Answer:
$36.65
Explanation:
D1 = D*(1+g)
D1 = 1.8*(1+0.12)
D1 = 1.8(1.12)
D1 = $2.016
Price of stock P = D1 / (re - g)
Price of stock P = $2.016 / (0.175 - 0.12)
Price of stock P = $2.016 / 0.055
Price of stock P = $36.654545
Price of stock P = $36.65
So, $36.65 is the most that i will be willing to pay for the common stock if i am to purchase it today.
Answer: False. The General price level will only increase. It will not decrease at any cost of having cost pull inflation and the demand full inflation.
Explanation:
For every production of the single unit, the expenses incurred on the wages and the cost incurred on using raw materials are prominently considered. The rate of demand has an inverse relationship with the increase in the cost of production. Then the price level of the products increases with the effects of Cost-push inflation.
Secondly, The rate of the demand for particular products increases beyond the equilibrium level when the output rate remains below the capacity to meet the requirements of the consumers' demand. In one particular stage, Demand-full inflation takes place which utmost leads to an increase in the price level and acts as a cause for Demand-full inflation.
Answer: While not usual they can be held responsible for all business debts.
Explanation: If you pledge a asset as a collateral a creditor may be able to take said asset and sell it.
Answer:
Quantity discounts can be taken advantage of for large lot sizes.
Explanation:
The EOQ model assumptions:
the order of one item does not intervene with the other.
The order will arrive without delay and with a specific amount of goods.
no losses or damage in transit
The EOQ does not consider the discount for large lot size, their formula does not consider the value of the goods:
Its use: Demand of the good
cost of Setup, or ordering cost.
and Holding cost, the cost of keeping the inventory
There is no variable to account for discounts for order size in this method
Answer:
<u>Mistake of ignoring secondary effects</u>
Explanation:
Whenever there arises an adverse impact of a policy and it's implementation, owing to ignorance of secondary consequences, it is termed as ignoring secondary effects.
In short, it refers to assessing and viewing only the positive aspects of a policy or a move, meanwhile not taking into consideration the other adverse consequences which are also associated with the same policy.
In the given case, the environmentalists have only considered the generation of alternative sources of energy via windmills which will lead to preservation of fossil fuels. The proposed policy has been implemented without taking into account it's flip side i.e the harm it causes to bat population and migratory birds.
Thus, it can be stated that the environmentalists herein only considered the favorable outcome of a policy implementation and ignored the adverse effect of the same. Hence, they are said to have committed the mistake of ignoring the secondary effects.
