: > If something costs you $5.00 to produce and you sell it for $15.00
: > what % profit have you made?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
: you can work out a way to be payed more than your revenue, you can make a
: profit more than %100. (Let us know how, eh? :-)
---------------
You gotta love the English language, don't you?
For about 40 years the difference between mark-up, margin and profit has
been used by retailers to try and confuse their accountants who in turn
attempt to use obfuscation of "Profit" to reduce the amount of liability
they have and increase their own profit!
The last 4 posts only go the show my simplistic wording is not good enough
in this day and age of High School students unable to read or calculate
their weekly bus fare. It needs to be explained in something more basic than
simple English. Lest we all fall for the trap of oversimplification of our
profits.
"To reach the profit you will make as a percentage of cost, double your cost
and halve the result. If your cost is 100% of $5 and you sell the item for
twice that amount, you will make a profit of 100%. (of the original cost).
This only makes sense if you have a fiver to get started in the first place.
The means of arriving at the profit is, of course dependent entirely on you
using the right percentage of "mark up" to achieve a 100% profit margin. If
you mark-up 100% of $5 how much profit will you make?
You might also consider using the right margin to make such a profit. What
then is the correct margin to use to double you money? This is the key to an
accurate answer because in talking about profit... The past 4 posters are
attempting to quantify a measurement of profit as something other than
doubling your money.
While you are at it, is the % of mark-up equal to the % of profit margin?
The real method of calculating profit is simply to see how much you have
left after paying for the item, all the other rubbish is just distracting
noise from idle minds. Sell something for $10 and pay for it out of the sale
($5) and you have left 100% of your original investment, cost or whatever
you like to call it.
Norman might like this method of deciding profit better...
Mathematics involved here so pay close attention. Double the amount of your
cost and then halve the result. It comes to precisely 100% of the original
cost or in my words... 100% profit. My simple description is elaborated on
below without the incredibly complex mathematics used to calculate the
amount of mark-up needed to have a profit margin of 100%.
When you double your cost figure, I.E - $5.00 it becomes 200% of the
original cost because $5 is 100% of the cost. Now comes the tricky part...
You have divide the sub total of 200% ($10) in half to arrive at the profit
amount of $5 which is precisely 100% of the original cost. Double your money
on every sale.
How's that People?
Stunning, eh?
Douglas
Mr.T - 03 Feb 2007 04:14 GMT
> For about 40 years the difference between mark-up, margin and profit has
> been used by retailers to try and confuse their accountants who in turn
> attempt to use obfuscation of "Profit" to reduce the amount of liability
> they have and increase their own profit!
But accounting has had well defined terms for a *lot* more than 40 years.
If you choose not to accept them, not much point blaming others.
>If you mark-up 100% of $5 how much profit will you make?
50%, (assuming $5 was the total cost including all overheads, and $10 is the
total sale price after all taxes are subtracted.)
Now if you really meant to ask how much income will you make as a percentage
of your investment, why not just say so!
> Mathematics involved here so pay close attention.
There's your problem, you need to learn accounting instead.
MrT.
Doug MacDonald - 03 Feb 2007 06:22 GMT
: > Mathematics involved here so pay close attention.
:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
:
:\
Amazingly simple answer. Might I suggest too simple for some people?
Wilba - 05 Feb 2007 08:38 GMT
> To reach the profit you will make as a percentage of cost, double your
> cost and halve the result. If your cost is 100% of $5 and you sell the
> item for twice that amount, you will make a profit of 100%. (of the
> original cost).
This is nonsense. You're talking about markup and calling it profit.
> If you mark-up 100% of $5 how much profit will you make?
50% of course. Let's work it backwards.
Profit = 100 * (Revenue - Cost) / Revenue
For profit to be 100%,
100 = 100 * (Revenue - Cost) / Revenue
so,
Revenue = Revenue - Cost
and therefore,
Cost = 0
Douglas MacDonald - 06 Feb 2007 06:40 GMT
: > To reach the profit you will make as a percentage of cost, double your
: > cost and halve the result. If your cost is 100% of $5 and you sell the
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
:
: Cost = 0
Well there you go Wilba...
Odd thing about accountants in Australia... They need no qualifications to
call themselves accountants and set up in business telling business people
you don't make 100% on your money when you double it. Incredible advice.
I've been getting this bullshit from accountants for 40 years. If I started
with $5 and only got back $7.50, I'd only have made 50% on my money.
You'd have me invest a $100,000 and make a loss because I didn't make 20%
profit in 12 months, only got $380 a week and still had the $100k untouched!
Good one Wilma.
Wilba - 07 Feb 2007 08:58 GMT
> : > To reach the profit you will make as a percentage of cost, double your
> : > cost and halve the result. If your cost is 100% of $5 and you sell the
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Odd thing about accountants in Australia... They need no qualifications to
> call themselves accountants ...
I think you'll find that's as incorrect as everything else you've claimed.
> ... and set up in business telling business people
> you don't make 100% on your money when you double it. Incredible advice.
It's a good thing no one here has made that claim. We're only claiming that
markup and profit aren't the same thing.
> I've been getting this bullshit from accountants for 40 years.
40 years and you still don't get it? Are you a slow learner?
> If I started
> with $5 and only got back $7.50, I'd only have made 50% on my money.
It's a good thing no one here is disagreeing with that statement. We're only
disagreeing with you calling it profit.
> You'd have me invest a $100,000 and make a loss because I didn't make 20%
> profit in 12 months, only got $380 a week and still had the $100k
> untouched!
So you made 16.5% gross profit. That sounds pretty good. Well done.
Um, not sure about 20% profit being a loss though. That sounds really
cracked.