1)

The Libor embarrassment was a progression of false activities associated with the Libor (London Inter-bank Offered Rate) and furthermore the subsequent examination and response. Libor is a normal loan cost determined through entries of financing costs by significant banks over the world. The embarrassment emerged when it was found that banks were erroneously swelling or collapsing their rates to benefit from exchanges, or to give the feeling that they were more financially sound than they were. Libor supports around $350 trillion in subordinates. It is presently regulated by Intercontinental Exchange, which took over running the Libor in January 2014.

The banks should present the genuine loan fees they are paying, or would hope to pay, for obtaining from different banks. The Libor should be the all out evaluation of the strength of the budgetary framework supposing that the banks being surveyed feel sure about the situation, they report a low number and if the part banks feel a low level of trust in the monetary framework, they report a higher loan cost number. In June 2012, various criminal settlements by Barclays Bank uncovered huge misrepresentation and arrangement by part banks associated with the rate entries, prompting the scandal.

Since Libor is utilized in US subordinates advertises, an endeavor to control Libor is an endeavor to control US subsidiaries markets, and along these lines an infringement of American law. Since contracts, understudy advances, monetary subsidiaries, and other money related items frequently depend on Libor as a source of perspective rate, the control of entries used to compute those rates can have huge negative impacts on buyers and budgetary business sectors around the world.

On 27 July 2012, the Financial Times distributed an article by a previous dealer which expressed that Libor control had been basic since in any event 1991. Further reports on this have since originated from the BBC and Reuters. On 28 November 2012, the Finance Committee of the Bundestag held a consultation to study the issue.

The British Bankers' Association (BBA) said on 25 September 2012 that it would move oversight of Libor to UK controllers, as anticipated by bank analysts, proposed by Financial Services Authority overseeing chief Martin Wheatley's autonomous audit recommendations.Wheatley's survey prescribed that banks submitting rates to Libor must put together them with respect to real between bank store market exchanges and track those exchanges, that individual banks' LIBOR entries be distributed following three months, and suggested criminal endorses explicitly for control of benchmark premium rates.Financial organization clients may encounter higher and more unpredictable acquiring and supporting expenses after execution of the prescribed reforms.The UK government consented to acknowledge the entirety of the Wheatley Review's proposals and press for enactment actualizing them.

Noteworthy changes, in accordance with the Wheatley Review, became effective in 2013 and another overseer took over in mid 2014.The UK controls Libor through laws made in the UK Parliament. specifically, the Financial Services Act 2012 brings Libor under UK administrative oversight and makes a criminal offense for intentionally or purposely offering bogus or deceiving expressions identifying with benchmark-setting.

As of November 2017, 13 brokers had been charged by the UK Serious Fraud Office as a component of their examinations concerning the Libor embarrassment. Of those, eight were cleared in mid 2016.Four were seen as blameworthy (Tom Hayes, Alex Pabon, Jay Vijay Merchant and Jonathan James Mathew), and one confessed (Peter Charles Johnson).The UK Serious Fraud Office shut its examination concerning the gear of Libor in October 2019 after a point by point survey of the accessible evidence. It is assessed that the long term examination of the Libor embarrassment in the UK cost in any event £60 million.

In April 2010 authenticated the aftereffects of the previous Wall Street Journal study, presuming that the Libor entries by some part banks were being understated. Unlike the prior investigation, Snider and Youle proposed that the explanation behind modest representation of the truth by part banks was not that the banks were attempting to seem solid, particularly during the monetary emergency time of 2007 to 2008, yet rather that the banks looked to make generous benefits on their huge Libor premium connected portfolios. For instance, in the main quarter of 2009, Citigroup had loan fee trades of notional estimation of $14.2 trillion, Bank of America had financing cost trades of notional estimation of $49.7 trillion and JPMorgan Chase had loan fee trades of notional estimation of $49.3 trillion. Given the huge notional qualities, a little unhedged introduction to the Libor could produce enormous impetuses to adjust the general Libor. In the primary quarter of 2009, Citigroup for instance revealed that it would make that quarter $936 million in net intrigue income if loan fees would fall by .25 rate focuses a quarter, and $1,935 million if they somehow managed to fall by 1 rate point momentarily.

The expense to conspiring and presume banks from suit, punishments, and loss of certainty may drive down account industry benefits for quite a long time. The expense of case from the embarrassment may surpass that of asbestos claims.

2)

Option c: In the long run in a competitive constant cost industry, HD EDU's supply curve is its MC curve above the minimum of ATC; the industry supply curve in this constant-cost industry is perfectly elastic at the minimum of ATC.

Explanation: The long run supply curve of the constant cost industry is horizontal to OX axis. That reflects that with the expansion of the industry, in the long run, the cost of productiondoes not increase. The industry can sustain the expansion without causing the cost of production of the firms to increase. Thus, the price will be equal to the minimum ATC.

The Option a is incorrect: This option is incorrect because it is said that a industry under decreasing cost situation faces a horizontal long run supply curve. But in reality a decreasing cost industry always faces a downward slopping long run supply curve.

The Option d is incorrect: This option is incorrect because it is said that a industry supply curve under constant cost situation is horizontal at minimum of AFC. But we know that in the long run the Fixed coost does not exist and thus there will be no AFC.

3)

WHETHER CONDITION DESTROYES MANY OF THE APPLE CORPES:

C) to left ( decrease in supply of apple because it is destroyed )

d) to right ( increase in demand because supply is reduced )

e) to left

f) to right

g) price increases ( when supply reduces and demand increase than prices also increases )

h) apple's quantity demanded increases upto a point but when its price starts increasing than its demand will fall due to increase in price)

MUCH OF THE APPLE CORPS IS DESTROYED DUE TO FREEZE

C) to left ( decrese in supply of orange because its quite destroyed )

d) to right ( increase in demand because of lack of its supply)

e) move from right to left

f) move from left to right

g) price increase ( because supply is reduced as compared to demand )

h) orange's quantity demanded will initially increase but when its price will start increasing than consumers demand for it will start reducing

NEW APPLE PLANTING TECHNOLOGY IS IMPLANTED:

C) to right ( supply will increase due to the new technology )

d) to right ( demand will also increase initially because previously their was shortage of apple )

e) move from left to right

f) move from left to right

g) price will increase but not that much becuase both supply and demand are increasing

h) Q.D. will initially increase than decrease when supply is increasing.

A REPORT IS RELEASED THAT THE PESTICIDES USED TO GROW APPLE IS CANCERIOUS

C) to left or stops ( supply reduces for the time being because of the rumours until it is verified)

d) to left ( demand reduces becuase now have doubts about the product so they are reluctant to buy it

e) from right ot left

f) from right to left

g) price declines ( to sell more or to clear the remaining stock price of apple drops )

h) Q.D. reduces because of the same reason.

4)

 The first function is given as f(x,y)=x^0.5y^0.25 and the second function is f(x,z)=x^2.5z^1.25. Thus, df(x,y)/dx for the first function=0.5x^(-0.5)y^0.25 or {0.5y^(0.25)}/x^0.5 and df(x,y)/dy=0.25x^0.5y^(-0.75) or {0.25x^(0.5)}/y^(-0.75) and for the second function, f(x,y)/fx=2.5x^1.5z^1.25 and f(x,z)/fz=1.25 x^2.5z^0.25.

Now, for the first function, second derivative of f(x,y) with respect to x=-0.25x^(-1.5)y^0.25 or {-0.25y^(0.25}/x^(1.5) and the second derivative of f(x,y) with respect to y=-0.1875x^0.5y^(-1.75) or {-0.1875x^(0.5)}/y^(1.75). Note that both the second derivatives of f(x,y), which is strictly a quasi-concave function, with respect to x and y are negative implying that they are both less than 0 which satisfies the second order condition of utility maximization.