Answer:
The operators have not violated the antitrust laws because they are only collaborating to lobby the government
Explanation:
The antitrust law in the U.S. can be described as a group of federal and state government laws enacted to regulate the activities of business firms in order to enhance competition to the advantage of consumers.
The antitrust law aims to collusive activities that suppress trade, any merger and acquisition that would reduce competition, and prevent the the abuse of monopoly power.
Since the activity of the operators of adult bookstores does not fall under what the antitrust law aims to prevent but it is just a collaboration to lobby the government, they have a good defense that they have not violated the antitrust laws.
Answer:
The portfolio standard deviation is 14.82%
Explanation:
The portfolio standard deviation would be calculated by finding out the variance of the portfolio and taking the square root of it.
Variance of the portfolio = [(1 - .50)
x 0.25] + [0.50 x 0.16] + [2 x (1 - 0.50) x 0.50 x 0.25 x 0.16 x 0]
= [0.25 x 0.0625] + [0.25 x 0.0256] + [0]
= 0.015625 + 0.0064
VarPort = 0.022025
Std DevPort = √0.022025
Std DevPort = 0.1482 = 14.82 percent
N.B: I don't understand your question fully and neither can i find the complete question anywhere on the internet so im going to answer this sentence and hope it helps you.
Answer:
True
Explanation:
When a company has employees from different backgrounds and with different skills set, it helps the company come up with a lot of innovations that cuts across different cultures, thereby expanding their own range of services and/or goods. Also it helps in problem solving as each employee can come to the table with various ways of solving a problem.
This situation can be called diversity of thoughts.
Cheers.
Answer:
Puffery
Explanation:
Puffery refers to making hefty claims regarding product attributes and traits which represent a subjective and not objective view. Such claims are not backed by valid reasoning or valid evidences and facts.
In the given case, the art dealer claims his products being of high quality and appreciating over the period of next ten years. Such claims cannot be substantiated by any concrete evidence. As value cannot be ascertained in advance.
