Consider the following observation: "The problem with risk analysis is that it is possible to imagine virtually anything going wrong on a project. Where do you draw the line? In other words, how far do you take risk analysis before it becomes overkill?" How would you respond?

How does the plaintiff, mrs. wood, try to implicate the gun manufacturer ( who testifies, what do they say, what evidence is introduced)?

Lambert manufacturing has $100,000 to invest in either project a or project b. the following data are available on these projects (ignore income taxes.): project a project b cost of equipment needed now $100,000 $60,000 working capital investment needed now - $40,000 annual cash operating inflows $40,000 $35,000 salvage value of equipment in 6 years $10,000 - both projects will have a useful life of 6 years and the total cost approach to net present value analysis. at the end of 6 years, the working capital investment will be released for use elsewhere. lambert's required rate of return is 14%. the net present value of project b is:

The cost of labor is significantly lower in many countries than in the united states. if you move manufacturing to a facility to a country labeled as part of the axis of evil and a threat to world peace you will increase the net income of your client by $10 million per the facility is located in a country which limits personal freedom and engages in state sponsored terrorism. imagine you are a marketing consultant. (a) what would you tell the executives to do? (b) what are the alternatives? what are your recommendations? why do you recommend this course of action?