Answer:
The proceeds from the bond issue are allocated between the bonds and the warrants on the basis of their relative market values.
Explanation:
Bonds are securities issued by the company where investor can invest in such securities and can earn interest.
Warrants are rights which states that on redemption of bonds it shall be converted into company's shares.
When bonds are issued with detachable warrants, that means there is a basic amount of bonds and warrants. Also, each shall be accounted separately.
Bond issue of these bonds includes value of bonds that shall be accounted and added to value of bonds, and the value of warrants shall be accounted in warrants.
Answer:
the net income reported by Waterway Industries for the year was $299,000
Explanation:
The computation of the net income reported is as follows:
As we know that
Net income = Revenue - expenses
= $626,000 - $327,000
= $299,000
hence, the net income reported by Waterway Industries for the year was $299,000
The same should be considered
Answer:
Sarbanes - Oxley Act
Explanation:
The Sarbanes - Oxley Act was passed into law by the United States Congress July 30th 2002 basically to provide protection for investors against financial reporting that are fraudulent by corporations. This law was enacted as a result of the cases of financial scandals that shook large companies including Enron Corporation around the year 2000.
The order to protect the investors from fraudulent reporting, the act also protects accounting officers such as Sharon who become whistle-blowers by reporting the malpractices and unethical accounting practices of corporations to the government for actions and sanctions.
Answer: Option C
Explanation: In the given case, the audience of the commercial made by Titleist have the same background and social standing. All the people watching the commercial in the given question were standing in a country club, thus, they all had a certain amount of knowledge and interest in golf and have same societal background to a very good extent.
Thus, from the above we can conclude that option C is the right answer.
Answer:
no, since other things are not held constant, including her income
Explanation:
The law of demand states that price has an inverse relationship with quantity demanded of a good. As price increases the demand reduces, and as price decreases quantity demanded increases.
However this is true when all other factors reman constant.
In the given scenario the price of hamburger has fallen but Hilary buys less of it. This looks like a violation of the law of demand, but her income has changed so the law of demand may not hold here.
All factors do not remain constant.
Hilary's behaviour can be explained by the concept income effect. Where an increase in income leads to the consumer buying more of expensive goods than cheaper ones.
