A very low-risk stock just paid its semi-annual dividend of $0.14, as it has for the last 5 years. You conservatively estimate that from now on the dividend will fall at a rate of 1% every 6 months.
If the stock currently sells for $3 per share, what must be its required total return as an effective annual rate?
If risk free government bonds are trading at a yield of 4% pa, given as an effective annual rate, would you consider buying or selling the stock?
The stock's required total return is:
Which of the following statements is NOT equivalent to the yield on debt?
Assume that the debt being referred to is fairly priced, but do not assume that it's priced at par.
You're thinking of starting a new cafe business, but you're not sure if it will be profitable.
You have to decide what type of cups, mugs and glasses you wish to buy. You can pay to have your cafe's name printed on them, or just buy the plain un-marked ones. For marketing reasons it's better to have the cafe name printed. But the plain un-marked cups, mugs and glasses maximise your:
Which of the following equations is NOT equal to the total return of an asset?
Let ##p_0## be the current price, ##p_1## the expected price in one year and ##c_1## the expected income in one year.
Question 545 income and capital returns, fully amortising loan, no explanation
Which of the following statements about the capital and income returns of a 25 year fully amortising loan asset is correct?
Assume that the yield curve (which shows total returns over different maturities) is flat and is not expected to change.
Over the 25 years from issuance to maturity, a fully amortising loan's expected annual effective:
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. Of the 15% pa total expected return, the dividend yield is expected to always be 7% pa and rest is the capital yield.
Assuming that the company's statements are correct, what is the NPV of buying the investment if the 15% total return lasts for the next 100 years (t=0 to 100), then reverts to 10% 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, the dividends can only be re-invested at 10% pa and 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):
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?
A stock is expected to pay its first dividend of $20 in 3 years (t=3), which it will continue to pay for the next nine years, so there will be ten $20 payments altogether with the last payment in year 12 (t=12).
From the thirteenth year onward, the dividend is expected to be 4% more than the previous year, forever. So the dividend in the thirteenth year (t=13) will be $20.80, then $21.632 in year 14, and so on forever. The required return of the stock is 10% pa. All rates are effective annual rates. Calculate the current (t=0) stock price.
A stock, a call, a put and a bond are available to trade. The call and put options' underlying asset is the stock they and have the same strike prices, ##K_T##.
You are currently long the stock. You want to hedge your long stock position without actually trading the stock. How would you do this?