"The transfer is easy. Usually you just sign over the title to the new owner, and you're set.  Blue book price is a fantasy designed to get you in a car dealership to trade in your car. You won't get ""blue book"" pricing. I would use NADA ""Yellow Book"" or Edmunds TMV pricing as a guide. A dealer won't pay you a good price, but will take the car off your hands quickly. Selling a car privately can be a real pain if you don't have the personality for it. You'll get more money and more hassle. Figure out where people do private party sales in your area. In my area, there's an autotrader magazine that dominates the market. Craigslist is going to attract the types of people who frequent craiglist, which is not always a good thing."


Buy term and invest the rest is in fact the easiest plan.  Just buy the term insurance based on your current and expected needs. Review those needs every few years, or after a life event (marriage, divorce, kids, buying a house...) For the invest the rest part: invest in your 401K, IRA or the equivalent. There are index funds, or age based funds that can help the inexperienced. Those index funds have low costs; the age based funds change as you get older.  The biggest issue with the whole life type products is that what your care about for the term insurance doesn't mean that the company  has a good investment program. You also want to have the ability to decide to change insurance companies or investment companies without impacting the other.


If the fee is paid directly from the account, then unfortunately no, you can not deduct it. It's probably too late now, but in the future you can ask the financial institution if they will allow you to write them a separate check to cover the fees. If they allow that then you can preserve your tax free account balance, and potentially deduct the fees too. More details here. Update: as discussed in the comments below, a strict interpretation of the IRS description of deductible investment expenses may not include expenses for a Roth IRA, even if they are paid outside of the account. However, there seems to be conflicting interpretations of this IRS rule, so I would advise speaking to an accountant or the IRS directly for clarification. But even if you determine you cannot deduct the fees, paying for them outside of the Roth is still a good idea because it enables you to maintain a higher balance in your tax advantaged account.


It is difficult to value a private company. Most of the valuations is based on how one feels the idea would translate into revenue in some future time. The VC firms take into account various factors to determine the price, but more often then not, its their hunch. Even VC don't make money on all picks, very few picks turn out to be stars, most picks lose money they have invested. Few picks just return their money. So if you feel that the idea/product/brand/people are great and would someday make good money, invest into it. Else stay away.


To Whom It May Concern,  FUSE_33 is hereby free to discuss his future employment with whichever company(s) he/she so chooses.  CURRENT EMPLOYER makes no claim to the exclusivity of FUSE_33's employment with CURRENT EMPLOYER.  Further, CURRENT EMPLOYER hereby releases and holds harmless any entity which wishes to discuss hiring FUSE_33 for any position they see fit.      SIGNATURE & DATE   PRINTED NAME   TITLE - CURRENT EMPLOYER      == Just tell your current boss that you've had a couple of places ask for a release letter so that they don't get accused and/or sued for head-hunting.  He doesn't need to know you're going to work for the school.


**Tulip mania**  Tulip mania, tulipmania, or tulipomania (Dutch names include: tulpenmanie, tulpomanie, tulpenwoede, tulpengekte and bollengekte) was a period in the Dutch Golden Age during which contract prices for bulbs of the recently introduced tulip reached extraordinarily high levels and then dramatically collapsed in February 1637. It is generally considered the first recorded speculative bubble (or economic bubble), although some researchers have noted that the Kipper- und Wipperzeit (literally Tipper and See-saw) episode in 1619–1622, a Europe-wide chain of debasement of the metal content of coins to fund warfare, featured mania-like similarities to a bubble. In many ways, the tulip mania was more of a hitherto unknown socio-economic phenomenon than a significant economic crisis (or financial crisis). And historically, it had no critical influence on the prosperity of the Dutch Republic, the world's leading economic and financial power in the 17th century.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27


This is only a rule of thumb. Peter Lynch popularized it; the ratio PE/growth is often called the Lynch Ratio. At best it's a very rough guideline. I could fill up this page with other caveats. I'm not saying that it's wrong, only that it's grossly incomplete. For a 10 second eyeball valuation of growth stocks, it's fine. But that's the extent of its usefulness.


That there are more jobs today isn't a convincing argument. There are more people to feed, more services to provide etc. I worry that large scale automation, particularly in industries with high employment numbers could be disruptive to the economy in general. As new technologies emerge and demand continues to pace population growth, additional workers will always be needed. The question is, what happens when the majority of those jobs are taken by robots, not people.


"It's a fair complaint to have. People have grown accustomed to road trips needing only 5-10 minutes to refuel and continue on. That's currently a problem in the EV market, and one that lots of manufacturers are working hard to try and fix.   Porsche just unveiled their 800 volt, 350kW charger that's 2-3 times faster charging (on paper) than the Tesla Superchargers (which operate at 480 volts, max 120kW). For example, a 75kWh battery on a Tesla can ""supercharge"" from 0 to 75kWh ""full charge"" in 37 minutes (although the battery should never be fully depleted). With Porsche's supercharger, a 75kWh battery could charge ~13 minutes. Tesla is expecting to upgrade their supercharger technology to match or exceed Porsche soon.  However, the addressable component to ""range anxiety"" in EV's is recharging, and as more companies are focusing on the EV market, addressing that problem will become first priority. Further, the batteries being used will increase in density and capability (therefore, increased range), so charging a battery will become even more important. The goal is that, in the future, you can have a 500+ mile battery and still charge it in <10 minutes. If a 500+ miles battery, or a 150kWh battery pack, had access to 350kW chargers, the charge time would be ~25 minutes."


Sovereign Inn Redleaf resort a perfect blue mountain hotel to explore the beautiful outdoor sights and relax. It will give you a great treat of the local area and easy access to the things that you want to do here. Contact at: 02-6452-1366.


It depends on how you place your stop order and the type of stop orders available from your broker. If you place a stop market order and the following day the stock opens below your stop your stock will be stopped out at or around the opening price, meaning you can potentially end up with quite a large gap. If you place a stop limit order, say you place your stop at $10.00 with a limit price of $9.90, and if the price opens below $9.90, say at $9.50, your limit sell order of $9.90 will be placed onto the market but it will not be executed until the price goes back up to $9.90 or above. The third option is to place a Guaranteed Stop Loss, and as specified you are guaranteed your stop price even if the price gaps down below your stop price. You will be paying an extra fee for the Guaranteed Stop Loss Order, and they are usually mainly available with CFD Brokers (so if you are in the USA you might be out of luck).


According to Paypal, they support transactions in Ethiopia:  https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/country-worldwide https://developer.paypal.com/docs/classic/api/country_codes/ However those appear to be limited to transferring money out of the country.  (link) There is an article here (link) which talks about how to transfer money from paypal back to your bank in Ethiopia.  It sounds like you have to set up a US bank account, withdraw the funds to that then somehow transfer the money from their to your bank.   NOTE: I have no relationship to any of the sites above, nor do I know if the information is accurate or the trustworthiness of those businesses.


"You are at the point that many millions of people are at (and where I used to be) - you have no idea where your money is going. You just spend, spend, spend until there's nothing left, and/or you borrow more to keep going.  There are general rules of thumb on how much house and car you can afford, but there is a great deal of personal variation. Housing and utility costs vary greatly from location to location. City-dwellers can use public transit instead of buying and maintaining a car. How much other debt do you have that you need to pay off? Do you have expenses that are not common (e.g. medical bills)? A more personal approach would be to figure out your own budget. The first step is creating a written budget. Figure out how much you can spend in total (i.e. your take-home pay) and the start allocating that money to expenses until you run out. I started by looking backwards.  Look back at how much you spent on each category each month. List them in order of priority (e.g. food, health, housing, utilities, transportation, entertainment, everything else). If the money runs out you either stop spending or reduce spending in another category (e.g. can you cook a few extra meals at home instead of going out? Can you take lunch to work instead of a drive-through?) The amount you have left over now indicates how much more house and car you can afford. Once you get to a point where you can budget comfortably then you can start looking at saving for retirement and other long-term goals. This worked for me (and highlighted some areas where I overspent) because I had good categorized records (ironically because I used credit cards incessantly, which I mostly stopped once I created a budget). If you don't have good records, then you have to estimate.  How much do you think you spend on food, gas, etc. each month?  Then set aside that much and once it's gone don't spend anymore.  Now obviously you're not going to stop eating, but the idea is to plan ahead and realize ""I have only $20 left to spend on food this month - maybe I shouldn't go to the movies"". It takes lots of practice, and you won't get it right very often. If you have enough left over, you can set aside some as a ""cushion"" in case you do go over your budget, but if you want true financial discipline you should start by reducing other categories first. This is not easy by any means. It will take moths of practice and trial-and-error to get to a point that you're comfortable with the lifestyle that you can afford.   So in the end, there are only two variables in your equation - income and outflow.  Do you want more house? Either spend less on other things or increase your income."


This is all very basic and general advice, that works for most, but not all.  You are unique with your own special needs and desires.  Good luck! P.S.: not exactly related to your question, but when you get more familiar with investing and utilizing your money, find more ways to save more. For example, change phone plan, cut the cable, home made food in bulk, etc.


For most people, a million dollars is about right. Here's the back of the napkin math that you should consider to find your own estimate: If you take 1 and divide it by 2, that's roughly the size of the nest egg you'll need to live indefinitely. For example, if your retirement investments are earning 5% a year, and you want to live on $50,000 a year, you would need a $1,000,000 nest egg (50,000 / 0.05) Note that you don't have to make any assumptions about how long you'll live. The whole idea of a nest egg is that you live off the interest it earns each year without ever dipping into the principle. It's the gift that keeps on giving! When you die, you can pass it along to children, charities, etc.


I worked for a company who managed money for Braeburn. They are managed more like a foundation than a hedge fund. They invested in a fixed income separate account.   Yes, they definitely try to avoid taxes as the entity was domiciled in a Ireland and their offices were in Reno.   The goal of Braeburn is to maintain that huge amount of cash on the balance. avoiding taxes is an efficient way to do that.


There is also some legal argument regarding the separation of state and federal governments, and their respective powers to tax each other's income.  I don't know the arcane details, but allowing one to tax the other would require upsetting a long legal history between the two.


"I don't think there is a recession proof investment.Every investment is bound to their ups and downs.  If you buy land, a change in law can change the whole situation it may become worthless, same applies for home as well.  Gold - dependent on world economy.  Stock - dependent on world economy Best way is to stay ever vigilant of world around you and keep shuffling from one investment to another balance out your portfolio.  ""The most valuable commodity I know of is information."" - Wall Street -movie"


Great.  First foreign investors bought commercial real estate, and no one said a thing.  Then, they bought up residential real estate en mass; and we didn't flinch until it was too late.  And.............now they are buying farms????  Holy crap, the conspiracies are coming to fruition.  America is really being ripped apart from within.    Or, I could be wrong.    Anyhow, this all has one group of losers; the American people.


The term 'interest' tends to be used loosely when discussing valuation of stocks.  Especially when referring to IRAs which are generally the purvey of common-folk who aren't in the finance industry.  Often it is used colloquially to include: Using this definition (which is what I'm guessing your IRA Calculator is doing), your stock would have increased in value by a total of $26 over the course of 10 months.  Still not terribly good (only a couple percent increase), but certainly not a couple cents.


According to me, to start your networking Social networks are the huge platform. Billions of world population are present and active on social sites. Also, there is no limit of social platforms. You need to understand your business's audience and select platform accordingly.   Social Networks not only provide connections but also help you to find various events, programs running through out the world. To search for a job or provide your services, you can pick up LinkedIn, tweeter. Whereas, go for Facebook to highlight your activities and business. Not only these, but a number of forums are available for particular interests.  Half of the world likes to get full information in short words and save time. which is possible via social networks. For the beginning, you can use social sites to get the revert and interests. Then it will be easy to earn by having a physical place and audience for either job or services.


"I will answer the question from the back: who can NOT afford luxury cars? Those whose parents paid for their college education, cannot afford luxury cars, but buy them anyway. Why? I have what may seem a rather shocking proposition related to the point of not saving for kids' college: parents do NOT owe children a college education. Why should they? Did your parents fund your college? Or did you get it through a mix of Pell grants, loans, and work? If they did, then you owe them $ back for it, adjusted for inflation. If they did not, well then why do you feel your children deserve more than you deserved when you were a child? You do not owe your children a college education. They owe it to themselves. Gifts do not set one up for success, they set one up for dependence.   I will add one more hypothesis: financial discipline is best learned through one's own experiences. When an 18+ year old adult gets a very large amount of money as a gift every year for several years (in the form of paid tuition), does that teach them frugality and responsibility? My proposition is that those who get a free ride on their parents' backs are not well served in terms of becoming disciplined budgeters. They become the subjects of the question in this post: those why buy cars and houses they cannot afford, and pay for vacations with credit cards. We reap what we sow as a society.  Of course, college is only one case in point, but a very illustrative one. The bigger point is that financial discipline can only be developed when there are opportunities to develop it. Such opportunities arise under one important condition: financial independence.  What does buying children cars for their high-school graduation, buying them 4 years of college tuition, and buying them who knows what else (study abroad trips, airfare, apartment leases, textbooks, etc. etc.) teach? Does it teach independence or dependence?  It can certainly (at least that's what you hope for) teach them to appreciate when others do super nice things for them. But does free money instill financial responsibility?  Try to ask kids whose parents paid for their college WHY they did it. ""Because my parents want me to succeed"" is probably the best you can hope for. Now ask them, But do your parents OWE you a college education? ""Why yes, I guess they do."" Why? ""Well, I guess because they told me they do. They said they owe it to me to set me up for success in life."" Now think about this: Do people who become financially successful achieve that success because someone owed something to them? Or because they recognized that nobody owes them anything, and took it upon themselves to create that success for themselves? These are not very comfortable topics to consider, especially for those of you who have either already sunk many tens of thousands of dollars into your childrens' college education. Or for those who have been living very frugally and mindfully for the past 10-15 years driven by the goal of doing so. But I want to open this can of worms because I believe fundamentally it may be creating more problems than it is solving. I am sure there are some historical and cultural explanations for the ASSUMPTION that has at some point formed in the American society that parents owe their children a college education.  But as with most social conventions, it is merely an idea -- a shared belief. It has become so ingrained in conversations at work parties and family reunions that it seems that many of those who are ardent advocates of the idea of paying for their childrens' education no longer even understand why they feel that way. They simply go with the flow of social expectations, unwilling or unable to question either the premises behind these expectations, or the long-term consequences and results of such expectations.  With this comment I want to point to the connection between the free financial gifts that parents give to their (adult!) children, and the level of financial discipline of these young adults, their spending habits, sense of entitlement, and sense of responsibility over their financial decisions. The statistics of the U.S. savings rate, average credit card debt, foreclosures, and bankruptcy indeed tell a troubling story.  My point is that these trends don't just happen because of lots of TV advertising and the proverbial Jones's. These trends happen because of a lack of financial education, discipline, and experience with balancing one's own checkbook. Perhaps we need to think more deeply about the consequences of our socially motivated decisions as parents, and what is really in our children's best interests -- not while they are in college, but while they live the rest of their lives after college. Finally, to all the 18+ y.o. adult 'children' who are reeling from the traumatic experience of not having their parents pay for their college (while some of their friends parents TOTALLY did!), I have this perspective to offer:  Like you are now, your parents are adults. Their money is theirs to spend, because it was theirs to earn. You are under no obligation to pay for your parents' retirement (not that you were going to). Similarly your parents have no obligation to pay for your college. They can spend their money on absolutely whatever they want: be it a likeside cottage, vacations, a Corvette, or slots in the casino. How they spend their money is their concern only, and has nothing to do with your adult needs (such as college education).  If your parents mismanage their finances and go bankrupt, it is their obligation to get themselves back in the black -- not yours. If you have the means and may be so inclined, you may help them; if you do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what you do, they will still love you as their child no less.  Similarly, if your parents have the means and are so inclined, they may help you; if they do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what they do, you are to love them as your parents no less.  Your task as an adult is to focus on how you will meet your own financial needs, not to dwell on which of your needs were not met by people whose finances should well be completely separate from yours at this point in life. For an adult, to harbor an expectation of receiving something of value for free is misguided: it betrays unjustified, illusory entitlement. It is the expectation of someone who is clueless as to the value of money measured by the effort and time needed to earn it. When adults want to acquire stuff or services, they have to pay for these things with their own money. That's how adults live. When adults want to get a massage or take a ride in a cab, are they traumatized by their parents' unfulfilled obligation to pay for these services? No -- they realize that it's their own responsibility to take care of these needs. They either need to earn the money to pay for these things, or buy them on credit and pay off the debt later.  Education is a type of service, just like a massage or a cab ride. It is a service that you decide you need to get, in order to do xyz (become smarter, get a better paying job, join a profession, etc.). Therefore as with any other service, the primary responsibility for paying for this service is yours.  You have 3 options (or their combination): work now so that you can earn the money to pay for this service later; work part-time while you are receiving this service; acquire the service on credit and work later to pay it off. That's it. This is called the real world. The better you can deal with it, the more successful you will become in it. Good luck!"


It is certainly interesting to look at MLM in the context of the Gig Economy.  I hadn't thought of it that way but it is very much a valid comparison (for better and for worse).  As for the middleman, the large number of those is exactly why I think MLM is a silly business model for all but those at the top.


Are you planning on paying your son back?  If so, this is a loan from him.  If not, it is a gift.  Both have possible and different tax implications.  For example, gifts above $14,000 ($28,000 if your son is married) per calendar year may be subject to a gift tax.  If it is a loan, the IRS has rules about the interest rate you must pay him and taxes get more complicated if it is too low (or zero). Edit: Notice that if you are also married, I believe your son and his wife can give $14k each to each of you and your spouse.  If the house is in her name as well you may be able to pay as much as $56K without the gift tax.  Notice that this is a yearly amount, so if this was December you could get $56k in December and $56K in January.


"> ...doesn't strip those people of the ability to walk by without buying.  There are plenty of examples where [""framing"" is a crime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud) despite the victim having the ability to opt-out.  > That idea necessarily implies that there are innate human needs that are objectively knowable.  That is a textbook [ah hoc relativist fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy) and a big pile of horseshit.  You're just being stubborn if you deny that everyone needs food and water and therefore claim improving access to it is not in the common good.  Regardless the bar isn't even that high as common good is defined as something that *most* agree is beneficial to all.  > ...we have to address the ethical issue of who is responsible for any harm caused to innocent people in the process.  You're just spouting a whole bunch of stuff you don't really believe.  You have no moral problems with companies pushing people to buy things that make them worse in the long run or removing government regulations that other people thought were needed to protect consumers.  You are only intolerant of ""any harm"" for ideas you disagree with."


*Reuters was able to confirm at least 50 people were let go in the past three weeks*  ...so when a few bankers get sacked they make the news just like [10000 nokia employees](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/technology/nokia-to-cut-10000-jobs-and-close-3-facilities.html?pagewanted=all) right?    /me being deliberately provocative, I guess the real focus of the article was on the negative trend of the economy forcing banks as well as companies to rething their organization... but still, am I the only one seeing a huge bias in information here?


"This is not a direct answer to your question, but you might want to consider whether you want to have a financial planner at all. Would a large mutual fund company or brokerage serve your needs better than a bank? You are still quite young and so have been contributing to IRAs for only a few years. Also, the wording in your question suggests that your IRA investments have not done spectacularly well, and so it is reasonable to infer that your IRA is not a large amount, or at least not as large as what it would be 30  years from now. At this level of investment, it would be difficult for you to find a financial planner who spends all that much time looking after your interests. That you should get away from your current planner, presumably a mid-level employee in what is typically called the trust division of the bank, is a given.  But, to go to another bank (or even to a different employee in the same bank), where  you will also likely be nudged towards investing your IRA in CDs, annuities, and a few mutual funds with substantial sales charges and  substantial annual expense fees, might just take you from the frying pan into the fire. You might want to consider transferring your IRA to a large mutual fund company and investing it in something simple  like one of their low-cost (meaning small annual expense ratio) index funds. The Couch Potato portfolio suggests equal amounts invested in a no-load S&P 500 Index fund and a no-load Bond Index fund, or a 75%-25% split favoring the stock index fund (in view of your age and the fact that the IRA should be a long-term investment).  But the point is,  you can open an IRA account, have the money transferred from your IRA account with the bank, and make the investments on-line all by yourself instead of having a financial advisor do it on your behalf and charge you a fee for doing so (not to mention possibly screwing it up.) You can set up Automated Investment too; the mutual fund company will gladly withdraw money from your checking account and invest it in whatever fund(s) you choose.  All this is not complicated at all.  If you would like to follow the Couch Potato strategy and rebalance your portfolio once a year, you can do it  by yourself too. If you want to invest in funds other than the S&P 500 Index fund, etc. most mutual fund  companies offer a ""portfolio analysis"" and advice for a fee (and the fee is usually waived when the assets increase above certain levels - varies from company to company).  You could thus have a portfolio analysis done each year, and hopefully it will be free after a few more years.  Indeed, at that level, you also typically get one person assigned as your advisor, just as you have with a bank. Once you get the recommendations, you can choose to follow them  or not, but you have control over how and where your IRA assets are invested.  Over the years, as your IRA assets grow, you can branch out into  investments other than ""staid"" index funds, but right now, having a financial planner for your IRA might not be worth it. Later, when you have more assets, by all means if you want to explore investing in specific stocks with a brokerage instead of sticking to mutual funds only but this might also mean phone calls urging you to sell Stock A right now, or buy hot Stock B today etc. So, one way of improving your interactions and have a better experience with your new financial planner is to not have a planner at all for a few years and do some of the work yourself."


We also have for-profit, career-oriented schools which take advantage of students and get them to pay for training that used to be done on the job. The training is often sub par and the only students who do well are those who would have been able to teach themselves the skills at a fraction of the cost. The influx of minimally qualified applicants then drives down wages in that field while removing the possibility for promotion for anyone who wanted to train on the job.


"FICO 08, a newer fico formula that many lenders are simultaneously switching to now, ignores artificially lengthened credit history/score by piggybacking. So don't feel left out in that regard.  Average age of accounts is affected when closed accounts fall off your credit report, which can take 7 years, not just by closing them. But I'm not familiar with the latest ""weightings"" of these things, so its tough to say how significant it will be when that happens. There are also newer FICO formulas, that may become relevant 7 years from now, so it is definitely something to be conscious of but they aren't immediately consequential, since you can do other things to improve your credit worthiness in the near term."


With $800/month extra?  Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like.  Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account.  Add to it monthly until you reach your goal.  It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses.  It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect.  You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund).  The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified.  $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US.  Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can.  This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100.  Live a little.  Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account.  Or rent fancy cars.  Or taken a vacation or go party.  If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam.  It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris.  Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.


The motor is a crucial part of each vehicle and it ought to be kept up properly in order to preserve it for a long time. The most imperative thing for each engine is the motor spare parts. Spare parts are the solutions that you provide for your motor to feel good and perform well.


In a business environment, this phenomenon could be easily explained by 'operational leverage'. Operational leverage is the principle that increasing revenues by a small amount can have a disproportionately large impact on net income. Consider this example: you run a business that rents out a factory and produces goods to sell to consumers. The rent costs you $10k / month, and all of your other costs depend on how many goods you produce. Assume each good gives you $10 in profit, after factoring your variable costs. If you sell 1,000 units, you break-even, because your variable profit will pay for your rent. If you sell 1,100 units, you make $1,000 net profit. If you sell 1,200 units, you double your overall profit, making $2,000 for the month. Operational leverage is the principle that adding incremental revenue will have a greater impact than the revenue already received, because your fixed costs are already 'paid for'. Similarly in personal finance, consider these scenarios: You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,000 - your monthly savings (and therefore your wealth) will be zero.  You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,100 - your monthly savings will be $100 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,200 - increasing your income by ~10% has allowed your monthly savings double, at $200 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $2,000 - your monthly savings are 5 times higher, when your income only increased by ~80%. Now in the real world, when someone makes more money, they will increase their expenses. This is because spending money can increase one's quality of life. So the incline does not happen quite so quickly - as pointed out by @Pete & @quid, there comes a point where increased spending provides someone with less increase in quality of life - at that point, savings really would quickly ramp up as income increases incrementally. But assuming you live the same making $2,000 / month as $1,000 / month, you can save, every month, a full month's worth of living expenses. This doesn't even factor in the impact of earning investment income on those savings. As to why the wealth exceeds income at that specific point, I couldn't say, but what I've outlined above should show how it is quite reasonable that the data is as-reported.


So, the point of the article is that the taxpayers are making up for what Walmart isn't paying. But, walmart pays way more than what it's employees are using.  Employees use government programs, Walmartpays more than double of the cost of those programs, so no cost at all is passed to the taxpayers.  Walmart WOULD be evil if they didn't pay taxes. But they do.  The article is nonsense.   We get it. You don't like big business.


No. There is no indication that the recent decline will have an impact on the house market in the UK. The reason(s) for the downward move these last few weeks are mainly due to: The last two points caused the Chinese government to decide to devaluate the Yuan. This in turn triggered an unforeseen panic attack among investors and speculators around the globe starting with the Chinese that are trading on borrowed money (not only on margin but also by using loans). The UK house prices are not influenced by the above factors, not even indirectly. The most important factors for house prices are in general: If you keep the above points in mind you should be able to decide whether now is the right time to buy a house in your area. Given that a lot of central banks (incl. BoE) are maintaining a low interest rate policy (except fed soon), now is a good time to take a mortgage. Sources used: I know interest rates are determined by the BoE which looks at the global picture to determine these rates but the main directive of a central bank is to maintain an inflation close to but not exactly 2 % as to spur on economic growth.  As such, the value of a company as valuated on the stock market is not or barely taken into account. The negligible impact is the reason why I stated that the crash in the summer of 2015 doesn't even have an indirect impact.  Also such a crash is very short lived. It's more the underlying reason for the fears that could cause issues if they drag on.


You can increase your monthly cash flow in two ways: It's really that simple. I'd even argue that to a certain extent, decreasing expenses can be more cash-positive than increasing income by the same amount if you're spending post-tax money because increasing income generally increases your taxes. So if you have a chunk of cash and you want to increase your cash flow, you could decrease debt (like Chris suggested) and it would have the same effect on your monthly cash flow. Or you could invest in something that pays a dividend or pays interest. There are many options other than real estate, including dividend-paying stocks or funds, CDs, bonds, etc. To get started you could open an account with any of the major brokerage firms and get suggestions from their financial professionals, usually for free. They'll help you look at the risk/reward aspects of various investments.


It's a way to help normalize the meaning of the earnings report. Some companies like Google have a small number of publicly traded shares (322 Million). Others like Microsoft have much larger numbers of shares (8.3 Billion). The meaning depends on the stock. If it's a utility company that doesn't really grow, you don't want to see lots of changes -- the earnings per share should be stable. If it's a growth company, earnings should be growing quickly, and flat growth means that the stock is probably going down, especially if slow growth wasn't expected.


I think it's important to be clear what is being studied here. It's the effect of a more dramatic increase in the min wage than we've seen before.  There are many studies which show no negative effect at all on employment in situations where gradual increases in the min wage happen. Just like there are several well known studies that compare similar cities with different minimum wages that show no negative affect on employment in the city with the higher wage.  But in none of those situations was the wage ever increased quite like it was in Seattle, so that's the new thing to study here.  So again, the study is clearly *not* trying to say that raising the minimum wage has a negative effect on employment. Rather it's looking at just this particular significant increase.  For me, this really is an indictment on the unwillingness of congress to gradually raise the minimum wage over time using some sort of sensible inflationary benchmark.   Had they been gradually inflating the wage over time to coincide with normal inflation, we could see a $12 min wage already that had no appreciable effect on employment.  So is the solution a sudden correction to get to the wage up to a liveable standard in one, perhaps slightly painful to employment swoop? Or is it to go more gradually, meaning that you'll still remain decades behind inflation growth?


I think you have a good start understanding the ESA. $2k limit per child per year. The other choice is a 529 account which has a much higher limit. You can deposit up to 5 years worth of gifting per child, or $65k per child from you and another $65k from your wife. Sounds great, right? The downside is the 529 typically has fewer investment options, and doesn't allow for individual stocks. The S&P fund in my 529 costs me nearly 1% per year, in the ESA, .1%. the ESA has to be used by age 30, the 529 can be held indefinitely.


You may not have a good choice until you start that job. $2,000 is awfully low for a car, so it could be very risky. But you may not be able to get a loan until you start the new job. I would talk to a bank or credit union to get an idea of how much, if anything, you could borrow at this time. If you have a letter offering you the job that might help to get a loan. There are dealers who will finance a very cheap used car for anybody, but that kind of deal is likely to be at a very high interest rate and should be avoided. You could wind up with a debt and no car. One other possibility is to have a co-signer, such as a parent or other relative. That could make getting a car loan easy.


"Elliott was arguing from the position of an original creditor.  They still had the same rights and obligations as if they bought the bond directly from the Argentinian government.  So buying the bonds at a huge discount did not mean that they gave up rights under the law.  Would your opinion differ if it was the original bondholders in the lawsuit, and not these ""vulture funds?""  Think of it this way, Elliott paid less because the original bondholders' rights were judged by the market to be unlikely to result in being paid in full.  But paying less did not extinguish any of the original bondholders' rights.   And anytime a bond holder is forced to accept modified terms that they did not agree to, the borrower is unilaterally changing the terms.  There is an argument that this is necessary for businesses and individuals, but sovereigns that can raise revenue as a matter of policy have no excuse."


"Regarding SPY: ""One SPDR unit is valued at approximately 1/10 of the value of the S&P 500. Dividends are distributed quarterly, and are based on the accumulated stock dividends held in trust, less any expenses of the trust.""  (source)  These are depository receipts, not the actual stocks. Regarding IVV: ""The component stocks are weighted according to the total float-adjusted market value of their outstanding shares. The Fund invests in sectors, such as energy, information technology, industrials, financials, consumer staples, healthcare, telecom services, consumer discretionary and materials.""  (more here) VOO is the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The tracking error seems pretty small to me.  I went to Google Finance and plotted the percent change for all four on one chart.  They lie pretty much on top of one another.  The actual dollar value of each one doesn't matter nearly as much as the fact that they move up and down almost in lock-step.  There may be a larger difference going farther out, but for three separate financial products, the agreement is still remarkably good."


That's true.  If you liked Vietnam, the Gulf war, and the financial crises then you'll like finance because they're all brought to you by Harvard and Yale.  They're a bunch of egotistical know-nothings who have an inflated sense of accomplishment because of the name of their school.  I agree, I would take a state schooler than any of those morons from Harvard, Yale, Naval Academy, etc.    They had their chance and they royally screwed us up.


AFAIU, you don't need pay any taxes for you amount in NRE account since this amount is already taxed. I also think, you do not need to pay taxes on the interest earned on NRE account. However, you need to disclose the amount in your Indian Bank(s), if at any point of time, exceed $10K (When converted from INR to $). This is FBAR. Sending money to non-NRE account would come under Indian Tax scanner. For instance, if your parents use that money to pay EMIs or any huge purchase, then that might cause an issue. Most of the times, these type of purchases go unnoticed. However, the party who is taking money, may ask for source, especially if its a financial institution or Govt bodies. Also, for non-NRE accounts, you need to pay taxes and on interest earned. Hope this helps!


Notice that a textbook publishing conglomorate owns the majority share of both Penguin and Random House. Golly, I wonder how those textbook guys got to be so profitable? I don't suppose they viciously abused copyright law to threaten teachers and students like thugs to extort outrageous fees for material they didn't even necessarily have rights to? Do you suppose that's how they did it?   Or was it through controlling distribution and shutting out independents and making textbook distribution pay-to-play? Hmm, why choose when they're both so profitable?


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-sterling-idUSKBN1AR0M9) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot) ***** > LONDON - Sterling fell to a fresh 10-month low against the euro on Friday as investors added bearish bets against the British currency on concerns the economy may be struggling to gain momentum.  > Sterling fell 0.2 percent to 90.92 pence against the euro, its lowest level since October 2016.  > It has fallen for two consecutive weeks and has weakened nearly 9 percent against the euro since early May. Morgan Stanley strategists are predicting euro parity with the pound in the first quarter of 2018.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6thf3f/british_pound_further_down/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~190040 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **against**^#1 **since**^#2 **Sterling**^#3 **week**^#4 **euro**^#5"


that, and the fact that the internet has made pornography more widely available than ever. this article is basically about the porn industry struggling to come out with content that people are actually willing to spend money on.  oh, woah is me that the industry built on the world's oldest profession fall on hard times.


I always get hounded by some Dish TV guy when I go into the local BestBuy.  I politely tell him that I don't watch TV and am not interested, yet he keeps after me.  That's why I stopped going there.


If you mistakenly pull money out of the HSA all the ones I have looked at have a mechanism of returning the funds. Sometimes they have a form, other times the doctor or pharmacy can put the money back in. Money put back into the fund doesn't count as a contribution for that year. You shouldn't have to pull money out that you know will just be reimbursed. But there are occasions where there is no other way. Sometimes you are not sure what the exact fee will be when visiting the doctor. In other cases you have a rebate that will only be received weeks later.


Dude.  50,000 engineers.  If the entire UM ONLY produced engineers, Amazon only wants the top 10% of them to begin with.  So it would take ten years of those engineers staying in town in order to provide an adequate local supply.  Amazon had a hard time staffing to similar levels in Seattle, which everyone and their brother wants to move to, because it's beautiful and clean and well-run in comparison to most American cities. It also had Microsoft, Nintendo, Boeing, and a number of other software and engineering companies in town at the time.   I really WANT this for Detroit or Newark, because those cities are really suffering beyond what they deserve, have a housing SURPLUS, and could become great again.  But I don't feel like it's likely.


Exactly, it makes my poop pasty because it constipates me. I've not attacked anyone and you're out here being Internet big guy calling me all kinds of names and accusing me of stuff I haven't done. Nothing I've said is inaccurate or offensive. If you took it that way that is your issue you should talk to a therapist about.


You have a variety of options depending on the specifics of your situation.  I would recommend the first option if you live in an area served by TD Bank (you can also research similar banks who have both a US and Canadian presence such as RBC). In order to give a more detailed answer you'd have to expose more information in the question regarding location. Additional Notes:


"I believe there is an overtime meal allowance. That is, if an employee works ""overtime"" (defined as 7:00 p.m. for a 9:00 start, or ten-plus hours after the shift starts), the company can provide a non-taxable meal free of charge, or give a ""reasonable"" allowance ($15-$20) that must be spent outside on a meal (no drinks). This is because the employee is working extra hours at the convenience of the company. Lunches can be subsidized. That is the company can provide lunch on company premises, and must charge employees the direct costs of the food and preparing it, but can forego charging for ""overhead"" (e.g. the implied rent for the lunch facility) and profit."


See this link...I was also looking an answer to the same questions. This site explains with an example  http://www.independent-stock-investing.com/PE-Ratio.html


"(Ignoring any ethical considerations of defaulting on a mortgage obligation) If your credit score fell, future costs of borrowing would be greater, if you could borrow money at all. The true financial cost of these penalties would depend on your own intentions and circumstances. The value of a credit score cannot be quantified in any absolute sense because of these circumstances which will vary from person to person. Suppose a decision would result in your score falling from 700 to 600. As a result, a future car loan would cost something like 2% more in interest per year. Let's also suppose you would not be able to find a bank to give you money to buy a new home.  The difficulties caused by this situation would depend on the person. Some people have no intention of taking out another mortgage or buying another car, and to them, a lowered credit score might make no difference. To others, it would be desirable to avoid these penalties. The value of credit score would be equal to how much you would be willing to pay in the present to avoid these future penalties.  If you intend to borrow money in the near future, and somehow know how much more interest you will pay as a result of your lower score, then you could approximate the value of the credit drop by summing all of the additional interest costs discounted into the present. Something a little like this: Year's Additional Cost in Interest / (1 + Your Personal Opportunity Cost of Funds) ^ (Years in the future this extra interest will be paid).  See time value of money explanation: Can you explain ""time value of money"" and ""compound interest"" and provide examples of each? It could also be the case that you miss out on valuable financial opportunities as a result which could be added to the present value of the credit score drop.  For example, if the drop made you totally unable to purchase an investment property that would net you $10,000 in cash flows /year (which would yield cash flows immediately). The value of that investment would have been $10,000 / (1 + Your Personal Opportunity Cost of Funds). Since you would not be able to make that investment (in this example) as a result of the decreased score, the present value of the investment would be an opportunity cost of the lower score. There are other hard-to-quantify costs of low credit to consider as well, ranging from housing to employment to bragging rights.  Hopefully this has helped :)"


"(credits to Joe's answer above which alluded to what I was not considering) You aren't ""bypassing"" the tax liability if you invest in a home instead of, say, stocks. It's true stocks would be subject to tax during the year you cash in on them while the proceeds of a home equity loan would not affect your tax liability. HOWEVER, by taking on a new loan, you are liable for repayments. Those repayments would be made using your income from other sources, which IS taxable. So you can't avoid tax liability when financing your child's college education by using an equity line."


> 8.9M in subsidies to offer discounted Internet to schools [Comcast Roundup]  But Comcast wasn't the only company who received subsidies to give internet to schools.  It sucks that Comcast, with its poor practices DID receive money for it, but they weren't the only company involved.


But then why wouldn't that be their primary mode to control their currency now/are they starting/hinting at doing so to move away from US treasuries? There must be benefits to Treasury purchasing that seems better to them, maybe that QE can't do alone?  And I have to imagine with the tenuous nature of their financial system, the shock alone from losing access to the Dollar (and before they could use QE to devalue the currency back down) would be a major issue.


I have trouble getting into the Prime original stuff.  It is in no small part that they refuse to just let me stream shit on my chromecast.  I have to stream it through my Tivo, which in theory should be no big deal, but usually, means an inconsistent and often shitty experience.  I know they want me to use their competing Fire Stick thing, but... no.  Then the actual content usually seems to be slow moving drama.  I watched several episodes of Man in the High Castle (during my multi-year checks of Prime content) and was bored even just having it on while doing other stuff.  I just saw that they have The Tick.  It might be time to check on their line-up again.  Relative to Netflix, I don't feel like Prime holds up.  It is more obnoxious to watch (finding the content seems tougher in addition to the device limitation), and the content is meh.  That said, we love Prime.  We are ordering stuff sometimes multiple times a week so the free and fast shipping is much used and loved.  I even signed up for the Unlimited ebooks thing because I read tons of shitty novels that even at 1-5 dollars a pop were adding up to over $10 a month.


A few gadgets on credit is no replacement for a viable future, nor does it invalidate poverty.  It's easy to get a couple thousand dollars, but difficult to amass any significant amount of self sufficiency.  Besides that, it fucking sucks being poor.  If not for my PC I'd be forced to commit some very depraved acts upon various orifices of strangers.  Sure poor people might be able to get a couple of gadgets, but what we cannot get is decent healthcare, education (without massive debt), economic opportunity (without nepotism) and a home of our own (instead of renting from the landed gentry and having the bank own more than half the houses in our country).


">  Facebook has become one of the big companies pushing for/creating newer better networking gear servers   Completely untrue, unless you count ""complaining about infrastructure"" as ""creating newer better networking gear servers"".  Sorry, but they do nothing demonstratively constructive in this field."


A point that hasn't been mentioned is whether paying down the mortgage sooner will get you out of unnecessary additional costs, such as PMI or a lender's requirement that you carry flood insurance on the outstanding mortgage balance, rather than the actual value/replacement cost of the structures.  (My personal bugbear:  house worth about $100K, while the bare land could be sold for about twice that, so I'm paying about 50% extra for flood insurance.)  May not apply to your loan-from-parents situation, but in the general case it should be considered. FWIW, in your situation I'd probably invest the money.


"> You're the one arguing for a change away from the status quo here, to something that not only is entirely untested but requires everyone to do it at once AND everyone to think just like you do for it to 'work properly'. It's nothing but hypotheticals, yet you're saying the burden of proof is on me to 'prove' that your hypothetical scenarios won't work?  I don't have to prove anything when I'm advocating for not being a part of your system. I am in no way advocating that you be forced into mine. I'm not advocating any positive action towards you, nor anyone else. Simply arguing against the status quo doesn't place a burden of proof upon me.  > That's not a thing you can do, you can't prove a negative.  Then don't make that claim. Easy as that. I laid out how the market could deal with a court system, and you devolved into making unsupported claims. When we get back to what does make sense, we can have productive conversation. It's not productive to use baseless conjecture and unsupported claims.  > All i can do is say look around at all the free markets and stateless populations we have now living in perfect harmony with each other and the environment. Oh wait. They don't exist. Because they don't work in the real world.  Wrong. It does not follow that because something does not exist that it does not work.  > Any advantage is going to be used to bludgeon the competition with until you have a monopoly/quasi-state  You have no evidence to support this. Why are you reverting to this nonsense?  >  it relies on the population being informed in and believing in the system enough to make a conscious effort to not buy the cheaper goods at the store with the bad business practices, or potentially drive further to a different store if it's the store doing the bad practice!  No, it does not. This is a straw man. A voluntary society doesn't preclude the possibility of people buying bad food or something like that. It doesn't even preclude the possibility of third-party assurances to prevent bad food. It just doesn't have a built-in monopoly on assurance services that you have to use in order to buy/sell.  > So you're saying there can never be a truly free market then?  No. People buy and sell freely all of the time. Ever bought something from Craigslist? Ebay? Silk Road? I'd say those are pretty much free markets.  > You had little kids getting their arms ripped off by textile looms for fucks sake, people working 14 hour days. But it made more money than working in the fields, so #worth, right?  You're conveniently leaving out how kids worked, people toiled all day and still starved to death as the alternative up until industrialization allowed a better quality of life. It's not like they could have just passed a fucking law and mandated a 40 hour week and instantly had prosperity. It was because they did grind their way through the Industrial Revolution that we're able to live lives of leisure and prosperity. If you think that government action can get people out of poverty by decree then tell it to the third world countries that are still developing. I'm sure they'd be all ears.  > Because the pooling of vast resources for disaster relief is something that states do?  That they do it doesn't mean that it couldn't happen without the state on a voluntary basis. The funding for all of these programs combined is easily less than, what, a quarter of the government's budget? If the people who made this same objection put their money where their mouth is, there would be no shortage of funding. People from the left and the right alike claim that they want these things, so which is it? Are you telling me that there are just millions and millions of people who virtue signal about humanitarian efforts?  > This is my point, neither you nor I have any evidence to base this off rather than a tendency for people to be utter bastards to each other, looking at history. You're postulating that if all governments dissipated in a puff of smoke, there wouldn't be huge conflict in the resulting power vacuum?  Actually I don't think that immediately destroying governments will create the best outcomes, as that usually happens violently and results in someone wanting to fill the roles performed by government. Instead, I think that based upon history individuals are less likely to be violent when they aren't acting on behalf of governments, and they can and will find alternatives to the state that will replace it over time *if they are not violently stopped.* Here are some examples:  1. I would rather be entirely left alone by the state police agents and allowed to use my own private security. I would not be taxed for state agents and would instead pay out of pocket. This would likely lower the cost since they would be interested in preventing losses rather than busting people for parking tickets, speeding tickets, drug offenses, civil asset forfeiture, etc. Would you not agree that this is a superior model? 2. I would rather have private large-scale defense since it would not be involved in international wars of aggression. I would not be taxed and would instead pay out of pocket. All else equal, this would be less expensive and less dangerous since resources would only be used for defense. Would you not agree that this is a superior model? 3. I would rather have a private system of healthcare rather than a government one, being free to not pay into Medicare/Medicaid. This, along with eliminating certificates of need, monopolization by the AMA, eliminating IP protections, and the like would lower the cost more than nationalization would and would also allow providers to better align with my preferences. Would you not agree that this is a superior system?  > Yeah, good one. There weren't any Anarchists in a position to do any of that. Great straw man.  Actually the purported left-wing ""anarchists"" in Spain did carry out what is called the Red Terror. I put that in quotes because I do not agree with their methods or their ideology. Change must be done through the market, not through violence.  > WHY is the burden of proof on the 'statists'? It's the Anarchists who are arguing for the change in the status Quo.  Because appeals to tradition are not rational arguments and anarchists are not advocating for positive action against you. Statists are arguing that others be subject to their government. If a person is trying to argue against his own enslavement, he wouldn't have the burden of proof simply because he had been enslaved for some time.  > You're the one making the claim that it would be a better system here with nothing to back it up  On the contrary, I do have something to back it up: the market responds better to consumer preferences on an individual level than governments do. If you disagree with me on healthcare and want a collective system, the market can put you with other like-minded individuals and me with those who share my views. A state cannot.  > why do we have states right now?  You're conflating violence and efficiency. That's like saying ""if kids have such great ideas, why are they still living under their parent's rule?"" It's not because the ideas are bad, it's because the parents are keeping them there. States don't compete, they rule with violence. The notion of creating a market for violence to stop rule by violence is contradictory."


The GnuCash manual has a page with examples of opening new accounts. The tl;dr is: use the Equity:Opening Balance to offset your original amounts. The further explanation from the GnuCash page is: As shown earlier with the Assets:Checking account, the starting   balances in an account are typically assigned to a special account   called Equity:Opening Balance. To start filling in this chart of   account, begin by setting the starting balances for the accounts.   Assume that there is $1000 in the savings account and $500 charged on   the credit card. Open the Assets:Savings account register. Select View from the menu and check to make sure you are in Basic Ledger style. You will   view your transactions in the other modes later, but for now let’s   enter a basic transaction using the basic default style. From the Assets:Savings account register window, enter a basic 2 account transaction to set your starting balance to $1000, transferred   from Equity:Opening Balance. Remember, basic transactions transfer   money from a source account to a destination account. Record the   transaction (press the Enter key, or click on the Enter icon). From the Assets:Checking account register window, enter a basic 2 account transaction to set your starting balance to $1000, transferred   from Equity:Opening Balance. From the Liabilities:Visa account register window, enter a basic 2 account transaction to set your starting balance to $500, transferred   from Equity:Opening Balance. This is done by entering the $500 as a   charge in the Visa account (or decrease in the Opening Balance   account), since it is money you borrowed. Record the transaction   (press the Enter key, or click on the Enter icon). You should now have 3 accounts with opening balances set. Assets:Checking, Assets:Savings, and Liabilities:Visa.


Innovation? Last I checked, they still do the same damn thing they've been doing for the past decade or more. They just happened to have been the first successful brand in the video streaming industry when it began. No amount of free coffee and naps and beer will change that.


"Again with a question that is only tangentially linked to the statement. Perhaps one could ask ""Is it better to unload debt in financial terms or a reproductive debt, like the low birth rates of developed nations and the death of the human race... ?"", but it wouldn't be related."


I can't think of any specifically, but if you haven't already done so it would be worthwhile reading a textbook on macro-economics to get an idea of how money supply, exchange rates, unemployment and so on are thought to relate.   The other thing which might be interesting in respect of the Euro crisis would be a history of past economic unions. There have been several of these, not least the US dollar (in the 19C, I believe); the union of the English and Scottish pound (early 1600s); and the German mark. They tend to have some characteristic problems, caused partly by different parts of the union being at different stages in an economic cycle. Unfortunately I can't think of a single text which gathers this together.


"I think he's a jerk.  The whole ""Obamacare is fascism"" thing, price-gouging in multiple states at their stores, until they were caught and then ""apologized""in a video.  We'll see how things play out after Amazon does their structural realignment."


1) Yes, there are. Advances in materials or aerodynamics reduce fuel consumption thereby reducing carbon emissions.  2) There is plenty of evidence that businesses act to reduce costs.  Any important question is how they measure carbon emissions. Are the emissions charges reduced with more efficient aircraft? Airlines may find ways to reduce the charges in ways that don't necessarily help the environment.


The biggest issue with personal bankruptcy is the guilt.  We generally are brought up to believe that we should be responsible for our debts.  Bankruptcy is a direct contradiction to that concept.  Once a debtor realizes that corporations don't necessarily view bankruptcy as failure, but merely a financial tool, that makes it a lot easier to let go of the guilt.  Once that happens, all a debtor needs to get used to is the idea that s/he'll be dealing with a cash economy for a while.  Which isn't a particularly bad thing at all.  Inconvenient at times, but that's about it.


Hmm...  Oh.  I had to get the Amazon Underground (Android) app.  Now it looks like I can watch on my phone.  That's weird.  After reading more, this is the old Amazon app store, which I never reinstalled when I got my current phone.  People also manage to stream by casting their phone's screen.  Still not an elegant solution, but better than nothing.  I wonder why you need their app store to watch their video content.  I already have Amazon Music and Amazon Prime apps, seems silly to need the app store to watch video 0.o.


"Horseshit, for one it isn't the CEO that has to be a minority in these preference contracts it's the shareholders so we know you're full of shit.  Second, no company is *banned* under any of these schemes because of the race of even shareholders. Even the suggestion is fucking ridiculous because that would clearly violate the 14th amendment.   The federal gov and state governments have TONS of vendors for which a small percentage they've decided they want to make a conscious effort of hiring minority and women owned contractors. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT WHITE CONTRACTORS. It means that after bids are submitted they might still consider a minority or women owned bid that doesn't come in at the lowest price. In any case it's usually a small sliver of total contracts. If you're wondering why they do this for minorities and women, they do it for a bunch of different categories including veterans and small businesses. It's a feel good story.  Your company did not lose a contract because your CEO is white, that is just a fucking lie. Your company might have lost a bid to a woman or minority owned contractor. To which, I say ""tough."" You might have lost the contract anyway to another bidder. Maybe your work wasn't as good as you say. We have no way to know without knowing your bid and their bid and if they are in fact minority owned.  So as of now you're just some guy bitching about losing his job on the internet. Go somewhere with that bullshit."


Regarding the Summer of 2011 Crisis: There is NO reason that the United States cannot continue borrowing like it is just based on a particular ratio:  Debt to GDP. The Debt to GDP ratio right now is around 100%, or 1:1. This means the US GDP is around $14 Trillion and its debt is also around $14 trillion.  Other countries have higher debt:gdp ratios Japan - for instance - has a debt:gdp ratio of 220% Regarding a selloff of stocks, dollars and bonds: you have to realize that selling pressure on the dollar will make THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING increase. So commodities and stocks will skyrocket proportionally. The stockmarket can selloff faster than the dollar though. And both markets have circuit breakers that can attempt to curb quick selloffs. Effectiveness pending.


"I was surprised to learn that ""blocking and tackling"" was supposed to be a football metaphor. I always thought it was referring to a system of ropes and pulleys ([block and tackle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_and_tackle)). I always thought it was just a synonym for ""execution"" / hard work, since block and tackle is a symbol for direct, physical labor. This is what I get for avoiding sports in high school."


This depends on: Here in the US where I am, interest rates were around 3.9% when I fixed my mortgage. This underperforms the market, e.g., a total market ETF like $VTI or an SP500 ETF like $VOO have expected returns of ~7+%, the current market growth rate. So, in theory I am better off paying into the market, and making returns greater than my interest rate, rather than paying into the equity.  HOWEVER, past market returns do not guarantee future market returns. The market could reset. It could crash. Are you willing to accept this risk? You have to analyze what happens if the market suffers say a 30% correction and you lose a lot of money quickly.  I would certainly not invest in individual (non-ETF) stocks, or you are really exposing yourself to risk.


"Assuming that the ETF is tracking an index, is there a reason for not looking at using details on the index?  Typically the exact constituents of an index are proprietary, and companies will not publish them publicly without a license.  S&P is the heavyweight in this area, and the exact details of the constituents at any one time are not listed anywhere.  They do list the methodology, and announcements as to index changes, but not a full list of actual underlying constituents. Is there a easy way to automatically (ie. through an API or something, not through just reading a prospectus) get information about an ETF's underlying securities? I have looked for this information before, and based on my own searches, in a word: no.  Index providers, and providers of APIs which provide index information, make money off of such services.  The easiest way may be to navigate to each provider and download the CSV with the full list of holdings, if one exists.  You can then drop this into your pipeline and write a program to pull the data from the CSV file.  You could drop the entire CSV into Excel and use VBA to automagically pull the data into a usable format. For example, on the page for XIU.TO on the Blackrock site, after clicking the ""All Holdings"" tab there is a link to ""Download holdings"", which will provide you with a CSV.  I am not sure if all providers look at this. Alternatively, you could write the ETF company themselves."


Nice idea, but you will have a potential problem. State lawmakers have already considered this option: I looked at this site: Saving for college because it include info for on all the plans. For Illinois it discuses income tax recapture. Effective January 1, 2007, rollovers from this plan to an out-of-state   program are included in Illinois taxable income to the extent of prior   Illinois deductions. Effective January 1, 2009, nonqualified   distributions from this plan are included in Illinois taxable income   to the extent of prior Illinois deductions. Most of the states have similar wording. When looking up the law the key word is recapture. The reason why there is no recapture provision at the federal level is that there is no tax deduction on contributions. The 10% penalty make it less likely that somebody would want to have nonqualified distributions. If a state gives a tax deduction in the year of the contribution they want to demand that tax deduction back if the funds are not used for educational purposes. Generally there are of course provisions for scholarships, death, and disability.


"The usual approach is to set up a ""Friends of X Park"" charity.  The charity raises money and then donates it towards work done in the park.  Here's an example that's local to me: Friends of Hastings Country Park. There will be quite a bit of work needed to set up a new charity, so it will only be worth it if there's enough money likely to be raised."


"If your financial needs aren't complex, and mostly limited to portfolio management, consider looking into the newish thing called robo-advisers (proper term is ""Automated investing services"").  The difference is that robo-advisers use software to manage portfolios on a large scale, generating big economy of scale and therefore offering a much cheaper services than personal advisor would - and unless your financial needs are extremely complex, the state of the art of scaled up portfolio management is at the point that a human advisor really doesn't give you any value-add (and - as other answers noted - human advisor can easily bring in downsides such as conflict of interest and lack of fiduciary responsibility).  disclaimer: I indirectly derive my living from a company which derives a very small part of their income from a robo-adviser, therefore there's a possible small conflict of interest in my answer"


Buy a 3D printer for your son so he learn how to design, build and not be limited in any shape or form.  Some 3D printers cost less than a big Lego set (you can get a 3D printer for less than $300)


Banking is highly regulated, but you may want to have a look at Basel II which is kind of an international standard on how to create banking regulations. Your country/state may have considered this when creating its own local regulation; the United States do.


Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card?  Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'.  It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades.  Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.


Thanks, at the moment I don't plan to do alot of trading just need to sell a few shares at the moment and might sell some more more at another point, but other than that I don't plan on touching the stock and just plan on letting it re-invest itself. Since I don't plan on doing alot of selling I don't know how much I need to worry about fee's as long as they aren't too steep.


As your question appears in the second half, so will my answer.  Like you, I will provide some background.  I remember buying gasoline for $1.759 per gallon.  I am so old that I remember buying gasoline for $0.759 per gallon.  I recently paid $2.759 per gallon.  You claim that your  relative is not getting a very good return.  Some would suggest that, at $2.759 per gallon, I am not getting a very good price on gasoline.  Rates, yields, returns and the price of gas are not what they once were.  It is actually difficult to get a pretty bad return relative to the current market.  I suspect your relative is no longer getting what he used to get but he is getting a fair return. About record keeping.  Your Uncle Sam benefits at your expense when you keep poor records.  There are substantial penalties for failing to report everything.  Most high school graduates can manage one checking account, one savings account, several charge cards and about 20 CDs and stocks at different institutions with little more than the following:  a) a wall calendar b) a shoe box and c) a stack of 3 by 5 cards.  Don't misplace the shoe box.  If you can use a spreadsheet, it is even easier.  Backup your data. There are a several reasons why you shouldn't consolidate all his cash and put it in a single mutual fund account and then put together a mix of investments that work well for him.  - you are doing it backwards 1st put together a mix of investments that work well for him 2nd consolidate the assets.  Your phrasing suggests a general lack of understanding  - most CDs have penalties for early withdrawal.   - while you enjoy managing your 401K in a single online account, your older relative might not be as comfortable with a lack of paper statements (see shoe box above)  Let me tell you a little about my 401K.  x% blue chip, y% small cap, z% bonds, w% foreign stock.  Once a quarter, I change my current contribution to re-balance current value towards my target percentages.  Every 30 months or so, I consider changing my asset allocation.  The allocation considers my age, my spouses age, our childrens ages, my risk tolerance and my intermediate view of the markets.  Your mileage my vary. to recap


Reducing supply doesn't cause demand.  It may shift the equilibrium price, or supply can fall even faster than demand.  Certain goods are pretty inelastic, such as food - people will still pay for it even if the price goes up because the alternative is starving to death.  In that case you have a point that cost of production puts a price floor there.    For completely elastic goods such as bitcoin which have no intrinsic use or demand beyond people that think it is a speculative investment, it's a totally different situation.  Why is it that I find in any discussion about bitcoin the pro bitcoin side has not even a high school level understanding of basic economics?


I can do better, I can show you [sources](http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html):  > Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.  Looks like my plumbing example may have been extreme because it doesn't necessarily have a religious purpose under those terms, but to be fair neither does the fortune 500 christian insurance company, whose primary purpose is to sell insurance, I was referring to earlier whose large legal department said we were legally safe to hire only christian salesmen and board members.


I get it! It was not Obama fault - it was Bush. And it's not Trump achievement - it is Obama.  What's next? As you know, in 8 years Obama never achieved GDP over 3%. Last quarter, the GDP was over 3%. Is that because of Obama, or, maybe, just maybe, because of Trump?  And the stock market breaking records: probably because of lack of faith in Trump.


spammers don't want the competition, they downvote anything else.  It must be a single spam gang, or they'd be downvoting each other.  Unless maybe they called a truce among themselves.  Basically, I'm saying that spammers own this reddit.  Mods have given up?


Well, kind of XD. I usually just look through Business Week for the ADRs that are on the OTC market. I don't do anything major, but why I love them is that they have a greater reach than just ADRs on the NYSE or NASDAQ. Like for instance, if I wanted to own Thai or European stocks, many of the larger, more reputable firms are listed on the OTC market. Having said that, most other sites don't have earnings reports laid out for you. Business Week does. The only fancy thing I am interested in are options and options on futures, and Bar Chart is good for the latter.


I am from India. I visited US 6-8 times on business VISA and then started 2 Member LLC. Myself and My wife as LLC Members. We provide Online Training to american students from India. Also Got EIN number. Never employed any one. Do i need to pay taxes? Students from USA pays online by Paypal and i am paying taxes in India. Do i need to pay Taxes in US? DO i need to file the Tax returns? Please guide me. I formed LLC in 2010. I opened an Office-taken Virtual office for 75 USD per month to open LLC in 2010. As there is physical virtual address, am i liable for US taxes? All my earning is Online, free lancing.


There is no ideal number of stocks you should own. There are several factors you should consider though. First, how actively do you want to manage your portfolio. If you want to be very active then the number of stocks you own should be based on the amount of time you have to research the company, by reading SEC filings and listening to conference calls, so you are not surprised when the company reports every quarter. If you don't want to be very active, then you are better off buying solid companies that have a good reputation and good history of performance.  Second, you should decide how much risk you are willing to take. If you have $10,000 that you can afford to lose, then you can put your money into more risky stocks or into fewer stocks, which could potentially have a higher return. If you want your $10,000 grow (or lose) with the market, better off, again, going with the good rep and history stocks or a variety of stocks.  Third, this goes along with your risk to some extent, but you should consider if you are looking for short term or long term gains? If you are looking to put your money in the market for the short term, you will probably be looking at fewer stocks with more money in each. If you are looking for long term, you will be around 5 stocks that you swap as they reach goals you set out for each stock.  In my opinion, and I am not a financial expert, I like to stay at around 5 companies, mostly for the fact that it is about the ideal number of companies to keep track of.


As long as your total doesn't exceed the per-year limit, you should be able to deposit after-tax money into your Health Savings Account. Contact the HSA administrator for details. Note that unless your employer sets this up, you'd be sending them after-tax money, which goes in the same category as other non-reimbursed health expenses, so you may not get any immediate tax savings by doing this vs. just spending the money out of pocket. However, once there us enough reserve money in your HSA for you to invest it in the same way a 401k can be invested, it will grow tax-free. So if you're putting in significantly more than you expect to withdraw any time soon, this may still be a worthwhile thing to do. Definitely talk to HR about whether you can still get it set up pre-tax... though most employers don't allow midyear changes unless there has been a significant change in your family (new wife, new kids, that sort of thing).


"Oh, the ""risk management"" guy.  The guy who gets the call after the fact?  The guy who is a cost center; gets no credit when things go up and all the blame when things go wrong?  Ya, I know all about those from my days as a ""student."""


"Holy shit!!!!  You mean sucking up all the liquidity from the real economy and giving to the banks in a funny money scheme at ""Head up the ass"" valuations for toxic assets and then forcing people to take menial jobs at a fraction of the pay, fudging the Employment data and calling it a recovery did not work?  huh?!!!  Jeepers . . .Who would thunk that"


Both the PS3 and the PS4 allows the user to swap the HDD for an SSD without voiding the warranty and step-by-step details can be found in their respective instruction manuals and online. Their examples assume you are merely swapping between different HDD but and SSD is equally suited for these systems.  Only problem, if you can call it that, is that these consoles and their games are already designed so that the storage drive isnt a massive bottlenecks but you still see a few seconds of speed improvements. Like instead of 15 second load time you see 13-14. Probably noticeable but its not a mind blowing difference and a casual user would probably not notice. If we were talking about 50% reductions it would be something most people would notice.  Its also worth mentioning that all old cart based system are SSD systems and work by you switching SSDs to play different games. These systems had extremely fast loading times but also far smaller storage when compared to disc based systems.   SSD and Hybrid SSD speed tests by IGN on PS4  http://ign.com/wikis/playstation-4/PlayStation_4_Hard_Drive_Speed_Test_Comparison  Offical guides from Sony on how to swap storage drives  https://support.us.playstation.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/362/~/upgrade-the-hard-disk-drive-(hdd)  https://support.us.playstation.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5107/~/upgrade-ps4-hdd


One way I heard of, from a friend who ran a similar fund as yours, is to calculate $days of investment and divide the investment as accordingly.  For example, If I invested 10$ for 10 days and you have invested 20$ for 5 days. At the end of the 10th day my $day = 10*10=100, while your $day=20*5=100. If the investement has grown to 100$, the I should get $100/(100+100)*100=$50, you also should get the same. This I guess is equitable, you could try dividing the corpus with above method. It consideres the amount invested as well as the time invested for. I think by the above method, you could also handle the inbetween withdrawals.


Let me add a few thoughts that have not been mentioned so far in the other answers.  Note that for the decision of buying vs. renting a home i.e. for personal use, not for renting out there's a rule of thumb that if the price for buying is more than 20 year's (cold) rents it is considered rather expensive. I don't know how localized this rule of thumb is, but I know it for Germany which is apparently the OP's country, too. There are obviously differences between buying a house/flat for yourself and in order to rent it out. As others have said, maintenance is a major factor for house owners - and here a lot depends on how much of that you do yourself (i.e. do you have the possibility to trade working hours for costs - which is closely related to financial risk exposure, e.g. increasing income by cutting costs as you do maintenance work yourself if you loose your day-time job?).  This plays a crucial role for landlords I know (they're all small-scale landlords, and most of them do put in substantial work themselves): I know quite a number of people who rent out flats in the house where they actually live. Some of the houses were built with flats and the owner lives in one of the flats, another rather typical setup is that people built their house in the way that a smaller flat can easily be separated and let once the kids moved out (note also that the legal situation for the landlord is easier in that special case). I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance.   My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently.  There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners). In contrast, many people who decide never to buy a home fall short of their initial savings/investment plans (e.g. putting the 150 k€ into an ETF for the next 21 years) and in the end spend considerably more money - and this group of people rarely invests into directly becoming a landlord.  Assuming that you can read German, here's a relevant newspaper article and a related press release.


2 years at GS IBD and 1 years at ONEX private equity. And a few more years in PE at 3G should qualify you to be VP of finance at many (midsized) companies. Definitely crazy to here that he got to KraftHeinz but heh if 3G believes in him what do I know.


"Your agent doesn't understand what ""willing to sell"" means in the housing big market.  Willing to sell doesn't mean they can wait forever to sell. It used to be these people were moving so they had to sell their house. Now the people who own houses don't need to sell it because they can just sit around and rent it to someone.   If people are unwilling to list the house they are unwilling to sell the house."


">In October, I am going to owe 12 apple-bushels to ""the economy"", so isn't the 12-Loddar IOU cancelled out? Really, the 12-Loddar IOU is a pre-order.  This is the kind of stuff that will make your head spin if you try to make everything fit into analogies. You can't ""cancel out"" the value that has been created or destroyed-- those 12 loddars already bought a deer and a pair of shoes (plus you grew a bushel of apples). That's 36 loddars worth of stuff that exists in the world. (actually, it's a lot more, because you also paid farm-workers and I bought arrows and the shoemaker bought leather and that money has been spent on other things and so on).  The economic term for this concept is ""velocity of money"", and it gets into stuff that I didn't really cover above.   >(b) If we take your metaphor to the modern age, handwritten IOUs won't work anymore; they have to be central-bank-printed notes;  That's not true. Handwritten IOUs are are traded pretty routinely at my friday-night poker game. Moreover, in business it's pretty common to order parts and things on a ""Net 30"" Purchase Order, meaning the buyer will send payment within 30 days of receiving the stuff, and nobody needs permission from Ben Bernanke to do that.   You actually do the same any time you buy something on a payment plan or use a ""bill me later"" type option.   It's easy to get into a routine of paychecks and bills and lose sight of the fact that everyone is actually *creating value* all the time (well, most people are). Dollars are just the markers that we use."


"Ha! They'll be hit with a fine and settle some civil suits and that'll be it.  - Wells Fargo committed 2 million counts of fraud.  They also went to FINRA and burned thousands of their employees who refused to play along.  They were fined about $250m.  Curiously, they were fined a lot more for selling mortgages too complicated for Joe Schmo to comprehend.  - BNP Paribas traded with Iranians despite sanctions.  ""Light treason."" Big fine, but not enough to put them out of business.  - HSBC laundered a bunch of money for the Mexican cartels.  - CSFB, et al. helped thousands of wealthy Americans hide money from the IRS.    - In the 70s, Ford [knowingly](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9e4X1Tnjnp4J:https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-metivier/module-2-why-does-business-need-ethics/case-the-ford-pinto/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) sold cards that would sometimes explode if they were rear ended at 20mph. People died. The guy who led that project became the most celebrated American CEO of the 80s.   - GM knowingly sold cars with defective ignition switches. People died.  - VW installed a device to cheat on emissions tests, in effect lieing to the government every time their cars were smogged.    - BP cut corners, built a shitty rig that burned down, killed a bunch of people, and pissed crude all over the Gulf of Mexico, under an environmentally friendly Democratic president, and they're still around.  It wasn't even their only big spill that year in American waters."


How did you achieve a job in IR? I work in FP&A and IR seems way more interesting. The one IR analyst we have always has the coolest models and it seems like a fun/interesting career. There just aren't too many IR ugrads it seems.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-funding-tezos-specialreport/special-report-backroom-battle-imperils-230-million-cryptocurrency-venture-idUSKBN1CN35K) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** > ZUG, Switzerland/NEW YORK - Just three months ago, a tech project called Tezos raised $232 million online in a wildly successful &quot;Initial coin offering,&quot; in which new digital currency is parceled out to buyers.  > Georg von Schnurbein, co-author of a book on Swiss foundation governance, expressed surprise over cryptocurrency ventures like Tezos setting up not-for-profit foundations in Switzerland.  > Kevin Zhou, co-founder of the cryptocurrency trading fund Galois Capital, said he invested about five bitcoins in Tezos, which he considers overall one of the better ICOs.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/77m6f4/special_report_backroom_battle_imperils_230/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~231942 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Tezos**^#1 **foundation**^#2 **Breitman**^#3 **Reuters**^#4 **Gevers**^#5"


JP Morgan didn't need a bailout, but was forced to take it. It used those funds to buy out two other large banks, and Jamie Dimon helped save the US economy. He basically took on the role of the original JP Morgan. JP Morgan was the least complicit of the large banks, and had very little exposure to the bad mortgages that led to the crash, nor did they profit off of shorting it like Goldman did.