Answer:
Check the following calculations
Explanation:
Bond trade at Par, thus,
Cost of Debt = Coupon rate = 8%
Tax rate = 35%
Post-tax cost of Debt (kd) = 0.08*(1-0.35) = 0.052
Beta of stock = 1.25
Market return = 10%
T-bills rate = 4%
Cost of Equity (ke) = 0.04*1.25*(0.1-0.04) = 0.115
Debt to equity ratio = 3
Weight of Debt (wd) = 3/4 = 0.75
Weight of equity (we) = 0.25
WACC= wd * kd+ we *ke
WACC =0.75* 0.052+0.25* 0.115
WACC =0.06775
WACC= 6.76%
Please note: In above solution, CAPM model used to determine the cost of equity because CAPM model gives minimum required return by equity investors.
Answer:
b. Bank service charge and c. Deposits in transit
Explanation:
Outstanding checks are checks that have been recognize in the cash book but not in the bank statement. This needs to be deducted from the bank statement to get the cash balance.
Bank service charge is a deduction recognized in the bank but yet top be recorded in the cash book. Hence an addition of the bank charge to the balance per bank statement would help arrive at the cash balance.
Deposits in transit have been recognized in the cash book hence the addition of this item to the bank statement balance would help arrive at the cash book balance.
Customer note collected by the bank on behalf of the depositor need be subtracted to get the cash balance as this item would have been recorded in the bank statement but not in the cash book.
The right options are b. Bank service charge and c. Deposits in transit.
Answer:
$0.79
Explanation:
The Bakery bakes 660 loaves of bread
The cost of baking one bread= $0.46
The total cost of baking all loaves of bread
= $0.46 x 660
=$303.60
The desired mark up is 55% of cost
=55% of $303.60
=55/100 x $303.60
=0.55 x $303.60
= $166.98
Desired revenues = $166.98 +$303.60
=$470.58
The number of sellable breads= 660 - (10% of 660)
=660-66
=594
Desired income is $470.58; sellable output is 594.
price per bread should be
=$470.58/594
=$0.79222
Price per bread = $0.79
Answer:
This is an actual court case where the Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled in favor of Cox Communications in February, 2014.
The court ruled that Ovalles was an employee for M&M, and that M&M had an independent contractor relationship with Cox Communications. Additionally, Ovalles was also an independent contractor for M&M, not an employee. There existed no direct relationnship between Cox and Ovalles.
Even though Ovalles and other independent contractors use both Cox's and M&M's logos on their vans and uniforms, this was done so consumers could identify them. The fact that an identification is needed so customers can determine the function of a technician, doesn't imply that those technicians are actually employees of the firm nor they actually a method of control over the technicians.
Since Cox didn't control the performance of Ovalles and didn't have contact with him, then there was no reason to consider him an employee of Cox.
The plaintiff, Barbara Cayer probably made a mistake when it included Cox in the lawsuit (since it is a large company), and she would have had a better case against M&M because that company did have control over Ovalles's performance and did have contact with him. But since M&M was a much smaller firm, they decided to go after the big fish. Later they tried to include M&M into the lawsuit but it was rejected since the Supreme Court had not made their ruling yet.