Answer:
Projects E,F and G should NOT be considered.
Optimal Capital is $5,750,000
Explanation:
The accept-or-reject rule, using the IRR method, is to acceptthe project if its Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is higher than theWeighted Average Cost of Capital(k) [r>k]. The project shall berejected if its internal rate of return is e lower than theWeighted Average Cost of Capital cost of (r<k)
Accept if r>k
Reject if r<k
Mayaccept if r = k
If the Weighted Average Cost of Capitl (WACC) is less than IRRrate, then the project has positive NPV; if it is equal to IRR, theproject has a Zero NPV, and if it is greater than the IRR, theproject has negative NPV.
The projects should be accepted as the rate of return on theproject is higher than the WACC(10.8%) which means that theprojects will be profitable as the returns are higher than the costof the project (capital). Considering this projects E,F and G should NOT be considered.
And considering the sizes the Optimal Capital is $5,750,000 (the addition of sizes of all projects)
Explanation:
Let’s explore one by one as proposed:
An oil cartel raises oil prices: all prices in the oil-related products will increase making it more expensive for companies to be able to afford employees. As the US economy is heavily based on oil import and consumption, the unemployment rate (let´s call it UR from now on) would increase. Countries that export more than import could benefit from this scenario.
The U.S. dollar gains value against foreign currencies: It would be more expensive to produce goods in the US as its currency becomes stronger. Hence companies could choose to produce overseas, increasing the UR. One of the factors that attract investments is a cheap currency, meaning that a company could operate there at lower costs than anywhere else.
American consumers expect higher income in the future: As fights about average salary would arise between employees and companies, igniting even sindicalization, its proper to think that the same as above could occur; companies could choose to produce overseas in countries less demanding of labor rights and income, such as China provinces (I would recommend for you to watch American Factory, a awarded Netflix documentary about that subject).
Brazil experiences economic growth and increases its demand for U.S. exports: as I said in the first alternative, a country that has increased or more expensive exports could benefit from that creating more jobs, in this case decreasing the UR. If Brazil demands more US products, more has to be produced by the country, which would mean more people employed in this attractive sector.
U.S. real estate values rise: to be honest, it only affects indirectly. As housing becomes more expensive, people have to work more to be able to afford housing. That would mean they seeking better-paying jobs or in the absence of those being homeless of at least unable to buy a home. We could argue that the UR would decrease because it becomes more expensive to afford housing and hence people would migrate more but that’s a long shot rationale.
Humanidocious is not an actual word because it is not on dictionaries or word that is being used with the definition it contains as this word is a made up or not a real word because this has been used in means of making a made up or fake word in replacing or trying to define something where in the word does not actually exist.
