One of the main tools used by economists to measure the actual distribution of income is

A product whose EOQ is 40 units experiences a decrease in ordering cost from $90 per order to $10 per order. The revised EOQ is:

ruslelena [56]

Answer: three times as large

Explanation:

Economic order quantity will be calculated as follows:

EOQ = ✓(2DS/H)

D = Demand in units

Here S = Ordering cost = $10

H = Holding cost

Since S = $10

Therefore, EOQ will be:

= ✓(2DS/H)

= ✓(2 × 10 × D/ H)

= ✓(20D/H)

Since we're to increase the order cost from $10 per order to $90 per order, then EOQ will be:

Since S = $90

Therefore, EOQ will be:

= ✓(2DS/H)

= ✓(2 × 90 × D/ H)

= ✓(180D/H)

3✓20DH

The revised EOQ will then be 3 times as large.

4 0

3 years ago

Lincoln Park Co. has a bond outstanding with a coupon rate of 6.04 percent and semiannual payments. The yield to maturity is 6.1

Reil [10]

Answer:

value of the bond = $2,033.33

Explanation:

We know,

Value of the bond, $B_{0} = [I * \frac{1 - (1 + i)^{-n}}{i}] + \frac{FV}{(1 + i)^n}$

Here,

Face value of par value, FV = $2,000

Coupon payment, I = Face value or Par value × coupon rate

Coupon payment, I = $2,000 × 6.04%

Coupon payment, I = $128

yield to maturity, i = 6.1% = 0.061

number of years, n = 15

Therefore, putting the value in the formula, we can get,

$B_{0} = [128 * \frac{1 - (1 + 0.061)^{-7}}{0.061}] + [\frac{2,000}{(1 + 0.061)^7}]$

or, $B_{0} = [128 * \frac{1 - (1.061)^{-7}}{0.061}] + [\frac{2,000}{(1.061)^7}]$

or, $B_{0} = [128 * \frac{0.3393}{0.061}] + 1,321.3635$

or, $B_{0} = [128 * 5.5623] + 1,321.3635$

or, $B_{0} =$ $711.9738 + 1,321.3635

Therefore, value of the bond = $2,033.33

3 0

3 years ago

If we were able to invest a Gradient = $100 at the end of each year for 7 years at 6% interest (i.e., So at the end of year 1, $

zavuch27 [327]

Answer:

We can withdraw an equivalent annuity of $ 293.658 each year.

Explanation:

We build a scheduled table to know the future value of the gradient investment

Time Beg Gradient Total Rate Ending

1 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 0.060 $106.00

2 $106.00 $100.00 $206.00 0.060 $218.36

3 $218.36 $200.00 $418.36 0.060 $443.46

4 $443.46 $300.00 $743.46 0.060 $788.07

5 $788.07 $400.00 $1,188.07 0.060 $1,259.36

6 $1,259.36 $500.00 $1,759.36 0.060 $1,864.92

7 $1,864.92 $600.00 $2,464.92 0.060 $2,612.81

Then, we solve for the equivalent annuity-due:

$PV \div \frac{1-(1+r)^{-time} }{rate}(1+rate) = C\\$

PV 2,613

time 7

rate 0.06

$2612.81 \div \frac{1-(1+0.06)^{-7} }{0.06}(1+0.06) = C\\$

C $ 293.658

Itis annuity due as we will going to retire cash in a 6 year period for seven times. (at each year-end during 6 years thus, annuity-due

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th

/-------/-------/-------/-------/-------/-------/-------/

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3 0

3 years ago

Xavier is using a query that includes a LIKE comparison operator with the value of A[a-n]*. Which option would match this operat

Lera25 [3.4K]

Answer:

Aaron

Explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

A firm is weighing three capacity alternatives: small, medium, and large job shop. Whatever capacity choice is made, the market

Dvinal [7]

Answer:

<u>Since expected payoff for large job shop option is highest, firm should make large job shop option as capacity choice</u>

Explanation:

Expected payoff of any capacity alternative

= Probability of moderate acceptance x Payoff of moderate acceptance + Probability of strong acceptance x Payoff of strong acceptance

= 0.40 x Payoff of moderate acceptance + 0.60 x Pay off of strong acceptance

Thus Pay off for small job shop option

= 0.40 x 24000 + 0.6 x 54000

= 9600 + 32400

= $42,000

Pay off for medium job shop option

= 0.40 x 20000 + 0.60 x 64000

= 8000 + 38400

= $ 46,400

Pay off for large job shop option

= - 0.40 x 2000 + 0.60 x 96000

= - 800 + 57600

= $56,800

7 0

3 years ago