<span>Given that a
firm has return on assets (roa) of 15 percent, and debt-equity ratio of
60 percent.
Then, equity multiplier = 1 + Debt-equity ratio = 1 + 60/100 = 1 + 0.6 = 1.6
Return on equity (roe) is given by return on asset multiplied by the equity multiplier.
Therefore, the firm's return on equity is 1.6 x 0.15 = 0.24 = 24%.
</span>
The answer is d all of the abovten
Answer:
c. absolute advantage over Kilim.
Explanation:
Ithilium, a European country, is able to produce more electronics than Kilim, a North American country, even though both countries use the same amount of resources. Given this information, it can be deduced that Ithilium has absolute advantage over Kilim.
Comparative advantage refers to when a company produces the same number of outputs with <u>lower opportunity costs </u>while absolute advantage is when a country <u>produces more outputs from less resources</u>.
In the scenario, we are not given opportunity costs and we are not looking at the costs of producing a unit of output but rather how much output a country can get from a given level of resources which is in line with the concept of Absolute Advantage.
.
Answer:
higher
buyers to offer higher prices
Explanation:
When there's a shortage in the market, demand exceeds supply. A shortage can be caused either by an increase in demand or a fall in supply. When there's a shortage prices rise.
To curb the shortage, buyers would offer an higher price. This would either increase supply or decrease demand and equilibrium would be restored.
I hope my answer helps you.
Answer: Option E: E.Just because one firm receives a 3.20 overall rating and another receives a 2.80 in a CPM, it does not necessarily follow that the first firm is precisely 14.3 percent better than the second, but it does suggest that the first firm is better in some areas is TRUE
Explanation:
Because one firm receives a 3.20 overall rating and another receives a 2.80 in a CPM, it does not necessarily follow that the first firm is precisely 14.3 percent better than the second, but it does suggest that the first firm is better in some areas.
The former firm received such high rating most times because of pedigree or experience or winning rate which does not judge it better than the latter firm in all areas.
