The answer is D. Partnerships are liable to boundless obligation, which implies that each of the partners shares the risk and budgetary dangers of the business. Which can be off-putting for a few people. This can be countered by the arrangement of a restricted obligation organization, which profits by the upsides of constrained risk allowed to restricted organizations, while as yet exploiting the adaptability of the association show.
The last one so work samples etc are the best examples
Answer:
The answer is Project X is the most attractive to an investor.
Explanation:
We can use the definition of Net Present Value (NPV) to solve this problem and figure out which would be the best investment.
Net present value is the present value of future money. In other words, over certain period of time, how much is your investment worth today. It takes into consideration cash inflow and outflow over that period of time as well as interest that could be earned on alternative investments if you had the money today. See attachment to see the NPV formula.
In the attachment, we calculate the NPV for each one of the projects using a rate of return i=3% for all of them. Any rate of return could be used as long as they are the same for all projects.
A positive NPV value means a good investment and the higher that number is the better the investment. In this case, we can see that Project X has the higher NPV of all the projects. Therefore, project X is the most attractive for an investor.
Answer:
2 cents
Explanation:
The spot price = $0.7000 = 70 cents, The forward rate = $0.6950 = 69.5 cents and the call option with striking price = $0.6800 = 68.00 cents
The annualized six month rate = 3 1/2 % = 3.5 %, therefore the rate = r/n, where n is the number of period per year = 2. Therefore r/n = 3.5% / 2 = 0.035 / 2 = 0.0175
The minimum price = Maximum (spot price - striking price, (forward rate - striking price) / (1 + 0.0175), 0) = Maximum(70 - 68, (69.5 - 68)/ 0.0175, 0)
Minimum price = Maximum (2 , 1.47, 0) = 2 cents
Answer:
First we need to first find the equilibrium quantity and price during normal times.
The equilibrium price in normal times is P=$3 and the equilibrium quantity is 55 bottles.
During the hurricane, the government will set a price ceiling of $3. We can infer from the table that the quantity supplied at P=$3 is 55 bottles while the quantity demanded during hurricane at the price of $3 per bottle is 105 bottles. Hence,
105-55= 50
During a hurricane, there would be a shortage of 50 bottles of water.
If there were no price ceiling, then the equilibrium price would be such that the quantity demanded during hurricane equals the quantity supplied. From the table we can see that the equilibrium price would in that case be P=$5 per bottle where the equilibrium quantity is 85 bottles. With the price ceiling only 55 bottles are available for trading. Now without the price ceiling 85 bottles are available.
Hence consumers would have to pay an additional $2 (=5-3) but they can now buy an additional 30 bottles [=85-55].
Without the antiprice gouging law, consumers would have to pay $2 more than the ceiling price, but they would bv able to buy 30 more bottles of water.
