Indigo Company manufactures equipment. Indigo’s products range from simple automated machinery to complex systems containing numerous components. Unit selling prices range from $200,000 to $1,500,000 and are quoted inclusive of installation. The installation process does not involve changes to the features of the equipment and does not require proprietary information about the equipment in order for the installed equipment to perform to specifications. Indigo has the following arrangement with Winkerbean Inc.

Indigo delivers the equipment on June 1, 2020, and completes the installation of the equipment on September 30, 2020. The equipment has a useful life of 10 years. Assume that the equipment and the installation are two distinct performance obligations which should be accounted for separately.

How should the transaction price of $970,000 be allocated among the service obligations? (Do not round intermediate calculations. Round final answers to 0 decimal places.)

eTextbook and Media

List of Accounts

Prepare the journal entries for Indigo for this revenue arrangement on June 1, 2020 and September 30, 2020, assuming Indigo receives payment when installation is completed. (Credit account titles are automatically indented when the 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.)

show work and explain

Indigo Company manufactures equipment. Indigo’s products range from simple automated machinery to complex systems containing numerous components. Unit selling prices range from $200,000 to $1,500,000 and are quoted inclusive of installation. The installation process does not involve changes to the features of the equipment and does not require proprietary information about the equipment in order for the installed equipment to perform to specifications. Indigo has the following arrangement with Winkerbean Inc.

Indigo delivers the equipment on June 1, 2020, and completes the installation of the equipment on September 30, 2020. The equipment has a useful life of 10 years. Assume that the equipment and the installation are two distinct performance obligations which should be accounted for separately.

How should the transaction price of $970,000 be allocated among the service obligations? (Do not round intermediate calculations. Round final answers to 0 decimal places.)

eTextbook and Media

List of Accounts

Prepare the journal entries for Indigo for this revenue arrangement on June 1, 2020 and September 30, 2020, assuming Indigo receives payment when installation is completed. (Credit account titles are automatically indented when the 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.)

show work and explain

Essan Construction Inc., which has a calendar year end, has entered into a non-cancellable fixed price contract for $2.8 million beginning September 1, 2020, to build a road for a municipality. It has been estimated that the road construction will be complete by June 2022. The following data pertain to the construction period.

(A) Using the percentage-of-completion method, calculate the estimated gross profit that would be recognized during each year of the construction period. (Enter negative amounts using either a negative sign preceding the number e.g. -45 or parentheses e.g. (45).)

(B) Using the percentage-of-completion method, prepare the journal entries for 2020 and 2021. (Use Materials, Cash, Payables for costs incurred to date.) (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.)

For Year 2020:

For Year 2021:

(C) Using the percentage-of-completion method, what is the balance in the Contract Asset/Liability account at December 31, 2020 and 2021? (Enter negative amounts using either a negative sign preceding the number e.g. -45 or parentheses e.g. (45).)

(D)

Naa Tetterley Company Ltd engaged your firm to prepare a Cash Budget for them. They informed you that:
a. They have two bills payable of $55,000 and $60,000 with due dates of 31st July and 30th September, 2020 respectively.
These bills will be paid on their due dates
b. The Company wishes to arrange with its bankers for any necessary re-financing in advance, which will ensure a minimum end of month cash balance of $25,000
You are also given the following information: i. The projected sales and purchases:
SALES     ($)         PURCHASES ($)

June 65,000              July.    57,000

July 90,000              August. 45,000

August 65,000          September.    51,000

September 68,000        October.    42,000

October 75,000

ii. The cash balance on 1st July, 2020 will be $18,000

iii. All sales are on terms of a 2% discount allowed on any payment made by the tenth of the month following the sale. Past experience indicates that 70% of the sales are collected within the first 10 days; 20% during the remainder of the first month; and 8% in the second month following the sale. 2% of the sales are considered irrecoverable.

iv. All payments for purchases qualify for 2% discount. Two-thirds of the invoices will be paid in the month of the purchase, and one-third in the month following the purchase.

v. Operating expenses are expected at $6,000 for July 2020. This will increase by 10% per month for the subsequent months.

vi. The company will receive $1,500 monthly from property rentals. This amount will be paid half-a-month in arrears.

vii. An amount of $2,500 will be realised in July from the sale of obsolete equipment.

viii. The company will buy a new plant for $42,000 on 1st June, 2020. The payment for this amount will be spread over 6 monthly equal instalments, starting from August, 2020.

ix. The company anticipates receiving interest on investment of $10,000 every month.

Required:
a. Prepare the Cash Budget for the three months ending 30th September, 2020

b. Outline any four benefits and four limitations respectively of a Cash Budget.          

Smart Company prepared its annual financial statements dated December 31, 2020. The company applies the FIFO inventory costing method; however, the company neglected to apply the LC&NRV valuation to the ending inventory. The preliminary 2020 statement of earnings follows:

Assume that you have been asked to restate the 2020 financial statements to incorporate the LC&NRV inventory valuation rule. You have developed the following data relating to the ending inventory at December 31, 2020:

1. Restate the statement of earnings to reflect the valuation of the ending inventory on December 31, 2020, at the LC&NRV. Apply the LC&NRV rule on an item-by-item basis.(FINISHED BELOW ANSWER QUESTION 2)

2. Compare and explain the LC&NRV effect on each amount that was changed in part 1. (Negative answers should be indicated by a minus sign.)

READ THE ARTICLE QUESTIONS ARE AT THE BOTTOM

In a recent T-Mobile commercial, one black-hatted outlaw breaks with the rest of his gang. “Aw,” he says, “I can’t do this anymore.” The message is not subtle. Yes, we’ve all been robbing you for years, declares T-Mobile, but at least we’ve decided we’re done with it. There’s more than rhetoric here: T-Mobile recently broke with longstanding industry norms and abandoned termination fees, sneaky overage charges, and other unfriendly practices.

Although T-Mobile’s decision is welcome news for consumers, it doesn’t change the fact that the old extortions remained in place for about fifteen years, and that they remain in place for the vast majority of Americans still trapped in contracts with Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint. And it sheds light on a long-standing problem with how we think about and treat anticompetitive practices in the United States. Our current approach, focussed near-exclusively on monopoly, fails to address the serious problems posed by highly concentrated industries.

If a monopolist did what the wireless carriers did as a group, neither the public nor government would stand for it. For our scrutiny and regulation of monopolists is well established—just ask Microsoft or the old AT&T. But when three or four firms pursue identical practices, we say that the market is “competitive” and everything is fine. To state the obvious, when companies act in parallel, the consumer is in the same position as if he were dealing with just one big firm. There is, in short, a major blind spot in our nation’s oversight of private power, one that affects both consumers and competition.

This blind spot is of particular significance during an age when oligopolies, not monopolies, rule. Consider Barry Lynn’s 2011 book, “Cornered,” which carefully detailed the rising concentration and consolidation of nearly every American industry since the nineteen-eighties. He found that dominance by two or three firms “is not the exception in the United States, but increasingly the rule.” Consumers, easily misled by product labelling, often don’t even notice that products like sunglasses, pet food, or numerous others come from just a few giants. For example, while drugstores seem to offer unlimited choices in toothpaste, just two firms, Procter & Gamble and Colgate-Palmolive, control more than eighty per cent of the market (including seemingly independent brands like Tom’s of Maine).

The press confuses oligopoly and monopoly with some regularity. The Atlanticran a recent infographic titled “The Return of the Monopoly,” describing rising concentration in airlines, grocery sales, music, and other industries. With the exception of Intel in computer chips, none of the industries described, however, was actually a monopoly—all were oligopolies. So while The Atlantic is right about what’s happening, it sounds the wrong alarm. We know how to fight monopolies, but few seem riled at “The Return of the Oligopoly.”

Things were not always thus. Back in the mid-century, the Justice Department went after oligopolistic cartels in the tobacco industry and Hollywood with the same vigor it chased Standard Oil, the quintessential monopoly trust. In the late nineteen-seventies, another high point of enforcement, oligopolies were investigated by the Federal Trade Commission, and during that era Richard Posner, then a professor at Stanford Law School, went as far as to argue that when firms maintain the same prices, even without a smoke-filled-room agreement, they ought to be considered members of a price-fixing conspiracy. (By this logic, the Delta and US Airways shuttles between New York and Washington, D.C., would probably be price-fixers, since their prices do vary by how far in advance you buy, but are always identical.)

Like many things from the nineteen-seventies, the treatment of oligopoly was subject to an enormous backlash in the nineteen-eighties and nineteen-nineties. (Posner actually helped lead the backlash.) And with some justification: some of the cases were quite bad, like a long-forgotten federal war on the breakfast-cereal industry. Firms shouldn’t be penalized for practices that are parallel but not actually harmful, nor for mere “parallel pricing.” An interpretation of law that makes nearly every gas-station owner into a felon is questionable.

But just as the nineteen-seventies went too far, the reaction to the nineteen-seventies has also gone too far. As part of a general retreat from prosecution of all but the most extreme antitrust violations, the United States has nowadays nearly abandoned scrutiny of oligopoly behavior, leaving consumers undefended. That’s a problem, because oligopolies do an awful lot that’s troubling.

Consider “parallel exclusion,” or efforts by an entire industry to keep out would-be newcomers, a pervasive problem. Over the eighties and nineties, despite “deregulation,” the established airlines like American and United managed to keep their upstart competitors out of important business routes by collectively controlling the “slots” at New York, Chicago, and Washington airports. Visa and MasterCard spent the nineties trying to stop American Express from getting into the credit-card industry, by creating parallel policies (“exclusionary rules”) and blacklisting any bank that might dare deal with AmEx. It was only thanks to the happenstance that both put their exclusions in writing that the Justice Department was able to do anything about the problem.

The rise of the American oligopoly makes it an important time to reëxamine how antitrust enforcers and regulators think about concentrated industries. Here’s a simple proposal: when members of a concentrated industry act in parallel, their conduct should be treated like that of a hypothetical monopoly. Of course, that doesn’t make anything necessarily illegal, but abusive or anticompetitive conduct shouldn’t get a free pass just because there are three companies involved instead of one. (I have co-authored a detailed academic paper, with former New York antitrust bureau chief Scott Hemphill, about how this should play out.)

Meanwhile, the idea that an industry is nominally “competitive” should not provide excessive protection from regulatory oversight. Consider, again, the wireless carriers. The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to insure that the carriers, who are leaseholders on public spectrum, use that resource to serve “the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Unfortunately, the agency, for more than a decade, has let the industry get away with all nature of monkey business, from termination fees through “guess your minutes” pricing plans and subsidization schemes. All this has been allowed under the theory that the industry is “competitive” and therefore not in need of oversight. But, to quote T-Mobile, “[t]his is an industry filled with ridiculously confusing contracts, limits on how much data you can use or when you can upgrade, and monthly bills that make little sense.” The F.C.C. could have done something about this years ago; the fact that it took a member of the industry to call out more than a decade’s abuse of consumers amounts to a serious failure on the part of the F.C.C.

Exploitation of concentrated private power is not a problem that will ever go away. In the United States, it has been a concern since the framing: the original Tea Party was actually a protest against a state-sponsored tea monopoly. The challenge is that power constantly mutates and assumes new forms. That’s why, whether overseeing private or public power, it’s important not to become fixated on form, but to attend to the realities that face consumers and citizens.

Illustration by Marcos Chin.

The article The Oligopoly Problem argued that oligopolies fall through the cracks of these regulations and leave consumers unprotected from harmful business practices where industries are highly concentrated. Read the article and respond to the following

1. What are examples of firms in an oligopolistic market that abuse their power? Explain how they abuse their power and describe the impact on consumers.

2. Do you agree with the author’s feelings about increased government oversight of such industries? Why or why not?

Question 2:

Sunny Ltd., a hand sanitizer manufacturer, has prepared its financial statements for the year ended at December 31, 2019. On February 28, 2020, the board of directors authorized to issue the financial statements to shareholders. The following events have occurred:

1. On December 1, 2019, the board of directors decided to issue $50,000,000, 9% convertible bonds for the purpose of expanding business in other countries. The conversion rate is fixed at 50 shares for bond with face value of $1,000. The convertible bonds are offered to the public on January 15, 2020. The market interest rate for a similar bond without conversion option is at 12%.                                                                                        [3 marks]
2. On October 23, 2019, Sunny signed a contract to sell 10,000 hand sanitizer to a local store at a price of $200 each. However, due to the increase in the cost of materials, the estimated cost of making one hand sanitizer has been increased to $250. Sunny has to deliver the hand sanitizer to its customer on January 30, 2020.                                                      [4 marks]

3. Under the terms of the sales contract, Sunny undertakes to recall its new formulated sanitizer, for its manufacturing defects within six months from the date of sale. The accountants estimated that 5% of the sanitizer will be returned for refund. In January 2020, Sunny discovered a serious problem in the manufacturing process of the new formulated sanitizer. Because of this, Sunny expected that 20% of the sanitizer sold in 2019 will be returned for refund.    [4 marks]

4. On December 15, 2019, a group of customers reported that the hand sanitizer that they bought in 2019 caused them have serious skin infection problems. They filed a lawsuit against Sunny on December 20, 2019. The company’s attorney said that it was probable that Sunny would be liable for the case. However, the amount of damage could not be estimated.        [4 marks]

5. On February 12, 2020, the above lawsuit case was settled for the amount of $2,500,000.                                                                                                     [4 marks]
6. Sunny has retail stores in China doing poorly. On February 15, 2020, Sunny estimated that those stores might report a loss of $1,500,000 in 2020.                                 [4 marks]

7. In May 2019, Sunny had legal disputes with Coco Limited. Unable to reach out-of-court settlement with Coco, Sunny sued Coco for compensation for damages in August 2018.         In November 2019, Sunny heard good news about the lawsuit in which the company sued Coco. Sunny’s lawyer is confident that the company will win the case and will receive about $120,000 in compensation for damages from Coco in early 2020. Sunny recognized the gain and receivable from litigation of $120,000 in year 2019.                                 [4 marks]

8. On March 1, 2020, a customer owing $600,000 to Sunny filed for bankruptcy. The financial statements include an allowance for doubtful debts pertaining to this customer only of $30,000.                                                                                          [3 marks]

Required:

For each of the above event, state the correct accounting treatments in accordance with Hong Kong Accounting Standards for the year ended at December 31, 2019. If it is an event after the reporting period, identify whether it is an adjusting or non-adjusting event. Give reasons for your answer.

Sunny Ltd., a hand sanitizer manufacturer, has prepared its financial statements for the year ended at December 31, 2019. On February 28, 2020, the board of directors authorized to issue the financial statements to shareholders. The following events have occurred:

1. On December 1, 2019, the board of directors decided to issue $50,000,000, 9% convertible bonds for the purpose of expanding business in other countries. The conversion rate is fixed at 50 shares for bond with face value of $1,000. The convertible bonds are offered to the public on January 15, 2020. The market interest rate for a similar bond without conversion option is at 12%.                                                                                       [3 marks]

2. On October 23, 2019, Sunny signed a contract to sell 10,000 hand sanitizer to a local store at a price of $200 each. However, due to the increase in the cost of materials, the estimated cost of making one hand sanitizer has been increased to $250. Sunny has to deliver the hand sanitizer to its customer on January 30, 2020.                                                      [4 marks]

3. Under the terms of the sales contract, Sunny undertakes to recall its new formulated sanitizer, for its manufacturing defects within six months from the date of sale. The accountants estimated that 5% of the sanitizer will be returned for refund. In January 2020, Sunny discovered a serious problem in the manufacturing process of the new formulated sanitizer. Because of this, Sunny expected that 20% of the sanitizer sold in 2019 will be returned for refund.        [4 marks]

4. On December 15, 2019, a group of customers reported that the hand sanitizer that they bought in 2019 caused them have serious skin infection problems. They filed a lawsuit against Sunny on December 20, 2019. The company’s attorney said that it was probable that Sunny would be liable for the case. However, the amount of damage could not be estimated. [4 marks]

5. On February 12, 2020, the above lawsuit case was settled for the amount of $2,500,000.                                                                                                    [4 marks]
6. Sunny has retail stores in China doing poorly. On February 15, 2020, Sunny estimated that those stores might report a loss of $1,500,000 in 2020.                                       [4 marks]

7. In May 2019, Sunny had legal disputes with Coco Limited. Unable to reach out-of-court settlement with Coco, Sunny sued Coco for compensation for damages in August 2018. In November 2019, Sunny heard good news about the lawsuit in which the company sued Coco. Sunny’s lawyer is confident that the company will win the case and will receive about $120,000 in compensation for damages from Coco in early 2020. Sunny recognized the gain and receivable from litigation of $120,000 in year 2019.                                       [4 marks]

8. On March 1, 2020, a customer owing $600,000 to Sunny filed for bankruptcy. The financial statements include an allowance for doubtful debts pertaining to this customer only of $30,000. [3 marks]

Required:

For each of the above event, state the correct accounting treatments in accordance with Hong Kong Accounting Standards for the year ended at December 31, 2019. If it is an event after the reporting period, identify whether it is an adjusting or non-adjusting event. Give reasons for your answer.

A gerontological nurse is caring for an 85-year-old female patient who is a victim of elder abuse. During the initial history and physical examination, the patient shared that she had recently moved in with her adult alcoholic son, his wife, and their three children. Over the past few months, however, she had been noticing many of her personal items missing, including her wedding ring, a set of crystal figurines, and her bank statements and checkbook. She also shared that her son told her not to worry about anything because he will be taking good care of her. When the patient’s son arrived during the interview, the gerontological nurse noticed that the patient became anxious and refused to answer any more questions.

1. What type of elder abuse is identified in this situation? Explain.

2. Elder mistreatment is an umbrella term that covers abuse, neglect, exploitation, and abandonment. A. True B. False

3. In most states and U.S. jurisdictions, licensed nurses are required to report suspicions of abuse to the state. Identify resources the gerontological nurse can use to report suspicions of elder abuse.

4. Caregivers are considered to be “the hidden patient” with many experiencing stress and caregiver burden. What tips can the gerontological nurse provide to family members in the caregiving role to reduce caregiver stress?

5. Family members and other unpaid caregivers provide the majority of care for older adults in the United States. A. True B. False

An 87-year-old white woman is diagnosed with end-stage liver disease and is requesting to be discharged to her home to die. The gerontological nurse consults with the health care provider to arrange a referral for hospice care.

1. The gerontological nurse’s decision is based on the knowledge that hospice care is indicated when

A. preparation for death with palliative care and comfort are the goals of care.

B. clients and families are having difficulty coping with grief reactions.

C. clients have unmanageable pain and suffering as a result of a physical condition.

D. family members can no longer care for dying loved ones at home.

2. Identify and describe the types of grief that the older adult may experience.

3. Explain the Patient Self-Determination Act (PSDA).