The separating of recordkeeping from the custody of assets a limitation of an internal control system because:
- In example above, fraud could occur only if the two employees collude (agree to work together to commit fraud)
- Employee maintaining accounting records has no incentive to falsify records.
- Employee controlling asset will know if another person is maintaining records or not.
- The employee who controls/has access to an asset should not maintain that asset's accounting records.
<h3>
What is meant by Internal Control?</h3>
- Internal controls are the mechanisms, rules, and procedures implemented by a corporation to ensure the integrity of financial and accounting information, promote accountability, and stop fraud.
- Internal controls can help improve operational efficiency by improving the accuracy and timeliness of financial reporting, besides complying with laws and regulations and preventing employees from stealing assets or committing fraud.
To learn more about asset's accounting records: brainly.com/question/24012821
#SPJ4
The Stackelberg solution can be used to find the perfect or stable Nash equilibrium or equilibria.
<h3>What is this equilibrium about?</h3>
Other answers:
Based on the above, Note that the strategy profile is one where one serves best each player, and based on the strategies of the other player and it covers the fact that all player playing in a Nash equilibrium must be in every subgame.
Note also that The Stackelberg leadership model is said to be a kind off strategic game that is played in economics where the leader firm is known to moves first and then the follower firms is said to then move in a sequential manner and I think, the solution do not change if stackelberg game is considered in the long run.
I believe that the stackelberg leader will not collude with the stackelberg follower but in a lot of cases, there may be a collusion.
Yes, a Stackelberg leader can be more likely or less likely to merge with the follower firm as a merger can be profitable to them.
Learn more about equilibrium from
brainly.com/question/517289
#SPJ1
Answer:
The cost of equity is 12.49 percent
Explanation:
The price per share of a company whose dividends are expected to grow at a constant rate can be calculated using the constant growth model of the DMM. The DDM bases the price of a stock on the present value of the expected future dividends from the stock. The formula for price today under this model is,
P0 = D1 / r - g
Where,
- D1 is the dividend expected for the next period
- r is the cost of equity
- g is the growth rate in dividends
As we already know the P0 which is price today, the D1 and the growth rate in dividends (g), we can plug in the values of these variables in the formula to calculate the cost of equity (r)
100.81 = 8.76 / (r - 0.038)
100.81 * (r - 0.038) = 8.76
100.81r - 3.83078 = 8.76
100.81r = 8.76 + 3.83078
r = 12.59078 / 100.81
r = 0.12489 or 12.489% rounded off to 12.49%
Answer:
Tell and Vorn
Explanation:
Based on the information given Lott will most likely prevail against TELL and VORN reason been that we were told that both TELL and VORN entered into an agreement on January 1 which means that both of them will be responsible for the DELINQUENT TAXES which has not been paid because Vorn occupy the building that was leased out to Tell from Lott Corp in exchange for the amount of $600 which will be monthly paid by Vorn to Tell, which means that in a situation were the taxes is said to be DELINQUENT TAXES in which neither of them paid the building's real estate taxes, Lott will most likely prevail against both TELL and VORN.
True: Zappos sells all four categories of consumer products (convenience, shopping, specialty, unsought).
Zappos carries products that are speciality and unsought by consumers. Using their website, you are able to conveniently order your products with customer service readily available to help. Zappos is convenient because they carry a wide-range of products, brands and styles. They have free shipping and free returns all year, which is something most retailers do not offer.
