Complete question:
Consider the game of chicken. Two players drive their cars down the center of the road directly at each other. Each player chooses SWERVE or STAY. Staying wins you the admiration of your peers (a big payoff) only if the other player swerves. Swerving loses face if the other player stays. However, clearly, the worst output is for both players to stay! Specifically, consider the following payouts. Player two Stay swervePlayer one stay -6 -6 2 -2 swerve -2 2 1 1
a) Does either player have a dominant strategy?
b) Suppose that Player B has adopted the strategy of Staying 1/5 of the time and swerving 4/5 of the time. Show that Player A is indifferent between swerving
and staying.
c) If both player A and Player B use this probability mix, what is the chance that they crash?
Explanation:
a. There is no dominant strategy for either player. Suppose two players agree to live. Then the best answer for the player is to swerve(-6 versus -2). Yet if the player turns two, the player will remain one (2 vs 1).
b. Player B must be shown to be indifferent among swerving and staying if it implements a policy (stay= 1⁄4, swerving= 5/4).
When we quantify a predicted award on the stay / swerving of Player A, we get
E(stay)= (1/5)(-6)+ (4/5)(2)= 2/5 E(swerve)= (1/5)(-2)
c. They both remain 1/5 of the time. The risk of a crash (rest, stay) is therefore (1/5)(1/5)= 1/25= 4%
Answer:
Comment for statement A - The firm must still compare the IRR with the opportunity cost of capital when using the IRR rule. Therefore, even with the IRR method, the appropriate discount rate must still be specified.
Comment for statement B - There should be a higher discount rate on risky cash flows than the rate used to discount less risky cash flows.
Making use of the payback rule is equivalent to using the NPV rule with a zero discount rate for cash flows before the payback period and an infinite discount rate for cash flows thereafter.
Explanation:
a)
“I like the IRR rule. I can use it to rank projects without having to specify a discount rate”
The firm must still compare the IRR with the opportunity cost of capital when using the IRR rule. Therefore, even with the IRR method, the appropriate discount rate must still be specified.
b.
“I like the payback rule. As long as the minimum payback period is short, the rule makes sure that the company takes no borderline projects. That reduces risk”
There should be a higher discount rate on risky cash flows than the rate used to discount less risky cash flows.
Making use of the payback rule is equivalent to using the NPV rule with a zero discount rate for cash flows before the payback period and an infinite discount rate for cash flows thereafter.
Since the equation would be:
The inequality would be:
It would be :
The most there can be are 48 attendees.
Tell me if this helps by marking the answer, thank you!!
Answer:
Using LIFO:
TOTAL Sales : $19,875,500
COGS = $11,021,250
GROSS PROFIT = $8,853,750
Explanation:
KINDLY CHECK ATTACHED PICTURE
Answer:
b. $5m
Explanation:
If we purchase another company for $50m and the company you purchase has assets with a fair value of $75m and liabilities with a fair value of $30m. The amount of goodwill we should record in this transaction is: $5m
Goodwill upon acquisition of companies is derived by subtracting the fair value of NET ASSETS from the TOTAL CONSIDERATION (i.e the price paid to acquire the company)
In the scenario, the value of Net Assets is the value of the fairvalue of the assets less the fair value of the liabilities which is $75 - $30 = $45
While the Total Consideration = $50
Therefore Goodwill = $50m - $45m = $5m
