Answer:
c. This statement is false.
Explanation:
Anti-Trust Department is the department in the united states that could enforced the anti-trusted law. They have the right to investigate onto the collusion, this could harm the competition that could lead the welfare loss
Since large share could be considered so it should be controlled and investigated
Therefore the given statement is false
Answer:
B. $30,000 and $15,000
Explanation:
We can compute this as follows,
We need to calculate flexed budget costs for the production of 125 boots.
Budgeted / boots are as follows,
Leather cost / boot = $240
Direct Labor / boot = $120
The costs that should have been for 125 boots are then,
Leather = 125 * 240 = $30,000
Direct Labor = 125 * 120 = $15,000
Hope that helps.
Check.
Hope this helps! :)
Answer:
a.cost of common equity is 14.40%
b.WACC is 10.62%
c.Midwest Electric Company should accept project A since it has a rate of return higher than WACC of 10.62%
Explanation:
The cost of common equity can be ascertained using the stock price formula and changing the subject of the formula to r(cost of common equity)
Stock price=Do*(1+g)/(r-g)
stock price is $20
g is the dividend growth rate at 4%
Do is the dividend just paid $2
20=2*(1+4%)/(r-4%)
20=2.08/r-4%
20(r-4%)=2.08
r-4%=2.08/20
r=(2.08/20)+4%
r=14.40%
WACC=Ke*E/V+Kd*D/V*(1-t)
Ke is the cost of equity of 14.40%
E is the 55% or 0.55
D is 45% or 0.45
V=E+D=045+0.55=1
Kd is the cost of debt which is 10%
t is the tax rate at 40% or 0.40
WACC=14.40%*0.55/1+10%*0.45/1*(1-0.4)
WACC=(14.40%*0.55/1)+(10%*0.45/1*0.6)
WACC=10.62%
Midwest Electric Company should accept project A since it has a rate of return higher than WACC of 10.62%
Hello There!
Your answer would be <u>C). A tortious act may also be a criminal act.</u>
The reason why C would be your answer is because a tortious act is something that harms someone in any way. The reason why it "may" be a criminal act is because determine if the tortious act is a criminal act really depends on the scenario that is occurring. For example, someone could cause a tortious act in a way of self defense, this scenario would be debatable because the person that committed the tortious act had a valid reason in doing so, and that was protecting themselves. But, if a person was to cause a tortious act by hurting someone to steal from them, then that would definitely be a criminal act because they are performing dangerous things to someone else, and the person could file a lawsuit against it.
Let's dive into why the other answer choices are incorrect. We can use the old fashion process of elimination:
Answer choice "A). A tortious act is always a criminal act" is incorrect because it is not always a criminal act, it depends on the scenario it's in. This is the reason why this answer choice would be eliminated.
Answer choice "B). A criminal act is always a tortious act" is incorrect because there are MANY criminal acts that doesn't harm anyone, for example, tax evasion (not paying taxes) is a criminal act, but does not cause any harm to anyone. This is the reason why this answer choice would be eliminated.
Answer choice "D). A tortious act is the same as a contract dispute" is incorrect because harming someone is not the same as not doing what a contract says. A contact dispute is when someone that's part of a contract did not do a duty that the contract says that they're suppose to do, and that usually doesn't have to be any harm to anyone. That would not be the same as a tortious act, harming someone. This is the reason why this answer choice would be eliminated.
