Answer: Asset allocation
Explanation:
Research from the 1970s to the 1990s found that over 90 percent of a fund's returns over time is explained by asset allocation.
It should be noted that asset allocation is simply referred to as an investment portfolio technique which balance risk through the division of assets among major categories like stocks, bonds, cash, real estate, and derivatives.
Answer:
Explanation:
The journal entries are shown below:
On April 5
Merchandise Inventory A/c $38,700
To Accounts payable A/c $38,700
(Being calculator purchased on credit)
On April 6
Merchandise inventory A/c Dr $830
To Cash A/c $830
(Being freight is paid by cash)
On April 7
Equipment A/c Dr $28,900
To Accounts payable A/c $28,900
(Being equipment is purchased on credit)
On April 8
Accounts payable A/c Dr $5,400
To Merchandise Inventory A/c$5,400
(Being goods returned)
On April 15
Accounts payable A/c Dr $33,300 ($38,700 - $5,400)
To Cash A/c $32,301
To Merchandise Inventory A/c $999 ($33,300 × 3%)
(Being due amount is paid)
Answer:
trade diversion
Explanation:
Trade diversion results from changing an efficient supplier or trading partner for a not so efficient trading partner. This change usually results from trade agreements or customs unions like NAFTA (or USMCA) or the European Union that benefit less efficient producers.
Trade diversion results in concentrating production in countries with high opportunity costs that do not possess real comparative advantages, but rather political advantages.
Answer:
See explanation section
Explanation:
a) Implementing an urban planning project is an example of speculative risk. There is a huge uncertainty before implementing a project as well as after its implementation regarding its gross outcomes. Projects of any type can completely fail. But there are some cases that they succeed; they may spawn some positive outcomes for a specific community. In any project, there is always a probability of both gain and loss.
b) There are a lot of possible adverse outcomes of this type of risk. Maybe the project is not running sustainably. The ground condition may not be suitable afterward, but inclement weather can reduce the desired project utilitarian. It can attribute an adverse impact on the present environment. Assume that the budget cross before the implementation of that project. Finally, these sorts of adverse outcomes may result in the project’s failure.
c) Project risk can also beget some positive outcomes. In this type of threat, after implementation of that project, it may run sustainably. The ground and atmospheric conditions may appear suitable for this specific project. The approved budget may consider sufficient for the project implementation. That is how; these sorts of positive outcomes may result in the project’s success.
d) These types of risks, both positive and negative, may create unexpected expenses. If we think about the real risks, to manage these risks, we should exploit, share and enhance the specific risk, And in case of managing the harmful risks, we should transfer into a better resource-based project or try to mitigate the negative impacts of the project. Both of these efforts can be considered as unexpected expenses.
e) To protect myself against the real risks, I’ll exploit the specific risk. Because operating the risk is about increasing the chances of positive effects, the risk may have on the project. But if it is about the detrimental risks, I’ll try to avoid the risks by doing some activities like delegating tasks, changing the deadline, and increasing the human resources of the project team.
Answer:
$185,400
Explanation:
Price of next best alternative = $150,000
Expected crash system saving:
= (Probability of crash × cost of a system crash) - (Probability of machine will crash × cost of a system crash)
= [(15% × 500,000) - (5% × 500,000)]
= $75,000 - $25,000
= $50,000
Added operating cost true economic value:
= (Number of hours in 365 days × machine cost per hour) - (Number of hours in 365 days × Next best alternative cost per hour)
= [(2,920 × $20/hr) - (2,920 × $15/hr)]
= $58,400 - $43,800
= $14,600
True economic value (TEV) of the machine:
= Price of next best alternative + Expected crash system saving - Added operating cost true economic value
= $150,000 + $50,000 - $14,600
= $185,400
