Answer:
Monthly payment = $469.701
Explanation:
<em>Loan Amortization: A loan repayment method structured such that a series of equal periodic installments will be paid for certain number of periods to offset both the loan principal amount and the accrued interest. </em>
The monthly equal installment is calculated as follows:
Monthly equal installment= Loan amount/Monthly annuity factor
Loan amount = 20,000
Monthly annuity factor =
=( 1-(1+r)^(-n))/r
r- Monthly interest rate (r)
= 6/12= 0.5%
n- Number of months ( n) = 20 × 4 = 48
Annuity factor
= ( 1- (1.005)^(-48)/0.005= 42.5803
Monthly installment= 20,000 /42.5803 = $469.701
Monthly installment = $469.701
Monthly payment = $469.701
Answer:
Gain $72,480
Explanation:
Calculation for the amount of gain or loss that Sheffield should recognize on the exchange
Using this formula
Gain/Loss= Book value – Fair value
Let plug in the formula
Gain/Loss= $978,480 – $906,000
Gain=$72,480
Therefore the amount of gain or loss that Sheffield should recognize on the exchange will be $72,480
Answer:
AFS 2004 market price decline exceeded 2005 market price recovery
No No
The security cannot be classified as available-for-sale because the unrealized gains and losses are recognized in the Income Statement. Unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities are recognized in owners' equity, not earnings.
The second part of the question is somewhat ambiguous. The 2004 price decline could exceed or be exceeded by the 2005 price recovery. The loss in the first year is not related in amount and does not constrain the realized gain in the second year.
The way to answer the question is to read the right column heading as implying that the earlier price decline must exceed the later price recovery. With that interpretation, the correct answer is no.
For example, assume a cost of $10 and a market value of $4 at the end of the first year. An unrealized loss of $6 is recognized in earnings. During the second year, the security is sold for $12. A realized gain of $8 is recognized-the increase in the market value from the end of the first year to the sale in the second year. Thus, the market decline in the first year did not exceed the recovery in year two. (It could have exceeded the recovery in year two but there is no requirement that it must.)
Explanation:
Based on the principle of economics, the correct answer goes thus:
Economists distinguish among the immediate market period, the short run, and the long run by noting that:
- Elasticity of supply will increase when the number of producers selling a product decreases.
<h3>Immediate market run</h3>
Economists distinguish among the immediate market period, the short run, and the long run by noting that there will be increase in elasticity of supply.
In conclusion, we can conclude that the correct answer is the increase in elasticity of supply.
Learn more about elasticity of supply here: brainly.com/question/4467460
Answer:
the answer is as follows
Explanation:
First of defining real wages is a cumbersome process. The living wage calculator developed by MIT professor Amy Glasemeier in 2004 eased the way a little but that too has it's issues.
The paper you are trying to write should start with this that how the idea of living wages is in itself difficult to be adopted as it is. Second the free market approach has been more successful in the economic history and a lot of evidence and data is available on that. The analysis that your paper will develop should outline the concerns that mainstream economists have regarding living wages and support it with some actual data.
The presentation would be rather easy after writing the paper. Which will include some graphs and data and some scholarly citations and it should work.
