what's the question???????
Answer:
k= 5 units
L = 45 units
Explanation:
check the picture attached for full explanation and i hope it helps you
Answer:
a. Suppose GP issues $ 100$100 million of new stock to buy back the debt. What is the expected return of the stock after this transaction?
b. Suppose instead GP issues $ 50.00$50.00 million of new debt to repurchase stock. i. If the risk of the debt does not change, what is the expected return of the stock after this transaction?
ii. If the risk of the debt increases, would the expected return of the stock be higher or lower than when debt is issued to repurchase stock in part (i)?
- If the risk of the debt increases, then the cost of the debt will increase. Therefore, the company will need to spend more money paying the interests related to the new debt which would decrease the ROE compared to the 18% of (i). Since we do not know the new cost of the debt, we cannot know exactly by how much it will affect the ROE, but I assume it will still be higher than the previous ROE.
Explanation:
common stock $200 million
total debt $100 million
required rate of return 15%
cost of debt 6%
current profits = ($200 million x 15%) + ($100 x 6%) = $30 million + $6 million = $36 million
if equity increases to $300 million, ROI = 36/300 = 12
if instead new debt is issued at 6%:
equity 150 million, debt 150 million
cost of debt = 150 million x 6% = $9 million
remaining profits = $36 - $9 = $27 million
ROI = 27/150 = 18%
Answer:
3.5 customers
Explanation:
The computation of the average number of customers in the system is shown below:
= (Arrival rate) ÷ (Service rate - arrival rate)
= (210 customers) ÷ (270 customers - 210 customers)
= (210 customers) ÷ (60 customer)
= 3.5 customers
We simply apply the average number of customers formula so that the correct value can come
All other information which is given is not relevant. Hence, ignored it
<span>During the recent financial crisis, many financial managers and corporate officers have been criticized for (c) Large salaries. This criticism is certainly justified given that most executives received exorbitant compensation despite a plunge in the value of their companies. Thus, their salaries are not justifiable as they are not serving the needs of the shareholders whose interest they should serve. </span>
