WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST, PLEASE HELP ASAP!

During your meeting with your client, Hayden Doyle, you recommended he purchase a personal liability umbrella policy (PLUP). Whi

nataly862011 [7]

Answer:

b. Develop and present financial planning recommendations.

Explanation:

Since in the question it is mentioned that there is a recommendation for buying a personal liability with respect to the umbrella policy so in the steps of the financial planning process, the step that should be considered is to develop & present the recommendation with regard to the financial planning as the financial planning is important than can save your future

hence, the correct option is B.

6 0

3 years ago

give an example of a fairly major purchasing decision you've made in your lifetime. how did you justify the purchase? How did yo

NeX [460]

I bought an apartment with my boyfriend last year because we had been dating for 4 years and he proposed. In order to prepare, we saved up our money, asked the bank for their opinion on the best coarse of action financially, and we tried to decide how much of our savings we should use without being irresponsible. (This is just an example. I am 15 and will be forever alone but yea this is what I would do anyways)

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

1. Improvements in technology.2. Increases in the supply (stock) of capital goods.3. Purchases of expanding output.4. Obtaining

polet [3.4K]

Answer:

1. Which set of items in the accompanying list would move an economy from a point inside its production possibilities curve to a point on its production possibilities curve?

a. 1, 2, 5, and 6 only.

2. More than 75% of the world's income is earned by what percentage of the world's population?

d. 5%.

Explanation:

The above options are the solutions to the questions asked. In terms of the world's income, 5% of the world's population earns 75% of the world's income.

4 0

3 years ago

Suppose you purchase a 10-year bond with 6.5 % annual coupons. You hold the bond for four years, and sell it immediately after

Andrews [41]

Answer:

a. What cash flows will you pay and receive from your investment in the bond per $ 100 face value?

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

-$109,13 $6,50 $6,50 $6,50 $112,53 (6,5+106,03)

b. What is the annual rate of return of your investment?

5,3%, the YTM of the bond.

Explanation:

If the YTM of the bond does not change during the year, it means that at the time the bond was sold, the total rate of return would be the same as was when the bonds were purchased, in this case 5,3%.

Bond Value

Principal Present Value = F / (1 + r)^t

Coupon Present Value = C x [1 - 1/(1 +r)^t] / r

Price of the Bond at the moment it was purchased:

The price of this bond it's $59,66 + $6,5 = $109,13

Present Value of Bonds $59,66 = $100/(1+0,053)^10

Present Value of Coupons $49,47 = $6,5 (Coupon) x 7,61

7,61 = [1 - 1/(1+0,053)^10 ]/ 0,053

Price of the Bond 4 years later:

The price of this bond it's $73,66 + $32,68 = $106,03

Present Value of Bonds $73,66 = $100/(1+0,053)^6

Present Value of Coupons $32,68 = $6,50 (Coupon) x 5,03

5,03 = [1 - 1/(1+0,053)^6 ]/ 0,053

4 0

4 years ago

Farrokh and Scheherezade Sharabianlou agreed to buy a building owned by Berenstein Associates for $2 million. They deposited $11

s2008m [1.1K]

Answer:

This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.

Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.

The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.

The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.

If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.

6 0

3 years ago