Fair value accounting has led to some heated debates among the accounting community due it being so potentially subjective in nature. Do you think that fair value accounting should be allowed? If yes, say where and why. If not, say why not. DO the discussion frist then response each posted below. Posted 1` IFRS and US GAAP have a standardized framework for measuring fair value and outlined required disclosures. Fair value is the price received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants in the principal or most advantageous market at the measurement date under current market conditions. Fair value accounting is based on the fair valuation of assets and liabilities as of date. This will provide the most accurate valuation and produce accurate financial statements. IFRS standards are more generic in nature and prefer fair valuation more compared to the US GAAP. According to the IFRS standards, an entity can revalue its property, plant and equipment (PPE) to fair value based on accounting policy, if it can be reliably measured. If the assets are held at revalued amount based on fair value, chances of impairment of asset is remote. In US GAAP, revaluation of PPE is not allowed. Fair value accounting will provide the investors with true picture of actual financial condition of the company. However, fair value is a subjective term, may not be measurable for all items and an entity may misuse the fair valuation to its advantage. The cost and time spent on getting reliable fair value is high and not every company will be able to afford that costs. Considering these factors, fair value accounting may be suitable for large issuers listed in stock exchanges. Posted 2 Not many things hold its value over time. That is why I believe fair market value should be allowed. It provides a true price for the item in the present day. Value fluctuates just like everything else within the markets. By using current market values, the fair value displays the amount participants would need to sell or transfer an asset or liability. I don’t see it as being subjective and participants can always reject the offered price. Participating parties should first agree if certain factors help identify a price. It depends on the product, how it was used, how often it was used, damages, etc. There are benefits to this method. The original buyer may see more value than the recipient. The fair market minimizes confusion between buyer and seller. It also helps reduce the probability of reduced or overpricing. Posted 3 Discussions like these are what tend to flip the accounting world upside down. The staunch arguments regarding fair value accounting stem from the GAAP and IFRS discussions and which provides the best and most accurate representation. Fair value refers to the agreed upon price between the buyer and seller under normal market conditions. “Former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt contended that fair value provides the kind of transparency essential to restore the public confidence in US markets” (Chung, Lee, & Mitra, 2016). Recording assets and liabilities at fair value allow them to fluctuate with prices, provides a value that reflects the actual income, is adaptable, and supports the company’s health. The downside to this valuation type is the impaired reality of the reported financial information. Fair value can leave more flexibility in estimates, and this allows for more errors (Chung et. al., 2016). Clinging to the reliability and familiarity of historical cost is understandable and comfortable for many of us. It also makes the job easier. However, the research supporting the accuracy of most fair value accounting is very supportive of making the switch. Businesses can likely provide more reliable information regarding their cash flows because the data can be verified in numerous similar, independent transactions rather than just the one sale and guidelines exist separate from the reporting entity. Reporting by historical data leaves room for undervaluation and irrelevance due to the proximity of sales and the dated information (Uthe, 2008). I would have to think an investor would rather see more accurate and up-to-date data rather than data that may be easier to compare. Most issues tend to come from the lack of guidelines placed on estimations. Some of this could be alleviated by increasing visibility to investors on how estimations are derived, including restrictions on sales of assets and liabilities, and setting comparative guidelines.

In Topic 1, you researched an organization that was successfully implementing innovation. What type of organizational structure does the organization have? How does this structure make the organization successful?

Purpose of Assignment At times, multinational corporations encounter in-country issues that if not properly addressed, could place the viability of the company at risk. Thus, it is important to promptly recognize and understand these threats so management can employ an effective solution to the problem. An in-depth analysis of this assignment will provide students with a good understanding of the potential issues involved. Assignment Steps Select one of the following cases from the textbook: Starbucks Wins Key Trademark Case in China (Ch. 2, p. 56) Ethical Issues at Apple (Ch. 5, p. 132) Corruption At Daimler (Ch. 5, p. 136) Prepare a minimum 700-word analysis addressing the following: Analyze the legal, cultural, and ethical challenges encountered by the global business case you selected. Determine the various roles host governments played in this particular global business operation. Summarize the operational challenges global managers faced as illustrated in your selected case. Format your assignment consistent with APA guidelines. Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment.Ethical Issues at AppleIn mid-2006, news reports surfaced suggesting there were systematic labor abuses at a factory in China that makes the iPhone and iPod for Apple, Inc. According to the reports, workers at Hongfujin Precision Industry were paid as little as $50 a month to work 15-hour shifts making Apple products. There were also reports of forced overtime and poor living conditions for the workers, many of them young women who had migrated from the countryside to work at the plant and lived in company-owned dormitories.The 2006 articles were the work of two Chinese journalists, Wang You and Weng Bao, employed by China Business News, a state-run newspaper. The target of the reports, Hongfujin Precision Industry, was reportedly China’s largest export manufacturer with overseas sales totaling $14.5 billion. Hongfujin is owned by Foxconn, a large Taiwanese conglomerate, whose customers (in addition to Apple) include Intel, Dell, and Sony Corporation. The Hongfujin factory is a small city in its own right, with clinics, recreational facilities, buses, and 13 restaurants that serve the 200,000 employees.Upon hearing the news, Apple management responded quickly, pledging to audit the operations to make sure Hongfujin was complying with Apple’s code on labor standards for subcontractors. Managers at Hongfujin took a somewhat different tack; they filed a defamation suit against the two journalists, suing them for $3.8 million in a local court, which promptly froze the journalists’ personal assets pending a trial. Clearly, the management of Hongfujin was trying to send a message to the journalist community—criticism would be costly. The suit sent a chill through the Chinese journalist community because Chinese courts have shown a tendency to favor powerful, locally based companies in legal proceedings.Within six weeks, Apple had completed its audit. The company’s report suggested that although workers had not been forced to work overtime and were earning at least the local minimum wage, many had worked more than the 60 hours a week allowed for by Apple, and their housing was substandard. Under pressure from Apple, management at Hongfujin agreed to bring practices in line with Apple’s code, committing to building new housing for employees and limiting work to 60 hours a week.However, Hongfujin did not immediately withdraw the defamation suit. In an unusually bold move in a country where censorship is still common, China Business News gave its unconditional backing to Wang and Weng. The Shanghai-based news organization issued a statement arguing that what the two journalists did “was not a violation of any rules, laws, or journalistic ethics.” The Paris-based Reporters Without Borders also took up the case of Wang and Weng, writing a letter to Apple’s then CEO, the late Steve Jobs, stating, “We believe that all Wang and Weng did was to report the facts and we condemn Foxconn’s reaction. We therefore ask you to intercede on behalf of these two journalists so that their assets are unfrozen and the lawsuit is dropped.”Once again, Apple moved quickly, pressuring Foxconn behind the scenes to drop the suit. Foxconn agreed to do so and issued a “face-saving” statement saying the two sides had agreed to end the dispute after apologizing to each other “for the disturbances brought to both of them by the lawsuit.” The experience shed a harsh light on labor conditions in China. At the same time, the response of the Chinese media, and China Business News in particular, point toward the emergence of some journalistic freedoms in a nation that has historically seen news organizations as a mouthpiece for the state.More recent news may indicate new ethical concerns at Apple's production facilities in China. In a 2014 story by BBC News, Apple is again the center of issues related to workers' hours, ID cards, housing arrangements, work meetings, and juvenile workers at its Pegatron facilities on the outskirts of Shanghai. Apple disagreed strongly with the portray of the Pegatron factory's working conditions, and stated in the BBC News article that "We are aware of no other company doing as much as Apple to ensure fair and safe working conditions."