Answer:
The correct answer is letter "B": Neglected-firm effect.
Explanation:
The Neglected-firm effect has the purpose to explain why small companies that are not well-known have better performances than the ones that are. The theory explains that smaller companies' stocks generate higher returns because they are unlikely to be studied by market analysis. In that sense, because no much information is provided by the smaller firms -even lesser than what is required by law, they are <em>neglected </em>by analysts since there are very few data to take a look at.
Answer:
(A). Customer value
Explanation:
<u>For a customer to obtain value or benefit from using a product, he or she must first make a sacrifice</u>, such as the amount of money spent or time taken to purchase the product.
Customer value refers to that <u>benefit the customer gets from using the product, compared to the sacrifice the customer makes to get it.</u>
Answer:
B. False
Explanation:
Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is an indicator that shows the relationship between the expected return and the risk of investing in a particular security.
This model is used to examine securities and their given prices, haven stated the expected rate of return and cost of capital involved.
CAPM is used by investors to make wise decision before investing their funds in a particular security.
Answer:
The answer is:
Asset will be overstated
Net income will be overstated
Explanation:
Because of the incorrect capitalization(the process of converting or adding to a firm's asset):
1. Assets are overstated. Assets that shouldn't are added to the entire assets are added. So it's increasing the company's asset whereas it's not.
2. Net income are overstated. Because depreciation too will have to be charged for the asset that wasn't there, therefore, net asset will be overstated.
Answer:
C) I only.
Explanation:
According to the Uniform Securities Act, A civil case underneath the provisions of the United States must be filed in 3 years of the alleged infringement, or 2 years from the detection of the breach, whatever comes first.
Also, The passing of the consultant or the client doesn't really eliminate a civil liability prima facie case. Waivers to statements agreed to sign by the customer waiving adherence by the consultant with the provisions of this act on which the suit is focused aren't ever legitimate on the examination.
Therefore the option i is correct