At December 31, 2017, Cord Company's plant asset and accumulated depreciation and amortization accounts had balances as follows:

At December 31, 2017, Cord Company's plant asset and accumulated depreciation and amortization accounts had balances as follows:

Depreciation methods and useful lives:
Buildings—150% declining balance; 25 years.
Machinery and equipment—Straight line; 10 years.
Automobiles and trucks—150% declining balance; 5 years, all acquired after 2014.
Leasehold improvements—Straight line.
Land improvements—Straight line.

Depreciation is computed to the nearest month and residual values are immaterial. Transactions during 2018 and other information:

On January 6, 2018, a plant facility consisting of land and building was acquired from King Corp. in exchange for 31,000 shares of Cord's common stock. On this date, Cord's stock had a fair value of $50 a share. Current assessed values of land and building for property tax purposes are $202,500 and $607,500, respectively.

On March 25, 2018, new parking lots, streets, and sidewalks at the acquired plant facility were completed at a total cost of $228,000. These expenditures had an estimated useful life of 12 years.

The leasehold improvements were completed on December 31, 2014, and had an estimated useful life of eight years. The related lease, which would terminate on December 31, 2020, was renewable for an additional four-year term. On April 30, 2018, Cord exercised the renewal option.

On July 1, 2018, machinery and equipment were purchased at a total invoice cost of $331,000. Additional costs of $10,000 for delivery and $56,000 for installation were incurred.

On August 30, 2018, Cord purchased a new automobile for $13,100.

On September 30, 2018, a truck with a cost of $24,600 and a book value of $10,200 on date of sale was sold for $12,100. Depreciation for the nine months ended September 30, 2018, was $2,295.

On December 20, 2018, a machine with a cost of $20,000 and a book value of $3,125 at date of disposition was scrapped without cash recovery.

Required:

1. Prepare a schedule analyzing the changes in each of the plant asset accounts during 2018. Do not analyze changes in accumulated depreciation and amortization.
2. For each asset category, prepare a schedule showing depreciation or amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2018.

At December 31, 2017, Cord Company's plant asset and accumulated depreciation and amortization accounts had balances as follows:

Depreciation methods and useful lives:
Buildings—150% declining balance; 25 years.
Machinery and equipment—Straight line; 10 years.
Automobiles and trucks—150% declining balance; 5 years, all acquired after 2014.
Leasehold improvements—Straight line.
Land improvements—Straight line.

Depreciation is computed to the nearest month and residual values are immaterial. Transactions during 2018 and other information:

On January 6, 2018, a plant facility consisting of land and building was acquired from King Corp. in exchange for 21,000 shares of Cord's common stock. On this date, Cord's stock had a fair value of $40 a share. Current assessed values of land and building for property tax purposes are $142,000 and $568,000, respectively.

On March 25, 2018, new parking lots, streets, and sidewalks at the acquired plant facility were completed at a total cost of $168,000. These expenditures had an estimated useful life of 12 years.

The leasehold improvements were completed on December 31, 2014, and had an estimated useful life of eight years. The related lease, which would terminate on December 31, 2020, was renewable for an additional four-year term. On April 30, 2018, Cord exercised the renewal option.

On July 1, 2018, machinery and equipment were purchased at a total invoice cost of $321,000. Additional costs of $12,000 for delivery and $46,000 for installation were incurred.

On August 30, 2018, Cord purchased a new automobile for $12,100.

On September 30, 2018, a truck with a cost of $23,600 and a book value of $8,400 on date of sale was sold for $11,100. Depreciation for the nine months ended September 30, 2018, was $1,890.

On December 20, 2018, a machine with a cost of $15,000 and a book value of $2,875 at date of disposition was scrapped without cash recovery.

Required:

1. Prepare a schedule analyzing the changes in each of the plant asset accounts during 2018. Do not analyze changes in accumulated depreciation and amortization.
2. For each asset category, prepare a schedule showing depreciation or amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2018.

At December 31, 2017, Cord Company's plant asset and accumulated depreciation and amortization accounts had balances as follows:

Depreciation methods and useful lives:
Buildings—150% declining balance; 25 years.
Machinery and equipment—Straight line; 10 years.
Automobiles and trucks—150% declining balance; 5 years, all acquired after 2014.
Leasehold improvements—Straight line.
Land improvements—Straight line.

Depreciation is computed to the nearest month and residual values are immaterial. Transactions during 2018 and other information:

On January 6, 2018, a plant facility consisting of land and building was acquired from King Corp. in exchange for 20,000 shares of Cord's common stock. On this date, Cord's stock had a fair value of $50 a share. Current assessed values of land and building for property tax purposes are $175,000 and $525,000, respectively.

On March 25, 2018, new parking lots, streets, and sidewalks at the acquired plant facility were completed at a total cost of $162,000. These expenditures had an estimated useful life of 12 years.

The leasehold improvements were completed on December 31, 2014, and had an estimated useful life of eight years. The related lease, which would terminate on December 31, 2020, was renewable for an additional four-year term. On April 30, 2018, Cord exercised the renewal option.

On July 1, 2018, machinery and equipment were purchased at a total invoice cost of $320,000. Additional costs of $10,000 for delivery and $45,000 for installation were incurred.

On August 30, 2018, Cord purchased a new automobile for $12,000.

On September 30, 2018, a truck with a cost of $23,500 and a book value of $8,200 on date of sale was sold for $11,000. Depreciation for the nine months ended September 30, 2018, was $1,845.

On December 20, 2018, a machine with a cost of $14,500 and a book value of $2,850 at date of disposition was scrapped without cash recovery.

Required:

1. Prepare a schedule analyzing the changes in each of the plant asset accounts during 2018. Do not analyze changes in accumulated depreciation and amortization.
2. For each asset category, prepare a schedule showing depreciation or amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2018.

At December 31, 2017, Cord Company's plant asset and accumulated depreciation and amortization accounts had balances as follows:

Depreciation methods and useful lives:
Buildings—150% declining balance; 25 years.
Machinery and equipment—Straight line; 10 years.
Automobiles and trucks—150% declining balance; 5 years, all acquired after 2014.
Leasehold improvements—Straight line.
Land improvements—Straight line.

Depreciation is computed to the nearest month and residual values are immaterial. Transactions during 2018 and other information:

On January 6, 2018, a plant facility consisting of land and building was acquired from King Corp. in exchange for 30,000 shares of Cord's common stock. On this date, Cord's stock had a fair value of $40 a share. Current assessed values of land and building for property tax purposes are $160,000 and $640,000, respectively.

On March 25, 2018, new parking lots, streets, and sidewalks at the acquired plant facility were completed at a total cost of $222,000. These expenditures had an estimated useful life of 12 years.

The leasehold improvements were completed on December 31, 2014, and had an estimated useful life of eight years. The related lease, which would terminate on December 31, 2020, was renewable for an additional four-year term. On April 30, 2018, Cord exercised the renewal option.

On July 1, 2018, machinery and equipment were purchased at a total invoice cost of $330,000. Additional costs of $12,000 for delivery and $55,000 for installation were incurred.

On August 30, 2018, Cord purchased a new automobile for $13,000.

On September 30, 2018, a truck with a cost of $24,500 and a book value of $10,000 on date of sale was sold for $12,000. Depreciation for the nine months ended September 30, 2018, was $2,250.

On December 20, 2018, a machine with a cost of $19,500 and a book value of $3,100 at date of disposition was scrapped without cash recovery.

Required:

1. Prepare a schedule analyzing the changes in each of the plant asset accounts during 2018. Do not analyze changes in accumulated depreciation and amortization.
2. For each asset category, prepare a schedule showing depreciation or amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2018.

t December 31, 2017, Cord Company's plant asset and accumulated depreciation and amortization accounts had balances as follows:

Depreciation methods and useful lives:
Buildings—150% declining balance; 25 years.
Machinery and equipment—Straight line; 10 years.
Automobiles and trucks—150% declining balance; 5 years, all acquired after 2014.
Leasehold improvements—Straight line.
Land improvements—Straight line.

Depreciation is computed to the nearest month and residual values are immaterial. Transactions during 2018 and other information:

1. On January 6, 2018, a plant facility consisting of land and building was acquired from King Corp. in exchange for 34,000 shares of Cord's common stock. On this date, Cord's stock had a fair value of $50 a share. Current assessed values of land and building for property tax purposes are $210,000 and $630,000, respectively.
2. On March 25, 2018, new parking lots, streets, and sidewalks at the acquired plant facility were completed at a total cost of $246,000. These expenditures had an estimated useful life of 12 years.
3. The leasehold improvements were completed on December 31, 2014, and had an estimated useful life of eight years. The related lease, which would terminate on December 31, 2020, was renewable for an additional four-year term. On April 30, 2018, Cord exercised the renewal option.
4. On July 1, 2018, machinery and equipment were purchased at a total invoice cost of $334,000. Additional costs of $10,000 for delivery and $59,000 for installation were incurred.
5. On August 30, 2018, Cord purchased a new automobile for $13,400.
6. On September 30, 2018, a truck with a cost of $24,900 and a book value of $10,800 on date of sale was sold for $12,400. Depreciation for the nine months ended September 30, 2018, was $2,430.
7. On December 20, 2018, a machine with a cost of $21,500 and a book value of $3,200 at date of disposition was scrapped without cash recovery.

Required:

1. Prepare a schedule analyzing the changes in each of the plant asset accounts during 2018. Do not analyze changes in accumulated depreciation and amortization.
2. For each asset category, prepare a schedule showing depreciation or amortization expense for the year ended December 31, 2018.

In the fall of 1999, a group of managers met in Scandinavia for the first of three negotiations involving four companies from three different countries and a family of products. The situation was a common one: a buyer tells a supplier it wants prices reduced by 10 percent and, “Oh by the way, we’ll also be soliciting quotes from your major competitor.” At the heart of the meetings was the buyer’s corporate agenda to cut costs. Cost-cutting is a common theme among large corporations. Even in good times, they have been known to pressure their vendors to lower prices and to play vendors off against each other. This case illustrates what actions a supplier might take in this situation. Other vendors who may find themselves in similar situations can take these actions as well. BACKGROUND FD is a Dutch manufacturer of filtration products. Rather than selling directly to end customers, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, FD sold oil filters and oil filter cartridges (replacements) to Swedish and Finnish heavy equipment manufacturers who, in turn, branded and sold the products to their own customers. In the late 1980s the Scandinavian market for oil filters began to change. The Finnish government consolidated many of the region’s heavy equipment manufacturers into one company, Conquip. About the same time, FF, a Finnish competitor of FD, began supplying filters to Conquip that were similar to those supplied by FD. Because the Finnish government had a stake in both FF and Conquip, FF was able to gain market share quickly. As a result, entire divisions of Conquip began replacing FD as their supplier of filters in favor of FF. By the late 1990s, only Conquip Truck, a Swedish division of Conquip, remained as a dedicated customer of FD filters in the region. FD was determined to keep Conquip Truck as a customer. Instructor’s Guide Negotiating Globally IG Appendix 1.2.1 2 Copyright © 2014 by Jimena Ramirez-Marin and Jeanne M. Brett In the mid-1990s FD had introduced a new filter cartridge design called LEIF (Low Environmental Impact Filter). FD had hoped that the LEIF products would block further FF inroads into the market for oil filters. The patented LEIF product family, which included LEIF filter housings and LEIF replacement cartridges, was designed to fill increasing demand for environmentally friendly products and to tackle the problem of imitators such as FF. LEIF’s new technology meant that LEIF cartridges were cheaper to produce than the old filters, and so could be offered at a lower price. In the environmentally conscious Scandinavian market, LEIF was the product of choice. Conquip Truck started purchasing LEIF replacement cartridges from FD and prepared to begin purchasing LEIF filter housings as well. But before LEIF could be widely adopted and marketed, Conquip Corporate launched an initiative aimed at reducing supplier costs within its divisions. In 1999, Conquip Corporate sent FD a list and asked FD to quote its best prices for these filters. This RFQ (request for quote) seemed like an ultimatum. If FD did not quote competitive prices, Conquip might force its Conquip Truck division to stop buying from FD. FD had been aware of Conquip’s supplier cost initiative, but the RFQ came rather earlier than FD had hoped, as even within Conquip Truck LEIF still had not been widely adopted. THE NEGOTIATIONS Marc de Winter, the FD marketing and sales director, studied the product list in the RFQ and proposed a meeting in Finland to discuss this request. This meeting turned out to be the first in this case’s series of three meetings and negotiations. Meeting 1: Information Exchange and Relationship Building FD’s goals for the first meeting were to develop a relationship with the Conquip representatives and, in the process, find out about Conquip’s objectives, positions, and interests. Developing personal rapport and trust with Conquip’s corporate office would be extremely important in any future negotiations. FD attended the meeting along with FILTECH, its Swedish distributor. The discussion helped reveal Conquip’s goal: reducing prices on all filtration products supplied by FD and FF Instructor’s Guide Negotiating Globally IG Appendix 1.2.1 3 Copyright © 2014 by Jimena Ramirez-Marin and Jeanne M. Brett over the next three years. At the meeting, Conquip offered to retain FD as a companywide, primary supplier if FD could meet its price demands. However, de Winter was suspicious of this offer because of the close relationship between Conquip and FF. He thought that it would be difficult to hold Conquip to its promise. Moreover, many of FD’s highvolume products were conspicuously missing from Conquip’s RFQ. De Winter concluded that Conquip just wanted quotes from FD on products that competed directly with FF products, no doubt for the purpose of reducing FF’s prices. Despite his suspicions, de Winter promised to prepare a quotation based on the information given, and a second meeting was scheduled for later that fall to discuss and negotiate pricing options. In a side discussion after the first meeting, FD and FILTECH came to the conclusion that Conquip was trying to replace FD with FF throughout the company. It was a tough situation: unless FD was able to meet Conquip’s demands and convince them to keep FD as a supplier, FD risked losing all of its business with this major Finnish customer. Meeting 2: The Negotiation Before the second meeting de Winter assessed the situation. There were three main issues to discuss: pricing; product type; and volume of sales to Conquip, including to how many and which of Conquip’s divisions FD could sell its LEIF product range. FD and FILTECH’s highest priorities were to maintain positive margins and a long-term sales relationship with Conquip. FD also had some sense that Conquip was interested in sales in the high-margin aftermarket (the market for filter replacement cartridges) and to ensure low procurement costs from FD. Conquip’s interest in scope of sales (number of products), however, was not as clear. FD walked into the negotiation with a poor BATNA: no agreement meant FD risked losing all its Conquip business to FF. FD was aware of this poor BATNA, but did not want to make concessions too easily and look weak. Meanwhile, Conquip seemed to have a strong BATNA: the company could easily switch to FF filters. However, if de Winter could convince Conquip of the value of LEIF’s innovative technology, Conquip’s BATNA would weaken: it would have no supplier of a product that would be equivalent to the patented LEIF product. Instructor’s Guide Negotiating Globally IG Appendix 1.2.1 4 Copyright © 2014 by Jimena Ramirez-Marin and Jeanne M. Brett Both FD and FILTECH enjoyed sizeable margins on filter sales to Conquip Truck. They knew they could meet Conquip’s 10 percent price cut demand over three years and still enjoy healthy margins. The negotiation began with an almost exclusive focus on the price. The sides haggled over de Winter’s prices on items in Conquip’s RFQ. As a result of this focus on one issue, negotiations proved to be difficult. De Winter did offer a series of different proposals that incorporated different levels of pricing, different product lines, and so on, but Conquip rejected all these proposals, insisting on a 10 percent discount across all products. Conquip would not discuss any other issues without an agreement first on price. It seemed like an impasse until de Winter began to focus on Conquip’s aftermarket sales. He guessed that Conquip might be willing to accept smaller price cuts if it could increase aftermarket sales. Unknown to de Winter at the time, in the aftermarket for FF replacement cartridges, Conquip was losing market share to its competitors. De Winter explained that LEIF’s patents would ensure a strong position for Conquip in the aftermarket. (Customers with LEIF filters would demand LEIF replacement filters manufactured by FD, which only Conquip could supply.) This meeting ended with Conquip agreeing to commit Conquip Truck to LEIF products at prices reduced by 7 to 9 percent (depending on the product) over three years. Conquip also promised to seriously consider FD as a supplier for its other divisions. Meeting 3: Post-Agreement Negotiations Several days after the agreement resulting from meeting 2, de Winter received a phone call from Conquip Corporate indicating that the pricing was not acceptable after all. Conquip Corporate wanted to renegotiate prices before signing the final agreement. De Winter made clear that he was not coming to Finland or Sweden again to renegotiate a deal in which all parties had already come to a verbal agreement. He invited them to Holland if they wanted to renegotiate. Ultimately a meeting was set up between Conquip Corporate and FILTECH in Sweden. This final negotiation resulted in Instructor’s Guide Negotiating Globally IG Appendix 1.2.1 5 Copyright © 2014 by Jimena Ramirez-Marin and Jeanne M. Brett an extra price decrease that would be shouldered by FILTECH (not FD) and a promise to give FILTECH more business at another Conquip division in Sweden where business had been lost previously.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. Why did Conquip send an RFQ with a 10 percent price reduction requirement rather than calling de Winter in for a negotiation? Is there any downside to having run the negotiation this way?

2. At the first negotiation meeting, Conquip made a threat disguised within an offer. The offer was to retain FD as a companywide, primary supplier if FD could meet its price demands. A. What was the threat embedded in this offer? B. Why was this offer not credible to de Winter?

3. If FD could have reduced prices by the 10 percent requested by Conquip and still have a positive and reasonable margin, why negotiate? Why not just reduce the price to save the business?

4. How did Marc de Winter improve his bargaining position at meeting 2? What general negotiation principle did he employ? How well did it work?

Mentari Inc. is a conglomerate company that has four subsidiaries located in Brunei, Malaysia, United Kingdom, and Switzerland. The exchange rates available for the company are MYR2.9000/BND, GBP0.4000/BND and BND1.2500/CHF. The following is the inter- subsidiary payments matrix for Mentari Inc in multiple currencies.

1. Convert all the cash flows into Brunei Dollar (BND) and fill in the table cells below to show the intersubsidiary payments matrix for Mentari Group. If the transaction cost is 2%, how much the company needs to pay (in BND) if they decided not to do any netting?

Transaction cost in BND with no netting:                                     

2. Perform multilateral netting by filling up the table below. If the transaction cost is 2%, how much the company needs to pay (in BND) if they decided to do multilateral netting?

Transaction cost in BND with multilateral netting:                                       

Eureka Design Bhd entered into a contract to deliver one of its fixtures and fittings to Creative Landscaping Bhd on 1st July 2020. The contract requires Creative Landscaping to pay the contract price of RM30,000 in advance on 15th July 2020. Creative pays Eureka on 15th July 2020 and Eureka delivers the fixtures and fittings (with cost of RM19,000) on 31st July 2020.

Required:

i) Explain the 5-step of revenue recognition as outlined in MFRS 15 Revenue from Contract With Customers.

ii) Prepare the journal entry on 1st July 2020 for Eureka Design Bhd.

iii) Prepare the journal entry on 15th July 2020 for Eureka Design Bhd.

iv) Prepare the journal entry on 31st July 2020 for Eureka Design Bhd.

PartA： Jan 1^st, 2020: Tony Inc. buys a machine from Avengers Inc. and will make 3 equal payments of 200,000 over the next 18 months (payments on June 30, 2020; Dec 31, 2020; and June 30, 2021). The interest rate on this annuity is 14%. Record all the journal entries from Jan 1^st 2020 until the expiration of the annuity. (4 points) Assume the machine does not depreciate.

Part B: Create the balance sheet as of December 31^st, 2020 along with the income statement and cash flow statement for the time period of Jan 1^st, 2020 to Dec 31^st,2020 (6 points) (There might have a $1 rounding issue ）

Thank you so much guys!!!