Generally Accepted Accounting Principles question
You recognize expense when you sell the hot dog. When you pay for the buns you have inventory, which is an asset. When you sell the hot dog - you have cost of goods sold, which is the expense. Expense principle says that you recognize expense when you use the product. You use the buns when you actually sell the hot dog, not before. The matching principle is also honored because you recognize expense of the buns at the time of recognizing revenue of the hot dog.
"I am doing an assignment for a finance class, and I am writing a recommendation for a specific capital structure. One of the concerns brought up by the ""board of directors"" was interest coverage, so in my addressing that topic in my report, I want to compare to competitors. The interest coverage ratio under this capital structure that I'm choosing is 11.8 and the two competitors we are given information on are Company A (who has an interest coverage ratio of 6.67) and Company B (who has an interest coverage ratio of 11.25). It seems good, but my concern is that I may be missing something, as Company A is similar in size (in terms of sales) to the company I am writing a report for while Company B has ~50 times more sales than the company I am writing a report for.   Advice, things to consider as I move forward?" "There is no hard and fast rule. If there was, people could cleverly arrange to make money just often enough to stay on the ""ok"" side. It's a judgement call by the CRA and it probably starts with an audit, and depends on the reasons for the loss. Simple example: your business is selling your time at X an hour and you have expenses that you will cover if you sell Y hours a year, where Y is a lot less than the 2000 hours we have to sell each year. Maybe 300. And you had a big contract but it fell through and though you tried and tried you couldn't get another contract. This will probably be considered a reasonable loss. Another example: your business is selling art or antiques, most of which are kept in your house where you can look at them every day and enjoy them. Your expenses include lots of flights to places where these art or antiques come from, or perhaps are inspired by, along with hotel and restaurant costs, and you would need to sell your entire inventory every year just to cover these expenses, yet you only sell one or two pieces a year (or none) and there's no indication that you're particularly trying to sell more than that. This will probably be considered an unreasonable loss, and if the situation persists for many years in a row, the expenses may end up being disallowed. Side businesses often lose money at first. In fact, once they stop losing money they stop being side businesses. If you have spin up costs like buying hardware, developing software, or acquiring inventory, and you can show how long those extra costs can be expected to last, your expenses are less likely to be disallowed. That's the issue, not how many years in a row the loss occurred. This archived CRA document http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it364/it364-e.html gives examples of startup expenses that were allowed in years that didn't have revenue, never mind profit." Purchase accounting requires that you mark assets, including PP&amp;E to fair value.  So let's say you bought a machine 5 years ago for $1,000 - you might have depreciated it to $250 on your balance sheet but it might actually be worth $900. I appreciate it. I didn't operate under selling the asset year five but other than that I followed this example. I appreciate the help. These assignments are just poorly laid out. Financial management also plays on different calculation interactions  so it is difficult for me to easily identify the intent at times. Thanks again. This is a wonderful comprehensive answer as it relates to transferring goods, and evaluating profitability. I would like to add to your post and comment about a few other costs that are transferred.  First though, I disagree with your comment about transfer pricing being about opportunity cost. I think transfer pricing is first and primarily about the matching principal. Properly matching expenses incurred to the revenues generated from those expenditures, or in the case of period expenses, to those entities that received a benefit in the proper period. I don't work in tax, so I'm by no means an expert in this subject, but I am a CPA and I feel I have a solid understanding of the subject.  Some additional items going through TP might be: interest, shared corporate services, the amortization of intellectual property, technology fees, and depreciation charges. This is not a comprehensive list, and please don't take it as such.   None of these need apply to every company, and certain industries and even individual companies will have exceptions. For example, for various reasons, a multi-national conglomerate may choose to maintain separate treasury functions for it's vastly different businesses, so you may not see much interest TP.   Interest is pretty straight forward, and is the interest a company is paying on a debt. Not all interest is transferable, but a classic example might be borrowed funds used for an acquisition. The interest cost associated with that should be transferred in part back to the original entity. Short term borrowing costs used for operating capital is another classic example.   Shared corporate services are centralized functions like a legal department, accounting department, executive offices, and the like. This can also be an IT department or in the instance of an international website (maybe google), an operations team monitoring the server loads and up-times.  IP could just be patents that have definite lives that a number of businesses are benefiting from. IP is a bit of a mess to get into for various reasons and I'm trying to stay focused in this post. Some reasons for complexity include: the valuation, life of the asset, benefit of use, is the entity even really using it?, etc. I would imagine this is where companies get away with A LOT.   Technology fees can be software licenses (Windows ain't free).  Depreciation can be capitalized proprietary software.  I'm running out of gas and wanted to comment about OP's question.   I don't think SLA's and Internal billing services are a matter of directly increasing efficiency, more a matter of not creating inefficiencies. Going anecdotal, anywhere I've worked, the best person to do the job has been whoever's closest to the work. It wouldn't make much sense to me  to have accounting gather up internal support during the VERY time sensitive month-end close for something like one division's trade magazine that another division placed an ad in. On the other hand, I think the allocation of copy expenses on an activity basis is an absolute waste of time. It all depends on the specific transaction in question.  Great post bctich. Don't mean to detract, just looking to help others understand. "I think the key concept here is future value.  The NAV is essentially a book-keeping exercise- you add up all the assets and remove all the liabilities.  For a public company this is spelled out in the balance sheet, and is generally listed at the bottom.  I pulled a recent one from Cisco Systems (because I used to work there and know the numbers  ;-) and you can see it here: roughly $56 billion... https://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=CSCO+Balance+Sheet&annual  Another way to think about it: In theory (and we know about this, right?) the NAV is what you would get if you liquidated the company instantaneously.  A definition I like to use for market cap is ""the current assets, plus the perceived present value of all future earnings for the company""... so let's dissect that a little.  The term ""present value"" is really important, because a million dollars today is worth more than a million dollars next year.  A company expected to make a lot of money soon will be worth more (i.e. a higher market cap) than a company expected to make the same amount of money, but later.  The ""all future earnings"" part is exactly what it sounds like.  So again, following our cisco example, the current market cap is ~142 billion, which means that ""the market"" thinks they will earn about $85 billion over the life of the company (in present day dollars)." "A bit strange but okay.  The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings.   Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says ""the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years"" - that just seems like an absurd timeline.  Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated.  And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a ""liquidation value"". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity." Sorry, I got even more confused. I assumed IC referred to equity only. At least under English accounting practice it's the norm to refer only to equity investment as capital in that context. The debt is listed as both an asset (cash or whatever asset the cash has been put towards) and a liability, cancelling it out. That being the case, the number would be the same, no? Broadly, there's a bunch of stuff you need to be accounting for that's not reflected in the above, which will impact the A/D profile of an acquisition:  * Consideration paid (all cash on substantially the same terms is going to be more accretive than an all-stock transaction...because in the latter, your denominator is much bigger)  * Shares outstanding (including repurchases, in-kind dividends and option exercise)  * Financing / interest expense  * Upside / base / downside case for all of your assumptions - best to have a toggle based on a CHOOSE function that will allow the user to easily toggle between these  I'm not sure what EBITDA is getting you. EPS accretion/dilution typically looks at earnings, but you could also look at Cash EPS A/D which measures OCF/shares outstanding.  The point is, this really depends on how back of the envelope you want the A/D computation to be. At a minimum, you need an earnings schedule projected over the next 2-3 years, and you need a schedule reflecting outstanding shares over the same time period.  Your earnings buildout can have varying degrees of granularity. You can project cost synergies over the forecast period, which most obviously is going to affect your earnings, but you can also drill down further. Financing, transaction fees, etc. Your writeups and writedowns from your B/S combination may result in certain deferred tax items that will affect your bottom line over the forecast period.  Your share schedule can also have varying degrees of complexity. One way to do it is to just presume that the company will not issue any more shares, and will not repurchase any shares, and that there will be no options exercised, over the forecast period. This is a bad series of assumptions. It is likely that as options vest, if in the money, they will be exercised, resulting in dilution for existing shareholders. It is also likely that certain preferred shareholders and optionholders are going to experience adjustments to the conversion prices based on antidilution provisions in their securities. These may be but are not always disclosed in the 10K.  Last point - models are tools. What are you trying to build an accretion/dilution model for? This will affect and determine the degree of granularity you'll want to go into. "First, don't use Yahoo's mangling of the XBRL data to do financial analysis.  Get it from the horse's mouth: http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Search for Facebook, select the latest 10-Q, and look at the income statement on pg. 6 (helpfully linked in the table of contents).  This is what humans do. When you do this, you see that Yahoo omitted FB's (admittedly trivial) interest expense.  I've seen much worse errors. If you're trying to scrape Yahoo... well do what you must.  You'll do better getting the XBRL data straight from EDGAR and mangling it yourself, but there's a learning curve, and if you're trying to compare lots of companies there's a problem of mapping everybody to a common chart of accounts. Second, assuming you're not using FCF as a valuation metric (which has got some problems)... you don't want to exclude interest expense from the calculation of free cash flow.  This becomes significant for heavily indebted firms. You might as well just start from net income and adjust from there... which, as it happens, is exactly the approach taken by the normal ""indirect"" form of the statement of cash flows.  That's what this statement is for.  Essentially you want to take cash flow from operations and subtract capital expenditures (from the cash flow from investments section).  It's not an encouraging sign that Yahoo's lines on the cash flow statement don't sum to the totals. As far as definitions go... working capital is not assets - liabilities, it is current assets - current liabilities.  Furthermore, you want to calculate changes in working capital, i.e. the difference in net current assets from the previous quarter.  What you're doing here is subtracting the company's accumulated equity capital from a single quarter's operating results, which is why you're getting an insane result that in no way resembles what appears in the statement of cash flows.  Also you seem to be using the numbers for the wrong quarter - 2014q4 instead of 2015q3. I can't figure out where you're getting your depreciation number from, but the statement of cash flows shows they booked $486M in depreciation for 2015q3; your number is high. FB doesn't have negative FCF." I was looking for ideas on what the usual figures are in such positions. Something like market value, or other terms such as changing slab percentages in compensation. Not sure what the best practices are in this situation.  Not sure what you are referring to. Expensing a transfer of funds is incorrect. That will affect the Profit/Loss (Income) statement when you transfer it out and back in, which you do not want, at least for the principle. The interest should be recorded as a interest income. The general way to account for transferring money is to credit the originating account, and debit the destination account. This will only affect the balance sheet accounts. For example: Transferring (buying) 10,000 worth of fix term bank deposits Interest is paid: The bank deposit reaches maturity, so the principle is returned, with the final interest payment. The accounts Checking account and Fixed term bank deposit are asset accounts, which show up on the balance sheet. The Interest income is an income account, which will show up in the income statement. This is how a fixed term/CD is usually recorded. In certain cases, where the business must follow an accounting standard, this may very well be insufficient, but this situation will be unlikely if it's a small private sports club. Having said that, double check to make sure what you've stated is indeed correct, and look back into the past entries to see how it was dealt with before, especially since you said this bookkeeping job is temporary. I would strongly advise against changing non-recent entries, even if they are incorrect. For the insurance payments, that would depend on how the damaged assets were accounted for. It's a little hard to say without more detail-- the extent of the damage, how the diminished value was accounted for in the books, the cost of repair materials, etc. "Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52.  On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot.  This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds.  So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990.  In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also ""wash sales"", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days.  Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code.  You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis.  I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered.  The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur." This is great! I'm not a CPA, but work in finance. As such, my course/professional work is focused more on the economic and profitability aspects of transfer pricing. As you might imagine, it tended to analyze corporate strategy decisions under various cost allocation models, which you thoroughly discuss.  I would agree with the statement that it is based on the matching principle but would like to add that transfer pricing is interesting as it falls under several fields: accounting, finance, and economics. Fundamentally it is based on the matching principal, but it's real world applications are based on all three (it's often used to determine divisional and even individual sales peoples profitability; as is the case with bank related funds transfer pricing on stuff like time deposits). In this case, the correct accounting principal allows you to, when done properly, better understand the economics, strategy, and operations of an organization.   In effect, when done correctly, it provides transparency for strategic decision making to executives. As I said, since my coursework tended to focus more on that aspect, I definitely have a natural tendency towards it.  This is an amazing explanation (esp. about interest on M&amp;A bridge loans, I get that) of the more detailed stuff! Truthfully, I'm not as familiar with it and was just trying to show more of the conceptual than nitty-gritty.   Thanks for the reply! &gt; If the buyside was showing demand, what's wrong with HFT for reacting with supply?  In my example, HFT isn't actually adding supply/liquidity.  They're just grabbing it and flipping it.  &gt; The example you gave is akin to me going from car dealership to car dealership yelling loudly about what car I want and the price I'd like it at - would you be upset if someone heard you and decided to sell their car to you later down the line?   Not the same.  The equivalent would be me yelling about wanting to buy a Porsche 911, and you buying them all before I can finish my own purchase, then offering to resell them to me at a higher price.  &gt;In this case, the buy side trader is being stupid.   Maybe - certainly if all this could be eliminated by avoiding market orders.  This is a major critique many people have with Brad K. Instead of serially going from exchange to exchange, he could have sent orders to all exchanges at the same time (parallel!) and likely received much better prices.   He did do this at his time at RBC - sent orders to all exchanges at once.  The result would be apparently liquidity (asks at the market) disappearing and his orders getting filled at higher prices.  &gt;In my opinion, the HFT player here is simply facilitating price discovery by reacting to demand - as a market maker that's his job.  I think that's a misinterpretation of what these particular HFTs are doing.  &gt;Here's a good article. Let me know what you think.  Interesting.  It certainly goes against a lot of what Lewis wrote.  And I suppose that's the problem... very few of us are actually qualified to say what is actually true.  I know little about market structure and, as I said, have no involvement in high liquidity stocks.  The fund managers next door to me also trade pretty illiquid stuff that I strongly doubt any HFT ever touches, and they're value investors anyway, not arb HFs or something.