Answer:
Brief summary of the case:
The case deals about the evolution of kindle by Company A. When the company decided to introduce kindle, its price was $399 in 2007. Company A understood that to be successful against the huge competitors, kindle must be priced low. It must be highly reliable, many features and elegance must be provided in the design of kindle. "Company A- designed kindle in State C where the research and development expertise is available.
Market research firm "IS," estimated that the manufacturing cost of kindle is about $185. The expensive components of the kindle are the display used in the Electronic ink technology and wireless cord. Company A contracted with Country C's company to produce the display. A manufacturer in Continent A produced a wireless cord of $13. Many components were contracted to the different countries to reduce the cost of the kindle to be competitive. Now, kindle became the competitor to the massive companies.
Determine if the company has decided to manufacture all the components of Electronic reader K in Country U:
If Company had decided to manufacture all the components in Country U, then it would have been more expensive. Company A cannot sell that at an affordable price. Increase in the cost of the components would increase the overall cost of the Electronic reader K. The most important strategy of Company A is to minimize the cost of the product to increase the number of sales.
Increase in the manufacturing cost will dilute their competitive advantage and it increases the cost of the product. It will lower the sales and the buyers would prefer to use the competitors' products, which are cheaper.
Determine if the company has decided to manufacture all the components of Tablet F in Country U:
It would be expensive if they decide to manufacture the components in Country U. It will not affect the sales number like Electronic reader K. as Tablet F is multipurpose. People will prefer quality and specifications than price.
Conclusion:
Manufacturing in Country U would be expensive and it increases the overall cost of the product. It would affect sales of the products.
I believe the correct answer from the choices listed above is the second option. The two <span>participating countries were benefited by global trade in terms of </span><span>economic growth in both the countries. Hope this answers the question. Have a nice day.</span>
Answer:
The best recommendation to be made to this client is to do nothing.
Explanation:
Investment in stock is a highly risky investment because price of stock often fluctuates which can make an investor to lose a lot of money.
From the question, the client is already old at age 67 with a low income and he does not have any other liquid assets apart from the annual income of $25,000, mainly from social security and interest on funds held in a bank savings account.
Since losing so much money through investment in stock is not affordable to him, the best recommendation to be made to this client is to that he should do nothing.
Net income serves as the beginning point for the indirect technique of preparing the operating activities section.
<h3>What does "net income" mean?</h3>
Net income is the amount of money left over after all costs, such as salaries and wages, the cost of commodities or raw materials, and taxes, have been paid. Net income is the amount that a person keeps after paying taxes, health insurance premiums, and retirement contributions.
<h3>How is net income demonstrated?</h3>
Operating income for the business was $23,000 after operating costs of $12,500. After deducting interest expense of $1,500 and adding interest income of $1,700, ABYZ arrived at a net income before taxes of $23,200.
<h3>What is net income post-tax?</h3>
A person's income after taxes and deductions is referred to as their net income.
learn more about net income here <u>brainly.com/question/15530787</u>
#SPJ4
Answer:
mid-calorie soft drinks such as Pepsi Next (2012) have not been successful in the past.
Explanation:
The new Pespsi true is a great product that offers the advantage of having the same flavor as Pepsi but lower calorie content of only 60 calories. This should sell well with consumers that are looking for lower calorie options.
However if there was a similar product like Pepsi True called Pepsi Next in 2012 that was mid-calories and was not successful, this could be a show stopper. People's perceptions of Pepsi Next will affect Pepsi True as they will feel it is just a repackaged Pepsi Next.
This will most likely lead to failure of the product similar to what happened with Pepsi Next.
