個案總覽

As artificial intelligence (AI) evolved, it started to be applied in a wide range of industries and functions. Its use allowed for the automation of data processing and handling. Many AI functions involved the use of robotic process automation (RPA) as a tool and machine learning skills to imitate human thinking. It could lead to increased productivity, improved accuracy in data input and processing, optimized revenue, and reduced cost. When AI was used in the accounting function, it could be applied in the areas of accounts payable, accounts receivable, procurement, expense management, consolidation, and trading management, among others. The results also assisted with internal control, compliance, and auditing as well as in making more informed management decisions. Radial Tires Company (RTC) manufactured radial tires in mainland China. The company was headquartered in Hong Kong, with five manufacturing plants in Shangdong and Jiansu. In a recent meeting with the holding company, David Lee, RTC's CFO, was told that from the next financial quarter on, the holding company required that RTC provide more extensive reporting and shorten reporting time. Lee was considering the use of AI technology to achieve this. But he had no experience with using AI for accounting and neither did his contacts at other manufacturing enterprises. Lee contacted FlexSystem, RTC's existing accounting and enterprise resource planning (ERP) software provider. FlexSystem would advise on the use of RPA, other AI tools, and automation processes to work with RTC's ERP and accounting software. It would also develop a proposal for RTC in which it would present a workflow using various IT solutions and describe how they could improve speed and efficiency in accounting processes, the estimated project time required and recommend key performance indicators to measure results and return on investment (ROI). Once FlexSystem completed the proposal, Lee, other department heads, and his CEO had to

A new accounting standard, IFRS 16 Leases, has come into effect on 1 January 2019. The new standard introduces a single lessee accounting model and requires a lessee to recognise assets and liabilities for all leases with a term of more than 12 months (except for low value underlying asset). The IFRS 16 introduces on lessee's account the "right-of-use" asset to represent its right to use the underlying leased asset and the "lease" liability to represent its obligation to make lease payments. The purpose of the case is to introduce IFRS 16 and illustrating its effect and the differences on treatments of leases compared with IAS 17. The case features a coffee company called Lazy Coffee. Readers take on the role of Jan Lo, the Financial Controller of the Company, who is closing the accounts of 2019 and retrospectively restating the figures of 2018 to reflect IFRS 16. Jan is also required to prepare detailed discussion on the application, implications and impact of changes in the accounting policy.

The We Company (WeWork) rented office spaces for long-term leases, turned them into hip offices, and then offered them for short-term leases. Its charismatic cofounder and CEO Adam Neumann, explosive growth funded by significant cash injections from SoftBank and its USD100bn Vision Fund, and a pre-IPO valuation of USD47bn ensured the company was one of the most talked-about unicorns in August 2019. WeWork's valuation was similar to that of a high-tech stock with high price multiples. From FY 2016 to FY2018, its losses totalled USD3.3bn, outstripping revenue at USD3.1bn. After release of Form S-1 pre-IPO filing documents, numerous financial analysts and the press scrutinized WeWork. In addition to its lower than expected financial performance, some questioned WeWork's business model, its governance model, and its valuation. In the weeks that followed, the IPO was withdrawn, WeWork announced plans to lay off 2,000 staff, Neuman was removed as CEO, and Softbank doubled down on its bet in order to keep the company going. This latest share purchase by Softbank valued the company at USD8bn, compared to USD49bn two months earlier.

ArtGo Holdings Limited (HKSE:03313) was listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange's main board. The company mined marble in mainland China. In July, after MSCI, the index company, announced it would include the stock in the MSCI China All Shares Index, the share price shot up from around HKD2.0 to a high of HKD14.96 in November. Inclusion was expected to result in significant demand for this stock by passive investors. When MSCI announced it would not include ArtGo in its index after all, the share price dropped to HKD0.305 before share trading was halted on the morning of 21 November. Almost HKD46bn, equivalent to 98% of the shareholders' wealth, had been wiped out Stocks listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, one of the world's largest, are famous for their volatility. Without substantial changes in its business or economic outlook, stock prices have been known to go up multiple times. At the same time, it is not unheard of for a stock to lose most of its value within a single day. This case addresses a few interesting and important questions about stock valuation on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Stock financing agreements between substantial shareholders and lenders can have a significant effect on the value of listed companies in Hong Kong. The same goes for market news and rumours. How can (minority) shareholders can avoid this kind of tail risk, and what are the problematic risk indicators in such cases? Does the regulator do enough to protect the interest of minority shareholders?

Hunan TV & Broadcast Intermediary Co. Ltd. ("TIK"), was listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange (stock code 917), and it was recognized as one of the leaders in the TV industry in mainland China. Its major lines of business included TV broadcasting, TV and movie production, TV and movie distribution, and an advertising agency. A major client of TIK was Hunan Satellite TV, a related company of TIK. Hunan Satellite TV was the second most popular TV broadcasting station in mainland China. The chairman of TIK, 龙秋云[Long Quiyun], was replaced by 陈刚[Chen Gang] on 30 October 2017. Long was arrested later, on 11 January 2018, on charges for illegally accepting bribes. TIK also appointed three new executive directors in January and February 2018 out of a total of four. The shake-up was followed by a surprise financial result announcement. From FY2010 to FY2016, the company had reported profits ranging from CNY387m to CNY649m. When the company forecasted profits of CNY26m to CNY39m for FY2017 in a mandated forecast on 31 January 2018, investors knew profits for the year would be significantly lower as than the years before. On 26 April 2018, when the company announced a net loss for FY2017 of CNY464m on 26 April 2018, this came as an unwelcome surprise. Both FY2017 and FY2018 were subject to major write-downs in the value of several assets. The write-down provision in FY2017 was CNY411.1m, while for FY2018, it was CNY552.6m.

The case explores how Hung Fook Tong Group Holdings Limited (1446.HK) a Hong Kong company engaged in the production and sales of a variety of herbal and non-herbal products under its "Hung Fook Tong (鴻福堂)" brand, accounts for its various membership programmes and promotional packages. Founded in 1986 by Mr. Wong Jing Fat, the Company has grown from a single herbal tea shop into a chain of 115 retail stores. The case is set in the first quarter of 2019 before the release of 2018 annual results. Students take on the role of Colin Lo, the Financial Controller of the Company. Mr. Lo is preparing for the upcoming board meeting. He expects a detailed discussion on the impact of changes in accounting policies, in particular, HKFRS 15 "Revenue from Contracts with Customers".

This case features a company in China's booming delivery industry. Students are asked to step into the shoes of an equity analyst at an IPO consulting firm and recommend a listing strategy and IPO price for a fast growing express delivery company. The authors have successfully used the case in a business valuation course.

The case describes China's bicycle-sharing industry at a time of unrest. Following a period of potentially unsustainable, rapid expansion, the industry began to receive a lot of media and public scrutiny. Bluegogo first drew attention to the so-called 'bike-sharing bubble' in late 2017, when news broke of the firm's financial difficulties. A few months later, Didi Chuxing, the ride-hailing giant, acquired part of Bluegogo's assets. Then in spring 2018, Meituan Dianping bought Mobike, for a sizeable USD 2.7billion. As industry leaders, ofo and Mobike need to find ways to assure stakeholders that Bluegogo's difficulties will not go on to infect the entire, nascent industry. Meituan Dianping needs to be able to justify having paid the USD 2.7billion for Mobike to its own stakeholders. Using China's bike sharing industry as an example, this case can be used to explore the valuation of companies that constitute the emergent, global sharing economy