Any idea what that was. I was running short on time so i picked 200 and something as the answer. I figured it was a gain and the assets*the change in rates would’ve come up to that answer most likely. The other answers were a loss or a gains in excess of 500. Did you get this too?
ehmmm I believe the answer was 920
yikes, how did you get that high.
I pretty sure it was 980. All current method - just the equity figure.
i got it as 900 something…
yeah…980 !
damn, i shoulda gotten that! touche!
I got 900, also.
it was 660; the 990 number does not work out exactly, but the 600 number works out exactly.
980 does…
yeah was it 520 + 480 or something? Something like that. Just the equity.
2006 Total Equity was 920 and 2007 was 980. I use 980 b/c that’s what the question was asking.
agree with chaucy
The concept of “Exposure” is one thing that I never heard about from Stalla, but luckily I had studied from both Stalla and Schweser. Both of them have their strengths/weaknesses. But I remember thinking during the exam, “Man, if you didn’t study from Schweser, you almost certainly got this wrong”. Exposure was one of the main things they taught in Schweser.
when you use all-curent method, exposure = net assets, or equity, so 980 was the correct answer … when you use temporal, exposure = net monetary assets / liabilities …
it was definitely 980, shareholders exposure for 2007.
if the question was asking for the exposure in 2007 (throughout/during 2007), wouldn’t it be 920. The balance sheet was dated Dec 31/06, listed equity as 920. Its so subjective, all how you look at the question. brutal
Da-Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if the question was asking for the exposure in > 2007 (throughout/during 2007), wouldn’t it be 920. > The balance sheet was dated Dec 31/06, listed > equity as 920. Its so subjective, all how you > look at the question. > > brutal What was brutal about it? There was only 1 answer in the 900’s anyway, so no matter what you thought it was, your answer was obvious.
spud99 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I pretty sure it was 980. All current method - > just the equity figure. It was definitely 980 (add RE & pain-in capital)
I too put down the 980 for 2007 exposure, but on further reflection - the company goes into 2007 with the 2006 year end equity balance which is then subject to currency changes for the remainder of 2007. The 2006 year end forms the basis for the holding gain or loss. The 2007 year end is what the equity ended up at - the finish line so to speak, and would be subject to changes for the next year, 2008. Tricky little trap question!