Answer: option A: More competition for jobs in those areas are witnessed when federal programs provided more electricity in rural areas of the Midwest and South.
Explanation:
In the time of the Great Depression, President Roosevelt has passed the Rural Electrification Act (REA) in 1935 as part of the New Deal execution amendment. Through the beneficial act of supplied quantity of electricity units, the rural areas of the Midwest and South got the fine chance to expand the production of goods and services which covered the expenses of the cost of production.
Agriculture is the primary occupation of those areas, the electricity supply helped them to produce more agricultural products and also it supported Agro-based industries. The installation process are initiated and all farmers got loan advances by the cooperative societies.
Expected return of the stock is greater than 12%.
Using formula, Risk free rate + beta (market risk rate - risk free rate)\
= 2% + 2.0 (7%-2%)
= 13.6 - 0.4* risk premium
Risk premium of a stock is greater than 12%.
A stock's total return takes into account both capital gains and losses as well as dividend income, as opposed to a stock's nominal return, which only displays its price movement. In addition to considering the actual rate of return, investors should consider their ability to withstand the risk involved with a given investment. An investment's return on investment (ROI) provides a general indication of its profitability. The return on investment (ROI) is calculated by subtracting the investment's initial cost from its final value, dividing the result by the cost of the investment, and finally multiplying the result by 100.
Note that the full question is:
If the market risk premium is 7%, the risk-free rate is 2% and the beta of a stock is 2.0, what is the expected return of the stock?
A. less than 12%.
B. 12%.
C. greater than 12%.
D. cannot be determined.
To learn more about returns: brainly.com/question/24301559
#SPJ4
<span>Year Cash Flow
0 -$46,400
1 18,000
2 33,530
3 4,600</span>
<span>NPV = -$46,400 + $18,000 / (1 + 0.09) + $33,530 / (1 + 0.09)2 + $4,600 / (1 + 0.09)3 =
</span><span>-$1,574.41</span>
Answer: Not very likely to get two consecutive drivers wearing seat belts.
Explanation:
From the question the report shows only 15% percent wear seat belts.
If 10 cars are selected at random the possibility of getting at least one wearing seat belt is
= 10× 15/100
==> 1.5 out of 10
1.5, is not upto average of 10 it's just a bit above the zero mark. Which makes the chances of meeting at least one driver wearing seat belt low.
To get consecutive drivers wearing seat belts, would be even a lower possibility. This is so due to the fact that according to the records the chances of meeting a driver on seat belts is low, and the possibility of it happening in quick succession is going to be smaller, because overall percentage of drivers wearing seat belts is small.
