A manufacturer of breakfast cereal is concerned about corn prices. The firm anticipates needing 1 million bushels of corn in one month. The current price of corn is $6.50 per bushel and the futures price for delivery in one month is $7.00 per bushel
The cost to store the corn for 1 month is $100,000. What should the firm do?
A) Hedge with futures for a total cost of $7,000,000.
B) Hedge with futures for a total cost of $6,900,000.
C) Buy the corn now and store for 1 month, for a total cost of $6,500,000.
D) Buy the corn now and store for 1 month, for a total cost of $6,600,000.
Answer: D
You might also like to view...
The ________ is the potential profit generated by a single customer's purchase of a firm's products over the customer's lifetime.
A. customer equity B. customer prioritization C. customer lifetime value D. customer segmentation E. share of a customer
Using the POQ method of ordering, calculate the total cost of carrying and ordering inventory for
the 6 week period shown. Use a POQ = 3 weeks for your answer. Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 Net requirements 60 40 10 50 20 30 Planned order receipts Ending inventory Cost to place an order = $100.00 Cost to carry inventory = $1.00 per unit per week Annual demand = 1,500 units Cost per unit = $200.00 Opening inventory = 0 units A) $280 B) $340 C) $140 D) $400 E) none of the above
The U.S. Supreme Court may review appeals from:
a. the U.S. district courts b. the U.S. courts of appeals c. the highest courts of the states d. all of the other specific choices are correct e. none of the other specific choices are correct
Partners as Fiduciaries. In 1974, Dunay, Weisglass, and Koenig formed a partnership to engage in the brokerage business. They made no capital contributions to the partnership and agreed to share all revenue and expenses on an equal basis. The
partnership entered into an agreement with Ladenburg, Thalmann & Co to manage the latter's institutional investors services. The agreement did not provide any specific time limit. Each partner was appointed vice president of Ladenburg. Later, Dunay was appointed president of Ladenburg and was promised an additional share of profits for additional work on a year-to-year basis. Dunay contributed his salary as Ladenburg president and his additional share of profits to the partnership. On April 2, 1979, Weisglass and Koenig told Dunay that they wished to dissolve the partnership and did so immediately, forming their own partnership, W.K. Associates, the same day. Dunay received from the original partnership $15,044, the amount reflected on the partnership's records as his unpaid share of partnership income. Dunay remained with Ladenburg for a short period of time, leaving when the Ladenburg board of directors removed him as president and appointed in his place Weisglass on May 10. Dunay then filed a lawsuit, alleging, among other things, that Weisglass and Koenig had breached their fiduciary duty in dissolving the partnership and forming a new partnership. As part of the suit, Dunay sought some of the profits earned by Weisglass and Koenig after the dissolution. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss Dunay's complaint. In whose favor did the court rule and why? Discuss fully.