Assume that an analyst is using the constant dividend growth model to value a stock. Which of the following scenarios would be certain to cause her to decrease her estimate of the stock's value (assuming, of course, that all other factors are held constant)? A. She believes the company has become riskier, and therefore increases her required rate of return for the stock.
B. She increases her estimate of the company’s next year’s dividend.
C. She increase her estimate of the expected annual rate of growth in the company’s dividends.
D. She decreases her required rate of return for the stock.
E. None of the above would cause her to decrease her estimate of the stock’s value.

A. She believes the company has become riskier, and therefore increases her required rate of return for the stock.

Explanation:

The formula for the Constant dividend growth model of valuing stock is:

= Next dividend / (Required return - growth rate)

From the formula above, one can tell that if the required return is higher, it would result in a lower value for stock because it would divide the numerator more.

If the analyst believes that the company is riskier and increases the required return, the value would therefore reduce if other measures are kept constant.

answer; blank(1); /rises; blank(2); //increases;

the answer is "b.the increased supply will create a surplus. "

the essential thought behind price controls is straightforward - utilize the power of law to modify the equilibrium of a market. for instance, the legislature may choose that the steel business needs to survive, and in this way pass a law to set a value floor on steel. this implies all steel sold must offer at or over the floor value, which must be set over the equilibrium cost for it to have any impact. the switch could likewise happen - the administration can choose that steel is excessively costly and set a value roof underneath its equilibrium value, with the goal that all steel must be sold at or beneath that ceiling.