Veeky Forums should be able to solve this

# Veeky Forums should be able to solve this

$100

100

$100

30

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.

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

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

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

I don't get it

$100.

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

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

>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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

>this

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

Unsolvable, we'll never know his net loss

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=?????

100

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

this

>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.

...

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.

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

Gotta count wholesale cost, overhead, and profit lost.

100

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.

>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.

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.

this thread

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

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

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.

$4.3 million, according to my RIAA approved calculator

>$165

Pretty easy brah

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

$30, logic.

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

Your skull.

Actually it's 30-100= -70

Fuck I meant 70-100 = -30

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

Depends on the gross margin of what she bought

$100.

70 in goods and 30 in cash.

solid kek.Hats off to you mate.

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.

tell me again which cryptocoins I should buy Veeky Forums

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.

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

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.

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.

Girl takes money

>-100

Gives back 70

>-30

Recieves $70 worth of goods

>-100

Gets back 30

>-130

Girl takes money

>-100

Gives back 100

>0

Recieves $70 worth of goods

>-70

Gets back 30 in change

>-100

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

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.

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

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...

$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.

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

But she gives back the 100 for the goods

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.

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

$200

-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

>this

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

add taxes, though

94.08 €

But he gave her $30 in change

$100 minus net profit of the sale

>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

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.

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.

No it doesn't you fucking idiot.

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

explain

$170.

How fucking dumb are you cunts...

pssssst owner lost his change

>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.

>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.