The correct answer is A.
Line balancing is used to maximize the efficiency of a production line while having ample persons to shift through the production line at any given moment.
Answer:
b) income statement as a $2,320,000 cumulative effect of accounting change
Explanation:
Base on the scenario been described in the question, The change in inventory steps to FIFO from LIFO which made an increase in Inventory should be recorded in the retained earnings statement as a $2,320,000 addition to the beginning balance. Option b is the answer
Answer:
The short answer to that is No, Starbucks will not change its foreign market entry strategy.
Explanation:
The reasons are as follows:
- did Howard Schultz lose his shares when he stepped down? This is highly unlikely and according to the rules of corporate governance may depend on his contract. So stepping down as the chairman does not necessarily translate to losing control.
- Corporations such as Starbucks: don't just up and change direction. Strategies are usually vetted by the board of directors. Whoever the majority shareholder is (corporate person or individual) will always have a say regarding the expansion of the business.
- Howard Schultz has stepped down in 2018. At that time, Starbucks had a total of 28,000 stores in 77 countries. Currently, there are 15,000 in 50 countries. This reduction didn't happen because Howard stepped down but because of the recent pandemic which hit the globe in 2020.
Cheers
Answer:
Under government bankruptcy laws of the United States, anybody can declare financial insolvency in order to look for help from leasers. In any case, this comes to the detriment of harming one's financial assessments for quite a while (now and then upto a multi year time span) alongside bringing about critical lawful,, procedural and court charges.
That being stated, liquidations are significantly troublesome procedures essentially in light of the fact that loan bosses would not need any account holder to take the easy way off in the event that the indebted person wouldn't like to restitution. This is considerably progressively evident if there should be an occurrence of understudy advances where the borrower (Kay for this situation) needs to demonstrate without sensible uncertainty that he/she would confront "undue hardship" in the event that he/she were to continue with credit reimbursements. The "undue hardship" demonstrating part is available to an assortment of understandings, rounds of questioning and lawful examination by the courtroom. Most courts use the "Brunner Test" to decide an indebted person's qualification for understudy advance release. The key arrangements of the test are set somewhere around the United States Department of Education's, Federal Student Aid Office as given beneath:
(a) The account holder, in view of his/her present pay and costs, can't keep up a better than average "insignificant" way of life for himself/herself and his/her wards in the event that he/she were to proceed with the advance reimbursements.
(b) Additional conditions demonstrate certain the way that this condition will prevail for a larger part of the residency of the advance reimbursement.
(c) The borrower has taken a stab at reimbursing his/her understudy advance in accordance with some basic honesty up until this point.
In this specific situation, Kay would be in an ideal situation in attempting to get the advance deferred, on the off chance that she declares financial insolvency post changing her activity. This is so on the grounds that her present place of employment pays enough to reimburse her understudy advance and consequently don't meet two of the three Brunner Test models. Exchanging over to the non benefit employment would compromise her present way of life (and most likely that of her wards) and adjusts to the fundamental soul of the "Brunner Test". It would off base be upto her legitimate insight to demonstrate this danger (post work change) to her expectation for everyday comforts before the court and addition an understudy advance waiver.
