Answer: 130 days
Explanation:
The Cash Conversion Cycle is a measure that attempts to show how many days on average it takes a company to convert resources into cash.
It is calculated with the following formula,
= Days of Inventory Outstanding + Days of Sales Outstanding - Days of Payables Outstanding
Where,
Days of Inventory Outstanding is the amount of days it takes to convert inventory to sales
Days of Sales Outstanding is the amount of time it takes debtors to pay the company for goods they bought and,
Days of Payables Outstanding is the time it took the company to pay for the goods it bought
Plugging in the figures we have,
= 100 + 60 - 30
= 130 days
The firm's cash conversion cycle is 130 days.
Answer:
Since a defeasance clause conveys title upon satisfaction of the loan, these types of clauses are typically only used in title theory states where the bank holds ownership of the home until the mortgage is paid off.
Answer:
Cash flow year 0 (110,000)
or in other way to express it: a cashoutflow for $110,000
Explanation:
Initial net cahs outflow
this will be the acquisition of the machine cost plus the increase in the working capital for the company
machine cost: all cost necessary for acquire the machien and get it operational
supplier list price 85,000
installation cost <u> 15,000</u>
total cost 100,000
Increase in Working Capital Cost 10,000
As these are cost they are negative so we have a cashouflow
Total cashflow (110,000)
Answer:
The alternative that should be chosen assuming identical replacement is:
Alternative B.
Explanation:
a) Data and Calculations:
Alternatives:
A B
First Cost $5,000 $9,200
Uniform Annual Benefit $1,750 $1,850
Useful life, in years 4 8
Rate of return 7% 7%
Annuity factor 3.387 5.971
Present value of annuity $5,927.25 $11,046.35
Net cash flow $927.25 $1,846.35
b) Alternative B yields a higher return than Alternative A. Since the two alternatives are based on the same rate of return, Alternative B will bring in a higher annual benefit, even when discounted to the present value.
Answer:
1.) The internal controls which were missing are from the separation of responsibilities. There must have been in place an inner regulator were an individual works with advisers while alternative individual or unit take-care of the expense procedure, then somebody else allow expenses and then office should distribute the expenditures. There is an absence of inner controls as you can realize that the corporation amalgamated with a larger corporation and no one measured other accounts such as Jackson and company any longer.
2.) With the lack of control, this offered Helen the chance to effect the fraud. With this presence said, she was talented to emulate sign receipts and spend the retailer’s expenditures. She were also the one in responsibility of office the initial and final of accounts. In short, she had several accountabilities that should have remained separated up better and had diverse individuals for the separations of the job. In addition, she needed a bank description from the corporation where she was capable to put the expenditures and pay individual expenditures.
3.) The method this fraud might be noticed is the inspection squad can ask the bank for reports. They might also conference sellers. The accounting section should have ended sure they were doing the due diligence in dealers and corresponding the receipts with statements and expenditures.
