Answer:
Here:
Explanation:
Purchase price of shares = 24000
total purchase cost = price of shares bought + broker fees total purchase cost = 24000 + 0.01*24000 =24240
selling price of shares = 29100
total selling cost = price of shares sold - broker fees total selling cost = 29100 - 35 = 29065
Net proceeeds = total selling cost - total purchase cost Net proceeds = 29065 - 24240 = 4825
Answer:
hyperinflation
Explanation:
Hyperinflation is a term in economics that denotes an out-of-control, rise in prices of goods and services . When the inflation rate is rapidly rising, say by more than 50% per month, then it is a case of hyperinflation.
Hence, hyperinflation is an explosive and seemingly uncontrollable inflation in which money loses value rapidly and may even go out of use.
Answer: The correct answer is "C. produce because revenue of $1 comma 000 is greater than fixed costs.".
Explanation: The firm should produce because the revenue of 1000 is enough to cover the fixed costs and part of the variables (1000 - 800 - 600 = (-400)) so that the loss is less than if it stopped producing despite the avoidable costs (800 - 350 = 450) since if it stopped producing it would have a loss of $ 450 and producing it would have a loss of $ 400.
Answer:
$5,360
(not given in the options)
Explanation:
Depreciation is the systematic allocation of cost to an asset based on estimates. It is given as
Depreciation = (cost - salvage value)/useful life
When originally purchased, a vehicle costing $23,040 had an estimated useful life of 8 years and an estimated salvage value of $1,600
Annual depreciation = ($23,040 - $1,600)/8
= $2,680
After 4 years
Accumulated depreciation = 4 × $2,680
= $10,720
The net book value then
= $23,040 - $10,720
= $12,320
Since the asset's total estimated useful life was revised from 8 years to 6 years and there was no change in the estimated salvage value
New depreciation = ($12,320 - $1,600)/2
= $5,360
The depreciation expense in year 5 equals $5,360
Answer:
The fraud was discovered Option D: The operations manager found a check made payable to Phillips while searching Phillips' desk for some accounting records.
Explanation:
In the given case study, Ernie Phillips had got a job as a 'controller'. He had started writing checks to himself other than the payroll checks.
This fraud can be discovered when the operations manager found a check on Phillips desk which was payable to himself and it was other than the payroll check. Thus, Option D is the statement as an answer.
Cancelled checks do not have to do anything with the fraud, as per Option A, because cancelled checks are never cleared in the bank. The receiver doesn't usually receive a call before check clearance. So, Option B is also incorrect. No error was there in the check as stated in Option C.
