Answer:
The January cash disbursements for manufacturing overhead on the manufacturing overhead budget should be $102480
Explanation:
For computing the cash disbursements for manufacturing overhead, the calculation is shown below:
= Direct labor cost + Fixed manufacturing overhead
where,
direct labor cost = Direct labor hours × per labor rate
= 6,100 × $3.00
= $18,300
And, in budgeted fixed manufacturing overhead, the depreciation should be deducted as it is a non cash expense.
So,
= Budgeted fixed manufacturing overhead - depreciation
= $103,090 - $18,910
= $84,180
Now apply the above values to the formula.
So, cash disbursements is = $18,300 + $84,180 = $102480
Hence, The January cash disbursements for manufacturing overhead on the manufacturing overhead budget should be $102480
The January cash disbursements for manufacturing overhead in Morrish Inc.'s budget are calculated by adding the total variable costs ($18,300) to the fixed costs excluding depreciation ($84,180), amounting to $102,480.
To calculate the January cash disbursements for manufacturing overhead on the Morrish Inc.'s manufacturing overhead budget, we need to separate the overall costs into its components, namely fixed and variable costs.
In this case, the variable overhead rate is $3.00 per direct labor-hour, and the company expects to require 6,100 direct labor-hours in January. This gives a total variable cost of 6100 * $3 = $18,300.
The fixed manufacturing overhead is stated as $103,090, however, this includes a depreciation cost of $18,910. As depreciation is a non-cash expenditure, it should be excluded from the cash disbursements calculation. Therefore, the fixed costs for this calculation will be $103,090 - $18,910 = $84,180.
Add together the variable and fixed costs to get the total January cash disbursements for manufacturing overhead: $18,300 (variable) + $84,180 (fixed) = $102,480.
#SPJ3
Answer: See explanation
Explanation:
Based on the scenario in the question, the amount that the restaurant charge for the lunch excluding any tax will be calculated as:
= $15.40 × 100/(100 + 8)
= $15.40 × 100/108
= $1540/108
= $14.26
Sales tax will be:
= $15.40 × 8%
= $15.40 × 8/100
= $15.40 × 0.08
= $1.23
B. caretaker rep
C. order getter
D. order taker
E. sale support personnel
Answer:
(D) order taker.
Explanation:
An order taker is a salesperson who collects orders checks inventories, processes straight rebuys, sets up displays but does not make any effort to invite new customers or persuade the existing ones to increase their quantities of purchase.
b. What is the company's unlevered cost of equity capital?
c-1. What would the cost of equity be if the debt-equity ratio were 2?
c-2. What would the cost of equity be if the debt-equity ratio were 1.0?
c-3. What would the cost of equity be if the debt-equity ratio were zero?
Answer: a. WACC = Ke(E/V} + kd(D/V)(1-T)
9.1 = ke(100/160) + 6.4(60/160)(1-0.22)
9.1 = ke(0.625) + 2.4(0.78)
9.1 = 0.625ke + 1.872
9.1-1.872 = 0.625ke
7.228 = 0.625ke
ke = 7.228/0.625
ke = 11.56%
b. WACC = Ke(E/V)
9.1 = ke(100/160)
9.1 = 0.625ke
ke = 9.1/0.625
ke = 14.56%
c-1. WACC = Ke(E/V} + kd(D/V)(1-T)
9.1 = ke(1/3) + 6.4(2/3)(1-0.22)
9.1 = 0.3333ke + 3.328
9.1 - 3.328 = 0.3333ke
5.772 = 0.3333ke
ke = 5.772/0.3333
ke = 17.32%
c-2. 9.1 = ke(1/2) + 6.4(1/2)(1-0.22)
9.1 = 0.5ke + 2.496
9.1 - 2.496 = 0.5ke
6.604 = 0.5ke
ke = 6.604/0.5
ke = 13.21%
c-3. 9.1 = ke (0/0) + kd (0/)
ke = 0%
Explanation:
a. in the a part of the question, the debt-equity ratio was 0.6 ie 60/100. Thus, the value of the firm equals 160. The figures given in the question were substituted in the formula. Cost of equity was not provided, therefore, it becomes the subject of the formula. The variables are defined as follows:
ke = Cost of equity = ?
kd = Cost of debt = 6.4%
E = Value of equity = 100
D = Value of debt = 60
V = Value of the firm ie E + D = 100 + 60 = 160
T = Tax rate = 22% = 0.22
b. In this part of the question, only equity would be considered since we are calculating unlevered cost of equity. The part of the formula that deals with debt will be ignored.
c-1. In this case, the debt-equity ratio is 2. Therefore, debt equals 2 while equity is 1. The value of the firm becomes 3. There is need to substitute these values in the original formula while other variables remain constant.
c-2. In this scenario, the debt-equity ratio is 1. Thus, equity is 1 and debt is also 1. The value of the company changes to 2. These new values would be substituted in the formula in order to obtain the new cost of equity.
c-3. since the debt-equity ratio is 0, therefore, the cost of equity equals 0.
a. The company's cost of equity capital is 8.6014%. b. The company's unlevered cost of equity capital is 5.8729%. c-1. If the debt-equity ratio were 2, the cost of equity would be 8.6788%. c-2. If the debt-equity ratio were 1.0, the cost of equity would be 8.8894%. c-3. If the debt-equity ratio were zero, the cost of equity would be 5.8729%.
a. The formula to calculate the cost of equity capital is: Cost of Equity = WACC - (Debt/Equity) * (WACC - Cost of Debt) * (1 - Tax Rate). So, by plugging in the given values, we get Cost of Equity = 9.1% - 0.6 * (9.1% - 6.4%) * (1 - 0.22) = 9.1% - 0.6 * 2.7% * 0.78 = 9.1% - 0.4986% = 8.6014%.
b. The unlevered cost of equity capital can be calculated using the formula: Unlevered Cost of Equity = Cost of Equity / (1 + (Debt/Equity) * (1 - Tax Rate)). So, by plugging in the given values, we get Unlevered Cost of Equity = 8.6014% / (1 + 0.6 * 0.78) = 8.6014% / 1.468 = 5.8729%.
c-1. If the debt-equity ratio were 2, the new cost of equity can be calculated using the same formula as in part a. By plugging in the new debt-equity ratio, we get Cost of Equity = 9.1% - 2 * (9.1% - 6.4%) * (1 - 0.22) = 9.1% - 2 * 2.7% * 0.78 = 9.1% - 0.4212% = 8.6788%.
c-2. If the debt-equity ratio were 1.0, the new cost of equity can be calculated using the same formula as in part a. By plugging in the new debt-equity ratio, we get Cost of Equity = 9.1% - 1.0 * (9.1% - 6.4%) * (1 - 0.22) = 9.1% - 1.0 * 2.7% * 0.78 = 9.1% - 0.2106% = 8.8894%.
c-3. If the debt-equity ratio were zero (meaning no debt), the new cost of equity would be the same as the unlevered cost of equity calculated in part b, which is 5.8729%.
#SPJ2
Answer:
The operating income will increase by $13,000.
Explanation:
Giving the following information:
Sales revenue
Total= $490,000
Luxury= $360,000
Sporty= $130,000
Variable expenses:
Total= $355,000
Luxury= $235,000
Sporty= $120,000
Contribution margin
Total= $135,000
Luxury= $125,000
Sporty= $10,000
Fixed expenses:
Total= $78,000
Luxury= $39,000
Sporty= $39,000
Operating income (loss):
Total= $57,000
Luxury= $86,000
Sporty= $(29,000)
New Income Statement:
Sales= 360,000
Variable costs= 235,000 (-)
Contribution margin= 125,000
Fixed costs= 39,000 + 16,000= 55,000
Operating income= 70,000
The operating income will increase by $13,000.
Answer:
$22,245.44
Explanation:
For computing the future value we need to apply the future value which is to be shown in the attachment below:
Provided that,
Present value = $0
Rate of interest = 8%
NPER = 18 years
PMT = $550
The formula is shown below:
= -FV(Rate;NPER;PMT;PV;type)
So, after applying the above formula, the future value is $22,245.44
Had Marcus clicked on the link at the bottom of the screen, he would have seen the following:
The second screen stated "Three-day trial version- Free! $59.99 annual fee thereafter." Marcus was annoyed that the app would cost him almost $60 but figured he would set a reminder on his phone to cancel the app before the trial period expired so he wouldn't get charged. Plus, he wanted to see the app in action. If it was actually worth the price, he wouldn't mind paying the annual fee. He clicked "Continue" and put in his bank card information on the next screen. The following screen asked Marcus a series of questions about his stress level and what he felt caused stress in his life. He clicked "high" and "work" as the level and cause. He then completed the first CalmDown meditation in the app, but was not impressed with its functionality. Deciding he would cancel his subscription immediately, he went into the profile settings to try to find the cancel option but couldn't. He searched every possible place on the app but didn't see a way to cancel the subscription. Marcus decided to try to find the app's developer through their website, but a quick search didn't turn up anything. Already stressed and becoming more frustrated, Marcus decided to contact the app store. They informed him that he should be able to go into his app store account and cancel the subscription there. However, when Marcus went there, he didn't see the app as an option or as a subscription. Thinking that maybe his subscription didn't process, he just deleted the app from his phone.
Marcus didn't give the app or the subscription any more thought, becoming increasingly more distracted by the amount of stress at work. Four months later, Marcus was looking at his bank account online and noticed it was lower than it should have been. He began reviewing the charges and noticed multiple charges for $59.99 to a merchant named "CDgotU." He immediately remembered the app and contacted his bank to dispute the charges. His bank replied that due to the charges being debit withdraws he needed to dispute them within 2 days of being made. Moreover, if he had been diligent about watching his account, they could have put a block on the account and the remaining fraudulent charges would have been prevented. The bank representative also told him that he should try to get a refund from the company that charged him. After making his case with the bank representative for several hours about how he tried to cancel his subscription, he was unsuccessful. The bank's representative was able to provide Marcus a phone number attached to the Merchant account, but when Marcus called the number it was disconnected. The bank could not provide him with any additional information such as a company address or website.
After more internet searching, Marcus saw a number of other complaints online about the app, and noticed it had been removed from the app store and was no longer available for download. Marcus decided to bring an action against the company for fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and several other claims in his home state of Vermont.
Can Marcus compel the bank or the app store to provide additional information about the creator of CalmDown in order to determine the creator's location and potential assets?
a. No, these records are not subject to being subpoenaed due to their confidential nature.
b. Yes, he can subpoena records during the discovery process from both, but the bank and the app store may ask the judge to deny the request or limit the request due to privacy concerns.
c. Yes, but he must subpoena these records prior to the filing of the complaint.
d. Yes, he can file interrogatories during the discovery process to both the bank and the app store.
Answer: b. Yes, he can subpoena records during the discovery process from both, but the bank and the app store may ask the judge to deny the request or limit the request due to privacy concerns.
Explanation:
Marcus can indeed compel the bank or the app store to provide additional information about the creator of the app should he wish to find out the creator's location and its potential assets so he can purse the case appropriately legal wise.
He can do this by subpoenaing the required information when laying the background for the suit. As this information is considered private and confidential however, both the bank and the store could appeal to the Judge to refuse Marcus's request on the grounds of privacy concerns.
Answer:
the anser is B
Explanation: