I had to look for the options and here is my answer:
Based on the given description above, I can say that the Baumrind's parenting style that Matt and Tamela use is AUTHORITATIVE PARENTING. This is the type of parenting wherein parents impose limits on their children, but with a reason. Still, they respond to whatever their children needs.
Answer:
Cash flow to creditors in 2018 is −$85,000
Explanation:
2017 balance sheet of Kerber’s Tennis Shop, Inc is recorded as
Interest paid............................................................................$255,000
Less:
long-term debt in 2018.........................................................$2.21 million
Less: long-term debt brought forward from 2017..........$1.87 million
Total (taken as net new borrowing)...................................$340,000
Cash flow to creditors = 2018 Interest expense less net new borrowing
= $255,000 - $340,000
= −$85,000
Question
you are a consultant to a firm evaluating an expansion of its current business. The cash flow forecasts (in millions of dollar) for the project as follows:
Year cashflow
0 -100
1-10 15
0n the basis of the behavior of the firm's stock, you believe that the beta of the firm is 1.30. Assuming that the rate of return available on risk-free investments is 5% and that the expected rate of return on the market portfolio is 15% what is the net present value of the project
Answer:
NPV= -$32.58
Explanation:
The net present value of the investment is the cash inflow from the investment discounted at required rate of return. The required rate of return can be determined using the the formula below:
Ke= Rf +β(Rm-Rf)
Ke =? , Rf- 5%,, Rm-15%, β- 1.30
Ke=5% + 1.30× (15-5)= 18%
The NPV = Present value of cash inflow - initial cost
= A×(1-(1+r)^(-10)/r - initial cost
A- 15, r-18%
NPV = 15× (1-1.18^(-10)/0.18 - 100= -32.58
NPV = -$32.58
Answer:
The correct answer is
: Yes, the offer was revoked by Katherine.
Explanation:
Even if Paul replied Katherine with the acceptance to the first offer, he used a different means of communication to do that -<em>e-mail v. mail</em>. In addition, Katherine sent the revoke by mail -<em>as in the initial offer</em>- before Paul sent his e-mail. So, there is enough proof on Katherine's end that she didn't want to proceed with the offer before Paul confirmed his agreement on the terms. In that sense, Katherine did revoke the initial order.
