Snyder computer chips inc. is experiencing a period of rapid growth. earnings and dividends are expected to grow at a rate of 15% during the next two years, at 13% in the third year, and at a constant rate of 6% thereafter. snyder's last dividend was $1.15, and the required rate of return on the stock is 12%.a. calculate the value of the stock today. b. calculate p1 and p2.c. calculate the dividend yield and the expected capital gains yield for year 1.

The market for corn in country a is highly competitive. at the current market price of $5/bushel there is a shortage of 100,000 bushels of corn in this country. media reports claim that the price of corn will rise drastically in the near future. according to these reports, the neighboring country b had witnessed a similar situation recently. at the same price, the shortage in country b was also 100,000 bushels and eventually the equilibrium price in b went up to $10/bushel. both countries are known to have equal number of corn producers and the market supply of corn is identical at all prices. this, combined with the fact that consumers in the two countries also have similar tastes and preferences, led the media to conclude that the price of corn in country a would soon be as high as $10/bushel. the new equilibrium price turns out to be below $10/bushel, what inferences can be drawn?

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court.the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located.because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center.because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.

David paid $975,000 for two beachfront lots in coastal south carolina, with the intention of building residential homes on each. two years later, the south carolina legislature passed the beachfront management act, barring any further development of the coast, including david's lots. when david files a complaint to seek compensation for his property, south carolina refuses, pointing to a passage in david's own complaint that states "the beachfront management act [was] properly and validly designed to south carolina's " is south carolina required to compensate david under the takings clause?