Answer: 10%
Explanation:
You can use Excel to solve for this.
The investment will be in negative as shown below.
Input the increase in net annual cash flows 7 times to represent 7 years.
IRR = 9.9999%
= 10%
Answer and Explanation:
Clude had purchased the raw land three years ago for $150000 and treated it like a inventory. she constributed the property to south peak investments LLC in exchange for 10% profit interest. but south peak will hold it for investment purpose.
a) after 4 years from Cludes contribution south peak sells the land for $3000000 the gain would be $3000000 - 1500000 = 1500000. the character is of long term capital gains since ths LLC held ot as investment asset
b) if south peak sells the asset after 5 years six months then also the gain would be sa,e and character would be same since LLC has held the asset fore investments purpose and at the same time its holding period is above one year.
Answer:
If negative externalities pop up in a market, the equilibrium is higher than the efficient output.
Thus when it comes to the government rectification regarding the side effects of that commercial , activity, if the amount of bags is (1) then the new equilibrium would be: <em>p*= $17</em>
Answer:
9.2%
Explanation:
expected return of the investment = potential return x chance of each return happening
Expected return of the investment:
- 20% chance of occurring x 30% potential return = 0.2 x 30% = 6%
- 50% chance of occurring x 10% potential return = 0.5 x 10% = 5%
- 30% chance of occurring x -6% potential return = 0.3 x -6% = -1.8%
- total expected return = 9.2%
Answer: charge a monopoly price
Explanation:
Patents provide an exclusive right to the firm in the production and sale of a drug. This provides the firm exclusive market power to decide the price and the quantity and therefore the firm is able to charge a monopoly price and also earn monopoly profits.
When an existing patent expires and the generic producers enter the market, the price reduces due to an increase in the supply of the erstwhile patented drug. This will reduce the monopoly profit of incumbent producers. Therefore, they will seek to deter the entry of generic drug makers in order to safeguard their monopoly profits and price.
Therefore, incumbents were willing to give enough to potential entrants so as to make them delay entry to charge a monopoly price.
The effect of the 2013 Supreme Court decision allowing legal action against these companies is increase in the cost of pay-for-delay agreements and also reduce incumbent profits from these agreements.
