Answer:
The correct answer is False.
Explanation:
This statement is false, since the residual theory of dividends argues that these are irrelevant, that is, that the value of the company is not affected by its dividend policy. The main drivers of this theory are Modigliani and Miller. Both authors affirm that the value of the company is determined solely by the profitability and the degree of risk of its assets (investments), and that the way in which the organization divides its income between dividends and reinvestment does not have a direct effect on its value .
However, some studies show that significant changes in dividends affect the price of shares in the same direction, that is, increases in dividends translate into increases in stock prices, and vice versa. In response, M and M propose that the positive effects of dividend increases be attributed, not to the dividend itself, but to the informational content of dividends with respect to future income. Thus, any increase in dividends would cause investors to raise the price of the shares, while a decrease would cause a corresponding decrease in the price of the shares.
He may be liable for<u> "damages, fines, or imprisonment."</u>
Copyright law does not contain any proviso that enables unapproved gatherings to make individual duplicates of copyrighted items. Be that as it may, under the teaching of "reasonable utilize," people might be allowed to make reinforcement duplicates or authentic duplicates of a few materials as long as specific conditions are met. Making a duplicate of a copyrighted work for your very own usability is probably going to be considered copyright encroachment. Be that as it may, on the off chance that you are making a duplicate so you may utilize a copyrighted item on the off chance that the first is stolen, harmed or devastated, your direct may fall inside the teaching of reasonable utilize.
Given that <span>In 1981, 16 percent of wives earned more than their husbands.
It is reported that in 2005, about 26% of wives earned more than their husbands.</span>
Answer: hello your question is incomplete attached below is the complete question.
answer :
3.02 million, 2.96 million, 2.91 million
Explanation:
<u>Determine the swap rate over a 3-year period</u>
swap rate = forward exchange rate * exchange amount
For year 1
1.4 * ( 1 + 0.03 / 1 + 0.05 ) * 2.2 million
= 1.4 ( 0.98095 ) * 2.2
= 3.02 million
For year 2
1.4 * ( 1 + 0.03 / 1 + 0.05 )^2 * 2..2 million
= 1.4 ( 0.98095 )^2 * 2.2 million
= 2.96378 million
For year 3
1.4 * ( 1 + 0.03 / 1 + 0.05 )^3 * 2.2 million
= 1.4 ( 0.98095 )^3 * 2.2 million
= 2.90733 million
Answer:
The answer is "Whenever a court requires him to use the res ipsa loquitur doctrine, he possibly would succeed".
Explanation:
Res ipsa loquitur is also an English common law doctrine which claims in an action for tort, throughout the absence of direct proof on whether any defendant acted, a jury may conclude neglect of the nature of an illness or incident. It is used in circumstances in which the complainant is not presented sufficient proof that the offender is not liable.
