Answer:
The incomplete part of the question is "Using a cap-and-trade system of tradable emission allowances will eliminate half of the sulfur dioxide pollution at a cost of $1 million per year. If the permits are not tradable, what will be the cost of eliminating half of the pollution? If permits cannot be traded, then the cost of the pollution reduction will be $1 million per year." The full question is attched as picture as well
1) Tradable permit system
Then lower MAC firm will abate the all pollution units
Then as MAC1 = $250, MAC2 = $275
Firm 1 = Consolidated electric
Firm 2 = Commonwealth utility
Then 1 will sell all permits to 2, at a price between $250 & $275.
So total cost of abatement of 20 units = MAC1 * 20
= $250 * 20 Unit
= $5,000
2) Non-tradable permits
Total cost = MC1*10 + MC2*10
= $2,500 + $2,750
= $5,250
You can use excel to create one
Answer:
b. Enterprise fund and depreciation on the capital assets should be recorded.
Explanation:
Cash flow can be defined as the net amount of cash and cash- equivalents that is flowing into (received) and out (given) of a business. There are three components of the cash flow;
1. Operating cash flow: all cash generated from the business activities of an organization.
2. Financing cash flow: all payments made by an organization and profits from issuance of debts and equity.
3. Investing cash flow: costs associated with purchasing of capital assets and investments of cash resources in other businesses.
Capital assets used by an enterprise fund should be accounted for in the enterprise fund and depreciation on the capital assets should be recorded.
Additionally, depreciation can be defined as the reduction of cost of a fixed asset systematically until the value of the asset becomes zero.
Answer:
the share should sell at $46
Explanation:
We use the CAPM method to know the required return of the capital
risk free 0.04
market rate 0.1
beta(non diversifiable risk) 2
Ke 0.16000 = 16%
Now we calculate with the dividends grow model the intrinsic value of the share:
$4.6/0.1 = $46
Answer and Explanation:
Given that this is a second price bid auction whereby the second highest bid is the price that the highest bidder pays for the item up for auction sale, so that b1>b2 then b1 gets item for the price of b2.
Truthfulness of true value is the dominant strategy here which means each player should aim to be truthful with their bid regarding their true value regardless of what other bidders are bidding. Therefore truthfulness of value is the optimal strategy with the best payoff for bidders
