作者warmleaf (Working hard!)
看板CFAiafeFSA
标题Re: [问题] CFA L1 财报分析问题
时间Mon Apr 26 01:29:59 2010
※ 引述《kgc ( )》之铭言：
: sale of receivable with recourse is one type of "off-balance sheet"
: financing, thus interest expense from off-B/S would not be included in
: EBIT from B/S(imaging EBIT should include this interest expense, but we
: remove it from EBIT).
: for ratio analysis, we must add the interest expense to both interst and
: EBIT, the treatment is the same as ARO adjustment.
I think the adjustment for ARO is different from the one here.
First, ARO is an actual accounting adjustment in which we add liability to
the B/S. The accretion expense for ARO is recognized originally as an
operating expense so that for analytic purpose we have to reclassify it into
interest expense. In this case, EBIT and interest expense will thus be added
back at the same time by the same amount.
But here for sale of receivables with recourse, we add liability to the B/S
only for analytic purpose.(the short-term borrowing doesn't actually appear
on the B/S). Therefore, the interest expense for the liability shouldn't be
included in the calculation of reported EBIT.(so there's no reason to add
it back) How I interpret the reason to add back I/E to EBIT would be the
interest revenue that should have been earned on the notes receivable if
they were not sold.(I'm not 100% sure about this)
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.136.206.53
※ 编辑: warmleaf 来自: 114.136.206.53 (04/26 01:30)
※ 编辑: warmleaf 来自: 114.136.206.53 (04/26 01:31)
1F：推 kgc:see we reclassify it in both case, that's exactly the "sam 04/26 08:04
2F：→ kgc:"same treatment" i meant although the 2 expences are from 04/26 08:05
3F：→ kgc:from different sources. 04/26 08:06
4F：→ warmleaf:but I mean there's no expense to reclassify in the 04/26 11:55
5F：→ warmleaf:second case~ 04/26 11:55
6F：→ kgc:weird, it doesn't appear in curriculum. but u never earn 04/26 12:28
7F：→ kgc:interest revenue if u didn't sell the receivables. 04/26 12:30