Given that utilizing all the funds available to you drains your retirement and leaves you with very little cushion for unforeseen events (as already noted), it may be best to use a smaller amount for closing and just deal with the PMI for a couple years. PMI is likely less than the taxes/penalties incurred from withdrawing a full 20% + closing costs. Let alone the lost earning on the accounts (above your mortgage interest rate); but personally I think the stability of significant home equity is worth more than anticipated stock gains. I would recommend pulling enough to buy the house comfortably without dipping too deeply in any one area, while still paying down your balance to where you can eliminate PMI quickly (say 2-3 years). Your limits for each account are approximately: Roth IRAs:  Traditional IRAs: Brokerage (non-retirement): Checking: Things to consider:   If you are current on your payments, you can request PMI removal once your loan-to-value drops below 80% - it also terminates automatically when it is scheduled to drop below 78% (not if it actually has). Many loans have a 2 year minimum PMI period though, regardless of your Loan To Value (LTV) changes. LTV changes could be from:


The Company M/s. I-Lace Fashion (Pvt) Ltd., was established on August 2007, as a leading exporter of Leather Garments and Textile Made-ups from Pakistan. It is part of a group of companies & the group is primarily engaged in the exportation of Textile, Fabrics, Garments, Bed Sheets, and Leather Jackets since 1984.  I-Lace Fashion (Pvt) Ltd., is a quality conscious company and has a well-defined policy of provision of quality products at competitive market prices. Company pursues aggressive product marketing & is always endeavoring to explore new markets. The success of the marketing efforts is because of the policy of the company to maintain consistent quality of the products at low cost.


There is a much simpler explanation. Resources unlike human labor are scarce. As we use up resources the price for these resources rises. In an effort to keep prices low, wages are not increased. This leads to effectively less spending income. Automation and advancement only slow the process. Labor is in no short supply, the price of labor will continue to fall in order to keep the price of final goods lower.


"If you've already got emergency savings sufficient for your needs, I agree that you'd be better served by sending that $500 to your student loan(s). I, personally, house the bulk of my emergency savings in CDs because I'm not planning to touch it and it yields a little better than a vanilla savings account. To address the comment about liquidity.  In addition to my emergency savings I keep plain vanilla savings accounts for miscellaenous sudden expenses.  To me ""emergency"" means lost job, not new water pump for my car; I have other budgeted savings for that but would spend it on a credit card and reimburse myself anyway so liquidity there isn't even that important.   The 18 month CDs I use are barely less liquid than vanilla savings and the penalty is just a couple months of the accrued interest.  When you compare a possible early distribution penalty against the years of increased yield you're likely to come out ahead after years of never touching your emergency savings, unless you're budgeted such that a car insurance deductible is an emergency expense. Emergency funds should be guaranteed and non-volatile.  If I lose my job, 90 days of accrued interest isn't a hindrance to breaking open some of my CDs, and the process isn't so daunting that I'd meaningfully harm my finances. Liquidity in 2017 and liquidity in whatever year a text book was initially written are two totally different animals.  My ""very illiquid"" brokerage account funds are only one transaction and 3 settlement days less liquid than my ""very liquid"" savings account.  There's no call the bank, sell the security, wait for it to clear, my brokerage cuts a check, mail the check, cash the check, etc.  I can go from Apple stock on Monday to cash in my hand on like Thursday.  On the web portal for the bank that holds my CDs I can instantly transfer the funds from a CD to my checking account there net of a negligible penalty for early distribution.  To call CDs illiquid in 2017 is silly."


I've yet to meet an illegal making a shit wage. So yeah not rally. People don't want to do construction because it's brutal work and working for apple as a programmer pays 3x to be inside and not in 110 degree heat.


Don't have access to a Bloomberg, Eikon ect terminal but I was wondering if those that do know of any functions that show say, the percentage of companies (in different Mcap ranges) held by differing rates institutionally. For example - if I wanted to compare what percentage of small cap companies' shares are 75% or more held by institutions relative to large cap companies what could I search in the terminal?


Take a look at Transferwise. I find them good for currency conversions and paying people in India from a US bank account.


I think it depends on how much time I am saving and what I am saving doing.  I do not go out of my way to save a few pennies on gas.  But If i know that I will be traveling somewhere with cheaper gas anyway I will wait to get there to fill up.  But I if I need gas before there I will fill up at the place i stop rather than just getting enough to go to the new location.    I heard it best said as being dollar smart instead of dime foolish.  Going out of your way for gas like this is dime foolish.  On the other hand if you can bundle your trip to the store nearby or other tasks it certianly adds to the value.


I will never tip an Uber driver unless it's something seriously extraordinary. I've used it for a while and still do and the prices are the same. I've talked to many, many drivers and they all talk about the money they make and the hours they work. No thanks, there's no way I'm going to start doing that all the sudden and I'm not going to feel guilty for not either. This was a big part of why I liked Uber in the first place.


Is the government really spending your money in such a good way that you want to give them more of it? They spend huge proportion of tax money on fighting wars and imprisoning people. I'd rather have my money. But if you're really convinced that taxes are such a great idea then convince me. Show me some evidence.


"What in the world to shareholders have to do with it?  Nowadays, the vast majority of the shares in most big corporations are ""owned"" via intermediaries (i.e. mutual funds and 401K's, IRA's and Pension Funds) that do not ALLOW the actual end owners to have any say whatsoever.  All those investment vehicles *allow* people to care about ... is the share price."


I will be general. It's more fun.  If everyone in auto manufacturing labor was replaced by a cheap robot tomorrow, then cars would be cheaper. Those of us who buy cars at 50% less could spend that on video games and facelifts. All the auto laborers could make more money doing less labor in the video game and plastic surgery business, robot manufacturing, and robot programming. Others could tailor the robots for other industries, making money there.  If there is less menial labor to be done, then more meaningful and productive work can be done in its place.  In other words, when the cheap, undesirable jobs are made more productive, the product price goes down and that money is spent somewhere else.  On the other hand, if we want to go with much lower productivity, we could all spend an average of 12 hours a day 7 days a week (or the equivalent) obtaining food and shelter. After all, with less productivity, everything takes more labor and more time, and we would have to do without many of the luxuries we take for granted. But everybody could be working really hard.


"Calculating beta is finding the correlation between the dependent variable, MSCI world benchmark, and the independent variable, your companies. If you know how to run liner regression models, run each company as the independent variable with the dependent MSCI. You can use Excel to gather this result (Y = MSCI price change at closing hour while X = company stock price closing prince). Running the regression will give you the Beta (and alpha when doing portfolios); which (from linear algebra) is the ""m"" in y = mx + b"


Well I'd argue both are sleezy and undesirable, but I'd much rather have the state do it than unregulated firms. The state sponsors anti-addiction campaigns paid for in part from lottery revenues, and excess profits can go towards education and healthcare.   It's inefficient, especially with all the bloated bureaucracy, so we need to be vigilant towards state enterprises, but it's still better than the private sector running these sketchy markets.


>If businesses cannot turn a profit while paying for a healthy minimum wage, they are bad for the economy and deserve to die.  Tell that to all the minimum wage workers that would lose their jobs and deny most of them the ability to get back on the jobs ladder at all.  Also tell that to the taxpayers that now have to pay 100% of their social burden, instead of maybe 20% in the minimum wage job situation.  The sentiment you express is absolute, unabashed economic violence against the poor and the taxpayer.  Both lose in your proposal.  You should be ashamed of yourself.


"TL;DR summary: 0% balance transfer offers and ""free checks usable anywhere""   rarely are a good deal for the customer. 0% rate balance transfer offers (and the checks usable anywhere including payment of taxes) come with a transaction fee because the credit card company is paying off the balance on the other card (or the tax or the electric bill) in the full amount of $X as stated on the other card statement or on the tax/electric bill). This is in contrast to a purchase transaction where if you buy something for $X, you pay the card company $X but the card company pays the merchant something less than $X$. (Of course, the merchant has jacked up the sale price of the item to pass on the charge to you.) Can you get the credit card company to waive the transaction fee? You can try asking them but it is unlikely that you will succeed if your credit score is good! I have seen balance transfer offers with no transaction fees made to people who have don't have good credit scores and are used to carrying a balance  on their credit cards. I assume that the company making the offer knows that it will make up the transaction fee from future interest payments. A few other points to keep in mind with respect to using a 0% balance transfer offer to pay off a student loan (or anything else for that matter):"


There's a lot of foreign small and big businesses - as well as foreign individuals - that would love to invest in India.  But they can't because of the strict regulations and outright prohibitions on foreigners.  And instead of tearing down barriers to entry, Indian government is introducing more protectionist measures (as cheap goods come from China and Indian businesses can't compete despite cheaper labor force.)    I don't know the answer to India's problems.  I don't know what's going to happen.  But I agree with the Infosys guy:  India is no China and will not see that sort of success anytime soon.  Sure, India is gaining ground every year, but to even catch up to China of today, it is going to take decades.


Much information comes from this source. Your tags say you are in New York. New York security deposit law requires that you store the security deposit in a banking institution. Additionally, the deposit must be stored in a separate account, not your own personal account. If the lease is for six months or more, the money must be stored in an interest-bearing account, though this is apparently not necessary if the property has fewer than six units. Investing the money in e.g. a mutual fund would probably be illegal, and would be a bad idea anyway. If your investment turns out not to be profitable, you'd have to make up the difference. Security deposits are meant to be deposits, not investments. Besides, you have to pay interest on the deposit to your tenant; any interest over 1% must be given back to the tenant.


yes, and how is it not a monopoly? if someone owns a piece of forest, doesn't he have a monopoly on it? or are you saying he would have to own _all_ forest in the universe for this to be true?


I agree with the article, but one thing I wonder about: how much is driving suppressed because of the relative high price of gasoline and the relative lack of fuel efficiency in cars? In other words, are we going to put more cars on the road and drive on average more km per yr per if we have a sort of quantum leap in fuel efficiency? Not necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps something that makes achieving foreign oil independence a bit harder than we might think.


"Yeah. This shorting the box nonsense is an extremely expensive way to capture downside. If I just drop $1000 on a long-dated out-of-the-money put I have significantly more downside exposure for much much less than the [100 X $160 - (call premium)]. That's like 16 grand dude!!! It does keep you more delta neutral, but still, stupid way to go about it, especially if you are concerned about ""cheap""."


Um, no?  The business pretty clearly laid out what it expects out of its employees, and what it expects is illegal. You can't hire on the basis of religion, period. It's not even a he said/she said, the business already admits what it does, and based on its members it's quite easy to prove. If this were an atheist that was just trying to ping the business because they hire on religion that's one thing.  But this guy WAS a Christian, he just wasn't Christian ENOUGH. That's excuse enough in my book to nail them.


I always thought high-risk investing is hit or miss, but this is working out very well with the stocks I've chosen  High risk investing IS hit and miss.  We are in an historic bull market.  Do not pat yourself on the back too hard, the bear can be around any corner and your high risk strategy will then be put to the test.


"I see this as a silly question.  Neither country will become ""dominant"".  They're both mid-sized resource-based economies, and that won't change any time soon.  Australia has more copper, cattle, and gold, but Canada has more oil, wheat, potash, and timber.  The resource sectors in both economies will continue to thrive, unless the world economy tanks."


I personally do not buy any those so-call forecasts - look no further than the economic forecasts by those experts with PhDs over the last decade or so.  Truth is there are too many factors that affects the tuition fees that far down the road (think inflation, cost of living, the method for which the education is being delivered, anticipated salary for the teachers, the ratio of schools and students, your children's ability to obtain scholarship money, and etc). Put in what you can afford for RESP - I put in $2000 annually per child to take maximum advantage of the 20% government matching.  And be prepare to augment that with additional fund in 18 years.  I am prepared to take on significant loans if my children both decided and qualified for graduated studies in specialized fields in a prestige universities - I have had met people with graduate degrees from Harvard and Cambridge and the obscure sum they (or their parents) paid on tuition are about as good investment as I have ever seen.  Education is one of the best gifts any parent could give to their child.


Cute, but 100 years of market history will show you the fundamentals have persisted for a reason. Every industry in history has tried to pull this “but this is different” thing off (oil, gold, semiconductors) and they have ALL been brought to reality in time. There is no reason to think today is any different. There will  be recessions again, there will be market crashes again, either tomorrow or 5 years from now. It always levels out.


> If you're saddled with a ton of debt and also don't have a degree to show for it, I'd say it's much more likely you're going to have trouble paying it off.  This is how generational poverty continues.


"I believe money market ""funds"" (ie a mutual fund) would pay dividends, and you would get a 1099-DIV. A money market ""account"" however is probably actually a bank account, and you would get a 1099-INT for that. It depends how the broker has set it up. I have one of each with different brokers.  If your ""money market"" statements mention anything about FDIC coverage, it is likely an ""account"" (ie a bank account) and will pay interest, not dividends."


"You pay tax on the entire amount, not just the capital gains.   When cashing out such a plan you would pay the top marginal tax rate on the full amount plus another 10% in penalties.  It is very likely that the additional income, of the balance withdrawal, will increase your top marginal rate.   It is impossible to come up with a precise answer as we don't know the following: However, you can take a concept away from this that is important:  You will be taxed and penalized on the entire 401K balance, not just the capital gain.   In the ""best case"" scenario, that is you had little or no income in a given year.  Under current tax law you would owe about 31% of your 401K balance in taxes.  As this is such an inefficient use of money most authors recommend against it except in the case of extreme circumstances."


It is a more subtle form of force to be destined to live as a second class citizen for no reason other than the station of your birth or your religious beliefs. Whether this status is codified in law or through the collective will of the ownership class, it is a far worse injustice than being forced to do business with someone you don't like. Equating racial justice with theft is just one example of why Libertarianism is not taken seriously as a political philosophy.


As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth ... to provide men with buying power. ... Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. ... The other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.    — Marriner Eccles, former Chair of the Federal Reserve 1934-1948, said in 1951  &nbsp;  If people think 2008 was the worst of it, man they ain't seen nothing yet.


Doom and gloom.  Everything adjusts.  Less tax break here compensated by lower overall tax rates.    Actually, Realtors have less concern with this then you would think.  Those really concerned are bankers.  The financial industry has been messaging Americans for years that mortgage deductions are the best thing in the world.  They are just another way to promote bank loans.


"Maybe if you read the article, you would have seen:  ""The data was obtained from the county Department of Public Social Services -- which is responsible for doling out the benefits -- and gives a snapshot of the financial costs associated with sanctuary and related policies.""  Keep your head in the sand buddy.  Just because you don't like the source doesn't mean that it isn't true. I'm sure you'll believe a CNN article by the esteemed Don Lemon though, right?"


"Dad-material = you are missing soft skills but you can provide me with financial security. I am going to take palimony for 18 years in exchange for sex. Outcome... short-term physical relationship.   ""Husband-material"" = you have a adequate or appreciated personality and soft skills. Kids are an option, just not the deal maker. More of a intimate relationship.   Gents... nice guys don't finish last here, they are usually married because personality is still important. You need to have compassion, patience, but also direction and ability to make express your emotions.   Had a friend in college that devised and algorithm for sex... main inputs where ""value of clothes, watch, and shoes"" + ""nice clean car"" + ""good hygiene"" + ""basic knowledge of pop culture"" + money spent on date"".... let me just state he over analyzed and thought this is how women think, and the outcome was little sex and a lot of money spent....... he forgot that he needs to sell trust, security, value to the date and then act on those if he wanted to become boyfriend... he needed to learn how to be relational and compassionate toward the others' needs. Not rocket science, just work if it does not come naturally."


The amount stated is the total amount of money the customer will be paying to the company. How much profit that will translate into is dependent on the type of contract.  Some types of contracts: Cost plus fixed fee: they are paid what it costs to complete the contract plus a fee on top of that. That fee represents their profits. The costs will include salary, benefits, overhead, equipment, supplies. Firm fixed price: They perform the service, and they get paid a fixed amount. If their costs are higher than they forecast, then they may lose money. If they can be more efficient than they forecast, then they make more money. Time and materials: They are paid for completing each sub-task based on the number of hours it takes to complete each sub task, plus materials. This is used to hire a company to maintain a fleet of trucks. If the trucks are used a lot they will need more standard maintenance, plus additional repairs based on the type of use. They pay X for labor and Y for materials for an oil change, but A for labor and B for materials for a complete engine rebuild.  There are many variations on these themes. Some put the risk on the customer, some on the company.  How and when the company is paid is based on the terms of the contract. Some pay X% a month, others pay based on meeting milestones. Some pay based on the number of tasks completed in each time period. Some contracts run for a specific period of time, others have an initial period plus option years. The article may or may not specify if the quoted amount is the minimum amount of the contract or the maximum amount. The impact on the stock price is much more complex. Much more needs to be known about the structure of the contract, and who will be providing the service to determine if there will be profits. Some companies will bid to lose money, if it will serve as a bridge to another contract or to fill a gap that will allow them to delay layoffs.


Being long the call is being long the option. The call is a type of option. A put is a type of option If you buy a call, you are long an option and long the underlying asset. If you buy a put, you are long an option and short the underlying asset.


The value of a share depends on the value of the company, which involves a lot more than the value of its assets -- it requires making decisions about what you think will happen to the company in the future. That's inherently not something that can be reduced to a single formula, at least not unless you can figure out how to represent your guesses and your confidence in them in the formula ... and even if you could do all that it would only say what you think the stock is worth; others will be using different numbers and legitimately get different results. Disagreement over value is what the stock market is all about, I'm afraid.


The DIY approach can be useful for regular dusting and cleaning, but when it comes to thorough cleaning, do it yourself does not seem a viable option Carpet cleaning is one of the intimidating tasks that call for professional intervention.


There are two alternative explanations: Choose the explanation you prefer based on your level of cynicism.


In principle I agree with you. However the allegation is that the people managing the IPO withheld crucial information and informed insiders against investing. Maybe the allegations are false, but it should still be looked into. If the IPO shared crucial details with insider traders while keeping it from the public at large that would affect the investor's risk-assessment of a stock, that's insider trading and should be punished accordingly.


don't get stalled in the notion that in ONE call, some MAGIC will happen, if you DO IT RIGHT  reality is a cold call is only the first call.  sales usually requires a sequence ...relationship/confidence building route (multiple calls)


Don't both of your first two points also apply to PV panels? In fact, to generate the same load, I'd imagine the material requirements are much higher.  And storage doesn't seem like that big of a problem. Don't we already have the holes they were dug up from to put them back in?


They are using a tax arbitrage, a variation of Hollywood Accounting. This is a common tactic adopted by all big companies, including GE, Apple, Microsoft, Google and hedge funds like Bain. The company's management has only one legal duty, to maximize the shareholder value and this is one way of doing it.  Depending on your perspectives, it may be unethical but it definitely is not illegal.   Blame the politicians and people electing them, not the businessmen.


You're right. That's pretty much it. You get a deduction for any medical expenses above 10% of your Adjusted Gross Income. You also have to itemize your deductions; claiming the standard deduction won't do.


Well, it totally depends on what you're ordering... just like ANY food. Sour Cream and extra guac will surely set you back, even if it's a fresh version of it.   I order a bowl that gets me between 7-800 calories which is a good amount for a full meal.


You don't have to do the prepaid PP card, just get him his own PP account and then order him the PP debit MC. It will act as a debit on his PP account just like the Student Account card.


You borrow on  the international makets.  [Moody's predicts Scotland would get an 'A' credit rating](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27247870)  [Standard & Poors - Independent Scotland could be AAA rated](http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors)  [Credit Suisse report independent Scotland would be ranked four places higher than the rUK.](http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9637-scotland-ahead-of-ruk-even-without-oil-says-credit-suisse-report)  [An independent Scotland would be a wealthy and financially viable country like New Zealand, but could suffer initial growing pains, according to credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's.](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/27/independent-scottish-economy-viable-slow-first-standard-poors)


"Insufficient funds will cause a check to bounce. If there is evidence that you ""kited"" the check deliberately, that's a potential fraud charge. If the vendor accepts that you were just stupid/careless, you'll probably just have to pay a penalty processing fee in addition to making good the payment.  It is your responsibility to track your account balance and not write bad checks. If the timing could be bad, don't write the check yet. If you insist on paying with money you may not have, talk to your bank about setting up overdrafts to draw from another account, or automatic overdraft loans... or use a credit card rather than paying by check."


I think part of why it is perceived is so bad is because the fluctuations in housing prices are relatively large, especially compared to the amount needed to put a down payment.  This is not an uncommon scenario: And this is not even being underwater, just being even.  Imagine how much worse it feels if your dream of home ownership has turned into just a pile of debt.


Yes, they're using it as a currency.  What they actually have demand for is houses and Lambos, and if bitcoin wasn't available they'd be happy to do it in any other currency.  When any other currency goes up it's because there's overall higher demand than supply for it, to buy things you can only buy in a particular currency.    A very common example is government bonds of the issuing government for a currency.  That's why when the Fed raises the interest rate, the US dollar goes up.  It is because at a bond auction the government will only take US dollars so anyone that wants to buy some bonds needs to first buy US dollars.  If the interest rate goes up, all things being equal those bonds are relatively more attractive than other countries bonds, and that change in demand increases the demand for the currency, which raises it's price.  Note the key thing here - it needs to be something you can only buy (or at least, buy for the cheapest price) in a particular currency.  If it's something you can buy with any currency, than that event generally doesn't impact the currency price.  Although it's a very important food crop, if the price of rice goes up, it doesn't really impact the USD even though you can buy rice with USD.  Here's the tricky part, what can you buy with bitcoin that you can't buy with any other currency?


The value of money is not only in the earning and saving of it but also in the discipline in spending it.  Any approach to teaching children about money must ensure a balance between the two otherwise they will either become fearful of spending (and so never actually learn that money is but a tool and can be enjoyed) or irresponsible (spending with abandon with all that concomitant misery): Teaching kids about money is a wonderful opportunity to instil discipline and values.  Any strategy must be structured to suite the child's age and abilities as well.  Trying to teach compound interest to too young a child will just become needlessly confusing and worrying for them.  Hope this gives a few ideas.


When you wish to go for a party in London and if you feel that you want some comrade to be with you then you can get in touch with the elite escorts who would help you in making your day special. Of course, you can always tell them that how you want things to be done.


As @Dilip suggested in the comments, the problem is the accountability of the reimbursement plans. In order for the reimbursement to be non-taxable, there has to be a reimbursement plan and policy set up by the employer, it has to be done per receipt, and accounted for correctly. If the employer just cuts you a check - the conditions may not be met, and as such - the reimbursement becomes taxable. In your case, it seems like the employer has not set up a proper (accountable) reimbursement plan, thus your reimbursements are taxable. @Joe pointed out that since the employer also doesn't withhold taxes (as he should), you may have an unexpected tax bill on April 15. This Chron article describes the distinction between the accountable and non-accountable plans. Only with the accountable plans the reimbursements are non-taxable.


A bit anecdotal, but I once studied Erasmus and one of my buddies was from France. Long story short, he was to be paid a monthly stipend for living/studying expenses from the French gov't (very typical for Erasmus/study abroad in Europe). He didn't receive his FIRST check until about 4 months after he had returned to France (~10 months later than expected).


We can only print money until we start to see the effect in inflation, true, but we've got quite a way to go before that happens.  Currently, t-bills are paying under .2% interest/year.  Money can be borrowed at a historic low rate.  No one worried about this huge amount of debt when Bush was running it up.  Now that the deficit has actually gotten under control, people are up in arms.    The government has always run a deficit, except once.  Money is a closed loop.  Household savings/spending + business savings/spending + imports/exports + government surplus/deficit = 0.  That's an accounting identity.  Currently, households are spending a bit, businesses are saving like nobodies business, and we export more than we import.  We have to run a deficit to have an economy.


This is the guy who created thousands of jobs, through his own hard work. Sure, it's easy to ignore the years of his life where he went without, when you look at it out of context. But whether you agree that people should be able to make a profit or not, he *does* actually employ thousands of people. He pays them money they use to buy food, clothes, and generally support themselves.


"I don't understand the OP's desire "" I'd love to have a few hundred dollars coming in each month until I really get the hang of things. ""  When growing your wealth so that it will be large enough in retirement to throw off enough profits to live on ... you must not touch the profits generated along the way.  You must reinvest them to earn even more profits.  The profits you earn need not show up as 'cash'.  Most investments also grow in re-sale value. This growth is called capital gains, and is just-as/more important than cash flows like interest income or dividends.    When evaluating investing choices, you think of your returns as a percent of your total savings at any time.  So expecting $100/month equals $1,200/year would require a $12,000 investment to earn 10%/yr. From the sounds of it the OP's principal is not near that amount, and an average 10% should not be expected by an investment with reasonable risk. I would conclude that 'There is no free lunch'.  You need to continually save and add to your principal.  You must invest to expect a reasonable return (less than 10%) and you must reinvest all profits (whether cash or capital gains). Or else start a business - which cannot be compared to passive investing."


All great questions, thank you. We are one of a several piano stores in south eastern MA, but many people will travel a fair distance to find the right piano. Our largest group of customers are middle to high income families. We've played our ad on the local abc family channel and on local pop radio stations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSr-LRiP1s0 ... The corniness was intended and did create a lot of response.    We offer a full value trade up policy for any past customers. Our record is a customer who purchased a piano from us 14 prior to trading up.   Thanks for your help, I'll work on finding more ways to further identify and reach our target market.


"In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of ""shares"" of equity in the company. Usually, these ""shares"" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of ""controlling interests"". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For ""private"" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For ""public"" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares. Second, the price of a stock is based on its demand in the market, and a key component of that is scarcity; the fewer shares of a company that are available, the more they'll cost. When a company issues more stock, there's more shares available, so people can get all they want and the demand drops, taking the share price with it. When there's more shares, each share (being a smaller percentage of the company) earns less in dividends as well, which figures into several key metrics for determining whether to buy or sell stock, like earnings per share and price/earnings ratio. Now, you also asked about ""dilution"". That's pretty straightforward. By adding more shares of stock to the overall pool, you increase that denominator; each share becomes a smaller percentage of the company. The ""privately-held"" stocks are reduced in the same way. The problem with simply adding stocks to the open market, getting their initial purchase price, is that a larger overall percentage of the company is now on the open market, meaning the ""controlling interests"" have less control of their company. If at any time the majority of shares are not owned by the controlling interests, then even if they all agree to vote a certain way (for instance, whether or not to merge assets with another company) another entity could buy all the public shares (or convince all existing public shareholders of their point of view) and overrule them. There are various ways to avoid this. The most common is to issue multiple types of stock. Typically, ""common"" stock carries equal voting rights and equal shares of profits. ""Preferred stock"" typically trades a higher share of earnings for no voting rights. A company may therefore keep all the ""common"" stock in private hands and offer only preferred stock on the market. There are other ways to ""class"" stocks, most of which have a similar tradeoff between earnings percentage and voting percentage (typically by balancing these two you normalize the price of stocks; if one stock had better dividends and more voting weight than another, the other stock would be near-worthless), but companies may create and issue ""superstock"" to controlling interests to guarantee both profits and control. You'll never see a ""superstock"" on the open market; where they exist, they are very closely held. But, if a company issues ""superstock"", the market will see that and the price of their publicly-available ""common stock"" will depreciate sharply. Another common way to increase market cap without diluting shares is simply to create more shares than you issue publicly; the remainder goes to the current controlling interests. When Facebook solicited outside investment (before it went public), that's basically what happened; the original founders were issued additional shares to maintain controlling interests (though not as significant), balancing the issue of new shares to the investors. The ""ideal"" form of this is a ""stock split""; the company simply multiplies the number of shares it has outstanding by X, and issues X-1 additional shares to each current holder of one share. This effectively divides the price of one share by X, lowering the barrier to purchase a share and thus hopefully driving up demand for the shares overall by making it easier for the average Joe Investor to get their foot in the door. However, issuing shares to controlling interests increases the total number of shares available, decreasing the market value of public shares that much more and reducing the amount of money the company can make from the stock offering."


"It really depends on the value your financial adviser provides.  Does he help with your 401K?  Does he help you avoid making foolish moves?  Does he really help you find funds that beat average market returns? Many people answer ""no"" to all of these questions and do their investing on their own.  I personally prefer Fidelity because I find their web site easier to work with, but Vanguard is another option.   At Fidelity you will have zero fee per year.  You can buy Fidelity and many other mutual funds with no cost.  You can buy iShares ETFs at no cost.  Some funds do have a fee to purchase, but they are pretty low ($35) and are only collected when you buy, not yearly.   Now some people do go it alone and it is a huge mistake.  The news tends to only report negative stock market events, and many people were scared away from 2008 and missed wonderful gains since that time.  If you pull your money out during corrections, stick with a financial adviser.  If you will stop contributing because of a correction, stick with a financial adviser.  In those cases the fee is well worth the cost.  Also if your guy provides education in association with investment advice, the fee might also be worth it.   If you are able to stomach losses, able to keep on contributing like clockwork, and can read a Morning star mutual fund chart, then you might be best to go it alone.  One thing would really help is to have a friend that is also interested in investing to share ideas with."


> I have been an owner of the Planet Hollywood Westgate unit in Las Vegas for 2 years! Every time I've tried to use it, it is never available. The one time they told me it was available; they told me it was at Flamingo Bay in Las Vegas, not the one that they have me paying $900 a month for. Then they had the nerve to charge me an exchange fee for using a unit I didn't even want to use. I'm to the point that I want to get rid of this unit. The payment is $200 more than my own house payment and now that they were purchased by Hilton, the payments and fees are going to go up.  2 years? 2 years paying $900/mo for a property you were never able to use? You'd figure by at least the end of year 1 you would have smelled something fishy.  I'm sure this CEO and his company are generally shitbags, but c'mon.


"Plenty of good answers here, but probably the best answer is that The Market relies on suckers...er...investors like you.  The money has to come from somewhere, it might as well be you. So-called ""day traders"" or ""short-term investors"" are a huge part of the market, and they perform a vital function:  they provide capital that flows to the large, well-equipped, institutional investors.  Thing is, you can never be big enough, smart enough, well-informed enough, or quick enough to beat the big guys.  You may have a run of good fortune, but over the long term aggregate, you're a PAYOR into the market, not a DIVIDEND reaper."


"Thanks for sharing.  I think it's a great idea to allow everyone to speak freely and share their thoughts in an open format for critiquing. I've watched [similar TED talks](http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_what_makes_us_feel_good_about_our_work?language=en#t-66168) that have shown this practice gives more value to an employee's self worth, which also leads to more overall productivity. However, I'm a little puzzled by Mr. Dalio's merit weighting/""believability"" index, and feel like I need more information to understand how they attribute those weights.   Here's an excellent and relevant excerpt from one of my favorite reads – 2 Second Lean by Paul Akers:  *Besides having a 100% emotional commitment, a Lean leader must be humble. What does that look like? Let me give you a tangible goal. Commit yourself to validating, complimenting and/ or recognizing the work of your employees at least ten times a day. Your people should be accustomed to hearing you say things like, “That’s a great idea, Bob,” or “Mary, I appreciate how hard you’ve worked on this project,” or “Actually, John, I like your idea better than mine.” When humility becomes a central attribute of the Lean leadership a vortex of creativity and buy-in will follow. When there is a culture where people know there is not an egomaniac in charge they can begin to grow and thrive. They know that leadership is singular in their focus to give others credit above themselves. There are no politics, no jealousies or rivalries because everybody knows they’ll be acknowledged for their contribution and more importantly, they understand their job is to acknowledge others’ contributions. A Lean culture is a generous environment. It’s generous in giving credit to others, generous in respect, generous in offering ideas, support and help.*  *The Lean leader has an ego strong enough to solicit and welcome ideas from absolutely every person involved and will recognize everybody’s contribution as valuable. In fact, a Lean leader gets excited by the prospect of unleashing all that untapped creativity and problem-solving genius that lies dormant in most organizations.*  *While many people will be shy and not so forthcoming at first, it is a universal human desire to be validated and respected.*"


">the population is burdened with debt and anxious about job security,  and long term security  and healthcare (and not sending them into poverty because of it)  and the country remaining solvent  and what the next financial crisis will be   and the terrorist boogymen  H. L. Mencken once said, *""The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.""*   I don't know how imaginary it all is but they sure are menacing the shit out of us with it."


The P/E is currently 20. In hindsight, it's easy to see that when it was 50, not long ago, it was very overpriced. They were not adding customers or increasing revenue as they should have to sustain that P/E level.  Probability? I suppose this can happen with any company that has both a high P/E and non-diversified business. Why did you think this company was large and stable? Their marketing blunders simply pricked the bubble level pricing these guys had.  (Disclaimer - I am actually a happy customer of Netflix. For $8/mo, I get 6-8 DVDs and neither spend gas nor time to get them. Others who grew used to free streaming feel otherwise)


I like the Australian “standard”*   Best Before:  For the retailer: Means the retailer should not complain to the supplier if the product has gone bad after this date.  Used by:  For the consumer; means the customer should not complain to the retailer if the product has gone bad after this date.  Ie it has nothing to do with is it safe to consume it has everything to do with legal liability with a touch of forced replacement.  * I don’t know if it’s a standard or just something that producers do.


You keep a copy of the dashed check, and tell him to pound sand. If he contacts you again, you tell him that you will charge him with fraud. By accepting the check and cashing it, he acknowledged the debt is paid.


"Many of the business posts are adverts or self-promotion or people hyping stock ""tips"".  Also get a fair number of (lazy) people who want this sub to tell them how to get into business, or what a good business idea is (versus doing  research, and then saying ""this is what I've got, what about this problem, or this challenge?)"""


they don't have to 'go through' Instagram. It's not purchased through Instagram with them getting a cut. This is an option on the post, just like a location tag. As for if people will do it or not, yeah, that's still up to the influencer to be honest and within legal guidelines with this system just like it is now for them tagging it as #Ad or #SponsoredPost


Im always suspicious whenever an article uses 2 data points to suggest a trend. November 1997 and December 2016. Ok? What about all the years inbetween? '97 may have had an unusually high number due to the Dot Com boom when everyone and their brother were creating do-nothing websites and going public.


That is silly to say it isn't a reward for the quality of the waiter.  WTF is a tip for then?  Why do we not have base compensation without tips, with final prices finalized into all goods?   No, a tip *is a reward for quality* **of service**.  I give a 10% tip for horrible service (service, not food).  I give a 15% tip when I don't notice the waiter/ess as part of my meal.  I give 20% tip when service (not food) was exceptional.    If someone sucks as a waiter and consistently gets poor tips from people who tip based on service, stop being a poor waiter.  If someone is a good waiter and consistently gets poor tips from people (incorrectly in my opinion) tipping based on food quality, quit working at that horrible restaurant.  If you want to argue that tipping is not a reward for quality of service, then I will abstain from tipping altogether because I paid for my food and I'm willing to get my own damn water and pick up my food from the kitchen if someone will let me.


NAPFA claims to have members in Canada. They are an organization of fee-only financial planners--they work for hourly fees, not commissions, so they have no conflicts of interest when giving advice.


Hot dogs - counts as part of the food basket. Hardly one-off.   Cars - maybe could be included. On average, people buy cars every 5 years, so 12 cars for an 80 year old.   Gas - that one could well be warranted, the problem is the high volatility and the fact that fluctuations are not due to inflation, but rather commodity price fluctuations.   All the other stuff (phones, tv’s, Appliances, etc) is stuff that needs to be replaced several times throughout a persons life, so not one-off purchases.   House prices can and should address d through other mechanisms that have nothing to do with inflation. Either through better planning codes or macro prudential measures, but certainly not through manipulating interest rates.


"Yeah, sounds like you're right on track.  You should probably consider a liberal arts major instead of econ or finance there Quinz33... they don't really concern themselves with relevant facts... and pretty much just say the first thing that comes to mind.  ""PINEAPPLE!  SQUID!  MONGOOSE!""  And based on your response I'm also guessing you have no interest / experience / knowledge of anything related to finance, am I right?"


In India, the amount of dividend you get is based on the face value of the stock. If the stock's face value is Rs. 10 and the company announced a dividend of 20%, you will receive Rs.2 per share.To see whether you qualify to receive a dividend, see the ex-dividend date of the company. If you purchased shares before that date, you will receive the dividend, else you will not


Same could go for flying private. At the end of the day there is a cost benefit and what an employee's time is worth.  My employer doesn't give a shit, so I pay for my own business class out of pocket. People I deal with externally all fly business, which sucks when you are on the same flights.


"I mostly agree. However, I also recognize a redditer ""type"" who is impervious to any logic. When your point doesn't fit within their world view, they most often retaliate by downvoting, or downvoting AND posting an angry, curse laden rant.  I believe the guy above was just saving time by preempting their initial response. Of course, you also risk putting off those on the fence who might have been willing to consider your point, but now will not."


"I agree with all the people cautioning against working for free, but I'll also have a go at answering the question: When do I see money related to that 5%? Is it only when they get   bought, or is there some sort of quarterly payout of profits? It's up to the shareholders of the company whether and when it pays dividends. A new startup will typically have a small number of people, perhaps 1-3, who between them control any shareholder vote (the founder(s) and an investor). If they're offering you 5%, chances are they've made sure your vote will not matter, but some companies (an equity partnership springs to mind) might be structured such that control is genuinely distributed. You would want to check what the particular situation is in this company. Assuming the founders/main investors have control, those people (or that person) will decide whether to pay dividends, so you can ask them their plans to realise money from the company. It is very rare for startups to pay any dividends. This is firstly because they're rarely profitable, but even when they are profitable the whole point of a startup is to grow, so there are plenty of things to spend cash on other than payouts to shareholders. Paying anything out to shareholders is the opposite of receiving investment. So unless you're in the very unusual position of a startup that will quickly make so much money that it doesn't need investment, and is planning to pay out to shareholders rather than spend on growth, then no, it will not pay out. One way for a shareholder to exit is to be bought out by other shareholders. For example if they want to get rid of you then they might make you an offer for your 5%. This can be any amount they think you'll take, given the situation at the time. If you don't take it, there may be things they can do in future to reduce its value to you (see below). If you do take it then your 5% would pay you once, when you leave. If the company succeeds, commonly it will be wholly or partly sold (either privately or by IPO). At this point, if it's wholly sold then the soon-to-be-ex-shareholders at the time will receive the proceeds of the sale. If it's partly sold then as with an investment round it's up for negotiation what happens. For example I believe the cash from an IPO of X% of the company could be taken into the company, leaving the shareholders with no immediate direct payout but (100-X)% of shares in their names that they're more-or-less free to sell, or retain and receive future dividends. Alternatively, if the company settles down as a small private business that's no longer in startup mode, it might start paying out without a sale. If the company fails, as most startups do, it will never pay anything. It's very important to remember that it's the shareholders at the time who receive money in proportion to their holding (or as defined by the company articles, if there are different classes of share). Just because you have 5% now doesn't mean you'll have 5% by that time, because any new investment into the company in the mean time will ""dilute"" your shareholding. It works like this: Note that I've assumed for simplicity that the new investment comes in at equal value to the old investment. This isn't necessarily the case, it can be more or less according to the terms of the new investment voted for by the shareholders, so the first line really is ""nominal value"", not necessarily the actual cash the founders put in. Therefore, you should not think of your 5% as 5% of what you imagine a company like yours might eventually exit for. At best, think of it as 5% of what a company like yours might exit for, if it receives no further investment whatsoever. Ah, but won't the founders also have their holdings diluted and lose control of the company, so they wouldn't do that? Well, not necessarily. Look carefully at whether you're being offered the same class of shares as the founders. If not consider whether they can dilute your shares without diluting their own. Look also at whether a new investor could use the founders' executive positions to give them new equity in the same way they gave you old equity, without giving you any new equity. Look at whether the founders will themselves participate in future investment rounds using sacks of cash that they own from other ventures, when you can't afford to keep up. Look at whether new investors will receive a priority class of share that's guaranteed at exit to pay out a certain multiple of the money invested before the older, inferior classes of shares receive anything (VCs like to do this, at least in the UK). Look at any other tricks they can legally pull: even if the founders aren't inclined to be tricky, they may eventually be forced to consider pulling them by a future new investor. And when I say ""look"", I mean get your lawyer to look. If your shareholding survives until exit, then it will pay out at exit. But repeated dilutions and investors with priority classes of shares could mean that your holding doesn't survive to exit even if the company does. Your 5% could turn into a nominal holding that hasn't really ""survived"", that entitles you to 0.5% of any sale value over $100 million. Then if the company sells for $50 million you get $0, while other investors are getting a good return. All of this is why you should not work for equity unless you can afford to work for free. And even then you need to lawyer up, now and during any future investment, so your lawyer can explain to you what your investment actually is, which almost certainly is different from what it looks like at a casual uninformed glance."


Beware of surrender charges also Surrender Charges Many annuities   will impose a surrender charge if the annuity is cashed in before a   specific period of time. That period may run anywhere from 1 to 12   years. A typical surrender charge is one that starts at 7% in the   first year of the contract, and declines by 1% per year thereafter   until it reaches zero. The charge is made against the value of the   investment when the annuity is surrendered, and its purpose (other   than simply to make money for the insurance company) is to discourage   a short-term investment by the purchaser. For that reason, an annuity   should always be considered a long-term investment. In the typical   fixed annuity, though, this charge will not apply provided no more   than 10% of the investment is withdrawn per year. source: http://www.fool.com/retirement/annuities/annuities02.htm If you've held it for 10 years as you claim, you may not owe any or much in surrender charges, but you definitely want to know what the situation is before you make a move.


Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling.  You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance.  If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them.  Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future.  If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either.  There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort.  That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want.


Yes. The real question is whether you should. You should consider your investment options, and take into the account that there's much more hype than value in many companies.


"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to ""profitable"", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist."


This is rather simple if you understand a trailing limit order but to be sure I am going to explain a limit, trailing limit, and trailing LIT order. I am going to use an example assuming that you already own a stock and want to sell it. Limit Order I place an order to sell 100 PG @ 65.00. This order will only be executed if the bid price of PG is at $65.0000 or greater. Trailing Limit Order I place an order to sell 100 CAT @ 85.25 with a trailing 5%. This order will be executed when CAT drops 5% below the highest point it reaches after you place this order. So if you place this order at 85.25 and the stock drops 5% to $80.9875, your order will be executed. However, if the stock jumps to $98, the order will not be executed until the stock falls to $93.10. The sell point will go up with the stock and will always remain at the specified % or $ amount behind the high point. Trailing Limit If Touched Order I place an order to sell 100 INTC @ 24.75 with a trailing 5% if the stock touches $25.00. Essentially, this is the same as the trailing limit except that it doesn't take effect until the stock first gets $25.00.  I think the page they provide to explain this is confusing because I think they are explaining it from the shorting a stock perspective instead of the selling a stock you want to profit from. I could also be wrong in how I understand it. My advice would be to either call their customer support and ask for a better explanation or what I do in my finances, avoid things I don't understand.


That's a false analogy.    If somebody took me somewhere to eat that made me sick, that's a direct reflection on their ability to recommend places to eat, but nothing else.  If he's also a top notch electrician, I listen to him when he gives me electrical wiring advice, I just don't let him choose where we go for dinner.  Tiel's presidential choice reflects his political knowledge, and not his ability to be on Facebook's board.  Remember, he's not there to provide political insight, he's there to provide business insight, his area of expertise.


OP, I was in a similar situation in college. Worked at a large fund doing back office stuff. It was a terrible job, place was out of whack and it was not align with my educational or professional goals. It was a six month program located in Boston and at the time I was in Albany. Had to move out there and I stuck in out for the first three months. Then I realized I wasn't making enough to continue living in Boston and I would of had to delay my graduation, miss a ton of my senior year and would not be able to play on my rugby team. I decided it wasn't worth it, I quit and got a reference from someone else at the firm. Got a full time offer with a reputable firm doing work that is more aligned with my goals.   Nobody is looking out for you except you, especially in this industry.


"> I am confused how you spin an ""infinite mileage warranty"" into something negative  It will increase their costs in a business model which, until recently, lost money on every unit.  It's good news for buyers in the short term. If Tesla goes out of business, however, the infinite-mileage warranty won't make any difference.  And, in the larger picture, if they're out of business, their awesome customer-focused model doesn't really benefit their customers in any way."


"The short answer is you're tax exempt if the tax laws say you are.  There are a bunch of specific exemptions based on who you are, what you're buying and why. Taking British Columbia as an example. One exemption is supplies for business use: Some exemptions are only available to certain purchasers in certain circumstances. These exemptions include: You can also claim an exemption if you are buying ""adult size"" clothing for a child under 15 years. Farmers are exempt from sales tax on various goods and services. First Nations individuals are exempt in some circumstances. And so on and so on."


Yes, it is.   The reason they are forced out, is because their homes become so valuable.   If you living in a home that has become worth millions, and can't afford the taxes, then sell up and enjoy your riches.       Should that necessary tax money instead come from the working class, to subsidize millionaires that want to stay in their homes?


There's also the option to put most of your stuff into storage and rent an apartment or go to an extended stay hotel.  Some apartments have month-by-month options at a higher rate, though you may need to ask around.   I've known some people to use this as their primary plan because it was easier for them to keep the house clean and ready to show when it's empty.  Basically, this option is to sell your current house then buy the new house with a (hopefully fairly short) transition time in the middle.


Unsecured loans are loans that have not been “secured” with any kind of collateral. For example, the bank does not have the ability to take your property or automobile if you stop making payments on an unsecured loan. These loans are sometimes referred “signature loans” due to the face your signature on the loan agreement is all that you deliver to the table. Unsecured loans are available in a variety of flavors.


Cfa charterholder here.  Level 1 is mostly likely yes. Materially is relatively simple.  Levels 2 and 3 will require over 200 hours each. When I passed level 3, I actually recorded the time it took me to study. Was about 236 hours.


That transaction probably cost the merchant $0.50 + 3% or close to $5.  They should have refunded your credit card so they could have recouped some of the fees. (I imagine that's why big-box retailers like Home Depot always prefer to put it back on your card than give you store credit) Consider yourself lucky you made out with $0.15 this time.  (Had they refunded your card, the 1% of $150 credit would have gone against next month's reward) Once upon a time folks were buying money from the US Mint by the tens of thousands $ range and receiving credit card rewards, then depositing the money to pay it off.. They figured that out and put a stop to it.


"From IRS Publication 970 Tax Benefits for Education Note: Qualified tuition programs (QTPs) are also called ""529 plans.""  Changing the Designated Beneficiary There are no income tax consequences if the designated beneficiary of   an account is changed to a member of the beneficiary's family. See   Members of the beneficiary's family , earlier.  Members of the beneficiary's family. For these purposes, the beneficiary's family includes the   beneficiary's spouse and the following other relatives of the   beneficiary. regarding ownership changes: Rollovers Any amount distributed from a QTP isn't taxable if it is rolled over   to another QTP for the benefit of the same beneficiary or for the   benefit of a member of the beneficiary's family (including the   beneficiary's spouse). An amount is rolled over if it is paid to   another QTP within 60 days after the date of the distribution. Don't report qualifying rollovers (those that meet the above criteria)   anywhere on Form 1040 or 1040NR. These aren't taxable distributions. Example. When Aaron graduated from college last year, he had $5,000 left in his   QTP. He wanted to give this money to his younger brother, who was in   junior high school. In order to avoid paying tax on the distribution   of the amount remaining in his account, Aaron contributed the same   amount to his brother's QTP within 60 days of the distribution. So it appears that as far as the IRS in concerned the rollover could be done to change ownership as long as the beneficiary was in the same family. It is possible that there could be a state tax issue with the change of ownership, if it changed from a plan in state A to one in state B; and state A treated the original contributions as a tax deduction. So check the guidelines for the specific 529 plan."


Out of the money options often have the biggest changes in value, when the stock moves upward. This person could also gain, by the implied (underlying) volatility of the stock rising if it moves erratically to either side. Still seems to be a very risky game, given only 4 days to expiry.


There are numerous car repair services around Vegas but only a few are trusted and most reliable. We recommend carrepairvegas.com for you. Visit at 5400 E Tropicana Ave, Las Vegas, NV 89122 or call for inquiries at 702-433-5823. Website:  http://carrepairvegas.com/


The joint narrative here is that a Democracy is a poor form of government.  That’s why it is great that we don’t have a Democracy.  We have a republic.  And our Republic is showing fracturing.  What causes fracturing?  It isn’t just difference of opinion, as Madison states.  It is also a refusal to listen to, work with, or acknowledge the legitimacy of the arguments of our opposition or dissenting members.  We fail to communicate properly, holding attitude and superiority above understanding and attention.  You won’t fix a communication issue with a change of government.  Our communication issue has festered into distrust.  How can you trust someone who won’t even acknowledge your point of view?  How can you trust someone who is willing to dust you to save their own skin?  I doubt any government can survive poor communication.  Our government waste can be seen as poor communication as well.  People with one interest refuse to acknowledge their opposition, and put into place inflexible and unsustainable rules.  Those rules address the one issue those people saw, but fail to account for market forces, new social views, geography, or sometimes simple greed.  People love that the first issue is handled, and are willing to watch the ship sink rather than change.  Opposition refuses to acknowledge the reason the rules were originally created. Both sides get defensive, and division increases.  Let’s always look to the source of the issue, that we may cure as close to the root as possible, rather than be content fighting the symptoms.


I had this thought after I posted the comment. If you are really more interested in the learning and research, you know plenty of math already.  Fields like behavioral finance that are really cool and growing fast and my not require the quant math.


It is very likely that the fund paid out a dividend in the form of reinvested shares.  This happens with many funds, especially as we come to the end of the year. Here's a simplified example of how it works.  Assume you invested $1000 and bought 100 units at $10/unit.  Ignoring the daily price fluctuations, if the fund paid out a 20% dividend, you would get $200 and the unit price would drop to $8/unit.  Assuming you chose to reinvest your dividends, you would automatically purchase another $200 worth of units at the new price (so 25 more units).  You would now have 125 units @ $8/unit = $1000 invested. In your example, notice that you now have more shares than you originally purchased, but that the price dropped significantly.  Your market value is above what you originally invested, so there was probably also a bit of a price increase for the day.  You should see the dividend transaction listed somewhere in your account. Just to confirm, I did a quick search on ICENX and found that they did indeed pay a dividend yesterday.


I think that if the price does not go very far up, then your order will open on 101, because you are setting a limit order, if suddenly the price goes up very quickly or with a gep even, then you may not be given a position. But this is with a limit order and it is better to check with the broker. There are also warrants in which you can adjust the price range, for example, from 101 to 103, and at a sharp price jump, it is possible for you and would not give a position at a price of 101, but perhaps 103 would get.


"Pay cash.  You have the cash to pay for it now, but God forbid something happen to you or your wife that requires you to dip into that cash in the future. In such an event, you could end up paying a lot more for your home theater than you planned. The best way to keep your consumer credit card debt at zero (and protect your already-excellent credit) is to not add to the number of credit cards you already have.   At least in the U.S., interest rates on saving accounts of any sort are so low, I don't think it's worthwhile to include as a deciding factor in whether not you ""borrow"" at 0% instead of buying in cash."


Think of GDP growth as a weighted average of all agents in the country that produce goods and services, some grow, some retract, we get an average of ~1.5%.   While the S&P 500 is just the weighted average of the 500 largest **public** companies, and while some shrink, most are growing. They are responsible for a portion of GDP growth, but not all.   Even the Wilshire 5000, which has every public company listed will show growth larger than GDP because of the nature of the companies listed.  Lastly, as time goes to infinity, all companies will grow at the rate of GDP growth, otherwise they'll consume every other company until it is the only one left.  Essentially, exchanges only look at a handful of companies and their performance. GDP looks at all companies in the U$.


Shopallitems.com is a design and way of life e-store that offers other home, stylistic theme items for your room, lounge, lavatory and yes for your children's rooms as well. Fashionist as can shop from a scope of ladies' apparel, extras, footwear, KITCHEN ACCESSORIES and excellence items. So now, give your home and yourself as well, a moment makeover. Shop at Shopallitems and benefit best online offers amid our consistent online deal and enjoy a spending shopping. Come, investigate all the more just at shopallitems. Shopallitems conveys to you an energizing scope of kitchen adornments that offers powerful use of space and is went with world-class usefulness.


I think we would be good with paying around $1200 monthly mortgage fees (with all other property fees included like tax etc.) You probably can't get a $250k house for $1,200 a month including taxes and insurance.  Even at a 4% rate and 20% down, your mortgage payment alone will be $954, and with taxes and insurance on top of that you're going to be over $1,200.  You might get a lower rate but even a drop to 3% only lowers the payment $90/month. Getting a cheaper house (which also reduces taxes and insurance) is the best option financially. What to do with the $15k that I have? If you didn't have a mortgage I'd say to keep 3-6 months of living expenses in an emergency fund, so I wouldn't deplete that just to get a mortgage. You're either going to be  Since 1) the mortgage payment would be tight and 2) you aren't able to save for a down payment, my recommendation is for you to rent until you can make a 20% down payment and have monthly payment that is 25% of your take-home pay or less.  Which means either your income goes up (which you indicate is a possibility) or you look for less house.  Ideally that would be on a 15-year note, since you build equity (and reduce interest) much more quickly than a 3-year note, but you can get the same effect by making extra principal payments. Also, very few people stay in their house for 30 years - 5 years is generally considered the cutoff point between renting and buying.  Since you're looking at a 10-year horizon it makes sense to buy a house once you can afford it.


I don't think the word 'irony' means what you think it means.  If I cared at all about magic internet points, I would dole out downvotes (and upvotes) much more often. The fact that I am not even going to downvote the abject nonsense that you wrote above should speak volumes.


> All this hate on Wal-mart is coming from over-privileged bloggers who get paid to write stupid bullshit the entire year.   Can you verify this claim? I'm not saying you are wrong, but it would be interesting to know what your motives for attacking the messenger are.


It's actually embarrassing how bad some of our infrastructure is. If you've ever spent time in most of western Europe or the more modernized Asian cities, you'll realize that our infrastructure and public transit is essentially far behind the other leading countries in the world. It's a complicated topic, and there are a lot of reasons why (much of our public transit was built decades before European and Asian public transit, the State vs. Federal funding model, etc), but it's an issue that needs to get fixed and should be getting bipartisan support.


Your nazi publication lied (which is admittedly goes without saying)  These changes will result in the reduction of up to 12,000 positions **globally**    Why do you hate my country so much you would spread anti-American propaganda?


"I don't know how many people ""a ton"" is, but if you are getting more than, say, 6 people who are qualified to rent, you've priced it too low. Better to ask for $1200, and have a potential tenant haggle or ask you to reduce the price than to have 6 people want it for $900.  It's worth it to run a credit report, and let that help you choose. I agree with Victor, a bidding war is appropriate for a house sale, not rental apartments.  You didn't mention your country, but I'd be sure to find out the local laws regarding tenant choice. You may not (depending where you are) discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, marital status, race, or religion."


Be cognizant of your own limitations when approaching this material.  I've dealt with lawyers, doctors, engineers and other highly intelligent people from other disciplines, who then try to learn about companies and the stock market.  Their own arrogance and assumption that they can just learn anything *quickly* ends up hurting them.  It can take years and real classical training of finance to understand this material with any depth.  Someone is wrong (a fool) in every trade.  There is someone who is going to make money and lose money.  Odds are the fool is you.


The article made it seem like a lot of these were frivolous purchases, but I doubt there's any clear data on the percent that were someone's primary vehicle, etc. Usually if you default on a new-car loan you can still get a high-interest loan for a used car that will still be a lot less than your old payment.


"Too many of my fellow Americans are obsessed with policing each other's sobriety.  Couple that with privatized healthcare / insurance and a bunch of companies will drug test just to keep their rates down.  Anyone who criticizes it will be shamed for ""Wanting to get high""."


The easiest way would be to set up a common savings account. Most of them pay some meager interest rate, and over one night it would be especially meager.  A Certificate of Deposit is another way, but you'd have to lock the funds in for an extended period of time.


"When I heard the Facebook IPO was finally happening I remember saying, ""This is going to be like a feeding frenzy. The ultimate showcase of everything that is wrong with the stock market. It will be automated trading and big money tearing every penny it can from the pockets of 'speculators' who think investing in a business you believe in is a sound investment."""


"It's either equal weighted or market cap weighted,  not both. This one appears to be equal weighted.  "" S&P Pharmaceuticals Select Industry Index (SPSIPH) is an equal-weighted index that draws constituents from the GICS sub-industries that contain companies involved in pharmaceutical related activities. Liquidity and market capitalization screens are applied to the indices to ensure investability""  http://www.amex.com/amextrader/tdrInfo/data/axNotices/2006/valert2006-17.html"


> Point being, the problem hasn't been fixed. The deficit went from enormous in 2009 to simply large today.  Deficit is currently at 2.3% of GDP. The USA is analogous to a person who is making $200,000/year, has $120,000 in debt, and took on an additional $6,000 in debt this year. The $6000 number (the deficit) is not the large number in this equation.   The other piece of course is that this person consistently gets raises that meet or beat inflation.


Self-Controlled Energo Neuro Adaptive Regulation (SCENAR) device is one of the most effective medical devices developed by medical science in order to treated acute and chronic pain. This device is manufactured by Russians but today available at most of the healthcare centre. For more information please visit scenar.biz.


Generally just giving a Bank Account Number does not cause damage. It depends on what other information the user has and the country you are in.  Generally Bank take telephone instruction for certain [non-transactional] activities , and they would authenticate you by asking account number, address, date of birth and some additional info. In today's world this info can be pretty easily accessible, for example facebook or a details posted on Jobsites etc. It is best avoided to give the bank account details, unless you are sure of the person.  Typical other misuse is using your bank account to Launder black money. The typical modus is transfer funds to you and then ask you to transfer it elsewhere. At times its also a scam and you loose money as they trick you in sending money before you receive it.


I would suggest equity research, or as mentioned, consulting. You could go into IB. Your main hindrance is your age, how long has it been since you finished your PhD?  Equity Research: you will analyze companies, on an individual and micro basis, and provide macro point of views on the industry etc.   Sales/Trading: you will not get a job in trading, sales...maybe, if you get a bank large enough that has a healthcare/industrial chemicals sales positions, but this is a job that requires you to be able to sell your bank's point of view to large, very sophisticated clients, and provide them with better ideas than other sales guys, so that they will trade with your bank...can you learn finance and the industry fast enough? You would be better off working in a buy side shop (there are tons in boston)  IB: never met anyone that likes ib. depends on the bank but even mid market small banks it is 80hr weeks on avg. bulge bracket its 100. but you would likely start as an associate, (if at all) so that would go down really fast, (3-5 yrs to vp)  If you went to a top tier school, find alum from your school that work at banks and talk to them first, a 30 min conversation with anyone is incredibly useful. Just ask them how to get in. Also make sure you know all the capital markets firms in your area, know what all the fields are from a basic level (read the shit on wallstreetoasis etc) so that you dont waste time when talking to people.   You will likely need a CFA level 1 to get any traction, unless you can find some people that are willing to pull for you, which you will find is actually more simple than it seems - people love helping their alma matter, and every firm is always looking for smart people. anyways, sign up for the december 2012 cfa exam, and download/buy the schweser notes (don't read the actual books) this will be a great refresher about finance and economics even if you don't end up switching careers.  actual answers to your questions 1) yes 2) start as an associate in ib, spend 3 years doing bs, and workin average 90hrs a week, either quit of become vp and start selling work vs doing it 3) ib: immediate sales/trading: immediate, buy side: varies on the firm, size, performance, could be immediate, could be the year after, or you could get fired after 3 months because your phd isnt as useful as they thought it was. 4) mentioned above...a few years, its managable, suck it up 5) no sorry   goodluck


Yes though I'd likely put a caveat on that. If you take short-term investments and extrapolate the results to get an annual result this can be misleading. For example, if a stock goes up 10% in a month, assuming this will continue for the next 11 months may not be a great idea. Thus, beware of how much data do you have in making these calculations. When looking at long-term investments, the compound annual growth rate can be quite useful for comparison.


> The European economy was not utterly doomed before the Euro, therefore the fall of the Euro does not doom their economy.  I'm not sure how that's related at all.  Just because at some random point in time, the European economy was doing OK, doesn't mean that it will definitely be ok again in the future after a jarring multi-national currency shift.  There are tons of other factors in play.  First of all, who's going to accept drachma again?  What is it worth?  What about pesata and lira?  These currencies haven't been used in over a decade.  Who is going to value them?  Who is going to accept them?  What happens when the Greeks default?  When their pension checks start bouncing?  This is what Germany is fearing.  Who is going to buy their products when there is a major currency crisis going on?


How is it a write off? I write off my mortgage interest, it reduces my taxable income, but has no impact on my EBIT.  If I paid workers more, my EBIT would go down and, due to this, my taxable income would go down.  One is independent of my earnings, the other is a function of it.  The former is a write off, the latter isn't, right?


"This seems like a risky setup.  All it takes is one missed or delayed transfer for you to overdraw your ""savings"".  There is a benefit to keeping your regular expenses and savings separate, and I can see some benefits in having multiple checking accounts depending on how you organize your finances, but I don't see a benefit to having a paycheck go to one account and all regular spending (and ""savings"") come from another.  It requires some regular maintenance to transfer money over to use for regular spending.  I suppose if you have a checking account that earns interest, but requires direct deposits, and a savings account that earns slightly higher interest you could squeeze out a bit, but it's probably not worth the effort these days unless you have a LOT of money going in and out. Also, it should not be easy to tap into savings, but your day-to-day spending should be very accessible.  All those factors suggest (to me) that your paycheck should go into your regular spending account, and keep your savings separate."


Cause the ads are so fucking annoying. They advertise stuff I don’t care about way too often and it’s the same ad over and over again. Every time I listen to sound cloud in the car and there is an ad I turn the volume all the way down.


">Insurance: Uber/Lyft only insure their drivers while they are loaded. Meaning any other time they are driving around, even if they are driving to a call, they aren't insured. If they get in a wreck, their own car insurance won't cover it because they don't have taxi insurance which is a shit load more expensive than regular car insurance.  That's not a taxi regulation, that's just a driving regulation: all vehicles must be insured. Are you saying that Uber/Lyft aren't even following the laws of the road?  >Red-lining: Red-lining is where taxi companies will not server certain neighborhoods, meaning they will neither pick up nor drop off in the area.  Taxi regulations actually allow red-lining by restricting service areas: ""sorry, I don't go to x town - I'm only licensed for y town."" Even with the regulations, taxis do it anyway. That's why they ask for your destination before they give you an ETA on pickup   >Discrimination: All classes are protected under taxi regulations with serious repercussions for discrimination. This also includes people with disabilities, like the blind and those in wheel chairs.  That's just a part of the general law: industry regulations are redundant there.  >Rates: Taxi rates are typically approved by the city so that companies can't ~~constantly change them~~ compete with each other and drive the prices down  Rate-setting isn't a good thing.  >They need to obey the same laws that taxi companies are  Yep. The taxi regulations should largely be repealed: they've outlived their usefulness"


The only problem I have with Toyota is their design. Why should I buy a recent Corolla when a Civic is so much more technologically advanced? It looks like Toyota is changing their design language with the Camry though. Fingers crossed that they keep it up.


"NO, IT ISN'T.   You would give my economist friend an aneurysm with this article.   If you remove yourself from the labor market why should you be counted as unemployed? That's like calculating the odds of the lottery by including those who stopped buying tickets because they lose too much. It's nonsense!   It may be unfortunate that you've become discouraged and given up but by bowing out you are no longer technically ""unemployed"" by the official numbers."


If this happened, first you would be breaking the law for driving without insurance. Second, my uninsured motorists insurance would cover it.   Third, your personal net worth is not zero. You are the owner of all those corporations which happen to own those assets. I could sue you and you would have to liquidate your stakes in those corporations. Your example is just saying someone doesn't have any assets if all their cash is tied up in stocks (equity ownership of corporations). If you're argument held true in court, no one could sue anyone successfully, because everyone would just put all their money in equities before a lawsuit.


Japan currently has an economy roughly twice the size of Canada's. I'm not sure how fast Japan is growing but I think New York state might pass Canada's GDP in the next few years so i don't see Canada getting to Japan's level anytime soon.


"I think he is trying to grasp at a marketable slogan here to see what would grab a lot of attentio to allow them to make a lot of money at his company.  It sounds like ""4 hour workweek"" kind of thing. everyone knows its bs, there is no way you can work for 4 hours and make a lot of money in a week, buts its this kind of fantasy that buyers are willing to pay money for. not different from other ideas that worked in the market"


If you don't have other installment loans on your credit report, adding this one could help your credit. That could potentially help you get a better interest rate when you apply for a mortgage. There are positive and negative factors. Positive: Negative:


"Compound Stock Earnings, CSE principals Joseph Hooper and Aaron Zalewski are nationally syndicated radio talk shows hosts (listen to archives), investors, financial educators and authors of the all time best selling book on its topic, ""Covered Calls and LEAPS: A Wealth Option""."


Genius answer: Don't spend more than you make. Pay off your outstanding debts. Put plenty away towards savings so that you don't need to rely on credit more than necessary. Guaranteed to work every time.  Answer more tailored to your question: What you're asking for is not realistic, practical, logical, or reasonable. You're asking banks to take a risk on you, knowing based on your credit history that you're bad at managing debt and funds, solely based on how much cash you happen to have on hand at the moment you ask for credit or a loan or based on your salary which isn't guaranteed (except in cases like professional athletes where long-term contracts are in play).  You can qualify for lower rates for mortgages with a larger down-payment, but you're still going to get higher rate offers than someone with good credit.  If you plan on having enough cash around that you think banks would consider making you credit worthy, why bother using credit at all and not just pay for things with cash?  The reason banks offer credit or low interest on loans is because people have proven themselves to be trustworthy of repaying that debt. Based on the information you have provided, the bank wouldn't consider you trustworthy yet. Even if you have $100,000 in cash, they don't know that you're not just going to spend it tomorrow and not have the ability to repay a long-term loan. You could use that $100,000 to buy something and then use that as collateral, but the banks will still consider you a default risk until you've established a credit history to prove them otherwise.


I tend to disagree. I think Amazon will find that as soon as it tries to raise prices to make a profit that people will type 'walmart' instead of 'amazon'. See how easy that was?  Services are a good business too but the competition there is also vicious.  Further, the piper has to be paid eventually. Sure Amazon has great cash flow now but the assets they are acquiring are going to depreciate and need constant maintenance/replacement. They're building an extremely capital intensive business and all that profit-free growth is going to look more and more expensive as time goes by, IMO.  People can argue all day...it's kinda pointless. You've probably made a lot in Amazon, I've made a lot in Apple. i prefer Apple because it's also huge AND turns a ridiculous profit. If I have to pick a company I'll pick the undervalued one with huge profits AND huge cash flow. That's a doubleplus good.