Answer:
1.Generally consists of a company's cumulative net income less any net losses and dividends declared since its inception.
Explanation:
Retained earnings is an element of the balance sheet that represents the accumulated net income and losses and the amount paid to the shareholders over the years as dividend.
Each year, the company's net income or loss from the statement of profit or loss is posted into the retained earnings account.
It is an integral part of the owners equity along with ordinary share capital.
As such, retained earnings generally consists of a company's cumulative net income less any net losses and dividends declared since its inception.
Answer:
$26.05
Explanation:
according to the constant dividend growth model
price = d1 / (r - g)
d1 = next dividend to be paid = d0 x (1 + growth rate)
d0 = dividend that was just paid
r = cost of equity
g = growth rate
1.5 x (1.045^6) / 12 - 4.5 = $26.05
Answer:
The EOQ is 353 units
Explanation:
The economic order quantity or EOQ is the quantoty that minimized the holding and ordering cost for invetory.
The formula for EOQ is,
EOQ = √(2*D*O) / H
Where,
- D is the annual demand in units
- O is the ordering cost per order
- H is the holding cost per unit per annum
The annual demand of oil filters by Sam is,
Annual demand = 52 * 150 = 7800 filters
The EOQ for Sam Auto Shop is,
EOQ = √(2*7800*16) / 2
EOQ = 353.27 Units rounded off to 353 units
Answer:
Total cost= $650,857
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
At an activity level of 6,900 units in a month, Zeus Corporation's total variable maintenance and repair cost is $408,756, and its total fixed maintenance and repair cost is $230,253.
<u>We need to calculate the total cost of 7,100 units. Because it is between the relevant range, fixed costs will remain the same. We need to determine the unitary variable cost.</u>
Unitary variable cost= total variable cost/ unit
Unitary variable cost= 408,756/6,900= $59.24
Total cost= 59.24*7,100 + 230,253= $650,857
Answer:
2) assumption not made
Explanation:
The original statement does not include any assumption about what the companies are doing about this issue, it just proposes an idea of fair compensation.
maybe whoever wrote this statement believes that very few companies or none at all actually compensate homeowners for a reduction in the market value of their properties, but it doesn't state it. It is also possible that the statement assumes that companies are paying some compensations or were paying some compensations but are not willing to continue to do it since no legislation forces them to do so. The author's position is vague and not clear with respect to what the companies are currently doing.
