History Essay Paper

History is an interesting field that comprehensively studies past historical events. As a history high school, undergraduate, masters’, or Ph.D. student, you will be required to write several history essays that will familiarize you with historical theories and events. The history essays are usually written using a specific academic writing and formatting style hence the writers should be familiar with the MLA style before writing the essays. Moreover, the students should be prepared to conduct a comprehensive research that will help them to understand the essay question they are supposed to answer. It is, therefore, clear that writing an excellent history essay not only requires experience but also adequate time. Unfortunately, a larger percentage of history students lack time and skills to write history essays that will be awarded stellar grades. Thus, it is common to find students online looking for professional history essay writing help offered by online academic writing companies.
Cheap History Essay Writing Services
If you are looking for history essay writers who offer credible and professional writing services, look no further than our writing firm. We pride ourselves with a team of well-trained writers who are carefully handpicked after a rigorous training. Additionally, our writers have excellent academic qualifications hence they are able to handle the history essay writing task with a lot of ease and professionalism. The writing process begins immediately when a request such as “help me write my essay paper” is received by our writers via chat, email, or a phone call. We, therefore, guarantee quick writing services that will enable our clients to meet their submission deadlines regardless of the quantity and complexity of the submitted work. The written essay papers are carefully edited by our editors and scanned through multiple computer programs which ensure that they are a hundred percent free from plagiarism and typographical errors. Place your order and experience the difference.


Department of Accounting

This form must be attached to all submitted work with all sections completed via the TURNITIN on the Learning Management System of this subject. An incomplete form may result in the delayed return of your assignment or of your mark for the assignment. Please keep a copy of all assignments before submitting them for assessment.

The rationale for this assignment is for students to investigate, analyse and report on the topic of Property, Plant & Equipment that encompasses depreciation.
Suggested support material is Australian Accounting Standard AASB 116 Property, Plant & Equipment.

1. Answer the four questions provided. All questions should be clearly identified. No question should be in point form and your response should be in complete sentences.
2. Answers should be detailed.
3. Where analytical evidence needs to be provided, students need to include an appendix of all calculations.
4. Bibliography – Reference style APA 6th http://www.lib.unimelb.edu.au/recite/citations/apa6/generalNotes.html
Word Count:
Fifteen hundred (1,500) words with a 10% variance. If the word count is greater than what is stated in the assessment, a penalty of 5% will be incurred.

Assignment Mark Allocation: 15%
• Please refer to the Marking Rubric.
• The Marking Rubric will be placed on the IFA1 LMS page so that you can check at any time the marking criteria.
• Marks will be allocated according to the marking rubric and this assignment will be marked on line via TURNITIN.
Very Important:
For Case Study 2, only one submission is required per group. Only one student submits the assessment, Case Study 2 – Qantas and Singapore Airlines.
The student who does not submit the assignment WILL NOT BE ABLE to view the submission under TURNITIN. It is essential that the student who submits the assignment downloads the final feedback and grade and gives access to that information to their partner. If this does not take place, then only one student will be able to view the grade and feedback.

Case Study 2: Qantas Airways Ltd and Singapore Airlines Ltd
This comparative study of accounting policies adopted by two international airlines for the depreciation of aircraft, spares and spare engines provides an insight into the differences in accounting policy that may emerge, even when accounting practice in the jurisdictions involved is regulated.
Key concepts involved are as follows:
• Non-current assets
• Depreciable amount
• Depreciation
• Useful life
• Comparability of results
• Financial statement analysis
Qantas Airways Ltd (Qantas) and Singapore Airlines Ltd (Singapore) both operate in the international aviation industry. The former is Australia’s largest airline, having been formed in 1920 in outback Queensland as the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Service Ltd (now Qantas). Singapore was formed in 1972, although its origins date back to 1947, and is based in south-east Asia, operating from the city-state of Singapore at the Changi Airport.
Both companies operate diverse airline fleet. Aircraft, spares and spare engines collectively constitute a major asset of such corporations as is demonstrated by reference to the 2011 statements of financial position of these two companies. In the case of Qantas, this non-current asset, shown as ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’ at the stated carrying value of AUD$9753.7 million as at 30 June 2011. For Singapore, this ‘fixed’ asset category, disclosed as ‘Aircraft, spares and spare engines’ at a carrying value of S$12464.5 million, constituted 62.4 per cent of total group assets as at 31 March 2011 of S$19990 million. Accordingly, the accounting policies adopted in depreciating such assets over their useful lives assume importance in assessing the financial performance and position of airline operators.
In the case of Qantas, the ‘Depreciation and amortisation’ policy for aircraft, spares and spare engines was disclosed in Note 1(n) for the ‘Notes to the financial statements’ for the year ending 30 June 2011. The relevant portion of this note is reproduced below:
Depreciation (Qantas)
Depreciation is provided on a straight-line basis on all items of property, plant and equipment except for freehold and leasehold land. The depreciation rates of owned assets are calculated so as to allocate the costs or valuation of an asset, less any estimated residual value, over the asset’s estimated useful life to the Qantas Group. Assets are depreciated or amortised from the date of acquisition or, in respect of internally constructed assets, from the time an asset is completed and held ready for use. The costs of improvements to assets are depreciated over the remaining useful life of the asset or the estimated life of the improvement whichever is shorter. Assets under finance lease are amortised over the term of the relevant lease or, where it is likely the Qantas Group will obtain ownership of the asset, the life of the asset.

The principal asset depreciation and amortisation periods and estimated residual value percentages are:

Years Residual Value %
Jet Aircraft and engines 20 0-20
Non-jet Aircraft and engines 10-20 0-20
Aircraft spare parts 15-20 0-20

These rates are in line with those for the previous year, with the exception of the residual value assumption on wide-bodied aircraft, which was revised from 25% to 20%.

Depreciation rates and amortisation rates and residual values are reviewed annually and reassessed having regard to commercial and technological developments and the estimated useful life of assets to the Qantas Group.

On the other hand Singapore reported its policy to the ‘Depreciation of fixed assets’ at Note 2(g), entitled ‘Accounting policies’. The portion of this note pertaining to aircraft, spares and spare engines is reproduced hereunder:

Depreciation of Fixed Assets (Singapore)
Fixed assets are depreciated on a straight-line basis at rates that are calculated to depreciate their cost to their estimated residual values at the end of their operational lives. Operational lives and residual values are reviewed annually in light of experience and changing circumstances.

Fully depreciated assets are retained in the financial statements until they are no longer in use. No depreciation is charged after assets are depreciated to their residual values.

Aircraft Fleet
The following table gives information relating to Singapore’s calculation of useful life and residual values of its aircraft fleet and associated spare parts.

Years Residual Value %
Passenger Jet Aircraft (New) 15 10
Freighter Aircraft (New) 15 20

Please Note:
AUD = Australian Dollars
S = Singapore Dollars

Qantas Airways Ltd 2011 Financial Report

Singapore Airline Ltd 2011 Financial Report

Students need to address the following Case Study 2 questions.

1. Compare and contrast the depreciation accounting policies of Qantas and Singapore for the years ended 30 June 2011 and 31 March 2011 respectively and comment on the comparability of the results reported.

2. What guidance is provided under relevant accounting pronouncements (standards, policies, legislation) in estimating useful lives and salvage values of long-lived assets (such as jet aircrafts).
What key aspects must companies keep on mind when estimating these useful lives and salvage values?

3. What would be the impact, on Qantas’s financial reports, and on you as a potential investor comparing Qantas’ performance with that of Singapore, if Qantas used the reducing balance method of depreciation instead of the straight-line method?

4. Qantas has recently acquired the Airbus A380, the biggest passenger jet ever built. Different from other aircraft in Qantas’ fleet, the Airbus A380 uses composite materials (such as carbon-fibre reinforced plastic) for greater durability of its airframe. The engines that provide the necessary thrust are also newer, more powerful variants of their predecessors used on planes in Qantas’ existing fleet.
Given the information above, answer the following questions;
a). What difficulties may Qantas face in estimating the useful life and salvage value of the Airbus A380?
b). What information, as a user of financial statements, would you want about this acquisition in the financial reports, if any at all?

Assignment 2 SPECIFICATIONS CIS8011_Digital Innovation 1500 words

CIS8011_Digital Innovation
Assignment 2 (30%) (1500 words maximum)
This assignment continues from the first assignment and your task is to write a report on the
following aspects.
Following on from the previous assignment, the CIO was comfortable with what has been
proposed by you in the first assignment and would like to see three key elements be investigated
and reported further in this assignment.
1. The processes and procedural considerations the organization would/will need
to understand to mitigate your key points?
2. What are the potential securit y risks in implementation, and how do you plan to
mitigate such risks?
3. What would be the cost implications if the organisations fail to understand the issues
and problems?
4. What are the issues arising from your discussion for the adoption of the
recommended digital innovation for the selected organization.
For the purpose of this assignment, you will have to recap your previous assignment and
then provide a well-researched and informed report to the CEO.
For this assignment, you MUST use a plagiarism application to ensure that this assignment is plagiarismfree. Please note that the report generation can take time through TURNITIN and you are asked to submit
your assignment through TURNITIN well in advance to avoid last minute delays. Normally, it is hard to
put the percentage number correctly as it all depends on the actual report contents produced by the
TRUNITIN application. As a general rule, less than 15% is acceptable. It is the student’s responsibility to
have the report ready before the due date. (If you do not provide this you will lose marks)
Digital file naming convention
For all assessment items digital file naming convention: When y ou have an assessment item you
need to upload digitally, please use the following naming convention when saving your digital
document: (If you do not follow this you will lose marks)
Student last name_assignment #_CIS8011_Student USQ ID
For example, the first assignment for CIS8011 submitted by John Smith, student #
005890420163. If I (Mr. John Smith) were uploading this assessment item, the file would be
named as follows:
Smith_A1_CI S8011_005890420163.doc
File format and submission
Only PDF format of the final report is to be submitted through EASE system only, available
through UConnect. (All other mode of submissions are inadequate and the assignment will be
considered not submitted

Case study: ‘Cordia LLP: service reform in the public sector

Case study: ‘Cordia LLP: service reform in the public sector’ (Johnson, G, Whittington, R & Scholes, K 2011, pp. 613–617). 
Case study questions: 
1. Assess the strategic position of Cordia paying particular attention to an organisational cultural perspective. (10 marks) 
2. What modes of strategy development are evident in Cordia, and which would you expect to be prevalent, given the strategic change described? (20 marks) 
3. What strategy should Cordia adopt and why? (10 marks) 
4. What organisational structure should Cordia adopt and why? (10 marks) 
The following are some notes to assist with interpreting the requirements of this assignment: 
• You can use essay format to respond to this requirement. Answer each question separately. 
• This assignment is based on a specific case study. Make sure you read it carefully. The case study is the means to an end – the end in this case is getting you to demonstrate your understanding and application of some of the key concepts in strategic management in general and strategy development processes in particular. You are doing this on the basis that you now have a greater appreciation of what strategic management is about. 
• The case considers elements of the change journey facing Cordia LLP, formerly known as Direct and Care Services of Glasgow City Council. The strategic changes illustrated in the case occur as the former council department changes into an arms length company of the council. 
• Use the discussion forum on the study desk for this course assignment to raise questions and make comment about these requirements. 
• Don’t forget the expectation of research. The textbook and study book provide the basic resource kit for this course but you are expected to do your own research on issues of significance. The extent and quality of further research can only enhance your response to the assignment and support your arguments and punchlines. Punchlines refer to the paragraphs that state the point you are making. Some students are good at writing but it is descriptive writing. In other word, they describe a lot of things particularly what other people say but they don’t clarify what point or argument they are making out of all this description. This situation will lead some examiners to comment after reading such descriptions ‘so what?’. Make sure you understand the essence of writing in an analytic rather than descriptive way. 
• Make sure you study the marking criteria for this assignment very carefully because this is the template for assessing and grading your submitted assignment. The marking criteria sheet is provided below. The criteria will be applied to each of the four assignment questions. 
• You are required to have a minimum of 15 references to support your critical discussion. You only need to present one reference list. In the minimum of 15 applies to the answer of the four questions in total. 
• Don’t forget, you must submit your Turnitin report when you submit your assignment file. Hence, you will be submitting two files on submission day

HBC330N Accounting Theory- Assignment Information Sheet Fair Value Accounting and the GFC

HBC330N Accounting Theory
Semester 2 2013
Assignment Information Sheet
Fair Value Accounting and the GFC
Individual or Groups of 2
According to Laux and Leuz (2009, p. 833) “accounting rules and changes in them are shaped by
political processes”.
Laux, C. & Leuz, C. 2009. The crisis of fair-value accounting: Making sense of the recent debate. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 6-7, 826-834.
You have been commissioned by the Chair of the Australian Accounting Standards Board to
write a Report explaining the foregoing Laux and Leuz (2009) claim in the context of the
controversy surrounding whether or not fair-value accounting contributed to the global financial
crisis of 2008.
Additional requirement: you are to use no less than 6 high quality* scholarly journal articles in
the development of your report. The Library database Business Source Complete is a useful tool
for sourcing journal articles.
*The quality of journals can be assessed by reference to the Australian Council of Business
Deans (ABDC) 2010 journal rankings (A*, A, B, C in order of declining quality) available
(after scrolling down) at www. http://www.abdc.edu.au/
Learning outcomes addressed by the assignment.
The assignment is designed to provide you with the opportunity to develop the following
learning outcomes:
1 with regard to your accounting theory knowledge, the assignment provides you with the
opportunity to develop your understanding of fair-value accounting and, in particular,
how the public and private interest theories of regulation apply to accounting standard
setting. The assignment can be commenced after the first lecture.
2. with respect to generic skills, the assignment provides you with the opportunity to
develop your ability to research and analyse complex issues, to formulate well-reasoned
and coherent arguments and to reach well considered conclusions, and to develop your
written communication skills, including the conventions of referencing at university.
You are to aspire to the highest standard of work with respect to both the content and
presentation of the Report. The Harvard referencing system is to be used. Marks will be deducted
where the Harvard system is not used appropriately. Please note that Wikipedia is not an
appropriate source to reference for an academic Report such as this. The Library holds sessions
on referencing technique and provides guidelines at
LODGEMENT: You must submit your assignment via the Turnitin facility available on
Blackboard and also in hardcopy by the due date in the allocated assignment box (location to be
advised) no later than 4.00pm 11
October, 2013. Students must also keep an electronic or
photocopied version of their assignment for evidentiary purposes. The file name should be
Surname1_Surname2 (in the case of a submission by two students). A Draft Safe Assign facility
is available for assessment of potential plagiarism before submission of the final version in Final
Safe Assign facility.
MAXIMUM MARKS: 20 Marks toward the final assessment. The assignment will be marked
out of 100. The rubric for marking is in the Unit Outline. Assignments will be marked to the
same standard regardless of whether one or two students are involved in the submission. When
working in pairs, students are expected to contribute equally. On this basis each student
responsible for a submission is provided the same mark. Where equal contributions are not
forthcoming and this cannot be resolved by the students, the Convenor should be informed in
WORD COUNT: the body of the Report should not exceed 1500 words (+/- 10 per cent)
(excluding title page, references and executive summary but including footnotes, endnotes and
appendices). Please provide a word count on the cover sheet.
A report format is required for this assignment. In a report, the Executive Summary should
provide an overview of the whole report, including any recommendations. This is a ‘thinking’
assignment and what is expected is the personal view of individual students’ based on research
and the evidence that has been sourced. Further, an assignment which presents more quotes than
constructive analysis and argument may be heavily penalised.
1. Title Page
2. Contents Page
3. Executive Summary (which provides an overview of the whole report)
4. Introduction and Purpose
5. Responses to specific task using appropriate headings and sub-headings
6. Conclusion
7. References
This assignment is an important assessment component of this Unit and as such the assignment
must be properly researched and professionally presented. The assignment should also:
• Be all your own (individual submissions) or your group’s (pairs) work
• Be word-processed (printed), and have 1.5 spacing for clarity; a high standard of
presentation is expected, but a folder, binding etc. is not to be included. Please do
not staple, but use a bull dog clip or large paper clip because assignments may be
scanned to be returned with feedback.
• Have the cover sheet with all relevant details, including:
– student name, student number, tutorial time & tutor’s name
– Unit name and code
– date of submission
• Contain correct referencing, using the Harvard system.
• Include a list of references (alphabetical by first author’s surname) adequately referencing
your sources (in-text references should only refer to the surname of the author/authors and
the year of the publication).
Students are reminded to review the University policy on plagiarism.
The University uses the Turnitin tool. This is an effective tool to reduce plagiarism. Students should
self-check their assignments prior to final submission. Documentation on the use of this tool will be
posted on Blackboard. Please ensure that you use only the Draft option to check your work. This is a
matching and not a punitive tool. The default setting allows every student to check draft
submissions, but you should be aware that the closer to the deadline you use Turnitin, the longer it
may take to receive a report. Upon receiving feedback from Turnitin, you should amend your
assignment to ensure that it is -Plagiarism Safe- before submitting the final version.