The purpose of this assignment is to calculate asset ratios, analyze them, and compare them between two competitors in the same industry.
Review the most recent annual reports of The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo focusing on the balance sheet and footnote inventories.
Using the correct formulas and a separate tab for each ratio, calculate the following ratios for each company for the last 2 years using Excel:
Inventory turnover
Average days in inventory
In a Word file, include the following:
Explain the meaning of each ratio and what the calculated results tell you about each of the companies. Refer to the calculated ratios in your analysis. Your explanation should consider how the ratios changed in the last 2 years. Your explanation should include a separate paragraph for each ratio.
Summarize how effective the company is in managing inventory based upon the type(s) of products the company sells and the industry in which it competes. Include discussion about whether the inventory turnover ratio is increasing or decreasing, what is causing the ratio increase/decrease, and whether the total value of inventory is increasing or decreasing on the balance sheet.
Submit the Excel file that contains your ratios and the Word file memo to your instructor.
S 53.938.09 Finance 2 to 5 years $ 52.694.00 Finance 2 to 5 years $ 70 515.00 Non Finance Less than 2 years $ 52.031.00 Finance 2 to 5 years 5 $. 52.283.00 Non-Finance Less than 2 years 6 $ 57.718.00 Finance Less than 2 years $ 79.081 00 Non-Finance More than 5 years $ 48 621.00 Finance Less than 2 years 9 $ 72 835 00 Non-Finance More than 5 years 10 $ 54.768.00 Finance 2 to 5 years 11 $ 52.282 00 Finance 2 to 5 years 12 $ 55.632.00 Finance Less than 2 years 15 $ 63.856.00 Non-Finance Less than 2 years 14 $ 51 827.00 Finance 2 to 5 years 15 $ 51 948.00 Finance Less than 2 years 16 $ 56 588 00 Finance 2 to 5 years S 68 858.00 Non-Finance Less than 2 years 18 $ 63.478.00 Non-Finance Less than 2 years 19 $ 83.846.00 Non-Finance 2 to 5 years 20 S 59.253.00 Finance More than 5 years 21 S 53.464.00 Finance Less than 2 years 22 $ 83,176.00 Non-Finance 2 to 5 years 23 $ 60 949.00 Finance More than15 years 24 $ 52 835.00 Finance Less than 2 years 25 $ 72.914.00 Non-Finance More than 5 years 26 $ 38 040.00 Non-Finance 2 to 5 years 27 $ 64 285.00 Non-Finance less than 2 years 8 $ 64.562 00 Finance More than 5 years 29 S 52.644.00 Finance More than 5 years 30 $ 55.959.00 Finance Less than 2 years $ 88 780.00 Non-Finance alto 5 years 32 $ 77.683.00 Non-Finance 2 to 5 years 33|$ 56.339.00 Finance More than 5 years 34 $ 71 345.00 Non-Finance Less than 2 years 35 $ 63 799 00 Finance Less than 2 years 36 $ 78.074.00 Non-Finance More than 5 years 37 5 65.546.00 Non-Finance less than 2 years 38 $ 59 057 50 Finance alto s years 39 S 65 024.00 Non-Finance less than 2 years 40 $ 59 457.00 Finance More than5 years 41 $ 79 586.00 Non-Finance to 5 years 42 $ 61 12:1 00 Jon Finan than 2 Years45 $ 54,122.00 Finance less than 2 years $ 78 210.00 Non-Finan More than 5 year 45 5 58 814 00 Finance Less than 2 years $ 59.276.00 Finance Less than 2 years IS 75 869.00 Non-Finance 2 to 5 years 48 $ 57 549.60 Finance 2 to 5 years 49 $ 76 762 00 Non-Finance 2 to 5 years 50 $ 60 993.00 Non-Financ Less than 2 years $1 $ 63 362 00 Finance 2 to 5 years 52 $ 531231 00 Finance More than 5 years 53 $ 62 115 00 Finance More than 5 years 54 $ 56 080 DQ Finance 2 to 5 years 55 $ 53 392 00 Finance 2 to 5 years 56 $ 61 299 00 Non-Finance Less than 2 years 57 $ 53 894 00 Finance More than 5 years 58 $ 82 794 00 Non-Finance 2 to 5 years 59 $ 56.990.00 Finance Less than 2 years 60 $ 77 403 00 Non-Finance More than 5 years 61 $ 78.936.00 Non-Finance More than 5 years 62 $ 54.282 00 Finance 2 to 5 years 63 $ 78.850.00 Non-Finance 2 to 5 years 64 $ 54.592 00 Finance More than 5 years 65 $ 56.461.D0 Finance Less than 2 years 66 $ 74 389.00 Non-Finance More than 5 years 67 $ 49 422 0Q Finance Less than 2 years 68 $ 86 692.00 Non-Finance 2 to 5 years 69 $ 77 356.00 Non-Finance More than 5 years 70 $ 58.055.00 Finance 2 to 5 years 71 $ 77 820.00 Non-Finance More than 5 years 72 $ 77 801.D0 Non-Finance More than 5 years 73 $ 58 053 00 Finance 2 to 5 years 74 $ 78 169.00 Non-Finance 2 to 5 years 75 $ 68 560.00 Non-Finance Less than 2 years 76 $ 66.320.00 Non-Finance More than 5 years 77 $ 67.237 00 Non-Finance Less than 2 years 78 S 62 225 00 Non-Finance Less than 2 years 79 5 58 866.00 Finance More than 5 years 80 5 7: 31 00 Non-Finance More than 5 years 81 5 76 868 00 Finance More than S years 82 $ 81 750100 Non-Finance 2 to 5 years 83 $ 58,749100 Finance More than s years 84 5 52 638 00 Finance 2 16 5 vears 85 $ 62 679.00 Finance 2 to 5 years 136 5 51 027 60 I Fthancel More than s yearsQuestion 24 2 pts Which of the following is/are true statement(s): The 5th Amendment protects against self-incriminatingcivil proceedings. O For fake imprisonment, an individual can be detained for as little as a few minutes, O Vicarious liability imposes liability for acts of 3rd parties AND for false imprisonment, an individual can be detained for as little as a few minutes. O Vicarious liability imposes liability for acts of 3rd parties.W WordDoutter - Count ward : | G hegoofhitions - Coughs : |0 Assignment db Paper C) Chopp: The Lom of Henkho C "ereader.chegg convW/bockw/978156783879cf /3/241/4/2/403 72/280-0 pootnoted dack thinking there would be a separate opention additiond vertebrae had is be fined. She aacres the fact four worebone wow fined combined with delendors ourraves and failing to won herof specific there my mention how that the would not have prisonted in the surgery bad the kross those things the bys spit withheld fran her prior is wingery. Defendant testified plainhill win fully iadvised as to the nature of her problem and the scope of directive margery. He acknowledges he did not advise ber of the bund of vocal chord fair/ paralysis. He believed the possibility of sch occurpiece was negligible and outweighed by the danger of undue apprehension if waming of the risk was ghom. one type of treatment and subicgundy performers wahannually different Unamail for which coment was not obtained, there is acker oak of battery. However, when in indisked potential complication meals, the occurence of which was not an integral part of the treatment procedure hal merely a known risk, the courts are divided in the have of whether this should be deemed ta be a billmy er negligence. We myfree with the majorly tread The beating diary hand het parend for three chuandenies slow a dork performs as spcation in which the patval has nd camental, When the parra gives penmasuis in porlien one type of breadmeat and the docks performs water, the requisite clenon of deliberate incol to deviate from the oument given is porsen. However, when the pitiful coments to certain treatment and the bacter perform that beatment but in walicloned inherent complication with a low proffifty occur no intentiond deviation from the consol given appoint rather, the doctor in ofdining coined may have failed to mori his duc ciuc duty A odiskne pertinent information. In that shustios the action should be planted in negligence. From air approval of this malyis it should be eleve we believe the battery or trespass theiry plealed by plein ' in this case is Emited inhis applicahiity to surgery to which the patient hes not conicnied. There mud be a fission was a ballery is bespies. But the dogs ool claim dienins for a recoul fusion. bat asks damari became of injury In the laryngeal nene during surgery. The cubeence is undisputed that whether one on the fuckisu wire to be done the path to the said column had to be claimed by retraction of the visual shlomi. Hence, any injury caused by wach ortraction occurred during a procedure to which consent had been given. Reaction of the visceral ochma during the surgery was not a batery of brespin. We have no owessun to reach de question whether failure to advise plaintiff of the the of laryngeal nerve injury would is be circumdrives of din ous have proced a Jury have on meclipse, but we to poli on hand recovery on wich isaid in preclude unless a plaintiff also colddishes he would not have whiritied to the provedan if he had been wuvbed of the risk, ... There is no evidence planif would have wifiheld her consent in thes Altimed. I . lies fee care been then? Does it need to bat 2. What is the "woooal foundaim fact," and how does "canmin caperince" miller in relation to in 3. The opinion sines "There men be a subsuial differcare between the surgery copied in and the sugery which is done for a battery case to be rude]." What would amount to a "suleimuial differtive"in your mmill What if decal career hal been divinened and clainly removed with no aftereffects? Would that procure be a sbanned dillennce andifying damages le bowker com though to cher inun tial, in foul. 4. Why did the cart have mo action" to dride whether failure to added the plaisulf of the rock of aers injury rabed s negligence isa Notes 1. 61 AM. JUR. 2d. Physicians and Surgeons $ 208 (1981), Baldor v. Hopon, 81 80. 24658 (Fla. 1954), reb's denied, BI So. 20 661 01 1a. 1935); ANGELA R. HOLDER, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAW 47 (2d ed, 1978). DeFilippo v. Preston, 53 Del. 539, 173 A.24 333 (1961). 4. Miller w. Toles, 183 Mich, 252, 150 N.W. 118 (1914). 173 Aa 40
