Warranty repair costs
Shipping costs
Sales commission
Answer: 5.9%
Explanation:
Before:
Equity is calculated as:
= Total Assets / Equity Multiplier
= $ 175,000 / 1.2
= $ 145,833
Therefore, ROE will be:
= (Turnover × Profit Margin) / Equity
= ($ 395,000 × 5.3%) / $ 145,833
= $ 20935 / $145,833
= 0.1436
= 14.36%
After:
New Total Assets will be:
= $ 175,000 - $ 51,000
= $ 124,000
Equity
= Total Assets / Equity Multiplier
= $ 124,000 / 1.2
= $ 103,333
ROE will then be:
= (Turnover × Profit Margin) / Equity
= ($ 395,000 × 5.3%) / $ 103,333
= $ 20935 / $ 103,333
= 0.2026
= 20.26%
Therefore, the change in ROE will be:
= 20.26% - 14.36%
= 5.9%
= 4.035%
Answer:
net wortht -143,280.85
equivalent annual cost $ 24,932.98
Explanation:
We sovle for the present value of each annuity:
<em><u>The first three years:</u></em>
C 31,000.00
time 3
rate 0.08
PV $79,890.0066
<em><u>Then the second phase annuity:</u></em>
C 20,000.00
time 5
rate 0.08
PV $79,854.2007
NOw, we discount this as it is three years into the future
Maturity $79,854.2007
time 3.00
rate 0.08000
PV 63,390.8391
Total net worth:
79,890.0066 - 63,390.8391 = -143,280.85
The EAC will be the annuity which makes the Present work
PV 143,280.85
rate 0.08
time 8
C $ 24,932.983
Starbucks entered a partnership with Keurig green mountain to sell k-cup single-serving coffee packs. because Starbucks tracked, as part of its ongoing environmental scanning activities, the percentage of households with single cup brewers it was prepared for this shift in its marketing environment.
<h3>What is partnership?</h3>
This is the form of business that would involve two or more different people that are doing business together. These persons would be involved in all of the risks sharing and the liabilities of the business. They also get to share in the profits also.
These two businesses are into taking care of the needs of the people that they are serving.
Read more on partnership here: brainly.com/question/25012970
#SPJ1
Below are the pros and cons of the current highway funding structure as related to taxes paid by motor<span> carriers:
Cons:
1. There is solid restriction to fuel charges increase.
2. The present government transportation financing structure depends essentially on tax collection of oil driven vehicles; this, nonetheless, is not reasonable in the long haul because of the real worry on environmental change.
2. The clients of the current aberrant client charge framework which depends on tax assessment of the devoured fuel are uninformed of the sum they pay as fuel charges.
Pros
1. Engine fuel charges yield heaps of income with less effect on the fuel costs.
2. The financing structure of expressways has added to the monetary development and thriving of the na±on, this will con±nue into the future if the assets are well spent.
3. Expanded engine fuel charges will urge the clients to moderate the earth and lessen clog.</span>