Balance Sheet JP GAAP and US GAAP
Balance Sheet
Items presented on the face of the statement of financial position represents an entity’s assets, liabilities, and equity (net assets) at a given point in time, a specific date. These items should be sufficiently detailed to enable identification of material components under US GAAP. In contrast the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act requires Japanese GAAP to present items in a more detailed manner compared to IFRS and US GAAP. Thus Bridgestone, following JP GAAP have more accounts on the face of the balance sheet than Goodyear under US GAAP. Further, both US GAAP and JP GAAP requires the balance sheet items to be grouped or categorized as current assets, property plant and equipment, current liabilities, long term liabilities, etc.. Additionally, each framework requires prominent presentation of a financial position, balance sheet as a primary statement. Under JP GAAP the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act determines which items are current or noncurrent.
Goodyear and Bridgestone both have cash and cash equivalents under current assets. Cash equivalents are short term investments that are readily convertible into cash. In addition cash and cash equivalents include highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less. Bridgestone has over 83 million more in cash and cash equivalents compared to Goodyear as of December 31, 2013.
A key difference between the two corporations balance sheet is the presentation of accounts receivable. The American corporation Goodyear states the netted value of the accounts receivable. Goodyear discloses the allowance for doubtful accounts in the notes accompanying the financial statements. On the other hand the Japanese corporation Bridgestone does not net the two accounts, instead the allowance for doubtful accounts is stated on the face of the balance sheet.
Under US GAAP and JP GAAP inventories are carried at the lower of cost. The difference between the two when
Items presented on the face of the statement of financial position represents an entity’s assets, liabilities, and equity (net assets) at a given point in time, a specific date. These items should be sufficiently detailed to enable identification of material components under US GAAP. In contrast the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act requires Japanese GAAP to present items in a more detailed manner compared to IFRS and US GAAP. Thus Bridgestone, following JP GAAP have more accounts on the face of the balance sheet than Goodyear under US GAAP. Further, both US GAAP and JP GAAP requires the balance sheet items to be grouped or categorized as current assets, property plant and equipment, current liabilities, long term liabilities, etc.. Additionally, each framework requires prominent presentation of a financial position, balance sheet as a primary statement. Under JP GAAP the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act determines which items are current or noncurrent.
Goodyear and Bridgestone both have cash and cash equivalents under current assets. Cash equivalents are short term investments that are readily convertible into cash. In addition cash and cash equivalents include highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less. Bridgestone has over 83 million more in cash and cash equivalents compared to Goodyear as of December 31, 2013.
A key difference between the two corporations balance sheet is the presentation of accounts receivable. The American corporation Goodyear states the netted value of the accounts receivable. Goodyear discloses the allowance for doubtful accounts in the notes accompanying the financial statements. On the other hand the Japanese corporation Bridgestone does not net the two accounts, instead the allowance for doubtful accounts is stated on the face of the balance sheet.
Under US GAAP and JP GAAP inventories are carried at the lower of cost. The difference between the two when