> They come up with algorithms to deal with it.  Google's search business has more to do with their bottom line that anything else. They will always provide their end-users with the best quality results possible even if it means relaxing their own regulations. Behemoth services have leverage over Google because they're providing the best content for thousands of non-competitive terms.  Shit doesn't work that way here because this site isn't a traditional directory, and therefor sites have a different form of leverage entirely. Google issues recurring traffic payments to content providers; submit a link here and you are paid in one lump sum. Submissions cost Reddit money when they're more than a day or two old. Thee only thing content providers are entitled to is being able to interact with the community they're creating content for, and beyond that nothing is owed to them whatsoever. Anyone can fill the void for the fallen.  There's nothing sketchy about a blacklist. Google nukes out thousands of websites every single day, and since they are a registrar they can see what other domains the owners of the website have actively registered. Occasionally they'll even takeout big name players in communities if they're highly active. If a company is offering index-like service online they have a blacklist.


">Foxconn has so far committed to creating 3,000 with an average yearly wage of $53,000  That sounds great but when I took a bunch of promises to the bank and tried to deposit them they just laughed at me.  >the number has the “potential to grow” to 13,000.  I didn't even mention the ""might be's"" I was going to deposit. I was embarrassed enough already."


"This is such alarmist bullshit, although I shouldn't be surprised to see this kind of clickbait on a reddit economic/financial/business subreddit.  Aggregate (which obviously includes sand) is and always has been a primary input for the global construction market. Therefore, there always has and will be demand for it.  Land that's able to mine aggregate is practically unlimited relative to other natural resources. As a result of the large supply, it's incredibly cheap. As an example: a Google search for ""aggregate cost ton"" returns a company selling the stuff at less than $25/ton (http://www.bryanrock.com/commercial/price-list). The cost of delivering that aggregate to a work site is significantly more than the cost of the actual material!   There is no shortage of aggregate. If all of the statements made in the article are true (which I think we have reason to doubt given the overall quality of the piece), the only thing they provide evidence for is that A) demand has grown significantly year over year since 2010 (aka the end of the financial crisis and most recent market low point), B) Its sometimes difficult to create aggregate in some local markets because neighboring property owners don't want aggregate mines next door (ie, zoning laws are a challenge when trying to develop new mines), and C) organized crime controls the aggregate production in India (note: underdeveloped countries often have certain industries that are effectively controlled by organized criminal gangs).  There's nothing here that even remotely suggests that the world is running out of aggregate. This article is a prime example of the clickbait bullshit that absolutely floods reddit (especially the economic/financial/business communities). Reddit has some really amazing communities, but unfortunately I've yet to find a good one that deals with these subjects.  PS - I never write responses this long but I'm intoxicated and felt like sharing. Also - I'd like to exclude /r/personalfinance from my rant. Those guys actually do have a pretty good handle on the basic theory / knowledge / best practices."


It doesn't. Bitcoin isn't big enough to have economic relevance. And the design of Bitcoin means that it pretty much never could be.  Now cryptocurrencies in general, maybe they would someday have some relevance. They'd have to be much better designed than Bitcoin. But the advantage they might, in theory, convey which would have actual economic relevance is to lower many  transactions costs by taking banks out of the middle. And if they did enough of that, then they'd force banks to lower costs to compete. That could, in theory, be significant.


What you say about monetary velocity is true, but I don't think its the whole story. Banks also create money by lending out their deposits: if I put $1000 in my account, and the bank lends out $500 of it, I still have my $1000 on deposit but someone else is also spending an extra $500. If the banks are lending less then this effect is reduced and the volume of money reduces as well as its velocity.


Yep, there just is no free lunch.  So called high dividend stocks are usually from companies that have stable cash flows but relatively little or moderate growth potential. Utility companies come to mind, let's take telecommunications as an example.  Such stocks, usually, indeed are considered more conservative. In a bull market, they won't make high jumps, and in a bear market they shouldn't experience deep falls. I mean, just because the stock market fell by 10%, you're not going to stop using your phone. The stock might suffer a bit but the divided is still yielding you the same. However, fundamental data can have a significant impact. Let's say a recession hits the country of the telco. People might not get the newest iPhone and lock in to an expensive contract anymore, they might use cheaper forms of communication, they might stop paying bills, go bankrupt etc. This will have a severe impact on the company's cash flow and thus hit the stock in a double whammy: One, the dividend is gone. Two, the price will fall even further.  There are basically two scenarios after that. Either the recession is temporary and your stock became a regular growth stock that at some point might bounce back and re-establish at the previous levels. Or the economy has contracted permanently but regained stability in which case you will again have a stock with a high dividend yield but based on a lower price. In conclusion: High dividend stocks make sense in a portfolio. But never consider their income to be safe. Reduce your risk by diversifying.


Dithering in the dark Quantifying the effect of political uncertainty on the global economy EUROPE teeters at the edge of an economic abyss, its fate in the hands of political leaders at odds over how to solve the continent’s twin debt and bank crises. America may be pushed over a “fiscal cliff” at the end of the year by political dysfunction. And even China, although unlikely to take a deep dive, is hostage to the will and ability of its government to stimulate growth. More than at any point in recent history, the global economy’s fate is tied to the capriciousness of policymakers. How much does such uncertainty cost? Anecdotal evidence suggests that it costs a lot. Customers of Cisco Systems, the world’s biggest maker of internet gear, are taking longer to make decisions, according to John Chambers, the company’s boss. Their orders tend to be smaller than before, and to require more in-house approvals. They say they are planning to buy more stuff later this year, reported Mr Chambers recently, but “then in the very next breath they say it depends on what happens on a global and macro scale.”In Europe firms must reckon not only with recession but also with the risk that their investments may be redenominated in a different currency or locked in by capital controls. Robert Bergqvist of SEB, a Swedish bank, says that several Swedish corporate customers have put investment projects on hold because they don’t know how the euro crisis will unfold. If America falls over the “fiscal cliff”, it would suffer a fiscal squeeze of 5% of GDP, easily enough to push the economy into recession. Last summer, as America’s government came perilously close to exhausting its legal authority to borrow, Barack Obama and Republicans in Congress could not resolve their fiscal differences. Instead, they kicked the can down the road, agreeing on huge automatic spending cuts that would start on January 2nd, just as all of George Bush’s tax cuts are due to expire, along with a separate temporary payroll tax cut. No deal to avoid this double whammy is likely before the November 6th election. So any firm that sells to the federal government is left in limbo. Mike Lawrie, head of Computer Sciences Corporation, a big technology-services firm, recently told investors: “I just don’t know what’s going to happen...None of us [knows].” The debt-ceiling showdown makes last summer’s weak economy weaker, said James Tisch, the boss of Loews Corporation, a conglomerate, last month. And “this fiscal cliff is the summer of ’11 but on steroids.” Economists have long suspected that uncertainty could hurt growth. John Maynard Keynes said investment was based on expectations that are “subject to sudden and violent changes”. In a 1980 paper Ben Bernanke, now chairman of the Federal Reserve, formalised this effect: since most investment is irreversible, uncertainty “increases the value of waiting for new information [and thus] retards the current rate of investment.” In the 1990s Avinash Dixit and Robert Pindyck went further, making an analogy between an investment opportunity and a stock option, the value of which rises with the volatility of the stock price but disappears once the option is exercised. If an investment is irreversible, uncertainty raises the value of hoarding cash and waiting to see what happens. Gauging the fog Quantifying uncertainty is a more recent sport. To measure it, Nick Bloom and Scott Baker of Stanford University and Steve Davis of the University of Chicago constructed an index. It counts how often uncertainty related to policy is mentioned in newspapers, the number of temporary provisions in the tax code and the degree to which forecasts of inflation and federal spending differ from each other. That index hit its highest in 25 years during last summer’s debt-ceiling battle and remains high (by contrast, the Vix index of stock market volatility, a conventional gauge of uncertainty, remains below its peak of 2009; see chart). A simpler index for Europe that tracks news reports of uncertainty has similarly spiked. Mr Bloom and his co-authors fed their index into a model of growth that seeks to filter out purely economic factors by controlling for interest rates and stock prices. They conclude that the rise in uncertainty between 2006 and 2011 reduced real GDP by 3.2% and cost 2.3m jobs. Such estimates should be taken with a grain of salt. They demonstrate that policy uncertainty and weaker economic growth are related, not that the first causes the second. Many radical policy actions, from the TARP bail-out programme to the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing and the Dodd-Frank law on financial reform, were responses to unprecedented economic trauma: collapsing house prices, failing financial institutions and the deepest recession since the second world war. That trauma did most of the damage to growth, not any uncertainty about the policy response. Had policymakers stood still, the result would have been less policy uncertainty but a far more damaging crisis. Clearly some policies, such as Mr Obama’s health-care reform, generate uncertainty independent of economic developments. But at least Obamacare comes with benefits as well as risks; that cannot be said for the current political brinkmanship. As the fiscal cliff draws nearer, argues Ethan Harris, Bank of America’s economist for North America, the incentive to defer hiring and investment will grow, putting pressure on the economy. “The process is as important as the outcome,” he says, “and the process is a disaster.”  http://www.economist.com/node/21556930  Thomas Oye


As you have already good on your retirement kitty. Assuming you have a sufficient cash for difficult situations, explore the options of investing in Shares and Mutual Funds. As you are new to Stock Market, begin slowly by investing into Mutual Funds and ETF for precious metals. This will help you understand and give you confidence on markets and returns. Real estate is a good option, the down side being the hassle of getting rental and the illiquid nature of the investment.


"Often ""resigned suddenly"" means a power struggle with the board in which a CEO was forced out.  > In light of Pandit's resignation Chief Operating Officer John P. Havens also submitted his resignation  This to me is further evidence that he was actually forced out in a power struggle.  The COO had probably sided with Pandit and knew his days were numbered once Pandit was forced out.  Otherwise, if it was a happy, orderly transition, there is no reason to think why another important officer would suddenly leave as well.  Obviously this is pure speculation, but I would take ""resignation"" with a grain of salt."


The short answer is that there are no great personal finance programs out there any more. In the past, I found Microsoft Money to be slick and feature rich but unfortunately it has been discontinued a few years ago.  Your choices now are Quicken and Mint along with the several open-source programs that have been listed by others. In the past, I found the open source programs to be both clunky and not feature-complete for my every day use. It's possible they have improved significantly since I had last looked at them. The biggest limitation I saw with them is weakness of integration with financial service providers (banks, credit card companies, brokerage accounts, etc.) Let's start with Mint. Mint is a web-based tool (owned by the same company as Quicken) whose main feature is its ability to connect to nearly every financial institution you're likely to use. Mint aggregates that data for you and presents it on the homepage. This makes it very easy to see your net worth and changes to it over time, spending trends, track your progress on budgets and long-term goals, etc. Mint allows you to do all of this with little or no data entry. It has support for your investments but does not allow for deep analysis of them. Quicken is a desktop program. It is extremely feature rich in terms of supporting different types of accounts, transactions, reports, reconciliation, etc. One could use Quicken to do everything that I just described about Mint, but the power of Quicken is in its more manual features. For example, while Mint is centred on showing you your status, Quicken allows you to enter transactions in real-time (as you're writing a check, initiating a transfer, etc) and later reconciles them with data from your financial institutions. Link Mint, Quicken has good integration with financial companies so you can generally get away with as little or as much data entry as you want. For example, you can manually enter large checks and transfers (and later match to automatically-downloaded data) but allow small entries like credit card purchases to download automatically.  Bottom line, if you're just looking to keep track of where you are at, try Mint. It's very simple and free. If you need more power and want to manage your finances on a more transactional level, try Quicken (though I believe they do not have a trial version, I don't understand why). The learning curve is steep although probably gentler than that of GnuCash. Last note on why Mint.com is free: it's the usual ad-supported model, plus Mint sells aggregated consumer behaviour reports to other institutions (since Mint has everyone's transactions, it can identify consumer trends). If you're not comfortable with that, or with the idea of giving a website passwords to all your financial accounts, you will find Quicken easier to accept. Hope this helps.


In order: A seller of the stock (duh!). You don't know who or why this stock was sold. It could be any reason, and is of no concern of yours. It doesn't matter. Investors (pension funds, hedge funds, individual investors, employees, management) sell stock for many reasons: need cash, litigation, differing objectives, sector rotation, etc. To you, this does not matter. Yes, it does affect stock market prices: If you were not willing to buy that amount of shares, and there were no other buyers at that price, the seller would likely choose to lower the price offered. By your purchase, you are supporting the price.


"It's not clear that anything needs to go up if gold goes down. In a bubble, asset prices can just collapse, without some other asset increasing to compensate. Economies are not a zero-sum game. On the other hand, gold may fall when people decide they don't need to hoard some store of value that, to their minds, never changes. It could very well indicate that there is more confidence in the broader economy.  I am not a gold bug, so I don't much see the point in ""investing"" in something that is non-productive and also inedible, but to each his own."


Well quite a few countires have tax breaks on the first house you own ... this is typically to promote people to have atleast one house of their own ... having a house of your own provides lot more stability in the long run ... and without tax breaks it makes it difficult for quite a few to own a house ... the tax breaks form a motiviation as well ...  There are at times other effects of this breaks, people buying houses beyond their need [bigger house than required] or capacity [buying in a central / expensive location] by maximizing the breaks ...


Great, that means less idiots clogging up the lines.  Why are your panties in a bunch? All american profits still get taxed like normal. Now tell me Lib, why does the US get to double dip on taxes for money created outside of the states?  Edit: That wasn't including the excess tax to repatriate that money.


#####&#009;  ######&#009;  ####&#009;  [**Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison%20of%20the%20health%20care%20systems%20in%20Canada%20and%20the%20United%20States): [](#sfw)   ---  >__Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States__ is often made by government, [public health](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health) and [public policy analysts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy_analyst).     The two countries had similar [health care systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system) before Canada changed its system in the 1960s and 1970s. The United States spends much more money on health care than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.  In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.  In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private) though these statistics don't take into account population differences.   >====  >[**Image from article**](https://i.imgur.com/TEekEH4.png) [^(i)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Health_Gross_Care_Expenditures_\(1960_to_2008\).png)  ---  ^Interesting: [^Single-payer ^health ^care](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care) ^| [^Patient ^Protection ^and ^Affordable ^Care ^Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act) ^| [^Health ^insurance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance) ^| [^Health ^care ^in ^Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada)   ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+ck3rrwd) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+ck3rrwd)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://story.californiasunday.com/cost-of-college) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Liz was 24 and halfway through her first semester at California State University, Long Beach.  > Megan, who had dark hair and a regal bearing, had tumbled out of wealth and was dating a man who knew Liz&#039;s dad. After Megan&#039;s boyfriend - a meth user, she said - died, Liz&#039;s dad invited her to share Liz&#039;s small pink room without consulting his daughter.  > It&#039;s on a scruffy stretch of Long Beach Boulevard near Oscar&#039;s Nails, a Wing Stop, and a weeded lot next to a building announcing WE BUY CARS. Neighbors refer to Megan as Liz&#039;s mom - &quot;You know Liz, the girl who sings.""   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/72utdo/the_college_try/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~217699 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*: **Liz**^#1 **Kersheral**^#2 **State**^#3 **more**^#4 **out**^#5"


It is possible, i've contacted different banks, and only one bank (Wells Fargo) didn't say that they need all members in person, but gave me a form which my colleague filled to authorize me to open an account.


I get Goldman allowing a yacht as collateral, at that size it's basically real estate. But an Andy Warhol? Fine art prices are so subjective and manipulated, it seems ridiculous to think that a company would allow it as collateral against a loan.


> > (b) If we take your metaphor to the modern age, handwritten IOUs won't work anymore; they have to be central-bank-printed notes; > > That's not true. Handwritten IOUs are are traded pretty routinely at my friday-night poker game.  This is also the bit I didn't get. The shoe maker would accept Loddars, but not the Friday Night IOUs, so how can you say they are worth the same?  I guess the IOUs are more risky than the Loddars for the shoe maker to accept, since the poker player might wake up on Saturday and not remember writing the IOU.  I could borrow 12 Loddars from the Tailor, then buy shoes now. Now the Tailor might not know that I plan to pay him back with money from the IOU... because that doesn't matter? If he lent me 12 Loddars, he did so on my ability to produce 12 Loddars in the future, not just on whether I will get the IOU back. So you're saying that this spreading out of the risk makes the difference between the IOUs and Loddars fade away, to the point where the promise of a Loddar from the Tailor is only as risky as actually having a Loddar, since a Loddar is only a promise of a Loddar from Ben in the first place?


The apartment I rented in San Jose had a severe mold problem.  It triggered an asthma allergic reaction I'd never had before.  They jacked my rent 15% so I shacked up with sweetie, whose rent was also jacked up contemporaneously.    Anyway, I moved out and haven't had an asthma attack since.  I was paying $1500 for a one bedroom (what a steal now!) that gave me asthma.  I think people can now rent that disease-hole for around $2300.


Every year in September/October I see a huge rush of European and Asian tourists to the desert Southwest.  Americans are back in school, prices are half what they were in the summer.  The tour loop goes from LA to the Four Corners area and all states n between.  Vegas is always a stop, as are all major National Parks.  This year Vegas and CA are legal.  It will be interesting.


"The most important thing in my view is flexibility, to avoid running into problems. One useful thing in the UK would be an arranged overdraft. You go to your bank, and they'll agree that you can overdraw your account by a certain number of pounds, depending on your income etc. It will cost you a very high interest rate, but only for each day where you are overdrawn. So paying a bill two days before your salary comes in isn't too bad. Obviously avoid using the overdraft if you can, having an overdraft while not using it is free. It's meant for an emergency; being regularly overdrawn is expensive. But once it is arranged with your bank, an arranged overdraft is much much cheaper than bouncing cheques etc. and possibly high fees for overdrawing your account. And it takes the pressure of you.  Now things to need before you get a loan (again, UK): The real interest rate that you are paying is called APR. That's the number that counts, and that cannot be manipulated. No ""payday loans"" to avoid getting yourself into deep, deep trouble. No loan sharks, obviously. If you buy things with ""interest free credit"", that's (a) included in the price, so you pay more, and (b) if you miss paying by one day they'll hit you with huge interest payments, and some will try this intentionally. Interest rate depends on loan amount. I once had to borrow 20% more than I needed because it reduced the interest rate by half... The 20% went straight into a savings account. Credit cards and overdrafts are much more expensive than loans. Mortgage is again cheaper than a loan usually. Make sure that you only use money from sources that charge the least amount. Make sure you pay back regularly so cheap sources stay available to you.  Just do yourself a favour and if at all possible, spend less instead of getting a loan."


I'm sorry but this won't ever happen without regulation from the Feds. I'm a banker and I use the credit agencies daily. We pull credit reports on borrowers and without it, banks won't lend. A credit pull is a huge part of the credit underwriting process. Literally no bank in the US will stop using credit reporting agencies. Sorry to burst your bubble.


"The ""$1000 is no money at all"" people are amusing me. Way back in the mists of time, a very young me invested on the order of ~$500 in a struggling electronics manufacturer I had a fondness for. An emotional investment, not much money, but enough that I could get a feel for what it was like owning stock in something. That stock's symbol was AAPL. This is admittedly a rare outcome, but $1000 invested over the long term isn't not worth doing. If for no other reason then when the OP has ""real"" money, he'll have X+$1000 invested rather than X, assuming 0% return, which I doubt. It's a small enough amount that there are special considerations, but it's a solid opportunity for learning how the market works, and making a little money. Anyway, my advice to the OP is as follows:"


"I love that shit when people say ""supported the local economy"" by going into a local retailer and forcing them to compete with something they cannot realistically compete against while turning any kind of a reasonable profit.  Yeah, you really ""supported"" that local economy didn't ya?"


The hard hold is the bank holding your money for no reason but to make money of your. Like the hotel took deposit for my over night and they released the time checked out in there system but it never showed on my account . I had to call the bank why the numbers are not adding up to my current balance. It's illegal practice by banks to hold your money until your realize you didn't spent that much and that musing amount is not even showing on your account. When it happen they will release after 30 days or you can call the bank right away soon as you done your business so you can use the money right away not the bank


I'm not saying it means it will keep going up.  But I think we can say that every person so far that has said bitcoin is done/over/dead whatever.  Has been wrong.  Eventually they might be right.  Probably even.  But the people saying when it's going to crash for the last time know as much as the people saying it's going to climb forever.


Is it just me, or does it seem like Jia Yueting is the stupidest self-made billionaire of all time? The guy just seems like an unprecedentedly financially naive and arrogant moron. He's Chinese Reed Hastings throwing money at the idea of being Chinese Elon Musk too.   Starting not one but TWO ambitious car companies competing with fucking Tesla as a division of a company whose business has nothing to do with automobiles, risking bringing down a cash cow with two absurdly ambitious (and even cannibalizing!) startups? What the fuck is he thinking? How the hell did this illiterate hack start a company and make billions in the first place?


The investment in the highway system in the USA, the MOST EXPENSIVE investment ever(!) done by the USA, and then people drive on them for FREE(!), had a proven idea behind it: it develops the country and promote the economy, trade, etc. Huge long term benefits in so many areas with huge benefits compared to the investment.  Same with space exploration! Absolutely ZERO return on investment, but wait for the future...   Investment in this factory will at least bring money back to the state. People will work instead of living off welfare.   But beyond that: if there's a factory, there need to be supplies, supplier, R&D, sales, production management, and technology being used here in the USA that can be used for making other products.  Based on what you said, we should not have invested in the highway system or space program.


I'm talking more corporate cartels, like the oil cartel, the banking cartel, the military and health care cartels, the telecomm cartel, etc. While government remains a cheap middleman that they can push around, a government is still the ONLY thing standing in the way of the population against profit-seeking psychopaths.


Yes, add the stocks/mutual funds that you want and then you would just need to add all the transactions that you theoretically would have made. Performing the look up on the price at each date that you would have sold or bought is quite tedious as well as adding each transaction.


List prices have been increasing as they have since WWII.  However the bar for getting grant aid catches more and more families.  College has become a private wealth and income tax.  If you save $1m it will cost your kids $1m.  Tuition has gotten to the point that even the mass affluent without assets are getting aid.  Today if you have a $200k household income but instead have that $1m tied up in home equity and retirement accounts, it will only cost $50k per year or a discount off list price of about $600k for two kid families making $200k a year.    I'm not saving a dime for college since my kids will be punished for it.  I've paid off my house and I'm maximizing every available retirement account.


Although a data recovery service's main goal is to restore your lost information, they do so much more than that. A quality data recovery service will not only provide you with data security, they will also employ computer forensics to help restore data in the most difficult situations.


How far can this be taken though?   If you increase the minimum wage to $100/hr, tons of businesses will either close or eliminate most of their staff.   Will the increased spending power of those that remain employed really manage to drive growth and subsequent expansion of hiring?   Isn't that a rather roundabout way of creating job growth?


Stopped by today and the price reductions are completely over-hyped.  There were a small handful of produce items that had some price reductions.  Not particularly impactful.  Maybe a good start but seems more like a marketing strategy at the moment.


"I have heard that investing more money into an investment which has gone down is generally a bad idea*. ""Throwing good money after bad"" so to speak. This is over simplified statement to explain the concept. What is essentially says is; Say I hold stocks of XYZ; 100 units worth say USD 1000. This has lost me x% [say 50%]. The general tendency is to buy 100 more units in anticipation / hope that the price will go up. This is incorrect.  However on case to case basis, this maybe the right decisions. On a periodic basis [or whenever you want to invest more money]; say you have USD 1000 and did not have the stock of XYZ, will you buy this at current price and outlook of the company. If the answer is Yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if the answer is no sell the stock at current market price and take the loss. The same applies when the price has appreciated. If you have USD 1000; given the current price and future outlook, will you buy the specific stock. If yes, hold the stock [or buy more], if answer is no sell the stock and book profit. Off-course I have not overlaid the various other considerations when buying stocks like diversification, risk profiles of individual stocks / segments, tax implications etc that are also essential even if you decide to buy or sell specific stock."


Most of the points by MrChrister are valid. I can't say much for Philippines, however there is a reason for one to go with individual insurance from my experience in India.


I agree with the other posters that you will need to seek the advice of a tax attorney specializing in corporate taxation. Here is an idea to investigate: Could you sell the company, and thereby turn the profits that are taxed as ordinary income into a long-term capital gain (taxed at 15%, plus state income tax, if any)? You can determine the value of a profitable business using discounted cash flow analysis, even if you expect that the revenue stream will dry up due to product obsolescence or expiry of licensing agreements.  To avoid the capital gains taxes (especially if you live in a high-tax state like California), you could also transfer the stock to a Charitable Remainder Trust. The CRT then sells the shares to the third-party acquirer, invests the proceeds and pays you annual distributions (similar to an annuity). The flip side of a sale is that now the acquiring party will be stuck with the taxes payable on your company's profits (while being forced to amortize the purchase price over multiple years -- 15, if I recall correctly), which will factor into the valuation. However, it is likely that the acquirer has better ways to mitigate the tax impact (e.g. the acquirer is a company currently operating at a loss, and therefore can cancel out the tax liabilities from your company's profits).  One final caveat: Don't let the tax tail wag the business dog. In other words, focus your energies on extracting the maximum value from your company, rather than trying to find convoluted tax saving strategies. You might find that making an extra dollar in profits is easier than saving fifty cents in taxes.


The analysis of the report is a different issue entirely. I was just referring to economists incompetence.  But while we are on the subject, this does paint a pretty bleak picture for the rest of the year. Combine this with the fact GDP grew 1.9% over the first quarter due exclusively to consumer spending and we may be headed for trouble. Businesses and the government are cutting back on spending. If they aren't creating enough jobs, then consumers will have to inevitably cut spending too, which would contract the economy. Not a very cheerful thought.


">SS is not an investment. It is a Tax. Learn the difference. Thus you pay for it with the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA). It is not an investment, you do not have an account with your money, it has always been a pay as you go plan, just like medicare, funds for schools, and all the other programs.   SS is collected like a tax, but if it is infact a tax, why can I opt out of it? Come on, you really aren't trying to win an arguement about SS by saying its a ""tax"" and not a ""investment"". That's seriously the weakest bullshit, who the fuck cares the symantics of how its ""collected"".. The arguement is still the same, with no USA no SS. It is, therefore, a ponzi by definition.   >The US government wrote the laws that specify exactly who can opt out. Most people cannot just opt out because they don't meet the criteria. Again you're wrong.    Joining and quitting Obtaining a Social Security number for a child is voluntary.[26] Further, there is no general legal requirement that individuals join the Social Security program (although, under normal circumstances, FICA taxes must be collected anyway). Although the Social Security Act itself does not require a person to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work in the United States,[27] the Internal Revenue Code does generally require the use of the social security number by individuals for federal tax purposes: The social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as shall otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary [of the Treasury or his delegate], be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title.[28] Importantly, most parents apply for Social Security numbers for their dependent children in order to[29] include them on their income tax returns as a dependent. Everyone filing a tax return, as taxpayer or spouse, must have a Social Security Number or Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) since the IRS is unable to process returns or post payments for anyone without an SSN or TIN. The FICA taxes are imposed on all workers and self-employed persons. Employers are required[30] to report wages for covered employment to Social Security for processing Forms W-2 and W-3. There are some specific wages which are not a part of the Social Security program (discussed below). Internal Revenue Code provisions section 3101[31] imposes payroll taxes on individuals and employer matching taxes. Section 3102[32] mandates that employers deduct these payroll taxes from workers' wages before they are paid. Generally, the payroll tax is imposed on everyone in employment earning ""wages"" as defined in 3121[33] of the Internal Revenue Code.[34] and also taxes[35] net earnings from self-employment.[36]  **Seriously, you need to learn how to use google asshole. Stop looking like an idiot and posting blatent lies.**"


Dunno.  A realist?  Unique? :)  I think really it depends on whether you consider it worth providing socialist care if the benefit was high for the cost of it.  Would be in favour of charging working people an average of around 20% of the wages in order to pay for health care for everyone **assuming** that the maximum benefit could be gained for that money?  Libertarians would usually say no.  That taxes (aka extracting money under threat of violence) for such a thing are immorral, no matter the benefit.  How can you violently force someone to provide care to another person?, they would ask


It really wasn't necessary, as rising wages in China are competing with wages here. All we had to do was get to the point where China wasn't dirt cheap anymore.  Also dealing with the corruption overseas certainly doesn't help. People say that complying with US regulations is burdensome, but not nearly as burdensome as not knowing what bribes you will have to pay when.


Finding Zero is the expected result of your Craigslist check. You will have to do a lot more research. A local agent can help you determine the number of days they stay on the market before they are rented. They can also help determine the spread between purchase costs and rental cost. You will also have to figure in the cost of hiring a local management company, if you don't want to drive to Syracuse every time the renter has a problem in the middle of the night, or in the middle of a blizzard.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/31/politics/congress-investigating-jeff-sessions-russian-ambassador-meeting/index.html) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Congressional investigators are examining whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions had an additional private meeting with Russia&#039;s ambassador during the presidential campaign, according to Republican and Democratic Hill sources and intelligence officials briefed on the investigation.  > Investigators on the Hill are requesting additional information, including schedules from Sessions, a source with knowledge tells CNN. They are focusing on whether such a meeting took place April 27, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC, where then-candidate Donald Trump was delivering his first major foreign policy address.  > Neither Hill nor FBI investigators have yet concluded whether a private meeting took place - and acknowledge that it is possible any additional meeting was incidental.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ekkra/first_on_cnn_sources_congress_investigating/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~133727 tl;drs so far."") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **meet**^#1 **Sessions**^#2 **Russian**^#3 **any**^#4 **Trump**^#5"


Hmm... I don't understand how big of an impact that would have in the long run. In the short-run, I can see it being an issue due to price-inflation.   But long-term, wouldn't the market adjust accordingly? If the prices are raised beyond the individual households' disposable income, people will simply find alternative products.   I guess it would be a terrible thing if they controlled something that is necessary to us. But if that happens, I imagine a revolution will start.   What incentives do the large companies have in doing this?


I had this same thing. We both just got out of a relationship and neither of us wanted anything like a relationship, but both desperately did not want to sleep alone. We weren't even attracted to each other sexually but we'd study together till late, then head to one of our places and sleep in each other's arms.   Quite cathartic really.


The history of the last 100 years has demonstrated that inflation need not be a straight-line advance in price across the board. New technology has delivered productivity gains which have in many cases compensated for inflation. Keep in mind that price changes may be inflationary, but may not attributable to inflation. For example, the massive swing upward in gasoline prices had more to do with the market, specifically Chinese demand for gas than inflation. But increased fuel costs trickle into the prices of other commodities that we need to buy as well!


You are trying to predict the future currency fluctuations that can't be predicted.  If you know for sure you are moving, convert it directly into Euros in near future rather than take a complicated route.


">I also got more interviews in the 3 months since I started studying for the CFA and listing that on resume then in the 6 months before hand  Sounds like you need to get your interview skills up to par then. Once you get the interview it's all on you to show them that you're quick on your feet and a somewhat enjoyable person to be around. I used to be awful in interviews but now I just waltz in there with a ""I dont need these guys, they need me"" mindset. I also cross my legs and lean back, etc.. Anything to make me relax and not come off as a robot spouting financial statement jargon"


California bankruptcy law requires disclosure of any gift made by the person declaring bankruptcy in the past 12 months, and any asset transfers in the past 2 years (with a couple of minor exceptions). This would most certainly include the car, if it is regifted back to you. Such a claim would likely be considered fraudulent, though this would be a matter for the lawyers and bankruptcy trustee in question. There's a blog which you may wish to check out, the California Bankruptcy Blog, which has a specific entry on gifts. Now, there is a specific exemption for automobiles, but only up to a total of $2725. Legally, I believe there's nothing you can do here. If the $10K was a loan, it will be discharged in bankruptcy. If it was a gift, it'll have to be declared and the car will have to be sold. If regifted or transferred, it must be declared and will likely (but not definitely) be determined as an invalid disposal of assets. Either you or your family member will have to discuss this with a bankruptcy lawyer. I'm sorry your generous act is likely to get tangled up here. :(


"Defining risk tolerance is often aided with a series of questions. Such as - You are 30 and have saved 3 years salary in your 401(k). The market drops 33% and since you are 100% S&P, you are down the same. How do you respond?  (a) move to cash - I don't want to lose more money. (b) ride it out. Keep my deposits to the maximum each year. Sleep like a baby.  A pro will have a series of this type of question. In the end, the question resolves to ""what keeps you up at night?"" I recall a conversation with a coworker who was so risk averse, that CDs were the only right investment for her. I had to explain in painstaking detail, that our company short term bond fund (sub 1 year government paper) was a safe place to invest while getting our deposits matched dollar for dollar. In our conversations, I realized that long term expectations (of 8% or more) came with too high a risk for her, at any level of her allocation. Zero it was."


I know this question is old. I also have a kotak trading account. There is no way to get the dividend report from the trading account. The dividend is directly credited to your bank account by the companies through registrar. There is no involvement of trading account in there. So the best possible way will be to get the bank account statement for the financial year and filter out the dividend transactions manually. I know it is tedious, but there doesn't seem to be any easy way out there for this. Few days back I started using portfolio manager provided by economic times. It lists all the dividend earned in my stocks automatically.


Deming Electro Plating Corporation specializes in all types of electroplating and surface finishing services in New York. We provide high quality metal finishing work using top grade materials. With over 60 years of experience in electroplating services we provide fastest turnaround time on all types of finishing work.


> so luck is not a factor  Of course it is.  Had Bach been born at a different time in history, his style may not have been as fashionable as it was in the time he was active, and the cultural influence he has exerted would not have informed our tastes in the same way, resulting in a reality where Bach doesn't seem all that special.


I'm interested in how this will fit in with the anti gmo  and organic produce crowed.  There is such a push back against engineered plants, I wonder if it will be the same against this or will the ethical and environmental benefits silence those voices?


"Benjammin822 gave a pretty good summary of how schools are thought of but I'll add my two cents as well.  Yes, at ""top"" firms you'll see a heavy representation of Ivies, top LACs, and schools like Duke, UVA, Cal, etc.   However, this does not preclude you from going into investment banking. There are thousands of firms out there, and there are a bunch of stories on Wall Street Oasis about guys from non-targets networking their tail off and breaking in (even at big firms). If you want it bad enough, you'll make the necessary efforts to succeed.   And if you fail, you always have a ""redo"" by pursuing a top MBA."


Owning a stock via a fund and selling it short simultaneously should have the same net financial effect as not owning the stock.  This should work both for your personal finances as well as the impact of (not) owning the shares has on the stock's price. To use an extreme example, suppose there are 4 million outstanding shares of Evil Oil Company.  Suppose a group of concerned index fund investors owns 25% of the stock and sells short the same amount.   They've borrowed someone else's 25% of the company and sold it to a third party.  It should have the same effect as selling their own shares of the company, which they can't otherwise do.  Now when 25% of the company's stock becomes available for purchase at market price, what happens to the stock?  It falls, of course.   Regarding how it affects your own finances, suppose the stock price rises and the investors have to return the shares to the lender.  They buy 1 million shares at market price, pushing the stock price up, give them back, and then sell another million shares short, subsequently pushing the stock price back down. If enough people do this to effect the share price of a stock or asset class, the managers at the companies might be forced into behaving in a way that satisfies the investors.  In your case, perhaps the company could issue a press release and fire the employee that tried to extort money from your wife's estate in order to win your investment business back.  Okay, well maybe that's a stretch.


Well I love Tesla, and 8 years / Infinite Miles...sounds good, but it is also about the same as many conventional vehicles which come with a 10 Year / 100,000 mile drive train warranty. (which does work out to be 7.1 years with a typical annual mileage of 14k)


You're conflating the amount of money the American economy makes with the amount of debt the American *government* accrues. The deficit is not 2.3% of tax receipts.  Really, your story is about somebody who makes $29,000, has their parent's co-signed on a mortgage for $170,000, and spent $38,000 last year. They just put the extra $9 on their parents' credit card and ignored all the times their parents have tried to sit down and talk about their spending habits over the years.  The total *American* debt is $60 trillion, which is 350% of GDP.


One way to look at a butterfly is to break it into two trades. A butterfly is actually made up of two verticals... One is a debit vertical: buy 490 put and sell the 460 put.  The other is a credit vertical: sell a 460 put and buy a 430 put.  If someone believes Apple will fall to 460, that person could do a few things. There are other strategies but this just compares the three common ones: 1) Buy a put. This is expensive and if the stock only goes to 460 you overpay for it. 2) Buy a put vertical. This is less expensive because you offset the price of your put. 3) Buy a butterfly. This is cheapest of the three because you have the vertical in #2 as well as a credit vertical on top of that to offset your cost.  The reason why someone would use the butterfly is to pay less upfront while capitalizing on a fall to 460. Of the three, this would be the better strategy to use if that happens. But REMEMBER that this only applies if the trader is right and it goes to 460. There is always a trade off for every strategy that the trader must be aware of. If the trader is wrong, and Apple goes to say 400, the put (#1) would make the most money and the butterfly(#3) would lose money while the vertical (#2) would still gain. So that is what you're sacrificing to get the benefits of the butterfly. Also helps to draw a diagram to compare the strategies.


"In the United States, the Fair Credit Reporting Act allows companies to buy your credit information for ""legitimate business needs."" The legitimate use of credit scores and credit reporting varies state to state, but like it or not, you can expect a lot more non-lending use of your credit information in the future. Companies and individuals use credit reports as an assessment of general behavior because, unfortunately, they work. You've seen the disclaimers about ""past performance…"", but unfortunately in this case… past performance really has been shown to be a pretty reliable indicator of future behavior. So…"


"Yes on taxes. It depends on the other point. As you already see from Ben's comment, if you're both very Western in your culture, you may want to consider Ben's advice because while you will save money, it may not be considered a healthy way to start a relationship.  Western culture tends to see marriage as more of a ""do it for love"" whereas other cultures may view marriage more pragmatically and take economics and finance as a major consideration. For instance, a friend of mine married his spouse and it was 100% pragmatic - considering taxes and laws, driving most of his family insane because ""it doesn't sound very loving"" (these were the exact words).  Unfortunately, this created tension later on because family on both sides kept telling both of them that the other didn't love the partner and they used how their marriage started as proof.  As surprising as it is to me (non-Western), many Americans are horrified at people marrying at the JOP or other pragmatic ways, even if it saves them thousands. Answering questions about relationships is very difficult because often the issue is less about money and more about culture.  If you're both from pragmatic cultures where economics and finance weigh strongly and you don't see possible issues with family (and really be honest on this point), then consider the financial advantages."


You don't need to use an open line of credit to help your credit score. You didn't ask this, but another option is to not cut up the card and keep the account open, even if you don't use it. I mention this because sometimes when you are calling in or setting up an online account to service the card, you may need to have the expiration date and CVV code on hand. This has burned me a few times as I had to hunt around for a card I rarely ever use. That being said, if you are worried that you might use the card if you know it's there, then sure, cut it up.


Repaint are the leading Montreal painting professionals for your interior and exterior painting project. With over 10 years of commercial painting in Montreal, they can handle any job, big or small. Get a free quote now! Visit http://repeinture.ca/en/.


I'm not sure why you think that it matters that the distribution goes to an S-Corp vs an individual tax payer. You seem to think it has any relevance to your question, but it doesn't. It only confuses your readers. The situation is like this: LLC X is deriving income in State #2. It has two members (I and S) residents of State #1. Members I and S pay all their taxes to State #1, and don't pay taxes to State #2. State #2 audited member I and that member now needs to pay back taxes and penalties to State #2 on income derived from that State. Your question: Does that mean that member S should be worried, since that member was essentially doing the exact same thing as member I? My answer: Yes.


"(This answer is based on the US banking system; if that isn't where you are, please edit appropriately.) There are probably two places the thief could go to cash the check: Your bank The issuer's bank Third-party banks are unlikely to want to cash a check drawn on a different bank for a payee who isn't their customer.  So notifying both of these banks would be a good start. Also, hopefully the thief does not look like you and won't be able to pass using your ID.  The thief will also have to forge your endorsement on the check - if he goes to your bank, they can check it against your signature which they have on file, and hopefully it won't match.  (The issuer's bank wouldn't notice that, of course, so read on.) Even if the check is cashed, you should ultimately be okay, as I understand it.  The issuer of the check still owes you the money; he can't prove he's paid you until he has the cancelled check (or its image) showing your valid endorsement.  So he needs to give you another check, eventually.  (This assumes the check was payment for a debt of some kind; if it was a gift or some other sort of voluntary payment, he could at this point change his mind and decide not to pay you after all.) The issuer should be okay too.  If the check is cashed and debited from his account, he should go to his bank and tell them the endorsement is forged.  They may ask you to sign something where you state under penalty of perjury that the signature isn't yours.  Then they will re-credit his account, so that he can pay you again. (Normally the bank  that cashed the check will be on the hook for the loss; it was their responsibility to make sure they were paying the rightful payee, and they failed in that responsibility.  Various procedural issues can shift that liability between banks, but ultimately it shouldn't be either customer who suffers unless someone did something really negligent, like not reporting the theft for months.) Obviously this would all be much simpler if the issuer can call his bank right away and stop payment.  This can be done over the phone or online, so ""out of town"" shouldn't be an issue unless he is out in the woods or something.  If he can talk to you, he can talk to them."


well with all the scientist saying that we're doomed anyway. If the parachute is gone just enjoy the fall while it lasts.   According to mainstream media the only thing that could stop the carbon  emissions on time is a plan economy. Is this the proposition?   If there is any chance of us avoiding this it will be due to the alternative energies being better and winning on the free market. We see this happening with coal already. But to hand away all the power of the production to a bunch of hippies, unconditionally since if we don't the God of climate change will punish us for our hedonistic ways, is a rather wild suggestion.


Robert Shiller has an on-line page with links to download some historical data that may be what you want here. Center for the Research in Security Prices would be my suggestion for another resource here.


Yes, there is an analogous strategy for selling: it's to sell a fixed number of shares per period of time.


Right now the SEPA Credit Transfers take 3 days excluding holidays. In future this would be reduced to 2 days and then eventually to same day. Your bank would have acknowledged sending out the transaction. It would go into the clearing house and then to the recipient's bank. Once the receiver's bank receives the funds, they would notify the receiver.


"Does your new job include life insurance?  Most ""professional"" positions *will*, making your old insurance a moot point.   That said, even if the answer is ""no"", **and** you really, really need to maintain some level of term life (ie, newborn kid and unemployed spouse)... You would **still** want to shop around rather than just automatically converting your former employer's plan.  ""Group"" is a nice-sounding way of saying ""the young and healthy subsidize the premiums of the old and sick""; if you're not old and/or chronically unhealthy... You can probably do better on your own."


You know we have states that have legalized and not seen some big explosion in crashes right?  I'm sorry , nobody is legalizing DUI, I can't justify continuing to prohibit cannabis entirely just because some people are afraid of other drivers.


One of the key characteristics of capitalism is commodification of labor and exchange.  Thus, one truly is forced under capitalism to work.  We see this today in the economy (falling wages are a key indicator) but also in the origins of capitalism, where the enclosures and dispossessions (essentially, the imposition of commodity exchange and labor) were accompanied by a massive state-sponsored bloodbath and spectacular terrorism.  So, I think it is clear that capitalism does indeed force your to work.


"Theres nothing wrong with CDOs or Synthetic ones. What is important is that they are labelled correctly in terms of their risk. You cant be selling risky CDOs as ""safe"" bets.   If the rating agencies and financial institutions rate them correctly then I dont see a problem with it."


In america we cater to the lowest common denominator: Whatever makes the loudest noise, that's what we throw money at.  So a huge amount of money is spent on a tiny number of people.  Where is the most money in health care spent?  28% of all health care spending is spent on 1% of the population.  5% of the patients are 49% of the cost of health care.


"Einige Begriffe in persönliche Finanzen sind genauso wichtig, oder gebrauchte so häufig, wie ""Gefahr."" Dennoch sind einige Begriffe als ungenau definiert. Im Allgemeinen wenn Finanzberater oder die Medien über Anlagerisiko sprechen, ist ihren Fokus auf die historische Volatilität des Vermögenswerts bzw. der Investitionen in der Diskussion.  Berater beschriften als aggressive oder riskante eine Investition, die anfällig für wilde Preis-Rotationen in der Vergangenheit gewesen ist. Die vermeintliche Unsicherheit und Unvorhersehbarkeit für die zukünftige Wertentwicklung dieser Investition wird als Risiko wahrgenommen. Vermögenswerte gekennzeichnet durch Preise, die historisch in einem engeren Bereich von Spitzen und Täler verschoben wurden gelten als Konservativer. Diese Erklärung wird leider selten angeboten, so dass es oft nicht klar ist, dass der Volatilität Maßstab verwendet wird, um die Gefahr zu messen.  Bevor Sie sich Risiko mehr formell, lohnen sich ein paar Bemerkungen. Auf der praktischen Ebene können wir sagen, dass Risiko die Chance, ist dass Ihre Investition niedrigere Renditen als erwartet oder sogar einen Verlust Ihrer gesamten Investition vermitteln. Sie wahrscheinlich auch sind besorgt über die Chance, Ihre Anlageziele nicht erfüllen. Denn Sie investieren jetzt so können Sie etwas später tun (z. B. für Hochschule bezahlen oder bequem zurückziehen). Jede Investition trägt ein gewisses Risiko, einschließlich den möglichen Verlust des Prinzipals, und es kann keine Garantie dafür, dass alle Investment-Strategie erfolgreich sein wird. Deshalb ist es sinnvoll, die Arten von Risiken sowie das Ausmaß der Gefahr, die Sie auswählen, und Wege, sie zu handhaben lernen zu verstehen.  WAS SIE WAHRSCHEINLICH BEREITS WISSEN, ÜBER DAS RISIKO  Auch wenn Sie nie über das Thema gedacht haben vielleicht, sind Sie wahrscheinlich bereits vertraut mit vielen Arten von Risiko von Lebenserfahrungen. Beispielsweise ist es sinnvoll, dass ein Skandal oder Klage, bei der ein Unternehmen, wahrscheinlich einen Tropfen in den Preis der Aktien dieses Unternehmens, zumindest vorübergehend verursachen wird. Wenn ein Autohersteller einen Homerun mit einem neuen Modell trifft, könnte das schlechte Nachrichten für konkurrierende Autohersteller sein. Im Gegensatz dazu könnte eine Verlangsamung und Börse Konjunkturrückgangs die meisten Unternehmen und ihre Aktienkurse, nicht nur in einer Branche Schaden.  Allerdings gibt es viele verschiedene Arten von Risiken zu beachten. Volatilität ist ein guter Ort zu beginnen, da wir die Elemente des Risiko genauer untersuchen.  WAS MACHT VOLATILITÄT RISKANT?  Nehmen wir an, dass Sie vor 20 Jahren $10.000 in jedem der zwei Investmentfonds investiert hatten und beide Fonds durchschnittliche jährliche Rendite von 10 Prozent produziert. Stellen Sie sich weiter, dass man dieser hypothetischen Mittel verlässliche Freddy kehrte genau 10 Prozent jedes Jahr. Die jährliche zurückgeben des zweiten Fonds, Jekyll & Hyde, wechselten--5 Prozent ein Jahr, 15 Prozent der nächsten, 5 Prozent wieder im dritten Jahr und So weiter. Was wäre diese zwei Investitionen Wert am Ende der 20 Jahre?  Es scheint offensichtlich, dass wenn die durchschnittliche jährliche Rendite von zwei Anlagen identisch sind, ihre Endwerte, zu werden. Aber das ist ein Fall, wo sich Intuition stimmt. Wenn Sie die 20-jährige Anlagerenditen in diesem Beispiel in einem Diagramm darstellen, sehen Sie, dass verlässliche Freddy Endwert mehr als $2.000 mehr als das aus der Variablen gibt der Jekyll ist & Hyde. Das Defizit wird viel schlimmer, wenn Sie verbreitern die jährlichen Schwankungen (z.B. Plus oder Minus 15 Prozent, anstelle von Plus oder Minus 5 Prozent). Das folgende Beispiel veranschaulicht eine der Auswirkungen der Investitionen Preisschwankungen: kurzfristige Schwankungen der Renditen sind eine Belastung für langfristiges Wachstum. (Hinweis: Dies ist ein hypothetisches Beispiel und spiegelt nicht die Leistung einer bestimmten Investition. In diesem Beispiel übernimmt die Wiederanlage der alle Einnahmen und berücksichtigt keine Steuern oder Transaktionskosten.)  Zwar Performance in der Vergangenheit keine Garantie für zukünftige Ergebnisse, ist historisch die negative Auswirkungen der kurzfristigen Preisschwankungen verringert worden, Investitionen über einen längeren Zeitraum zu halten. Aber auf eine längere Haltedauer zählen bedeutet, dass zusätzliche Planung gefordert ist. Sie sollten kein Geld investieren, die bald in eine flüchtige Investition benötigt werden. Andernfalls könnten Sie gezwungen sein, die Investition um Bargeld zu einem Zeitpunkt zu erhöhen, wenn die Investition mit Verlust ist, zu verkaufen.  [Lesen sie hier mehr](http://www.ameripriseadvisors.com/team/abney-associates/articles/9/understanding-risk/)"


I knew that but it's how creative they get with their evil. And in spite of everyone in the world telling them not to, telling them they'll be punished, that there are consequences to face..   I'm simultaneously repulsed and embarassed by association.


The money goes to the seller.  There are a lot of behind the scenes things that happen, and some transactions are very complicated with many parties involved (evidenced by all the comments on @keshlam's perfectly reasonable high-level answer), but ultimately the money goes to the seller.  Sometimes the seller is the company.  The billions of shares that change hands each day are moving between other individuals like you and investment funds; these transactions have no direct impact on the company's financials, in general.


The previous answers have raised very good points, but I believe one facet of this has been neglected. While it's true that the total accessible supply of gold keeps growing(although rather slowly as was mentioned earlier) the fact remains that gold, like oil, is a non-renewable natural resource. So, at some point, we are going to run out of gold to mine. Due to this fact, I believe gold will always be highly valued. Of course it can certainly always fluctuate in value. In fact, I expect in the reasonably near future to see a decline in the price of gold due to investors selling it en masse to re-enter the stock market when the economy has recovered more substantially.


U kunt maatwerk, professionaliteit, kwaliteit en gedegen advies verwachten sauna Kopen en infraroodcabines. De werknemers van het bedrijf staan klaar om u te helpen bij het maken van een juiste keuze die wordt gemaakt van al uw wensen. dus bezoek onze website.


"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or ""going short.""  When you use money to buy shares, it is called ""going long."" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything.  Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share.  You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000.  You are both long and short in the stock for $2000.  At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds.  You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share.  Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000.  However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares.  Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest.  Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share.  Your long shares have lost $1000 in value.  However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares.  However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything.  Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time.  However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame.  The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting.  Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time.  You are only attempting to hedge your bets.  And it doesn't work.  A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position.  And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future.  This, however, doesn't really change things much.  Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term.  Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess.  And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain.  You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop.  You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon.  Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short.  However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position.    And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up.  You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain."


"If you're risking ""everything"" by buying stock, you shouldn't be buying stock. The employees are the ones who are really at risk. Should the business go belly up, the investors are out some investment money, they'll make more; the employees don't have an income source anymore. CAT may have no legal obligation to pay better than market-wages but if they want to keep their skilled labor from going to competitors, they might want to think about it. You can't build machines without workers. If you have a good product in an established market, you can always get more investors."


assuming you are in the USA, i would recommend making this a gift.  you can gift someone up to 14k$ per year without paying a gift tax. additionally, you can gift someone up to 5430k$, but it is a one-time deal (tied to inheritance tax).   you can have a general expectation with the giftee that they will return the money with some interest on some schedule.  you can even write that payment schedule down.  but for legal, tax and personal relationship reasons, you should both consider all these payments gifts. if you think failure to repay will put a strain on your relationship, then you shouldn't make the loan.  if not, then the payments in both directions really are gifts. as a gift, legal documentation can be really minimal. really, only the gifter has to document anything, and that is just on their tax return. even then, i think it is only necessary if you exceed the 14k$ annual gift limit. i would however recommend documenting any interest rates or payment schedules for personal reasons. being a gift, these numbers are just guidelines, but at least you won't find yourself arguing about whether or not the guidelines are being met. depending on how large the amounts involved are, you might want to spread the load over several people to stay under that annual limit. but the limit is per tax year, so you could do half now and half in january.


"The default scenario that we're talking about in the Summer of 2011 is a discretionary situation where the government refuses to borrow money over a certain level and thus becomes insolvent. That's an important distinction, because the US has the best credit in the world and still carries enormous borrowing power -- so much so that the massive increases in borrowing over the last decade of war and malaise have not affected the nation's ability to borrow additional money. From a personal finance point of view, my guess is that after the ""drop dead date"" disclosed by the Treasury, you'd have a period of chaos and increasing liquidity issues after government runs out of gimmicks like ""borrowing"" from various internal accounts and ""selling"" assets to government authorities.  I don't think the markets believe that the Democrats and Republicans are really willing to destroy the country. If they are, the market doesn't like surprises."


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-no-longer-biggest-us-car-company-by-market-cap-as-stock-plunges-after-safety-distinction-eludes-model-s-2017-07-06) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Tesla Inc.&#039;s stock plunged into bear market territory Thursday before bouncing slightly, after an independent highway-safety organization said the electric-car maker&#039;s flagship Model S failed to qualify for any top safety award.  > The stock&#039;s TSLA, -5.58% selloff knocked Tesla from its perch as No. 1 U.S. car maker by market cap, a distinction the Silicon Valley company maintained for some three months.  > Tesla&#039;s stock has lost about $7.18 billion in market cap the past two sessions.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6lq6y2/tesla_no_longer_biggest_us_car_company_by_market/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~161131 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*: **Model**^#1 **Tesla**^#2 **safety**^#3 **rated**^#4 **stock**^#5"


Thanks for this, great in depth answer. I had previously calculated a WACC and have used it for my discount rate.   As part of your last point on revenue vs. cash, I've set a accounts receivable period of 30 days, and then applied a factor of 30/365 * revenue to understand what portion of my revenue is not cash in hand. Does that make sense?


401k contributions are exempt from employee and employer FICA withholding.  The employer withholding is approximately 7% of the gross.  The closer the employer match ratio is to 7%, the closer it is to paying for itself.  Example: Assuming an employee is match-maximizing and in very round numbers grosses 100,000 per year.  A 50% match schedule is about $350 cheaper per employee than a 100% match schedule: Default non participant: The employee will see about 7000 deducted for FICA, and the employer will pay 7000 to FICA if they don't participate.   First case: the match is 100%, 1-for-1 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 5000, and have 6650 withheld for FICA.  The employer will pay 6650 to FICA.  The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,650.   Second case: If the match is 50%, 1-for-2 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 10000, and have 6300 withheld for FICA.  The employer will pay 6300 to FICA.  The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,300.


I ended up writing a simulation in R. Here is my code: It produces a plot like this:  This code assumes you have a lump sum and either wish to pay down a loan or invest it all immediately. Feedback welcome.


In general, buying a house will improve your net worth over the long haul, because unlike cars, houses don't suffer as much from depreciation.  The problem with real property is that markets are very cyclic and aren't very liquid assets. Farmers with thousands of acres of valuable land are often cash poor for that very reason. A lot of people here are negative about housing ownership — this is illustrative of the fact that 2010 is a year where real estate is on the down-side of the cycle.


What's killing the mid-priced restaurant industry? Maybe it's a combination of waitstaff and tipping.  Two of the major draws of fast-casual places like Chipotle, Boston Market, Panera, etc., is (a) order at the counter and (b) enjoy a tip-free dining experience. For the price, there's hardly a discernable difference in food quality between a spaghetti dinner at Applebee's and one at Fazoli's, for example. Place your order, pay exactly what's on the register, and walk away with your food in a few minutes. There's no delay for a wait-person to pick your party's completed order from the kitchen, where three dishes languish under a heat lamp while the straggler awaits completion and plating. You want a refill on that ice tea? Thirty seconds after you've drained the dregs from your glass, you're back in your seat with a fresh drink from the fountain dispenser. When everyone is finished eating, there's no need to flag down a harried server to bring your bill, and then wait even longer for change or that little slip to sign. Just get up and walk out the door.  That's tough competition.


It's the RT that I think they are referencing in this article. Was a total clusterfuck and waste of money. Was over priced,  heavily underpowered,  and wasn't what people thought of when they consider buying a Microsoft product (wide ranging compatibility). The pro is a viable product line still. It has a different market than standard tablets and has a whole lit more potential functionality. Its a good product that fills several niche markets.  It won't make Microsoft nearly as much as apple makes on their iPad line of products, but it provides a good foundation for Microsoft to rebrand itself.


Here's how the CBO says the top 1% get their income:     Source|% from source :--------|---------: Cash Wages and Salaries|33.4% Business Income|23.2% Capital Gains|19.1% Capital Income|11.2% Corporate Tax Borne by Capital|7.3% Other Income|3.2% Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes|0.9% Employee's Contributions to Deferred Compensation Plans|0.7% Employer's Contributions to Health Insurance|0.5%


The RDFI (Receiving Depository Institution) is the place where you keep your money and where the Debit is going to be made. Unfortunately the Debit did not go through for some kind of regulatory reason that I don't understand. You could ask them why people are not allowed to make ACH Debits there or you can try to pay through a different bank.


"I don't know of a situation where rejecting a raise would make sense. Often, one can be in a phaseout of some benefit, so that even though you're in a certain tax bracket, the impact of the next $100 is greater than the bracket rate alone. Taxation of social security benefits is one such anomaly. It can be high, but never over 100%. Update - The Affordable Care Act contains such an anomaly - go to the Kaiser Foundation site, and see the benefit a family of three might receive. A credit for up to $4631 toward their health care insurance cost. But, increase the income to above $78120 Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) and the benefit drops to zero. The fact that the next dollar of income will cost you $4631 in the lost credit is an example of a step-function in the tax code. I'd still not turn down the raise, but I'd ask that it be deposited to my 401(k). And when reconciling my taxes each April, I'd use an IRA in case I still went over a bit. Consider, it's April, and your MAGI is $80,120. Even if you don't have to cash to deposit to the IRA, you borrow it, from a 24% credit card if need be. Because the $2000 IRA will trigger not just $300 less Federal tax, but a $4631 health care credit.  Note - the above example will apply to a limited, specific group who are funding their own health care expense and paying above a certain percent of income. It's not a criticism of ACA, just a mathematical observation appropriate to this question. For those in this situation, a close look at their projected MAGI is in order.  Another example - the deduction for college tuition and fees.  This is another ""step function."" Go a dollar over the threshold, $130K joint, and the deduction drops from $4000 to $2000. You can claim that a $2000 deduction is a difference of 'only' $500 in tax due, but the result is a quick spike in the marginal rate. For those right at this number, it would be worth it to increase their 401(k) deduction to get back under this limit."


Just to clarify Short Team Goals & Long Term Goals... Long Term goals are for something in future, your retirement fund, Children’s education etc. Short Term goals are something in the near future, your down payment for car, house, and holiday being planned. First have both the long and short terms goals defined. Of Couse you would need to review both these goals on a ongoing basis... To meet the short term goals you would need to make short term investments. Having arrived at a short term goal value, you would now need to make a decision as to how much risk you are willing [also how much is required to take] to take in order to meet your goal. For example if you goal is to save Rs 100,000 by yearend for the car, and you can easily set aside Rs 8,000 every month, you don't really need to take a risk. A simple Term / Fixed Deposit would suffice you to meet your goal. On the other hand if you can only save Rs 6,000 a year, then you would need to invest this into something that would return you around 35%. You would now need to take a risk. Stocks market is one option, there are multiple types of trades [day trades, shorts, options, regular trades] that one can do ... however the risk can wipe out even your capital. As you don't know these types of investments, suggest you start with dummy investing using quite a few free websites, MoneyControl is one such site, you get pseudo money and can buy sell and see how things actually move. This should teach you something about making quick gains or losses without actually gaining or loosing real money. Once you reach some confidence level, you can start trading using real money by opening a trading account almost every other bank in India offers online trading linked to bank account. Never lose sight of risk appetite, and revise if every now and then. When you don't have dependents, you can easily risk money for potential bumper, however after you have other commitments, you may want to tone down...  Edit: http://moneybhai.moneycontrol.com/moneybhai-rules.html is one such site, there are quite a few others as well that offer you to trade on virtual money. Try this for few months and you will understand whether you are making right decissions or not.


"There is actually a sabotage theory circulating that GMO activists ""biotech industry food terrorists"" are the one to blame. Its not as far fetched as I originally thought given the fact that it is no different then what lobbyists do to our congressmen."


"Just like all employee benefits there is a focus on removing or limiting owners of businesses' ability to abuse tax preferences under the guise of an employee benefit. As you point out there is an overall plan maximum 401(k) for employer contributions and match contributions.  There is a nondiscrimination test for FSA programs (there is also a nondiscrimination test for medical plans under sections 125 and 105(h)).  Employer contributions are counted toward the total of HSA contributions.   Why an HSA has a different maximum arrangement than 401(k) is anyone's guess.  But the purpose of the limit is to prevent owners of companies from setting up plans that do little more than funnel tax free funds to themselves.  An owner/employee could pay themselves a wage, contribute the maximum, then have the ""employer"" also match the maximum, so there are limits in place."


>If we are looking to offset risk in location A where we are not able to buy forward with location W, and they are the same commodity is this even a common practice in risk management?  Let me prephase this by saying I don't do work directly in this area, but sometimes I analyze what's happening in less liquid markets compared to more liquid markets in various commodities to get a better sense of the supply and demand dynamics of the market.   It's normal - but just looking at the ratios - it looks like the spread is quite volatile - it looks like the price at location W went from trading at 130% of location A to 170% of the price at location A. (I also don't use R so I don't know which time period was the start and which was the end)  What moved in one direction can definitely reverse. If you don't know what is driving this movement in the spread then adding the hedge could be riskier than not having any hedge on. And there are scenarios where the price of the commodity you want to buy at location A is going to rise towards the price at liquid location W and if you are unable to buy it and store it then there isn't much you can do to hedge your company's exposure.


Sometimes new spare parts have an issue that you need to have set. For setting spare parts you will need a motorcycle mechanic, which can set the spare parts. Currently, everyone prefers to buy for motocycle spares parts online. It is very simple, convenient and helps you to save you a lot of time. Most online stores have outstanding purchasing and distribution services and this can be a plus aspect if you are a motocycle lover.


Yep. You know, for banks to use against your deposits which are now legally interpreted as unsecured loans or some such. I don't think we can print big again. Happened in [Cyprus](http://rt.com/business/cyprus-crisis-bailout-deposit-631/). Tinfoil hat is optional.


I work for a boutique recruitment firm as a Marketing manager and I love it. I used to work as a back-end developer but later transitioned into front-end which led me into Digital Marketing.   I still get kicks when I read code. I am a programmer at heart and I love tech but I don't see myself ever pursuing it professionally. Programming is a chase down the rabbit hole.


IBM is famous for spending lots of money on stock buyback to keep the stock price higher. The technique works, and investors in growth stocks generally prefer a high market prices to a taxable dividend payment. Dividends are ways to return shareholder value when a company generates a lot of cash, but doesn't have alot of growth. Electric and gas companies are a classic example of high-dividend companies.


The dirty secret of Swiss watches is that many movements come from outsourced manufacturers.  I have a TAG Heuer that uses the same mechanism once used in the Rolex Daytona (which is the Zenith El Primero).  Most people have probably never heard of [Zenith](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenith_(watchmaker)), but it's one of the most sophisticated manufacturer of watch movements out there.  If Zenith wanted to stop selling movements to TAG, that wouldn't bother me in the least.  Anyways, is this wrong?  Of course not.  Swatch is not required, under any circumstance, to build components for direct competitors.


>Ok give me which countries.  Russia, America, Canada, China. Those are the easy ones off the top of my head. I live in Canada, we have protectionist policies and openly favor and endorse Canadian industry. We even pay taxes to support them. Want more examples?   > I can tell you whole supply chain of phones were massive failure in Argentina because of protectionism.  ... So you're saying they're hunting dogs and pigeons in the streets because of phones? You're saying they're desperate and starving because of phones?


One way that is common is to show the value over time of an initial investment, say $10,000.  The advantage of this is that it doesn't show stock price at all, so handles splits well.  It can also take into account dividend reinvestment.  Fidelity uses this for their mutual funds, as can be seen here.  Another option would be to compute the stock price as if the split didn't happen.  So if a stock does a 2:1 split, you show double the actual price starting at that point.


"You could always put cash in an envelope and mail it, with no return address on the envelope. Any form of anonymous donation that I can think of has the risk that if the money is intercepted and stolen, you'll never know. Also, you won't get a receipt that you can use for tax purposes. You could try sending this organization a note saying, ""I think you're doing great work, but this donation was a one-time gift. Please take me off your mailing list."" I don't know if it would work, but it's worth a try. By the way, the problem is worse than you think: charities share mailing lists. Once one charity has your name, they'll often share it with other related charities. For example, I give to the Catholic Family Association even though I am a Protestant -- I think they're doing good work that Catholics, Protestants, and people of many other faiths could support. But over the years I started getting fundraising letters from other Catholic charities, and then from groups trying to spread Catholicism, and now I'm getting mailings from groups whose stated purpose is to oppose Protestants. I laugh and throw away the letters, but I know some people get really bothered by this sort of thing. ""I'm pretty sure that the total cost of the mailings including postage has now exceeded the $20 I donated."" I've occassionally thought of sending some trivial donation, $5 or $10, to some political or activist group that I totally oppose, just so they'll spend way more than that over the course of the next few years asking me for more money. :-) Plus, they'll send me letters that will tell me what the opposition is up to."


"In many ways I agree with you, I just don't understand why you feel the need to call people who smoke weed ""losers."" All the things you mentioned are healthy ways of stress relief, and I'm happy you're doing well with those. I'm a basically daily user of some of the things I mentioned and I have a job, why does it matter what I do on my time off? I've had issues with depression and do see a psychologist, and the aggressive way you position your argument isn't appreciated.   Your reasons for judging people I sincerely don't agree with. Weed in particular shouldn't raise insurance rates (but that's a different conversation for a different day, I can appreciate if you're a business owner that you take exception to that), I don't advocate for high driving so with that being said it doesn't cause accidents, there is no proven link to marijuana killing you (smoking isn't good for your lungs in general, but there is also edibles and vaping that are much healthier for you), and I hate when people smoke cigarettes around me so I agree with you there.   Especially with your last line is where I take exception. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your mind a weed smoker = jobless person with 0 motivation, which just isn't true. While there are people who fit that bill and perpetuate the stereotype, it isn't everyone.   That being said there should be restrictions on when and where you can have weed, I completely agree with that."


Have you ever BEEN to a Trader Joe's? Most of the stuff I buy there is as cheap or cheaper than if I'd gotten it at Walmart or another cheap grocery store...it's all store brand without the name brand mark up. If something is expensive (such as produce out of season; high cost meat such as lamb or seafood).  Trader Joe's is run the way a grocery store SHOULD be run. People in Maine don't need oranges and people in Nebraska don't need sea bass to survive.


I have asked myself this exact same question many times. The analysis would be simple if you invested all your money in a single day, but I did not and therefore I would need to convert your cash transactions into Index fund buys/sells. I got tired of trying to do this using Yahoo's data and excel so I built a website in my spare time. I humbly suggest you try my website out in the hopes that it helps you perform this computation: http://www.amibeatingthemarket.com/


Thanks - i doubt they'll throw the CEO guy in jail as long as they appear to want to stop the illegal distribution of goods. It's an interesting dilemma though - would you want to stop the facilitation of illegal goods if it was core to your business becoming successful? Probably not, I'd say..  In the run up to the IPO, I'd expect lots of PR RE: safe guards, checks and trust. Lots of hot air in other words.


Yes, but only in a relatively short term. False news or speculations can definitely change the stock price, sometimes even significantly. However, the stock price will eventually (in the long-term) correct itself and head to the right direction.


"> I think the primary reason you're being down voted  I find the right obnoxious and the left repulsive.  Virtually every foolish thing in our society was born from the left and they should be roundly shown the distain their ideas deserve.  Now the right has joined the party and is using the exact same thug tactics to try to instantiate THEIR tyranny by government force.  It's revolting, but the left wins on just pure malice and stupidity.  > all too often better candidates for a job are excluded in favor for those who are of similar religion or race as the employe  So what?  It's the employer's money and his/her company.  If they make these kinds of decision too often or too long, they will lose out competitively to people who do hire Best In Class.  > Employing people to help create your master vision fundamentally incorporates compromise, for the betterment of society.  But I don't exist for the ""betterment of society"".  I exist to promote my interests, my family -  my enlightened self interest.  If I make bigoted hiring decisions and thereby exclude best-in-class employees it is *I* who will suffer, not society.  This is a self-regulating problem.  No one in their right mind wants to run a business with anything less than the best possible employees (at the lowest possible salary, BTW).  The Dirty Little Secret here is that EEOC rules do NOT promote Best in Class.  The Best In Class already have jobs and are in demand because - nothwithstanding the whining of the social do-gooders - no one can afford to ignore them as a substantial asset in the workforce, no matter how petty or bigoted any single person might otherwise be.  No, EEOC laws are designed to give substandard candidates jobs they are not qualified for, do not deserve, and cannot perform well.  This has the horrible secondary effect of having people quietly musing ""Did he get the job because he's Black/Jewish/Asian/Gay/ ..... or is he really good at it?""  It's not fair, but that's what tampering with meritocracy does."


Your employer decides what options you have in the 401k. You can talk to your HR about that. There are requirements for diversity of various types of investments, money-market funds is being one of them. That is the investment account equivalent of cash. While it is not really cash but rather short term bonds - the term is generally very short and the risk is very limited. You can't earn much there, and you can't lose much there - so for all intents and purposes you can treat is as a cash-equivalent.


"If you think IBMs recent moves on telecommuting have anything to do with telecommuting, your confused.  By forcing many people back into the office, often in a different state, they are implementing stealth layoffs. Just like Yahoo did, they are putting a lot of people in tenuous positions & expecting them to simply quit instead of move. IBM is shaky & laying off a lot of people. MANY IBMers are worried about their jobs, then a ridiculous demand to move to keep your job, without any relocation reimbursements comes along... You read between the lines & just find another job.  There are reporting rules for large scale layoffs & IBM is skirting around that by forcing people out ""of their own free will"". They don't have to pay unemployment, and they don't have to claim them as layoffs."


"It depends on what you're talking about. If this is for your retirement accounts, like IRAs, then ABSOLUTELY NOT! In your retirement accounts you should be broadly diversified - not just between stocks, but also other markets like bonds. Target retirement funds and solid conservative or moderate allocation funds are the best 'quick-and-dirty' recommendation for those accounts. Since it's for the long haul, you want to be managing risk, not chasing returns. Returns will happen over the 40 or so years they have to grow.  Now, if you're talking about a taxable stock account, and you've gotten past PF questions like ""am I saving enough for retirement"", and ""have I paid off my debt"", then the question becomes a little more murky.  First, yes, you should be diversified. The bulk of how a stock's movement will be in keeping with how its sector moves; so even a really great stock can get creamed if its sector is going down. Diversification between several sectors will help balance that.  However, you will have some advantage in this sector. Knowing which products are good, which products everybody in the industry is excited about, is a huge advantage over other investors. It'll help you pick the ones that go up more when the sector goes up, and down less when the sector goes down. That, over time and investments, really adds up. Just remember that a good company and a good stock investment are not the same thing. A great company can have a sky-high valuation -- and if you buy it at that price, you can sit there and watch your investment sink even as the company is growing and doing great things. Have patience, know which companies are good and which are bad, and wait for the price to come to you.  One final note: it also depends on what spot you are in. If you're a young guy looking looking to invest his first few thousand in the market, then go for it. On the other hand, if you're older, and we're talking about a couple hundred grand you've got saved up, then it's a whole different ball of wax. It that spot, you're back to managing risk, and need to build a solid portfolio, at a measured pace."