The economic utility of markets results from price discovery (and the corresponding capital allocation.) Information which changes the material value of a business can come to light, be processed by sentient beings capable of rational thought, and conveyed to the market in the form of a price in an hour. That can't happen in a millisecond.  And don't try to argue about liquidity, because HFT liquidity evaporates in milliseconds in adverse conditions (i.e. when liquidity matters.)


The office was in a town called Uxbridge on the outskirts of London - where they were based in 2010 and 2011 (probably a few years earlier also and until they went bust!). That's all I can really remember about it now.  Edit: dates


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/business/dealbook/car-loan-subprime.html) reduced by 93%. (I'm a bot) ***** > These are people desperate enough to take on thousands of dollars of debt at interest rates as high as 24 percent for one simple reason: Without a car, they have no way to get to work or to doctors.  > When all the interest and fees of a subprime loan are added up, even a used car with mechanical defects and many miles on the odometer can end up costing more than a new car.  > Instead, Ms. Robinson, a Staten Island resident who is physically disabled and was desperate for a car to get to her doctors&#039; appointments, was told to pick a different car from the lot.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6iqtv0/the_car_was_repossessed_but_the_debt_remains/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~149861 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*: **car**^#1 **loan**^#2 **lender**^#3 **subprime**^#4 **auto**^#5"


On the off chance that I am not wrong, at that point you should be included money and you are proposing to get it by offering your garbage auto. This is genuinely a smart thought, as there are a large number of auto merchants who demonstrate their enthusiasm for old autos. Your auto specialist needs to have disclosed to you the money for garbage autos Tampa which couldn't be more than two or three hundred dollars.


It basically only affects the company's dealings with its own stock, not with operational concerns.  If the company were to offer more stock for sale, it would get less cash.  If it had a stock buy-back program, it could buy more shares for the same money.  If it was to offer to acquire another company in exchange for its own stock, the terms would be less attractive to the other company's owners.  Employee stock remuneration, stock options, and so forth would be affected, so there might be considerations and tax consequences for the company.


My brother's wife does some pretty intense couponing. She recently posted on facebook when she bought about $300 worth of items for $30. It was almost all toiletries and food that her family uses regularly, though there were some items they've now got 3 months supply of. She told me that it is a pain to track and exploit all of the different coupons/discounts but the savings help to offset the cost of homeschooling 4 children.


"Keep in mind that not every currency is ""tradeable"", i.e.: convertible.  In fact, neither the Brazilian nor the Thai currencies are fully convertible, and the trading with them may be limited. There are 17 fully convertible currencies currently in the word, you can find the list here."


Definitely not sold. My GF has talked about selling hers and she has an 05 LJ(long jeep the 4 door is based off. In the two years they produced them they only produced like 55,000 of them. I told her I'd buy it if she ever sells it.


Both a trust and an estate are separate, legal, taxpaying entities, just like any individual. Income earned by the trust or estate property (e.g., rents collected from real estate) is income earned by the trust or the estate. Who is liable for taxes on income earned by a trust depends on who receives or retains benefits from the trust. Who is liable for taxes on income received by an estate depends on how the income is classified (i.e., income earned by the decedent, income earned by the estate, income in respect of the decedent, or income distributed to beneficiaries). Generally, trusts and estates are taxed like individuals. General tax principles that apply to individuals therefore also apply to trusts and estates. A trust or estate may earn tax−exempt income and may deduct certain expenses. Each is allowed a small exemption ($300 for a simple trust, $100 for a complex trust, $600 for an estate). However, neither is allowed a standard deduction. The tax brackets for income taxable to a trust or estate are much more compressed and can result in higher taxes than for individuals. In short, the trust should have been paying taxes on its gains all along, when the money transfers to you it will be taxed as ordinary income.


I think it depends on how you're approaching paying off the credit card. If you're doing some sort of debt snowball and/or throw all available cash at the card, it's not likely to matter much. If you're paying a set amount close to the minimum each month then you're probably better off getting a loan, use it to pay off the card and cut up the card. Well, I'd do the latter in either case... Mathematically it would matter if the interest rate on the card is 10%-15% higher than the personal loan but if you're throwing every spare dime at the card and the some, it might not matter. Another option if you have the discipline to pay the debt off quickly is to see if you can find a card with a cheap balance transfer, move the balance over and close the inflexible card.


labeling for the sake of misleading the consumer isn't specific to any one industry.  they all certainly do it, food industry included.  don't even need to bring up all the cosmetic work that goes into restaurant commercials so that the food advertised looks way better than the food that is actually sold.


"I looked this up on Wikipedia, and was hoping the answer would be ""no - stores cannot refuse legal tender"", but unfortunately, it's not the case!  If the retailer wants to go to the lengths of refusing certain denominations to protect themselves from counterfeit currency, they are fully within their rights to do so. The ""Legal Tender"" page on Wikipedia says this about Canadian bills: [...] Retailers in Canada may refuse bank notes without breaking the law. According to legal guidelines, the method of payment has to be mutually agreed upon by the parties involved with the transactions. For example, convenience stores may refuse $100 bank notes if they feel that would put them at risk of being counterfeit victims [...] What is interesting about what I found out, is that legal tender cannot be refused if it is in repayment of an existing debt (i.e. not a store transaction for which there existed no previous debt).  So you could offload your $100 bills when repaying your Sears credit card account (or pay in pennies if you wanted to!) and they couldn't refuse you!"


To add to the already existing answers, most of the dotcom companies used an accounting sheningan so profusely that everything looked rosy. To account for revenues, what dotcom companies did was, get into a barter transaction with another dotcom company by selling advertising space and stuff on each other's website. So the final outcome was each had quite a substantial amount of revenue while in reality there wasn't any revenue earned. This cooked up their books to look quite rosy to investors who then poured in their money, without realizing they were pouring money into a black hole. As someone mentioned Cisco, which sells networking gear and was heavily dependent on the dotcom boost. So when everything went bust, its stock price also crashed heavily.  This was for the losers, but some good ones did sail through. Dotcom companies which had substance took a hit, in fact everybody did, during the bust but more than made up for it later on when investors realized they are valuable.


">The banks have a gain because they are the money creators, they don't see a gain from the Cantillion Effect because they are lending money and not buying goods (unless we're talking about investment banking, which we are not).  They're buying debt-obligations (loans) from the people you claim are ""gaining"" from this scheme.  Thankfully your viewpoint is in the minority - more and more people now are well aware of the fundamentally unfair nature of this credit-money system."


I should also add that the 7/63 won't do much for you. If you're really interested in finance, you have a few options.  1) Sales - in which case the 7/63 is about all you need. The rest is just time and practice.  2) A job as an analyst. Your best bet here is to pursue the CFA charter.   3) A financial planner/advisor. This job is kind of a subcategory of #1. I always like to say that an advisor's primary job is to sell, giving meaningful advice is secondary. Nonetheless, a CFP is helpful here.  4) A trader. CFA charter is helpful here as with #2.  5) High Frequency Trading - Masters/PhD in math or a quant discipline and C++ is a must.


Right. We all get normal compensation, either salary or hourly depending on the nature of the job. The CEO salary is about 3.5 times that of the lowest paid worker. That is just salary and doesn't include benefits and the profit-sharing (which is completely even). If you included those things, it would be even flatter. There are no back-door golden parachutes or secret stock options.


This is how all corporations shift taxes to low income tax . Most large companies are actually hundreds of companies, with individual companies in each country they do business in. They use this type of transfer payment so most of the profits end up in countries with low income taxes. That is why you might as well lower the corporate rate.  It will help employment, and end this kind of useless profit shifting. It's a world wide economy, and companies do what they need to do to keep taxes low no matter what.


The terms of IL state pensions are among the most generous in the entire country and the state is swimming in debt due to them.  The unions own the democratic pols in IL and it's been an incestuous relationship between the two.  Politicians get union money for elections, elected politicians give unions generous pension payouts that basically burden the taxpayer to obscene levels.  Why is IL the largest net migration in the 50 states?  Why isn't Indiana or Wisconsin facing the same problems?  Oh that's right, they got rid of their public sector unions and that's why citizens of IL have about $40,000 more in debt than their neighbors.


Short answer is fund a Roth.   If you are under 50 then you can put in $5500 or $6500 if you are older. Great to have money in two buckets one pre tax and one post tax.  Plus you can be aggressive putting money in it because you can always take money you put in the Roth out of the Roth with no tax or penalty.   Taxes are historically low so it makes a lot of sense to diversify your retirement.


"I think you have to go back to [this HBR article](https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity) to really understand:  TLDR: Buybacks boost CEO pay and hurt the long term value of companies. But I'm not convinced that they're ""the root of inequality""   ""Consider the 449 companies in the S&P 500 index that were publicly listed from 2003 through 2012. During that period those companies used 54% of their earnings—a total of $2.4 trillion—to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of their earnings. That left very little for investments in productive capabilities or higher incomes for employees.""  ""Why are such massive resources being devoted to stock repurchases? Corporate executives give several reasons, which I will discuss later. But none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay, and in the short term buybacks drive up stock prices. ""  ""Trillions of dollars that could have been spent on innovation and job creation in the U.S. economy over the past three decades have instead been used to buy back shares for what is effectively stock-price manipulation.""  "" Most are now done on the open market, and my research shows that they often come at the expense of investment in productive capabilities and, consequently, aren’t great for long-term shareholders.""  ""Research by the Academic-Industry Research Network, a nonprofit I cofounded and lead, shows that companies that do buybacks never resell the shares at higher prices.""  ""Many academics have warned that if U.S. companies don’t start investing much more in research and manufacturing capabilities, they cannot expect to remain competitive in a range of advanced technology industries. ""  Specific examples:  ""Pharmaceutical drugs.  In response to complaints that U.S. drug prices are at least twice those in any other country, Pfizer and other U.S. pharmaceutical companies have argued that the profits from these high prices—enabled by a generous intellectual-property regime and lax price regulation—permit more R&D to be done in the United States than elsewhere. Yet from 2003 through 2012, Pfizer funneled an amount equal to 71% of its profits into buybacks, and an amount equal to 75% of its profits into dividends. In other words, it spent more on buybacks and dividends than it earned and tapped its capital reserves to help fund them. The reality is, Americans pay high drug prices so that major pharmaceutical companies can boost their stock prices and pad executive pay.""  ""Nanotechnology.  Intel executives have long lobbied the U.S. government to increase spending on nanotechnology research. In 2005, Intel’s then-CEO, Craig R. Barrett, argued that “it will take a massive, coordinated U.S. research effort involving academia, industry, and state and federal governments to ensure that America continues to be the world leader in information technology.” Yet from 2001, when the U.S. government launched the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), through 2013 Intel’s expenditures on buybacks were almost four times the total NNI budget."""


"Penny stocks are only appealing to the brokers who sell the penny stocks and the companies selling ""penny stock signals!"". Generally penny stocks provide abysmal returns to the average investor (you or me). In ""The Missing Risk Premium"", Falkenstein does a quick overview on average returns to penny stock investors citing the following paper ""Do Investors Overpay for Stocks with Lottery-Like Payoffs? An Examination of the Returns on OTC Stocks"". Over the 2000 to 2009 time period, average investors lost nearly half their investment. A comparable investment in the S&P over this period would have been flat see here. There is a good table in the book/paper showing that the average annual return for stocks priced at either a penny or ten cents range from -10 percent (for medium volume) to -30% to -40% for low or high volume.  A different paper, ""Too Good to Ignore? A Primer on Listed Penny Stocks"" that cites the one above finds that listed, as opposed to OTC ""Pink Sheet"" penny stocks"", have better returns, but provide no premium for the additional risk and low liquidity.  The best advice here is that there is no ""quick win"" in penny stocks. These act more like lottery tickets and are not appropriate for the average investor. Stear clear!"


Have you bought computers since?  Could you afford a computer back when you were building them?    I remember my upper middle class friends owning computers back then, and I believe they paid around 1200 for them.  Inflation adjusted, we should be paying just shy of 2k for a PC today, and yet you can buy a basic desktop for 500.    You may have personally felt the sting from outsourcing, many people have.  Many people also felt the sting when their typewriter companies could no longer compete with the computer companies.  This isn't the 50's when you could work the same job 30 years.  Today, many people have to go through several career changes in their lifetime.


"When you pay expenses on behalf of someone, you do not Debit your expense accounts.  You credit your Bank and debit the Liability.  The method that you mentioned (debit expense then credit it back to liability) is an acceptable practice, but the method is only used when you accidentially debited your expense accounts without knowing that it is for someone else (or in the case of split transactions). You need to specify ""being expense paid on behalf of someone"" when you credit the expense account."


Tell me how many times have you gone to the ER? Point is 99% of hospital visits are for non life threatening situations; teeth extractions, allergy test, antibiotics, sprained ankles, etc. Routine healthcare/Non emergency treatment is what i'm assuming the POOR do not have access to.


"It depends on what you're shopping for.  Black Friday and Cyber Monday deals are often very good for some things and mediocre to downright bad for other things.  I recommend trying to figure out what things you want to buy now, and tracking the price for 4-8 weeks.  That will help give you a better price anchor to know when a deal is ""good"" vs. ""not good""."


"As others have said, the decision is a very personal one. Personally, I think you have a good idea. For those of us that thrive in structured systems having a detailed breakdown and distribution of assets is a great idea. I recommend going one step further however. Instead of having a single ""Necessities"" account have a division here. 1 account for ""Bills"" and another for ""Living Expenses."" Your Bills account should recieve the funds to pay your monthly expenses such as Rent, Utilities, Insurance. Living Expenses is for day to day spending. I recommend this because your Bills are generally a fairly fixed expense. Keeping your flexible spending separate allows you to manage it more carefully and helps prevent overspending.  I keep my Living Expenses in cash and divide it up by the number of days before my next check. Every day I put my portion of the Living Expenses in my wallet. This way I know that I can spend as much money in my wallet and still be fine for the rest of the pay period. I also know that if I want to go out to a nice dinner on Friday, it would be helpful if I have money left over at the end of the day Monday through Thursday."


Stuff like this is why we need to put legal measures in place to discourage businesses from getting overly large - like progressive corporate tax rates. Small business growing bigger leads to effienciencies of scale - but at some point the size starts leading massive inefficiencies like completely ignoring customer complaints.


Based on this and the GMCR deal, KO must be realizing that they've nearly exhausted their organic growth potential for the near future. I wonder if they're going to acquire some type of snack company to more directly compete with PEP.


You must understand that: So, if you -- the prospective buyer -- are in Waukegan, do you take the train all the way to New York City just to buy 100 shares of stock?  No.  That would be absurdly expensive.  So, you hire an agent in NYC who will broker a deal for you in the exchange. Fast forward 100 years, to the time when instant communications is available.  Why do we now still need brokerages, when the Exchanges could set up web sites and let you do the trading? The answer is that the Exchanges don't want to have to develop the accounting systems to manage the transactions of hundreds of thousands of small traders, when existing brokerage firms already have those computerized processes in place and are opening their own web sites. Thus, in 2017 we have brokerage firms because of history.


"What could the tax issues with the IRS be? I thought (but not totally certain) that the tax treatment of an ISO option was based on difference between exercise price and FMV at the time of the sale.  This is an accounting issue. There were times not so long ago that companies actually did these things on purpose, to boost the stock grant values for their employees (especially senior employees). They would give a grant but date it with an earlier date with a more favorable valuation. This is called ""backdating"", and it brought companies down and CEOs into criminal courts. In addition, only reasonable compensation is allowed as a deduction for the company, and incorrectly set strike price may be deemed unreasonable. Thus, the deduction the company would take for your compensation can be denied, leading to loss of tax benefit (this was also a weapon used by the IRS at the time against companies doing backdating). Last but not least, company that has intentions of going public cannot allow itself such a blatant disregard of the accounting rules. Even if the mistake was not made on purpose (as it sounds), it is a mistake that has to be corrected. What should I take into consideration to determine whether a 27% increase in shares is a fair exchange for an increase in 270% increase in strike price. Did you know the strike price when you signed the contract? Was it a consideration for you? For most people, the strike price is determined at the board approval, since the valuations are not public and are not disclosed before you actually join, which is already after you've agreed to the terms. So basically, you agreed to get 100 sheets of toilet paper, and instead getting 127 sheets. So you're getting 27 sheets more than you initially agreed to. Why are you complaining? In other words, options are essentially random numbers which are quite useless. By the time you get to exercise them, they'll be diluted through a bunch of additional financing rounds, and their value will be determined for real only after the IPO, or at least when your company's stocks are trading OTC with some reasonable volume. Until then - it's just a number with not much of a meaning. The FMV does matter for early exercise and 83(b) election, if that is an option, but even then - I doubt you can actually negotiate anything."


I have used car buying services through Costco and USAA.  Twice with a Ford, and once with a Honda.  In all instances I was directed to sales people that were uncommonly friendly and pleasant to work with.  I was given a deep discount without any negotiation.  In two of the three cases I did not have a trade.  In one case I had a trade, and negotiated a deeper discount then was originally offered.   Did I get a good deal?  Eh, who knows?  Really it depends what your goal is.   If your goal is to avoid negotiation, avoid idiot salesmen, and receive a good discount then a quality car buying service may be for you.  My research, a few years old, indicated Costco's program was better then the USAA one. If your goal is get a deep as a discount as possible on a new car, well then you have some work cut out for you.  Keep some hand sanitizer handy when you meet one of the slime ball salesmen.  Keep in mind that not everyone understand the difference between the words value and cheap. If your goal is to pay as little as possible for quality transportation.  Avoid most dealers and new cars. But I don't think that is what you are looking for.


Donald Trump does not understand that What the President of the United States of America says is important. He only thinks that he is important.  **EDIT**  Left out half a sentence so my post made no sense (long day at work).


No, you're incorrect, because there's protectionist countries that are doing just fine but it's all the socialist top-down government-controlled economies that are failing. It is not protectionist polices that ruined Venezuela, this is well known. It's startling that you are trying to argue otherwise.


I don't think anyone is suggesting the woman isn't working in this fictional family of 3 scenario.  So basically, your saying that people who never got off the ground with a career don't deserve to get married and have 1 kid?


http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/june/income-redistribution-policy-economic-stimulus/  http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-savings-rate-by-income-level-2013-3  I mean it's not like I pulled this outta my ass. It's common knowledge at this point. There's a reason offshore tax havens are a problem, and that reason isn't poor people using them.  There're lots of things they can do with their money. As a bonus, this also doesn't account for the fact that higher income individuals are more likely to take vacations/business trips outside the US and spend their money in another country.


"Owning more than 50%  of a company's stock normally gives you the right to elect a majority, or even all of a company's (board of) directors. Once you have your directors in place, you can tell them who to hire and fire among managers. There are some things that may stand in the way of your doing this. First, there may be a company bylaw that says that the directors can be replaced only one ""class"" at a time, with three or four ""classes."" Then it could take you two or three years to get control of the company. Second, there may be different classes of shares with different voting rights, so if e.g. ""A"" shares controlled by the founding family gives them ten votes, and ""B"" shares owned by the other shareholders, you may have a majority of total shares and be outvoted by the ""A"" shares."


Before making your trip plan to Mogadishu you need to gather each data about that place, transport administrations, lodgings and that's just the beginning. Visit Mogadishu give all of you the say benefits in a solitary tap on our site. You can discover all data about flight, lodgings booking, etc..If you need to remain close to the airport, we can book your inn close to the Mogadishu airport. We are the best travel site for Somalia nation. We furnish explorers with the shrewdness of the group to enable them to choose where to stay, how to fly, what to do and where to eat.


I think that is very consistent with how any hiring/purchasing decision gets made -- there are a lot absolute nos... a fair number of absolute yeses... and the rest is left more to chance than the winners would care to admit.  Getting bumped for something seemingly arbitrary is not remotely uncommon, nor is winning b/c of something arbitrary.


You won't get taxed twice because it's different money going into each account type. In the Roth you've put after tax earnings and those will continue to grow tax free (assuming you wait til 59.5 to start your withdraws). The traditional IRA is going to be funded with your old 401k, which was funded with pre-tax dollars they took from your paycheck. So you'll still pay taxes on the back end for the traditional IRA (money you've never been taxed on) but your Roth has money where tax has already been taken out so no extra tax there. You can have both types of accounts, it's pretty common considering most 401k plans are pre tax but many people see the benefit of a Roth as greater than the tax write off you get from the 401k, but if your company matches you're not gonna leave free money on the table. Hope that helps.


"I would advise against ""pencil and paper"" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of ""Fillable Forms"", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a ""interview"" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know)."


I'm saying if she LIKES you (which she most like doesn't) she will help you regardless of whether your leave or stay.  But you should not even view that as an option.  You need to do what's best for YOU.  If you know a better opportunity is around the corner, your boss should respect your decision and you find a neutral way to leave your job.  However, I don't know your situation and it's not great to leave as soon as you got there, it makes you look like you don't know what you're doing or don't know what you want (which is what everybody is doing anyway..)  Don't trust your boss unless you knew her prior to this job for a long time, or through family.  That should not come into play in your decision.  You can network with bankers to get a banking job, do you really need to spend months and months appeasing this one person to get referrals? On the flipside, you definitely want to be in good standing with your boss.   Again, do what's best for you.  Don't take empty promises or you will get burned.


Try https://sparkprofit.com/ You practice with real market prices, and it's free. Plus you can get real money pay outs if you do well. I earned 1 cent! hahaha I gave up trying to make money from it, but you get an idea of doing trades and how impossible it is to predict what the price will be. It has some tutorials and helpful things too.


Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan = truth in the booth moving America forward  > “The Blockchain is a technology, which we’ve been studying (along with a couple of other people up here) and yes it’s real. It could probably reduce the cost of real application in certain things. It’s keeping a single file, as opposed to each of us keeping our own files, and it has certain security measures. If it proves to be cheap and secure it will be adopted for a whole bunch of stuff. Not for everything; it is not useable for certain types of things.”  http://iang.org/papers/triple_entry.html  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ac5VtyAOVw&t=2m20s


What do you see as the advantage of doing this? When you buy a house with a mortgage, the bank gets a lien on the house you are buying, i.e. the house you are buying is the collateral. Why would you need additional or different collateral? As to using the house for your down payment, that would require giving the house to the seller, or selling the house and giving the money to the seller. If the house was 100% yours and you don't have any use for it once you buy the second house, that would be a sensible plan. Indeed that's what most people do when they buy a new house: sell the old one and use the money as down payment on the new one. But in this case, what would happen to the co-owner? Are they going to move to the new house with you? The only viable scenario I see here is that you could get a home equity loan on the first house, and then use that money as the down payment on the second house, and thus perhaps avoid having to pay for mortgage insurance. As DanielAnderson says, the bank would probably require the signature of the co-owner in such a case. If you defaulted on the loan, the bank could then seize the house, sell it, and give the co-owner some share of the money. I sincerely doubt the bank would be interested in an arrangement where if you default, they get half interest in the house but are not allowed to sell it without the co-owner's consent. What would a bank do with half a house? Maybe, possibly they could rent it out, but most banks are not in the rental business. So if you defaulted, the co-owner would get kicked out of the house. I don't know who this co-owner is. Sounds like you'd be putting them in a very awkward position.


This is not really directly answering your question, but I think it's something you need to hear, and it's too long for a comment: Your business plan for your company you are considering starting should include a forecast of all of your expected revenues and expenses. This includes a forecast for taxes you will owe the IRS on the profits from your business. If your business plan does not yet have this type of information, it is far too soon for you to be asking investors for money.  It is often said that an 'idea' is worthless, it is only the execution of that idea that is worth something. If you only have an 'idea' for a business but have no track record of running a business and no proof that your concept will work, you should take some more time to consider how you can proof viability, before you approach investors. No investor will want to give money to someone without a business plan that includes a forecast of profits (which is backed up by evidence some how).


That's the message from the rich to their audience at Fox News.  That's the message to the poor in the Red States.    *We wealthy people would love to help you good people, give you things that will get you out of poverty, but there is a problem.  You know those lazy people down the street from where you live?  If we help you, we'll have to help them, and they will take all the money and waste it, and they will keep taking it until all our wealth is gone. Then there will be nothing for anyone.*


I found a german article describing the legal situation in Germany. To summarize As outlined by the many possible reasons in the other answer, it is unclear from the information I have, whether condition 1 holds. Also condition 2 may not hold since the credit card was frozen. I suppose this makes a good argument to MasterCard and my bank, but I also suspect they will not care unless it comes with a attorney letterhead.


This conversation is a mute point now, not to sound rude, but i presented you with facts and now you are splitting straws with nafta and public education.  Those are local government role and should not have a direct correlation to anything.  Im sorry but i wont reply to this post after this.


After few years your building needs renovation. However steel building kits can be a great choice for upgrading your sweet home. If not, hire one experienced local contractor from Universal Steel of America to build your metal building quickly and affordably.


You buy a $100k sport car, but don't buy any insurance. You take a curve too fast and jump out just in time to see your car go off a cliff, like a chase movie. The value went from $100k to zero in seconds. Where did the $100k go?


>But reddit loves to use this stuff as an excuse for bitching and whining about how unfair it is that we have to actually pay back student loans/mortgages/cards/etc  So do you think we should bring back debtors' prisons?  The key to success with a US education is to take out the massive student loan and flee the US.  Get your MD and go earn a living somewhere else where the long dick of the creditors can't reach you.  Move to Dubai and practice medicine for a decade and laugh your ass off.     Should a person who has racked up 120k in student loan debt be condemned to a lifetime of serfdom?   I mean the whole system is broken, and you cannot force people to stay in the country and you cannot create a life of serfdom while paying that debt off.  Creditors should have to take risk too.   When government regulation moves in and says you cannot default, they've effectively made you a serf, reduced the risk to the lender.  It's a lender's job to assess risk.   Start by looking at what degree program someone is entering.   Medicine?  Okay here's a truckload of cash for you.  Liberal Arts?   Nothing.     It's become a farse.   Take out massive student loans where anyone can qualify, pursue a shit degree no one cares about, and be stuck paying it off for the rest of your life.  The regulations are all wrong.   You absolutely 100% should have the ability to free yourself from your debts through bankruptcy.


I don't disagree with the current answers, but I feel like no one really answered your question directly.  Seems to me like what you were asking is when to trade in your car in relation to when/whether your loan is paid off? Assuming you are committed to trading your car in (and not selling it privately as has been suggested), whether the car is paid off should have no impact on what you get for a trade-in.  The car is worth what it's worth, and what you owe on it should not affect the transaction.


You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using.


I still have my bank account active in usa. Can my company legally   deposit my salary in my bank account? Of course they can. Where they deposit is of no consequence (in the US, may be in India). It is who they deposit it for that matters. You need to file form W8 with the company, and they may end up withholding portion of that pay for IRS. You'll need to talk to a tax adviser in India about how to report the income back at home, and you may need to talk to a tax adviser in the US about what to do if the company does indeed remit withholding from your earnings.


I am trying to learn about Collateralized Loan Obligation (CLO) and I was wondering how the tranches are created in terms of priority. When an investor comes to CLO manager to buy a stake or a tranch, do they get to decide what type of tranch they want? Less risky one that gets paid first or higher risky one that gets paid last but more? Or is it like first come first serve basis?


Bitcoin prices are likely rising as a result of the simple issue of supply and demand.  Supply is constrained as there aren't much in the way of new bitcoins coming into existence, and demand is high right now as a result of various events. For example, this Reuters article goes into some detail as to some current influences.  Mostly, crypto-hedge funds are buying a lot of bitcoins as a speculative move (i.e., believing the price will continue to rise).   The evidence suggests that few of the users are buying bitcoin to use it as a means of exchange, but are speculating to increase their capital. Many describe the bubble as similar to the Tulip craze in seventeenth century Holland; from the same Reuters article: “It’s got all the shapings of your tulip bubble chart (but) that tells you nothing about where that price line could go depending on the number of people who wish to own it,” Standard Life’s head of investment strategy, Andrew Milligan, said on Wednesday. “Who is to say it doesn’t reach $100,000?” You can see in the volume chart from blockchain.info that the trading volume for bitcoins has really increased - and if you look at the market price, you see a very similar movement. However, if you look at the number of transactions per day, that number is basically constant - meaning the actual uses of bitcoins by people just buying or selling goods or services isn't really changing much, but the dollar amount is.  That's indicative of a speculation-caused bubble. Below is a graph I made from the data from blockchain.info above that overlays price with trading volume; you can see clearly the increase in volume and increase in price are nearly simultaneous.  Bitcoin itself has some actual utility, mostly for black market sellers and similar people participating in activities that are less than legal (not necesesarily ethically bad, for example people in nations with oppressive regimes that limit contact with the outside world or try to restrict foreign currency purchases).  It's unlikely that the degree of adoption so far however has driven it to this level, and the fact that bitcoin can be broken up into very small chunks means that the big boom in price of individual bitcoins causes the demand-side pressure from the actual use of bitcoins to be alleviated (as there is now 1/10th the demand for bitcoins from people who use them for non-speculative reasons).


The portion of a stock movement not correlated with stocks in general is called Alpha. I don't know of any online tools to graph alpha. Keep in mind that a company like Apple is so huge right now that any properly weighted index will have to correlate with it to some degree.


"In some cases, it might be rational to pay low-interest debt first, because the consequences of defaulting on that debt are worse.   Consider this simplified example.  Suppose you have two debts: a low-interest mortgage, secured by your house, and a high-interest unsecured credit card debt, both of which are within a few years of being paid off.  There is a chance that sometime between now and then, something will happen to disrupt your income (e.g. medical problems), and it won't be possible to make the payments on either loan.   Defaulting on the credit card loan will result in a lower credit score and calls from collection agencies.  Defaulting on the mortgage will result in the foreclosure or forced sale of your house, at best forcing you to move, and at worst leaving you homeless, at a time when you are also facing other (e.g. medical) problems.  So you might rationally judge that losing your house is much worse than bad credit.  Therefore, you might rationally conclude that it would be better to direct extra income toward paying down the mortgage, to increase the chances that, if and when an income disruption might occur, the mortgage would already be paid off.  In other words, you shorten the window of time where income disruption results in foreclosure. You might decide that this increased security is worth the extra interest you will pay, compared to the strategy where you pay the high-interest loan first. This is a fairly special situation, but you asked ""Why might it be a good idea to do this?"", and I am just giving an example where it could rationally be considered a good idea.   (Of course, in a real-life version of this example, there might be other options available, such as refinancing the mortgage.  If you like, you could imagine a more extreme example where the lower-interest debt is owed to Joey Knuckles the loanshark, who will come and break your kneecaps if you miss a payment.)"


"As with most things, you'll see a variety of agreement and adoption, including a fringe percentage of people who see all meat, lab cultured or otherwise, as unethical or ""wrong"". Whether they consider it ""wrong"" because it's GMO or ""wrong"" because it's cultured from actual animal DNA , we'll just have to wait and see. However, as far as I'm concerned, lab grown meat is the next proper step in human nutrition and sustenance. I've watched this company for a little while now, and I cannot wait for this (and other) company to grow and get their products out there."


This is supposed to be a comment, as this is anecdotal, but I can't post comments.  Also, this information relates to the UK.  I used to work in a Licensed Betting Office, or a bookies to use the informal word for it, and we had to deal with this issue all the time.   The pens didn't really work all that well as the forgers found out that dipping forged notes in fabric softener nullified the effects of the pens, and some of the copies were incredibly good. Generally, we would take two or three notes per week.


Envision is an e-commerce, health supplement company, who sells all types of health products and grooming products for men and women. We always try to offer our best health products to our customers and producing natural healthy products. Along with all these things we also sell Pure saffron weight loss products, all of the ingredients are made up of natural stuff. We have wide range of grooming products as well as for men, which gives you a unique look as well as a fresh fragrance free scent, there are lots of benefits of this oil.


"Market cap doesn't mean that much money went into the system. Money in equals money out over time, and is not directly tied to market cap, which can actually be lower if price drops far enough. These concepts are the same for all traded assets, such as stocks, bonds, and commodities. ""Market cap"" is simply the current price times the number of shares available in the market. So a $300 billion market cap does not mean $300 billion was paid to somebody to buy it all. Instead, what's happened is that some money went in at first, but much much less, and then price increased.  Bitcoin is a little different in that ""money in"" for many innovators and early adopters was in the form of time spent and contributing to the network (what they call mining). 1 Now, as to the price jump, that's an effect of market forces. For many reasons, the market has clamored to buy bitcoin over the last year 2, but many already holding bitcoin weren't ready to sell. Supply and demand worked in a way that increased price. Supply low, demand high, price increases.  This situation could easily reverse. Just as suddenly as the market wanted bitcoin it can decide it doesn't want bitcoin. Supply and demand would work in a way that would decrease price. Supply high, demand low, price decreases.  This kind of massive market price movement in this short timeframe is exactly what traders mean by ""volatile"". It's actually not that unusual, it's just that most stocks and other assets that experience such gains don't get much media attention. Further, gains like this often reflect ""inflated"" prices, market ""euphoria"", and trading ""bubbles"". All of these terms essentially mean ""price will correct (go down) eventually, because price is currently much higher than actual value"".  If the market loses all faith in the asset, price will drop to zero and the ""money in equals money out"" maxim breaks down. Some traders will be left ""holding the bag"",  meaning they owned the stock at the moment trading permanently ceased. 3 NOTES: Exact reasons cannot be pinpointed with facts. Instead, we enter the realm of opinion on this point. In my opinion, bitcoin has increased massively in value mostly due to the media attention it has received. And this media attention is not new. It received equally pervasive attention in 2013. As an effect, price went from under $100 to over $1000 back to under $200 in about 20 months. It's great news if you're a trader. You could have made tons of money. As for the early bitcoiners, it was actually kind of annoying because it then brought in all the skeptics calling it a ""ponzi"" scheme or ""pyramid"" scheme, despite the quite obvious fact that bitcoin cannot be either by definition. Further upward market forces may have come from the fact that bitcoin is built on an innovative technology that may very well change the way we do a lot of things in the future. I'm referring to ""blockchain"". This effect can be seen in several failing companies rising from the darkness like Valkrie simply by adding the work blockchain to their name. I personally find this exactly analogous to the ""dot com bubble"", where companies in the late 1990's made millions in stock selloffs simply by adding "".com"" to their name, despite having no profits or sometimes not even a working product. For high volatility stocks, this is not unusual. Many ""penny stocks"" fail, and typically the road down is faster than the road up. Bitcoin may indeed fail, but again, it's a bit different than a stock. Bitcoin is not a company. There's no financials for Bitcoin, no VC investors, board members to report to, no product to produce, etc. Bitcoin is designed to simply be a thing itself. The hope is to disrupt currency and commodity markets and create a new ""store of value."" Literally, Bitcoin is designed to have intrinsic value. Whether it's actually working at this point is still unknown."


Long-term planning of the company: strategic decisions. Basically every major company decision has to go through their approval - at most companies, at least, because the job's duties don't have a codified description.  I'm not saying she was worth it; in fact, this makes it far more clear she earned none of it. And studies show the most highly-paid CEOs underperform the average.


The simplest way to answer that is by asking yourself what forces are against them from climbing the economic ladder?  The biggest determinant of financial success is a high school diploma and not having a child out of wedlock (kids cost $)   I am not a conservative


Personally I solve this by saving enough liquid capital (aka checking and savings) to cover pretty much everything for six months. But this is a bad habit. A better approach is to use budget tracking software to make virtual savings accounts and place payments every paycheck into them, in step with your budget. The biggest challenge you'll likely face is the initial implementation; if you're saving up for a semi-annual car insurance premium and you've got two months left, that's gonna make things difficult. In the best case scenario you already have a savings account, which you reapportion among your various lumpy expenses. This does mean you need to plan when it is you will actually buy that shiny new Macbook Pro, and stick to it for a number of months. Much more difficult than buying on credit. Especially since these retailers hate dealing in cash.


Very much my point. So why do so many people hold up Whole Foods as deceptive while merrily giving their money to conventional food outlets? (You can find a range of items in both places, but the quality on both ends of the range is better at WF. That is a fact. )


Welcome to Aberdeen Acres Pet Care Center! Our clean, secure facility, nestled in the rolling hills of Winchester, Virginia, offers a full range of services for your pet. We specialize in boarding, training and grooming for dogs, cats, birds, and exotic pets.


Once I was buying a water filter for my refrigerator.  Amazon had it on sale, but I was tired of dealing with it and I was at Lowes for unrelated reasons.  Well, they price match so I grabbed the filter and had them handle it.  >We don't price match Amazon.  We only price match competitors.    Uhh, I believe the sale of this item is literally in competition.  Also your price match guarantee does not make that statement.    >Let me get the manager.    One eternity later.    >We only price match competitors.    Honestly, Amazon is stealing a huge volume of your sales and you are telling me with a straight face that they are *not* a competitor of Lowe's and that you are refusing to price match this item?  Also, I believe that generally competition is unwanted and unavoidable - in fact it is an existential problem for retailers.  At this point, several other customers start backing me up.  I was too busy texting my wife at the time how ridiculous this was to react in time to film the cringe spread on the manager's face as he agreed to price match a fucking $30 water filter.  I almost felt bad for him but he was a real dick about this and I got to see some small portion of his life force extinguished in utter dismay.  It took me nearly 30 minutes but I saved $7.  Fuck Lowe's.


"I wouldn't say that they are ""begging"" for it.  Just realizing that there is a competitive advantage for the larger car companies.  However that incentive is necessary for the large companies to invest in electric, and it is a great benefit for consumers as well.  Most people can't afford a low cost electric car without the tax credit (not to mention a luxury item like a tesla).  This brings the technology to a larger market share."


"In some respects the analysis for this question is similar to comparing a ""safe"" return on a government bond vs. holding the stock market. Typically, the stock market's expected return will be higher -- i.e., there's a positive equity risk premium -- vs. a government bond (assuming it's held to maturity). There's no guarantee that the stock market will outperform, although the probability of outperformance rises (some analysts argue) the longer the holding period for equities beyond, say, 10 years. That's why there's generally a positive equity risk premium, otherwise no one (or relatively few investors) would hold equities."


People that have kids and aren't rich are in for a rude awakening if they want to live in NYC.  Plus nobody moves to NYC and becomes a janitor making 100k.  You have to be born into a position like that and he probably has rent controlled apartment or bought 50 years ago.  He probably has it better than most.


I think that's right on the mark.   It's almost like you can't just create a vibrant community by putting up a pretty UI or adding a feature .... don't take my word for it, ask virtually every website that's attempted to do so in the past decade - they failed, but they sure look**e**d pretty doing it. :)


That's not at all what I said.   I said regulation is inevitable. The question is, in whose favour we regulate? Employers, owners of capital, or workers.   Deregulation usually favours owners of capital and employers, and ends up concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. Because surprise surprise people would rather invest their money in something that just goes up in value rather than put all the effort into creating jobs or paying workers more. Since there are no laws to encourage them to do so.


"I'll take an alternate route: honesty + humor. Say something like this with a smile and a laugh, like you know they're crazy, but they maybe don't know it yet. ""Are you crazy? Co-signing a loan can put us both in a lot of potential danger. First, you shouldn't get a loan that you can't afford/attain on your own, and second, I'd be crazy to agree to be liable for a loan that someone else can't get on their own. You want something bad enough, you get your credit rating in order, or you save up the money - that's how I bought (my car/house/trip to Geneva). I'd be happy to point you in the right direction if you want to put a plan together."" You're offering help, but not the kind that puts you in danger. Declining to co-sign a loan can't damage your relationship with this person as much as failure to pay will."


>Sometimes that requires more time other times less.  Oh bullshit.  Once when I had little work I started doing few hours.  After a couple weeks of this I was explicitly reprimanded and told to give 8 hours per day of butt-in-seat.  I asked if my actual team leader had complained I wasn't working efficiently enough.  Turns out he thought I was doing *just fine* for the workload he was giving me.  Only as a salaried contractor working remotely did I end up being able to turn my ability to *get my shit done* into more free time.


If my experience playing tycoon games is any indication, there is usually a point when you can't help but hoard more money faster even if you do nothing.  Also, giving money to employees could have unpredictable effects. It might boost morale in the short term, but in the mid-long term it could mess up with whatever HR or managers are trying to do in managing their team and culture. It will also make your brightest people leave faster to set up new competitors..


cost of carry is a confusing term to use but this is what i was given to work with   then again, once you factor in interest rate risk and default risk (if you do), what is a better term?  it's not just cost of capital at that pt


Are you trolling? It's been declining for 100 years. It's called inflation, and the guys in charge of the currency supply seem to think it's a good thing. Further the only way the government is ever going to pay this debt off is if we continue to see inflation for decades.


When it launched it was more 'what's *right* with Apple maps?'.  Dublin airport was somewhere in the mid Pacific, etc. Of all things to get correct, maps is the one. Perhaps they've made it better - I won't check, it should never have been launched like that and such lack of care of accuracy on a *map* is reason enough not to give it a second chance when there are other maps I'm happy to trust already. It certainly doesn't bring anything new to the table.


"Well, I understand this forum is about money but I think you would be far better off if you invest the money in your daughters education or something similar that can bring much more significant future gains. I am a big fan of compound interest and investing in stocks but $700 sitting until she's 21 wont grow into a significant amount. When she's 21, what would you ""hope"" she'd spend the money on? something valuable like education right? so why don't you take the first step now so she will get a much bigger return than the monitory value. If I were you I'd invest in a home library or something similar."


Video linked by /u/Alex6373:  Title|Channel|Published|Duration|Likes|Total Views :----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------:|:----------: [1 000 000 сатоши в сутки!!! Cointower платит! Как быстро заработать биткоин!Лучший способ заработка!](https://youtu.be/cMZ0M_Srk0g)|Финансовый Вектор|2017-08-31|0:02:31|0+ (0%)|2  > ¦ Ссылка на регистрацию в проекте: | Сointower:...  ---  [^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/youtubot/wiki/index) ^| [^/u/Alex6373 ^can ^delete](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=_youtubot_&subject=delete\%20comment&message=dmd34aq\%0A\%0AReason\%3A\%20\%2A\%2Aplease+help+us+improve\%2A\%2A) ^| ^v2.0.0


Considering the combined accounts you're contributing $100 per month and they want $100 per year to administer them... that's 8.3% of your contributions gone to fees each year.  To me, that's a definite no.  Without getting in to bad mouthing the adviser for even making the suggestion, the scale of your account doesn't warrant a fee that high. Fees are very meaningful to the little fish investors.  There are LOADS of IRA account providers.  With that level of competition, there are several that have very reasonable account minimums, no annual maintenance fees, and a suite of no fee, no load, no commission, low expense ratio funds to choose from.  Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard come to mind.  I know Schwab is running a big ad campaign right now as it's reduced some of it's already low expense ratios. If I were you, yes I would move the account because you can even get rid of the $10/year/account fee.  But, no, I would not move it to a higher fee situation. In my opinion on a $3,600 account + $1,200 per year in contributions, you don't need advise.  You need a good broad market low fee index fund, and enough discipline to understand that retirement is 25 years away so you keep contributing even when news is bad and the market is going down.  In 10 years maybe talk to an adviser. Using the S&P500 index daily close historical data from calendar year 2016, considering first of the month monthly deposits and a starting balance of $3,600, you would come out at the end of the year with about $5,294.  That's $494 in gain on your total contributions of $4,800.  They'd take $100, that's about 20% of your gain.  Compared to a no fee account with a reasonable expense ratio of 0.1% the fee would be just $5.30.  Bearing in mind also that your $100 per year account will probably be invested in funds that also have an expense ratio fee structure further zapping gains.  Further, you lose the compounding effect of the $100 fee over time which adds up to a significant of retirement funds considering a 25 year period.  If all you did was put that $100 fee in to a 1% savings account each year for 25 years you'd end up with $2,850. (Considering the average 7% return of the S&P you'd have $6,964 on just your $100 per year fees) This is why you should be so vigilant about fees.


>CBO and JCT estimate that, over the 2017-2026 period, enacting this legislation would reduce direct spending by $1,022 billion and reduce revenues by $701 billion, for a net reduction of $321 billion in the deficit over that period (see Table 1, at the end of this document):  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52849


> That the German car industry will be dying out if they continue their anti-electricity stance and backwards mobility philosophy is another thing.  I don't see benz fitting into that category. Other players? Might be right.  https://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicles/class/class-B


"Sorry, those discussions were regarding current plans, mainly for papers and presentations.  Most of the people I interacted with at a metro/regional/global and above level, had zero sense.  In the words of one friend who was one of their global buyers (paraphrased since this conversation was 18 months or so ago): ""There are people down at the Austin headquarters who don't even realize they're supposed to be selling groceries."""


"You're not alone; there's a quite a few good bloggers out there on the general theme of ""Financial independence, retire early"" (FIRE).  While most of what they blog about is about the technical money side of savings & investments and living sustainably off accumulated wealth, they also all seem to have had to confront the ""OK, so what do I do now?"" side of things too at some point (and admit that the ""FI"" is way more important that the ""RE"").  A few to get you started (think these are all UK based except MMM):"


you may pay less (and sometimes less) to your mouse clicks, and will be able to get guests quick having the bank. If you want to buy cheap targeted traffic for your business, then you can go with  buy cheap targeted traffic - http://buysitestraffic.com


"Owning any sort of business is an absolute nightmare for a ""US Person"" not on US soil. It has nothing to do with money, but the fact that compliance costs are huge and it's only getting worse with the whole fatca nonesense."


">If you know that a company called Toyota with no access to any retained earnings...  Okay, we are talking at cross-purposes here.   I take it as axiomatic that speculative ventures by private actors is mostly a net good thing (e.g., grocery stores buying produce before the customer has handed over the gold, car-makers designing and building cars before they have been paid for end-to-end, etc...). Even if a lot of them fail, I take it as axiomatic that we would not have things like laptop computers and fresh oranges year-round and non-iron shirts without that kind of speculative investment.   I also take it as axiomatic that such speculative investment could not/would not exist without privately- or publicly-issued promissory notes. E.g., I do not think anyone would ever have made the first laptop computer, if doing so required directly handing previously-acquired gold coins to everyone involved in the design and construction.   A caveman with no money but infinite time could have built his own Macbook Pro with retina display: like everything else we have, it was dug up out of the ground by people no stronger than you or I. All the functionality is just ingenuity and machining, it's just stuff dug up and re-combined by people, not necessarily smarter than anyone else. The fact that it *has* been done by human beings, means, by definition, that it *can* be done by human beings.   Ergo, a caveman could have done it. Could have placed a man on the moon, or built himself a 60"" 1080p TV, or an iPod, or a nuclear bomb, or a Ferrari, or sent a satellite past the solar-system, anything at all. We don't have anything that he didn't have: just ingenuity, and whatever we dig up out of the ground.   But more realistically, the difference between us and cavemen is twofold:  - We have a historical record, and the accumulated ingenuity of millions of individual insights; and,  - We have an economy, based on credibility and promises, that allows things to be invented, tested, and made, before they are paid for.  I suggest that it is axiomatic that, for example, iPads would not exist if physical gold had to change hands at every step of development and manufacturing before it could occur, or at the instance of occurance. There is just no sane scenario where a product like that comes into existence without promises and speculative investment and loan-guarantees.   Same with fresh lettuce in winter, or plumbing or electricity or cable-TV.  You can't just trade a grain of gold for every gallon of water that comes out of your shower in real-time to a wet bill-collector, or stick some gold in the cable-jack for every minute of internet.   Someone is promising something, without having produced it yet. Whether you paid in advance, or they bill your the service later, value has changed hands on credit and promises. It's not a sane proposition that every transaction be a closed-loop, pay-as-you-go thing. Especially when you get into commercial transactions.   The modern world would not exist without credit markets, and credit markets cannot exist without something like fractional reserve banking. Demanding that everyone instantly reconcile every value-exchange with a physical transfer of gold or some such is not a sane proposition.   Would your cell-phone company pay someone to follow you around and collect grains of gold for every call? If so, would that person in turn be followed by the cell-tower owner, and so on?   Offering to ""pay in advance"" doesn't negate the conundrum: they still have to provide service, which may or may not be covered by your gram of gold. It's still a credit market, no matter which way the faucet runs. And a credit market means, ipso-facto, that more money is in circulation than has been printed."


Not that I am aware.  If you are trying to mitigate losses from stock purchases, you may want to consider stock mutual funds. This is why single stocks can be extremely risky.


> When you learn to write English, write again and I will answer.  This personal attack on another poster is hilarious, considering that you tried to lecture me about not making personal attacks when I pointed out flaws in your English earlier.     lol


At minimum, put down the sale price less what insurance would pay if you got in an accident when driving home, OR purchase gap insurance. This auto loan calculator is fun to play around with.  The larger the down payment, the smaller your monthly payments will be.  Don't forget to budget insurance and gas!  Insurance on a car you make payments on is more expensive. http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/auto/auto-loan-calculator.aspx A buddy of mine had a string of bad luck and totaled his car a few months after the date of purchase.  He learned what it meant to be 'underwater', insurance paid him a few thousand less than the value of his loan.  What's worse than having no car, having no car and a loan!


The original investors and founders own them. Think about it this way - When you hear that an IPO priced at $10 opened at $50, is that 'good or 'bad'? Of course, it depends who you are. If you are the guy that got them at $10, you're happy. If you are the founder of the company, you are thinking the banker you paid to determine a market price for the IPO failed. Big. He blew it, basically as you just sold your company for 20% of the perceived value. But, instead of selling all the shares, just sell, say, 5%. Now, the IPO opening price is just a way to understand the true value of your company while keeping 95% of the upside once the market settles down to a regular trading pattern. You can slowly sell these shares into the market or you can use them as cash to take over other companies by buying with these shares instead of actual cash.  Either way, the publicly traded shares should trade based on the total value of the company and the fraction they represent.


"Both parties have the financial faucets on and neither wants to give up anything.  In the next few weeks and months we will hear the turn ""fiscal cliff"" a ton because there are many game changing risks out there right now.  Year to year fixes aren't the answer either becasue growth is hampered by uncertainty more then anything else."


If your employer is matching 50 cents on the dollar then your 401(k) is a better place to put your money than paying off credit cards This.  Assuming you can also get the credit cards paid off reasonably soon too (say, by next year).  Otherwise, you have to look at how long before you can withdraw that money, to see if the compounded credit card debt isn't growing faster than your retirement.  But a guaranteed 50% gain, your first year is a pretty hard deal to beat. And if you currently have no savings, unless all of your surplus income has been reducing your debt, you're living beyond your means. You should be earning more than you're (going to be) spending, when you start paying rent/car bills.  If you don't know what this is going to be, you need to be budgeting.   Get this under control, by any means necessary.  New job/career?  Change priorities/expectations?  Cut expenses?  Live to your budget?  Whatever it takes. I don't think you should be in any investment that includes bonds until you're 40, and maybe not even then - equities and cash-equivalents all the way (cash is for emergency funds, and for waiting for buying opportunities).  Otherwise Michael has some good ideas. I would caveat that I think you should not buy any investments in one chunk, but dollar average it over some period of time, in case the market is unnaturally high right when you decide to invest. You should also gauge possible returns and potential tax liabilities. Debt is good to get rid of, unless it is good debt (very low interest rates - ie: lower than you could borrow the money for).  Good debt should still get paid off - who knows how long your job could last for - but maybe not dump all of your $50K on it. Roth is amazing.  You should be maxing that contribution out every year.


"Because the value of distressed assets is close to what they are selling for.   When you lend money, you know there is a risk of default.  You gamble on that risk, and you take the responsibility if you lose because the person taking the money can't pay.  People who buy distressed debt on the idea that they can make more money off of it are only able to do that in two ways:  not giving a shit what the impacts of wringing more money out create, figuring out a legal way to make someone else pay for it through ripple blackmail effects (other people also are impacted when a country can't function.)  If you back Klarman, you may say the point is you are ""teaching"" Puerto Rico and everyone else that they shouldn't take on debt they can't afford.   But when has that ever worked?  The pensioners who are bankrupt are the ones actually getting the pain of the lesson.  Another lesson could be to investors not to lend to people who can't pay them back.  The people lending the money are the ones who now don't have it because they made a bad choice.    Seth Klarman could also learn a lesson about taking on distressed debt being a non-lucrative pastime.  Or we can all learn a lesson that taking on distressed debt is very lucrative.  A big change America implemented was getting rid of debtor's prisons.  This looks a lot like getting excited about debtor's prison to me.  EDIT:  I should note I am thinking of the Algerian version of making a ton of money off of distressed national debt.  As opposed to making a bit more money off of distressed debt because you were willing to let the collapse figure itself out.  Though I'm not so sure about that either."


I regularly transfer money from the US to Europe, and have found a simple US check a pretty useful way (if you are not in a hurry): you write a US dollar based check to yourself, and deposit it to a bank in your new location (which implies you open an account in France, yes). It takes some days (somedays 7 days), and then the money will be deposited. The local bank will convert it (so you can walk around and pick a bank that has a rate concept that pleases you, before you open the account), and there will be no fees on the US side (which means you can get every last dollar out of the account). Also, you have the control over how much you pull when - you can write yourself as many checks as you like (assuming you took your checkbook). This was the best rate I could get, considering that wire transfers cost significant fees. There are probably other options. If you are talking serious money (like 100 k$ or more), there will better ways, but most banks will be eager to help you with that. Note that as long as you make interest income in the US, you are required to file taxes in the US; your visa status and location don't matter.


"I would suggest opening a bank account that you use to accept deposits only, and then get a system set up where it automatically transfers the money over to your main account. If not instantly it could transfer the money hourly or daily. Of course you would have to pay a premium for this ""peace of mind"" ;)"


"Offset against taxable gains means that the amount - $25 million in this case - can be used to reduce another sum that the company would otherwise have to pay tax on. Suppose the company had made a profit of $100 million on some other investments. At some point, they are likely to have to pay corporation tax on that amount before being able to distribute it as a cash dividend to shareholders. However if they can offset the $25 million, then they will only have to pay tax on $75 million. This is quite normal as you usually only pay tax on the aggregate of your gains and losses. If corporation tax is about 32% that would explain the claimed saving of approximately $8 million. It sounds like the Plaintiffs want the stock to be sold on the market to get that tax saving. Presumably they believe that distributing it directly would not have the same effect because of the way the tax rules work. I don't know if the Plaintiffs are right or not, but if they are the difference would probably come about due to the stock being treated as a ""realized loss"" in the case where they sell it but not in the case where they distribute it. It's also possible - though this is all very speculative - that if the loss isn't realised when they distribute it directly, then the ""cost basis"" of the shareholders would be the price the company originally paid for the stock, rather than the value at the time they receive it. That in turn could mean a tax advantage for the shareholders."


I wouldn't go into a stock market related investment if you plan on buying a house in 4-5 years, you really need to tie money up in stocks for 10 years plus to be confident of a good return.  Of course, you might do well in stocks over 4-5 years but historically it's unlikely. I'd look for a safe place to save some money for the deposit, the more deposit you can get the better as this will lower your loan to valuation (LTV) and therefore you may find you get a better interest rate for your mortgage. Regards the pension, are you paying the maximum you can into the company scheme?  If not then top that up as much as you can, company schemes tend to be good as they have low charges, but check the documentation about that and make sure that is the case. Failing that stakeholder pension schemes can also have very low charges, have a look at what's available.


The simple answer is technically bonds don't have earnings, hence no P/E. What I think the OP is really asking how do I compare stock and bond ETFs. Some mature stocks exhibit very similar characteristics to bonds, so at the margin if you are considering investing between 2 such investments that provide stable income in the form of dividends, you might want to use the dividend/price ratio (D/P) of the stock and compare it to the dividend yield of the bond. If you go down to the basics, both the bond and the stock can be considered  the present value of all future expected cashflows. The cash that accrues to the owner of the stock is future dividends and for the bond is the coupon payments. If a company were to pay out 100% of its earnings, then the dividend yield D/P would be conveniently E/P. For a company with P/E of 20 that paid out it's entire earnings, one would expect D/P = 1/20 = 5% This serves as a decent yard stick in the short term ~ 1 year to compare mature stock etfs with stable prospects vs bond funds since the former will have very little expected price growth (think utilities), hence they both compete on the cashflows they throw off to the investor. This comparison stops being useful for stock ETFs with higher growth prospects since expected future cashflows are much more volatile. This comparison is also not valid in the long term since bond ETFs are highly sensitive to the yield curve (interest rate risk) and they can move substantially from where they are now.


You earn $75,000 yearly and saved $30,000 while living at home, for two years, rent-free. I am assuming you have been making good money for at least 2 years. How is it possible you only put away $30,000 on $150,000 of income? Were you giving something to your parents each week as rent, so they don't lose their home? Second, if you're not sure if you will be relocated in a year or two it makes no sense to buy. House prices won't spike like they have in the past any time soon. In one year, you can save another $30,000 without suffering since you live rent free. Many couples don't even make $75,000 and they got a mortgage, 2 kids and car payments.


>Those nerds aren't in charge of industry though.   Yes they are. I have friend who do PR and corporate communications work for auto and tech companies in China - most of the CEO's are Ivy-league educated technocrats.   >China partners with companies to acquire technology still. They don't develop it.   Well duh -they're a late-blooming developing economy. Just wait one or two decades and see if they're still doing the same.


At eSalesData, we are dedicated to streamlining your sales drive with high-response mailing lists and marketing services. Our teams of data specialists work round the clock, double and triple checking every record that finds a place in our database – all so that you can buy a list that is absolutely free from error, a list that will deliver far higher returns that than any data you’ve ever used.


I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year.  The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund.  So your savings should be around $5k.  Build that first.   Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income.  Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses.  Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much.  And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact.  If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up).   Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures.  Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase.  So you need more savings.  By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money.  Doesn't really change the basic analysis though.  Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings.   If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year.  That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard.  So you probably shouldn't invest next year.  With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year).  That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year.   If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500.  Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth.  After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year.  Or just wait until the end.   If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year.  If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution.  At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change.   If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it.  A college education is enough of an investment at your age.  Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement.   That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job.  Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost.  So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment).  This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster.   I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks).  Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose.  Secure your retirement first.  Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out.  If they don't, you're still all right.  But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house.   Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app.  You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock.  If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app.  You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system.  If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds.  The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term.   Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system.  As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same.  At some point, users saturate the app.  All the possible returns are realized.  Then users are competing with each other for returns.  The per user returns will shrink as usage grows.   If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it.  Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria.  Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued.  The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy.


But they aren't, your number fails to compare the US to any other countries in 2013. My numbers do compare the rate in the US to other countries over four different years.   Edit: also, it is funny that the rate cost rise in the US has increased since we passed the afordable care act... hmmm....


Should we have to prepare any documents or deed or we simply asked our son to send on line a scanned copy on simple paper signed by him to declare that this amt is given as gift which is gifted to us through this cheque number/date/bank etc? Depending on amount, if few thousands don't bother. If few lacs get it on a simple plain paper, if in crores, get a proper gift deed executed. There is no tax for you. My son wants to remit some money in his mother's account jointly with me(father). It is very much clear that it will be tax free in india being a gift but how will this amt be treated as gift in the eyes of income tax people? Should we have to prepare any documents or deed or we simply asked our son to send on line a scanned copy on simple paper signed by him to declare that this amt is given as gift which is gifted to us through this cheque number/date/bank etc? Whether our son shows that amt as gift in his yearly return or not. what are the implications to his tax return due to gifted As your son is US citizen, he can only gift USD 14,000 to you and equal amount to your mother in a year. Similarly your daughter in law can give you both 14000 each. If it is more, he has to pay taxes or claim it against life time exemption of 1 million (?) USD


Of course, the *quality* of that content will dictate whether or not it's a successful business endeavor.  If in-house content is 100% of what you do, and 75% of that is shit, then it may not work out in the end.  As you probably know from the entire content business, creating compelling and valuable content isn't a cakewalk...and it costs money - lots of it in the case of the market Netflix is trying to enter.


That lousy argument has been debunked so many times. Advertising is a plague that now serves fraudulent activities far more than actually “helping” websites and more importantly people behind them. On average, a dollar spent on online ads actually gives you only 20p of ad space, the rest being taken by the battalion of intermediaries from media agency to google to ad exchange and so on. So no, ads don’t help websites, they feed the ad monster built by google and facebook and used by petty criminals.  No one ever said we were ok to see oligarchies owning the web - as a physical infrastructure as well as on the content side of things - and taking most of the revenues while real architects of the web we know are not living from their activities. If it wer eup to me we’d be hosts and clients in a really decentralized network where bandwidth would be the fluid currency.


> Trademarks are also not held onto just for the sake preventing another company from using them.  They are not? I know of two cases in Germany, from the top of my head.  Companies will look for the cheapest way, obviously. In some cases they might decide to rather use or sell some of the idle patents, sure.  I think mandatory licensing is more promising.


Here is a list of threads in other subreddits about the same content:   * [Why Dockless Bikes May Spell the End of Public Bike-Share](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/789r5u/why_dockless_bikes_may_spell_the_end_of_public/) on /r/Economics with 7 karma (created at 2017-10-24 02:28:09 by /u/rwescott)  * [Why Dockless Bikes May Spell the End of the Old Bike-Share Model](https://www.reddit.com/r/EcoInternet/comments/779kkg/why_dockless_bikes_may_spell_the_end_of_the_old/) on /r/EcoInternet with 1 karma (created at 2017-10-19 04:51:07 by /u/EcoInternetNewsfeed)  ----   ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot  ^^[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index)-[Code](https://github.com/PokestarFan/DuplicateBot)-[Bugs](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypgmx/bugs_and_problems/)-[Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypg85/suggestion_for_duplicatesbot/)-[Block](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index#wiki_block_bot_from_tagging_on_your_posts)  ^^Now ^^you ^^can ^^remove ^^the ^^comment ^^by ^^replying ^^delete!


You have to read the fine print of the pension wrapper (Standard Life), and of the new fund you want to invest into to find out.  Typically here is were the fee feast could happen So you can manage actively your pension pot. But if you choose to do so you need to be mindful of the fees you have to pay. You should better find a pension wrapper with low fees and find funds with low fees If you change all your funds 4 times a year and you get a 1% charge each time, then you pay 4% of your assets. If your investments return for that year is 8%, then you wiped 50% of your return for that year! Good luck with the reading


I've done this, both as one of the renters and (in a different house) as the landlord. I had roommates I had not lived with before though. It's definitely doable, but can get awkward. Some advice in no particular order Make sure you can afford the house on your own. This avoids the awkward situation of making you financially dependent on your friends. Also, it shouldn't be a problem for a 110k house on a 70k salary. Set the rent below market rates. The arrangement should be financially beneficial to everyone, not just yourself. Expect your roommates to leave eventually. These days people will go where job opportunities take them.


The US has, I believe, the largest refinery capacity in the world, and is the world's largest exporter of chemicals. Sure Iran and Kuwait has a lot of raw crude, but if you want that made into jet fuel, tires, and plastic bags you need expensive refineries. The US, China, and Russia import a great majority of the oil and just export the refined products.  It's easy money being the middle man. Import a barrel of oil for $100, turn it around and sell the refined products back for twice that cost.


I think the list could have added:  - Save in regular intervals using the same strategy.  Just to make sure that good old dollar cost averaging is thrown in. That's probably where most people go way wrong. Save money all year, dump it on a stock they like because some family friend investment expert said that 'apple prices will go up' with out explaining that you need to take advantage of mean reversion to help spread the risk.


Does the corporation need the money for its ongoing business? If so, don't transfer it. If not, feel free. This decision has nothing to do with whether the corporation made money in any particular year.


I think we're well past the point that vinyl is considered a hipster trapping, a lot of people that aren't beholden to a clique enjoy collecting vinyl; almost like trading cards but for music they enjoy. It's a visceral induction of the album as a whole as the rest of the music industry moves towards playlists, internet radio, and Artist's Top 10 song splashpages.  I've never subscribed to the notion that vinyl sounds more accurate, but it is aesthetically pleasing and 'warm' in tone while providing a physical token.


"Yes, definitely. Many municipalities and local governments issue bonds to fund various projects (schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc). You can buy these bonds and in that way invest in these things. In the US these kinds of bonds are tax-free, i.e.: the income they provide is not taxed (by the US government, may be taxed by your State, check local tax laws). There are also dedicated mutual funds that that is all they invest in, if you don't want to deal with picking individual bonds. As to mom-and-pop stores - that would not be as easy, as mom-and-pop stores are by definition family owned and you can invest in them only if you are personally acquainted with them. Instead, you can invest in small regional/local chains, that while not being mom-and-pop, still small enough to be considered ""local"", but are publicly traded so that you can easily invest in them. You'll have to look for these. You can also use social lending platforms, like Lending Club, which I reviewed on my blog, or others, where you can participate in a lending pool to other people. You can invest in a credit union by opening an account there. Credit unions are owned by their account holders."


You make it sound like consumers literally have no choice in the matter. That's absurd. The fact that many people don't make an effort to be responsible consumers is no one else's fault.   As long as businesses are not outright lying about their products or services, there's no reason for the government to be in loved.  It's really not hard to control the impulse to buy a tabloid or a snickers bar.


How I recognize a silver bubble: I don't think silver is in a bubble. You state: What goes up, must come down I'm not sure I agree with this.  Yes, prices fluctuate.  But most prices generally go up over time due to inflation - somethings more than others. Was coffee in a bubble in early 2005?    If you thought so then you would have missed this:  Was gold in a bubble in Argentina in 2001?  If you thought so then you would have missed this (sorry for the mismatching chart scales):  Was gold in a bubble in Weimar in 1922?  If you thought so then you would have missed this:  Maybe US farmland is in a bubble since prices are rising rather dramatically.  I don't think it is in a bubble since I rarely hear anyone talking about investing in farmland:


Depends on the fund. If it's a Target Date fund, which is inherently diversified, this comes down to how much you trust the investment house to not go belly-up. If it's another kind of fund, you need to manage your own duversification and occasional rebalancing.  Most of my money is in index funds (details elsewhere), but that's five or six very different indexes to cover the investment space with the mix of investment types I've selected. And most of it is in a single family of funds, which might be argued to be higher risk than desirable but which has been convenient.


*Disclaimer: I am a tax accountant , but I am not your professional accountant or advocate (unless you have been in my office and signed a contract). This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant / client relationship results. *Please consult your own tax accountant for tax advise.** A foreign citizen may form a limited liability company. In contrast, all profit distributions (called dividends) made by a C corporation are subject to double taxation. (Under US tax law, a nonresident alien may own shares in a C corporation, but may not own any shares in an S corporation.) For this reason, many foreign citizens form a limited liability company (LLC) instead of a C corporation A foreign citizen may be a corporate officer and/or director, but may not work/take part in any business decisions in the United States or receive a salary or compensation for services provided in the United States unless the foreign citizen has a work permit (either a green card or a special visa) issued by the United States. Basically, you should be looking at benefiting only from dividends/pass-through income but not salaries or compensations.