I can see why you'd be reluctant to tell them, but I think you need to be open and honest with them about what you're doing and where you see it going.   If the roles were reversed, what would you want your employee to do in this situation?  If it were me, I'd be much happier to be told up front than to find out some other way later.  If I found out later, I'd feel somewhat betrayed and angry. With the Internet, it seems unlikely that they wouldn't find out eventually, so I think being up front about it is your best option. I also suggest you have a backup plan in case they say no.  Perhaps you'd need to find another full-time job that is more tolerant (or even encouraging) of side businesses.


A common pattern I'm noticing here is an absence of critical reading.  You don't see that the problem people have is not with your suggestions of approaching education in an alternative way, you are getting down voted because you repeatedly go back to this theme of 'anyone can do it.'  Implying that if you aren't an entrepreneur it's because you are lazy.  That is why you are getting down voted.  You sound like someone patently out of touch with reality.  I know this sounds harsh, but I'm just trying to clarify for you why you are getting hammered with the down votes.


I think it's also that I see less advertising than I used to.  Originally you had a few TV channels, newspapers, billboards, etc. and the consumer was a sitting duck for any crap the marketeer wanted to push.  Today, basically no adverts get through my ad blocks (including with youtube). I don't really watch freeview TV, and streaming etc. is free of adverts. I don't touch newspapers. So the only adverts I might see are the billboard type - which I stopped looking at when I was a kid. Hell, any kid today is more likely to have their head in a phone or DVD in the car than be looking out the window.  I'd actually say that a company that didn't advertise would have more credibility than one that did. The smart CEO makes sure they appear 'authentic' first - appearing in news stories for what they do, not in adverts.


Confirming whether the payment was an error The simplest method is to confirm manually with the University whether the payment was a mistake and satisfy that between yourselves. If you're concerned it's fraudulant, I recommend calling the University finance office on a phone number you find on their website, or call one of the people you know. Reversing the payment To formally reverse the payment, I'd check your Product Disclosure Statement on your account with the bank. There's almost always a fee involved where a payment is reversed. It's probably easiest to just issue the payment back to the university to an agreed BSB/Account Number.


Belkin router setup may require some technical help, so for that we are here. Feel free to contact us through live support window provided on our website. You may take help in any matter related to your Belkin router.


"From Amazon's Site:  ""If an item is subject to sales tax in the state to which the order is shipped, tax is generally calculated on the total selling price of each individual item."" I'm going to trust a company of this size has this correct. Shipping address."


"Yes - Simply put, printing money is called ""monetizing the debt"" and would result in some nasty inflation. It's a no-no as it quickly devalues the currency and makes it far more difficult to borrow in the future, an entire generation will remember getting burned by it. If, say, Canada's currency were suddenly worth half as much and you received half your investment back in US dollars (e.g. you paid US$10,000, but now have US$5000) would you ever trust them again?  The economy is far more complex than one can discuss here, but the fractional reserve system is the next creator of money, although it's not unlimited, the reserve requirement throttles it back. The demand for loans is impacted both by the rate itself and the bank's willingness to lend.  The housing bubble had multiple causes. In a sense Tucson is right. Anything we do to make houses more affordable can cause house price inflation. But - the over the top underwriting had more impact in my opinion. People lost sight of good lending practices. The option rate interest only ARMs were financial time bombs."


Not sure why USPS wouldn't put the screws to stamps.com. Stamps might be sending a lot of customers to USPS but Stamps has a major flaw in their business model by having only one supplier for their key product (stamps). If I were USPS I would leverage that fact to take a high share of Stamp's revenue.


Today the rates are arrived simply on the basis of demand and supply. Historically rates were pegged to Gold, when all currencies were printed depending on the Gold reserves. So if one country printed 100 units of currency of a 1gm of gold and other country 10 units of currency for 1 gm of gold, the rate would be 1:10. However In the seventies with shortages of Gold and other reasons, USD became the default standard, so the rate started being pegged to the USD reserves the countries started maintaining. However later in the early eighties, US backing out, the rate purely started getting pegged to market demand and supply. So for most currencies there was a default rate to begin with and today its changed ... Incase of USD/EUR, the initial rate was determined by the weighted average of the currencies that it sought to replace. After that its been market supply and demand. Since most of the trade in international market is US denominated, largest being Oil, each country has created a huge reserves of USD. So technically if China were to bank half its USD denominated treasury bills, the USD would come crashing down, but then China itself would be at disadvantage as its value of USD its holding would become less and it cannot buy the same items. Hence all countries keep hording USD and this means US if they print more money, the value will not come down, because it that happens, all countries holding USD would loose their value of reserve. In essence a country can print as much as currency it wants if all(majority) its debts and trades are denominated in local currencies. This is 100% true for US and hence it can get away by printing money. This is also true to a large extent for Japan as bulk of its Debts are denominated in JPY.


Lol i work at a major prop shop and it is far from retail trading. Existing relations are important and if used well will result in an increased pnl.  Also, this is why i was referring to risk adjusted pnl to take into account different firms strategies.  Honestly your company might have a different way of doing things but at every prop shop and bank ive worked for my pnl was their primary focus.  Edit: i also wouldnt take such a condescending tone if i were you. You are far from the only person on reddit working in the industry.


Having someone else paying you rent is always going to be the better deal financially. The question is, what does $450k buy in the neighborhood in which you want to live, vs $800k? I'm going to assume you can afford either option (buying a $450k home and not selling, or an $800k home and selling your current one) whether someone's paying you rent or not. Let's make up some numbers here; a $450k home, financed 80/20 (360k principal) at 4% for 30 years will cost you about $1720 in P&I payments per year (plus escrows such as RE taxes, PMI, and homeowners insurance where applicable). An $800k home financed 80/20 (640k principal) at 4% for 30yr will give you payments of about $3,055/mo before taxes and insurance. So, the worst case overall is that you buy a 450k home in the new neighborhood and are not, at any given time, collecting rent on the old property. That would (assuming the mortgage terms on both home loans were comparable) cost you $3440/mo and you'd be living in a $450k home in a neighborhood where 450k may not buy a home as nice as the one you moved out of. The question as I stated above is this; assuming you had a reliable tenant in your home for the entire remaining life of the loan on your current home, which is more acceptable to you: buying $450k of home (which might be a downgrade in sqft or amenities) and paying $2020 in P&I, or paying about a grand more ($3055/mo) for a much nicer home in the new location? Strictly from a money perspective, the renter is going to be the best option, IF you get reliable tenancy for the entire life of the mortgage on that house; you'll be paying $2020/mo for 30 years, which is $727,200, to end up with $950k of total home value (plus adjustments for actual home value appreciation/depreciation). That's the only way you'll come out ahead on any mortgage; have someone else pay most of it for you. If you don't rent, the $800k home will cost you $1,099,800, while two $450k homes will cost you $1,454,400. The percentage of home value over total payments for the 800k home would be 72% (you will have paid 137% of the value of the home), while you will have paid 153% of the value of two 450k homes.


That is absolute madness. The repercussions of that are, I believe, not being properly factored into your calculation.   If I'm an entry level employee, and I have lots of kids, I may receive fairly generous public dollars. If I have no kids, I won't. Is your solution to pay all entry level employees more, or just to pay people who have kids more? Neither of these is without consequence.


No kidding.  Go to a Polo outlet and everything made to go direct to the outlet has a big whitish circle on the garment tag.  Last time I bothered going to one (years ago FWIW) this was at least 80% of the store.  I don't need a pony on my shirt; I want a shirt that's going to last me 20 years.


You find a man in his 50s that hasn't said something bad about women...secoud the backbone of the country voted for him, the police, fire, military, veterans. All you libtards that want to ban guns and open borders, you aren't paying attention to all the problems in  Europe, weekly terror attacks... so did you vote for Bernie, a communist,  because communism is so successful, look at Cuba they  finally got the Internet. Or Hilary who lied on TV about sending classified material, then the FBI, or should say ex fbi director say that she did. And don't forget Aberdeen, her top assistant who supports sharia law (which basically it's ok to treat women like slaves) and her husband that got in trouble for sexting a 14 year old.


I think it's impossible to work for an evil company without realizing they're evil, just as it's impossible to work for a sinking ship without realizing just that.  Any worker with half a brain would be able to tell the store is going under (open for business and nobody home?  More employees in the store than customers?).  If I worked at any of those places, I'd be sending my resume out day and night looking for a way out.  However, for most of the people on the actual store floors, they're McJobs anyway, and as much as it sucks to axe them, those jobs come and go by the dozen anyway.


I've heard in both cases the hours are usually steady unless you're closing a deal, in which case you can expect a lot of long hours similar to IB. I'm sure this changes based on the size of the firm, but how many deals do you normally close in a year, and how long are you typically working on each one?


I found this number pretty interesting:  > Over the past 12 months, according to the JOLTS survey, there were 62.9 million hires while separations totaled 60.7 million, resulting in a net job gain of 2.2 million for the period ending April 30.  If true, that means that about 50% of the 126 million households in the US experienced  a job loss in the past 12 months.   Does that seem realistic?


If the equity market in the USA crashed, its very likely equity markets everywhere else would crash. The USA has a high number of the world's largest businesses and there are correlations between equity markets. So you need to think of equities as a global asset class, not regional. Your question is then a question about the correlation between equity markets and currency markets.  Here's a guess: If equity markets crashed, you would see a lot of panic selling of stocks denominated in many currencies, but probably the most in USD, due to the large number of the world's largest businesses trading on US stock exchanges. Therefore, when the rest of the world sells US equities they receive cash USD, which they might sell for their local currency. That selling pressure would cause USD to fall. But, when equity markets crash there's a move to safety of the bond markets. The world's largest bond markets are denominated in which currency? Probably USD. So those who receive USD for their equities are going to spend that USD on bonds. In which case there is probably no correlation between equity markets and currency markets at all. A quick google search shows this kind of thing


So much spin with you.  Kenyes wrote explicitly about deficit spending, and the repayment of those deficits.  The denomination of the currency, floating or otherwise, is besides the point.  Again, you just want to model away the burden and risk of debt.  It's never worked, and it never will.


"I don't understand how millenials could have gotten ""stuck"" in cities by the 2008 financial crisis. Cities are expensive AF and if your job goes away you do too after a short period. Back to mom and dad, typically, in the suburbs, typically."


Gas stations have existed for 100 years. Automobile ownership has not increased by 10% year over year since before JFK was President.  EVs are growing so next summer when 1000s of Model 3s take summer road trips to Yellowstone or another popular destinations there will be dozens of gas stations able to service cars at 5 min per pump all day long. The Model 3s will overwhelm the superchargers and need 30 or more minutes per charger. Same for NFL stadiums that draw fans from 100 miles away so a game-time charge is desired. Road trips 2017 are going to be Hell on Earth and the S and X owners used to infrequent Mike inconveniences are going to freak out. Workplaces such as hospitals could install 3 chargers and handle the doctors and VPs needs. Now staff will roll up in 3s and park just like the doctors clogging up the charger all shift. Pop up some corn while the infrastructure catches up.


That guy seems unusually shortsighted to me. Instagram may be worth a billion or not, no one can tell at this time.  Who would have guessed in 1975 that there was such a huge market for personal computers? Or in 1990, who would have bet on the on-line search business?   All new technology is doubtful at best, anyone who bet on flying cars would have lost everything, but no one knows in advance. It's really stupid to disparage innovations like that. 90% of them may lead nowhere, but the ones that are successful will bring 1000% profits, and no one can tell which one is doomed to failure or not.


In U.K. and Europe this is the law. You either have use by for fresh or frozen or best before for non perishable items liked tinned or dried products. They are probably doing this to make all products comply with global laws.


It's not.  I'm saying in a public context, your consensus mechanism is either proof of work or proof of stake, and both require a blockchain native currency.  In a private context, you know who all the nodes are, so you don't have to worry about Sybil attacks, and can use traditional consensus algorithms that rely on no more than a third of nodes collaborating on criminal fraud.


What article doesn't say is that Buffet is invested in electric trucks and buses with a Chinese company operating in both China and Southern California. That's his real concern. The trains would barely be affected and would probably do better since automated trucking would spawn a new era of highwaymen.


This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness.  It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%.


there are several reasons you might want good credit even if you could afford to pay for all your expenses in cash. having pointed out all the above reasons to have good credit, it is probably worth noting that many people with good credit choose to not borrow simply because they are more comfortable with the risks of not borrowing (e.g. inflation risk), than they are with the risks of borrowing (e.g. investment volatility).


I think this question is very nearly off-topic for this site, but I also believe that a basic understanding of the why the tax structure is what it is can help someone new to investing to understand their actual tax liability. The attempt at an answer I provide below is from a Canadian & US context, but should be similar to how this is viewed elsewhere in the world. First note that capital gains today are much more fluid in concept than even 100 years ago. When the personal income tax was first introduced [to pay for WWI], a capital gain was viewed as a very deliberate action; the permanent sale of property. Capital gains were not taxed at all initially [in Canada until 1971], under the view that income taxes would have been paid on income-earning assets all along [through interest, dividends, and rent], and therefore taxing capital gains would be a form of 'double-taxation'. This active, permanent sale was also viewed as an action that an investor would need to work for. Therefore it was seen as foolish to prevent investors from taking positive economic action [redistributing their capital in the most effective way], simply to avoid the tax. However today, because of favourable taxation on capital gains, many financial products attempt to package and sell capital gains to investors. For example, many Canadian mutual funds buy and sell investments to earn capital gains, and distribute those capital gains to the owners of the mutual fund. This is no longer an active action taken by the investor, it is simply a function of passive investing. The line between what is a dividend and what is a capital gain has been blurred by these and similar advanced financial products. To the casual investor, there is no practical difference between receiving dividends or capital gain distributions, except for the tax impact. The notional gain realized on the sale of property includes inflation. Consider a rental property bought in 1930 for $100,000, and sold in 1960 for $180,000, assuming inflation between 1930 and 1960 was 70%. In 1960 dollars, the property was effectively bought for 170k. This means the true gain after accounting for inflation is only $10k. But, the notional gain is $80k, meaning a tax on that capital gain would be almost entirely a tax on inflation. This is viewed by many as being unfair, as it does not actually represent true income. I will pause to note that any tax on any investment at all, taxes inflation; interest, for example, is taxed in full even though it can be almost entirely inflationary, depending on economic conditions. A tax on capital gains may restrict market liquidity. A key difference between capital gains and interest/rent/dividends, is that other forms of investment income are taxed annually. If you hold a bond, you get taxed on interest from that bond. You cannot gain value from a bond, deferring tax until the date it matures [at least in Canada, you are deemed to accrue bond interest annually, even if it is a 0 coupon bond].  However, what if interest rates have gone down, increasing the value of your bond, and you want to sell it to invest in a business? You may choose not to do this, to avoid tax on that capital gain. If it were taxed as much as regular income, you might be even more inclined to never sell any asset until you absolutely have to, thus restricting the flow of capital in the market. I will pause here again, to note that laws could be enacted to minimize capital gains tax, as long as the money is reinvested immediately, thus reducing this impact.  Political inertia / lobbying from key interests has a significant impact on the tax structure for investments. The fact remains that the capital gains tax is most significantly an impact on those with accrued wealth. It would take significant public support to increase capital gain tax rates, for any political party to enact such laws. When you get right down to it, tax laws are complex, and hard to push in the public eye. The general public barely understands that their effective tax rate is far lower than their top marginal tax rate. Any tax increases at all are often viewed negatively, even by those who would never personally pay any of that tax due to lack of investment income. Therefore such changes are typically made quietly, and with some level of bi-partisan support. If you feel the capital gains tax rules are illogical, just add it to the pile of such tax laws that exist today.


Actually it's a perfectly good way. There is solid evidence showing most top level corporation CEOs do relatively little. A huge amount of the time their profits are down to market increases, they claim responsibility. Yet they blame the market when it is on a downturn abduction avoid losing bonuses etc. So they win every way.   Really share holders needsimple majority (not super majority as it is now) to oppose remuneration packets and for the votes to be binding not merely advisory as they are now. Also share holders should be able to offer counter remuneration packages etc.   The remuneration committee system is in need of huge reform because it does not work (as committee members are industry peers at or around that level it always pays to inflate offers because they benefit as it inflates exec wages in the industry) and is full of perverse incentives. Share holders need more power and claw back systems introduced for poor performance and more modest bonuses, bonuses spread over long periods of time and linked to long term profitability, no golden handshakes or welcomes, more measured bonuses and some claw backs set against market indicators so they dont ride on successes out of their control. There also needs to be more willingness to fire poorly performing execs.


Investing in companies because they are successful and growing is a common fallacy. Their stocks usually don't perform any better than average stocks because you get what you pay for. You have to consider valuation even when selecting growth stocks.


"It appears you can elect to classify some or all of your scholarship money as taxable.  If you do this, you would be deemed to have used the scholarship funds for non-deductible purposes (e.g., room and board), and you could be eligible to claim the American opportunity credit based on the money you used to pay for the tuition out of your own pocket. I found this option in the section of Publication 970 about ""Coordination with Pell grants and other scholarships"", specifically example 3: The facts are the same as in Example 2—Scholarship excluded from income [i.e., Bill receives a $5600 scholarship and paid $5600 for tuition]. If, unlike Example 2, Bill includes $4,000 of the scholarship in income, he will be deemed to have used that amount to pay for room and board. The remaining $1,600 of the $5,600 scholarship will reduce his qualified education expenses and his adjusted qualified education expenses will be $4,000. Bill's AGI will increase to $34,000, his taxable income will increase to $24,250, and his tax before credits will increase to $3,199. Based on his adjusted qualified education expenses of $4,000, Bill would be able to claim an American opportunity tax credit of $2,500 and his tax after credits would be $699. You can only reclassify income in this way to the extent that your scholarship allows you to use that money for nonqualified expenses (such as room and board).  You should carefully check the terms of the scholarship to determine whether it allows this.  The brief paragraph you cite from the Palmetto fellowship document is not totally clear on this point (at least to my eye).  You might want to ask the fellowship administrators if there are restrictions on how they money may be used. In addition, I would be cautious about attempting to do this unless you actually did pay for the nonqualified expenses yourself, so you can treat the money as fungible.  If, for instance, your parents paid for your room and board, it's not clear whether you could legitimately claim that you used the scholarship money to pay for that, since you didn't pay for it at all (although in this case your parents could possibly be able to claim the AOC themselves).  I mention this because you say in your question that you ""only used the scholarship for tuition and fees"".  I'm not sure how exactly you meant that, but it seems from the example cited above that, in order to claim the scholarship as taxable income, you have to actually have nonqualified expenses which you can say you paid for with the scholarship.  (Also, of course, you had to actually receive the money yourself.  If the scholarship money was given directly to your school as payment of tuition, then you never had any ability to use it for anything else.)"


Go with a TFSA before RRSP unless your wages put you in the top two tax brackets.  The promise that your tax rates will be lower in retirement is just a sales pitch.  You can see how this plays out with your own assumptions using the spreadsheet at http://www.retailinvestor.org/SaveInRRSPorTFSA.xls There are long list of differences between the accounts (see http://www.retailinvestor.org/rrsp.html#tfsa) but most all come down on the side of the TFSA unless you are a high roller.


"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like ""all-world-ex-US"", or VT ""Total World Stock"", or ""All Japan"".  (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.)  So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage.  However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index.  The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index.  So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition.  If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market."


Most quants I've worked with aren't exceptional programmers. I definitely think you can teach yourself enough C++ to get by. You probably want to learn a little of Matlab, R, Sas, Excel, and SQL along with C++ rather than to try to be an expert in programming.


I like Bernie. But when people say Bernie is crazy/stupid they mean his solutions aren't good. For example, raising minimum wage to 15$ an hour will increase unemployment by the millions and cause automation to grow faster, causing even more longterm unemployment.  Hell, even basic income is a better idea.  But he's right, there's a lot of income inequality and we should think of better solutions.


you're correct in that email & www is one of the reasons for the decline in first class mail.  but while convenient to get electronic statements, and payments, I don't do them for the following reasons. there's no float on your funds, two a bill by mail is a legal document, in many cases with electronic payments if there is a dispute you have to request in writing, by mail the item(s) that in dispute. lastly, like any business these days, its not like they're passing on any savings to you for the costs they've saved by not using a friggin stamp. its like the self checkout.. shouldn't you get a discount for checking out your own groceries?  also i'd be remised if i did not point out the sorry state of the adoption and availability of broadband in this country. 15% are still on dialup. anyway..


Kind words from one of our customers, and further proof that we really are the best painters in Vancouver: “[Our friend] raved about your service and good workmanship, I was equally impressed. We found your guys friendly and a joy to be around.” http://barwickpainting.com/


They may have been the least stinky dirty shirt but they would have gone down with every other big bank had the feds not stepped in.  Further, they agreed to a 13 billion dollar fine for their role in the financial crisis. An innocent bank doesn't do that.


Absolutely.... False. The united states throws away more food than any other country in the world and yet other countries have healthier food. Just try to put yourself in the shoes of the wealthiest. Imagine the power and temptation behind paying off the regulators and having your own wallet fueled by billions of people. Its absurd to think it's not happening. I love how even Stephen Hawking says the end of humanity is not some cosmic explosion or the sun dying out. It's the immorality of capitalism.   Don't get me wrong, I believe capitalism has amazing benefits like resiliency to economic collapse and how competition drives progress, but we absolutely need a baseline to protect natural human rights like health, food, poverty and birth control.   Do you really think that immigration in politics has to do with race or stifling stem cell research is due to religion? Its All. About. The. Money.


Wtf are you talking about? Do you realize how many pharma companies there are? There's tons. New ones pop up all the time. People here seem to think that the pharma industry is like, 7-8 major companies that are all colluding to destroy human society.


"No, virtually ever item in the CPI is adjusted using hedonics, which by definition can only be used to lower inflation, not adjust it up.  Hedonics is not necessarily bad, but it doesn't actually reflect inflation, it reflects standard of living vs. purchasing power, which is not useful for a purely monetary measure.  It also does not correctly reflect that despite the fact that a 1970's 20"" TV cannot from an economic standpoint be directly compared to a 2012 20"" TV, if the price is the same (adjusted for inflation), inflation represents how the value of the dollar has accrued vs the value of a 20"" TV, which is what the definition of inflation is.  So, no, I don't think you're correct on this. This is also kind of glossing over the fact that the CPI essentially makes the bold argument that energy and transportation prices never affect inflation."


"There are a number of reasons I'm in agreement with ""A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank.""  So, the update to the first comment should be ""A paid off house worth $300K, or a house with $150K equity and $275K in the retirement account.""  Edit - On reflection, an interesting question, but I wonder how many actually have this choice. When a family budgets for housing, and uses a 25% target, this number isn't much different for rent vs for the mortgage cost. So how, exactly do the numbers work out for a couple trying to save the next 80% of the home cost? A normal qualifying ration allows a house that costs about 3X one's income. A pay-in-full couple might agree to be conservative and drop to 2X. Are they on an austerity plan, saving 20% of their income in addition to paying the rent? Since the money must be invested conservatively, is it keeping up with house prices? After 10 years, inflation would be pushing the house cost up 30% or so, so is this a 12-15 year plan?  I'm happy to ignore the tax considerations. But I question the math of the whole process. It would seem there's a point where the mortgage (plus expenses) add up to less than the rent. And I'd suggest that's the point to buy the house."


"Nearly every country has its own exchange because so many countries have their own currency, and currency permeates every part of an exchange's business.   Generally, an exchange will support transaction and settlement only in local currency.  Securities (except those that explicitly enable FX trading) are denominated and will trade in a single currency-- you can only buy a share of IBM in U.S. dollars.  Securities trading always seeks to be a clean, frictionless, scalable process, and adding cross-currency translation to the mix would just complicate things.  So it's one exchange, one currency. In most countries, citizens and even businesses are largely restricted to having bank accounts in local currency.  There are various political reasons for this, but there it is:  it is difficult or impossible to open a domestic bank account in a foreign-denominated currency.  A public company headquartered in a given country will be required to publish financial statements in local currency, will be more likely to do business with the local citizenry and businesses in that currency, and so will likely look for investors from that same pool-- which generally means listing in local currency, which means on an exchange in that country. There are exceptions, of course.  Big multinationals do business all over the world, and many seek investors all over the world as well.  Mechanisms have been created to permit this (American Depositary Receipts or ADRs, for example).  But once again, cross-currency translation makes things more complicated, so ADRs and their like are only practical for very big international players. As to why there may be many exchanges in a single country, IMO Nick R has it right.  Read ""Flash Boys""; many market makers profit from trading between exchanges, and so have an interest in there being many of them.  And in the U.S., regulators have expressed an interest in ""innovation"" in the exchange space, and so permit them.  There is also an argument to be made against having a single ""Too Big To Fail"" exchange just like the argument for banks, but I wouldn't call that a ""reason"" for the current state of affairs."


In highly developed and competitive industries companies tread a continuous and very fine line between maximising shareholder profits by keeping prices up while making products as cheaply as possible, vs competitors lowering prices when they work out a way to make equivalents cheaper. In the short run you will quite often see companies hold onto large portions of efficiency savings (particularly if they make a major breakthrough in a specific manufacturing process etc) by holding old prices up, but in the long run competition pretty quickly lowers prices as the companies trying to keep high margins and prices get ruthlessly undercut by smaller competitors happy to make a bit less.


Yes you will pay interest and youll have to ensure you dont have an early pay off penalty.   Just say you cant make it in until later in the week. The time for the loan paperwork and the hit to your credit score (what happens if you dont get approved by some freak reason?) In myopinion its worth the wait because even with the loan youll most likely have to put aome money down and depending on where you live youll have loan setup fees or a percentage takwn out for loan origination fees.


Let me add another consideration to the company's side of the equation.  Not only is a 401K a tool for the company to make them competitive when recruiting employees among other companies that offer that benefit, it is also a good retention tool. Most company's 401K plans include a vesting period of at least 3 years, sometimes more. An employee that leaves the company before they are vested in the plan will have to give up some % of the employer matched funds in the account. This gives employees incentive to stick around longer and the company reduces the risk of turnover which can be costly in terms of training and recruiting. This also factors into the reason why employers would rather give matching on the 401K than a simple pay raise. Some of those employees are going to leave during the vesting period anyway, and when that happens the employer got the benefit of motivating (extrinsically) the employee, but in the end got to keep some of the money.


The millionaires I know, all got rich because they got lucky. And when I had a million, I got that mostly by luck as well. I had to take some risks, and people said I was absolutely mad, but I stuck to my guns.   Most millionaires are rich because of luck. But very few of them will admit it. Preferring to think that skill, effort and business acumen got them there. Nope. It was luck.


If you want to do asset management or investment research, look into the [CFA Program](https://www.cfainstitute.org/programs/cfaprogram/Pages/index.aspx?WPID=Programs&PageName=Homepage). If this looks like your cup of tea, I advise registering for and taking the June 2018 CFA Level I exam. You will receive all the books you need to study.


That totally sucks!  I use Avis for work once a year when I'm flown out to corporate and both times I've done so they've managed to fuck up in regards to my reservation.    The first time I received an email from them thanking me for using their service when I still had the car and saw a new $300 charge on my credit card.  When I called to inquire about the car I had rented 3 days earlier that was still in my possession they informed me that the vehicle had been checked into one of their depots 2300 miles away and they were citing a fee for returning the vehicle to another location.  When I asked the agent how many miles were recorded driven on the vehicle she responded with 108.  I then asked her how far she thought Chicago was from San Francisco and if it was possible to drive that distance in 3 days while only incurring 108 miles on the vehicle.  In the end, they refused to back down and I had to involve corporate to settle everything.  The second issue was much less eventful but happened a week ago when I checked out a car.  I received an email 2 hours later saying they're sorry my car hadn't been available and to call them for an explanation.  Puzzled as I had gotten the car I had asked for I called and was told that their system says I had checked out and in the very same car I had the previous day at 8:34pm (check in and check out were recorded as the same time, same day) and they charged me $50 for a single day's rental.  This time they recognized that it was an error and credited me back the money on my CC but I don't know why they have so many issues with their reservation system.


"In a nutshell - Value Added Tax. America, as usual, discovers what others have known and used for years. The idea of not taxing income that's tied to it is ridiculous. If you're only taxing spending but not income, people will just take spending elsewhere (Canada, Mexico, further away), and the economy will go down the drain. That's similar to the way people avoid paying sales tax now, except that it will be in orders of magnitude. Why should a corporation by office supplies in the US, if it has a branch in China? Edit Also, Fair Tax doesn't take into account moving money overseas. I've mentioned living elsewhere down below, and that also got me thinking of how I personally would certainly gain from that ridiculous thing called ""Fair Tax"". Basically, that's exactly how the ""rich folks"", those who push for it, will gain from it. Being able to move money out of the US basically makes it a perfect tax shelter. You don't pay taxes on the income (that you have in the US), and you don't pay taxes on the spendings (that you have elsewhere, because in that country income is taxable so you only pay VAT or sales taxes). This means that all the wealthy people, while investing and gaining money from the American economy (stocks, property, etc), will actually not be spending it in the US. Thus, no taxes paid to the US, dollars flowing out. Perfect. Actually, I should be all for this stupid idea. Very fair to me, no need to pay any taxes at all, because food will probably be exempt anyway."


"At this point there is not much you can do.  The documentation probably points to you being the sole owner and signer on the loan.  Then, any civil suit will degenerate into a ""he said, she said"" scenario.  Luckily, no one was truly harmed in the scenario.   Obtaining financing through a car dealer is almost always not advisable.  So from here, you can do what should have been done in the first place.  Go to banks and credit unions so your daughter can refinance the car.  You will probably get a lower rate, and there is seldom a fee.   I would start with the bank/CU where she does her checking or has some other kind of a relationship.  If that fails, anywhere you can actually sit and talk with a loan officer is preferable over the big corporate type banks.   Car dealers lying is nothing new, it happens to everyone.  Buying a car is like a battle."


It boils down to this:  Who, or what, would you want to take care of financially if you were to die tomorrow? That's why you need life insurance. I'm pretty sure that your creditors would line up to receive payment from the life insurance check, so that's part of figuring out how much coverage you should have. The life insurance premiums are another monthly payment, of course, but every day there is a small chance that you could die.  Insuring against that small chance vs. paying down your debt faster is a decision that needs to be made, and you (or your brother) are the ones that will make it.


When banks create a loan, it is said they write the debit account out of thin air (liability), balanced by the loan (asset).  When the person who gets the loans spends the money, the bank has to pay it.  If the bank only has 10% reserves of the money it loans, how does the bank pay out it's loans?  Does it borrow the money from the Fed and then pay it back?


"You have to calculate the total value of all shares and then ask yourself ""Would I invest that amount of money in this stock?""  If the answer is yes, then only sell what you need to sell. Take the $3k loss against your income, if you have no other gains.   If you would not invest that amount of cash in that stock, then sell it all right now and carry forward the excess loss every year. Note at any point you have capital gains you can offset all of them with your loss carryover (not just $3k)."


"The Answer is yes according to multiple online sources and my local bank. This approach is a common technique to building your own home. You finance the land, build the simplest possible dwelling (say a garage with 1 bathroom/bedroom), refi into a mortgage and get cash back and then build your ""real house"" or add on, etc. This eliminates the banks demands that come with a ""construction loan"" and saves you 10s of thousands in the process (fees, contractors, scheduling, design, etc)"


"I didn't say that the economy isn't doing well. You just made that up.  It is a fact that the president has little to nothing to do with the stock market. Whether you want to believe that or not, it is still a fact.   I don't ""believe"" WaPo. What I do is listen to the idiotic words that your leader says. I listen to him pretend to have invented the phrase ""prime the pump"" while simultaneously using it in the wrong context. I listen to him pretend that ""covfefe"" was something other than a typo. I listen to him demonstrate over and over that he has no clue what he's talking about on a variety of subjects ranging from how the internet works to what an armada being ""on the way"" means.   If you can honestly look at the past 8 months, the things that he's said, and the things that he's done, and come to any conclusion other than that he's a fucking moron, you're just as stupid as he is."


I will add one point missing from the answers by CQM and THEAO. When you take a loan and invest the proceeds, the interest that you pay on the loan is deductible on Schedule A, Line 14 of your Federal income tax return under the category of Investment Interest Expense.  If the  interest expense is larger than all your investment earnings (not just those from the loan proceeds), then you can deduct at most the amount of the earnings, and carry over the excess investment interest paid this year for deduction  against investment earnings in future years. Also, if some of the earnings are long-term capital gains and you choose to deduct the corresponding investment interest expense, then those capital gains are taxed as ordinary income instead of at the favored LTCG rate. You also have the option of choosing to deduct only that amount of interest that offsets dividend (and short-term capital gain) income that is taxed at ordinary rates, pay tax at the LTCG rate on the capital gains, and carry over rest of the interest for deduction in future years. In previous years when the tax laws called for  reduction in the Schedule A deductions for high-income earners, this investment interest expense was exempt from the reduction. Whether future tax laws will allow this exemption depends on Congress. So, this should be taken into account when dealing with the taxes issue in deciding whether to take a loan to invest in the stock market.


"Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house.  It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless.  You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it.   The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will.  You'd need to hire a lawyer for that.  It may not be possible.   Abandon the house.  It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate.  Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house.  You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either.  Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford.  You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem.   Explore a reverse mortgage.  They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout.  Or maybe not.  It doesn't hurt to ask.   Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you.  Google gave some results on ""find property management company Philadelphia"" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff.  Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling.  A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period).  Pay the mortgage out of the rent.  If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it.   Note that the rent may not support the mortgage.  If not, then option four is not practical.  However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway.  Let the bank have it (option two).   If the aunt needs to move into the house, then you can give up the rental income.  She can either pay the mortgage (possibly by renting rooms) or allow foreclosure.  A reverse mortgage might also help in that situation.   It's worth noting that three of the options involve a lawyer.  Consulting one to help choose among the options might be constructive.  You may be able to find a law firm with offices in both Florida and Pennsylvania.   It's currently winter.  Someone should check on the house to make sure that the heat is running and the pipes aren't freezing.  If you can't do anything with it now, consider winterizing by turning off the water and draining the pipes.  Turn the heat down to something reasonable and unplug the refrigerator (throw out the food first).  Note that the kind of heat matters.  You may need to buy oil or pay a gas bill in addition to electricity."


Looking for Emergency Plumber Portland? Then visit Plumbing Portland Serv, with a team of experts having years of hands on experience, we are one of the best plumbing service company in Portland. Visit us now to know more about our service.


You bought a bobcat attachments someday back nonetheless you’re not using it so often, one in all the foremost smart things that you simply will do is to lease it out in order that you’ll be able to earn some financial gain from using it.


You purchased the check from the bank. Your funds have been transferred. If the recipient never cashed the check, the money continues to be the bank's, just as if you had written s normal check that didn't get cashed the money would sit in your account.


"Yes, they are, and you've experienced why. Generally speaking, stocks that pay dividends will be better investments than stocks that don't.  Here's why: 1) They're actually making money. They can finagle balance sheets and news releases, but cash is cash, it tells no lies. They can't fake it.   2) There's less good they can do with that money than they say. When a business you own is making money, they can do two things with it: reinvest it into the company, or hand it over to you. All companies must reinvest to some degree, but only a few companies worth owning can find profitable ways of reinvesting all of it. Having to hand you, the owner, some of the earnings helps keep that money from leaking away on such ""necessities"" like corporate jets, expensive printer paper, or ill-conceived corporate buyouts.      3) It helps you not freak out. Markets go up, and markets go down. If you own a good company that's giving you a nice check every three months, it's a lot easier to not panic sell in a downturn. After all, they're handing you a nice check every three months, and checks are cash, and cash tells no lies. You know they're still a good company, and you can ride it out.    4) It helps others not freak out. See #3. That applies to everyone. That, in turn means market downturns weigh less heavily on companies paying solid dividends than on those that do not.  5) It gives you some of the reward of investing in good companies, without having to sell those companies. If you've got a piece of a good, solid, profitable, growing company, why on earth would you want to sell it?  But you'd like to see some rewards from making that wise investment, wouldn't you?     6) Dividends can grow. Solid, growing companies produce more and more earnings. Which means they can hand you more and more cash via the dividend. Which means that if, say, they reliably raise dividends 10%/year, that measly 3% dividend turns into a 6% dividend seven years later (on your initial investment). At year 14, it's 12%. Year 21, 24%. See where this is going? Companies like that do exist, google ""Dividend Aristocrats"".  7) Dividends make growth less important. If you owned a company that paid you a 10% dividend every year, but never grew an inch, would you care? How about 5%, and it grows only slowly?  You invest in companies, not dividends. You invest in companies to make money. Dividends are a useful tool when you invest -- to gauge company value, to smooth your ride, and to give you some of the profit of the business you own. They are, however, only part of the total return from investing -- as you found out."


I helped my friend who has a Lenovo and he wanted to completely reset the system back to factory settings.  I couldn't believe the amount (or rather lack of) bloatware from the factory. I mean sure, it had a few things but I have an HP computer and after the Lenovo factory reset, it probably had 1/5th the amount of bloatware on it than my HP.  If Lenovo improves on the quality of their computer parts in the near future, it might be my next laptop purchase.


"In your transaction history, you may notice entries that show a money market purchase or redemption. These transactions appear whenever there is an automatic cash sweep into or out of your sweep vehicle. There is no fee to move money to or from your sweep account. For more information about how the sweep program works. View my account history. The cash sweep program is automatic. You may notice a credit or debit in your cash or margin balance immediately following a trade, deposit, or withdrawal. Upon settlement of the transaction, cash will sweep to or from your cash sweep vehicle, such as the Insured Deposit Account (IDA), with no action required by you. Sales proceeds and deposits will sweep from your cash or margin balance into your sweep vehicle. When you make a purchase or withdrawal, funds will sweep from your sweep vehicle to the cash or margin balance. Money markets are dividend-earning investments and are often called sweep accounts. Uninvested cash in your account ""sweeps"" automatically into the money market. The same process occurs in reverse when you need funds from the money market for a purchase or withdrawal. There is no fee to move money into or out of the sweep account. Change cash sweep On this page, you can find information about your current cash sweep vehicle and see if others are available for your account. Click the ""Change cash sweep vehicle"" button to make changes. You can also call a Client Services representative at 800-669-3900 for further assistance. Change cash sweep"


"If you need to transfer a larger amount than the $14K/person/person limit, one accepted workaround is to structure it as a loan, then gift the payments over the duration of the loan. There are ""intra-family mortgage"" companies which specialize in setting up this kind of transaction. Note that this doesn't allow you to give more without penalty, it just lets you transfer the actual cash earlier, in exchange for some bookkeeping overhead and some fees for the legal processing and mortgage registration."


The only thing that is important here is the documentation you and your daughter signed. If that documentation states that you were a co-signer and that your daughter was the primary on the loan, and then if the loan is not being reported in your daughter's name, you have a cause for action. If, however, the documentation says the loan is entirely in your name, the mistake is yours. Even in that case, though, your daughter may be able to take over the loan, or she may be able to take out a loan from a separate institution and use that to pay off the current loan. Obviously, this may be difficult if she does not have a credit history, which is what got you here in the first place. :(


"I agree that you shouldn't give up trying to get your money back, but I strongly feel that this is not sufficient. If they are trying to victimize you, they are trying to victimize others.  Taking care of getting your own money back should be your top concern, but contacting any Attorneys General and District Attorneys that have jurisdiction should also be a priority to help others--past, present, and future--that might be caught in this scam. Contact them, contact the police, contact the BBB, contact the local media. Shine a light and make the cockroaches pack up and get out of town. ""We got you... you have no recourse"" should always be met with the response, ""I will shut you down."""


Aside from everyone else's explanation about bundling them with other mortgages, a buddy of mine who worked at a boutique lending group basically said that they KNOW these people can't pay the loans back and thus the bank will be able to take over ownership of the home.  Since **housing prices are guaranteed to go up**, they'll be able to make money once they re-sell the property.


I know!   Granted they're made in Italy, not China, so you're supporting a collapsing economy ^_^  The thing is, the retailers won't budge.  Perhaps an economist has determined that their business model is more sustainable if they keep their inflated prices rather than compete for the business.


"What does this mean and how do you do it? Consider that there are may be more than a few different objectives when it comes to investing: Each of these is a different objective that can have different timelines, objectives for the money as well as possible accounts and investment choices. In a sense the question could be stated as ""How much money do you need and when do you need it?"" Is it trying to figure out how much money you hope to have for   retirement, or does it include short term expenses The objective could be retirement but doesn't have to be. The short term expenses can be included in various ways. The retirement funds could include what kind of method would be used to make sure expenses can be met as if one is looking at retirement just a few years away the ""short term expenses"" may come up as part of the retirement living."


I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:  - [/r/talkbusiness] [How to Drive Hypergrowth](https://np.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/78pc03/how_to_drive_hypergrowth/)  [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*  [](#bot)


"No.  This is too much for most individuals, even some small to medium businesses.  When you sell that investment, and take the cheque into the foreign bank and wire it back to the USA in US dollars, you will definitely obtain the final value of the investment, converted to US$. Thats what you wanted, right?  You'll get that.  If you also hedge, unless you have a situation where it is a perfect hedge, then you are gambling on what the currencies will do. A perfect hedge is unusual for what most individuals are involved in. It looks something like this:  you know ForeignCorp is going to pay you 10 million quatloos on Dec 31.  So you go to a bank (probably a foreign bank, I've found they have lower limits for this kind of transaction and more customizable than what you might create trading futures contracts), and tell them, ""I have this contract for a 10 million quatloo receivable on Dec 31, I'd like to arrange a FX forward contract and lock in a rate for this in US$/quatloo.""  They may have a credit check or a deposit for such an arrangement, because as the rates change either the bank will owe you money or you will owe the bank money. If they quote you 0.05 US$/quatloo, then you know that when you hand the cheque over to the bank your contract payment will be worth US$500,000.  The forward rate may differ from the current rate, thats how the bank accounts for risk and includes a profit. Even with a perfect hedge, you should be able to see the potential for trouble.  If the bank doesnt quite trust you, and hey, banks arent known for trust, then as the quatloo strengthens relative to the US$, they may suspect that you will walk away from the deal.  This risk can be reduced by including terms in the contract requiring you to pay the bank some quatloos as that happens.  If the quatloo falls you would get this money credited back to your account.  This is also how futures contracts work; there it is called ""mark to market accounting"".  Trouble lurks here.  Some people, seeing how they are down money on the hedge, cancel it.  It is a classic mistake because it undoes the protection that one was trying to achieve.  Often the rate will move back, and the hedger is left with less money than they would have had doing nothing, even though they bought a perfect hedge."


"Finance is ALL about obscure theoretical points. This one actually isn't even that obscure, kind of like a big gaping whole that nobody addresses.   So to address your ""minimum cash"" level point. That's what I'm working towards. Check this:  So if you are selling your company, and all of the potential buyers are public companies, you would adjust your working capital balances in your model to match the public company market benchmark (ie: days payable outstanding, days receivable outstanding). This would be some sort of ""added value"" that a public company would bring to the mix.    You should do the same for cash. You would benchmark what level of cash the comparable public companies hold (possibly as a % of revenue?), and apply that as the level of operating cash.   You're counter argument would be that some firms may choose to hold on to excess levels of cash for a period of time (Apple), skewing ""minimum cash levels"" upward. That's true, but over a period of time, investors would either (1). demand the excess cash back or (2) investors would sell shares because the company is not earning a sufficient return on equity. My second point is half baked and not fully thought through but it goes along with the idea that a company will dividend out excess cash if it cannot reach the hurdle rate demanded by investors.  Thank you for continuing the conversation with me, I think you're the only one that gets it."


The pirates will always pirate, it's their nature.  But I believe that artists and other creators should be paid for their work.  I would gladly pay for a commercial-free, on-demand video service..kinda like netflix except with a better selection  I suspect that there are enough people like me to allow the scheme to make money..even if the pirates never pay.


In addition to the points this article makes, I believe that there are just many better burger options around these days. McDonalds will most likely always be on top of the cheap burger category because it's so ingrained into our culture. Around the northeast Ohio area we have a bunch of other burger options like Five Guys, Brown Bag, B-Spot, The Rail, etc.. where for a few extra dollars you get a much more quality burger.  I prefer Wendy's burgers over McD's, but Wendy's is in this middle ground in price between McD's (the value option) and a place like Five Guys (better quality).


Naked credit default swaps are a gambling device used to great damage of the economy by Federally chartered and Federally overseen Primary Dealer banks that provide a large percentage of Obama's inner circle. Thank you for proving my point. The danger is when the wealthy can buy the government.


That's pretty typical for introductory problems.  It's leading you into an NPV question.  They're keeping the cash flows the same to illustrate the time value of money to show you that even though the free cash flow is the same in year 1 and year 4 or whatever when you discount it to present value today's stream is worth more than tomorrow's


Banks don't care that you are responsible cardholder. They care to make money. Interest rates are basically 0% by government policy and the banks charge their responsible cardholders 20% interest rates. Think about that for one second, and realize they really do not care about your ability to avoid paying interest, they only need you to 'slip up' one month during your entire lifetime to make a profit from you. It is in their interest for you to get into a spending habit, from 0% promo rates, so that eventually a frivolous purchase or life changing event causes a balance to stay on the card for over one month.


Rahul Manchanda is a talented individual and handles every case of his client with great importance. His genuine guidance and professional approach in resolving legal matters is appreciated by all. Rahul Manchanda has solved numerous cases successfully in Courts pertaining to Federal, Criminal, Civil, International, and Immigration related issues of people coming from different walks of life.


Transfer from Savings account into NRE is not possible.  Transfer into NRO may be possible in certain cases and would require some paperwork. Please consult the Bank where you hold the account to advise you the details.


"> some of which likely caused significant inconvenience  But the point is that the reviews say that they *didn't* cause significant inconvenience.  Many of them were applied over the air, they provide loaners, they provide a pickup service, etc.  Both reviews made sure to mention that there was minimal inconvenience.  You're probably right that I shouldn't call them ""very favorable,"" but they're certainly not unfavorable, and the interesting thing about these reviews is it seems like their experience is so positive that they're almost apologizing for being so positive, and trying to find something to make them look objective."


I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to default.  What I'm saying is that if they can't pay back their debts then they should default.  The article makes it sound like Argentina deserves to be let off the hook and pay back only a portion of its debt.  In the short term this seems appealing because the investors get back some of the money as opposed to none and Argentina gets to keep it's economy intact.  However this sets a dangerous precedent in the long run because countries know they have this out and may issue bonds expecting not to pay the full amount.  I think it is good that Argentina is being made an example of, this way countries will think twice before borrowing money they may not be able to pay back and will lead to more stability in the long run.


I'd split whatever cash flow you have between saving money and paying down the 20% loan. The fact that you are carrying an unrealized loss isn't really too relevant -- unless you have plans to walk away from the loan or go bankrupt, it doesn't really matter until you sell. You're either going to repay now or later.


This is a very open ended question with no concrete answer as it depends on your personal situation. However, for starters I would suggest picking up a copy of The Investment Answer. It's a very light read, less than 100 pages, but it has some amazingly simple yet very concrete advice on investing and answers a lot of common questions (like yours).


"OTOH, Walmart seems to be doing just fine. KMart just hasn't been able to get its act together. Walmarts are bigger, cheaper, and cleaner.  Sears, like most general department stores these days, is struggling against small niche players. Their historical strengths of tools (Craftsman) and appliances (Kenmore) have been undercut and out-inventoried by larger, more specialized stores like Home Depot and Best Buy. Their historical catalog business has been totally destroyed by the internet, which they were far too slow to embrace. They have no ""identity"" anymore.  35 years ago when I bought my house, I bought a refrigerator, dishwasher, microwave, a clothes washer & dryer, and a vacuum cleaner from Sears. The current incarnations of all those items (except the clothes dryer, which I almost never use) came from Best Buy and Lowes and Amazon."


mint.com does a decent job categorizing your spending for you, it will do exactly what you asked your advisor I would also put some %% into saving from your every paycheck before you deposit the rest to checking(spending) and make a rule, you can't touch the saving account. Just like you are have enough courage not to use credit cards.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/06/16/big-oil-firms-are-exploring-new-frontier-in-shale-profits.html) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Big oil companies including Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC are piling into the Permian Basin, the oil-rich region straddling Texas and New Mexico that is the epicenter of the second wave of U.S. shale drilling.  > In recent years, Exxon, Chevron and Shell have lagged behind top operators in the Permian basin by a wide margin, with the big companies&#039; individual wells producing about half as much oil and gas in some cases, analysts say.  > The big companies showed signs of narrowing the gap, embracing techniques pioneered by smaller companies such as drilling longer wells horizontally and using more sand to prop open rock layers and let oil flow.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6i10ry/big_oil_firms_are_exploring_a_new_frontier_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~147330 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*: **company**^#1 **Chevron**^#2 **drill**^#3 **oil**^#4 **Permian**^#5"


I disagree. Back in the day I hated any single button on the keyboard that automatically pulled up a new window/menu. The Windows Key is an example of something that was always getting in the way. A two key combo would have made more sense, but not a single key.


There is a measure of protection for investors. It is not the level of protection provided by FDIC or NCUA but it does exist: Securities Investor Protection Corporation What SIPC Protects SIPC protects against the loss of cash and securities – such as stocks   and bonds – held by a customer at a financially-troubled SIPC-member   brokerage firm. The limit of SIPC protection is $500,000, which   includes a $250,000 limit for cash. Most customers of failed brokerage   firms when assets are missing from customer accounts are protected.   There is no requirement that a customer reside in or be a citizen of   the United States. A non-U.S. citizen with an account at a brokerage   firm that is a member of SIPC is treated the same as a resident or   citizen of the United States with an account at a brokerage firm that   is a member of SIPC. SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of   the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers   their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the   brokerage firm liquidation begins. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities.   SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and   other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for   bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments. It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as   protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation   (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the   value of any security. Investments in the stock market are subject to fluctuations in market   value. SIPC was not created to protect these risks. That is why SIPC   does not bail out investors when the value of their stocks, bonds and   other investment falls for any reason. Instead, in a liquidation, SIPC   replaces the missing stocks and other securities when it is possible   to do so.


I agree with this article entirely. There is tons of securities in the market that are trading wayyyy above book value because of future expectations of growth. Investors more than ever are overpaying for the possibility of something that might happen several years from now rather than a couple of years. Who can predict any numbers  accurately 3+ years from now? It's getting ridiculous. Then you have your Goldman Saxes that are trading under book value because of concerns about regulatory reform in the future. Investor sentiment and consumer expectations used to be a macroeconomic gauge, but not every single sector is singled out and over analyzed. Long gone are the days of being able to truly understand economic cycles.


"BoA used to do this too (probably still do). I opened an account at BoA and got low one month, and then a friend of mine cashed a $50 check that I'd given him months prior (that he said he would never cash because ""your money is no good here""). That freaking $50 check cost me hundreds of dollars. They charged me the overdraft fee, a bounced check fee, and then ran the fucking thing through again to see if it would cash when they knew it wouldn't, so I ended up with all the fees doubled!   I closed my account after that, and 2 months later, I got a notice that my account had a negative balance of more than $100 because they had charged me the monthly fee for the checking account after I closed it, and since the account was empty... buttfuckbybankapalooza."


I use iBank for Mac to keep track of my expenses. I also use the iPhone version since they can sync over Wi-Fi and I can capture expenses right on the spot instead of trying to remember what I spent on when I turn on my laptop.


> At some point we are going to have abused our global reserve status to the point the world doesn't want to extend it to us anymore.  This will happen *as soon as there is someplace better to go*.    This, in turn, will require:   * Someone running sound economics * Those sound economics not being dependant on US/dollar hegemony * The US not blowing them up  These are not impossible criteria, and absolutely will **eventually** be met, but I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that that point is a long way away at this point.   We have a lot of time, and much of it will be tumultuous & uncertain in many ways- but the dollar & US treasuries will still be the thinnest kid at fat camp until it ends.


In the past 10 years there have been mutual funds that would act as a single bucket of stocks and bonds. A good example is Fidelity's Four In One. The trade off was a management fee for the fund in exchange for having to manage the portfolio itself and pay separate commissions and fees. These days though it is very simple and pretty cheap to put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs that would represent a balanced portfolio. Whats even more interesting is that large online brokerage houses are starting to offer commission free trading of a number of ETFs, as long as they are not day traded and are held for a period similar to NTF mutual funds.  I think you could easily put together a basket of 5-6 ETFs to trade on Fidelity or TD Ameritrade commission free, and one that would represent a nice diversified portfolio. The main advantage is that you are not giving money to the fund manager but rather paying the minimal cost of investing in an index ETF. Overall this can save you an extra .5-1% annually on your portfolio, just in fees. Here are links to commission free ETF trading on Fidelity and TD Ameritrade.


What would you call an overseas  military venture in which the military was NOT a tool of the government?  Such other departments as were present in Iraq to do whatever they do were there because the military were there first, and as a means for the military to get out. To make it sound as though they’d have been there anyway and the military issue was a mere coincidence is absurd.  I’d limit it to say it’s the military which is mostly wasteful (I’m not among those who don’t believe government can ever do anything right). But whether it’s measured in manpower or dollars, the fact remains that security functions are being outsourced. Is there any reason to think this will not continue?  Or increase?


This shouldn't be an either / or situation. Yeah, Amazon is headed towards a monopoly... and we need to somehow address that down the road... but let's not act like Trump isn't guilty of doing exactly what he accused Bezos of doing; using media to bully politicians for a certain agenda.   It doesn't matter if you own a newspaper or not... especially when Trump gets the luxury of Fox News being run like HE owns it.   They BOTH have enough media attention to get their ideologies out. Trump is just upset because majority of the American public agree with Bezos over him (on just about anything).


Man... I feel like this is a messed up world where your comment is downvoted and the guy who added the 100k in loans is upvoted. I didn't get into the engineering program at the school I wanted to go to so I went to community college for a year got good grades and transferred into the college I wanted to get my degree from. Spent 3 years working part time while getting my degree and graduated with 16k in loans and a job waiting for me. I don't know why this can't be normal. I'm obviously not some genius, I couldn't even get into the school originally... I just worked a little harder than I was working before because that's what it took.


You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.


>What I was talking about is personal income tax   Got it, thanks for clarifying.  >That would mean Amazon would need to offer 5k more pay for an equal job vs an employer in another state.  I think cost of living would also be a factor. So I don't know that a state with income tax would automatically not make the cut, as you asserted in your first comment, because the cost of living might be cheaper and even everything out.  >This is just one factor a company this huge would consider when moving.   Agreed, there are numerous factors that Amazon will have to consider so I see no reason why a state that has an income tax should not submit an application.


Canada doesn't seem to have a gift tax. http://www.taxtips.ca/personaltax/giftsandinheritances.htm


Lightning is very unpredictable. People who work with or near explosive or conductive materials, in open spaces or near tall objects, are especially at-risk for lightning striking and injuries. Employers should be responsible for protecting their workers from lightning exposure and take other important lightning safety precautions to lower the chances of these damaging and deadly workplace injuries. Know more about us here: https://www.lightningprotection.com/lightning-safety-lightning-protection/


"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words.  This is a ""depth chart"" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security.  On the left you have all of the ""bids"" to buy this security, on the right you have the ""asks"" to sell the security.  In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask.  As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234.  When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares.  Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level."


Unfortunately, what you are finding is that your past decisions to take on debt have limited your choices now. Learn from this fact and choose not to go further into debt. Your condo will become a burden if you don't have the liquid funds to maintain the property, keep the mortgage current, and hedge against any other significant life events. You already have almost no financial margin. These steps will almost guarantee that you will enjoy your house and have a worry/stress free experience. You make plenty of money for you to complete this cycle in a handful of years and be ready to buy. Also, don't give yourself false either/or choices. You have options. Our apartment is way too small for just the two of us, much less a child. We'd have to move before we had a child and we'd like to live in our own house when we do. Not true. Rent a cheaper apartment further outside the city, which will also be larger. It probably won't be as nice as the one you have now. Buy a car for cash under $5000. It is a sacrifice for few years while you work for your dream home.   You already know this is a bad decision. Continuing down this path will leave you with the same frustrations 10 years from now. Good Luck!


"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be ""yes.""  Diversification is good.""  Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified.  If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification.  There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund.  Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well?  It depends on what your funds are.  Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment.  If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your ""favorite fund"" early on.  As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not.  I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund.  Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there.  But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things.  You didn't know early on which fund would do well.  You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory.  You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age.  This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory.  Generally speaking, they are not.  They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics.  For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory.  It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things.  Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified.  The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice.  Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be.  There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance.  Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record.  Perhaps the manager really was skilled.  However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight  (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so.  However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a ""hot streak"" and ""can't lose.""  They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy.  This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer.   Diversifying across asset classes.  Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund.  There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold.  Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio.  I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds.  These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure.  Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes.  They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity.  The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity.  Normally people do not do this, though.  Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds.  I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory.  Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated.  If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund.  Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets  International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees.  You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds.  However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well.  That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste.  I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate.  You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT).  Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be.  REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap.  Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure.  It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory.  In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio.  Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain.  Many researchers feel that the small cap ""premium"" may have been a short-term artifact in the data.  Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class.  Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds.  Half the market can be classed as ""value"", while the other half is ""growth.""  Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund.  Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory.  If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds.  There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector.  If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds.  Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent.  Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do.  Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class.  There's very little if any advantage to doing that."


I came up with a real way. I saw once the market be so dumb as to allow this to work. Inflation rate = 2.5%. Home interest rate = 3%. Tax deduction = 1%. Money spent on inflation-adjusted I bonds (at the time these paid 0% net, that is 2.5% gross). Result, .5% profit after accounting for inflation. The kicker: Uncle Sam's I bonds are tax free. Sure it's not possible today, but the rates occasionally drop low enough.


"Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is to keep a lot of equity in your home if you can. I assume here that you have a lot of savings you're considering using. If you only have say 10% of the house price you wouldn't actually have a lot of choice in the matter, the mortgage lender will penalise you heavily for low deposits. The practical minimum is 5%, but for most people a 95% mortgage is just silly (albeit not as silly as the 100% or greater mortgages you could get pre-2008), and you should take serious individual advice before considering it. According to Which, the average in the UK for first-time buyers is 20% (not the best source for that data I confess, but a convenient one). Above 20% is not at all unusual. You'll do an affordability calculation to figure out how much you can borrow, which isn't at all the same as how much you should borrow, but does get you started. Basically you, decide how much a month you can spend on mortgage payments. The calculation will let you put every penny into this if you choose to, but in practice you'll want some discretionary income so don't do that. decide the term of the mortgage. For a young first-time buyer in the UK I think you'd typically take a 25-year term and consider early repayment options rather than committing to a shorter term, but you don't have to. Mortgage lenders will offer shorter terms as long as you can afford the payments. decide how much you're putting into a deposit make subtractions for cost of moving (stamp duty if applicable, fees, removals aka ""people to lug your stuff""). receive back a number which is the house price you can pay under these constraints (and of course a breakdown of what the mortgage principle would be, and the interest rate you'll pay). This step requires access to lender information, since their rates depend on personal details, deposit percentage, phase of the moon, etc. Our mortgage advisor did multiple runs of the calculation for us for different scenarios, since we hadn't made up our minds entirely. Since you have not yet decided how much deposit to make, you can use multiple calculations to see the effect of different deposits you might make, up to a limit of your total savings. Putting up more deposit both increases the amount you can borrow for a given monthly payment (since mortgage rates are lower when the loan is a lower proportion of house value), and of course increases the house price you can afford. So unless you're getting a very high return on your savings, £1 of deposit gets you somewhat more than £1 of house, and the calculation will tell you how much more. Once you've chosen the house you want, the matter is even simpler: do you prefer to put your savings in the house and borrow less and make lower payments, or prefer to put your savings elsewhere and borrow more and make higher payments but perhaps have some additional income from the savings. Assuming you maintain a contingency fund, a lower mortgage is generally considered a good investment in the UK, but you need to check what's right for you and compare it to other investments you could make. The issue is complicated by the fact that residential property prices are rising quite quickly in most areas of the UK, and have been for a long time, meaning that highly-leveraged property investment appears to be a really good idea. This leads to the imprudent, but tempting, conclusion that you should buy the biggest house you can possibly afford and watch its value rises. I do not endorse this advice personally, but it's certainly true that in a sharply rising house market it's easier to get away with buying a bigger house than you need, than it is to get away with it in a flat or falling market. As Stephen says, an offset mortgage is a no-brainer good idea if the rate is the same. Unfortunately in the UK, the rate isn't the same (or anyway, it wasn't a couple of years ago). Offset mortgages are especially good for those who make a lot of savings from income and for any reason don't want to commit all of those savings to a traditional mortgage payment. Good reasons for not wanting to do that include uncertainty about your future income and a desire to have the flexibility to actually spend some of it if you fancy :-)"


As Ross says, SPX is the index itself. This carries no overheads. It is defined as a capitalization-weighted mixture of the stocks of (about) 500 companies. SPY is an index fund that tries to match the performance of SPX. As an index fund it has several differences from the index:


How much amount can we transfer from India to the USA? Is the limit per year? As I understand your father in law is Indian Citizen and his tax paid earnings need to be transferred outside of India. Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme by RBI, one can transfer upto 2,50,000 USD. Please check with your Bank for the exact paperwork. A form 15CA and 15CB [by CA] are required to establish taxes have been paid. What documents we have to present to the bank? See above. Should money be transferred to company's account(Indian Company) to USA company? or can be transferred to my husband's account. Transfer of funds by a Indian Company to US Company has some restrictions. Please check with CA for details. If you father in law has sold the Indian Company and paid the taxes in India; he can transfer the proceeds to his son in US as per the Liberalized Remittance Scheme. Can they just gift the whole amount to my husband? What will be the tax implication on my husband's part in USA and on my father in law in India. The whole amount can be gifted by your father in law to your husband [his son]. There is no tax implication in India as being an Indian resident, gift between close relatives is tax free. There is no tax implication to your husband as he is a US Citizen and as per gift tax the person giving the gift should be paying the applicable taxes. Since the person gifting is not US Citizen; this is not applicable.


But then they turn their stores is hugely expensive show rooms.   BB's real problem is that they are getting eaten at both ends. Amazon is taking the online business, and walmart has expanded their electronics.   BB niche is gone. It has nothing to do with their customer service, or their pricing practices. It just has a business model that doesn't work anymore.   Only chance is to reduce the number of stores and aim for the in person sales only.


Everything would depend on whether the calculation is being done using the company's all-time high intraday trading price or all-time high closing price. Further, I've seen calculations using non-public pricing data, such as bid-offer numbers from market makers, although this wouldn't be kosher. The likelihood is that you're seeing numbers that were calculated using different points in time. For the record, I think Apple has overtaken Microsoft's all-time highest market cap with a figure somewhere north of $700 billion (nominal).  Here's an interesting article link on the subject of highest-ever valuations: comparison of highest market caps ever


>Correction: A previous version of this story implied that Monsanto’s permit had been revoked across Mexico. This decision only affected the Yucatán peninsula, and the appeals process is ongoing. **The writer has been sentenced to a honey-less existence for 30 days**.  LOL