In such a scenario the insurer should cancel or repeal the policy by T, deny the claim by the insured and recover all the payments he had made. This is because the cause of fire was not accidental but instead was caused by the insured in order to receive compensation. This is because, for a compensation or a policy to be valid it has to be accidental and not castigated by an individual in order to seek or claim compensation from the insurer.
Answer:
True
Explanation:
Return from operating activities are returns made from the regular and recurring operations of a business. Since they are from the normal operations of a company, they are less risky than returns made from the non-operating activities of a company which do not re-occur.
As such, a firm that earns more of its return from operating activities which are recurring is usually considered less risky than a firm than earns more of its return from non-operating activities which are usually one-off.
I dont know if my answer is right or not but is it shallow?
The more firms get from obligation as opposed to issuing stocks, the more it can diminish the aggregate cost of capital in light of the fact that the enthusiasm from obligation is duty deductible which will help reduce the aggregate cost of capital. In any case, no firm can get from obligation everlastingly in light of the fact that, at one point in time, extra obligation financing will make the aggregate cost of capital increment rather than decline. So firms will get in view of their own enhanced capital structure to limit the aggregate cost of capital however much as could reasonably be expected. Also, in light of this upgraded capital structure, there is a point of confinement to how much a firm can keep getting from obligation.
