Answer:
a. Project A requires an up-front expenditure of $1,000,000 and generates a net present value of $3,200.
Explanation:
a.
The company should accept project A because it provides a positive net present value of $3,200 that is the highest among all the projects.
b.
When the IRR of a project is lower than the required rate of return of the project, it will generate the negative net present value because at IRR the net present value of the project will be zero and at a higher rate than IRR it will be negative.
c.
The project with a profitability index of less than 1 generates a negative NPV because the present value of future cash flows is less than the initial cash outflow.
d.
Project D also generates a positive net present value but it is lower than project A. So, after comparing the results we will choose the project with higher NPV.
Answer:
B. $80
Explanation:
The annuity exclusion ratio is ($4,800/($100*240))= 20% return of capital per payment. Hence, $80 of the $100 monthly payment is include in gross income
Answer:
Present value= $62,722.875≈ $62,723
Explanation:
To calculate present value use this formula
Present value= Yearly payment*{[1-(1+rate)^-period]/rate}
Present value= 8,500*{[1-(1+0.11)^-16]/0.11}
Present value= 8,500* {0.8117/0.11}
Present value= 8500*7.379= $62,722.875
Answer:
nonprofits have a social mission, while for-profits aim to offer products and services that are valuable and that make them a tom of money. Then they get money. and also non profits don't make a profit they just pay for themselves and their product.. 0 profit
Explanation:
Yes , Judy and Kristy have an enforceable binding contract
Explanation:
Kristy Johnston, Judy Olsen, and Joyce Johnston, their mother, owned real estate as common buyers. After Joyce died, she left Kristy her one-third share in the house. Kristy sent Judy a letter in 2009 promising Judy to purchase or sell Judy's share in the property.
Judy accepted the sale bid from Kristy. Kristy then tried to refuse Judy's approval and to cancel her bid for sale. Judy lodged a Kristy lawsuit.
The court granted the summary judgment to Judy finding that a contract had been drawn up between the letters exchanged between Judy and Kristy which satisfied the frauds ' status. The Supreme Court ruled that the district court decided out that an enforceable arrangement was established by exchanging letters from the parties.
