Answer:
Option (B) is correct.
Explanation:
1 pound = $1.60
1 pound = $1.50
So, there is a depreciation in the value of pound relative to the dollar and appreciation in the value of dollar relative to the pound.
Now, suppose a resident of united states purchase some quantity of goods(say, 20 shirts) from the seller in United kingdom.
Price of each shirt = 2 pounds
Hence,
Before the change in exchange rate, then the buyer have to pay in dollars:
= 20 × (2 × $1.60)
= 20 × 3.2
= $64
After the change in exchange rate, then the buyer have to pay in dollars:
= 20 × (2 × $1.50)
= 20 × 3
= $60
Hence, the amount paid by the resident of united states reduced because of the fall in exchange rate. Now, they have to pay less for the same amount of commodities. This shows that there is an appreciation in the currency of US relative to UK.
If i am understanding the question correctly it is false.....but i am a week late soo either way i guess it doesnt matter xD
Answer:
C. phase out all trade and tariff barriers among Canada, Mexico, and the U.S
Explanation:
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
This agreement creates a bloc of trade for the region, Canada, Mexico and the US.
As state on "C" It result in the elimination or reduction of barriers to trade and investment between the countries.
It will be replaced in the following year by the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA)
But NAFTA will keep working until this new agreement is finished.
Strategic aliance is collaborative relationship between independent firms. Though this relationship the partnering firms do not invest in one another, which means <span>do not create an equity partnership</span>
<span>Example is when Cisco systems inc. of San Jose, California, and Tata consultancy services of Mumbai, India, entered into their strategic aliance. They both continued to develop market-ready infrastructure and network solutions for customers, but they relied on each other to provide the training and skills that one or the other might have lacked.</span>
Answer:
the answer for the first question is $166667.
the answer for the second question is $210526
the answer for the third question is An inverse.
Explanation:
given information that i will invest in a $10000 scholarship that will pay forever.
the interest rate charged is 6.00% per annum therefore this is a perpetuity present value problem where there is streams of income forever therefore we use the formula :
Pv of perpetuity= Cf/r
where Cr is the cash flows payed by the single investment forever in this case $10000 then r is the interest rate of the investment amount which is 6% in this case.
Pv of Perpetuity= $10000/6%
=$166667 therefore i must invest this amount to get the scholarship running with streams of $10000 forever.
in the second problem if now the interest rate is changed from 6% to 4.75% then the amount to be invested would be :
Pv of perpetuity = $10000/4.75%
=$210526 therefore this is the amount to be invested for a forever $10000 stream of incomes for a scholarship.
the relationship is indirect cause as the interest rate decreases the present value of the perpetuity that must be invested increases.
