Ken Montgomery, founder of XL NanoDevices, invested $50,000 as seed money from his personal funds when he started XL in April 2019. His co-founder, Steve Moore, invested $25,000 at the same time. Arbitrarily, they decided to issue 1,000,000 shares of common stock to themselves as founders and sole owners when they filed XL's incorporation papers with the state. Ken, who had the initial idea for XL and who had invested the greatest amount of "sweat equity" to date, received 750,000 shares of XL common stock while Steve received 250,000 shares. No other shares have been issued since.

When the company was launched in April 2019, the founders also secured the backing of Meg Ferris, a local angel investor with substantial experience in their technology. Meg invested $300,000 in XL in the form of a convertible note. Terms of the note included: (i) a compounding interest rate of 6% per annum; (ii) a duration of 24 months; (iii) a conversion discount of 20% tied to the Series A share price; (iv) a $1,000,000 minimum future financing for conversion of the note; (v) a pre-money valuation cap on the note of $6,000,000; and, (vi) if XL is acquired prior to a Series A financing, Meg would receive 150% of the note's principal investment amount.

As of today, April 2021, Ken and Steve have successfully developed a working prototype of their revolutionary new drug delivery nanoparticles and are beginning to attract favorable attention from a number of research laboratories at large pharmaceutical companies.

Timberlake Associates, a regional venture capital firm with considerable experience in nanotechnologies, has been introduced to Ken by Meg and is considering an investment in XL. Timberlake's people have reviewed XL's business plan and have conducted enough due diligence to get comfortable with such an investment. The business plan calls for a first, Series A, round of financing of $3,000,000 in April 2021 and a second, Series B, round of $7,500,000 in April 2023. Timberlake's target rate of return is 50% per annum (compounded) for the Series A investment. They desire a target rate of return of 40% p.a. (compounded) for the Series B round.

XL's business plan anticipates that a strategic corporate investor will acquire XL in 5 years (i.e., in April 2026), this being the exit strategy for XL's investors. Proforma income statements provided in XL's plan project annual sales revenues to be $15,000,000 in 5 years under a "success" scenario. The investors believe that a typical price/revenues ratio for similar early-stage high-tech companies is about 5:1.

At the planned "liquidity event" in April 2026; what will Ken's shares in XL be worth and what annual rate of return (compounded) on his original $50,000 investment does this represent?????tment does this represent?

The following is from the financial statements of Exquisite Ensembles: 2020 2019 2018 Net sales $1,260,000 $1,020,000 $850,000 Accounts receivable (Dec 31) 92,800 88,000 84.200 Calculate Exquisite Ensembles' accounts receivable turnover for 2019 and 2020. Compare the two results and give a possible explanation for any significant change. Calculations: 2019 accounts receivable turnover:you are producing an Organization Chart for a CM Contract, in your organizational arrangements; how would you explain the following? 1. With whom would the Owner have Privity of Contract with? (5) 2. With whom would the AE/Consultant have Privity of Contract with? (3) 3. With whom would the Sub-Consultant have Privity of Contract with? (3 4. With whom would the Contractor have Privity of Contract with? 5. With whom would the Sub-Contractor have Privity of Contract with? 6. With whom would the Supplier/Vendor have Privity of Contracts with? What does the CM do in the CM Contract? In fact, what are his her responsibilities? For the toolbar, press ALT F10 (PC] or ALT + FN F10 [Mac).25. Consider a bivariate data set. We have: N, Mean, SD for both x and for y. With only these descriptive statistics, Pearson r a. can be calculated if N is large b. can be roughly estimated c. can be calculated d. cannot be calculated e. none of the above 26. Note that this is "an empirical question" that can be probed by a call to a power function from package "pwr". How will using a one-sided statistical test of correlation, rather than a two-sided test, impact statistical power, all other factors being equal? a. it will not influence statistical power b. it will increase statistical power c. it depends on alpha d. it depends on the size of r e. it depends on sample size f. it will decrease statistical power g. it depends on the desired level of significance h. none of the above 27. It is common for Pearson correlation to be statistically significant when a. sample size is large b. each variable is a "random variable" c. the Pearson assumptions are not met d. the data were measured with great error e. sample size is small f. the data are not bivariately normal 4. the Pearson assumptions are met h. the data are nonlinear i. none of the above 28. Reflecting modern statistical thought, which of the following is the proper way for correlation to be reported in a paper submitted to a peer-review scientific journal. a. p = 0.072, r = 0.55 b. r 0.05 d. r = 0.55, p = 0.072 e. none of the above6. Attendance at births by a health care professional varies widely among countries. For instance, in Bangladesh and Nepal less than 10% of births are attended while in Norway and Belgium it's close to 100%. Mortality also varies greatly, for mothers in childbirth. The table below lists for 12 different countries, percentage of births attended, paired with maternal mortality rate per 100,000 live births. Is there a correlation between mother mortality and attendance at birth by a health care professional? Perform traditional, Pearson correlation in a one-sided test, using R. PERCENTAGE of MORTALITY Rate of births attended mothers per 100,000 births 5 582 24 450 27 195 29 284 40 1010 57 90 70 25 82 61 82 124 87 12 96 11 g9 5 For the x, y data above, the results for Pearson r and one-sided p-value are -, 680452. P = 0.007438(1) b. r . 717865, p = 0.004282(1) C. F -. 7123426, p = 0.004669(1) -.7833992, p = 0.001288(1) er -. 7105142, p = 0.004803(1) -,8050124, p = 0.0007919(1) - . 6787463, p - 0.007614(1) -. 6770479, p = 0.0007793(1) -. 6821648, p = 0.007265(1) -.7141772, p = 0.004537(1) K. F -. 8147158, p = 0.0006243(1) -+7707949, p = 0.00167(1) m. r = -. 7559201, p = 0. 002226(1) n. r -,7952155, p = 0.0009941(1) O. r - -. 6838848, p - 0. 007093(1} p. none of the above 7. In scientific journals, which among the following is the most commonly performed correlation method? a. Spearman b. nonparametric correlation C. partial correlation d. point-biserial correlation e. Kendall f. partial correlation g. Pearson h. multiple correlation 8. Which of the following is true, about Pearson correlation? a. it measures causation b. it is a parametric method c, all of the above