Because the future value of annual premiums deposited in a mutual fund is 755 (F/A, 9%, 45) = $397,023.34, Then, the friend is correct since the mutual fund is roughly three times the sum under the Insurance policy.
<h3>Was Liam's
suggestion correct?</h3>
Generally, Premium payment is mathematically given as
X=60-20
X=45years
Where future value is
755 (F/A, 9%, 45)
In conclusion
755 (F/A, 9%, 45) = 755 * 525.8587
755 (F/A, 9%, 45) = $397,023.34
Read more about Arithmetic
brainly.com/question/22568180
Complete Question
Liam O'Kelly is 20 years old and is thinking about buying a term life insurance policy with his wife as the beneficiary. The quoted annual premium for Liam is $8.39 per thousand dollars of insurance coverage Because Liam wants a $90,000 policy (which is 2.5 times his annual salary), the annual premium would be $755, with the first payment due immediately (i.e., at age 21). A friend of Liam's suggests that the $755 annual premium should be deposited in a good mutual fund rather than in the insurance policy. "If the mutual fund earns 9% per year, you can become a millionaire by the time you retire at age 65," the friend advises.
Answer: 29.93%
Explanation:
You can use Excel to solve for this.
Bear in mind that when given a series of cashflows, the expected return is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR).
Initial investment = $32
First cashflow = $1.25
Second cashflow = $1.31
Third cashflow = $1.38 + $65 selling price = $66.38
IRR = 29.93%
Answer:
I think that they MIGHT be A C and D
Explanation:
Answer:
1. The act of reducing taxes by deliberately understating income or overstating deductions is called ______
Tax evasion
2. Leaving the tip earnings out of her income on her tax returns is
Tax evasion
Explanation:
Tax evasion is deliberate reduction of gross income either by excluding, understating, omitting income, or overstating deductions. It is not legal. Tax avoidance is managing taxable income by effective tax planning (e.g. through investments, insurance, etc.) so that less tax is paid. It is legal and allowed.
Answer:
1)Celia actually did charge $3,000 on her credit card and admitted such to the credit card company, but argued she only had $2,500 in her bank account to pay off the credit card.
Telling a bank or a credit card company that you do not have enough money top pay right now will not make them forgive the unpaid balance. They might offer you some type of agreement or schedule for you to pay for the remaining balance (in this case $500). A court will never rule in favor of a borrower just because they do not want to pay the whole balance and will not accept a payment schedule.
3) Celia and the credit card company agreed that Celia would pay $2,500 as full payment of the disputed debt, but Celia never paid the $2,500.
When Celia and the credit card company reached an agreement to settle their dispute, that agreement is binding on both parties. Celia must pay the $2,500 and the credit card company will not charge any more money. But if Celia doesn't make the payment, she is not performing her part and the credit card company can sue her for it, and will probably win.
Explanation:
the options are missing:
- Celia actually did charge $3,000 on her credit card and admitted such to the credit card company, but argued she only had $2,500 in her bank account to pay off the credit card.
- Celia actually did charge $3,000 on her credit card and admitted such to the credit card company. However, Celia had no money, so she offered the credit card company her car in exchange for full payment of the debt and the credit card company accepted. Celia turned over title to her car to the credit card company.
- Celia and the credit card company agreed that Celia would pay $2,500 as full payment of the disputed debt, but Celia never paid the $2,500.
- Celia believed she did not charge anything on her credit card during her trip to Las Vegas. The credit card company claims she charged $3,000 to the card while in Las Vegas.