Answer:
The EPS in recession is $1.546 per share.
Explanation:
The earnings per share or EPS is a function of net income divided by the number of shares outstanding. The earnings per share calculates the dollar return per share that is earned in a year.
Earnings per share = Net Income / No of common shares outstanding
Where, Net Income = EBIT - Interest - Tax
The EBIT in recession will be = 86600 * (1-0.25) = $64950
The company is all equity financed so there is no interest cost.
Net Income in recession will be = 64950 - (64950 * 35%) = $42217.5
Thus, EPS in recession = 42217.5 / 27300 = $1.546 per share
Answer:
$118,000
Explanation:
Calculation to determine what Crane should report a pension asset / liability
Fair value of plan assets $740,000
Less Projected benefit obligation ($ 622,000)
Pension asset / liability $118,000
($740,000-$622,000)
Therefore Crane should report a pension asset / liability of $118,000
Answer: banks statements and break down of property structures.
Answer:
D. Original cost.
Explanation:
As we know that the inventory should be valued at lower of cost or market value. Also , the market value is the middle amount among the replacement cost, net realizable value, net realizable value - normal profit margin
It can be the replacement cost or net realizable value. We don't have an idea which one is the middle amount
Also, if the original cost is less than the market cost so we assume that the inventory should be valued at original cost
1) Town of Bayport:
We have that the residents value the fireworks at
a total of 50+100+300=450$. That is the utility they gain. But they
would also have to pay 360$ for the fireworks. The total outcome is
450$+(-360$)=90$. Hence, the outcome is positive and the fireworks pass
the cost benefit analysis.
If the fireworks' cost is to be split
equally, we have that each of the 3 residents has to pay 360/3=120$. Let
us now do the cost-benefit analysis for everyone.
Jacques stands to gain 50$ from the fireworks but would have to pay 120$. He will vote against it.
Also, Kyoko will gain 100$ but would have to pay 120$. He will lose utility/money from this so he will vote against.
Musashi on the other hand, would gain 300$ and only pay 120$. He is largely benefitted by this measure. Only he would
We have that 2 out of the 3 would vote against the fireworks, so that the fireworks will not be bought. The vote does not yield the same answer as the benefit-cost analysis.
2) Town of River Heights:
We have that the total value of the fireworks to the community
is 20+140+160=320$. The total value of the fireworks is lower than
their cost so their cost benefit analysis yields that they should not be
bought.
However, let's see what each resident says. The cost to each resident is 360/3=120$. Rina is against the fireworks since she will only gain 20$. Sean and Yvette are for the fireworks since they gain 140$ and 160$ respectively, which are larger than the cost of the fireworks to each of them (120$). Hence, 2 will vote for the fireworks and one will vote against and fireworks will be bought.
Again, the vote clashes with the cost-benefit analysis.
3) The first choice is wrong. It is very difficult for a government to provide the exact types of public goods that everyone wants because that would be too costly; one cannot have a public good that everyone pays for so that only a couple of people enjoy it. In our example, we saw that in every case, a public good and its production would have sime supporters and some adversaries.
Majority rule is not always the most efficient way to decide public goods; as we have seen in the second case, the cost-benefit analysis yields that the fireworks are not worth it but they are approved by the majority nonetheless.
The final sentence is correct. The differing preferences of the people make a clearcut choice impossible and the government has to take into account various tradeoffs and compromises in order to determine which public goods to provide.
