The court decided in favor of the McNamee because he did not have sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction, since Texas was not the focal point of the story.
Explanation:
The court gave his final decision in favor of McNamee. Clement has not received decision in favor of his though he suffered from distress and damage of his reputation in Texas. McNamee illustrated that he gave steroids to Clements who was an Texas citizen
Mc Namee was a citizen of New York. He did not have sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction. McNamee was a trainer. According to the national magazine there was no such detail of defamation was provided.
Answer:
23.12%
Explanation:
Internal rate of return (IRR) is the rate at which the Net present value (NPV) of a project equals to zero.
Using a financial calculator and the CF function, input the following to find IRR;
Initial investment; CF0 = -1,200,000
Yr1 cashflow inflow ; C01 = 235,000
Yr2 cashflow inflow ; C02 = 412,300
Yr3 cashflow inflow ; C03 = 665,000
Yr4 cashflow inflow ; C04 = 875,000
Then key in IRR CPT = 23.119%
Therefore, the Internal rate of return this expansion is 23.12%
Answer:
8,288
Explanation:
Mr. Slater should move 8,288 from stocks to bonds to rebalance his portfolio to 60% stocks and 40% bonds
Answer:
The answer is: All the options are correct (I, II and III)
Explanation:
The larger the number of individuals (e.g. securities analysts, investors) who are informed about the price system of securities, the prices of securities will approach informational efficiency.
When the system approaches informational efficiency, you can determine which securities are riskier than others. Therefore you can price riskier securities so that they offer higher expected returns.
The other positive effect of informational efficacy is that investors can determine which securities are undervalued or overvalued.
Answer:
The tax treatment of up-front financing costs calls for these expenses to be amortized over the life of the loan. However, if the loan is prepaid prior to the term of the loan (perhaps because the property is sold), the tax treatment of these costs changes. If up-front financing costs on a 30-year loan total $6,000, and the loan is prepaid in full at the end of year 5, what is the maximum amount that the investor can deduct when calculating taxable income from rental operations in year 5?
The Maximum Allowable Deduction in year 5 = $6,000 - $800 = $5,200
Explanation:
Up-front financing costs per annum = Loan amount/ number of years
= $6,000 / 30 = $200
Total financing costs deducted till the fourth year = $200 x 4 = $800
Maximum Allowable Deduction in year 5 = $6,000 - $800 = $5,200
Therefore, the Maximum Allowable Deduction in year 5 = $6,000 - $800 = $5,200