Answer: Option E
Explanation:
A. Poor quality inventory will not be sold leading to excess of it thus it is a reason.
B. Large set up times will lead to loosing of customers, thus, reason for excess inventory.
C. Unreliable equipment urges for overproduction while the equipment is working efficiently thus it is a reason for excess inventory.
D. Poor employee relationships effects organisation process which might lead to delay in sales thus, a reason for excess inventory.
E. Workers union establishes efficiency in the work performance of labor, thus, it is not a reason in excess inventory.
Answer:
b. An increase of $15 million
Explanation:
The computation of the cash impact of the change in working capital is shown below:
As we know that
Working capital = Current assets - current liabilities
So, the change in working capital is
= Increase in current assets - increased in current liabilities
= $40 million - $25 million
= $15 million
Hence, the b option is correct
Answer:
D. $ 10,300
Choice D is correct: Net income = $ 10,300
Explanation:
Cash Received = $ 16000
Less Rent Paid= ( $ 2000)
Add income = $ 3000
Less Salaries for the month of March = ($ 6200)
Less utilities paid ($ <u>500)</u>
<u>Net income=</u> $ 10,300
Treatments.
Net income is found by deducting expenses from revenues earned
$ 100,000 is the retained earnings so it is not accounted for net income.
Equipment is an asset so it is not accounted for net income.
Cash received is the revenue so it is accounted.
Rent is an expense account so it is subtracted.
Income for service $ 3000 provided is also taken into account on matching principle basis.
Advance received will be adjusted when the services will be rendered on matching principle.
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.