Confusing question

Coatigan said:
Even in this example, if you work it through line by line, the final result is still 100, after a completely backwards way of looking at it.

100(till) + 70(goods) before event
70(till) + 0(goods) after,
-30 to bring till up to 100, +0 goods
-70 to replace the goods
-100 overall.
Click to expand...
It wont cost £70 to replace the goods. It will be trade price dependent on the margin
 
Last edited:
What happens if the wholesaler has put up his price since the stock shrinkage by 4%. Can that be factored in as a reduced future margin?

tAvTTpI.gif
 
Last edited:
Coatigan said:
Even in this example, if you work it through line by line, the final result is still 100, after a completely backwards way of looking at it.

100(till) + 70(goods) before event
70(till) + 0(goods) after,
-30 to bring till up to 100, +0 goods
-70 to replace the goods
-100 overall.
Click to expand...
You've assumed he will pay full price to replace the goods though, which is highly unlikely.

Let's assume he paid £30 for the goods he was selling at £70. So he'll only need to pay £30 to replenish the goods he lost, which will get him back to where he started if he again sells them for £70. Alternatively you could say he's lost the profit he would have made on those goods, meaning he'll have lost £40.

Reminds me of a story from my accountancy days, where I was working for a mate (Mike) who'd set up on his own and we had a shopkeeper client. Something had happened - a flood or a fire iirc - that meant some or all of his stock was ruined and unsaleable. He had a policy he'd taken out on Mike's advice which covered him for loss of profits, and which he naturally claimed on. We had his books so we could calculate that figure. But he got really annoyed when he found out it would only replace the profit he would have made on the stock, not the retail value.

Mike tried patiently to explain to him how the policy worked but he wouldn't have it and was getting more and more irate, while Mike was getting more and more exasperated. Eventually he wanted to end the relationship and wanted his books back. Mike wanted the fees he owed and there was a stand-off. The (former) client was actually making threats and Mike wanted me to take the books back and get the money he was owed. I told him he could fuck off with that plan as I didn't fancy getting taken hostage or being knifed or something. He saw my point so we had to arrange with a relative of his, who owned a big cash-and-carry, to act as the go-between who would stand the money and I'd return the books. It was like something out of The Godfather and I was quite releived to come out of it unscathed.

Who says accountancy is boring.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
You've assumed he will pay full price to replace the goods though, which is highly unlikely.

Let's assume he paid £30 for the goods he was selling at £70. So he'll only need to pay £30 to replenish the goods he lost, which will get him back to where he started if he again sells them for £70. Alternatively you could say he's lost the profit he would have made on those goods, meaning he'll have lost £40.

Reminds me of a story from my accountancy days, where I was working for a mate (Mike) who'd set up on his own and we had a shopkeeper client. Something had happened - a flood or a fire iirc - that meant some or all of his stock was ruined and unsaleable. He had a policy he'd taken out on Mike's advice which covered him for loss of profits, and which he naturally claimed on. We had his books so we could calculate that figure. But he got really annoyed when he found out it would only replace the profit he would have made on the stock, not the retail value.
Click to expand...

I wasn't assuming anything, I just worked through your own example as re-worded by you.

Anyway, it is clear the answer is £100, both in itself and from everything else, including the fact the original riddle didn't have 'depends on the stock value of the goods' as a multiple choice option. It did what it set out to do, tricked clever people, as most such riddles do.
 
Sadds for Prez.
Coats for minister for Finance.

Never mind the cost price of anything and how much is recorded in the books after a stocktake.
If no money was stolen that would still happen. Supposing the guy stole nothing from the till but bought €70 worth of goods from his own pocket. The shop would be up the €100 euro that’s in the till.
He stole the €100 but still bought the €70 worth.
They re down €100 that was there from other people buying other goods that will be accounted for in a stocktake.

The fucker stole €100 as the MoF has pointed out.

Now hand him over to Magicpole. The Minister of Justice.
 
The same question popped up on my Twitter earlier today funnily enough.

I believe the correct answer is… A definite answer is not possible, as the question is too vague and doesn’t specify exactly what is meant by, “How much has the shop ‘lost’ ?“
 
Stephen230 said:
The same question popped up on my Twitter earlier today funnily enough.

I believe the correct answer is… A definite answer is not possible, as the question is too vague and doesn’t specify exactly what is meant by, “How much has the shop ‘lost’ ?“
Click to expand...
Vague? Yes.
But every bit as vague or up for speculation is that the €100 he stole was the proceeds of existing sales which are every bit as susceptible to stocktaking and whatever accounting practices are normal calculation of profit and loss etc etc etc.
The till is definitely down €100 regardless of what stock was bought to put the €100 there in the first place.

To simplify it further.
No stock was stolen. What was stolen were the proceeds of previous sale of stock.


I rest my case milord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.