Answer:
Interest will be $855 x 10 years= $8,550
Explanation:
Interest
6÷100=0.06
0.06x14,250=$855
$855x10=$8,550.
How much to have paid back
At the end of 10years $8,550 would have been paid as interest
Total sum will be $14,250+$8,550=$22,800 to be paid back.
Answer:
The correct answer is letter "A": operating activities.
Explanation:
Operating Activities are the daily processes conducted by a company to generate income. They pertain to the company's core business activity such as sales and manufacturing and they provide most of the cash flow that determines whether a business is profitable.
When it comes to the Financial Statements the situation is not different. Interest payments to lenders and other creditors can be part of the day to day activity of a company. That is the reason why they are recorded in the operating activities section.
Answer:
Explanation:
For this case the total payment is $320000, and she pays $40000 so the remain amount to pay would be:
$320000-40000=$ 280000
For this case we assume that the annual interest rate is APR=5.7% =0.057 on fraction.
The total number of years are 20. For this case n represent the number of payments per year and since we have monthly payments then n =12.
In order to find the PMT we can use the following formula:
On the last expression the APR needs to be on fraction and P represent the principal amount, for this case P = $280000. So if we replace we got:
And we can verify this using the following excel function: "=PMT(0.057/12,12*20,-280000)"
level of differentiation across the firm's offerings
Answer: Option C.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Differentiation are the differences that a firm might offer to his customers and clients. These differences make the firms different from each other which exist in the market.
More different and innovative practices that a firm has compared to the competitors, more successful it would be in the market and would have more customers attracted towards it because of the innovation and the differentiation.
Answer:
Right now marcantuone and robert gieson ought not be held at risk for what the drycleaner inhabitants did.Because there was no release of perilous substance during their ownership.The chlorinated dissolvable pollution issue right now the aftereffect of dry cleaning activity led preceding the condemnee's acquisition of the property.There was no proof of a release of unsafe substance during the time of condemnee's ownership.The sullying was not found until after the condemner had procured the title to the property in the judgement activity.
As indicated by the spill demonstration the obligation is vested on a condemner who bought debased property and didn't attempt any assessment or examination at the hour of procurement.