Answer:
b. 13.9%
Explanation:
sales 7,000,000
variable cost <u> (3,000,000) </u>
contribution 4,000,000
fixed cost (1,500,000)
interest <u> (480,000) </u>
EBT 2,020,000
tax expense (707,000)
net income 1,313,000
contribution margin 4,000,000 / 7,000,000 = 4/7
if sales increase by 7%:
7,000,000 x 0.07 x 4/7 x (1- 0.35) = 182,000
income after increase in sales: 1,313,000 + 182,000 = 1,495,000
increase in earnings: 1,495,000 / 1,313,000 - 1 = 0.138613861 = 13.9%
Answer:
B. one of only 2 factories that made the product shuts down.
Answer:
Yes it should as the net present value at the firm WACC is positive $ 4,156.54
Explanation:
we are given with the after-tax cost for the machine and after-tax cost of the labor cost savings the new machine will provide
So we should check if the present value of the savings is greater or equal than the machine cost:
C $ 8,000
time 10 years
rate=WACC= 0.1
PV $49,156.5368
Net present value:
inflow - cost
49,156.54 - 45,000 = 4,156.54
The purpose for holding money in economic in classified into:
- transactional motive
- precautionary motive
- speculative motive
<h3>The Drop-downs includes:</h3>
- When price levels rise, people hold onto cash. - Speculative motive
- When interest rates are low, people forgo interest income - Speculative motive
- When aggregate income is high, people hold cash to buy goods that are plentiful and cheap - Transactional motive.
- When interest rates are low, people speculate that they will soon increase - Speculative motive
- Andy decided to hold his money in cash, as he did not earn sufficient money as income from interest. - Speculative motive
- Ben is a consumer and decides not to purchase luxury items because they are too expensive - Speculative motive
- Chad thinks it to be a good opportunity to buy the products from the market as the supply has increased. - Transactional motive
- Daphne is holding onto her money as she feels that the interest rate will go up soon - Speculative motive
Read more about holding motives
<em>brainly.com/question/16287958</em>
#SPJ1
Answer: Please refer to Explanation.
Explanation:
Two Companies. We shall call them A and B.
If A and B decide not to advertise, they both get $5,000,000.
If A advertises and B does not then A captures $3 million from B at a cost of $2 million meaning their payoff would be,
= 5 million - 2 million + 3 million
= $6 million.
A will have $6 million and B will have $2 million as $3 million was captured from them. This scenario holds true if B is the one that advertises and A does not.
If both of them Advertise, they both reduce their gains by $2 million while capturing $3 million from each other so they'll essentially both have just $3 million if they both decide to advertise.
With the above scenarios, it is better for both companies to ADVERTISE if there is NO COLLUSION. This is because it ensures that they do not get the lowest payoff of $2 million if the other company decides to advertise and they do not.
However, if they DO COLLUDE. They must both decide that NONE of them SHOULD ADVERTISE and this would leave them with their original $5 million each which is a higher payoff than the $3 million they will both receive if they were both advertising.
