Answer:
The value of the option to wait is $0.70,option A.
Explanation:
In calculating the value of the option to wait,I discounted all cash flows under both alternatives, using the discount rate of 12% as given in the question.
Option to start now gives net present value(positive return ) of $360.64 while the other one gives $361.34,invariably option to wait one year gives $0.70($361.34-$360.64) more than the option to start now.
The formula used in the calculating present value is PV=FV(1+r)^n
Where PV=present value
FV=future value
r=rate of interest
n=number of year
Find attached spreadsheet for detailed calculations.
Answer:
Gore is not required to make any accounting adjustments
Explanation:
Gore won't be required to make any accounting adjustments because the litigation loss is already $2,000,000 leading to him recording a liability in his account in which
$5 million in legitimate warranty claims were as well filed by his customers which is why he won't be making any further Accounting adjustment in 2021.
Answer:
cash flow used from investing activities 215,000
Explanation:
Investing activities
proceed from sale of building 500,000
Investment Fleet Corp. (120,000)
Equipment purchased (65,000)
loan to suppliers (100,000)
cash flow used
from investing activities 215,000
The common stock and dividend are financing
The land was acquire with a note payable, it do not involve cash.
the loan is made by the company to a supplies, it will be returned with interest, not goods, so is investing.
Explanation:
Data provided
Number of shares outstanding = 9,600
Cash dividend per share = $0.50
The Journal entry is shown below:-
Retained earning Dr, $4,800
To Common dividends payable $4,800
(Being dividend declaration is recorded)
Working note:-
Retained earning = Number of shares outstanding × Cash dividend per share
= 9,600 × $0.50
= $4,800
Answer: Ethical Obligations and Decision-Making in Accounting-The Heading is devoted to helping students cultivate the ethical commitment needed to ensure that their work meets the highest standards of integrity, independence, and objectivity.
* This program is designed to provide instructors with the flexibility and pedagogical effectiveness, and includes numerous features designed to make both learning and teaching easier.
Explanation: The first, addressed in Part I, is the administrative cost of deregulation, which has grown substantially under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.Part II addresses the consequences of the FCC's use of a competitor-welfare standard when formulating its policies for local competition, rather than a consumer-welfare standard. I evaluate the reported features of the FCC's decision in its Triennial Review. Press releases and statements concerning that decision suggest that the FCC may have finally embraced a consumer-welfare approach to mandatory unbundling at TELRIC prices. The haphazard administrative process surrounding the FCC's decision, however, increases the likelihood of reversal on appeal.Beginning in Part III, I address at greater length the WorldCom fraud and bankruptcy. I offer an early assessment of the harm to the telecommunications industry from WorldCom's fraud and bankruptcy. I explain how WorldCom's misconduct caused collateral damage to other telecommunications firms, government, workers, and the capital markets. WorldCom's false Internet traffic reports and accounting fraud encouraged overinvestment in long-distance capacity and Internet backbone capacity. Because Internet traffic data are proprietary and WorldCom dominated Internet backbone services, and because WorldCom was subject to regulatory oversight, it was reasonable for rival carriers to believe WorldCom's misrepresentation of Internet traffic growth. Event study analysis suggests that the harm to rival carriers and telecommunications equipment manufacturers from WorldCom's restatement of earnings was $7.8 billion. WorldCom's false or fraudulent statements also supplied state and federal governments with incorrect information essential to the formulation of telecommunication policy. State and federal governments, courts, and regulatory commissions would thus be justified in applying extreme skepticism to future representations made by WorldCom.Part IV explains how WorldCom's fraud and bankruptcy may have been intended to harm competition, and in the future may do so, by inducing exit (or forfeiture of market share) by the company's rivals. WorldCom repeatedly deceived investors, competitors, and regulators with false statements about its Internet traffic projections and financial performance. At a minimum, WorldCom's fraudulent or false