Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective.  For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds.  Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day.  The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds.   Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund.  And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing.  Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader.  It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders.  However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term.  If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders.  If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders.   Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing.  They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing.   It seems the author is confused.


"We have a local bank that changed to a bill pay service.  The money is held as ""processing"" when the check is supposed to be cut and shows as cleared on the date the check is supposed to be received.  Because our business checking is with the same bank, we discovered recently that the although the check shows cleared from our account, the recipient has not received the paper check yet - and may not for 2-3 days.  We discovered this because the payroll checks we write this way (to ourselves) never arrive on the due date but clear the business account.  It appears to be a new way for banks to ride the ""float"" and draw interest on the money.  It happens with every check processed through the bill pay system and not with electronic transfers."


You can pay with a cashiers check or personal check. You can even pay cash, or combine payment methods. However, in the USA if you give the dealership $10,000 or more in actual cash, they will be required to fill out a form 8300 with the IRS.


Perhaps look into how prohibition worked out for distillers and brewers.  It doesn't take something as arcane as outright prohibition to ruin an industry.  Onerous rules and regulations will do it as well.  Either way Romney or Obama are going to do the exact same things, and this guy is just a useful partisan idiot.


"Jesus christ.  ""We need to consume more or the GROWTH will come to a dramatic halt.""  What about fine? What about things being big enough? What about focusing on something other then unhinged growth? Economists may often be better then most people at understanding the big picture, but man sometimes just staring at the numbers makes you so blind."


"A bit strange but okay.  The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings.   Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says ""the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years"" - that just seems like an absurd timeline.  Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated.  And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a ""liquidation value"". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity."


"It becomes ""yours"" when it leaves the trust. Until that point the Trust owns the shares attributable to your account. There are some different arrangements out there, in the cases of some of the smaller 401(k) providers, where the assets are held in annuity products, or even individual annuities in the case of 403(b) plans.  To further answer the question, the trust and  trustee own and hold the account before you take a distribution. In a lot of cases the 401(k) recordkeeper has a trust company that they use to serve as the custodian (person or entity who retains the assets). In some plans you have an individual Trustee or a Corporate Trustee. Those setups are not good for that person or company because they are ultimately responsible for backing the assets in the plan, and as you can imagine, leaving that responsibility to one person is not safe for that individual.  Hope that helps, glad to answer any other questions you have!"


I'll be blunt.


Both are incorrect. What it says is if your fund value is 25,000 in first year; then this will earn 19.4% compound for 5 years. This is same as 142.5 absolute. The money invested in second year, will only earn for 4 years, compound interest of 19.4%. so on ... The 25000 invested last year only 19.4 for a year. The other aspect you are missing is when you pay 25,000; 4% goes towards charges. So you are only investing 24,000. Plus there is an amount towards life cover. Depending on age, around 1000 for one lacs. This means the investment is only 23000 or 23500. Generally it is not advised to buy ULIP. It is cheaper to buy term insurance plus mutual fund.


Lol. First you have taken many economics classes and now that I've had more it doesn't matter.  [Let me give you an academic source regarding why academic communities often lean a direction away from me.](https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/-politically-correct-university_100224248924.pdf) Take some time to read it. It's very long and dense and should explain my position fairly succinctly. One thing you might notice is that in academics, socialism teachers more likely to be Marxist than conservatives. Would you agree that the academic field believes Communism is better than Capitalism because of that?  You still have yet to argue anything regarding your first source. Is it a good source or have you abandoned it? If memory serves this started as a conversation about home ownership and we are now entrenched in minimum wages. No, the government should not manipulate the labor market of an economy because of perceived short-term improvements. It's a bad long-run policy. Sorry.


I can't tell if he's running something similar to a pyramid scheme  >Everyone would work under the same Spartan conditions that Brito embraced. (In New York, Brito shares a large table with his head of sales and his finance chief.) “We always say the leaner the business, the more money we will have at the end of the year to share,” he said in a speech at Stanford in 2008. “I don’t have a company car. I don’t care. I can buy my own car. I don’t need the company to give me beer. I can buy my own beer.”  That part is awesome though


The most obvious one these days is unexpected and extended unemployment. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, you are asking for trouble in this economy.


"> Honestly this all scans with the same naivety as the communists saying WELL IT HASN'T BEEN TRIED PROPERLY YET.   No, it has the intellectual rigor of saying that if you want to claim something then you have to prove it, not parrot some propaganda that has been repeated endlessly without any proof.  > Why not the east india company for example - got a royal charter to literally do whatever the hell it wanted. Doesn't get more free market than that.  Royal charter. Free market. You can only have one. This is the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. You can't attack the market for a fucking government-granted problem. No, that is not free market. And even if it were, it wouldn't come close to the deaths caused by states. Again, you bear the burden of proof here, not me.  > Ultimately i find this philosophy unnecessarily reductionist, it lacks the nuance and resource flexibility to deal with shocks to the system such as external invasion or environmental catastrophe  In what way? People don't suddenly cease to have resources to deal with these things just because their resources are not forcibly centralized. That doesn't follow.  > what protection do you have from these private courts if someone is polluting your water supply? Your air? What defines 'your air' and 'your water'?  The protection would be upholding private property rights, which is what would determine what ""your air"" and ""your water"" are. You resolve it by showing that they are polluting and that you have damages. The general population isn't going to respect a biased court that doesn't support the rights of private property against pollution. It's akin to asking what we'd do if a murderer went to his brother who supports a right to murder: you wouldn't use that court. Again, people overwhelmingly want protections against pollution and murder so there would be a market demand for courts that protect against these things.  > I mean these are all hypothetical worst case scenarios  Then compare them to the real life worst case scenarios of governments. It won't do to use some fictitious, worst-case example that isn't based upon reason and evidence against the not-so-bad examples of government. Make an apples-to-apples comparison and tell me what evidence or reason you have to believe that hundreds of millions of people would have died in a century without governments.  “Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.  In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.” - Robert Higgs"


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/need-proof-that-tax-cuts-promote-economic-growth-look-to-the-states/article/2638023) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A new report released this week by the Tax Foundation - along with assessment of states&#039; fiscal health, economic performance, and population changes - confirm that states with lower taxes and reasonable levels of government spending have stronger economies and are more attractive for businesses and individuals.  > The State Business Tax Climate Index is an annual ranking of state tax systems and how well they are structured to promote economic growth.  > Big-government, high-tax, reckless-spending states such as Vermont, California, New York, and New Jersey find themselves at or near the bottom of tax climate and fiscal health rankings, as well as the bottom in economic outlook.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/78j193/need_proof_that_tax_cuts_promote_economic_growth/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~234422 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*: **State**^#1 **tax**^#2 **new**^#3 **economic**^#4 **fiscal**^#5"


> The value is that you have higher credentials that are tangible to a business.  This is exactly what I am saying it does not do. What tangible benefits do you have form the business' perspective coming out of an MBA program? You don't learn shit in BSchool. It exists to allow the attendee to build their network and resume. Thats basically the entire value prop


Why the fuck would someone ever, in a million years, go to a place like BWW to watch a sporting event?  I'm trying really hard and failing to come up with a reason for it.  I know sports bars are a thing, and plenty apparently do okay, but BWW is setup such that you may or may not be able to see a screen and the sit down service means you can't really just park yourself there for a 3+ hour game.  It seems like they have a sports bar theme, but you can't legit use it like a sports bar.


IMHO your thinking is spot on.  More than likely, you are years away from retirement, like 22 if you retire somewhat early.  Until you get close keep it in aggressive growth.  Contribute as much as you can and you probably end up with 3 million in today's dollars.   Okay so what if you were retiring in a year or two from now, and you have 3M, and have managed your debt well.  You have no loans including no mortgage and an nice emergency fund.  How much would you need to live?  60 or 70K year would provide roughly the equivalent of 100K salary (no social security tax, no commute, and no need to save for retirement) and you would not have a mortgage. So what you decide to do is move 250K and move it to bonds so you have enough to live off of for the next 3.5 years or so.  That is less than 10% of your nest egg.  You have 3.5 years to go through some roller coaster time of the market and you can always cherry pick when to replenish the bond fund. Having a 50% allocation for bonds is not very wise.  The 80% probably good for people who have little or no savings like less than 250k and retired.   I think you are a very bright individual and have some really good money sense.


Late to the party, but it's just improving your cost basis in a defined risk trade even further. If you want to put up less risk capital but want to test the waters, this can be one way to do it. Another could be buying cheap OTM butterflies or financing a further otm option with the basis reduction from the debit spread if you want to gamble a bit further and venture into 15-20 delta positions. Usually, I am doing debit spreads with a buying atm and selling a couple strikes further otm or at least at the most liquid strikes, but if it's a high flier, it can be disappointing, but a good trade. If you're more of a contrarian in where you buy your calls/puts, it's absolutely a good way to lessen your risk on a calculated bet.


"Yes. Bonds perform very well in a recession. In fact the safer the bond, the better it would do in a recession. Think of markets having four seasons: High growth and low inflation - ""growing economy"" High growth and high inflation - ""overheating economy"" Low growth and high inflation - ""stagflation"" Low growth and low inflation - ""recession"" Bonds are the best investment in a recession. qplum's flagship strategy had a very high allocation to bonds in the financial crisis. That's why in backtest it shows much better returns."


I remember reading that [he was responsible for siri](http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-forstall-apple-maps-2012-9) and that launch also didn't go so well.  I guess Apple figured that 0 for 2 is better than 0 for 3 so better to get rid of his ass now before he fucks up again. And from other reports, people are cheering his departure ( [it's said that Forstall's coworkers were so excited to show him the door that they volunteered to split up his workload](http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/29/3574022/apple-scott-forstall-ios-6-maps-apology-letter)) so don't see how this is a bad move, other than Google or Samsung might pick him up, which I guess might be bad news for the apple crowd.


The rate itself is too small and the difference is small as well ... The cost of switching, even one visit to the Bank B, would cost you around $50 just to open an account you would have to visit once ... Think of changing if there are other benefits [like utility payments online, or integrated brokrage accounts etc] if they are same, just stick with it.


Sounds like a case of false causality.  If somebody is taking the time to sign up at opt out sites, then that same person is probably making other smart decisions with their credit, causing scores to rise. Optoutprescreen.com does not help your score, the other actions taken might.  People seeing different results can probably be tied to the timeframe they signed up.  People who signed up then took care of their credit vs. people whose credit was already good and then signed up. A 10 pt bounce one way or the other is not significant.


There is a tax treaty between Canada and the US that recognizes RRSPs as retirement accounts.  You won't be taxed on the gains in your RRSP like you would be if it was in a TFSA.  So you don't really have to do anything (except fill out a form for the IRS every year).   The problem that usually arises is if you want to buy something else.  I don't know of any Canadian brokerage that will sell products to a US resident.  It's a question of where they're licensed.  However the SEC has issued an exemption so you can try to argue with your broker to get a trade done. Link to SEC order With such a small amount in the account you may be paying fees or have it invested in funds with higher fees.  You will have to do the math on whether or not you should just withdraw the money and invest in cheaper funds and accounts in the US. When you withdraw the money Canada will withhold a flat rate of 25% or in some circumstances 15%. For more info go to Serbinski (a cross border tax specialist).


Unless you are getting better than a 2.95% return on that money market account. Pay cash. That's the purely logical way to make the decision. However if it were me I'd pay cash anyway just because I like the idea of not owing money and having the hassle of dealing with a payment every month.


I mean if he signed a non-compete clause as a part of the contract, he's boned. I still think it's silly on Sony's part though because they fired him because the commercials didn't do anything for sales and he wasn't directly endorsing Nintendo nor does he have a contract with Nintendo. They're just really trying to throw off any momentum the WII U is about to gain because Sony knows it has the potential to kill the PS3 and they sure don't want to rush another console on to the market.


Stock dilution is legal because, in theory, the issuance of new shares shouldn't affect actual shareholder value. The other answers have explained fairly well why this is so. In practice, however, the issuance of new shares can destroy shareholder value. This normally happens when the issuing company:  In these cases, the issuance of more shares merely reduces each shareholder's stake in the company without building proportional shareholder value.


I few years ago my company in the Washington DC area allowed employees to contribute their own pre-tax funds. The system at the time wasn't sophisticated enough to prevent what you are suggesting. The money each month was put on a special credit card that could only be used at certain types of locations. You could load it onto the Metro smart trip card, and use it for many months. Many people did this, even though the IRS says you shouldn't. But eventually the program for the federal employees changed, their employer provided funds were put directly onto their Smart Trip card. In fact there were two buckets on the card: one to pay for commuting, and the other to pay for parking. There was no way to transfer money between buckets. The first day of the new month all the excess funds were automatically removed from the card;and the new funds were put onto the card. If your employer has a similar program it may work the same way. HR will know.


I find myself doing well until I compare myself to someone else I think is doing well or better. I just bought a car on credit for the first time in 16 years. As a household we are making more than we ever have.  With the exception of the car, we have no debt.  If I don't listen to the news, I am happy.  It's when I start listening to how dire things are, or when I start second-guessing my decisions, or when I wonder whether I will lose my job (for no other reason that anything is possible), that I begin to feel like the world is going to end.  So, avoid Reddit and TV, stick to reading early 19th century novels, and we'll all be fine.


Stop trying to make money with your emergency fund. It's purpose is to sit there idly waiting for a bad day. A day when you need that cash (liquid) not in a bank or a line-of-credit. The few dollars you might make trying to chase interest/investments with your emergency fund aren't worth it if a true emergency came up and you couldn't get to your cash in time. Once you have a fully funded EF then start investing heavily. That's your future game plan. Not the EF.


"It sounds like you are describing ""seller-financed"" mortgages (also sometimes called ""self-financed"", where ""self"" is the seller).  In essence the buyer and seller enter into a legal contract (a promissory note) that specifies the payment schedule, interest rate, etc.  The nature of the agreement is similar to the kind of mortgage agreement you'd get from the bank, but no bank is involved; it's just an agreeement directly between the buyer and seller. If you search for ""seller-financed mortgage"" or ""self-financed mortgage"" you can find a good deal more info about this kind of arrangement.  Here is a useful article from Investopedia, here is one from Forbes, and here is one from Nolo. Broadly speaking, the advantages and disadvantages of seller financing are two sides of the same coin: by doing the agreement yourself without bank involvement, you can cut out procedural red tape, delays, and requirements that a bank might insist on --- but in so doing you may expose yourself to risks that those procedures are designed to shield you from.  Most obviously, as the seller, you receive only the down payment up front (not the entire purchase price, as you would if the buyer got a bank loan), and if the buyer doesn't follow through on the agreement, you're on your own as far as starting foreclosure, etc. You can read up on some of the linked pages for more details about the pros and cons.  In general, as those pages note, seller-financed mortgages are relatively rare.  A home is a big purchase, and if you don't know what you're doing it's easy to screw up in a way that could cost you a large amount of money if things go wrong."


Thinning scissors are also popularly called as thinning shears. It is an essential tool for hairstylists as well as the barbers across the world. Although, these shears are akin to that of traditional scissors, they vary by their form and use.


In addition to what others have said, I think it is important to consider that government retirement assistance (whatever it is called in each instance) is basically a promise that can be revoked. I talked to a retired friend of mine just yesterday and we got onto that subject; she mentioned that when she was young, the promise was for 90% of one's pay, paid by the government after retiring. It is very different today. Yes, you can gamble that you won't need the saved money, and thus decide not to save anything. What then if you do end up needing the money you did not set aside, but rather spent? You are just now graduating college, and assuming of course that you get a decently-paying job, are likely going to have loads more money than you are used to. If you make an agreement with yourself to set aside even just 10-15% of the difference in income right from the start, that is going to grow into a pretty sizable nest egg by the time you approach retirement age. Then, you will have the option of continuing to work (maybe part-time) or quitting in a way you would not have had otherwise. Now I'm going to pull numbers out of thin air, but suppose that you currently have $1000/month net, before expenses, and can get a job that pays $1800/month net starting out. 10-15% of the difference means you'll be saving around $100/month for retirement. In 35 years, assuming no return on investment (pessimistic, but works if returns match inflation) and no pay rises, that will still be over $40K. That's somewhere on the order of $150/month added to your retirement income for 25 years. Multiply with whatever inflation rate you think is likely if you prefer nominal values. It becomes even more noticable if you save a significant fraction of the additional pay; if you save 1/3 of the additional money (note that you still effectively get a 50% raise compared to what you have been living on before), that gives you a net income of $1500/month instead of $1800 ($500/month more rather than $800/month more) which grows into about $110K in 35 years assuming no return on investment. Nearly $400 per month for 25 years. $100 per week is hardly chump change in retirement, and it is still quite realistic for most people to save 30% of the money they did not have before.


"The ends justify the means?  Do you even understand that phrase?  Obviously the end is our open-faced sandwiches.  So you're saying the means are...abuse?  ""Means"" must be something *necessary*.  Abuse is not a necessity.  The means are the things required to make the animal grow to an edible size.    Also, the ends can change.  In Korea, pet theft for food does occur.  By your logic, if someone stole your dog on Tuesday (when it would be morally reprehensible to abuse it) by Wednesday--when its end has been determined by the thieves as food--it's open season for beatings.  Same dog, but a different situation (which it had no say in, obviously) makes it OK to abuse.  Have fun with that argument in social situations.  Don't forget to bring up your defense of gall-bladder draining and, I'm assuming, gorilla poaching."


"So item 1  The two investors leading the suit say ""it's because we want lots of control"" and sue founder.  The standard share holders want equal voting - as would I.  Founder appoints two new board members to ensure this happens.  Item 2 the suit:  The suit is to remove the ability to appoint new board members from the founder correct?  After he has appointed two new ones to implement the changes the other shareholders want correct?  But somehow the suit is ""on behalf"" of the other share holders?  Do I have you explanation right?"


In 2011 fraudulent certificates were obtained from Comodo and DigiNotar[4][5], allegedly by Iranian hackers. There is evidence that the fraudulent DigiNotar certificates were used in a man-in-the-middle attack in Iran.[6]   In 2012, it became known that Trustwave issued a subordinate root certificate that was used for transparent traffic management (man-in-the-middle) which effectively permitted an enterprise to sniff SSL internal network traffic using the subordinate certificate.[7]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_authority#Subversion_of_CA


"Usually you need to switch accounts. Lower rate cards usually offer less generous benefits. I'd advise looking at the charts on credit card rates in the back of a magazine like ""Money"" or ""Kiplingers""."


Many colleges have offices that can help students find off campus housing. They will have information about rooms being let by families, and about houses being shared by groups of students. The biggest issue is that many of the best places were filled months ago. With only a month to go before classes start time is tight. You can also look for electronic listings organized through a campus newspaper.  The advantage of going through university resources is that they will have more information regarding the types of students they are looking for. A house full of undergrads is different than a family house that rents only to young professors.


Truly decentralized and censorship proof, but not yet ready for prime time.  https://akasha.world/  > As a decentralized application AKASHA deploys a next-generation information architecture born from the fusion of Ethereum and the Inter-Planetary File System. Thanks to these technologies we were able to create a planetary-scale information network immune to censorship by design, where your thoughts and ideas will echo throughout humanity’s existence.


"Capitalization rate and ""Net Profit margin"" are two different things. In Capitalization rate note that we are taking the ""total value"" in the denominator and in Net profit margin we are taking ""Revenue/Sales"".  Capitalization Rate: Capitalization Rate = Yearly Income/Total Value For example (from Investopedia: ) if Stephane buys a property that will generate $125,000 per year and   he pays $900,000 for it, the cap rate is:   125,000/900,000 = 13.89%. Net Profit margin: Net Profit margin = Net Profit/Revenue For example (from finance formulas): A company's income statement shows a net income of $1 million and   operating revenues of $25 million. By applying the formula, $1 million   divided by $25 million would result in a net profit margin of 4%.   Although the formula is simplistic, applying the concept is important   in that 4% of sales will result in after tax profit."


It's only symbolic if things continue as if nothing had happened.  Once large segments of people start becoming poor, it ceases to be symbolic and starts becoming real. Will a Greek default be felt in the US?  Hard to say, but probably not.  Will it be felt in Greece?  You bet it will.


"Step 1. Log onto chase.com  Step 2. Click on the account in question  Step 3. Add ""Outstanding balance"" to ""Pending charges""  Step 4. Pay said total amount  With all the energy you spent trying to find out if they're doing something illegal, you could've resolved the original issue yourself and be done with it."


When you say patted down. Are you talking about extra security checks where they pull you out of line each time, or just when going through security?  Cause if you choose to object to full body scans, you get a pat down every time?


All successful CEOs have one thing in common: They’re able to maintain a big-picture perspective. It’s also something successful moms have in common, says Zenovia Andrews, a [business](http://businessclarksville.com/business/how-to-run-your-home-like-a-ceo/2014/07/30/65318) strategist, speaker, author and mom who coaches [entrepreneurs](http://theshearingroups.org/) and CEOs on time and budget [management](http://theshearingroups.org/news/).  “In business, CEOs implement a process that achieves efficient time and resource management in the most cost-effective way; sounds a lot like a mom, doesn’t it?” says Andrews, founder and CEO of The MaxOut Group, a company devoted to empowering and tea ching entrepreneurs development strategies to increase profits.  “If every mom were a CEO, America would rule the world!”  Andrews, author of the new book “All Systems Go – A Solid Blueprint to Build Business and Maximize Cash Flow,” (www.zenoviaandrews.com), suggests the following tips for moms to better manage money and time.  - CEOs utilize apps, and so should CEO Moms. When a CEO’s personal assistant isn’t around or, if it’s a small business and she doesn’t have one, then apps do nicely. There are several apps for moms, including Bank of Mom – an easy way to keep track of your kids’ allowances. Set up an account for each child and track any money they earn for chores or allowance. The app also allows you to track their computer and TV time as well as other activities.  - Measurement is the key to knowledge, control and improvement. CEOs have goals for their businesses and Moms have goals for their family members. In either case, the best way to achieve a big-picture goal is to identify action steps and objectives and a system for measuring progress. Want to improve your kids’ test scores, help your husband lose weight or – gasp – free some time for yourself? There are four phases to help track progress: planning, or establishing goals; collection, or conducting research on your current process; analysis – comparing information from existing processes with the new one; and adapting, or implementing the new process.  - Understand your home’s “workforce.” A good CEO helps her employees grow and develop, not only for the company’s benefit, but for the employee’s as well. Most people are happiest when they feel they’re learning and growing, working toward a goal, which may be promotion within the company or something beyond it. When they feel the CEO is helping with that, they’re happier, more productive, more loyal employees. Likewise, CEO Moms need to help their children gain the skills and knowledge they need not only to succeed in general but to achieve their individual dreams.  - A well-running household is a community effort; consider “automated” systems. In business, automated systems tend to be as clinical as they sound, typically involving technology. Yet, there’s also a human resource element. Automated systems are a must for CEO Moms, and they tend to take the form of scheduling at home. Whose night is it for the dishes, or trash? One child may be helpful in the kitchen, whereas another may be better at cleaning the pool.  About the Author:  Zenovia Andrews, www.zenoviaandrews.com, is a business development strategist with extensive experience in corporate training, performance management, leadership development and sales consulting with international clients, including Pfizer, Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals. A sought-after speaker and radio/TV personality, she is the author of “All Systems Go” and “MAXOut: I Want It All.”


Probably because it's a question of Excel vs Access, not VBA vs SQL. You probably don't need VBA for any of the calcs that the OP mentions.  Excel is the one tool everyone uses in Finance. CR and SSRS require tools and permissions that the average guy simply won't have, and a level of expertise that is not useful for most front/middle-office analysis work.  I usually see these done in Excel. SSRS and CR seem like way overkill for something done trivially and transparently in Excel, whose presentation will change frequently anyway.  Depending on what OP is talking about, analysis is not reporting, and flexibility and transparency usually win. Especially when you want to poke around the underlying data and iterate with other people.  SSRS and CR only make sense when you know what you're looking for, that the data is appropriate for it and you don't expect it to change.


I'm all for free enterprise, but I feel like when services like Uber and Lyft get so big it might do them some good to offer disabled services. I mean obviously you can't cater to every single type of rider out there but basic wheelchair service would probably be good.


You could, but the bank won't let you... If you're a sole proprietor - then you could probably open a personal account and just use it, and never tell them that is actually a business. However, depending on your volume of operations, they may switch you on their own to business account by the pattern of your transactions. For corporations, you cannot use a personal account since the corporation is a separate legal entity that owns the funds. Also, you're generally required to separate corporate and personal funds to keep the limited liability protection (which is why you have the corporation to begin with). Generally, business accounts have much higher volumes and much more transactions than personal accounts, and it costs more for the banks to run them. In the US, some banks offer free, or very low-cost, business accounts for small businesses that don't need too many transactions. I'm sure if you shop around, you'll find those in Canada as well.


"There are many tactics you can use.  If your biggest problem is regretting your larger purchases, I'd suggest giving yourself rules before making any purchases over a certain minimum dollar amount that you set for yourself.  For example, if that amount is $50 for an item, then any item starting at an average price of $51 would be subject to these rules. One of your long-term goals ought to be to become the kind of person who finds joy in saving money rather than spending it.  Make friends with frugal people - look for those who prefer games nights and potlucks to nights out at the club buying expensive drinks and dinners at the newest steak joint in town.  Learn the thrill of a deal, but even more learn the thrill of your savings growing.  You don't want to enjoy money in the bank for the purposes of becoming a miser.  Instead you want to realize that money in the bank helps you achieve your goals — buying the house you want, donating a significant amount of money to a cause you ardently support, allowing you to take a dream vacation, letting you buy with cash the car you always wanted, the possibilities are endless.  As Dave Ramsey says, ""Live like no one else, so you can live like no one else."""


Here's the key:  >If I buy back my own mortgage, I don’t have a mortgage.  You don't have a mortgage, you probably ended up with another type of depth. This is what happens. The Bank of Japan is buying the debt. It didn't disappear. Why did it buy the debt? To be able to print more money. Why does it need more money? To create more inflation. 0.2% of inflation is bad. You need 2%.  //edit:grammar.


"wtf are we as a country and society going to do for all the Frans in 10 years when there is barely retail or fast food jobs left?  are we just going to throw up our hands and say ""welp, guess your fucked""? we're going to have millions of unemployed people a lot sooner than people think and we are doing nothing to address this upcoming problem!"


"Seems like no one in this thread has heard of ""treasury stocks"", which indeed allow a company to own and sell its own stock. Think about it. When there is a stock buy-back funded by excess profits, where does that stock go?"


I can easily live off purchase 1. The issue is that I have a guaranteed paycheck at my corporate gig and my fiancé is worried about not having enough income to pay bills.     We're both new to business ownership and she doesn't want me to lose my benefits and guaranteed salary at my current job. I'm only keeping this job for extra income. I'd have to leave my second income producing job to take the plunge for the second business.      She just doesn't think it's the right time but E V E R Y T H I N G is playing out to where it just makes sense financially. Take a small cut back on expenses to make 4x what I'm making now with my first business and my second income producing job.


Why not 180 weeks then? Being able to get cash without having to work for it changes the human psyche regarding the necessity of work. At the end if the 99 weeks, a lot of people resent having to work again, which translates into an overall lesser quality labor pool. I'm not arguing for no unemployment, but 99 weeks is extreme. No one is actively job searching that long.


"I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you ""beat the market"", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent."


Will they still create programming catered to an 8th grade education and watered down enough for children to watch? That's why I quit tv and cable. What the fuck am I watching shows made for teenagers for? No hard science, no hard news, and not a single person talks like a regular human. It's fucking bizarre seeing it at this point. A weird world of nonsense.


Oh hey, let's take an insane valuation from the peak of the tech bubble and act like it should be a useful metric. Exxon has a market cap around 430 billion, Apple is just under 600 billion.    Microsoft was never making enough nor looked like it could sustain enough growth to support a 600b market cap.  Don't be stupid.  The stock was grossly overvalued as everything was then.


"IRA is a tax-deferred account. I.e.: you're not paying any taxes on the income within the account (as long as you don't withdraw it) and you can deduct the investment (with certain limitation on how much, depending on your total AGI). It is taxed when you withdraw it - at ordinary rates for the ""traditional"" IRA and with 0% rate for ROTH, as long as the withdrawal is qualified (if not qualified - you pay ordinary rate tax for ROTH and additional 10% tax for both on the taxable amounts). The details are a bit complicated (there's deductible IRA, non-deductible IRA, roll-overs, etc etc), but that's the basic. Regular investment accounts are taxed currently on any income, but you get the ""better"" capital gains rates on many things. So which one is better depends how long your investment is going to be, what is your tax situation now, and what you anticipate it to be later when you retire."


No, if your brokers find out about this, even though it is unlikely, you will be identified as a pattern day trader. The regulations do not specify a per broker limit. Also, it's like a credit history.  Brokers are loosely obligated to inform other brokers that a client is a pattern day trader when transferring accounts.


"Strictly speaking, a ""default"" happens when you stop making a scheduled interest or principal payment. So you can ""default"" on your student loan by simply not paying it. What you describe is what generally happens afterwards. So when people say ""You can't default on your student loans"", that is not correct. What they mean to say is ""You (usually) can't discharge your student loans in bankruptcy""."


Traders sometimes look at the depth of the book (number of outstanding limit orders) to try and gauge the sentiment of the market or otherwise use this information to formulate their strategy.  If there was a large outstanding buy order at $49.50, there's a decent chance this could increase the price by influencing other traders. However, a limit order at $2 is like an amazon.com price of $200,000 for a book.  It's so far away from realistic that it is ignored.  People would think it is an error. Submitting this type of order is perfectly legal.  If the stock is extremely thinly traded, it might even be encouraged because if someone wanted to sell a bunch and did a really bad job of it, the price could conceivably fall that far and the limit order would be adding liquidity.  I guess.  Your example is pretty extreme. It is not uncommon for there to be limit orders on the book that are not very close to the trading price.  They just sit around.  The majority of trades are done by algorithmic traders and institutional traders and they don't tend to do this, but a retail investor may choose to submit an order like that, just hoping against hope. Also, buy orders are not likely to push prices down, no matter what their price is.  A sell order, yes (even if it isn't executed).


Nope. And you're making things up while being a condescending dickhead. Good look! 5 states allow you to take the bar without even attending law school let alone graduating. Thanks for playing though. Maybe 12 seconds of google next time?


"That wasn't friendster, that was a site that never launched called ""Harvard connect"" I believe.  Friendster was already a decently sized company when Zuck started facebook. In fact he even has noted that he wanted the site to be something like friendster originally."


"I have a basic rule: it is the ""business"" guy's responsibility to raise the money. If they can't do it, then they are incompetent, and the ""tech"" guy should avoid them.  Generally speaking, the business side needs to be able to identify and validate the market opportunity, define the product, handle sales and marketing and raise the money.  The tech side needs to translate the product definition into a technical solution and build it.   If you have programming skills, you have plenty of options, and should not partner with people who can't do their part. You can probably handle the business side of things as well, though there is a difference in skill and temperament. Find someone who is as good or better at the business side than you are at programming."


"Apparently, only in America do people understand the difference between positive and negative rights.  A negative right requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions.  These are ""natural"" rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, etc.  The Constitution is full of negative rights that are ""endowed by the Creator,"" i.e the government does not grant them to you, but rather, the government cannot strip them from you because you already have them.  Positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service, such as healthcare.  These rights always require government coercion, such as forced taxation, to implement.  They also don't exist without that government coercion.  These rights are granted by government (and can be taken away by government as well).  Americans are much more supportive of negative rights.  True freedom means freedom from government coercion.  Thus, calls for healthcare as a ""right"" are rejected by huge numbers of Americans.  Healthcare is not a right in the same sense that freedom of speech is, because it is not a negative right."


It always bumps right before the 1/4 report.  For some reason, after 80 quarters, people buy amazon stock just incase they under promised and over delivered.  That's happened like 1 or 2 times.  They are so consistent, that I assume the make heavy fiscal investments in the week leading up to quarter close just so they don't


Not sure how to feel about this just yet. On one hand, I feel like it's a potentially worthy blow to an industry in need of a good one. On the other, it scares me that Amazon is becoming deeply entrenched into so much of our lives. What happened to antitrust laws? And why are some people so pleased to see another major market monopoly?


Well, there are an army of analysts who build excel spreadsheets and call them models.  No real stats involved, no error estimates or anything like that.  Just arithmetic.  Then there are the quants who do real math.    Either can get you work.  The more stats BS you can talk the better your odds on a job interview for an analyst.  But if you really want to be a hotshot stats guy you'll need to be very very good at very advanced math.


No, you cannot withdraw the money until settlement day. Some brokers will allow you to trade with unsettled funds, but you cannot withdraw it until it is settled.  Think about it, when you buy stock you have to pay for them by T+3, so if you sell you actually don't receive the funds until T+3.


The Hong Kong Dollar has been pegged to the USD for nearly 30 years and the Hong Kong authorities have fairly strong means to defend the peg.  So at first glance it would appear that there is really no difference as long as you are getting 7.75 HKD for each USD that you used to receive. However, the peg is arbitrary and could be lifted at any time like the removal of the CHF peg to EUR surprised a lot of people in early 2015.  As mainland China becomes more integrated it is unclear what will happen to the HKD in the long run.  Whether this matters really depends on your contracts.  if your contracts are short dated you may only take a discount relative to USD for a few payments before you can try to renegotiate. It's also worth noting trading HKD for your local INR can be more expensive. Check your local rates.


"You have a subscription that costs $25 They have the capabilities to get that $25 from the card on file if you had stopped paying for it, you re-upping the cost of the subscription was more of a courtesy. They would have considered pulling the $25 themselves or it may have gone to collections (or they could courteously ask if you wanted to resubscribe, what a concept) The credit card processing agreements (with the credit card companies) and the FTC would handle such business practices, but ""illegal"" wouldn't be the word I would use. The FTC or Congress may have mandated that an easy ""opt-out"" number be associated with that kind of business practice, and left it at that."


I don't understand the logic of converting a cost of funds of 4% to a monthly % and then subtracting that number from an annual one (the 1.5%).  Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above.


"You have heard the old adage ""Buy low, sell high"", right? That sounds so obvious that you'd have to wonder why they would ever bother coining such an expression. It should rank up there with ""Don't walk in front of a moving car"" on the Duh scale of advice. Well, your question demonstrates exactly why it isn't quite so obvious in the real world and that people need to be reminded of it.  So, in your example, the stock prices are currently low (relative to what they have been). So per that adage, do you sell or buy when prices are low? Hint: It isn't sell. Yes. Your gut is going to tell you the exact opposite thanks to the fact that our brains are unfortunately wired to make us susceptible to the loss aversion fallacy. When the market has undergone a big drop is the WORST time to stop contributing (buying stocks).  This example might help get your brain and gut to agree a little more easily: If you were talking about any other non-investment commodity, cars for instance.  Your question equates to.. I really need a car, but the prices have been dropping like crazy lately.    Maybe I should wait until the car dealers start raising their prices again before I buy one. Dollar Cost Averaging As littleadv suggested, if you have an automatic payroll deduction for your retirement account, you are getting the benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging. Because you are investing the same amount on a scheduled interval, you are buying more shares when they are cheap and fewer when they are expensive. It is like an automatic buy low strategy is built into the account. The alternative, which you are implying, is a market timing strategy. Under this strategy, instead of investing regularly you try to get in and out of investments right before they go up/drop. There are two MAJOR flaws with this approach:   1) Your brain will work against you (see above) and encourage you to do the exact opposite of what you should be doing.   2) Unless you are clairvoyant, this strategy isn't much better than gambling. If you are lucky it can work, but because of #1, the odds are stacked against you."


They might be concerned with having to charge sales tax in California if they have a single employee in California, creating a nexus situation with CA. If that's the case, or even if there is some other issue, you might be able to switch from being a W2 employee to being a 1099 independent contractor. There's a host of additional issues this could cause, but it alleviate the nexus problem (if THAT is the problem). Here's a terrible solution you can bring up, but shouldn't do under any circumstances: offer to set up a mailing address in an allowed State, and give your company plausible deniability with regards to your legal residence. Obviously, this is a terrible idea, but exploring that option with your employer would help you suss out what the actual objection is. Ultimately, anything said here about the reason is just conjecture. You need to talk to the decision maker(s) about the real reason behind the denial. Then you can talk through solutions. Also - don't forget that you can get another job. If you are serious about a future with your girlfriend, you should put that relationship ahead of your current employment comfort and security. If you are willing to walk away from your position, you are in a much better situation to negotiate.


"Whoops, responded to the wrong person. Reposting for you in case you didn't see it.       Here's a source for the $3.7 trillion number.      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/u-s-municipal-bond-market-28-larger-than-estimated-federal-reserve-says.html    It's not 'incorrect data'.        EDIT:  Furthermore, in order to know the ""extent"" of the crime (your own admission) we NEED to know the size of the entire market otherwise you can't have any perspective or determine extent.  So there's no reason it shouldn't be mentioned in the article."


Update: I am now using another app called toshl and I am very satisfied with it. In fact, I am a paying customer. It is web based, but it has clients for iPhone, Android and Windows Phone as well.  Another one, I tried is YNAB.   Did you consider trying an online app? I am using Wesabe and I am happy with it. I found it much better these web-based ones because I can access my data from anywhere.


What I don't get. If Boeing doesn't have a plane in that range and there aren't many other competitors, why sell the plane as cheap as they have been to begin with? If you already have the market cornered why bother selling so low?


OK, looking at the balance sheet they have $42M in cash, but that is down from $325M in December. Meanwhile their debt has increased from $1.756B in December to $1.832B as of June so their net cash has dropped by $355M in only 6 months. It looks like they spent $329M (give or take) buying other companies in those 6 months. Otherwise their working capital (an important measure of the ability to run the business) looks OK at $230M. Looking at the income statement, they are making money: $70.6M in the last quarter on revenue of $226.7M, which is quite remarkable however they had an unusual item which increased earnings somewhat. Otherwise their earnings would have been about $39M, which is still pretty healthy.  All in, the company itself looks healthy and on a bit of a buying binge, growing through acquisition. I don’t like the debt load but that is probably usual for the industry.  When companies grow through acquisition they generally plan to reduce total employment because of redundancies because you sort of get economies of scale. This usually factors into the decision to buy the company: you increase revenues through the purchase and reduce costs by eliminating employees. This is typically how they “sell” an acquisition to investors.  If I was to guess (and it would only be a guess) this company has a team which looks at the employees of the company it just bought and decides where to downsize. It may not downsize from the newly acquired company but from its own existing employees for a variety of reasons. So most likely that is what you were a victim of: it wasn’t because the company was struggling, or because you were necessarily not a good employee. It is a process, albeit sometimes unfair, and you were a victim of it.  The layoff decisions are not always prudent and it can be hard to understand why a particular group was cut instead of another one. Management doesn’t always make the right call. The broadcast industry has been going through consolidation (companies buying companies) for some time now. Most likely management is hoping to “bulk up” to make it harder for another company to buy it and/or to get a better price when it is bought.   So in summary, most likely they are doing this for reasons of greed, ie, they’ll make more money with fewer employees. Sorry about your situation.


Guaranteed 8.2% annual return sounds too good to be true. Am I   right? Are there likely high fees, etc.? You're right. Guaranteed annual return is impossible, especially when you're talking about investments for such a long period of time. Ponzi (and Madoff) schemed their investors using promises of guaranteed return (see this note in Wikipedia: In some cases returns were allegedly determined before the account was even opened.[72]). Her financial advisor doesn't charge by the hour--he takes a   commission. So there's obviously some incentive to sell her things,   even if she may not need them. Definitely not a good sign, if the advisor gets a commission from the sale then he's obviously not an advisor but a sales person. The problem with this kind of investment is that it is very complex, and it is very hard to track. The commission to the broker makes it hard to evaluate returns (you pay 10% upfront, and it takes awhile to just get that money back, before even getting any profits), and since you're only able to withdraw in 20 years or so - there's no real way to know if something wrong, until you get there and discover that oops- no money! Also, many annuity funds (if not all) limit withdrawals to a long period, i.e.: you cannot touch money for like 10 years from investment (regardless of the tax issues, the tax deferred investment can be rolled over to another tax deferred account, but in this case - you can't). I suggest you getting your own financial advisor (that will work for you) to look over the details, and talk to your mother if it is really a scam.


I'm not sure I am fully understanding the nuance of your question, but based on your answer in the comments you and your business are not separate legal entities. So your income is the full $70K, there is no distinct business to have income. If you clarify your question to include why you want to know this I might be able to give a more meaningful answer for your situation.


The initial position is worth 40000. You post 50% margin, so you deposited 20000 and borrowed 20000. 6% of 20000 is 1200.


Whirlpool Washing Machine Service Center in Hyderabad.We have Best service centre in Hyderabad washing machine is essential part of our daily life. So If you are facing any problem with your washing machine you Can Call Us:040-60506610, 60506611, and 60506622.We are providing  fabulous service to you .Our technicians will reach you on time, and They will give good service to our customer.We have best materials for our service.


>  The point is that we've decided as a nation that we want to guarantee a basic level of healthcare  not sure abt that. maybe half the population has.   > Companies like wal-mart take advantage of that, paying low wages and assuming employees will utilize the government assistance.  you can't be mad at someone for following the laws to their advantage. you CAN be mad at the gov't for letting them do it. the public is supposed to have control of gov't, not private business.   > we should just fix our fucking healthcare system.  i think virtually everyone in america agrees. but there's wide disagreement on how.


Millennials are sure as hell not 'less materialistic' then other generations.   You're talking about post-millennials 'Gen Z'. Millennials are the children of the Boomers and as a result, share a lot of the similar characteristics. The problem with the Millennials is that they learned a lot of Boomer traits of their parents but have not been afforded the same economic opportunities as their parents where.  Gen Y and the Boomers are surprisingly some of the most liberal of  generations. However, both are incredibly materialistic whilst being socially progressive.  Gen Z, the post-millennials, grew up post 2001, post GFC. As a result of this chaotic and traumatic world which they grew up in, they tend to prize stability more then the Boomers and Gen Y do. Gen Z are more interested in work being a means to a (hopefully) stable end whereas Gen Y, Boomers see work as being an essential part of their identity as an individual. Gen Z will take many things for granted having grew up with a black President and in a country with a growing awareness of social rights (e.g legalization of same sex marriage) and as a result, will not be as socially progressive as their preceding generations.


Our view is that just be cause AMZN can disrupt somebody else's profit stream, it doesn't mean that AMZN earns that profit stream. For the moment, the market doesn't agree. Perhaps, simply being disruptive is enough.  While he is right in theory, the problem with this viewpoint is it is incredibly short sighted. Amazon is disrupting spaces to the point of near outright ELIMINATING entire markets. When Amazon eliminates a market, that revenue has to go SOMEWHERE... and while Amazon may not turn a profit on it now, since they now own that entire market it would be extremely simple to in the future.  I can make simmilar comments for most of these companies. The reason disruption is being valued so high is because the disruption happening today is so massive compared to history. The disruption these four companies are causing is on the order of magnitude of what Ford caused with the assembly line... Except greater.


Not at the current price.  Take a look at historical charts going back five years. When the meltdown occurred in 2008, gold price took a big dip due to deleveraging, etc. I would expect the same to happen again with the current crisis.


Say your bank gives you a loan at a fix interest rate.  They can loan money themselves for a floating interest rate.  So they try to find someone who will pay, or take, the difference between the fix and the floating interest rate on your loan.    That's an interest rate swap and there is nothing evil about it per se.  Derivatives are like knives, you can use them for live saving heart surgery or just butcher a kid in a back alley.    The inherent danger lies in the fact that it is easier to create than to understand complex derivatives.  This can lead to both sides believing they made on the derivative transaction, a logically impossible situation.  Therefore it is always good when derivatives are traded in a transparent, well-regulated market, where current market price is determined.  But then the expected profit margins are small, so investment bankers will always try to find more exotic derivatives (think of a blindfolded kid using chainsaws for brain surgery).    We need standard derivatives or we have to re-think the whole finance world from grounds up, without any guarantee we'll find anything working any better.  We don't need exotic derivatives, they're almost exclusively there because people shoot for bonuses.


With the disclaimer that I am not a technician, I'd answer yes, it does. SPY (for clarification, an ETF that reflects the S&P 500 index) has dividends, and earnings, therefore a P/E and dividend yield. It would follow that the tools technicians use, such as moving averages, support and resistance levels also apply.  Keep in mind, each and every year, one can take the S&P stocks and break them up, into quintiles or deciles based on return and show that not all stock move in unison. You can break up by industry as well which is what the SPDRs aim to do, and observe the movement of those sub-groups.  But, no, not all the stocks will perform the way the index is predicted to.  (Note - If a technician wishes to correct any key points here, you are welcome to add a note, hopefully, my answer was not biased)


The best partnership agreements cover all contingencies often referred to as the 5 D's:  death, divorce, drugs, disinterest, and disability.  Most do not, however, which makes them such a mess. I was an employee of a firm that went through this, and it is not pleasant from anyone's perspective.     Of course you don't have that option now. Your best bet is to talk to a lawyer and find out your options.  For example, would it be best to form your own company and do the same thing?  Would it be best to give your partner double as your legal fees are likely to be higher then the inflated value?  Could you offer a one time fee and revenue over time in lieu of the one time buy-out?   It is likely to get ugly, and one thing that contributes to this is the emotional turmoil that your partner's family is going through.


Yeah! We were super excited when we got approached by Armenia and Oman; I personally didn't know agriculture was so huge for them, but I guess it's most of their export.   The philosophy we have, and have always had, is that we don't want to restrict the tech to just the US, we want to help farms all over the world!  Of course, our pilots have been local to the LA area, but we're still fairly small; we can't send our whole install team across the world just yet lol. Soon!


It's not really like google is stepping into a new business, it's still just a search function. They're taking one product (search) and making it more full featured.  This would be like TicketMaster being upset you could buy tickets directly from the venues website and you found the website through Google.


Whole life in most instances is a very bad plan. It's marketed as a life insurance policy wrapped in an investment but it does neither very well. The hidden caveat of whole life is that the investment goes away if you die.  Say for example I have a $100,000 whole life insurance policy and over the years I have paid in enough to have a $15,000 cash value on the policy. If I die, my family gets $100,000 and the cash value is lost. With term life you can get a substantially higher amount of coverage for a smaller payment. If you invest the difference you end up not only with better coverage, but a better cash value from the difference if you don't die (which is what we all hope for anyways). As JackiYo said, your insurance should be designed around replacing lost income/value.  You should get 10x your annual income in term life insurance.


This depends entirely on what the market guesses the news will be and how much of that guess has already been factored into the price. There is no general answer beyond that.  Note that this explains the apparently paradoxical responses where a stock good down on good news (the market expected better) or up on bad news (the market expected worse).


"I once saw a graph somewhere on data is beautiful regarding this, and decided to do a bit of math.   If the US ""got their money's worth"" (i.e I took the average dollars/person and average life expectancy, and created a dollars/year of life), the amount we spend on health care would make us nearly a millennium old each."


Apple's strategy in India has been bad over the years.   Initially, their official launches of their phones was nearly 1 year late. So people who wanted those phones either got them by going overseas or getting it through someone. Or black markets, without official warranties.  Then they tried to do the same kind of marketing like in US, of carrier-specific phones which are not even subsidised, totally ignoring the norms of the Indian markets (most phones are sold separately from the mobile plans). Why would anyone in the right mind buy a full priced phone and still get stuck with one company's overpriced iphone specific plan only? or buy an older iphone with subsidised mobile plan?  Apple strategy has to take the primary blame.


If your looking to get a Mac Book Pro with retina display, now's the time.  The Samsung retina panels are the ones that don't have the issues and you have a 50/50 shot of getting either getting a Samsung or an LG one when you buy.  However, with this news, its your last shot it would seem.


Already prevalent in US work culture. Adderall is hell of a drug. You think those Silicon Valley kids are burning the midnight oil by their own sheer will? I can't count on two hands the number of startup founders I've meet that take Adderall and Ambien regularly.


The Indian Scout motorcycle was popular in all over the world from 1920 until 1939. Indian 101 Scout motorcycles were used by police, motorcycle racers, and during the second  World War. During the war, Indian motorcycle has best engines, motors for boats, air conditioners, and bicycles. Probably the most revered Indian Scout motorcycle was the 1928 101 Scout, with its lower shove frame and improved handling. This shows the speed and toughness of Indian Scout motorcycle.


It's none of the school's business what your agreement is with your current employer. It's an odd request and would raise a flag to me about their ability to run a business/school logically and other odd/absurd business practices you may uncover or ways they may treat employees.


Expensing a transfer of funds is incorrect. That will affect the Profit/Loss (Income) statement when you transfer it out and back in, which you do not want, at least for the principle. The interest should be recorded as a interest income. The general way to account for transferring money is to credit the originating account, and debit the destination account. This will only affect the balance sheet accounts. For example: Transferring (buying) 10,000 worth of fix term bank deposits Interest is paid: The bank deposit reaches maturity, so the principle is returned, with the final interest payment. The accounts Checking account and Fixed term bank deposit are asset accounts, which show up on the balance sheet. The Interest income is an income account, which will show up in the income statement. This is how a fixed term/CD is usually recorded. In certain cases, where the business must follow an accounting standard, this may very well be insufficient, but this situation will be unlikely if it's a small private sports club. Having said that, double check to make sure what you've stated is indeed correct, and look back into the past entries to see how it was dealt with before, especially since you said this bookkeeping job is temporary. I would strongly advise against changing non-recent entries, even if they are incorrect. For the insurance payments, that would depend on how the damaged assets were accounted for. It's a little hard to say without more detail-- the extent of the damage, how the diminished value was accounted for in the books, the cost of repair materials, etc.


I feel like this is probably a good thing.   But:  I'm not sure it's going to lower the gender wage gap.  For starters: Women tend to make more than men in their early 20's. So women's **prior** salaries are often actually higher than men's at a certain point in their lives. Later on, of course, men tend to make more. But you could make the argument that asking about prior salaries actually *helps* women in their *early to mid* careers.  Secondly: The gender wage gap for same-skills/same-position is really, really narrow. So asking prior salaries would only seem to work in instances where the candidate was switching careers. Which is to say, it wouldn't help narrow the gender wage gap very often.  Lastly: This helps men just as much as women (which is a good thing, btw) and so it's not really a gender-related law.  All in all it seems like a good law though. HR departments are going to hate it though. And I bet they share data anyway and get around it without asking.


There is nothing called actual, unless you convert currency. There are real offer rates that are slightly different from Bank to Bank. Search Engines give a generic average value based on the sites they are trust / have tie-up with. Banks don't use google or search engines to get the basis, they have quite a bit more info and there is a specific Treasury function that would look at the trend and give out a huge spread between buy and sell.


Here I am in China as a head teacher turning 30 next week.  I gotta ask myself if he is really happy.  I have an easy life, I'm paid and treated with respect and I'm doing okay.  I can't imagine the burden of responsibility he must be feeling right now.  If he made it there at 29 he must be an exceptional individual.  I wish him the best of luck.


You might have better luck using Quandl as a source.  They have free databases, you just need to register to access them.  They also have good api's, easier to use than the yahoo api's Their WIKI database of stock prices is curated and things like this are fixed (www.quandl.com/WIKI ), but I'm not sure that covers the London stock exchange.  They do, however, have other databases that cover the London stock exchange.


"I have a degree in International Economics. No matter how deep of a dive into economics you take, at the end of the day a job is still a voluntary contract between two consenting adults, so stop with the ""not fair"" bullshit."


"She can't afford the house she's living in either. A $2,200 payment is about a $400K to well over half a million dollar home depending on her interest rate. Her housing costs should be at most 30% of her take home income, which is about $1,020 and would ***ONLY*** allow her to be able to afford to share a multi-bedroom apartment in Santa Cruz. Homes start in the $400K Range in that areas and go into the (tens of) millions of dollars.  The $700/ month loan issue is bad but that house is going to be the final nail in the coffin the moment home repairs need to be done and she can't afford to do them.  Personally I gave up trying to make the housing situation work out here in the Bay Area. My rent is jumping from $2,300 to $2,600 next month right over the hill in Santa Clara. I decided to buy a decent, modest, house in a great city the Midwest. Mortgage before property taxes and insurance is only $1,100. Out here in California it would be valued at an $800K to $900K home easily with  close to a $5,500 mortgage payment. No thanks.  If anything these articles are a good example of people playing fast and loose with their personal finances. The woman in the article is simply living beyond her means. Credit lets you pretend that you're of larger means than you really are for only so long. I made the choice to fund my retirement and pay off a home, rather than sunshine and  close proximity to the beach.   As the woman in the article mentioned: >""I will be working *for as long as I'm employable*. I will never be able to retire,  At her age it may not be very long until she finds herself unemployable. She's right about never retiring, she spent her retirement living some place she couldn't afford to live, while obtaining an education she couldn't afford to pay for."


"hahah ""Delta called the 737-7 MAX uneconomical vs CSeries,""  Hmmmmmmmm... maybe because their competition was **subsidized**?!  Production numbers are meaningless too.  They could have been influenced by the understanding that a direct competitor was able to make products below cost because of Canadian subsidies."


Lol I'm not even talking about no government (although that's ideal) you're just retarded to think income tax is the ONLY way to fund a government. Like I said before a federal sales tax would more than suffice and in a lot of cases would work better but please by all means continue to live in ignorance. Just because things have been done a certain way for a long time doesn't mean it's the best or most efficient way.


"I love John's answer, but I just can't help myself from adding my 2 cents, even though it's over 5 years later. I sold cars for a while in the late 90s, and I mostly agree with John's answer. Where I disagree though, is that where I worked, the salesperson did not have ANY authority to make a sale. A sales manager was required to sign off on every sale. That doesn't mean that the manager had to interact with the buyer, that could all be handled behind the scenes, but the pricing and even much of the negotiating strategies were dictated by the sales managers. Some of the seasoned salespeople would estimate numbers on their own, but occasionally you'd hear the managers still chew them out with ""I wish you wouldn't have said that"". Of course, every dealership is different. Additional purchase advice: There is a strategy that can work well for the buyer, but only in scenarios where the salesperson is trying to prevent you from leaving. They may start interrupting you as you are packing up, or blocking your path to the door, or even begging. If this happens, they are obviously desperate for whatever reason. In this case, if you came prepared with research on a good price that you are comfortable with, then shoot lower and hold firm to the point of near exhaustion. Not so low that that they realize you're too far away- they will let you leave at that point. It needs to be within a reasonable amount, perhaps at most 1-2% of the purchase price. Once you detect the salesperson is desperate, you finally move up to your goal number or possibly a little lower. Typically the salesperson will be so happy to have gotten you to move at all that they'll accept. And if the managers are fed up too (like 45 minutes after close), they'll accept too. I saw this happen multiple times in a high pressure scenario. I also used it once myself as a buyer. If you are planning to purchase options that can be added at the dealer rather than from the factory, keep them up your sleeve at first. Get your negotiations down to where you are a little further apart than the invoice price of the option, then make your move. For example, suppose the option you want retails for $350 with an invoice of $300. Get within about $400 of the dealer. Then offer to pay their price, but only if they throw in the option you want. This will throw them completely off guard because they didn't expect it and all of their calculations were based on without it. If they say yes, you effectively moved $100 and they moved $300. It's much more likely that they'll agree to this than taking $300 off the price of the car. (I'm guessing the reason for this is partially due to how their accounting works with sticker price vs aftermarket price, and partially psychological.) Note, this works best with new cars, and make sure you only do this if it's for items they can add after the fact. Even if they don't have the part in stock it's ok, they can give you an IOU. But if the option requires a car change to something they don't have on the lot, it will probably just make them mad."


ADP is a private company that handles a lot of payroll operations for bigger businesses. Because they service so many businesses, they can get a decent estimation of how the job market is as a whole based on what they're seeing with their clients.   So ADP's numbers are an estimate, their own experiences extrapolated to estimate the behavior of the economy as a whole.   The official figures pull data from more sources and is likely more accurate. And it's seasonally adjusted.


No. You should only donate appreciated stock. If you own a stock at a loss, you can only deduct the FMV (fair market value) when you donate. Instead, you should sell it, take the loss on your taxes, and donate the cash.


"Victor addressed the card issue with an excellent answer, I'd like to take a stab at the budget and income side.  Your question clearly stated ""I am left with no extra money"" each month. Whenever I read such an assertion, I ask the person, ""but surely, X% of people in your country get by on a salary that's 95% of yours."" In other words, there's the juggling of the debt itself, which as Victor's math shows, is one piece of the puzzle. The next piece is to sift through your budget and find $100/mo you spend that could be better spent reducing your debt. Turn down the temperature in the winter, up in the summer, etc. Take lunch to work. No Lattes. Really look at the budget and do something.  On the income side. There are countless ways to earn a bit of extra money. I knew a blogger who started a site called ""Deliver away Debt."" He told a story of delivering pizza every Friday and Saturday night. The guy had a great day job, in high tech, but it didn't lend itself to overtime, and he had the time available those two evenings to make money to kill off the debt he and his wife had. Our minimum wage is currently just over $7, but I happened to see a sign in a pizza shop window offering this exact position. $10/hr plus gas money. They wanted about 8 hours a weekend and said in general, tips pushed the rate to well over $15/hr. (They assumed I was asking for the job, and I said I was asking for a friend). This is just one idea.  Next, and last. I knew a gal with a three bedroom small house. Tight budget. I suggested she find a roommate. She got so many responses, she took in two people, and the rents paid her mortgage bill in full. Out of debt in just over a year, instead of 4+. And in her case, no extra hours at all.  There are sites with literally 100's of ideas. It takes one to match your time, interest, and skill. When you are at $0 extra, even finding $250/mo will change your life."


It depends on the relative rates and relative risk. Ignore the deduction. You want to compare the rates of the investment and the mortgage, either both after-tax or both before-tax. Your mortgage costs you 5% (a bit less after-tax), and prepayments effectively yield a guaranteed 5% return. If you can earn more than that in your IRA with a risk-free investment, invest. If you can earn more than that in your IRA while taking on a degree of risk that you are comfortable with, invest. If not, pay down your mortgage. See this article: Mortgage Prepayment as Investment: For example, the borrower with a 6% mortgage who has excess cash flow would do well to use it to pay down the mortgage balance if the alternative is investment in assets that yield 2%. But if two years down the road the same assets yield 7%, the borrower can stop allocating excess cash flow to the mortgage and start accumulating financial assets. Note that he's not comparing the relative risk of the investments. Paying down your mortgage has a guaranteed return. You're talking about CDs, which are low risk, so your comparison is simple. If your alternative investment is stocks, then there's an element of risk that it won't earn enough to outpace the mortgage cost. Update: hopefully this example makes it clearer: For example, lets compare investing $100,000 in repayment of a 6% mortgage with investing it in a fund that pays 5% before-tax, and taxes are deferred for 10 years. For the mortgage, we enter 10 years for the period, 3.6% (if that is the applicable rate) for the after tax return, $100,000 as the present value, and we obtain a future value of $142,429. For the alternative investment, we do the same except we enter 5% as the return, and we get a future value of $162,889. However, taxes are now due on the $62,889 of interest, which reduces the future value to $137,734. The mortgage repayment does a little better. So if your marginal tax rate is 30%, you have $10k extra cash to do something with right now, mortgage rate is 5%, IRA CD APY is 1%, and assuming retirement in 30 years: If you want to plug it into a spreadsheet, the formula to use is (substitute your own values): (Note the minus sign before the cash amount.) Make sure you use after tax rates for both so that you're comparing apples to apples. Then multiply your IRA amount by (1-taxrate) to get the value after you pay future taxes on IRA withdrawals.


IANAL; perhaps some form of fraud.  They are making appointments under false pretense costing Lyft time and money.  However, I believe you are limited to recouping the lost value.  So how much does a false appointment cost, probably not enough to justify pursuing.


"I understand that, but in a field where so many do go by DJ [insert name] it can be a little off. I agree in almost any other case it wouldn't make any difference. When it comes to performers I think it's better to have their name accurately displayed, as it is their brand they are representing. Not a big deal, really. Just thought it was weak to not notice that when researching the piece. I think ""electronic artist"", ""musician"" or something else in that vein would have been better.   Then again, I work in that industry so I'm probably just being nitpicky.   **Edited for grammar**"


we have massive numbers of people out of work and our infrastructure is crumbling.  We put people to work just like we did in the 30's; our infrastructure gets fixed and so does our economy.  I totally agree that for an economy to grow we have to make more stuff.  We're not making the stuff now because people cannot afford to purchase it.  If given funds, people would purchase stuff, and stuff would get made.  This got us out of them great depression and has kept Scandinavia strong, and even got Iceland out of it's terrible brush with Libertarianism.  Brazil is becoming a first world powerhouse by this sort of redistribution.  Redistributing money down the ladder has the benefit of working.    Austerity leads to Greece.  And Spain. And Portugal. And Ireland.  But not Germany, because they deficit-spent their way out of their recession.


"I'm going to start with your title question: How can home buying be considered a sound investment with all of that interest that needs to be paid? If taken literally, this is a loaded question because if you pay cash for a home, you don't pay any interest. Furthermore, if your interest rate is 3% for 10 years you won't pay nearly as much interest as you will if your rate is 10% for 30 years, so ""all of that interest"" is relative to your personal situation. Having said that, of course I understand what you mean. Most people pay interest, and interest is expensive, so how do you calculate if it's worth it? That question has been asked and answered, but for your particular situation, you really have two separate questions: I believe you should answer these questions independently. If you move far away, it's probably the case that you can save a lot of money by either renting or buying in that location. So you should first consider if it's worth it to move, and then if it is, decide if it's worth it to rent or buy. If you decide not to move far away, then decide if maybe you can save money by renting somewhere near your current home. Since it sounds like if you move you may have to become a landlord, living close by to your tenant may also make it easier to deal with problems when they arise."


Good deal - glad to help.  It seems little is discussed and even less is actually known about this part of the back office. I've found a bit of recon and certain other ops exposure is invaluable no matter where you want to end up in a firm.  [FINRA 4523 \(pdf\)](http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p123733.pdf) was the latest buzz at the office earlier this year.


"i think separate accounts is the simplest way to go. if the tax breaks are significant, then the inconvenience should be worth it.  you could gift or loan money back and forth. done properly, it should be technically legal (or grey enough to not cause irs trouble). specifically, they could gift you 100k$ in january and then you could gift them 110k$ in december, leaving a net gift of 10k$ for the year from you to them, which is under the annual gift tax exclusion. based on market performance, you could gift back exactly enough to hit the gift tax exclusion and keep the rest in their ""account"" with you. loans would work similarly, but the irs tends to treat undocumented or interest-free loans as weird gifts. but honestly, you might just be trading day-to-day overhead for tax audit risk. lastly, no offense meant, but i suspect that your strategy is probably just some form of martingale betting system, and you might cause some serious family strife when you eventually meet your gambler's ruin. even if everything goes smoothly, it would take some serious trust for your family to assume that you only netted them 10% roi, when your spending habits make it look like you are getting 30%. even if you used a single account, documenting the trades to their satisfaction might be more hassle than maintaining a separate account. personally, i would not trade family accord for another 2% roi."


Yes, R&D is a cost center. It is the very definition of a cost center.  I think you need to go back to business school... or even simply click the link I posted above (**which by the way explicitly lists R&D and IT as examples of a cost center, so it is plainly obvious you did not read it)** - then you can revisit this conversation.


That happens in a lot of cities, I been to south america and some places you had houses going for a million and just a few miles away there was an actual slum  Supply and demand, still orlando isn't as insane as the bay area


Something that's come up in comments and been alluded to in answers, but not explicit as far as I can tell: Even if your marginal tax rate now were equal to your marginal tax rate in retirement, or even lower, a traditional IRA may have advantages.  That's because it's your effective tax rate that matters on withdrawls. (Based on TY 2014, single person, but applies at higher numbers for other arrangements): You pay 0 taxes on the first $6200 of income, and then pay 10% on the next $9075, then 15% on $27825, then 25% on the total amount over that up to $89530, etc.  As such, even if your marginal rate is 25% (say you earn $80k), your effective rate is much less: for example, $80k income, you pay taxes on $73800.  That ends up being $14,600, for an effective rate in total of 17.9%. Let's say you had the same salary, $80k, from 20 to 65, and for 45 years saved up 10k a year, plus earned enough returns to pay you out $80k a year in retirement.  In a Roth, you pay 25% on all $10k.  In a traditional, you save that $2500 a year (because it comes off the top, the amount over $36900), and then pay 17.9% during retirement (your effective tax rate, because it's the amount in total that matters).   So for Roth you had 7500*(returns), while for Traditional the correct amount isn't 10k*(returns)*0.75, but 10k*(returns)*0.821.  You make the difference between .75 and .82 back even with the identical income.  [Of course, if your $10k would take you down a marginal bracket, then it also has an 'effective' tax rate of something between the two rates.] Thus, Roth makes sense if you expect your effective tax rate to be higher in retirement than it is now.  This is very possible, still, because for people like me with a mortgage, high property taxes, two kids, and student loans, my marginal tax rate is pretty low - even with a reasonably nice salary I still pay 15% on the stuff that's heading into my IRA.  (Sadly, my employer has only a traditional 401k, but they also contribute to it without requiring a match so I won't complain too much.)  Since I expect my eventual tax rate to be in that 18-20% at a minimum, I'd benefit from a Roth IRA right now. This matters more for people in the middle brackets - earning high 5 figure salaries as individuals or low 6 figure as a couple - because the big difference is relevant when a large percentage of your income is in the 15% and below brackets.  If you're earning $200k, then so much of your income is taxed at 28-33% it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference, and odds are you can play various tricks when you're retiring to avoid having as high of a tax rate.


The actual physical act of obtaining the sequence data isn't the cause of the delay.  The current estimates of 8 - 10 weeks for tumor genome sequencing are mainly due to the data processing.    Pooling data and processing power would actually be a huge advantage in this.  After you have all the sequencing data, you need to identify changes in the tumor, and then determine what exactly they mean (the really difficult part).  If centers around the world pool their data, and correlate it to clinical information, the data set expands exponentially which helps everyone.  Otherwise, each center will have their own data set, which will probably get published eventually, but there will be a huge delay before this information gets to the appropriate people, where it can help.  Data pooling of this sort is already done in a lot of other cases, cytogenetic arrays, newborn screening, etc.


"He wants to send me money, as a gift. Do you know this friend? It could easily be a scam. What I don't know is that how much money can he send and what are the taxes that would be applicable in this case? There is no limit; you have to pay taxes as per your tax brackets. This will be added as ""income from other sources"". I'll probably be using that money to invest in stock market. If the idea is you will make profits from stock market and pay this back, you need to follow the Foreign Exchange Management Act. There are restrictions on transfer of funds outside of India."