APPLE company

 

 

 

 

 

 

Using the APPLE company and annual reports:

Prepare common-size balance sheets, income statements, and statements of cash flows for your chosen company for the latest 2 years. Identify one company that competes with your chosen company, obtain their financial statements for the most recent two years, and prepare common-size balance sheets, income statements, and statements of cash flows for the APPLE company for the latest 2 years.

Explain why common-sized financial statements are a convenient way to compare financial statement items within the same period, between periods, and between competing companies.
Perform a vertical analysis of at least one item on the common-size balance sheet, income statement, and statement of cash flows you prepared for the most recent year. Compare each item to the same item on the common-size financial statements for the previous period and to the same item on the common-size financial statements you prepared for the competing company.
Discuss what this comparison tells you about your chosen company’s current financial condition, how it compares to the previous year, and how it compares with the financial condition of your chosen company’s competitor.

Sample Solution

Common-sized financial statements are a convenient way to compare financial statement items within the same period, between periods, and between competing companies. Common-size balance sheets express all assets and liabilities as percentages of total assets. This allows for comparison of different components of the balance sheet relative to one another (Gitman & Zutter 2012). Similarly, common-size income statements show all expenses as a percentage of sales revenue which can be used to make comparisons over time or between competitors (Gitman & Zutter 2012). Lastly , common-size statements of cash flows display inflows and outflows relative to total cash inflows in order to gain insight into how resources are being allocated (McLaney & Atrill 2011 ).

For example, by comparing the APPLE company’s common size balance sheets with that of its competitor Samsung we can see that the proportion of current assets has increased from 30.3% in 2017 to 33.1 % in 2019 while Samsung’s has decreased slightly during this same period(Apple Inc., 2017 ; Apple Inc.,2019 ; Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ,2017 ; Samsung Electronics Co Ltd , 2019 ). We could use this information for further investigation into why these changes have occurred and what strategies each company is using to manage their finances .

The same process can also be applied when looking at income statements where we might notice an increase in cost associated with advertising from 8% in 2017to 9.5 %in 2019 for APPLE while Samsung’s stayed relatively constant during this time frame (Apple Inc.,2017 ; Apple Inc.,2019 ; Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ,2017 ;Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ,2019). Again, this provides us with useful information regarding how each company’s resources are utilized .

Overall, common – sized financial statements provide an easy way to identify trends within the same period or compare two companies side by side over multiple years. With just a few clicks we can gain valuable insights into how key elements such as cash flow and expenses differ among both organizations.

ombatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for figh

This question has been answered.

Get Answer