A company advertises an investment costing $1,000 which they say is underpriced. They say that it has an expected total return of 15% pa, but a required return of only 10% pa. Assume that there are no dividend payments so the entire 15% total return is all capital return.
Assuming that the company's statements are correct, what is the NPV of buying the investment if the 15% return lasts for the next 100 years (t=0 to 100), then reverts to 10% pa after that time? Also, what is the NPV of the investment if the 15% return lasts forever?
In both cases, assume that the required return of 10% remains constant. All returns are given as effective annual rates.
The answer choices below are given in the same order (15% for 100 years, and 15% forever):
The below screenshot of Microsoft's (MSFT) details were taken from the Google Finance website on 28 Nov 2014. Some information has been deliberately blanked out.
What was MSFT's market capitalisation of equity?
A stock has a beta of 1.5. The market's expected total return is 10% pa and the risk free rate is 5% pa, both given as effective annual rates.
Over the last year, bad economic news was released showing a higher chance of recession. Over this time the share market fell by 1%. So ##r_{m} = (P_{0} - P_{-1})/P_{-1} = -0.01##, where the current time is zero and one year ago is time -1. The risk free rate was unchanged.
What do you think was the stock's historical return over the last year, given as an effective annual rate?
Question 743 price gains and returns over time, no explanation
How many years will it take for an asset's price to triple (increase from say $1 to $3) if it grows by 5% pa?
Being long a call and short a put which have the same exercise prices and underlying stock is equivalent to being:
Which one of the following businesses is likely to be a public company in Australia, judging by its name?