Answer:
47.4%
Explanation:
A. Expected golfers
440,000
B Revenue (440,000 × $84)
$36,960,000
C. Variable cost (440,000 × $17)
$7,480,000
D = B - C Contribution margin
$29,480,000
E Fixed cost
$20,000,000
F = D - E Profit
$9,480,000
G Assets
H = F/G × 100 Return on assets
47.4%
CELL is the smallest level.........
Answer: Deficit; higher; a decrease
Explanation:
<em>The term crowding-out effect refers to a situation in which a government </em><em><u>deficit</u></em><em> results in</em><em><u> higher</u></em><em> interest rates, causing </em><em><u>a decrease</u></em><em> in private spending on investment and consumer durables.</em>
The Crowding-out effect is what happens when a Government increases its spending past its revenues and gets a budget deficit. In other to balance its books therefore it will borrow heavily.
If the Government is such a large one like the American Government or the British Government, the borrowing might be so large that it will have the effect of reducing the amount of loanable funds in the market thereby increasing the interest rates due to a reduced supply of loanable funds.
As there are now increased interest rates, it will be more expensive for companies to borrow to spend on investment or for consumers to spend on durables. It will have the effect of <em>crowding out</em> the private sector.
Answer:
A) NPV= - $428,888.89 B) Company would break Even if g = 5.68%
Explanation:
Hi, we have to bring to present value all the inflows and outflows of cash, this is the formula to use and the math of it.
The question says that "at what constant growth rate would the company just break even..." and well, a NPV=0 is not precisely break even, actually, it means that the company is obtaining exactly what is asking for any investment, but let´s assume that the question was, what should the growth rate be for the company to accept this project?. So we have to solve the first equation for "g", that is:
So the constant growth rate has to be at least 5.68% for the company to accept this project (NPV=0)
Best of luck
The other day, someone asked me about the last time my ethics had been tested at work and how I reacted.
I wasn’t sure how to respond. It’s a good question, and I wanted to answer it. Still, I hesitated to reveal too much about some of the less-than-honest bosses I’ve reported to in the last two decades.
These are bosses who lied, gossiped about their staff to other staff, broke confidences, fudged numbers to governmental agencies, botched payroll tax withholdings and covered it up, and willfully and recklessly turned a blind eye to leadership abuse — for starters.
