Write My Liberty ACCT 650 Assignments

Each of the five forums has a thread worth 75 points and a reply worth 25. Threads answer the prompt in 500 to 800 words with three sources and a biblical principle; replies run 275 to 400 words with a source.

Threads are due in weeks one, two, three, five and six, and each reply in the week after its thread.

Week three's proposal fills a page and a half to three pages in APA, plus front and back matter, with two outside sources. It is worth 50 points.

Week seven's paper runs 8 to 10 pages of APA prose, picking up the proposal's plan and taking the evaluation of the reporting process and its controls much further. Eight or more outside sources, beyond the textbook and scripture, are required, along with a biblical application; the paper is worth 250 points.

That leaves 210 points for the exams and the checklist.

Week one runs Monday to Friday, and every later week Saturday to Friday. Weeks four and eight hold exams and no new reading.

Your own workplace can serve as the organization, as can a listed company whose annual report discusses its controls or one that has disclosed a material weakness. The choice should let the process be seen clearly.

Each thread is posted in its forum by the end of its week, and the reply follows in the next week.

The proposal picks one process to study, perhaps revenue, the monthly close or inventory, and commits to COSO 2013, whose five components and seventeen principles become the paper's yardstick.

The paper walks the process through each COSO component, identifies weaknesses and ends with specific control recommendations tied to each one.

The biblical application draws on stewardship and truthfulness and connects them to the findings.

Forum threads use a case to make the argument concrete, such as showing how improper revenue recognition is done and how controls catch it.

Each reply contributes a new source and something the thread overlooked.

For a public company, the evaluation draws on the 10-K's control disclosures and the auditor's report on internal control. A disclosed material weakness gives the paper a clear place to start.

Each weakness is described with its cause, the risk it creates and the COSO principle it breaches. The recommendation that follows is specific enough to implement.

Across the five forums the subjects run from collapsed governance through board oversight, revenue manipulation and tips to executive example. Each thread uses a real case to make the point.

Biblical principles are chosen for the argument, such as truthfulness in reporting or faithful stewardship of what others entrust. They connect to the case rather than standing apart.

A brief sketch of the organization and process leads straight into evaluation. Most of its pages go to weaknesses and recommendations.

Where your employer is the organization, confidential figures are left out and the process is described in general terms. You approve the draft before it is submitted.

Recommendations name who would perform each control, how often, and what evidence it would leave. That is what makes them specific.

Each weakness the paper identifies is matched to a COSO component and to a specific control that would address it.

Recommendations are specific.

Threads name the fraud scheme and the control that would stop it.

The writers are fraud and controls specialists, certified fraud examiners, forensic accountants and internal auditors.

A colleague reviews each item before release.

Many have investigated real frauds and testified about what they found. Others have run fraud risk assessments as internal auditors.

They apply COSO in their own control reviews and have advised audit committees. Their writing is plain and specific.

Your proposal and paper come from one writer, so the second follows the first. Your files reach them without your name.

Several have built whistleblower programs or trained staff in fraud awareness. Their threads on detection draw on that work.

Several have presented fraud findings to boards, which keeps their writing direct.

Several have run fraud risk assessments as internal auditors.

Threads lose points under 500 words, with fewer than three sources, or without a biblical principle. Replies lose points under 275 words or without a source.

A sprawling scope or a missing framework costs a proposal marks. Papers lose points with fewer than eight sources, without a biblical application, or without recommendations.

Papers also lose points when they describe the process without evaluating it, or when recommendations are general. Every weakness needs a matching control.

Any item loses points when sources are not scholarly or professional, or when citations fall outside current APA.

Scripture disconnected from the findings earns little.

Proposals also lose points when they omit the title page, references or the two required sources.

Threads also lose points when the case is described but never connected to the week's topic.

Replies lose points when they repeat the thread instead of adding to it.

Plan on two days for a thread; a reply is usually ready a day after classmates post. The proposal takes two to three days.

The paper takes eight to ten days. The paper is the largest line.

Forum lines cover the thread and its reply, and ordering all five lowers each. The proposal costs less when ordered with the paper.

Urgent work costs more, especially the paper. Your own draft is cheaper to complete.

Sending the organization's name early lets the research begin before the proposal week. That is the step that takes longest.

Replies are included in each forum line. If you join mid-term, the order starts at the next item due.

A thread on a narrow prompt is quicker than one that needs a full case history. The quote reflects each prompt.