/biz/ should be able to solve this

$100

>>1733236
100

>>1733236
$100

>>1733236
30

>>1733248
>>1733244
>>1733249
Explain

Well, it's $100. + $30 + cost of goods, but it said not to overthink it, so it's either $100 or $130, depending on what "overthink" means.

>>1733254
She gives back $70 of the money she stole by buying the product.

So he only loses $70 of product, $30 money

>>1733254
he is at -100 when she takes the money and then
she gives him 100 so he is at 0. Then she gets 70 dollars of stuff plus another 30 putting him at -100 again

File: thinkingface.png (53KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 256x256px

>>1733257
>>1733258
I don't get it

$100.

Woman takes $70 of stock that could have been bought by someone else + $30 cash.

>>1733258

He's actually at -$170, because it's his $100 that is purchasing his $70 in product and then she gets $30 in change, so -$200

>>1733258
>Then she gets 70 dollars of stuff plus another 30 putting him at -100 again
She gets 70 dollars but she paid for it, he only lost 30 dollars because of the change.

>>1733259
She returns the money to buy product.

>>1733263
>He's actually at -$170, because it's his $100 that is purchasing his $70 in product and then she gets $30 in change, so -$200

How is it $200 you fucking retard

She gives the money back to buy the fuck product. So how does the owner lose it if she gives it back?

$100 obviously, that's all that was stolen.

>>1733286
This.

It was stolen, so that's what was lost.

You could go deeper in it but you'd have to know the profit margins of the goods purchased.

170
its his 100 and his products that were bought with the stolen hundred so its negative 170.

originally i thought 100 until i factored in that fact that he also lost products.

>>1733236

100-({grocers net profit on 70$ worth of groceries})

>>1733282

She's not giving anything back, she's using his stolen money to buy his product and get change back

She steals 100, uses 70 to get 70 in product, so she has 30 left in cash and then he gives her 30 in change

>>1733294
>this

What was his wholesale cost on the $70 worth of goods

Unsolvable, we'll never know his net loss

>>1733294

but he also got $70 of his money back... so wouldn't it be he only lost $30? oh no wait, she took $70 worth of goods though, 70+30=?????

>>1733236
100
store gave away $70 in groceries and $30 in cash

>>1733304

this

>>1733300
>She's not giving anything back

She's giving back the $100 to buy the product.

She ends up with $60 in cash as change from the $100 she stole and $70 retail value in merchandise, which is a $130 net loss for the business.

>>1733236

>>1733236

think about it from the register perspective.

say $200 in the register.
-100 stolen
100 in register, out 100 so far
100 back in to 200 but give 30 in change, register now has 170, - 70 in goods.
So Its 30 change and 70 in goods. owner out 100.

Or just think of it as she stole 30 + 70 in goods.

>>1733236
He's out $100 assuming the products she bought would be purchased by someone else eventually.

Gotta count wholesale cost, overhead, and profit lost.

>>1733236
100

>>1733236
The correct answer is F.

She ends up with $60 in cash and $70 in goods.
The store owner will have a drawer short $100.

>>1733629
>She ends up with $60 in cash
lol'd out loud

>>1733631
Should have been 30.

The only thief was $100, everything after that is a moot point since everything else is a normal transaction.

>>1733300
you're retarded. please just try and use a little bit more thinking power to compute this in your brain. i know it's hard.

File: 1484169716731.jpg (40KB, 640x423px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 640x423px

this thread

>>1733258
But that's saying the guy isn't making money off his products.
The loses 100$ his product costs 50$ he sells for 70$ so he makes 20$ each sale. So she gives him his 100$ back for a cost of 50$ then she gets 30$in change.
Tldr So he loses 100$ minus whatever the profit he makes per sale

>>1733693
makes you realize just how retarded people are here on /biz/.

>>1733699
pretty sure that's what the question meant by don't overthink it. It doesn't give us his profit margins so we can't even calculate the answer this way

Retailers perspective:

-30 Cash
-35 Money value of goods (since 100% markup is common)

Bitch took $100, doesn't matter what she could buy with it.

It'd be the same as her stealing $70 worth of product and the cashier throwing $30 randomly at her.

>inb4 but hurrr what if the owner bought stuff worth $140 and sold it at half-price

then he's retarded and getting robbed anyway

What a bunch of brainless niggers. I will put that into perspective. What if she buys first the goods and then comes back and steals the fucking money? Yeah I know! Astounishing. And the ones telling the margin should be discounted to the money stolen are just niggers because you are thinking other people's work is yours to take.

I should have left this site years ago.

>>1733236
$4.3 million, according to my RIAA approved calculator

>>1733236
>$165

Pretty easy brah

>>1733259
I know. That's because you're not very smart.

>>1733236
$30, logic.

100-70=30, what is hard about this?

>>1733916
Your skull.

>>1733916
Actually it's 30-100= -70

>>1733926
Fuck I meant 70-100 = -30

>>1733236
For all the idiots:
On the beginning he had $170 ($100 in cash $70 in goods) and she had nothing. On the end he had $70 in cash and she had $30 in cash and $70 in goods.

He lost $100

>>1733236
Depends on the gross margin of what she bought

>>1733236
$100.

70 in goods and 30 in cash.

>>1733886
solid kek.Hats off to you mate.

>>1733962
read the last two lines autismo

Are you guys fucking retarded?

The woman steals $100 from the store, the owner is out $100.

> - $100

Then she buys $70 worth of goods, WITH, that $100.

The owner is out ANOTHER $70, because the money used to purchase the goods was stolen.

> - $170

Then the owner gives $30 back in change, from the stolen $100, meaning, the owner is now out ANOTHER $30,

> - $30

The owner has lost $200 in total, and the woman has gained $30 in cash, and $70 in goods, for a total of $100.

Anyone who said $100 is retarded, and if your answer wasn't $100 or $200, you''re even more retarded than the $100 retards.

File: mfw2.jpg (29KB, 669x377px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 669x377px

>>1733236
tell me again which cryptocoins I should buy /biz/

Without "overthinking" you're going to be miles off anyway since we're not specifying whether the loss is counted pre-markup, or if we're factoring in opportunity cost.

>>1734571
She returns the "100$" you fucking retard, owner doesnt lose it since that 100$ bill is returned.

>>1734594
But the owner then gives her 30$, and 70$ worth of goods

30 + 70 = 100

Owner lost $100 .

Because the owner got back $100 which was Stolen by the lady,but lost the value of groceries($70) and $30 which he gave back to women.

>>1733309
well no he still lost the 70 dollars worth of product. It was his 70 to begin with so he lost the 100 and the seventy dollars worth of product.

>>1734571
Girl takes money

>-100

Gives back 70

>-30

Recieves $70 worth of goods

>-100

Gets back 30

>-130

>>1734610
Girl takes money

>-100

Gives back 100

>0

Recieves $70 worth of goods

>-70

Gets back 30 in change

>-100

>>1733309
no no he got 70 dollars back but he also lost 70 dollars in the process. Its his money to begin with.

>>1734615
Girl Takes money
> - 100
girl comes back and buys 70 worth of goods
> -70 - His money and his product being lost in the transaction.
-170

but you could also be right.

File: 1484453722799.png (196KB, 807x935px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 807x935px

everyone who says something else than 100$ has an IQ less than the amount of money lost by the original owner.

>>1733236
What he lost was $100 because that's what was stolen. A sale does not do anything to cancel out a theft. If you wanted to, you could get more technical and calculate the total loss based off the profit margin of the goods purchaded, so it would be $100 - profit margin of goods = total loss, but that's not really good accounting.

I've been seeing this all over Facebook and it just reveals how fucking stupid people are

>>1733236
He loses $100 (the original amount stolen)
After that the buying goods is extraneous and just a normal business transaction that anyone coming into the shop would do. Note the part at the bottom of the question twice telling you to not overthink it...

>>1733236
$170. She basically stole the $100 bill and the $70 of merchandise.

File: 1484417564711.png (209KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 480x480px

>>1734632
$100 is correct

but slightly less than $100
bc you could say the store earned back the profit margin on the $70 in groceries sale they completed. As someone said, we don't know the profit margin the store makes.

>>1734642
I am aware of that, but seeing all the retards in here I didnt mention that for the sake of simplicity.

>>1734640
Disregard that, I'm retarded. It's 100.

Steals $100.
-$100

Gives $100 back
$0

Receives $70 in goods and $30 in change with store money.
-$100

Technically it would be more if you considered the cost of shipping and storing the goods, the wages of the cashier, etc.

wow everyone is so stupid
he didn't get her phone number for a date so that was like at least 300 bucks profit.

Fake, girls don't steal

>>1734631
But she gives back the 100 for the goods

>>1733728

Holy fuck a correct answer

All the retards saying the thief "gave" the $100 back... even though she used it to buy goods and get $30 cash back. The store would have had $170 in the register, not just $70. She didn't just "give" it back for nothing in return.

>>1733236
The correct answer is $170 because of opportunity loss for the owner.

>>1733236
$200

>>1733614
-100 stolen money, this is owners loss (-100)
-70$ worth of good x + y = 70 (-170)
x is cost of investment, y is lost profits on stolen items, both of which would be an owners loss.
-30 because he gives change (-200)
Then this is the most complicated part for people,
the 100 he receives was already his, so the stolen money is crossed off cuz it has now been returned. (total -100) but then he never technically receives payment for the 70 stuff and 30 change, so that is -100 (-200)
tldr owner receives stolen bill back so thats cancelled out, but then owner is never tech paid for the transaction, gave out 100 in stuff/change and lost another 100 dollars potential profit

Or look at it this way, had this been a normal exchange, Girl buys 70$ of stuff with 100$ bill guy gives 30 change.
Guy is now -70 stuff -30 change but plus 100 cash so that is an even exchange.
but now it is girl steals 100 dollars, gets 70 stuff 30 change, and doesnt pay for goods/change recieved
guy is now -100 -70 -30 -100
guy is -300
girl feels bad gives the stolen hundred back
guy is -200

>>1733257
>this

>>1733304
>>1733316
we don't even know if the owner was selling at a loss
add taxes, though

File: 1483760932537.jpg (233KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1000x1000px

94.08 €

>>1734955
But he gave her $30 in change

$100 minus net profit of the sale

>>1733304
>do not over think it...

It depends on the stores profit margins on the $70 of products she bought

>steal a dollar amount
>make a regular purchase
>owner is down the dollar amount stolen

$60

>>1734571
He lost $200. She gained $100. Now lets forget about math for a second. Logic would dictate that your answer is wrong. 100 dollars did not just float away by itself and go on vacation.

>>1733294
>>1733301
You retards. It's the same damn thing if some other man, completely unrelated to the girl went into the store after her and bought $70 worth of goods. Same. Exact. Thing.

>>1735203
No it doesn't you fucking idiot.

I honestly can't believe this is the board for disseminating financial advice.

>>1735295
>>1735297
explain

File: brilliant.jpg (8KB, 209x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 209x200px

>>1733236
$170.

How fucking dumb are you cunts...

>>1735435
pssssst owner lost his change

>>1733715
>2 posts by this ID
Okay, we're all retarded. Please enlighten us on what the correct answer is.
I think it is $100, because it is asking "how much did the owner lose" $70 worth of food gone plus the $30 the thief still had.

>>1733699
>But that's saying the guy isn't making money off his products.
doesnt matter due to the fact that if they had not stolen 100 dollars, they would be making that profit anyways.

There should be a test like this to be able to access /biz/ we would get rid of so many retards

he got back the hundred so he lost $70 in food and $30 in change = $100

>>1733236

>people who answer anything other than $100
>these are the kind of people who give you career and money advice on /biz/

Does anyone has the "correct" answer to this?
I'm quite curious because it's worded to vaguely for any of the answers to be unequivocally right.

>>1735928
>I'm to intelligent for most of the people on this board :^)

>>1736004
are you fucking kidding me right now?

Guys I calculated 40 dollars because i accounted for interest and the time value of money

literally everyone in this thread is a retard

>>1736071
huh good point i think you are right

File: why are you doing this.png (7KB, 720x272px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 720x272px

>>1736071
>>1736077

>>1736108
topkek

>>1736071
huh good point i think you are right

>>1736071
Huh good nose I think you are altright.

>>1733236
-100$

first he loses 100$
than he gains that 100$ back
and loses 70$ in goods and 30$ in change

so -100+100-70-30=-100$

>>1734571
Jesus christ you are fucking dumb.

>If I stole an apple off you and then gave you back half an apple you would have lost one and a half apples

This is your logic.

>>1734571
>the owner lost $200 and the lady won $100
This is why I hated high school.
Actually even after graduating from college, people are still this dumb. I just hate people, I guess

130

>>1736154
but that is literally what happened lol

100

70 in goods, 30 in cash

It gets quite easy if you simplify the situation.The 30 bucks change are pretty unimportant, as is the fact, that she buys something for 70$.

Lets just say she buys something for 100$.

So the story is, she stole 100$. Then she gives back the 100$ to take something worth 100$ instead.

Store owner lost 100$ minus profit margin.

>>1736158
nice try.
answering to one troll was enough

>>1733236

Nothing, the obligation to pay was fulfilled. l2 accounting. Entertaining thread.

Don't overthink kthxbye

Owner

-100
-70 in stock (RRP)
+100
-30 in change

>>1734610
Reading comprehension failure.

>>1734571
>The owner is out ANOTHER $70, because the money used to purchase the goods was stolen.
That fucking logic.

>>1733299
this!

Without thinking too much I got $60. Using my brain I got $100.
Let's say he has $200 in products (P) and $200 in change (M).
He gets robbed - $200 P/$100 M.
She comes back, takes $70 worth of goods and pays $100, now it's $130 P/$200 M.
Get's her change back - $130 P/$170 M.
The loss is $100.

>>1733282
Cause it was never her's to give. She took 100
She used that money to buy 70 in products. And another was given 30 by the unaware owner. 200 in total.

The first "exchange" of money is irrelevant. Assume she went into the store and stole 70 worth of goods, then took another 30 from the register. That's what she's taking home, that's what the shop keeper is missing.

>>1738322
that assume the shopkeeper would have sold the perishable good to someone else.

the truth is the good didn't cost him $70 and there is no guarantee he could have sold it to someone else.

this results in a loss of somewhat less than $100.

>>1733236
>1 post by this ID
>128 replies

Top quality bait

What do you mean "do not overthink it"?

It depends on how much the store owner paid for the goods he/she sold. Without that info, it is impossible to figure out

The $70 worth of goods sold at $70 is probably not at $70 cost to the store owner. And would the thief have bought the goods unless she had previously stolen 100?

This is not as easy as you would like it to be.

>>1733236

The answer is $100. This is a zero sum problem, so whatever the woman gains, the shop owner loses.

She gained a free $70 shirt and also $30.

Ergo, $100.

>do not overthink it
Fuck you. That is vague.

This is not a simple question.

holy fuck it really is $100. The storeowner gets his $100 back for a moment before he gives the lady "her" $30 of money back in change. I'm an absolute cretin.

170 the 100 that was stolen and 70 in product

>>1739901
The product does not have a value of $70 for the store owner.

>>1733286
$130 you nog. They stole the $100 and then got $30 more back as change for the stolen $100.

>>1739930
Damn, I fucked this up, the store owner is only out $100.

-100 stolen
+100 payment
-70 in goods
-30 in change

>>1733236
It's just -$100.

He SOLD the groceries, they got the same price they would have if anyone else bought them. He didn't "lose" inventory. The only thing he lost was $100.

Fucking idiots.

>>1736058
Fucking look at these replies. This is legitimately worse than those Facebook order of operations memes. The fact that these same people feel qualified to talk about "technical analysis" for their stocks/cryptos is hilariously appalling.

>>1733236
He lost $30 cash and $70 worth of goods.

>>1733282
He was trolling you fucking retard

>>1740240
but he never got paid for them fucking idiot

> GIRL STEALS $100
> BUYS $70 WORTH OF GOODS
> IN THIS TRANSACTION SHE GIVES THE OWNER THE $100 BILL
> SHE HAS NOTHING
> OWNER GIVES WOMEN $70 WORTH OF GOODS
> OWNER MAKES PROFIT ON THE GOODS THAT HE JUST LEGALLY SOLD (JUST LIKE HE WOULD THROUGH ANY TRANSACTION)
> WOMAN HAS $70 OF GOODS AND NO MONEY
> OWNER GIVES WOMAN $30 CHANGE
IN SUMMATION: OWNER SOLD $70 IN GOODS, MAKING A PROFIT, AND RETURNED THE $30 HE WAS JUST GIVEN. HE IS OUT -$100 (slightly less due to profit from goods)

I'm furious. You fuckers got me.

>>1736108
I fucking lol'd

>>1739778
Lol you fucking mong

>>1733236
the owner simply loses the cost of goods sold of $70 worth of goods (let's just assume no sales tax here), plus another $30 of cash.

>>1735074
balance at zero
>takes 100 so -100
>buys stock with stolen money so -70
>-170
>Gives back the 100 so +100
>so now the balance is -70
>shop gives another 30
-70 - 30
= -100

0
-100
=-100
-70
= -170
+ 100
= -70
- 30
=100

cunt.

>>1733236
If you're claiming insurance, it's $170

If you're being held to oath, it's $100

>>1734778
It'd be less because margins.
If you would figure out true COGS, you end up with (usually 70% marked price) you end up with $49 in goods and 30 in cash.

So, I would say about $80

>>1739778
This pisses me off. Happened to me in school all the time.
Fucking idiot teachers.

>>1733236
$100. What a retarded question

>>1740441
Flying is not an observable difference. The bird is obviously sitting so the student is bringing outside biases into play inappropriately when the lesson was about observable differences.
>racist misogynist status confirmed

>>1739778
So what are the fucking answers?

100$ but he presumably made a profit off of the $70 worth of sales

>>1741951
This, 2.5X is a realistic COGS->Price multiplier

(70/2.5=28
70-28=42
100-42
$58)

>>1733236

It's $100!!! Jesus how did this thread get so long.

> Spoiler
Her coming back to shop is irrelavant. It's a red herring. Whether she or another person comes in there to shop it does not effect the equation.

The owner has "lost" $100. Everything after that is business as usual.

30 dollars + price of good sold.

Let's assume now the store makes 0 profit from this transaction of goods.
The retail price is $70 and the cost of goods is still $70.
You lose $30 dollars in change.
You lose $70 in product value.
No profit.
now you end up with: (-100) + 100 (you can eliminate these by default) + (-30) + (-70) = you're out of 100 dollar.

However, this time, the company has profit margins. Let's assume a book value of $50. If the store sells this product they increase turnover by $70 and earn a nifty profit of $20. You hand over $30 dollar's of change + this product. You get repaid $100. You made a profit on the product. But you lost money as well:
You earn $100 in turnover
You lose $50 in product value.
You lose $30 dollars in change.
You make $20 dollar in profit
so in my example you end up with (-30)+(-50) = -$80.
basically, you lose $100, you get returned $100. you hand over $30 change. The product is sold for $70 but cost of goods sold was only $50 so you earn an extra $20 back from the initial stolen $100, so you only end up losing 80 dollars instead of -(30+70) = -$100.

simplified: you make 100 dollars, you lose 70 bucks worth of product and 30 dollars of change = -100+100-70-30 = -100
-100+100-50-30 = -80

>>1734599
And she gave back the original 100

-100
+100
-70
-30
End Result: -100