Cash Flows in Business Organisations Coursework

Cash Flows in Business Organisations - Coursework Example The concept of Net Profit and Net Cash Flow are not the same which often becomes a cause of concern for business owners. The difference in net income and cash flow arises because of the way income statements are prepared. Under the ‘accrual’ method of accounting, net income is calculated subtracting incurred expenses from earned revenues. Further, net revenues include credit sales (not involving immediate cash flows) and expenses include various provisions, deferred payments, depreciation, etc. that does not involve actual movement of cash during current period. In the statement of cash flow, all such accrual concepts are adjusted to net profit and only then operating cash flow is correctly arrived. For instance, consider the financial statements of UAL (shown in Appendix) where the company has incurred net loss of $723 million for the year ending 2012 but from the consolidated statement of cash flows we find that its Net Cash from Operations for the same fiscal was $935 million. This is because the company has charged higher ‘Depreciation & Amortisation’ for capital expenditure that does not involve actual outflow of cash. Thus, the books of account of company may show high/low net profits despite of having much less/high cash on hand. As per the requirements of IAS 7, operating activities involved in a business has to be reported using indirect or direct method. In the former method, profit/loss has to be adjusted after considering the effects of non-cash transactions like deprecation, accruals or deferrals of future or past operating activities. The later method classifies different operating items into gross cash payments and gross cash receipts. Information required for calculating these items are derived from books of account (adjusted sales, cost of sales, etc.). The basic layout of each method is depicted below, The ‘Net Cash from Operations’ in US Airways in 2011 was $472 million

Ethical Argument Choose a topic and argue the ethical side opposite of Essay

Ethical Argument Choose a topic and argue the ethical side opposite of the accepted norm - Essay Example Such could be the results of miscues especially of decisions, which are shadowed by the mists of pride and vested interests and the neglect of some ethical and moral guidelines. War had been a way of life for early civilizations. It was primarily the direct result of segmented societies where communities are tied by tribal concerns of control. The need for survival requires dominance within an area. To have a wider space means an assurance for more resources more security for living. The evolution of societies from early nomads until the present is marred by a lot of small and big wars. We have two major world wars and other big war yet to come, which doomsday seers predicted to cause an end to humanity. Therefore, whether we like it or not, war is an accepted norm. But trends in war have changed from the way it was fought in prehistoric and olden times. The rise of deep concern to human lives created awareness among the government leaders and ordinary persons alike the importance of preservation of life. War has become a form of arrogance and aggression. Wars fought today in the same cause, as thousand years ago is condemnable act. Today, war becomes a means of defense to suppress the interest of those who want to dominate a certain territory without respect for human rights. When the US led a campaign in Kuwait, it was meant to liberate a nation. When US challenge the North Koreans or other nations going into nuclear program, it was intended to warn them of the possible effects in future ambitions of arms development. Since the idea about war has shifted from barbaric acts of territorial grabbing to more of defensive acts the norm shifted to international recognition of human rights. Nations, great or small, share equal right and peoples of d ifferent races, colors, and territory show respect with one another. Many nations joined international organizations to recognize everyone's rights. The 21st century is the turning point of history and witness to the shift from the savage war of the past to humanistic concern of the present and the future. But the declaration of the war on terror after the 9/11 events caused a global war against enemies we don't know. The campaign has caused more casualties of innocent lives, arrests of innocent persons, and branding of several organizations who air grievances against their nations as terrorists. The war was indeed claimed to have been launched to secure the world against terrorists, but it has gone to a point that human rights were already compromised. But terrorism is a big issue and requires some moral judgment to qualify or consider certain acts as a form of terrorism. There are accepted definitions of terrorisms but interpretations differ. As Record stated: The definitional mire that surrounds terrorism stems in large measure from differing perspectives on the moral relationship between objectives sought and means employed. It is easy for the politically satisfied and militarily powerful to pronounce all terrorism evil regardless of circumstance, but, like it or not, those at the other end of the spectrum are bound to see things differently (8). As a result the War on Terror created confusion among the young Americans, who were taught about the morals of war and peace. The moralist consider the "attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon not acts of war but as a species of natural disaster, requiring unstinting generosity towards the