Answer:
$60,000
Explanation:
Depreciation expense using the double declining method = Depreciation factor x cost of the asset
Depreciation factor = 2 x (1/useful life) = 2 / 8 = 0.25
Depreciation expense in 2019 = 0.25 x $320,000 = $80,000
Book value at the beginning of 2020 = $320,000 - $80,000 = $240,000
Depreciation expense in 2020 = 0.25 x $240,000 = $60,000
I hope my answer helps you
Answer:
Moral Hazard
Explanation:
Moral hazard is a situation which involves two parties, one party gets involved in a risky event because he knows that it is protected against the risk and that the other party will bear the cost and consequences of his actions if there be any loss. It arises when both the parties have incomplete information about each other.
In the financial market, there is high risk that a borrower may do undesirable things and may not pay back if he knows that when he defaults, his guarantor might will pay. This can make him to act with reckless abandon and in a riskier way.
Because Hamon in the Question got insurance that is worth twice his restaurant, he became careless in the management of his restaurant because he believes that if there be any loss, insurance will pay. This is called Moral Hazard in Business.
Answer: Rise initially, but eventually fall.
Explanation:
The increase in the workers brought would increase the marginal product; there would be increase in production based on the number of persons that were engaged but the marginal cost might eventually fall in the future because of human management and resilience from the workers that were brought
Introduction
“Project risk analysis,” as described by The Project Management Institute (PMI®), “includes the processes concerned with conducting risk management, planning, identification analysis, response, and monitoring and control on a project;./…” (PMI, 2004, p 237) These processes include risk identification and quantification, risk response development and risk response control.
Because these processes interact with each other as well as with processes in other parts of an organization, companies are beginning to measure risk across all of their projects as part of an enterprise portfolio.
Risk management can be as simple as identifying a list of technological, operational and business risks, or as comprehensive as in-depth schedule risk analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. But because risk is a driver in an organization's growth – the greater the risk, the greater the reward – the adoption of a structured enterprisewide project risk analysis program will give managers confidence in their decision-making to foster organizational growth and increase ROI for their stakeholders.
Choosing the right projects
How well an organization examines the risks associated with its initiatives, how well it understands the way that projects planned or underway are impacted by risk, and how well it develops mitigation strategies to protect the organization, can mean the difference between a crisis and an opportunity.
Examples abound of companies that have seen their fortunes rise or drop based on the effectiveness of their risk management – a pharmaceutical company makes headlines when its promising new drug brings unforeseen side effects. Or a large telecom corporation pours millions of dollars into perfecting long distance, while new technologies are presenting more exciting opportunities.
Today that pharmaceutical is distracted by lawsuits and financial payouts, finding itself with a shrinking pipeline of new drugs. The telecom, on the other hand, after using a portfolio risk management software application to rationalize and rank its initiatives, made the decision to shift its research dollars away from perfecting long distance and into developing VOIP -- rejuvenating and reinforcing its leadership position.
Answer: C. The court concluded that Microsoft violated the Sherman Act
Explanation: The case between United States v. Microsoft Corporation which took place at the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit during the period February 26–27, 2001 and was finally decided June 28, 2001.
It was decided by the District Court that Microsoft violated the Sharma Antitrust Act of 1890.
