Since the question doesn’t mention the level of risk that Alex would be able to stomach, it can be assumed that the financial institution that can satisfy Alex’s risk appetite would be (B) mutual funds.
Mutual funds are <em>investment programs where clients can hold portfolio with diverse instruments, and thus the risks are much more diversified than other types of investments. </em>Thus if Alex would rather have a mixture of high-risk, medium-risk, and low-risk products, a mutual fund firm would be better equipped to handle his needs.
Answer:
More money and enganment to whoever they're purchasing from.
Explanation:
Answer: I would use Compromising conflict resolution style
Explanation:
Since Both of the parties have equal power,lack trust/openness for problem solving
and they are both under time pressure to resolve the conflict which means as a manager I would use COMPROMISING CONFLICT RESOLUTION STYLE reason been that this type of conflict resolution style would enable me find a solution that will partially please both of the parties and to help encourage both of the parties involve in the conflict to give in some points about the conflict which will inturn help me to balance the needs of both of the parties.
Answer:
The right answer to this question is to choose higher-risk projects over low-risk projects.
Explanation:
Jenner is a multi-division company that uses its overall WACC as a discount rate for all proposed projects. Every division is in a different line of business, every of which poses risks specific to those divisions.
WACC lowered the overall expense of the various sources of finance by using the mechanics involved in calculating the costs of these sources of fluidity. Organizations use the hybrid structure that costs the customer to the organization to save the source of funding in WACC.
The court would rule in sue's favor because courts seldom inquire into the adequacy of consideration.
In contracts, <em>consideration </em>just means the <em>exchange of things of value</em>. There has to be an exchange of things of value for there to be an enforceable contract, and in this case a watch was exchanged for money. It is rare for courts to rule on how much consideration is expected because people are generally free to set their own prices and not sell if the price is too low. That is not for a court to decide (in most cases).
