Re: [問題] CFA L1 財報分析問題
看板CFAiafeFSA (精算師/基金經理人/銀行家)作者warmleaf (Working hard!)時間15年前 (2010/04/26 01:30)推噓1(1推 0噓 6→)留言7則, 2人參與討論串4/5 (看更多)
※ 引述《kgc ( )》之銘言：
: sale of receivable with recourse is one type of "off-balance sheet"
: financing, thus interest expense from off-B/S would not be included in
: EBIT from B/S(imaging EBIT should include this interest expense, but we
: remove it from EBIT).
: for ratio analysis, we must add the interest expense to both interst and
: EBIT, the treatment is the same as ARO adjustment.
I think the adjustment for ARO is different from the one here.
First, ARO is an actual accounting adjustment in which we add liability to
the B/S. The accretion expense for ARO is recognized originally as an
operating expense so that for analytic purpose we have to reclassify it into
interest expense. In this case, EBIT and interest expense will thus be added
back at the same time by the same amount.
But here for sale of receivables with recourse, we add liability to the B/S
only for analytic purpose.(the short-term borrowing doesn't actually appear
on the B/S). Therefore, the interest expense for the liability shouldn't be
included in the calculation of reported EBIT.(so there's no reason to add
it back) How I interpret the reason to add back I/E to EBIT would be the
interest revenue that should have been earned on the notes receivable if
they were not sold.(I'm not 100% sure about this)
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.136.206.53
※ 編輯: warmleaf 來自: 114.136.206.53 (04/26 01:30)
※ 編輯: warmleaf 來自: 114.136.206.53 (04/26 01:31)
推
04/26 08:04, , 1F
04/26 08:04, 1F
→
04/26 08:05, , 2F
04/26 08:05, 2F
→
04/26 08:06, , 3F
04/26 08:06, 3F
→
04/26 11:55, , 4F
04/26 11:55, 4F
→
04/26 11:55, , 5F
04/26 11:55, 5F
→
04/26 12:28, , 6F
04/26 12:28, 6F
→
04/26 12:30, , 7F
04/26 12:30, 7F
討論串 (同標題文章)
CFAiafeFSA 近期熱門文章
PTT職涯區 即時熱門文章
147
312