Typically, preferred shares come with one or both different benefits - a disproportionate share of votes, say 10 votes per share vs the normal 1, or a preferred dividend.  The vote preference is great for the owner(s) looking to go public, but not lose control of the company. Say, I am a Walton (of Walmart fame) and when I went public, I sold 80% of the (1000 share total) company. But, in creating the share structure, 20% of shares were assigned 10 votes each. 800 shares now trade with 800 votes, 200 shares have 10 votes each or 2000 votes. So, there are still the 1000 shares but 2800 votes. The 20% of shares now have 2000/2800 or 71% of the total votes. So, my shares are just less than half ownership, but over 78% of votes.  Preferred dividend is as simple as that, buy Stock A for ownership, or (same company) Stock A preferred shares which have ownership and $1/yr dividend.  Edited to show a bit more math. I use a simple example to call out a total 1000 shares. The percentages would be the same for a million or billion shares if 20% were a 10 vote preferred.


Hmm, but pretty much all the smart money was on the stock not doing so hot in the first place. Leading up to the IPO there seemed to be more evidence just browsing sites like Fortune, Forbes, Reuters and the like against buying FB than there was to buy it.  A lot of people probably just got suckered into the hype.


What is the third eye this is the eye between our eyes or ajna chakra it has the possibility to see potential, to see what might be everyone has the ability access it. Your third eye chakra is a sense, you can start to develop it more than just being something intuitive. This 3rd eye chakra is quite powerful to see beyond the physical world, there are medications to manually activate them and some advanced meditations testify that they actually feel it sometimes.


This is one of the biggest, most complex financial, political, and legal dramas of our time. Gretchen Morgenson has done an incredible job covering this story over the years, and I highly recommend seeking out her prior coverage.    Edit: for author's name


While I agree with keshlam@ that the gym had no reason (or right) to ask for your SSN, giving false SSN to obtain credit or services (including gym membership) may be considered a crime. While courts disagree on whether you can be charged with identity theft in this scenario, you may very well be charged with fraud, and if State lines are crossed (which in case of store cards is likely the case) - it would be a Federal felony charge. Other than criminal persecution, obviously not paying your debt will affect your credit report. Since you provided false identity information, the negative report may not be matched to you right away, but it may eventually. In the case the lender discovers later that you materially misrepresented information on your mortgage application - they may call on your loan and either demand repayment in full at once or foreclose on you. Also, material misrepresentation of facts on loan application is also a criminal fraud. Again, if State lines are crossed (which in most cases, with mortgages they are), it becomes a Federal wire fraud case. On mortgage application you're required to disclose your debts, and that includes lines of credits (store cards and credit cards are the same thing) and unpaid debts (like your gym membership, if its in collection).


"The answer depends on this: If you had to hire someone to do what you are doing in the S-corp, what would you pay them?  If you are doing semi-unskilled work part-time, then $20k might be reasonable.  If you are a professional working full time, it's too low.  Don't forget that, in addition to ""billable"" work, you are also doing office tasks, such as invoicing and bookkeeping, that the IRS will also want to see you getting paid for. There was an important court ruling on this subject recently: Watson v. Commissioner.  Watson owned an S-Corp where he was the sole employee.  The S-Corp itself was a 25% owner in a very successful accounting firm that Watson worked through.  All of the revenue that Watson generated at the accounting firm was paid to the S-Corp, which then paid Watson through salary and distributions.  Watson was paying himself $24k a year in salary and taking over $175k a year in distributions.  For comparison, even first-year accountants at the firm were making more than $24k a year in salary.  The IRS determined that this salary amount was too low.  To determine an appropriate amount for Watson's salary, the IRS did a study of the salaries of peers in firms of the same size as the firm Watson was working with, taking into account that owners of firms earn a higher salary than non-owners.  The number that the IRS arrived at was $93k.  Watson was allowed to take the rest ($80k+ each year) as distributions. Again, this number was based on a study of the salaries of peers.  It was far short of the $200k+ that the S-Corp was pulling in from the accounting firm.  Clearly, Watson was paying himself far too low of a salary.  But even at this extreme example, where Watson's S-Corp was directly getting all of its revenue from one accounting firm in which Watson was an owner, the IRS still did not conclude that all of the revenue should have been salary and subject to payroll taxes. You should ask an accountant or attorney for advice.  They can help you determine an appropriate amount for your salary.  Don't be afraid of an audit, but make sure that you can defend your choices if you do get audited. If your choices are based on professional advice, that will help your case.  See these articles for more information:"


You can invest in a couple of Sharia-conform ETFs which are available in Germany and issued by Deutsche Bank (and other financial institutions).  For instance, have a look at these ETFs: DB Sharia ETFs In addition, Kuveyt Turk Bank aims to become Germany's first Islamic bank offering Sharia conform investments (Reuters).


"Well depends but ""on average"" the stock market has historically returned somewhere around 10% per year.  Note, this can vary wildly from year to year see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500#Market_statistics So it would be roughly 2.8 years to get your 30% if you happen to get the average market return for those 3 years, but the chances of that happening exactly are slim to none.  You could end up with +50% or -30% over that ~3 year period of time - so the calculation doesn't do you that much good for that short period of time, but if you are talking a span of 30 years then you could plan using that as a very rough ballpark. Good rule of thumb is you shouldn't put any money in the stock market you think you will need anytime in the next 5 years. Formula to figure out total gain would be  Principal x (1+ rate of return) ^ years"


"That's actually a really cool feature, **but**...  TFA doesn't say a single word about loans.  I *believe* you, it's just not mentioned.  I don't get all the hate I'm seeing over not divining the ""obvious"" value of investing in something that (when used as intended) I can't have until I die.  **Thank you** for giving me one possible explanation of how to make this work, but everyone else needs to chill.  ""If a 45-year-old, non-smoking man were to contribute $2.5 million to an IDF for four years, the investment would be worth $113 million within 40 years"" ... ""Beneficiaries get their money when the insured person dies. For products structured correctly, there aren’t any levies on death benefits.""  Is it *really* so absurd that I failed to see how that applies to literally 99.*99*% of the population?"


I am just a C student with no hope for grad school, so you are going to have to walk me through this... The ECB (until recently), Japan, and the Swiss have been running QE programs equal to that of the Fed's in 2009 for the last couple of years.  That's an extraordinary amount of money being created... what's more, is that the Swiss are even buying shitloads of American equities with it.    Perhaps my understanding of M2 is flawed, but how would the Swiss national bank buying $63B in equities change M2?  It's not like the fed is printing the money specifically for the transaction.  The amount of QE being pumped into a healthy economy over the last couple years should be concerning, if only because it's unprecedented, especially since some of it is being directly invested into equities.  I don't think there is a viable argument that can truthfully say that it isn't a pretty large variable in the market today.... but I could be wrong.  Also, I've read enough, and heard enough, on how the inflation rate is measured to cultivate a healthy skepticism for the entire metric. The way they choose baskets, while obviously the best possible, is not something that lends itself to precision.    Please be kind to my grammar.


"> It has been done and tried in socialist countries 20 years ago like Venezuela  The ""Venezuela disproves socialism"" claim is fiction.  [Their current crisis is mainly due to Hugo Chávez's mismanagement of the country's economy, strict exchange controls, and over-reliance on their petroleum industry](http://nacla.org/news/2017/04/28/explaining-venezuelan-crisis)."


"The short answer is that the IRS knows this is an issue, so they are prepared to deal with the ""discrepancies.""  The filer does not need to something special to call it to their attention.  Keep good records and consistently report according to your accounting processes.   Exactly how the IRS resolves / flags this, I don't know.  Maybe someone else can answer, but you can imagine that if they track you for multiple years they should have some idea of how many dollars are rolling over and whether you might have ""forgotten"" to report something from a few years ago that happened at a year-end break."


Attending trade shows means putting out a good amount of money in getting that customized trade show display. Seasoned exhibitors know what to display to buy and who to buy it from. For first time or not so experienced buyers, consider gathering ideas from this great trade show tips. A good resource provided by Xtreme Exhibits, a St. Louis trade show displays and exhibit solutions provider.


> The Facebook IPO wasn't a debacle.   It really depends on how you see the markets.  If they're just a way for companies to rip off gullible investors, then sure, it wasn't a debacle.  But everyone except FB lost out of this one, and it wasn't just that the price went down - it was also that NASDAQ's systems failed badly, causing significant additional losses and impending lawsuits.  I don't think NASDAQ could be happy about these results.  I'm really doubtful that early investors are happy about losing a chunk of value overnight.  I doubt other companies who were trying to go public in this calendar year are overjoyed by this...  ...and frankly, I doubt that FB, overall, is happy about this result.  Lots of people there have stock options, options that they can't yet execute.  Lots more people there have options but decided to wait.  Some people who sold a lot of their stock are personally happy - but is this good for Facebook as a company?  I don't think so.  After having an almost exclusively winning profile, they become a public company, and stumble really badly right out of the gate... it'll take years to erase the bad perception created by this.  So unless you're one of a tiny number of FB insiders, this _was_ a debacle.


Quant has been an interesting part of finance, but I always thought they missed something really important.   The standard methods of statistical analysis can’t explain what’s going on with economy and firms. Otherwise, quant hedge funds would have been making money all the time.   The conventional quants find patterns in data, test them then go live. These models work until some fundamental (or not so fundamental) shifts in the market. Then they find themselves back in the drawing board looking for their next model. This kind of analysis seems like a lot of grind for fairly  unpredictable returns.   There are more and more companies that don’t lend themselves well to fundamental analysis as we know it. Financial data and some poor flawed human analysts insights alone can no longer explain much.   This is a unique set of challenges that Data Science, more specifically AI could solve. The speed at which AI can learn and process information is just mind boggling. AI can learn the entire financial history of decision making in minutes. It can recognize patterns, make sophisticated analysis and constantly update its probability tables as the new information comes in. This is something no human can compete with.    Imagine a quantitative engine that adapts as the economy changes. It could draw heaps of unstructured data about a company, learn from it in real time, make course corrections and spit out its recommendations.   To the degree that human decision making is involved in the strategic decision making of companies, we will need the depth of context that can be provided by humans, but I see the field moving away from excel spreadsheets with fairly poor predicting capacity to AI models with strong predictive capacity.


> Eating right, exercise, moderate drinking, getting vaccines, and not smoking are all choices that make a huge impact.  Of course but my point is that poor people are forced into a life that either doesn't communicate the importance of these things or makes them harder to follow.


"It's a right of passage buddy; push through this crap and you'll show that you're worth your space. Next stop is modelling but you gotta either go through this crap till youre ""proven worthy"" or pick it up yourself.   Don't mean to dishearten but given that you're at a boutique, you're probably expected to do your own learnig rather than expect some sort of tailored training.  Chin up buddy we've all been there"


In the prior PMI discussions here, it's been stated that the bank is not obligated to remove PMI until the mortgage's natural amortization puts the debt at 78% LTV. So, paying in advance like this will not automatically remove the PMI.  Nor will a lump sum payment be certain to move the next payment ahead a year. If it's entered as a principal prepayment, the next month's payment is still due. In the world of coupon books, if you sent in a year's payments, you'd not benefit from the interest saved, in one year you'd owe what the amortization table tells you.  There's no free lunch when it comes to mortgages or finance in general. This is why we usually caution that one should not be cash poor the day after buying a house. Best to save 30%, put down 20%, and have a cushion after the closing.


This stuff doesn't even matter in this country. They will get some slap on the wrist fine that equates to 3% of the money made by their illicit activities, and their business won't even suffer. I have seen it too many time to even care anymore.


It's not that I won't debate with people with opposing viewpoints.  I simply do not have the time, no matter my inclinations, to take on countless numbers of logical fallacies from people who are the ones who made them in the first place.  Do you spend your days in 9/11-truther forums?  Why not?  If you're right, why not debate them?  Same thing.


"Is there a word for that $20k owed? Trade Receivables, Accounts Receivables, or just Receivables Is there a different word for that $30k ""hypothetical"" total? Current Assets (Includes Inventory and other short term assets)"


"The reason Comcast (I'll just say ""Comcast"" when I mean ""TV providers like Comcast, DISH, Cox, etc."") bundle channels is because they get to sell advertising on those channels.  Each channel (or group of channels, like Disney) _charges_ Comcast for the privelege of broadcasting it.  That is, ABC and HBO and so forth ask Comcast for a certain $$ per year/month/fortnight, etc.    Comcast then takes really popular channels -- like HBO, and ""bundles"" them up with shitty channels, like VH1 and the Oxygen Network.  Comcast then sells advertising based on _those bundles_.  So if you want to advertise to middle-aged white women in the mid-morning (Oxygen), you have to also pay for advertising on HBO at the same time, which drives up the price Comcast can ask.  The popular channels are, essentially, loss leaders.    In turn, however, Oxygen can say, ""Hey, you're making a crapton of money advertising on our channel, Comcast.  Pay us more or we pull the channel!""   This cycle continues and is part of the reason cable TV prices keep going up.  (Some other reasons are retardedly over-the-top greed)  For your model to work, a single subscription fee would have to replace the income earned from ads _and_ maintain the same price paid to each network.  Since Comcast can no longer force people to pay for Oxygen when all they want is HBO, the prices for the non-popular channels skyrocket as people stop paying for them.   The shitty networks aren't willing to take the risk of cutting their revenue streams off and will most certainly write into their agreements with Comcast, ""And no streaming!""   The super-popular networks don't need the extra income and feel like streaming would diminish their brand, so they add in similar ""no streaming!"" clauses."


"if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck  This cliche is appropriate for your situation. Every aspect of this endeavor says ""scam."" It's a classic pyramid scheme with a product for sale that you don't even believe in. Too bad it's a friend that brought it to you."


Those guys are mostly millionaire lawyers who get the medallions one way or another (not necessarily at full value) and rent them to poor taxi owners operators for $25k per month. (These guys say fuck you and pay me each month) Don't feel sorry for them. Feel happy for the taxi guys making $50k per year paying g $250k to the mad Alison holder) who can now operate without that yolk around their neck. And feel good about some greedy investor losing the making of money from corrupt business models created by incestuous government bureaucrats across North America.


> 'concentrating wealth' = rising houseprices which are in the hands of several house owners  > Why do house prices rise?  > Land has a limited supply while demand could be infinite  > If the demand would drop, house prices would drop.  > Mass-aging is happening  > Wow I could be able to afford a house after the baby-boomers are gone thanks to a population drop  > Socialists start to import refugees en masse. Thus increasing the population again  > fuck i'll never be able to buy house  > mfw socialists fucked things over for the  'common folk'


I understand how it works very well - as Europes financial centre. I understand that without UKs EU membership those days are gone. I understand that rents in Frankfurt are skyrocketing because banks are fleeing a sinking ship. Without financial passporting rights to the worlds second largest economy London as a financial centre is finished. New York does well because it's part of Americas economy, Hong Kong does well because it's part of China's economy.


First, the single worst reason to do anything is because most people are doing it. The second worst thing is to take tax advice from a non-tax pro. (Ironic, I understand, but read on) Run through your 2015 tax return. Do you itemize already? If not, there's a reason, the standard deduction for a couple is $12,600 in 2016, so a renter isn't likely to have enough deductions to itemize, even with a high state tax.  For 2016, project your total interest from the mortgage, and the year's property tax, then add your state income tax, and last, any charitable donations. This total comprises the bulk of what people take on their Schedule A. Now, since your current withholding assumes the standard $12,600, subtract this number, and you're left with the amount your taxable income will be reduced for the fact that you have the house. Last, divide this number by $4000. The result is how many more withholding allowances you can claim. One personal exemption (a withholding allowance) is exactly $4050 this year.  For what its worth, median home price for early 2016 was $190K. After 20% down, a $152K mortgage would cost about $6000 in interest the first year, and maybe $3000 in property tax. The average couple, making $60,000 or so won't have a state bill much over $3000, so shy of some nice donations, it's easy to have a house, yet still not itemize.  Of course, if you have higher income and a more expensive home, the numbers will be different.  The best you can do is to get tax software or use an online service and estimate the 2016 return based on your numbers. If you wish to post numbers via an edit to your question, I'm happy to update my answer a bit to your situation.  Note - the form you'll use to adjust withholdings, the W4, offers a worksheet to perform the calculation.  It asks in line 1 for your total itemized deductions, then subtract the standard deduction, then divide by $4050. Pretty much what I suggested above.


As someone who was just recently a salesman at Honda, I'd recommend buying a Honda instead :). If you really prefer your Toyota, I always found quote-aggregation services (Truecar, I'm blanking on others) very competitive in their pricing. Alternatively, you could email several dealerships requesting a final sale price inclusive of taxes and tags with the make, model, and accessories you'd wish to purchase, and buy the vehicle from them if your local dealership won't match that price. Please keep in mind this is only persuasive to your local dealership if said competitors are in the same market area (nobody will care if you have a quote from out-of-state).  As many other commenters noted, you should arrange your own financing. A staple of the sales process is switching a customer to in-house financing, but this occurs when the dealership offers you better terms than you are getting on your own. So allow them the chance to earn the financing, but don't feel obligated to take it if it doesn't make sense fiscally.


"The money gets sent to the IRS through the EFTPS system. Depending on the amounts, the employers are required to deposit it on a monthly/semi-weekly basis, so they don't get to keep the tax money for long. Failure to deposit the payroll taxes on time is one of the most heavily penalized IRS offenses. This area of violations is called ""trust fund violations"". It is one of the very few areas in which employees may be liable for corporate misdoings (i.e.: an HR or accounting manager responsible for payroll may be personally liable for trust fund violations)."


You really have asked two different questions here: I'm interested in putting away some money for my family Then I urge you to read up on investing. Improving your knowledge in investing is an investment that will very likely pay off in the long-term - this can't be answered here in full length, pointers to where to start are asset allocation and low-cost index funds. Read serious books, read stackexchange posts, and try avoid the Wall Street marketing machine. Also, before considering any long term investments, build an emergency fund (e.g. 6 months worth of your expenses) in case you need some liquid money (loss of job etc.), and also helps you sleep better at night. What things are important to consider before making this kind of investment? Mainly the risk (other answers already elaborate on the details).  Investing in a single stock is quite risky, even more so when your income also depends on that company. Framed another way: which percentage of your portfolio should you put into a single stock? (which has been answered in this post). If after considering all things you think it's a good deal, take the offer, but don't put a too great percentage of you overall savings into it, limit it to say 10% (maybe even less).


"> No, I really do. Things break at least once a month, and never get fixed.  Hmmm, maybe you're just the ""tenant from hell"" to your landlord.  :)  I'm sorry you're having problems.  But it's possible your landlord is also having problems - have you tried talking about the problems instead of just calling him names?"


"In general, when companies are regarded as ""hot"" growth stocks, they are expected to keep up an accelerated level of growth for a good long time. That accelerated growth justifies a high PE relative to a slow-growth stock. When companies that are supposed to grow miss expectations or (worse) lose money, the markets punish the stock severely... Particularly if the company doesn't make analysts aware of problems early on. Netflix is a great example of a company bungling a few different business problems, creating a much bigger one in the process. A poorly conceived rate hike killed the reliable cash flow of the company, and that crazy Quixter thing just confused everyone. Now nobody trusts the management. BlackBerry is another example of a high performing company that just screwed up, damaging shareholders in the process. We're living in a very challenging era today, but growth stocks are always risky by nature -- growing a company rapidly is very difficult."


"Do I have to explain the source of all income on my taxes? ""Yes, you do"", say the ghosts of Ermenegildo and Mary Cesarini. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/general/what-to-know-about-taxes-on-found-property/L9BfdKz7N The Cesarinis argued to the IRS that the money wasn’t income, and so it should not be taxed as such. The IRS wasn’t swayed by the couple’s argument. The case went to federal court, and the IRS won. “Found” property and money has been considered taxable income ever since. The IRS plainly states that taxpayers must report “all income from any source,"" even income earned in another country, unless it is explicitly exempt under the U.S. Tax Code. This covers a wide range of miscellaneous income, including gambling winnings. According to the Cesarini decision, money you find isn’t explicitly exempt. The tax impact won’t be significant if you find an item of property with a fair market value of only $500 and are in the 25% tax bracket. You’ll owe the IRS $125 ($500 x .25 = $125). However, if you are a finder and keeper of $10,000, your tax burden will be $2,500 ($10,000 x .25 = $2,500)."


Business Apprentice is internship. That is not what is applicable for you. You're a visiting professor/researcher, which falls under Article 22, so you don't get the standard deduction.


That you're incapable of looking at publically available information on a stock ticker in the business subreddit is kinda on you.   I didn't know anytime I stated a known fact I had to google it for everyone too.  And what did the guy who stated the incorrect info cite?  Get on him.   But here you go!  http://www.nasdaq.com/earnings/report/amzn  http://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/revenue/amazon-inc-revenue-net-income-history  https://www.streetinsider.com/ec_earnings.php?q=amzn


"It's legalized slavery.  They keep the majority of the workers poor, but provide them with healthcare to keep them working.   Oh sure, ""we're in the middle class"" they'll all say. Because they can afford a house, and a car, they think they're ok. What happens when they lose their job?"


Searching for Banks or Credit Unions based on their high interest accounts is likely to be a giant waste of your time. The highest you might find is 1.5% not clearing inflation. For anything less than 100k youre better off putting it in a money market fund until you know what you want to do with it, which you can find anywhere.


They run their nukes around, mostly unprotected, in white vanes.  They wouldn't be that hard to take.  but generally, I don't have a problem with droning the shit out of their nuke facilities/transport, turning half the country into a zone contaminated by a dirty bomb.


The conspiracy theorist in me says this is a huge bet on a future of high crime and civil unrest in the US. Otherwise, why would owning most of the American consumer gun industry be such an attractive investment, unless you're banking on a high demand for guns?  EDIT: Either that, or they're possibly betting on the US invading yet another country, depending on how heavily these companies are involved in military contracting. If I want to spin conspiracy theories, anyway. Probably they're just undervalued companies, like any others. But it's awfully intriguing...


They get a piece of existing and potential market for a relatively small cost. Even large players can't ignore new market entrants,as some of them tend to grow at a fascinating rate. If you buy a company withhuge potential to grow, you save yourself in the process and also make money long term.


"If you're looking for ways to turn $1000 into more, don't just think of ways it can make money -- also consider whether there are any ways you can use it to save money. Among the advantages of this approach is that you're not taxed for reducing your expenditures. The good news is that there are a lot more ways to save a little bit of money on a $1000 budget than there are to make a little money on that budget. The bad news is that most of them will require some additional input: labor. Have you taken an economics course? Capital + Labor => output.  I don't know what you spend your money on exactly, but some thoughts: You may find more opportunities for things like this as you move out from college and into your own apartment (/house) and the university isn't taking care of as many of your needs. Just don't confuse yourself about where the line is between actually saving money that you were going to spend anyway, and just consuming more. Consumption is fine in and of itself (and ultimately it's what you have money for) but doesn't make you financially better off. Also, when considering what to do with the money, don't just think ""I can spend $2000 on this bike and it will ultimately save me gas money"" unless you also know how to think ""I could spend $200 on a slightly lesser bike and still save all the gas money, or maybe even spend $20 on a yard sale bike."". Consider borrowing kitchen equipment from the parents, instead of buying new stuff, or buy it at a yard sale. Also, make sure you actually will use the things you buy."


"Careful with the ""stock stolen from your account"" thing.  SIPC protects investors against broker/dealer insolvency.  Don't think they provide protection against theft."


"I think the part of your question about not wanting to ""mess up more"" is the most important element. You say you know someone with good credit who is willing to co-sign for you, but let's be honest -- your credit isn't bad for no reason.  Your credit's bad because you have a history of not paying on your obligations. Putting someone else's credit at risk, even though they may be willing to try and help, could be doing exactly what you said you're trying to avoid -- messing up more.  This person's heart is in the right place, but you really have to ask yourself if you should put them in jeopardy by agreeing to guarantee your debts. So the vehicle you bought is older and has a lot of miles -- you knew that when you bought it.  So you're paying a high interest rate because of your bad credit history -- you knew that when you bought it.  Why you think the vehicle's only going to last another year is what confuses me.  There are many vehicles out there with much higher mileage that are still on the road, and with proper preventative maintenance there's no reason your truck can't do the same. The fact is, you just don't like what you're paying or what you're driving (even though you were good with both when someone was willing to extend you credit), so now you see this other person's willingness to co-sign for you as your ticket out of a situation you no longer want to be in. My suggestion is that you stay with the loan you have, take care of the vehicle to make it last, and prove that you can pay your obligations.  Hopping from loan to loan isn't going to do your credit any favors.  One of the big factors for your credit score is the average age of accounts.  Going and signing a new loan now will only drag that number down and hurt your score, not help it.  And there's no guarantee the next car you buy with your friend's help is going to last the length of that loan either. I would be careful about this ""grass is greener on the other side"" attitude and just bear through your situation, if only to prove to yourself that you can do it.   There's nothing saying your friend won't still be willing to co-sign for you later on down the line of something does happen to the truck, but you can show them that you're trying to be responsible in the meantime by following through on what you already agreed to."


Assuming we follow the tax plan laid out by the Trump Administration, I can see, as the consequence of this tax-plan, three options.   1. Revitalize US economy.   2. Status Quo. It'll eventually just even out and go back to the way it was.   3. US declares bankruptcy.   Is this what most educated people see?


Agreed, unfortunately what is right seldom matters when it comes to these kinds of decisions. If you don't have any leverage then you won't matter. While it may suck, it is how the world works so you'd better try finding some leverage.


"Just to get the ball rolling, here's an answer: it won't affect you in the slightest. The pound happened to be tumbling anyway.  (If you read ""in the papers"" that Brexit is ""making the pound fall"", that's as valuable as anything else you've ever read in the papers.) Currencies go up and down drastically all the time, and there's nothing you can do about it. We by fluke once bought a house in Australia when that currency was very low; over the next couple years the currency basically doubled (I mean per the USD) and we happened to sell it; we made a 1/2 million measured in USD. Just a fluke. I've had the opposite happen on other occasions over the decades. But... Currency changes mean absolutely nothing if you're in that country. The example from (2) was only relevant because we happened to be moving in and out of Aus. My various Australian friends didn't even notice that their dollar went from .5 to 1 in terms of USD (how could it matter to them?) All sorts of things drastically affect the general economy of a given country. (Indeed, note that a falling currency is often seen as a very good thing for a given nation's economy: conspiracy theorists in the states are forever complaining that ) Nobody has the slightest clue if ""Brexit"" will be good bad or indifferent for the UK. Anything could happen. It could be the beginning of an incredible period of growth for the UK (after all, why does Brussels not want your country to leave - goodwill?) and your house could triple in value in a year. Or, your house price could tumble to half in a year. Nobody has the slightest clue, whatsoever about the effects on the ""economy"" of a country going forward, of various inputs."


"Those are just a form of ""rent tax"" on real economy - that is, people that work in those non-productive sectors of economy are just using the fruits of labor of all the others.   But only the real economy actually matters - and having a few extra zeroes in the bank accounts of the rich don't really affect it as long as those money stay there.  Money that are not exchanged for real world goods and services don't really exist for the real economy."


I really have backed it up with facts and not really just something I think is true.   There has been more precipitation and more grain crops and generally more vegetation which in turn means more oxygen. That you can't disagree with. I say that is a good thing. The only reason early primates evolved was when CO2 levels and oxygen levels were doubled during the Eocene epoch. You may say humans evolving was a bad thing for the planet and that's something we can agree on.   Anyways we shouldn't tax CO2, but rather SO2 and other pollutants.   It's OK, I also disagree, vehemently, with your opinion.


If you use Google Shopping to promote your products, then you should seek out QliQ. They offer management services for your Shopping campaigns tailored to improve your brand’s online visibility. They will also enhance your product’s advertisements using unique keywords to attract more potential customers. Log on to https://www.qliq.co/ for more details about their services for Google Shopping.


"It is possible to pay down debt (including interest) without issuing new debt money to pay for it. I think this is the heart of your question. Let me present a highly contrived example in which society has four people and one bank. Here is a bank with $100 in initial deposits. Total money supply in this society is $100. (We assume there is no currency circulating, since you're interested in debt money.) This bank lends out $90 to Bob at 1 year maturity and 10% APR. Bob spends this $90 with Charlie to buy raw materials. Charlie deposits $90 in the bank. The money supply just grew from $100 to $190. Bob does something with the raw materials and adds some kind of value, eventually selling the finished goods for $110. In our little silly economy, the only people who have money are Adam and Charlie, so we must assume that between the two of them they buy $110 worth of goods from Bob. Let's say Adam buys $60 and Charlie buys $50 -- the actual amounts don't matter. Bob deposits this money at the bank. Still $190 of money supply. At the end of 1 year, Bob instructs the bank to transfer payment from his deposit account to his loan account. The bank wipes clean his debt and the money remaining in Bob's account represents his return. Who is this David guy? He's the owner of the bank. He grosses $9 in interest from the loan to Bob, and he pays $5 to Adam as interest on Adam's deposit. The remaining $4 is the profit to the bank's owner. Money supply decreased from $190 to $100 after Bob pays off his loan. I realized after writing this, the one thing I left out is, ""where does Adam get $100 to start with?"" Presumably Adam starts off with some kind of currency, either fiat money or commodity money. (IOW, debt money can't be created out of nothing, it has to be expanded on top of some kind of currency.)"


If you have a view on housing you can buy a real estate investment trust and use proceeds to pay rent. Downside is, depending on where you live, you'll have to pay tax on dividend income from REITs. So if you invest the same amount in a REIT as in a house you'll effectively loose some money due to the tax. You can also think of it this way: you wouldn't pay tax on the rent that you don't have to pay as a result of owning a house, but you pay tax on rent that other people pay you.


All of their product is least effort, with the sole possible exception of their burgers.  Their breakfast fare is strictly microwave, their chicken and fish are abominable, their fries have gone downhill, their coffee comes in a syrup bag (or used to) while McD's grinds their own beans.  It all reeks of bottom dollar.  Wendy's new burgers are indeed nice, but the old ones at least seemed to be honest burger meat, cut in squares and fried on site.  I'm unconvinced that the new ones aren't in the same vein as the 1/3 lb. pre-cooked dry gray nastyburgers that both Burger King and McDonalds (and Carl's Jr.) have been trying to foist off; they are preformed into pseudo-natural shapes, if you haven't noticed.  If so, they are definitely done better than the competition.


"Network Marketing (also called multi-level marketing) isn't necessarily a skill that you learn in a course. It's a type of business model that's used by companies like Avon, Southern Living, Mary Kay, etc. It's also used in many scams (called pyramid schemes, but the aforementioned companies are using the pyramid structure, too). A lot. See here for a high-level explanation (pay attention to the pyramid scheme bit): http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/network-marketing If you want to get into a Network Marketing venture, join a reputable company and start doing it. They will provide you with all of the training you need. Your ""manager"" will make money based on how well you do. If you can in turn recruit other individuals to start selling, then you make money off their sales, and you ""manager"" makes money off their sales. Hence the pyramid label.  Reputable companies charge very little to join, you set your own schedule, and don't have any hard quotas to live up to. Do your research! If they make you a promise that sounds too good to be true, it is."


"I think the key to this question is your last sentence, because it's applicable to everyone, high net-worth or not: How would one determine whether they are better off without insurance? In general, insurance is a net good when the coverage would prevent a 'catastrophic' event. If a catastrophic event doesn't happen, oh well, you wasted money on insurance. If it does happen, you just saved yourself from bankruptcy. These are two separate outcomes, so taking the 'average' cost of a catastrophic event (and weighing that against the more expensive insurance premiums) is not practical. This is a way of reducing risk, not of maximizing returns. Let the insurance company take the risk - they benefit from having a pool of people paying premiums, and you benefit because your own life has less financial risk. Now for something like cheap home electronics, insurance is a bad idea. This is because you now have a 'pool' of potential risks, and your own life experience could be close to the 'average' expected result. Meaning you'll pay more for insurance than you would just replacing broken things. This answer is another good resource on the topic. So to your question, at what point in terms of net-worth does someone's house become equivalent to you and your toaster? Remember that if you have home fire insurance, you are protecting the value of your house, because that loss would be catastrophic to you. But a high net-worth individual would also likely find the loss of their house catastrophic. Unless they are billionaires with multiple 10M+ mansions, then it is quite likely that regardless of wealth, a significant portion of their worth is tied up in their home. Even 10% of your net worth would be a substantial amount.  As an example, would someone worth $1M have only a 100k home? Would someone worth $10M have only a $1M Home? Depends on where they live, and how extravagantly. Similarly, if you were worth $10M, you might not need extra insurance on your Toyota Camry, but you might want it if you drive a $1M Ferrari! Not to mention that things like auto insurance may cover you for liability, which could extend beyond the value of your car, into medical and disability costs for anyone in an accident. In fact, being high net-worth may make you more vulnerable to lawsuits, making this insurance even more important. In addition, high net-worth individuals have insurance that you or I have no need of. Things like kidnapping insurance; business operation insurance, life insurance used to secure bank loans.  So yes, even high net-worth individuals may fear catastrophic events, and if they have so much money - why wouldn't they pay to reduce that risk? Insurance provides a service to them the same as to everyone else, it's just that the items they consider too 'cheap' too insure are more expensive than a toaster. Edit to counter concerns in some other answers, which say that insurance is ""always a bad idea"": Imagine you are in a kafka-esque episode of ""Let's Make a Deal"". Monty Hall shows you two parallel universes, each with 100 doors. You must choose your universe, then choose a door. The first universe is where you bought insurance, and behind every door is a penalty of $200. The second universe is where you didn't buy insurance, and behind 99 doors is nothing, with one random door containing a penalty of $10,000. On average, playing the game 99,999 times, you will come out ahead 2:1 by not buying insurance. But you play the game only maybe 3 times in your life. So which universe do you choose?  Now, you might say ""pfft - I can cover the cost of a 10k penalty if it happens"". But this is exactly the point - insurance (unless already required by law) is a net good when it covers catastrophic losses. If you are wealthy enough to cover a particular loss, you typically shouldn't buy that insurance. That's why no one should insure their toaster. This is not a question of ""average returns"", it is a question of ""risk reduction""."


"> The World Trade Organization is moving closer to eliminating country-of-origin labels and replacing them with “Made in the World” initiative labels because they say we need to “reduce public opposition to free trade” and “re-engineer global governance.”  I'm going to look for products with that ""Made on another World"" label."


I didn't mean to imply that bankruptcy is a magical process. I was using that to clarify my use of conservative vs. aggressive. To be fair, I guess it can vary depending on your perspective. If you're taking the perspective of the debt-laden company, then yes, erring on the side of a higher value could be defined as aggressive. If you're taking the perspective of someone looking to acquire business, I would say erring on the side of a higher value is conservative.   if the debt is trading at, say, $0.20 on the dollar, then yes, I can agree that the market value of the debt is likely more representative of the book value. I guess I wasn't thinking of that type of extreme example. A more common scenario I'd encounter would be a) the debt trading at maybe $0.95 on the dollar and b) taking the perspective of someone looking to invest in the equity, which is why I'd say that it's more conservative to use the higher value, which is the book value.  So I'm persuaded that using market value of the debt can make sense in some cases, but I would still argue that the book value might make more sense in other cases.


**Pyramid scheme**  A pyramid scheme is a business model that recruits members via a promise of payments or services for enrolling others into the scheme, rather than supplying investments or sale of products or services. As recruiting multiplies, recruiting becomes quickly impossible, and most members are unable to profit; as such, pyramid schemes are unsustainable and often illegal.  Pyramid schemes have existed for at least a century in different guises. Some multi-level marketing plans have been classified as pyramid schemes.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27


Not exactly the *best* reminder that PayPal is an arbitrary and capricious payment system with far too little oversight and far too much influence, but hey, I have room in my heart to hate Illinois Nazis and Peter Thiel on the same day.


"If you need to show that the sale/purchase was at FMV, then showing that you made a trade on a public exchange with an unrelated counterpart is enough to establish FMV. However, this is only one of the possible ""fair market value"" definitions. This is usually used to determine basis or value for tax purposes. For valuation purposes or general accounting, one specific trade is not enough to establish FMV, and much more research is required."


Typically, the discount is taxable at sale time But what about taxes?  When the company   buys the shares for you, you do not   owe any taxes. You are exercising your   rights under the ESPP. You have bought   some stock. So far so good. When you sell the stock, the discount   that you received when you bought the   stock is generally considered   additional compensation to you, so you   have to pay taxes on it as regular   income. Source: Turbotax.   Second source. Your pretax rate of return would be: 17% (100/85) In your scenario where the stock price is fixed at $100. Your tax rate would be your marginal rate.   If the stock stayed at 100, you would still be taxed as income on $15/share (the discount) and would receive no benefit for holding the stock one year. Assuming you are in the 25% tax bracket, your after tax rate of return would be 13% ((15*.75)+85)/85)


"> And wanting fully 10 % of all employees to resign every year? That sounds completely insane to me. Is that really normal? Am I not getting something?  I worked at a place like that.  The thinking there was that this gets rid of the poor performers.  Note the quote says ""turns over 10%"" not ""has 10% churn"".  A lot of these are the company firing people or encouraging them to quit.  My company did this with almost yearly company-wide layoffs.  Every group would have to cut at least one employee."


Couldn't remember my password but I know my ICQ number and I still use the same email address so I reset my password.  When making my new password it said it must be 6-8 characters.  That doesn't seem very secure.  I can't remember the last time I came across a big online service that limited password length that strictly.


One way you can accomplish this is on a cruise ship.  Most cruise ships have casinos, and most will allow you to sign out chips at the casino cage.  You can then exchange the chips for cash.   The chips that were signed for are resolved as room charges.  Those room charges can be charged to a CC.  Those signed for chips are rolled into the total room charges and are thus not treated as a cash advance.   The cost of the cruise not with standing, you could earn money in that form.  Step off the boat, deposit cash in the bank, and send a check to the CC company. All that being said, it is an cheap and safe way to get cash while you are traveling in that method.


I nowhere mentioned equal amount of assets.  The point of my argument was wealth disparity.  And, unless the rich pay more in taxes; that disparity will grow.  Increasing tax from 24.7% to 50% would still leave the wealthy with a mountain of wealth; but, will help contribute greater to the overall economy.    What do you think will need to happen in about a decade, when millions of American's are left permanently unemployed by automation?


> it's not really worth that much to make the switch as long as they keep getting promotions and discounts.  Uber loses ridiculous amounts of money every quarter so it's not a sustainable business model. I think Lyft is going to find itself in a more secure position down the line because it has focused on building a liked brand just as much as it has competing on price.


Following our post yesterday which read that Thailand keeps ranking in global real estate index, you may find the following post interesting;  Thai ombudsmen is drafting a carrot-and-stick law to protect Thai lands from illegal foreign nominee ownership, while developers and consultants suggest more legal transparency, a longer leasehold period and higher foreigner property taxes to prevent nominees.


that's really nice, we already know whose side you are on. do you honestly think you are going to change my opinion of this situation or somehow prove me wrong in a way in which I wont just jerk off and ignore it anyway?   Or are you the one masturbating over their supposed intelligence now?


If you are worried about elections think about writing some calls against your long positions to help hedge.   If you have MSFT (@ $51.38 right now) you could write a MSFT Call for lets say $55. You can bank $170 per 100 shares (let's say you write it at 1.70) (MSFT 01/20/2017 55.00 C 1.73 +0.01 Bid: 1.69 Ask: 1.77) If MSFT goes down a lot you will have lost $170 less per 100 shares than you would have because you wrote an option for $170.  You will in fact be break even if the stock falls to 49.68 on the Jan Strike Date. If MSFT goes up $3.50 you will have made $170 and still have your MSFT stock for a net gain of $520.  $170 in cash for the premium and your stock is now worth $350 more. If MSFT goes up $3.62 or more you will have made the max $530ish and have no MSFT left potentially losing additional profit if the stock goes up like gang busters.   So is it worth it for you to get $170 in cash now and risk the stock going up more than $5 between now and Jan.  That is the decision to make here.


No evidence of 'elite prep school' so far based on my google search. Princeton and Goldman Sachs take a ton of normal people (extremely hardworking and clever of course but it's not about coming from the right family). It's not Morgan Stanley


My recommendation is not to pursue anything. Set up a set of index funds that hits the balance of risk and reward you're comfortable with, and settle for market rate of return. Trying to beat the experts doesn't even work for the experts.


You don't say WHY she wants to give you money. Your paragraph appears to be the very definition of a scam. Run from her.


Their policy is only one parent (regardless of where the other parent works) may take the full 16 weeks. And they look it up to make sure the mother is working if the father takes full parental leave.   Same goes towards women, too. If the father works elsewhere, the mother can only take leave if the father doesn't regardless of the fathers work policy.   It's bullshit.


Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn.


"No, it won't work like that. Get rid of regulations and people sill start building shitty houses that will fall down.  Even better solution, havethe governmenr sieze all property, and now you don't buy a house, you merley ""rent"" it from the governement."


"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio?  In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as ""real return"" or ""inflation-managed"" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios.  PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits."


"As a self-employed Handyman I can tell you this.  Any work that is done, be it professional, part-time, hobby or whatever else, has to answer to two primary criteria.  As you asked, it has to be worthwhile in financial terms and more importantly in personal terms.  In the long term, charging low rates will demoralize her.  Not worth it. Someone once said; ""I have no quarrel with he who charges cheaply, because who better then he knows the value of his services""?  Obviously one has to remain reasonable.  Then there is an ambush factor in working for yourself.  I call it syphoning losses since they are extremely difficult to calculate as noted above here already.  In the first place they are extremely difficult to detect anyway.  Micro-management will not tell you the losses, you can only do it at the end of a period on a balance sheet.  Then you have to calculate a fair price in terms of lessons given and monies received. The trick is to gain a fair assessment of worth to her without her needing to go into the books, just as a simple gut feel.  She needs to really feel good about it to maintain motivation for the future.  Otherwise, I did it, it does not work. The other consideration is that when money changes hands it places a benchmark on the tuition and the relationship.  One.  It locks her into delivering professional work as she already is one.  Two.  The students will be locked into giving fair and excellent commitment in being taught. A simple calculation goes like this; Use the time span of a month as it is easier to break down available time per week.  Also remember that there will perforce be extra hours spent in consultation with parents,  this is a syphoning cost, it has be calculated. Difficult at the start, but keep track of it.  One other thing.  I do not give discounts of extend favours, but I keep my prices reasonable. [[I was told I am some 25% more expensive than the latest quotes, but I kept on getting work with a high execution to quotation rate.]]  Floating prices are  impossible to track, manage and justify,  people talk to each other, whether you like it or not.  Do proper, reasonable calculations and be up front to all about how you work.  In contract on paper.  It just may be necessary to scale prices from beginner to advanced classes. OK, $50 seems a fair price, I don't live in the States, but about three/four Big Mac's would compare about right.  You are NOT selling time, you ARE selling expertise. Decide how much she wants out of it per month. Forget retirement, you live now.  This income will also cover other ""invisible"" extraneous work. Determine how much time will be spent in giving lessons.  You can only charge for ""visible"" work done. Basic Hourly Rate = Monthly Income / Lesson Hours. Then there's a catch.  Research has shown that owners of one man and small businesses spend about 55% of their time in getting new business.  So,now. Charged Hourly Rate = Basic Hourly Rate DIVIDED by 45%. This could frighten you, but these are hard commercial facts.  Things could appear to be extremely expensive.  You will; however; have a solid base from which to decide as you go further.  The accounting is a good place to start, but she, you both rather, have to feel good about the rewards and the counter performances. Great success to you both!"


Don't forget that they also decided, rather than building new stores that fit their existing successful layout schemes they bought out a dying department store chain that was failing, in part, due to it's stores being in shitty locations.   It was like opening a store in the middle of a dead, empty mall and wondering why people weren't showing up.


There are few things going on here: My advice would be: with 75k income and a regular pay check there isn't a whole let you can do to adjust your tax burden. It's unlikely that any adviser will save enough money to warrant professional advice and the associated cost. Use off the shelf software for tax return and tax planning.


>The idea that extra bodies competing for jobs would drive down the price of labor also needs to be justified.  Basic supply and demand.  If supply(of labor) increases(ceteris paribus) then the price of labor falls.  In reality the supply of labor and the demand for labor are constantly changing(usually upwards).  So if the supply of labor increases faster than the demand for labor does then the price of labor falls.  If demand increases faster than supply then the price of labor goes up.


It's already happening. The effectiveness of ads is dwindling, even with laser-focused targeting of which users to harass. Ad blockers are commonplace and idiot-proof. The whole business will simply fade away. The web will find other ways to keep sites up.   There will be sites that leverage WebRTC to host themselves, sites that mine crypto or whatever, sites that demand payment for entry, sites that privilege paid users, etc., etc., etc. P2P is the obstacle that people will notice the least. There's no overhead for conversion or profit motive. It simply makes hosting cheaper.   Nothing new is required.


It's not that uncommon but it doesn't usually come from standard purchases.  Investopedia explains: Definition of 'Fractional Share' A share of equity that is less than one full share. Fractional shares usually come about from stock splits, dividend reinvestment plans (DRIPs) and similar corporate actions. Normally, fractional shares cannot be acquired from the market. However, there is at least one investment firm that markets itself as offering fractional shares.  Fractional investing makes more sense, since an investor's perspective is to invest a certain number of dollars into equity, not to buy a certain number of shares that closely mirror the dollar commitment.


"> Do you expect people who work at Sears to have a large allotment of skill assets in the first place?  Absolutely not.  In fact, I completely agree with your underlying point - the way American society is going, there is a steadily decreasing number of jobs for people willing to work, but without specific, modern technical skills.  But what happens to your 50-something worker at Sears who's been working there for 20 years?  It's all very well to say that e should have kept eir skills up-to-date, but is this actually realistic?  Do you really expect this person to move from Housewares to writing Python programs?  And before you say, ""Don't project,"" I'd point out that I work hard to keep my skillset up-to-the-minute... but not everyone can do this, and many people have children and families that occupy their lives, thank Goodness for them!  So you're absolutely right.  Society is changing and people like those people working at Sears won't be able to make a living any more.  And it will be bad."


"At fault doesn't mean negligent... If a driver were doing 150 on the wrong side of the street and gets in an accident, no insurer is paying that out.  Likewise a credit agency not properly handling sensitive info and not giving proper disclosures of a breach won't lead to an insurance policy giving them a dime.  I'd say google ""does insurance cover negligence,"" but you should probably Google the definition of negligence first.  What your saying and the links you've provided clearly shows you don't even know what that word means."


SUBREDDIT RULES This security forum is oriented towards private white hat security professionals. NO ADVERTISING. Want to share information or resources? Message The Mods to find out how! You would rather build a relationship with the /r/Security community than get banned! Please message the mods before posting links to your own projects or if you have any questions about /r/security's advertising policies


"It's hard to determine how well a socialist country would do vs a capitalist country, when the example you have of a socialist country actually has capitalism occurring inside of it.  A better analogy is ""The problem is not that drug X is less effective than than alcohol at curing this disease, but that the patient is consuming alcohol while taking drug X even though these two products are not intended to be taken together."""


Specifically, issuing credit with no escape hatch for the borrower in the case where repayment becomes impossible leads to morally odious outcomes like being forced to sell your children into sex slavery in order to pay off your debts, or being held in debt-peonage forever.  If you read the bible with an eye to the real experience ordinary people had of debt in the societies it arose from, you can see where the motivation for these constraints on lending were coming from.


"Thank you very much for your humility- it serves you well in your obvious desire to maintain an intellectually correct position. I concede that you point out a generally bothersome and dishonest tactic in debate in which people ""move the goal posts"" in pursuit of ""winning"" an argument by shifting the subject of the argument itself. In this case, I'd hope you'd see that the person I was speaking with was so far in agreement with me (when held to the larger context of the discussion- consider the subreddit we are in) that my intent was not even to argue with them but to refine their own claim. The two of us weren't in any kind of disagreement, we simply hadn't agreed upon basic terminology."


US has huge debt to China...what did we think they would use all that money for? Walk into any GoodWill in the US and the crap they have in stock(mostly made in China) is enough to buy about 1000 acres of US soil...every day.


And you didn't even bother reading past the title.  If you did read the article, you'd realize the CEO literally never blames millenials. The CEO notes 3 challenges - changing customer taste, slowing mall traffic, and declining sports viewership. The CEO also notes that millenials have a preference to cooking at home, quick serve, etc. which BWW is not and that other establishments similar to BWW (casual dining) are also struggling.


No. Black Scholes includes a number of variables to calculate the value of the derivative but taxation isn't one of them. Whether you are trading options or futures, the dividend itelf may be part of the equation, but not the tax on said dividend.


"I've been in a very similar situation to yours in the past.  Since the company is reimbursing you at a flat rate (I assume you don't need to provide documentation/receipts in order to be paid the per diem), it's not directly connected to the $90 in expenses that you mention.  Unless they were taking taxes out that would need to be reimbursed, the separate category for Assets:Reimbursable:Gotham City serves no real purpose, other than to categorize the expenses. Since there is no direct relationship between your expenses and the reimbursement, I would list them as completely separate transactions: Later, if you needed to locate all of the associated expenses with the Gotham trip, gnucash lets you search on memo text for ""Gotham"" and will display all of the related transactions.  This is a lot cleaner than having to determine what piece of the per diem goes to which expenses, or having to create a new Asset account every time you go on a trip."


"I think they gave you the answer: You haven't previously shown that you can run that particular card up to (near) its existing maximum and then pay it off, so they don't have a strong indication that you can handle that large an unsecured loan. Generally, requests to have the limits raised when there isn't evidence that the customer is finding the current limit inconvenient are going to be considered suspicious. Remember, a great credit rating does not require that they consider you a good risk -- it's just one of the things they consider. Why do you need the limit raised? Have you tried contacting the bank's credit department directly and discussing what they will or won't let you do? Re paying off the card every month: Remember, they do get a processing fee from the vendor. They'd prefer that we paid interest (I'm told the term of art for those of us who don't is ""deadbeats""), but they certainly don't lose money when we don't. And they'd generally rather have us be loyal customers who MIGHT someday pay interest, and who are bringing in fees, than have us go elsewhere."


So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets.


It makes sense as democrats tend to spend money more internally and republicans tend to spend more on foreign iniatitives. BUT, With such a small sample size you get too big of an error thrown in from the random timing of events.  The internet boom had very little to do with Clinton.  The housing bust had very little to do with Bush.  Nixon, Ford and Carter were victim of the pent up inflation from artificially maintaining the Gold standard for too long.  Eisenhower had massive war debt dropped on his lap.   I suspect that the effect is real but I doubt it is as pronounced as the raw numbers suggest.  Furthermore, I am a lot more concerned about the long term effects of policies than the effect they have in the few years a president is around.  Stimulating the economy is easy.  Maintaining that stimulated economy and erasing the debt load that stimulation rang up is another matter entirely.


I can't give you a detailed answer because I'm away from the computer where I use kMyMoney, but IIRC to add investments you have to create new transactions on the 'brokerage account' linked to your investment account.


"I wasn't on minimum wage.  I was finding that housing in the Boston area was increasing in price faster than my $80k/year salary.  And yes, it *is* a fallacy because your statement is essentially tautological: ""if you want a lower price for housing, go to where prices on housing are lower (and don't mind the additional costs of time or money spent commuting)."""


"Hey Citypig88 (I like that name by the way).  In your assertion that ""regular people"" didn't lose - that isn't true.  I have WAY too many examples - so I'll just provide two.  [This article gives some insight](http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/24/the-trump-backlash.html) - there are TONS more if you google it.. I'm getting tired of posting stuff about this.  From the article:  >Take John Robbins. When the retired Army officer heard Trump, in a music-filled tent, talk of putting up the tallest building in Tampa, Fla., he wanted in—“because of the Trump name.” But Robbins lost half his $150,000 down payment when the condo project went bankrupt and was “floored” to learn that Trump had merely licensed his gold-plated moniker: “  And    >Hamed Hoshyarsar invested $54,000 in a condo at the Trump Ocean Resort Baja for one reason: he was a fan of The Apprentice. He lost every dime when the project was never built.   These investors could be anti-everyone's grandmother or grandfather. They are just regular people who believed in the Trump brand and put down payments on condos...and got ripped off.  Cracked wrote an funny/blood boiling article which outlines what a scumbag this guy is.  [Enjoy](http://www.cracked.com/blog/10-stories-about-donald-trump-you-wont-believe-are-true/)"


Closing your oldest revolving account will lower your average age of accounts and hurt your score.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  The amount it drops is hard to tell, and it may only be a few points if your other cards are fairly old as well. While the FICO scoring algorithm is proprietary and hard to predict, you can use the official FICO Simulator to estimate the impact.  Based on the information you provided (5+ cards, oldest card 5 years), your estimate is 750-800.  Performing the same estimate and only changing the number of cards and age (2-4 cards, oldest card 2-4 years), the score estimate drops to 735-785.  Both of these estimates assume you have 9% or less utilization.  You can probably estimate that your score will drop at least 15 points. However, it may not matter to you whether your score is maximized.  Once you get above a certain FICO score, it doesn't matter.  For example, I recently refinanced a vehicle and asked the loan officer about their lowest APR, and found out that they required a 780 FICO for it.  Kind of like the difference between getting a 91 or a 99 in a class, an A is an A. Some other factors you may want to consider before you make your choice:


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://voxeu.org/article/credit-growth-and-global-crisis-new-narrative) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In a new paper, we also examine the evolution of mortgage debt and defaults during the credit boom and throughout the financial crisis and its aftermath, using individual-level data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel.  > While borrowers with low credit scores typically had higher default rates than those with higher credit scores, default rates for borrowers with higher credit scores rose substantially during the financial crisis.  > The investor share of new delinquencies was close to 15% for all credit score quartiles throughout the credit boom and increases to 25%, 35% and 40% between 2006 and 2009 for credit score quartiles 2-4, respectively.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/74jwyc/credit_growth_and_the_global_crisis_a_new/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~222899 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **credit**^#1 **score**^#2 **borrower**^#3 **quartile**^#4 **Mortgage**^#5"


Q1: Which is better option and provide good returns between FD and RD ?  There is no right or wrong answer here and depends on rates, convenience, exactness of duration, etc and other things. In general an FD would give you better return than RD. Q2: Am I liable to pay income tax on the interest earned ? If you have a NRE/NRO account you are not liable for tax on interest in India. Note you may still be liable to pay tax on this in the US


Interesting read. If that is true then residential neighborhoods are about to become a HOT investment in RE. If millennials do move out then this also could delay a subprime auto loan mini recession.  Edit: transportation into cities would increase and we haven't quite moved into the electric car market so this is a positive read for those in auto


I did not single out Scandinavia. The person answering my original comment to this thread did.   The fact that economists view the structure of the US economy as different from other developed economies is a fact. I can give you quotes once I get back to my books at home.   Yes. Supply of work force drives wages. If you take a look at the original - Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith - he also states that the fluctuating death rates of the workers is a natural part of economic cycles. Yet we would view this as brutal today.   Most of the developed world views having an underpaid unregulated illegal service class as basis of the economy as brutal and a form of slavery.   The people also want to come to the EU. They flock to the EU in bigger numbers than to the US. They are risking their lives trying to get to Europe along various routes. They drown in the Mediterranean by the thousands. They succumb at Sahara. They are at the hands of Turkish and Serbian criminal people smuggling gangs trying to get to EU through Greece. They try to breach the fence in Ceula by mass runs.  You may have not noticed this in world news, but there has been a migration of historic proportions going on to the EU for quite some time.  So why isn't there this underpaid illegal unregulated service class?   You tell me. I would sincerely like to know.


Saving for retirement and actually retiring are 2 different things. It is always a good idea to keep some money away that you can't easily use. This allows you to create a large amount that acts as buffer for rainy day. Most countries have a special account to save for retirements, apart from giving tax benefits and effect of compounding, there are also laws that protect it from getting attached in case of default. For example if you at some point in time default on an obligation, the funds in normal savings account can be attached by court of law. However in certain countries funds in retirement account cannot be attached by court of law for your obligations. Thus always leaving you with funds.


The Vegtrug Wall Hugger is flat on one side so it fits easily against walls, fences, and other vertical surfaces. Like the original, Vegtrug Planter provides a range of soil extent to suit the desire of both deep- and shallow-rooted edible. Vegetable Trug Planter design minimizes displeasure of bending over and helps keep pets and pests out. Flat on one side to fit even against walls and fences & Blower Vac is in the crosshairs of many homeowners lately, and who can blame them? Garden Blower can be dangerously noisy as they endlessly stir up dust and leaves throughout neighborhoods everywhere.


There are a few reasons, particularly for businesses. The first is opportunity cost. That chunk of money they have could be used to get higher returns somewhere else. If they can borrow from a bank at low interest rates to finance their ongoing operations, they can use their cash to get a higher return somewhere else. The second is credit rating. For public companies, ratings companies give high emphasis to companies with large reserves. This strengthens their ability to pay back the loan should it become necessary. A good credit rating in turn let's the company borrow money at lower rates. When a company can borrow money at low rates, it circles back to the first point where they can now put their reserves to better use. The third is leverage. Companies can use the cash they have built up to leverage into a larger investment. Assuming the investment works out, it will pay for the cost of borrowing over time. For instance let's say I have $1 million to invest. I can pay all cash for a $1 million apartment building or I can leverage that into a $3 million building. Assuming I run it well, the tenants will pay for the cost of borrowing $2 million and at the end of the term I'll be left with my $3 million building.


No shit. The reason the Resource Curse myth exists is because of the strong correlation between resources and poverty which exists because Europe is resource-poor and high-IQ, and Africa is resource-rich and low-IQ. It has nothing to do with resources causing poverty except in an evolutionary perspective.


">Then, they would put them on whatever Java project as Java consultants/programmers. It was blatantly egregious.   Avanade did exactly that. They will hire freshly out of college people and put them on MSDN cert. track and as soon as they pass one test. (No training, it's all self study and most of them just memorized the test) They will pimp them out to the highest bidders. However, it seem to be the normal practice among consulting firms. Since they usually have someone higher up with experiences to oversee them. This isn't really my beef with them. How else can a jr. dev get more experiences.  It's the culture that you were talking about that really suck. They also lied to their clients and make up some numbers. It's about ""Chargeability""!"


Yes definitely  Warren Buffet averaged returns of only around 21% throughout his 40 years in business.  ROE of 23% is probably more than double the ROE of most companies , whats more as the saying goes its easier to grow sales from 1 million to 100 million than to grow sales from 100 million to 10 billion


Just noticed that Our Agency -> About us link on your website is dead. Also, if you need help with mobile/desktop html5 banners, feel free to PM me. I have 15+ years web dev experience with last 4+ years in mobile advertisement.


"There are two reasons why most options aren't exercised.  The first is obvious, and the second, less so. The obvious: An option that's practically worthless doesn't get exercised. Options that reach expiry and remain unexercised are almost always worthless bets that simply didn't pay off. This includes calls with strikes above the current underlying price, and puts with strikes below it. A heck of a lot of options. If an option with value was somehow left to expire, it was probably a mistake, or else the transaction costs outweighed the value remaining; not quite worthless, but not ""worth it"" either. The less obvious: An option with value can be cancelled any time before expiration. A trader that buys an option may at some point show a gain sooner than anticipated, or a loss in excess of his tolerance. If a gain, he may want to sell before expiry to realize the gain sooner. Similarly, if a loss, he may want to take the loss sooner. In both cases, his capital is freed up and he can take another position. And — this is the key part — the other end matched up with that option sale is often a buyer that had created (written) exactly such an option contract in the first place – the option writer – and who is looking to get out of his position. Option writers are the traders responsible, in the first place, for creating options and increasing the ""open interest.""  Anybody with the right kind and level of options trading account can do this. A trader that writes an option does so by instructing his broker to ""sell to open"" a new instance of the option. The trader then has a short position (negative quantity) in that option, and all the while may be subject to the obligations that match the option's exercise rights. The only way for the option writer to get out of that short position and its obligations are these: Not by choice:  To get assigned. That is to say: a buyer exercised the option. The writer has to fulfill his obligation by delivering the underlying (if a call) to the option holder, or buying the underlying (if a put) from the option holder. Not by choice: The option expires worthless. This is the ideal scenario for a writer because 100% of the premium received (less transaction costs) is profit. By choice: The writer is free to buy back exactly the same kind of option before expiry using a ""buy to close"" order with their broker. Once the option has been purchased with a ""buy to close"", it eliminates the short position and obligation.  The option is cancelled.  The open interest declines. Options thus cancelled just don't live long enough to either expire or be exercised."


Consider doing things that will allow for tax deductions, such as short selling. The IRS has regulations on this as well. And consider that Futures are taxed more favorably than other kinds of investments. (60% taxed as long term, 40% taxed as short term)


http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/homes/rea08.shtm    > lenders cannot: > >discourage you from applying for a mortgage or reject your application because of your race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because you receive public assistance.  If the borrower is married the insurance policy is likely already in place and has been for years.


"People just don't think about the dangers of Direct Debit- just Internet search to easily find out about the huge amount of people that have had problems, companies taking too much, the wrong time etc, making them go overdrawn and into fees (£30 for every bounced DD)& interest etc. Yes the DD guarantee IS useless, if you complain to your bank they almost invariably tell you to take it up with the company issuing the DD. Or if the bank even DOES (after much begging) get the money restored for you, did you know that the company can simply REINSTATE the DD amount and you'll have to go to your bank to get it reversed AGAIN. Banks have even admitted to distressed customers ""DD originators have every right to reinstate DD amounts if they believe they have an outstanding unpaid debt!!!!"" (And there was me thinking the money in my account was mine and what gets paid out is under my control- no longer true once you sign a DD mandate!) The astounding thing is that once anyone has got your sort code & AC no they can put it on eg any charity donation newspaper form and set up a DD- the bank doesn't check the signature or anything at all once the details are transmitted electronically to them by the charity's bank. (I learned this from someone who used to write DD software for banks). Please check out this very telling article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7174760.stm The onus is on YOU to notice the payment you didn't authorise! That's how wide open the system is that the all powerful commercial banks have unleished on us permitted by our supplicant and negligent governments.  Moral of the story: Don't EVER give your AC details on DD mandates to ANY company you need to pay, use standing orders (which YOU have total control over) to pay them or electronic banking (where you ring your bank every time you get a bill) to transfer the money, or pay by cheque the bill at your bank branch or at a PO or by post. Carefully guard your AC numbers and watch your statements like a hawk every month.  One final point how do I manage to avoid DD (where I live in the UK) without being penalised? Answer: 1) My UK gas & elec ACs are with Scottish & Southern energy EQUIPOWER tariff which charges everyone the same low tariff HOWEVER they pay. 2) My landline phone- I ditched BT as soon as they started penalising and changed to Post Office homephone exactly the same service, copper telephone line & exchange equipment & IN ALL ASPECTS (line rental & free periods) CHEAPER than BT & no extra charge at all for paying by cheque at any post office- EVERY bill.3) Council Tax & Inland Revenue charge nothing extra for paying by cheue either at your bank, the PO or by post. 4) I don't bother with Gym membership- I just WALK a lot!, 4) I take the risk and don't bother with AA or home insurance as I am an engineer and able to forecast and carry out all my own home repairs and build in stiff burglary prevention measures, locks alarms etc.  Stop doing what you're told people- think about the possible downsides later when the commercial companies suggest to you ways of doing things that benefit them. Telling you the upsides but not the less obvious serious downsides."


Inhibited Mono Ethylene Glycol Brine (Inhibited MEG) is used as an industrial coolant, antifreeze heat transfer fluid. The inhibitor package is designed to protect brass, copper, solder, steel, cast iron, aluminum and other metals commonly found in the industrial cooling and heating systems.  The effectiveness of Inhibited Mono Ethylene Glycol Brine (Inhibited MEG) in preventing corrosion has been proven in extensive laboratory and in actual service tests. Using Inhibited Mono Ethylene Glycol Brine (Inhibited MEG) for heat transfer applications instead of brine solutions or un-inhibited ethylene glycol reduces maintenance costs and improves heat transfer efficiency.


They are networked machines and they talk to all the banks in order to look up the details of your account to provide you with that money. The protocol they use has known vulnerabilities.  A blackhat conference about 5 years ago they made one of the machines output money onto the street.


"To be fair, while he was harsh and over-critical, he was realistic.    Based on your vague wording (understandable, you think you have a unique proprietary idea) but the other stuff you mentioned, I don't think you can confidently say it'll make ""way over $200,000"".  It doesn't seem like you've done much research at all, have a business plan together, or any credible experience to evaluate your idea without personal bias.    Hope you continue to pursue it, but do your homework.  Learn how to put together a business plan, etc.  Because obviously if you came to an investor with your idea explained in the style of your original post, you'd more than likely be laughed off as a delusional kid."


When I asked this particular question on a car forum recently, I got the following suggestions: When we bought our last car, we met with the seller in the DMV's parking lot as there generally is some police around and paid him cash. Here in NV the plates stay with the PO so you have to get it registered or a movement permit anyway before you can drive the vehicle so this worked out pretty reasonable and safe for both parties.


"A VERY civil sub is r/asktrumpsupporters.  As a non supporter or ""undecided"" you are only allowed to ask question and you can't make comments on posts that are statements, only clarifying questions that can't be top line, but it's good.    Edit: added details"


So far all insurances start from the perspective of the insurance taker. However, I find it much more intuitive to look from the perspective of the insurance giver: Note that the exact amount may differ, but management fees of a few dozen percent are quite realistic. Note that it is not as unreasonable as it may sound at first, some costs: And of course most insurance companies will want to keep some profit as well. If you are completely risk averse, typically it is only financial beneficial to get insurance if you have a significantly higher risk profile. Examples of this (not an expert on boats): Note that piece of mind may also be worth getting the insurance for, for instance if you frequently put others in the position to crash your boat, and don't want to create an awkward financial discussion when they do.


I do disagree.  You're representing marketing and advertising as a form of deceit (you referred to it as manipulating), I see it an example of framing.  Making M&Ms colorful or making commercials about anthropomorphic candies, or putting them in front of people doesn't strip those people of the ability to walk by without buying.    I also disagree that there is such a thing as the common good.  That idea necessarily implies that there are innate human needs that are objectively knowable.  There can be a *probable* common good, for example, the idea that doing drugs is harmful, but that isn't guaranteed to be the case.  There have been plenty of bright and productive people who have used one substance or another (Steve Jobs, Michael Phelps, Sigmund Freud, and many others), but not a *certain* common good.  When we start talking of forcing people or companies to behave one way or another, but cannot be certain that the course of action to be enforced is going to be beneficial to 100% of people, we have to address the ethical issue of who is responsible for any harm caused to innocent people in the process.    Will the scientists who published the studies take responsibility? Or the legislators?  I doubt it.


"with 150K € to invest to ""become a landlord"" you have several options: Pay for 100% of one property, and you then will make a significant percentage of the monthly rent as profit each month. That profit can be used to invest in other things, or to save to buy additional properties. At the end of the 21 years in your example, you can sell the flat for return of principal minus selling expenses, or even better make a profit because the property went up in value. Pay 20% down on 5 flats, and then make a much a smaller profit per flat each month due to the mortgage payment for each one. At the end of the 21 years sell the flats. Assuming that a significant portion of the mortgage is paid off each flat will sell for more than the mortgage balance. Thus you will have 5 nice large profits when you sell. something in between 1 and 5 flats. Each has different risks and expenses. With 5 rental properties you are more likely to use a management company, which will add to your monthly cost."


"I have been trying to find information about how banks ""create"" money by giving out loans while only having a portion of the money to lend.  And any broader implications this may have (ie, all new money is debt?).  And the implications of the the government increasing or decreasing the required reserve amount.  I hope I explained that in a coherent way.  BTW, I love the investopedia videos.  If you can in any way emulate that technique, it should be a hit.  good luck."


"From a purely financial standpoint (psychology aside) the choice between paying off debt and investing on risky investments boils down to a comparison of risk and reward.  Yes, on average the stock market has risen an average of 10% (give or take) per year, but the yearly returns on the S&P 500 have ranged from a high of 37.6% in 1995 to a low of -37% in 2008.  So there's a good chance that your investment in index funds will get a better return than the guaranteed return of paying off the loan, but it's not certain, and you might end up much worse.  You could even calculate a rough probability of coming out better with some reasonable assumptions (e.g. if you assume that returns are normally distributed, which historically they're not), but your chances are probably around 30% that you'll end up worse off in one year (your odds are better the longer your investment horizon is).  If you can tolerate (meaning you have both the desire and the ability to take) that risk, then you might come out ahead.   The non-financial factors, however - the psychology of debt, the drain on discretionary cash flow, etc. cannot be dismissed as ""irrational"".  Paying off debt feels good.  Yes, finance purists disagree with Dave Ramsey and his approaches, but you cannot deny the problems that debt causes millions of households (both consumer debt and student loan debt as well).  If that makes them mindless ""minions"" because they follow a plan that worked for them then so be it. (disclosure - I am a listener and a fan but don't agree 100% with him)"


"> the single mother will still have substantially more combined income from welfare and earnings by holding a minimum-wage job than by relying only on welfare.  And way less time to take care of her children... and a huge expense to put her kids in child care.  Got it? So, there's a welfare poverty trap and many ""professionals"" taking advantage of it."


You would have to collect an awful lot to make it profitable. The melting process alone will cost an arm and a leg. Go silver hunting with rolls of Half dollars. You might strike it lucky with rolls of Kennedy's. Its good fun too :) 1964 Kennedy's 90% silver 1965-1970 Kennedy's 40% silver I go looking on ebay collecting for typo errors on pre 1920's British silver coinage. Picked up a George 3rd 1816 Shilling for £3....worth £30....but even if your doing it just for the silver content, you can pick up a real bargain. Just think of how your going to offload them. Here in the UK its easy because there is a huge market for Numismatic coins.


you can actually send them an email and they will lift the pending balance. I have tried it and they were able to help me. Goodluck


First, currencies are not an investment; they are a medium of exchange; that is, you use currency to buy goods and services and/or investments. The goods and services you intend to buy in your retirement are presumably going to be bought in your country; to buy these you will need your country's currency. The investments you intend to buy now require the currency of whatever country they are located in. If you want to buy shares in Microsoft you need USD; if you want shares in BHP-Billiton you need AUD or GBP (It is traded on two exchanges), if you want property in Kuwait you need KWD and if you want bonds in your country you need IDR. When you sell these later to buy the goods and services you were saving for you need to convert from whatever currency you get for selling them into whatever currency you need to buy. When you invest you are taking on risk for which you expect to be compensated for - the higher the risk you take the better the returns had better be because there is always the chance that they will be negative, right down to losing it all if you are unlucky. There is no 100% safe investment; if you want to make sure you get full value for your money spend it all right now! If you invest overseas then, in addition to all the other investment risks, you are adding currency risk as well. That is, the risk that when you redeem your investments the overseas currency will have fallen relative you your currency. One of the best ways of mitigating risk is diversification; which allows the same return at a lower risk (or a higher return at the same risk). A pure equity portfolio is not diversified across asset classes (hopefully it is diversified across the equities). Equities are a high risk-high yield class; particularly in a developing economy like Indonesia. If you are very young with a decades long investment horizon this may be OK but even then, a diversified portfolio will probably offer better rewards at the same risk. Diversifying into local cash, bonds and property with a little foreign equities, bonds and property will serve you better than worrying about the strength of the IDR. Oh, and pay a professional for some real advice rather than listening to strangers on the internet.


"I'm not conflating trust of the issuer with trust of the ""bank"". I don't trust either. In addition, there are structural issues with bitcoin that are untenable. Now, I'm not saying there's no promise in cryptocurrencies but they are not a panacea for a frictionless world currency in place of paper money. I'm glad it has utility for you personally."


If you have not already hired another caterer, potentially your best solution might be to try and work out something with these folks. Presuming of course that they still have access to their equipment, dishware, etc, and to the extent that what you have paid might cover their labor, equipment use etc there might be some way for them to provide the services you have paid for, if you pay for materials such as the food itself directly . This presumes of course that it's only the IRS that they stiffed, and have not had most of their (material) capital assets repossessed or seized.  and you still trusted them enough to work out something. Otherwise as Duff points out you will likely need to file a small claims lawsuit and get in line with any other creditors.


Try this site for the funds http://www.socialinvest.org/resources/mfpc/ I'm not aware of any etfs. I'm sure some exist though.


It completely varies by manufacturer, dealer, and time of year, but in general yes, you can get a (sometimes significant) discount on brand new last year models.  In general though, it comes down to supply and demand. As an example, in April 2016 I was looking at a brand new 2016 in which the 2017 model had come out that week (I thought April was a little early for next year's model but sometimes that's a marketing tool). The sticker price of the 2017 was only $100 more than the 2016, but the 2016 was selling for $3K under MSRP, and the 2017 was selling at exactly MSRP since they only had 2 in stock.