i need to get any one article any one can help with any other article done just except second one as its already been done

3101AFE Accounting Theory and Practice GROUP RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT Semester 1 2016 A. OVERVIEW The research assignment is a workbook that comprises three (3) newspaper articles that demonstrate issues of relevance to accounting theory. Draft Due Date: Assignment Due Date: Weighting: Word Length: WORKSHOP 7 (week 10) Friday 20 May at 2.00pm 15% 500 words per article (excluding the 100 word summary) with a 10% leeway. B. THE DRAFT An early draft must be shown to your tutor and marked as seen at your WORKSHOP 7 in week 10. The draft should be approximately 750 words (a minimum of three (3) pages of SINGLE line spacing in 12 point Arial font). The penalty for failing to present a draft on the above date will be the deduction of one mark from the total assignment mark. (Note: your tutor is sighting your work, not reading it). Please note that only ONE DRAFT PER GROUP needs to be shown to ONE TUTOR. This means that for those assignment groups which comprise students from different workshops, only ONE GROUP MEMBER is required to show a draft of their group assignment to their tutor and get the \"Page to submit with draft - 3101AFE' (on page 6 of these instructions) signed by that tutor. Please also attach the newspaper article that you are choosing and fill in the required details on \"Page to Submit with Draft\". Then both pages will be submitted with the complete assignment as per the instructions (see highlighted information on pages 2 and 4). C. REQUIREMENTS 1) GROUPS You are required to organise yourselves into groups of three (3) in order to submit a joint assignment. You are to appoint a group leader. This is the person who submits the assignment through SafeAssign and who receives the feedback sheet. All members of the group will receive their mark in Mark Centre. Your tutor will facilitate this process, but is not responsible for the formation of groups. No group may be smaller or larger than 3 UNLESS it includes in the submitted assignment a copy of an email from the course convenor confirming that they have permission to form a group of this size. You are strongly advised to commence this assignment early in the semester in order to achieve a good mark. Experience has shown that drafts of reports should be at least checked, revised, rechecked, and rerevised before submitting, and all checking should be done by someone other than the author and, preferably, by both the other members of the group. Leaving it late significantly reduces your chance of obtaining a good mark. 2) ARTICLES Select three (3) articles, with the following in mind: Two articles are to be selected from the attached file of five articles. The third article is to be selected by the group from a newspaper (either hard copy newspaper or online newspaper source). The article - must have been published no earlier than 1 March 2016 (articles used in lectures are excluded). - must relate primarily to accounting issues, financial reporting, or the accounting or capital markets regulatory environment faced by business organisations to which you can apply a theory used in 3101AFE Accounting Theory and Practice, Therefore, issues such as income 1 - taxation, fringe benefits taxation regulation, etc will not be relevant. If the article does not relate to Accounting Theory content, zero marks will be awarded. The library has the 'Australian Newspapers Online' database which is a useful source from which to find and download articles. Note: some newspapers provide a wider coverage of business news than others. The Financial Review, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The Courier Mail and The Age provide a good coverage of business issues. 3) ACCOUNTING THEORIES Select an accounting theory that is relevant to each article: DO NOT invent a theory - you MUST only use the theories listed on page 5 of this document. Note: the 'market for lemons' is NOT a theory. EACH THEORY CAN ONLY BE USED ONCE i.e. three (3) different theories should be used, one for each article. - For example, if you select an article that relates to the Bonus Plan Hypothesis then you cannot refer to that theory in your other two articles. 4) ANALYSIS/REPORT A word count MUST be included at the end of each section within each of your three reports, plus an overall word count must be given at the end of each report. For each article, apply the chosen accounting theory in a report style format: Title of the Article and Article Reference Number (as shown in this document) Then, the four sections of your report, each with a word count at the end: 1. Summary (Part A): - Summarise the article in a maximum of 100 words. 2. Accounting Theory (Part B): - Identify and briefly describe the accounting theory that you will be using in this analysis. Use appropriate references. (Suggested word count = 100 words) 3. Analysis (Part C): - Provide an analysis of the relationship between the theory and the newspaper article. Show how the facts of your article are directly related to the accounting theory chosen. Use references to support your arguments. PLACE REFERENCES AT THE END OF EACH ARTICLE ANALYSED. (Suggested word count = 350 words) 4. Conclusion: - Provide a brief conclusion. (Suggested word count = 50 words) DO NOT reproduce the two articles which you select from this document- include only the title and number of each article. You must include a copy of the article obtained by the group from a newspaper or online source. Place this chosen article just before the analysis of this article. IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS, YOU WILL LOSE MARKS FOR PRESENTATION. 2 D. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 1) EXPECTATION This is a group assignment, not three (3) individual bits stapled together at 2.00pm on the submission date. This means that all three (3) group members need to work on the assignment as a group with each person contributing, editing, proofreading, etc. so that there is a consistent style throughout the assignment and each person can identify errors in the work of the others. To obtain a good mark, significant editorial time is needed. Do not submit the first draft of your assignment. Multiple revisions of the assignment are needed to achieve a good quality end product. 2) MARKS FOR WRITTEN COMMUNICATION There are 7.5 marks for written communication. Please refer to the criteria sheet and note: Structure: Use a report format with sub-headings, as described above in Part C(4) on page 2. Written communication: 5. It is important to use sub-headings and short paragraphs to give clarity to your answer - clarity and succinctness* are what distinguishes the very good from the average case study (*succinctness means explaining the answer completely but concisely, i.e. in a relatively small number of words). 6. Allow time for overall editorial work on conclusion of the assignment (each person will have an individual writing style). 7. SPELLCHECK (English) and GRAMMAR check must be run prior to submission. 8. English help is available to assist students with written communication. You can make weekly appointments - refer to the Learning@Griffith website. SUBMISSION/PRESENTATION (a) Submission of assignment on Safe Assign: In order to create only one Word file (Safe Assign does not accept pdf files), students need to copy and paste the criteria sheet, the marking sheet, the page to submit with draft, and the group contribution sheet onto the front of their assignment file and fill in all the details online. The instructions also state that you need to attach the Griffith group assignment submission sheet and there is an online version that you can use and paste it into the existing document (please use the Word document available on the link below). Safe Assign will show a basic level of plagiarism as you are all using these same documents. Do not worry about that. http://www.griffith.edu.au/students/examsassessment/submitting-assignments (b) For the assignment submission, to create ONE WORD FILE to be submitted by the group leader, students will need to scan a copy of the signed group contribution sheet. This will create a pdf. Students then using 'tools' need to select 'snap shot' then highlight the entire page. Then switching to their word doc. students paste the copied pdf as a picture to their assignments. There are other methods of accomplishing this task but this seems the easiest at this stage. PRESENTATION 1) PLEASE ENSURE THE SUBMISSION IS TYPED, SINGLE-SPACED, AND APPROPRIATELY REFERENCED. 2) COMPILATION OF THE ASSIGNMENT Please compile the assignment in the following order: Griffith group assignment submission sheet - please ensure: o THAT THE GROUP LEADER SIGNS THIS FORM on behalf of the group. o That student numbers are unambiguous - make sure it is obvious which number you have written. A '|' should be a vertical line and clearly different from a '7'. o That names are printed in English with family name, as recorded by Griffith University, in capitals and underlined e.g. Majella PERCY. 3 Criteria Sheet and Marking Guide (on pages 8 and 9 of these instructions). o PLEASE ENSURE ALL NAMES and STUDENT NUMBERS of GROUP MEMBERS are on the CRITERIA SHEET AND MARKING GUIDE as well as on the assignment submission sheet. o PLEASE UNDERLINE YOUR FAMILY NAME and put your family name in CAPITALS. FAILURE TO FOLLOW THESE 2 INSTRUCTIONS WILL RESULT IN MARKS BEING DEDUCTED Signed 'Page to Submit with Draft' (on page 6). (Place analysis of this article). your chosen article just before the Team Contribution Declaration Sheet (on page 7 of these instructions). A title page. A table of contents with the names and numbers of the newspaper articles chosen. Analysis [see part C(4) on page 2] - This section should contain normal academic referencing and reference sources. AT LEAST TWO academic journal references per article MUST be included. Failure to do so will result in marks being deducted. - You MUST NOT refer to EITHER the Deegan textbook OR your WORKSHOP Notes/PowerPoint slides IN YOUR REPORTS. Failure to follow this instruction will result in marks being deducted. A comprehensive reference list (see GBS Resource Bank - link available on L@G) - Ensure that this complies with the required format of a reference list - https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/reference_tool/index-core.php In addition to the GBS Referencing Tool, you can also access an interactive Referencing Tool that looks at referencing styles, including: AGPS Harvard APA (American Psychological Association) 3) DO NOT: Please ensure that you: DO NOT Include the draft. DO NOT Include the copies of the articles contained in this document. (Instead, you must list their Titles in the Table of Contents and at the top of each section.) DO NOT put the criteria sheet and marking sheet at the back of the assignment. (Instead, they MUST be Page 2 and Page 3 of your assignment, and come immediately after the Griffith Group Assignment Submission Sheet.) Marks will be deducted for presentation if you do not adhere to these requirements. 4) SUBMISSION OF THE ASSIGNMENT The designated Group Leader is to submit the assignment THROUGH SAFE ASSIGN at Learning@Griffith under ASSESSMENT - Group Research Assignment Folder. OTHER POINTS TO NOTE 1) EXEMPLARS Exemplars will be posted on Learning@Griffith by the beginning of Week 4. 2) MARKING The criteria sheet indicates how you will be marked. In addition to this, a detailed mark sheet is attached for your reference (page 9). Please note, there are 7.5 marks for written communication and 2.5 marks for presentation - this includes the correct recording of names and student numbers. **You should refer to the Learning@Griffith website for penalties for late submission** 4 ACCOUNTING THEORIES LECTURE TWO + WORKSHOP TWO Public Interest Theory Capture Theory Private Interest Theory (Economic Interest Group Theory) LECTURE FOUR + WORKSHOP FOUR Efficient Market Hypothesis LECTURE FIVE + WORKSHOP FIVE Legitimacy Theory Stakeholder Theory [Two branches of Stakeholder Theory - (1) ethical (moral) and/or normative branch and (2) positive (managerial) branch] LECTURE SIX + WORKSHOP SIX Positive Accounting Theory Positive Accounting Theory - opportunistic perspective OR efficiency perspective Political Cost Hypothesis Management Bonus Hypothesis - opportunistic perspective AND/OR efficiency perspective Debt Hypothesis - opportunistic perspective AND/OR efficiency perspective 5 PAGE TO SUBMIT WITH DRAFT - 3101AFE Due Date: WORKSHOP 7 (week 10) Group members' names and student numbers and * the group leader FAMILY name GIVEN name(s) Student Number 1 s 2 s 3 s Article chosen Title:......................................................................................... Theory to use:........................................................................ Tutor's signature:.................................................................... Is the article attached? Yes/No WORKSHOP information: WORKSHOP day/time: Tutor's name: Tutor's signature: Date: 6 NOTE: The Assignment Coversheet and Answer Template must be completed and attached with submitted assignments. 3101AFE Accounting Theory and Practice Team Contribution Declaration Due Date: Friday 20 May at 2.00pm Part of the purpose of this task is for you to enhance your teamwork skills. These skills will become invaluable to you not only within the university, but also in your professional career. You are encouraged to spend time at the beginning of the task negotiating participation expectations, deadlines and meeting times. Your team is therefore required to complete the following agreement at the completion of the task, and submit it with your assignment: TEAM Name Student number Agreed % of Final Grade Signature For example: If all team members contributed equally, then all team members would be allocated 100% of the final grade. 7 3101AFE - ACCOUNTING THEORY AND PRACTICE - CRITERIA SHEET, RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT Student Names & Numbers (* the group leader): Tutor's Name: Robyn Cameron, Majella Percy; Amber Johnson; Xin (Tracy) Qu Criteria Article 1 Analytical Thinking: Identification of an accounting theory issue from the newspaper article, choice of an accounting theory, and analysis of the relationship between the theory and the newspaper article. (5 marks) Unsatisfactory - Low Pass 1 2.0 The students have shown limited ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. No references used to support arguments. Article 2 Analytical Thinking: Identification of an accounting theory issue from the newspaper article, choice of an accounting theory, and analysis of the relationship between the theory and the newspaper article. (5 marks) The students have shown limited ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. No references used to support arguments. Article 3 Analytical Thinking: Identification of an accounting theory issue from the newspaper article, choice of an accounting theory, and analysis of the relationship between the theory and the newspaper article. (5 marks) The students have shown limited ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. No references used to support arguments. Written Communication, this includes: Clarity of Expression, Logical Exposition, Succinctness, Spelling and Grammar, Referencing.(7.5 marks) (This mark is for an overall assessment of the written communication skills displayed for these three issues.) The students' work reflects poor English expression. Writing is unclear, not succinct, and frequently has spelling and grammatical errors. The students present their analysis in an unclear and disorganised manner. APA or HARVARD reference style is not used. Presentation of assignment (This includes correct format including names on criteria sheets) (2.5 marks) COMMENTS and TOTAL MARKS Low Pass - Very fair 2.25 3.0 The students have shown some ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. Some references used to support arguments but the majority are unsubstantiated. The students have shown some ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. Some references used to support arguments but the majority are unsubstantiated. The students have shown some ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. Some references used to support arguments but the majority are unsubstantiated. The students' work reflects fair English expression. Writing is unclear, not succinct, and has some spelling and grammatical errors. The students present their analysis in an unclear and disorganised manner. APA or HARVARD reference style is not consistently used. Very Fair - Good 3.25 4.0 The students have shown a good ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. References used to support arguments in the majority of cases. The students have shown a good ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. References used to support arguments in the majority of cases. The students have shown a good ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. References used to support arguments in the majority of cases. The students' work reflects good English expression. Writing is clear and succinct with few spelling and grammatical errors. The students present their analysis in a clear and logical manner. APA or HARVARD reference style is used consistently with minor flaws. Very Good - Excellent 4.25 5.0 The students have shown a very high level of ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. References are clearly articulated and expertly used to support arguments throughout. The students have shown a very high level of ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. References are clearly articulated and expertly used to support arguments throughout. The students have shown a very high level of ability to present the issue in a logical manner and to analyse the specific issue including application to a theory. References are clearly articulated and expertly used to support arguments throughout. The students' work reflects excellent English expression. Writing is very clear and succinct, with very few, if any, spelling and grammatical errors. The students present their analysis in a very clear and logical manner. APA or HARVARD reference style is expertly used. Marks /5.0 /2.5 /7.5 /5.0 /2.5 /7.5 /5.0 /2.5 /7.5 2.5 per article /2.5 /25 8 MARKING GUIDE FOR ACCOUNTING THEORY AND PRACTICE Student Names & Numbers: TICKS AND COMMENTS ARTICLE ONE: 1. Summary of article 2. Accounting theory (Identify and briefly describe the accounting theory chosen). 3. Application of theory to article and use of references to support argument. 4. Written communication for article 1 ARTICLE ONE - TOTAL ARTICLE TWO: 1. Summary of article 2. Accounting theory (Identify and briefly describe the accounting theory chosen). 3. Application of theory to article and use of references to support argument. 4. Written communication for article 2 ARTICLE TWO - TOTAL ARTICLE THREE: 1. Summary of article 2. Accounting theory (Identify and briefly describe the accounting theory chosen). 3. Application of theory to article and use of references to support argument 4. Written communication for article 3 ARTICLE THREE - TOTAL Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Presentation mark OVERALL TOTAL - 3101AFE (accounting theory) (application) (Use of references to support argument) Spelling and grammar Clarity of argument Consistent referencing style (accounting theory) (application) (Use of references to support argument) Spelling and grammar Clarity of argument Consistent referencing style (accounting theory) (application) (Use of references to support argument) Spelling and grammar Clarity of argument Consistent referencing style Per criteria above Per criteria above Per criteria above Refer to criteria sheet TOTAL /0.5 mark /1.0 mark /2.5 marks /1.0 mark /2.5 /7.5 marks /0.5 mark /1 mark /2.5 marks /1.0 marks /2.5 /7.5 marks /0.5 mark /1 mark /2.5 marks /1.0 marks /2.5 /7.5 marks /7.5 marks /7.5 marks /7.5 marks /2.5 marks /25 marks 9 ARTICLE 1 Criticism Mounts Against New Accounting Rules for Leases - Companies Push Back on Plan to Add Leases to Balance Sheets The Wall Street Journal, Michael Rapoport , Sept. 23, 2013 4:03 p.m. Companies are pushing back against a proposed overhaul of accounting rules for leases that could add hundreds of billions of dollars in debt to the companies' balance sheets. In recent days, hundreds of companies and other critics, including big users of leases such as Gap Inc., GPS +0.86% McDonald's Corp. and FedEx Corp. FDX +0.64% , have sent letters objecting to the proposal to rulemakers at the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the International Accounting Standards Board, which proposed the revamp in May. The new rules would force banks to recognize many leases on their balance sheets that aren't already there, and change how some companies account for the costs of leases in their earnings. The hardest-hit companies, experts said, would be heavy users of leases such as retail and restaurant chains, airlines and companies that lease office equipment. But a broad swath of critics, including FASB's own investor-advisory panel, now say the changes are too complicated and burdensome. "It's way too complex," said David Trainer, a member of the FASB's Investor Advisory Committee, which came out against the proposal last month. The proposed changes "hurt more than they help," said Mr. Trainer, who is chief executive of New Constructs, a Brentwood, Tenn., investor-research firm. The two accounting rule-makers defend the proposal, and are gathering more feedback about it. As part of that effort, they are holding a world-wide series of public roundtables on the proposal, including one Monday at FASB's Connecticut offices. FASB Chairman Russell Golden said the board has "received both support and opposition" to the lease proposals. Investors "seem split," he said. The FASB and IASB will take the feedback into account, he said. Most leases aren't on balance sheets now, and critics of the current rules say off-balance-sheet financing makes companies look less indebted than they really are. The proposals would require companies to add to their balance sheets all but the shortest leases, as liabilities akin to debt. The proposal would also set up a two-track system for how lease costs should be reflected in companies' earnings. Costs of real-estate leases would be recognized evenly over the term of the lease, while costs of other leases would be more front-loaded and would decline over the lease term. But there was opposition to the changes from the start. The FASB agreed to issue the proposal only on a split 43 vote, with some FASB members believing the changes were too complex or that the benefits didn't justify the costs. Companies, auditors and others sent more than 450 comment letters to the FASB in the last few days of the public-comment period on the lease proposal, which ended Sept. 13. Many were from companies objecting to some or all of the proposal, and which would be significantly affected if leases were to be added to the balance sheet. FedEx said it wasn't opposed to adding leases to the balance sheet, but said it opposed the two-track model for the income statement. "We'd like to see them pick one or the other," said Herbert Nappier, FedEx's corporate controller. "It's already complex enough as it is." Gap and McDonald's declined to comment. 10 The Equipment Leasing and Finance Association is also strongly against the proposal. "We just think they didn't do enough cost-benefit analysis," said Ralph Petta, the group's chief operating officer. After the FASB and IASB complete their public roundtables on the lease proposal next month, they plan to start considering whether they should make any changes to the proposal around December or January, with an eye toward enacting a final rule in 2014. Mr. Golden, the FASB chairman, said it was too early to say what the boards would do in response to the opposition and other feedback they've received. Mr. Petta predicted that "most likely what will happen is that there will be some changes," although he said he and other critics didn't expect the current proposal to be scrapped entirely. 11 ARTICLE 2 New Rules to Alter How Companies Book Revenue - Change Will Affect Firms Ranging From Software Makers to Auto Companies The Wall Street Journal, Michael Rapoport , Updated May 28, 2014 New rules released Wednesday will overhaul the way businesses record revenue on their books, capping a 12year project that will affect companies ranging from software firms to auto makers to wireless providers. The new standards, issued jointly by U.S. and global rule makers, will take effect in 2017, prompting a broad array of companiesfrom software giants like Microsoft Corp. MSFT +0.36% and Oracle Corp. ORCL +0.23% to major appliance makerseither to speed up or slow down the rate at which they book at least some of their revenue. The rules aim to simplify and inject more uniformity into one of the most basic yardsticks of a company's performancehow well its products or services are selling. "It's one of the most important metrics for investors in the capital markets," said Russell Golden, chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which sets accounting rules for U.S. companies and collaborated on the new rules with the global International Accounting Standards Board. Companies were cautious in assessing the potential impact of the overhaul, but some were optimistic. "We've been waiting for it for a long time," said Ken Goldman, chief financial officer of Black Duck Software Inc., a provider of software and consulting services. "This levels the playing field and takes a lot of the ambiguity out of what are overly restrictive rules." The rules are designed to replace fragmented and inconsistent standards under which companies in different industries often record their revenue differently and sometimes book a portion of it well before or after the sales that generate it. "We wanted to make sure there was a consistent method for companies to identify revenue," said the FASB's Mr. Golden. But the new rules could make corporate earnings more volatile, accounting experts said, by changing the timing of when revenue is recorded. They also could lead to increased costs for companies as they seek to track their performance while providing the additional disclosure the new standards require. "This has at least the potential to affect every company," said Joel Osnoss, a partner at accounting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP. They "really should look at the standard" and ask how the revenue-rule changes will affect them, he said. Accounting rule makers have long focused on the question of when businesses should book revenue, because it touches every company and can be an area ripe for fraud. Allegations of improperly speeding up or deferring revenue have been at the heart of many accounting-fraud scandals. In 2002, for example, Xerox Corp. XRX +1.33% paid a big settlement to the Securities and Exchange Commission to resolve allegations that it had improperly accelerated revenue. Xerox didn't admit or deny the SEC's allegations. The new rule's impact will be most felt in a handful of industries in which goods and services are "bundled" together and parts of that package are provided long before or after customers pay for them. These include such benefits as maintenance that comes with the purchase of a new car, or software upgrades given to customers who bought the original program. 12 In such cases, the time at which companies recognize revenue is often out of sync by months or years with when customers get the goods and services associated with it. For instance, when auto and appliance makers sell their products, they typically book the purchase price immediately, but the transactions can also include free maintenance or repairs under warranty that the company might not provide for months or years. Under the new rules, the manufacturer would book less revenue up front and more revenue later, because some of the revenue from the car or appliance would be assigned to cover future service costs. As a result, some of a company's revenue might be stretched over a longer period. Conversely, software makers such as Microsoft and Oracle might be able to recognize some revenue more quickly. Software companies now often have to recognize their revenue over time, because they have to wait until all of the software upgrades and other pieces of a sale are delivered to the customer. The new rules will make it easier for companies to value upgrades separately and so recognize more of the software's overall revenue upfront, Mr. Golden said. Similarly, wireless phone companies like Verizon Communications Inc. VZ +0.85% and AT&T Inc. T +0.39% might book some revenue faster under the new rules. Currently, a wireless company books revenue each month, as customers receive wireless servicesbut none of that revenue is allocated to any phone that customers get free or for a low price. That will change under the new rules; some of the monthly revenue will be applied to those phones. And since customers get the phone when they first sign up, at the beginning of their contracts, that will have the effect of pulling the revenue forward in time, allowing the company to book it earlier. Even companies that aren't affected so much by the timing changes will have to disclose more about the nature and certainty of their revenuesomething Deloitte & Touche's Mr. Osnoss said will help investors. "I think investors are going to have much more of a view into the company." But companies may find that providing that information complicates their lives and raises their costs. "For the majority of people, it's going to be difficult," said Peter Bible, chief risk officer for accounting firm EisnerAmper and a former chief accounting officer at General Motors Co. GM +0.84% The FASB and the IASB have been working together on revamping the revenue-recognition rules since 2006, and the project has been on the FASB's agenda since 2002.It took so long, said FASB's Mr. Golden, because the subject is so broad and important. "The boards wanted to make sure we got it right." Corrections & Amplifications Under current rules, wireless companies book revenue each month as customers receive wireless services. An earlier version of this article incorrectly reported that revenue can be booked as customers pay their wireless bills each month. A graphic that originally accompanied this article also contained the erroneous information 13 ARTICLE 3 Why has Dick Smith's share price fallen so low, so fast? Sydney Morning Herald, Adele Ferguson, November 30, 2015 Dick Smith has been pilloried by the market, making it even more incredible that Anchorage Capital was able to float the company for $520 million just two years ago. When Woolworths sold consumer electronics group Dick Smith in 2012 to private equity for $94 million, it was accused of selling it for a "peppercorn" after its new owners packaged it up 15 months later and listed it on the ASX with a value of $520 million. Fast forward to today and the stock is being labelled a wipe-out as shareholders slashed its shares 57 per cent, pushing its market value to less than $70 million. The violent reaction followed a disturbing ASX announcement that turned investor jitters into panic. It was based on the company's decision to make a $60 million non-cash impairment before it had completed an inventory review, which was interpreted as a portent of worse to come. In a statement to the ASX - weeks after issuing a profit warning - the company said its October performance was disappointing, November was trading below expectations and stock holdings remain above management's preferred levels. To this end it effectively scrapped its profit guidance and said a further impairment may be required, depending on the Christmas trading. It said a further update would be provided at the half-year results - or earlier if required. That also created worry. Investors are becoming increasingly reactionary when faced with nasty surprises and uncertainty. This was no better illustrated than by the recent savaging of BHP Billiton, or Slater & Gordon's news last week that the British government's flagged changes to the rules on small personal injury claims that could have a negative impact on a recent British acquisition. (The stock rose 34 per cent on Monday, but off a low base). One of the fundamental roles of a retailer is managing inventory. That Dick Smith has got its inventory so wrong, is concerning, particularly when competitors such as Harvey Norman and JB Hi-Fi are doing well. In the past year the share prices in both companies have risen. In sharp contrast, the bloodbath at Dick Smith raises the question: would you let your mother buy from private equity? On the evidence of Dick Smith and other high-profile stocks including Pacific Brands and Myer, there is a lot to fear about private equity. But to be fair, not all private-equity-spawned floats end in tears. A study by Australian Private Equity and Venture Capital Association Limited (AVCAL) shows that in 2013, private-equity-backed IPOs outperformed nonprivate-equity-backed IPOs. However, in 2014 non-PE-backed IPOs outperformed private-equity-backed IPOs. Anchorage Capital partners bought Dick Smith in 2012, beavered away for 15 months, tarting it up, to sell at a massive premium in December 2013 at $2.20 a share. Private equity made a killing and investors who bought in the float have now seen hundreds of millions of dollars go up in smoke. The company's shares hit a low on Monday of 28 a share. 14 It brings to mind Woolworths' decision to put it up for sale at the end of 2011. Back then Woolworths said the decision to sell was based on the fact the electronics group's performance had been on a downward trend for five years, largely due to structural changes as consumers shifted to lower-margin products. It held discussions with potential buyers and conducted an auction in February 2012 and booked a restructuring provision of $420 million pending the sale. It deemed Anchorage as the only credible offer, which included cash proceeds of $20 million in 2013 and Woolworths "benefiting from any upside resulting from a future sale of Dick Smith by Anchorage". In May 2013, it received a further $74 million and walked away from the ability to share in future upside if Anchorage on-sold the business. In hindsight it might not have been such a bad deal and its conscience is clear when it comes to Dick Smith's shareholders. The latest write-downs and an inability to confirm profit guidance paints a worrying picture for the company. It comes a month after announcing a big-bang discounting and marketing war to help improve sales during the Christmas period. "We're going to drive top-line sales and cash conversion through this period and get momentum back in the business,"Dick Smith boss Nick Abboud told the market in October, just after cutting full-year profit guidance. Now Abboud can't confirm anything, leaving shareholders wondering what to do. It also raises questions about what is really going inside the company, and what has gone so horribly wrong. 15 ARTICLE 4 CBA's lesson in swift remediation The Australian, Richard Gluyas 18 Jan 2016 Commonwealth Bank's program to compensate victims of poor financial advice still has a year to run, but it's already a textbook case highlighting the massive cost of maintaining a social licence to operate. Based on figures released so far, CBA's so-called open advice review program could end up incurring costs in the tens of millions of dollars to pay out as little as $10 million to customers of Commonwealth Financial Planning and Financial Wisdom between 2003 and 2012. The investment is hugely disproportional but completely necessary. As the bank's wealth boss Annabel Spring told The Australian: \"It's the right thing to do. Trust goes to the heart of a relationship between a financial institution and its customers.\" The task of rebuilding trust will outlast the OARP, with scepticism continuing to greet some of the bank's public statements a situation that is used to advantage by critics and aggrieved customers. One example is the unjustified criticism of CBA dragging its feet on OARP's 8000 file reviews, and the fact that compensation offers have so far, at least barely troubled the scorers. The OARP was unveiled in July 2014, a week after an explosive parliamentary report by the Senate Economics References committee called for a Royal Commission into CBA's financial planning arm. The key reference point for the program's critics is the previous remediation program where $52m in compensation was paid to more than 1100 advice customers. There's a critical difference, however, because the bank had already identified the relevant advisers as dodgy. In contrast, the OARP is an open offer to review the advice given to all Commonwealth Financial Planning and Financial Wisdom customers in the relevant period. It isn't targeted, so the rate of misconduct will inevitably be much lower. The fact that OARP has so far produced only $2.5m in compensation offers might surprise a lot of people, but not CBA. It's no surprise, either, that only 1800 of the 8000 reviews have been completed, despite the passage of almost 18 months. The program has taken a while to scale up, with agreement required on the right methodology, experts retained and 651 fulltime staff hired in a tight market for qualified planners. The scale of the task has been huge staffing levels are said to be at least 70 per cent greater than the Financial Ombudsman Service. However, now that the OARP is up and running, it will move much faster. It is expected that the remaining 6200 file reviews will be completed before the end of 2016. 16 On the speed of the reviews undertaken so far, Ms Spring said thoroughness, fairness and consistency were paramount. \"Just as every customer is different, so is the advice that was appropriate for them, which must be assessed individually,\" she said. \"Many customers received not just one piece of advice but multiple instances of advice over the time period.\" The point about the OARP is that CBA surrendered the right to handle the financial planning scandal internally. Chief executive Ian Narev has said an early manifestation of the looming debacle was being kicked around in the CBA management board as early as 2007. With the first remediation scheme put in place three years later, Mr Narev said an air of \"defensiveness\" had taken hold, reflecting a widespread belief that the bank had already responded appropriately. The lesson for large institutions, like the major banks, is to go early and go hard on remediation, once it's clear who's at fault. Unnecessary delays are poison for the customer, and for the institution's social licence to operate. Over at National Australia Bank, wealth boss Andrew Hagger has taken his share of hits over a similar advice scandal. Mr Hagger, though, has had the great luxury of keeping his remediation program known as the customer response initiative in-house, without the far-reaching, independent oversight and huge cost that goes with the CBA exercise. In the meantime, as part of its heavy scrutiny of CBA (and other wealth businesses, for that matter), the corporate watchdog released a second report from forensic accountants KordaMentha on the varied licence conditions agreed to by the bank in May 2014. CBA will now review six customer files from each of 17 advisers to confirm whether or not the advice given was appropriate. While the advisers were identified in 2012 using data analytics, Ms Spring said it didn't necessarily mean they had provided poor advice. \"We will now work with ASIC and KordaMentha to complete the further reviews, and if any customer received poor advice that resulted in financial loss we will apologise and compensate them,\" she said. It's all part of a process that still has up to a year to run. CBA and the affected customers will be happy to send the end of it. 17 ARTICLE 5 Shine Corporate slashes earnings guidance, shares plunge 73% Sydney Morning Herald, January 29, 2016 - Jonathan Shapiro Shares in ASX listed law firm Shine Corporate have plunged by 73 per cent after the company cut its earnings guidance in half following a review of its accounting policies. The shares, which were placed in a trading halt last week, resumed trading on Friday, and promptly fell from $2 to 53 cents after the company updated investors on its review of its work in progress. In a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange, the compensation claims law firm announced it had revised its earnings guidance to between $24 million to $28 million, from the original $54 million figure it issued in August of 2015. The decline in earnings is a result of a one-off provision of $17.5 million after the company reviewed existing personal injury cases. However, Shine also said income had declined as a result of "sub-optimal fee-earner to file" ratios, greater than expected write-offs and competition in Queensland, leading to a further $10.5 million revision in guidance. The company said it remained within its banking covenants after the forecast revision and expects to confirm a new banking facility. Shine's net debt to equity level is around 23 per cent, the company said. The increase in provisions would also not impact cash flows, the company said. Shine also said it would not declare an interim dividend but expects to declare a full year dividend. Shine's write-downs come after rival listed law firm Slater & Gordon told investors on Thursday that it was unable to update them on their half year cash flow figures, despite telling them they would do so in January. Slater, whose ASX listed model was a blueprint for Shine, has lost 90 per of its value in less than 12 months after regulators, short sellers and analysts questioning its accounting policies and ambitious $1.3 billion acquisition in the United Kingdom of Quindell. Shine's latest revelations about its review of its "Work In Progress" are no doubt another blow to the listed law firm model. As recently as October, Shine chairman Tony Bellas assured shareholders it managed its work in progress and cash flows "very carefully." "We closely monitor all active cases on a day-to-day basis and they are appropriately reflected in our accounts" he told the annual general meeting address. 18