Answer:
It is convenient to make the changes.
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Selling price= $57.60 per unit.
Direct materials= $22
Direct labor= $24
Variable overhead= $11.00
Fixed overhead= $11.00.
New costs:
Direct material cost= 22*1.2= $26.4
Direct labor cost= 24*1.2= $28.8
<u>I suppose that the selling price will increase by $40.</u>
To determine whether the changes increase profit or not, we need to calculate the unitary contribution margin per unit for both options:
Contribution margin= selling price - unitary variable cost
Actual Contribution margin:
Contribution margin= 57.6 - (22 - 24 - 11)= 0.6
New contribution margin:
Contribution margin= 97.60 - (26.4 - 28.8 - 11)= $31.4
Answer:
sales era
Explanation:
The sales era (1920s - 1950s) was a time where manufacturers started to emphasize on effective sales forces and effective sales techniques because of increasing competition and increasing output levels. The goal of sales management was to find enough consumers for the company's total output.
Answer: The Break-Even Point will reduce from $4,285.71 to $4,125
Explanation:
To get the Break-Even Point we can divide Fixed Assets by the Contribution margin.
The Contribution Margin is the Selling Price minus the Variable Cost.
For Scenario 1 the Break-Even Point will be,
= 15,000 / ( 6 - 2.50)
= $4,285.71
For Scenario 2 the Break-Even Point is,
= 16,500 / 6.5 -2.5
= $4,125
The Break-Even Point for Scenario 2 means that even though the higher Fixed Costs could have led to a higher Break-Even Point, the higher price contributed more than the fixed costs did and led to an ultimately lower Break-Even Point than the first Scenario.
It is difficult to compare relative job growth for different-sized
businesses because it is hard to determine the cutoff point at which a small
business becomes a large business. It is not easy to know the comparative job development
amongst businesses of different sizes. There are not the same parameters leading
the size of a small business versus a big business. Moreover, there is no defined
point where such a variation can be clearly identified.
Answer:
The answer is stated below:
Explanation:
If the SEC and the AICPA, worked altogether in order to share the information, they might have detected the fraud prior. The case states that the Madoff Securities does not required to submit the peer review program to AICPA as Friehling, had recorded that he did not perform or conduct any audits.
Recommendation
1. The policy execution for the exchange of the information among the two firms would be useful to detect the fraud.
2. The PCAOB should spend more resources an attending the hotline of whistle blowing through executing the policies which need certain complaints to be addressed effectively.
3. The firms or company should have done more in order to verify the financial statements assertions, which surrounds the investments. The PCAOB need to execute the policy that require the companies (such as Madoff Securities) to correctly answer the inquiries of the auditor.
