The Truth-In Lending Act The Truth-In Lending Act The Federal Truth in Lending Act of 1968 (TILA) was designed to provide the consumer with information regarding the actual cost of credit. Before TILA, the stated interest rate of a loan was calculated in different ways to the benefit of the lender and against the borrower. The TILA made it obligatory for all lenders to state the annual percentage rate (APR) and to make it consistently calculated so that the consumer would be able to compare the interest rates and calculate the cost of borrowing themselves. The actual outcome of the law has been different. “The law's critics contend that a mismatch between the required disclosures and the information that the consumer needs to compare
What is the history of the TCP/IP model? Why was it created? Use your textbook and Internet research to support your answer. In 1970's the DOD sponsored a project to create a standardized networking model called TCP/IP. Pg 61 - 3.2.1 exercise 3.2.1 Using Figure 3-1, define each layer of the OSI model in your own words and state what each layer provides.
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act directs the SEC to adopt rules requiring annual reports of companies with publicly traded securities, other than registered investment companies, to disclose management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the company’s ICFR and an auditor’s independent attestation to the effectiveness of those internal controls. These rules were adopted by the Commission on May 27, 2003. The act gave large filers that are traded publicly till the end of the fiscal year in 2004 to become compliant. Internal controls are in place to require reporting of financial reports to be analyzed and audited. Companies are also hiring internal personnel to ensure accuracy and high ethical standards are being followed.
It also may delay your ability to obtain credit. You may place a fraud alert in your file by calling just one of the three nationwide consumer reporting agencies. As soon as that agency processes your fraud alert, it will notify the other two, which then also must place fraud alerts in your file. • Equifax: 1-800-525-6285; www.equifax.com • Experian: 1-888-397-3742; www.experian.com • TransUnion: 1-800-680-7289; www.transunion.com An initial fraud alert stays in your file for at least 90 days. An extended alert stays in your file for seven years.
Result YEAR MONTH PROJNO ------------+--------------------------+------------------------ 1982 1 MA2111 1982 1 MA2112 1982 2 MA2113 ANSWER:SELECET YEAR (PRSTDATE) AS YEAR, MONTH(PRSTDATE) AS MONTH,PROJNOFROM PROJECTWHERE PRENDED = ‘1982-12-01’ORDER BY PROJNO | PROBLEM 9 List the project number and duration, in weeks, of all projects that have a project number beginning with MA. The duration should be rounded and displaed with one decimal. Name the derived column WEEKS. Order the list by the project number. Result
Ratio Analysis Memo ACC 291 Ratio Analysis Memo This assignment required the members of Team D to choose a virtual organization to prepare a memo to the CEO of said company discussing the finding of our ratio calculations and to submit a horizontal and vertical analysis for both the balance sheet and income statement. Team D chose Berry's Bug Blasters as our virtual company. We chose use the financial statements from the year 2005 through 2008 for this comparison. The ratio calculations we will show are liquidity, profitability, and solvency. LIQUIDITY RATIOS Current Ratio (Current Assets/Current Liabilities) 2008 $1,836,770.12/$306,805.71 = 5.986 Ratio = 5.99:1 2007 $1,308,685.20/$366,786.29 = 3.567 Ratio = 3.57:1 2006 $313,556.46/$180,107.60 = 1.7409 Ratio = 1.74:1 Acid Test (Quick Ratio) (Cash + Short Term Receivables + Receivables (Net)/Current Liabilities) 2008 $818,440.68+$812,395.13/$306,805.71 = 5.315 Ratio = 5.32:1 2007 $291,703.44+$811,047.45/$366,786.29 = 3.006 Ratio = 3.01:1 2006 $32,901.07+$198,281.67/$180,107.60 = 1.283 Ratio = 1.28:1 Receivable Turnover (Net Credit Sales/Average Net Receivables) 2008 $3,249,580.53/ ($812,395.13+$811,047.45/2) $3,249,580.53/$811,721.29 = 4.003 = 4.0% 2007 $3,893,027.78/ ($811,047.45+$198,281.67/2) $3,893,027.78/$504,664.56 = 7.714 = 7.7% 2006 $1,903,504.00/ ($198,281.67+$36,595.21/2) $1,903,504.00/$117,438.44 = 16.208 = 16.2% Inventory Turnover (Cost of Goods Sold/Average Inventory) 2008 $3,249,580.53/ ($205,934.30+$205,934.30/2) $3,249,580.53/$205,934.30 = 15.779 = 15.8% 2007 $3,893,027.78/ ($205,934.30+$82,373.72/2) $3,893,027.78/$144,154.01 = 27.006 = 27.0% 2006 $1,903,504.00/ ($82,373.72+$20,593.43/2) $1,903,504.00/$51,483.58 = 36.973 = 37.0% PROFITABILITY RATIOS Profit Margins (Net Income/Net Sales)
Under present technical standards auditors would be required to disclose a company policy similar to Nay`s mail rule if they discovered it during the audit. Per the PCAOB Auditing Standard No.2,” A company subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is required to include in its annual report a report of management on the company's internal control over financial reporting. The report of management is required to contain management's assessment of the effectiveness of the company's internal control over financial reporting as of the end of the company's most recent fiscal year, including a statement as to whether the company's internal control over financial reporting is effective. The auditor that audits the company's financial statements included in the annual report is required to attest to and report on management's assessment. The company is required to file the auditor's attestation report as part of the annual report”.
BCOM/230 Abstract This exercise explains what we would write differently to our top administrators. It also indicates the way the memo should change based on its audiences. What types of information should be included in this memo what types of information should be omitted. This exercise will point out the potential repercussions of failing to know the audiences. Review Memo to the Executive Vice-President This message should be short but complete coverage of the subject matter.
Litronic refused to accept them, arguing that he 90-day warranty period had lapsed. RULE: KNOCKOUT DOCTRINE. When the seller’s and buyer’s terms differ materially, the two terms cancel each other out, and the contested term is supplied by a Code gap-filler. Posner points out, however, that he would prefer a rule that says all additional terms are different terms and vice versa, thus UCC 2-207(2) about additional terms should apply, unless materially alter the contract. Prof. Goldberg, on the other hand, suggests a “best shot” rule, where all terms in one form should be enforced based on their relative fairness.
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES UNTIL IT’S OVER, OVER THERE: THE U.S. ECONOMY IN WORLD WAR I Hugh Rockoff Working Paper 10580 http://www.nber.org/papers/w10580 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 June 2004 The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Bureau of Economic Research. ©2004 by Hugh Rockoff. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Until it’s Over, Over There: The U.S. Economy in World War I Hugh Rockoff NBER Working Paper No.