Willy should buy(a) no insurance since the cost per dollar of insurance exceeds the probability of a flood
Explanation:
Willy's only source of wealth is his chocolate factory. He has the utility function p(cf)1/2 + (1 − p)(cnf)1/2,, where p is the probability of a flood, 1 - p is the probability of no flood, and cf and in are his wealth contingent on a flood and on no flood, respectively. <u>The probability of a flood is p = 1/6. </u>The value of Willy's factory is $500,000 if there is no flood and $0 if there is a flood. Willy can buy insurance where if he buys $x worth of insurance, he must pay the insurance company $2x/17 whether there is a flood or not but he gets back $x from the company if there is a flood. Willy should buy
The answer for the above statement is option ( A.) no insurance since the cost per dollar of insurance exceeds the probability of a flood .
It is because the probability of flood as given in the question is only 1/6, whereas the chances of no flood are 5/6. So that means that he should not buy the insurance because the probability of the flood is comparatively less than the amount Willy has to pay to the insurance company and the amount paid back to willy by the insurance company is $ x worth of insurance
Answer:
feedback
Explanation:
Based on the scenario being described within the question it can be said that the individuals that test-drive the vehicles are the feedback. In the communication method this refers to the audiences response that allows "you" as a company to evaluate the effectiveness of your message, product, or promotion. Which in this specific scenario the people that test-drive the car allow you to understand what they like and dislike about the cars in order to improve on it and sell more.
If General Contracting is sued by Rockville for refusing to complete the job, General Contracting can have the contract discharged on an impracticability basis.
<h3>What would make a contract impractical?</h3>
When parties to a contract agree to a contract that based on normal circumstances and due course, and one party discovers that they cannot complete the contract based on unforeseen circumstances, the contact can be ruled impractical.
General Contracting could not foresee the solid granite foundation and so they could not have known they would pay so much to complete the project. The contract can therefore be impracticable.
Find out more on impracticable contracts at brainly.com/question/10160005.
Answer: True
Explanation: Departmentalization is a process of grouping an entities activities into units. These units take charge of different work process and the working together of each units aids the organisation to achieve its goals.
Answer:
(During write-off) March 11
Dr Bad debt expense $9,100
Cr Accounts receivable $9,100
(at the time of collection) March 29
Dr Accounts receivable $9,100
Cr Bad debts expense $9,100
Dr Cash $9,100
Cr Accounts receivable $9,100
Explanation:
On March 11, Dexter made an entry to write-off bad debts in the amount of $9,100. Dexter Co., charged it directly to Accounts receivable because the company uses direct write-off method. During the collection we have 2 steps to consider; First, On March 29 during the unexpected collection, Dexter shoud set up the reversal of the write-off entry which they had made last March 11. So we debit Accounts receivable and credit bad debts in the amount of $9,100. Second, is to record the collection, debit cash and credit Accounts receivable in the amount of $9,100.
