Search results

Sees the objective of teaching financial management to be to help managers and potential managers to make sensible investment and financing decisions. Acknowledges that financial theory teaches that investment and financing decisions should be based on cash flow and risk. Provides information on payback period; return on capital employed, earnings per share effect, working capital, profit planning, standard costing, financial statement planning and ratio analysis. Seeks to combine the practical rules of thumb of the traditionalists with the ideas of the financial theorists to form a balanced approach to practical financial management for MBA students, financial managers and undergraduates.

This exercise exposes students to complex lease transactions, requiring research in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification, archived standards, and future standards (exposure drafts (ED)).

Case study/exercise/assignment.

Students analyze how a retail establishment examines lease transactions to ensure its practices are in line with its mission. Students gain experience researching archived, current, and future standards. Student feedback suggests that students feel the exercise is valuable because it reinforces what they learned in earlier courses and it requires them to understand all aspects related to capital and operating leases. Furthermore, direct assessment data based on grading rubrics indicates that most students meet instructor expectations and indirect assessment data based on student perceptions indicates students are meeting the exercise learning outcomes.

This learning exercise fosters critical thinking skills; emulating professional practice issues and enhancing written and communication skills. It reinforces graduate students’ undergraduate learning related to leases.

This paper aims to examine the status and implications of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and International Accounting Standards Board’s (IASB) forthcoming standard on leases. The proposal arose from concern that many lease obligations are unrecorded on the balance sheet and that current accounting for lease transactions does not represent fully the economics of many lease transactions.

On September 20, 2012 and September 25, 2012, the Boards decided to account for some lease contracts using an approach similar to their proposed 2010 leases exposure draft (interest and depreciation) and to account for some leases using an approach that results in a straight-line lease expense. On May 13, 2013, the Boards decided to continue to account for some lease contracts on a straight-line basis, and others on an amortization basis separate from interest expense. Identification of the type of lease requires a two-step process at lease commencement, and all leases are recorded identically at inception. The subsequent measurement gives rise to differences. Some concerns are that an increase in assets and liabilities may result in debt covenant breaches that will require renegotiation and adjustment.

While understanding that many financial users, preparers and auditors favor retaining the current and long-standing leasing standards, the FASB and IASB should recognize many unexpected consequences of its new proposals, including the changing of many long-held financial ratios and the resultant violations of many bank loan covenants.

The only limitation is that this manuscript is not based on primary empirical data. There are no implications for the study’s purpose is an update of a proposed FASB/IASB standard, an analysis of the empirical impact studies that have been done, a questionning of whether a new standard is really needed or that the current standard is not being implemented properly, and guidance for the implementation at transition and on-going for the proposed standard. This study gives a reader a compact update, implications, ramifications and guidance for preparation of a new standard if it is passed.

The new rules will alter many key financial metrics that investors use to determine company valuations and credit agencies use to determine credit worthiness. Some items will improve, such as gross margin, cash flow from operations and earnings before interest and taxes. Reported interest coverage and return on assets will be lower under the new rules. Industries that make extensive use of operating leases such as transportation, banking, telecommunications, retail and real estate will be most affected.

In the best case scenario, the new standard would destroy approximately 190,000 US jobs. US gross domestic product (GDP) would be reduced by $27.5 billion annually. In the best case, the household earnings would be reduced by $7.8 billion annually. In the worst case, this decrease is $135.2 billion a year. The apparent liabilities of US publicly traded companies would increase by $1.5-$2 trillion, the equivalent gross state product of 20 states. Approximately $1.1 trillion of this would be attributable to balance sheet recognition of real estate operating leases, while the remainder would come from recognizing equipment and other leases as liabilities.

The value of this research is the unique analysis of the proposed lease standard, and in looking at why the previous models did not work or did they? Is it the current requirements that are wrong or their implemenation? The reader is given a detailed overview of the proposed standard, its economic and social impacts, an update of the proposed standard, what companies must do now to get ready for the transition and on-going requirements, and a discussion of the tremendous opposition to any proposed changes in the current lease requirements from what they are.

In United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., United Shoe Machinery (USM) was found guilty of illegal monopolization due to its leasing practices. Existing scholarship on this case largely focuses on the issue of leasing versus selling. In this article, we provide a more comprehensive analysis of this important decision. In addition, we examine USM’s antitrust experience before and after the famous 1953 case. We find that USM’s business practices were largely procompetitive and, therefore, did not warrant condemnation.

New lease accounting rules are proposed that will fundamentally change the way leases are accounted for and reported in financial statements. This paper seeks to provide information on the proposed new rules and to illustrate their impact on financial statements and financial ratios using a single restaurant company.

The case of a single restaurant company, CEC International, is used to illustrate the potential impact of the new rules. Additional examples are used to illustrate the impact on financial policies. Financial statements were adjusted and various financial ratios such as interest coverage, leverage and profitability ratios were computed before and after capitalization.

The results show that financial statements presented will change dramatically when lease assets and liabilities are added to the balance‐sheet. The expense recognition pattern will change significantly and negatively impact performance measures such as interest coverage and capital ratios but improve cash flow measures such as EBIT and EBITDA.

Limitations of this study include the assumptions used to capitalize leases such as interest rate, life of leases, no new leases, and exclusion of contingent rentals.

All restaurant companies and managers must assess the costs and benefits of complying with the proposed new rules and start analyzing and evaluating their impact on existing debt agreements, executive compensation plans, and the lease versus buy decision.

This paper serves to inform restaurant managers about the potential implications of the new rules, so managers can prepare, plan and formulate strategies to mitigate their impact.

It is apparent from the empirical studies in the UK and USA that incorrect approaches are frequently used to evaluate finance leases. Sykes (1975), Hull and Hubbard (1979) and Drury and Braund (1989) in the UK and Ferrara et. al., (1980) in the USA have expressed concern regarding the methods which companies use to evaluate finance leases. For example Sykes (1975) found that only 19% of UK companies used DCF methods to evaluate leases. Hull and Hubbard (1979) observed that many companies used the implied rate of interest quoted from the lessor's leasing tables and compared this with the borrowing rate. However, these tables did not include tax cash flows and were therefore only applicable to a permanent non‐taxpaying organisation. In the most recent study Drury and Braund (1989) found that 41% of the 300 firms responding to a questionnaire used the wrong discount rate to evaluate finance leases and a further 14% used non‐discounting methods. The objective of this article is to explain how the lease or purchase decision should be evaluated. It will be shown that leasing should be compared with borrowing and three different methods of correctly evaluating the lease or borrow decision will be presented and reconciled.

The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) and Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) have given relief to lessees in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. However, it is not clear why any relief from the requirements in International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) or the Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) should be necessary. The purpose of this paper is to highlight weaknesses in how the IASB and FASB developed their leases Standards, and why those Standards are not robust enough to cope with a shock to the economic system.

The COVID-19 relief suspends some features of the leasing requirements rather than changing them. What if other economic or regulatory events cause the same circumstances to arise?

Have COVID-19 exposed weaknesses in the leasing standards that should have been avoided when they were developed or is COVID-19 the problem?

Analysis of actual board discussions and staff papers is unusual and provides insights into the standard-setting process.

The US restaurant industry and the food‐service industry have undergone tremendous changes during the last decade owing to demographic changes, changes in the family structure, the increase in the number of working women and senior citizens, advances in technology (inventory management, customer order processing, accounting/financial systems, etc.), availability of financing, changes in the real estate industry (location, negotiation with malls, relationships with developers, etc.), intense competition, the growth in the types and number of marketing channels (including the Internet), increasing number of drive‐through customers, employee training requirements, changes in labor laws, the rate of implementation of technology, changes in food sourcing/purchasing, the growth of the franchising business model, and increasing regulation. These factors have combined to shape the strategic, legal, economic and operational considerations that executives and decision makers should thoroughly understand. This article discusses the issues and challenges facing one company in these two industries and how management and banks have reacted, and then explains strategies for the future. Also discussed are relevant considerations for financial sponsors and companies. Most data and analysis are as of April 2000.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between a firm's propensity to lease and several firm characteristics: tax position, financial constraint, ownership structure, growth, and size.

Controlling for industry, total lease share, operating and capital lease share ratios, obtained using an income statement approach, are regressed on a trichotomous tax variable, a dichotomous cash flow coverage ratio variable, debt over fixed assets, ownership concentration, market to book value of shares and the natural log of sales.

Total lease share increases with leverage, tax position and growth; it decreases with cash flow coverage, ownership concentration and firm size. Results for operating lease share are similar to those for total lease share. In contrast, capital lease share decreases with tax position and increases with ownership concentration and size.

The results suggest that leasing offers added debt capacity and increases in financially constrained firms. Firms that pay high taxes seem to place more value on the constant stream of tax deductions from the rental payments than on deductions from decreasing interest costs and amortization. Finally, highly concentrated Canadian firms may use less leasing because they are more family‐controlled.

The literature offers mixed reasons for firms' decisions to lease or purchase assets. This study provides further evidence in a rich setting. In 2001, the Canadian tax authorities changed the tax treatment of leases, thus providing an opportunity to validate prior results on the impact of taxes on leasing. By including two different measures of financial constraint, this study disentangles the substitution and the added debt capacity hypotheses.

The evaluation of the after tax cost of leasing is rather complex and financial operators often fail to emphasise the cost/benefit balance. We propose an analytical formula for the direct calculation of the true cost of leasing which does not involve the study of cash flows. Our discussion concerns the situation that we know best, the Italian case, which can easily be used more generally.