I'm not sure about this one. Are you talking about like this year?
Answer:
Total E&P = $ 160000
Total voting Right Sold = 50/ (100+100) = 25%
Reduction of E& P due to exchange = Total E&P*Total voting Right Sold
Reduction of E& P due to exchange = 160000*25%
Reduction of E& P due to exchange = 40000
Reduction of E& P Lower of Total E&P*Total voting Right Sold or Amount realised
Reduction of E& P Lower of 40000 or (50*1000)
Reduction of E& P Lower of 40000 or 50000
Answer
A reduction of $40,000 in E&P because of the exchange.
Answer and Explanation:
The computation of the net present value is presented in the attachment below:
For project A, the net present value is $91,771.53 and for project B, the net present value is $79,390.69
It is computed after considering the discounting factor that comes from
= 1 ÷ (1 + discount rate)^number of years
for year 1, it is
= 1 ÷ (1 + 0.06)^1
The same applied for the remaining years
Answer:
1. Journal Entry Debit Credit
Raw materials inventory $73,400
($72,000 + $1,400)
Accounts payable $73,400
(Being raw materials purchase on credit)
2. Journal Entry Debit Credit
Work in process $64,300
($64,000 + $300)
Raw materials inventory $64,300
<u>Raw Material Inventory Account</u>
Beginning balance $36,000 | Work in process $64,300
Purchase $73,400 | <u> </u>
| Ending balance <u>$45,100</u>
| ($36,000 + $73,400 - $64,300)
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.
