Answer:
Common stock
Explanation:
Common stock can likewise be referred to as a voting stock. Common stock for the most part conveys with it the privilege to decide on business element matters, for example, choosing the top managerial staff, building up corporate destinations and approach, and stock parts. Similarly, common stock can be broken into casting a ballot and non-casting a ballot classes.
Answer:
That two projects are not mutually exclusive means the firm can implement both projects. They should run both because they both have returns exceeding the cost of capital.
Explanation:
Answer:
Net dollar sales projection for this year = 516,971.00
Explanation:
<em>Projected sales volume </em>
130%× 4,600= 5,980units
<em>Project selling price</em>
=140% × $65
= $91
<em>Total sales value </em>
= $91 × 5980units
= $ 544,180.00
<em>Net dollar sales projection</em>
= Total sales value - Returned merchandise
= 544,180.00 - (5% × 544,180.00 )
= $ 516,971.00
Net dollar sales projection for this year = 516,971.00
Answer:
a. Accept the order
b. Increase in short-term profit of $50,000
Explanation:
<em>Note : Blowing Sand has "enough excess capacity" this means that fixed cost will be the same in the range or they will be ocurred whether or not the special order is accepted.</em>
Therefore fixed costs are Irrelevant for this decision.
<u>Incremental Costs and Revenues - accept the special order</u>
Sales ( 10,000 units × $22 each) $220,000
<em>Less</em> Variable Costs ( 10,000 units × $17each) ($170,000)
Net Income $50,000
The special order will result in an increase in short term profit of $50,000. Therefore, Blowing Sand Company should accept the order.
Answer:
Option D. The accountant was a member of a professional organization.
Explanation:
The reason is that for a successful claim under the negligence act, the claimant have to prove following three things:
- Duty of care existed between the relation
- She has suffered economic harm &
- The harm was proximately caused by the accountant's breach of the duty of care.
So the accountant's membership is not a valid requirement under the negligence act for a successful claim.
