Answe and Explanation:
The correct answer is option A
A. It reduces marketing costs more than traditional sales channels.
<u>Answer:</u>
<u>A. Wilson</u>
<u>B. Tom</u>
<u>C. 0.45</u>
<u>D. 0.3 and 3</u>
<u>Explanation:</u>
Tom comparative advantage: using the formula; number of cut down / the other's number of cut down.
For Coconut= 5/15=0.3
For Fish= 11/6=1.8
Wilson comparative advantage: using same formula above
For Coconut= 15/3=3
<em>For Fish= 6/11=0.5</em>
<em>A. Thus, we can conclude that Wilson has comparative advantage of producing coconut since he has the higher ratio of 3.</em>
<em>B. We conclude that Tom having the ratio value of 1.8 which is greater than that of Wilson has the comparative advantage.</em>
<em>C. Tom's opportunity cost of producing a coconut is calculated by dividing his number of coconut over his number of fish = 5/11 = 0.45</em>
<em>D) Note the range of acceptable terms of exchange of coconuts for fish should be be 0.3 and 3.</em>
Answer:
The correct answer is the option C: Pure comparative fault.
Explanation:
To begin with, Comparative Negligence is an approach of the Contributory Negligence that is adopted nowadays by most of the states and that focuses in the amount of fault of each party when it comes to determines who's negligence was the one that caused the injuries. Moreover, this type of approach has two other more different approaches, that are pure comparative and modified comparative.
To continue,<em> ''</em><u><em>pure comparative negligence''</em></u> allows parties to collect for damages even when they are more than 50 percent responsible for the injury, however the amount of damages is limited by the party's actual degree of fault. Meanwhile the modifed comparative negligence only recognizes the recover of the damages when they are less than the 50 percent responsible of the injury. That is why if the state that hears the case follows the doctrine of the pure comparative negligence then the plaintiff will be able to recover the 40 percent of the injuries by the negligent defendant, even thought if he was 60 percent responsible.
Answer:
The price an investor would be expected to pay per share ten years in the future is $17.61
Explanation:
P10 = [D1*(1 + g)^n]/(k – g)
Where:
P10 is the expected share price after ten years
D1 is the expected dividend for year 1 = $ 1.70
g is the dividend growth rate per year but we know that dividend is expected to be constant, g = 0
k is the cost of capital for the company = 8.2%
n is the number of years to calculate share price = 10
P10 = $ 1.55*(1 + 0%)^10/(0.088 – 0)
= $ 1.55/0.088
= $17.61
Therefore, The price an investor would be expected to pay per share ten years in the future is $17.61
Based on the other transactions, the amount of dividends that was paid that year was <u>$158,704.</u>
<h3>After tax Net income </h3>
= Taxable income x ( 1 - tax)
= 198,600 x ( 1 - 21%)
= $156,894
<h3>Dividends during year</h3>
= Opening retained earnings + After tax income - Closing retained earnings
= 318,750 + 156,894 - 316,940
= $158,704
In conclusion, the dividends paid were $158,704.
Find out more on dividends paid at brainly.com/question/13470638.