1 [45 marks] P acquired 80% of S on 1 December 2012 paying N$4.25 in cash per share. At this stage the balance on S’s retained earnings were N$ 870 000. On March 2015 P acquired 30% of A’s ordinary shares. The consideration was settled by share exchange of 4 new shares in P for every 3 shares acquired in A. The share price of P at the date of acquisition was N$ 5.00. P has not yet recorded the acquisition of A in its books The Statement of Financial Position for three companies as at 30 November 2015 is as follows P S A 000 000 000 Non-current Assets Property 1300 850 900 Plant & Equipment 450 210 150 Investment 1825 0 0 Current Assets Inventory 550 230 200 Receivables 300 340 400 Cash 120 50 140 4545 1680 1790 Share capital N$1 1800 500 250 Share premium 250 80 0 Retained Earnings 1145 400 1200 3195 980 1450 Non – current Liabilities 10% Loan notes 500 300 0 Current Liabilities Trade Payables 520 330 250 Income Tax 330 70 90 4545 1680 1790 TUTORIAL LETTER SEMESTER 2/2016 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 320 GFA712S 17 The following information is relevant • As at December 2012, plant in the books of S was determined to have a fair value of N$ 50 000 in excess of its carrying value. The plant had a remaining life of 5 years at this time • During the year, S sold goods to P for N$ 400 000 at a mark-up of 25%. P had a quarter of these goods still in inventory at the year end • In September A Sold goods to P for N$ 150 000. These goods had cost A N$ 100 000. P had N$90000( at cost to P) in inventory at the year –end • AS a result of the above intercompany sales, P’s books showed N$50 000 and N$20000 as owing to S and A respectively at the year-end. These balances agreed with the amounts recorded in S’s and A’s books • Non –controlling interests are measured using the proportion of net assets method. Goodwill is to be impaired by 30% at the reporting date. An impairment review found the investment in associate was to be impaired by N$ 15000 at the year-end • A ‘s profit after tax for the year is N$ 600,000 Required: Prepare the Consolidated Statement of Financial Position as at 30 November 2015

2a) An argument can be made that the Government could improve consumer welfare by requiring companies to provide accurate information to consumers about their products. We already see this intervention by the government in the labeling requirements on food, warnings on packages of cigarettes, and prohibition of false advertising but do warning labels really deter consumers from eating or engaging in “unhealthy” behaviors? Should companies like McDonald’s be “required” to label coffee with the caution that the content is hot? Should the Government increase, decrease or remain the same in its level of intervention when it comes to mandating that companies provide product information to consumers? What happened to “caveat emptor” (buyer beware)? Can you think of examples where the government does not intervene enough when it comes to consumer safety and product information? Examples where too much intervention is the case? Explain your answers. How can consumers become better educated about the products they are considering for purchase? To what extent do you personally go to acquire the best information available?

Order Now