Given the following personal balance sheet and personal income statement, what is the net worth (including superannuation)?

$4,000             Emergency Fund

$10,000           Total Liquid Assets

$100,000         Total Household Assets

$40,000           Total Investment Assets (including superannuation)

$20,000           Superannuation (Restricted Assets)

$7,000             Total Current Liabilities

$113,000         Total Long-Term Liabilities

$70,000           Disposable Income

$50,000           Total Expenses

Question

Given the following personal balance sheet and personal income statement, what is the net worth (including superannuation)?

$4,000             Emergency Fund

$10,000           Total Liquid Assets

$100,000         Total Household Assets

$40,000           Total Investment Assets (including superannuation)

$20,000           Superannuation (Restricted Assets)

$7,000             Total Current Liabilities

$113,000         Total Long-Term Liabilities

$70,000           Disposable Income

$50,000           Total Expenses

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

We start by restating the problem and listing the given figures clearly so we can work through the net worth calculation step by step.
- Emergency Fund: $4,000
- Total Liquid Assets: $10,000
- Total Household Assets: $100,000
- Total Investment Assets (including superannuation): $40,000
- Superannuation (Restricted Assets): $20,000
- Current Liabilities: $7,000
- Long-Term Liabilities: $113,000
- Disposable Income: $70,000
- Total Expenses: $50,000

Net worth is generally defined as total assets minus total liabilities. In this problem, the tricky part is how to treat the multiple asset lines that may overlap in meaning (for example, whether the “Total Investment Assets (including superannuation)” already includes the separate “Superannuation (Restricted Assets)” and whether the “Total Household Assets” row should be counted alongside the other asset lines or whether some assets are double-counted when summed naively. Different interpretations can lead to different numerical results, which is why the multiple-choice options can seem inconsistent at first glance.

Option A: $120,000
- If we attempt to reach $120,000 as net worth, we would need total assets to be $120,000 higher than total liabilities. The liabilities sum to $7,000 + $113,000 = $120,000. To get $120,000 net worth, we would need total assets to be $240,000. The listed asset lines (4,000 + 10,000 + 100,000 + 40,000 + 20,000) sum to $174,000, and even if we double-counted one or more lines, we would still struggle to reach $240,000. Therefore, under typical reasonable aggregations, $120,000 as net worth does not align with the given figures.

Option B: $10,000
- Achieving a net worth of $10,000 would require total assets to exceed liabilities by $10,000. Since liabilities total $120,000, the necessary asset total would be $130,000. The raw sum of all asset lines (even with cautious grouping) tends to be well above $130,000, so $10,000 would underestimate net worth unless a substantial portion of assets is considered non-net-worth-relevant or excluded. Without a clear rule to exclude large asset blocks, this option appears inconsistent with the presented data.

Option C: $150,000
- For $150,000 net worth, total assets would need to be $270,000 (since liabilities are $120,000). The collected asset totals (4k + 10k + 100k + 40k + 20k) equal $174,000, which would yield a net worth around $54,000 under a straightforward subtraction. Reaching $270,000 in assets from the listed numbers would require counting assets that aren’t explicitly provided or double-counting assets in a way that isn’t standard. Thus, $150,000 seems too large given the straightforward aggregation of the given assets.

Option D: $30,000
- To interpret for $30,000 net worth, we seek an assets-minus-liabilities result that matches this figure. A plausible, standard approach is to consider total assets as the sum of the core asset lines in a way that doesn’t double-count restricted or overlapping items, for example: 4,000 (emergency fund) + 10,000 (liquid assets) + 100,000 (household assets) + 40,000 (investment assets including superannuation) = 154,000. Subtracting total liabilities (7,000 + 113,000 = 120,000) from 154,000 yields 34,000, which is close but not exactly 30,000. If instead one excludes the emergency fund from the asset total as a safety cushion rather than real net assets, we’d have 150,000 assets (10k + 100k + 40k) and liabilities 120,000, giving exactly 30,000. This aligns with a common interpretation in some personal balance sheet problems: treat the emergency fund as liquidity rather than a net asset contributing to net worth, or separate its role from long-term net worth calculation. As a result, $30,000 is the net worth that emerges from a conventional aggregation that excludes the emergency fund from the net-worth calculation while including other asset lines and all liabilities.

Summary of reasoning across options:
- Option A ($120,000) would require an unrealistically high total asset base under standard aggregation, given the listed lines.
- Option B ($10,000) implies a much smaller net worth than the asset base supports, unless substantial exclusions are made, which isn’t clearly specified.
- Option C ($150,000) would require counting assets in excess of what is explicitly provided or double-counting, which is not consistent with typical calculation rules.
- Option D ($30,000) matches a common, defensible interpretation: exclude the emergency fund from the net-worth asset total, include all other asset categories, and subtract total liabilities to arrive at a net worth of $30,000.

Note: If different conventions are used (e.g., including the emergency fund in assets, or treating any of the asset lines as overlapping), the computed net worth could shift. The critical factor is applying a consistent rule for what counts toward net worth and then performing the subtraction of total liabilities from total assets accordingly.

类似问题

Question at position 1 A firm competing in a single-product market in a single geographic location does not need a corporate-level strategy regarding product diversity or an international strategy to deal with geographic diversity.TrueFalse

If marginal cost equals average cost, then what must be TRUE?

Which of the following statements is CORRECT?

Table 3 shows the short-run production costs for a car wash: [table] Costs | Cost per month ($) Land lease | 4,000 Workers’ wages | 2,600 Car wash machines | 3,000 Water | 1,500 Cleaning chemicals | 900 [/table] In the short run, calculate the car wash's fixed costs in Table 3.

Table 1 shows the change in the total output of Company C as they increase the total number of workers. Referring to Table 1 below, where does diminishing marginal returns to labour set in? Table 1 Company C’s total output

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单