Assignment - Melbourne Institute of Technology.
There are 2 parts to the assignment. Both parts are mandatory.
- Part A - Theory question of 2000 words (excluding in-text referencing, appendices, bibliography and cover page), and
- Part B - Practical and theoretical exercises on liabilities, contingent liabilities, contingent assets, provisions and other matters.
Part A-
Describe and analyse the different ways that the five elements of financial elements, as defined in the International FRS conceptual framework, can be measured by listed companies. You are not constrained in this analysis to any one country or set of national accounting standards. Of course Australia is under International Financial Reporting Standards but your research could identify examples of companies operating under U.S. GAAP, Chinese National Accounting Standards or some other regulations/guidelines that illustrate what you want to discuss. In completing this assignment, you are required to:
a. Quote examples of measurement methodologies from company annual reports.
b. Clearly reference your sources.
c. In explaining how a company has measured an element, explain how the measurement method provided decision-useful information and what you understand decision-useful information to be.
d. Provide a critical analysis of the techniques the selected company has used and why a technique deployed may be more useful or practical than another method.
As an example, two (2) techniques have been appended that show how bond liabilities and interest expense are reported and measured in Australia and the USA. The first technique is called The Effective Interest Method and the other is called the Straight Line Method. The Effective Interest Method is permitted under both IFRS and US GAAP. The Straight Line method is only permitted under US GAAP. If you were writing on example on bond liabilities you could get into a discussion on these different techniques and whether one provides more decision useful information than the other. Or you may conclude that neither technique is very satisfactory and the bond liability should be reported in the balance sheet at market value because if the company wanted to redeem the debt by buying back the securities in the open market it would have to pay fair value (and that would be based on a current trading price for the bond)
Part B-
You are provided with the information below on Busy BodyMarine Pty Ltd (BBM), an entity that makes, distributes and repairs marine engines. The end of the reporting period is June 30.
Extracts from the Statement of Financial Position dated 30 June 2014
Current Liabilities
Provision for Warranties $540,000
Non-Current Liabilities
Provision for Warranties $320,399
Non-Current Assets
Plant &Equipment - At Cost $8,000,000
Accumulated Depreciation $2,400,000
Carrying Amount $5,600,000
Plant & Equipment has a useful life of 10 years and is depreciated on a straight line basis
Note 36 to the Statement
Busy BodyMarine Pty Ltd is engaged in litigation with various fishing fleets who believe their engines have not been properly serviced. This includes the allegations that the wrong synthetic motor oil was used by Busy BodyMarine during servicing. Busy BodyMarine denies the allegations as it made all necessary enquiries with the national distributor of the equipment before using the motor oil. As of the day of authorizing the financial statements for issue, Busy BodyMarine is unable to estimate the financial effect, if any, of any costs or damages that may be payable to the plaintiffs.
The Provision for Warranties at 30 June 2014 was calculated using the following assumptions (and there was no balance carried forward from the prior year)
|
Estimated cost of repairs-product with minor defects
|
$2,000,000
|
|
Estimated cost of repairs-products with major defects
|
$12,000,000
|
|
Expected % of products sold during FY14 having NO defects in FY15
|
80%
|
|
Expected % of products sold during FY14 having MINOR defects in FY15
|
15%
|
|
Expected % of products sold during FY14 having MAJOR defects in FY15
|
5%
|
|
Expected timing of settlement of warranty payments-those with MINOR defects
|
All in FY15
|
|
Expected timing of settlement of warranty payments-those with MAJOR defects
|
40% in FY15; 60% in FY16
|
|
Discount rate
|
6% p.a. but the effect of discounting for FY15 is considered immaterial
|
During the year ended 30 June 2015, the following occurred:
1. In relation to the warranty provision at 30 June 2014, $400,000 was paid out of the provision. Of the amount paid, $300,000 was for products with minor defects and $100,000 was for products with major defects, all of which related to amounts that had been expected to be paid in the 2015 financial year.
2. In calculating its warranty provision for 30 June 2015, BBM made the following adjustments to the assumptions used for the prior year
|
Estimated cost of repairs - products with MINOR defects
|
No change
|
|
Estimated cost of repairs-products with MAJOR defects
|
$10,000,000
|
|
Expected % of products sold during FY14 having NO defects in FY15
|
85%
|
|
Expected % of products sold during FY14 having MINOR defects in FY15
|
12%
|
|
Expected % of products sold during FY14 having MAJOR defects in FY15
|
3%
|
|
Expected timing of settlement of warranty payments-those with MINOR defects
|
All in FY16
|
|
Expected timing of settlement of warranty payments-those with MAJOR defects
|
20% in FY16; 80% in FY17
|
|
Discount rate
|
No change. The effect of discounting for FY16 is considered immaterial
|
3. BBM determined that part of its plant & machinery needed an overhaul - a piece of plant would need to be replaced in about June 2016 at an estimated cost of $500,000. The carrying amount of this piece of plant at 30 June 2014 was $280,000. Its original cost was $400,000.
4. BBM was unsuccessful in its defense of the maintenance/motor oil case and was ordered to pay $1,500,000 to the plaintiffs. As at 30 June 2015 BBM had paid $800,000
5. BBM commenced litigation against one of its advisers for negligent advice given on the original installation of the piece of plant referred to in 3 above. In April 2015 the court found in favor of BBM. The hearing for damages had not been scheduled as at the date the financial statements for 2015 were authorized for issue. BBM estimated it would receive about $425,000.
6. BBM signed an agreement with Bent Bank to the effect that BBM would guarantee a loan made by Bent Bank to BBM's subsidiary Little BBM Pty Ltd. Little BBMs loan with Bent Bank was $3,200,000 as at 30 June 2015 and Little BBM was in a strong financial position at that date.
Instructions-
Answer the questions below regarding Busy BodyMarine Pty Ltd (BBM) remembering the company has to comply with AASB 137 and other accounting standards.
(a) The balance of the warranty provision as at 30 June 2014 is given above. Establish how it was calculated and show your workings.
(b) Find the balance of the warranty provision as at 30 June 2015. Show all your workings.
(c) Calculate the prospective change in depreciation required as a result of the shortened useful life of the piece of plant. Show all your workings.
(d) Determine whether the unpaid amount owing as a result of the maintenance/motor oil case is a liability or a provision and give your reasons.
(e) Determine whether the receipt of damages for the negligent advice meets the definition of an asset or a contingent asset and give your reasons.
(f) Determine whether the bank guarantee meets the definition of a provision or a contingent liability and give your reasons. (Ignore AASB 139 in this regard.)
As you may not find a lot of information on the mechanics of provision in text books, here is some guidance to assist your preparation.
1. When you work out the provision for warranty expenses at 30 June 2014 you need to break up your calculation into 2 parts
(i) The impact your business should see in FY 15 (This is called the current portion of the liability)
(ii) The impact your business should see in FY16 (This is the non-current part). Do not forget to PV this portion for an appropriate number of years (for you to work out how many)
2. There are several ways to get to the provision at the end of 30 June 2015, but whatever calculation you use please remember that in FY15 the business would have charged a certain value of repairs against the provision as successful claims were made. This will have pushed down the provision. You then need to rebuild it to a number that is made up of
a. The impact your business should see in FY 16 (current portion of the liability)
b. The impact your business should see in FY17 (non-current part). Do not forget to PV this portion for an appropriate number of years (for you to work out how many)