READ AND SUMMARIZE THE FINDINGS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES OF IFRS AMONG COUNTRIES:

We present an index that can be used to distinguish between countries according to their institutional setting for the audit of financial statements and the enforcement of

compliance with accounting standards. The pursuit of comparable financial reporting and adoption of IFRS has highlighted differences in institutional setting between

countries that may influence the quality of IFRS reporting (Ball, 2006; Brown, 2011). The role of audit and accounting enforcement is arguably crucial to the application

of IFRS. The IFRS Foundation’s staff has supported calls by the World Bank for an international infrastructure to support the application of IFRS, emphasising that accounting quality is not a function of accounting standards alone (Hegarty et al., 2004;IASB, 2012). With the development of cross-country IFRS studies, researchers need

effective proxies to control for differences between countries in their institutional setting.

Our index represents a first attempt at ranking countries specifically on factors affecting the strength of audit and the level of enforcement activities relating to We present an index that can be used to distinguish between countries according to their institutional setting for the audit of financial statements and the enforcement of compliance with accounting standards. The pursuit of comparable financial reporting and adoption of IFRS has highlighted differences in institutional setting between countries that may influence the quality of IFRS reporting (Ball, 2006; Brown, 2011).

The role of audit and accounting enforcement is arguably crucial to the application of IFRS. The IFRS Foundation’s staff has supported calls by the World Bank for an

international infrastructure to support the application of IFRS, emphasising that accounting quality is not a function of accounting standards alone (Hegarty et al., 2004;IASB, 2012). With the development of cross-country IFRS studies, researchers need effective proxies to control for differences between countries in their institutional setting.

Our index represents a first attempt at ranking countries specifically on factors affecting the strength of audit and the level of enforcement activities relating to 16 has double the enforcement activity of a country scoring 8, although that is the literal interpretation of the numbers. Our aim is to provide a ranking of countries on enforcement in 3 years, using the index numbers to do so. At best, we can show how countries are positioned relative to their peers and how their position has changed over the study period. Nevertheless, our index improves on other indices by capturing, directly, differences between countries in their audit environments and enforcement of financial reporting requirements during a watershed period. Preliminary analysis supports this view.

There are many research opportunities to employ the index we present. For example, studies continue to address important questions about the consequences of adopting IFRS, often by considering the effect of the change of standards on the quality of financial statements or capital market outcomes. As another example, our index should be useful when the design of a study requires a measure of differences in the likelihood a country is monitoring compliance with accounting standards,including IFRS, and taking action on cases of non-compliance

PARTE I: Bonos por pagar

A continuación, se presenta una porción de la tabla de amortización relacionada con la emisión de unos bonos de 20 años de la Empresa Zeroz (NO TIENE QUE COMPLETAR LA TABLA). Los bonos fueron emitidos el 1 de enero del 2004. Los bonos pagan intereses dos veces al año en julio 1 y enero 1. La fecha de vencimiento es el 1 de enero de 2024. Al momento de la emisión, la empresa no incurrió en ningún costo incidental (asuma que los costos de emisión fueron cero). La empresa cierra libros el 31 de diciembre de cada año.

REQUERIDO: Basándose en la información provista   

1. Indique el principal (maturity value) de los bonos.

2. Determine el precio de emisión (issuance price) de los bonos el 1 de enero de 2004.

3. ¿Qué método de amortización está utilizando la empresa? Explique brevemente como lo determinó.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

4. Determine la tasa de interés semestral establecida o de cupón (coupon or stated interest rate).

5. Determine el valor en los libros del bono (book value or carrying amount) que se informará en el Estado de Situación Financiera para el periodo que termina el 30 de junio de 2023.

6. Determine la tasa de interés semestral de mercado al 1/1/04 cuando se emitieron los bonos (effective interest rate).

7. Determine el saldo de la Porción Corriente de la Deuda a Largo Plazo (Current Maturity of Long-Term Debt) que se informará en el Estado de Situación Financiera para el periodo que termina el 31 de diciembre de 2022.

8. Determine el gasto de interés que se informará en el Estado de Ingresos y Gastos para el año que termina el 31 de diciembre de 2023.

1. Haga las entradas de diario necesarias (journal entries) al 31/12/23 y el 1/1/24.

Brief the following case using the IRAC method.

Issue:

Rule:

Application:

Conclusion:

During the finale of the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show, entertainers Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson performed a song and dance routine to Timberlake’s song “Rock Your Body.” As Timberlake ended the duet by sing- ing “gonna have you naked by the end of this song,” he tore away a portion of Jackson’s bustier, momentarily re- vealing her breast. The performers subsequently strained the credulity of the public by terming the episode a “ward- robe malfunction.”

The Federal Communications Commission issued an or- der fining CBS $550,000 for broadcasting the nudity. The agency explained that the incident violated the FCC pol- icy against broadcasting indecent material, such as nu- dity and expletives, during the hours when children are most likely to watch television. The Third Circuit vacated the order, finding that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act as “arbitrary and capricious” agency action. The court held that the FCC’s order represented an unex- plained departure from the agency’s longstanding policy of excusing the broadcast of fleeting moments of indecency. 663 F. 3d 122 (2011).

I am not so sure. As we recently explained in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., the FCC’s general policy is to conduct a context-specific examination of each allegedly

2 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. CBS CORPORATION

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring

indecent broadcast in order to determine whether it should be censured. 556 U. S. 502, 508 (2009). Until 2004, the FCC made a limited exception to this general policy for fleeting expletives. Ibid. But the agency never stated that the exception applied to fleeting images as well, and there was good reason to believe that it did not. As every schoolchild knows, a picture is worth a thousand words, and CBS broadcast this particular picture to mil- lions of impressionable children.

I nonetheless concur in the Court’s denial of certiorari. Even if the Third Circuit is wrong that sanctioning the Super Bowl broadcast constituted an unexplained depar- ture from the FCC’s prior indecency policy, that error has been rendered moot going forward. The FCC has made clear that it has abandoned its exception for fleeting exple- tives. Id., at 509–510. Looking ahead, it makes no dif- ference as a matter of administrative law whether the FCC’s fleeting expletive policy applies to allegedly fleeting images, because the FCC no longer adheres to the fleeting expletive policy. It is now clear that the brevity of an indecent broadcast—be it word or image—cannot immun- ize it from FCC censure. See, e.g., In re Young Broad- casting of San Francisco, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 1751 (2004) (censuring a broadcast despite the “fleeting” nature of the nudity involved). Any future “wardrobe malfunctions” will not be protected on the ground relied on by the court below.

Over the past several years, decommissioned U.S. warships have been turned into artificial reefs in the ocean by towing them out to sea and sinking them. The thinking was that sinking the ship would conveniently dispose of it while providing an artificial reef environment for aquatic life. In reality, some of the sunken ships have released toxins into the ocean and have been costly to decontaminate. In the late 1990s, at least two international conventions have made it all but impossible to export used warships for salvage without removing all military equipment, conducting a complete cleanup and cutting the ship into such comparatively small pieces as to make the entire exercise relatively expensive.

The new environmental regulations have made disposal of ships an expensive project. The United States has hundreds of mothballed warships, presenting an extremely expensive problem for military authorities and the government. Now the U.S. government is taking bids to instead dismantle and recycle ships that have recently been decommissioned (but have not been sunk yet.)

Assume that a recently decommissioned aircraft carrier, the USS Blaze, is estimated to contain 40 tons of recyclable materials able to be sold for approximately $32.8 million. About 90% of the value in old ships is the metals, including steel, copper, copper alloys, and lead that can be removed, sold for remelting, and reformed into new metal products. There are also some high-value metals; such as, nickel alloys, stainless steel, and titanium that can be found in some parts of all warships but may be present is such small quantities that recovery and resale may not be cost effective. The low bid for dismantling and transporting the ship materials to appropriate facilities is $34.5 million. Recycling and dismantling the ship would create about 500 jobs for about a year on the West Coast area. This geographic area has been experiencing record-high unemployment rates in recent years.

As an alternative, reefing these ships would create new habitats for underwater life and can be done using newer environmentally safe methods. These new artificial reefs would enhance fishery resources and facilitate the access and utilization by recreational and commercial fishermen. Artificial reefs can also increase tourism by attracting sport divers for recreational purposes. Academic organizations may be interested in using the site to study fish and other marine life which may open the door for more funding from these research activities. Research has shown that a new reef will attract 60,000 – 70,000 divers and add more than 10 million to the local tourism industry. Research has also shown that artificial reefs can substantially increase the population of reef-associated species. Within months the G. B. Church artificial reef in British Columbia had hundreds of encrusted individuals on its hull and within 2.5 years had seen an increase of nearly 100 species.

Reefing the ship would cost an estimated 800K (or $0.8 million) which includes cleaning of the vessel of toxics, oils and greases, PCB containing electrical and electronic equipment and other readily removable PCB containing equipment, local towing and docking, preparation (unspecified) and other incidental overhead items, insurance, and making the vessels safe for divers (diverizing). There will also be yearly maintenance costs in perpetuity.

1. Is it more financially advantageous to sink the ship or to dismantle and recycle it? Show your calculations. (Worth 4 pts.)

Recycling=$32,800,000

Dismantle and transport=$34,500,000

Reefing the ship= $800,000

To dismantle and recycle the ship would cost, 34,500,000-32,800,000=$1,700,000, while sinking/reefing the ship would cost $800,000. This means that it would be more financially advantageous to sink or reef the ship because it would save a total of $900,000.

2. From a sustainability standpoint, what should be done with the decommissioned aircraft carrier? (Worth 4 pts.)

3. List some of the other quantitative and qualitative factors that should enter into this analysis. (Worth 10 pts.)

4. As a taxpayer(s), which action would you prefer (sink or recycle)? Defend your answer. (Worth 4 pts.)

Urban owns a valuable 10 acre plot of property which he wants to divide in half (into two 5 acre parcels) and sell one of the halves. He tells Lovie that he can build 100 apartments on one of the halves, and specifically describes where the property lines would be (“It goes out to that tree, then to the water, then back…”). Lovie agrees to buy half from Urban, “as is” and they arrange to have the land surveyed. Urban was present when the survey was done and saw where stakes were pounded into the ground to mark the property boundary lines. Urban didn’t like where the lot lines were set because he would have been forced to keep a less valuable part of the property that was partially under water because of wetlands. After the surveyor left, and while Lovie was not present, Urban went onto the property and, without consent, moved the stakes marking the lot lines to make them MUCH more favorable to him. As a result, Lovie got less usable and valuable property than he bargained for and less than he was told he would get. Because of the wetlands on the property with the “revised” lot lines (as changed by Urban), there was no way Lovie could have built 100 apartments on the property. Can Lovie sue Urban? If so, under what legal theory? Identify the relevant theory (s) and analyze it, i.e. apply the theory to the facts and tell me who wins (and why).

If all we can observe are things inside the observable universe, how do we know that anything even exists outside this boundary? I can see four ways of solving this problem.

1) We wait a while, the observable universe should get 'larger', so we should be able to observe more. I don't think this is practical though, since telescopes have only existed for a hundred years or so, whereas the age of the universe is many degrees larger. Also, galaxies are expanding outwards, so they will probably escape the observable universe horizon before we can observe them.

2) We go to another planet, and the 'centre' of the observable universe there is different, so in effect we can 'see' further then we could before. This is also impractical, we can't travel large enough distances for this effect to even have an inkling of an effect.

3) No way of knowing. All the matter that is within the observable universe could be all that there is, and we would have no way of knowing if anything even exists outside.

4) Theoretical calculations. Well scientists seem to be able to calculate (from redshifts?) the amount of dark matter, dark energy, and matter in the universe. That would mean that we would gain an understanding of what SHOULD be outside our observable universe (though we may never see it). This seems the most logical, but I have no idea how these calculations are carried out, any insight would be appreciated.

(a) Prove that there are no degenerate bound states in an infinite (−∞ < x < ∞) one-dimensional space. That is, if ψ1(x) and ψ2(x) are two bound-state solutions of − (h^2/2m) (d^2ψ dx^2) + V (x)ψ = Eψ for the same energy E, it will necessarily follow that ψ2 = Cψ1, where C is just a constant (linear dependence). Bound-state solutions should of course vanish at x → ±∞.

(b) Imagine now that our particle is restricted to move along a circular ring of radius R. It would still be a 1D system as we need only one coordinate x (as measured along the ring) to specify the position. It is, however, different from case (a) as x is limited to the circumference of the ring.

We want to find all stationary states (that is, eigenfunctions, including normalization factors) and energy values for the particle on this ring in the absence of an external potential (V (x) = 0 ). The main consideration here is that the wave function is single-valued – you are thus faced with what is called “periodic boundary conditions”: after going around the circle, you get to the same point. In addition to finding stationary states, you are asked to assess the degeneracy of all energy levels and relate your observations to the result of case (a). For better clarity, you are suggested to use both standing-wave (like sin(kx)) and running-wave (like exp(ikx)) solutions in your analysis. Any commentary and interpretations are welcome, including comparisons to states in the infinite square well potential.

The times of the finishers in the New York City 10km run are normally distributed with mean of 61 minutes and standard deviation ? minutes. It is known that 70% of finishers have a finish time greater than 60 minutes. Let ?denote the finishing time for finishers in this race.

Note: Show your R codes/output.

Note: You can use the functions pnorm() or qnorm() in R to help you in solving the following parts.

The function pnorm(), compute probabilities from known bounding values. The function qnorm() , aims to do the opposite: given an area, find the boundary value that determines this area.

a) (2 points) Find the standard deviation of the finishing time (?).
Note: Provide the R code and output for the z-value or finding area under the standard normal curve.

b) (2 points) In 2013 approximately 7748 individuals took part in the run. A random sample of 9 individuals is drawn and their finishing times are recorded. Assuming everyone finished the run. What is the probability that among the 9 finishers selected their average finishing time is greater than 59 minutes. Note: Mention the R code and output for the z-value or finding area under the standard normal curve. Do the calculations for 3 decimal points.

c) (2 points) A second, independent sample of individuals is drawn from this population. How large of a sample must be drawn if the probability that the average finishing time is less than 62 must be 80%? Note: Show the R code and output for the z-value or for finding area under the standard normal curve.

One of the interesting aspects of intangible assets that often comes up is the talent hired by companies that help make the organization unique... imagine, for example, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates - does their reputation augment Apple or Microsoft? What about other employees? Well, not to be cold, but most of us (myself included) are not going to be deemed 'intangible' assets to the point of posting a value on the balance sheet. However, there are individuals that would qualify - a perfect example would be professional athletes. I'll post a link to the article below, but the simplest form is that some accounting standards (FRS which is UK based and may also be very much part of the IFRS requirements being reviewed for the Week 4 paper) does require long-term player contracts to be capitalized and amortized. In a sense, it is logical as you are signing a contract that will incur a known long-term cost and have acquired an asset not easily replaced (so one would assume) and which will generate (it is hoped) appropriate revenues. Does the idea of capitalizing and amortizing contracts for sports figures seem logical? I think one could easily argue it... a player may be signed to a 12 year deal @ $12,000,000... we have our capitalization figure and term of contract for the amortization of expense - and the individual should provide an expected return during performances and simply being a fan favorite.

What do you think? How would you argue for or against this position?

An amusement park ride consists of a cylindrical chamber of radius R that can rotate. The riders stand along the wall and the chamber begins to rotate. Once the chamber is rotating fast enough (at a constant speed), the floor of the ride drops away and the riders remain "stuck" to the wall. The coefficients of friction between the rider and the wall are us and uk. 1. Draw a free body diagram of a rider of mass m after the floor has fallen away. 2. Is the rider on the wall accelerating? If so, in what direction? Should our FBD be balanced? 3. Write Newton's second law in the vertical direction. 4. Write Newton's second law in the horizontal direction. 5. If the ride takes a time T to go through one full revolution, what is the speed of the rider on the wall of the ride? 6. Assume that the ride is spinning just fast enough to keep the rider on the wall. Using the equations found in questions #3 and #4, calculate the minimum velocity to keep the rider suspended. 7. You get on the ride and notice another rider beside you who has twice your mass. If the ride is going just fast enough to keep you suspended, will the person beside you have a problem on the ride? 8. After a rider gets sick on the ride, the operator hoses down the walls of the ride, which reduces the coefficient of friction by half. What happens to the minimum velocity required for the rider to remain suspended?