Question

Diebold, Incorporated is an Ohio corporation that manufactures and sells automated teller machines (ATMs), bank security systems, and electronic voting machines. Its financial policies were called into question in May 2006 when the SEC opened an investigation into the company’s revenue recognition policies.
From at least 2002 through 2007, Diebold recognized revenue on “F-term” orders, or Factory orders. In conjunction with many F-term orders, Diebold asked customers to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which contained language stating that the customer had asked Diebold to hold the product for the customer’s convenience. Diebold typically recognized revenue on the “ship to warehouse” date specified in the MOA, when it shipped the product from the factory to a Diebold warehouse. However, in some instances Diebold shipped product to the warehouse before the specified ship to warehouse date. While the MOAs specified the ship to warehouse dates, they did not always include fixed dates when product was to be shipped from the Diebold warehouse to the end customer. In addition, at the time of shipment to the ware-house, some of the ATMs were not complete as software had not been installed and/or quality testing had not been completed.
Comment on the ethical implications of Diebold’s revenue recognition practices.



$1.99
Sales0
Views49
Comments0
  • CreatedFebruary 20, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000