Answer:
D) consume more of Good X or less of Good Y until the marginal utility per dollar for Good X and Good Y is equal.
Explanation:
Since Joanna's marginal utility per dollar is higher for good X than per good Y, then she must consume a combination of both goods until their marginal utility per dollar is equal.
Since marginal utility is diminishing, if she reduces her consumption of good Y, maybe it will increase and match X's. Or she can choose to consume more X until its marginal utility diminishes and matches Y's.
Answer:
FCFE: 99
Explanation:
FCFE: cash flow from operation - CAPEX + borrowing
we calcualte the cash flwo form operation using the indirect method:
net income - preferred dividends = available for common stock
income = 125 + 14 = 139
net income 139
depreciation expense 50
change in working capital (30)
cash flow from operation: 159
CAPEX will be the long term assets investment
investment on fixed capital<u> 100 </u>
CAPEX 100
net borrowing 40
159 -100 + 40 = 99
Answer:
Ten pounds of chicken to trade for at least <u>40</u> pounds of vegetables but not more than<u> 50</u> pounds of vegetables
Explanation:
Vegetables Chicken Trade Off Ratio
John 40 10 4:1 (40/10) or 1:0.25 (10/40)
George 25 5 5:1 (25/5) or 1:0.20 (5/25)
John has comparative advantage in Chicken and George has comparative advantage in Veggies because :
- John's chicken opportunity cost, in veggies < George (4<5). George's veggies opportunity cost, in chicken < John (0.20<0.25).
- George is more (5X) productive in veggies than chicken, than John (4X). John is less unproductive in chicken than veggies (1/4th), compared to George (1/5th).
So, John will sell Chicken to George & George will sell veggies to John. Gains from trade are when each get trade ratio better than their their own trade off ratio.
- It implies: John gets >' 4 pounds veggies per chicken pound' and George gets > '0.20 pound chicken per veggie pound'.
- Unitary method:- '1chicken : 4veggies' = '10chickens : 40veggies' and '0.20chicken : 1veggie' = '10chickens : 50 veggies' .
No, because
Jane is not able to influence the engagement or on the attest team. According
to Interpretation 101-1<span>, </span>the independence
is not impaired except the manager falls within the description of a “covered
member” in ET section 92.06. Jane in general would not be well-thought-out a
covered member since she is not on the attest engagement team and does not be
responsible for non-attest services to the client.
That statement is True
Internal Compliance is carried out to ensure that all process are done according to regulated rules and standard
Poor internal compliance could indicate that certain process is not carried out according to standard, which could damage the trust of internal customers
