Your grandparents have been left a substantial amount of money and want to invest in a company. Your grandfather trusts you to make a recommendation, but he also wants to see the reasoning behind your choice.
You have an idea of which company to choose and you decide to prepare 3 sets of documents for your grandparents to consider: business analysis, combined income and cash flow statement, and trend analysis.
Select a public company that trades on either the NYSE or the NASDAQ. Perform a business analysis (both external and internal) for your company using the most recent information from various sources. Possible sources include the following:
Annual report or form 10-K
Magazine or newspaper articles
Company Web sites
Your analysis should be approximately 5 pages long. Be sure to cite your sources using APA guidelines.
Combined Income and Cash Flow Statement
Download the company’s most recent annual report from its Web site or the company’s form 10-K from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Web site (www.sec.gov).
Confirm that the firm’s income, dividends, and other capital transactions explain the change in equity for the most recent year. (You may need to consult the statement of shareholders’ equity.)
Confirm that the firm’s cash flow statement begins with the same net income amounts found in the income statement.
Confirm that the firm’s cash flow statement shows a change in cash that is equal to the difference between cash shown on the balance sheet at the beginning and end of the year. In Excel, construct a combined income statement and cash flow statement.
Write 1–2 paragraphs that answer the following:
What would you do if you found there was a huge difference in the net income amounts and the reported cash flow amounts?
How could technology limit the likelihood of this happening again?
Finally, prepare a trend analysis of operating ratios for at least 3 years’ worth of financial data. Prepare the analysis in Excel. You may wish to create a common-sized income statement first, but it isn’t required.\
atcliffe (2002) refered to different instances of specialists who have experienced a negative reaction of professionals to recommendations of removal. The general concern communicated is that wrongdoing removal takes out the viability of wrongdoing decrease activities by pushing wrongdoing to close by zones or other wrongdoing types. This supposition that is regularly anticipated on the excessively hopeful thought that without removal no wrongdoing would have happened by any stretch of the imagination, an idea that spots more prominent confidence in wrongdoing aversion techniques. As Clarke (1995) noticed that the uncritical acknowledgment of wrongdoing dislodging may likewise imply that increments in wrongdoing, which may have happened at any rate, have some of the time been wrongly ascribed to uprooting. The mistaken view that wrongdoing uprooting is inescapable which don't bring about any net decrease in wrongdoing is a negative result of a wrongdoing anticipation activity. It has not been successfully countered by an exploration custom that albeit favored with proof, needs fitting devices and an open voice. Where wrongdoing dislodging occurs, it is generally the aftereffect of circumstances that powers lawbreakers to get to close by circumstances not inside the bounds of the authorization activity. At the point when lawbreakers are constrained into optional and, by suggestion, less powerful target decisions, this will hypothetically bring about less wrongdoing. This thought was resounded by Eck (1993), who in his synopsis of thirty-three investigations of wrongdoing relocation found that wrongdoing uprooting is most drastically averse to happen toward new places, times, targets and practices; what he named as commonality rot (Eck, 1993). Eck (1993) presumed that anticipation and crackdown endeavors concentrated on exceptional circumstances will have less relocation than aversion or crackdown endeavors concentrated on general circumstances. Exact proof backings an absence of absolute wrongdoing dislodging. For instance, both Hesseling's (1994) meta-investigation and Ratcliffe's (2005) observational work in Canberra have reasoned that wrongdoing uprooting isn't an unavoidable result of a police crackdown on wrongdoing concealment activity. Green (1995), while inspecting the effect of a specific multiagency reaction group on Cornish and Clarke (1987), conceptualized wrongdoing removal from the point of view of discerning decision hypothesis. From their assessment of the decisions settled on by hoodlums in the choice to perpetrate wrongdoings and their selection of targets, they accepted that wrongdoing removal could best be clarified and comprehended by focusing on the criminalâ€™s individual choices and decisions made in carrying out wrongdoing. Cornish and Clarke (1987) strive>GET ANSWER