Answer:
B.Her actions are inconsistent with the advice being given to her clients and this must be disclosed
Explanation:
A registered investment adviser often recommends real estate limited partnership investments to her wealthy clients. The RIA's personal financial statement and income are consistent with those of her wealthy clients, yet she never buys limited partnership units for her personal account. Which statement is TRUE
A real estate limited partnership (RELP) is a group of investors who pool their financial resources to invest in property purchasing, development, or leasing. Under its limited partnership status, This form of partnership has a general partner who bears full liability and limited partners who are predispose only up to the amount they contribute
The registered investment adviser does not practice what she teaches. She might just be in the profession for the money. She might also understand the risk associated with the real estate limited partnership investments and hence would want to be risk averse herself. she should let her clients know the nitty gritty of the partnership and put a disclaimer across to them
Answer:
I used the relative frequency method
Explanation:
To solve this question we can use the relative frequency to find out each probability. The relative frequency is the ratio of the occurrence of each event and the total number of outcomes.
Here the experiment has been repeated 50 times, so that is the total number of outcomes and the denominator. There are 3 possible events E1, E2, and E3, so we can calculate the ratios to get the probabilities
Event E1 occurred 20 times of the 50: 
Event E2 occurred 13 times of the 50: 
Event E3 occurred 17 times of the 50: 
Answer:
A. need payoff
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it seems that the salesperson's SPIN technique is an example of a need payoff. This term refers to asking an individual/customer about the value or importance that something can provide them. Which is exactly what the salesperson is stating by asking "how much money (value) can this save you?"
Answer:
D. Less; Less
Explanation:
Given that
CPI in 2005 = 1.68
Wage in 1972 = 7200
Wage in 2005 = 30,000
CPI in 1971 = 0.418
Therefore,
Real wage in 1972 = wage in 1972/CPI in 1972
= 7200/0.418
= $17,224.88
Real wage in 2005 = wage in 2005/CPI in 2005
= 30000/1.68
=$17,857.14
Thus, from the given data 1972 job paid LESS in nominal terms (7200 < 30000) and LESS in real terms (17,244.88 < 17,857.14) than the 2005 job.
