Final answer:
Yes, it is possible for a company to have annual revenues of $160 million from 2006 to 2013 if their annual costs were about $125 million, as this would indicate the company was profitable. Revenue exceeds costs, making the business sustainable. Similar calculations are often seen in self-check business questions where students must assess a firm's profitability by subtracting costs from revenues.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question is whether it is possible that a company had an annual revenue of $160 million from 2006 to 2013 when their annual costs amounted to about $125 million during that same period. Yes, it is entirely possible for this scenario to occur. Annual revenue refers to the total amount of money a company brings in from its operations before any costs are subtracted. As long as the company's revenue exceeds total costs, including both variable and fixed costs, the company would be profitable. For example, self-check questions in a business course might ask students to calculate a firm's accounting profit. If a firm had sales revenue of $1 million and total expenses of $950,000 (labor, capital, materials), the firm's accounting profit would be the revenue minus the expenses, which would be $50,000. In the case provided, if the company's revenue was $160 million and its costs were $125 million annually, the company would be running a profitable business with an annual profit of $35 million, assuming no additional expenses are involved.