it would be the second option
Answer:
B) losses you avoided by not buying a stock that has since decreased in price
Explanation:
If a stock has not been bought, there has not been a transaction involving that particular stock. Even though, in theory, you may have avoided losses by not buying a stock that has decreased in price, there hasn't been any actual gain or loss on investment related to that stock since there was no investment.
Since all other alternatives present valid parameters when calculating return on investment, the answer is B).
Answer:
Seller Surplus
Explanation:
In business terms, there is a difference in the expected value what a seller expects to receive from the products it sells and from the amount it actually earns.
The cost of the product not only involves the monetary cost but it also involves the cost in terms of efforts involved to produce an article.
When a seller puts a product in the market, then he tries to have it a market value more than its cost. When such market value is realised then the difference in cost and market value is surplus for the supplier or producer.
But in cases where the consumer is efficient enough to bargain such product and only pays an amount which is less than the cost, then there arises seller deficit, which is represented as a negative seller surplus.
Answer:
No
Explanation:
The agreement has a period of 1 year then the rent can not increase before the whole first year has passed.
The system of checks and balances is an important part of the Constitution. With checks and balances, each of the three branches of government can limit the powers of the others. This way, no one branch becomes too powerful.
