Individuals differ in risk aversion because of differences in income or wealth.
- Risk aversion is the propensity of people to choose outcomes with low uncertainty over those with high uncertainty, even when the average outcome of the latter is equal to or higher in monetary worth than the more definite event. This tendency is shown in both economics and finance.
- Risk aversion is the tendency to avoid danger. A risk-averse investor is one who prioritizes money preservation over the potential for a higher-than-average return. Price volatility and investment risk are the same.
- If someone would rather take the risk and maybe receive nothing than accept a definite payment (certainty equivalent) of less than $50 (for instance, $40), they are considered to be risk averse. If they have no preference between the wager and a specific $50 payoff, they are risk neutral.
Thus the correct answer is d.
Refer here to learn more about risk aversion: brainly.com/question/8394406
#SPJ4
Answer:
The remaining part of the question is given below:
(Note that the subsidy can be granted to the education institutions or to the students directly or indirectly; for example, through low- interest student loans.)
a. P2-P0
b. P2-P1
c. P0-P1
d. P1
<u>Correct Answer:</u>
b. P2-P1
Explanation:
A pigouvian subsidy is a subsidy that is used to encourage behaviour that have positive effects on others who are not involved or society at large. <em>Behaviors or actions that are a benefit to others who are not involved in the transaction are called positive externalities.</em>
To record final annual interest and bond repayment:
2017
Mar 1
Bonds interest expense $25,400
Bonds payable $254,000
Cash $279,000
On March 1, 1997, the date of issuance, the entry is:
1997
Mar 1
Cash $254,000
Bonds payable $254,000
On each March 1 for 10 years, beginning March 1, 1997 (ending March 1, 2017), the entry would be (Remember, calculate interest as Principal x Interest Rate x Time)
Mar 1
Bond Interest Expense ($100,000 x 12% x 1) $25,400
Cash $25,400
Answer:<em>True cost = 
</em>
<em>= 
</em>
<em>= $ 13,669,821.2</em>
Explanation:
Given :
Debt-Equity ratio = 0.55
Flotation cost for new equity = 6%
Flotation cost for debt = 3 %
∴ To compute the weighted flotation cost , we'll use the following formula:
Weighted Flotation cost =![\left [ \frac{1}{1+Debt-Equity ratio}\times Flotation cost of equity \right ] + \left [ \frac{Debt-Equity ratio}{1+Debt-Equity ratio}\times Flotation cost of debt \right ]](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cleft%20%5B%20%5Cfrac%7B1%7D%7B1%2BDebt-Equity%20ratio%7D%5Ctimes%20Flotation%20cost%20of%20equity%20%5Cright%20%5D%20%2B%20%5Cleft%20%5B%20%5Cfrac%7BDebt-Equity%20ratio%7D%7B1%2BDebt-Equity%20ratio%7D%5Ctimes%20Flotation%20cost%20of%20debt%20%5Cright%20%5D)
= ![\left [ \frac{1}{1+0.55}\times 0.06 \right ] + \left [ \frac{0.55}{1+0.55}\times 0.03 \right ]](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cleft%20%5B%20%5Cfrac%7B1%7D%7B1%2B0.55%7D%5Ctimes%200.06%20%5Cright%20%5D%20%2B%20%5Cleft%20%5B%20%5Cfrac%7B0.55%7D%7B1%2B0.55%7D%5Ctimes%200.03%20%5Cright%20%5D)
= 0.0387 + 0.0106
= 0.04934 or 4.93%
The true cost of building the new assembly line after taking flotation costs into account is evaluated using the following formula :
True cost =
=
= $ 13,669,821.2
<span>The expense would be $112,100. After putting 38,000 over 200,000 tons (38000/20000), dividing this would provide you with the percentage of rock removed. Which is 0.19, after which you would multiply this by 590,000 which would you bring you to the expense for removal.</span>
