Answer:speculative investment
Explanation:
just took the test.
Answer:
Cherry Jalopies, Inc.:
mean = (0.22 + 0.11 - 0.04 + 0.06 + 0.09) / 5 = 0.52 / 5 = 0.104
variance = [(0.22 - 0.104)² + (0.11 - 0.104)² + (-0.04 - 0.104)² + (0.06 - 0.104)² + (0.09 - 0.104)²] / 5 = (0.013456 + 0.000036 + 0.020736 + 0.001936 + 0.000196) / 5 = 0.007272
standard deviation = √0.007272 = 0.085276 = 8.53%
Straw Construction Company:
mean = (0.16 + 0.23 - 0.01 + 0.01 + 0.17) / 5 = 0.56 / 5 = 0.112
variance = [(0.16 - 0.112)² + (0.23 - 0.112)² + (-0.01 - 0.112)² + (0.01 - 0.112)² + (0.17 - 0.112)²] / 5 = (0.002304 + 0.013924 + 0.014884 + 0.010404 + 0.003364) / 5 = 0.008976
standard deviation = √0.008976 = 0.09474 = 9.47%
Answer:
Price-Earning ratio = 6.42
Price to Sales Ratio = 1.35
Explanation:
Earning for the year = $285,000
Common stock outstanding = 150,000 shares
* Price has not been given in the question. Assuming $70 is the market price of the share.
1.
Earning per share = Earning for the year / Common stock outstanding
Earning per share = $285,000 / 150,000 = $1.90 per share
Price-Earning ratio = $7 / $1.90 = 6.42
2.
Price to Sales Ratio = Price / Sales = $7 / $5.19 = 1.35
Answer:
Please see explanation below.
Explanation:
The next step is to conduct a secret ballot election which will be supervised by National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as might be required by the employer-Champlain products inorder to obtain voluntary support from the employees that the union wants to represent. The reason being that the management might decided not to recognize the card checks practise on the basis that a union without a secret ballot election is not reliable hence employees that signed the card might have been intimidated or coerced by the union to do so.
Where the management refuses to recognize the card check that was signed by at least 41% of the employees it wants to represent, management would then request for secret ballot election where employees would be able to vote confidentially without coercion or undue influence from the union or co-workers.
The statement "The sender & receiver don't know each other, money send for sounds like very good to be true dealing, and the motive of the transactions with respect to the online goods is considered to be questionable" is considered to be the red flag.
The sender i.e. Geroge who not even know the receiver that sells the homeopathy remedies online so this could raise a few issues but it is not to be considered very serious for red-flagged:
- Since e-commerce arises each and every time that lies between non-known parties online.
This is due to the dirt chape that could make it suspicious also they don't know each other so this should be considered red-flagged.
- The instructions with regard to the payment do not represent any signal of reliability and truthfulness so might me the receiver is trustworthy and genuine.
- In the case when the homeopathy remedies do not have the licensing and permissions so it would become questionable.
No one could suggest the specific brand of homeopathy as it becomes nonprofessional and non-appropriate, so the last option is not be considered.
Therefore we can conclude that The statement "The sender & receiver don't know each other, money send for sounds like very good to be true dealing, and the motive of the transactions with respect to the online goods is considered to be questionable" is considered to be the red flag.
Learn more about homeopathy here: brainly.com/question/7460064
