Answer:
off-peak pricing
Explanation:
Off-peak pricing is defined as the type of pricing where there is a lower charge for services when there is less flow of customers. It provides an incentive to keep customers that patronise a business when there is less demand.
When there is a rush or higher demand the price can now go higher.
In the given scenario where commuters in New York install radio frequency identification (RFID) devices on their cars that can be read automatically as they approach a toll booth. Also New York authorities the opportunity to manage traffic flow by charging different toll amounts for different times of day.
This is an off-peak pricing system
Answer:
$66.9725
Explanation:
Data provided in the question:
Dividend:
D1 = $1.20
D2 = $1.40
D3 = $1.55
Expected future price, P3 = $82
Required return = 8.9 percent = 0.089
Now,
Stock price today = Present value of dividends and the future value
Stock price today = 
or
Stock price today = 1.1019 + 1.1805 + 1.2001 + 63.49
or
Stock price today = $66.9725
Answer:
RE break point = $24500
Explanation:
21,000 net income
30% OF Earnings as dividends
21,000 x 30% = 6,300 dividends
Retained Earnings (assuming no previous beginning value)
21,000 - 6,300 = 14,700
RE break point = 14,700/0.6 = 24500
What does the $24,500 mean?
This mean that the company can raise financing for this ammount without changing their capital structure (60% equity 40% debt)
If the company wants to finance for more, it will need to raise new shares or chance their capital structure, and therefore the WACC will change
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.
Answer:
The answer is 
"".
Explanation:
![\to [\$500,000 (\frac{1}{3} \times \$1,500,000) + \$250,000 (\frac{1}[3} \times \$750,000 + \$450,000 (\frac{1}[2} \times \$900,000]\\\\\\to \$1,200,000](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cto%20%5B%5C%24500%2C000%20%28%5Cfrac%7B1%7D%7B3%7D%20%5Ctimes%20%5C%241%2C500%2C000%29%20%2B%20%5C%24250%2C000%20%28%5Cfrac%7B1%7D%5B3%7D%20%20%5Ctimes%20%5C%24750%2C000%20%2B%20%5C%24450%2C000%20%28%5Cfrac%7B1%7D%5B2%7D%20%20%5Ctimes%20%5C%24900%2C000%5D%5C%5C%5C%5C%5C%5Cto%20%5C%241%2C200%2C000)
Though this tree farm is jointly held, Aiden is assumed to have given 1/3 of the treatment because his mother gave her a gift to create the lease. The tenancy of the major chunk is subjected to the fifty percent spouse exclusion rule. None of the structures is included as Chloe does not escape Aiden.
