Simple problem

[Anonymous No.9756507]

Can someone answer this and explain your answer? I have heard different arguments and want to know what /sci/ thinks.

[Anonymous No.9756512]

$200

[Anonymous No.9756514]

100

[Anonymous No.9756517]

How though?

[Anonymous No.9756518]

depends on VAT and the price of the good purchased by the store owner

[Anonymous No.9756520]

30 plus whatever the goods were actually worth.

[Anonymous No.9756521]

She stole $70 worth of goods as well as $30 in change. So, $100 total

[Anonymous No.9756522]

-70 in groceries
-30 in change

= $100

[Anonymous No.9756523]

>>9756507
She takes 100 dollars.
The store is down 100.
The store now needs roughly 5000 in sales to make up that loss.
She comes back, buys 70 dollars in groceries, the store is down 4730.
Whoever made this question doesn't know shit about profit margins.

[Anonymous No.9756525]

$100 (assuming COGs of $70 which is unrealistic but w/e)

Is this meant to be hard?

[Anonymous No.9756526]

>>9756523
Can you please elaborate more? I'm obviously a retard cause I was thinking $100.

[Anonymous No.9756527]

>>9756525
No it's not, the thing is lots of people claim that the question is common sense but all have different answers.

[Anonymous No.9756533]

>>9756523
><5% margin
What retarded shops do you go to

[Anonymous No.9756536]

>>9756526
Not the same guy, but when you're a retailer and you sell something for $x, the actual profit you make isn't $x. You bought that product from a wholesaler for y<x dollars. So when you sell it you're true overall profit is x-y dollars.


Say you're selling the products for 10 bucks each, but you had to buy them from the wholesaler for 8 bucks. Then to make a profit of 100$, you need to sell 50 products. i.e. you need to sell 500$ worth of product to make 100$ of profit in this example.

[Anonymous No.9756543]

>>9756536
Ah ok that makes a hell of a lot more sense, thanks.

[Anonymous No.9757526]

>>9756533
>he shops at stores that are needlessly marked up

[Anonymous No.9757535]

It's more straightforward if you view the question as :
Someone stole $100, how much was stolen?

[Anonymous No.9757541]

> senior finance student
> I got it wrong

JUST

[Anonymous No.9757545]

>>9756526
No, you are correct. The store loses 100$ minus whatever they profit from the transaction (which this retarded question does not account for) Anyone who thinks otherwise should be institutionalized

[Anonymous No.9757550]

>>9756507
A lady comes into the shop and steals $100.
Five minutes later SOMEONE ELSE comes into the shop, buys $70 worth of goods with a $100 bill and gets $30 dollars in change.

In the second transaction the owner hasn't lost anything. Both parties are satisfied. What the shop owner paid for the merchandise is irrelevant.

That leaves only the theft itself. He's down $100 and has gotten nothing in return. Again, what he paid for the merchandise doesn't matter.

Anyone who worries about the profit he MIGHT have made by selling an item is an idiot.

[Anonymous No.9757593]

>>9756523
>Whoever made this question doesn't know shit about profit margins.
Or maybe you don't know much about puzzles.
The answer is $100.
And even if we're being pedantic, there's more to it than profit margin.
Were the $70 worth of goods an item that's difficult to keep in stock? If so, someone else would have bought them, and the limit to the profit on these goods is based on how many a month the wholesaler can provide.
Then there's the question of whether our thief would have made the $70 purchase even without stealing the $100, or was she unable to afford the goods without the $100?
If the two events are unrelated, the purchase is irrelevant.
Obviously, this isn't a real world question, it's a fucking puzzle, and should be interpreted as such, especially given the repeated instruction not to overthink it.

[Anonymous No.9757601]

Well let's see.

She stole $100.
She bought something for $70. So that's -$30 to start.

Now the shopkeepers losses would be defined as

losses = $30 + ($70-x) - y + salaries

where x is the profit gained by the $70 exchange. y would be the profit margin from the $100 exchange that had happened prior, placing the $100 in the register in the first place. Salaries of course include the investment in time to undo the damages.

losses = $30 + ($70-$70*profit margin1) - ($100*profit margin2)

[Anonymous No.9757615]

>>9756523
>The store now needs roughly 5000 in sales to make up that loss.
Oops, I missed this at first.
Profit margin isn't as simple as retail minus wholesale.
You've got rent, labor, etc., costs that are fixed per day. One extra sale in a day skews the cost-per-sale of these overhead expenses.
If the shop owner pays $1000 per day for electricity, rent and labor, but only makes 100 sales, that's $10 per sale in expenses. Adding one sale changes that to $9.90 per sale, unless you amortize the expenses per dollar of gross sales (or net) rather than per number of sales.
It should be clear by now that even if we had every single piece of information involved, the answer is subjective, and couldn't possibly be the point of the puzzle.
The answer is $100.

[Anonymous No.9757627]

>>9757615
One more thought: If the goods are perishable, the alternative without the sale, they _may_ have been thrown away a t the end of the day/week.
Still thinking $100, nit-pickers be damned.

[Anonymous No.9757657]

>>9756523
enlighten response

[Anonymous No.9757678]

>>9757615
How much will it cost the owner to replace the stolen shit, $30, wholesale price of the goods and whatever his time is worth going through the trouble.

[Anonymous No.9757689]

>>9757678
>How much will it cost the owner to replace the stolen shit,
No shit was stolen, just the bill.
ITT, pedants can't solve a fifth grade math question.
Although_you_ are extra wrong because you aren't just missing the point of the puzzle, you're also misreading the question.

[Anonymous No.9757698]

If you think it's not 100$ then you're an absolute brainlet. No excuse for getting this wrong just use your common sense.

[Anonymous No.9757710]

170

[Anonymous No.9757713]

-100 + 70 - 30 = -60.

[Anonymous No.9757760]

>>9757593
>>9757615
That's why I said roughly. Most big retailers have a 2 percent profit margin on goods. This margin already includes whole sale prices, business overhead and controllable loss such as perishables.

2% is pretty standard everywhere from grocery stores to hardline products such as computers and supplies.

You can ignore all of my original post except the first line to get the answer they want, but it's hardly overthinking to acknowledge an industry standard.

[Anonymous No.9757810]

>>9756507
$100 obviously

[Anonymous No.9757838]

>>9756523
>She takes 100 dollars.
>The store is down 100.
>The store now needs roughly 5000 in sales to make up that loss.
>She comes back, buys 70 dollars in groceries, the store is down 4730.
>Whoever made this question doesn't know shit about profit margins.
Wait...
>the store is down 4730.
I think you're claiming they need another $4730 in gross sales to replace the $100 she stole.
That's not even close to answering the original question "how much did the owner lose?"
I can understand the people here who claim he lost slightly less than $200 because his loss is offset by the profit made from her purchase.
I mean, they're wrong, but only because they aren't treating this like a puzzle. And even then, in real life, whether to count the profit from her purchase is really a matter of opinion and semantic interpretation.
But there's just no way to defend the notion that he's down nearly $5000.

[Anonymous No.9757856]

>>9756523

[Anonymous No.9757880]

brainlets including whoever wrote the question think the answer is $100
the actual answer is $100 minus the difference in the prices of what she bought and what the store bought it for, the answer is unknown
if hypothetically the store was selling stuff they produced themselves without expenses they would've only lost $30

[Anonymous No.9757885]

>>9756507
Assume the store starts with 130 dollars and 70 dollars worth of clothes.

He ends with 70 dollars

200 - 70 = 130

[Anonymous No.9757889]

>>9757760
>That's why I said roughly.
No, what you said was the owner somehow lost the gross income necessary required to cover his $100 loss.
That's not just wrong, it' incredibly wrong. He was never really has the gross income, just the net.
Two percent also seems really low, I was taught 5% was average back in high school.
But since he's never really lost the gross, it doesn't come to $4730.

If you insist the profit for the $70 purchase offsets the $100 loss (and I'm pretty sure it doesn't, since she would have presumably made that purchase anyway), your 2% profit would mean he made $1.40 on her $70 purchase, giving us a total loss of $98.60, NOT $4730.00.
But even that's ignoring the daily fixed expenses (rent, utilities, labor).
If you're going to be pedantic, you should at least be right about your nit-pickery.

[Anonymous No.9757894]

>>9757838
>t slightly less than $100*

[Anonymous No.9757898]

>>9757880
>if hypothetically the store was selling stuff they produced themselves without expenses they would've only lost $30
Only if you assume she wouldn't have made the purchase without having stolen the $100.

[Anonymous No.9757910]

>>9757885
>He ends with 70 dollars
no he ends with 100 dollars

[Anonymous No.9757913]

>>9756507
The answer is 100. Anyone else is trolling or not thinking clearly.

[Anonymous No.9757914]

>>9757898
I did consider that, but imo that's outside the scope of the question, it's only "how much the store lost", hypothetical alternatives don't affect the answer

[Anonymous No.9757921]

>>9757914
>imo that's outside the scope of the question
No, you seem to be assuming she wouldn't have made the purchase without having stolen the money. Otherwise the answer is clearly $100.

[Anonymous No.9757928]

>>9757880
>the actual answer is $100 minus the difference in the prices of what she bought and what the store bought it for, the answer is unknown
No. The store starts with $200 of money and merch combined. The woman takes 100 and store is down 100. She then exchanges her 100 for the remaining 70 dollars of merch and 30 cash the stores has. So the store has 100 in the end. Ergo the store lost 100.

[Anonymous No.9757950]

>>9756520
This

[Anonymous No.9757960]

>>9756523
>stealing 100 dollars from the cash register makes the company down 5000 dollars
https://vocaroo.com/i/s15W7gg1TcTX

[Anonymous No.9758069]

>>9757838
When's the last time someone made a donation to a retail store? The only way to make the money lost back is through sales. Since those sales already have sunk costs themselves, a 100 dollar sale wont simply replace the loss the store took. That's why it takes much more than 100 in sales to make it back. That's money the store doesn't get in profit, as those sales are arguably independent of the theft.

[Anonymous No.9758199]

>>9758069
>a 100 dollar sale wont simply replace the loss the store took.
...of course.

>That's why it takes much more than 100 in sales to make it back.
Naturally.

>That's money the store doesn't get in profit,
No, it's money the store doesn't get in GROSS.
Wait... even that's not right.
She doesn't reduce the store's gross at all.
The store's gross either remains the same, or goes up by $70, depending on how you interpret the question.

But your interpretation should be predicated on the context of the question, and it should be clear that since your solving a puzzle instead of doing accounting for an actual store, the answer is $100.

[Anonymous No.9758203]

>>9756507
>lose one hundred dollars in cash
>lose seventy dollars worth of merchandise
>lose thirty dollars in cash
Two hundred dollars lost.

[Anonymous No.9758204]

>>9758069
>a 100 dollar sale wont simply replace the loss the store took.
...of course.

>That's why it takes much more than 100 in sales to make it back.
Naturally.

>That's money the store doesn't get in profit,
No, it's money the store doesn't get in GROSS.
Wait... even that's not right.
She doesn't reduce the store's gross at all.
The store's gross either remains the same, or goes up by $70, depending on how you interpret the question.

But your interpretation should be predicated on the context of the question, and it should be clear that since your solving a puzzle instead of doing accounting for an actual store, the answer is $100.

[Anonymous No.9758207]

>>9758203
I sure hope you're trolling.

[Anonymous No.9758210]

>>9758069
>a 100 dollar sale wont simply replace the loss the store took.
...of course.

>That's why it takes much more than 100 in sales to make it back.
Naturally.

>That's money the store doesn't get in profit,
No, it's money the store doesn't get in GROSS.
Wait... even that's not right.
She doesn't reduce the store's gross at all.
The store's gross either remains the same, or goes up by $70, depending on how you interpret the question.

But your interpretation should be predicated on the context of the question, and it should be clear that since you're solving a puzzle instead of doing accounting for an actual store, the answer is $100.

[Anonymous No.9758355]

>>9756507
70

[Anonymous No.9758420]

>>9757760
>$4730 [math]\approx[/math] $100
t. engineer

[Anonymous No.9758560]

>>9756507
C - $100

1) Loses $100 (She steals the bill)
2) Gets $100 back (she hands him the bill)
3) Loses $100 (She leaves with $70 worth of product + $30 in change)

[Anonymous No.9758568]

>>9758210
>since you're solving a puzzle instead of doing accounting for an actual store, the answer is $100.
Shades of "A book costs $1 plus half it's price..."

[Anonymous No.9758596]

>>9756507
I struggled quite a bit. The answer is clearly 100$.

[Anonymous No.9758668]

>>9756520
>not accounting for the lost sale

[Anonymous No.9758675]

>>9756507
For the sake of discussion, let's say that the owner bought the goods at $60.
>Thief Steals $100
Credit cash 100, Debit Theft Expense 100
>Thief buys $70 worth of goods
Debit cash 70, Credit revenue 70
>Ending inventory adjustment
Credit inventory 60, Debit COGS 60

So we end up at:
$160 in expenses, and $70 in revenue.

Thus, the owner has lost $90--that is, the stolen $100 less the profit from the sale of the $70 in goods.

[Anonymous No.9758701]

>>9756507
1. She steals $100 (-$100 balance)
2. She buys $40 worth of items with $70 (-100 - (40-70) = -$70 balance)
3. She receives $30 from the clerk (-70 - 30 = -$100)

basically, the transaction later is arbitrary assuming the goods were worth the price they were sold for, since any fair transaction would result in a net of 0.

[Anonymous No.9758724]

>>9758701
oh fuck, misinterpreted the question, but the answer is still the same. Think of it like she split the 100 dollar bill she stole into 70 and 30.

[Anonymous No.9758726]

>>9758668
>>not accounting for the lost sale
How many of you retards are huffing glue before you come to this thread????
WHAT FUCKING LOST SALE?????
If you're implying she wouldn't have spent $70 without having stolen the $100, the the sale wasn't "lost".
But the person you're responding to is (foolishly) assuming the $100 loss is offset by the $70 sale, in which case the sale still wasn't "lost"
Are you suggesting that some other customer has stopped comming to the store because they heard about the stolen $100 and are trying to avoid a high-crime area???
WTF????.

[Anonymous No.9758728]

>>9758675
>For the sake of discussion, let's say that the owner bought the goods at $60.
I which case we can decide that this isn't a puzzle, and can provide ANY answer, as long as we can add any arbitrary "facts" we like.
Personally, I think the owner was so distraught at the loss e took his own life.
Checkmate atheists.

[Anonymous No.9758730]

>>9756507
Alright. to all the dumbasses overcomplicating this shit. let's rephrase the question. The owner gets 100 dollars stolen from him. Later someone bought 70 dollars worth of goods from his store. How much money was stolen from the owner?

[Anonymous No.9758742]

This is the state of /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9758746]

>>9758730
30

[Anonymous No.9758780]

>>9758730

70

[Anonymous No.9758806]

>>9758726
Let's say that there was only 70 dollars worth of product left in the store.

Then the most money the store could end up with is 170 dollars.

Instead, the 100 is stolen, the 70 is bought, and the store ends up with 30 dollars. This is a loss of 140 dollars to the store.

This is unlikely, but it shows that buying goods with stolen money means other people can't buy those goods with money not stolen from that store. Hence, the lost sale.

[Anonymous No.9759081]

>>9758728
As stated, the loss in general is $100 less any profit from the sale of the $70 in goods (or, I suppose, plus any loss from the sale if he sold it for less than he bought it).

[Anonymous No.9759092]

>>9759081
He lost the profit he would have made from selling the good. The good to the store owner is worth what he is selling it for now, not what he bought it for in the past.

[Anonymous No.9759100]

>>9759092
The owner doesn't profit on the goods until the sale actually occurs-- he didn't magically make money just by planning to sell them for more than he bought them.

[Anonymous No.9759105]

Hold on, let me spend time and energy proving my superior intelligence to anonymous individuals on the internet

[Anonymous No.9759138]

>>9758806
>100 is stolen, the 70 is bought, and the store ends up with 30 dollars

what

The store got back $70 of its stolen $100. It lost $30 in cash and $70 in goods, so $100 in total.

Had the cash simply been stolen and nothing bought, it would have lost the same amount of $100, just wholly in cash.

Whether the goods sit on shelves or get transformed into cash changes nothing about the sum of value within the store. There are no "lost sales".

[Anonymous No.9759165]

>>9756507
It depends. 100 dollars or 100-70*(1-fraction of price paid by the owner for the goods). It seems too obvious?

[Anonymous No.9759186]

This >>9758806 is not me (>>9758668). This >>9758806 is retarded.

[Anonymous No.9759303]

>>9759100
He lost the good, which is worth to him what he is selling it for, which includes future profit.