View Single Post
Old 08-13-2017, 09:23 PM   #174
darryl
Wizard
darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.darryl ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
darryl's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,108
Karma: 60231510
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura H2O, Kindle Oasis, Huwei Ascend Mate 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney View Post
It sounds to me like a number pulled out of someone's butt, as a best guess in absence of knowledge. I have no idea what that number ought to be, but suspect it will continuously vary as conditions change, and will not be the same for all houses.

See my prior message for commentary about Cost Of Goods Sold.
______
Dennis
That's what I thought about the figure too. I've had some experience with internal allocation of overheads and other costs, and have come across more than a few cases where the allocation is not meant to be accurate but serves some other purpose, such as minimising taxation or achieving some political aim. It does occur to me that players in an industry without price competition would not exactly encourage regulatory attention by publicising very high costs to all and sundry, nor would this encourage potential new entrants. And, of course, the actual figures are closely guarded secrets.

Thanks for your reply. It is not the practice of allocating overheads which is of course essential which I question. It is simply this particular figure. I should have been clearer.
darryl is offline   Reply With Quote