Answer:
No, a college degree can help you earn a better salary but nothing is guaranteed. For example, someone with a college degree earns on average around $50,000 per year, while those with only a high school degree earn around $28,000 (that is almost half of a college graduate).
But the salary you earn is not guaranteed, it might be much higher or it might be zero. If you work hard you might get a raise pretty soon or you can get promoted, but if you are lazy then you can get fired.
The income classification is based on income, not on education. There are people who never graduated from college that are extremely rich, e.g. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, but they are not the majority. That is why they serve as examples so often. Most rich people actually do have a college degree, but they are rich not because of their college degree, but because of their work.
Answer:
By conducting primary research using unbiased panellists, entrepreneurs can gain the latest information about the consumer's wants and needs, allowing them to adapt their product or service accordingly and gain a competitive advantage.
Explanation:
Answer:
WACC for A: 9.05%
WACC for B: 9.50%
WACC for C: 12.20%
WACC for D: 12.65%
Explanation:
WACC for a division will be equal: Percentage of Debt in capital employed by the Division x Cost of Debt + Percentage of Equity in capital employed by the Division x Cost of equity = 50% x 6% + 50% x ( Risk free rate + Beta of each Division x Risk premium) = 3% + 50% x ( 4% + beta of each Division x Risk premium)
Risk premium for the 4 Divisions is equal to (Cost of equity for the whole firm - Risk free rate) / beta = 9%
Thus WACC for a division will be equal: 3% + 50% x ( 4% + beta of each Division x 9%).
Substitute beta of each Division from A to D provided in the question, we have: WACC for A: 9.05%; WACC for B: 9.5%; WACC for C: 12.2%; WACC for D: 12.65%.
Answer:
Assume the weight to be invested in Bay Corp is x. That means (1 - x) will be the weight for City Inc. The expression for the expected return will be;
(x * 11.2%) + ( (1 - x) * 14.8%) = 12.4%
0.112x + 0.148 - 0.148x = 0.124
-0.036x = -0.024
x = 0.67
Portfolio beta is;
= 0.67 * 1.2 + ( 1 - 0.67) * 1.8
= 1.398 so beta condition is satisfied.
Amount in Bay Corp.;
= 0.67 * 50,000
= $33,500
Amount in City Inc.;
= 50,000 - 33,500
= $16,500
Answer:
The answer is NO.
Explanation:
The answer is NO since the tax cut does not equate or rather would not be an effective stimulus due to the fact that debt reduction would not stimulate or increase consumption.
To properly understand the narrative of the question and the answer herein, let us define what effective stimulus is.
Effective stimulus or as preferably known as An economic stimulus is the utilization of funds or design of that helps agitate growth during downtime or recession in a country. The decision makers of a country mostly utilize the tactics of giving rebates and increasing government expenses to name a few.
Now relating it back to the question, since the intention of the rebate is to ease payment on tax does not equate to increase in consumption, the answer is a NO.
