题目内容
风表所指示的压缩空气的压强是()。
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
铁路信号分为()。
The publication of IFRS 9, Financial Instruments, represents the completion of the first stage of a three-part project to replace IAS 39 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement with a new standard. The new standard purports to enhance the ability of investors and other users of financial information to understand the accounting of financial assets and reduces complexity.
Required:
(a) (i) Discuss the approach taken by IFRS 9 in measuring and classifying financial assets and the main effect that IFRS 9 will have on accounting for financial assets. (11 marks)
(ii) Grainger, a public limited company, has decided to adopt IFRS 9 prior to January 2012 and has decided to restate comparative information under IAS 8 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors. The entity has an investment in a financial asset which was carried at amortised cost under IAS 39 but will be valued at fair value through profit and loss (FVTPL) under IFRS 9. The carrying value of the assets was $105,000 on 30 April 2010 and $110,400 on 30 April 2011. The fair value of the asset was $106,500 on 30 April 2010 and $111,000 on 30 April 2011. Grainger has determined that the asset will be valued at FVTPL at 30 April 2011.
Required:
Discuss how the financial asset will be accounted for in the financial statements of Grainger in the year ended 30 April 2011. (4 marks)
(b) Recently, criticisms have been made against the current IFRS impairment model for financial assets (the incurred loss model). The issue with the incurred loss model is that impairment losses (and resulting write-downs in the reported value of financial assets) can only be recognised when there is evidence that they exist and have been incurred. Reporting entities are not allowed currently to consider the effects of expected losses. There is a view that earlier recognition of loan losses could potentially reduce the problems incurred in a credit crisis.
Grainger has a portfolio of loans of $5 million which was initially recognised on 1 May 2010. The loans mature in 10 years and carry an interest rate of 16%. Grainger estimates that no loans will default in the first two years, but from the third year onwards, loans will default at an annual rate of about 9%. If the loans default as expected, the rate of return from the portfolio will be approximately 9·07%. The number of loans are fixed without any new lending or any other impairment provisions.
Required:
(i) Discuss briefly the issues related to considering the effects of expected losses in dealing with impairment of financial assets. (4 marks)
(ii) Calculate the impact on the financial statements up to the year ended 30 April 2013 if Grainger anticipated the expected losses on the loan portfolio in year three. (4 marks)
Professional marks will be awarded in question 4 for clarity and quality of discussion. (2 marks)
Alexandra, a public limited company, designs and manages business solutions and IT infrastructures.
(a) In November 2010, Alexandra defaulted on an interest payment on an issued bond loan of $100 million repayable in 2015. The loan agreement stipulates that such default leads to an obligation to repay the whole of the loan immediately, including accrued interest and expenses. The bondholders, however, issued a waiver postponing the interest payment until 31 May 2011. On 17 May 2011, Alexandra felt that a further waiver was required, so requested a meeting of the bondholders and agreed a further waiver of the interest payment to 5 July 2011, when Alexandra was confident it could make the payments. Alexandra classified the loan as long-term debt in its statement of financial position at 30 April 2011 on the basis that the loan was not in default at the end of the reporting period as the bondholders had issued waivers and had not sought redemption. (6 marks)
(b) Alexandra enters into contracts with both customers and suppliers. The supplier solves system problems and provides new releases and updates for software. Alexandra provides maintenance services for its customers. In previous years, Alexandra recognised revenue and related costs on software maintenance contracts when the customer was invoiced, which was at the beginning of the contract period. Contracts typically run for two years.
During 2010, Alexandra had acquired Xavier Co, which recognised revenue, derived from a similar type of maintenance contract as Alexandra, on a straight-line basis over the term of the contract. Alexandra considered both its own and the policy of Xavier Co to comply with the requirements of IAS 18 Revenue but it decided to adopt the practice of Xavier Co for itself and the group. Alexandra concluded that the two recognition methods did not, in substance, represent two different accounting policies and did not, therefore, consider adoption of the new practice to be a change in policy.
In the year to 30 April 2011, Alexandra recognised revenue (and the related costs) on a straight-line basis over the contract term, treating this as a change in an accounting estimate. As a result, revenue and cost of sales were adjusted, reducing the year’s profits by some $6 million. (5 marks)
(c) Alexandra has a two-tier board structure consisting of a management and a supervisory board. Alexandra remunerates its board members as follows:
– Annual base salary
– Variable annual compensation (bonus)
– Share options
In the group financial statements, within the related parties note under IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures, Alexandra disclosed the total remuneration paid to directors and non-executive directors and a total for each of these boards. No further breakdown of the remuneration was provided.
The management board comprises both the executive and non-executive directors. The remuneration of the non-executive directors, however, was not included in the key management disclosures. Some members of the supervisory and management boards are of a particular nationality. Alexandra was of the opinion that in that jurisdiction, it is not acceptable to provide information about remuneration that could be traced back to individuals. Consequently, Alexandra explained that it had provided the related party information in the annual accounts in an ambiguous way to prevent users of the financial statements from tracing remuneration information back to specific individuals. (5 marks)
(d) Alexandra’s pension plan was accounted for as a defined benefit plan in 2010. In the year ended 30 April 2011, Alexandra changed the accounting method used for the scheme and accounted for it as a defined contribution plan, restating the comparative 2010 financial information. The effect of the restatement was significant. In the 2011 financial statements, Alexandra explained that, during the year, the arrangements underlying the retirement benefit plan had been subject to detailed review. Since the pension liabilities are fully insured and indexation of future liabilities can be limited up to and including the funds available in a special trust account set up for the plan, which is not at the disposal of Alexandra, the plan qualifies as a defined contribution plan under IAS 19 Employee Benefits rather than a defined benefit plan. Furthermore, the trust account is built up by the insurance company from the surplus yield on investments. The pension plan is an average pay plan in respect of which the entity pays insurance premiums to a third party insurance company to fund the plan. Every year 1% of the pension fund is built up and employees pay a contribution of 4% of their salary, with the employer paying the balance of the contribution. If an employee leaves Alexandra and transfers the pension to another fund, Alexandra is liable for, or is refunded the difference between the benefits the employee is entitled to and the insurance premiums paid. (7 marks)
Professional marks will be awarded in question 3 for clarity and quality of discussion. (2 marks)
Required:
Discuss how the above transactions should be dealt with in the financial statements of Alexandra for the year ended 30 April 2011.
Section A – BOTH questions are compulsory and MUST be attempted
Pursuit Co, a listed company which manufactures electronic components, is interested in acquiring Fodder Co, an unlisted company involved in the development of sophisticated but high risk electronic products. The owners of Fodder Co are a consortium of private equity investors who have been looking for a suitable buyer for their company for some time. Pursuit Co estimates that a payment of the equity value plus a 25% premium would be sufficient to secure the purchase of Fodder Co. Pursuit Co would also pay off any outstanding debt that Fodder Co owed. Pursuit Co wishes to acquire Fodder Co using a combination of debt finance and its cash reserves of $20 million, such that the capital structure of the combined company remains at Pursuit Co’s current capital structure level.
Information on Pursuit Co and Fodder Co
Pursuit Co
Pursuit Co has a market debt to equity ratio of 50:50 and an equity beta of 1·18. Currently Pursuit Co has a total firm value (market value of debt and equity combined) of $140 million.
Fodder Co, Income Statement Extracts
Fodder Co has a market debt to equity ratio of 10:90 and an estimated equity beta of 1·53. It can be assumed that its tax allowable depreciation is equivalent to the amount of investment needed to maintain current operational levels. However, Fodder Co will require an additional investment in assets of 22c per $1 increase in sales revenue, for the next four years. It is anticipated that Fodder Co will pay interest at 9% on its future borrowings.
For the next four years, Fodder Co’s sales revenue will grow at the same average rate as the previous years. After the forecasted four-year period, the growth rate of its free cash flows will be half the initial forecast sales revenue growth rate for the foreseeable future.
Information about the combined company
Following the acquisition, it is expected that the combined company’s sales revenue will be $51,952,000 in the first year, and its profit margin on sales will be 30% for the foreseeable futue. After the first year the growth rate in sales revenue will be 5·8% per year for the following three years. Following the acquisition, it is expected that the combined company will pay annual interest at 6·4% on future borrowings.
The combined company will require additional investment in assets of $513,000 in the first year and then 18c per $1 increase in sales revenue for the next three years. It is anticipated that after the forecasted four-year period, its free cash flow growth rate will be half the sales revenue growth rate.
It can be assumed that the asset beta of the combined company is the weighted average of the individual companies’ asset betas, weighted in proportion of the individual companies’ market value.
Other information
The current annual government base rate is 4·5% and the market risk premium is estimated at 6% per year. The relevant annual tax rate applicable to all the companies is 28%.
SGF Co’s interest in Pursuit Co
There have been rumours of a potential bid by SGF Co to acquire Pursuit Co. Some financial press reports have suggested that this is because Pursuit Co’s share price has fallen recently. SGF Co is in a similar line of business as Pursuit Co and until a couple of years ago, SGF Co was the smaller company. However, a successful performance has resulted in its share price rising, and SGF Co is now the larger company.
The rumours of SGF Co’s interest have raised doubts about Pursuit Co’s ability to acquire Fodder Co. Although SGF Co has made no formal bid yet, Pursuit Co’s board is keen to reduce the possibility of such a bid. The Chief Financial Officer has suggested that the most effective way to reduce the possibility of a takeover would be to distribute the $20 million in its cash reserves to its shareholders in the form. of a special dividend. Fodder Co would then be purchased using debt finance. He conceded that this would increase Pursuit Co’s gearing level but suggested it may increase the company’s share price and make Pursuit Co less appealing to SGF Co.
Required:
Prepare a report to the Board of Directors of Pursuit Co that
(i) Evaluates whether the acquisition of Fodder Co would be beneficial to Pursuit Co and its shareholders. The free cash flow to firm method should be used to estimate the values of Fodder Co and the combined company assuming that the combined company’s capital structure stays the same as that of Pursuit Co’s current capital structure. Include all relevant calculations; (16 marks)
(ii) Discusses the limitations of the estimated valuations in part (i) above; (4 marks)
(iii) Estimates the amount of debt finance needed, in addition to the cash reserves, to acquire Fodder Co and concludes whether Pursuit Co’s current capital structure can be maintained; (3 marks)
(iv) Explains the implications of a change in the capital structure of the combined company, to the valuation method used in part (i) and how the issue can be resolved; (4 marks)
(v) Assesses whether the Chief Financial Officer’s recommendation would provide a suitable defence against a bid from SGF Co and would be a viable option for Pursuit Co. (5 marks)
Professional marks will be awarded in question 1 for the format, structure and presentation of the report. (4 marks)
微信支付 
支付宝支付