Perit industries has $135,000 to invest. the company is trying to decide between two alternative uses of the funds. the alternatives are: project a project b cost of equipment required $ 135,000 $ 0 working capital investment required $ 0 $ 135,000 annual cash inflows $ 22,000 $ 66,000 salvage value of equipment in six years $ 8,400 $ 0 life of the project 6 years 6 years the working capital needed for project b will be released at the end of six years for investment elsewhere. perit industries’ discount rate is 17%. click here to view exhibit 13b-1 and exhibit 13b-2, to determine the appropriate discount factor(s) using tables. required: 1. compute the net present value of project a. (enter negative values with a minus sign. round your final answer to the nearest whole dollar amount.) 2. compute the net present value of project b. (enter negative values with a minus sign. round your final answer to the nearest whole dollar amount.) 3. which investment alternative (if either) would you recommend that the company accept?

Gemini inc.'s optimal cash transfer amount, using the baumol model, is $60,000. the firm's fixed cost per cash transfer of marketable securities to cash is $180, and the total cash needed for transactions annually is $960,000. on what opportunity cost of holding cash was this analysis based?

Acompany manufactures hair dryers. it buys some of the components, but it makes the heating element, which it can produce at the rate of 920 per day. hair dryers are assembled daily, 250 days a year, at a rate of 360 per day. because of the disparity between the production and usage rates, the heating elements are periodically produced in batches of 2,300 units. a. approximately how many batches of heating elements are produced annually? b. if production on a batch begins when there is no inventory of heating elements on hand, how much inventory will be on hand 4 days later? c. what is the average inventory of elements, assuming each production cycle begins when there are none on hand?

Richardson hired j.c. flood company, a plumbing contractor, to correct a stoppage in the sewer line of her house. the plumbing company's 'snake' device, used to clear the line leading to the main sewer, became caught in the underground line. to release it, the company excavated a portion of the sewer line in richardson's backyard. in the process, the company discovered numerous leaks in a rusty, defective water pipe that ran parallel with the sewer line. to meet public regulations, the water pipe, of a type no longer approved for such service, had to be replaced either then or later, when the yard would have to be excavated again. the plumbing company proceeded to repair the water pipe. though richardson inspected the company's work daily and did not express any objection to the extra work involved in replacing the water pipe, she refused to pay any part of the total bill after the company completed the entire operation. j.c. flood company then sued richardson for the costs of labor and material it had furnished. (c) for what, if anything, should richardson be liable? explain."