# Veeky Forums should be able to solve this

Nojokur

Veeky Forums should be able to solve this

Raving_Cute

\$100

Crazy_Nice

100

Booteefool

\$100

30

MPmaster

Explain

King_Martha

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.

Soft_member

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

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

girlDog

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

Evil_kitten

I don't get it

\$100.

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

haveahappyday

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

SomethingNew

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.

Playboyize

She returns the money to buy product.

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?

TreeEater

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

Carnalpleasure

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.

Emberfire

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.

TalkBomber

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

SniperWish

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

RavySnake

this

BlogWobbles

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

Unsolvable, we'll never know his net loss

VisualMaster

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=?????

TechHater

100
store gave away \$70 in groceries and \$30 in cash

FastChef

this

CodeBuns

She's not giving anything back

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

hairygrape

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.

Emberfire

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.

TurtleCat

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

Gotta count wholesale cost, overhead, and profit lost.

Fuzzy_Logic

100

Lunatick

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

haveahappyday

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

Should have been 30.

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

AwesomeTucker

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.

Ignoramus

Supergrass

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

King_Martha

makes you realize just how retarded people are here on Veeky Forums.

SomethingNew

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

w8t4u

Retailers perspective:

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

CodeBuns

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

Carnalpleasure

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.

ZeroReborn

\$4.3 million, according to my RIAA approved calculator

PurpleCharger

\$165

Pretty easy brah

Stark_Naked

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

iluvmen

\$30, logic.

kizzmybutt

Actually it's 30-100= -70

Methnerd

Fuck I meant 70-100 = -30

BlogWobbles

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

PurpleCharger

Depends on the gross margin of what she bought

BunnyJinx

\$100.

70 in goods and 30 in cash.

likme

solid kek.Hats off to you mate.

Poker_Star

read the last two lines autismo

Techpill

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.

PackManBrainlure

tell me again which cryptocoins I should buy Veeky Forums

Evilember

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.

RumChicken

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

ZeroReborn

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

30 + 70 = 100

eGremlin

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.

BunnyJinx

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.

StrangeWizard

Girl takes money

-100

Gives back 70

-30

Recieves \$70 worth of goods

-100

Gets back 30

-130

whereismyname

Girl takes money

-100

Gives back 100

0

Recieves \$70 worth of goods

-70

Gets back 30 in change

-100

Crazy_Nice

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

Lord_Tryzalot

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.

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

Spamalot

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

girlDog

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...

farquit

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

\$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.

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

Inmate

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

RumChicken

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

WebTool

But she gives back the 100 for the goods

Supergrass

cum2soon

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.

TalkBomber

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

Nude_Bikergirl

\$200

Stupidasole

-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

SomethingNew

this

cum2soon

we don't even know if the owner was selling at a loss

likme

94.08 €

Flameblow

But he gave her \$30 in change

TurtleCat

\$100 minus net profit of the sale

Supergrass

do not over think it...

massdebater

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

Gigastrength

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

Skullbone

\$60

Dreamworx

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.

SomethingNew

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.

massdebater

No it doesn't you fucking idiot.

Inmate

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

Gigastrength

explain

CodeBuns

\$170.

How fucking dumb are you cunts...

King_Martha

pssssst owner lost his change

Supergrass

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.

Garbage Can Lid

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.

farquit

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

takes2long

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

Methnerd

people who answer anything other than \$100
these are the kind of people who give you career and money advice on Veeky Forums

Raving_Cute

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.

SniperGod

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

StonedTime

are you fucking kidding me right now?

ZeroReborn

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

literally everyone in this thread is a retard

JunkTop

huh good point i think you are right

girlDog

topkek

Evil_kitten

huh good point i think you are right

5mileys

Huh good nose I think you are altright.

massdebater

-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\$

Emberburn

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

WebTool

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

TurtleCat

130

RumChicken

but that is literally what happened lol

VisualMaster

100

70 in goods, 30 in cash

DeathDog

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.

BinaryMan

nice try.
answering to one troll was enough

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

Don't overthink kthxbye

iluvmen

Owner

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

Flameblow

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

PurpleCharger

this!

BlogWobbles

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.

Lunatick

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.

Inmate

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.

whereismyname

1 post by this ID
128 replies

Top quality bait

Dreamworx

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.

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.

Evil_kitten

do not overthink it
Fuck you. That is vague.

This is not a simple question.

Burnblaze

\$200

Bidwell

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.

kizzmybutt

170 the 100 that was stolen and 70 in product

Gigastrength

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

RumChicken

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

TechHater

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

BinaryMan

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

Crazy_Nice

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.

takes2long

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.

Bidwell

He lost \$30 cash and \$70 worth of goods.

Inmate

He was trolling you fucking retard

likme

but he never got paid for them fucking idiot

GIRL STEALS \$100
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.

hairygrape

I fucking lol'd

Gigastrength

Lol you fucking mong

TechHater

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.

FastChef

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.

Dreamworx

If you're claiming insurance, it's \$170

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

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

5mileys

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

Crazy_Nice

\$100. What a retarded question

idontknow

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

ZeroReborn

So what are the fucking answers?

TurtleCat

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

BunnyJinx

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

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

Harmless_Venom

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.

girlDog

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

Poker_Star

And she gave back the original 100

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