Answer:
a. The stock's price one year from now is expected to be 5% above the current price.
Explanation:
Under gordon model:
If we calculate the value of the stock for the year after that:
to calculate the value of the increase we divide next year over current year.
We have demostrate that next year stock should increase by 1 + growth so statement c is correct.
Answer:
$24,000
Explanation:
Product A Product B Product C
sales 70,000 97000
Variable cost 37000 51000
Contribution margin 33000 46000
Avoidable cost 10,000 20000
Unavoidable cost 7000 12000 9400
Operating income 16000 14000
Total operating income if product C is dropped is (16000+14000 +3400-9400)
=$24000
Please note that Giant company with still incur the unavoidable cost even if the product is dropped. This is assumed to be a portion of the fixed overhead expenses allocated to the product in the course of normal operation.However , the loss made of 3400 will be avoided as well
Answer:
a) decrease the quantity demanded
Explanation:
According to the law of demand, an increase in the price of a good reduces the quantity demanded for that good.
Answer:
Yes the company must recognise the effects of this ruling.
Explanation:
As provided the law suit was initiated in the year 20x2, because of the activity happened in April 20x2.
Accordingly, company was already prepared for a liability of $100,000.
Whenever an event that occurs after the balance sheet is a mere confirmation to what was expected on balance sheet date, or is in alignment with things on record on the balance sheet date, it shall be provided in the balance sheet of that year.
In the given case the law suit was pending on the balance sheet date and was recorded as a liability then, now after the declaration by the judge, the additional liability of $20,000 shall be provided in the financial books of year 20x2.
Answer:
The correct answer is Inductive reasoning.
Explanation:
Inductive reasoning is a form of reasoning in which the truth of the premises supports the conclusion, but does not guarantee it. A classic example of inductive reasoning is:
- All the crows observed so far have been black
- Therefore, all crows are black
In principle, it could be that the next crow observed is not black. In contrast to deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning has the advantage of being expansive, that is, the conclusion contains more information than is contained in the premises. Given its expansive nature, inductive reasoning is very useful and frequent in science and in everyday life. However, given its fallible nature, its justification is problematic. When are we justified in making an inductive inference, and concluding, for example, that all crows are black from a limited sample of them? What distinguishes a good inductive argument from a bad one? These and other related problems give rise to the problem of induction, whose validity and importance has continued for centuries.
