Answer:
The correct answer to the following question will be "$76,986".
Explanation:
Although the organization is reportedly going to pay $14.00 per unit, even before manufactured throughout the corporation, cost and save per unit will become the variation among current value as well as production costs without set rate. The cost of operating expenses will not be included to measure the gain because the idle resources of the company would be included and would not raise the fixed costs.
Therefore the cost differential would be as follows:
⇒ 
On putting the values in the above formula, we get
⇒ 
⇒ 
⇒ 
Answer:
The remaining part of the question is:
The interest payments are reinvested at the:
a.Coupon rate.
b.Current yield.
c.Yield to maturity at the time of the investment.
d.Prevailing yield to maturity at the time interest payments are received.
e.The average yield to maturity throughout the investment period
<u>Correct Answer:</u>
b.<u>Current yield. </u>
<u></u>
Explanation:
<span>By diversifying, investors help minimize : Risk
In investment term, diversifying means placing your investments into SEVERAL TYPE of investments (Such as placing some on bonds, placing some on IT market, placing some investment on food products, etc). By doing this, you won't lost all of your investment in case one type of market crashed down.
</span>
This is an example of <u>"Sales-oriented pricing objective".</u>
Pricing objectives are the objectives that control your business in setting the expense of an item or administration to your current or potential customers.
Sales-oriented pricing objectives try to help volume or market share. A volume increment is estimated against an organization's very own deals crosswise over explicit eras.
An organization's market share estimates its deals against the offers of different organizations in the business. Volume and market share are autonomous of one another, as an adjustment in one doesn't really enact an adjustment in the other.
Answer:
Certainly, they cannot prevail. The contract terms stated clearly that "time is of the essence of this contract." The Bassos and Miceli and Slonim Development Corp did not actually respect this contract term.
The contract was expected to have closed at 10:00 am on May 16, 1988, and not after. By the time that Dierberg left the venue, the contract should have been finalized. Alternatively, if there were unseen delays, Dierberg should have been informed at least 30 minutes before 10:00 am.
Explanation:
The argument by Miceli and Slonim does not hold water. The contract did require closing exactly at 10:00 AM, and not some time on May 16. In my considered opinion, suing Dierberg is a waste of court time and process.
