Answer:
$320,000
Explanation:
EBIT is earnings before interest and tax.
This case in point ignores the financing impact of interest expense, EBIT is the same as the net income plus taxes
net profit margin=net income/sales
net profit margin=10%
net income is unknown
sales=$3,000,000
10%=net income/$3,000,000
net income=10%*$3,000,000=$300,000
taxes=$20,000
EBIT=$300,000+$20,000=$320,000
Usually, a brand promise is some sort of statement said by an organization to its consumers, or customers, stating what the customers may expect from their product(s) and/or service(s).
Hope this helps!
Answer:
This evaluation best exemplifies a "behavior-level" measure.
Explanation:
Donald Kirkpatrick proposed a Four-level training evaluation model for evaluating the impact of training on employees.
The four levels are; Reaction, Learning, Behavior and Results.
The behavior level of Kirkpatrick's model is the third stage and it comes after employees have undergone learning/training. At this stage, the behavior is measured through monitoring and observation to determine if they are implementing what they have learnt.
This gives some insight into how effective the training was.
Therefore GetHelp Inc. by monitoring the phone calls of their customer service representatives are carrying out a "behavior-level" measure.
Answer:
The total loan value would be of $261,825
Explanation:
In order to calculate how expensive of a home can Tedd purchase using a 4%, 30 year mortgage we would have to calculate first the amount of annual payments as follows:
amount of annual payments = $48,000*0.25 = $12,000
PMT = 12,000/12 = 1000
FV = 0
rate = 4%/12
N = 30*12
Hence, use FV function in Excel amount after down payment = $209,461.24
this represents 80% of the loan
, so total loan value = $209,461.24/0.8 = $261,825
The total loan value would be of $261,825
Responses will vary, but students should explain that parents invested in helping their needierdaughters, those daughters who partnered with males with fewer resources; this unequalinvestment caused daughters to “exploit” their parents’ generosity. Daughters were more likely tochoose a partner with inadequate support resources and spare themselves the costs of “holdingout” for the perfect man, because they knew their parents would pick up the slack. Daughters withinadequate partners ended up with the same resources as their sisters with better partners becauseof their parents’ contributions. Over time, females became less choosy in their male partnersbecause they knew their parents would make up the difference for any inadequacies in partners.
Image of page 1
