This technical note provides introductory to intermediate accounting and finance students with an introduction to the construction of a discounted cash flow analysis. The scenario is a plausible and moderately complex “real-world” managerial decision of whether or not a business owner should purchase labour-saving farm equipment. This decision includes tax implications and long-lived assets. One of the greatest challenges that managers face is understanding exactly what type of problem they are facing. Before we can learn to invoke and apply the appropriate structure, we have to identify the essence of the problem. The next step is to identify the required information to make the right decision, after an appropriate framework has been applied.
In 2021, the investment bank Credit Suisse Group AG lost an estimated US$6.4 billion from exposure to two hedge fund implosions that occurred within a month. Archegos Capital Management lost US$4.7 billion and Greensill Capital lost US$1.7 billion. Various arrangements between Credit Suisse Group AG and Archegos Capital Management, as well as structural factors at Credit Suisse Group AG, may have contributed to the bank having a higher level of exposure to these collapses than its industry peers. Underlying these miscues were recent changes in leadership, strategy, and tone at Credit Suisse Group AG. All three of these changes appeared to have collectively impaired the skepticism and voice exercised by its risk management group. In July 2021, Credit Suisse Group AG replaced its chief risk officer in an attempt to reshuffle its risk and compliance leadership. The task of the new chief risk officer was to reshape Credit Suisse Group AG’s risk management framework and internal controls, from the top to the bottom.
In 2019, Paratent Event Rentals Ltd. was facing the possibility of year end net losses. The co-owners of this Canadian business had recently invested in premium inventory, but a lackluster first quarter showed that they were not forecasted to get return on their investments. A new method of cost allocation was proposed to get Paratent back on track. When choosing between three conflicting future contracts, both the old and new methods of cost allocation needed to be implemented and considered. Using qualitative and quantitative analyses, Paratent needed to decide which job would be the most profitable and which cost allocation method to use in the future.
This case explores a current but also enduring and widely relevant intersection of challenges facing managers who compete in rapidly evolving technology markets. In the landmark US$9 billion Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. case, Google LLC (Google) leads development of the now-ubiquitous Android mobile operating system, used by billions of people globally. However, many of the laws governing development were unclear, having been written before the technologies being developed were even imagined. Thus, Google must balance competitive risks with other risks, such as legal uncertainty.
In 2019, an investment analyst for a hedge fund firm based in the Bahamas was tasked with evaluating his firm’s exposure to the automotive industry. The hedge fund firm held various large positions in the automotive segment, most notably in two equities—Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and Ford Motor Company. The analyst decided to focus on these global industry giants as a proxy for the broader automotive segment. His manager expected an assessment of the industry’s prospects, so the analyst had to decide if the past stock performance of the two companies was a fair indicator of each company’s and the industry’s future. He also had to consider why one company would lose almost twice as much value as the other in one specific period. And why did the stock of the more diversified company experience the steeper decline? The analyst was eager to answer these and other questions, both for his own and his manager’s interest.
Jane Zhou, an equity analyst at a large asset management firm, was preparing a report on EOS Imaging (EOS), a French medical device company that her firm had invested in. EOS’s drastic fall in First Quarter (Q1) 2019 revenue caught Zhou’s attention, as the company had maintained a continuous growth record up until 2018. In Q1 2019, EOS only achieved 1 per cent of its Q1 2019 equipment sales revenue. Also, during Q1, EOS made a significant change to its general sales agreement, leading to a corresponding change in revenue recognition timing. Zhou wondered if the revenue slowdown could be mainly attributed to the accounting method change rather than to weakening demand. It was crucial for Zhou to understand the impact of this change and to decide whether she should recommend her portfolio manager to liquidate the firm’s position in EOS or not.
In October 2001, the co-founder and vice-president of Veritas Investment Research Corporation (Veritas), was considering his next steps as he prepared to issue a highly critical report on Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier). The vice-president believed that Bombardier had relied upon accounting innovations rather than operating innovations in order to report accounting profits. While numerous issues concerned the vice-president, one of the most critical was the way the company had managed the relationships between its various operating segments. These issues had developed over recent years and threatened to increase following the business decisions in the wake of September 11, 2001, which had dramatically affected the sale of aircraft. The vice-president’s investment report would have significant consequences for numerous stakeholders and would affect both his own and Veritas’s reputations. How should Veritas interpret the various issues related to Bombardier’s accounting and reporting choices?
In August 2018, a recent Canadian business school graduate was excited about starting her dream job at a global financial consulting firm headquartered in the United Kingdom. However, on her first day, she learned from discussions with co-workers that newly hired women (including herself) were offered lower salaries than men who were newly hired for the same positions. She later learned, in an onboarding session, that the company had a strict policy prohibiting pay discussions among employees. The new employee faced a difficult decision in considering what to do next: What were her responsibilities and options? How could she expect the human resources department to respond? Could her choices possibly put her or her colleagues at risk?
This note, which serves as a glossary, was constructed to ease the transition of students into financial accounting courses. The glossary includes both foundational terms that are widely used and terms introduced in one or more common financial accounting cases. The terms are explained in a manner that aims to inform both novice and advanced students.
On November 20, 2015, the chief financial officer of Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer) was preparing to make a recommendation about whether to proceed with or stop merger talks between Pfizer and Allergan plc (Allergan), a pharmaceutical company with headquarters in New Jersey but tax residence in Ireland. Informal talks had been going on for almost a month, but both sides were rapidly approaching the pre-arranged deadline. The two teams had less than a week to either formally agree to proceed with a merger or walk away. Formalizing the agreement meant activating a US$400 million breakup clause that would make it costlier to call the deal off at a later date. Allergan’s Irish tax residency made this merger both attractive and concerning. While it provided the opportunity to lower Pfizer’s worldwide tax rate, the U.S. Treasury Department had recently announced regulatory changes targeting mergers that relocated a company’s tax residence to a low-tax country (called “tax inversions”). Pfizer’s legal team members were confident that the announced changes would not affect the proposed merger with Allergan. However, they were less certain about if—and when—the U.S. Treasury Department might make changes again.