Answer:
3.33%; 9%
Explanation:
Given that,
Expected dividend next year = $1.50
Trading at = $45
Expected growth rate per year = 9 percent
Dividend yield = (Expected dividend next year ÷ Trading amount) × 100
= ($1.50 ÷ $45) × 100
= 0.0333 × 100
= 3.33%
The capital gain of JUJU is same as the expected growth rate i.e 9 percent.
Answer: verifiable
Explanation:
A financial information is verifiable when the independent measurers get similar results when using the same accounting measurement methods.
In this scenario, the independent measures use thesame method but do their work separately without them knowing the results gotten by the other person. When there's similarity in the results, it shows that the results are verifiable.
The answer is marginal revenue (MR) curve above $22.
Explanation:
Jim and Lisa Groomers will maximize its accounting profit when taking it to 0 its economic profits when marginal revenue = marginal costs.
Economic profits are not the same as accounting profits because they include the opportunity costs of investing the money somewhere else. That is whythe long run firm is not able to make economic profits since as they exist, new competitors will enter the market. But in the case of the shoert run, the firms are able to make economic profit, but by doing so, they cannot maximize their accounting profit.
Economic profit = account profit = Opportunity profit
Opportunity cost are extra costs or benefitslost from choosing one activity or investment over another one.
Answer and Explanation:
The Preparation of direct material budget is shown below:-
Direct Material budget
Particulars Amount
Units to be produced $90,000 Y
Material per unit 2
Total pounds needed for
production M $180,000 2Y
Add: Desired ending Direct
Material Inventory 20% $36,000 (.2 × 2Y = .4Y)
Total Material requirement $216,000 (2.4Y
)
Less: beginning Raw material
Inventory $9,000 (.1Y)
Material to be purchased
Account $207,000 (2.3Y)
Cost per pound C $5
Total cost of direct Material
Purchases A $1,035,000
2Y + .4Y - .1Y = $207,000
Y = $207,000 ÷ 2.3 $90,000
Answer:
It does not
Explanation:
In this question, we are asked to evaluate if a particular transaction carried out between a customer and an inn falls within the dictates of the local consumer protection law in the state.
Firstly, we look at what the local consumer protection law of the state talks about. It explicitly stated that customers should get receipts when suppliers receive deposits from them. Thus, this make the receipt act as the first thing to have if there would be any claim under the consumer protection law for the transaction carried out in the state.
Now, looking at the particular scenario we have, the customer paid for the room, but he was not issued a receipt. This makes the case not treatable within the consumer protection law of the state as the receipt which should have been a prerequisite for further exploration is not available
