Ethics 5 to 6 papers

User Generated

FrrxvatUryc1122

Humanities

Description

So this professor will easily find out if I am not the one who did not do this paper so plz use easy words my friend

let me know if you have any further questions

I uploded all you need for this assinment

Unformatted Attachment Preview

AICPA Case Development Program Case No. 93-11: RUN, Inc. ♦ 1 RUN, INC.: A CASE STUDY ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF ACCOUNTANTS IN INDUSTRY* (Year 2001 Update) Prepared by the American Accounting Association Committee on Liaison with the Securities and Exchange Commission Committee Membership, 1992-1993. Thomas R. Weirich, Chair, Central Michigan University James C. Flagg, Texas A&M University Marcia S. Niles, University of Idaho Robert W. Rouse, College of Charleston Robert J. Sack, University of Virginia, Darden School Jack E. Wilkerson.- Jr. , Wake Forest University Committee Membership, 1993-1994. Robert J. Sack, Chair, University of Virginia, Darden School Dan S. Dhaliwal, University of Arizona Robert Eskew, Purdue University, Krannert School Jack Krogstad, Creighton University Marcia S. Niles, University of Idaho Thomas R. Weirich, Central Michigan University With the assistance of practitioners in industry and public practice: From the industry side, Mr. Lawrence D. Handler, member of the AICPA Professional Issues Subcommittee of the Members in Industry Executive Committee and active in the development of the new ethics interpretations cited in the Teaching Notes for this case. From the public practice side, Mr. Lynn Turner, partner in the Denver office of Coopers & Lybrand and former SEC practice fellow. ____________________________ *This case was prepared by the American Accounting Association's Committee on Liaison with the Securities and Exchange Commission, to provide a basis for class discussion. The case is based on issues raised in SEC enforcement actions, and on general business experience, but the facts have been disguised. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Copyright 2001 by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Cases developed and distributed under the AICPA Professor/Practitioner Case Development Program are intended for use in higher education for instructional purposes only, and are not for application in practice. Permission is granted to photocopy any case(s) for classroom teaching purposes only. All other rights are reserved. The AICPA neither approves nor endorses this case or any solution provided herein or subsequently developed. AICPA Case Development Program Case No. 93-11: RUN, Inc. ♦ 2 The work of preparing the 2001 financial statements for RUN, Inc. was largely complete and the company's controller, Martin Field, recognized that this final reading of the draft statements was a critical time. Once the statements were released to the printer and distribution was begun there would be no chance for second thoughts. He had been on the job at RUN for only five months, but they had been the most tumultuous months of his career. Now all of that tumult was coming down to this single February afternoon. He was proud of the work he had done in cleaning up the company's balance sheet, and he had satisfied himself that there would be no more unpleasant surprises in that area. He had also pretty well convinced himself that the compromise that had been developed by the CEO, for the presentation of the income statement, was acceptable - but compromises had always made him uncomfortable. It was soon going to be time to accept that compromise or do something else, although what the something else might be was not really clear. THE COMPANY RUN, Inc. manufactured and marketed a variety of products and parts for automobiles, from starters, alternators and brakes to complete replacement interiors. The company had originally been known as Rebuilt and Used Auto Parts, Inc. but the acronym RUN had been adopted as the company's name when the product line was expanded to include new replacement parts and other auto accessories. Sales had been good during the early 1980's as interest rates and credit problems discouraged people from buying new cars and encouraged them to repair and rehabilitate their existing cars. The strong economy of the 1990’s had a perverse impact on the company, as people began to worry less about preserving their older cars; and, intense foreign competition magnified the impact of what would otherwise have been a normal cyclical downturn. When the company went public in the 1980’s (on NASDAQ) the stock had done reasonably well. However, the market’s recent focus on high tech issues had left the company’s share price in the dust. (Earnings data and stock price activity for the period 1997-01 is detailed in Exhibit 1.) The company sold its products primarily to independent and chain auto parts retailers in the Southeast. Most of the products in the company’s line were either rebuilt from parts that had been scrapped or were manufactured by RUN to meet original equipment specifications. The Company also sold parts and accessories manufactured by offshore suppliers. There were several other companies in the field about the same size as RUN and there was very little to distinguish one firm's rebuilt starter (for example) from another. RUN stressed its distribution system and its prompt delivery as its competitive advantage. The company's primary facilities were in Montgomery, Alabama, but 12 warehouses had been established at strategic locations throughout the Southeast. RUN's management team included the Chairman (and founder) Harry White; the Chief Executive Officer, John Harvey; the Sales VP, Joanne Jones; the Operations VP, Tex Armor; and the Secretary/Treasurer (and Harry's Wife), Mary White. All of those people were members of the Board of Directors, together with a partner in the company's law firm, and a vice-president from the company's bank. Both of those men were long time friends of the Whites, and had been associated with the company since its earliest days. The management team was a close-knit group and met frequently for working lunches. Because of the strength of that working relationship, and the strength of the White's personalities, the Board was not significant to the AICPA Case Development Program Case No. 93-11: RUN, Inc. ♦ 3 structure of the firm. Board meetings tended to be formalities, where the results of the previous period and plans for the next period were reviewed and approved. The company's accounting functions were Mary White's responsibility but the day-to-day accounting activities had been the primary responsibility of Lester Foote, until his retirement in the summer of 2001. Martin Field assumed those day-to-day responsibilities in October, 2001 with the title of Controller. He had taken the job with the understanding that he would become Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Treasurer in two years when the Whites were planning to step out of active involvement in the firm. MARTIN FIELD Martin Field was a very good accountant and he enjoyed his work. He had graduated from a good public university with straight A's in Accounting. His other grades had not been quite up to that level, but he was still able to land a job with the Atlanta office of a major CPA firm as a junior auditor. He easily passed the CPA exam on the first try and moved through the ranks of his firm. As he moved up in the firm he found that he was measured against different and more intangible standards: he was expected to resolve accounting problems with client managements at higher and higher levels, and he was asked to look aggressively for opportunities where the firm's tax and consulting services might be brought to bear on clients' business problems. He didn't really like the new marketing-type responsibility he was being asked to undertake and, because he was uncomfortable in that role, he did not do it very well. When one of the firm's partners pointed him to an assistant controller's job with one of Atlanta's most prestigious companies, Martin jumped at the chance. In that new job, Martin was responsible for the preparation of the company's annual and quarterly filings with the SEC, and was the company's primary liaison with the external auditors. It was easy for him to learn the annual reporting process from the other side of the desk and after several years he was bored. He decided that he wanted to get into the financing aspect of business and to move toward a CFO position. Martin first heard about RUN when a headhunter, looking for a replacement for Lester Foote, called in early 2001. After some initial interviews, the company expressed real interest in Martin and he was sorely tempted. The company's suggestion, that he start as controller and then in two years move up to CFO, seemed to be exactly what he had in mind. Still, he wavered because he was uncomfortable with what he took to be a very unstructured management environment. He reasoned that that nonchalant environment was partly a reflection of the family-style management the company had experienced in its early years, and partly the shirtsleeve nature of the industry. John Harvey assured him that the company's management style was evolving and would continue to become more business-like as the Whites phased out into retirement and played a decreasing role in the firm. Martin understood that the industry would always be a little rough and tumble, but those concerns were somewhat offset by the company's very attractive salary offer. He was finally convinced to take the job when the Whites offered him a five-year option to buy 5,000 shares of stock in the firm at $1.50 a share. Earlier, when Martin had first left public practice, he had carefully weighed the cost of maintaining his membership in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and his state CPA society. Ultimately he decided to retain those memberships because he was proud of his CPA status, and because those memberships gave him a network of professional AICPA Case Development Program Case No. 93-11: RUN, Inc. ♦ 4 associates and brought him journal subscriptions. He also complied with the Continuing Professional Education requirements imposed by his state society and the AICPA, because he felt it was important that he keep his skills up to date. He had joined the Institute of Management Accountants when he first took the assistant controller's job and he found their publications to be of interest as well. When he decided to take the job with RUN, he checked into the membership requirements for the Financial Executives International, but found that they would not consider him until he achieved the CFO position. PROBLEMS WITH THE PRIOR FINANCIALS During Martin’s first week on the job, in early October 2001, he studied the firm's systems and began to get into the details of the accounts. In one sense he was pleased that the year-end was fast approaching; he understood that the effort of pulling together the financial statements for the first time would force him to understand the numbers in depth, in a hurry. For example, he was concerned that the inventories seemed to be very high – even for a firm that prided itself on prompt service - and the receivables had been growing much faster than sales. The audit process would surely flush out any problems that might be lurking in those slow turn-over numbers. After he had been on the job for about three weeks, Martin was invited to a workinglunch staff meeting, which included all of the other senior executives. He was asked for his impressions after his short time on board. He expressed his concern about the levels of inventory and receivables, and said that in preparation for the year-end audit he planned to visit the warehouses and study the receivables files. Mr. White broke in and told him that it would be better for him to stay around home for a while and be sure he had the lay of the land. He said,"We each take care of our own areas of expertise around here - that's what has gotten us to where we are today. Tex will worry about operations and the inventory, Joanne will worry about the customers and receivables, and you just worry about accounting. We'll all get along fine.” Martin decided to go along for a while, but on his own began to do some analysis of the company's operating and balance sheet numbers, comparing them to industry data he was able to get from Dun and Bradstreet. What he saw heightened his concerns (See Exhibit II). He went to see John Harvey and showed him the ratio data he had developed. John expressed surprise at the company's performance against the industry, but said, "We have always been a customer-oriented firm, and we have not let financial details get in the way of service. It may be that we will have to exercise a little more control than we have in the past. And you can help us do that - we're glad you are here." Martin reminded him that the auditors would be in soon and that they would be looking at both receivables and inventory. Martin mused, "Maybe I'll ask them to really get into the details this year, to help us get a good understanding of where we are." John simply waved Martin on. The next day, John Harvey called Martin into his office. All of the officers of RUN were there, even Mr. and Mrs. White. Mr. White led off, saying, "Martin, we think you are entitled to know what has been going on here. We have been left out of the economic growth in this country simply because we have been considered low tech. And the competition we face, especially from those new NAFTA-blessed foreigners is fierce. Sales have been harder and harder to get, and we have been concerned that the stock price would be badly hurt by any drop-off in our results. I don't have to tell you that this is an important time for the firm, what with Mary and me planning to phase out and sell off some of our holdings. After all we have done to build this firm over the last 25 years we could not let the stock price slip at this critical juncture - I'm sure you AICPA Case Development Program Case No. 93-11: RUN, Inc. ♦ 5 understand that. To keep the price where it belongs, we have been forced to work the books a bit. I'm not sure of the numbers, but some of those receivables you have been so concerned about are the result of sales that we are sure will happen, and some of that inventory is stuff that we have shipped but not yet recorded as cost of goods sold. We knew that eventually things would have to turn around - and they are beginning to do so now. In the next several years, as people begin stretching the life of their cars, our operations will pick back up, and we will work out our borrowed profits. We decided that you would figure it all out for yourself soon enough, so we thought we had better tell you what you will find." Martin felt a little weak in the knees. His anger cleared his head however and he said, "Borrowed profits! That’s crazy, its just plain crazy! You will have to face up to those misstatements, and you might as well do it now. If you can't agree to clean up all of that stuff, I can’t agree to work here. I can’t believe what I am hearing!" There was an awkward silence, but John Harvey eventually spoke up; he told Martin to work with Tex and Joanne and figure out the dollar effect of the problems and prepare the 2001 financial statements on the assumption that all of those past misstatements would be resolved this year. Over the next several weeks, Martin picked up worksheets from Tex and Joanne which suggested that the preliminary December 31, 2001 balance sheet included $10 million in receivables and inventory which would have to be written off, Neither of them was exactly sure as to when the results-inflating entries had been recorded but, based on some sketchy notes they had in their files, Tex and Joanne estimated that $5 million of the errors had been booked in the prior quarters of 2001; $3.5 million had been booked in 2000; and $1.5 million had been booked in 1999. Using the data Tex and Joanne provided, Martin prepared the three year income statements required for the 10-K showing these adjustments as "Corrections of Errors." (See Exhibit III.) When he showed those results to John Harvey, John blanched. He said, "Martin, we can't do that. No one is really sure which years are affected, in what amounts. Besides, if we report that we are adjusting the earnings we reported in prior years, we will lose all credibility with our stockholders. Because of the competition, the results we have been forced to report have been depressing anyway, and if we add a new insult to the existing injury, we will surely be sued. I can't let the Whites wrap up their careers here with that hanging over their heads. If we can't work out another way of putting that $10 million behind us, we'll have to find a way to bleed it in over the next several years. Our business is picking up you know.” When Martin started to protest, John went on, "Why don't we just charge all of that stuff off this year as a restructuring charge and say that we are taking a belt-tightening approach to the business. If we do that right, the stock price might even go up - I've seen that happen to other companies." John Harvey had Martin’s draft re-typed, pulling the $10 million into 2001 as an unusual item. John also drafted a note, which described that charge as a result of a fresh look at inventory and receivables (See the revised statements and the draft note in Exhibit IV). John took that package to show to Mr. and Mrs. White. Later, Mrs. White came to see Martin and told him how pleased she was that he had forced the company to clean house. She said that she was glad that these problems would be resolved now because she had always worried about what people would say if the company had been forced to take a big write-off the year after she retired. She commented that this was one year she would be happy to sign the 10-K, saying "Next year you can sign off as the person responsible for the statements, but please let me have this satisfaction this year." The income statement with the special charge in 2001 was presented to the CPA firm for their audit. AICPA Case Development Program Case No. 93-11: RUN, Inc. ♦ 6 As the audit progressed, the partner and manager asked about the special charge, and Martin explained that because he was going to be responsible for the December 31, 2001 balance sheet as the starting point for 2001, he had insisted that that balance sheet be as clean as possible. He referred the auditors to John Harvey's draft footnote as a further explanation for the big write-off. However, he also took the CPAs to lunch at an out-of-the-way place and suggested that they look very carefully at the receivables and inventory items that were written off in that special charge. He reminded the auditors that he was new on the job and didn't have all of the details, but he suggested, "Some of those things in that write-off don't pass the smell test." In a subsequent meeting with Martin and John Harvey, the CPAs challenged the special-item treatment for the write-offs. John explained his belt tightening philosophy and, when the CPAs nodded sympathetically, Martin sat quietly, saying nothing. That had been two weeks ago. The external audit team had completed their work and had reported that the balance sheet was as clean as Martin had said. They accepted the income statement presentation for the $10 million, treating it as a special charge - one of the staff people referred to it as a "change in estimate." All of the documentation for the audit was completed: the attorneys' letters were in, the important confirmations had been returned and Mr. and Mrs. White and John Harvey had signed the usual representation letter for the CPA firm. The typed financial statement package was on Martin's desk ready for one final reading before being delivered to the printer. The statements were scheduled to be mailed to the shareholders the next day, and would be reviewed at the shareholders’ meeting two weeks from today. Martin poured himself another cup of coffee and sat down to read the statements carefully one more time. AICPA Case Development Program Case No. 93-11: RUN, Inc. ♦ 7 Exhibit I RUN, Inc. FIVE-YEAR INCOME AND STOCK PRICE DATA (000) SALES growth rate, ty/ly 2001 $75,000 2000 $68,000 10.3% 1999 $58,000 17.2% 28.9% 28.6% $39,500 EXPENSES $18,500 EARNINGS PRE TAX % of sales growth rate, ty/ly $17,000 EARNINGS AFTER TAX % of sales growth rate, ty/ly $11,050 EARNINGS PER SHARE $0.111 $0.095 $0.074 $0.05 $0.051 $1.11 10 $1.23 12 $0.91 12 $0.77 14 $0.61 12 52.7% $30,000 1997 $35,000 COST OF SALES % of sales MIDDLE OF STOCK PRICE RANGE Multiple $35,500 1998 $45,000 52.2% $17,500 $16,250 $15,000 22.7% 13.3% $9,300 $7,050 48.6% $11,000 $9,000 20.3% 30.6% 13.7% 31.9% $17,000 50.0% $13,500 $11,750 22.1% 27.7% 14.7% 18.8% $22,500 51.7% $7,000 20.0% 28.6% $5,220 12.2% 35.1% 20.0% $4,060 11.6% 28.6% 11.6% *The estimated results for 2001 are the numbers expected by the market, based on the results reported through the first nine months, and trends in the industry. The company's book numbers, before consideration of any adjustments discussed in the case, were very close to these estimates. ty/ly means that the ratio is the growth rate from last year to this year. AICPA Case Development Program 8 Case No. 93-11: RUN, Inc. ♦ Exhibit II RUN, Inc. COMPARATIVE RATIO ANALYSIS RUN data Industry data 2001 2000 2001 2000 14.7% 13.7% 11.8% 10.7% Asset Turnover .58 .54 .66 .58 Days Receivables Outstanding 161 166 141 155 Inventory Turn .70 .65 .82 .74 Return on sales, % AICPA Case Development Program Case No. 93-11: RUN, Inc. ♦ 9 Exhibit III RUN, Inc. FIVE-YEAR INCOME STATEMENT (000) 2001 SALES growth rate, ty/ly $75,000 COST OF SALES % of sales $39,500 EXPENSES $18,500 EARNINGS PRE TAX % of sales growth rate, ty/ly $17,000 EARNINGS AFTER TAX % of sales growth rate, ty/ly $11,050 2000 1999 $68,000 10.3% $58,000 17.2% $35,500 52.7% $17,500 $35,000 51.7% $22,500 50.0% $17,000 48.6% $13,500 $11,000 $9,000 20.0% 28.6% $7,000 20.0% $11 750 22.1% 27.7% $9,300 14.7% 18.8% $45,000 28.6% $16,250 $15,000 20.3% 30.6% $7,050 13.7% 31.9% 1997 28.9% $30,000 52.2% 22.7% 13.3% 1998 $ 5,220 12.2% 35.1% $4,060 11.6% 28.6% 11.6% CORRECTION OF ERROR (after tax) $3,250 $2,170 $900 NET EARNINGS $7,800 $7,130 $6,150 $5,220 4,060 $0.111 $0.095 $0.074 $0.055 $0.051 $0.078 $0.073 $0.065 $0.055 $0.051 EARNINGS PER SHARE: Before error correction After error correction AICPA Case Development Program Case No. 93-11: RUN, Inc. ♦ 10 Exhibit IV RUN, Inc. FIVE YEAR INCOME STATEMENT (000) 2000 2001 SALES growth rate,ty/ly COST OF SALES % of sales EXPENSES SPECIAL CHARGE EARNINGS PRE TAX % of sales growth rate, ty/ly EARNINGS AFTER TAX % of sales growth rate, ty/ly EARNINGS PER SHARE $75,000 $68,000 10.3% $39,500 $35,500 $18,500 $10,000 $30,000 $4,550 $9,300 6.1% -51.1% $13,500 0 48.6% $11,000 $9,000 $7,050 $7,000 20.0% 28.6% $5,220 12.2% 35.1% $0.074 $17,000 50.0% 20.3% 30.6% 13.7% 31.9% $0.095 $22,500 $11,750 22.1% 27.7% $35,000 28.6% 51.7% $16,250 0 $15,000 9.3% -53.3% 1997 $45,000 28.9% 52.2% $17,500 0 $7,000 1998 $58,000 17.2% 52.7% $0.046 1999 20.0% $4,060 11.6% 28.6%, $0.055 11.6% $0.051 Financial Statement Footnote SPECIAL CHARGE Because of an expected decline in the economy, the company determined to challenge the levels of the assets it would carry forward into the next year, and in fourth quarter of 2001 took an objective look at receivables and inventories. That fresh look, together with an understanding that business operations in the future will be more rigorous than they have been in the past years, resulted in a write down of excess inventory and slow paying receivables. The company believes that the write down was necessary to account for those assets at the lower of cost or market, as market conditions are perceived today. Business Ethics – Paper Topics for Paper #1. 1. Your paper should give an answer to ONE of the underlined group of questions. 2. The suggestions are just issues you might want to consider when answering the questions and points to help you consider the issues in the question. You DO NOT need to address all of the “suggested issues to consider” in your paper. 3. The paper should present your understanding and opinions of arguments and materials covered in THIS class. First sources should be the material assigned and are necessarily first sources. Second sources are not necessary and you will be graded not only on your understanding of the secondary source, but also its relevance to the issue at hand. Second sources are not acceptable on their own. 4. Papers are to be 5 to 7 pages in length, typed or word processed, and double spaced. Number your pages! 5. All margins are to be 1 inch all around. All fonts used should be in 12 point type. Do not separate paragraphs with extra rows or returns. Microsoft Word defaults to 1.5 spacing between paragraphs, or more. Please correct that in your paper. Do not repeat or retype the question at the beginning of your paper. See the sample page attached for visual confirmation of the text format required. 6. The paper should be your work. DO NOT turn in any work that you did not produce by your own hand. 1) Some have argued that the diversity of cultural values across different societies should tell us something about the nature of morality, namely that the truth about moral principles and actions is "relative" in some sense. Is this view correct? Why? 2)What should Martin Field of RUN Inc. do? Why? Suggested issues to consider: Which of the three theories we have studied best categorizes your approach to developing an answer to guide Martin's behavior? Why did you choose this approach? Anticipate and reply to any objections which you think are pertinent. Do this subject plz 3)What should Stan Stark of Anzen-Motorola do? Why? Suggested issues to consider: What bearing does Motorola's commitment to their multi-national corporate values of safety for all employees have on this situation? Do the local Nambunese mores or customs, like those regarding harmony and duty, play any special roll in your decision procedure? Which of the three theories we have studied best characterizes your analysis? Anticipate and reply to any objections which you think are pertinent. 4)What are the strengths and weaknesses of using the following kinds of moral theories for application in business: i)Virtue Theory ii)Utilitarianism iii)Deontology Suggested issues to consider: Which do you think is the strongest? Which is the best choice for application to moral problems in business? How would you tailor the theory for your needs in business ethical applications? What sort of rules, considerations, or virtues would be needed to make deontology, utilitarianism, or virtue theory applicable to business ethics? The next page will demonstrate the format for your answers regarding type face, margins, spacing etc. This is sufficient indentation to begin your first paragraph. Notice as well that I started this paper 1 return from the top of page. Go ahead and put all the relevant name, title, etc on a title page that is separate from the body of your paper. Now suppose I am done with this very short paragraph. See how I just hit enter /return, indented ½ an inch, and started typing again? There is no additional space between paragraphs. When the writer places extra spacing between paragraphs this is meant to signal a change in the topic under discussion, or a topical break. Again, make sure you check out the software you are using. I don't care much about the font, but I do want the paper typed in 12 point scale. This font is Times New Roman, but most anything will be accepted. And for goodness sake, please staple your answers together! One and only one staple is necessary if done correctly. Staplers are fairly easy to operate. Do not make an elaborate origami sculpture out of your paper in the upper left hand corner just because you didn't bring a stapler. I will probably be nice enough to bring my stapler along. Let's assume I want to give an extended quote or list the premises of an argument: "Whether a quote or a list of premises, notice how the page is double indented and starts over at the same point on the soft return. Also notice that the type face is reduced, and this part of the paper is single spaced. And here we are again back to normal. The purpose of all the above formatting at the quotation section is to reduce the size of the quotation to leave you more room to expound on the meaning of the quotation. Your words are more important than the quotations. And for love of all that is reasonable, please number your pages! Top of the page, bottom of the page, right, left or middle, I don't care where, but please do it. Good Luck!
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running Head: Business Ethics

1

Name
Institution
Professor
Course
Date

Business Ethics

2
Application of Deontological Theory

Martin Field of RUN Inc. should consider applying the deontological theory of business
ethics in order to correct all the errors in the financial statements. In addition, the theory would
be of great benefit because it would guide Martin Field in all the accounting duties that he
would perform in the course of his new accountancy job. The virtue theory is normally based
on ethical thinking instead of the set rules and regulations of a certain profession in business
(Tencati & Perrini, 2011). On the other hand, Utilitarianism theory is basically a normative
ethical theory that is usually based on whether the outcomes or rather consequences of a certain
action are either right or wrong. Therefore, deontological theory is the only applicable theory
as compared to both virtue and utilitarianism theory in this particular case study of Martin Field
of RUN Inc.
Accounting profession is governed by certain principles, rules as well as obligations
that the accounting professionals should follow to the later. The rules guide the accountants on
how to prepare the correct financial statements that give a true and fair view. For instance,
Martin Field should scrutinize the inventory entries and compare them with inventories
recorded in the financial statements in order to be sure that he flushes out or rather identifies
some of the wrong inventory entries. In addition, Martin should check closely whether the sales
and receivables. The main reason to my argument is that the receivables of any business should
not exceed the sales at any given time. The sales of RUN Inc. are the main determinants of the
receivables of the company.
When Martin Field visited the warehouses he noticed that something so amiss because
the inventories as well as the sale...


Anonymous
Really helpful material, saved me a great deal of time.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags