My notation would be myx = M(XC+%) and the mean is Summat.
Answer:
Debt to income ratio is all your debt payments divided by all the money you earn during a month. Generally you are considered to be in good financial shape when your debt to income ratio is less than 20%, if it's less than 10% it is even better.
Kim's gross income = $1,230 - $165 (taxes) = $1,065
Kim's total debt payments without new debt = $134 (credit card payments)
Kim's total debt payments including new debt = $134 + $172 (new debt) = $306
Kim's debt to income ration without new debt = $134 / $1,065 = 12.58%
Kim's debt to income ration with new debt = $306 / $1,065 = 28.73%
Currently Kim's debt to income ratio is only 12.58% which is very good, but if she takes the new loan then her ratio will increase to 28.73% which is extremely high and not prudent.
Answer:
A. Consider all indirect manufacturing costs
B. Consider all manufacturing costs
C. Consider non manufacturing costs
Explanation:
A) Manufacturing overhead.
Consider all indirect manufacturing costs
B) Product costs.
Consider all manufacturing costs
C) Period costs.
Consider non manufacturing costs
Answer:
Option (A) is correct.
Explanation:
Accounting rate of return is determined to take the efficient business decision related to the capital budgeting and it tell us whether to accept the proposal or not. The following is the formula:
Accounting rate of return = (Average Income ÷ Initial Investment)
For example:
Net profit for 3 years are as follows:
2012 - 13 = $50 million
2013-14 = $100 million
2014-15 = $150 million
Initial investment = $200
Average profit = ($50 + $100 + $150) ÷ 3
= $100
Accounting rate of return = (Average Income ÷ Initial Investment)
= $100 ÷ $200
= 0.5 or 50%
Answer: Yes they did.
Explanation:
Apparent Authority refers to a scenario where a Agent is assumed to have the power to act on behalf of a Principal regardless of if said authority had not being expressly given whether implicitly or otherwise.
It is worthy of note that this power is only valid if the third party in the transaction assumes from the conduct of the agent, that they have such powers to act.
It is stated in the text that there was no question that the brokers had the actual or implied authority to sell the stock meaning that the Principal had not done enough to show that the agents did not have the Authority to act as they did. For this reason, they can indeed be sued under the Principle of Apparent Authority.
