra Nooyi, was selected to be CEO of the multinational corporation. It is not known whether Pepsi’s problems in India were in any way related to her being chosen CEO, but it definitely helped. After graduating from the prestigious Indian Institute of Management, and later Yale University, Nooyi worked her way up the hierarchy at PepsiCo before being singled out for the top position.

She previously held positions at the Boston Consulting Group, Motorola, and ABB Group.

Prior to becoming CEO, Nooyi had a number of successes in Pepsi and became the company’s chief strategist. She was said to have a perceptive business sense and an irreverent personal style. One of Nooyi’s first decisions was to take a trip to India in December 2006. While there, she spoke broadly about Pepsi’s programs to improve water and the environment. The Indian media loved her, beaming with pride, and covered her tour positively as she shared her own heartwarming memories of her life growing up in India. She received considerable praise. Not surprisingly, Pepsi’s sales started moving upward.

While all the criticism of Coke and Pepsi was going on, roughly from 2003 to 2006, both companies were pursuing corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives in India, many of them related to improving water resources for communities, while the conflict was center stage.

A Commentary on “What’s Going on”

Because of all the conflicting studies and the stridency of CSE and IRC, one has to wonder what was going on in India to cause this developing country to so severely criticize giant MNCs such as Coke and Pepsi. Many developing countries would be doing all they could to appease these companies. It was speculated by a number of different observers that what was at work was a form of backlash against huge MNCs that come into countries and consume natural resources.

Why were these groups so hostile toward the companies? Was it really pesticides in the water and abuse of natural resources? Or was it environmental interest groups using every opportunity to bash large corporations on issues sensitive to the people? Were CSE and IRC strategically making an example of these two hugely successful companies and trying to put them in their place?

Late in 2006, an interesting commentary appeared in BusinessWeek exploring the topic of what has been going on in India with respect to Coke and Pepsi.

This commentary argued that the companies may have been singled out because they are foreign owned. It appears that no Indian soft drink companies were singled out for pesticide testing, though many people believe pesticide levels are even higher in Indian milk and bottled tea. It was pointed out that pesticide residues are present in most of India’s groundwater, and the government has ignored or has been slow to move on the problem. The commentary went on to observe that Coke and Pepsi have together invested $2 billion in India over the years and have generated 12,500 jobs and support more than 200,000 indirectly through their purchases of Indian-made products including sugar, packing materials, and shipping services.

Continuing Protests, Renewed Priorities, and Strategies

Eventually, the open conflict settled down and sales took an upturn for both companies, but the issue lingered. In June 2007, the IRC continued its attacks on Coca-Cola. It accused the company of “greenwashing” its image in India.

The IRC staged a major protest at the new Coke Museum in Atlanta on June 30, 2007, questioning the company’s human rights and environmental abuses. They erected a 20-foot banner that read “Coca-Cola Destroys Lives, Livelihoods, Communities” in front of the New World of Coke that opened in May 2007. Amit Srivastava of the IRC was quoted as saying, “This World of Coke museum is a fairy tale land and the real side of Coke is littered with abuses.” A representative of the National Alliance of People’s Movements, a large coalition of grassroots movements in India, said, “The museum is a shameful attempt by the Coca-Cola Company to hide its crimes.”

Piling On

The protestations by these groups apparently motivated other groups to take action against Coke. It was reported that United Students Against Sweatshops also staged a “die-in” around one of Coke’s bottling facilities in India. And more than 20 colleges and universities in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom removed Coca-Cola from campuses because of student-led initiatives to put pressure on the company. In addition, the protests in Atlanta were endorsed by a host of groups that participated in the U.S. Social Forum.

Coke’s Renewed Priorities

Undaunted, Coca-Cola continued its initiatives to improve the situation in India and around the world. Coke faces water problems around the world because it is the key natural resource that goes into its products. The company had 70 clean-water projects in 40 countries aimed at boosting local economies. It was observed that these efforts were part of a broader strategy on the part of CEO Neville Isdell to build Coke’s image as a local benefactor and a global diplomat.

The criticism of Coke has been most severe in India. CEO Isdell admits that the company’s experience in India has taught some humbling lessons. Isdell, who took over the company after the crisis had begun, told The Wall Street Journal, “It was very clear that we had not connected with the communities in the way we needed to.” He indicated that the company has now made “water stewardship” a strategic priority, and in a recent 10-K securities filing, had listed a shortage of clean water as a strategic risk.

In August 2007, Coca-Cola India unveiled its “5-Pillar” growth strategy to strengthen its bonds with India. Coke’s new strategy focuses on the pillars of People, Planet, Portfolio, Partners, and Performance. The company also announced a series of initiatives under each of the five pillars and its “Little Drops of Joy” proposal, which tries to reinforce the company’s connection with stakeholders in India.

Though most of the attention focused on Coca-Cola, it should also be noted that Pepsi has continued taking steps on a number of projects as well. One novel initiative is that the company now gathers rainwater in excavated lakes and ponds and on the rooftops of its bottling plants in India. The company sponsors other community water projects as well.

Indian Beverage Association Formed

Though Coke and Pepsi are typically fighting each another in their longstanding “cola wars,” due to their mutual problems in India they formed the Indian Beverage Association (IBA) in the summer of 2010. Other beverage companies were quick to join.

Because of continuous hostility from regulators and activist groups, the two companies decided that a joint effort to address issues might make sense.

The IBA was formed to address the issues related to the government of Kerala’s charge that Coke is polluting the groundwater in the state and other taxation issues that affect both companies. Their issues have been ongoing, but Kerala’s government decided to form a tribunal against Coca-Cola, seeking $48 million in compensation claims for allegedly causing pollution and depleting the groundwater level there. Another important issue was the value-added tax (VAT) by the Delhi government. The IBA brought in other bottlers and packaging firms that had similar interests and issues in India.

Question; What are ethical considerations in terms of Kantian or Utilitarian theory? How should sustainability be considered?

* If the case involves a company's or a manager's actions, evaluate what the company or the manager did or did not do correctly in handling the issue affecting it. How should actions have been handled? 

In: Economics

Pastina Company sells various types of pasta to grocery chains as private label brands. The company's...

Pastina Company sells various types of pasta to grocery chains as private label brands. The company's reporting year-end is December 31. The unadjusted trial balance as of December 31, 2021, appears below.

Account Title	Debits	Credits
Cash	32,000
Accounts receivable	40,600
Supplies	1,800
Inventory	60,600
Notes receivable	20,600
Interest receivable	0
Prepaid rent	1,200
Prepaid insurance	6,600
Office equipment	82,400
Accumulated depreciation		30,900
Accounts payable		31,600
Salaries payable		0
Notes payable		50,600
Interest payable		0
Deferred sales revenue		2,300
Common stock		64,200
Retained earnings		30,000
Dividends	4,600
Sales revenue		149,000
Interest revenue		0
Cost of goods sold	73,000
Salaries expense	19,200
Rent expense	11,300
Depreciation expense	0
Interest expense	0
Supplies expense	1,400
Insurance expense	0
Advertising expense	3,300
Totals	358,600	358,600

Information necessary to prepare the year-end adjusting entries appears below.

Depreciation on the office equipment for the year is $10,300.
Employee salaries are paid twice a month, on the 22nd for salaries earned from the 1st through the 15th, and on the 7th of the following month for salaries earned from the 16th through the end of the month. Salaries earned from December 16 through December 31, 2021, were $900.
On October 1, 2021, Pastina borrowed $50,600 from a local bank and signed a note. The note requires interest to be paid annually on September 30 at 12%. The principal is due in 10 years.
On March 1, 2021, the company lent a supplier $20,600 and a note was signed requiring principal and interest at 8% to be paid on February 28, 2022.
On April 1, 2021, the company paid an insurance company $6,600 for a two-year fire insurance policy. The entire $6,600 was debited to prepaid insurance.
$560 of supplies remained on hand at December 31, 2021.
A customer paid Pastina $2,300 in December for 900 pounds of spaghetti to be delivered in January 2022. Pastina credited deferred sales revenue.
On December 1, 2021, $1,200 rent was paid to the owner of the building. The payment represented rent for December 2021 and January 2022 at $600 per month. The entire amount was debited to prepaid rent.

3. Prepare an adjusted trial balance. (Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your final answers to nearest whole dollar.)

Adjusted Trial Balance
Debit Credit

Cash
Accounts receivable
Supplies
Inventory
Notes receivable
Interest receivable
Prepaid rent
Prepaid insurance
Office equipment
Accumulated depreciation
Accounts payable
Salaries payable
Notes payable
Interest payable
Deferred sales revenue
Common stock
Retained earnings
Dividends
Sales revenue
Interest revenue
Cost of goods sold
Salaries expense
Rent expense
Depreciation expense
Interest expense
Supplies expense
Insurance expense
Advertising expense
Totals	$0	$0

In: Accounting

Kyla Co. prepared an aging of its accounts receivable at December 31, 2020 and determined that...

Kyla Co. prepared an aging of its accounts receivable at December 31, 2020 and determined that the net realizable value of the receivables was $580,000. Additional information for calendar 2020 follows:

Allowance for doubtful accounts, Jan 1	$68,000 (cr.)
Uncollectible account written off during year	46,000
Bad debt expense for 2020	28,000
Uncollectible accounts recovered during year	10,000

At the year end December 31, 2020, Kyla Co.’s Accounts receivable balance should be

1)	$640,000.00

2)	$658,000.00

3)	$644,000.00

4)	$652,000.00

Consider an asset for which the following information is available:

Original cost	$48,000
Residual value	$5,000
Estimated useful life	5 years
Depreciation method	Double-declining balance method

The depreciation expense for the last year of this asset's useful life is

$2,229.00

$573.00

$2,488.00

$1,221.00

Kayden Ltd. had a current ratio of 4.24 in 2019 and 5.64 in 2020. Which of the following is the best explanation?

1)	A decrease in current liabilities.

2)	An increase in cash and equivalents and short-term investments.

3)	A decrease in long-term liabilities.

4)	An increase in current assets that exceeded the increase in current liabilities.

Annie Sweet Corporation is specialized in making wedding cakes. Customers are always required to pay a deposit equal to the full purchase price when they place orders. During the month of September 2019, Annie Sweet Corporation received $34,000 in customer deposits. The balance in its Unearned Revenue account was $14,000 at September 1, 2019 and $16,000 at September 30, 2019. How much revenue did Annie Sweet Corporation recognize during the month of September 2019?

$34,000

$30,000

$32,000

$36,000

In: Accounting

‹
1
2
...
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
...
999
1000
›