※ 引述《warmleaf (Working hard!)》之銘言： : ※ 引述《kgc ( )》之銘言： : : 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) some idea here: think about how they handle off-B/S financing interest expense for preparing I/S? they must treat it as one kind of expense, then they just put this expense into opreating expense coz they don't take it as an interest expense. but for ratio analysis, we treat it as interest expense instead of operating expense. that's why we just reclassify it and the net income doesn't change. interpreting it as a revenue doesn't make much sense; if u didn't sell the receivables, u just haven't gotta pay the interest expense, which doesn't mean u earned the revenue. --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 96.246.73.95