Ski Market sells snowboards. Ski Market knows that the most people will pay for the snowboards is $129.99. Ski Market is convinced that it needs a 45% markup based on cost. The most that Ski Market can pay to its supplier for the snowboards is $71.49.
Explanation:
- people will pay for the snowboards is $129.99.
- Ski Market is convinced that it needs a 45%
- The most that Ski Market can pay to its supplier for the snowboard is
- =
×45 - =$ 58.5
- =129.99 ±58.5
- = $71.49
- Therefore, Ski Market can pay to its supplier for the snowboards is $71.49.
D I believe because the others do not seem very voluntary
You could say to the customer “sorry there is none available at the moment” and for them to come back and not be disappointed you can give them a discount voucher , therefore minimising the chance of that customer not returning.
Answer:
(64,000- 5,200 = 58,800).
Explanation:
Subtract your originial cost from the residual value. (64,000- 5,200 = 58,800).
Answer:
The incomplete part of the question is "Using a cap-and-trade system of tradable emission allowances will eliminate half of the sulfur dioxide pollution at a cost of $1 million per year. If the permits are not tradable, what will be the cost of eliminating half of the pollution? If permits cannot be traded, then the cost of the pollution reduction will be $1 million per year." The full question is attched as picture as well
1) Tradable permit system
Then lower MAC firm will abate the all pollution units
Then as MAC1 = $250, MAC2 = $275
Firm 1 = Consolidated electric
Firm 2 = Commonwealth utility
Then 1 will sell all permits to 2, at a price between $250 & $275.
So total cost of abatement of 20 units = MAC1 * 20
= $250 * 20 Unit
= $5,000
2) Non-tradable permits
Total cost = MC1*10 + MC2*10
= $2,500 + $2,750
= $5,250
