B it is b because i would like it to be B please
Answer:
One typical example of this linkage between the economy at the macroeconomic level, and business decisions at the macroeconomic and microeconomic level, is what happened with Lehman Brothers in 2008.
Explanation:
Lehman Brothers was one of the main investment banks in the United States. During the years prior to the financial crisis, Lehman Brothers decided to pursue a risky but profitable strategy of over leveraging -lending a lot more money than they had as deposits.
Once the financial crisis hit, a macroeconomic event, it affected the company at the macro and micro level. At the macro level because Lehman Brothers itself ceased to exist as it went bankrupt, and at the micro level, because it had to enter a process to pay off some debtors, and some of the employees who were laid off due to the dissolution of the firm.
Answer:
well what you would have to do is the following go to your profile click the delete the question
Answer:
The arbitrageur should borrow money at 4% per annum since it is cheaper than paying the forward price for delivery
Explanation:
Current price of gold=$1,400 per ounce
Forward price=$1,500
The arbitrageur can either pay the forward price or borrow $1400 and pay the interest of 4% in a year. Consider option 1 paying the forward price of 1500
Option 1
Since there are no additional costs, the total cost for buying the gold=forward price=$1,500
Option 2
If the arbitrageur borrows the 1400 to pay for the gold now, then pay the interest in 1 year;
The total cost=Amount borrowed+interest accrued in 1 year
Total cost=1400+(4%×1400)
1400+((4/100)×1400)
1400+56=$1456
Since there are no additional costs, option 2=$1456
If we compare option 1 to option 2, we notice that option 2 is slightly cheaper than option 1 by $44
(Option 1-Option 2)=(1500-1456)=$44
The arbitrageur should borrow money at 4% per annum since it is cheaper than paying the forward price for delivery
Answer:
(A) Because the regulation effectively reduced the price of cool air, consumers with sufficiently elastic demand might have bought substantially more of it.
Explanation:
If the demand for energy services remains constant, improving energy efficiency will reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions. However, many efficiency improvements do not reduce energy consumption by the amount provided by simple engineering models. This is because they make energy services cheaper and therefore increases the consumption of those services.
For example, since low-fuel vehicles make travel cheaper, consumers can choose to drive further, thus offsetting some of the possible energy savings. Similarly, an extensive historical analysis of improvements in technological efficiency has conclusively demonstrated that improvements in energy efficiency were almost always overcome by economic growth, which resulted in a net increase in resource use and associated contamination.
