List the five types of associations thashould be included in every successful network.

C Co. reported a retained earnings balance of $200,000 at December 31, 2010. In September 2011, C determined that insurance prem

timurjin [86]

Answer:

B. $214,000

Explanation:

The insurance premium paid for a 3 year period should not have been expensed out rightly but recognized as expense through periodic amortization spread over the entire period.

As such, the amount that should have been expensed in 2011 for insurance premium is

= 1/3 × $30,000

= $10,000

Recognizing an expense of $10,000 rather than $30,000 would have resulted in an increase in the tax expense by

= 70% × ($30,000 - $10,000)

= $14,000

As such, the retained earnings would have been

= $200,000 + $14,000

= $214,000

The overstatement of an expense would have resulted in an understatement of net income and thus and understatement of the retained earnings.

3 0

3 years ago

Plainville Corporation has the following data, in thousands. Assuming a 365-day year, what is the firm's cash conversion cycle?

devlian [24]

Answer:

Inventory cycle = Inventory x 365 days

Cost of goods sold

Inventory cycle = $75,000 x 365 days

$360,000

= 76.04 days

Receivable days = Accounts receivable x 365 days

Sales

= $160,000 x 365 days

$600,000

= 97.33 days

Payable days = Accounts payable x 365 days

Cost of sales

= $25,000 x 365 days

$360,000

= 25.35 days

Cash conversion cycle

= Inventory cycle + Receivable days - Payable days

= 76.04 days + 97.33 days - 25.35 days

= 148.0 days

Explanation:

Cash conversion cycle is calculated as raw inventory cycle plus receivable days minus payable days. Inventory cycle is the ratio of inventory to cost of goods sold multiplied by number of days in a year. Receivable days refer to the ratio of accounts receivable to sales multiplied by number of days in a year. Payable day is the ratio of accounts payable to cost of goods sold multiplied by number of days in a year.

6 0

3 years ago

Two firms, A and B, each currently emit 100 tons of chemicals into the air. The government has decided to reduce the pollution a

LekaFEV [45]

Answer:

It is likely that C. Firm A will buy all of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200.

Explanation:

So two firms, A and B, each currently emit 100 tons of chemicals into the air, and from now on each one will require a pollution permit for each ton of pollution emitted into the air.
Each firm gets 40 pollution permits, which it can either use or sell to the other firm. That means that if both firms choose to keep their respective 40 permits, they would still have to reduce the pollution by 60 tons (100 minus 40 is 60).
It costs Firm A $200 for each ton of pollution that it eliminates before it is emitted into the air. Because it costs so much to eliminate a ton of pollution, it would make sense for Firm A to get as many pollution permits as possible, as long as they get them for less than $200 each.
It costs Firm B $100 for each ton of pollution that it eliminates before it is emitted into the air. Since here it costs less to eliminate a ton of pollution, it would make sense for Firm B to sell as many pollution permits as possible, as long as they sell for higher than $100.

With that in mind, the outcome that makes the most sense would be Option C. Firm A will buy all of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200. This way both firms spend the least amount of money while at the same time pleasing the government.

To demonstrate it, let's do some actual calculations for each case.

Case A) Both firms will use their own pollution permits.

In this case, each firm will have to independently reduce their pollutants by 60 tons, as noted before. That represents a high cost, as we will now determine:

For Firm A, the cost would be

$60tons*200\frac{dollars}{ton}=12000dollars$

For Firm B, the cost would be

$60tons*100\frac{dollars}{ton}=6000dollars$

Case B) Firm A will buy some of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost less than $100.

Since Firm B could spend $100 to reduce a ton of pollution, it wouldn't sell its pollution permits for less than $100 each: If Firm B sold its pollution permits for less than $100 each, it would have to reduce even more tons of pollutants (spending $100 for each one), and would end up losing money! Let's say it sold 10 pollution permits for $90 each, so it would have to reduce 70 tons of pollutants instead of 60. Its total cost would be:

Cost for Firm B (Case B):

$70tons*100\frac{dollars}{ton}-(10*90dollars)=6100dollars$

Which is higher than the cost calculated for Firm B in Case A, so it's not worth it.

Case D) Firm B will buy all of Firm A's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200.

This is a similar case than Case B, in the sense that since it costs Firm A so much to reduce a ton of pollutant ($200 for each one), it wouldn't sell its pollution permits for less than $200 each, or it would end up losing money as well. Let's say Firm A sold all of its 40 pollution permits for $150 each, and so it would have to reduce 100 tons of pollutants instead of 60. Its total cost would be:

Cost for Firm A (Case D):

$100tons*200\frac{dollars}{ton}-(40*150dollars)=14000dollars$

Which is higher than the cost calculated for Firm A in Case A, so it's not worth it.

Finally, Case C) Firm A will buy all of Firm B's pollution permits. Each one will cost between $100 and $200.

As mentioned before, this one makes the most sense because both firms would spend the least amount of money. Let's determine the total costs for each one, knowing that:

Firm A would buy 40 pollutant permits from Firm B, for (let's say) $150 each.
Firm A would still need to reduce 20 tons of pollutants. And
Firm B would have to reduce 100 tons of pollutants, instead of 60.

Cost for Firm A (Case C):

$(20tons*200\frac{dollars}{ton})+(40*150dollars)=10000dollars$

Which is less than the $12000 Cost calculated in Case A.

Cost for Firm B (Case C):

$(100tons*100\frac{dollars}{ton})-(40*150dollars)=4000dollars$

Which is less than the $6000 Cost calculated in Case A.

Since both firms each spend $2000 less in Case C than in case A, it would make sense for them to follow this option.

4 0

3 years ago

An investor is planning to invest a total of $15,000 in two accounts, one paying 4% annual simple interest, and the other 3%. If

irga5000 [103]

The amount that should be invested in the account that yields a 4% interest is $10,000.

The amount that should be invested in the account that yields a 3% interest is $5,000.

<h3>What are the linear equations that represent the question?</h3>

a + b = 15,000 equation 1

0.04a + 0.03b = 550 equation 2

Where:

a = amount invested in the account that yields a 4% interest

b = amount invested in the account that yields a 3% interest

<h3>How much should be invested at each rate?</h3>

Multiply equation 1 by 0.04

0.04a + 0.04b = 600 equation 3

Subtract equation 2 from equation 3

0.01b = 50

b = 50 / 0.01

b = 5000

Subtract 5000 from 15,000

15000 - 5000 = 10,000

To learn more about linear functions, please check: brainly.com/question/26434260

#SPJ1

3 0

2 years ago

The Consumer Division lost $28,000 and the Industrial Division had operating income of $58,000. Management has analyzed the situ

Juli2301 [7.4K]

Answer: c. $22,000 increase in operating income

Explanation:

Expected decrease in revenues -$280,000

Expected decrease in total variable costs (-$200,000)

Expected decrease in fixed costs (-$102,000)

Expected increase(decrease) in operating income $22,000

Costs are to be deducted from revenues so if the costs are decreasing, the mathematical treatment would be to add the decrease to the revenues which is how the above was calculated.

5 0

3 years ago