Answer:
A manufacturer would likely make an entry in a market following the long-run process of beginning and expanding production in response to a sustained pattern of profits.
This is a key idea with international trade. This involves what is known as comparative advantage.
let's say country A can produce a ton of soybeans in 4 hours and a ton of corn in 2 hours. While country B can produce a ton of soybeans in 15 hours and a ton of corn in 5 hours.
Looking at this set up you can see that country A can produce both corn and soybeans faster, so they have an absolute advantage in both!
However what trade is based on is opportunity cost. So if we think about how much corn country A has to give up to produce soybeans, they have to divert a total of 4 hours from corn to soy beans to produce one ton of soy beans. That 4 hours could be used to produce 2 tons of corn (since 2 hours for 1 ton and we're taking away 4 hours!). So opportunity cost of soybeans in country A is 2 corn.
In country B they would need a total of 15 hours to produce one extra ton of soybeans, but those 15 hours could instead be used to produce 3 tons of corn (5 hours per ton and we're stealing 15 total hours). That means country B's opportunity cost is 3 corn.
Since A has a lower opportunity cost in produce soybeans they will specialize and B will specialize in corn.
Given the table below describing the total and marginal benefit Elvis
gets from fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches.
![\begin{tabular} {|p {3.5cm}|p {2.0cm}|p {2.6cm}|} \multicolumn {3} {|c|} {Elvis' Fried Peanut Butter and Banana Sandwich Benefit}\\[2ex] Fried PBB Sandwiches&Total Benefit (dollars)&Marginal Benefit (dollars)\\[1ex] 1&&42\\ 2&&24\\ 3&75&\\ 4&81&\\ 5&&-3 \end{tabular}](https://tex.z-dn.net/?f=%5Cbegin%7Btabular%7D%0A%7B%7Cp%20%7B3.5cm%7D%7Cp%20%7B2.0cm%7D%7Cp%20%7B2.6cm%7D%7C%7D%0A%5Cmulticolumn%20%7B3%7D%20%7B%7Cc%7C%7D%20%7BElvis%27%20Fried%20Peanut%20Butter%20and%20Banana%20Sandwich%20Benefit%7D%5C%5C%5B2ex%5D%0AFried%20PBB%20Sandwiches%26Total%20Benefit%20%28dollars%29%26Marginal%20Benefit%20%28dollars%29%5C%5C%5B1ex%5D%0A1%26%2642%5C%5C%0A2%26%2624%5C%5C%0A3%2675%26%5C%5C%20%09%0A4%2681%26%5C%5C%20%09%0A5%26%26-3%0A%5Cend%7Btabular%7D)
<span>The marginal benefit of the 4th fried peanut butter and banana sandwich is given by $81 - $75 = $6.</span>
Answer:
Using the discount cash flow model to value the company, we can say that the company is worth $85 million / 12% = $708.33 million
Each stock should be worth approximately $708.33 million / 100 million = $7.0833 per stock
If the company uses the cash to finance new projects, then future cash flows should be approximately $97.75 million, and the company's value = $97.75 million / 12% = $814.583 million. This represents a 15% increase in value. The stock price should also increase by 15% to $8.1458 per stock.
If the company instead decides to repurchase stocks using all the cash, then it could repurchase 35.29 million stocks. Since we are assuming that the company's future cash flows wouldn't be affected by this decision, then the company's total value will still be $708.33 million, but each stock would be worth much more = $708.33 / 64.71 million stocks = $10.95. This represents a 34.36% increase with respect to the other alternative of investing the cash.
The issue here, is that this situation is not very realistic. It is not normal for a company to use all of its cash to repurchase stocks since it would result in a huge increase in stock prices (stock prices are set by supply and demand). Also, this would also result in a sharp increase in the cost of equity due to higher risks.
