Answer:
The correct answer for option (a) is 28.29% and for option (B) is 2.65%.
Explanation:
According to the scenario, the given data are as follows:
Initial price = $117
Ending price = $147
Dividend = $3.10
(a) We can calculate the Total return percentage by using following formula:
Total return percentage = ( Ending Price - Initial Price + Dividend) ÷ Initial Price
By putting the value, we get
Total return percentage = ( $147 - $117 + $3.10) ÷ ( $117)
= 28.29% (approx).
(b). we can calculate the dividend yield by using following formula:
Dividend Yield = Dividend ÷ Initial Price
By putting the value, we get
Dividend Yield = $3.10 ÷ $117
= 2.65%
<span>add materially to a company's technological capabilities, strengthen the company's competitive position, and/or boost its profitability.</span>
Answer:
The answer is true
Explanation:
The video streaming industry is vastly different from the DVD-by-mail rental industry. Curiously enough, one company has navigated both industries succesfully: Netflix was born as a DVD-by-mail service, and now is one of the most well-known streaming services.
Answer:
The incremental cost is $198,000
Explanation:
Given;
Current cost per unit to manufacture = 66,000 units
Direct materials = $5.00
Direct labor= $9.00
Overhead = $10.00
Total cost per unit = $24.00
Incremental costs = $1,254,000 - $1,056,000 = $198,000
Answer:
<em>Ratification by Principal One of the criteria for enactment is that all material truths involved in the transaction must be known to the Principal. Van Stavern was not aware of Hash's behaviour. </em>
He did not realize that somehow the steel is being shipped under his name, and that the shipments were being billed him directly. Unlike liability through obvious authority, approval by the principal is a positive act by which he or she acknowledges the agent's illegal actions.
Just a principal would ratify; thus, Van Stavern was not directly imputed to information by the invoices and checks signed by Van Stavern's workers.
The court stated that the use of corporate checks was further proof that Van Stavern regarded the expenditures as business, not private. So Van Stavern could not be held personally liable.
Remember that on Sutton Steel that's not excessively harsh. Sutton understood it was working with a building company and did not seek to get the personal approval of the contract from Van Stavern.
<em>Lawfully, Sutton's agreement in this case is called an unaccepted offer which can be withdrawn at any time.</em>
<em></em>