Answer: The future event is probable and the amount owed can be reasonably estimated.
Explanation:
A Contingent Liability is an obligation that the business may possibly have to incur due to past events that the company engaged in.
The obligation might come about in future based on the outcome of other events, most of which the business usually have no control over.
An example of this is a law suit.
A Contigent liability should only be recorded in the books of accounting if and only if the future event is probable and the amount owed can be reasonably estimated.
If not then it is recommended to wait until the obligation might be incurred.
Answer:
$283,005
Explanation:
The computation of the additional money that she deposited now is shown below:
As we know that
Future value = P × FV (7%, 8 Years)
Here
Future value = $1,005,500,
P represent the deposited amount
and FV (7%, 8 Years) is the future value (FV) of $1 at 7% for 8 years. Its value is to be determined from future value table.
From the table, the value of FV (7%, 8 years) is 1.7182.
Now
$1,005,500 = P × 1.7182
P = $1005500 × 1.7182
P = $585205
Now
The Additional deposit amount is
= $585,205 - $302,200
= $283,005
Answer:
The fair value of the assets of the identifiable assets of Thompson company are $38 million and the fair value of identifiable liabilities is $6 million. So if we were to find the value of Thompson company just on the basis of identifiable assets and identifiable liabilities we would subtract the identifiable liabilities from the identifiable assets.
38-6= $32 million.
This means that on the basis of Identifiable assets and identifiable liabilities the value of Thompson company is $32 million but they Anderson Company $ 30 million for the company which means that the company has a negative goodwill. The negative good will is the price paid - the fair value.
30 million - 32 million = -2 million
This means that Anderson Company will record -2 million as negative goodwill and this implies a bargain purchase which means Anderson company will record this 2 million as a gain on their income statement.
Explanation:
Answer:
And we can solve for y and we got:
And using condition (1) we can solve for x and we got:
So then the minimum cost for this case would be:
Explanation:
For this case the graph attached illustrate the problem for this case
We know that the total area is 60000, so then we have:
If we solve for x we got:
(1)
Now we can define the cost function like this:
We can use the condition (1) and if we replace in the cost function we have:
Since we need to minimize the cost, we can derivate the function in terms of y and we got:
And we can solve for y and we got:
And using condition (1) we can solve for x and we got:
So then the minimum cost for this case would be:
Answer:
She lost $754.05.
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Liz Mulig earns 52,000 per year as a philosophy professor. She receives a raise of 2.5% in a year in which CPI increases by 3.8%.
<u>The rise in her salary allows her to increase her purchasing power. On the contrary, inflation decreases purchasing power. We need to calculate the differences between both effects and determine whether she can buy more or less.</u>
<u></u>
Increase in salary= 52,000*1.025= $53,300
Inflation effect= 52,000/(1-0.038)= $54,054.05
To maintain her purchasing power, now, she needs to earn $54,054.05.
She lost $754.05.
