Why Choose Us?
0% AI Guarantee
Human-written only.
24/7 Support
Anytime, anywhere.
Plagiarism Free
100% Original.
Expert Tutors
Masters & PhDs.
100% Confidential
Your privacy matters.
On-Time Delivery
Never miss a deadline.
corporations have readily embraced segment reporting
corporations have readily embraced segment reporting. All disclosure has a cost; gathering and monitoring information for each segment are not cheap. In addition, some companies fear that such data could be useful to their competitors. One solution is to define the company as having only one segment so that disaggregation is not required. With the very flexible guidelines established in SFAS 14 for identifying segments, many companies were able to avoid presenting segment information in this manner.
Consider IBM. As befits its size, the $63 billion (estimated 1989 sales) computer company is in several lines of business, including personal computers, mainframes, electronic mail systems and semiconductors (IBM's semiconductor facilities rank among the world's largest). How is each of these segments doing? That's hard to say. IBM reports figures for a grand total of one segment, called "information-processing systems, software, communications systems and other products and services."...
Does anybody care? They should. Says Eugene Glazer, technology analyst at Dean Witter Reynolds: "Investors need to know how a company is doing in each major business. Maybe one business is so dominant and earning such huge profits that it's masking errors in other businesses."11 To be fair, although under SFAS 14 IBM indicated that a single segment "represents more than 90 percent of consolidated revenue, operating profit, and identifiable assets," it nevertheless voluntarily disaggregated revenues "by classes of similar products or services within the information technology segment." However, data on operating profit, assets, depreciation, and capital expenditures were not similarly disaggregated.
Should the FASB have tightened up its rules with SFAS 131 on defining segments to ensure that all companies present appropriately disaggregated information? Why or why not?
Expert Solution
I concur, and following is why:
1. These are public companies for which full disclosure is expected. If companies didn't wish to disclose financial details, they probably shouldn't be public. Our society is not a secretive one and most companies pride themselves on their disclosure. It is also a legal SEC requirement.
2. Remembering the days of the bankrupt conglomerates of the 1980s, disclosure would have been a good thing for investors. They might have stayed away.
3. Maybe partial disclosure by segment could be possible. Sales and cost of sale plus gross margin could be presented; then overhead would be one big piece. Allocating overhead by segment could be difficult and possibly not auditable.
4. Jim Cramer on 'Mad Money' may have it right. His position is that if he can't understand a company's business (because they have too many dissimilar pieces), he won't buy it.
Archived Solution
You have full access to this solution. To save a copy with all formatting and attachments, use the button below.
For ready-to-submit work, please order a fresh solution below.
