Answer:
Incremental cost= $61,875
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Gelb Company currently manufactures 49,500 units per year of a key component for its manufacturing process. Variable costs are $5.15 per unit, fixed costs related to making this component are $75,000 per year, and allocated fixed costs are $70,500 per year. The allocated fixed costs are unavoidable whether the company makes or buys this component. The company is considering buying this component from a supplier for $3.90 per unit
We need to determine whether it is more convenient to produce the component or outsource it. We will only consider the relevant costs, therefore the fixed costs will not be taken into account.
Make in house:
Cost= 49,500*5.15= $254,925
Buy:
Cost= 49,500*3.90= $193,050
Incremental cost= 254,925 - 193,050= $61,875
To better show and explain a image, idea, and or organization for a business.
It is basically to help build a postitive image for your business you are running or trying to create
Hope this helps
Answer:
environmental racism
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that this scenario could possibly be classified as environmental racism. This is a concept which describes the environmental discrimination that occurs in many geographical locations both in practice as well as on paper. All of which is based on a racialized context.
Answer: $73.33
Explanation:
Dividend discount model can be used to calculate the value of the shares:
= Earnings paid out / (Cost of equity - growth rate)
Earnings to be paid out:
= 60% * 5,500,000
= $3,300,000
Value of shares:
= 3,300,000 / ( 9% - 6%)
= $110,000,000
Share price:
= Value of shares / Number of shares outstanding
= 110,000,000 / 1,500,000
= $73.33
Answer: Yes
Explanation: In the above case, a quasi-contract was formed. This is when a bilateral contract is not in place but one party will enjoy the benefit of the activities of the other party and may be enriched by it.
A bilateral agreement is the exchange of a promise for another and in this case would have been, the promise that Dozier would pay for Paschall’s work. This was not established, however, Dozier will benefit from Paschall’s work unduly if he does not pay for the improvements. The law holds that he has to pay for Paschall’s work to prevent being unjustly enriched.
