re: Help with riddle - How Much Money Did The Store Lose?

quote:

---

None of that extra shite matters.

If I steal $100 from you without you realizing it was me and then I asked you to perform a service for $100 you have lost $100.

---

A service you are paying for time/expertise. That is not the same as you purchasing an item.

You REALLY think the store loses the same amount if you use the stolen $100 to buy $70 worth of coke from a fountain machine that they charge u $10 for a 16 ounce drink which cost them 25 cents as if you use the $100 to buy $70 worth of gasoline where the margin is much smaller?

quote:

---

This would be true if they didn't get $70 back. When they got $70 back all they lost was $30 and their cost on the goods that the thief gained.

---

what the hell are you talking about?

Maybe I’m the jabronie here but here are the two scenarios:
Say the store has $200 in the drawer:

1) If the guy never stole the money - store has $200 in the drawer. Guy walks in and buys $30 of goods with a hundred dollar bill. Store now has $230 in the drawer (200+100-70=230)

2) Guy steals $100 - store now has $100 in the drawer. Guys walks in and buys $30 of goods with a hundred dollar bill. Store now has $130 in the drawer (100+100-70=130).

I fail to see why it matters how much mark up the item was if it was purchased with my money. Maybe I’m just an idiot.

$30 + COGS

quote:

---

Maybe I’m the jabronie here but here are the two scenarios:

---

Here is another scenario:

A man steals $100 from a store. He loses that $100 bill on the sidewalk. Another guy, unaware that the $100 bill was stolen, goes to the same store and exchanges the same $100 bill for $70 in goods and $30 in change. The only difference in the sequence of events in this scenario is that the person spending the $100 bill has no knowledge it was stolen from the store. How much has the store lost?

If your answer is $100, then logically, it must also be $100 in the OP's scenario. It was the same $100 bill stolen from the store, and then used for purchases at the same store. The knowledge of the person passing the bill that it was stolen has no bearing on the store's books because it cannot be known to them. The store only sees that it lost $100.

If your answer is anything other than $100, then you are assigning some sort of exceptional value to that particular $100 bill, that anytime it might be used at that same store, in the future, it represents a loss to them. Which doesn't make sense, as the history of the bill cannot be known to them, and has no bearing on their books.

quote:

---

With the assumption that the $70 worth of goods purchased with stolen money from the store would have been purchased by another customer at some point, the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) becomes irrelevant, as the store stood to gain the profit margin in the future...

---

this insinuates you were only gonna stock that item once and then not restock it based on need.

Now that that theif has purchased an item you need to restock it. how much it costs to restock it comes in to play with how much of that $70 is truly lost

if they bought something that cost $10 to restock, you lost less than if they bought something that will cost $65 to restock.

he did purchase them using some of the stolen money.

he stole 100 and gave back 70. now they are out 30 plus the cost to restock the item.

only if they run out of stock before the next customer comes in to buy said item.

quote:

---

only if they run out of stock before the next customer comes in to buy said item.

---

That's a different item from the inventory with its own potential profit margin.

In any case, this has been a fun thought exercise.

Nothing

They will file a loss claim with their insurance company for Tree Fiddy

In the end, consumers will be out the money in higher premiums.