Answer:
c. It should process further because the reduction in the cost of the trees is irrelevant.
Explanation:
For the purpose of this Decision,
Benefit of processing further = Sales Value after processing – Sale Value before processing – Further Processing costs
Cost of acquiring trees is a sunk cost already incurred and hence is not relevant
Hence, benefit of processing = (0.80-0.20)*350 – 50
= $160
Hence, the answer is
c. It should process further because the reduction in the cost of the trees is irrelevant.
Taxable Income.
I hope this helps! :)
Answer:
No, we can’t say
Explanation:
In this question, we are asked to decide if we can say that Guatemala’s standard of living grew more than that of the US’ standard of living between the years 1993 and 2003 given the pointers in the question.
We cannot say that this is correct because of the following reasons;
As observed from the question, the US growth rate was calculated between the years 1948-2003, which is indicative of a 55 year span. Now, comparing this with that of Guatemala, we can see that the span here is just 10 years I.e from 1993 to 2003.
Also, we were not provided with the population growth rate in both countries and this makes it difficult to judge which of the two countries have a better growth in terms of standard of living
Answer:
The rate that will give the same effective annual rate of return is 0.033%.
Explanation:
a) Data and Calculations:
APR = 12%
Semi-annual compound rate = 6% (12/2)
Assumed calendar days in a year = 360 days
Effective daily rate of return = 12%/360 = 0.033%
b) The conversion of semi-annual compounding to daily compounding results in reduced rate of return. In this case, we assume that there are 360 days in a year. Since the APR = 12%, it means that the daily rate of return will be 12%/360, which is 0.033%.
A federal agency that regulates the stock market
