PW = FW×(1+i)^-n
PW = $19340×1.15^-1 + $2280×1.15^-2 + $26600×1.15^-3 + $24240×1.15^-4 + $8770×1.15^-5 = $54250.90
hence PW = $54250.90
Answer:
Investment in stock C is $122450.3311 rounded off to $122450.33
Explanation:
A portfolio which is equally as risky as market should have a beta equal to the beta of the market as beta is a measure of the riskiness. The beta of market is always equal to 1. The formula for beta of a portfolio is as follows:
Portfolio beta = wA * Beta A + wB * Beta B + ... + wN * Beta N
Where w represents the weight of each stock in the portfolio.
Let investment in stock C be x
1 = 146000/500000 * 0.91 + 134000/500000 * 1.36 + x/500000 * 1.51
1 = 0.26572 + 0.36448 + 1.51x / 500000
1 - 0.6302 = 1.51x / 500000
0.3698 * 500000 = 1.51x
1844900 / 1.51 = x
x = $122450.3311 rounded off to $122450.33
I believe the answer is B
Increased customization in products and services generally requires <u>more </u>resources and effort.
Customization requires a corporation to shift its marketing version from vendor-orientated to buyer-orientated. The goal is to assist clients higher becoming aware of what they want. Customization allows organizations to have the capacity to evolve personalization and one-to-one advertising projects for the digital advertising environment.
Mass customization in advertising refers to the motion of altering products or services to create custom studies for customers. Many industries use this approach, from retail corporations to software designers or monetary companies to modular home construction.
We have recognized four strategies for customization, which we name collaborative, adaptive, cosmetic, and transparent. While designing or remodeling a product, system, or business unit, managers must examine each of the procedures for possible insights into how nice to serve their customers.
Learn more about advertising here brainly.com/question/14227079
#SPJ4
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.
