Answer:
6.5%
Explanation:
Data given in the question
Beta of the stock = 0.9
Expected return = 9%
A risk-free asset = 4%
By considering the above information, the expected return on a portfolio is
= Risk - free asset × equally basis + expected rate of return × equally basis
= 4% × 50% + 9% × 50%
= 2% + 4.5%
= 6.5%
Since we have to find out the expected return on equally invested so we considered the risk free asset and the expected rate of return
Therefore we ignored the beta of the stock
Answer:
False.
Explanation:
To close the underapplied Manufacturing Overhead account requires that the Cost of Goods Sold is debited, say with $100 while the Manufacturing Overhead account is credited with the same amount. Underapplied Manufacturing Overhead account means that a debit balance is left after applying the overhead to production. To close this debit, therefore, a credit entry is required to the manufacturing overhead account. The corresponding debit entry goes to the Cost of Goods Sold, or this may be apportioned among Cost of Goods Sold, Finished Goods Inventory, and Work-in-Process, as may be the case.
Answer:
You cant change your name unless you message the mods and say it has personal information or give them a reason y you want to change it. Same i wish I changed mine. lol
Explanation:
Answer:
the correct answer is the option D: neither firm has a dominant strategy
Explanation:
To begin with, if both firms decides to add pizza to their menu then they both will be competing with that new item in the market and therefore that none of them will be dominant due to the fact that both are now producing and selling the good. Moreover, it is not a nash equilibrium due to the fact that it is not stated if the players know the other one strategy and even though that the best strategy to take in order to establish one's dominance is to add pizza to the menu, what happens here is that both take that strategy making it in a situation where both tried their best to improve their situation and ended up using the same strategy.
From the described case in the question, it is clear that Frank believes in doctrine called at-will employment or employment at-will.
At-will employment is a <u>U.S term used for a condition where an employee can be fired at anytime and without any warning as long as the reason isn’t illegal by law</u>.
This type of doctrine is no longer the main doctrine used in most U.S states by the 20th century, but it was commonplace during the late 19th century.
