Answer:
so they can end up spending less on interest payments and credit card fees.
Explanation:
Answer:
Puffin’s E & P after taking into account the distribution of the car is $6,000.
Explanation:
E & P will be decreased by the higher of the adjusted basis or the fair market value of the distributed property, net of any liabilities. The distribution losses will not be taken into consideration when determining E & P. Thus the current E & P of Puffin’s $30,000 is reduced by $24,000 ($30,000 basis of the car minus the liability amount). The remaining after the distribution current E & P will be $6,000.
Therefore, Puffin’s E & P after taking into account the distribution of the car is $6,000.
Answer:
all of the above
Explanation:
When outcomes are uncertain, a manger must recognise and describe the risks involved. After identifying the risks, the risks must be evaluated to determine the extent of the risk and how the risk would affect the business. After the risks have been evaluated, the risk should be managed. For example, by taking insurance.
For example, if a manager wants to purchase a machine,
the manger has to identify the risks involved : the machine can be stolen, it can injure workers or it might not produce the desired effect
The manger must then evaluate the risks. The risks can be evaluated using capital budgeting methods. e.g. NPV
The manger can manage the risk by taking out insurance
save for the first year of college LONG TERM GOAL
complete the current semester with
good grades SHORT TERM GOAL
accumulate $2,000 before the
semester ends LONG TERM GOAL
pay off at least one of the three
outstanding bills LONG TERM GOAL
complete the project assigned in
place of an upcoming exam SHORT TERM GOAL
Answer: See explanation
Explanation:
The formula to use here will be:
required rate = risk free rate + beta × (market return - risk free rate).
where,
risk free rate = 5%
beta =0.20.
market return = -30%.
Therefore,
required return = 5% + 0.20 × (-30% + -5%)
= 5% + 0.2(-35%)
= 5% - 7%
= -2%
Therefore, the return on portfolio should have been -2% but the portfolio manager produced a return of −10%
Since -10% is lower than -2%, we can deduce that the claim of the manager is wrong.