Search Results

Search found 31 results on 2 pages for 'seamus abshere'.

Page 2/2 | < Previous Page | 1 2 

  • Referencing a theorem-like environment by its [name]

    - by Seamus
    I am using ntheorem to typeset a set of conditions. In my preamble I have: \theoremstyle{empty} \newtheorem{Condtion}{Condtion} When I want to typeset a condition, I write: \begin{Condtion}[name] \label{cnd:nm} foo foo foo \end{Condition} The name appears boldface on the same line as the start of the text of the condition, with no number or anything. Perfect. What I want to do now is refer to the condition by some variant of the \ref command, \ref calls the number [which is not displayed anywhere else] \thref writes "Condition n" for the nth condition \nameref writes the name of the SECTION of the label. a zref solution was suggested here, but seems unsatisfactory. Any clues?

    Read the article

  • Weird exception with OLEDB Parameter Insert

    - by Seamus MacKenzie
    Getting a strange error when trying to insert data into an Access database using parameters. the line where I am getting a problem is :- thisCommand.CommandText = "INSERT INTO Events (Venue_ID, Date_Start, Date_End, Time_Start, Time_End, Name, Description, Event_Type, Buy_Tickets_URL) VALUES (@VenID, @DStart, @DEnd, @evTime, @evTime, @Name, @Des, @EvType, @SysUrl);"; string desc = GetDesc(rec.EvName); thisCommand.Parameters.AddWithValue("@Des", desc); thisCommand.ExecuteNonQuery(); None of the other parameters cause a problem but when trying to insert data to the description field I get a database exception saying the field is too small to accept the amount of data. The problem is my program is only trying to insert 3 characters when it throws the error and the Description field is a memo so should be able to hold up to 65000+ characters. When inserting a value manually in the CommandText everything works fine so it must be something to do with the parameter properties.

    Read the article

  • Don't Miss The OpenWorld Session: The Impact of the Upcoming Revenue Recognition and Lease Accounting Changes

    - by Theresa Hickman
    Would you like to learn more about Revenue Recognition and Leases Accounting changes from subject matter experts? Would you like to better prepare your organization for the upcoming changes? If yes, then it's not too late to register for OpenWorld 2012 and meet Christopher Smith and Ashima Jain from PwC as well as our resident accounting expert, Seamus Moran, who will be presenting at Session 9462: The Impact of the Upcoming Revenue Recognition and Lease Accounting Changes. Here are the details about this session: Date: Oct. 1, 2012  Time: 10:45-11:45 a.m Place: Moscone West Room 2005 Abstract: With the new revenue recognition rules expected to be issued this year and the lease accounting rules expected to be issued next year—both expected to be applied retroactively—businesses all around the world face many changes until the effective date of these proposed standards. In this session, learn from PricewaterhouseCoopers on the potential impact on accounting, processes, and systems and hear from Oracle about the proposed updates to Oracle E-Business Suite to assist you in assessing the impact on existing contracts, technology, and processes.

    Read the article

  • Revenue Recognition: Performance Obligation Pass a Hurdle

    - by Theresa Hickman
    I met up with Seamus Moran, our resident accounting expert, to get his thoughts about the latest happenings with IFRS. Last week, on March 13,  the comment period on the FASB and IASB exposure draft “Revenue From Contracts with Customers” closed.  FASB and IASB have just over 20 comment letters – a very small number.  The implication is that that the exposure draft does reflect general acceptance, and therefore will be published as both a US and Internationally Generally Accepted Accounting Standard. At a recent conference call, FASB and IASB expected to complete their report to both Boards on the comments by early summer, complete their deliberation of the comments by the fall and draft the final standard text by late this year. It is assumed the concept of Performance Obligations would become US GAAP and IFRS in place of the existing standards.  They confirmed that all existing US GAAP and IFRS guidelines would be withdrawn, and that they were in dialogue with the SEC on withdrawing the SEC guidelines on the revenue issue as well.The open question is when will Performance Obligations become effective?  The Boards have said that they would like this Revenue Recognition standard and the the Lease Accounting standard to be effective at the same time because what isn’t either insurance, interest, or a lease is a revenue arrangement.  However, ascertaining what is generally acceptable in respect of Leases is proving a little elusive, and the Boards have recently diverged a little on the P&L side of the accounting (although both are in agreement that there will be no off-balance sheet leases).  It is therefore likely that the Lease standard might be delayed. One wonders if the Boards will  define effectivity of the Revenue standard independently of the Lease standard or if they will stick with their resolve to make them co-effective.  The Boards have also said that neither standard will be effective before June 2015.Here is the gist of the new Revenue Recognition principle and the steps to apply it:Recognize revenue to depict the transfer of goods or services in an amount that reflects the consideration expected to be entitled in exchange for those goods and services.Steps to apply the core principles: Identify the contract with the customer Identify the separate performance obligations Determine the transaction price Allocate the the transaction price Recognize Revenue when a performance obligation is satisfied  

    Read the article

  • Lease Accounting Closed for Comment

    - by Theresa Hickman
    December 15, 2010 marked the last day to send public comments to FASB and IASB on lease accounting. June 2011 is the deadline for the final consideration of the Leases Exposure Draft that will be given to standard setters in order to create a new lease accounting standard. Landlords, lessees, retailers, airlines industry, etc. are all worried right now about the changes to lease accounting. They feel the changes will be too costly and complex without adding significant improvement to the quality and relevance of financial statements. In a nutshell, IASB and FASB want to abolish operating leases where the lessee records the periodic payments as an expense over time. The proposed changes will mean that the accounting for leases will move from the P&L and hit both the lessee's and lessor's balance sheets. For companies that occupy a lot of property, this could significantly increase their liabilities not to mention front-load much of the costs that they were able to spread out over time before. Why are IASB and FASB doing this? Their goal is to have consistent accounting for both the lessees and lessors with higher quality financial statements. Leasing is one of four major projects being undertaken by the IASB and FASB in order to complete convergence between US GAAP and IFRS. I spoke to our resident accounting expert Seamus Moran about this to better understand how this might impact accounting software. He reminded me that the proposed changes to both US GAAP and IFRS in respect to leases are "proposed." It is still inappropriate to account for leases the way they are being proposed and we still need to account for them in accordance to the current regulations, which is what current accounting software programs, such as E-Business Suite Release 12.1 and prior and PeopleSoft Enterprise support. The FASB (US GAAP) and IASB (IFRS) exposure drafts (EDs) that outline the proposal were published. The FASB edition was published on August 17th, with comments due by December 15th. The IASB edition was published on the same date, and comments were due in London on the same date. Exposure drafts are the method both the FASB and the IASB use to solicit General Acceptance, the "GA" in GAAP. Both Boards will consider the input they have received, and perhaps revise the proposal. The proposal has come in for some criticism, both from the finance houses and the uses of the leased assets. There is, given the opposition to it, an excellent chance that the Leasing proposal will be modified or rewritten. We will know this in about six months, the usual time it takes for the FASB and IASB to digest the comments they receive. If they feel the proposal has General Acceptance, they will issue the final Standard at that time; if not, they will issue a revised proposal with another year of comment of drafting. Oracle participates in the standard setting process and is fully aware of the leasing proposal. We have designs that would reflect the proposal in hand. These designs will be finalized when the proposal is finalized. It is likely that customers will develop new financial arrangements if the proposal is finalized, and we are working with customers and partners to stay in touch with people's business responses to the proposal. The IASB and FASB are aware that ERP companies will have to revise their software, and that the companies filing results under IFRS or under US GAAP will have to implement such software. The form and timing of the release of the updated software will depend on the schedule of the take up of the new standard, the complexity of the standard, and the releases supported at the time the standard becomes effective.

    Read the article

  • What Will Happen to Real Estate Leases when Operating Leases are Gone?

    - by Theresa Hickman
    Many people are concerned about what will happen to real estate leases when FASB and IASB abolish operating leases. They plan to unveil the proposed standards on treating leases this summer as part of the convergence project but no "finalized ruling" is expected for at least a year because it will need to get formal consensus from many players, such as the SEC, American Association of Investors, Congress, the Big Four, American Associate of Realtors, the international equivalents of these, etc. If your accounting is a bit rusty, an Operating Lease is where you lease equipment or some asset for a shorter period than the actual (expected) life of the asset and then give the asset back while it still has some useful life in it. (Think leasing a car). Because an Operating Lease does not contain any of the provisions that would qualify it as a Capital Lease, the lease is not treated as a sale or purchase and hits the lessee's rental expense and the lessor's revenue. So it all stays on the P&L (assuming no prepayments are made). Capital Leases, on the other hand, hit lessee's and lessor's balance sheets because the asset is treated as a sale. (I'm ignoring interest and depreciation here to emphasize my point). Question: What will happen to real estate leases when Operating Leases go away and how will Oracle Financials address these changes? Before I attempt to address these questions, here's a real-life example to expound on some of the issues: Let's say a U.S. retailer leases a store in a mall for 15 years. Under U.S. GAAP, the lease is considered an operating or expense lease. Will that same lease be considered a capital lease under IFRS? Real estate leases are supposedly going to be capitalized under IFRS. If so, will everyone need to change all leases from operating to capital? Or, could we make some adjustments so we report the lease as an expense for operations reporting but capitalize it for SEC reporting? Would all aspects of the lease be capitalized, or would some line items still be expensed? For example, many retail store leases are defined to include (1) the agreed-to rent amount; (2) a negotiated increase in base rent, e.g., maybe a 5% increase in Year 5; (3) a sales rent component whereby the retailer pays a variable additional amount based on the sales generated in the prior month; (4) parking lot maintenance fees. Would the entire lease be capitalized, or would some portions still be expensed? To help answer these questions, I met up with our resident accounting expert and walking encyclopedia, Seamus Moran. Here's what he had to say: Oracle is aware of the potential changes specific to reporting/capitalization of real estate leases; i.e., we are aware that FASB and IASB have identified real estate leases as one of the areas for standards convergence. Oracle stays apprised of the on-going convergence through our domain expertise staff, our relationship with customers, our market awareness, and, of course, our relationships with the Big 4. This is part of our normal process with respect to regulatory compliance worldwide. At this time, Oracle expects that the standards convergence committee will make a recommendation about reporting standards for real estate leases in about a year. Following typical procedures, we also expect that the recommendation will be up for review for a year, and customers will then need to start reporting to the new standard about a year after that. So that means we would expect the first customer to report under the new standard in maybe 3 years. Typically, after the new standard is finalized and distributed, we find that our customers then begin to evaluate how they plan to meet the new standard. And through groups like the Customer Advisory Boards (CABs), our customers tell us what kind of product changes are needed in order to satisfy their new reporting requirements. Of course, Oracle is also working with the Big 4 and Accenture and other implementers in order to ascertain that these recommended changes will indeed meet new reporting standards. So the best advice we can offer right now is, stay apprised of the standards convergence committee; know that Oracle is also staying abreast of developments; get involved with your CAB so your voice is heard; know that Oracle products continue to be GAAP compliant, and we will continue to maintain that as our standard. But exactly what is that "standard"--we need to wait on the standards convergence committee. In a nut shell, operating leases will become either capital leases or month to month rentals, but it is still too early, too political and too uncertain to call out at this point.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2