Answer:
Compounding formula would be used here which is as under:
Future Value = Present value * (1+r)^n
FV = (PV is $2000) * ( 1 + 4%)^ 3 number of years
Remember that r is the return that is 4% that Sarah Jones will receive.
So
FV = $2250
So this is the amount that she will receive after three years. I would recommend her to invest in ordinary shares (take higher risk for higher return) so that she is able to buy a better car.
Answer:
1 year rate 2 year from now = 12% (Approx)
Explanation:
Given:
1-year rate = 8%
2-year rate = 9%
3-year rate = 10%
Computation:
According to Pure Expectations Hypothesis,
(1 + 3-year rate)³ = (1 + 2-year rate)² (1 + 1 year rate 2 year from now)
(1.10)³ = (1 + 1.09)²(1 + 1 year rate 2 year from now)
1.331 = 1.1881 (1 + 1 year rate 2 year from now)
(1 + 1 year rate 2 year from now) = 1.12
1 year rate 2 year from now = 0.12
1 year rate 2 year from now = 12% (Approx)
Businesses often segment the market based on key demographics such as age, gender, income level or marital status, but they also use more precisely defined categories to target specific groups.
Answer:
The SAE programs could be extended even diversified using the following techniques.
Explanation:
- Increased self-employment has led to something like the SAE programs.
- Rather than growing the breadth of this. The concept seems to be the volume, gross margin, quantity of acres, respectively.
- By introducing or growing new goods as well as companies. This would be referred to those as diversification.
- Whilst also connecting to the awareness acquired via the SAE programs.
Answer: Please refer to Explanation.
Explanation:
Two Companies. We shall call them A and B.
If A and B decide not to advertise, they both get $5,000,000.
If A advertises and B does not then A captures $3 million from B at a cost of $2 million meaning their payoff would be,
= 5 million - 2 million + 3 million
= $6 million.
A will have $6 million and B will have $2 million as $3 million was captured from them. This scenario holds true if B is the one that advertises and A does not.
If both of them Advertise, they both reduce their gains by $2 million while capturing $3 million from each other so they'll essentially both have just $3 million if they both decide to advertise.
With the above scenarios, it is better for both companies to ADVERTISE if there is NO COLLUSION. This is because it ensures that they do not get the lowest payoff of $2 million if the other company decides to advertise and they do not.
However, if they DO COLLUDE. They must both decide that NONE of them SHOULD ADVERTISE and this would leave them with their original $5 million each which is a higher payoff than the $3 million they will both receive if they were both advertising.
