1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Olegator [25]
3 years ago
13

You have found an asset with an arithmetic average return of 14.60 percent and a geometric average return of 10.64 percent. Your

observation period is 25 years. What is your best estimate of the return of the asset over the next 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?
Business
1 answer:
Ksju [112]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

return of the asset =  13.94%

return of the asset =  13.11%

return of the asset = 11.46 %

Explanation:

given data

average return = 14.60 percent

geometric average return = 10.64 percent

observation period = 25 years

solution

we get here return of the asset over year  by Blume formula that is

return of the asset = ( T- 1 ) ÷ ( N - 1)  × geometric average + ( N -T)  ÷ ( N - 1)  × arithmetic average   ..................1

here N is observation period and T is time

put value in equation 1

return of the asset = \frac{5-1}{25-1} *0.1064 + \frac{25-5}{25-1} * 0.1460

return of the asset = 0.1394 = 13.94%

and

return of the assets = \frac{10-1}{25-1} *0.1064 + \frac{25-10}{25-1} * 0.1460

return of the asset = 0.13115 = 13.11%

and

return of the assets = \frac{20-1}{25-1} *0.1064 + \frac{25-20}{25-1} * 0.1460

return of the asset = 0.11465 = 11.46 %

You might be interested in
Which one of the following is NOT one of the arguments against social responsibility as used by economist Milton Friedman?
777dan777 [17]

Answer:

B) Businesses can actually do very little in terms of social responsibility.

Explanation:

Milton Friedman is most famous for the defense of the Chicago School economics which is a neoclassical approach to macroeconomics. He favored free trade, smaller government and a slow but constant growth of the money supply. I personally disagree with neoclassical economists because they have the tendency to mess things up and time proves they are always wrong (that is a biased but positive statement). He was the father of monetarism, but if you look at his last two disciples, George Bush and George W. Bush, the outcome was not positive ⇒ 3 deep recessions in 3 presidential terms.

As a neoclassical economist, Friedman believed and argued in favor of the trickle down in economics. That means that if you allow the rich to get overwhelmingly rich, their riches will spill over to the rest of society. Not because they are good people that like to share their wealth, but because they need workers and employees to keep consuming goods and services in order to get the economy moving. Eventually the spilled over wealth should return to the top. So it is no wonder why he opposed corporate social responsibility, since wasting time and money in the community, employees or the environment was simply a waste of resources that could be used to increase stockholders' wealth.

I understand how theoretically this might work, but it takes the human factor out of the equation and expectations are extremely important in economics, that is why they always fail.

6 0
3 years ago
Suppose Megan gets a sales bonus at her place of work that gives her an extra $400 of disposable income. She chooses to spend $3
kicyunya [14]

Answer:

0.75, 0.25

Explanation:

With an increase in disposable income marginal propensity to consume increase. Similarly, with an increase in disposable income marginal propensity to save increases. Marginal propensity to save is the amount of money saved or kept after a fraction increase in overall disposable income.

MPC = 300/400=0.75

MPS = 100/400=0.25

Marginal propensity to consume is 0.75

Marginal propensity to save is 0.25

5 0
3 years ago
You are planning to save for retirement over the next 30 years. To do this, you will invest $750 per month in a stock account an
Nikolay [14]

Answer:

Ans. Assuming that the withdrawal period is 300 months (25 years), you can withdraw every month $15,547.96

Explanation:

Hi, first, we have to take to future value (30 years in the future) the invested capital (both the stock account and the bond account). From there, we will consider the sum of both future values as the present value of the annuity that you are about to receive for the next 25 years (300 months). But before we do all that, we need to convert the return rates (compounded monthly) into effective monthly rates, for that we just go ahead and divide each one by 12, as follows

r(Stock) = 0.105/12= 0.00875

r(Bond)= 0.061/12 = 0.00508

r(Combined Account)= 0.069/12=0.00575

Now we are ready, first, let´s find the future value of the stock account.

FV(stock)=\frac{750((1+0.00875)^{360}-1) }{0.00875} =1,887,300.74}

Now, let´s find out how much will it be in 30 years, investing $325 per month, at the end of the month, at 0.508% effective monthly.

FV(Bond)=\frac{325((1+0.00508)^{360}-1) }{0.00508} =332,526.95

And then we add them up and we get:

FV(stock)+FV(bond)=1,887,300.74+332,526.95=2,219,827.69

Ok, now let´s find the annuity (monthly withdraw) taking into account that we are going to make 300 withdraws at a rate of 0.575% effective monthly,

[tex]2,219,827.69=A(142.7729593)

\frac{2,219,827.69}{142.7729593} =A

A=15,547.96\frac{A((1+0.00575)^{300}-1) }{0.00575(1+0.00575)^{300} }[/tex]

Best of luck.

5 0
3 years ago
Suppose the economy goes from a point on its production possibilities frontier (PPF) to a point below that PPF. Assuming that th
qaws [65]

Answer:

The correct answer is: a new law that interferes with economic efficiency.

Explanation:

A production possibilities frontier shows all the points where production is efficient. The resources are being completely employed. The points above the frontier are unattainable. The points below the frontier are attainable but inefficient.

If there is a movement from the frontier to a point below it. This means inefficient allocation of resources. It can happen because of some law interfering in efficient allocation of resources.

3 0
3 years ago
In the case discussed, the Supreme Court held that the trademark for Coca-Cola was valid and banned another company from using a
lakkis [162]

Answer:

The Supreme Court ruled that the name Coke was so well known around the world, that it is effectively a common term for the trademarked Coca Cola. If other companies try to use similar terms like Koke for other types of products, e.g. bakery items, there is a risk that the Coca Cola company would be negatively affected by that product's image since consumers might associate Koke directly to Coca Cola.

It doesn't matter if the products were low quality or not, the courts cannot determine that, what matters is that the use of the term may negatively impact another company.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Market Indicators are employed in-
    10·1 answer
  • The spotlight on small business box "earning while learning" features students who
    14·1 answer
  • The ethical question is whether apple ought to contract (through suppliers) fifteen-year-olds to work on factory floors. is the
    13·1 answer
  • Define the term partnership as a type of business
    11·1 answer
  • ​_____ is building and maintaining relationships with people whose interests are similar to​ one's own or with whom relationship
    9·1 answer
  • Two countries, cadmia and palladia, have formed a free trade agreement. this has resulted in cadmia importing sugar from palladi
    5·1 answer
  • Can anyone share important questions on Managerial Information Systems??
    10·1 answer
  • What is Location? Explain the factors affecting location decision.
    15·1 answer
  • What will a bank do in order to ensure you are responsible?
    6·1 answer
  • Which of the following is not recorded on your credit report
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!