Cindy's reasoning illustrates: <u>sunk-cost fallacy</u>.
<u>Explanation</u>:
The term fallacy refers to failure in reasoning and mistaken belief. A sunk cost is a cost incurred in the business that cannot be recovered. The cost invested in the business and lost is referred as sunk cost.
Sunk cost fallacy gives false hope to the people about their investment plan in business and makes them take wrong decision.
In the above scenario, Cindy invested $850,000 into the business. She faced loss continuously and lost her money. But she stills thinks on investing in her business instead of selling it.
Answer:
DDDD. =DAVERAGE(Earnings,2,A2:C4)
Explanation:
Took the test
A. because The United States and other countries import and export goods for the need of there country.
Answer:
Particulars Amount Explanation
Call options 1350000
Beta of stock 1.7
Delta 0.7
Market change 1% Implied stock change is 1.7
Stock changes by 1.7 1.19 Implied exposure on call
options on stock ( ie 1.7*0.7)
Amount of exposure 1606500 Derived by multiplying
1.19*1,350,000
Hence market index portfolio worth $1,606,500 should be bought , however the market index portfolio trade in multiples of 1000 hence $1,607,000 worth should be obtained to hedge the exposure
Explanation:
Answer:
6.91%
Explanation:
In this question we use the RATE formula that is shown on the attachment below:
Given that,
Present value = $1,050
Assuming figure - Future value or Face value = $1,000
PMT = 1,000 × 8% ÷ 2
NPER = 15 years
The formula is shown below:
= Rate(NPER;PMT;-PV;FV;type)
The present value come in negative
So, after solving this, the rate of return is 6.91%
