What Muhammad found unsatisfactory about the Certificate of deposit is that the return on the investment was too low.
Basically, a certificate of deposit is under a Short term investment instrument which yields low interest value for investors.
The Short term investment yields on investment are low because it is for short period of time and involves lesser risks. Other instruments under Short term investment includes Money market etc.
Therefore, the option C is correct because the Certificate of deposit was seen as unsatisfactory by Muhammad because the return on the investment was too low.
Learn more about this here
<em>brainly.com/question/6564414</em>
Answer:
B) Inventory turnover ratios
Explanation:
Inventory turnover measures how many times a business sells and replaces its merchandise or materials inventory during an accounting period, usually a year.
One of the basic goals of JIT is to lower the total inventories in a company, therefore increasing the inventory turnover ratio. This reduces the company's operating costs.
Answer:
$5,000
Explanation:
Calculation to determine what amount should Martin report as investment income from its ownership of Foster's shares
Using this formula
Amount to be reported as investment income=Net income*Percentage of outstanding shares purchased
Let plug in the formula
Amount to be reported as investment income=$25,000 x 20%
Amount to be reported as investment income= $5,000
Therefore The amount that Martin should report as investment income from its ownership of Foster's shares is $5,000
Answer:
Number of meals = 100
Explanation:
The amount that the restaurant plan to spend on ads = $1000
The average selling price of meal = $10
The cost of food is = 30%
At breakeven, the total revenue is equal to total cost.
Total cost of advertsing = total revenue
So, the number of meals = $1000 / 10 = 100
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
