Answer: Start = $300 million
End = $318.59 million
Explanation:
NAV can be calculated by dividing the funds Assets net of Liabilities by the total number of outstanding shares.
At start of the year NAV is $300 million and NAV per share is therefore,
= 300 million/ 10 million
= $30 per share.
Ending NAV
During the year the fund made Investments and increased by a price of 7%
= 300 million (1 + 0.07)
= $321 million
We still have to subtract the 12b-1 fees that the fund charges though and that would result in,
= 321 million * (1 - 0.0075)
= 318.5925
= $318.59 million.
Dividing this by the total number of outstanding shares we have,
= 318.59 /10
= $31.86
$31.86 is the NAV per share at year end.
The answer to the first unknown is the "COST SIDE" while the answer to the second unknown in the problem is "PRODUCTION AND MARKETING COST". Hence, with a cost-oriented pricing strategy used and implemented by many companies, a price setter stresses the COST SIDE of the pricing problem and the price is set by looking at the PRODUCTION and MARKETING COST.
Answer:
It is a violation of NASD rules against guaranteeing a customer against loss.
Explanation:
In this case the RR is guaranteeing the customer against loss. The customer initially bought the shares for $20 the new price is $10. The RR now coming in to buy the shares above market value is a way to guarantee the customer against loss, and its a NASD violation.
Answer:
Spend $25000 on cyber insurance to transfer the risk
Explanation:
A cyber insurance is the best option since it protects the business from internet based risk such as the breach of customer database and other risks involved in the use of the internet by businesses and individual internet users.
The cost of purchasing a Data Loss Prevention solution that would cost $30000 per year will amount to $150000 in 5 years which will be more expensive compared to the cost of the risk it is been used to prevent. hence it is not a good option. also accepting the risk is a very bad option becasue the risk might harm the business beyond expectation.
Answer:
2) assumption not made
Explanation:
The original statement does not include any assumption about what the companies are doing about this issue, it just proposes an idea of fair compensation.
maybe whoever wrote this statement believes that very few companies or none at all actually compensate homeowners for a reduction in the market value of their properties, but it doesn't state it. It is also possible that the statement assumes that companies are paying some compensations or were paying some compensations but are not willing to continue to do it since no legislation forces them to do so. The author's position is vague and not clear with respect to what the companies are currently doing.
