Respuesta :
Answer:
Explicit costs are actual costs which Yakov must make while implicit costs are opposite of explicit costs, Implicit costs are opportunity costs.
Grouping them, we have the following;
•The wages and utility bills that Yakov pays. => Explicit costs
•The salary Yakov could earn if he worked as a paralegal.=>Implicit Costs
•The wholesale cost for the pianos that Yakov pays the manufacturer. => Explicit costs
•The rental income Yakov could receive if he chose to rent out his showroom =>Implicit Costs
2) Yakov's accounting and economic profit of his piano business.
Profit($)
Acct Profit.......... Economic Profit
$14,000. .............. -$9,000 (loss)
•Yakov's accounting profit will be his revenue - explicit costs.
Therefore accounting profit=
$704,000 - ($404,000 - $286,000) = $14,000
• Yakov's economic profit will be (accounting profit - (rent + forgone salary)
Therefore, accounting profit =
$14,000 - ($3,000+$20,000) = -$9,000
The accounting profit is "[tex]\$14,000[/tex]", and the economic profit is "[tex]\$9000[/tex]" which is in loss, and the calculation as follows:
Profit calculation:
Implied cost of rental revenue (If he loans the same property to others, he could be able to gather rent)
company's wholesale expense cost Overhead expenses include salaries and electricity bills.
Implicit cost:
Overall, their sales income is [tex]\$704,000[/tex]; their costs are [tex]\$404,000[/tex] for production,[tex]\$286,000[/tex] for labor and salaries, and [tex]\$3,000[/tex] for rent; their estimated compensation if they are employed by another company is [tex]\$200,000[/tex].
In the this scenario, the accounting profit: [tex]\to \$704,000-\$404,000-\$286,000= \$14,000.[/tex]
loss in terms of economics:
[tex]\to \$14,000-\$3000- \$20000= (-\$9000)[/tex]
As a result, it is preferable not to stay in the firm to reap additional rewards.
Find out more about the profits here:
brainly.com/question/5100098