Final answer:
A failure to record acquisitions of goods does not directly affect revenue but does have impacts on assets, expenses, and liabilities. Revenue is tied to the sale of goods or services, not their acquisition. This recording failure leads to inaccuracies in financial statements regarding assets and possibly understated liabilities and expenses.
Step-by-step explanation:
The failure to record acquisitions of goods will most likely affect revenues, expenses, assets, and liabilities; however, it is revenue that will not be affected directly. When an acquisition of goods is not recorded, the assets will not show the new goods owned, and liabilities may be understated if the goods were purchased on credit, leading to an incomplete picture of expenses since the cost of goods sold or inventory expense isn't recorded properly. However, as revenue is typically recognized when goods or services are sold, it remains unaffected by the initial acquisition of goods.
Now, addressing the reference information provided:
Assets not actually in the bank occur when the listed money includes items like outstanding loans, investments, and reserves that aren't physically present as cash within the bank but are counted as assets because they are expected to provide economic benefit in the future.
If a borrower has been late on loan payments, you would likely pay less for the loan because there's a higher risk of default. If the economy's interest rates have increased since the loan was made, this loan is less attractive, and you'd be inclined to pay less for it. Conversely, if the borrower is showing higher profitability, this suggests lower risk, which makes the loan more valuable. Lastly, if interest rates have fallen, the existing loan's fixed rate may be more attractive than current rates, increasing its value in the secondary market.