I don't think so cause they are both different companies. <span />
Answer: Income will increase by $16 per unit
Explanation:
Your question isn't complete but the completed question was gotten online and would be used in answering the question accordingly.
The effect on income if Derby decides to make the motors will be calculated thus:
In-house:
Direct material = 38
Direct labor = 50
Overhead (Incremental) = 21
Total variable cost = 109
Outside:
Cost of supply = 125
Therefore, the income per unit will increase by (125 - 109) = 16.
Answer:
C. Debt Service Fund.
Explanation:
Dept service funds can be described as monies or reserves which are been used to pay for capitals, interest and certain dept that have accrued by the company and it can cover for any other form of dept owed by the company.
It's existence is put in place to reduce the risk of a debt security for future investors. This can be paid out monthly mid-monthly, quarterly or possibly yearly.
This why the tax on general obligation bonds that has been put upon Downtown city to finance the hall has it receipts in place at the dept service fund office.
Answer:
$416,667
Explanation:
Current EPS = $3,000,000 / 1,000,000
Current EPS = $3
Net Proceeds per share = $40 * 90%
Net Proceeds per share = $36
New Number of Shares = $5,000,000 / $36
New Number of Shares = 138888.88
Total Number of Shares Outstanding after the new issue = 1138888.88 shares
Diluted EPS = $3,000,000 / 1138888.88
Diluted EPS = $2.634
Amount of Dilution in EPS = $3 - $2.634
Amount of Dilution in EPS = $0.3658
Net Income must increase by 1138888.88 * $0.3658 = $416,667. So, Newdex's after-tax income must increase to $416,667 to prevent dilution of earnings per share.
This is tough to answer in 3-5 sentences, and tends to also be a heavy identifier of your possible political leanings. You'll have to apologize if some of mine leak out in the response, but this is a question we debate hotly more frequently than every 4 years.
In general, international trade can help increase the GDP and overall profits for US-based corporations. However, if all we do is export, and we don't import, other countries don't look favorably upon that and may heavily tax our goods to counter this.
I believe we do need to be thoughtful about the amounts and kinds of international trade that we engage in. For example, farming is always a hotly debated issue for international trade, in part because farmers in other countries with a dramatically lower cost of living OR farmers in countries with a favorable currency rate (exchange from their currency to our dollars gives them an advantage) can undercut our farmers here in the US, many of whom are already struggling.
There are also those who are worried that when we import produce from countries that have not outlawed pesticides we know are carcinogenic, for instance, this creates not only a disadvantage for US farmers, but also for consumers who may be concerned about health issues.
As another example of this, many countries outlawed import of US beef during the Mad Cow Epidemic. We in turn also placed bans on importing beef from the UK.
These are examples of why it's important to be thoughtful about trade, but there are certainly many others, including decline in production jobs within the US that have left cities like Detroit a ghost town (this was formerly the hub of our automotive industry production).
