Answer:
$16,000
Explanation:
The computation of the amount reported for the interest payable is shown below:
= Principal × rate of interest × number of months ÷ (total number of months in a year)
= $800,000 × 8% × (3 months ÷ 12 months)
= $16,000
The three months should be taken from October 1 To November 1 and November 1 to December 31
We simply applied the above formula so that the interest payable amount could come
Answer:
Risk and Return
1. Joe is an average investor. His financial advisor gave him options of investing in stock A, with a σ of 12%, and stock B, with a σ of 9%. Both stocks have the same expected return of 16%. Joe can pick only one stock and decides to invest in stock B.
Good Financial Decision?
Yes
No
2. Marcie works for an educational technology firm that recently launched its employee stock option plan (ESOP). Marcie allocated all her investments in the ESOP.
Good Financial Decision?
Yes
No
3. rin wants to invest in a hedge fund that has had a very strong performance track record. The hedge fund has given its investors a return of over 60% for the past five years. Although Erin is tempted to put her money in the fund, she decides to conduct due diligence on the hedge fund’s assets, because she is aware that past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Good Financial Decision?
Yes
No
Explanation:
1. Joe's decision to invest in stock B is a good financial decision. Since both investments have the same returns, the decision on which investment to take shifts to the standard deviation of the returns, which specifies the variability of the returns. Invariably, the investment with less standard deviation should win the vote. Therefore, Joe's decision is a good financial decision because investment in B has a standard deviation of 9% unlike A's 12%.
2. Putting all eggs in one market as Marcie had done by allocating all her investments in the ESOP is not a good financial decision, theoretically. It is always best to spread the risks, though higher-yielding investments (returns) bear higher risks.
3. The decision of Erin to conduct due diligence on the hedge fund's assets, despite its past performance is a good financial decision. Due diligence reveals some behind-the-scene information that are instrumental in making sound business decisions. Who are the present managers of the fund? What systems are in place in the entity to guarantee similar future performance, all things being equal? What market's sentiments and information are available for consideration? These questions, and many others can be answered through a due diligence. Surely, "past performance is no guarantee of future results."
The first thing Cristina should do to create a more standards-oriented environment in her classroom is to create positive relationships with her students.
<h3 /><h3>How to create a positive educational environment?</h3>
It is necessary for the teacher to be organized according to the methodologies required by the institutional standard, as standardization generates the systematization of processes so that student learning and development occurs in a similar way, without bias, for example.
Therefore, the standardization of teaching helps in conformity, structuring and systematization, essential for the formation of relationships and educational culture favorable to social, cognitive and academic development.
Find out more about educational institutions here:
brainly.com/question/26015261
#SPJ1
To complete the statement above:<span>
Dynamic pricing is particularly suitable for Internet-based companies like Amazon who want to be responsive to shoppers' desires and marketplace changes.
Dynamic pricing is a way to deal with setting the cost for an item or administration that is exceedingly adaptable. The objective of dynamic valuing is to permit an organization that pitches merchandise or administrations over the Internet to modify costs on the fly because of market requests.
</span>
Answer:
d) relative to others instead of against performance standards.
Explanation:
Contrast error is one that occurs during performance rating where a person is not rated objectively, but against previous people who performed good or badly.
The person's ratings is affected negatively or positively.
A person that performs well subconsciously sets a benchmark in the mind of the rater, and he now rates future participants based on this benchmark and not on performance standards that have been set.
