Answer:
$411235
Explanation:
the amount he will have at the end of the thirtieth year F = P × ( (1+r)^n -1) / r
where P = $ 2500
r = 10% = 0.1
n = 30 years
F = $ 2500 ( ( 1 + 0.1) ³⁰ - 1 ) / 0.1 = $41135
The potential risks that these three groups fall into the same category is that it is a low percentage and it is not a realistic proposition.
According to the theory of 50, 20, 30, a person's salary should be divided into 3 buckets that are:
- 50% of salary must go towards mandatory expenses (housing rent payments, utilities, medical care, basic food, and transportation).
- 20% of the salary must be used for savings and debt payments (programmed savings for old age or a special event, or the payment of debts such as card payments, bank loans, among others).
- 30% of the salary must be allocated for non-priority expenses (it is the expenditure of money on experiences, objects, or others that are not essential for the individual).
This income distribution is unrealistic because most people spend more than 50% of their salary on compulsory expenses, reducing their economic capacity for other purposes.
In this way, the 20% destined to savings and payment of debts would be a minimum amount of the salary, which could have serious consequences such as:
- Inability to pay debts
- Inability to save for the future
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/12198015
1= A. Balancing a back account
2= B. bank statement
Primary research To get a complete picture of your target market,
Answer:
Option B - There are significant diseconomies of scope is the correct answer.
Explanation:
Option A is, not a condition that could improve the probability that the justice department would approve the merger.
The Herfindahl-Hirschman index is based on a restricted definition of the product market or the impact of foreign competition, the merger might be allowed.
It might also be permitted if one of the firms is in financial trouble, or if significant economies of scale exist in the industry.
Significant diseconomies of scope would only serve to make the merger less likely to be accepted.
Therefore, option B is the correct answer.
