Answer:
b.The IRR is equal to 25.85%
Explanation:
Firstly we are given that i consider investing $100000 which will in this problem be our Cinitial which is the initial investment for the project.
Then now given the risk of this project, my cost of capital is 20% so then we will compare this to the IRR and see if i can accept the project or not if the cost of capital is greater than the IRR than its not good to invest on the project but if the cost of capital is less than the IRR then the this will be a good investment as the cost of capital also checks the opportunity cost.
The future payment cash flows which is $500000 so we will use the following formula:
NPV = (cash flow)/(1+IRR)^n - initial investment
so we find the present value of the cash flow of the investment and subract the initial investment which will give us a zero cause the present value of the cash flow is equal to the initial investment therefore( n is the period of cash flows):
0= $500000/(1+IRR)^7 - $100000 transpose the initial investment and solve for IRR.
$100000(1+IRR)^7= $500000 then divide both sides by $100000
(1+IRR)^7 = 5 then find the 7nth root of both sides to eliminate the exponent of 7
1+ IRR = ![\sqrt[7]{5}](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Csqrt%5B7%5D%7B5%7D)
1+IRR = 1.258498951 then subtract 1 both sides to solve for IRR
IRR = 0.258498... then multiply by 100 as IRR is a percentage
IRR= 25.85 % rounded off to two decimal places which is the answer b
Answer:
The benefits of a High Speed Rail in California:
- It becomes a feasible alternative to air travel, because it can be either cheaper, or even faster, since passengers do not have to spend as much time on a train station as they do on an airport.
- If demand is high enough, state highways can become less congested, because many people who would otherwise travel by car, would take a high speed train instead.
- Because the trains are electric, they are likely to help reduce pollution.
The cons would be:
- We cannot know for sure how many people would take the high speed trains. Demand could not be high enough to justify the cost.
- The line would be very costly.
- It could end up benefit only a small section of the population who would take the trains, or who travel often.
I believe that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, as can be seen in most countries where high speed lines have been made between large cities. For example, in Spain, the line between Madrid and Barcelona is profitable. The same would likely happen for a line between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
What are the implications of starting a project based on tenuous projections that may or may not come true 10 years from now?
If demand projections are tenous, there is always the possiblity that the high speed line could not be profitable. However, this risk can be lowered if the line is made between highly populated cities.
Could you justify the California high-speed rail project from the perspective of a massive public works initiative?
Yes, a high speed rail would be a project that could massively impact California. The benefits of its operation could outweight the cost.
In other words, what other factors enter into the decision of whether to pursue a high-speed rail project?
As I said before, the most important factor is to construct line between highly populated cities in order to reduce the risk of not having enough demand. It has been demonstrated around the world, in Spain, in Italy, in Japan, in China, that high speed lines that connect very populated regions, can be profitable.
Answer:
The business manager should assume that the building expense is fixed.
Explanation:
Fixed costs are not correlated with the revenue levels. Within the relevant range, fixed costs remain constant. They do not vary with the activity levels as variable costs do. For example, a manufacturer must pay for rent, repairs and maintenance, and utility bills irrespective of the revenue levels at which it is operating. This is why the business manager always discovers that the building expense each month does not correlate with the revenue levels, unlike the product's variable costs.
<span>Accelerated certificate programs may take 1-2 weeks to complete
Must be 18 or older</span>
Answer:
Buying a franchise: For me, this is the riskiest investment, because the success of the business depends on the product or service it sells. If there is no demand for the product or service, the business will go under. This investment is also highly illiquid—in addition, finding someone willing to buy a business is difficult.
Mutual fund: This is the least risky of the three investment options. It is highly liquid compared to buying a franchise or real estate. Mutual fund investors can easily cash in their investments by selling the units they hold in a fund at the current market price.
Real estate: Real estate is a risky investment. First, property prices can fall in a depressed housing market. Second, real estate properties are illiquid. They can’t be sold quickly for a good price, especially in times of recession in the housing market or in the overall economy.
A mutual fund is the best of the three investment options for me, for the following reasons:
I can invest small amounts of money regularly and get higher returns on the investment than I would from a savings account. Also, this is a highly liquid investment. In case of a financial emergency, I can quickly sell my mutual fund units at their current market price.
Real estate is currently both a risky and illiquid investment, because of poor market conditions.
Buying a franchise is not a good option for me, because I don’t plan to go into business. In any case, I don’t have the money to make this investment.
Explanation: PLATO
