Answer:
Market A: 
Market B: 
Explanation:
Market A: 
........................ (1)
Market B: 
........................ (2)
MC = m = 20 ............................................... (3) for both markets
For Market A:
Profit maximizing price can be obtained when 
Therefore, we have:
Substituting 50 for 
in equation (1), we have:
For Market B:
Profit maximizing price can be obtained when 
Therefore, we have:
Substituting 80 for 
in equation (2), we have:
Answer:
a. 28390
Explanation:
Stockholders cash flow is the net of cash inflows from stockholders and cash outflows to stockholders.
Net Income = $129,650
Payout Ratio = 40%
Cash outflow
Amount of Dividend Paid = $129,650 x 40% = $51,860
Cash Inflow
Common stock issue = $80,250
Net Stockholder's cash flow = $80,250 - $51,860
Net Stockholder's cash flow = $28,390
Answer:
Fixed overhead spending variance = 8300 Favourable
Explanation:
given data
Actual fixed overhead = 559300
Budgeted fixed overhead = 567600
solution
we get here Fixed overhead spending variance that is express as
Fixed overhead spending variance = Actual fixed overhead - Budgeted fixed overhead .................1
Fixed overhead spending variance = 559300 - 567600
Fixed overhead spending variance = 8300 Favourable
Answer:
Under government bankruptcy laws of the United States, anybody can declare financial insolvency in order to look for help from leasers. In any case, this comes to the detriment of harming one's financial assessments for quite a while (now and then upto a multi year time span) alongside bringing about critical lawful,, procedural and court charges.
That being stated, liquidations are significantly troublesome procedures essentially in light of the fact that loan bosses would not need any account holder to take the easy way off in the event that the indebted person wouldn't like to restitution. This is considerably progressively evident if there should be an occurrence of understudy advances where the borrower (Kay for this situation) needs to demonstrate without sensible uncertainty that he/she would confront "undue hardship" in the event that he/she were to continue with credit reimbursements. The "undue hardship" demonstrating part is available to an assortment of understandings, rounds of questioning and lawful examination by the courtroom. Most courts use the "Brunner Test" to decide an indebted person's qualification for understudy advance release. The key arrangements of the test are set somewhere around the United States Department of Education's, Federal Student Aid Office as given beneath:
(a) The account holder, in view of his/her present pay and costs, can't keep up a better than average "insignificant" way of life for himself/herself and his/her wards in the event that he/she were to proceed with the advance reimbursements.
(b) Additional conditions demonstrate certain the way that this condition will prevail for a larger part of the residency of the advance reimbursement.
(c) The borrower has taken a stab at reimbursing his/her understudy advance in accordance with some basic honesty up until this point.
In this specific situation, Kay would be in an ideal situation in attempting to get the advance deferred, on the off chance that she declares financial insolvency post changing her activity. This is so on the grounds that her present place of employment pays enough to reimburse her understudy advance and consequently don't meet two of the three Brunner Test models. Exchanging over to the non benefit employment would compromise her present way of life (and most likely that of her wards) and adjusts to the fundamental soul of the "Brunner Test". It would off base be upto her legitimate insight to demonstrate this danger (post work change) to her expectation for everyday comforts before the court and addition an understudy advance waiver.
