Generally I am a proponent of graphs and tables. I think that when presenting data in due diligence or collateral examination reports, graphs and tables present it in a pure and unbiased state.
Pure data is the best way to underscore a point or opinion. For example, if after performing test counts an examiner determines that there is a need for a reserve due to large negative variances, a table that shows this will only help support this position. A table that is formatted and presented efficiently will help the reader understand the issue quickly and easily. Continue reading →
Examiners love numbers. We like to work with them, write about them and interpret them. We use numbers to describe pools of collateral and/or the results of our analysis of those pools. Some of our favorite numbers are averages, variances and other statistical metrics.
Often we gain great comfort in the results of testing as well as make bold proclamations about those results due to an average result or “net variance.” Unfortunately, our reliance on these comforting metrics is often misguided and worse, can lead to misinformation in our reports. Continue reading →
The purpose of this post is to discuss some of the possible pitfalls that a lender could encounter when lending on inventory that is managed with a standard cost system. During this post we will discuss:
- The difference between management and financial accounting, as it applies to inventory and standard cost systems.
- The various components of inventory costs (materials, labor and overhead) and how they are impacted by manufacturing efficiencies (or more importantly inefficiencies).
- The calculation of price and manufacturing variances and how to calculate appropriate borrowing base ineligibles if they exist.
- The role of field exams and appraisals in mitigating the risks posed by inventory valued at standard costs. Continue reading →