Answer:
1.
Dr Bonds 940,000
Cr Cash 940,000
Dr Fair Value adjustment 45,000
Cr Net Unrealized holding gains & losses 45,000
2.
Dr Fair Value adjustment 45,000
Cr Net Unrealized holding gains & Losses 45,000
3.
Dr Investment in bonds 985,000
Cr Discount on bond investment 45,000
Cr Cash 940,000
Explanation:
Hoosier Company Journal entries
1.
Dr Bonds 940,000
Cr Cash 940,000
Dr Fair Value adjustment 45,000
($985,000-$940,000)
Cr Net Unrealized holding gains & losses 45,000
2.
Dr Fair Value adjustment 45,000
Cr Net Unrealized holding gains & Losses 45,000
3.
Dr Investment in bonds 985,000
Cr Discount on bond investment 45,000
Cr Cash 940,000
Answer:
Explanation:
Joint cost = 80,000
Orapine
cost of 5000 at 20 = 100,000
Incremental Cost of further processing =20,000
Incremental revenue = 5000* (25-20)= 25,000
Incremental income 5,000
Banango
cost of 10000 at 15 = 150,000
Incremental cost of further processing = 20,000
Incremental revenue = 10,000*(16-15) = 10,000
Incremental income = (10,000) loss
If Orapine is processed further , there will be an incremental income of 5,000 compared to Banango that will bring an incremental loss of 10,00 if processed further.
Based on this , it is advised that Orapine be processed further while Banango is not
Back in 2015, McDonald’s was struggling. In Europe, sales were down 1.4% across the previous 6 years; 3.3% down in the US and almost 10% down across Africa and the Middle East. There were a myriad of challenges to overcome. Rising expectations of customer experience, new standards of convenience, weak in-store technology, a sprawling menu, a PR-bruised brand and questionable ingredients to name but a few.
McDonald’s are the original fast-food innovators; creating a level of standardisation that is quite frankly, remarkable. Buy a Big Mac in Beijing and it’ll taste the same as in Stratford-Upon Avon.
So when you’ve optimised product delivery, supply chain and flavour experience to such an incredible degree — how do you increase bottom line growth? It’s not going to come from making the Big Mac cheaper to produce — you’ve already turned those stones over (multiple times).
The answer of course, is to drive purchase frequency and increase margins through new products.
Numerous studies have shown that no matter what options are available, people tend to stick with the default options and choices they’ve made habitually. This is even more true when someone faces a broad selection of choices. We try to mitigate the risk of buyers remorse by sticking with the choices we know are ‘safe’.
McDonald’s has a uniquely pervasive presence in modern life with many of us having developed a pattern of ordering behaviour over the course of our lives (from Happy Meals to hangover cures). This creates a unique, and less cited, challenge for McDonald’s’ reinvention: how do you break people out of the default buying behaviours they’ve developed over decades?
In its simplest sense, the new format is designed to improve customer experience, which will in turn drive frequency and a shift in buying behaviour (for some) towards higher margin items. The most important shift in buying patterns is to drive reappraisal of the Signature range to make sure they maximise potential spend from those customers who can afford, and want, a more premium experience.
I hope this was helpful
Answer:
a. Asarta Inc. could pay the fishermen $8,500 and keep polluting
Explanation:
The fishermen sell the fish for $8,000 a year at local market.
Due to pollution emitted by company into stream, their catch is dwindling and also their income.
The company benefits from usage of stream to the tune of $4,000 a year. In such scenario, if company compensates the fishermen for any amount between $8,000 and $40,000 then, in that case, optimal solution to the problem can be achieved in absence of any other transaction cost as per the Coase Theorem.
Therefore, The Asarta Inc. could pay the fishermen $8,500 and keep polluting.
