土豆妮

The Anderson Company acquired 100,000 shares of the Birschbach Company on January 1, 2000, at $25 per share. The market price of a share of Birschbach stock on December 31, 2000, was $35 per share. During 2000, Birschbach paid dividends of $1.50 per share and had earnings of $2.50 per share.

If Anderson Company accounts for the Birschbach Company shares using the equity method, the carrying amount of these shares on Anderson's balance sheet at the end of 2000 is:

A) $2.5 million.

B) $3.5 million.

C) $2.6 million.

---

Under the equity method market value is ignored so the carrying value of the shares is the original investment + proportional share of earnings ? dividend received.

[(100,000)($25)] + [(100,000)($2.50 ? 1.50)] = $2,600,000

---

For the year 2000, the investment income that Anderson Company reports on its investment in Birschbach Company shares, assuming it accounts for the shares as an available-for-sale investment, is:

A) $250,000.

B) $100,000.

C) $150,000.

---

Under the available-for-sale accounting method unrealized gains and losses are not recognized on the income statement so the only impact on the income statement is the dividend received:

 (100,000 shares)($1.50 per share) = $150,000

土豆妮

On December 15, 2004, the Zeisler Company faces a financial crisis. Zeisler’s industry has gone into recession and net income has declined to nearly zero. Jeremiah Welch, the company’s CFO, is extremely concerned that, when the final figures for 2004 come in, the poor operating results will throw the firm into violation of its debt covenants, which specify that it must meet a certain return on assets (ROA) and not exceed a certain debt-to-asset ratio. A violation of either covenant would trigger a provision in the lending agreement allowing lenders to put Zeisler’s debt back to the firm and likely force Zeisler into bankruptcy.

With only two weeks before the close of the firm’s fiscal year on December 31, there is no way to avoid bankruptcy through improved operations. Welch calls an emergency meeting with Olivia Dupree, the firm’s controller, to come up with a plan of action to keep Zeisler out of bankruptcy. He explains to Dupree that they need to increase Zeigler’s reported ROA and reduce its reported debt-to-assets ratio relative to the numbers that would otherwise be reported for 2004.

Dupree suggests that Zeisler’s equity investments might be useful in staving off bankruptcy. Zeisler acquired 100,000 shares of the Market Square Corporation on January 1, 2004, at $25 per share. Market Square paid dividends during 2004 of $1.50 per share and was expected to have earnings for 2004 of $2.50 per share. Zeisler also holds 250,000 shares of General Nuclear, purchased for $72 per share. General Nuclear has no dividends and is expected to report a loss for 2004. Both securities are classified on the financial statements as available-for-sale. 

Dupree added that Zeisler also holds several million dollars of Market Square’s debt securities, classified as a held-to-maturity investment. The holding in Market Square represents a small fraction of Zeisler’s total fixed-income investments, all of which are also classified as held-to-maturity. The investment in Market Square’s debt differs significantly from Zeisler’s other investments in fixed-income securities in that Market Square’s debt is trading slightly above Zeisler’s cost while Zeisler’s other fixed-income investments are all trading significantly below Zeisler’s cost because of a general increase in market interest rates. Welch points out, however, that even if the firm were to sell all its marketable securities, the proceeds would not be sufficient to pay off the debt and avert bankruptcy.

Dupree left the meeting with Welch for a moment to check the stock market. She found that Market Square was trading at $35 per share and General Nuclear was at $43. This new information gave Dupree an idea.

Dupree suggested to Welch, “We could reclassify our equity investment in Market Square as trading before year-end. That will help raise our ROA for this year.” Welch pointed out that a reclassification of the equity investment from available-for-sale to trading would reduce Zeisler’s reported net income because the firm would be required to stop including the dividends it receives from Market Square in net income.

Welch suggested that, instead of reclassifying Market Square’s equity, they sell Market Square’s debt. That would reduce Zeisler’s debt-to-assets ratio because the unrealized gain in the market value of the Market Square debt would be realized when the security was sold. Dupree added that the firm could also liquidate the General Nuclear investment to raise cash without affecting the firm’s reported ROA for 2004. Welch and Dupree decided to liquidate the two assets to help improve the firm’s financial position.

What is the investment income that Zeisler Company will report for the year 2004 on its investment in Market Square Corporation shares if it continues to account for the shares as an available-for-sale investment?

A) $200,000.

B) $250,000.

C) $150,000.

---

The investment income for available-for-sale securities includes dividends, interest, and realized gains. In this case, the investment income from Market Square Corporation would be the dividends it paid to the number of shares Zeisler owns:

100,000 shares × $1.50 per share = $150,000.

(Study Session 5, LOS 21.b)

---

If Zeisler were to account for the Market Square Corporation shares as trading securities, assuming that the securities do not change in value between the December 15th meeting and the end of the year, the carrying amount of these shares on Zeisler's December 31, 2004 balance sheet would be:

A) $3.50 million.

B) $2.75 million.

C) $2.50 million.

---

Trading securities are carried at fair market value:

100,000 shares × $35 per share = $3,500,000

(Study Session 5, LOS 21.b)

---

If Zeisler reclassified the common stock of General Nuclear as a trading security, what effect would it have on Zeisler’s 2004 income statement?

A) Net income would increase.

B) Net income would decline.

C) Reclassifying the security would have no effect on the income statement because gains and losses would be recognized in equity.

---

Reclassifying a security from available-for-sale to trading requires unrealized gains and losses to be recognized in income. Since Zeisler’s investment in General Nuclear has an unrealized loss, net income would be reduced. (Study Session 5, LOS 21.b)

---

Regarding the statements made by Dupree and Welch about reclassifying Zeisler’s equity investment in Market Square to trading:

A) Welch’s statement is correct; Dupree’s statement is incorrect.

B) Welch’s statement is incorrect; Dupree’s statement is correct.

C) Welch’s statement is incorrect; Dupree’s statement is incorrect.

---

Welch’s statement is incorrect because dividends and interest are recognized as income both when the securities are classified as trading and when they are classified as available-for-sale.

Dupree’s statement is correct. Reclassifying the securities from available-for-sale to trading will significantly raise Zeisler’s near-zero net income by allowing Zeisler to recognize the unrealized gain in income when the security is reclassified. It will have no material effect on asset value because the shares will be carried at fair market value as trading securities and were already carried at fair market value (with the net unrealized gain in equity) as available-for-sale securities. Even though it may appear that equity would decline by the amount of the unrealized gain if the securities were reclassified, the unrealized gain will flow through income in 2004 and thus return to equity. Consequently, reclassifying the equity securities of Market Square would help increase Zeisler’s ROA by raising net income and having little effect on assets. (Study Session 5, LOS 21.b)

---

If Zeisler were to account for the Market Square Corporation shares using the equity method, assuming that the securities do not change in value between the December 15th meeting and the end of the year, the carrying amount of these shares on Zeisler's December 31, 2004 balance sheet would be:

A) $2.75 million.

B) $3.50 million.

C) $2.60 million.

---

Under the equity method the market value of the stock is ignored but the proportionate share of the earnings are added to the original investment and the proportionate share of the dividends are subtracted from the earnings. Hence, we have the original investment + (earnings ? dividends) = total value of the investment.

[(100,000 shares)($25)] + [(100,000 shares)($2.50 earnings ? 1.50 dividend)] = $2,600,000. (Study Session 5, LOS 21.b)

---

Regarding the statements made by Welch about reclassifying Zeisler’s debt investment in Market Square to trading, and Dupree's statement on General Nuclear:

A) Welch’s statement is incorrect; Dupree’s statement is incorrect.

B) Welch’s statement is correct; Dupree’s statement is incorrect.

C) Welch’s statement is correct; Dupree’s statement is correct.

---

Welch’s statement is incorrect because SFAS 115 requires a firm that sells a held-to-maturity security before maturity to carry its remaining held-to-maturity securities at market value instead of cost. Since the Market Square debt is the only fixed-income investment trading above Zeisler’s cost, and it represents only a small part of Zeisler’s total fixed-income portfolio, the net effect of selling the Market Square debt would be to reduce assets (not raise them) because it would require Zeisler to mark down all its other fixed-income investments. A decline in assets would effectively increase the debt to assets ratio.

Dupree’s statement is also incorrect. The investment in General Nuclear would be carried on the books at fair market value, with the unrealized loss in equity. Selling the asset and converting it to cash would not materially affect total assets. However, selling the General Nuclear shares would reduce net income because the realized loss would have to be recognized in income. Thus, the sale would reduce reported ROA. (Study Session 5, LOS 21.b)

土豆妮

Pamelan Portfolios purchased 100,000 shares in Delta Corporation at a price of $10 per share on January 2, 2000.  Assume that Pamelan follows U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and initially accounts for its trading investments at lower of cost or market in 2000.  Delta is a domestic U.S. Corporation with all if its operations and sales in the U.S.  Delta had the following subsequent share prices:

• 12/31/00    $8 per share

• 12/31/01    $5 per share

• 12/31/02    $10 per share

Delta Corporation experienced a fire in August 2001 that destroyed virtually all of its operations in the U.S.  Pamelan’s management believes that this has seriously impaired the value of its investment by $3 per share when Delta’s Stock had a market value of $8 per share prior to the fire.  Delta’s stock had halted trading for the remainder of the year.

If Pamelan were to account for its investment in Delta at the end of 2001, Pamelan would:

A) write down its investment against its income statement as an extraordinary loss.

B) write down its investment against the equity section of its balance sheet.

C) write down its investment against its income statement as an ordinary loss.

---

Write downs are considered part of the normal course of business so they must be classified as an ordinary loss.

---

During 2002, Delta rebuilt all of its U.S. operations and restored all of its sales and business and recorded a profitable year. Its stock resumed trading, and it quickly ended the year at a market value of $10 per share. At the end of the 2002, Pamelan would:

A) write up the value of its investment by $5 per share to $10 per share to reflect its current market value.

B) not be permitted to write up the carrying value of its investment.

C) write up the value of its investment by $2 per share to $7 per share to reflect the correct carrying value of its investment.

---

Permanent impairments are not restorable under U.S. GAAP.

The cost per shares of $10

Less: the permanent impairment of $3

= $7 (the maximum value of write up)

OR

The cost of shares of $10

Less: the unrealized loss in 2000 of $2

Less: the permanent impairment of $3

Plus: the maximum market adjustment of $2 on unrealized loss

= $7 (the carrying value at 2002)

---

On January 15, 2003, Pamelan sold all of its shares in Delta at a price of $11 for a gain of:

A) $6 per share.

B) $4 per share.

C) $1 per share.

---

Sale price of $11 less $7 (carrying value from part #3) = $4.

土豆妮

On January 9, 2006, Company X paid $2,000,000 for 100,000 shares of stock in Company S. Originally the company intended on holding the securities for the foreseeable future. As of December 31, the stocks were valued at $2,200,000. In 2006, Company S had earnings per share of $0.90 and paid dividends per share of $0.20. In late December 2006, the company decided to place the securities in their active marketable securities portfolio.

What is the impact of this change in status on the value of the assets of Company X?

A) $200,000.

B) $70,000.

C) $0.

---

The stocks were classified as debt and equity securities available for sale, but now they will be classified as debt and equity trading securities. However, although it will affect net income, the change in status will not impact the reported value of the assets. According to SFAS 115, securities transferred from available-for-sale to trading securities are transferred at fair market value and unrealized gains or losses would be included in income.

---

What is the impact of this change in status on the income and the stockholders' equity of Company X?

A) Stockholders' equity will rise by $200,000, but income will not change.

B) Income and stockholder's equity will rise by $200,000.

C) Income will rise by $200,000, but stockholders' equity will not change.

---

The stocks were classified as debt and equity securities available for sale, but now they will be classified as debt and equity trading securities. The gain would have been reported in the securities valuation account in the equity section and not on the income statement, but now will be reported as income.

土豆妮

The California Wines owns 40% of a joint venture, Western Vineyards. Vineyard's income statement for this period is as follows:

Revenues	$10,000
Less: cost of goods sold (COGS)	7,500
Gross profit	$2,500
Less: selling and administrative expenses	500
Operating income	$2,000
Less: interest expense	500
Earnings before taxes	$1,500
Less tax	600
Net income	$900

California Wines purchases 30% of the output of Vineyard. The amount of revenues, COGS, and net income of Vineyard to be included in the California Wine's income statement under proportionate consolidation are, respectively:

A) $0; $0; $0.

B) $2,800; $1,800; $360.

C) $4,000; $3,000; $360.

---

[(0.4)($10,000)] ? [(0.4)(0.3)($10,000)] = $2,800; [(0.4)($7,500)] ? [(0.4)(0.3)($10,000)] = $1,800; (0.4)($900) = $360.

土豆妮

Which of the following statements about proportionate consolidation and the equity method is FALSE?

A) In a proportionate consolidation, the analyst adds the investor's pro-rata share of each of the affiliate's asset and liability accounts to the historical cost financial statements of the investor.

B) The equity balance under a proportionate consolidation will differ from that of the equity method because the investor records his pro-rata share of the equity of the affiliate firm in a proportionate consolidation.

C) Total assets under proportionate consolidation will most likely exceed the total assets reported under the equity method.

---

The equity balance of the investor will remain unchanged irrespective of whether or not the equity method or proportionate consolidation is employed.

土豆妮

Which of the following statements about proportionate consolidation is TRUE?

A) Minority interest is computed and shown on a proportionate consolidation balance sheet and income statement.

B) The porportionate consolidation method is employed by analysts to better reflect the economic reality of the relationship between an investor and affiliate company which is currently accounted for under the equity method.

C) Under the proportionate consolidation method, all asset and liability accounts are added together using original historical costs.

---

The proportionate consolidation method is most appropriate when two firms have entered into a joint venture relationship but the investor accounts for the investment under the equity method because it owns between 20 and 50% of the outstanding shares of the JV. The proportionate consolidation method is used by analysts to better reflect the true economic linkage between the JV and the investor firm. The equity method provides nothing more than a "one-line" consolidation.

土豆妮

Joseph Haggs, CFA, is an analyst working for Garvess Jones, a large publicly traded investment-baking firm. Haggs covers the Internet sector. Recently, one of the more successful companies Haggs covers, Simpson Corporation, made an aggressive move to acquire another Internet company, Bailey Corporation (BC). BC is a company specializing in graphics and animation on the World Wide Web and has 1,000,000 shares outstanding. Simpson also holds minimal investments in other technology companies both public and private. In 1999 Simpson saw an opportunity to substantially increase its share in BC. Simpson feels that their sophisticated animation can greatly improve Simpson's market share and sees an acquisition as an opportunity to expand their business. The relevant financial data are in the following tables.

Bailey Corporation
Selected Financial Data, Years Ended December 31
(in Thousands)
Item	1998	1999	2000
Sales	$50,000	$60,000	$70,000
Less: cost of goods sold (COGS)	37,000	43,700	47,250
Earnings before interest & taxes (EBIT)	13,000	16,300	22,750
Less: Interest	10,000	13,000	19,000
EBT	3,000	3,300	3,750
Less: Taxes	1,000	1,100	1,250
Net Income	$2,000	$2,200	$2,500
Dividends Paid	$1,000	$1,200	$1,500
Total Shares Outstanding	1,000,000

Simpson’s Purchase Transactions in BC’s Stock
Date	January 1, 1998	January 1, 1999	January 1, 2000
Number of Shares	10,000	290,000	700,000
Price per Share	10	11	15

Because this is the largest acquisition in Simpson's history, Mr. Haggs' supervisor has asked him to prepare a report for Garvess Jones' clients detailing the affects of the acquisition on Simpson's financial statements.

Haggs wonders which accounting method Simpson uses to calculate the book value of the BC investment for the year ending December 31, 1999. Which is the correct method?

A) Equity method.

B) Consolidation method.

C) Cost method.

---

When a company owns an influential but non-controlling interest in another company, commonly 20-50%, it must account for it under the equity method.

---

Haggs wonders which accounting method Simpson uses to calculate the book value of the BC investment for the year ending December 31, 1998. Which is the correct method?

A) Equity method.

B) Consolidation method.

C) Cost method.

---

When a company owns a non-influential and non-controlling interest in another company the investment must be carried at cost. Simpson must carry its BC investment at cost for 1998.

---

Haggs wonders which accounting method Simpson uses to calculate the book value of the BC investment for the year ending December 31, 2000. Which is the correct method?

A) Equity method.

B) Pooling-of-interests method.

C) Consolidated method.

---

When a company's interest in another exceeds 50% it is considered to have controlling interest and must consolidate the financial statements.

---

Haggs wants to make sure that he assumes the proper accounting method when he does his analysis. The acquisition of BC stock will lead to Simpson's total net cash flow equaling which of the following for the year ending December 31, 1999?

A) $?3,190,000.

B) $360,000.

C) $?2,830,000.

---

Simpson paid a total of $?3,190,000 (290,000 shares × $11) however, they also received a dividend from BC of $360,000. For 1999 Bailey Corporation is paying $1.20 in dividends per share (1,200,000 / 1,000,000). As of December 1999, Simpson has purchased 300,000 shares of BC (= 290,000 + 10,000). So dividends received is 300,000 × $1.20 = $360,000. This will make the total cash flow for the year $?2,830,000.

土豆妮

Assume that on the balance sheet date shown below TME Corporation acquires 70% of Abcor, Inc. common stock for $25,000 in cash.

Pre-acquisition Balance Sheets December 31, 2001
	TME Corp.	Abcor, Inc.
Current assets	$80,000	$38,000
Other assets	28,000	15,000
Total assets	$108,000	$53,000
Current liabilities	$60,000	$32,000
Common stock	15,000	14,000
Retained earnings	33,000	7,000
Total liabilities and equity	$108,000	$53,000

What will be the post-acquisition current ratio, using both the consolidation method and the equity method, respectively, for TME?  The choices below represent Consolidation and Equity, respectively.

A) 1.01, 0.92.

B) 1.04, 1.11.

C) 1.21, 1.02.

---

With the consolidation method: The current assets are ($80,000 + $38,000 - $25,000) = $93,000. The current liabilities are ($60,000 + $32,000) = $92,000. The current ratio is $93,000/$92,000 = 1.01. With the equity method: The current assets are ($80,000 - $25,000) = $55,000. The current liabilities are $60,000. The current ratio is $55,000/$60,000 = 0.92.

---

Using the consolidation method to account for the acquisition, what will be the post-acquisition current assets of TME?

A) $105,000.

B) $118,000.

C) $93,000.

---

Using the consolidated basis of accounting, the post-acquisition level of the current assets is the amount of the current assets prior to acquisition minus the amount of cash used for the acquisition. ($80,000 + 38,000 – 25,000) = $93,000.

---

Using the consolidation method to account for the acquisition, what will be the post-acquisition amount that will be recorded as the minority interest?

A) $6,300.

B) $14,700.

C) $21,000.

---

Since only 70% of Abcor was purchased by TME there is a minority interest that must be accounted for, equal to the percentage of Abcor not owned by TME times Abcor’s net worth. (0.30)($53,000 – 32,000) = $6,300.

土豆妮

Which of the following statements regarding a comparison of the equity method with the consolidation method is FALSE?

A) Operating Income will tend to be higher under consolidation relative to the equity method.

B) ROE will tend to be higher under the equity method relative to consolidation.

C) Total Equity will be the same under both methodologies.

---

Both net income and equity will be the same regardless of whether the equity method or consolidation is used to account for an intercorporate investment. Hence, ROE = net income / equity, will remain unchanged. Operating income tends to be higher under consolidation because minority interest is reported below the operating line in most cases on a consolidated income statement.