It's astonishing how my simple point - _this is going to suck really badly for thousands of people_ - is somehow interpreted as some sort of approval for exploitative capitalism.  As I keep saying, these old companies have to go - and in the last few years the quality of the jobs they offer has fallen and fallen. Frankly, I see a collapse coming where most of these companies vanish.  _But it's going to suck for the people who lost their jobs and I feel for them._   > Think of all the unfortunate hedge fund managers who lost their jobs in 2008. Shed any tears for them?   Heck, no, probably most of them should be in jail.  And they won't go hungry.  What's your point?  The poor suckers who work for Sears are in a completely different category.


"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed ""as deposit only"" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there."


For eToro, just like any other brokerage firm, you can lose your entire capital. I suggest that you invest in one or more exchange-traded funds that track major indexes.  If not, just put your money in fixed deposit accounts; gain a bit of interest and establish an emergency fund first before investing money that you feel you are able to lose.


"I don't want to bother with micropayments, and harassing her for   monthly payments. Alternative approach to lending her $20K, arranging for her to pay you back $x per month, and having to (as you say) harass her for micropayments. Instead, you give her the $20K, and she sets up a savings account with a monthly direct debit deposit of $x. The bank takes care of the monthly ""payments"" into the savings account, and at the end of the loan period, you've got your $20K, and instead of the bank making interest off your mom, you make some interest out of the savings account."


You said 2 things that made me think you are one of the rare young couples barely making it but should attempt to buy rather than rent anyway.... Around my area, renting a place is about equivalent to just paying a monthly mortgage of a 30yr 3.5% APR of a home priced at around $250,500.  and... Our ideal price range would be $100,000-160,000 with a 25-30yr mortgage at 3.5 - 5.4% The other answers suggesting that you should rent and the reasons given were excellent ones but because of those 2 points you made, this tells me that you would be willing to live in a much much more basic house if you owned rather than rented.  Many renters rent rather than buy because they want a really nice place for their money and are willing to spend what it takes to get a nice place, but not you.  If you buy, you would be willing to take a place worth half or even less than half what you would get if you rented. That tells me you might accept a place that needs a little work.  Perhaps you and/or your fiancée have some skills needed to do a little of the work yourself.  I hope you decide to buy rather than rent if you can swing it, and instead of taking a 2nd job, spend all your spare time working on your little investment.  It's possible that by the time you're done fixing that house up some, through your own creative efforts or through the help you might get from your friends, you could end up with a $250,000 house, own it, and reap all the great benefits of owning rather than renting...or...better yet, sell that place for a nice profit, then turn around and buy the next one already fixed up with your newly acquired great credit to help you with the new mortgage, and ready for you to move in and enjoy.  It's how my wife and I got started (only we didn't have the benefit of historically low interest rates) and if we can do it, I believe you can too. Here are a couple tips that might help out....1) Don't spend a lot of money to fix the place...try to find the time to do the simpler tasks yourself.  If you don't have the skills, you can learn them on youtube or by picking the brains of all the great willing people working at your local discount home project superstore.  2)  Cosmetics go a long way towards increasing the value of a house.  a) needs paint and b) needs carpet but not a) major structural damage and b) needs roof. Regarding some of your other points... HOA, hopefully if you buy in a formal community, the HOA should be less than $200.  If it's more than that, it might be harder to do as I suggest. Closing Costs, probably more like 4 - 5% Taxes, monthly if included in mortgage, normally quarterly or semi-annually if not Utilities...you're budgeting quite high for that.  Depending on your area, you might only spend an average of $200/month, maybe even less. Insurance...see answer for taxes Regular maintenance, $1K a year might be about right but we better include irregular also, which comes up more often than you might think when owning, let's say $2 - $3 a year. Unexpected costs.  Expect the unexpected but if the place needs a new roof or something big like that, then you didn't do your homework before buying.


Yes. There are exceptions under the pre-JOBS laws to allow unaccredited investors (off the top of my head I don't remember the limit, but 35 sounds right). However, it increases the amount of information the company has to give to those investors.   Post-JOBS you're allowed to have up to 500 unaccredited investors and as far as I know, it doesn't really change the information the company has to give.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-16/the-housing-recovery-is-leaving-out-most-of-america) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > For further evidence of the uneven recovery among U.S. housing markets, how&#039;s this: In the 10 most expensive U.S. metropolitan areas, median home values have increased by 63 percent since 2000, after adjusting for inflation.  > Home prices in 3 out of 5 metropolitan areas remain below their pre-recession peak, and home prices in low-income neighborhoods are faring even worse.  > Home prices increased in 97 out of the 100 largest metropolitan areas, according to the report.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6hpc6k/the_housing_recovery_is_leaving_out_most_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~146042 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*: **percent**^#1 **home**^#2 **price**^#3 **report**^#4 **housing**^#5"


How does paying off a mortgage early work? Example: I have a 30 year fixed rate mortgage of 3.5%, the amount borrowed is $300,000. I have just inherited $300,000. I am in the first year of the mortgage. Can I give the bank the $300,000 to clear the mortgage, or must I pay off the total interest that was agreed upon for the 30 year term? This depends on the country regulation and your agreement. Generally speaking the calculations are on daily reducing balance. so you just pay 300K I'm curious why the bank would let you do this, since they will lose out on a lot of profit


When did it become a verb? Early 19th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrapping  You can keep on repeating yourself -- wow, that Amway comparison sure is powerful, don't wanna overuse it now -- but it's no use, really.   Oh, and the income stated is for 2011. I don't know if you realized this, but 2011 is basically over. Thanks.


The investments he's chosen are well diversified.  You can argue the  details, but it's a low-fee, low-risk plan that's simple to implement, which makes it better than what 95%+ of people do.  Starting saving early is also a great idea.  Now for the bad news.  $1mm is not enough to retire on.  It can't generate $80k / year without significant risk, and even if it could, those investment gains would be taxable.  The general rule of thumb is that you should have 25x your annual expenses saved when you retire, a bit more if you want to retire early at 50.  Don't forget that inflation means $1mm in 24 years will not have the same purchasing power it does today.


I think it's wise to account for those inevitable but unpredictable expenses like car/house repairs and abnormal medical bills when deciding on your emergency fund amount.  So if you average $100/month for car repairs, and you have a 6-month emergency fund, then part of that fund is $600 for car repairs. If your total annual out of pocket for health insurance is $5,000/year, then emergency fund gets $2,500 and so on. This way, you add cushion to your emergency fund to handle those unpredictable but inevitable expenses without setting up a bunch of separate accounts. It doesn't have to be inflexible either, I know my furnace and air conditioner are way past their expected life, so I'm keeping a larger than normal emergency fund. Ultimately it's personal preference, to me, cash is all the same no matter what account it's in, but other people do best by keeping some logical/physical separation of funds intended for different purposes.


FYI, French Fries = pomme frites, which is Belgian, so yeah, not american food. Also, while fresh food is available in the US, its not cheap. Remember the part I said about 'cheap'? If you already have access to food that is both good and cheap, there's little incentive to want McFood.


"You should brand that truck, definitely. Slogans... ""Ever catch yourself saying, 'poop, I did it again'? Call now.""   When you brand that truck, the number one, and I mean the only thing, you have to do is get peoples attention. No matter how odd. The potty truck Hurtinalbertan linked to is a great example of it.  Marketing at its core is a simple principle, AIDA: Attention Interest Desire Action. Get the attention of the end-user (""poop I did it again,"" plays on the hasbeen of Brit Spears single), interest them with appealing facts or figures (99% of people wait until it's too late!), create a subconscious desire or urge (don't wait until it's too late), and direct them to how they act upon this desire (call NOW!)."


Yet people think this is impossible. They're out there, insisting on total employment forever, somehow not believing that robo-planter and robo-harvester can run on the same field. Like there's something magical about sticking a thing in the ground and then later pulling it out.


Pool Pump/Spa ControlsFeatures: Full rated pump complete with impeller and motor stand. Medium head pressure pump. See through lid allows quick visibility alerting you if your trap needs to be cleaned. Stainless steel seals for quiet operation.


Without getting to hung-up on terminology here, the management of a company will often attempt to keep stock prices high because of a number of reasons: Ideally companies keep prices up through performance.  In some cases, you'll see companies do other things spending cash and/or issuing bonds to continue to pay dividends (e.g. IBM), or spending cash and/or issuing bonds to pay for stock buybacks (e.g. IBM).  These methods can work for a time but are not sustainable and will often be seen as acts of desperation.  Companies that have a solid plan for growth will typically not do much of anything to directly change stock prices. Bonds are a bit different because they have a fairly straight-forward valuation model based on the fact that they pay out a fixed amount per month.  The two main reason prices in bonds go down are: The key here is that bonds pay out the same thing per month regardless of their price or the price of other bonds available.  Most stocks do not pay any dividend and for much of those that do, the main factor as to whether you make or lose money on them is the stock price. The price of bonds does matter to governments, however.  Let's say a country successfully issued some 10 year bonds last year at the price of 1000.  They pay 1% per month (to keep the math simple.)  Every month, they pay out $10 per bond.  Then some (stupid) politicians start threatening to default on bond payments.  The bond market freaks and people start trying to unload these bonds as fast as they can.  The going price drops to $500.  Next month, the payments are the same.  The coupon rate on the bonds has not changed at all.  I'm oversimplifying here but this is the core of how bond prices work. You might be tempted to think that doesn't matter to the country but it does.  Now, this same country wants to issue some more bonds.  It wants to get that 1% rate again but it can't.  Why would anyone pay $1000 for a 1% (per month) bond when they can get the exact same bond with (basically) the same risks for $500?  Instead they have to offer a 2% (per month) rate in order to match the market price. A government (or company) could in fact put money into the bond market to bolster the price of it's bonds (i.e. keep the rates down.)  The problem is that if you are issuing bonds, it's generally (caveats apply) because you need cash that you don't have so what money are you going to use to buy these bonds?  Or in other words, it doesn't make sense to issue bonds and then simply plow the cash gained from that issuance back into the same bonds you are issuing.  The options here are a bit more limited.  I have to mention though that the US government (via a quasi-governmental entity) did actually buy it's own bonds.  This policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) was done for more complicated reasons than simply keeping the price of bonds up.


Total employment will drop by 1 million or more but - according to your CEPR study, thanks to TTIP, average household income may rise by as much as 527 euros a year by 2027.   Some of that may be offset by loss of social benefits, for example, the average American spends around $250,000-$300,000 or more over his or her lifetime for health care over an identical Canadian.


> What principle justifies the right of government to label a firm as 'too big to exist'?  When a Business entity is so large and powerful its failure threatens the safety and well being of the nation it is based / present in.  > What actions should a government be able to institute in these cases    The government should be able to forcefully break up the company into smaller groups, or instate laws and regulations that promote competition and allow smaller businesses the ability to compete.  >and what principles justify these actions?   National preservation. Your business will never ever be more important than the well-being of the country, and every government of every nation of the world has the full and unquestionable right to make decisions and take actions that safeguard the safety and stability of themselves.  Wow, that was incredibly easy to answer


Dollar cost averaging moderates risk. But you pay for this by giving up the chance for higher gains. If you took a hundred people and randomly had them fully buy into the market over a decade period, some of those people will do very well (relative to the rest) while others will do very poorly (relatively). If you dollar cost average, your performance would fall into the middle so you don't fall into the bottom (but you won't fall into the top either).


"MS4 still undecided about specialty. And it sucks. I literally have no idea what I want to do. I have ruled out some big ones, but on my list (no joke) are peds subspecialty, ortho, ENT, derm, rads, IR, anesthesia. All f***ing over the place. Half of these I probably can't do because I didn't know I want to be an orthopod since I was 5, don't have 7 years of research with 10 pubs, and am not best friends with the chairman. I want to be a surgeon but I want to have a life. I want to make money but I want to be happy at work. I want to work hard but not sacrifice my family. There are some of us who know what they want to do (eureka moment), most of us figure it out as we go along, and a few of us aka me are paralyzed with fear and have no clue what the hell to do.  /u/brobroygmi lied on the inter webs. He's a med student  His ""business"" is obviously not what he's trying to make it sound like it is."


I want to shop in the currency that will be cheapest in CAD at any   given time. How do you plan to do this? If you are using a debit or credit card on a CAD account, then you will pay that bank's exchange rate to pay for goods and services that are billed in foreign currency. If you plan on buying goods and services from merchants that offer to bill you in CAD for items that are priced in foreign currency (E.g. buying from Amazon.co.uk GBP priced goods, but having Amazon bill your card with equivalent CAD) then you will be paying that merchant's exchange rate. It is very unlikely that either of these scenarios would result in you paying mid-market rates (what you see on xe.com), which is the average between the current ask and bid prices for any currency pair. Instead, the business handling your transaction will set their own exchange rate, which will usually be less favorable than the mid-market rate and may have additional fees/commission bolted on as a separate charge.  For example, if I buy 100 USD worth of goods from a US vendor, but use a CAD credit card to pay, the mid-market rate on xe.com right now indicates an equivalent value of 126.97 CAD. However the credit card company is more likely to charge closer to 130.00 CAD and add a foreign transaction fee of maybe $2-3, or a percentage of the transaction value. Alternatively, if using something like Amazon, they may offer to bill the CAD credit card in CAD for those 100 USD goods. No separate foreign transaction fee in this case, but they are still likely to exchange at the less favorable 130.00 rate instead of the mid-market rates. The only way you can choose to pay in the cheapest equivalent currency is if you already have holdings of all the different currencies. Then just pay using whichever currency gets you the most bang for your buck. Unless you are receiving payments/wages in multiple currencies though, you're still going to have to refill these accounts periodically, thus incurring some foreign transaction fees and being subject to the banker's exchange rates. Where can I lookup accurate current exchange rates for consumers? It depends on who will be handling your transaction. Amazon will tell you at the checkout what exchange rate they will apply if you are having them convert a bill into your local currency for you. For credit/debit card transactions processed in a different currency than the attached account, you need to look at your specific agreement or contact the bank to see which rate they use for daily transactions (and where you can obtain these rates), whether they convert on the day of the transaction vs. the day it posts to your account, and how much they add on ($ and/or %) in fees and commission.


Got the source for China asking for money? I would like to read that and educate myself.   China put in more solar last year than the entire world combined. Never underestimate China, they are not bogged down by a bloated irrelevant government. They can just make a decision and go for it. Just walk around their cities and look at the infrastructure they pull off. It's staggering and puts anything in North America to shame.


That's just one type of strong culture. Take an investment banking firm. Super strong culture - you wear a suit and tie, work long hours, and has formalized hierarchy. This is the other extreme of strong culture. Companies do it because it becomes a self selecting group of individuals, and plenty of research shows that these employees tend to stick around longer and are generally happier. Employees that don't fit that culture eventually weed themselves out and find a better fit somewhere else. We can also compare companies like Facebook to Amazon, both are tech companies, but both have strong but different cultures. The employees that last longer and get promoted are the ones that best fit that culture.


"My bank's bill payment system saves nothing more than writer's cramp and stamps.  When a paper check is required they mail it, but it's drawn on my account just as if I'd written it out by hand and mailed it myself.  There is no ""temporary account"", and at the time of month when I take care of the bills, my balance oscillates up and down depending on what's cleared and what hasn't.  I'm going back to mailing checks because it saves a day or two of time between payment initiation and check clearing, which sucks.  And electronic payments aren't much better.  It recently took about five days for a payment to my car insurance company to be processed--and the amount is finalized and subtracted in the bank's website only after clearance.  I can't know what I have without balancing the account every. frigging. time. IIRC bill payment systems were a lot more seamless and user friendly when they first became widespread."


"I'm not the commenter you replied to, so I didn't bother addressing the rest since it wasn't directed to me. I was merely pointing out that once again you're bringing utilities into the discussion, which is irrelevant because PayPal *is not a utility.*  Also, it's laughable that you're trying to compare hospitals being allowed to ""let someone die based on their political views"" to a being denied use of a money transfer/credit card processing service.   Try relevant comparisons and maybe you'll get farther with a discussion."


Manufacturer of Ramming mass in India http://quartzpowdermanufacturers.com/supplier-of-ramming-mass-in-india.php Shri Vinayak Industries-The acidic ramming mass produced by us ensures optimum quality and output and better architectural control. In Our organization Ramming mass is processed using high grade quality of chemical compounds and advanced technology in keeping with industrial quality standards. Silica Ramming mass is being formulated by our well qualified team of professional using advanced production process.


First pay off all existing debt. Then set up at least 6 month emergency fund.  Freelancing exposes you to way more risks than employment. Then buy GIC's to cover and match the maturity of  your expected education fees. Only 'play' with what is left.  Don't over think it.  Buy a low-cost (less than 0.5%) passive large-index mutual fund covering either the S&P or TSX.


This is really important for business in general.  Silicon Valley goes through more venture capital in a year than most countries spend in their budgets or make with their GDP.  Almost none of that goes to women founders and there is every reason to believe that is largely because of the poisoned culture.  So this is really big no matter how you measure it, whether you focus strictly on following the money or zoom out to consider the cultural implications of small business support structures being not merely male dominated but thoroughly exclusionary toward women.  Women play an increasingly important role in commerce because of the need for social skills.


I mean sure but there have [been underlying problems with Whole Foods business](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brycehoffman/2017/04/30/the-problem-with-whole-foods/#4ac1755019d6) for a while.   I'm trying to understand why Amazon would specifically target Whole Foods vs another Grocery chain. Does the relative decline of Whole Foods market put it in a place where Amazon can acquire it for a discount? I'm guessing yes, but the source article is rather short on reasons.


No. Firstly I think that free market economic theories of healthcare are ungrounded because there is no such thing as consumer who can make properly informed customer.  And secondly, an economist can never understand the risks associated with healthcare because they will never have a patient die as a result of their decision making. Being an economist is a trivial job when compared to being a doctor. Losing money is not remotely the same as inadvertently causing a patient's death.  So they will never really understand the forces that motivate the healthcare economy.


"I mean, I'd say ""no shit"". The model is easy to reproduce (see the inverse model proposed by CHX and the new NYSE American), and people don't have a real incentive to trade there. IEX's main selling point to the buy side was the reduced price impact order router, which ultimately went away when they became an exchange.  Listings could be interesting, but I can't see why any company that doesn't have some sort of statement to make would want to list there versus the big two, or BATS. Hell, even BATS, a much more established market, has had a hard time drawing listings.  I'm glad they've seen a small bump in market share in the last few months, but I can't see them becoming one of the big three players any time soon (especially after having shat all over the industry during their launch period).  Side note: The UTP SIP (and soon the CTA SIP) are both **much** faster than when IEX went live. Turns out inside updates via the SIP are received faster than the prop market data feed, and faster than updates received over an order entry connection. Under these circumstances the street knows a trade occurred before the participants in the trade. This information asymmetry often results in market makers getting run the hell over, and makes them less likely to quote at the inside on your market."


Two cases: You take the credit and reinvest the cash equivalent (be it a savings account or otherwise), yielding you the x% at virtually zero risk. Unless of course you consider possibility of your own negligence a risk (in case of missed payments, etc.). You pay by cash and have the peace of mind at the cost of that x%. The ultimate decision depends on which you value more - the $ you get from x%, or the peace of mind.


Thing is, everyone said he was too stupid to scam people. But that kid has heart.. He never gave up and eventually showed us all that if we work hard and think positively we too can rob the fuck out of people..  I cried.


I used to think that paying off ahead of time made sense, but I no longer do, at least in most cases.  The upside is that you can get a return on your money equal to the mortgage interest rate (it's less than that in the US, where mortgage interest is deductible, so it's roughly the mortgage interest rate * 1 - your marginal income tax rate).  There are a few downsides. The biggest is that cash is the most liquid asset you can have; you can get at it with no restrictions. If you put that cash into your house, you are converting that into an asset with a lot of restrictions; you can't get at it without fees, nor can you get at it if you don't have a job, which is when you would need it most.  So, you are putting your money in a hard-to-get-at place for a small interest rate. I don't think it is worthwhile. (edit) One complication is PMI. If you are currently paying PMI, it may make sense to put money towards the mortgage until you get to 20% and can get rid of the PMI.


It depends on your tax rate. Multiply your marginal rate (including state, if applicable) by your 3.1% to figure out how much you are saving through the deduction, then subtract that from the 3.1% to get the effective rate on the mortgage. For example, if you are in the 28% bracket with no state tax impact from the mortgage, your effective rate on the mortgage is 2.232%. This also assumes you'd still itemize deductions without the mortgage, otherwise, the effective deduction is less. Others have pointed out more behavioral reasons for wanting to pay off the car first, but from a purely financial impact, this is the way to analyze it. This is also your risk-free rate to compare additional investing to (after taking into account taxes on investments).


">So people buying houses with inflated prices that they couldn't really afford isn't the problem?  I don't know the guy's exact financial situation besides the fact that he is upside down and he has good credit but I'd wager that for this gentlemen it's not a matter of him ""not being able to afford the home""  but a matter of he can't get a lower interest rate from his bank.   If he couldn't afford the home, he would have declared bankruptcy a long time ago when the bubble burst."


"The key part of your question is the ""so far"".  So you didn't need a credit card today, or yesterday, or last month - great!  But what about tomorrow?  The time may come when you really need to spend a little more than you have, and a credit card will let you do that, at a very modest cost if you pay it off promptly (no cost, if paid within 30 days). I learned this when I was traveling and stranded due to bad weather.  I had almost nothing in my bank account at the time, and while I actually did have a small student-type credit card, I came really close to having to sleep at the train station when I didn't have enough for another night in a hotel. As an example, if you have close friends or family living across the country, and something tragic were to happen, would you be able to pay for a flight to attend the funeral?  What if you'd recently had an accident and a big medical bill (it doesn't take much, a broken arm can cost $10,000)?  Perhaps you have a solid nest egg, but breaking a CD ahead of schedule or taking short-term capital gains on a mutual fund will usually cost more than one or two months of interest payments."


Chances are high your friend isn't in it for the money, but the community or some vague dream of having a future income-generating side business because he can't get a loan for a 7-11 franchise. I run a few successful online businesses and had an import/export so naturally I run into these guys looking for advice on selling their MLM wares easier. I always point out they can make a lot of money cutting out the middle man MLM distributor and buy the same products from eBay or the same local supplier the MLM uses for a fraction of costs...then collect all the profit sans kickbacks to their host MLM goon/sponsor/father. I've never had anyone that bailed on the MLM, but I could see their eyes gloss over after they realized their own middle man is holding them back from making a lot of money (assuming they could offload that stuff). People actually in it for the money tend to bail (better sales job exist, MLM dreams don't pay rent, etc.) so you'll probably just need to isolate your friend from these losers somehow. You could investigate his sponsor and find out how much money he's actually making....if he tells your friend he's rich, but you find out he lives in the slums with his mom, your friend might bail on friendship/association with the group out of sheer disgust. It's the friends, not the logic you need to attack. His MLM friends would consider it a betrayal if he left them so you need to show him it's the MLM group that's betrayed his friendship. Point out all the long-term members driving junky cars to events who brag about their $$$. Laugh at the piss poor finance credentials of the local group leaders....ask where the investor perks are and suggest the sponsor/leaders are just hording them. Point out that he's a success and the fellow team members are just milking him to prop up their failing investments/sales/recruitment numbers. Nobody wants to let a team down....but the team isn't good enough for him. Deep down he knows the logic is questionable or at least risky/improbable, but his faith in the good intentions of his MLM cohorts is high.....crush that faith and all he's left with is bad finance tips or cheap protein shakes.


"Based on the updated information  ""I'm able to get my health insurance in full from my old job which is   why still have it(ABC). Anthem Blue cross only costs me about 15   dollars a month. At my new job I work full time so I took up the   healthcare because eventually I will more than likely get rid of my   old one(or loose it)."" There are a couple of issues:  The old company will no longer be paying for the ABC policy, you will have to cover the entire cost. The cost could be significantly m ore than $15 a month. One will be primary and one will be secondary. You will have to tell them about each other. How they will interact when one is a percentage and the other a copay will have to be investigated. Look back at all your procedures from last year, and ask how they would cover them. You will also need to see if your doctors and specialists are in both networks. This could create situations where the 2nd policy provides no coverage because you went out of their network. You could also require multiple referrals."


Is eToro legitimate? If you have any doubts about eToro or other CFD providers (or even Forex providers, which are kind of similar), just type      eToro scam in Google and see the results.


It appears to me that the tax code gives significant advantages to being a corporation as opposed to being a person due to the relative ease of legal tax avoidance.   As an individual, avoiding taxes is much harder than it is for a corporation.   I mean, why can't I claim my deficit last year as an operating loss and use it to offset my taxes?  I mean suppose I had to borrow money to afford food, that's pretty vital to my business (staying alive) operations. Why can't I offset my income with my borrowing like a corporation can?


bank islam home financing,bank rakyat home financing,home refinancing best rates,refinancing,refinancing a home,refinancing home after 1 year,refinancing home after chapter 13,refinancing home after chapter 7,refinancing home after divorce,refinancing home after one year,refinancing home after short sale,refinancing home and taxes,refinancing home appraisal,refinancing home appraisal tips,refinancing home bad credit,refinancing home bad idea,refinancing home bank of america,refinancing home basics,refinancing home before divorce,refinancing home benefits,refinancing home calculator,refinancing home closing costs,refinancing home cost,refinancing home costs,refinancing home credit score,refinancing home definition,refinancing home loan,refinancing home loan rates,refinancing home loan with bad credit,refinancing home mortgage,refinancing home mortgage rates,refinancing home rates,refinancing home with bad credit,refinancing mortgage https://www.artrefinance.com/


Your university should have a finance department which can help with payments. Speak with them and tell them you have interest in paying for at least part of your next semester in cash. From here they should be able to tell you the best method for this, though most likely cash/check will suffice. If there is no finance department, or you are still unsure, check with student services for more information.


**Modigliani–Miller theorem**  The Modigliani–Miller theorem (of Franco Modigliani, Merton Miller) is a theorem on capital structure, arguably forming the basis for modern thinking on capital structure. The basic theorem states that in the absence of taxes, bankruptcy costs, agency costs, and asymmetric information, and in an efficient market, the value of a firm is unaffected by how that firm is financed. Since the value of the firm depends neither on its dividend policy nor its decision to raise capital by issuing stock or selling debt, the Modigliani–Miller theorem is often called the capital structure irrelevance principle.  The key Modigliani-Miller theorem was developed in a world without taxes.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27


Companies typically release their earnings before the market opens, and then later host an analyst/investor conference call to discuss the results. Here's a link to an interesting article abstract on the subject:  Disclosure Rules For Earnings Releases And Calls | Bowne Digest.  Excerpt: In the aftermath of the   Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the SEC changed   regulations to bring quarterly   earnings announcements in line with   the generally heightened sensitivity   to adequate disclosure. New   regulations required that issuers file   or furnish their earnings press   releases on Form 8-K and conduct any   related oral presentations promptly   thereafter, to avoid a second 8-K. [...] Sample from a news release by The Coca Cola Company: ATLANTA, September 30, 2009 -   The   Coca-Cola Company will release third   quarter and year-to-date 2009   financial results on Tuesday, October   20, before the stock market opens. The   Company will host an investor   conference call at 9:30 a.m. ( EDT ),   on October 20. [...] Sample from a news release by Apple, Inc.: CUPERTINO, California—January 21,   2009—Apple® today announced financial   results for its fiscal 2009 first   quarter ended December 27, 2008. The   Company posted record revenue of [...]   Apple will provide live streaming of   its Q1 2009 financial results   conference call utilizing QuickTime®,   Apple’s standards-based technology for   live and on-demand audio and video   streaming. The live webcast will begin   at [...]


A lot of smaller (and/or weaker) countries did not have much choice when Germany and France decided to rename the German Mark as the Euro, as most of their trade was already in Marks.  It was even common for their population to have their savings in Marks.   So the question was. Do we wish to have to use the Euro   with or without a seat on the board? It was a no brainer for them at the time... The UK has a lot of trade with the USA and other countries outside of the Euro zone, so we are unlikely to have to join the Euro.    So in the end it comes down to this point -  if the British voters trust a UK government they elected more or less than an EEC government mostly elected by people in the other EEC countries. I don’t think the UK will be joining the Euro anytime soon, but everything can (and will) change with the passage of time.  (After all the USA used to be part of the pound trading zone and please can you pay us all the back dated tax you stop paying after a little tea party!) Update: Given what has just happen to Grease and Spain and the Conservative Party has the most seats in the UK parliament, I don’t think the UK will not be joining the Euro for the next 5 years at least


Well they don't have a fiduciary duty to be politically correct lol. Just politically correct if it relates to profitability. And I guess you're right that if they waste time and energy there... they might have been able to use it elsewhere.  But honestly this is a gang of crooks. And you can see it in the compensation plans. Most of them have nothing better to do.


"would constantly fluctuate and provide an indication of how well the market is doing. The index is there to tell if you made profit or loss by investing in the market.  Using a pure total market cap will only tell you ""Did IPO activity exceed bankruptcy and privatization activity""."


"If your income stream goes up, it would usually increase both your ""income"" term and your ""assets"" term since that money sits in your bank account as an asset. (Even more likely a combination of assets and expenses go up if you have cost associated with the increase in income.)  In this case, they balance in the equation and your equity doesn't change. The question as you posed it is true mathematically, but the ""paradox"" happens because you're not taking into account where the money form the increased income falls in other terms of the equation."


your request was fine. Business is multi-disciplinary and requires seeing things from many aspects, changing your perspective regularly. Our CEO changes which dimensions to evaluate his business every six months - at the top is porfitable growth, then every aspect of the business that influences that outcome is flipped and re-examined.   He's been remarkably successful his entire career


ESPP shares, once purchased, are just normal shares that you got at a discount. They're just as much a part of your current net wealth as any other shares of stock. What you can't do is claim that discount increases your salary, even if it does result in your effectively taking home more money. It's a benefit like the company contribution to your health plan, not a bonus.


That's only one of an array of factors. If, for example, there was political will to tackle it and a global market capable of supporting it, sure, I could see that getting done... but in our current situation? I'm not convinced.


> I insist that their real wealth situation is better than ours because of the consistent positive infusion of foreign wealth from superior physical exports  Yes, let's talk real wealth. In real terms, being a net exporter means you work and use real resources to make real goods which you then ship away to improve someone else's standard of living. In return, you get a *smaller* pile of real goods that contribute to your standard of living plus a pile of foreign currency to make up the difference. ...hooray? You're coming out ahead in financial terms but in real terms of trade you're losing.  >That's the argument you've been supporting this entire time!!! Nice pivot, man >: [  Not a pivot at all. Emphasizing the bottom line, which is *real* constraints as opposed to financial. Saying we can't run out of dollars isn't the same thing as saying we can't run *into* other limits. I want to make clear what those limits are.  The fact you called it a pivot confirms the need for me to spell it out.


"The extent that you would have problems would depend on if the annuity is considered Qualified or Non-Qualified. If the annuity is qualified that means that the money that was put into it has never been taxed and a rollover to an IRA is simple.  The possible issues here are tax issues and a CPA is likely the best person to answer this question.  Two other things to consider in such an event is the loss of any 'living benefit' or 'death benefit'. Variable annuities have been through quite the evolution in the last 15 years. Death benefits have been around longer than living benefits but both are usually based on some derrivitive of a 'high water' mark of the variable sub accounts. You might want to ask Hartford the question ""...how will my living or death benefits be affected if I roll this over""."


According to the IRS:  To deduct a bad debt, you must show that: So if you fulfill the basic requirements, then generally yes, you can deduct them from your taxes.  However, as always, please refer to a professional CPA for any final tax determinations.


Uhm, this is my disclaimer that this is not financial advice. But. I would imagine a decent amount of high growth tech will go into the toilet. Also cyclicals that are heavily reliant on the low cost of short term capital. But really these are just some intuitive guesses. It would really depend on what the mechanism and impact of a future recession would be.   Curious though, why do you personally think a recession is looming? I know there's been a lot of talk but per the VIX, investors' worries don't appear to be affecting their behavior too much (at least in equities).   I think the big risk is the Fed not being able to control the yield curve, i.e if short term rates increase but the Fed can't or won't shrink the balance sheet enough to impact long term rates. Just an idea.


"Moving oil trade out of dollars into yuan will take right now between $600 billion and $800 billion worth of transactions out of the dollar…   When this happens, the US dollar should drop to about 50% of it's current value and at that point, the US century will be over. What happens after that is anybodies guess but I expect that the US will have to either use it's military to shore up the dollar in exactly the same way they did when the invaded Iraq to prevent the sale of oil in Juan OR the US will blink and it's expensive military around the world will have to be clawed back. Simply put, the US will no longer be the world's policeman""."


Not all will be sold though. They projected their corporate leasing / normal leasing to substantially grow since it was just started and some will end up in inventory at year end. Still is pretty impressive that they anticipate that much demand for a luxury car. Their letter to investors is really insightful too... I highly recommend you take a look at it.


On a summary level, there are three conceptual ways of clearing money electronically. Immediate clearing, where banks (often, but not necessarily) with support of the supervisory entities, send immediate drawing rights against their own cash reserves, and dedicate this right to the account of the receiving customer. This is rather expensive, as it limits the banks ability to use their cash reserves for their own banking operations (crediting etc). This is often the only way to wire significant (in comparison to the bank size) amounts of money.  Internal clearing, where the money actually never leaves the bank - it's just moved between accounts of two different customers of the same bank. It's usually free, as the bank is still free to use your money to do it's banking, and it's usually immediate since nothing actually needs to happen besides a change in the banks entries.  Batch clearing, where banks submit outstanding requests against each other, and calculate the net settlement. Basically, when you from bank A wire money to me in bank B, there is a high chance that a similar amount of money is wired between two other users it the opposite direction. After a bit of accounting the net imbalance is computed (and often drawn via immediate clearing) but the bulk of the money actually never leaves any of the banks, it just is reassigned between each banks customers as per agreed books.  There are also additional ways where companies decide to open accounts in each of the banks and provide some sort of immediate clearing backed by the operators cash reserves rather than the banks.. and so on.. How does it happen in Indonesia? I have no idea, but I think a good overview of how it happens around the world is a publication by a partner entity of ours; http://pymntsreportstore.com/products/global-wire-transfer-choices If you are really curious, I'd research under what legal form does Paypal Indonesia operate (it should be somewhere in the archives) and figure out what other wiring options are available.


">For IT departments internally billing is essential for managing expectations. Otherwise they are treated as an endless pool of free resources.  It -- chargeback/internal billing -- can (and I have seen this in action) also work the opposite way; it can allow IT to ""tax"" other departments inordinately and continue to operate inefficiently.  The devil is always in the details; and the chief problem with chargeback systems is when things are ""genericized""  (for example charging ""set rates"" to each department based on CPU count {regardless of whether one unit in one department is a high-power CAD station, or file-server, and the equivalent of a ""netbook"" in other departments} -- or likewise by the number of printers {regardless of type, charging a massive workgroup printer the same $500 per unit annual ""support"" cost as a label-printer that only cost $50 retail, etc.})  And likewise with the ""IT shouldn't actually charge-back labor"" -- you still create the ""endless pool of resources"" problem, just in the form of labor rather than equipment.  Basically internal charge-back systems CAN function -- *if they are properly constructed, and PROPERLY adjusted to take into account different (and changing) costs* -- but far too many companies ""implement"" such a thing, and then let it fossilize (where it ends up creating the same kinds of unnecessary and troublesome distortions that it was purportedly put in place to solve)."


FYI, the proposed cuts to food stamps would need to be compensated by an increase fo ~$50,000/church for local food-based organizations to make up the difference.  If you want your giving to make up for government programs, you'd best be prepared to give a lot.


The Fed is trying to keep the money supply growing at a rate just slightly faster than the increase in the total production in the economy. If this year we produced, say, 3% more goods and services than last year, than they try to make the money supply grow by maybe 4% or 5%. That way there should be a small rate of inflation. They are trying to prevent high inflation rates on one hand or deflation on the other. When the interest rate on T-bills is low, banks will borrow more money. As the Fed creates this money out of thin air when banks buy a T-bill, this adds money to the economy. When the interest rate on T-bills is high, banks will borrow little or nothing. As they'll be repaying older T-bills, this will result in less growth in the money supply or even contraction. So the Feds change the rate when they see that economic growth is accelerating or decelerating, or that the inflation rate is getting too high or too low.


I don't have preexisting conditions. I am only speaking of how *my own personal* healthcare situation got worse because of the ACA.   I did used to use the dental and vision portions of my company-provided insurance regularly but I don't have that as part of my ACA insurance because again, it is unaffordable.


In that case, forget this whole pot shop and look into buying some REITs (Real estate investment trusts).  Or invest in QCLN, a ETF that invests in companies that produce and distribute green energy.   You're looking for a get rich quick scheme, not a solid investment. You don't even have any money. You can't afford to lose $92,000 when you have $0.


The deadline for submitting a claim was September 4th, 2016 - therefore you are no longer eligible.  That being said, you probably did not miss much. According to the settlement notice you can expect to be paid about 14 cents per share, on claims exceeding $10 (below $10 you don't get paid). Read the settlement notice for more info.


I really like wireless charging, not a deal breaker though. I find the larger screen more usable. I rarely use my phone for calling anymore, so the increased size if helpful. My phone spends most of its time held horizontally.    I also really like the customization.  I know this isn't for everyone. I am a tinkerer so I like android for the same reason I like PCs. There is just a lot more freedom.   Apple products are great but I find them more like appliances they work and typically they work well.   I like my nexus devices I have had for their bang for the buck value as well. I like buying an unlocked device for a great price. I occasionally travel for work and I like having  an unlocked device.   I also hate being locked into a contract, so the purchase price really helps compared to an iPhone.  My biggest problem with android is the lack of accessories. I wish we had the amount that apple users do. It is all worth it though.   I am open to having an iPhone. I am always looking over the fence but I feel their high cost of entry will keep me away unless something amazing happens with them.


Pollution through industrialization, construction activities are some of the critical threats surrounding the wildlife and forests in India. It is very important to maintain a balance between environment and development. So, it is mandatory to obtain clearance from National Board for Wildlife for any amusement of land, water from a sanctuary, as per Section 29 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. National Board for Wildlife estimates the informative impact on biodiversity of the protected area. Website: http://www.propertydocumentverification.com/blog/clearance-from-national-wildlife-board/


There's absolutely nothing wrong with unskilled labor.  But Walmart is such a large part of the US economy that an increase in their wage base would definitely have an impact on inflation, so that any broad based increase they gave would likely have a marginal impact on quality of life.  It would also make their items more expensive two times over, one, because it would cause inflation that other employers have been resisting raising wages to keep pace with, and the more direct route of increased costs.    Whatever you pay unskilled labor, the market will simply raise prices to a level where unskilled labor still have a tough time affording a comfortable lifestyle.  Look at Australia as an example of what happens when you raise the minimum wage too high.


I started a copy shop in 1996 and found my notebook from that period just the other day. I was OBSESSED with copyright issues and how Kinko's had closed 25% of their stores -- mostly in college towns where they do course packs. Turns out, if you're NOT a multi-million dollar national chain, the book publishers DON'T want anything to do with persecuting you.   You're overthinking it IMHO. Talk to an insurance agent and a lawyer and you should be fine.


"I have them and they screwed up signed me up for a $25 a month internet plan then when my internet wasn't working on the date it was supposed to be activated I called them and they suspended my account till a technician could come by. I live in a super old house so I expected problems. That's fine. A week later I had internet but my bill was changed to $50 a month and a different account number. And there is apparently ""no record"" of $25 a month even or account even happening."


The essential difference b/n ADR and a common share is that ADR do not have Voting rights. Common share has.  There are some ADR that would in certain conditions get converted to common stock, but by and large most ADR's would remain ADR's without any voting rights. If you are an individual investor, this difference should not matter as rarely one would hold such a large number of shares to vote on General meeting on various issues. The other difference is that since many countries have regulations on who can buy common shares, for example in India an Non Resident cannot directly buy any share, hence he would buy ADR. Thus ADR would be priced more in the respective market if there is demand. For example Infosys Technologies, an India Company has ADR on NYSE. This is more expensive around 1.5 times the price of the common share available in India (at current exchange rate). Thus if you are able to invest with equal ease in HK (have broker / trading account etc), consider the taxation of the gains in HK as well the tax treatment in US for overseas gains then its recommended that you go for Common Stock in HK. Else it would make sense to buy in US.


I say get rid of the awful ones but keep the good ones. Man, oh man, have I worked with middle managers that took care of a lot of mundane stuff like interdepartment relations, politics, filling out applications and having to even deal with tech support. I'm not sure if I want to deal with the suits or not.  Now, there gets to be problems when you overdo it with the layers. Also, it gets problematic if too many back-scratchers and people protective of their own asses get involved.


Apart from who owes the debt you also have to consider how likely it is for the country to pay off its debt. Greece has no major industries, no reliable source of income either. Japan on the other hand is one of the world's biggest manufacturing nations.


Teachers make great money, get even better benefits, and work a part time job.  In Dallas, they start at over 50k, get a benefits package including early retirement that is impossible to get in the private sector, and only work 180 days a year.


Shareholders are NOT better off in the *long* run if they drive the legitimate streaming companies out of business.  If they took 20% less, they'd had a reliable stream of income for virtually forever. If they don't, they collect more for a few years, then get busted down to zero when the streaming companies go out of business and people just go back to stealing music.


I work as a fb ad freelancer, so many people buy from fb. What makes fb ironic is that nobody logs in and says 'ah time to buy some shoes'. But with good content and a nice funnel, lots of brands are selling.


This article is hilariously wrong.  They studied companies that are already structured in such a way that they pay far less than statuatory rates.  The VAST majority of companies do not have sprawling international operations and cannot benefit from these types of structures, thus they are paying tax rates far closer to statuatory rates.  The study is looking at the WRONG companies and drawing a false conclusion from them.  It’s simple math.  Reducing tax rates makes companies more profitable, providing more capital for expand and grow.  Growth requires adding employees.  Only a moron would argue that companies are better off and will grow faster when more of their profits are taken from them via taxation.


Not if the bonuses are also on a grid. At my work it's the same way -- you get paid a certain amount for every year of tenure you have at the company (outside experience generally doesn't count) and then the bonus varies depending on how your performance rating goes. Everybody knows what the bonus levels are.


"Don't put money in things that you don't understand. ETFs won't kill you, ignorance will. The leveraged ultra long/short ETFs hold swaps that are essentially bets on the daily performance of the market. There is no guarantee that they will perform as designed at all, and they frequently do not. IIRC, in most cases, you shouldn't even be holding these things overnight. There aren't any hidden fees, but derivative risk can wipe out portions of the portfolio, and since the main ""asset"" in an ultra long/short ETF are swaps, you're also subject to counterparty risk -- if the investment bank the fund made its bet with cannot meet it's obligation, you're  may lost alot of money. You need to read the prospectus carefully. The propectus re: strategy. The Fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to twice the inverse (-2x) of the daily performance of the Index. The Fund does not seek to achieve its stated investment objective over a period of time greater than a single day. The prospectus re: risk. Because of daily rebalancing and the compounding of each day’s return over time, the return of the Fund for periods longer than a single day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which will very likely differ from twice the inverse (-2x) of the return of the Index over the same period. A Fund will lose money if the Index performance is flat over time, and it is possible that the Fund will lose money over time even if the Index’s performance decreases, as a result of daily rebalancing, the Index’s volatility and the effects of compounding. See “Principal Risks” If you want to hedge your investments over a longer period of time, you should look at more traditional strategies, like options. If you don't have the money to make an option strategy work, you probably can't afford to speculate with leveraged ETFs either."


Yah, I haven't played in this space very much. My only exposure was visiting a weather insurance company who wanted the fund I was at to take the other side of their bets - paying us a fixed amount and having us cover them whenever their losses were over a certain amount for the month. It looked like a pretty bad deal, but apparently some multi-strat hedge-fund eventually went with it for the uncorrelated beta.


"> hating on women you stupid bitch  Oh the irony!  > Employers don't want to have to incur the cost and expectation of women leaving work for eight weeks.  Because reproducing for more workers is a useless endeavor.  >  Get it through your stupid feminist head that when you demand laws for special benefits they end up biting you in the ass later on. You asked for this shit so shut the fuck up and take it.  I think you're the bitch.  You have to let out your aggressions on the internet tough guy.  How about me and you meet at the bar of your choosing, so I can show you just how much of a little pussy bitch you are.  You wanna bet I could knock you out with my right hand tied behind my back?  Naw, nevermind.  You ain't worth it.  When you can't reproduce, or some stupid chick falls for your stupid dick head ways and does fall pregnant with your degenerate offspring, I hope she and your child hate you forever.  I hope your son says, ""My dad was a cocksucker.  He was a piece of shit that treated my mom like crap.  I only wish she left him sooner.  That piece of shit can rot in hell.""  Because if you ever have children, that's what they will turn out like if they have any brains."


First, as noted in the comments, you need to pay attention to your network providers.  If you are unable to pay exorbitant prices out of pocket, then find an in-network medical provider.  if you are unhappy with the in-network provider list (e.g. too distant or not specialists), then discuss switching to another plan or insurer with your employer or broker. Second, many providers will have out of pocket or uninsured price lists, often seen in outdated formats or disused binders.  Since you have asked for price lists and not been provided one, I would pursue it with the practice manager (or equivalent, or else a doctor) and ask if they have one.  It's possible that the clinic has an out of pocket price list but the front line staff is unaware of it and was never trained on it. Third, if you efforts to secure a price list fail, and you are especially committed to this specific provider, then I would consider engaging in a friendly by direct negotiation with the practice manager or other responsible person.  Person they will be amenable to creating a list of prices (if you are particularly proactive and aggressive, you could offer to find out of pocket price lists from other clinics nearby).  You could also flat out ask them to charge you a certain fee for office visits (if you do this, try to get some sort of offer or agreed price list in writing).  Most medical practices are uncomfortable asking patients for money, so that may mean flat refusal to negotiate but it may also mean surprising willingness to work with you.  This route is highly unpredictable before you go down it, and it's dependent on all sorts of things like the ownership structure, business model, and the personalities of the key people there. The easiest answer is to switch clinics.  This one sounds very unfriendly to HSA patients.


1) Yes, both of your scenarios would lead to earning $10 on the transaction, at the strike date. If you purchased both of them (call it Scenario 3), you would make $20. 2) As to why this transaction may not be possible, consider the following: The Call and Put pricing you describe may not be available. What you have actually created is called 'arbitrage' - 2 identical assets can be bought and sold at different prices, leading to a zero-risk gain for the investor. In the real marketplace, if an option to buy asset X in January cost $90, would an option to sell asset X in January provide $110?  Without adding additional complexity about the features of asset x or the features of the options, buying a Call option is the same as selling a Put option [well, when selling a Put option you don't have the ability to choose whether the option is exercised, meaning buying options has value that selling options does not, but ignore that for a moment]. That means that you have arranged a marketplace where you would buy a Call option for only $90, but the seller of that same option would somehow receive $110.  For added clarity, consider the following: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $200? Then, you could exercise your call option, buying a share for $90, selling it for $200, making $110 profit. You would not exercise your put option, making your total profit $110. Now consider: What if, in your example, the future price ended up being $10? You would buy for $10, exercise your put option and sell for $110, making a profit of $100. You would not exercise your call option, making your total profit $100. This highlights that if your initial assumptions existed, you would earn money (at least $20, and at most, unlimited based on a skyrocketing price compared to your $90 put option) regardless of the future price. Therefore such a scenario would not exist in the initial pricing of the options. Now perhaps there is an initial fee involved with the options, where the buyer or seller pays extra money up-front, regardless of the future price. That is a different scenario, and gets into the actual nature of options, where investors will arrange multiple simultaneous transactions in order to limit risk and retain reward within a certain band of future prices.  As pointed out by @Nick R, this fee would be very significant, for a call option which had a price set below the current price. Typically, options are sold 'out of the money' initially, which means that at the current share price (at the time the option is purchased), executing the option would lose you money. If you purchase an 'in the money' option, the transaction cost initially would by higher than any apparent gain you might have by immediately executing the option. For a more realistic Options example, assume that it costs $15 initially to buy either the Call option, or the Put option. In that case, after buying both options as listed in your scenarios you would earn a profit if the share price exceeded $120 [The $120 sale price less the $90 call option = $30, which is your total fee initially], or dropped below $80 [The $110 Put price less the $80 purchase price = $30]. This type of transaction implies that you expect the price to either swing up, or swing down, but not fall within the band between $80-$120. Perhaps you might do this if there was an upcoming election or other known event, which might be a failure or success, and you think the market has not properly accounted for either scenario in advance. I will leave further discussion on that topic [arranging options of different prices to create specific bands of profitability / loss] to another answer (or other questions which likely already exist on this site, or in fact, other resources), because it gets more complicated after that point, and is outside the root of your question.


"eTwitt.com is the name stands for Twitter Followers. Get twitter followers from eTwitt.com! eTwitt is the number one tool for growing your online Twitter Followers. eTwitt One of the best methods to get more followers, make money online.eTwitt.com is the world's premier advertising service, offering some of the most unique and fresh approaches to getting you traffic, attention and new clients Through Twitter.                                                                                This is true that Twitter has been widely used for various marketing purposes. People use it for making money in various ways. You can create a page for yourself and can make your business incredibly popular in a matter of few weeks. Another great thing is that it costs you $0.00 that means nothing! So, why not give it a try and see if it works or not? But before you try it, you have to keep a few things in your mind. These are actually the tips or ""tricks"" that can help you do marketing on twitter in a better and more effective way..."


That's actually a really good idea... I might start getting like a hundred every payday or something. A friend of mine said that you can use cash machines that just use the current exchange rate with seemingly no commission... seems a bit too good to be true if you ask me


Ride a bicycle or walk for short trips (< 5mi–10mi, depending on your level of comfort). Nothing saves as much on car expenses as simply driving less.


Neither does he...  Opinions like that are why people hate the insurance companies.  There is absolutely no insurance company who sets out to cover negligence unless it's government mandated... I'd love to hear examples.  And I know there are crazy one off situations, where you can prove me wrong, but no company or industry could survive specifically to cover negligence, if there were, the premiums wouldn't make it logical.


"Research on drugs should be publicly funded in universities. The private sector only invests when the ""hard work"" has been done. The internet it's a good example.. massive public funding in the beginning, when there were profits to be made, suddenly the private sector woke up.. the researchers that work in those pharma companies were mostly trained and educated in top universities with a mix of their tuition fees and public money. Then the pharma companies hire them and make billions off of their knowledge. Fuck that. Universities should do the research, own the patent, price it fairly according to a public/Democratic decision, and let any compan y produce the drug, competing on how efficiently it can produce it. Besides, there is too much of a vested interest for making profit for private pharma, so they continuously push drugs that are detrimental to society like opioids. Only the public sector can ""afford"" to loose money in dead end research and make up for it later."


In the US, you would probably look at a certificate of deposit (CD).   I imagine there is a similar financial product in the UK, but don't know first hand.   I think it is wise to be risk averse in this situation, but be aware that your interest rate will be dismal for guaranteed returns.


In Trader Joe's case, I'm not sure the quality is any lower. Trader Joe's whole business model is to have a top quality store brand and only sell that. Customers are happy because their store brand is really good. Trader Joe's margins are better because it's a store brand and their inventory costs are lower because they don't have several similar things.


The only reason bands sign on for Ticketmaster sponsored tours is for guaranteed money. You may like the band, but they know exactly what they're getting into. It is absolutely possible to watch a band at a respectable venue without Ticketmaster being involved.


I have researched this question extensively in previous years as we have notoriously high taxes in California, while neighboring a state that has zero corporate income tax and personal income tax. Many have attempted pull a fast one on the California taxation authorities, the Franchise Tax Board, by incorporating in Nevada or attempting to declare full-year residence in the Silver State. This is basically just asking for an audit, however.  California religiously examines taxpayers with any evidence of having presence in California. If they deem you to be a resident in California, and they likely will based on the fact that you live in California (physical presence), you will be subject to taxation on  your worldwide income. You could incorporate in Nevada or Bangladesh, and California will still levy its taxation on any business income (Single Member LLCs are disregarded as separate corporate entities, but still taxed at ordinary income rates on the personal income tax basis). To make things worse, if California examines your Single Member LLC and finds that it is doing business in California, based on the fact that its sole owner is based in California all year long, you could feasibly end up with additional penalties for having neglected to file your LLC in California (California LLCs are considered domestic, and only file in California unless they wish to do business in other states; Nevada LLCs are considered foreign to California, requiring the owner to file a domestic LLC organization in Nevada and then a foreign LLC organization in California, which still gets hit with the minimum $800 franchise fee because it is a foreign LLC doing business in California).  Evading any filing responsibility in California is not advisable. FTB consistently researches LLCs, S-Corporations and the like to determine whether they've been organized out-of-state but still principally operated in California, thus having a tax nexus with California and the subsequent requirement to be filed in California and taxed by California. No one likes paying taxes, and no one wants to get hit with franchise fees, especially when one is starting a new venture and that minimum $800 assessment seems excessive (in other words, you could have a company that earns nothing, zero, zip, nada, and still has to pay the $800 minimum fee), but the consequences of shirking tax laws and filing requirements will make the franchise fee seem trivial in comparison.  If you're committed to living in California and desire to organize an LLC or S-Corp, you must file with the state of California, either as a domestic corporation/LLC or foreign corporation/LLC doing business in California. The only alternatives are being a sole proprietor (unincorporated), or leaving the state of California altogether. Not what you wanted to hear I'm sure, but that's the law.


I understand your skepticism and only wanting to deal with cold hard facts.  You are correct I never worked there.  I was however scheduled to fly to Seattle and interview with them, had the airline ticket in hand.  I cancelled the interview a couple days before I was scheduled to depart.  A cursory search concerning their corporate environment indicated that working for them would an unfulfilling experience.  The reviews by both current and ex employees paint a fairly consistent picture.  Unlike, say Google where most people love to work, Amazon is consistently painted as an extremely stressful work environment.


Understandably, it appears as if one must construct the flows oneself because of the work involved to include every loan variation. First, it would be best to distinguish between cash and accrued, otherwise known as the economic, costs. The cash cost is, as you've identified, the payment.  This is a reality for cash management, and it's wise that you wish to track it. However, by accruals, the only economic cost involved in the payment is the interest.  The reason is because the rest of the payment flows from one form of asset to another, so if out of a $1,000 payment, $100 is principal repayment, you have merely traded $100 of cash for $100 of house. The cash costs will be accounted for on the cash flow statement while the accrued or economic costs will be accounted on the income statement. It appears as if you've accounted for this properly.  However, for the resolution that you desire, the accounts must first flow through the income statement followed next instead of directly from assets to liabilities. This is where you can get a sense of the true costs of the home.  To get better accrual resolution, credit cash and debit mortgage interest expense & principal repayment.  Book the mortgage interest expense on the income statement and then cancel the principal repayment account with the loan account.  The principal repayment should not be treated as an expense; however, the cash payment that pays down the mortgage balance should be booked so that it will appear on the cash flow statement. Because you weren't doing this before, and you were debiting the entire payment off of the loan, you should probably notice your booked loan account diverging from the actual.  This proper booking will resolve that. When you are comfortable with booking the payments, you can book unrealized gains and losses by marking the house to market in this statement to get a better understanding of your financial position. The cash flow statement with proper bookings should show how the cash has flowed, so if it is according to standards, household operations should show a positive flow from labor/investments less the amount of interest expense while financing will show a negative flow from principal repayment.  Investing due to the home should show no change due to mortgage payments because the house has already been acquired, thus there was a large outflow when cash was paid to acquire the home. The program should give some way to classify accounts so that they are either operational, investing, or financing. All income & expenses are operational.  All investments such as equities, credit assets, and the home are investing.  All liabilities are financing. To book the installment payment $X which consists of $Y in interest and $Z in principal: To resolve the reduction in principal: As long as the accounts are properly classified, GnuCash probably does the rest for you, but if not, to resolve the expense: Finally, net income is resolved: My guess is that GnuCash derives the cash flow statement indirectly, but you can do the entry by simply: In this case, it happily resembles the first accrued entry, but with cash, that's all that is necessary by the direct method.


Your right. The argument is, it's already dickered, so now we need to come up with something better. National ID is what's on the table. SSN has been used that way because there was a need for a national ID but everyone opposed it so vehemently and it bit us in the ass. Now here we are with a mass ID theft because we didn't address the problem when we should have.


When using a debit card there are two limits that may be imposed on the use: the current balance and the maximum daily limit. If the banking institution limits your daily usage that may mean that on a particular day you may not be able to make a large purchase, even though you have money in the bank. Otherwise as long as you have funds in the account linked to the debit card you can make the transaction. The catch is that as soon as the transaction is sent to the bank one of two things happens: the money is immediately deducted from the account; or a hold equal to the the amount of the transaction is placed on the account. A hold is generally used when the transaction is done in two parts: the pre-scan at a restaurant, or gas station. The hold reduces the amount of available funds in the account. A hold or an immediate deduction limits the size of future transactions. To be able to make larger transactions you need to transfer more money into the account. There is no debit card transaction that you can do to  artificially allow a larger transaction, unless the bank is not placing a hold or doing an immediate deduction.  Because a debit card is linked to a bank account, some accounts have overdraft protection. This protection comes in two forms: they either transfer your money from another account, or they make a loan. Either way there can be costs involved.


The wedding is the necessary part of our life. Those who make videos of their wedding, remember this moment in the coming days. Our company provides the best wedding videography packages Malaysia. If you want to wedding videography, then you can visit our company website. We provide different types of the wedding preparation services.  We work with your ideas, timeline, and budget while combining digital technology, art, creativity, and satisfying customer service to deliver high quality and high impact wedding videos.


Car rental agencies typically accept only credit cards for the rental (you can pay at the end with debit, but the securing during the rental must be a credit card - or a high cash deposit). Hotel advance-bookings - even if many months in the future - will work fine with a credit card, but - as explained by others - on a debit card, it would directly affect your cash flow (you basically have to prepay instead of just leave the credit card number on file. The same is sometimes true for other advance booking, like cruises, tours, etc.


If you have the money and the determination to pay off all the cards in six months, then the order will make little difference to your credit score, and to your finances.  If you had less money available (say you could pay off $500 a month in total), then it would be good for financial reasons to pay off the credit card with the highest interest rate first, so you pay less interest. It would be good for psychological reasons to pay the card with the smallest amount first (so you feel successful quickly, and some people need that feeling of success to continue paying off, just psychological). And if these things contradict each other, figure out what is more important.  And whatever you do, paying back your debt is better than not paying it back. So if you can't make up your mind, then you pay #1, then #2, then #3, then #4, then #5.


To make this more general: should you save for retirement or for education?  The answer is simple: save for your education first. A PriceWaterhouseCoopers report on   behalf Universities UK in 2006 and   another by the Washington-based   College Board in 2007 indicate that   graduates of higher education can earn   anywhere from $400,000 to $1 million   more, after tax and education loans   are paid, than do those who start work   with only a high-school qualification. [From my blog...] Over your lifetime your higher education will earn you far more than any other income and investments you forego while attaining that education.  Make those sacrifices now to reap greater rewards later.


Yeah, I had a guy one time send me 6 faxes in the span of 2 days - along with 6 followup calls, of course.  We had a double-your-money-back guarantee at the time and even with that, it was just easier to refund the $200 than to keep dealing with him.


Just to be clear, it is Chapter 11. They are only restructuring their debt, not closing down. Every store is still open and will continue to be for a while. Things are not necessarily clear skies for them, but they definitely aren't going under yet


Maybe minimalism is an option for you. Make your self clear what you really want You only buy what you really need and for that you spend the money. Then there is no point of saving money, i.e. I for example like to invite friends and cook them some fancy diner with expensive products, but the value I get from that exceeds any money I spend. On the other hand most present are the opposite, they have less value to recipient than what they originally have costs.


"There are a lot of things that go into your credit score, but the following steps are core to building it: Now, in your case, you obviously have some flexibility in your monthly budget since you're considering paying down your college loan faster.  You have to weigh whether it would be better to pay off the loan that much faster, or just save the money towards buying the car.  If you can pile up enough cash to buy the car (and still leave yourself an emergency fund) it would be better to buy the car than add another interest payment.  As other answers have noted, you don't want to get in a situation where you have no cash for ""unexpected events"". Some links of interest:"


"It is precisely this kind of oversimplification that makes me laugh. I run a startup (well in it for more than 4 years now) and finding programmers is a grind. Yes we get some resumes, most could barely type, let alone write some decent code. As for paying ""higher salaries"", sure I wish I could pay $1MM starting salaries, yachts, and 3 months off and all that....you know how this ends.  If you wish to checkout the fact yourself, stop parroting the Lou Dobbs line and start your own company or go work for a startup. Ye shall see."


I agree.  The article points to tablets and smartphones being used as gaming devices.  That changed Zynga's activity from 9 million users to 5 million users?  No way!  And Draw Something's huge decline in popularity over a month?  Yeah, right.


You seem to underestimate the risk of this deal for the inverstors. A person purchasing a residence is happy to pay $70K instead of $150K now, and the only risk they take is that the construction company fails to build the condo. Whatever happens on the estate market in two years, they still saved the price difference between the price of complete apartments and to-be-build apartments (which by the way may be less than $150K-$70K, since that $150K is the price on a hot market in two years). However, an investor aiming to earn money counts on that the property will actually cost $150K in two years, so he's additionally taking the risk that the estate market may drop. Should that happen, their return on investment will be considerably lower, and it's entirely possible they will make a loss instead of a profit. At this point, this becomes yet another high risk investment option, like financing a startup.


Ah you may be right. But I checked genealogy sites that appear to check out, I figured it was David A Knopf's son. But then that NYT link... um no. Not unless he was previously married.  Well now we better do something about the depressed guy who feels like a failure at 29.


There are a lot of open questions about if this is your only accessible money or if you have other emergency funds, and if you have any retirements savings and when do you plan to retire, but leaving this all aside: You currently pay 2.65% on the mortgage, and you make less on savings (maybe 1 or 1.5%). So putting the savings into the mortgage makes you the difference, which is a good deal. However, you need to reflect this with your risk-averisty, and your long term goals, and look at potential even better deals. For example, you could put the savings into higher risk/higher gain investments (let’s assume index funds), and make 6 - 10% per year in average. That obviously is a lot more. Why would you not want to do that? Investing like this is a long term plan. If this is your only savings/emergency fund, or if you need the money within the next five years, you should not do it; it could catch you in a bad market situation, and then it might be a severe loss. If you are sure you don’t need it for at least five if not ten years, invest it and keep the mortgage, you will easily beat its interest rate. If you are risk-averse, and can’t sleep with your savings doing loopings while you watch, that is also not a plan for you. There are many things to consider, and your personal situation is relevant for the decision. Consider all options, and be sure to always have a emergency fund remaining. It is also not black and white - there are options in between of your two propositions - pay some in, and keep some for emergencies.


If you are still a UK resident, then yes. Also, as I understand it, if the contract is only for a year, then unless it happens to exactly match the payroll year, you will have to remain a UK resident and hence, yes you will have to pay tax. See here for more info (from HMRC FAQ questions)


Unless your video does very well, it's unlikely that your income from it will exceed your expenses incurred in making it, such as the purchase prices of your computer and video camera and the cost of your broadband connection, so there shouldn't be any tax to pay.


Ah, you're one of those people that want to pay to do literally everything in life. All regulations gone and safety be damned!   Every road is a pay road, the fire department only comes when paid ahead of time, and police protection means hiring thugs as bodyguards.   Basically you want Ancient Rome, pre Octavius.


Oh, yeah. I'd definitely take an ax to the military; I made a note in my other post that the military has thus far remained unscathed by spending cuts, so I think that's a logical place to start cutting.  That, and taking a look at Social Security and Medicare to see if we can _streamline_ the programs and make them more efficient rather than just taking their funding away. Those two programs cost us a shitload of money; but, as they're nearly universally loved, it makes sense to figure out how to make them more efficient.


Yes, that is correct. Note, when there is a tax treaty between Canada and the other country -- [which is pretty much anywhere you have active business](http://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/in_force--eng.asp) -- the tax credits are equal to the income received, making it tax free. Here is a better explanation:  > The greatest advantage of having a foreign affiliate in the international business setting is  to repatriate foreign profits back to Canada tax free under certain conditions, for example,  if a foreign affiliate carries on an active business in a designated treaty country (i.e. a  country with which Canada has a tax treaty). The after-tax profit is included in a pool  called “exempt surplus”. If the repatriation of profit in the form of dividend was paid out  of the “exempt surplus” pool to a Canadian corporate shareholder, such dividend is  included in its income and the same amount is allowed to be deducted in computing its  taxable income. In other words, the dividend is not subject to Canadian tax if received by  a Canadian corporate shareholder.   [Source, p3](http://www.canadataxplan.com/test/canadataxplan/files/Book%20-%20English_summary_12-22-2008.pdf)  Edit... here from the NRC site:  > Treaty Countries: **Active business income earned in a treaty country is classified as “exempt surplus.”** The exempt surplus of an FA also includes inter-affiliate dividends received out of the exempt surplus of other foreign affiliates, the exempt portion (25%) of all capital gains, and certain taxable capital gains. **Dividends paid out of the exempt surplus of an FA can be received free of additional taxes in Canada**, since the profits out of which they are paid are considered to have borne a rate of tax in the treaty country comparable to that of Canada.  [Source](http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/taxation/8880) see the section on Subsidiary Income. This is the reason BK is moving to Canada. [Also here is a very interesting deck on corporate tax minimization in latin america by the Canadian mining industry.](http://miningtaxcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/TOR01-5160395-v1-RMLF_Cartagena_Slides.pdf)


Minimizing tracking error and offering good redemption liquidity is the priority. A few concerns off the top of my head are entrants and exits of the S&P 500. Vanguard needs to dump a good amount of one stock quickly and purchase another big stake simultaneously. Everyone also knows that the large orders are coming so trying to do it efficiently is one challenge. When a company in the S&P 500 spins off a stock as a dividend, you could be holding on to a bunch of shares in a new stock that you need to get rid off. Again, a lot of selling at once, need to keep costs of that low.


Your description works except for HBO.  HBO isn't included in any bundling because they don't have any advertising.  Their only source of revenue is consumers paying them for their content either through subscriptions.  Thats why you've seen HBO be very aggressive in DVD publishing and online offerings compared to other channels.  I think that in their heart of hearts, HBO's management would very much like to sell directly to the consumer through some sort of digital market place and cut out the cable middle man.  Unfortunatly most of their revenue still comes from cable subscriptions, and they can't risk pissing off their business partners by going directly to consumers.


">>If you bothered to do any sort of research you'd realize that for the scope of its mission  If *you* bothered, you'd know that the SEC lets the big guys off with a slap on the wrist while destroying the little guys.   >I have no idea what you are going on about. Try to stay on topic.  Why don't *you* try to pay attention?   >please re-examine your exremely demented Libertarian ideals  Please re-examine your violence based statist dementia.   >If you like roads, water, street lights, and not getting butt-raped b/c the police rescued you, then you like State Sales tax; you just don't know it yet.  What a bullshit canard. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Because government *makes* water, right? Because nobody could build a road without the government? Because the government invented lights? Because security forces only exist if they are funded by taxation?   >And of course it's their right. WTF.  *Persons* have rights. States do not.   >please explain how you relate a person dying to an Exchange being stable & trustworthy?  Business failure is a market equivalent to an organism's death. Imagine if we ensured that persons never died, and continued to be employed by their historical activities. How would society grow and evolve?   >Stability by Change. OK, now I'm pretty sure you are drunk. Geez, it's the middle of the day. ""Stability by change""? Stability requires stability, not change. I'm embarrassed to even be responding to this right now.  ""Duh, I can't be bothered to understand something, so I'll ridicule the person who wrote it and slander them."""


Understanding your starting place makes everything clearer.  What skills do you have? What experience? What resources? What people who can help you? What's your motivation to start this specific business? Have you seen any similar businesses that you'd like to imitate?


"I think the issue you are having is that the option value is not a ""flow"" but rather a liability that changes value over time. It is best to illustrate with a balance sheet. The $33 dollars would be the premium net of expense that you would receive from your brokerage for having shorted the options. This would be your asset. The liability is the right for the option owner (the person you sold it to) to exercise and purchase stock at a fixed price. At the moment you sold it, the ""Marked To Market"" (MTM) value of that option is $40. Hence you are at a net account value of $33-$40= $-7 which is the commission. Over time, as the price of that option changes the value of your account is simply $33 - 2*(option price)*(100) since each option contract is for 100 shares. In your example above, this implies that the option price is 20 cents. So if I were to redo the chart it would look like this If the next day the option value goes to 21 cents, your liability would now be 2*(0.21)*(100) = $42 dollars. In a sense, 2 dollars have been ""debited"" from your account to cover your potential liability. Since you also own the stock there will be a credit from that line item (not shown). At the expiry of your option, since you are selling covered calls, if you were to be exercised on, the loss on the option and the gain on the shares you own will net off. The final cost basis of the shares you sold will be adjusted by the premium you've received. You will simply be selling your shares at strike + premium per share (0.20 cents in this example)"


"There are some tools that might help you. For example, I have an ""Expense It"" application on my iPhone, where I can type in a purchase while still at the cashier, the idea is to track expenses on a trip, but the implementation will suit your needs perfectly. Keeping slips is a way to go too, but I personally don't like that because I'm a messy person and after a couple of days all the receipts are gone. If you can keep track of tons of slips - you can just do that."


"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act ""normally"" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a ""losing"" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems."