Other things equal they prefer to pay more for stocks that are more risky and have uncertain cash flows. • Investors are risk averse. Other things equal they prefer to pay more for stocks that are less risky and that have relatively certain cash flows than other stocks. When determining the value of a firm, which of the following statements is ture? • A financial asset is considered to have value if it has the ability to generate positive cash flows.
The paradox of efficient market hypothesis is that some investors have to believe that market for the market to continue to be efficient. Explain your understanding of the above paradox. Include in your discussion the forms of market hypothesis. The paradox of efficient market is that if every investor believed a market was efficient, then the market would not be efficient because no one would analyze securities. In effect, efficient markets depend on market participants who believe the market is inefficient and trade securities in an attempt to outperform the market.
It is a good choice when an investor needs their return in a certain time period. The payback period is very easily computed. The benchmark is not a constant value and does not have a required rate of return nor is there another input, but is based on how long until the investors need their investment returned. 3. Describe the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) method for determining a capital budgeting project's desirability.
Current ratios show relative amount of working capital, while quick ratios show the amount of quick assets by current liabilities. “Ratio analysis is an important and powerful technique or method, general, used for financial analysis. The purpose of financial analysis is to diagnose the information content in financial statements so as to judge the profitability, financial soundness of the firm, and chalk out the way to improve existing performance.” (Ramagopal, 2008) Duke Energy’s Current ratio is 3.54; this is calculated by current assets, 2,049 million, divided by current liabilities, 578 million. There is no current problem with the liquidity in this company. The quick ratio is .33 and this is calculated by cash and accounts receivable, 1,501,000+ 1,316,000 divided by current liabilities, 8,644,000.
Competitors likely would not want to risk losing current sales by adding features which would raise their prices. Threat from Buyers – Because Company G is able to sell the Little Wonder at the current market price , if not lower, the threat from buyers is
Investors find this information lucrative because the more expendable cash a company has the more likely they are to pay out in dividends for the stock holders.. Liquidity Ratios: Current assets are a business's total current assets divided by its total current liabilities. Total Current Asset / Total Current liabilities 1,971,000 / 116,290 16.949 = 16.9 Current Ratio- 16.9:1 or 17:1 (16.9 to 1 or 17 to
Overall in this example, this is a risky investment. An investor would not be as eager to hand off more than half of their investment into this company’s debt. Current Ratios ideally should be at a minimum 1.7. This company having a current ratio of 0.97 is significantly less than the ideal displays that they have issues paying their bills on time. Moreover, the Quick
Negative externalities occur when social costs are more than a private cost. Governments may usually intervene when negative externalities arise, this is to tax demerit goods, which are goods that have negative externalities and are over produced in an economy. However, the government may find other solutions much more useful, for example; they find it more effective to subsidise merit goods, goods giving out positive externalities and also provide more information about the effects of demerit goods to discourage them. If markets were over producing demerit goods, those selling those goods such as firms would be taxed, so raw materials for the goods may be more expensive or possibly the machinery. This would increase the costs and result in the firms passing on the costs to the consumers, this would increase the prices of the goods causing negative externalities and discourage them from being bought.
The value to the separate transitions would be higher than a combined one. Being the value of the disk drive business diluted in the Veritas stock value, a separation based deal would trigger a valuation of the Veritas business close to its stock price value, plus a higher price for the disk drive business. Finally Silver Lake Partners’ aims to acquire the disk drive operations and probably are not interested in the Veritas stock, that is a very close exchange of money for stock. Transaction Winners and Losers: Main winners would be Seagate shareholders. Will avoid taxes on the Veritas stock swap and acquire a more liquid asset.
[A hybrid approach] will maintain some brand equity, but will put some at risk by potential lack of communication from the hybrid approach while targeting a segment that is unfamiliar to the company to this point. Tradeoffs/Analysis of