Answer:
It's best to invest in the second economy
Explanation:
The question does not provide information on the hypothetical economic expectations of the two economies, but as a risk-averse investor, it's a better idea to try to "spread" the risk instead of concentrating it.
In the first economy, conditions might or might not be good. If they are good, returns will be extraordinary because all stocks will provide good returns, but if conditions take a turn for the worse, all stocks prices will fall and the financial consequences will be catastrophic.
In the second economy, results might never be as good as in the first economy, but they also will not ever be as bad. The risk is spread between various stocks, and while some may fall in price, others will rise, and viceversa. For a risk-adverse investor, this a far better option.
Answer:
A. that involves double-counting.
Explanation:
Imagine a company that produces furniture. If we would include the wood, the nails, the wood paint, etc., were included in the calculation plus the furniture itself, you would be double-counting the cost of the manufactured furniture. If you consider waste materials, then you would be adding even more costs. That is why you only consider finished goods.
In pouches duh silly goose lol
Answer:
Option D) 1,200 shares held at a cost basis of $37.50 per share
Explanation:
Data provided in the question:
Number of shares of ABC stocks purchased by the customer = 1,000
Price per share of ABC stock = $44
Commission paid = $1.00 per share
Stock dividend declared = 20%
Now,
The Payment of a stock dividend will increase the number of shares held by the investor
also,
each share is theoretically worth less after the stock dividend is paid.
Therefore,
The number of shares customer will have = Shares purchased × (1 + Dividend declared)
= 1000 × ( 1 + 0.20)
= 1200 shares
Also,
Cost basis for the share = Selling price + Commission
= $44 + $1
= $45
Thus,
The adjusted cost basis = $45 ÷ 1.20
= $37.50 per share
Hence,
Option D) 1,200 shares held at a cost basis of $37.50 per share
Answer: It is better to delete the check than void the check in order to erase all records of the transaction
Explanation:
When a check is deleted, it should be noted that such check is being removed entirely from the system and also the transaction of the check will no longer be visible anywhere in the system.
Voiding a check mean that the amount of the transaction on the check will be changed to zero but it should be ited that a record of such transaction will still be kept in QuickBooks but deleting it will help remove the transaction in QuickBooks.
When a check is voided, the check details like the check number, account, payee, memo and date will be unchanged, even though the amount will change to zero.
Therefore, the option that says that it is better to delete the check than void the check in order to erase all records of the transaction isn't true.
