Investor A and investor B both have required rates of return of 12%. They are considering the purchase of XTRA stock, which each views as a constant growth case. Both have estimated the dividend for the next period at $1.00, and both agree that the expected growth rate in dividends will be 6% a year. However, investor A plans to buy the stock and hold it for 10 years, while investor B plans to buy the stock and hold it for

In december of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. the contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. until february 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. however, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. the supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. after speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? which would be the best option for your business and why?

Consider 8.5 percent swiss franc/u.s. dollar dual-currency bonds that pay $666.67 at maturity per sf1,000 of par value. it sells at par. what is the implicit sf/$ exchange rate at maturity? will the investor be better or worse off at maturity if the actual sf/$ exchange rate is sf1.35/$1.00

Tl & co. is following a related-linked diversification strategy, and soar inc. is following a related-constrained diversification strategy. how do the two firms differ from each other? a. soar inc. generates 70 percent of its revenues from its primary business, while tl & co. generates only 10 percent of its revenues from its primary business. b. soar inc. pursues a backward diversification strategy, while tl & co. pursues a forward diversification strategy. c. tl & co. will share fewer common competencies and resources between its various businesses when compared to soar inc. d. tl & co. pursues a differentiation strategy, and soar inc. pursues a cost-leadership strategy, to gain a competitive advantage.