Answer:
C) prohibited as a likely exaggeration
Explanation:
The statement being made by the adviser is prohibited as a likely exaggeration. An investment adviser has the moral obligation to advise the client so that they may increase their wealth safely through informed decisions. This does not include exaggerated price predictions. Regardless of past performance, an adviser cannot state that an asset will double in the near future or in the future in general because no one can know what will happen in the future and making such a prediction can be dangerous for the client.
Umm, the cavs considering 1:they're better and 2: nicks isn't even a team it's the knicks.
The (D) Robinson-Patman act makes it a crime for a seller to sell at lower prices in one geographic area than elsewhere in the United States to eliminate competition or a competitor.
<h3>
What is the Robinson-Patman act?</h3>
- The Robinson-Patman Act is a federal statute that was created in 1936 to make pricing discrimination illegal.
- The Robinson-Patman Act amends the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 in order to prohibit "unfair" competition.
- The Robinson-Patman Act is a federal statute that prohibits pricing discrimination.
- The law prohibits wholesalers from charging varying pricing to different merchants.
- The act only applies to interstate commerce and includes an exemption for "cooperative associations."
- Economists and legal scholars have strongly opposed the measure on a variety of grounds.
Therefore, the (D) Robinson-Patman act makes it a crime for a seller to sell at lower prices in one geographic area than elsewhere in the United States to eliminate competition or a competitor.
Know more about Robinson-Patman act here:
brainly.com/question/15587574
#SPJ4
Complete question:
The __________ makes it a crime for a seller to sell at lower prices in one geographic area than elsewhere in the United States to eliminate competition or a competitor.
Multiple Choice
(A) Federal Trade Commission Act
(B) Wheeler-Lea amendment
(C) Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act
(D) Robinson-Patman act
(E) Free Exercise Act
Answer:
yes, it is true
Explanation:
the expected value of game 1 = ($30 x 0.5) + (-$1 x 0.5) = $15 - $0.50 = $14.50
- since the expected value of game 1 is very high compared to the risk of losing, then most of us would probably want to play that game.
the expected value of game 2 = ($2,000 x 0.5) + (-$19,000 x 0.5) = $1,000 - $9,500 = -$8,500
- on the contrary, since the expected value of game 2 is negative and the risk of losing a large amount is very high, very few people will be willing to play game 2 without being paid to do so.
