Posts: 172
Threads: 52
Likes Received: 36 in 23 posts
Likes Given: 24
Joined: Jun 2017
Ok, i feel stupid. I have worked in accounts payable and receivable for over a decade and never have i seen something like this. How is "fourteen hundred million" even a number? I didn't even know what numbers to use to calculate the ROA because I had no idea what they meant by $1400 million. Wouldn't that actually be in the billions? Can anyone explain this please?
"Reebok's net income of $117 million and average assets of $1,400 million results in a return on assets of 8.36%."
![[-]](https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/images/collapse.png)
•
Posts: 1,062
Threads: 41
Likes Received: 599 in 396 posts
Likes Given: 586
Joined: Jul 2017
I seem to remember reading British stuff that had numbers in that type of format. Yes, unless it was a typo, it would be 1.4 billion to us ungrateful colonials :-P
•
Posts: 116
Threads: 7
Likes Received: 64 in 35 posts
Likes Given: 354
Joined: Jan 2017
They are showing both figures ($117 and $1400) in the same units (millions) for comparison purposes. It's easier (and quicker) this way to see how much Reebok's net income is relative to their assets. Or at least that's what they hoped it would be.
•
Posts: 172
Threads: 52
Likes Received: 36 in 23 posts
Likes Given: 24
Joined: Jun 2017
(07-06-2018, 06:50 PM)Sapientes Wrote: They are showing both figures ($117 and $1400) in the same units (millions) for comparison purposes. It's easier (and quicker) this way to see how much Reebok's net income is relative to their assets. Or at least that's what they hoped it would be.
Thank you both... I thought I was actually going crazy.
•
