Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA FR Exams › Ratios analysis based on disposal of Sco from Pco
- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
MikeLittle.
- AuthorPosts
- May 17, 2017 at 8:05 pm #386510
I wanna to put question relating the mentioned subject but I can not be successful.
Hi my Dear and Fantastic Tutor, I have a question relating to ratio and the question has been taken from Bpp text book page number Greenwood
Greenwood is a public listed company.On 31 march 20×7 Greenwood sold its 80%-owned subsidiary-Deadwood-for $6 million.The directors have been advised that the disposal qualifies as a discontinued operation and it has been accounted for accordingly.The disposal proceeds were not collected untill after the year end.
Note:The carrying amount of the assets of Deadwood at 31 March 20X6 was 6.25$million.Greenwood measures NCI at share of net assets.
20X6 P/l
Revenue-21200
Cost of sales-(15000)
GP -6200
Operating expense-(2450)3750
Finance cost (250)
profit before tax-350020X7 P/L
Revenue-27500
Cost of SAles-(19500)
GP-8000Operating expenses-(2900)
5100
finance cost-(600)
Profit before tax-450020X6
Equity each 1 $-10000
RE-2750
NCI-1250
Non-current liability
5%loan note -500020×7
Equity each 1$-10000
RE-4500
Non-current liability
5%loan note-8000SOlution
20×7
ROCE4500+400(finance cost shown for 20X7 only $400,000 is loan note interest(8000*5%=400)/14500+8000-6000(disposal proceed)=29.7%
here is disposal proceed deducted because Greenwood does not have any Sco deadwood
20×6
ROCE3750/12750+5000-6250=32.6%
but here why do i deduct carrying amount of assets of Deadwood?if it was deducted how comparison could be healthy?it both cases it looks like in 20×7 DEADwood sold that is understandable but in 20×6 it exists but it deducted like they excluded it.
in both cases without Deadwood.At least it should be included(not deducted 6250) in 20×6 to make relevant comparision between 20×6 and 2ox7.
May 17, 2017 at 8:37 pm #386735“Bpp text book page number Greenwood”
‘Greenwood’ is not a page number!
A comparison is only potentially valid when you are comparing like with like
Otherwise any conclusions or inferences that you draw from non-comparable data are (most likely) totally invalid
It really depends what it is that you’re trying to compare but, as a general principle, we compare like with like
OK?
May 18, 2017 at 2:53 pm #386841I am really sorry that i called the page number Greenwood)))))))
”A comparison is only potentially valid when you are comparing like with like”-it means that deadwood has to be excluded from Greenwood in 20X6.Also, in 20×7 it has already been sold so like with like it both cases without Deadwood comparison:)
May 19, 2017 at 8:59 pm #387057That’s correct- what’s the point of comparison with figures that include a subsidiary that is no longer part of the group
- AuthorPosts
- The topic ‘Ratios analysis based on disposal of Sco from Pco’ is closed to new replies.