Answer:
The 1-year HPR for the second stock is <u>12.84</u>%. The stock that will provide the better annualized holding period return is <u>Stock 1</u>.
Explanation:
<u>For First stock </u>
Total dividend from first stock = Dividend per share * Number quarters = $0.32 * 2 = $0.64
HPR of first stock = (Total dividend from first stock + (Selling price after six months - Initial selling price per share)) / Initial selling price = ($0.64 + ($31.72 - $27.85)) / $27.85 = 0.1619, or 16.19%
Annualized holding period return of first stock = HPR of first stock * Number 6 months in a year = 16.19% * 2 = 32.38%
<u>For Second stock </u>
Total dividend from second stock = Dividend per share * Number quarters = $0.67 * 4 = $2.68
Since you expect to sell the stock in one year, we have:
Annualized holding period return of second stock = The 1-year HPR for the second stock = (Total dividend from second stock + (Selling price after six months - Initial selling price per share)) / Initial selling price = ($2.68+ ($36.79 - $34.98)) / $34.98 = 0.1284, or 12.84%
Since the Annualized holding period return of first stock of 32.38% is higher than the Annualized holding period return of second stock of 12.84%. the first stock will provide the better annualized holding period return.
The 1-year HPR for the second stock is <u>12.84</u>%. The stock that will provide the better annualized holding period return is <u>Stock 1</u>.
Question Completion with Options:
2.5 percentage points
1.5 percentage points
3.5 percentage points
6.5 percentage points
Answer:
Sandra's creditor must determine if the APR for the loan exceeds the average prime offer rate by:
1.5 percentage points
Explanation:
The first mortgage loan principal should not exceed the conforming loan limit for the area where Sandra lives at the time that she secures the loan approval. It behooves on Sandra’s creditor to determine if the annual percentage rate (APR) for the mortgage loan exceeds the average prime offer rate (or the sample rate that is a representative of the APRs charged by creditors for mortgage loans that have low-risk pricing characteristics) by 1.5 percentage points.
Explanation:
- Empathy,
- linguistic and
- cultural barriers.
Barriers to interpersonal communication can result from specific situations and personal differences that contribute to making the communication process more difficult.
However, it is possible to identify and overcome them. In the case of barriers of empathy, they can occur when there is no intention of understanding a certain situation that an individual is sharing with another individual, which may imply resistance in the listener that makes communication difficult , to overcome it, there must be greater understanding on both sides, greater respect and ethics on both sides.
In linguistic and cultural barriers it is necessary that individuals are willing to respect different values and cultures, acting with ethics and respect. When there is a need to communicate with people of different nationalities, as in a multicultural work environment for example, language barriers must be minimized with the learning of a common language, such as English for example.
Answer:
It means that 50,000 dollars was made in 2018
Explanation:
Answer:
A. Jack cannot bring in the evidence of the oral agreement because of the Parol Evidence Rule.
Explanation:
The Parol Evidence rule is a rule in the Anglo-American common law that governs or determines the types or kinds of evidence that parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine the specific terms of a contract.
The rule also prevents introduction of further evidences by a party after a final written document or agreement has been reached. Things such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation process, as evidence of a different intent as to the terms of the contract. The rule states that "extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract". The term " patrol" refers to "word of mouth" hence it is referred to oral pleadings in a court case.
Therefore from the question, Jack cannot bring in evidence of oral agreement into the court for evaluation because of Patrol Evidence Rule.
