Answer:
E) Trading company
Explanation:
In international trade, trading companies are basically wholesalers that work at an international level. They usually purchase products from different businesses and then resell them to local retail businesses or sometimes final consumers (less common). Trading companies generally enter a exclusive distribution agreement with the manufacturer per region or country that they operate in.
Answer:
days on inventory 57 + collection cycle 163- payment cycle 63
CCCT = 157 days
Explanation:
The cash-to-cash measures the times from the company paid his good from the time it collect from the customer:
days inventory outstanding + collection cycle - payment cycle
<u>days inventory outstanding:</u>
Where:
where:
COGS $ 1,790,000
Beginning Inventory: $ 273,000
Ending Inventory: $ 290,000
Average Inventory: $ 281,500
Inventory TO 6.358792185
Days on Inventory 57
<u>Collection cycle:</u>
where:
Purchases: 1,575,000
Beginning AP: 227,500
Ending AP: 316,200
Average AP: 271,850
AP TO 5.793636196
payment cycle 63
<u>Collection cycle</u>
Sales 102,000
Average AR 45,500
AR TO 2.241758242
collection cycle 163
Answer:
62,200 allowance ending
Explanation:
allownce 5,000 credit
<u>Because the bad debt is calculate over the sales,</u> the bad debt expense is the result of that estimated, without considering the beginning balance of the allowance.
22% of net credit sales will be uncollectible:
260,000 x 22% = 57,200
<u>Now ending balance will be beginning + uncollectible for the period</u>
5,000 beginning
57,200 uncollectible for the period
62,200 allowance ending
Answer:
A. Take regular EBS snapshots .
Explanation:
-
is incorrect. It lacks durability of EBS volumes.
-
is incorrect. ECT Instance stores are not durable.
-
is incorrect. Mirroring across EBS volumes is pargely inefficient.
-Since EBS snapshots only saves snapshots of the most recent device changes, a great deal of time and memory is saved. Also, only data unique to any particular snapshot is removed in cases of deletion.
Answer: C. The court concluded that Microsoft violated the Sherman Act
Explanation: The case between United States v. Microsoft Corporation which took place at the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit during the period February 26–27, 2001 and was finally decided June 28, 2001.
It was decided by the District Court that Microsoft violated the Sharma Antitrust Act of 1890.
