Answer:
The outlook for the economy and the markets is for an improvement.
Explanation:
p/e ratio = price / earning
the higher the equity, the lower the ratio
If the p/e ratio is expected to be higher, it means that the equity would have to be lower this year than next year .
this implies that earnings would be higher next year and p/e ratio would be lower. this means there is a positive economic outlook
Answer:
The correct answer is letter "D": face morale and motivation problems.
Explanation:
A high degree of formalization will result in reduced creativity as workers are told to behave in a specific way. In such organizations, strategic decision-making often happens only when there is a problem. A highly formalized structure is usually related to reduced motivation and morale issues among employees.
Answer:
B) $56,130
Explanation:
The cash flow statement shows how the company's operating, investing and financing activities affect the flow of cash by generation or use.
The investing activities section is where the purchase of fixed assets and the amount received for the disposal of these assets are accounted for.
Given that a gain was realized and the book value of the asset was given, the amount received for the disposal
= $5,278 + $50,852
= $56,130
This is the amount that will be reported in the investing activities section of the statement of cash flows as an inflow.
Answer:
<em>Ratification by Principal One of the criteria for enactment is that all material truths involved in the transaction must be known to the Principal. Van Stavern was not aware of Hash's behaviour. </em>
He did not realize that somehow the steel is being shipped under his name, and that the shipments were being billed him directly. Unlike liability through obvious authority, approval by the principal is a positive act by which he or she acknowledges the agent's illegal actions.
Just a principal would ratify; thus, Van Stavern was not directly imputed to information by the invoices and checks signed by Van Stavern's workers.
The court stated that the use of corporate checks was further proof that Van Stavern regarded the expenditures as business, not private. So Van Stavern could not be held personally liable.
Remember that on Sutton Steel that's not excessively harsh. Sutton understood it was working with a building company and did not seek to get the personal approval of the contract from Van Stavern.
<em>Lawfully, Sutton's agreement in this case is called an unaccepted offer which can be withdrawn at any time.</em>
<em></em>
