Answer:
The Darwin Company
Calculation of Manufacturing Overhead costs:
= $17,200
Explanation:
a) Data and Calculations:
Depreciation on factory equipment $4,700
Indirect labor 5,900
Factory rent 4,200
Factory utilities 1,200
Indirect materials used 1,200
Total Manufacturing overhead costs = $17,200
b) Darwin's manufacturing overhead costs will include only the above listed costs. Sales commissions, direct materials, direct labor, and office salaries expense do not form part of the manufacturing overhead costs. The manufacturing overhead costs are neither direct materials or labor costs or selling and administration costs.
Answer:
The answer is: E) None of these.
Explanation:
A foreign national is a person who wasn´t born in the country in which he or she temporarily lives in.
We don´t have enough information to know if Carrie´s Car Care is a wealthy company. Maybe its total sales are just $10,000 a year but they export $2,500.
A multinational corporation usually has branches or subsidiaries. All we know about Carrie´s Car Care is that it makes some money outside the US, but we don´t know how. Maybe they simply export 25% of their products or maybe they are a huge multinational corporation. Not enough information.
The term globalization corporation doesn´t exist. The term corporate globalization refers to very large multinationals that reach all or most of the world´s markets.
Answer:
0.047424
Explanation:
Given that
Expected return of security M = 17%
Standard deviation of Security M = 32%
Expected return of security S = 13%
Standard deviation of security S = 19%
And, the correlation coefficient = 0.78
So, by considering the above information the co variance is
= Correlation coefficient × Standard deviation of Security M × Standard deviation of security S
= 0.78 × 0.32 × 0.19
= 0.047424
Answer: Ethical Obligations and Decision-Making in Accounting-The Heading is devoted to helping students cultivate the ethical commitment needed to ensure that their work meets the highest standards of integrity, independence, and objectivity.
* This program is designed to provide instructors with the flexibility and pedagogical effectiveness, and includes numerous features designed to make both learning and teaching easier.
Explanation: The first, addressed in Part I, is the administrative cost of deregulation, which has grown substantially under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.Part II addresses the consequences of the FCC's use of a competitor-welfare standard when formulating its policies for local competition, rather than a consumer-welfare standard. I evaluate the reported features of the FCC's decision in its Triennial Review. Press releases and statements concerning that decision suggest that the FCC may have finally embraced a consumer-welfare approach to mandatory unbundling at TELRIC prices. The haphazard administrative process surrounding the FCC's decision, however, increases the likelihood of reversal on appeal.Beginning in Part III, I address at greater length the WorldCom fraud and bankruptcy. I offer an early assessment of the harm to the telecommunications industry from WorldCom's fraud and bankruptcy. I explain how WorldCom's misconduct caused collateral damage to other telecommunications firms, government, workers, and the capital markets. WorldCom's false Internet traffic reports and accounting fraud encouraged overinvestment in long-distance capacity and Internet backbone capacity. Because Internet traffic data are proprietary and WorldCom dominated Internet backbone services, and because WorldCom was subject to regulatory oversight, it was reasonable for rival carriers to believe WorldCom's misrepresentation of Internet traffic growth. Event study analysis suggests that the harm to rival carriers and telecommunications equipment manufacturers from WorldCom's restatement of earnings was $7.8 billion. WorldCom's false or fraudulent statements also supplied state and federal governments with incorrect information essential to the formulation of telecommunication policy. State and federal governments, courts, and regulatory commissions would thus be justified in applying extreme skepticism to future representations made by WorldCom.Part IV explains how WorldCom's fraud and bankruptcy may have been intended to harm competition, and in the future may do so, by inducing exit (or forfeiture of market share) by the company's rivals. WorldCom repeatedly deceived investors, competitors, and regulators with false statements about its Internet traffic projections and financial performance. At a minimum, WorldCom's fraudulent or false
