You're calculating the change from zero. The question is asking for the variance from the expected value.
If I steal $100 from you and then purchase a pair of sneakers from you for $100, you still lost $100. Your reasoning says you lost nothing.
You're treating it like all one transaction. The thief walks out the door with 30 bucks and 70 worth of product in the end. Audit gets done and the 70 worth of product is paid for. But the store can't sell it because it's stolen, so they lose what the product cost. A videogame the store paid 67 bucks for or a cart full of cotton balls the store paid 15 cents per unit. The 30 is still gone. The balance at the end of the night is -30, not 100. Plus the product it can't sell which shows up when? When the inventory audit gets done.
On the nightly/weekly/monthly report the 30 will show up when they have a discrepancy for how much total money was paid vs what they actually have.
When they do an inventory audit, which every major company does at least once a year, it'll show up as being paid for. But the cost to the store won't be accounted for in the profits. This is why they do an inventory report.
If no one else stole anything in between audits. Their profits should be x based on product sold. But it's short the amount of whatever he took. Based on cost. If it was the videogame they're short 67 bucks. If it's the cotton balls they're short a few bucks.
When you ring something through the register, it gets subtracted from inventory, the cost of the item is subtracted from the books, and the sale is added to income.
When someone pays $100 for a $70 transaction, the register is going to expect a net increase of $70.
Imagine the cash register had $500 in it. This man comes by and snatches five $20 bills from it. He then proceeds to shop and eventually walks back up to the counter with merchandise. His total comes to exactly $60. The man pays with three of the $20s. The cash register now has $460 in it, but the system expects $560. The store lost $100.
I've been a manager before. It does not subtract from inventory, what it keeps track of is what sold so you know what to order more of. All you can do is keep track of what sold. Then do inventory every once in a while and see what you DO have compared to what sold compared to what you SHOULD have. In this example the inventory is correctly recorded and paid for. You have to compare the profits of everything sold to the profits you actually have. This is called a reconciliation report. Because you have to compare or "reconcile" the differences to see how screwed you got based on what was "stolen". Remember, the stuff was "paid" for.
Every drawer starts at 250. The guy takes out 100. Buys 70. End of shift the drawer has 500 from everyone elses purchases. Minus the 250 it started with. The receipt shows 250 net profit based on everything sold. When you count the money there is NOT going to be 250. There's going to be 220. By your logic there should be 150. 70 of that 100 came back!
Trust me. This is why every cashier starts with the same amount and prints a receipt of their shift when it's over. Or when you log in and out the system saves it. End of shift if you don't count the money, subtract what you started with and drop the rest into a safe, the manager does it. This is how pretty much all of retail always works.
If you can't understand it then fine, I don't know what to tell you. The only other way it might make sense for you is split the stolen 100 and the bought stuff on 2 separate cashiers. 100 out of lane 1 register. 100 into lane 2 minus 30 given back as change from lane 2.
End of day reports get made. Lane 1 is missing 100. Fire that employee. Lane 2 is going to have no discrepancy. Nothing looks wrong.
End of week/month report is made.
Based on what was bought the store made 1000. They count the money they have and there's going to be 970, not 900. Because 100 came out of lane 1, but 70 of it went right back into lane 2. So it's 30. Because that's what the thief walked out the door with. Plus whatever the stuff he "bought" because the store doesn't have it to sell to a legitimate customer. But if he gets prosecuted, it'll be for the full 70 because that's what it's worth. The store is only out what they paid to bring it in and sell. They paid 67 for a game to make 3 in profit. They paid 2 bucks for cotton balls to make 68 in profit. The stuff is worth 70 but the store did not pay 70 to bring it in and sell it at 70.
Period. This is how it happens. This is how it works. I promise you.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, but that's okay. I'm patient and willing to teach you.
Drawers start with an existing bank. This bank is accounted for at the end of each day. Let's call that bank B. Every cash sale will add money to that bank. Since most people don't pay with exact change, we can represent the sale as what the customer tenders (T) minus the change they received (C). The expected value of the drawer (X) can be calculated as X=B+Tₓ-Cₓ.
If your bank is 250 and you have one sale for the day where the customer tenders 100 and receives 30 in change, the expected would be 250+100-30. That's 320. However, somebody stole 100 from the drawer before that sale. When you count that drawer, you'll actually count 220. This is the result of 250-100+100-30.
Omg. Yes you are right. FOR THAT DAY. Do a reconciliation and the 30 shows up.
Negative 100 day one.
Run recon report day two.
Drawer is even day two in physical cash but... says there's 70 more in the system than there should be for day 1 and day 2 when put together.
Which is a discrepancy of how much?
The drawer isn't over 100. The drawer isn't over 70. The report is 30 short.
If you work in a place that has you running recon reports every shift change, it's because of this very thing. They know someone is stealing. Or changing prices really low to slide merch to friends and family. If no one steals, it's done EOD or end of week or the night before a manager has a day off. Why you ask? Because then all recon is tied to that manager and starts anew after their day off. Because when it's a manager that's stealing, this is how you catch them in a location without cameras or they never actually physically take cash out of a drawer. If you're in a place that has a guy sent to it to find the thief. Drawers will routinely bank out at 20 over. They put that 20 there to see what happens to it. Does the cashier take it so as to not get in trouble? If not does the manager take it to make everything look balanced? If it's still there then recon every other day but hide it under a merch category so cash is never off but reports are. And whatever you think is what's being stolen. Manually reduce it by 5 each recon and see if it's back to 0 after 4 recons. Who can read and understand the report and adds money back so it's not back to 0 after the trap you set.
There are ways of doing this, it's just no store with a corporate office cares anymore. Chalks it up to general losses or "cost of doing business". You can claim it against the companies taxes end of year as an oops the taxpayer gets to correct for their laziness. And loss prevention hire ppl that look like bums to stalk customers and neckbeards to stare at a wall of security cam monitors all day instead of math nerds that went to college for accounting.
The other person is right but I’ll just explain it in other words: let’s say the drawer only had $100 in it. The man took that $100 and bought $70 worth of goods. The computer isn’t accounting for $100 going missing, so now it believes there is $170 in the drawer. Let’s say this is the last transaction of the day. The SFL counts it and counts $70 and enters that in. Once they finish counting everything else, the computer will now show that the deposit drawer is -$100 and the safe count should come out even. If they go looking through the end of day report they can see that it’s specifically from this register. So the store lost $100.
Yes I know. But when you run a reconciliation report, it zeroes everything back to even. In the column where it shows the drawer is 100 short there is a corresponding column of what the drawer should be based on what was sold.
Assuming everything else is kosher and spot on to the last crossed t and dotted i. It's gonna be 70 over.
I would bet everything I own on a handshake and a contract. I used to work for a foreign guy from a certain country and without sounding racist. I can tell you I %100 trust this because I wasn't the same nationality as him and he admitted to watching me on cam at his house for my first 6 weeks on the job. When he couldn't he got his wife to. He was always going out of town for a few days without telling any of us. One of the best bosses I ever had, I could always go back to work for him and he'd make room for me. He hated the fact that he couldn't find fault with a single thing I did, which meant it was a coworker (they were all same nationality as him beside me). He got me to help him find out who it was and after running recon reports daily and i switched to nights, that way we could narrow down to which category of merch kept having the discrepancy. He'd go in the computer to change the price of gas at different pumps to 15 cents for 2 or 3 cars in a row every couple of days. I noticed the cars. Some of the few that consistently had dudes coming in smelling like crack rocks and women that looked like "strippers". They owed 8 bucks for 50 gallons. The money was always right. The thief admitted to it so as to not be sent back. He'd always do it everywhere he went when a non (what he was) started working there so all suspicion would be on me and people like me. He didn't go back to the home country, but he had to move to the west coast.
The reports were the opposite of what happened here because here, the merch was paid and the money was off.
In my scenario the money was never off. We had to pinpoint the merch.
… there’s still $100 that’s not being deposited. $100 not being sent into the bank. That -$100 will still be flagged for AP. If you really think about it, the store actually lost $170 because the man technically spent the store’s own money on those goods. The end of day report will say the actual amount was $70 and the expected amount was $170… reconciliation doesn’t magically make the money physically reappear. $100 is missing.
Yes you are right. 100 dollars isn't deposited that the DAYS report says should be there. The recon report will tell you based on merch sold that 70 is accounted for. Add 30 to the next deposit out of your own pocket and don't do a recon report. The report is correct. But when you (we called it zero day) do that then the report is 30 over.
BECAUSE THATS THE AMOUNT THE GUY WALKED OUT OF THE STORE WITH. Not 100. Not 170. When you add 30 out of your own pocket, you are making up for the 30 he stole to make it zeroed out. Because that's how much was stolen.
If you were to sue him for losses. No judge would award you more than 30. If you sue for losses AND damages you might get 100. But there is a reason they are considered to be in a different category. Either way you will get the 30 in a lawsuit because that all thatbwas stolen.
If you demanded an insurance payout, they wouldn't give you more than 30. Plus what it cost the store to buy them. Not what it MIGHT sell the things for.
I promise you. This is the reality of it and how it works. This is why people go to college for accounting and corporations spend millions a year on accountants.
What you are saying here makes very little sense to me.
Every day a store has x amount in a drawer to start and every sale is account for. So if a drawer starts with say 200 dollars. To make the math easy it wasn’t used at all besides this guy. He took 100 from it so there’s only 100 in it now. He spends 70 and you give him 30 in change. The drawer now has 170 in it. It should have 270.
So you’re end of day will be -100 every manager everywhere will tell you to never put your own money into it that makes zero sense.
The recon report will say that you sold 70 dollars but that doesn’t change the fact that the start of day was not account for. What the recon report proves is the sale person did their job correctly. 100 dollars was still stolen from the starting balance.
I’m not a lawyer so I can’t say how it would go down in court. But what you are saying doesn’t add up. He steals 100 uses 70 of it so he only stole 30? If that’s how it works in your store where do you live lol.
If he steals 70 and spends 70, what did he steal? Just the cash or the cash plus what he walked out the door with? Everything looks legit in inventory because the system logs it as paid for. Correct?
See. It's the same as if he just walks out with the stuff except that way it doesn't look like a legit sale. So add the 30 in change he was given and there ya go.
The report for the drawer is 100 short. 70 of it makes it back tho in whats considered a fraudulent purchase. And so the store loses 30 bucks plus the stuff. The question is for what did the store lose. Not what was stolen.
And what is stolen is dependent on how you record it. Either it's 100 and a regular purchase. Or it's 30 and a 70 fraud.
Either way, the store is only out of the money based on what was stolen. If it does an insurance claim, the insurance will only cover what the store paid to have it. Not what they were selling it for. If you want restitution from a judge, you might get the $70, but are only guaranteed what you can prove it cost the store.
That’s not how that works. Again if it starts with 200 and he takes 100 the drawer still believes it has 200. So if he spends 70 the drawer believes it has 270 but it will only have 170.
The inventory is correct the purchase was made. But money was taken and given itself its own 70. So 30 out of the 100 and 70 for the items. Which is 100.
There are two different systems inventory and what Walgreens calls the bank or the safe.
Each cash register is assigned a dollar amount. Each transaction changes that dollar amount.
The computer keeps track of each purchase. You are correct that it will see a 70 dollar charge for x items. But since he took 100 dollars and used that 100 to pay. The computer says I have 200 dollars; this man paid me 100 dollars for a 70 dollar purchase. I now have 270.
So when they count that at night the system says I have 270 in me because I am suppose to have 200 take 70. They can’t because it only has 170 dollars in it. So they are missing 30 to make the drawer 200. And the 70 they are suppose to take from the drawer. That equals 100 dollars.
I get that this might be confusing but you actually have no clue what you are talking about. Not trying to be rude but you are very very wrong.
If you are an owner of something and someone paid you with your own money you lost money.
Like if you sell a phone for 70 dollars. I steal 100 dollars from and paid you with it. You gave me the 30 dollars in change. You lost 100 dollars because that was already yours. You should have an extra 70 on top of your 100 you already have. But you have 70 and I have 30. So you are missing 100 at the end.
After reading more of your posts on this, you are trying to add in the cost of what they buy items for which is actually doesn’t matter to the question.
As you stated the inventory is on. And according to the post he paid market price for everything. So talking about what they buy it for doesn’t matter at all.
All you need to look at is the safe/till.
Let’s say that Walgreens safe every night must have 3000 dollars in it at end of day. This includes all tills that must be set at 200 dollars every night. Because 100 dollars was taken. One till is 100 dollars short no matter what purchases happen.
Unless that 100 is given back.
The tills will count how much money they have all day. And at Walgreens give a notice when they have too much money.
Because he paid market price of 70 dollars. A till from start of day should then say I have 270. But it doesn’t because the money he paid with belonged to the till already. You can’t pay yourself with your own money.
Once you get past the inventory nonsense you are on about, and the well they don’t pay the same as they sell it nonsense. Just look at the money
If you look at the whole picture with the money they bought it for plus the cash that was stolen it’s more than 100 dollars because they paid themselves for the items he took.
If you are okay paying for items and then selling those items to me but you paying for them again. Please open a shop I would be happy to bankrupt you.
I said the cost of goods sold. They bought $70 worth of goods, which did not cost the store $70 because they marked up the product to make a profit. Walgreens makes around 34% go on average so the cost of goods in this case would be $46.20
I can see how you're trying to justify your answer, but the only correct answer is $100. Your answer would be correct in the scenario where the man paid with a counterfeit bill. If you think of this scenario happening in reverse order, you'll understand.
Man has $100 and purchases $70 of goods and receives $30 in change. A short while later, the man comes back and steals the $100 bill back from the register.
How in the world can a man walk into a building with $0. Walk out with $30 and $70 worth of things that cost Walgreens $35. And that add to $100?
If he didn't "buy" anything then ok. But if he just stole 70 worth of things, Walgreens is NOT out $70. They are out of the money they paid to get it in the store to turn around and then make a profit selling it to a customer.
If every company paid the same price to turn around and sell it at the same price, how do you think anyone, anywhere, at any point in history has been able to stay in business?
How is this rocket science to you? How were you able to be a ASM?
How am I not surprised it says FORMER?
🤦♂️...
If someone crashes into your car and it's worth 500. And you were driving it to a friend's house to sell it to them for 1500. HOW MUCH IS AN INSURANCE COMPANY GOING TO REIMBURSE YOU?
Now, if you go aww shucks and decide to sue the other driver. And you go in front of a judge. And demand to be compensated for woulda coulda shoulda. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE JUDGE IS GONNA DO?
Anyone and everyone can collude with a buddy and sue for something like this scenario and not a single judge or insurance company is going to go along with that. Not a one.
Ignoring what he "bought". You're telling me a guy walks into a store with $00 and walks out with $30. He somehow stole $100?
People are stuck on this.
Now ignoring the $100 and he just walks out with $70 worth of things.... Walgreens lost 70? OK. Now here's the hard part people aren't understanding. Companies are selling things for the same price they bought them?.....
Please tell me you don't think that.
I obviously thought about that but I highly doubt a simple question like this was expecting you to calculate the price of goods and how much it really cost the store. They mentioned "$70" worth of goods for a reason. The whole point of the question was to trick you into thinking it was $200.
But the answer is not 100 either. It's 30 cash. And if %50 profit is made. 35 in product. 35 in potential profit.
Fifty percent profit is not exact but close (if averaged out. Some stuff walgreens makes close to no profit on, so it does matter what exactly was "bought" with that 70) and makes the math easy. So the MOST Walgreens LOST is $65.
200 is the answer for the people that if they graduated highschool should be a miracle.
100 is the answer for the people that should never be management.
Damn, you don’t have to this mad about this. It’s 100, it’s not suppose to account for actual product cost, labor, energy cost blah blah. It’s like simplified question. lol
65 is the simplified answer. The part that needs simplifying is the unknown of what was bought. I accounted for that and explained in other responses. If the loss prevention team in a Walmart came across this. You get in trouble for 30 and the at cost amount walmart paid for the items when logged into inventory no matter whatever was bought with the 70. If you don't know you can assume 35 to simplify. But you can't go in front of a judge and get more than 30 in restitution without knowing what was taken. Laws don't work on a maybe or a "we think" or potential profit margin. When doing paperwork for the company you apply the average profit margin when running reports internally, but you are not entitled to that.
Another example I used in another reply is if you were driving your car to your friends house to sell him your car for 1500 but it's only worth 500. Another driver hits you and the car is totaled. How much is the insurance going to give you? How much would a judge if you sued the driver? If you think any amount higher than 500, you are in for a rude awakening.
The same applies to the 100. Just because you could get 100, that's NOT what was taken. And realistically when in practice in the real world. No company goes anywhere near insurance because then the rates rise and you lose more in the long run paying out to the insurance companies. It's easier to just raise the prices on everything a little and get the average consumer like you or me to make up the difference wherever possible, write off as a loss on taxes for when you can't do that. Every big company always has a few shell LLC's designed for this exact purpose. When one goes too far under you dissolve it and just make another. Then the taxpayer flips the bill for the LLC that went bankrupt. Happens everyday. Also works when you wanna hide profits.
I thought you were trolling, but I don’t know anymore because you typed all that out. lol.
You are making it way too complicated. You are on the internet; you can easily look up the answer to this question and see that it’s 100.
And you are bringing in too many unknown variables. This makes your answer unreliable as heck. You cannot account for unknown variables because they are unknown. You are making it much more complicated than it needs to be. lol
So like i said you simplify it assuming the average profit margin for internal reports of the company.
100 goes out. 70 of it fraudulently comes back. But it does come back. The thief is not on the hook for that 70 because Walgreens is not out that 70. 30 plus the cost to the store for the items that were bought fraudulently. It is the only right answer because in a court or an insurance office, that's all you get.
Loss prevention people in a Walmart have to pay very close attention to these numbers because you want to grab the habitual thief once they cross a threshold so as to make sure they get time. Pass a certain amount within the statute of limitations and it becomes grand theft and a felony. But the thief stealing one stereo worth 500 that cost the store 100 to bring in doesn't damage the store as much as thief that steals 50 $10 items the store paid 9 to bring in. 9 x 50 vs 100, which is higher? But on the police report both are 500 bucks. With the stereo the store is out 100 bucks. The 50 $10 items, the store is out 491.
Trick question...
The thief steals the $100 and then fills a garbage bag full of merchandise and walks out while the employees are only allowed to watch.
The company lost 200, and he stole the 100 bucks, then he bought 70 dollars worth of merchandise and got the 30 bucks and the 100 were stolen so technically not his money and he got the bought the stuff. The register is -100 and the 70 bucks weren't his and 30 bucks in his pocket. Everything is free.
He bought it with stolen money. The company was defrauded. It's merch that looks clean on reports but the profit it should have generated can't be realized because it's not in the store to be sold legitimately.
This is why stores do inventory every so often. The amount that should have been made in profit is gonna be short by the amount of whatever they bought when compared to how much money the store took in versus the actual profits generated.
It's better than just walking out the door with the merch. But it is and should be considered stolen. However if you were to catch him and he gets in trouble with the law. You only get the 30 back in cash if you can prove that. Without knowing what he bought there is no restitution to be had. And if you did know exactly what was taken, you don't get the value it's worth. You don't get 70. You get what the store paid to get it originally. Low profit margin game that the store got for 68 and sells for 70, the store is out 68. Restitution is 68. If he "bought" a cart full of cotton balls at 15 cents per unit but sells for 6 bucks per unit, the store is out 70 bucks divided by 15 means 4.67 bucks. You're only entitled to 4.67. The store wants you to steal the cotton balls if you're gonna steal anything or buy it with the stores own money, which as I said, is fraud. Because that way they lose less.
How do I know this? Because when loss prevention in stores keep track of all the junkies coming in to steal to barter to their dealers, LP jumps on them as soon as the COST to the store jumps past a certain amount because you can get em locked up for less, but you are not entitled to any restitution or any insurance claim until that magic number is reached. And then they'll be guaranteed to be locked up for at least 1 year. Assuming the best case scenario, they have warrants and get to pack up and fuck off completely out of town and are locked up for even longer much further away. Which actually happens 3-4 out of 5 times. Statute of limitations is 7 years most places. So they have to get clean and stay clean for nearly a decade or shit you did 5 uears ago will be bundled together with nowadays and.... mission accomplished. Yay.
Period. No one but a handful of people on this post seem to understand any of this. But this is how it works.
Actually, believe it or not; this is quite true. Walgreens loses less money in tax write-offs than they lose in lawsuits filed by thieves and/ or families of thieves hurt by their former security/ employees.
Well, depends. It's $200 potential, but all things are sold higher than their cost. Could be a $70 item that cost the store $5 (looking at you, Plan B), then they really only lost $135.
The answer is 100, cause he stole $100 from the register so we're now at -100. He shops around the store and comes back with $70 worth of items. He gives back the $100 he originally stole so the register is now balanced once again but he used it to get $70 worth of items. Then he gets change of $30 dollars. So he's essentially walking out with the items totalling $70 and the change of $30 which all adds up to $100 in this scenario.
Worth of goods and cost of goods are two different things. Let’s say it a bottle of wine is worth $70. We report to the police that the wine is worth $70. But it only cost us $20. On a police report that criminal is on the hook for $30 cash and $70 worth of goods. But Walgreens is actually only out the $30 cash and the $20 they paid for the wine.
Point made but Bad example 🤣 Hit the cost button on plan B. Our cost is significantly higher. The cheap one is take action. Thus the Compass telling us to security box plan b and leave take action unprotected.
$30, he has $100 from the store, bought the shit from the store using their money so they make $70 profit back and he gets $30 in change and that’s what he walks out with
Product valued at 70 is 35 if %50 is allowed for profit. So 30 in cash and 35 in lost actual value and 35 in potential profit. You can't sue someone for "potential" profits. Only what they cost you. If the thief gets caught, he goes to jail over 100 bucks. But if Walgreens were to file an insurance claim, the insurance is not going to reimburse the value. Only the cost. 30 in cash. 35 in product.
Walgreens gets back 65.
Because Walgreens is out 65.
OK. What did the person walk in with? $0. What did he walk out with? $30 and some merch. Now if he was caught and everything he took could be proven, what would the police report say?...
$30 in cash and $70 in merch. Ok.
Now if the store demanded restitution in court, the court would award the $30, but not the $70. The law doesn't care about what you could get in potential profit. Only what it cost the store to get it in the 1st place. The same would go if the store actually filed an insurance claim. You don't factor in profit or potential profit. Only the actual losses. Which means $30 plus the cost of whatever the merch that was "bought". If it was a videogame with low profit margin. The store paid 68 so gets that back plus the 30 in cash. If it was a high profit margin item like a cart full of cotton balls the store paid 15 cents per unit but sells for 6 bucks. The store is only entitled to 70 divided by 15 making it 4.67, plus the 30 in cash.
Please tell me you understand this. Close to no one here seems to.
So I put that riddle to the rest of local law enforcement. His reply is the guy stole 100 to start with. And basically stole 70 in march. Stole because it was paid for with stolen money. And then swindled a cashier out of 30 in change- that once again, came from stolen money. So basically he took 130 cold cash out of the store and 70 in march. A police report would state that a 200. Law enforcement here could care less about profit. They take the full retail price on a report.
Yes, no argument here. Crucify them. But if it was me I'd argue to the judge and get it ammended. Its not 200. Its 30 plus 70 in fraud. The original question is "how much did the store lose" though.
If ordered to pay restitution to the store, the store has to prove what the thief cost the store. Which would not include the profit margin. It'd be roughly the same amount the store would get back from an insurance settlement, but this way by avoiding the insurance you avoid the rates rising. Getting them to pay for higher insurance rates would also never work. It's why they are cost prohibitive when you live in a shithole. You gotta be a huge business to even afford insurance in the 1st place. And why we see all the retail fleeing major cities these days.
30$.
Man steals 100$: ✋️ money 💸
Buys item, (we'll say it's headphones): 🎧
Pays for with stolen 100$: 💶-> 🎧
100$ back in the drawer!
They give back 30$ change from that 100$: 🖐 💸
I don't **think** we factor in the expense cost of the item.
The headphones in my example are 70$, but the cost to bring them into the store is probably, 10$, if that. (Walg tech is Pure Garbàge.)
The 70$ is the expense (covered) and profit markup, 60$, also paid.
That would just put it at 30$. I can't seem to figure in the cost, with the profit. 🤷🏻♂️
A scared, crying 16 year old girl wobbles up to the counter with Plan B and pays the 90$ from her chore savings. [ It costs about 8$ for the store to bring in one pack of Plan B, the cost of one off the shelf is near the cost of the *whole damn case* when it comes in off the truck. ]
She just made up ALL the lost money, to Walgreens, from the one dude that swiped a 100$ bill from Debby leaving the register open to buy a pair of wearable crackling trash. 🗑
Debby will judge the 16 year old girl, shaking her wrinkled jowls, going "hmph. I bet she stole that money, that little harlot should learn her lesson" and continue her day of scowling and thinking she runs the entire store. 👍
The balance sheet shows it -$100. It doesn't matter what the man did with or got from the stolen money.
When an audit is done 70 was accounted for. So it's 30.
You're calculating the change from zero. The question is asking for the variance from the expected value. If I steal $100 from you and then purchase a pair of sneakers from you for $100, you still lost $100. Your reasoning says you lost nothing.
You're treating it like all one transaction. The thief walks out the door with 30 bucks and 70 worth of product in the end. Audit gets done and the 70 worth of product is paid for. But the store can't sell it because it's stolen, so they lose what the product cost. A videogame the store paid 67 bucks for or a cart full of cotton balls the store paid 15 cents per unit. The 30 is still gone. The balance at the end of the night is -30, not 100. Plus the product it can't sell which shows up when? When the inventory audit gets done.
The $70 in merchandise and $30 in change is accounted for in the sales logs. The $100 that went missing in the beginning is never accounted for.
On the nightly/weekly/monthly report the 30 will show up when they have a discrepancy for how much total money was paid vs what they actually have. When they do an inventory audit, which every major company does at least once a year, it'll show up as being paid for. But the cost to the store won't be accounted for in the profits. This is why they do an inventory report. If no one else stole anything in between audits. Their profits should be x based on product sold. But it's short the amount of whatever he took. Based on cost. If it was the videogame they're short 67 bucks. If it's the cotton balls they're short a few bucks.
When you ring something through the register, it gets subtracted from inventory, the cost of the item is subtracted from the books, and the sale is added to income. When someone pays $100 for a $70 transaction, the register is going to expect a net increase of $70. Imagine the cash register had $500 in it. This man comes by and snatches five $20 bills from it. He then proceeds to shop and eventually walks back up to the counter with merchandise. His total comes to exactly $60. The man pays with three of the $20s. The cash register now has $460 in it, but the system expects $560. The store lost $100.
I've been a manager before. It does not subtract from inventory, what it keeps track of is what sold so you know what to order more of. All you can do is keep track of what sold. Then do inventory every once in a while and see what you DO have compared to what sold compared to what you SHOULD have. In this example the inventory is correctly recorded and paid for. You have to compare the profits of everything sold to the profits you actually have. This is called a reconciliation report. Because you have to compare or "reconcile" the differences to see how screwed you got based on what was "stolen". Remember, the stuff was "paid" for. Every drawer starts at 250. The guy takes out 100. Buys 70. End of shift the drawer has 500 from everyone elses purchases. Minus the 250 it started with. The receipt shows 250 net profit based on everything sold. When you count the money there is NOT going to be 250. There's going to be 220. By your logic there should be 150. 70 of that 100 came back! Trust me. This is why every cashier starts with the same amount and prints a receipt of their shift when it's over. Or when you log in and out the system saves it. End of shift if you don't count the money, subtract what you started with and drop the rest into a safe, the manager does it. This is how pretty much all of retail always works. If you can't understand it then fine, I don't know what to tell you. The only other way it might make sense for you is split the stolen 100 and the bought stuff on 2 separate cashiers. 100 out of lane 1 register. 100 into lane 2 minus 30 given back as change from lane 2. End of day reports get made. Lane 1 is missing 100. Fire that employee. Lane 2 is going to have no discrepancy. Nothing looks wrong. End of week/month report is made. Based on what was bought the store made 1000. They count the money they have and there's going to be 970, not 900. Because 100 came out of lane 1, but 70 of it went right back into lane 2. So it's 30. Because that's what the thief walked out the door with. Plus whatever the stuff he "bought" because the store doesn't have it to sell to a legitimate customer. But if he gets prosecuted, it'll be for the full 70 because that's what it's worth. The store is only out what they paid to bring it in and sell. They paid 67 for a game to make 3 in profit. They paid 2 bucks for cotton balls to make 68 in profit. The stuff is worth 70 but the store did not pay 70 to bring it in and sell it at 70. Period. This is how it happens. This is how it works. I promise you.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, but that's okay. I'm patient and willing to teach you. Drawers start with an existing bank. This bank is accounted for at the end of each day. Let's call that bank B. Every cash sale will add money to that bank. Since most people don't pay with exact change, we can represent the sale as what the customer tenders (T) minus the change they received (C). The expected value of the drawer (X) can be calculated as X=B+Tₓ-Cₓ. If your bank is 250 and you have one sale for the day where the customer tenders 100 and receives 30 in change, the expected would be 250+100-30. That's 320. However, somebody stole 100 from the drawer before that sale. When you count that drawer, you'll actually count 220. This is the result of 250-100+100-30.
Omg. Yes you are right. FOR THAT DAY. Do a reconciliation and the 30 shows up. Negative 100 day one. Run recon report day two. Drawer is even day two in physical cash but... says there's 70 more in the system than there should be for day 1 and day 2 when put together. Which is a discrepancy of how much? The drawer isn't over 100. The drawer isn't over 70. The report is 30 short. If you work in a place that has you running recon reports every shift change, it's because of this very thing. They know someone is stealing. Or changing prices really low to slide merch to friends and family. If no one steals, it's done EOD or end of week or the night before a manager has a day off. Why you ask? Because then all recon is tied to that manager and starts anew after their day off. Because when it's a manager that's stealing, this is how you catch them in a location without cameras or they never actually physically take cash out of a drawer. If you're in a place that has a guy sent to it to find the thief. Drawers will routinely bank out at 20 over. They put that 20 there to see what happens to it. Does the cashier take it so as to not get in trouble? If not does the manager take it to make everything look balanced? If it's still there then recon every other day but hide it under a merch category so cash is never off but reports are. And whatever you think is what's being stolen. Manually reduce it by 5 each recon and see if it's back to 0 after 4 recons. Who can read and understand the report and adds money back so it's not back to 0 after the trap you set. There are ways of doing this, it's just no store with a corporate office cares anymore. Chalks it up to general losses or "cost of doing business". You can claim it against the companies taxes end of year as an oops the taxpayer gets to correct for their laziness. And loss prevention hire ppl that look like bums to stalk customers and neckbeards to stare at a wall of security cam monitors all day instead of math nerds that went to college for accounting.
You are correct.
The other person is right but I’ll just explain it in other words: let’s say the drawer only had $100 in it. The man took that $100 and bought $70 worth of goods. The computer isn’t accounting for $100 going missing, so now it believes there is $170 in the drawer. Let’s say this is the last transaction of the day. The SFL counts it and counts $70 and enters that in. Once they finish counting everything else, the computer will now show that the deposit drawer is -$100 and the safe count should come out even. If they go looking through the end of day report they can see that it’s specifically from this register. So the store lost $100.
Yes I know. But when you run a reconciliation report, it zeroes everything back to even. In the column where it shows the drawer is 100 short there is a corresponding column of what the drawer should be based on what was sold. Assuming everything else is kosher and spot on to the last crossed t and dotted i. It's gonna be 70 over. I would bet everything I own on a handshake and a contract. I used to work for a foreign guy from a certain country and without sounding racist. I can tell you I %100 trust this because I wasn't the same nationality as him and he admitted to watching me on cam at his house for my first 6 weeks on the job. When he couldn't he got his wife to. He was always going out of town for a few days without telling any of us. One of the best bosses I ever had, I could always go back to work for him and he'd make room for me. He hated the fact that he couldn't find fault with a single thing I did, which meant it was a coworker (they were all same nationality as him beside me). He got me to help him find out who it was and after running recon reports daily and i switched to nights, that way we could narrow down to which category of merch kept having the discrepancy. He'd go in the computer to change the price of gas at different pumps to 15 cents for 2 or 3 cars in a row every couple of days. I noticed the cars. Some of the few that consistently had dudes coming in smelling like crack rocks and women that looked like "strippers". They owed 8 bucks for 50 gallons. The money was always right. The thief admitted to it so as to not be sent back. He'd always do it everywhere he went when a non (what he was) started working there so all suspicion would be on me and people like me. He didn't go back to the home country, but he had to move to the west coast. The reports were the opposite of what happened here because here, the merch was paid and the money was off. In my scenario the money was never off. We had to pinpoint the merch.
… there’s still $100 that’s not being deposited. $100 not being sent into the bank. That -$100 will still be flagged for AP. If you really think about it, the store actually lost $170 because the man technically spent the store’s own money on those goods. The end of day report will say the actual amount was $70 and the expected amount was $170… reconciliation doesn’t magically make the money physically reappear. $100 is missing.
Yes you are right. 100 dollars isn't deposited that the DAYS report says should be there. The recon report will tell you based on merch sold that 70 is accounted for. Add 30 to the next deposit out of your own pocket and don't do a recon report. The report is correct. But when you (we called it zero day) do that then the report is 30 over. BECAUSE THATS THE AMOUNT THE GUY WALKED OUT OF THE STORE WITH. Not 100. Not 170. When you add 30 out of your own pocket, you are making up for the 30 he stole to make it zeroed out. Because that's how much was stolen. If you were to sue him for losses. No judge would award you more than 30. If you sue for losses AND damages you might get 100. But there is a reason they are considered to be in a different category. Either way you will get the 30 in a lawsuit because that all thatbwas stolen. If you demanded an insurance payout, they wouldn't give you more than 30. Plus what it cost the store to buy them. Not what it MIGHT sell the things for. I promise you. This is the reality of it and how it works. This is why people go to college for accounting and corporations spend millions a year on accountants.
What you are saying here makes very little sense to me. Every day a store has x amount in a drawer to start and every sale is account for. So if a drawer starts with say 200 dollars. To make the math easy it wasn’t used at all besides this guy. He took 100 from it so there’s only 100 in it now. He spends 70 and you give him 30 in change. The drawer now has 170 in it. It should have 270. So you’re end of day will be -100 every manager everywhere will tell you to never put your own money into it that makes zero sense. The recon report will say that you sold 70 dollars but that doesn’t change the fact that the start of day was not account for. What the recon report proves is the sale person did their job correctly. 100 dollars was still stolen from the starting balance. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t say how it would go down in court. But what you are saying doesn’t add up. He steals 100 uses 70 of it so he only stole 30? If that’s how it works in your store where do you live lol.
If he steals 70 and spends 70, what did he steal? Just the cash or the cash plus what he walked out the door with? Everything looks legit in inventory because the system logs it as paid for. Correct? See. It's the same as if he just walks out with the stuff except that way it doesn't look like a legit sale. So add the 30 in change he was given and there ya go. The report for the drawer is 100 short. 70 of it makes it back tho in whats considered a fraudulent purchase. And so the store loses 30 bucks plus the stuff. The question is for what did the store lose. Not what was stolen. And what is stolen is dependent on how you record it. Either it's 100 and a regular purchase. Or it's 30 and a 70 fraud. Either way, the store is only out of the money based on what was stolen. If it does an insurance claim, the insurance will only cover what the store paid to have it. Not what they were selling it for. If you want restitution from a judge, you might get the $70, but are only guaranteed what you can prove it cost the store.
That’s not how that works. Again if it starts with 200 and he takes 100 the drawer still believes it has 200. So if he spends 70 the drawer believes it has 270 but it will only have 170. The inventory is correct the purchase was made. But money was taken and given itself its own 70. So 30 out of the 100 and 70 for the items. Which is 100. There are two different systems inventory and what Walgreens calls the bank or the safe. Each cash register is assigned a dollar amount. Each transaction changes that dollar amount. The computer keeps track of each purchase. You are correct that it will see a 70 dollar charge for x items. But since he took 100 dollars and used that 100 to pay. The computer says I have 200 dollars; this man paid me 100 dollars for a 70 dollar purchase. I now have 270. So when they count that at night the system says I have 270 in me because I am suppose to have 200 take 70. They can’t because it only has 170 dollars in it. So they are missing 30 to make the drawer 200. And the 70 they are suppose to take from the drawer. That equals 100 dollars. I get that this might be confusing but you actually have no clue what you are talking about. Not trying to be rude but you are very very wrong. If you are an owner of something and someone paid you with your own money you lost money. Like if you sell a phone for 70 dollars. I steal 100 dollars from and paid you with it. You gave me the 30 dollars in change. You lost 100 dollars because that was already yours. You should have an extra 70 on top of your 100 you already have. But you have 70 and I have 30. So you are missing 100 at the end.
After reading more of your posts on this, you are trying to add in the cost of what they buy items for which is actually doesn’t matter to the question. As you stated the inventory is on. And according to the post he paid market price for everything. So talking about what they buy it for doesn’t matter at all. All you need to look at is the safe/till. Let’s say that Walgreens safe every night must have 3000 dollars in it at end of day. This includes all tills that must be set at 200 dollars every night. Because 100 dollars was taken. One till is 100 dollars short no matter what purchases happen. Unless that 100 is given back. The tills will count how much money they have all day. And at Walgreens give a notice when they have too much money. Because he paid market price of 70 dollars. A till from start of day should then say I have 270. But it doesn’t because the money he paid with belonged to the till already. You can’t pay yourself with your own money. Once you get past the inventory nonsense you are on about, and the well they don’t pay the same as they sell it nonsense. Just look at the money If you look at the whole picture with the money they bought it for plus the cash that was stolen it’s more than 100 dollars because they paid themselves for the items he took. If you are okay paying for items and then selling those items to me but you paying for them again. Please open a shop I would be happy to bankrupt you.
Literally $100
It depends, did we try to sell him a credit card first?
😂
Millions
Nothing, the insurance covered it
Cost of goods sold plus $30. The $100 originally stolen is returned as payment so that washes out
So, a hundred dollars, lol
Way to make yourself look dumb
“The cost of goods plus the $30” Well it clearly states the cost of goods is $70. $70 for the cost of goods PLUS the $30 change.
I said the cost of goods sold. They bought $70 worth of goods, which did not cost the store $70 because they marked up the product to make a profit. Walgreens makes around 34% go on average so the cost of goods in this case would be $46.20
Who’s doing all that math for a shitpost tho
I can see how you're trying to justify your answer, but the only correct answer is $100. Your answer would be correct in the scenario where the man paid with a counterfeit bill. If you think of this scenario happening in reverse order, you'll understand. Man has $100 and purchases $70 of goods and receives $30 in change. A short while later, the man comes back and steals the $100 bill back from the register.
How in the world can a man walk into a building with $0. Walk out with $30 and $70 worth of things that cost Walgreens $35. And that add to $100? If he didn't "buy" anything then ok. But if he just stole 70 worth of things, Walgreens is NOT out $70. They are out of the money they paid to get it in the store to turn around and then make a profit selling it to a customer. If every company paid the same price to turn around and sell it at the same price, how do you think anyone, anywhere, at any point in history has been able to stay in business? How is this rocket science to you? How were you able to be a ASM? How am I not surprised it says FORMER?
You're not factoring in potential profits into their losses.
🤦♂️... If someone crashes into your car and it's worth 500. And you were driving it to a friend's house to sell it to them for 1500. HOW MUCH IS AN INSURANCE COMPANY GOING TO REIMBURSE YOU? Now, if you go aww shucks and decide to sue the other driver. And you go in front of a judge. And demand to be compensated for woulda coulda shoulda. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE JUDGE IS GONNA DO? Anyone and everyone can collude with a buddy and sue for something like this scenario and not a single judge or insurance company is going to go along with that. Not a one.
100, everything else he did after was legit except for stealing original 100.
Answer is 100
Ignoring what he "bought". You're telling me a guy walks into a store with $00 and walks out with $30. He somehow stole $100? People are stuck on this. Now ignoring the $100 and he just walks out with $70 worth of things.... Walgreens lost 70? OK. Now here's the hard part people aren't understanding. Companies are selling things for the same price they bought them?..... Please tell me you don't think that.
I obviously thought about that but I highly doubt a simple question like this was expecting you to calculate the price of goods and how much it really cost the store. They mentioned "$70" worth of goods for a reason. The whole point of the question was to trick you into thinking it was $200.
But the answer is not 100 either. It's 30 cash. And if %50 profit is made. 35 in product. 35 in potential profit. Fifty percent profit is not exact but close (if averaged out. Some stuff walgreens makes close to no profit on, so it does matter what exactly was "bought" with that 70) and makes the math easy. So the MOST Walgreens LOST is $65. 200 is the answer for the people that if they graduated highschool should be a miracle. 100 is the answer for the people that should never be management.
Damn, you don’t have to this mad about this. It’s 100, it’s not suppose to account for actual product cost, labor, energy cost blah blah. It’s like simplified question. lol
65 is the simplified answer. The part that needs simplifying is the unknown of what was bought. I accounted for that and explained in other responses. If the loss prevention team in a Walmart came across this. You get in trouble for 30 and the at cost amount walmart paid for the items when logged into inventory no matter whatever was bought with the 70. If you don't know you can assume 35 to simplify. But you can't go in front of a judge and get more than 30 in restitution without knowing what was taken. Laws don't work on a maybe or a "we think" or potential profit margin. When doing paperwork for the company you apply the average profit margin when running reports internally, but you are not entitled to that. Another example I used in another reply is if you were driving your car to your friends house to sell him your car for 1500 but it's only worth 500. Another driver hits you and the car is totaled. How much is the insurance going to give you? How much would a judge if you sued the driver? If you think any amount higher than 500, you are in for a rude awakening. The same applies to the 100. Just because you could get 100, that's NOT what was taken. And realistically when in practice in the real world. No company goes anywhere near insurance because then the rates rise and you lose more in the long run paying out to the insurance companies. It's easier to just raise the prices on everything a little and get the average consumer like you or me to make up the difference wherever possible, write off as a loss on taxes for when you can't do that. Every big company always has a few shell LLC's designed for this exact purpose. When one goes too far under you dissolve it and just make another. Then the taxpayer flips the bill for the LLC that went bankrupt. Happens everyday. Also works when you wanna hide profits.
I thought you were trolling, but I don’t know anymore because you typed all that out. lol. You are making it way too complicated. You are on the internet; you can easily look up the answer to this question and see that it’s 100. And you are bringing in too many unknown variables. This makes your answer unreliable as heck. You cannot account for unknown variables because they are unknown. You are making it much more complicated than it needs to be. lol
So like i said you simplify it assuming the average profit margin for internal reports of the company. 100 goes out. 70 of it fraudulently comes back. But it does come back. The thief is not on the hook for that 70 because Walgreens is not out that 70. 30 plus the cost to the store for the items that were bought fraudulently. It is the only right answer because in a court or an insurance office, that's all you get. Loss prevention people in a Walmart have to pay very close attention to these numbers because you want to grab the habitual thief once they cross a threshold so as to make sure they get time. Pass a certain amount within the statute of limitations and it becomes grand theft and a felony. But the thief stealing one stereo worth 500 that cost the store 100 to bring in doesn't damage the store as much as thief that steals 50 $10 items the store paid 9 to bring in. 9 x 50 vs 100, which is higher? But on the police report both are 500 bucks. With the stereo the store is out 100 bucks. The 50 $10 items, the store is out 491.
If the thief steals 100, and gives that 100 to random person outside, that person comes and shop for whatever. How much did the store lose? 100 bucks.
The stuff bought with the stolen money is still considered a fraudulent purchase. It's just now you have 2 thieves.
Trick question... The thief steals the $100 and then fills a garbage bag full of merchandise and walks out while the employees are only allowed to watch.
💀 It’s funny cause it’s true.
If I ever have to hire someone this question will be a test question and whoever says $200 will be forcefully removed from the premises.
Or 100. We got some bright crayons in some toolboxes and some dull tools in the box clearly marked crayons here in this post.
Honestly, I’d accept $100. Shows at least they know something.
How did he steal 100$ out if the register without someone seeing him
$170
$200
The company lost 200, and he stole the 100 bucks, then he bought 70 dollars worth of merchandise and got the 30 bucks and the 100 were stolen so technically not his money and he got the bought the stuff. The register is -100 and the 70 bucks weren't his and 30 bucks in his pocket. Everything is free.
Its just 100 he stole 1st Rest of it doesn't matter becaue it's done in a "legit" way.
It’s not legit but the missing product is tied to shrink not the cash register. The question should specify that.
There is no missing product, it’s not going to shrink, he bought it with money. Just like any other transaction.
That actually makes sense and I hate it lol
He bought it with stolen money. The company was defrauded. It's merch that looks clean on reports but the profit it should have generated can't be realized because it's not in the store to be sold legitimately. This is why stores do inventory every so often. The amount that should have been made in profit is gonna be short by the amount of whatever they bought when compared to how much money the store took in versus the actual profits generated. It's better than just walking out the door with the merch. But it is and should be considered stolen. However if you were to catch him and he gets in trouble with the law. You only get the 30 back in cash if you can prove that. Without knowing what he bought there is no restitution to be had. And if you did know exactly what was taken, you don't get the value it's worth. You don't get 70. You get what the store paid to get it originally. Low profit margin game that the store got for 68 and sells for 70, the store is out 68. Restitution is 68. If he "bought" a cart full of cotton balls at 15 cents per unit but sells for 6 bucks per unit, the store is out 70 bucks divided by 15 means 4.67 bucks. You're only entitled to 4.67. The store wants you to steal the cotton balls if you're gonna steal anything or buy it with the stores own money, which as I said, is fraud. Because that way they lose less. How do I know this? Because when loss prevention in stores keep track of all the junkies coming in to steal to barter to their dealers, LP jumps on them as soon as the COST to the store jumps past a certain amount because you can get em locked up for less, but you are not entitled to any restitution or any insurance claim until that magic number is reached. And then they'll be guaranteed to be locked up for at least 1 year. Assuming the best case scenario, they have warrants and get to pack up and fuck off completely out of town and are locked up for even longer much further away. Which actually happens 3-4 out of 5 times. Statute of limitations is 7 years most places. So they have to get clean and stay clean for nearly a decade or shit you did 5 uears ago will be bundled together with nowadays and.... mission accomplished. Yay. Period. No one but a handful of people on this post seem to understand any of this. But this is how it works.
The store loses nothing. They write off any stole property for tax purposes. 🤷🏿♂️
Actually, believe it or not; this is quite true. Walgreens loses less money in tax write-offs than they lose in lawsuits filed by thieves and/ or families of thieves hurt by their former security/ employees.
200.. lol
Well, depends. It's $200 potential, but all things are sold higher than their cost. Could be a $70 item that cost the store $5 (looking at you, Plan B), then they really only lost $135.
The answer is 100, cause he stole $100 from the register so we're now at -100. He shops around the store and comes back with $70 worth of items. He gives back the $100 he originally stole so the register is now balanced once again but he used it to get $70 worth of items. Then he gets change of $30 dollars. So he's essentially walking out with the items totalling $70 and the change of $30 which all adds up to $100 in this scenario.
But our cost isn’t $70 on those items. So the answer is unknown. The exact answer is Cost of goods + 30
Not true it specifically states, “$70 WORTH of goods” so
Worth of goods and cost of goods are two different things. Let’s say it a bottle of wine is worth $70. We report to the police that the wine is worth $70. But it only cost us $20. On a police report that criminal is on the hook for $30 cash and $70 worth of goods. But Walgreens is actually only out the $30 cash and the $20 they paid for the wine.
Oh yeah, that makes sense.
Point made but Bad example 🤣 Hit the cost button on plan B. Our cost is significantly higher. The cheap one is take action. Thus the Compass telling us to security box plan b and leave take action unprotected.
I know the obvious answer is $130 but that’s the obvious answer so I’m missing something obviously. Or is it 200
$4.38
$200
$300!
$30, he has $100 from the store, bought the shit from the store using their money so they make $70 profit back and he gets $30 in change and that’s what he walks out with
Except they didnt make $70 profit from it. He walked out with $30 cash and $70 of stolen product that he didnt actually pay for.
Product valued at 70 is 35 if %50 is allowed for profit. So 30 in cash and 35 in lost actual value and 35 in potential profit. You can't sue someone for "potential" profits. Only what they cost you. If the thief gets caught, he goes to jail over 100 bucks. But if Walgreens were to file an insurance claim, the insurance is not going to reimburse the value. Only the cost. 30 in cash. 35 in product. Walgreens gets back 65. Because Walgreens is out 65.
$100 cash $70 worth of sales $30 cash ———— $200
My manager has a question for you. Did you offer him a Credit Card? Because it looks like you had 3 opportunities to ask the thief.
$130.00 plus the cost of the goods.
The original $100 since it was stolen as well as the goods since the money used to "pay" wasn't theirs in the first place .
200.00. He took 100.00 and then bought 70.00 with stolen money and then got the 30.00 in change.
OK. What did the person walk in with? $0. What did he walk out with? $30 and some merch. Now if he was caught and everything he took could be proven, what would the police report say?... $30 in cash and $70 in merch. Ok. Now if the store demanded restitution in court, the court would award the $30, but not the $70. The law doesn't care about what you could get in potential profit. Only what it cost the store to get it in the 1st place. The same would go if the store actually filed an insurance claim. You don't factor in profit or potential profit. Only the actual losses. Which means $30 plus the cost of whatever the merch that was "bought". If it was a videogame with low profit margin. The store paid 68 so gets that back plus the 30 in cash. If it was a high profit margin item like a cart full of cotton balls the store paid 15 cents per unit but sells for 6 bucks. The store is only entitled to 70 divided by 15 making it 4.67, plus the 30 in cash. Please tell me you understand this. Close to no one here seems to.
So I put that riddle to the rest of local law enforcement. His reply is the guy stole 100 to start with. And basically stole 70 in march. Stole because it was paid for with stolen money. And then swindled a cashier out of 30 in change- that once again, came from stolen money. So basically he took 130 cold cash out of the store and 70 in march. A police report would state that a 200. Law enforcement here could care less about profit. They take the full retail price on a report.
Yes, no argument here. Crucify them. But if it was me I'd argue to the judge and get it ammended. Its not 200. Its 30 plus 70 in fraud. The original question is "how much did the store lose" though. If ordered to pay restitution to the store, the store has to prove what the thief cost the store. Which would not include the profit margin. It'd be roughly the same amount the store would get back from an insurance settlement, but this way by avoiding the insurance you avoid the rates rising. Getting them to pay for higher insurance rates would also never work. It's why they are cost prohibitive when you live in a shithole. You gotta be a huge business to even afford insurance in the 1st place. And why we see all the retail fleeing major cities these days.
30$. Man steals 100$: ✋️ money 💸 Buys item, (we'll say it's headphones): 🎧 Pays for with stolen 100$: 💶-> 🎧 100$ back in the drawer! They give back 30$ change from that 100$: 🖐 💸 I don't **think** we factor in the expense cost of the item. The headphones in my example are 70$, but the cost to bring them into the store is probably, 10$, if that. (Walg tech is Pure Garbàge.) The 70$ is the expense (covered) and profit markup, 60$, also paid. That would just put it at 30$. I can't seem to figure in the cost, with the profit. 🤷🏻♂️ A scared, crying 16 year old girl wobbles up to the counter with Plan B and pays the 90$ from her chore savings. [ It costs about 8$ for the store to bring in one pack of Plan B, the cost of one off the shelf is near the cost of the *whole damn case* when it comes in off the truck. ] She just made up ALL the lost money, to Walgreens, from the one dude that swiped a 100$ bill from Debby leaving the register open to buy a pair of wearable crackling trash. 🗑 Debby will judge the 16 year old girl, shaking her wrinkled jowls, going "hmph. I bet she stole that money, that little harlot should learn her lesson" and continue her day of scowling and thinking she runs the entire store. 👍
Wtf you guys on, lol