Answer:
4) available-for-sale debt securities.
Explanation:
Available for sale debt securities are securities that can be sold in the future, but are included as other comprehensive income.
Option 1 is wrong because it's not a real term.
Option 2 is wrong because held to maturity debt securities are accounted for at amortized cost, not fair value, e.g. municipal bonds.
Option 3 is wrong because trading securities are recorded as current assets because the firm plans to trade them in the short term.
Answer:
B) Both bonds would decline in price, but the 10-year bond would have the greater percentage decline in price.
Explanation:
Since the 10-year bond has longer-maturity, the prices of both bonds cannot either increase or decrease. Therefore, answer choice A and C cannot be the answers. Again, as both the bonds YTM increases by the same amount, one bond's price cannot affect the other bond's price. So, answer choice D is incorrect. As we know that longer-term and lower coupon rate bond has the sensitivity issue that the interest rate might increase, 10-year bond's price will decline more. Therefore, B is the correct option.
An SQL statement for the HAPPY INSURANCE database that adds the column ClientPhone to the table CLIENT is:
ALTER TABLE dbo.CLIENT
ADD ClientPhone
<h3>What is SQL?</h3>
This refers to the use of databases to perform computations such as UPDATE, ADD, ALTER TABLE, etc.
Hence, the use of Structured Query Language would help to add to a database and this would be done using the ALTER TABLES function as shown above.
Read more about SQL here:
brainly.com/question/25694408
#SPJ1
Answer:
Target cost per unit= $2.64
Explanation:
The target cost is arrived at by subtracting the a desired profit margin from a competitive selling price.
The target cost per unit =
((selling price × qty) - (cost of capital(%) × initial cost))/No of units
=( (3× 1,000,000) - (18%×2,000,000) )/ 1,000,000
= 2.64
Target cost per unit= $2.64
Answer:
This is an actual court case where the Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled in favor of Cox Communications in February, 2014.
The court ruled that Ovalles was an employee for M&M, and that M&M had an independent contractor relationship with Cox Communications. Additionally, Ovalles was also an independent contractor for M&M, not an employee. There existed no direct relationnship between Cox and Ovalles.
Even though Ovalles and other independent contractors use both Cox's and M&M's logos on their vans and uniforms, this was done so consumers could identify them. The fact that an identification is needed so customers can determine the function of a technician, doesn't imply that those technicians are actually employees of the firm nor they actually a method of control over the technicians.
Since Cox didn't control the performance of Ovalles and didn't have contact with him, then there was no reason to consider him an employee of Cox.
The plaintiff, Barbara Cayer probably made a mistake when it included Cox in the lawsuit (since it is a large company), and she would have had a better case against M&M because that company did have control over Ovalles's performance and did have contact with him. But since M&M was a much smaller firm, they decided to go after the big fish. Later they tried to include M&M into the lawsuit but it was rejected since the Supreme Court had not made their ruling yet.