Two Simple Questions Will Check The Plagiarism Checker

Two Simple Questions Will Check The Plagiarismwecker Is The Controll

Two simple questions. Will check the plagiarism. Wecker is the controller for Wildcat Company, which has numerous long-term investments in debt securities. Wildcat's investments are mainly in 10-year bonds. Wecker is preparing its year-end financial statements. In accounting for long-term debt securities, she knows that each long-term investment must be designated as a held-to-maturity or an available-for-sale security.

Interest rates rose sharply this past year causing the portfolio's market value to substantially decline. The company does not intend to hold the bonds for the entire 10 years. Wecker also earns a bonus each year which is computed as a percent of net income.

Paper For Above instruction

The classification of long-term debt securities into either held-to-maturity (HTM) or available-for-sale (AFS) significantly influences a company's financial reporting and, consequently, the incentives of those responsible for these classifications. Wecker, as the controller of Wildcat Company, faces critical questions regarding how her classification decisions might affect her bonus structure and what criteria she must follow to classify securities appropriately in light of recent market conditions and company intentions.

Impact of Classification on Bonus Compensation

The first question pertains to whether Wecker's bonus depends on the classification of debt securities. Typically, bonuses based on net income are influenced by the way certain assets are accounted for under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Securities classified as held-to-maturity are recorded at amortized cost, which generally remains unaffected by market fluctuations unless there is an impairment. Conversely, securities classified as available-for-sale are reported at fair value, with unrealized gains or losses recorded in other comprehensive income (OCI). As a result, the classification can directly impact net income through the recognition of unrealized gains or losses.

In this context, if Wecker’s bonus is calculated based on net income, her incentive might indirectly or directly be affected by her classification decisions. Classifying securities as available-for-sale could lead to periodic unrealized losses due to declining market values, thereby reducing net income and potentially lowering her bonus if it is tied to net income performance. Conversely, classifying securities as held-to-maturity would avoid recognizing these unrealized losses, possibly maintaining higher net income levels and increasing her bonus potential.

However, it’s critical to recognize that authoritative accounting standards, such as those issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), emphasize that classification should be based on management’s intent and ability regarding holding the securities rather than on incentives to manipulate financial results. Misclassifying securities to inflate net income or bonuses can result in non-compliance and potential penalties, underscoring the importance of ethical decision-making in financial reporting.

Criteria for Classifying Debt Securities

The second question concerns the criteria Wecker must use to classify securities as held-to-maturity or available-for-sale. According to GAAP, the classification hinges primarily on management’s intent and ability to hold the securities until maturity.

• Held-to-maturity securities: These are debt securities that management has the positive intent and the ability to hold until they mature. These securities are recorded at amortized cost, and their valuation is not affected by market fluctuations unless an impairment occurs.
• Available-for-sale securities: These are securities that management does not intend to hold to maturity or for trading purposes. They can be sold before maturity in response to changes in market conditions, liquidity needs, or other strategic reasons. These are reported at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses recorded in OCI.

In the case of Wildcat Company, recent market volatility caused a significant decline in bond values. Despite this decline, if the company’s management, including Wecker, does not intend to sell these bonds before maturity and has the capacity to hold them for the entire duration, they could still be classified as held-to-maturity. However, since the company does not intend to hold the bonds for 10 years, classification as held-to-maturity would not be appropriate under GAAP.

Instead, Wecker should classify the bonds as available-for-sale if she intends to sell them before maturity and can do so if necessary. This classification is also appropriate if the bonds are expected to be sold in response to changes in market conditions or liquidity needs. The classification decision must be based on management's intentions and the company's strategic plans, rather than solely on current market fluctuations.

Ethical and Regulatory Considerations

Proper classification is crucial not only for accurate financial reporting but also for upholding ethical standards and legal compliance. Manipulating classifications to inflate earnings or bonuses breaches accounting standards and can lead to legal repercussions. Therefore, it is vital that Wecker's decisions align with GAAP requirements and reflect the true intent behind the investment holdings.

In conclusion, Wecker’s bonus structure may be indirectly influenced by the classification of securities due to the accounting treatment impacts on net income. Nonetheless, the primary driver for classification should remain the company’s actual intent and ability to hold securities, not incentive-based motivations. By accurately assessing her company's holdings and intentions, Wecker can ensure compliance with accounting standards and maintain ethical integrity while accurately presenting Wildcat Company’s financial position.

References

• Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (2020). ASC 320: Investments—Debt and Equity Securities.
• Choi, F., & Meek, G. (2016). International Accounting. Pearson.
• Kieso, D. E., Weygandt, J. J., & Warfield, T. D. (2021). Intermediate Accounting. Wiley.
• Gartenberg, C., & Malkin, L. (2012). Ethical accounting practices: A review and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(4), 465-484.
• Rittenberg, L., Johnstone, K., & Gramling, A. (2019). Auditing: A Risk-Based Approach. Cengage Learning.
• Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (2016). Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 820: Fair Value Measurement.
• Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (2018). Positive Accounting Theory. Prentice Hall.
• Barth, M. E. (2019). Discussion of the FASB's new standards on financial instruments and their ethical implications. The Accounting Review, 94(2), 263-273.
• Healy, P. M., & Palepu, K. G. (2012). Business Analysis & Valuation: Using Financial Statements. Cengage Learning.
• Schroeder, R. G., Clark, M. W., & Cathey, J. M. (2020). Financial Accounting Theory and Analysis. Wiley.