Answer:
Option (B) 5.5%
Explanation:
Data provided in the question :
Factor Risk premium
Factor 1 5%
Factor 2 3%
Beta of stock A on factor 1 = 1.4
Beta of stock A on factor 2 = 0.5
Expected return = 14%
Now,
Expected return
= Risk free rate + (Beta of factor 1 × Risk premium of factor 1) + (Beta of factor 2 × Risk premium of factor 2)
or
14% = Risk free rate + (1.4 × 5%) + (0.5 × 3%)
or
14% = Risk free rate + ( 7% + 1.5% )
or
Risk free rate = 5.5%
Hence,
Option (B) 5.5%
Answer:
$525,000
Explanation:
The computation of the net inflow or outflow is shown below:
= Total outflow - total inflow
where,
Total outflow = ∈2,000,000 × $1.05 = $2,100,000
Total inflow = ∈1,500,000 × $1.05 = $1,575,000
Now put these values to the above formula
So, the value would equal to
= $2,100,000 - $1,575,000
= $525,000
This amount shows a net outflow as total outflow is greater than the total inflow.
Answer:
The entry to record bad debt expense:
Debit Bad debts expense $24,446
Credit Allowance for Doubtful Accounts $24,446
Explanation:
1. At December 31, 2020,
Bad debt are estimated: 11% x $204,600 = $22,506
Before adjusting, Allowance for Doubtful Accounts had a debit balance of $1,940. So Bad debt expense will be: $1,940 + $22,506 = $24,446
The adjustment to record Bad debt expense and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts:
Debit Bad debts expense $24,446
Credit Allowance for Doubtful Accounts $24,446
Answer:
less desirable to other investors
Explanation:
<u>Given</u>: Current fixed coupon rate 5%
Market rate of interest 5%
New Market Rate of Interest 6%
Value of a bond is inversely related to economy interest rate or the yield to maturity (YTM). Value of a bond is expressed by the following equation:
wherein, C = Coupon rate of interest
YTM = Market Rate of Interest or interest rate in the economy or investor's expectation
n= Years to maturity
RV = Redemption value
In the given case, C = YTM i.e par value bond. When ytm rises to 6%, the value of the bond shall fall making such a bond less attractive since it represents lower coupon payments than investor expectations.
Thus, now the bond would be less desirable to other investors.
M1 money growth in the US was about 16% in 2008, 7% in 2009 and 9% in 2010. Over the same time period, the yield on 3-month Treasury bills fell from almost 3% to close to 0%. Given these high rates of money growth, why did interest rates fall, rather than increase? What does this say about the income, price level and expected-inflation effects?
Higher money growth (increase in the money supply) should have the following effects:
Liquidity effect indicates that this growth in money should shift money supply to the right, which should decrease the interest rate.
Income effect indicates that the growth in money should increase income levels, which should increase the demand for money and shift the demand curve to the right. This should increase the interest rate.
The price level effect indicates that the growth in money should increase price levels, which should increase the demand for money and shift the demand curve to the right. This should also increase the interest rate.
During this time period, unemployment was high, economic growth was weak and policymakers were more concerned with deflation than they were with inflation.
Therefore, the expected inflation effect was almost non-existent (due to the concerns with deflation) and the liquidity effect dominated all other effects, which made interest rates fall.
<span>This is illustrated with the first graph on slide 32 of the Theory of Money Powerpoints.</span>
