>It shouldn't have had to go to court.  The plaintiff brought the case to court to end the ongoing extortion for others, not because he needed to fight the claim. It is obviously in the public domain and the judgement even said so, but it is still cheaper for small time authors to pay the licensing fee than to defend from a false claim which is why the Doyle estate kept trying this stunt.


When the 2016 models come out, the dealership marks down the 2015 model and then it sells pretty fast.  The process doesn't take that long in the car market because the 2015 models are just as good as the 2016 so if they are just a little cheaper, they will sell quickly.  If you want a 2008 Audi that has never sold, you are going to be looking for a long time. The same thing happens in every industry.  Where are the older versions of digital cameras?  Cell phones?  Blenders?  Digital pianos?  Any item that changes from year to year sits on shelves for a little while after its replacement comes out until the retailer reduces its price by enough and it sells.  The only exceptions are goods that depreciate very quickly or go bad, which are recycled or thrown away (like fresh produce, for example). It seems kind of crazy at first that essentially all goods that are produced by the economy are consumed, but that's the magic of capitalism: prices make markets clear.


"The advantages of the TFSA are  This makes them great for 50-somethings who didn't do any saving yet, for whom clawbacks when they drawdown RRSPs will have a big impact on taxes and government-related income. It also makes them great for ""I will save up for that car / my downpayment / the kids skating fees next year"" when the money would come out of an RRSP at the same or even a higher tax rate and would not have time to compound for long. This may apply to you. And finally it makes them great for highly paid people who just don't know what the heck to do with all the money that is piling up and have no intention of ever using any of it while they're working, but have filled up their RRSPs. My 20-somethings are using them because they pay essentially no taxes now, so are waiting to use their RRSP room later. If you have money that you are saving for something other than retirement, put it in a TFSA. If you've maxed the RRSP and still have money left over, put it in an TFSA. If you have children, consider an RESP first, because of the bonus money. But don't think TFSA first unless it's for timelimited saving like towards a car or renovation."


"I disagree. I believe money should be invested, not spent. Investing is something you should do as early as possible, even (especially) before incurring personal debt, such as cars, houses, student loans, etc. As Warren Buffet says, delaying investment until you are all paid up, is like saving sex for your old age. Remember that you are considering an investment, not another expense. The only consideration is whether or not the property will be cashflow-positive, i.e. ""does it make more in rent than it costs to maintain?"". If it is, buy it. You can use the income to pay off those debts faster, and at the end you will still have the income stream. Second, it makes no sense to use all your cash when the bank is willing to lend you money. There is nothing wrong with debt, as long as it is attached to an asset, i.e. something that makes more money than it costs. If you have that much cash, buy several apartment buildings, hire a management company, and retire."


"For a personal finance forum, this is too complicated for sustained use and you should find a simpler solution. For a mathematical exercise, you are missing information required to do the split fairly.  You have to know who overlaps and when to know how to do the splits.   For an extreme example, take your dates given: Considering 100 days of calculation period,  If Roommate D was the only person present for the last 10 days, they should pay 100% of the grocery bill as they are the only one eating.   From your initial data set, you can't know who should be splitting the tab for any given day. To do this mathematically, you'd need:  But don't forget ""In Theory, Theory works.  In Practice, Practice works."" Good theory would say make a large, complicated spreadsheet as described above.   Good practice would be to split up the costs in a much, much simpler way."


"*Most* companies have gross margins, because it's not *just* tied to cost of ""goods,"" but cost of *revenue.* FedEx has costs of revenue and therefore a gross margin.  In some cases, however, yes, some companies will not have a cost directly tied to revenue. These are services companies in which an employees salary is by no means tied to the revenue (i.e. a salary of $50k will still do $100k of work or $1M of work with no change).   EDIT: Work has me looking at American Addiction Centers (AAC), which is an example of a company without cost of revenue/goods."


Voip for mobile Voip mobile Hello dear, i have good quality Mobile  dialer. Just install dialer software and give login and password then make call.,We have Nine Canadian & UK dialer with highest voice. you can use all dialer in same account. if you like good quality service, please contact with us. Looking for Reseller. India mobile——–2200 mins Bangladesh Mobile–800 mins Pakistan Mobile—- 800/1450 mins Price=29$/107AED/ 11.1348 Omr/ 109 SAR/1380 Rupee/2100 taka If you don’t like that packages then We will create card as your demand. Or we will give to you reseller panel then you can create card as you like.   Thanks and Regards Masum salestalkdialer@gmail.com mobiledialer788@yahoo.com Mobile: 8801711062213, 8801673706969


At Just Fascias, we provide the expert installers of replacement Fascias and Soffits in Kent and Surrey. We use top quality materials for the safety of your home. We also offer you a wide array of payment options suitable to you! Call free at 0800 048 8872 for any query!


"See if you can find a buyer's agent who will represent you at an hourly rate, and refund the balance of the buying agent's commission.  As I noted in a comment, I know of at least two agencies that will do this in Chicago. Start with a google search of something like ""[MyCity] discount real estate brokers""."


Two of the best (BEST) infrastructure engineers (DEC and Sun) I worked with over the past 30+ years graduated from Juilliard.    I have an engineering degree (ChE), but it's all about what you bring to the party when you're working on enterprise scale problems.


Dealing with an unfaithful cheating partner or spouse can be a very very painful experience, especially if the two of you have been together for a long time. But, once the evidence is evident enough to seek for answers of the betrayal, you should not lose your strength and peace of mind.


The problem is that while there are a lot of statistics that can be created from basic market data such as prices and volume, along with the fundamentals of the company, I think that if you talk to 8 different day traders, you'll get 12 different theories of how to interpret and trade based on those numbers.  Also quite likely, the more successful someone is at day trading, the more closely they are likely to guard their secrets and not want to divulge them. If there was any uniform concensus, they you'd see all the daytraders doing the same thing, and moving as a group, shortly after which you'd get 'contra' folks who would try to gain by moving in opposition, or 'predicta' folks who would try to front-run the pack. and.... (I think you can see where this leads)  A better idea might be to just work on educating your-self firstly with regard to nomenclature and terms, and then move on to reading some stuff about how markets work   etc.  I'd suggest starting with a book like 'Wall Street Words' and/or 'A Random Walk Down Wall Street' since both are great introductions to things, and move on from there.  Note that both of those books have gone through multiple editions, so be sure to get the most recent one (especially if you are trying to save money and buy a used version)   You are also likely to find an nearly endless supply of 'seminars' that will offer to teach you somebody's proven method for a fee, or for 'free' but after which you find our you need to use their special tools or data sources etc (which cost money) to use their 'system'  (either of which makes me think that their system can't be that great if they figure it's a surer thing to charge for 'teaching' or 'tools/services' than it is to use their system, otherwise they'd just shut up, practice what they preach and make money that way instead)  It might be worth attending the free ones just to get exposure to someone's theory on how to game the system, provided you are 'not an easy mark' and can withstand the high pressure sales pitch for their books/software/services etc that pays their bills and almost invariably comes along with such a seminar.


Cash should never have been placed in the mailbox in the first place; this is what checks are for. I would be a bit surprised if that constitutes your accepting payment, but I Am Not A Lawyer. You need local legal advice; this is the sort of thing where local rulings matter. Definitely report the missing money to the police, no matter what else you do. You do not have to give them an opinion on whether this was a theft or an attempted fraud; just give them the facts that the tenant says they left money in the box but you didn't find it there.


"I get it, but I'm just saying it's not as simple as saying ""if you can't settle down for a few weeks, you don't really want the job"". A person who uses marijuana for medical purposes is *not* legally protected from these drug tests (the courts have ruled on this), but it may not be reasonable for them to stop taking their medicine for six to twelve weeks.    Finance companies sometimes do hair tests, although it's less common."


"First, your question contains a couple of false premises: Options in the U.S. do not trade on the NYSE, which is a stock exchange.  You must have been looking at a listing from an options exchange. There are a handful of options exchanges in the U.S., and while two of these have ""NYSE"" in the name, referring to ""NYSE"" by itself still refers to the stock exchange. Companies typically don't decide themselves whether options will trade for their stock.  The exchange and other market participants (market makers) decide whether to create a market for them. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) is also a stock exchange.  It doesn't list any options.  If you want to see Canadian-listed options on equities, you're looking in the wrong place. Next, yes, RY does have listed options in Canada. Here are some.  Did you know about the Montreal Exchange (MX)?  The MX is part of the TMX Group, which owns both the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and the Montreal Exchange. You'll find lots of Canadian equity and index options trading at the MX.  If you have an options trading account with a decent Canadian broker, you should have access to trade options at the MX. Finally, even considering the existence of the MX, you'll still find that a lot of Canadian companies don't have any options listed.  Simply: smaller and/or less liquid stocks don't have enough demand for options, so the options exchange & market makers don't offer any. It isn't cost-effective for them to create a market where there will be very few participants."


No, this is misbehavior of sales software that tries to automatically find the price point which maximizes profit. There have been much worse examples. Ignore it. The robot will eventually see that no sales occurred and try a more reasonable price.


"This depends strongly on what you mean by ""stock trading"".  It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between ""trading"" and ""investing"", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that ""market rate of return"" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the ""great recession"" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want."


If you've ever taken a look at Amazon Fresh,it's full of pretty much the same stuff (just much less variety than Whole Foods) - I'd imagine the WFM model isn't going to change from the brick and mortar standpoint, but will see a full scale integration of Amazon Fresh's delivery service, which will be good for both.  Still not keen on 8 dollars for a gallon of milk tho. wtf Whole Foods.


Yes, the ADR will trade on a separate exchange from the underlying one, and can (and does) see fluctuations in price that do not match the (exchange corrected) fluctuations that occur in the original market. You are probably exposing yourself to additional risk that is related to:


"I very much agree with what @Grade 'Eh' Bacon said about townhouses, but wanted to add a bit about HOA's, renting after moving on, and appreciation: HOA's HOA's can be restrictive, but they can also help protect property values, not all HOA's are created equal, some mean you have zero exterior maintenance, some don't. You'll be able to review the HOA financials to see where the money goes (and if they have healthy reserves). You'll see how much they spend on administration, I think ~10% is typical, and administration can be offset by the savings associated with doing everything in bulk. A well-run HOA should actually save you money over paying for all the things separately, but many people are happy to do some things themselves rather than pay for it, and would come out ahead if they didn't have an HOA. And of course, not all HOA's are well-run. Just do your best to get informed Transitioning to Rental If you are interested in trying your hand being a landlord after living there for a while, a townhouse typically exposes you to less rental risk than a single-family home, because the cost is typically lower and if the HOA maintains everything outside the house then you don't have to worry as much about tenants keeping a lawn in good shape, for example. Appreciation Appreciation varies wildly by market, some research by Trulia suggests in general condo's have outperformed single-family houses over the last 5 years by 10.5%. The same article notes that others disagree with Trulia's assessment and put condo's below single-family houses by 1.3% annually. My first townhouse has appreciated 41% over the last 3 years, while houses in the area are closer to 30% over the same period, but I believe that's a function of my local market more than a nationwide trend. I wouldn't plan around any appreciation forecasts. Source: Condos may be appreciating faster than single-family houses My adviceYou have to do your research on each potential property regardless of whether it's a condo/townhouse/single-family to find out what restrictions there are and what services are provided by the HOA (if any), your agent should be provided with most of the pertinent info, and you may not get to see HOA financials until you're under contract. Most importantly in my view, I wouldn't buy anywhere near the top of your budget. Being ""house-poor"" is no fun and will limit your options, don't count on appreciation or better income in the future to justify stretching yourself thin in the short-term."


Yes, I see your point.   To be fair though - he was downvoted, so at least the users are trying to tune out the political rhetoric. Let's hope that continues; on our part, I did recently remove a ZH article that was just plain garbage.   Again - please use the report button if you feel that an article is not-finance and/or incorrect. We generally take swift notice of those, and can act a lot faster.


Internet sites Books Academic


Yes. I think people forget the emotional aspects that humans have to walking into a bright store and actually touching and holding products. The advent of mobile apps ( Ibotta, Shopkick to name a few off the top of my head) and their success is evidence that people like shopping in person, they just want to get a good deal.


I gather it's been up until now cost prohibitive to build upward, and in such an environment, cities have a vested interest in maintaining their skyline. They'll probably need to adapt, but the idea that zoning is capricious is false.


There are two steps. First you take the age at retirement and annual benefit. Say it's $10,000/yr. You can easily look up the present value of a $10k/yr annuity starting at age X. (I used age 62, male, at Immediate Annuity. It calculates to be $147K. You then need to look at your current age and with a finance calculator calculate the annual deposits required to get to $147K by that age.  What I can't tell you is what value to use as a cost of money until retiring. 4%? 6%? That's the larger unknown.


"Why is ""going forward"" any different than ""from now on""? They both mean ""we are at a point, and now we are going to move from that point""  They're just plain synonyms.   ""Touch base"" means more than ""contact"" - it suggests a short status report. If someone says ""we will only touch base via email"" they're kinda using it wrong. It's usually something like ""Hey, touch base with me tomorrow morning"" which means ""contact me and let me know how everything is going"" except it's shorter.   ""We need to take it offline"" is simply a modern form of ""sidebar."" It's similar to ""table the discussion for later"" but not quite. Incidentally, ""take it offline"" also means ""let's stop wasting everyone's time with this and get back to finishing the meeting"" - you'd think folks would be grateful for that one.  ""Please reach out"" suggests asking for help.   tl;dr^* : ""Contact,"" ""touch base,"" and ""reach out,"" each have subtly different meanings. If you think they're synonyms, either the people around you don't use them right, or you're not paying attention.    ^* tl;dr is a reddit buzzword. But I guess those are okay."


"Will this difference be given back in my next tax return If you compute your taxes correctly, yes you will get that money back when your tax return is processed. ""is it possible to return the check and modify how it's calculated if I talk to payroll?""  That is entirely up to your company but, probably not. It's a lot of effort for a comparatively small amount of money.  ""Any ideas?"" Yeah, you are doing your math wrong. A possible but more unlikely answer is your company's software screwed up."


The driven hardworking people should be able to earn a living just like the wasteful, unambitious 2nd-5th generation rich folk.  The *widening* inequality needs to be fixed if we want to keep our society intact, unless we're aiming towards modern feudalism. (Which we are!)


I hate Sony. Proprietary, overpriced crap. They still think they can charge like 25% premium on their products because of the brand name alone while Samsung pretty much rules the market in a lot of areas they used to be considered big.


How many terms in does Obama need to go before it starts being his problem?  Does that happen at his second term, or should we start drumming up support for a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment so we can get this done?


While my margin is not nearly as good as yours, I sell out early.  I generally think it's a bad idea to hold any single stock, as they can vary wildly in value.  However, as you mention, it's advantageous to hold for one year.  Read more about Capital Gains Taxes here and here.


There are been many tests about invest all the money immediately and average it out during a period of time.  The results favor to invest the lump sum immediately, so your money starts to work and produce income with dividends. Cash don't produce any income.


Yup. These people are entitled losers that don't want to be responsible for their actions. They still live at home at 30 and don't have a real job or make minimum wage, but it's not their fault according to them. They blame it on everyone else


"Am I eligible for declaring my earnings to the IRS? You're always eligible. You're probably asking whether you're required. In the US it doesn't matter where you deposit the money, it matters where you earn it. Money is earned where the services are provided. This is called ""sourcing"". So if you are working in a foreign country - you're only subject to the US laws to the extent you're a US citizen/permanent resident or qualify for the substantial presence test."


An index fund is just copying the definition of an index. The group that defines the index determines how to weight the different parts of the index. The index fund just makes sure they invest the same way the index creator wants.  Think of a non-investment scenario. A teacher can grade tests, quizzes, homework, in-class assignments, research papers. They decide how much weight to give each category and how much weight to give each part of each category. when a student wants to see how they are doing they take the information in the syllabus, and generate a few formulas in a spreadsheet to calculate their current grade. They can also calculate what they need to get on the final exam to get the grade they want.


The question is for your HR department, or administrator of the plan. How long must you hold the employee shares before you are permitted to sell? Loyalty to your company is one thing, but after a time, you will be too heavily invested in one company, and you need to diversify out. One can cite any number they wish, 5%, 10%. All I know is that when Enron blew up, it only added insult to injury that not only did these people lose their job, they lost a huge chunk of their savings as well.


Some smart but sketchy people are getting rich with this.  >The email informs readers about AllSafe, a digital token without a working website, a Twitter account that's been dormant since June, and the same name as a fake company in the show Mr. Robot.  Ok, maybe not that smart.


From the article:  *counterfeiters' profits are often enormous because they haven't had to fund the R&D work undertaken by the pharma companies*  No.  R&D amounts to about ~~5%~~ 10% (NSF has it at less than 10%) of the average pharmaceutical company's budget.  Most pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than they do on R&D.  The huge profit margin in counterfeiting in-patent drugs is due to the huge profit margin that pharmaceutical companies make on in-patent drugs.    I'm not saying this is good or bad; I'm making no value judgement at all.  It is simply not true that the cost of in-patent drugs is driven by R&D costs.  The issue is much more complex than that.


"So your whole approach, and the attempt to scale this is flawed.  You will alienate roomates, provoke arguments, and make everyone's life more difficult.  There are too many variables and unforeseen possibilities.  For instance: ""Why should I have to pay for Joe to go buy the expensive organic milk when I'm fine with the cheap stuff?"" ""I planned on being here for 20 days, but was gone that long weekend, recalculate everything please."" ""I already paid for this month, but now you're asking for more because James wanted to recalculate for a long weekend?"" The right way to do this is to set up loose, reasonable agreement among the participants and treat that as a contract, but with some flexibility/mercy on small dollar amount items. For instance: There are 5 of us, so everyone provides food (and shops/cooks) one night a week.  We're solo on Friday and Saturday (people eat out more then anyway), and everyone puts in $10/week (or whatever) for breakfast cereal, snacks, etc.  If you can't be here on your night, work out to trade with someone.  If you miss out on a meal... oh well. As long as people feel like they have a say in the discussion generating this and it's not dictated to them, then most of the time this is far superior.  If people need this level of detail, then perhaps those people should live alone or move in with Sheldon Cooper from ""The Big Bang Theory""."


"Do I need an Investment Adviser?  No, but you may want to explore the idea of having one. Is he going to tell me anything that my accountant can't?  Probably. How much expertise are you expecting from your accountant here? Do you think your accountant knows everything within the realms of money from taxes, insurance products, investments and all your choices and what would work or wouldn't? Seems like it could be a tall order to my mind. My accountant did say to come to him for advice on investment/business   issues. So, he is willing, but is he able? Not asking about his   competence, but rather ""is there something that only an Investment   Adviser can provide, by law, that an accountant can't""? Not that I know though don't forget how much expertise are you expecting here from one person. Is this person intended to answer all your money questions? But isn't that something that my accountant could/should do? Perhaps though how well are you expecting one person to be aware of so much stuff? I want you to know all the tax law so I can minimize taxes, maximize my investment returns, cover me with adequate insurance, and protect my savings seems like a bit much to put on one entity. Do I need either of them? Won't the Internet and sites like this one   suffice? Need no. However, how much time are you prepared to spend learning the basics of strategies that work for you? How much money are you prepared to put into things to learn what works and doesn't? While it is your decision, consider how to what extent do you diagnose your medical issues through the internet versus going to see a doctor? Be careful of how much of a do it yourself approach you want to go here and recognize that there are multiple approaches that may work. The question is which trade-offs are OK for you."


"You're right to seek passive income and since you're already looking for it, you probably already know some of the reasons to why it is important.   Do you live in the United States? If so I'd strongly recommend purchasing your primary residence and then maybe investment properties if you like owning your own home.  The US tax and banking structure is set up to favor this move in more ways than I can count. So, SAVE, SAVE, SAVE then beg, borrow and steal to get the down payment, rent rooms to friends or random people to afford the payments, buy a fixer upper in an up and coming neighborhood.  The US is rife with these in all price ranges. If you're working 56 hrs a week, you've got the work ethic. So if you can't afford it it's probably because you're spending all your money on other stuff. If you want to do this, it will take some effort, smarts, and savings. You will have to trim back the mochas, vacations, dinners out, etc, etc etc.  Let your friends do that stuff and rent from you.  Your life will get continually easier. If you have already trimmed back all the discretionary spending and still can't make it then you need to earn more money. Doing either and both of these things will absolutely change your whole economic life and future. So in summary I'd offer these  Ranked Priorities: 1) Learn to Save (unless you always want to have to work for someone else) 2) Increase your income capability (since your most valuable asset is YOU) 3) Buy and hold real estate (because the game is rigged to favor passive income) I'm 38, never earned a six figure salary, made some good purchases when I was 25-30 and work is ""optional"" for me now."


"Bonds might not be simple, but in general there are only a few variables that need to be understood: bid, coupon (interest) rate, maturity, and yield.  Bond tables clearly lay those out, and if you're talking about government bonds a lot of things (like convertibles) don't apply (although default is still a concern). This might be overly simplistic, but I view ETF's primarily as an easy way to bring somewhat esoteric instruments (like grain futures) into the easily available markets of Nasdaq and the NYSE. That they got ""enhanced"" with leveraged funds and the such is interesting, but perhaps not the original intent of the instrument.  Complicating your situation a bit more is the fee that gets tacked onto the ETF. Even Vanguard government bond funds hang out north of 0.1%. That's not huge, but it's not particularly appealing either considering that (unlike rounding up live cattle futures), it's not that much work to buy US government bonds, so the expense might not seem worth it to someone who's comfortable purchasing the securities directly.  I'd be interested to see someone else's view on this, but in general I'd say that if you know what you want and know how to buy it, the government bond ETF becomes a lot less relevant as the liquidity offered (including the actual ""ease of transacting"") seem to to be the biggest factors in favor. From Investopedia's description: The bond ETF is an exciting new addition to the bond market, offering   an excellent alternative to self-directed investors who, looking for   ease of trading and increased price transparency, want to practice   indexing or active bond trading. However, bond ETFs are suitable for   particular strategies. If, for instance, you are looking to create a   specific income stream, bond ETFs may not be for you. Be sure to   compare your alternatives before investing."


Well, first off, if your children are NZ citizens, they can borrow money at 0% interest for tertiary education and I don't see any benefit to not taking free money. A saving account is your money, and will accrue a little bit of interest and you will pay tax on that. A family trust (I hope this is what you mean by trust fund) is a separate financial entity that can be set up to own assets for the benefit of multiple people. For example, if you have a rental property or business and you want the income divided between your children, rather than coming to you, or if you have a bach you want to keep in the family after you die.


It seems likely that the mortgage is not in your boyfriend's name because he never would have qualified if he can't even afford utilities after paying the mortgage. It also seems unfair that his sister continues to have a 50% share of the equity if your boyfriend has been making the entire payment on the mortgage every month. What would happen if your boyfriend stopped making the payments? His sister would have no choice if the property went into foreclosure. Your boyfriend has all the leverage he needs by simply refusing to continue making the payments. Why he won't push his sister to make a deal is the real question you need to ask him. In the meantime, if he wants out, all he has to do is decide not to keep paying whether his sister feels attached or not.


Personally, I buy newer luxury cars for two reasons.   1) Status symbol Newer cars have the latest looks, performance, and features like heated side mirrors and sensors that adjust cruse control speed when in heavy traffic etc.   2) Older cars have more wear and tear. No one has spent any significant amount of time in the car before and therefore you know the history of what the car has been through, like buying a new pair of pants.  You know that no one has pissed in them ;). After I have pissed in and tore up my now older luxury car, I sell it off and get a new one.  Cars wear out and as they get older, they need parts replaced.  My brother's Mazda, for example, just blew the head gasket after buying the car new and driving 130k miles over a four year period.  Part of the luxury for owning a new car is the luxury of time, not having your car spend any significant amount of time in a garage being worked on, unless you buy a Land Rover of course ;).


"As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a ""friendly merger""; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a ""tender offer"" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a ""hostile takeover"". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any ""holdouts"" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are ""squeezed out""; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home."


>provide cheap, commoditized services.  This is crux to the article's argument. But the point should be taken from the article that you need to value your time (so there is a higher chance of success with the business endeavor).   If you can hire someone else to do other (lower level) tasks (i.e. farm out, delegate, contract) you free up time for yourself to do those tasks that bring more results to your efforts. And hence has more value.  Perhaps this is where the [80/20 rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) comes into play.


There is nothing fair / unfair in such deals. It is an art than a science.  what kind of things should be considered, to work out what would be a fair percentage stake A true fair value is; take the current valuation of the company [This can be difficult if it is small and does not maintain proper records]. Divide by number of shares, that is the value of share and you should 20K worth of such shares. But then there is risk premium. You are taking a risk that an small start-up may do exceedingly well ... or it may close off. This risk premium is what is negotiated. It depends on how desperate the owner of the small company is; who all are interested in this specific deal ... if you want 30% share; someone else is ready to offer 20K for 15% of share. Or there is no one willing to lend 20K as they don't believe it will make money ... and the owner is desperate, you may even get 50%.


China, the worlds leader of carbon emissions, is now going to be the leader of renewable energy?  In the Paris accord China wouldn't have to cut their emissions in the near future. China wouldn't have to dish out billions of dollars to other poorer countries, like the U.S. would have to.  Can someone please explain how making a better deal is a bad idea?


After a certain point it's just monkey see, monkey do.   Right. If I have a high volume account and I request that no packages be left in the walkway and every delivery is left with a person I can guarantee they'll do their best to oblige by that before they lose the account. That's all I'm saying.


"I would keep some money in the U.S. and some money in India. That way, in case ""something bad"" happens in one country, you will still have money in the other."


I suggest to just invest in index funds, these are low risk with high reward stocks that can survive even the worst of stock crashes but are still extremely profitable when the stock market is booming


Assuming you would still have a line of credit, it makes plenty of sense to pay off the loan. You're paying 16 percent for money you don't need right now. Pay it all off and you can start rebuilding your savings account. So what do you do in a future emergency? Well first off, you can use the savings you have rebuilt up to that point to fund some portion of it. The rest you can borrow again, as long as you have a line of credit somewhere. The icing on the cake though, is that once you stop carrying a balance, your credit card purchases will have grace periods again. Once that grace period kicks in, it's an effective short term free loan, and if you really wanted to, you could move money that would otherwise immediately go to purchases into savings. The difference is that you're paying in full again, and aren't charged any interest on the float. Just remember, that if you fail to pay in full by the due date, they charge retroactive interest and fees. An alternative is to find a way to consolidate your credit card bill into a collateralized loan. HELOCs for example. The rates are much cheaper than your CC bill, but require you to have some equity in the home. One thing to consider is that HELOCs are an open line of credit that can't be easily taken away. The interest is also tax deductible, unlike your credit card interest. There's also unsecured lines of credit from banks and credit unions, and if you have the credit score the can be cheaper than credit cards. I think I've shown here that there's plenty of alternatives to carrying credit card debt for the unexpected in life. Pay it off!


"Sign up with credit karma.  It will give you two scores for free and will show you credit cards you have a good chance in being approved for.  Plus it will evaluate your score showing you the 6 items that effect your score and give you steps to improve them or tell you how long you have to wait until they roll off. Plus I would look at a credit union and see if they have any ""fresh start"" programs.  You should be well on your way.   the thing that is probably hurting your credit is your utilization.  If you can just use 10% of your available credit."


After a company goes public, if it wants to raise more money, then it does this by secondary public offering or rights issue. In subscription rights issue gives the right to existing share holders to buy new shares at equal proportion. So if every one buys, they maintain the same percentage of ownership. Generally the pricing is at discount to current market price. Not sure why the price is high, unless the price for this stock fell sharply recently.


Yes and don't forget that the Holocaust is fake and the Jews have milked it for its all worth, every single holocaust hero/Author/story teller the Jews have presented has turned out to be fake . .and now that they have all died . .they have created a new generation to carry forward an even more exaggerated version with no link to anything resembling the truth.  The Protocols of the learned elders of Zion is also the truth as well as what is discussed in Bloody Passovers.  Israeli Jews have harvested organs from dead Palestinians and Jewish Rabbis have been caught on a number of occasions selling them on the black market in America.  The Jews hate to be called Jews and are ashamed, so much so that they had to make up the term Anti-Semitic, because nobody would give a shit if you said Anti-Jew.  Nobody has to do anything, no matter how hard you try, you cannot escape your greed and by your nature as a parasite are bound to keep sucking on the carcass of your host nations until long after its awake and looking at you.  Like right Now


Rapid Injection Molding is producing better molds better suited to run low volume production. The manufacturing process is based on the process of injecting material into a mold. It can be performed with a host of materials like metals, glasses, elastomers, and most common thermosetting polymers. Raw materials are fed through a hopper during the thermoplastic molding process. There are two different types of molds namely single and multiple molds.


If you are solvent enough, and organised enough to pay your credit card bill in full each month, then use the credit card.  There are no disadvantages and several plus points, already mentioned. Use the debit card when you would be surcharged for using the credit card, or where you can negotiate a discount for not subjecting the vendor to credit card commission.


If you can manage your time for side hustling then don't quit your education because some companies will surely need these. Besides, educational background and certificate will provide you confidence at whatever you will be doing next as a matter of social status.


[We already](http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12784.htm) did this [quite well](http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GAO%20Fed%20Investigation.pdf), and why does [Ron Paul](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Transparency_Act) keep [introducing crackpot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Board_Abolition_Act#Sound_money) bills that die mostly because they're irrelevant? [He wrote a book supporting the gold standard](http://www.amazon.com/Case-Gold-Ron-Paul/dp/1469971801)  and added a double helping of economic idiocy with [End the Fed](http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193). Amazing he gets such a following, but I guess they are mostly economic crackpots, and he is their prophet :)


Sure, form an LLC with an attorney's advice. You need a buyout clause, operating agreement, etc. If you're not married, never buy a home for personal use with someone else.


"Take a Chilean cruise this year, and experience exploring the most beautiful, and untouched places on Earth: Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego & Cape Horn. Cruceros Australis will take you on an amazing journey to the ""uttermost end of the earth,"" providing you with an unforgettable cruise on one of the industry's most comfortable ships designed to make your trip a remarkable excursion of a lifetime."


"I've been highly compensated for a while now, and I have never used a tax professional.  My past complications include the year that my company was bought by a VC firm and my stock options and stock held were bought out to the tune of 5x my salary.  And now I have two kids in college, with scholarships, and paying the remainder out of 529 accounts. Usually, I don't even use tax software.  My typical method is to use the online software -- like turbotax online -- and let it figure out where I am.  Then I use the ""Free File Fillable forms"" online to actually complete the process.  Search for ""Free File Fillable Forms"" -- it's not the same as using turbotax or TaxAct for free.   My suggestion to you:  download the PDF form of 1040EZ and 1040A from the IRS.  Print the EZ, and fill it out.  This will give you a better feel for what exactly is going on.  With your income, I don't think you can file the EZ, but it's a good way to get your feet wet. The way income taxes work here in the US: According to the IRS, the Personal Exemption this year is worth $4,050, and the Standard Deduction $6,300, assuming you're single.   Lets assume that your salary will be in fact 75,000, and you don't pay for any benefits, but you do make a 401k contribution of 15% of your salary.  Then your W-2 at the end of the year should tell you to put 63,750 in a particular box on your 1040 form.  (63,750 is 85% of 75,000).  Lets then assume 63,750 is your AGI after other additions and subtractions.  63,750 - 4,050 - 6,300 == 53,400. The federal Tax system is graduated, meaning there are different ranges (brackets) with different percentages.  The term tax people use for taxable income of 53,400 is ""marginal tax rate""...so the last dollar they tax at 25%.  Other dollars less.  According to the IRS, if you're single, then on 53,400, you pay ""$6,897.50 plus 25% of the amount over $50,400""  Or 6897.50 + 750, or 7647.50. Note this is only Federal Income Tax.  You will also be paying Social Security and Medicare payroll Tax.  And I'm guessing you'll also be paying colorado state income tax.  Each state has its own forms and methods for figuring out the taxes and stuff. By the way, when you start, you'll fill out a ""W-4"" form to ""help"" you figure out how much to withhold from every paycheck.  (I find the W-4 is not helpful at all).  Your company will withhold from your paycheck some mysterious amount, and the process of filling out your 1040A or 1040EZ or whatever will be, likely, to get the over-withheld amount back."


I actually read that a lot of times, that isn’t necessarily true. In some of these third world countries, the issue is less that the money is wasted but that there isn’t enough to make the kinds of optimal investments that were thinking of.   For example, someone might understand intellectually that they need to buy a water buffalo to scale up their farm but saving up the money to do so would mean that they wouldn’t be able to feed their kids for two years. They’re not “bad with money”, they just flat out don’t have enough to go beyond subsistence.   I think that’s the target market for these types of programs. They won’t work for everyone, people who are actually irresponsible will screw up no matter how much money and coaching you give them. But this could be a game changer for people who are good with the money they do have and just need a boost.


We are the most world's largest entertaining corporate events in Escape rooms. We have fabulous entertaining activities for our clients. Our so many clients are very happy after coming here. You can make the rememberable events here with our corporate events broward county. It is a unique opportunity for  those people who want to make the special party in your budget and major events to entertainment. We are one of the finest service provider in  USA. It is the most way to spend the vacation here.


There is a thing called the Sharpe Ratio. This Ratio takes return/risk with risk being defined as the standard deviation of prices over time. According to Financial theory the investment with the highest (best) Sharpe Ratio is a market portfolio. Technically accepting the lower risk of a treasury is accepting an amplified lower return(market sharpe would be 1 than tbill sharpe would be at most .9999999999999).  Because of this, unless there are liquidity restraints (don't buy ETFs with your payroll money DUH) you should ALWAYS be in market funds, otherwise you are leaving money on the table. Everything else is just speculation.  Now the real question is value or growth.......


>Let's be honest though; you would to if accepting reality meant that your way of life, your job, your grossly inflated salary, etc. just dried up over night.  I can't speak for everyone else, but for me personally:  Hell no.  I work for a telecommunications company and network neutrality is terrible for us.  Our management has actually asked us to volunteer to contribute to anti-neutrality PACs.  Local municipal broadband initiatives in rural areas (our territory is largely rural) are opposed strongly by my company.  And you know what?  If those local broadband collectives eat our lunch and cause the demise of my company?  I'm totally fine with it.  I'll find another job somewhere else.  I am not cheering for my own company's downfall - far from it - but if it happens due to competition, I'm not going to stand in the way.


Exactly.  A minimum wage increase, or a decrease in tax burden on the lowest wage earners, or an increase in available wages for the economically disadvantaged (through government jobs) are the most reliable ways for a government to increase demand (aka: grow an economy aka: create new jobs) by putting more money in to the hands of the people who are going to spend it.  Much better than the gilding the parachutes of the super wealthy (aka: republican policy).


Paying off your mortgage early being good is a myth.  It is great for the chronic overspenders to have their mortgage paid off so when they rack up credit card bills and get behind, well they still hae a place to stay. But for those who are more logical with their money paying off your mortgage early in current conditions makes no sense.  You can get a 30 year loan well below 4%.  Discounting taxes for your average family you would have a rate floating below 3%.   So reasons that paying off your mortgage should be almost LAST (given current low long-term interest rates): The first thing you should do is take care of any high interest debt.  I would say that anything more than 7-8%, including all credit card debt should be focus #1. putting money into your retirement savings is #1.  You will earn way more than 3% over the long-run.  you can earn a higher return in the market.  Even with a very conservative portfolio you can clear 5-6%, which will still clear more than 3% after taxes. for those who say you can't be sure about the market... well if the market did bad for 30 years in a row no one will have money and the house will also be worthless. if a disaster happens to your house and you own it, your money is gone.  In many cases you would be able to declare bankruptcy and let the bank take the property as is.   there are just too many examples but if you are paying off your house early, you lose the flexible/liquid money that you now have tied up in the house. Now the reasons for paying down your mortgage are really easy too: you don't trust your spending habits you want to move up in houses and you want to make sure that you have at least 20% down on future house to skip PMI.


Thank you for replying. I'm not sure I totally follow though, aren't you totally at mercy of the liquidity in the stock? I guess I'm havinga hard time visualizing the value a human can add as opposed to say vwapping it or something. I can accept that you're right, just having a difficult time picturing it


While many answers correctly cite the effect of monopoly power.... there is a cost issue that no one has yet posted.  I first recall seeing this cost effect in a managerial econ textbook, perhaps Ivan Png's.   The theater must clean up the popcorn mess.  The sales of popcorn elsewhere does not usually include the costs of disposal because that cost is not borne by the vendor.   In a theater the cost of disposal -- which is a variable cost depending on the amount and type of foodstuff sold -- is borne by the vendor, who must pay employees to clean up between shows and at the end of the night.  While most people are responsible with popcorn, there is a long tail of more and more costly messes left by the customer...  and if the theater shirks the cost of cleaning the messes then rats with long tails will bite into future customer demand for tickets. Whether this cost effect is as large as the monopoly power effect and the synergy in willingness-to-pay between entertainment and refreshments is not clear.  All of these effects may be in operation.


"Your bank has discretion to honor checks after 6 months, so you should talk to your bank about their specific policy. In general, banks won't accept ""large"" stale checks. The meaning of ""large"" varies -- $25,000 in NYC, as little as $2k in other places. Banks that service high-volume check issuers (like rebate companies) reject checks at 180 days. For business purposes, I think some banks will create accounts for specific mailings or other purposes as well. (i.e. 2011 refund account) The accounts close after a year."


While I disagree with a strike and am against minimum wage laws, why do you or I or any of the more fortunate deserve whatever it is that we do? Surely someone in the third world could do better than us.  Just because they went on strike does not mean they are wrong. Walmart has the power  and the right to hire and fire them and they have should have the right for collective bargaining. It is  good system of check and balances, kind of how our country needs both liberals and conservatives.


As a consumer and frequent buyer on Amazon, this is welcome news.  I always hate the refund hassle when buying something outside of Prime.  This might make me more willing to make these purchases now.  I think this will help the sellers, not hurt them.


What would happen if you was to cash a check, didn’t realize it was   to you and your finance company, take it to a local business that has   a money center, they cash the check without even having you sign let   alone having the finance companies endorsement on it . The money   cleared my account like a couple months ago and it was just brought up   now .. ? The reason why the check was made out the owner and the lender is to make sure the repairs were done on the car. The lender wants to make sure that their investment is protected.  For example: you get a six year loan on a new car. In the second year you get hit by another driver. The damage estimate is $1,000, and you decide it doesn't look that bad, so you decide to skip the repair and spend the money on paying off debts. What you don't know is that if they had done the repair they would have found hidden damage and the repair would have cost $3,000 and would have been covered by the other persons insurance.  Jump ahead 2 years, the rust from the skipped repair causes other issues. Now it will cost $5,000 to fix. The insurance won't cover it, and now a car with an outstanding loan balance of $4,000 and a value of $10,000 if the damage didn't exist needs $5,000 to fix.  The lender wants the repairs done. They would have not signed the check before seeing the proof the repairs were done to their satisfaction. But because the check was cashed without their involvement they will be looking for a detailed receipt showing that all the work was done. They may require that the repair be done at a certified repair shop with manufacturer parts.  If you don't have a detailed bill ask the repair shop for a copy of the original one.


Yes. According to the IRS website, see #2: Whether a need is immediate and heavy depends on the facts and circumstances. Certain expenses are deemed to be immediate and heavy, including: (1) certain medical expenses; (2) costs relating to the purchase of a principal residence; (3) tuition and related educational fees and expenses; (4) payments necessary to prevent eviction from, or foreclosure on, a principal residence; (5) burial or funeral expenses; and (6) certain expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence. Expenses for the purchase of a boat or television would generally not qualify for a hardship distribution. A financial need may be immediate and heavy even if it was reasonably foreseeable or voluntarily incurred by the employee. (Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii))


I'm an idiot. Certainly not worthy of all this fancy formatting and linking you've done.   I confused the Gen X cut-off with Baby Boomers.   I implied that Gen X, as middle managers, had direct operational control over decisions that led to financial crisis. You chose to ignore that point entirely.


You should really talk to a lawyer about criminal concerns. There may be some. Does USA credit score transfer to other countries? The USA doesn't do anything with credit scores. In the USA credit records are maintained by private companies who provide the information to your creditor. There's no legal limitation for the creditors to be within USA, only that you allow access. So bottom line - technically it is possible for foreign creditors to get that information. If you don't have local credit score, it is likely that they will. Will someone come after me? Depends on the loan managers. Civil suite is possible, since you cannot discharge student loans in bankruptcy. How likely is it? Probably not very likely. Could I be extradited? Only if a criminal complaint is filed and the country you're at has an extradition agreement with the US. Would I be arrested if I ever came back to visit a family member? I'm not sure on this. I believe it is possible for a lender to have your passport taken by a court, but I don't think you can be actually arrested unless there's a criminal charge. But as I said - I believe your passport may be taken away from you when you come to the US, to prevent you fleeing without paying the debt. Would someone go after my family to collect the debts? Can they do that? Unless they co-signed, or they have control over your assets - unlikely. Could the USA somehow garnish my pay in another country? Yes, if a court decides so. That would have to be a court in that country though. In addition: The US can freeze your assets abroad if you keep them in a FATCA-compliant institution (which is almost any bank, nowadays). Also, when you die, the US may (and probably will) demand a portion of your estate to pay the debt. Talk to a lawyer about additional issues and concerns.


"> Yahoo's security team was often denied funding and sometimes kept in the dark at Mayer's direction  Also:  >  The ""Paranoids"" — as Yahoo's security team is called — often went head-to-head with Mayer and lost, a number of security employees recently told The New York Times. This mostly came down to funding, as requests for things like intrusion detection software or security infrastructure would be rejected as too cumbersome for users, or too costly an expense that might take away from other projects.  She didn't care about security and refused to allocate budget to it despite her entire security team warning her of the risks associated with it. Her CISO eventually resigned in disgust as a result. Shortly after they had multiple security breaches due to their lack of security. She's directly responsible.  More here: http://www.businessinsider.com/marissa-mayer-secret-yahoo-security-2016-10  Edit: Also, if she wasn't directly responsible, she wouldn't have given up her annual bonus due to the security breaches."


Hard is horrible word. It definitely wasn't easy but if you want it you do what's necessary. It had to happen. Who cares if its hard, get it fucking done. If you start thinking to yourself, oh wow this is really hard, you're halfway to giving up. If you're tag, that you're still in undergrad, is correct, and you think you're only shot is to go BACK to school, you should give up now.  It's only October...you don't look for an hour then call it quits, you get your ass out there and you [find that fucking dog!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZBMH3VOfI)


"No need, just look at the father of modern pharmacology: Louis Pasteur, the french scientist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Career  What a surprise: publicly funded research in French universities...   You know, the big problem, is that we don't have a dozen parallel universes where we can test various systems to see which one is best in terms of health outcomes. But even the data that you want to go and fetch for me is kind of absurd: the number of new drug discoveries? Who cares? It's not the number that counts, its the end results on public health, longevity... etc! For instance, you can have 10 ""new"" opioid drugs, not sure that proves anything... Capitalism is known for inventing stuff people don't really need, convincing them through mass marketing that they actually DO need it. You could achieve for instance, the same health outcomes with simple, basic prevention policies, healthy eating, less pollution... than pump complex drugs into people's bodies to compensate for other toxic stuff they inhale or eat..   Anyways, I think that quite simply, we should let capitalist firms do what they are best at: mass production via economies of scale, and let universities that are not only seeking profit do the actual research.  Also, public research CAN cope with tons of ""wasteful"" research. It happens all the time that researchers test correlations that turn out to be negative. No one throws a fuss about it! That's the way research is meant to advance."


"Wow, this analysis really surprised me. Very complete and useful, but i think my teacher request was easier. He just said: ""Try to build a diversified portfolio. Then try to add a commodity (like silver or gold) and understand how the risk vary introducing an asset like this."" So, i'm basically making a stocks portfolio and i'm calculating its expected return and risk. (for example 40%FB, 10%JNJ, 20%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD) then i'm adding GLD (so now i have something like 20%FB, 10%JNJ, 10%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD 30%GLD) and i'm actually making an excel spreadsheet where i calculate all the: -Expected returns -St Deviation -Covariance  At the end i compare the returns and the risks on the 2 different portfolios."


I would imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that one of the benefits of gold was it was very easy to detect counterfeiting.  It had a known weight, easily identified color, and there were many easily accessible ways to verify that it was, in fact, gold.  Paper money has been a relatively recent development, monetarily, and it seems like it has matured as methods of preventing false currency have likewise matured.  EDIT: Ah, and there it is, in one of your comments further down.  Cool.


You don't need every online store to give free returns to skip the trip to the mall, just start off small at the handful that do offer the service. The others will catch on or die it's their choice. Either way malls are toast.


Even going to small claims court the burden would be on you to prove that they never paid you. The 13 year gap would be the core of the argument by the company that they have no obligation to keep records from 13 years ago. That is far longer than they need to keep them for tax purposes.  Even if they sent you a replacement check the next year, that happened to me once, the record of that transaction would have been 12 years ago. The bank will not cash it because of the date being 13 years ago. As we move forward with more and more of the checks being deposited via phone/scanner the banks will be even less likely to handle stale checks because the fact you have the check in your hand doesn't mean it wasn't cashed.


"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender ""such as a broker""  , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk  such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals."


I agree.  I pulled my free reports (by going to ftc.gov first to get link to the truly free reports).   The Equifax data was out of date.  Didn't bother trying to correct it.    As I don't need any new credit lines, I just put a security freeze on my records at all four bureaus.  Makes my data virtually worthless to any potential identity their, and (best of all) nearly worthless to the bureaus.


I'm not asking if I should carry a balance to the end of the billing period and accrue interest Typically (I say typically because there may be some fringe outlier exception product that begins accruing interest immediately), if you're not carrying a balance already you will not be charged interest for carrying a balance during the billing period.   You accrue a balance, you're issued a statement, if you pay the statement before the due date indicated you don't pay interest; even if your statement balance is less than the current actual balance on the account.  If you carry a balance through that due date you begin to accrue interest.  Not only on the balance carried but on all new charges as well.  But as long as you consistently pay your statement balance before the statement due date you will not be charged any interest. As for a reason why you may want to take advantage of this, simply to ease the administration of your finances.  You just don't need to touch the accounts that frequently to avoid interest charges.  Sure you can let your money sit in an interest bearing account and earn a couple dollars a year but really, you just don't need to focus on your CC charges this frequently.


>So, the solution MUST BE restrictions on the use of Robots and AI.  This makes sort of sense, but this is an extremely ideological approach. I can't find any instance in modern history where workers won the fight against a machine that was going to replace them. And we will always lose the fight because businesses will find a way to implement new technologies. Sad, but true.


Wait, if everyone isn't buying things and saving money instead, who is left to get loans to buy things at higher rates? Banks don't wag the consumer's tail. Banks will make loads more money on their variable rate loans which will hurt a lot of people. Until wages rise to incentivize buying things, loan interest rates need to be low. Only way to spur the economy is to get more money in the hands of the spenders. We keep giving it to the hoarders.


"I read the linked article as gef05 did, it states that the bank must stop charging PMI. But. My understanding is different. I understood that the requirement to remove PMI at sub 80 loan to value only occurred after the natural amortization time had passed. For example, you buy a $100K home, you will be at 80% LTV the day you owe 80K. This date can be calculated at the closing as you know your numbers by then. There's nothing stopping you from asking the bank to stop charging PMI sooner, but I believe they already have an end date in mind.  Besides the appraisal request, what exactly did they give as the reason they won't cancel PMI?  Edit - I just re-read the link. The line ""you show that the value of the property hasn't gone down"" makes the bank's appraisal request reasonable, IMHO."


You should only loan money to friends or relatives if you are fully accepting the possibility of never ever getting that money back.  And in this situation it can happen that you will be forced to give him a very large loan if something bad ever happens to him. (Paying the monthly rates instead of him and expecting he will someday pay it back to you is technically the same as loaning him money).  Something might happen in the future which will result in him not paying his monthly payments. Maybe not now, but in 5 years. Or 10. The economy might change, he might be out of a job, his personal values might change. A house mortgage is long term, and during that time a lot can happen.


"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price.  However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock.  That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock.  If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, ""Friends and Family"" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as   a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the   shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price   of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its   lead managers, fixes a price (""fixed price method""), or the price can   be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data   compiled by the bookrunner (""book building""). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have   been underpriced. The effect of ""initial underpricing"" an IPO is to   generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes   publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can   lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares   of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results   in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is   theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO ""mania"" of the late 90's   internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the   IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased   1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure   from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and   it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30   million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of   demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the   company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a   stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will   pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to   sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may   fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose   its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result   in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients   of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the   Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when   pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low   enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an   adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining   an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (""syndicate"")   arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional   investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that   the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of   issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on   the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method   for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing   Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that ""theglobe.com"" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially."


Isn't this just predatory pricing, e.g., [dumping](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy))? Those organic bananas haven't really come down in cost by 3%; they're merely plowing Amazon money into Whole Foods, the way they do every year to ensure that [Amazon has no profits](http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-has-no-profits-and-why-it-works). How is that legal?


A/C is being extensively used in most of the places, starting from homes to super markets, large corporations, organizations and so on.With increased need for comfort and for cooling, the continuously working machines, A/C s are widely used.Handymania is a leading provider of various services in the country.


It's all about risk. These guidelines were all developed based on the risk characteristics of the various asset categories. Bonds are ultra-low-risk, large caps are low-risk (you don't see most big stocks like Coca-Cola going anywhere soon), foreign stocks are medium-risk (subject to additional political risk and currency risk, especially so in developing markets) and small-caps are higher risk (more to gain, but more likely to go out of business).  Moreover, the risks of different asset classes tend to balance each other out some. When stocks fall, bonds typically rise (the recent credit crunch being a notable but temporary exception) as people flock to safety or as the Fed adjusts interest rates. When stocks soar, bonds don't look as attractive, and interest rates may rise (a bummer when you already own the bonds). Is the US economy stumbling with the dollar in the dumps, while the rest of the world passes us by? Your foreign holdings will be worth more in dollar terms. If you'd like to work alternative asset classes (real estate, gold and other commodities, etc) into your mix, consider their risk characteristics, and what will make them go up and down. A good asset allocation should limit the amount of 'down' that can happen all at once; the more conservative the allocation needs to be, the less 'down' is possible (at the expense of the 'up'). .... As for what risks you are willing to take, that will depend on your position in life, and what risks you are presently are exposed to (including: your job, how stable your company is and whether it could fold or do layoffs in a recession like this one, whether you're married, whether you have kids, where you live). For instance, if you're a realtor by trade, you should probably avoid investing too much in real estate or it'll be a double-whammy if the market crashes. A good financial advisor can discuss these matters with you in detail.


Credit Sesame monitors your credit score for free.  My understanding is that they make their money off of credit card referrals.


In theory the integration of taxes make the tax implications of paying salary or dividends equal. This is what happens when you calculate the taxes using a generic tax calculator, however, the theory breaks down in certain cases. If you are earning less than $100k there is very little difference and paying out a salary is usually the better option. In a large stable company the most efficient option is almost always a mix of both. If you are earning more than $100k a year it depends on a number of factors: 1) Are your companies annual earnings over $500,000? In Canada, private companies that earn more than $500,000 annually are taxed at a higher rate than those earning less than $500,000. If the earnings are above $500,000 generally you should reduce the earning to under $500,000 by paying a salary. However, this depends on the province, the other income of the owners are and how much more than $500,000 your company earns. 2) Are you eligible for deductions or benefits only available on earned income? Earned income is income that you have worked for, which does not include dividends. RRSP contribution room, child care expense deductions, CPP, and many other benefits under the CRA rules are only available to people who have an earned income. It is worth taking advantage of these deductions when they are available.  3) Is your company eligible for any tax deductions? The same as with your personal tax deductions and your personal benefits of earning income, having a corporate income is also a benefit. There are a number of tax credits and tax deductions that corporations can take advantage of and when available these should be taken advantage of before paying everything out in salary. Once all these questions are answered the calculation is based on your marginal tax rate and the tax rate of the Corporation. One other reason to have at least a portion of you salary as a dividend is that if you incur capital loss in your corporation you can pass them to your personal taxes. If you were payed 100% in salary this does not work. Other strategies to be more tax efficient: Income splitting (Pay a salary/dividend to yourself, your wife, your children your parents, or anyone you support). Rolling-over property with taxable gains into your private corporation. Buying insurance policies that gives a return of premium or increase your Capital Dividend Account (CDA).


I don't disagree. However, the political landscape in the US more or less dooms that proposition right out of the gates. I really think that this country will retain its love affair with Big Stick foreign policy until people are forced to choose in stark terms between food and bombs. Of course, we'd never let that be the narrative...


I don’t understand why people think its okay to write these kinds of articles that mislead the public. First of all, wage mobility in the US is always fluctuating. People move in and out of the 1% all within a lifetime. Secondly, go to Bls.gov there are statistics showing that MOST of the 1% are actually self-made first generation millionaires. Though coming from a wealthy family helps set up the child to a better future it isn’t typically because of inherited money, but is because of the fact that richer parents better educate their kids in FINANCIAL LITERACY.  Just remember its easier to spend the wealth empire that your parents built than it is to actually maintain it.


Thank you mister\_impossible for voting on autotldr.    This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://goodbot-badbot.herokuapp.com/).     ***    ^^Even ^^if ^^I ^^don't ^^reply ^^to ^^your ^^comment, ^^I'm ^^still ^^listening ^^for ^^votes. ^^Check ^^the ^^webpage ^^to ^^see ^^if ^^your ^^vote ^^registered!


Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company.  Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another


In the case you propose, a taxable windfall, your best hope is to marry someone who has his/her own loss of about the same amount. This advice would work if your gain is a 10 bagger, as you suggest, but not for a lottery. In the dot com bubble, I heard of more than one couple that got married under these conditions. As far as other gains, it would be tough to contrive a situation that would give you such a tax offset without taking on a huge risk, far greater that the $133K in tax you might save.


Is the Grant Date or the Vest Date used when determining the 12-month cutoff for long-term and short-term capital gains? You don't actually acquire the stock until it's vested, so that is the date and price used to determine your cost basis and short-term/long-term gain/loss.  The grant date really has no tax bearing. If you held the stock (time between vesting and sale) for more than one year you will owe long-term CG tax, if less than one year you will owe short-term CG tax.


I think its crazy seeing the comments here. did nobody thoroughly read the article? business owners have to make sure that their businesses succeed. drugs, even marijuana, are not a risk that insurance want to take. when the costs of operating a business go up, the money left to hire people goes down. if im spending 5 million in insurance to cover marijuana medical bills, instead of say, 1 million to not cover marijuana, then thats 4 million i dont have to pay workers better wages. people need to get a better balanced life view.  i understand that people want their liberties to do as they see fit, but in doing so they fail to see that other people are under no obligation to hire you if you are making choices that have the potential to hurt the business bottom line.


Luck IS a large component to high paying career, the hardest working person in the world can get shafted and never get anywhere. Anyone who thinks otherwise is too stupid to do the math where available high-paying jobs =/= the number of hardworking people.


This paper makes the rounds every so often and I HATE IT VERY MUCH.  No one has EVER EVER EVER estimated standard deviation by taking an average of abs deviations, because that would be stupid, further, realized vol is a very different beast than implied vol. AND FURTHER, the models are fitted to the data, rather than fighting the tape and fitting the data to the models.   Most people working with these instruments are trying to figure out the prices of unknown derivatives based on known derivatives - the models just help interpret findings and estimate what's necessary to hedge a position.


Years before retirement isn't related at all to the Pretax IRA/Roth IRA decision, except insomuch as income typically trends up over time for most people.  If tax rates were constant (both at income levels and over time!), Roth and Pretax would be identical.  Say you designate 100k for contribution, 20% tax rate.  80k contributed in Roth vs. 100k contributed in Pretax, then 20% tax rate on withdrawal, ends up with the same amount in your bank account after withdrawal - you're just moving the 20% tax grab from one time to another.   If you choose Roth, it's either because you like some of the flexibility (like taking out contributions after 5 years), or because you are currently paying a lower marginal rate than you expect you will be in the future - either because you aren't making all that much this year, or because you are expecting rates to rise due to political changes in our society.  Best is likely a diversified approach - some of your money pretax, some posttax.  At least some should be in a pretax IRA, because you get some tax-free money each year thanks to the personal exemption.  If you're working off of 100% post-tax, you are paying more tax than you ought unless you're getting enough Social Security to cover the whole 0% bucket (and probably the 10% bucket, also). So for example, you're thinking you want 70k a year.  Assuming single and ignoring social security (as it's a very complicated issue - Joe Taxpayer has a nice blog article regarding it that he links to in his answer), you get $10k or so tax-free, then another $9k or so at 10% - almost certainly lower than what you pay now.  So you could aim to get $19k out of your pre-tax IRA, then, and 51k out of your post-tax IRA, meaning you only pay $900 in taxes on your income.  Of course, if you're in the 25% bucket now, you may want to use more pretax, since you could then take that out - all the way to around $50k (standard exemption + $40k or so point where 25% hits).  But on the other hand, Social Security would probably change that equation back to using primarily Roth if you're getting a decent Social Security check.


This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example.


I decided to try this in order to get a feel of it. As far as the interest rates are concerned, it works. You can set it up and forget about holding time as long as the rates and positions stay within a range. The problem is that currency volatility turns the interest paid for shorting USD/JPY into noise at best. And if you look to past performance over a year... Let's just say there is a reason they pay you to hold NZD. So, unless you think buying NZD/USD is a good idea to begin with, you should put your money elsewhere.


"Your auto insurance should cover you driving any car, as well as anyone driving your car (on a temporary basis). In an accident, I suspect her insurance would be the primary insurer. Since she has her own car and insurance and only temporarily drives yours, I wouldn't include her as a ""driver""."


"As others have already pointed out, there is no monetary sensible reason to borrow at 5% cost to invest at 1% return. However, just because it doesn't make perfect sense financially doesn't mean it can't make sense for peace of mind. And you should not dismiss the peace of mind argument out of hand. Ignoring tax effects, credit score effects, cost of higher levels of insurance required, etc., and assuming a five year repayment plan, borrowing $15,000 at 5% will cost you about $283/month for a total cost of $16,980. 1% interest on the same $15,000 would give you about $12/month. In other words, your ""loan premium"" is $21/month (interest expense about $33/month on the car loan, reduced by interest earned $12/month on the retained savings) plus the capital repayment amount. If you were to take the money out of savings you would probably want to replenish that over a similar time period (ignoring interest, saving $15,000 in five years means $250/month), so this boils down to the $21/month interest premium. Now consider that the times when an emergency fund is most often needed are very often the times when banks will be reluctant to extend a loan (a job loss being a common example). While foreclosing on an existing loan can still happen, as long as you keep making payments, I suspect that most banks are far more willing to overlook the fact that you would not have qualified for the loan after the job loss. If a loss of income situation develops after you pay the car with your savings without a loan, you start out with $15,000 in the bank plus whatever ""car payments to yourself"" you have been able to save afterwards. Depending on when things turn bad for you, this could mean that you having only half of the savings that you used to, but of course you also have no car payment expense (which is the same as you do now). If a loss of income situation develops while you are still paying off the car, you start out with $30,000 in the bank instead of $15,000, but run the risk of having to make the car payments with money out of your savings. The net result of that is that your savings are potentially effectively reduced by whatever the remaining debt outstanding on the car is, which in turn is reduced over time. Even if you were not to actively save, your net financial situation becomes better over time. If a loss of income situation develops after you have paid off the car, you now own the car free and clear and still have $30,000 in the bank. Assuming that you would repay yourself on a schedule similar to that of a car loan if you took the $15,000 out of the bank instead, this is a very similar situation. Consequently, the important consideration becomes: Is it worth it to you to pay $21/month extra to have an extra $15,000 on hand if something happens to your financial situation? I have been in pretty much exactly the same situation, albeit with smaller amounts, and determined that having the cash on hand was worth the small additional interest expense, not the least of which because I was able to secure a loan at a pretty good interest rate and with no early repayment penalties. You may reach a different conclusion, and that's okay. But do consider it."


"So far, everyone seems to be missing the point of the article, which concludes that higher taxes on the rich will not reduce job creation and, very importantly, economic policy should focus on creating a ""healthy economic ecosystem."" Without this, entrepreneurs have no customers."


"The correlation I heard most about in economics/finance was that stock prices and bond yields were negatively correlated; as the stock market does better, bond yields fall (company's doing well as evidenced by stocks, so it's a good credit risk, so YTM of its bonds on the market goes down). The correlation, if any, between the stock and futures market should be visible in the actual price histories. Index prices may be useful, but what's more likely is that various future prices have correlation with various companies' stocks. Where the future reflects the price of a raw material that is a significant cost of goods sold for a company, you'll see these two move inversely to each other in the short term. I think that if there is a causative relationship here, its that futures prices influence stock prices, not the other way around. The futures market generally represents the cost side of a consumer goods producer's bottom line. The stock market represents its profits. As futures go up, profit expectations go down, putting pressure on stock prices. Industries that deal in services, or in other types of goods, can still be affected because a rise in the cost of something consumers need will cause them to spend less on other things which affects margins in those other areas. So, in the short and medium term, when the futures market goes up the stock market sees a dip, and vice versa.  However, companies adapt; they can put upward pressure on prices for their goods to restore their desired margins, usually by slowly increasing them to prevent sticker shock (though elasticity of demand plays a part; the more we need something no matter what it costs, the faster prices can increase). To maintain costs, they can make things cheaper using less expensive materials (more plastic, less steel). They can restructure production processes (translated: move factories offshore, or at least to ""right-to-work"" states with less union strength) to save costs elsewhere. All of these reduce costs and thus increase profits, but take time to implement. Many of these things reduce direct costs, reducing demand for the commodity and causing the futures prices to go back down. So, over the long term, these differences even out, and it's down to the things that affect the entire market (inflation, consumer/investor confidence, monetary policy)."


For your base question, yes.  (Barring some major collapse-of-civilization event, but in that case you're screwed anyway :-))  On the individual points: 1) Depends on whether you choose to invest in index-type funds (where profit is mainly expected from price appreciation), or more value-based investing.  But either or a mix of the two (my own choice) should show returns above inflation, over the long term. 2) Yes, in the US anyway.  You can invest a few hundred dollars at a time, and (with good companies like Vanguard & T. Rowe Price) there are no transaction fees, either for investing or for redeeming.   3) Long-term, it's crash-proof IF you have the self-discipline not to panic-sell at market lows.  In my case, my total fund valuation dropped around 40% in '08.  I didn't sell anything (and in fact tried to cut spending and invest more), and now I have nearly double what I had before the crash. Bottom line is that it has worked for me.  After ~30 years of investing this way without being fanatic about it, I have enough that I could live moderately without working for the rest of my life.  Not - and this is where I part company with MMM and most of the FIRE community - that I'd ever want to actually retire.  But my modest financial independence gives me the freedom to work at things I like, rather than because I'm worrying about paying bills.


I concur with the answers above - the difference is about the risk. But in this particular case I find the interest level implausible. 11% interest on deposits in USD seems very speculative and unsustainable. You can't guarantee such return on investment unless you engage in drug trade or some other illegal activity. Or it is a Ponzi scheme. So I would suspect that the bank is having liquidity problems. Which bank is it, by the way? We had a similar case in Bulgaria with one bank offering abnormal interest on deposits in EUR and USD. It went bust - the small depositors were rescued by the local version of FDIC but the large ones were destroyed.


That seems a little high in my experience.  I've used a home equity line of credit instead, as the rates are much lower (~3.5%).


Hi, I have all these free models and investment strategies that I really want to give you as a friend. Let me take the time to write up all the info for you. Once I send you the files we can officially be friends and then you can come hang out and play sega with me.


Got some questions related to banks and cash, specifically required reserve ratio and capital requirements.  The way i understand it is, a bank is required to hold a percentage of money it has loaned to other people (required reserve ratio).  Example: If the rrr is 10%; i give the bank 100k, because it is only required to hold 10% (10k) it loans 90k to my neighbour, neighbour buys a car from the dealership, the dealership banks the 90k.  now the bank can loan 81k of the dealerships 90k. The bank loans to businessman who buys land worth 81k, land owner banks the 81k.  So the bank received 100k from me to hold and protect, loaned 90k to bob,recieved 90k from dealership,loaned 81k to businessman, recieved 81k from land owner.  100k+90k+81k = 271k bank over time will receive another 90k from bob, and 81k from business man + interest. This all assumes there is 1 bank, and all these people put there money in the bank not keeping cash.  In my native country we have no required reserve ratio, we have a capital requirement. On our central bank website it states a total capital ratio of 8%.  A capital ratio is equity + (profit-money given to shareholders) / risk weighted assets.  Question, how do you determine equity, profit, and risk weighted assets for a bank?  is equity the cash the bank has, profit the money from fees+interest, and risk weighted assets how much money the bank has in loans?