fully describe the concept of revenue confession?
it was given to us by our don.he said we should type and print 10 pages of the A4 sheet.un der the subject command AccountingAnswers:
Definition of revenue: Revenues are increases in the reporting entity's assets (including inflows of assets or enhancement of assets) or decreases contained by its liabilities resulting from accomplishments that are integral to the provision of products (goods and services) by the entity itself that are ultimately destined for customers.
The key portion of this definition is that the reporting entity generates revenues with the sole purpose in respect of the goings-on it performs itself.
Under the broad show view, if the reporting entity provides merchandise it owns to customers, revenues arise from satisfying its manners obligation to provide those merchandise. This is regardless of whether the reporting entity subcontracts the manufacture of cog or all of those products, and whether the entity owns those goods momentarily.
The definition of revenues includes inflows of added assets and enhancements of existing assets resulting from accomplishments that are integral to the entity's provision of goods and services.
Value Added View
Definition of revenue: Revenues are the excess of the merit of the reporting entity's outputs in the form of stock and services that it creates over the costs of its inputs in the form of materials and services that it purchases from other entities.
Value added might be defined more narrowly by also excluding the convenience of all other factor inputs such as the wages of the reporting entity's team or interest accrued to its creditors. That would go off profit as the measure of revenues. Yet another possibility might be to interpret good point added as the entity's gross margin.
During its finishing meeting, the FASB rejected the "Gross Inflows View" and the "Value Added View" and asked its staff to concentrate on the other two view. The IASB Board also rejected the "Gross Inflows View" and the "Value Added View" as drafted. They believe the "Value Added View" has predictive helpfulness disclosure benefits and may be reconsidered from that point of outlook at a later stage.
There be support for considering what should be excluded from revenue under the "Gross Inflows View" scenery (for example, custodial and agency collections) and comparing this to the two remaining views.
Board member questioned whether the remaining two view encompassed asset improvement, such as growth in agricultural assets. Staff suggested that such fortification is within revenue beneath the "Broad Performance View" not under the "Liability Extinguishment View". One Board partaker suggested the Board should not be concerned whether this is classified as revenue or as "other gains".
Several Board members expressed support for subdividing revenue into components, such as sale and gains on assets (if included).
The staff asked the Board to consider whether once they have agreed on a definition of revenue, they would want to consider the recognition criteria on a different belief. The Board did not support this, though a formal vote was not taken.
Discussion at June 2003 IASB Meeting
The Board discussed the types of contractual rights and obligation that could give rise to revenue. The Board determined that conditional rights (performance have not occurred) should not give rise to revenue.
The Board noted that beneath the staff's proposal, conditional rights could give rise to a honourable value gain or loss. For example, if an entity submitted a purchase instruct for 1 unit at the fiesta value price of 100 and, prior to transference, the fair expediency increased to 105, the purchaser would have a gain of 5 and the wholesaler a loss of 5. Therefore, the seller would journal revenue of 100, cost of sale (say 80), and a loss of 5 from the unbiased value movement of its stock prior to labour.
The Board decided that pre-performance assets and liability would be carried at fair convenience at initial recognition and subsequent remeasurement. Post-performance assets and liability would be subject to another standard. The staff was asked to verbs consideration of this model in co-operation near the FASB staff.
Discussion at July 2003 IASB Meeting
The Board agreed that the conceptual model should apply only to those contracts that are enforceable, and that the threat of allowed action is not the knob element.
The part of account issue concerns applying the definition of an asset and a liability in the course of acceptance (assuming that all of the admission criteria have be met). More specifically, the issue concerns what is the asset or liability that is to be recognised for fully or partially executory contracts.
Some believe that the component of account for adjectives such assets and liabilities should be the contract as a unharmed. Others believe that the unit of article should be the assets and liabilities arising from the rights and obligation in the contract. Still others believe that the element of account for some pre-performance assets and liability should be the contact as a whole, and for others the part of account should be the assets and liability arising from the rights and obligations surrounded by the contract.
The Board agreed the unit of justification should be the assets and liabilities arising from rights and obligation in the contract.
Regarding the date of naming, the Board agreed that the delivery date should be retained and not the assignment date. The Board agreed that adjectives performance should no to be assumed. However, the Board be undecided whether revenue should be recognised foot on the extinguishment of the liability or performance underneath the contract (broad performance).
Discussion at September 2003 IASB Meeting
The Board considered a paper prepared by the UK Accounting Standards Board staff. This daily considered three views for revenue admission: the US EITF approach, the wholesale approach, and the retail approach.
The Board discussed how to account for revenue surrounded by contracts where a customer pays but the supplying entity does not make or only to a degree performs at the time the donation is made. The presented paper states that in attendance is a liability and that this liability should be measured at fair advantage. It concludes that the fair merit should be determined on the retail approach being the price that a purchaser would income to purchase the goods or services surrounded by a retail market (rather than the price that the merchant would have to remuneration another entity to provide the contracted goods or services).
The Board give comments but no decisions be made.
Discussion at October 2003 IASB Meeting
The Board had previously agreed the following:
Conditional rights and obligation do not meet the definition of assets and liabilities.
Unconditional rights and matured rights meet the definition of an asset if they are enforceable and bestow access to future financial benefits.
Unconditional obligations and become fully grown obligations congregate the definition of a liability if they are enforceable and oblige the entity to make a adjectives sacrifice of economic benefits.
Unless a contract is enforceable, the obligation that it imposes on the contracting party will not meet the definition of liability, and the corresponding rights that it conveys to counterparties will not meet the definition of assets.
Contracting rights and obligation that qualify for recognition as assets and liability should initially be measured at their fair values.
The Board discussed the application of these principles within relation to revenue recognition within long-term construction contracts. The Board appeared generally supportive of the approach but expressed some reservations which needed to be further considered.
Discussion at December 2003 IASB Meeting
The Board noted the four view of revenue previously discussed, these being:
The Gross Inflows View
The Liability Extinguishment View
The Broad Performance View
The Value Added View
The staff noted that the Board previously agreed that the definition of revenues should not be base on the Gross Inflows View as defined or the Value Added View. The Board had also agreed that the working definition of revenues should focus on comings and goings related to the provision of goods and services to customers.
In fixture the staff noted that the Board had approved a preliminary set of working criteria for revenue appreciation, termed the elements criterion and the width criterion, that focus on uncertainties about whether the elements definition have be met (element uncertainty) and uncertainties about the resources to reliably measure the item contained by question (measurement uncertainty). Revenues should be recognised when both of those criteria are met.
The elements criterion
The elements criterion requires that a transfer in assets or liability has occur, specifically:
1. An increase in assets have occurred that increases equity, in need a commensurate investment by owners; and
2. A decrease within liabilities have occurred that increases equity, short a commensurate investment by owners (such as the forgiveness by owners of a debt owed to them by the entity).
The measurement criterion
The breadth criterion requires that the change within assets or liabilities can be appropriately measured, specifically:
1. The assets or liability are measured by means of a relevant attribute; and
2. The increase within assets or decrease contained by liabilities is measurable near sufficient reliability.
Contractual rights
It was further noted that the Board have considered the economic consequences that contractual rights hold for their holders and that related contractual obligations hold for their obligors, and tentatively decided that:
Conditional rights and obligation do not meet the definition of assets and liabilities.
Unconditional rights and develop rights meet the definition of an asset if they are enforceable and offer access to future financial benefits.
Unconditional obligations and grown obligations come across the definition of a liability if they are enforceable and oblige the entity to make a adjectives sacrifice of economic benefits.
Unless a contract is enforceable, the obligation that it imposes on the contracting party will not meet the definition of liability, and the corresponding rights that it conveys to counterparties will not meet the definition of assets.
Contractual rights and obligation that qualify for recognition as assets and liability should initially be measured at their fair values.
The staff further noted for enforceable contracts the Board discussed whether the element of account (the subject of recognition) should be the individual assets and liability arising from the rights and obligations embodied surrounded by the contract or the contract as a whole and have agreed that:
The unit of article should be based on the permissible remedies for a breach of contract that are available to the contracting parties.
For contracts for which the lone legal remedy for a breach of contract is money damages, the solely outcome that could occur from settling the contract beforehand performance of the items specified surrounded by the contract (that is, while the contract remains executory) is a flow of cash within one direction between the contracting parties. As a result:
One group has a pre-performance asset and the other a pre-performance liability (pre-performance assets and liability are the unconditional rights and obligations that exist until any party to a contract perform its stated conditional obligation); and
The unit of picture should be the contract as a whole and a lattice amount should be recognised.
For contracts having the endorsed remedy of specific performance for a breach of contract (which is available to an entity if it would not be compensated suitably by an award of money damages):
That legal remedy renders unconditional the rights to actions of the items specified in the contract and the related ceremonial obligations for the contracting party.
The only outcome that could come about from settling the contract at any time (unless one of the parties forgoes its right to specific performance) is flows of assets surrounded by both directions between the contracting parties. As a result:
Each contracting knees-up would have at tiniest one asset and one liability; and
The unit of story for each gala should be the individual assets and liabilities arising from its contractual rights and obligation, reported on a gross basis.
The staff noted that the Board tentatively agreed to use do value as the width attribute for analysing issues, but not to decide the length attribute for an exposure draft until decisions are made contained by the Measurement project. The staff further noted that the Board has discussed whether the rational value of recitation obligations should echo the price that the reporting entity would have to salary a third party to assume responsibility for performing adjectives of those obligations (generally "wholesale" fête value) rather than the amounts at which the reporting entity sold (or could sell) exact or similar products or services to similarly situated customers (generally "retail" fair value).
It be clarified that no decision have been taken on whether a remeasurement of a running obligation should come about but the working principle to use fair advantage would imply that if remeasurement be to take place it would be at carnival value. In decoration certain Board member requested clarity in determining the market to be used in both the "wholesale" and "retail" methods.
Discussion at the IASB's January 2004 Meeting
The Board discussed several issues related to the enforceability of contracts beneath the conceptual model for assets and liabilities arising from contractual rights and obligation.
The staff noted that the discussion related to sales agreements that are enforceable, properly or otherwise. It was further noted that "enforceable" may differ contained by different legal jurisdiction.
The Board agreed that this would be incorporated into a definition for clarity. This would avoid a need to describe any underlying features of a officially recognized agreement.
The staff expressed a view that it does not transformation whether there is an intention to enforce the contract. The Board agreed but noted that this may hold an impact on measurement.
In codicil the staff noted that this would apply equally to probability. The Board agreed. Certain Board members noted that this would necessitate an amendment to the IASB Framework. The Board agreed that if this was the conclusion when everything be brought together the Framework would need to be amended.
The Board agreed that dissolution rights do not render contracts unenforceable and would affect measurement.
Discussion at the IASB's February 2004 Meeting
The staff presented mixed recognition and height principles based on the Board's adjectives decisions to date. These principles are:
Fundamental Revenue Recognition Principle
A reporting entity should recognise revenues within the accounting period within which they arise and measure them at their carnival value on the date that they arise if it can determine both their prevalence and measurement beside sufficient reliability.
The following recognition principles amplify and extend the fundamental revenue naming principle:
Recognition Principle #1
Contractual revenues cannot arise before a contract next to a customer exists.
Recognition Principle #2
A reporting entity should recognise contractual revenues when an increase in its claims against its customers can be determined to hold occurred and the open-minded value of that increase can be measured beside sufficient reliability.
Recognition Principle #3
A reporting entity should recognise contractual revenues when a decrease surrounded by claims against it by its customers can be determined to have occur and the fair advantage of that decrease can be measured near sufficient reliability.
Recognition Principle #4
Increases in assets or decrease in liability that give rise to contractual revenues stem from contractual promises that may be any express or implied.
Recognition Principle #5
Contractual revenues should be recognised at contract inception if the fair values of the contractual assets obtain on that date exceed the fair values of the contractual liability simultaneously incurred, and if those revenues can be measured with sufficient reliability.
Recognition Principle #6
Subsequent to contract inception, contractual revenues should be recognised upon the reporting entity's concert of its obligations underneath the contract, as evidenced by a decrease within its contractual liabilities or an increase within its contractual assets, the fair utility of which can be determined with sufficient reliability.
Recognition Principle #7
Contractual revenues should be recognised upon contract completion to echo any final increases in the reasonable values of contractual assets or final decreases within the fair values of contractual liability.
Fundamental Measurement Principle
A reporting entity should measure revenues arising from an increase surrounded by its assets or a decrease within its liabilities (or a combination thereof) at the neutral value of that increase or lower.
The following measurement principles amplify and extend the fundamental breadth principle:
Measurement Principle #1
The estimates of the fair pro that the reporting entity uses to measure revenues arising from increases within its assets or decreases contained by its liabilities should be those that enjoy the highest relative reliability.
Measurement Principle #2
The estimates of the generous value of revenues that are consistent next to Level 3 of the fair utility hierarchy should be developed by finances of multiple valuation techniques that maximise souk inputs, such as a market approach or an income approach, whenever information indispensable to apply those techniques is available.
Measurement Principle #3
The fair-minded value of revenues arising from increases within the reporting entity's contractual assets reflects the effects of credit risk, the time plus of money, and dilution risk.
Measurement Principle #4
The measures that reflect the effects of credit risk on the open-minded value of a reporting entity's revenues also should copy expectations of recoveries, if any, contained by case of breach of the contract by the customer.
Measurement Principle #5
Any express or implied rights of return and reimbursement, allowances, rebates, discounts, credits, and other similar rights granted to customers that cut back on revenues by reducing the reporting entity's contractual assets or increasing its contractual liabilities should be measured at carnival value.
Measurement Principle #6
Revenues arising from increases surrounded by contractual assets that stem from the reporting entity's rights to the customer's stand-ready performance contained by case of popularity or non-occurrence of a specified event should be measured at fair effectiveness that reflects the assessment of the probability that the specified event will go off.
It was noted that the use of balanced value be adopted as a working principle, and no formal judgment on this has be taken. In addition it be noted that strictly speaking fair appeal would apply to assets and liabilities and not revenue.
The Board noted that at hand were confident of these principles, and the effects of these principles, that they still needed to discuss and the principles could be expanded.
The Board agreed that the effects of the time value of money and credit risk would one and only ever be disregarded as a result of materiality.
The staff noted that, for the revenue recognition project, conditional is defined as 'subject to the episode of an event that is not in no doubt to occur (such as acting out by the counterparty)' and unconditional as 'only the passage of time is required to bring in performance due.'
The Board agreed.
Discussion at the March 2004 IASB Meeting
Regarding the definition of income and revenues, the staff recommended that:
it is important to outline income before defining revenues;
definition of income and revenues should be based on Approach A (defining the items that compose income) and not Approach B (defining the inflows of monetary benefits – recognised increases in assets and decrease in liability – that are excluded in arriving at income);
the definition of income underneath Approach A should be developed from the following initial draft:
"Income is:
(a) recognised increases in assets or decrease in liability arising from a transaction or event in respect of which within are also related recognised decreases surrounded by assets or increases in liability that result from the provision of goods or services to customers; and
(b) increases within equity resulting from other recognised changes within assets or liabilities, except those resulting from investments by owners."
The Board discussed whether the distinction within part (a) of this definition should be base on customers vs non-customers as currently drafted or based on deeds of the business. This would determine which transactions are reported gross and which are reported net.
The Board agreed near the first two staff recommendations and asked the staff to develop further the definition of income.
Discussion at the April 2004 IASB Meeting
The IASB preliminarily discussed a tabloid that will be discussed during its joint interview with the FASB on Friday. The IASB made several adjectives decisions/statements:
Distinctions between components of comprehensive income such as revenues and gains provide adjectives information to investors and creditors.
The present distinction between revenues and gains is ambiguous and difficult to operationalise.
Increases contained by assets as a result of production can give rise to a component of comprehensive income.
Increases contained by assets as a result of production give rise to revenue (although here was concern something like the several definitions of 'revenue' used by the Board members). That piece of comprehensive income should be considered something like 'income from production' or 'production income' a bit than a gain.
Reporting subcontracting and outsourcing activities separately provides adjectives information to investors and creditors. This information should be provided on the income statement.
Revenues arise for a reporting entity from the performance by a third body of a contractual obligation to a customer for which the reporting entity continues to be obligated. A legitimate layoff or a contractual obligation to a customer does not stamp out this liability.
Outsourcing revenues do not reduce the amount of revenues-they merely change the aggregation of expenses.
Discussion at the May 2004 IASB Meeting
The Board considered how the rational value of a reporting entity's carrying out obligations to its customers is determined. In unusual the Board considered whether it should be:
the amount that would have to be compensated to a third party to lawfully assume responsibility for performing all of the reporting entity's remaining obligation, or
the amount of consideration paid or to be salaried to the reporting entity by the customer, or
the amount of the reporting entity's costs to perform the undertakings.
The staff recommended using the amount that would be paid to a third bash to assume the obligations and noted that the FASB have recently affirmed that this length requirement be adopted and that it be measured as a business-to-business transaction.
The Board noted that the measurements should include any reading guarantees.
The following example was considered:
Retailer A is a consumer electronics company that sell television sets for $300 that it buys from the businesswoman for $250. Like other consumer electronics retailers, Retailer A also sells for $100 warranty contracts that extend 2 years beyond the manufacturer's 1-year product warranty. Those extended warranty are offered only on products that are sold contained by the same transaction, and the illustrious profit margins on the warranties allow the products to be offered at importantly competitive prices. The fees charged for those extended warranties are not refundable.
Like other consumer product seller, Retailer A can either service the warranty itself or pay reliable third-party administrator to legally assume the warranty servicing obligation. History indicates that one in 10 sets will experience a dud during the extended warranty period, and that the average incremental cost to repair or replace a defective section is approximately $140.
Reliable third-party administrators are ready to legally assume the warranty obligation for a price of $30 per contract.
Retailer A sells 10 TV sets with extended warranty and collects the selling price in full. However, it have not yet contracted whether to engage a third-party administrator to lawfully assume the liabilities for servicing the warranty or to service the warranties itself (Retailer A have a year between the date of sale and the origination of the extended warranty period contained by which to decide).
In this case, Retailer A's reading obligations are unconditional obligation to stand ready to repair or replace any defective small screen sets that fail during the warranty interval. The issue is whether the fair merit of the performance obligation should be measured at $1,000 (10 warranties @ $100 customer consideration amount per warranty) or $300 (10 warranty @ $30 legal layoff amount per warranty).
Certain Board member expressed concern as to whether the amount a third party would salary to assume performance obligation can be reliably measured and verified.
The Board asked whether in a Dutch auction of goods the staff counsel resulted in recognising the full gross profit on date of lay down as the obligation to fulfill the command would be measured at the amount charged by the manufacturer. The staff agreed that this be a correct application of the principle but noted that the longer the time between order and transference, the greater the risk and this would have an impact on the breadth of the performance condition.
The Board expressed considerable concerns particularly as to the practical application of the approach but expressed support for the concept and agreed to verbs pursuing the approach.
Discussion at the June 2004 IASB Meeting
Reassessed Expected Outcomes Approach
The FASB staff presented the Reassessed Expected Outcomes (REO) approach for determining classification, unit of picture, measurement, and proceeds per share for financial instruments involving an issuer's own shares and a list of 'touchstones' developed by the FASB staff base on objections hear from FASB Board members and others to a variety of possible approaches to resolving liability and equity issues.
This approach breaks down equity-linked instruments into its base components of tedious share equity, liabilities, and assets by analysing the expected adjectives cash flows and other flows of monetary resources at each reporting date. A financial instrument or portion thereof would single be classified as equity if its expected payment vary directly with the share price.
This method would, as a result, change the existing liability and equity distinction, which is base on amounts repayable in change. Although the allocation would be recalculated at each reporting date, the reallocation would be base on the original proceeds, and the solitary effect of share price movements would be to change expected outcomes.
The Board expressed concern something like the approach and, in selective, about the behaviour in which this would transform the nature of accounting for equity and liability. They did, however, support exploring the approach further in conjunction near the FASB.
Revenue Recognition
The staff noted that the Board had previously tentatively concluded that the tolerant value of an entity's reading obligations should be measured at the 'legal layoff amount'. In considering this the Board noted that different prices exist and requested the staff to consider why these prices arise.
The staff noted that the price differences arose from different bundles of stock and services. The staff recommended that the 'legal layoff amount' should be measured at the minimum amount the entity would incur to settle the specific bundle of goods and services including internal costs such as arranging nativity or insurance. Certain Board members continued to express concern as to this approach. It be noted that discussion on this topic would continue.
The Board agreed that estimates used within revenue recognition should be subject to alike reliability threshold as used for other estimates in financial reporting.
The Board discussed assorted examples with adjectives ways of determining the fair importance of the performance prerequisite to determine what factors they would adopt as evidence of fair expediency.
Discussion at the July 2004 IASB Meeting
At recent Board meetings, several Board member expressed the view that a reporting entity's manners obligations to its customers should be initially measured base on the amount that the customer paid or agreed to retribution to the reporting entity (the 'customer consideration amount') rather than the amount that the reporting entity would hold to pay to reasonably lay off its condition to its customers (the 'legal layoff amount'). Some of those Board members also expressed the spectacle that measurement of those obligation should be based on the perspective of the customer to some extent than that of the reporting entity.
A customer perspective focuses on the fact that the customer and the reporting entity are counterparties to indistinguishable contract. Under this view, the reporting entity's obligation to its customer are thought to correspond precisely to the customer's rights (and vice versa). Accordingly, the reporting entity's accounting for its rights and obligations should mirror the customer's accounting for its rights and obligation under the contract (assuming that the customer prepares financial statements).
Under a reporting entity perspective, the reporting entity's accounting for its rights and obligation is not based on how the customer accounts for its rights and obligation under the contract. Instead, the reporting entity's accounting is base on the reporting entity view of its rights and obligation, which does not necessarily mirror the customer's view of those rights and obligation.
The Board agreed with the reporting entity perspective. Some Board member continued to express concern that revenue would be recognised despite an obligation to reimbursement in the covering of non-performance.
The Board discussed a case study covering a long occupancy contract illustrating the application of the proposed conceptual model for accounting for contractual rights and obligation.
In this example a number of Board member agreed that allocating revenue to contract origination, assuming its fair merit can be determined, would be better than current percentage-of-completion accounting. Other Board members expressed concern any because they disagreed with the model or because they be concerned as to its application due to the assumptions being unrealistic.
Tatsumi Yamada conveyed a message from the Accounting Standards Board of Japan (ASBJ). The ASBJ expressed concern as to the direction of the project and requested that it be stopped. The message be noted.
Discussion at the October 2004 Board Meeting
The Boards discussed a paper contained by which the fair meaning ED issued by the FASB was applied to faultless revenue recognition examples. In adding together, the Boards were asked to answer undisputed questions that would provide the staff near direction on this project.
In going through the various examples, the Boards agreed that elsewhere evidence to the contrary, actual exchange prices (in other than stirring markets) should be presumed to be consistent with do value.
Discussion at the December 2004 Board Meeting
In October 2004 the staff of the IASB and FASB conducted small non-public meeting to gauge the response of IASB and FASB member to the following three broad issues
a. Whether an increase in web assets that occurs at contract classmates gives rise to revenue that should be recognised if it can be measured reliably.
b. Whether the standard or revenue acceptance should include a 'special' reliability threshold for measuring the increase contained by net assets at contract social group.
c. If the standard includes a 'special' reliability threshold and that threshold is not met, how the increase in lattice assets at contract generation should be recognised and measured and when that increase should be recognised as revenue surrounded by the income statement.
In considering these questions Board member had be asked to consider a very specific reality pattern within which cash is given for entering into a non-refundable contract. The aspiration of the simplified fact guide was to focus debate one and only on one side of the journal entry (because the open-minded value of lolly consideration is readily measurable). In real situations the fair-minded value of the consideration received, related service obligation etc may in reality be quite complex.
Prior to commencing their discussion of this situation Board members emphasised the specific reality pattern they have considered, that they were not discussing acceptance of profit on taking an ordinary sale order, and that they did not expect the proposals to result contained by a revenue recognition model that they would expect to be implement in the short possession.
Once a determination had be made on that fact guide the intention was to develop a conceptual method of dealing near revenue recognition (based on the broad concepts previously agreed: that revenue and expenses should be determined by mention to assets and liabilities) which would then be road tested on a little fact pattern.
On point a, whether an increase in lattice assets at contract generation give rise to revenue, a majority of both Boards had indicated surrounded by the small group meetings that they did not grasp what other possible alternative there be, and therefore agreed that this would be the armour. It was noted that not adjectives members might agree near the method suggested in determining the increase contained by net assets (such as measure the performance duty at its legal lay-off amount). However, the Board agreed that where on earth an increase in lattice assets had occur, this would result in the tribute of revenues.
On the second point, a majority of Board members agreed that a 'special' threshold should not be introduced for the length of revenue. They noted that where a 'special' threshold come into play this would necessarily result in the appreciation of a 'special' liability (to recognise the dangling credit) which would not meet the classification criteria for liabilities. The Board did file that its discussion paper should clearly set out the reason why a 'special' threshold is not considered possible, in lay down to address the concerns of those who believe a 'special' threshold is appropriate. This discussion would include the pros and cons of such a threshold and illustrate why it is not possible or desirable. Therefore the third give somebody the third degree relating to accounting if there is a 'special' threshold did not require resolution by the Board.
Discussion at the March 2005 IASB Meeting
The FASB presented to the IASB the approach man developed by the FASB regarding the accounting for instruments that could potentially be classified as liability or equity. The Powerpoint presentation is available on the IASB's website in the spectator notes fragment and will be posted to FASB's website in due course.
Discussion at the June 2005 IASB Meeting
The purpose of the Board's discussion was to desire whether it shares the FASB's views almost the way surrounded by which the project should proceed.
The FASB had reconsider the objective and circle of the joint project on revenue appreciation. It decided that its nouns would be to:
continue the mutual project, with duplicate goals and freedom as before, ie to develop a conceptual framework for revenue tribute and a general standard derived from that framework; but
at the standard horizontal, use a different measurement attribute for activities obligations than have been proposed up until immediately. The FASB reaffirmed its past finding that the general standard for revenue admission should require revenue to be recognised on the basis of change in assets and liability (without consideration of additional discovery criteria, such as earning or realisation).
However, the FASB established to pursue an approach in which not adjectives assets and liabilities within revenue arrangements would be measured at fair good point. Instead, performance obligation would be measured at 'performance value', that is, the amount at which the honest or service could be sold to a customer. In practice, performance significance would normally equal the consideration received or receivable from the customer.
The majority of IASB member indicated that their preference would be to verbs with the mutual project, with matching goals and range as before but would be predisposed to compromise and explore the performance merit measurement approach.
Discussion at the October 2005 IASB Meeting
In preparation for the pooled meeting beside the FASB and future discussion on the topic, the Board held a preliminary discussion to clarify in no doubt matters contained by advance of the collective meeting. Three most important issues were discussed:
Identification and initial height of performance obligation.
Illustrative application examples for a range of revenue transactions.
Definition of revenues.
The Board discussed the christening and initial measurement of presentation obligations, including staff proposals to clarify the appropriate section of account, the worth of the term 'customer's hint market' and the definition of a performance constraint. The Board also discussed a proposed change contained by terminology – cease to use the term 'customer-based value' surrounded by favour of 'allocated consideration amount' when describing the height and measurement target associated with using an allocation methodology.
The Board discussed diverse aspects of the measurement of stand-ready obligation. Board members expressed varying degree of discomfort with the proposals, surrounded by particular the height of items using methods with few or no open market inputs.
The staff noted that the IASB and the FASB were plausible to reach different conclusions on the use of allocated customer amount and event value when measure unconditional stand ready obligation and that the staff proposal would be that the discussion document would include both alternatives.
The Board discussed several illustrative examples. Only a few comments be made.
Finally, the Board discussed the definition of revenue. Some Board members expressed concern that the proposed definition of revenue encompass 'enhancement of assets', and that 'revenue' should arise only from actual sale; changes within the value assets be components of profit or loss, but were not 'revenue.'
No decision were made. The Board will discuss this topic during the combined IASB-FASB meeting on 24/-5 October 2005.
Discussion at the October 2005 Joint IASB-FASB Meeting
The Boards have previously agreed that performance obligation in revenue contracts should be disaggregated from the customer's perspective base on whether the deliverable has utility to the customer. In this congregation the Boards considered the following revised criteria for determining whether the deliverable has utility to the customer:
A obedient, service, or other right has utility to the customer if any:
a. It is sold separately or as an optional extra by any trader in the customer's citation market or it could be resold separately by the customer surrounded by that reference open market, or
b. It gives the customer an unconditional right that obligate the reporting entity to stand ready to provide merchandise, services, rights, or other consideration if specified events occur.
The Boards agreed that this definition be an improvement from that which have previously been considered. However, the Boards did not believe the requirement contained by (a) that the customer could resell it in that same insinuation market be necessary. The Boards agreed that the customer citation market is ordinarily the flea market that the customer buys in, to be exact, the market surrounded by which the entity and the customer transacted with respectively other. That being the casing, measurement is as a rule appropriate at the price negotiated between the entity and the customer. It be agreed that practical guidance regarding the credentials of customer reference market will need to be provided.
Staff noted that the existing definition of 'performance obligation', which refers to an necessity to deliver goods or services, is deficient, because it does not make suggestion to other rights which can be sold (for example a refund right.) Staff proposed the following revised definition:
A ceremonial obligation is a reasonably enforceable obligation of a reporting entity to its customer, beneath which the entity is obligated to provide good, services or other rights.
The Boards agreed that this definition appeared appropriate. However the call for for the word 'legally' to be included was debate, as 'legally' means different things surrounded by different jurisdictions, and if an constraint is enforceable, it is ordinarily legally enforceable, so that word might be superfluous and potentially confusing. The Boards agreed to delete 'legally' from the working definition at this time, but noted this finding might need to be revisited once the accounting for executory contracts have been considered.
Several Board member had expressed concern around the use of the term 'customer base value' in the revenue admission project. The Boards agreed to rather use the occupancy 'allocated consideration amount' which better describes what the Board was trying to identify by the permanent status.
At previous meetings the Boards have agreed that the estimated sales price of a performing obligation should be measured using the most reliable available evidence, and agreed a ranking of reliability. In that hierarchy 'Level-4' be estimated current sales prices base on entity inputs that reflect the reporting entity's own internal assumptions and background. Staff proposed that this could be clarified by requiring entities to use average costs in their background, and requiring that items be assessed on a portfolio basis a bit than on an individual contract basis (where such homogenous portfolios exist.) The Boards disagreed, believing that they should not be prescriptive within determining how to arrive at a Level-4 estimate.
Both Boards had considered the breadth of unconditional stand-ready obligations. The IASB have determined that these should be measured at fair effectiveness, for the purposes of consistency with the proposed amendments to IAS 37. The FASB have concluded that these should be measured at the allocated consideration amount for consistency with the remainder of the revenue classification project. The Boards agreed that the allocated consideration amount approach should be considered first before the unbiased value alternative be developed. It was acknowledged that contained by developing fully the customer allocation approach, the IASB might be persuaded that the unbiased value approach did not necessitate to be pursued. If both approaches are pursued the Boards will decide at a then date whether a preference should be expressed contained by the public consultation documents.
The Boards considered the effects of extinguishment of unconditional stand ready obligation, and confirmed their earlier conclusion that this would be presented as a credit to the income statement rather than as a decline of any expense category. The Boards noted that all warranty (whether statutory, express, or implied) arise from revenue contracts (directly or indirectly), and their extinguishment is a revenue earning stir.
The Boards considered a range of examples the staff have prepared illustrating the implication of their decisions to date, and the differences between the allocated consideration amount and even-handed value approaches, and provided staff next to feedback to assist them in further developing the model.
The Board considered the issues surrounding distinguishing transactions that afford rise to revenues from those that give rise to gain. The Boards considered whether there might be a better criterion than 'ordinary activities' (IFRS) or 'major or inside operations' (US GAAP). The Boards noted that in this context they did not see the notion of comparability as knob. The staff proposed some new definition that would focus this distinction on the provision by the entity of goods, services, or other rights to the customer. The Boards agreed to proceed near this work.
Discussion at the February 2006 IASB Meeting
Wholly executory revenue contracts
The objective of the Board's discussion be to debate how the allocated customer consideration approach would be applied to wholly executory (or completely unperformed) revenue contracts. First, the Board debated whether assets and liability arise in an executory contract and after confirming its more rapidly decision that rights and obligation do arise (and therefore assets and liabilities) consistent beside its earlier decision, the alternatives identified by the Staff were discussed. The alternatives be discussed in the context of assets and liability that are fungible and those that are unique.
Alternative 1 - For fungible assets, the assets and liability arising for each counterparty would be set-off on the spring that 'net settlement' could be achieved. For non-fungible (unique) assets and liability, set-off would not be permitted.
Alternative 2 was sub-divided into two components:
Alternative 2 - No assets or liability arise therefore the distinction between fungible and non-fungible is irrelevant.
Alternative 2 'Prime' - If the contract requires a characteristic performance (i.e. non-fungible) simply a combined asset or liability arises. It was not clear what the treatment of fungible items would be below this alternative.
The Board expressed general agreement beside the analysis performed by the Staff. Some Board member reiterated their view that for an executory contract, if a court can force the party to perform, respectively party to the contract have either an asset or a liability arising from a right or an must to receive / deliver. The Board discussed briefly whether the right / obligation should hold the same meaning as the item that is the subject of the contract (put differently, does the right to receive a motor vehicle enjoy the same convenience as the motor vehicle itself?) but deferred that issue to a subsequent meeting when the Board discusses width. It was pointed out that within some jurisdictions inwardly continental Europe (for example) the functioning of the law in connection with the various rights and obligation that arise from a contract and those laws that apply to the actual see have resulted surrounded by constituents approaching and thinking about the economics of such transactions differently.
The Board approved, consistent with its in advance decisions, that just Alternatives 1 and 2 'Prime' should be explored further.
Accounting for performance
The Board considered a serious newspaper presenting two revenue recognition methods: the extinguishment-based method (EBM) and the performance-based method (PBM). The article went on to (a) compare and contrast those two methods and (b) evaluate respectively method against the conceptual criteria in FASB Concepts Statement No. 2 and the IASB Framework.
The PBM is a proportionate-performance-type method, and the EBM is a hybrid of a proportionate-performance-type and a sales-type method. Under the sales-type method, detection is delayed until performance is complete or substantially complete. The Board indicated a nouns for the performance-based method but asked the Staff to work through an example that considers the manufacture over a two year interval of an item such as a yacht that separately illustrates the effect of milestone payments, a non-refundable deposit and a scenario where on earth the contract requires no payments until delivery.
a debtor is a slave to his creditor .yes or no? , explain.?
Base on the human aspect and nation prior to the borrowing of money from the overdeveloped and IMF .and its efect.Answers:
In one way yes, the other no.
A debtor who does not look confident and who does not put the money he borrows to a proper use (by utilising it for the purpose for which he borrowed it) is other a potential slave to the creditor.
Creditors are also in the look out for debtors who utilise their money properly and thereby create an ensurity to them for regular returns. In these cases creditors are supportive of the debtors even if they backfire in their business, because they believe contained by the debtors ability.
There are exceptions to this but..
http://www.futureaccountant.com/
Other Answers:
No human can be the master of another
What is APR?
Answers:
Annual Percentage Rate (APR): The yearly percentage rate imposed when a set off is held on a credit card. When an outstanding balance is held, this rate is applied to your outstanding stability each month.
Other Answers:
Annual Percentage Rate-The every twelve months cost of a loan, including interest, insurance, and the origination fee (points), expressed as a percentage. Often applied to mortgages, credit cards, and automobile financing.
APR is the annual percentage rate that a loan will cost you if you take it. Because of interest compounding, the ACTUAL rate you repay will probably be slightly higher, but the APR is a right number to use to compare one loan to another. Alain Pinel Realtors
All Residential Multi-Residential Mobile Homes Residential Rental Lots and Land
Source(s):
www.apr.com
Who is the president of Orchard Bank?
Answers:
S N Mehta is the Chief Executive of HSBC North America, which issues Orchard Bank Credit Cards.
Other Answers:
not sure..... did they rip you off?
Anyone know the white arrow depo a short time ago of the A12 surrounded by England?
Answers:
hello
How do you product $100,000 or $1,000,000 contained by one week and dont own a business?
Answers:
I know what u thinking bro, and I have duplicate mind and feeling next to you. Nowadays, almost everybody wants money, due to plentiful reasons even tho themselves dont want money but they want to earn them for someone else. As you know and I deduce you already know that this is a harsh world ever than back, those nice people you would see in your mind`s eye are long gone, so dont count on people treating you nice anymore, these days people would individual be selfish and regard as themselves, cheating, lying, all you can create in your mind, of course the most earth-shattering thing is human being happy, but if you are not cheerful and lost your happiness that you should own gotten, then still live on and sacrifice yourself for somebody that you immensely care nearly and love of worthiness before you die, so that style you wont feel any regret. We adjectives know that time wont go backbone, what you missed is what you missed, you cant change previous and you cant get revenge or do anything roughly speaking it. But you can do and is the only means of access you can do is to change your adjectives. I know it's very tricky, because I have experienced this type of situation and I know how miserable it is. And I know you want revenge, but with the sole purpose do it legally, if you are smart satisfactory. And later I own really understand the gist of why someone says "it will hunt vertebrae at you" or "someone holds grudge". That is because you cant forget your past no situation how hard you try, however if you enjoy experienced only the minimum brutality, then you might forget depending on your eagerness, but since like me if you hold experienced too much harshness, you will never excuse yourself. But the bottom line is, you individual have one natural life, and no matter how loud it was, you still hold to get over it, and do the best you can to sacrifice yourself for someone that you really care and loved and want to sacrifice for them before you die. So that opening all those general public who have really care about you and loved you, you would owe them put a bet on.
Money cant buy you happiness, but at least possible it will achieve your desire. There are no easy instrument to make money, trust me, once I wish I could alot of money too but thats not gonna happen except you solitary go to arts school and get correct education and next get a moral job and earn your money. However, if you enjoy some talent, maybe you can bring in a fortune, but most of us dont, and we cant win the lottery either, we are basically not lucky enough. So going to conservatory and work is the only choice. Hope you can wake up up and live like a trial person, and stop thinking roughly speaking the past regrets.
Other Answers:
You hold to be working in a mint printing money ;)
Sell drugs? lol
If within were a process to do it, wouldn't everyone be rich?
Lotto
Lottery
Powerball
That is all I can conjecture of, highly risky.
How are assumptions and constraints different? Why is it noteworthy to document both?
An assumption is an event or action believed to be true. A constraint is anything that any restricts the actions of the project troop or dictates the actions of project squad members. How are assumptions and constraints different? Why is it considerable to document both?I would like to know if I am track near the question:
My response is contraints own established limits and assumptions change according to the situtation. Rain is an assumption because it cannot be predicted. The number of people on a livelihood is a constraint because it is an established limitation. The assumption relative to the projet system may include adjectives data explicitly cost figures.
Answers:
Assumptions and constraints are especially similar - the differences are subtle.
You might say that constraints are agreed limitations, whereas assumptions are things that you believe, or require, to be true, but in certainty may not be.
Constraints also tend to be limiting in personality - assumptions are not necessarily. In general constraints relate to the triple constraint elements : flexibility, time, cost, quality, risk.
Constraint : Must use internal resources.
Assumption : Joe will be available to work on this project.
Constraint : Must execute project on non-rainy days.
Assumption : Project will be performed within July to minimize rain risk.
Constraint : Project must spend more than $100K
Assumption : $100K is available to spend on the project
I cant seem to be to bring back a available job because of bleak credit. What can I do to reorganize my likelihood?
Answers:
Small companies are less possible to do a background check and you will hold to settle for a lower level mission because of bad credit. Certainly you will not be capable of handle money and you will compensate more for your car insurance.
The best opening to find a job is to get hold of out the yellow page and find places you would like to work. Call them up and ask if you can fax over your resume and to who's attention or ask if they are hiring and can you come within for an interview. Make sure the resume is very specific roughly speaking what you are looking for. If it's vague the resume go into the garbage. Only 10% of the living openings ever kind it to the ad s. 70% of job are filled through someone you know-your mother's cousin or whoever.
Other Answers:
One tactic would be to work on on the way your credit score. This requires some time and discipline but is worth doing both to promote your chances of getting a career and because it will save you lots of money surrounded by interest payments on future big purchases.
What is a devout site for a mortgage calculator?
I'm trying to determine different PITI payments. Thanks!Answers:
You can use the loan amortization solution in Excel. In writ to use it open Excel workbook -> right click on one of the sheet tab -> click "insert" -> on the top tab change it to spreadsheet solutions and pick "loan amortization".
You simply need to enter adjectives the required information and there you own it.
Documentation?
What kind of documentation is use within Cash/Credit transaction.. and explain the use if you know=) or hopefully u know a site that can tell me adjectives bout documentation thanks surrounded by advanceAnswers:
Are you discussion about methodical transaction documentation.look in answers.com.they hold a legan and financial encyclopedia.
Should I do some actual WORK today?
or just breed it look like I'm busy?Answers:
I imagine that looking busy is actually harder work than basically doing your job, and the time doesnt partially drag. If you're gonna not work then shift the whole hog, put your foot on the desk and tell your boss you're have an 8-hour break. Or just turn home.
Other Answers:
Work today and play tomorrow
Just cause it look like your busy. It's Passover for Christ sakes. We should be out for this Holiday. Easter is as big or if bigger than Christmas for Catholics. no
beyond doubt not work is very overrated, and it's not worth the stress. I guess you should quit your job and be paid life alittle bit easier for everyone.
You should pursue looking for something you savour doing, hence it won't come across as "work" to you. This new employment will breed you happier, healthier, and sagacious. Good luck!Source(s):
my career experienced brain
blow it off. Uhm.....so uh.......what IS your work? Cause if you hold an office mission, the looking busy is tricky. Oh don't get me wrong; it CAN be done. I hold it down to a science. I'll be typing away scrunching up my nouns, leaning into the blind in a mindful passageway as if to scrutinize the issue that lies previously me. I thoughtfull rub my chin with my forefinger as if to contemplate how to solve this confront before me. Yet, I'm on RunEye.com chitchat about zombies.
If you work our contained by the field and must be on the travel the whole light of day, I still think you can "look busy." Pop your earbuds surrounded by and tuck your ipod in your pocket and travel on that sales call upon. When they ask you a question, freshly nod and bob that head. All is obedient.
I guess you can see where my answer is going. My vote is for you to NOT do the actualy work. Work at looking busy. Get that down to an art. Once mastered, you can accomplish anything. ;)
work. you should work. it's a good concept I think Get together near a few other co-workers and have a sanctuary meeting: Nobody works, nobody get hurt. They can't fault you for self such a concerned employee.
Just answer questions on RunEye.com that'll form it look like you are busy.
How do I secure rights to an infirm show?
I'd like to purchase the rights to some feeble classic films that are pretty much dead, ie: they're never aired anymore and hold basically no use to the current owners. Sort of a Turner Classic situation I suppose. Anyway, if anyone know how to go in the region of researching the database of films and finding those in which would be efficiently obtainable, please permit me know. Thanks!Answers:
It really depends which films you are talking around and how far back contained by time you want to go. If your conversation about cheesy 'B' or 'C' movies or silent films you may enjoy a shot at buying the rights to the films. If your talking something like Ted Turner, he obtained the rights to MGM motion picture library after the studio was individual sold-off. That doesn't happen enormously often.
If your looking for films to buy and your interested contained by a particular motion picture, look at the credits for the distributor or production company and then after finding that dub look on the Hollywood Creative Directory website or the LA411 website and find their contact info and start making some phone calls. Hope this help.
Where can I find the current resale significance of antiquated silver serving pieces?
Answers:
This website may be valuable to you:
http://www.setyourtable.com/atticstuff.html
what are the 10 largest malls within the US within demand?
Answers:
Largest Shopping Malls in the United States (2004)
(2.0-million square foot of retail space or larger)
Metropolitan Area
Name
(Location)
Layout
Retail Space
(square feet)
Stores
Largest (anchor) stores and other features
Year
opened
Orange County, Calif.
South Coast Plaza
(Costa Mesa) 3-level H 2,700,000 280 Sears, Robbins-May, Nordstrom; performing arts center, no food court
1967
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.
Sawgrass Mills
(Sunrise) 1-level linear 2,503,000 300 Target, JC Penny; discount shopping arcade with relatively small anchor stores
Los Angeles, Calif.
Del Amo Fashion Center
(Torrence) 2-level T 2,500,000 300 Sears, Robinsons-May, Macy’s, JC Penny, Marshalls, Wards;, T.J. Max, Burlington Coat Factory
1975
Minneapolis-St Paul, Minn.
Mall of America
(Bloomington) 4-level square 2,500,000 428 Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Nordstrom, Sears; amusement park and entertainment complex 1992
Las Vegas Nev.
Grand Canyon Parkway
(Las Vegas)
2,500,000
Sears, Mervyn's, Target; no food court
2003
Houston, Texas
The Galleria
(Houston)
1-level rectangle
2,400,000
375
Nordstron, Foley's, Neiman Marcus, Macy's, Saks Fifth Avenue; includes rime rink, restaurants, hotels, and office towers
1966
Fredericksburg, Va.
Central Park
(Fredericksburg)
2,400,000
Lowe's, Target, Kohl's, Circuit City, Walmart, Best Buy; no food court
2000
Chicago, Ill.
Woodfield Mall
(Schaumburg) 3-level cross 2,224,000 245 Sears, JC Penny, Marshal Field, Nordstrom, Lord & Taylor
1971
San Juan, PR
Plaza Las Americas
(San Juan)
3-level P
2,173,000
300
JC Penney, Sears, Macy's
1968
New York, NY
Roosevelt Field Mall
(Garden City) 2-level round 2,146,000 220 Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, JC Penny, Nordstrom
1956
Erie, Pa.
Millcreek Mall
(Erie) 1-level L 2,139,000 171 Sears, JC Penny, Kaufmann’s; Erie County Library; no food court 1974
Los Angeles, Calif.
Lakewood Center
(Lakewood) 1-level T 2,121,000
255 Robinsons-May, Montgomery Ward, JC Penny, Home Depot; Sheriff substation; no food court 1951
Washington, DC
Tysons Corner Center
(McLean, Va) 2-level E 2,091,000 250 Bloomingdale’s, Hecht’s, JC Penny, Nordstrom, Lord & Taylor, AMC Theaters; no food court
1968
Chicago, Ill.
Oakbrook Shopping Center
(Oak Brook) 1-level square 2,087,000 175 Marshall Field’s, Sears, Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylor; no food court 1962
Thronton, Colo.
Lark Ridge
(Thornton)
sheltered
2,000,000
Sears Grand, Home Depot, Circuit City, Dick's Sporting Goods; no food court
2005
Miami, Fla.
Aventura Mall
(Miami Beach) 2-level cross
2,000,000 134 Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Burdine's, JC Penny, Sears, Lord & Taylor 1983
New York, NY
Westfield Shoppingtown Garden State
(Paramus NJ) 2-level rectangle 1,967,000 260 Macy’s, Nordstrom, JC Penny, Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylor 1957
Phoenix, Ariz.
Scottsdale Fashion Center
(Scottsdale)
2-level T 1,928,000 225 Dillard’s, Robinson-May, Sears, Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus 1961
Other Answers:
see below
Source(s):
http://www.easternct.edu/depts/amerst/MallsLarge.htm
Largest Shopping Malls in the United States (2004)
(2.0-million square foot of retail space or larger)- here's a list from online - not a current one
Metropolitan Area
Name
(Location)
Layout
Retail Space
(square feet)
Stores
Largest (anchor) stores and other features
Year
open
Orange County, Calif.
South Coast Plaza
(Costa Mesa)
3-level H
2,700,000
280
Sears, Robbins-May, Nordstrom; performing arts center, no food court
1967
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.
Sawgrass Mills
(Sunrise)
1-level linear
2,503,000
300
Target, JC Penny; discount mall beside relatively small anchor stores
Los Angeles, Calif.
Del Amo Fashion Center
(Torrence)
2-level T
2,500,000
300
Sears, Robinsons-May, Macy’s, JC Penny, Marshalls, Wards;, T.J. Max, Burlington Coat Factory
1975
Minneapolis-St Paul, Minn.
Mall of America
(Bloomington)
4-level square
2,500,000
428
Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Nordstrom, Sears; amusement park and entertainment complex
1992
Las Vegas Nev.
Grand Canyon Parkway
(Las Vegas)
2,500,000
Sears, Mervyn's, Target; no food court
2003
Houston, Texas
The Galleria
(Houston)
1-level rectangle
2,400,000
375
Nordstron, Foley's, Neiman Marcus, Macy's, Saks Fifth Avenue; includes ice rink, restaurants, hotels, and department towers
1966
Fredericksburg, Va.
Central Park
(Fredericksburg)
2,400,000
Lowe's, Target, Kohl's, Circuit City, Walmart, Best Buy; no food court
2000
Chicago, Ill.
Woodfield Mall
(Schaumburg)
3-level cross
2,224,000
245
Sears, JC Penny, Marshal Field, Nordstrom, Lord & Taylor
1971
San Juan, PR
Plaza Las Americas
(San Juan)
3-level P
2,173,000
300
JC Penney, Sears, Macy's
1968
New York, NY
Roosevelt Field Mall
(Garden City)
2-level round
2,146,000
220
Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, JC Penny, Nordstrom
1956
Erie, Pa.
Millcreek Mall
(Erie)
1-level L
2,139,000
171
Sears, JC Penny, Kaufmann’s; Erie County Library; no food court
1974
Los Angeles, Calif.
Lakewood Center
(Lakewood)
1-level T
2,121,000
255
Robinsons-May, Montgomery Ward, JC Penny, Home Depot; Sheriff substation; no food court
1951
Washington, DC
Tysons Corner Center
(McLean, Va)
2-level E
2,091,000
250
Bloomingdale’s, Hecht’s, JC Penny, Nordstrom, Lord & Taylor, AMC Theaters; no food court
1968
Chicago, Ill.
Oakbrook Shopping Center
(Oak Brook)
1-level square
2,087,000
175
Marshall Field’s, Sears, Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylor; no food court
1962
Thronton, Colo.
Lark Ridge
(Thornton)
enclosed
2,000,000
Sears Grand, Home Depot, Circuit City, Dick's Sporting Goods; no food court
2005
Miami, Fla.
Aventura Mall
(Miami Beach)
2-level cross
2,000,000
134
Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Burdine's, JC Penny, Sears, Lord & Taylor
1983
New York, NY
Westfield Shoppingtown Garden State
(Paramus NJ)
2-level rectangle
1,967,000
260
Macy’s, Nordstrom, JC Penny, Neiman Marcus, Lord & Taylor
1957
Phoenix, Ariz.
Scottsdale Fashion Center
(Scottsdale)
2-level T
1,928,000
225
Dillard’s, Robinson-May, Sears, Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus
1961
wHAT IS AN ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE PACKAGE AND WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF USING A PACKAGE?
COMPARE AN ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE PACKAGE TO A BESPOKE PROGRAMMEAnswers:
Advantages of using a package
1) tried and tested by lots users, so likelihood of bugs lower
2) Cheaper than bespoke program
3) Shorter completing time
Disadvantages of using a package
1) Lesser flexibility within customization (reports, modules etc)
2) May not be suitable for specialized industries which have special accounting needs (quite rare)
Quickbook is rather a good packet. It's pretty affordable. Bespoke prog like JD Edwards are slightly pricey.
Other Answers:
use QuickBooks. You really can't make any accounting mistakes if you follow the instructions.