The statement in question is true. Overhead variance is determined by the difference between actual and applied overhead costs. This kind of analysis helps in understanding cost inefficiencies and making future budgets.
The statement 'The total overhead variance is the difference between actual overhead costs and overhead costs applied to work done' is true. In cost accounting, overhead variance is indeed determined by the difference between the real, or actual overhead expenses for a certain period and the overhead costs which were anticipated or pre-applied to the work done in that same period. This kind of variance analysis helps the business to understand where and how their cost estimates were off, and make necessary adjustments for future cost predictions and budgeting. For example, if the actual overhead costs are higher than the applied overhead costs, it could signify inefficiency in the production process. Conversely, if the applied overhead costs are higher than the actual costs, it signifies cost efficiency.
#SPJ6
Answer:
The dividend of $147,420 is allocated to preferred stockholders
A dividend of $38,580 is allocated common stockholders
Explanation:
The preferred stock has a fixed amount of dividend which is a percentage of its par value computed thus:
preferred dividend=13,000*$81*14%=$ 147,420.00
However, when preferred stock dividend is taken away from the total dividends, the result is dividends for common stockholders
Common stockholders' dividends=$186,000-$147,420=$38,580.00
Answer:
The correct answer is letter "A": sales promotion.
Explanation:
Sales promotion is the marketing technique in which the benefits or special features of a product or service are provided to potential customers directly. In some cases, the sales promotion also is provided to the distribution channel so later the distribution channel reuses the information obtained to promote the same goods or services to the final customers.
Answer:
EOQ = 359 units
Number of order placed = 7.2 times
Explanation:
The Economic Order Quantity (EOG) is the order size that minimizes the balance of ordering cost and holding cost. At the EOQ, the carrying cost is equal to the ordering cost.
It is computed using he formulae below
EOQ = √ (2× Co× D)/Ch
C0- 500, Ch- 20, D- 2,580
EOQ= √ (2× 500× 2580)/20
=359.16
EOQ = 359 units
Number of order place d per year = Annual demand / order size
Number of order placed = 2,580/ 359
= 7.2 times
Answer:
$22.5 per unit
Explanation:
Given that,
When 15,000 units produced,
Company has fixed costs per unit = $18 per unit
Company has variable cost per unit = $9 per unit
Therefore,
Total fixed cost at 15,000 units:
= 15,000 units × $18 per unit
= $270,000
Per unit Fixed cost at 12,000 units:
= Total fixed cost ÷ 12,000 units
= $270,000 ÷ 12,000 units
= $22.5 per unit
To find the fixed costs per unit when 12,000 units are produced, divide the total fixed costs by the number of units produced at that level.
To find the fixed costs per unit when 12,000 units are produced, we first need to calculate the total fixed costs at 15,000 units and then divide it by 15,000 to find the fixed cost per unit at that level of production. Given that the fixed costs are $18 per unit at 15,000 units, the total fixed costs at that level would be 15,000 units multiplied by $18, which equals $270,000. To find the fixed costs per unit at 12,000 units, we divide the total fixed costs of $270,000 by 12,000 units, resulting in a fixed cost per unit of $22.50.
#SPJ3
Answer:
An unreasonable noncompete clause
Explanation:
A noncompete clause is any provision of a contract that ensures that one party will not compete directly with the other party by starting a similar business or profession that generates competition between them. In the question, there was an example of An unreasonable noncompete clause, which is any clause provided for in a contract that goes beyond the limitations determined to be legally binding, such as the time period and geographic area where an individual cannot to compete.
Answer:
Y = 83.2 + 2.29x1 + 1.30x2
Y = 83.2 + 2.29(4) + 1.30(1.5)
Y = 83.2 + 9.16 + 1.95
Y = 94.31(thousand)
Y = $94,310
The gross revenue is $94,310
Explanation:
In this case, the estimated regression equation has been given. Since x1 is $4,000 and x2 is $1,500, then, we will substitute these values for x1 and x2 in the equation. The addition of all values after the substitution gives the gross revenue.