Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
the asset's fair value less the cost of selling this asset. Non-current assets 'held for sale' should be presented separately on the face of the statement of financial position as a current asset. For a non-current asset (Fixed Asset) to be classified as 'held for sale', all of the following 4 conditions must be satisfied:
The current ratio divides current assets by current liabilities. For instance, Alphabet’s Q2 2024 balance sheet had $162.0 billion in current assets compared to $77.9 billion in current liabilities.
Non-current assets are long-term investments, versus current assets that a company can quickly turn into cash.
Business ethics operates on the premise, for example, that the ethical operation of a private business is possible—those who dispute that premise, such as libertarian socialists (who contend that "business ethics" is an oxymoron) do so by definition outside of the domain of business ethics proper.
The issue of impairment of financial assets exposed deficiencies in the IAS 36 framework during the 2008 financial crisis, and the IASB issued an exposure draft in November 2009 that proposed an impairment model based on expected losses rather than incurred losses for all financial assets recorded at amortised cost. [4]
Typically, assets stolen are cash, or cash equivalents, and company data or intellectual property. [5] However, misappropriation of assets also includes taking inventory out of a facility or using company assets for personal purpose without authorization. Company assets include everything from office supplies and inventory to intellectual property.
Current ratio is generally used to estimate company's liquidity by "deriving the proportion of current assets available to cover current liabilities". The main idea behind this concept is to decide whether current assets which also include cash and cash equivalents are available pay off its short term liabilities (taxes, notes payable, etc.)
This was the case in Gerbert and Gerbert (1990) FLC 92–137, where a husband settled for 10% of assets against his probable entitlement to 40%, and it was held that there was no miscarriage of justice as the husband acted freely and was advised to seek legal advice. In cases where an individual is provided limited facts, serious ethical issues ...