Phoenix Financial Ltd. has suffered losses in recent years, and its stock currently sells for only $0.50 per share. Management wants to use a reverse split to get the price up to a more "reasonable" level, which it thinks is $25 per share. How many of the old shares must be given up for one new share to achieve the $25 price? Assume this transaction has no effect on total market value.

Which critical success factor improves with reduced cycle time, better quality standards, and improved efficiency when an is is implemented?

Laurelton heating & cooling installs and services commercial heating and cooling systems. laurelton uses job costing to calculate the cost of its jobs. overhead is allocated to each job based on the number of direct labor hours spent on that job. at the beginning of the current year, laurelton estimated that its overhead for the coming year would be $ 61 comma 500. it also anticipated using 4 comma 100 direct labor hours for the year. in april comma laurelton started and completed the following two jobs: (click the icon to view the jobs.) laurelton paid a $ 20-per-hour wage rate to the employees who worked on these two jobs. read the requirements requirement 1. what is laurelton's predetermined overhead rate based on direct labor hours? determine the formula to calculate laurelton's predetermined overhead rate based on direct labor hours, then calculate the rate. / = predetermined overhead rate

How should the environmental effects be dealt with when evaluating this project? the environmental effects should be ignored since the plant is legal without mitigation. the environmental effects should be treated as a sunk cost and therefore ignored. if the utility mitigates for the environmental effects, the project is not acceptable. however, before the company chooses to do the project without mitigation, it needs to make sure that any costs of "ill will" for not mitigating for the environmental effects have been considered in the original analysis. the environmental effects should be treated as a remote possibility and should only be considered at the time in which they actually occur. the environmental effects if not mitigated would result in additional cash flows. therefore, since the plant is legal without mitigation, there are no benefits to performing a "no mitigation" analysis.