Economists frequently assume that financial markets satisfy a "no-arbitrage" condition. If one investment is much more profitable than another, people will buy that profitable investment until its price rises (or return falls) and it is no longer super-profitable. Is this a realistic assumption? Why or why not?

Match the terms with their correct definition. terms: 1. accounts receivable 2. other receivables 3 debtor 4. notes receivable 5. maturity date 6. creditor definitions: a. the party to a credit transaction who takes on an obligation/payable. b. the party who receives a receivable and will collect cash in the future. c. a written promise to pay a specified amount of money at a particular future date. d. the date when the note receivable is due. e. a miscellaneous category that includes any other type of receivable where there is a right to receive cash in the future. f. the right to receive cash in the future from customers for goods sold or for services performed.