Answer:
I believe Volkswagen did not fulfill the requirements of effective corporate governance mainly because the board didn’t have enough independent directors present.
The essential driver is the nonappearance of a solid gathering of independent directors. In view of German Corporate law, administration is given by a Management Board and a Supervisory Board, with representatives making up half of the Supervisory Board. This ought to have took into consideration in any event half of the Supervisory Board to be completely independent. While remaining inside the 'letter of the law,' they evaded the 'spirit of the law' by cycling recent former senior executives through the Supervisory Board Chairmanship position and other board positions. This had the impact of expelling genuinely independent oversight.
To select the next board members and avoid any future issues Volkswagen can keep in mind the following things about the board that it is :
Is well informed about the company’s performance.
Guides and judges the CEO and other top executives.
Has the courage to curb management actions the board believes are inappropriate or unduly risky.
Certifies to shareholders that the CEO is doing what the board expects.
Provides insight and advice to management.
Is intensely involved in debating the pros and cons of key decisions and actions
Explanation:
The answer that is being depicted above is red flag. This is
a process or a way of having to provide reasonable explanation or to alert an individual
when there is a problem that is present in means of having to let them know
about it.
SG&A is an initialism used in accounting to refer to Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, which is a major non-production cost presented in an income statement.
Indirect costs are costs that are not directly accountable to a cost object. Indirect costs may be either fixed or variable. Indirect costs include administration, personnel and security costs. These are those costs which are not directly related to production. Some indirect costs may be overhead.
Answer:
Please check the info below
Explanation:
1. For Osaka
Margin = Net Operating Income / Sales *100
= $ 792000 / $9900000 *100
= 8.00%
Turnover = Sales / Average Operating Assets * 100
= $ 9900000 / $ 2475000 * 100
= 4.00%
ROI = Margin * Turnover
= 8% *4 %
= 32.00%
Hence the correct answer is 32.00%
For Yokohama :
Margin = Net Operating Income / Sales *100
= $ 2900000 / $ 29000000*100
= 10.00%
Turnover = Sales / Average Operating Assets * 100
= $ 29000000 / $ 14500000* 100
= 2.00%
ROI = Margin * Turnover
= 10% *2 %
= 20.00%
Hence the correct answer is 20.00%
2. The correct answer is
Osaka = $ 371,250
Yokohama = $ 435,000
3. The correct answer is No
This is because since Osaka has a higher ROI, Yokohama’s greater amount of residual income is not an indication that it is better managed
