You have recently hired a new assistant, Susan Thompson, who previously worked in a financial accounting office preparing journal entries, which provide you with a recording of the day-to-day activities of the company and financial statements (income statement, statement of owners’ equity balance sheet, and cash flow statement). Although your new assistant has experience with and fully understands financial accounting, she has no experience with managerial accounting.
In a memo to your new assistant, Susan Thompson, complete the following:
Explain to her the similarities and differences between financial and managerial accounting.
Provide examples of managerial accounting reports that she could expect to see within EEC, and explain how management might use the information to make decisions.
Keep in mind that although the income statement, the statement of owners’ equity balance sheet, and the cash flow statement are generated in financial accounting, they are used to develop all of your managerial accounting reports.
Examples of a few of those reports are the horizontal analyzes, vertical analyzes, and ratios.
In a memo to the board of directors, discuss the information found in each of the following financial statements, and describe how accounting information is used by managers for planning and control:
Statement of cash flows
Statement of stockholders’ equity
Compare and contrast financial and managerial accounting.
Discuss the information found on financial statements including balance sheets, income statements, statements of cash flows, and statements of owner’s equity and describe how accounting information is used by managers for planning and control.
Explain the methods used to analyze financial statements and utilize accounting information to evaluate the performance of the firm, departments, and individual managers.
A young fellow who kicked the bucket at 32 years old in a remote land he had made a trip to, to seek after his specialty. A cumbersome offbeat who could envision his entire work in his mind before he put it to canvas. A Russian who disregards the spotlight and declines acknowledgment for his work. An explorer who went from nation to nation spontaneously keeping in mind the end goal to work together with others. A man whose scribblings roused the labor of love of hundreds. A lady, who got away from the partialities against her sex to become well known. A loner who put in near ten years taking a shot at one piece. A progressive youngster wonder who passed on in a weapon duel before his twenty-first birthday celebration. What do you picture when you read the above? Specialists? Performers? Scholars? Clearly not mathematicians? Srinivas Ramanujan (1887-1920) was a self-trained no one who, in his short life expectancy, found almost 3900 outcomes, a significant number of which were totally startling, and affected and made whole professions for future mathematicians. Truth be told there is a whole diary dedicated to zones of concentrate roused by Ramanujan's work. Notwithstanding endeavoring to give an outline of his all consuming purpose would require a whole book. Henri Poincare (1854-1912) was limited and henceforth needed to figure out how to picture every one of the addresses he sat through. In doing as such, he built up the aptitude to imagine whole confirmations previously keeping in touch with them down. Poincare is viewed as one of the organizers of the field of Topology, a field worried about what remains when objects are changed. An oft-educated joke concerning Topologists is that they can't tell their doughnut from their espresso mug. A guess of Poincare's, in regards to what might as well be called a circle in 4-dimensional space, was unsolved till this century when Grigori Perelman (1966-) turned into the main mathematician to break a millenium prize issue, with prize cash of $1million. Perelman turned it down. He is additionally the main mathematician to have turned down the Fields Medal, science's likeness the Nobel Prize. Have you known about the Kevin Bacon number? Well mathematicians give themselves an Erdos number after Paul Erdos (1913-96) who, as Kevin Bacon, teamed up with everyone vital in the field in different parts of the world. On the off chance that he heard you were doing some intriguing examination, he would gather his packs and turn up at your doorstep. Pierre de Fermat (1601-65) was a legal advisor and 'novice' mathematician, whose work in Number Theory has given a portion of the best instruments mathematicians have today, and are necessary to extremely present day regions, for example, cryptography. He made a cryptic remark in an edge of his duplicate of Diaphantus' 'Arithmetica' saying: 'It is difficult to isolate a 3D shape into two blocks, or a fourth power into two fourth powers, or as a rule, any power higher than the second, into two like forces. I have found a really brilliant evidence of this, which this edge is excessively restricted, making it impossible to contain.' Regardless of whether he really had a proof is far from being obviously true, however this one remark enlivened work for the following 300 years. In these interceding 300 years, one name must be specified - Sophie Germain (1776-1831). Germain stays one of only a handful couple of ladies who have broken the unreasonable impediment and made critical commitments to science. She was in charge of demonstrating Fermat's scribblings for a lot of numbers. I apologize to Andrew Wiles (1953-) for considering him a loner, yet he spent near 10 years on the evidence of Fermat's Last Theorem, amid the vast majority of which he didn't uncover his advance to anyone. Sparing the best for last, Evariste Galois (1811-32), a radical republican in pre-progressive France, kicked the bucket in a duel over a lady at 20 years old. Just the prior night, he had completed an original copy with the absolute most creative and impactful outcomes in arithmetic. There is hypothesis that the subsequent absence of rest made him lose the duel. Galois created what turned into an entire branch of science to itself - Galois Theory, a sub-teach which interface two different subdisciplines of theoretical polynomial math. It is the main branch of science I can consider which is named after its maker (aside from Mr. Variable based math and Ms. Likelihood). This may have all the earmarks of being recounted proof of the imaginative soul of arithmetic and mathematicians. In any case, the same can be said in regards to the confirmation given for Artistic virtuoso. Actually there is look into which demonstrates that the model of a frantic masterful virtuoso doesn't remain on firm ground. Along these lines, lets move far from investigating inventive mathematicians, to the inventiveness of the teach. Science is an exceedingly inventive train, by any valuable feeling of the word 'imaginative.' The investigation of arithmetic includes theory, hazard in the feeling of the readiness to take after one's tie of thought to wherever it leads, creative contentions, elation at accomplishing an outcome and numerous a period marvel in the outcome. Not at all like researchers, mathematicians don't have our universe as a brace. Basic science may have the capacity to get motivation from the universe, yet rapidly things change. Mathematicians need to create guesses from their creative energy. Hence, these guesses are extremely questionable. A large portion of them will neglect to hold up under any natural product, however in the event that mathematicians are unwilling to go for broke, they will lose any desire for revelation. When mathematicians are persuaded of the conviction of a contention, they need to display a thorough verification, which no one can jab any gaps in. By and by, they are not as fortunes as researchers, who are content with a measurably noteworthy outcome or at most an outcome inside five standard deviations. Thus, once you demonstrate a scientific hypothesis, your name will be related with it for forever. Aristotle may have been superseded by Newton and Newton by Einstein, however Euclid's confirmation of interminable primes will dependably be valid. As Hardy stated, "A mathematician, similar to a painter or writer, is a creator of examples. In the event that his examples are more changeless than theirs, it is on account of they are made with thoughts." The magnificence of numerical outcomes and verifications is a laden territory, however there are sure outcomes, awesome bosses, for example, Euler's character and Euclid's evidence, which are all around acknowledged as tastefully satisfying. All in all, for what reason are individuals so apprehensive of arithmetic? For what reason do they view it as exhausting and staid? Indeed, the simple answer is that they are shown retailer science. In school, you are educated to take after principles with a specific end goal to touch base at an answer. In the better schools, you are urged to do as such utilizing squares and toys. Be that as it may, fundamentally the main aptitudes you are getting are those which help you in business exchanges. And no more, you get the right stuff to help you in different controls like Economics and the Sciences. There has been a gigantic push in the ongoing past for the Arts to be instructed in school 'for craftsmanship's purpose.' There would be commotion tomorrow among craftsmen and the liberal tip top if workmanship class transformed into reproducing blurbs (not notwithstanding making them). There would even be a furore if the main workmanship understudies did was to draw the close planetary system for Science class and the Taj Mahal for Social Studies. What great craftsmanship classes include is instructors presenting ideas, for example, specific shapes and after that urging understudies to try and make in view of those ideas. Shouldn't something be said about 'maths for maths' purpose?' Students ought to be urged to think of their own guesses in view of ideas presented by the instructor. This class would need to be firmly guided by an instructor who is reasonably exceptionally solid, so they can give cases keeping in mind the end goal to motivate understudies to concoct guesses. They would likewise be required to give understudies counterexamples to any guess they have thought of. I am not recommending totally getting rid of the present model of science instruction including rehashed routine with regards to questions. Similarly as replication presumably helps in expressions of the human experience and human expressions can fill in as incredible beginning stages for ideas in different controls, redundancy is vital in arithmetic as it causes you intuit ideas and certain numerical ideas are imperative for the calculated comprehension of different orders and forever. Along these lines, there should be a mix of arithmetic classes (those which show science) and retailer classes (those which instruct scientific ideas for different controls and forever). These would not function as isolated elements and may even be instructed in the meantime. This requires a total redesign of the arithmetic educational programs with a substantially lighter heap of points so educators can investigate ideas top to bottom with their understudies. It additionally requires a bigger accentuation on ideas, for example, symmetry, diagram hypothesis and pixel geometry which are less demanding to ask into and shape guesses in than subjects like math. Presently we go to the coordinations. What number of educators are there in the nation who have a sufficiently solid applied understanding required to draw in with science in this way? I would be agreeably amazed if that were a considerable rundown, yet I speculate it isn't. With a specific end goal to develop this capacity, the accentuation at instructor universities and in educator proficient advancement needs to move from dull and inconsequential ideas like classroom administration and instructing techniques, to creating applied comprehension, in any event in Mathematics. The measure of information required to show school science isn't too much. All that is required is a solid calculated base in a couple of ideas alongside a comprehension of science as an undertaking, and a demeanor for the erraticisms of the teach. All things being equal, this won't be anything but difficult to achieve and will require some serious energy. In the in the mean time, wherever conceivable, proficient mathematicians could come in to schools and work with instructors on their exercise designs. In different cases, these mathematicians could band together with educationalists and concoct material, which can pretty much>GET ANSWER