The cost of an apple

Margin vs Markup Chart
15% Markup = 13.0% Gross Profit
20% Markup = 16.7% Gross Profit
25% Markup = 20.0% Gross Profit
30% Markup = 23.0% Gross Profit
33.3% Markup = 25.0% Gross Profit
40% Markup = 28.6% Gross Profit
43% Markup = 30.0% Gross Profit
50% Markup = 33.0% Gross Profit
75% Markup = 42.9% Gross Profit
100% Markup = 50.0% Gross Profit

yes

Markup = ( FC / DC ) - 1 = ( 2.4 / 2 ) -1 = 20%
Margin = 1 - ( DC / FC ) = 1 - ( 2 / 2.4) = 17%
 
Margin vs Markup Chart
15% Markup = 13.0% Gross Profit
20% Markup = 16.7% Gross Profit
25% Markup = 20.0% Gross Profit
30% Markup = 23.0% Gross Profit
33.3% Markup = 25.0% Gross Profit
40% Markup = 28.6% Gross Profit
43% Markup = 30.0% Gross Profit
50% Markup = 33.0% Gross Profit
75% Markup = 42.9% Gross Profit
100% Markup = 50.0% Gross Profit

Gross Profit Margin = Sales Price - Unit Cost | GP = $2.40 - $2.00 | GP = $.40

Markup Percentage = Gross Profit Margin/Unit Cost | MP = $.40/$2.00 | MP = 20%

Gross Margin Percentage = Gross Profit/Sales Price | GM = $.40/$2.40 | GM = 16.666667

yep, looks like the chart works
 
Last edited:
you guys are all idiots. you need to draw the supply and demand curves for apples to figure this one out:

market_supply_demand3.jpg
 
The question of the definition of "markup" isn't really mathematical...

In Vanster's defense, I have also heard of markup as the percentage of the final selling price, not the cost of goods.

However, as fart points out, the cause of disagreement in whether it's $2.40 or $2.50 is not mathematical error as Vanster originally implied.
 
In Vanster's defense, I have also heard of markup as the percentage of the final selling price, not the cost of goods.

However, as fart points out, the cause of disagreement in whether it's $2.40 or $2.50 is not mathematical error as Vanster originally implied.

Vanster's question implied that the mark up was being applied to the cost of the product.
 
Vanster's question implied that the mark up was being applied to the cost of the product.

Yes, it seems worded that way.

By "originally implied", I'm refering to Vanster's original reason for bringing up his anecdote. It was a response to Rayn's comment of people being awful at math.
 
Vanster basically proved that he is a dumbshit for thinking that 2.40 could not be the answer.
 
I don't understand how the apple question is even confusing?

x + .5x

.5 (x + .5x)

.5 (x + .5x) = .75

.5x + .25x = .75

.75x = .75

x = 1
 
Back
Top