Answer:
$62,100
Explanation:
Given that,
Sales price per unit = $ 40
Variable costs per unit:
Manufacturing = $ 23
Marketing and administrative = $ 8
Total fixed costs:
Manufacturing = $ 76,000
Marketing and administrative = $24,000
Total incremental costs:
= Variable manufacturing + Variable marketing and administrative
= (6,900 × $23) + (6,900 × $8)
= $158,700 + $55,200
= $213,900
Incremental income:
= Incremental revenue - Total incremental costs
= (6,900 × $40) - $213,900
= $276,000 - $213,900
= $62,100
Therefore, the operating income increases by $62,100.
Answer:
<h2>include the following week I have a a but this is the real account of Finn have a great day today with my mom said you didn't want me there was an accident in the middle of nowhere near as much </h2>
Explanation:
that my answer po
Answer:
False.
Explanation:
The concept of "Nash equilibrium" is been by economist and also by "gamers" in game theory. Nash equilibrium is so good for making decisions and the determination of strategies.
In playing this game, the players or participants can use the pure strategy or the mixed strategy. The mixed strategy is the use of different strategies randomly.
"If a player chooses a mixed strategy in a Nash equilibrium, this implies that the payoff from using that mixed strategy is the same as the payoff from using any of the pure strategies in it".
The statement given above is FALSE because the PAYOFF WILL INCREASE IF WE ARE TO PLAY A MIXED STRATEGY.
For instance if we have a head of 1 and -1, and a tail of -1 and 1, the payoff for pure strategy is likely one or minus one but for a mixed strategy it could be zero.
Answer:
4.76%
Explanation:
The requirement in this question is determining the discount rate which gives the same present value in both cases since discount rates discount future cash flows to present value terms.
PV of a pertuity=annual cash flow/discount rate
PV of a pertuity=$17,000/r
PV of ordinary annuity=annual cash flow*(1-(1+r)^-n/r
PV of ordinary annuity=$30,000*(1-(1+r)^-18/r
$17,000/r=$30,000*(1-(1+r)^-18/r
multiply boths side by r
17000=30,000*(1-(1+r)^-18
divide both sides by 30000
17000/30000=1-(1+r)^-18
0.566666667=1-(1+r)^-18
by rearraging the equation we have the below
(1+r)^-18=1-0.566666667
(1+r)^-18=0.433333333
divide indices on both sides by -18
1+r=(0.433333333)^(1/-18)
1+r=1.047554315
r=1.047554315-1
r=4.76%
In a traditional IRA there is either an equal or near to equal contribution made by employer. So, if $3,500 is to be invested let's assume that another $3,500 to be invested by employer with a total contribution (of 3500+3500=7000) the net contribution would be the same as the total contribution, tax rate is not given. Let's assume tax assume tax slab of 28%. Traditional IRS-matching contribution from employer Net contribution-$3,500+3,500=7,000 Roth IRA Assumption-Tax bracket of 28% Net contribution= amount invested minus tax=$3500 minus (28% on 3500)= $3500- $980=$2520 Hence net contribution is not of taxes in case of Roth IRA Once the traditional IRA or Roth IRA is established, you decide to invest the proceeds in a mutual fund. Identify the type of mutual fund you would select.
