Answer: smaller pipe
Explanation: for the first alternative that is constructing with bid size pipe which cost total of $115 million throughout the 50 years and a pumping cost which cost $25000 less than the smaller pipe for the next 16 years of which after those years, it will be equal.
While the smaller pipe cost $65million + $100million = $165million then plus the pumping cost which is equally higher than the big pipe cost . Already there is a difference in cost(minus pumping cost)= $165-115= $50million.
And then $25,000 *16 years= $400000 .
So the total difference in cost for the first 16 years is $50.4 million.
So now with interest rate of 8% you'll see that much capital is used in the smaller pipe , so if both pipe system receive interest rate of 8%, the smaller pipe will have more interest than the bigger.
<span>Purchasing something that you already have enough of leads to decreasing marginal utility. This rule influences individuals to spend their money across a variety of consumable goods and services rather than concentrate all of their spending in one area, such as vehicles, food or clothing. When a person spends their money purchasing products or services beyond their immediate needs, then they will enjoy the spending power of their money much less.</span>
Answer:
8.934%
Explanation:
r(m) = r(f) + [b × r(p)]
r(m) = expected return = 9.975%
r(f) = risk free rate = 2%
b = beta = 1.45
r(p) = risk premium
so,r(p) = (9.975 - 2) ÷ 1.45
= 5.5%
for portfolio,
r(m) = r(f) + (b1 × w1 + b2 × w2) × r(p)
b1 = 1.45, w1 = (5 ÷ 5.5), b2 = 1.25, w2 = (0.5 ÷ 5.5)
r(m) = 2 + [1.45 × (5/5.5) + 1.25 × (0.5/5.5)] + 5.5
= 2 + 1.32 + 0.114 + 5.5
= 8.934%
Answer:
$6,000
Explanation:
Purchase price = $75,000
Remaining life = 75 months
The amortization amount for each month (Am) is given by the total purchase price divided by the remaining life of the copyright.
Since the purchase was made in July, there are 6 months left in the current year. Therefore, Jorge's total amortization amount during the current year is:
Answer:
A) The firm can ratify Haskin's actions and take over the contract.
Explanation:
Hanskin's was not explicitely allowed to buy the property in Arizona, but he did it with the intention of increasing the amount of assets that the real estate company holds.
The board of directors should simply take over the contract as long as it is profitable (it most likely is), and analyze whether to change its policies about property purchasing or not, because requiring a board resolution for each one of them can make the process slow and increase opportunity costs.
