Assume that inflation is high, which of the following functions of money would not be used

Baka Corporation applies manufacturing overhead on the basis of direct labor-hours. At the beginning of the most recent year, th

rjkz [21]

Answer:

Allocated MOH= $188,627

Explanation:

Giving the following information:

Estimated overhead= $241,800

Estimated direct labor hour= 6,800

Actual direct labor-hours were 5,300.

First, we need to calculate the estimated overhead rate:

To calculate the estimated manufacturing overhead rate we need to use the following formula:

Estimated manufacturing overhead rate= total estimated overhead costs for the period/ total amount of allocation base

Estimated manufacturing overhead rate= 241,800/6,800= $35.59 per direct labor hour.

Now, based on actual direct labor hours, we can allocate overhead:

Allocated MOH= Estimated manufacturing overhead rate* Actual amount of allocation base

Allocated MOH= 35.59*5,300= $188,627

6 0

3 years ago

Meiji Isetan Corp. of Japan has two regional divisions with headquarters in Osaka and Yokohama. Selected data on the two divisio

abruzzese [7]

Answer:

Please check the info below

Explanation:

1. For Osaka

Margin = Net Operating Income / Sales *100

= $ 792000 / $9900000 *100

= 8.00%

Turnover = Sales / Average Operating Assets * 100

= $ 9900000 / $ 2475000 * 100

= 4.00%

ROI = Margin * Turnover

= 8% *4 %

= 32.00%

Hence the correct answer is 32.00%

For Yokohama :

Margin = Net Operating Income / Sales *100

= $ 2900000 / $ 29000000*100

= 10.00%

Turnover = Sales / Average Operating Assets * 100

= $ 29000000 / $ 14500000* 100

= 2.00%

ROI = Margin * Turnover

= 10% *2 %

= 20.00%

Hence the correct answer is 20.00%

2. The correct answer is

Osaka = $ 371,250

Yokohama = $ 435,000

3. The correct answer is No

This is because since Osaka has a higher ROI, Yokohama’s greater amount of residual income is not an indication that it is better managed

4 0

3 years ago

Sally is in the business of purchasing accounts receivable. Last year, Sally purchased an account receivable with a face value o

marusya05 [52]

Answer:

Sally’s basis in the Account Receivable is $60,000

She has a bad debt deduction of $0. There is no Bad debt deduction for Sally. Rather she made a profit on the transaction.

Explanation:

The Account Receivable can be defined as a Debt Instruments. Debt instruments in accounting are valued at Lower of Cost or Net Realizable Value.

Cost is the amount of cash or its equivalent that was expended to obtain an asset. The cost of this Account Receivable therefore is 60,000

Net realizable value (NRV) is the value that can be realized from the sale of an asset. Net Realizable value of the Account Receivable therefore is 80,000.

Therefore the value to be utilized as the value of the Account Receivable 60,000.

Below is the accounting entries to record the transaction and recognized profit.

For the Face Value of the Debt

Debit: Account Receivable Account(Debtors) 60,000.00

Credit: Account Receivable Purchase Account 60,000.00

For the payment of the A/R

Debit: Account Receivable Purchase Account 60,000.00

Credit: Bank 60,000.00

For the settlement received on the A/R

Debit: Bank 65,000.00

Credit: Account Receivable Account(Debtors) 60,000.00

Credit: Profit & Loss 5,000.00

8 0

3 years ago

Suppose that the demand curve for compact disks is given by P = 600 – Q and that the supply curve is given by P = 0.5 Q, where Q

otez555 [7]

Answer: -0.5

Explanation:

From the information given,

Demand curve = P = 600 – Q

Supply curve = P = 0.5Q

Equilibrium = Qd = Qs

Therefore, 600 - Q = 0.5Q

600 = Q + 0.5Q

600 = 1.5Q

Q = 600/1.5

Q = 400

Since P = 600 - Q

P = 600 - 400

P = 200

Price elasticity will be:

= (dQ/dP) × (P/Q)

=(-1) × (200/400).

= -1 × 0.5

= -0.5

The price elasticity is -0.5

7 0

3 years ago

A tax exempt municipality is considering the construction of a new municipal waste water treatment facility. Two different sites

In-s [12.5K]

Answer:

The incremental benefit/cost ratio for Alt A is 2.15 and The incremental benefit/cost ratio for Alt B is 1.35

Explanation:

In order to calculate the incremental benefit/cost ratio for both of the two alternatives we would have to make the following calculations:

For ALT A

PV of benefits = $2,111,404 * [1-(1.06)^-75]/0.06 = $34,744,943.5

Therefore, incremental benefit cost ratio = $34,744,943.5/$16,161,644 = 2.15

The incremental benefit/cost ratio for Alt A is 2.15

For ALT B

incremental benefits = ($3,019,639 -$2,111,404) * [1-(1.06)^-75]/0.06 = $14,945,777.2

incremental benefits = $27,211,376 - $16,161,644 = $11,049,732

Therefore, incremental benefit cost ratio = $14,945,777.2/$11,049,732 = 1.35

The incremental benefit/cost ratio for Alt B is 1.35

5 0

3 years ago