Laws governing sales are only enacted when the rights of an organization are infringed upon

Suppose that a 6.250% semi-annual coupon paying bond is priced at 105.500 per 100 of par value. The tenor of the bond is 13 year

zaharov [31]

Answer:

5.70%

Explanation:

In this question, we applied the RATE formula that is shown on the attachment below:

Provided that,

Present value = $1,000 × 105% = $1,050

Assuming figure - Future value or Face value = $1,000

PMT = 1,000 × 6.250% ÷ 2 = $31.25

NPER = 13 years × 2 = 26 years

The formula is shown below:

= Rate(NPER;PMT;-PV;FV;type)

The present value come in negative

So, after solving this, the yield to maturity is 5.70%

We assume the semi annual basis is followed so we half the interest rate and the coupon rate and doubles the time period

8 0

3 years ago

Louis Vuitton decides to invest $80,000,000 into a shoe factory in Milan from its money market account. The money market account

Nataly [62]

Answer:

d. $800,000

Explanation:

In opportunity cost parlance, we talk about the cost/benefit forgone of the next best alternative, not for all alternatives forgone.

The benefit forgone of the next best alternative is the $800,000 that could have been earned if the funds have been invested in the money market account, in other words, $800,000.

7 0

3 years ago

Company A has a beta of 0.70, while Company B's beta is 1.20. The required return on the stock market is 11.00%, and the risk-fr

kiruha [24]

Answer:

The difference between A and B Required Rate of Return is 3.38%

Explanation:

As we know that required rate of return we use CAPM formula that is

Required rate of return = Rf + (Rm - Rf) x Beta

Stock A Return = 4.25% + (11% - 4.25% ) x 0.70

Stock A return = 8.98%

Stock B Return = 4.25% + (11% - 4.25%) x 1.20

Stock B Return = 12.35%

Difference between Return = Stock B Return - Stock A Return

Difference between Return = 12.35% - 8.98%

Difference between Return = 3.38%

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

"I promise to pay $5,000 to Lorenzo on or before August 1, 2001, in return for the same amount borrowed from him on May 1, 2001.

solong [7]

Answer:

C.

Explanation:

Based on the scenario being described within the question it can be said that in this circumstance the note is not negotiable because the note states the reason for the debt. Since the reason it stated it proves as to why the money needs to be paid to the individual and must therefore be paid in full on the date that has been listed.

5 0

3 years ago

Suppose at the end of the meeting that Jack agrees to offer the restaurant buyout, including the non-competition agreement. Prio

loris [4]

Answer:

D) Yes, as long as he actually communicates the revocation to Hal and Sophia (or their agent) prior to acceptance.

Explanation:

In contract law, an offer can always be taken back as long as the other party hasn't accepted it yet. In this case, Jack agreed to make an offer about the restaurant and he even included certain details that apparently were important (non-competition agreement), but since Hal and Sophia haven't accepted it yet, Jack can take it back without fear of any claim being made against him. All he has to do is communicate his decision of taking back his offer to either Hal or Sophia, or their agent (if there is one).

3 0

3 years ago