[quote]countingbeans wrote:
@12% ?
Oh my anus[/quote]
Lol, that’s probably my annual salary. Wrong line of work…
Ignore what I said, its super easy. Take the total amount of contributions, halve the time period, and multiply that by your interest rate.
For example, $1000 a week for 52 weeks at %12 is the same as $52,000 for 6 months at an annualized rate of %12.
In other words, $52,000 * 1.06.
Can anyone check that for me?
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Ignore what I said, its super easy. Take the total amount of contributions, halve the time period, and multiply that by your interest rate.
For example, $1000 a week for 52 weeks at %12 is the same as $52,000 for 6 months at an annualized rate of %12.
In other words, $52,000 * 1.06.
Can anyone check that for me?[/quote]
That’s what I thought! But my math skills suck.
I guess I’m not following. If it’s simple interest isn’t it just (($5,000*52)*1.12)*3?
So:
Year 1: $5,000*52 = $260,000 * 1.12 = $291,200
Year 2: "
Year 3: "
Total: $873,600; Total interest is $93,600.
or are we saying:
Year 1: $5,00052 = $260,000 * 1.12 = $291,200
Year 2: $5,00052 = $260,000 + $291,200 = $551,200 * 1.12 = $617,344
Year 3: $5,000*52 = $260,000 + $617,344 = $877,344 * 1.12 = $982,625
*Note: not a finance guy…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
@12% ?
Oh my anus[/quote]
Statutory interest rates can rock when money’s cheap. The lesson is don’t f people out of their pay.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I guess I’m not following. If it’s simple interest isn’t it just (($5,000*52)*1.12)*3?
So:
Year 1: $5,000*52 = $260,000 * 1.12 = $291,200
Year 2: "
Year 3: "
Total: $873,600; Total interest is $93,600.
or are we saying:
Year 1: $5,00052 = $260,000 * 1.12 = $291,200
Year 2: $5,00052 = $260,000 + $291,200 = $551,200 * 1.12 = $617,344
Year 3: $5,000*52 = $260,000 + $617,344 = $877,344 * 1.12 = $982,625
*Note: not a finance guy… [/quote]
I don’t get interest on the amount until its owed, so its not the full 12% at the end of the year.
I’m just gonna go back to my month end accruals…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Walkway - just to keep flexing my accounting knowledge, a change in accounting principle would be if you decided to stop straight lining all of your assets and begin using another method of depreciation, say double declining balance.
[/quote]
Arguing purely for the sake of it, you can put forth the argument that even that is a change in estimate, because when you get the benefit is an estimate too.
DDB makes a lot more sense for a computer than it does a desk chair. But you can effectuate the same with a 3 year UL rather than a 5. [/quote]
If you’re arguing for the sake of arguing, then fine, I’ll argue.
I’d say if you changed the depreciation method of 1 asset I’d consider it a change in estimate. I’d say if you change your accounting policy which changes all of the depreciation methods, it’s a change in accounting policy.
I have no idea why, but listening to accountants nerd out is really enjoyable to me.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Walkway - just to keep flexing my accounting knowledge, a change in accounting principle would be if you decided to stop straight lining all of your assets and begin using another method of depreciation, say double declining balance.
[/quote]
Arguing purely for the sake of it, you can put forth the argument that even that is a change in estimate, because when you get the benefit is an estimate too.
DDB makes a lot more sense for a computer than it does a desk chair. But you can effectuate the same with a 3 year UL rather than a 5. [/quote]
If you’re arguing for the sake of arguing, then fine, I’ll argue.
I’d say if you changed the depreciation method of 1 asset I’d consider it a change in estimate. I’d say if you change your accounting policy which changes all of the depreciation methods, it’s a change in accounting policy. [/quote]
Okay, I can agree to that.
But what about a group of assets v the entirety of the assets. They change to DDB from SL for computers but nothing else. Assume computers make up a material amount of fixed assets but immaterial to the FS’s as a whole…
I’d still call it a change in estimate, and would only disclose if it was material to the FS’s as a whole.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
I have no idea why, but listening to accountants nerd out is really enjoyable to me.[/quote]
I imagine it’s about as enjoyable as watching your grandparents fucks.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
I have no idea why, but listening to accountants nerd out is really enjoyable to me.[/quote]
I imagine it’s about as enjoyable as watching your grandparents fucks. [/quote]
You’re married.
I suggest checking out old people porn so you know what to look forward to. Start with “MILF” and work your way up to “GILF”. For purely research purposes here.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
I have no idea why, but listening to accountants nerd out is really enjoyable to me.[/quote]
I imagine it’s about as enjoyable as watching your grandparents fucks. [/quote]
You’re married.
I suggest checking out old people porn so you know what to look forward to. Start with “MILF” and work your way up to “GILF”. For purely research purposes here. [/quote]
MILF, hell ya! GILF, nah. WWIII will take me out long before I’ll be one of those grand parents fuckin…
The future value calculation is pretty straightforward if you have a financial calculator or Excel.
The formula in Excel is =FV
The program will then need your inputs for the following:
Present value: the lump sum you are starting with. Input as a negative
PMT: the amount that is deposited at regular intervals
N: the number of periods. This value should correspond with the PMT value, meaning that if PMT is stated monthly, the number of periods should also be measured in months
RATE: the rate of return. This should also correspond with the periods, so state this as a monthly rate if the PMT and N are monthly
The resulting value represents the accumulation at the end of N periods given the return assumption and the deposits to the account.
Hope this helps.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
long before I’ll be one of those grand parents fuckin…[/quote]
If someone were to tell me that my wrinkled sagging balls will still be slapping against my wife’s wrinkled sagging butt cheeks I’ll go to bed tonight a happy man. It means my dick still works, and I still find her attractive. Which means there most still be something damn good about my life, so shit…
Hell yeah man, I can’ wait to be the pervy old dude trying to bone the misses on the dinning room table the night before thanksgiving dinner.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Walkway - just to keep flexing my accounting knowledge, a change in accounting principle would be if you decided to stop straight lining all of your assets and begin using another method of depreciation, say double declining balance.
[/quote]
Arguing purely for the sake of it, you can put forth the argument that even that is a change in estimate, because when you get the benefit is an estimate too.
DDB makes a lot more sense for a computer than it does a desk chair. But you can effectuate the same with a 3 year UL rather than a 5. [/quote]
If you’re arguing for the sake of arguing, then fine, I’ll argue.
I’d say if you changed the depreciation method of 1 asset I’d consider it a change in estimate. I’d say if you change your accounting policy which changes all of the depreciation methods, it’s a change in accounting policy. [/quote]
Okay, I can agree to that.
But what about a group of assets v the entirety of the assets. They change to DDB from SL for computers but nothing else. Assume computers make up a material amount of fixed assets but immaterial to the FS’s as a whole…
I’d still call it a change in estimate, and would only disclose if it was material to the FS’s as a whole. [/quote]
Agreed.
(but part of me wants to say call it a change in policy and retroactively apply the new method to all computers, then just not disclose it due to immateriality)
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
(but part of me wants to say call it a change in policy and retroactively apply the new method to all computers, then just not disclose it due to immateriality) [/quote]
I feel like this brings your risk exposure up. I have no idea if peer review would have an issue with either method due to material issues, but in the long run I’d rather just NOT do something and not disclose it, than DO it and NOT disclose it…
I think.
Looked it up and found a place that says it is a change in estimate and recommended that the methods are reviewed every year.
So, based on what I just read, a company can change their depreciation methods every year, and as along as your disclosures for FA are vague enough you don’t have to do shit.
Don’t ask me where I found this, I already closed the window without copy/paste because I can’t link to our subscription service anyway.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
long before I’ll be one of those grand parents fuckin…[/quote]
If someone were to tell me that my wrinkled sagging balls will still be slapping against my wife’s wrinkled sagging butt cheeks I’ll go to bed tonight a happy man. It means my dick still works, and I still find her attractive. Which means there most still be something damn good about my life, so shit…
Hell yeah man, I can’ wait to be the pervy old dude trying to bone the misses on the dinning room table the night before thanksgiving dinner. [/quote]
Hellz ya!
[quote]moroots wrote:
The future value calculation is pretty straightforward if you have a financial calculator or Excel.
The formula in Excel is =FV
The program will then need your inputs for the following:
Present value: the lump sum you are starting with. Input as a negative
PMT: the amount that is deposited at regular intervals
N: the number of periods. This value should correspond with the PMT value, meaning that if PMT is stated monthly, the number of periods should also be measured in months
RATE: the rate of return. This should also correspond with the periods, so state this as a monthly rate if the PMT and N are monthly
The resulting value represents the accumulation at the end of N periods given the return assumption and the deposits to the account.
Hope this helps.[/quote]
Doesn’t that compound the interest though?