| Course | AC314 Accounting Information Systems and Enterprise Risk Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Expenditure cycle analysis |
| Length | About 540 words, 4 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for AC314 Unit 5
Growing Mix Before Dawn, the Invoice Weeks Later: A Unit 5 Expenditure Cycle Analysis for a Wholesale Nursery
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC314: Accounting Information Systems and Enterprise Risk Management
Unit 5 Expenditure Cycle Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Stillbrook Nursery, its suppliers and every figure are composite; the textbooks, framework and report cited are real.
Spend Profile
1. Liners, young plants from three propagators: $3,900,000.
2. Bark-based growing mix: $1,620,000.
3. Plastic containers: $1,480,000.
4. Fertilizer and crop protection: $910,000.
5. Freight, tags and supplies: $1,930,000.
Total: $9,840,000.
Ordering
The head grower orders liners each fall for the next spring from a crop plan, and the office issues purchase orders. Mix and containers are bought on blanket orders, with the potting supervisor calling suppliers when stock runs low. Threat: purchases outside the blanket terms. Finding: container invoices for two sizes carried prices 6 percent above the blanket order for four months before anyone noticed, about $22,000.
Receiving
Growing mix is billed by weight, but at Stillbrook the only person present when it arrives is a yard foreman who signs the driver's bill of lading without seeing a scale, so the invoice is the only record of how much mix came.
The supplier's trucks cross a public scale and are supposed to bring the weight ticket. Of 412 loads invoiced during the year, weight tickets exist for 371. The 41 loads without tickets were paid at the supplier's stated weights, about $161,000. Liners arrive in trays, and the receiving count is done by the crew that plants them, so dead or missing liners are noted on the tray tag and seldom reach the office.
Invoice Approval
The accounts payable clerk matches invoices to purchase orders and, where one exists, a receiving report. For mix and containers, the receiving report is the signed bill of lading, which carries no weight or count. The match therefore confirms only that an order existed (Romney & Steinbart, 2018).
Disbursement
Checks and electronic payments are prepared weekly and approved by one owner. In March the container supplier's bank details were changed on an emailed request, without a call to a known number. No loss followed, but the FBI's complaint center reported about $2.9 billion of losses in 2023 from business email compromise, the scheme in which a fake request redirects a supplier payment (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2024).
Findings
1. Mix loads paid without weight tickets: 41 loads, about $161,000. Threat: paying for goods not received. Likely cause: no scale record at receipt.
2. Container price variances: about $22,000. Threat: overpayment. Cause: blanket terms not loaded into the system for matching.
3. Liner shortages not claimed: unknown amount. Threat: paying for dead or missing liners. Cause: counts recorded on tray tags only.
4. Bank detail change without verification. Threat: diverted payment. Cause: no call-back procedure.
5. One owner approves all disbursements and also signs supplier contracts. Threat: unauthorized purchases. Cause: small office.
What Comes Next
Each finding becomes a threat row in the Unit 6 control matrix. The receiving gap matters most because it undermines the three-way match on which approval depends, and the framework treats control activities that rely on incomplete information as weak by design (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, 2013).
References
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2013). Internal control: Integrated framework. https://www.coso.org
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2024). Internet crime report 2023. Internet Crime Complaint Center. https://www.ic3.gov
Romney, M. B., & Steinbart, P. J. (2018). Accounting information systems (14th ed.). Pearson.
The Purdue Global AC314 Unit 5 instructions
Unit 5 of AC314 asks for an analysis of the expenditure cycle in a described business. Open with a spend profile, so threats can be ranked by the money moving through them. Then take each activity in turn: ordering, receiving, invoice approval and disbursement. Describe the process as the case states it before naming threats, and make the threats particular to this buyer's goods and habits. Look closely at receiving, since the three-way match depends on a reliable receiving record. Size each finding from the case's figures where possible. Treat vendor master changes and payment redirection as disbursement threats. Close with a findings list giving each threat, its likely cause and the amount at stake, ready for a control matrix. Cite the textbook, COSO and a source on payment fraud in APA 7.
How the AC 314 Unit 5 example is put together
The sample lists five spend categories totaling $9,840,000. The ordering section describes crop-plan liner orders and blanket orders for mix and containers, and finds about $22,000 of container price variances. The highlighted sentence explains why a foreman's signature without a scale leaves the invoice as the only record of mix received. The receiving section counts 412 invoiced loads against 371 weight tickets and notes that liner shortages stay on tray tags. The approval section explains why the three-way match confirms only that an order existed. The disbursement section describes the emailed bank change and cites the FBI's report of about $2.9 billion in business email compromise losses for 2023. A five-item findings list follows, and a closing section links the receiving gap to COSO's view of controls built on incomplete information.
Where the points sit in the AC314 Unit 5 rubric
Graders of this AC314 analysis look for all four activities, each described from the case and then examined for threats. A spend profile at the start earns credit because it lets threats be ranked by exposure. Threats specific to the business score better than generic ones. The receiving activity is often decisive, since a weak receiving record undermines approval. Findings sized from the case's own figures show evidence-based analysis. Recognizing payment redirection as a disbursement threat, and segregation limits in a small office, shows breadth. A findings list ready for the next unit demonstrates organization. Explanations of why a control fails, such as a match that checks only that an order exists, earn analytical credit. Purdue Global's AC314 instructors expect the textbook, COSO and a fraud source cited in APA 7.
AC314 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Expenditure cycle papers often stop at describing purchasing without finding a threat. Students list every textbook threat for every activity, so nothing stands out. Receiving gets one sentence, though it is where the evidence of what arrived is created. The three-way match is assumed to work without asking what each document proves. Figures from the case go unused. Bank detail changes are filed under information technology and disconnected from payments. Small-office segregation problems are ignored or described as fatal without compensating ideas. If your case involves a restaurant, a hospital or a contractor, a writer can build the spend profile and analyze each activity from your facts.
Get an AC314 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Pass along the purchasing and payment narrative in the Unit 5 case, any spend figures it includes, and the rubric. Activity by activity, the threats are drawn from that buyer's process, and the analysis is delivered within 24-48h. No fee applies to a first custom sample, and it follows your instructions. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More AC314 papers and BS in Accounting samples
- AC314 Unit 1: What an AIS Owes Its Users Post
- AC314 Unit 2: Order-to-Invoice System Flowchart
- AC314 Unit 3: Data Flow Diagram Set
- AC314 Unit 4: Revenue Cycle Analysis
- AC314 Unit 6: Internal Control Matrix
- AC314 Unit 7: Fraud Scenario Analysis
- AC314 Unit 8: Risk Register
- AC314 Unit 9: Seminar Reflection
- AC314 Unit 10: Systems Recommendation Report
- AC312 Unit 5: Ledger Relationship Analysis
- AC302 Unit 5: Direct vs Indirect Method Comparison
- AC301 Unit 5: Bond Call and Repurchase Problem
- AC300 Unit 5: Present Value of a Note Problem
AC314 Unit 5 questions, answered
Why does the analysis start with a spend profile?
Because threats matter in proportion to the money moving through them. A nursery buying liners and growing mix by the truckload faces different exposures than an office buying paper, and ranking threats without spend figures treats them as equal. The AC314 sample opens with categories by dollars so every later finding can be weighed against the category it sits in.
Is the bank-change email really an expenditure cycle threat?
Yes. It targets the disbursement activity, since its aim is to redirect a legitimate payment, and the controls that stop it sit in vendor master maintenance and payment approval. Some students file it under cybersecurity and lose the connection to the cycle. The sample names it among disbursement threats and leaves the control, a callback to a number already on file, for the later matrix.
Do the figures have to come from the case?
Where the case gives them, yes, and the analysis should reconcile to them. Where a prompt describes a process with no figures, the structure still works, with threats ranked by likely exposure and the reasoning stated. The load and weight-ticket comparison shows the kind of evidence graders reward when data is available; your own case decides what can be counted.
Where can I find a free AC314 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page offers a complete AC314 Unit 5 expenditure cycle analysis for a composite wholesale nursery, with a spend profile, four activity sections, five sized findings and APA 7 references.
Why were mix loads paid without proof in AC314 Unit 5?
Mix is billed by weight, but the foreman who receives it signs the driver's bill of lading without a scale record. Of 412 loads invoiced, 41 had no weight ticket, about $161,000.