Answer:
This implies Bolster Soda collects receivables more effectively and quickly than Castor Soda in the two years.
Explanation:
The accounts receivable turnover ratio refers to an accounting ratio that is used to show the how effective a firm is in collecting the receivables or money its clients are owing it.
This implies that accounts receivable turnover ratio is used to determine the extent to which a firm ie effectively managing the credit it gives to customers and how quickly the firm collects that that short-term debt.
The formula for calculating the accounts receivable turnover ratio is as follows:
Accounts receivable turnover ratio = Net credit sales / Average accounts receivable
When the accounts receivable turnover ratio is high, it implies that the company is efficient is collecting debt and a high percentage of its cutomers are paying up their debts.
The account receivable turnover ratios in the question therefore imply Bolster Soda collects receivables more effectively and quickly than Castor Soda in the two years.
When identical units of an item are purchased at different costs: <span>an inventory cost flow method must be used under both a perpetual and a periodic inventory system.
A perpetual inventory system will update your inventory on hand after each sale or purchase of inventory is made. A periodic inventory system is updated periodically, meaning, a company will give a time period they would like their sales and purchases to update in and the system will perform that. Both systems are great for a business but it's their option of how they are generated.
</span>
Answer:
true
Explanation:
it was the time of the production line making it easy to make expensive things with people that are lower skilled and cheaper overall
Answer:
$2,250 favorable
Explanation:
The direct material price variance is computed as;
= ( Standard price - Actual price ) × Actual quantity
Given that;
Standard price = $8.75
Actual price = $8
Actual quantity = 3,000 units
Direct material price variance
= ( $8.75 - $8 ) × 3,000
= ( $0.75 ) × 3,000
= $2,250 favorable
Answer:
If we made the assumption that both countries had a per capita of $15,000 in 1960, country A, which entered an era of political stability, and applied liberal reforms, growing at a rate of 5%, would double its GDP per capita by 1975, reaching a GDP per capita of $31,183.92.
On the contrary, country B, which continued to grow by 1% per year, would only double its GDP per capita by 2030, reaching a figure of $30,101.45.
Therefore, it would take 55 years more for country B to double its per capita GDP level compared to country A.
