Answer:
is rooted in troubled relationships between groups that have little grasp of what’s going on outside their own neighborhood.
Explanation:
This alternative is correct because according to Barry Oshry's studies system blindness occurs when behavioral patterns are negatively cultivated in an organization. Barry studied how to positively motivate employee behavior and reverse negative patterns.
System blindness is a flaw that must be reviewed and reviewed by organizational leaders, the cause of negative patterns must be studied and reviewed, and the question of which organizational policy and culture is contributing to blindness among employees must be ascertained.
Answer:
Option (A) is correct.
Explanation:
Given that,
After-tax IRR on total investment in the property = 9.0%
Before-tax IRR on equity invested = 17%
Before-tax IRR on total investment in the property = 12%
t: Marginal tax rate = 0.40
Break Even Interest rate (neither favorable nor unfavorable):
= After tax IRR on total investment ÷ (1 - Tax rate )
= 9% ÷ (1 - 0.40)
= 9% ÷ 0.60
= 15%
Answer:
Can you please list the choice
Explanation:
Answer:
Competition-based.
Explanation:
Competition-based pricing is a strategy of adopting similar pricing to companies in the same industry. It is a method based on competitive price observation and publicly disclosed information.
This method is not fully effective, although the added benefits of simple implementation, low risk and accuracy, there may be several missed opportunities when adopting the competition-based pricing method. Copying competitors' prices may not be a good solution to maximize profits, it is a short-term solution that may not be aligned with business strategy and the value and perception of consumers about your products and services.
So there are several other variables that influence profitability, and often following a criterion of copying prices is not enough, the ideal is for each company just to orientate itself to the other and establish a pricing that justifies its strategy.
Answer:
This proposition isn't socially alluring. On the off chance that regular monopolists are permitted to decide their benefit amplifying yields and costs, at that point the yield of the common monopolist would in any case be at the problematic level where cost surpasses minor expense, demonstrating an under-designation of assets to the item.
It would be progressively alluring to constrain the normal monopolist to charge a value equivalent to minor cost and sponsor any misfortunes. Reasonable return valuing, that is, setting value equivalent to Average Total Cost would be an improvement over this proposition. The imposing business model firm could gain ordinary benefit by settling on reasonable return valuing proposition.
