周教授CFA金融课程(2019年CFA一级全系列课程)

申请CFA一级会员免费学习、免费延期、直至通过考试。

周教授CFA金融课程(2019年CFA二级全系列课程)

申请CFA二级会员免费学习、免费延期、直至通过考试。

周教授CFA金融课程:考点精讲+作答须知(2019年CFA三级全系列课程)

全球最好CFA三级课程,由美国大学金融学资深教授,博士,CFA 持证人、博士生导师 - 周教授亲自授课,中国知名大学教授、硕博团队协作出品,通过率95%以上

 

CFA报名详细流程图,CFA考生自己即可完成报名
上一主题:Financial Reporting and Analysis 【Reading 29】Sample
下一主题:Financial Reporting and Analysis 【Reading 27】Sample
返回列表 发帖
周教授CFA金融课程:2019年CFA一二三级系列课程

Financial Reporting and Analysis 【Reading 28】Sample

Which of the following reasons is least likely a valid limitation of ratio analysis?
A)
It is difficult to find comparable industry ratios.
B)
Calculation of ratios involves a large degree of subjectivity.
C)
Determining the target or comparison value for a ratio is difficult.



There is not a great deal of subjectivity involved in calculating ratios. The mechanical formulas for the calculations are fairly standard and objective for the activity, liquidity, solvency, and profitability ratios, for instance. On the other hand, determining the target or comparison value for a ratio is difficult as it requires some range of acceptable values and that introduces an element of subjectivity. Conclusions cannot be made from viewing one set of ratios as all ratios must be viewed relative to one another in order to make meaningful conclusions. It can be difficult to find comparable industry ratios, especially when analyzing companies that operate in multiple industries.

Ratio analysis is most useful for comparing companies:
A)
in different industries that use the same accounting standards.
B)
that operate in multiple lines of business.
C)
of different size in the same industry.



Ratio analysis is a useful way of comparing companies that are similar in operations but different in size. Ratios of companies that operate in different industries are often not directly comparable. For companies that operate in several industries, ratio analysis is limited by the difficulty of determining appropriate industry benchmarks.

TOP

Comparing a company’s ratios with those of its competitors is best described as:
A)
longitudinal analysis.
B)
cross-sectional analysis.
C)
common-size analysis.



Comparing a company’s ratios with those of its competitors is known as cross-sectional analysis.

TOP

To study trends in a company’s cost of goods sold (COGS), an analyst should standardize COGS by dividing it by:
A)
net income.
B)
sales.
C)
prior year COGS.



In a common-size income statement, each income statement account is divided by sales. COGS is then production costs as a percentage of the sales price.

TOP

Common size income statements express all income statement items as a percentage of:
A)
net income.
B)
assets.
C)
sales.



Common size income statements express all income statement items as a percentage of sales. Note that common size balance sheets express all balance sheet accounts as a percentage of total assets.

TOP

Which of the following statements best describes vertical common-size analysis and horizontal common-size analysis?
Statement #1 – Each line item is expressed as a percentage of its base-year amount.
Statement #2 – Each line item of the income statement is expressed as a percentage of revenue and each line item of the balance sheet is expressed as a percentage of ending total assets.
Statement #3 – Each line item is expressed as a percentage of the prior year’s amount.
Vertical analysis Horizontal analysis
A)
Statement #1 Statement #2
B)
Statement #2 Statement #1
C)
Statement #2 Statement #3



Horizontal common-size analysis involves expressing each line item as a percentage of the base-year figure. Vertical common-size analysis involves expressing each line item of the income statement as a percentage of revenue and each line item of the balance sheet as a percentage of ending total assets.

TOP

Are the following statements about common-size financial statements correct or incorrect?
Statement #1 – Expressing financial information in a common-size format enables the analyst to make better comparisons between two firms of similar size that operate in different industries.
Statement #2 – Common-size financial statements can be used to highlight the structural changes in the firm’s operating results and financial condition that have occurred over time.
With respect to these statements:
A)
both are correct.
B)
only one is correct:
C)
both are incorrect.



Vertical common-size statements enable the analyst to make better comparisons of two firms of different sizes that operate in the same industry. Horizontal common-size financial statements express each line as a percentage of the base year figure; thus, horizontal common-size statements can be used to identify structural changes in a firm’s operating results and financial condition over time.

TOP

Given the following income statement and balance sheet for a company:

Balance Sheet

AssetsYear 2003Year 2004
Cash500450
Accounts Receivable600660
Inventory500550
Total CA13001660
Plant, prop. equip10001250
Total Assets26002910
Liabilities
Accounts Payable500550
Long term debt7001102
Total liabilities12001652
Equity
Common Stock400538
Retained Earnings1000720
Total Liabilities & Equity26002910

Income Statement

Sales3000
Cost of Goods Sold(1000)
Gross Profit2000
SG&A500
Interest Expense151
EBT1349
Taxes (30%)405
Net Income944

What is the quick ratio for 2004?
A)
2.018.
B)
3.018.
C)
0.331.



Quick ratio = (cash + marketable securities + receivables) / CL = (450 + 0 + 660) / 550 = 2.018

TOP

Which of the following is least likely a routinely used operating profitability ratio?
A)
Net income/net sales.
B)
Sales/Total Assets
C)
Gross profit/net sales.



Sales/Total Assets, or Total Asset Turnover is a measure of operating efficiency, not operating profitability.

TOP

As of December 31, 2007, Manhattan Corporation had a quick ratio of 2.0, current assets of $15 million, trade payables of $2.5 million, and receivables of $3 million, and inventory of $6 million. How much were Manhattan’s current liabilities?
A)
$4.5 million.
B)
$12.0 million.
C)
$7.5 million.



Manhattan’s quick assets were equal to $9 million ($15 million current assets – $6 million inventory). Given a quick ratio of 2.0, quick assets were twice the current liabilities. Thus, the current liabilities must have been $4.5 million ($9 million quick assets / 2.0 quick ratio).

TOP

返回列表
上一主题:Financial Reporting and Analysis 【Reading 29】Sample
下一主题:Financial Reporting and Analysis 【Reading 27】Sample