Answer:
Yield to Maturity(YTM) = 3.47%
Explanation:
<em>The yield to maturity is the required rate of return (discount rate) that would equate the price of the bond and cash outflow expected from the bond. The yield on the bond can be determined as follows using the formula below: </em>
YTM = C + F-P/n) ÷ 1/2 (F+P)
YTM-Yield to maturity-
C- coupon
F- Face Value
P- Current Price
DATA
Coupon = coupon rate × Nominal value = 1,000 × 8%× 1/2=40(note we divide by 2 because interest is paid semi-annually)
n= 4×2 = 8 (note there 2 half months in a year)
Face Value = 1000
YM-?, C-40, Face Value - 1,000, P-103.75/100× 1000 = 1037.5
YM = (40 + (1000-1037)/8) ÷ ( 1/2× (1000 + 1037.5 ) ) =0.0347
YM = 0.0347
× 100 = 3.47%
Yield to Maturity = 3.47%
<span>When tariffs are imposed, the losers include domestic consumers and foreign producers. A tariff is a tax that is imposed on different imports or exports. When these taxes are added the consumers wanting to purchase the item are going to pay more for it because of the added tax. This also hurts foreign producers because their products cost more for those in the country they are being imported into making some people want to stay away from purchasing the item. </span>
Answer:
Bond's Current Yield 4.39%
Explanation:
The bond's current yield is calculated as below:
Bond's Current Yield = Annual Coupon Payment/Current Bond Price*100
Substituting values in the above formula, we get,
Bond's Current Yield = (100*4.30%)/97.85*100 = 4.39%
Answer:
b. to reduce deposits
Explanation:
A Capital requirement refers to the amount of capital that a financial institution must have to meet the requirements set by it's financial regulator. All of the answers provided are purposes that this hopes to accomplish except for reducing deposits. It actually hopes to increase deposits which means more customers that are coming in.
Answer:
Incorrect
Explanation:
The Bard company has paid millions of dollar of consideration and requires that the Philip Conway Inc. would transfer the ownership of the RM Corporation to Bard. The court dismissed the case and said that the subsidiary is the property of Bard now because their was a flow of consideration from the part of Bard.
