Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Online Status: Offline Posts: 140
Posted: 22 Mar 2008 at 17:35 | IP Logged
Maybe you're right. I'll have to search through my Becker homework to find the example that got me thinking this way.
Edited by STLCPA2008 on 22 Mar 2008 at 17:41
__________________ BEC: Nov 2007: 92
FAR: 4/4/2008 (Results on 5/19/2008): 86
REG: 10/24/2008 (Results on 11/21/2008): 89
AUD: 2/14/2009: (Results on 3/23/2009): 82
Now what?
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Online Status: Offline Posts: 140
Posted: 22 Mar 2008 at 17:44 | IP Logged
Ok, I found it in SFAS 128. you're right. It's if they're declared, but nobody cares when they're paid for the non-cumulative. For cumulative, it's just the passage of time, declaration nor payment matter. Glad I read this board religiously. :)
__________________ BEC: Nov 2007: 92
FAR: 4/4/2008 (Results on 5/19/2008): 86
REG: 10/24/2008 (Results on 11/21/2008): 89
AUD: 2/14/2009: (Results on 3/23/2009): 82
Now what?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Topic: Earnings per share
Topic Closed)
