Answer:
a.equity method investments where a company has holding of less than 20 %
Answer
The answer and procedures of the exercise are attached in the following archives.
Explanation
You will find the procedures, formulas or necessary explanations in the archive attached below. If you have any question ask and I will aclare your doubts kindly.
Explanation:
Trade offs are something in which there are two things and we choose one of them according to our own preference or need. This is and should be our personal decision, but when Corporations and Governments decide on what to choose between two things, there would might be a negative impact on someone's life. He might feel controlled by the corporations and governments. For example, if corporations of CNG decides with the government that it is better for consumers to use CNG than Petrol in their cars, and lowers taxes on CNG and encourage consumers to shift towards CNG, then this trade off will have an impact of being controlled by the big giants. The choice should be of consumer's. The consumer should be the one who will trade off between things who are preferable for him.
Because R&D initiatives are expected to yield a greater rate of return, businesses seek a huge quantity at a cheap cost.
<h3>What are the necessary finances?</h3>
To calculate your financial requirement, divide your anticipated family commitment by two and the cost of attendance (COA) for even a school (EFC). Although COA varies from university to university, your EFC does not change no matter which school you attend.
<h3>Which four necessities in terms of financial are there?</h3>
For the majority of Americans, job is the first step toward financial stability. People need revenue to meet expenditures and for budgetary considerations. They also must invest for the future, save cash for a rainy morning, borrow money to acquire assets, plus insure yourself against shocks.
To know more about financial visit:
brainly.com/question/1537763
#SPJ4
Answer:
There are no options listed, but what I can tell you for sure is that John's actions were both unethical and illegal.
What John did is unethical because it is not moral and it goes against all the principles that guide professional conduct. John also did something illegal because he was an accomplice in committing fraud against the company. He knowingly benefited from the accountant's illegal actions, and that is basically the legal definition of an accomplice to a crime.
