CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Out

Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction
7 to >6.0 pts
Excellent
The paper thoroughly introduces the change in standard, an
overview of the standard setting body, potential implications of
the change, and the goals of the assignment.
6 to >5.0 pts
Good
The paper includes detailed descriptions for most of the
following items but a few could have been explained more fully:
the change in standard, an overview of the standard setting
body, potential implications of the change, and the goals of the
assignment.
5 to >4.0 pts
Fair
The paper includes descriptions for most of the following items
but a few are missing or all could have been explained more
fully: the change in standard, an overview of the standard
setting body, potential implications of the change, and the goals
of the assignment.
4 to >3.0 pts
Poor
The paper includes only brief descriptions for most of the
following items or a few items were not discussed: the change
in standard, an overview of the standard setting body, potential
implications of the change, and the goals of the assignment.
3 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
The paper does not introduce the change in standard, nor does it
provide an overview of the standard setting body, the potential
implications of the change in standard, and identifies the points

that the assignment will address.
7 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis
20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
This section thoroughly identifies and details the change in
standard, discusses the implications of the change, and fully
analyzes the impact of the change on the profession, managerial
decision making, and on financial reporting.
17 to >15.0 pts
Good
This section mostly identifies and details the change in
standard, discusses the implications of the change, and
generally analyzes the impact of the change on the profession,
managerial decision making, and on financial reporting.
15 to >13.0 pts
Fair
This section somewhat identifies and details the change in
standard, discusses the implications of the change, and provides
limited analysis on the impact of the change on the profession,
managerial decision making and on financial reporting.
13 to >11.0 pts
Poor
The paper inadequately identifies and details the change in
standard, discusses the implications of the change, and provides
limited analysis on the impact of the change on the profession,
managerial decision making, and on financial reporting.
11 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
The paper does not identify nor detail the change in standard,
the implications of the change, and provides no analysis on the
impact of the change on the profession, managerial decision
making, and on financial reporting.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummary and
Conclusion
7 to >6.0 pts
Excellent
The paper effectively summarizes the key points, and provides a
conclusion that is based on a thorough analysis of the facts in
the paper.
6 to >5.0 pts
Good
The paper effectively summarizes the key points, and provides a
conclusion that is based on an analysis of the facts in the paper,
with minor error.
5 to >4.0 pts
Fair
The paper summarizes most of the key points, however, the
conclusion is not fully based on the analysis of the facts
presented in the paper.
4 to >3.0 pts
Poor
The paper does not fully summarize the key points, and the
conclusion is not based on the analysis of the facts presented in
the paper.
3 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
The paper does not summarize key points, and the conclusion is
not presented.
7 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessionalism
8 to >7.0 pts
Excellent
The paper is well organized, contains correct spelling and
grammar, and has a minimum of three properly formatted
references in APA.
7 to >6.0 pts
Good

The paper is mostly organized, contains minor spelling and
grammar errors, has largely formatted references in APA, and
includes an overall impact.
6 to >5.0 pts
Fair
The paper is somewhat organized, contains a few errors in
spelling and grammar, has a few improperly formatted
references in APA, and/or includes a partial overall impact.
5 to >4.0 pts
Poor
The paper is less organized, contains several spelling and
grammar errors, has a few improperly formatted references in
APA, and/or includes a very brief overall impact.
4 to >0 pts
Unacceptable
The paper is unorganized, contains many spelling and grammar
errors, has many improperly formatted references in APA, and
does not include an overall impact.
8 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMSAC.PLO-C:
Analyze new and existing regulations and standards.
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Excellent: This paper provides thorough detail on the standard
discussed, and thoroughly evaluates the impact on the standard
for the profession and financial reporting.
3 pts
Good: This paper provides mostly thorough detail on the
standard discussed, and evaluates the impact on the standard for
the profession and financial reporting.
2 pts
Fair: This paper provides limited detail on the standard
discussed, and provides a limited evaluation of the impact on
the standard for the profession and financial reporting.
1 pts

Poor: This paper provides little detail on the standard discussed,
and provides a limited evaluation of the impact the standard has
for the profession and financial reporting.
0 pts
Unacceptable: This paper provides no detail on the standard
discussed, and provides no evaluation about the impact on the
standard for the profession and financial reporting.
4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMSAC.PLO-D:
Apply accounting research regarding technical, tax and audit
issues to managerial decision-making.
threshold: 3.0 pts
4 pts
Excellent: The paper applies appropriate research to effectively
evaluate the impact of the technical, tax or audit issue on
managerial decision making.
3 pts
Good: The paper applies appropriate research to mostly evaluate
the impact of the technical, tax or audit issue on managerial
decision making, with limited error.
2 pts
Fair: The paper applies limited research to evaluate the impact
of the technical, tax or audit issue on managerial decision
making.
1 pts
Poor: The paper applies little research and does not effectively
0 pts
Unacceptable: The paper does not apply research and does not
4 pts
Total Points: 50

1
Week 2 Writing Assignment Overview ACCT 601
Exposure Drafts and Public Comments: FASB
Maria E. Paraskevopoulos
ACCT 601- Accounting Capstone
Professor: Ruizhen Hardin
DeVry University
September 15, 2019
This study source was downloaded by 100000752667788 from
CourseHero.com on 05-11-2022 19:07:19 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/46815287/Maria-P-Week-2-
Writing-Assignment-ACCT601docx/
2
The FASB stands for Financial Accounting Standards Board.
This board was designed to

establish standards for financial accounting. The FSAB governs
the financial reports that are
prepared by nongovernmental entities. The Securities and
Exchange Commission recognizes
these standards. The FASB is made up of the Financial
Accounting Foundation, the FASB, the
Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council, The
Governmental Accounting Standards
Board, and the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory
Council, however is independent
from all of the other organizations. The purpose of the FASB is
“establish and improve
standards of financial accounting and reporting that foster
financial reporting by
nongovernmental entities that provides decision-useful
information to investors and other users
of financial reports” (FASB n.d). However the board often
makes changes in how thing are
done. In order to do that they must issue an Exposure Draft.
The Exposure Draft became
available to the public on March 13, 2012.
Notes to Financial Statements (Topic 235)
The FASB issued this update on September 24, 2015. The
deadline to complete this issue is

December 8, 2015. The main purpose to issuing a proposed
account standard is they wanted to
improve the effectiveness of disclosures in the notes to financial
statements. The board wanted a
clear understanding of the information that is required by
GAAP. The board set standards for
the objectives to improve the effectiveness of the notes. The
wanted to development a
framework that promotes consistent decisions and they wanted
to correct exercise of discretion
by reporting entities.
According to the board of the FASB the amendments that are
proposed in the update would
address the issues for which the Board has authority. However
this update will not eliminate the
3

all of the challenges that the Board my face due to the factors
that are cited by stakeholders.
Those challenges are not within the Board’s control. According
to FASB they have some “often
cited obstacles in the current system that may affect an entity’s
incentive and ability to omit
immaterial disclosures”. They are listed below:
1. The requirement to communicate omissions of immaterial
disclosures
as errors to audit committees
2. Litigation concerns
3. Possible internal control changes required to support
discretion in the
preparation of information provided in disclosures
4. Possible U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
staff
comment letters about omitted disclosures.
The amendments to Topic 235 would “state that materiality is
applied to quantitative and
qualitative disclosures individually and in the aggregate”
(FASB). This update will also help to
denote materiality as a legal concept. Although this would be a

big update for the FASB. The
stakeholders do realize that this will not pertain to all of the
entities.
Revenue from Contract with Customer (Topic 606)
The FASB issued this update on August 31, 2015 and the
deadline for completion is October 15,
2015. According to the FASB, on May 28, 2014 the
International Accounting Standards Board
or the ISAB and the FASB issued a converged standard. This
standard was for the recognition of
revenue from contracts with customers. In June of 2014 the
Boards for FASB and IASB stated
that the formation of the FASB-IASB Joint Transition Resource
Group. This group was to
inform the Boards about potential implementation that could
happen within organizations. This
4

Board would also help stakeholders have a better understanding
of the specific aspects of the
new revenue standard. However the Transition resource Group
does not issue authoritative
guidance, instead they listen and evaluate feedback that they
receive from stakeholders. This
will determine the action that needs to be taken.
One or the issues that derived is providing a good or service to
a customer. Topic 606 will
require the entity to determine whether the nature of its
promises is to provide that good or
service to the customer or to arrange for the goods or services
by another party. This would be
based on whether the entity controls the products or services
before it is given to the customer.
This update goes in-depth on the principal versus the agent.
Some of the considerations are to
identify the unit of account that would assess whether it is a
principal or agent, identify the
nature of the goods or service, applying controls to the principa l
for certain types of transactions,
and the interaction of the control principal that can be an
indicator to asset in the principal versus

agent evaluation. The main provision is that the entity should
be able to recognize revenue of
goods or services to customers.
Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815)
The FASB prepared this update on August 6, 2015 and the
deadline for completion is October 5,
2015. Derivatives and Hedging requires that embedded
derivatives must be separated from the
host contract and then accounted for as derivatives. This
happens if certain criteria are met. In
order for the criteria to be met is that the economic
characteristics and the risks that are involved
are implanted derivative are not clearly and closely rel ated to
the economic characteristics.
The GAAP currently provides specific guidance for assessing a
call or put options. These
decisions can be accelerated to the repayment of the principal
on the debt. This update will be
more of guidance that the call or put options are clearly and
closely related. This update would

5
apply to all of the entities. These amendments would clarify the
requirements for assessing
“whether contingent call or put options that can accelerate the
payment of principal on debt
instruments are clearly and closely related to their debt host”
(FASB). This requires a four step
process. However this would not change the current provisions
by GAAP, it would only clarify
that steps that are required.
There have been 15 Propose4d Accounting Standards Updates in
2015. This first one was on
January 22, 2015 and was completed on May 29, 2015. The last
update was September 24, 2015
and is due to be completed by December 8, 2015. The FASB
issues different types of exposure
documents and they are all on their website from 2002.

6
Bibliography
FASB, Financial Accounting Standards Board. (n.d.). Retrieved
September 12, 2015, from
http://www.fasb.org/facts/
(n.d.). Retrieved September 25, 2015, from
http://www.fasb.org/cs/ContentServer?
site=FASB&c=Page&pagename=FASB/Page/SectionPage&cid=
1176157086783
http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?cid
=1176166402325&acceptedDis
http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?
cid=1176166355948&acceptedDisclaimer=true
http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?
cid=1176166248141&acceptedDisclaimer=true

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
http://www.tcpdf.org

CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Out

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Out

Similar to CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Out (20)

More from CruzIbarra161

More from CruzIbarra161 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Out