For the united States forms must be submitted electronically with the Securities and Exchange Commission , they also must be posted to company websites.


First of all, make sure you have an emergency fund. Ideally this should be at least 6 months of living expenses in an easily accessible place. Do you have any credit card debt, school debt, or other debt? Work towards becoming debt free, especially of higher interest debt and debt on things that are only depreciating (cars, for example). If you have extra income, consider putting it towards debt. If you currently have access to a 403b, you should begin investing immediately. If not, look into a Roth IRA. The community has provided suggestions for good places to get one. With a Roth IRA you take post-tax income money and invest it into this retirement account and when you reach retirement age you get it and all the interest as tax-free income. You can't withdraw the principal until retirement age. You should put up to the legal limit into a retirement account - if you can't do this at first work towards this goal. After an emergency fund, becoming debt free, and fully funding your retirement, save for goals such as a house or other things you are working towards. The exact order of doing these things might vary, but in general you need the emergency fund first.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/egypt-economy-idUSL8N1JQ1G5) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > CAIRO, June 29 Egypt on Thursday hiked fuel prices by up to 50 percent to help meet the terms of a $12 billion IMF loan deal, a sharper rise than expected by many struggling with soaring living costs and a further test of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi&#039;s popularity. > Fuel oil prices to cement factories will rise by 40 percent to 3,500 Egyptian pounds per tonne from 2,500 pounds a tonne, but gas prices to the industrial sector will remain stable, Molla said. > The central bank floated the pound last November as part of reforms agreed with the IMF. At that time, the government increased fuel prices by as much as 46 percent. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6kd7sd/egypt_hikes_fuel_prices_by_up_to_50_percent_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~155772 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*: **pound**^#1 **price**^#2 **percent**^#3 **Egyptian**^#4 **fuel**^#5"


"A great deal of analysis on this question relies on misunderstandings of the market or noticing trends that happened at the same time but were not caused by each other. Without knowing your view, I'll just give the basic idea. The amount of active management is self-correcting. The reason people have moved out of actively managed funds is that the funds have not been performing well. Their objective is to beat their benchmarks by profiting as they correct mispricing. They are performing poorly because there is too much money chasing too few mispricings. That is why the actively managed industry is shrinking. If it gets small enough, presumably those opportunities will become more abundant and mispricing correction will become more profitable. Then money will flow back into active funds. Relevant active management may not be what a lay person is thinking of. At the retail level, we are observing a shift to passive funds, but there is still plenty of money in other places. For example, pension and endowment funds normally have an objective of beating a market benchmark like the Russell 3000. As a result they are constantly trying to find opportunities to invest in active management that really can outperform. They represent a great deal of money and are nothing like the ""buy and forget"" stereotype we sometimes imagine. Moreover, hedge funds and propreitary trading shops explicitly and solely try to correct mispricings. They represent a very, very large bucket of money that is not shrinking. Active retail mutual funds and individual investors are not as relevant for pricing as we might think. More trading volume is not necessarily a good thing, nor is it the measure of market quality. One argument against passive funds is that passive funds don't trade much. Yet the volume of trading in the markets has risen dramatically over time as a result of technological improvements (algorithmic traders, mostly). They have out-competed certain market makers who used to make money on inefficiencies of the market. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Well, prices are more efficient now and it appears that these computers are more responsive to price-relevant information than people used to be. So even if trading volume does decrease, I see no reason to worry that prices will become less efficient. That's not the direction things have gone, even as passive investing has boomed. Overall, worries about passive investing rely on an assumption that there is not enough interest in and resources for making arbitrage profits to keep prices efficient. This is highly counterfactual and always will be. As long as people and institutions want money and have access to the markets, there will be plenty of resources allocated to price correction."


Technically, everyone would be fine with you not being insured. As long as you pay your fair share in taxes for the time you break a leg or something and suddenly you're really glad it doesn't cost you the arm as well, if you catch my figurative drift. It is literally proven by reality outside of the us that it works. It's sure as hell not perfect, but miles ahead of privatized health care. Low costs for the individual, access to every necessary treatment and drug for close to nothing.


Problem with deciding investments in a company is that you have multiple potential options, each with their projected returns, but each also has some hard-to-estimate risks. A further problem is that these opportunities arrive one-by-one, so you usually cannot compare project A vs. project B to decide which one is better. The internal rate of return is a rule-of-thumb like way to make these decisions. The company board may set an IRR target of e.g. 15%, and each executive will compare their projects against that target. They'll execute only the projects that are projected to give a good return, but some of these projects will end up failing. Thus the real average profit will not be equal to IRR. Important thing is that this target number gives ways to compare projects, and also for the board to control the investments. If the company has a good track record of being successful at projects, the board might set an IRR target of 10% and expect to get e.g. 8% return on their investment. However, if the company has a much larger risk of projects failing, they might demand a predicted IRR of 20% to account for the risk. Ultimately if the IRR target is set too high, the company will find no projects it considers profitable to invest in. In practice if this happens, the company owners are better off taking out the cash as dividends and investing it elsewhere.


>This buildup of excessive debt started so long ago -- Levy dates it to the 1980s in the U.S. -- that people no longer know what's prudent. This is echoed elsewhere. At this time, people that use capital don't truly know how much it's worth because it's so abundant. Consequently, creates difficult in making business decisions.


We started with our son about age 5 or so. He was at the time old enough to understand that you buy stuff using money. We don't give allowance, rather we made up a job chart that he can put checks on, and give him a small amount for each job that he does. This is meant to enforce the idea of 'work and get paid, don't work don't get paid', and associate the concept of work and money. We also try to teach him the concept of giving, spending and saving, by having envelopes with those words on them and dividing the 'commission' money between them. The give money is used for a charitable organization. The save money is used in a couple of ways - either to save for a large item that he wants, or to put into a savings account. The spend it money he is free to buy whatever he wants with. We got this plan from the Dave Ramsey Show, and it has been really good so far. The best thing about it is that when we are at the store and he sees something he wants, we can ask 'did you bring your money?' This keeps the begging down to a minimum and also helps us teach him to make a list of stuff he wants and can save for.


"i really want to know. and you shouldn't lose hope because reddit says so. if you can show there is a market for this, and you have a legitimate plan with attainable objectives, sound financial backing, and you have contingency plans in place, and you truly believe in this idea and are willing to put everything you have into this idea, then go for it. but if this is a ""meh, it would be kinda cool if..."" type of business approach, then drop it immediately."


I think the advice Bob is being given is good. Bob shouldn't sell his investments just because their price has gone down. Selling cheap is almost never a good idea. In fact, he should do the opposite: When his investments become cheaper, he should buy more of them, or at least hold on to them. Always remember this rule: Buy low, sell high. This might sound illogical at first, why would someone keep an investment that is losing value? Well, the truth is that Bob doesn't lose or gain any money until he sells. If he holds on to his investments, eventually their value will raise again and offset any temporary losses. But if he sells as soon as his investments go down, he makes the temporary losses permanent. If Bob expects his investments to keep going down in the future, naturally he feels tempted to sell them. But a true investor doesn't try to anticipate what the market will do. Trying to anticipate market fluctuations is speculating, not investing. Quoting Benjamin Graham: The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator's primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor's primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell. Assuming that the fund in question is well-managed, I would refrain from selling it until it goes up again.


I don't think I could stand listening to him for 10 seconds without throwing the radio out the window, but he works his ass off and I respect him for that. He is his own brand and everything he does is inspected by a hundred million eyeballs. I would not care to be in that position. Haters gonna hate especially when you are self made millionaire by 16. Also Scooter! That guy took some squeaky kid, saw something in him I still don't see in him, and turned him into a golden goose. Hate his product if you have to, but he is a fucking genius.


I suspect you will need to consult with a tax professional on this one. In New York you would need to continue to file returns even if you did no business there until the partnership is dissolved. But I have no idea if Cali has anything rules like that. I would suspect since the partnership is on going the answer is no. Even though you plan no further business in Cali the potential exists that you could return there(even if only in theory).


"> Asking people to travel less is silly, and punishing companies for CO2 emissions when there is no alternative is also silly, If the current science on climate change is true, and it certainly seems to be, then asking people to travel less or to produce less CO2 isn't ""silly"" , it's desperately important. It's really like a smoker with a nagging cough saying it's ""silly"" to consider stopping smoking. Don't get me wrong - I love to travel, I've been in dozens of countries. But I've cut back on my travel and even more been finding ways to travel with less footprint on the Earth (read: trains)."


that's an accurate assessment. i don't want to deny the young man his accolades just because i hate everything about him, but, well, i hate everything about him and really don't think he should be called a VC in the same manner actual, more dedicated VC's are.


So My question is if I purchased the shares on 03-08-15 then will I get the dividend? Yes if you purchase on 3-Aug, the shares will actually get credited to your account on 5-Aug and hence you will hold the shares on 6-Aug, the record date.


">No system is going to be perfect, especially one that is totally inflexible. Certainly. But you come right back to the need for ""good/wise management"". And part of that is constructing a system that doesn't have OBVIOUS and BLATANT loopholes. >>But it is a lot easier to say no to someone when you can back it up by saying ""I think this is going to take 2,000 hours and the CEO has only granted you 1,000 hours. Figure out what you can live without and get back to me."" And you have just given an example of a very BAD/UNWISE management system, and likely entirely arbitrary budgets (does the CEO know his arse from a hole in the ground? Why was 1,000 hour budgeted? How many departments are going to be allocated 1,000 hours and yet have little or no use for them? {But of course, as will ALL ""budgeting"" systems, those hours are probably ""use it or lose it"" -- so the department head of dept A will be deprived because of the arbitrary/past-weighted allocations, and the head of dept B will end up wasting 1,000 hours on crap just to make sure he gets 1,000 hours again next year). Bad management tends to build management systems that are even WORSE than their original management. *And if you lived under your ""budgeted hours"" system for a couple of years... you'd be back here bitching about how STUPID that system is.*"


With every loser there is a winner on trades like that. There were some other large hedge funds that figured out what they were doing, and basically just added fuel to the fire and are now making great money as a result. Had the bet reversed, JPM would have been the winner. Check [THIS](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/27/business/how-boaz-weinstein-and-hedge-funds-outsmarted-jpmorgan.html?pagewanted=all) out.


If you're in the USA and looking to retire in 10 years, pay your Social Security taxes? :P Just kidding. Do a search for Fixed Rate Annuities.


Couldn't you say the reverse, the lower investors are taxed, the more willing they are to invest into risky investments like sub-prime mortgages? Edit: I think the major point John is trying to get across is that their are a myriad of factors that motivate people, profit is one of them, but not the only one. And this business/financial culture thrives on and breeds people who's sole motivate is profit. Not helping the world, or creating something interesting, or feeding children, or creating a better quality of life for society, but pure profit above all else. So if profit is your only motivation for anything, then having a 3% greater tax rate is completely uncalled for.


"Amount is the closest single word. ""Amount in dollars"" would be the easiest way to specify information you are requesting. ""Amount and currency"" if you ware in an area using multiple currencies. An accountant might be able to give you a more technical term, but it would be accountancy jargon. Amount due, credit amount, debit amount, amount deposited, amount credited, amount withdrawn, or amount included. If you're writing instructions and want to specify that the person following the instructions needs to indicate the currency, you'll probably have to simply state that requirement. Based on US centric thinking, inside the US, money is dollars, dollars is money. For US citizens outside the country, we would always tack on the currency. 100 dollars, or 100 Euro. There is a segment of Americans who do not understand geography, and that other countries exist, and that they use different currencies, might not realize that other countries have currencies named dollars, and that USD means US Dollars. So for U.S. citizens, be specific and clear. Bottom line, if this is written for US residents, and they need to specify the currency, you need to explicitly require them to ""List the amount and currency."""


">My contention is that you should not need to pay out of pocket to be a ""good"" voter. Super. Can you show me where I *did* say that? No, you cannot, because I didn't. I said an ""educated populace."" There are many ways to achieve an educated populace."


"I'm not going to go guilting you about how I haven't had a vacation in 4 years, I've just had a completely different experience that makes me wonder how you've gotten screwed so many times. Right after relocation, I was renting cars because mine hadn't been shipped yet. I show up at the DFW Avis counter, and trade my Camry in for my new ""standard sedan (Camry or Altima)."" Turns out, the Camry and the Altima have VASTLY different trims even though you pay the same for them. When I took the Altima back, I told the nice young lady behind the counter ""if I have to drive another Altima for a week, I'm going to blow my brains out, possibly IN the Altima."" Instant upgrade to the Charger. Ever since, I've never missed with a policy of simply being nice to the agent. Agent: Alright sir, your car is in space G15. Me: I just have to ask, is G15 an Altima? Agent: It's in the Camry/Altima class. Me: But is it an Altima? Because I want to save myself the time and effort of walking to the spot, seeing that it's an Altima, and then walking back here to pay the difference to get something else. Agent: It's an Altima... *types furiously*... Ok sir, I put you in D2 at no charge, I think you'll find it's not an Altima. (Another Charger) Same situation landing in Sacramento, ""hey do you guys have a convertible available? It's Cali after all... I'll pay the difference."" Free convertible upgrade. Now, if you're driving an hour outside of DFW, it sounds like maybe you go to some out of the way places, and when you fly into Podunk Hollow they might only have one convertible in the whole place. But there's no way you book a sports car at DFW and wind up in a Kia. Also, who flies in with 3 kids in tow and needs specifically a Tahoe? I just imagine that guy would probably catch a few more Tahoes if he would reserve something he's comfortable with (like the Santa Fe) and then asking the agent in person once he arrives. The kids look tired and miserable, his wife really doesn't want to ride around in a Santa Fe all week, and hey Mr. Agent, don't you have anything that rides a little better than a Santa Fe? My back is killing me after that flight..."


Get to know the people that supply the business and their relationship to the success of the business, as well as, the customers of your business. Maintaining previous personal relationships is critical. Where reasonable keep doing things the way dad and grandpa did it with this people. Explain to them why you need to make such changes. Give them plenty of advanced notice.


People arent disagreeing with him because hes being honest, its because his comment is a bit ignorant. No one likes having shitty lazy coworkers even the people who work hard and smoke a joint when they get home. So to lump those two together is ignorant.


"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is *over*. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does *not* want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like ""this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades"", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called ""pros"" as well. If all retail financial services were described like ""dead cold cow meat"" describes ""steak"", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed ""caveat emptor"" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered ""pros""."


[Scrapbook](http://scrapgirls.com/) can be a wonderful way to corral those loved ones photographs and reminiscences into an exciting publication. Scrapbooking can be calming for you as you do it, and a enjoyment as you discuss it.Books and content on scrapbooking for 1 kid are readily available, but think you have more than 1 kid. Suppose you have 7 kids. Then you need a publication or document on how to scrapbook for more than 1 kid.


Except the state isnt actually paying anything, they are just not charging. Its not the same thing. The state doesnt lose any money by giving breaks to the factory, it's not a subsidy, and in the long run it provides more tax revenue, and all those jobs immediately provide more tax revenue. It's a no brainer for the state.


Your colleague made a simple and incorrect assumption, that as our society's technology improves, we will use that technology to replace labor with capital, keeping output constant. Clearly this is a contrived example, but it illustrates the point effectively: Suppose we have a factory that produces some level of output and employs 1000 workers. Say a technological breakthrough is developed that allows that factory to produce the same level of output using only 500 workers. Your colleague is assuming those 500 people will lose their jobs. But who is to say the factory won't just double its output? In fact, since the 'Industrial Revolution' that is precisely what we've seen. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution workers have shunned more productive capital in fear they will be replaced. Historically, that has not been the case. Society instead has used the more productive capital to produce more output.


It really depends on the type of business you are running. If there is any chance of liability, you should protect yourself with an LLC. Then it is much more difficult for them to sue and take personal assets. For example, if you are a wedding photographer, you would want to be an LLC in case you lose someones pictures.


Approach property management companies. I work for one with hundreds of properties and we need plumbers all the time. On the business side it simplifies your marketing and repeat business. We get potted flowers and candy from vendors all the time. Or they bring in pizza for lunch once a quarter to keep the relationship up.


Many people like read articles and good articles can attract more people to read and help more pelple. this article belong to good article adapt to any people read. no matter men women or children ,younger of oler .this article is very meaningful from every aspect , such article is our like .thanks you give us so good article. We will support always.


"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say ""That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?"" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have ""lost"" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to ""buy high, sell low"" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock."


"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an ""adult job"". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart."


if rent, health care, college, doctor fees, drug prescription fees, lawyer fees, car repair mechanic fees weren't so expensive, then Americans would be living the good life, enjoying cheap deflationary books on Amazon and the no-change-in-price-for-the-last-decade prices of electronics, cars, and consumer goods from Wal-mart and newegg.


Idk if I would ask on reddit, personal finance will tell you the only way is joint bank accounts and relationship advice will tell you to break up. Personally I will always want my own bank account, with a joint account for a mortgage or utilities. I think it depends on if you are both financially savvy, if one of you aren't you might want to have a joint account to keep an eye on spending. I think this site give you a good pro/con: https://www.thebalance.com/should-you-have-joint-or-separate-bank-accounts-1289664


How hard would it be to say that a company cannot pay licensing fees to a company that it owns an X% stake in (and/or owns an X% stake of it, to cover subsidiary to parent movement? . Alternatively, such transactions could be taxed as if they were a purchase between the two companies, and taxed as such. The percentage could be set high enough so as to not discourage joint ventures, but low enough to force a company to sacrifice a major chunk of the money to another unowned company if they try to abuse it.


Florida Med Doctor Office Space is the first and only reliable option for finding the right location to carry out your medical practice in Florida. We work together with a number of different medical personnel to locate prime medical real estate property that is perfect for having a medical unit.


Yes, but the US has the highest incarceration rates in the world. Why is the US suffering from high crime? If incarceration were key to a safe society we should expect different results than what's there. Creating a system that's a revolving door - where a prisoner exits the system without the tools and drive to enter the workforce, you're creating a revolving system of slavery. The prison system should include rehabilitation as its primary goal, and currently the focus is more on punishment than it is on rehabilitation.


Here is a list of threads in other subreddits about the same content: * [In Battle Over Tax Cuts, It's Republicans vs. Economists](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/71trur/in_battle_over_tax_cuts_its_republicans_vs/) on /r/Economics with 3 karma (created at 2017-09-23 00:33:00 by /u/StrngBrew) ---- ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index)-[Code](https://github.com/PokestarFan/DuplicateBot)-[Bugs](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypgmx/bugs_and_problems/)-[Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypg85/suggestion_for_duplicatesbot/)-[Block](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index#wiki_block_bot_from_tagging_on_your_posts) ^^Now ^^you ^^can ^^remove ^^the ^^comment ^^by ^^replying ^^delete!


"Before buying a new car, determine whether you really need one! If there's an automotive discussion, you should ask there FIRST to get opinions on how much all-wheel-drive helps. You may not want to change cars at all. Remember, most of us in the Northeast are NOT driving all-wheel-drive vehicles, and all cars have all-wheel brakes. All-wheel drive is better at getting you moving from a stop if one of the drive wheels would otherwise be slipping. It makes less difference during actual driving. Traction control braking is much more important -- and much more common, hence much cheaper. And probably already present in your Camry. And good tires make a huge difference. (Top-of-the-line all-season tires are adequate, but many folks do switch to snow tires during the winter and switch back again in summer.) Tires -- even if you get a second set of rims to put them on -- are a heck of a lot cheaper than changing cars. Beyond everything else, driving in winter conditions is a matter of careful practice. Most of the time, simply avoiding making sudden starts/stops/turns and not driving like you're in a video arcade (""gotta pass three more or I lose my game!"") will do the job. You'll learn the feel of how the car responds. Some basic instruction in how to handle a skid will prepare you for the relatively rare times when that happens. (Some folks actively learn by practicing skids in a nice open parking lot if they can find one; I never have but it makes some sense.) If in doubt about the driving conditions, wait until the roads have been plowed and salted. Remember, teenagers learn to do this, and they're certifiably non compos mentis; if they can do it, you can do it. Before buying a new car, determine whether you really need one!"


If I'm not mistaken, using dairy cattle to buy more dairy cattle is already common practice in Kansas. Why it is not widespread is more because the banks concerned don't have the necessary expertise to value / monitor / resell these assets when necessary. They are tricky to deal with because they grow / breed / die, unlike your house.


I am very interested to see what Market Basket's sales look like in another two months. Consumers tend to do their grocery shopping out of habit, and all a competitor (manufacturer or retailer)needs is one chance to show them a better option. Market Basket has lost many customers for good, but will this story lead to even more new customers?


That's because they literally could not help you. It's not that they were just unwilling to. A hedge fund manager might be able to do it, because the person who bet on Facebook would be willing to let him borrow their shares. An IPO in explain like I'm five: A bank helps underwrite the shares pre offering. This means they buy the shares wholesale. They buy a large majority of the company in order to offer them to the public when the stock goes public. The bank does this for profit, the company does this become it helps raise their price. The bank that underwrites the stock is legally prohibited from short selling that stock for ***at least*** 30 days before the IPO. This is to prevent the bank from trying to commit fraud by selling stock out the front door and betting against it out the back. *** So, now let's jump forward to the day of the IPO. The bank is offering stock to everyone who wants to buy it (other banks who will cut it up and sell it to more people). In order to short the stock someone must be willing to let you borrow their shares. Only the bank that underwrote it prohibited from short selling. It's possible but hard. The underwriter has the majority of the shares for the first thirty days anyways. They're just going to release enough of them to raise volume on the ticker symbol (volume is the amount of people buying and selling). The others the underwriter sold to are unwilling to let someone borrow their stock because they want to ride the price hike and shares are in short supply. So while it's possible to short shares, it's very hard. The underwriters limit the supply of shares to prevent that from happening. The underwriters can't just let you short their own shares because they are legally prohibited from it. Basically, you're left with the fact that the only person who has enough supply to let you short, is prohibited by law from letting you do it. I'm sure Morgan Stanley would have been happy to let their customers short Facebook (as long as you did it through them) to hedge their bets. But they can't.


A broker does not have to allow the full trading suite the regulations permit. From brokersXpress: Do you allow equity and index options trading in brokersXpress IRAs? Yes, we allow trading of equity and index options in IRAs based on the trading level assigned to an investor. Trading in IRAs includes call buying, put buying, cash-secured put writing, spreads, and covered calls. I understand OptionsXpress.com offers the same level of trading. Disclosure - I have a Schwab account and am limited in what's permitted just as your broker does. The trade you want is no more risky that a limit (buy) order, only someone is paying you to extend that order for a fixed time. The real answer is to ask the broker. If you really want that level of trading, you might want to change to one that permits it.


"The real question is what does FT mean by ""Eurozone Bond"". There is no central European government to issue bonds. What they seem to be quoting is the rate for German Bunds. Germany has a strong economy with a manageable debt load, which means it is a safe Euro denominated investment. Bunds are in high demand across the Eurozone, which drives their price up, and their yield down. Greek 10yr bonds, which are Euro denominated, are yielding over 8%."


Depends what type of finance you want to do but it boils down to being passionate and demonstrating your interest I.e. If you want to go into investing have a PA and invest it in individual stocks and understand why you're long or short something If you want to go into banking follow wsj bloomberg and understand what's going on w deals and companies in certain sectors you're interested in Etc


Given the ~25 year horizon for the end of oil, I fail to see how these actions will do anything but line the pockets of politicians, bureaucrats, and their friends. We will run out of oil before we make a serious reduction in CO2 emissions.


"There is no problem to set up your own""email server"", especially if you have your own website. The problem is that the interface of server based emails are really crappy and outdated. I personally still forward all of my server based email messages to Gmail, because it is way more convenient to use it."


**Here's a sneak peek of /r/AccidentalRadiohead using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/AccidentalRadiohead/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!** \#1: [Fitter Happier Jwoww](https://i.reddituploads.com/17abe64f25af42ed958ac4dda055dfc9?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=3511e074b89c14dd5f0bf9e621149d27) | [0 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AccidentalRadiohead/comments/4u9v1e/fitter_happier_jwoww/) \#2: [Accidental Thom Yorke](https://i.reddituploads.com/f6d234a64dc7432abffc2658d40f7a9e?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=78ef631d36658cfe59f4837b6e5baa82) | [4 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AccidentalRadiohead/comments/4leqek/accidental_thom_yorke/) \#3: [This guy's T-Shirt](http://i.imgur.com/j3vccNy.jpg) | [6 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AccidentalRadiohead/comments/51ft11/this_guys_tshirt/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/6l7i0m/blacklist/)


I use the following allocation in my retirement portfolio: I prefer these because: Expense Ratios Oh, and by their very definition, ETFs are very liquid. EDIT: The remaining 10% is the speculative portion of my portfolio. Currently, I own shares in HAP (as a hedge against rising commodity prices) and TIP (as a hedge against hyperinflation).


Economists are interested in incentives. Here, government set up incentives for banks to make bad loans. The banks share blame, but they were rationally responding to bad incentives. We can criticize the banks all we like, but if we'd rather fix problems than point fingers, we have to address the incentives. The incentives are the source of the problem, and government policies are the source of the incentives.


> Ignorance is unbecoming. Then why did you choose to display it? Okay so there are a variety of different drug tests and they test for different chemicals and they have different prices. The majority of drug tests issued by the majority of employers are for Marijuana because A> That is the cheapest, and B> Marijuana can be detected a few weeks after the last use. Other drugs tested for such as Cocaine, Heroine, LSD, Alcohol and so on cannot be detected more than 48 hours after usage. Basically all the drugs that are actually bad can't be detected after a few days. > All three of which can cause slowed reactions putting people in danger. Only while a person is using them. After the effects of the drug wear off they are no more dangerous than anyone else. Please, stop with your bullshit.


"If one takes a slightly more expansive view of the word ""saving"" to include most forms of durable asset accumulation, I think the reason some do and most don't is a matter of a few factors, I will include the three that seem obvious to me: Education Most schools in the US where I live do not offer personal finance courses, and even when they do, there is no opportunity for a student to practice good financial habits in that classroom setting. I think a simple assignment that required students to track every penny that they spend over the period of a few months would help them open their eyes to how much money is spent on trivial things that they don't need. Perhaps this would be more effective in a university setting where the students are usually away from home and therefore more responsible for the spending that occurs on their own behalf. Beyond simple education about personal finances, most people have no clue how the various financial markets work. If they understood, they would not allow inflation to eat away at their savings, but that's a separate topic from why people do not save. Culture Since much of the education above isn't happening, children get their primary financial education from their parents. This means that those who are wealthy teach their children how to be wealthy, and those who are poor pass on their habits to children who often also end up poor. Erroneous ideas about consumption vs. investment and its economic effects also causes some bad policy encouraging people to live beyond their means and use credit unwisely, but if you live in a country where the average person expects to eat out regularly and trade in their automobiles as soon as they experienced their highest rate of depreciation, it can be hard to recognize bad financial behavior for what it is. Collective savings rates reflect a lot of individuals who are emulating each other's bad behavior. Discipline Even when someone is educated about finances, they may not establish good habits of budgeting regularly, tracking spending, and setting financial goals. For me, it helps to be married to someone who has similar financial goals, because we budget monthly and any major purchases (over $100 or so) must be agreed upon at the beginning of the month (with obvious exceptions for emergencies). This eliminates any impulsive spending, which is probably 90% of the battle for me. Some people do not need to account to someone else in order to spend wisely, but everyone should find a system that works for them and helps them to maintain some financial discipline."


I suggest you start your own business. What kind of business? That's up to you, pick something you're interested in. Will it be successful? Probably not, but you'll learn a whole lot. Everything from creating/developing a product/service, sales, marketing, customer support, and many other things. Here is a podcast on how other people got started: http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this Edit: here is another great one: https://www.indiehackers.com/


"Hey just letting you know that I've sort of felt the same as you before. I'm not 29 yet, only a few years younger, and I too am in Alberta. Knowing that many trades can be quite lucrative here I too dipped my hand in them, namely the HVAC and Plumbing trades, and after a bit I felt that they weren't for me. And this was after using a year looking for any ins during the recession since nobody was hiring helpers/first years. During that whole year in the times I wasn't looking for a job I was researching and looking up videos of the trades and was thinking how INow after some career counseling, soul searching, all that jazz, I'm about to head back to school next week. If things go well by the time I graduate I will almost be 30 with my first (and probably only) degree. I wouldn't consider the years from the time I graduated high school to today, where I think I've figured out what I want to do, a waste, but instead I look at them as years where I grew as an adult and gaining real world experience in a few areas I've dabbled in. A future employer may look at them as wasted years, but it is up to me to spin them in a positive way as my ""story"". Just know that you aren't alone in this situation, and I'm sure there's plenty of people worldwide in their 20's and 30's who are still trying to figure out what they want to do. Keep your head up and good luck."


"This is kinda off track from what the the article is getting at, but it's related. I think now more than ever a company needs to focus on pleasing the customer. In this day and age one customer has the power to reach a million other people. Look at Reddit, we crash websites when just one person submits a link. Depending on what our intentions are this can be good or bad. I feel like the bigger companies have strayed away from this concept. With E3 in the news you can't help but see how the every day gamer views the ""bigger"" companies such as EA and Microsoft with disdain because they aren't focusing on the customers needs."


Yeah well, Wilbur Ross has serious credentials. He's a multi-billionaire who spent 24 years working for the Rothschilds. He served under U.S. President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment Fun. He was the chair of the New York Democratic Party. He's spent most of his life in the investments and commerce sector as well as raising money for liberal causes. He just happened to flip Trump this time around. So it's one of those scenarios where Trump appointed someone with the kind of chops that most people can't even compete with... if a guy of this caliber gets the numbers wrong, it's an outlier.


If you look at page 27 of their 10Q Jan 2017, it clarifies their streaming content liabilities. http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/NFLX/4914912502x0xS1628280-17-496/1065280/filing.pdf Technically, the total liabilities comes to $20b. Depending on who your accountant is, the amount can be as you have stated/referred to, but in real terms, it's higher. The magic of including <1 year vs all of it. Tesla does the same shit with their accounting.


Imagine that a fund had a large exit load that declined over several years. If you wanted to sell some or all of your investment in that fund you would face a large fee, unless you held it a long time. You would be hesitant to sell because waiting longer would save you money. That is the exact opposite of a liquid investment. Therefore the ideal level for a liquid fund is to have zero exit load.


Sounds like what you really need is a budget instead of a loan. I like following the four budgeting rules recommended by the team at YNAB. They even have software that helps you through the method even though you can use the method by itself without needing to buy the software. I'm not affiliated with them...just a happy customer! Following these simple rules has allowed me to stop living pay-check to pay-check.


Drawing down from a nest egg is predominately dealing with 3 issues: The much used withdrawal amount used to not deplete your principal is 4%. Some may argue this is too much or not enough but it is regarded as a standard amount. Seeing that you have $500k you can pull about $20k per year using this drawdown percentage. If you can live on $20k then you are set. If not you should build up this nest egg.


The endless hyperbole and straight from the elephant's mouth talking points ruin any credibility you may have. 1/4 of this post is straight out of Ailes' mouth. TL;DR you're being downvoted because you're not contributing a single thing to the discussion, not because you're a Republican.


Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.


"There is considerable truth to what your realtor said about the Jersey City NJ housing market these days. It is a ""hot"" area with lots of expensive condos being bought up by people working on Wall Street in NYC (very easy commute by train, etc) and in many cases, the offers to purchase can exceed the asking price significantly. Be that as is may, the issue with accepting a higher offer but smaller downpayment is that when the buyer's lender appraises the property, the valuation might come in lower and the buyer may have to come up with the difference, or be required to accept a higher interest rate, or be refused the loan altogether if the lender estimates that the buyer is likely to default on the loan because his credit-worthiness is inadequate to support the monthly payments. So, the sale might fall through. Suppose that the property is offered for sale at $500K, and consider two bids, one for $480K with 30% downpayment ($144K) and another for $500K with 20% downpayment ($100K). If the property appraises for $450K, say, and the lender is not willing to lend more than 80% of that ($360K), then Buyer #1 is OK; it is only necessary to borrow $480K - $144K = $336K, while Buyer #2 needs to come up with another $40K of downpayment to be able to get the loan, or might be asked to pay a higher interest rate since the lender will be lending more than 80% of the appraised value, etc. Of course, Buyer #2's lender might be using a different appraiser whose valuation might be higher etc, but appraisals usually are within the same ballpark. Furthermore, good seller's agents can make good estimates of what the appraisal is likely to be, and if the asking price is larger than the agent's estimate of appraised value, then it might be to the advantage of the selling agent to recommend accepting the lower offer with higher downpayment over the higher offer with smaller downpayment. The sale is more likely to go through, and an almost sure 6% of $480K (3% if there is a buyer's agent involved) in hand in 30 days time is worth more than a good chance of nothing at the end of 15 days when the mortgage is declined, during which the house has been off the market on the grounds that the sale is pending. If you really like a house, you need to decide what you are willing to pay for it and tailor your offer accordingly, keeping in mind what your buyer's agent is recommending as the offer amount (the higher the price, the more the agent's commission), how much money you can afford to put down as a downpayment (don't forget closing costs, including points that might be need to be paid), and what your pre-approval letter says about how much mortgage you can afford. If you are Buyer #1, have a pre-approval letter for $360K, and have enough savings for a downpayment of up to $150K, and if you (or your spouse!) really, really, like the place and cannot imagine living in any other place, then you could offer $500K with 30% down (and blow the other offer out of the water). You could even offer more than $500K if you want. But, this is a personal decision. What your realtor said is perfectly true in the sense that for Y > Z, an offer at $X with $Y down is better than an offer at $X with $Z down. It is to a certain extent true that for W > X, a seller would find an offer at $X with $Y down to be more attractive that an offer at $W with $Z$ down, but that depends on what the appraisal is likely to be, and the seller's agent's recommendations."


Theres a reason there making minimum wage to begin with. The job requires no skill and is for teenagers with MINIMUM skill. There is a reason the job is made for teenagers and not adults trying to support a family. Also raising minimum wage is gonna hurt there employees as they will higher less and have to raise prices on there products just to pay there genius stockboys and genius checkout workers who are solving world hunger.


"My personal rule is to not loan money (or co-sign) for any amount that I am not willing to give away. It can go wrong in so many ways, and having a family or friend involved means making a ""business"" decision is difficult. If a bank won't loan the person the money, why should I? Being a co-signer is the same as borrowing the money in my name and giving it right over to the borrower. There might be great reasons to do it. I would probably sign a loan to keep my family alive or healthy, but no other reason. There are many ways to help without signing a loan. Give a room and a place to live, loan a car. The other thing is if you really truly believe in the borrower, it won't do long term damage to your credit or your financial goals, and you are the only resort; go ahead. I am thinking about helping a teenager afford their first car or student loans."


With your wife's income, you're not doing to see a net difference if she stops working that job. You may actually yield a little more. At the end of the day, it's doable, but you're going to have to rationalize your spending and one or both of you should pick up a part-time job. Do you remember the last time you bought lunch or went out to dinner? You're wasting money. Even a 50% gig at a quality employer like Starbucks or Home Depot will let you make $15-20k. I respect your religious beliefs, but 17% of your income is steep, and you may want to revisit that.


"Perhaps the real question you are asking is ""How can the tax code be fixed to make it simple for everyone (including me), and what would it take to effect those changes""? There are really two causes for the complexity of the tax code. Many of those who enter Government hold a desire for power, and Government uses the tax code as one lever of power to distribute largess to their supporters, and to nudge everyone to behaviors which they favor. The current system enables incumbents to spend taxpayer money to reward those they favor, and thus they accumulate power and security. Those who enter Government also love to spend money (especially other people's money), and their rapacious behavior recognizes no boundaries. They will spend money without control until the taxpayers yank them to a brutal stop. They enact complex rules which are used to ease the (tax) burden for some, which buys their support (with taxpayer money), and they spend money to benefit those which they favor. The system of lobbyists and contributors exists to entice Government to treat them and the causes they support favorably. This system enables incumbents to spend taxed money to reward those they favor, and to tax those they disfavor. Thus their greed is satisfied, and their power is increased. The freedom you seek is not available, although you can minimize the effort required for compliance. You can take the standard deduction, and use nothing but the W-2 provided by your employer, and unless you are subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax, you will find that the tax software will do most of the work for you. Do you want to approach the Nirvana of minimal effort to appease your tax collectors? Avoid starting your own business, charitable donations, investment income, 1099 income, and you will need minimal paperwork. Avoid earning enough to risk the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax). Refuse to take the mortgage interest deduction, tax credits for electric vehicles, tax credits for high-efficiency appliances and air conditioners, tax credits for residential solar panel installations. Do not own investments which pay interest, or own stocks where you need to track the ""basis"" (purchase price) of the stocks, nor buy and then sell valuable items that might gain value (where you would need to track the purchase price, the ""basis""). Avoid owning and leasing a rental home for income, deducting businesses expenses and mileage for business purposes, contributions to a retirement plan (outside an employer plan) -- all complicate your tax filing. The solution you truly desire is either a ""Flat Tax"" or the ""Fair Tax"". These solutions would effect either a single tax rate (with no deductions or adjustments to income, yeah right), or a national retail sales tax, which would tax the money spent in the economy regardless of the source of the money (legal, gifts, crime) and there would be no need to report income, or classify it. The largest objection to either is that the tax code might become less ""progressive"" (increasing tax rate with increasing income). Good Luck!"


In Canada a good site is: redflagdeals.com


Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result


Well, a couple things to keep in mind: Even if you have enough to meet the minimum initial amount, you need to have at least that much income in the year you make the contribution. You'll probably be best served saving up in a savings account so that by the time you have an income (and can thus make contributions), you have enough cash to meet the minimum initial contribution.


Are you doing the right thing? Yes, paying back some of the expense of college is a great way to show your gratitude. Could your sister also pitch in a little to help pay the debt down? Will you get approved for a $30,000 unsecured loan? You don't mention your credit rating but that will have an effect obviously. You might consider visiting a credit union with your father and co-signing a loan since it is his debt that you are assuming. You might still want to write a loan for your dad to sign even if he isn't co-signed on a loan. This could protect you in case of his death if there are other assets to divide. If you are not approved for a loan, you could also simply join your dad in paying down the highest-rate cards first and have a loan agreement for him to pay back that money if/when it is possible. You've mentioned that you have no collateral. There aren't many options for loans with no collateral. Your dad's bank or a credit union might consider a debt consolidation loan with you as a co-signer. That's why I mentioned going to a credit union. Talking to a loan officer at a local financial institution will make it easier to get approved. If they see that you are taking responsible steps to pay off the debt, that reduces your credit risk. If you do get a debt consolidation loan, they will probably ask your dad to close some credit card accounts.


I use Yelp occasionally. I still haven't seen the problem. Typically I read the good and bad reviews. I understand that there are many instances of apparent abuse but honestly, I've never run into them when looking a place up. So yeah, it sucks that this happens but I still don't see it as a big deal overall.


Important to take note that Buffett is not directly investing in real estate. He bought a lot of stock in a real estate company that owns a lot of real estate (a REIT). Buffett typically buys stocks in companies that have good fundamentals in industries where he sees potential for growth. So indirectly he is betting on real estate, but holding stock in a REIT is much different than owning properties.


"Welcome to America! This country is not meant to be a free ride. I personally (single, ""native"" male) pay a significant amount each year to Uncle Sam and receive no benefits at all. Where do ""natives"" sign up for the free stuff?!"


"Some companies issue multiple classes of shares. Each share may have different ratios applied to ownership rights and voting rights. Some shares classes are not traded on any exchange at all. Some share classes have limited or no voting rights. Voting rights ratios are not used when calculating market cap but the market typically puts a premium on shares with voting rights. Total market cap must include ALL classes of shares, listed or not, weighted according to thee ratios involved in the company's ownership structure. Some are 1:1, but in the case of Berkshire Hathaway, Class B shares are set at an ownership level of 1/1500 of the Class A shares. In terms of Alphabet Inc, the following classes of shares exist as at 4 Dec 2015: When determining market cap, you should also be mindful of other classes of securities issued by the company, such as convertible debt instruments and stock options. This is usually referred to as ""Fully Diluted"" assuming all such instruments are converted."


The turbo kit is mainly used in OEM applications such as Audi. It also has forged mill compressor wheel, which brings numerous benefits to the exhaust. The technology used in the production of the turbos which provides a variety of benefits like reduction in the wheel weight of a reduced compressor, increased strength, and greater surface area of the compressor wheel.


That we can both agree on :-). I still get annoyed when people talk about the Federal Govt getting involved in monetary policy and conversely the Fed Reserve implementing fiscal policy. There's nothing wrong discussing economic policies, I just wish people at least people studied Macro 101 before arguing about economics.


> People should come before profits. The entire Corporate Charter process is in United States law. It does say profit comes before people, it's called fiduciary responsibility. I haven't seen any political parties rise around this topic -- so I'd assume corporations hurting people isn't as big as Reddit makes it out? Otherwise most Americans would change how they vote and find a new party?


Not really money related, but: how long are you going to be staying there? Once your wife graduates, would you be potentially moving to another area, or needing to move to be closer to where she works? If so, you might want to wait until after she graduates and you know where you'll be, before putting down money on large stationary items like houses.


"These are two different ways of processing payments. They go through different systems many times, and are treated differently by the banks, credit card issuers and the stores. Merchants pay different fees on transactions paid by debit cards and by credit cards. Debit transactions require PIN, and are deducted from your bank account directly. In order to achieve that, the transaction has to reach the bank in real time, otherwise it will be declined. This means, that the merchant has to have a line of communications open to the relevant processor, that in turn has to be able to connect to the bank and get the authorization - all that while on-line. The bank verifies the PIN, authorizes the transaction, and deducts the amount from your account, while you're still at the counter. Many times these transactions cannot be reversed, and the fraud protections and warranties are different from credit transactions. Credit transactions don't have to go to your card issuer at all. The merchant can accept credit payment without calling anyone, and without getting prior authorizations. Even if the merchant sends the transaction for authorization with its processor, if the processor cannot reach the issuing bank - they can still approve the transaction under certain conditions. This is, however, never true with debit cards (even if used as ""credit""). They're not deducted from your bank account, but accumulated on your credit card account. They're posted there when the actual transaction reaches the card issuer, which may be many days (and even many months) after the transaction took place. Credit transactions can be reversed (in some cases very easily), and enjoy from a higher level of fraud protection. In some countries (and most, if not all, of the EU) fraudulent credit transactions are never the consumer's problem, always the bank's. Not so with debit transactions. Banks may be encouraging you to use debit for several reasons: Merchants will probably prefer credit because: Consumers will probably be better off with credit because:"


> The level of economic ignorance in this thread is astounding. 1) You don’t pay taxes when you buy, you pay them when you sell (capital gains). Gains imply that on net assets were bought rather than sold. 2) The determining factor for paying down debts is the government’s decision not stock market performance. There is no causal relationship.


- ETFs make money through management fees. You can look it up: they all skim off a little bit of its profit, normally <1%. - It's all about cheap diversification. People generally don't have the capital to invest individually in each equity to mimic an ETF's portfolio. - Yes, but you need a lot of money. For example: You can't just invest $1 in GOOG if you want to buy a tech sector ETF.


Half of working age men out of the workforce aren't taking it for pain. They are taking it to catch a buzz. I STRONGLY believe that cannabis is a better answer. The amount you would have to smoke to lead to emphysema is ridiculous. That's what chain smokers get.


While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group. (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.) That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage. IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan. (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.) That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine. If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me. I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements. The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan. That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan. And vice-versa. Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property.


The reason your scheme fails is because you're attempting to make all bonds trade at their face value plus interest, regardless of the credit of the issuer. In all of your examples, you're suggesting I can pay my bill to the electric company using bonds from XYZ corp. Does my electric company have a right to refuse XYZ Corp bonds as payment and demand other payment? If they do have a right to refuse payment, it is almost a certainty my electric company will have no interest in poring over the books of XYZ Corp or MomAndPop's Country Diner in order to decide whether they accept or reject the payment. They will simply reject it and demand cash. If they can NOT refuse to accept the payment, then you will immediately have all sorts of shell corps who's only purpose is to accumulate debt and act as a free money printing press for some other shadowy entity. In both cases, your plan fails.


Never take the first quote. Consider what it would really cost to replace the house -- to rebuild and pay for living while you do so (including demolition, etc.) and/or pay off the mortgage and return your equity if it is a financed property. Most insurances will have a limit on how much coverage you can get based on the property value and your goods value estimates. Shop around for a company that will give you a good price but also good customer service and a smooth claims process. They should be solvent (able to pay your claim if, say, a tornado hit the whole neighborhood). And they should cover your reasonable replacement costs. And remember, insurance is about the big losses like fires. Know what you are comfortable self insuring (higher or lower deductibles, optional coverages, etc.) and you will have an easier time getting the coverage you need for the price you want to pay.


"I suspect this is a function of deregulated banks' desire to write and flip as many mortgages as possible. The best targets for this sales push were naturally those with the most education, who tended to have the best credit ratings and most secure jobs. The last time I bought a house, the mortgage salesman practically lit up when looking at my income and credit score, pushing me hard to borrow more. ""You could buy a lot more house than this!"" he said. ""You could buy apartments as an investment or for resale!"" I resisted temptation, thank heaven, but it's all too easy to see how millions of others didn't."


I'm interested in corporate finance. Can you recommend some great inexpensive online courses for financial modeling training? (maybe something that you took and highly recommend. If no, I'll look up for them myself) I want to get familiar with it first. Don't wanna spend too much and mess up.


This can be done, you can be prosecuted for some forms of it, in any case there are more riskless ways of doing what you suggested. First, buying call options from market makers results in market makers buying shares at the same delta as the call option. (100 SHARES X DELTA = How many shares MM's bought). You can time this with the volume and depth of the shares market to get a bigger resulting move caused by your options purchase to get bigger quote changes in your option. So on expiration day you can be trade near at the money options back and forth between being out the money and in the money. You would exit the position into liquidity at a profit. The risk here is that you can be sitting on a big options position, where the commissions costs get really big, but you can spread this out amongst several options contracts. Second, you can again take advantage of market maker inefficiencies by getting your primary position (whether in the share market or options market) placed, and then your other position being a very large buy order a few levels below the best bid. Many market makers and algorithms will jump in front of your, they think they are being smart, but it will raise the best bid and likely make a few higher prints for the mark, raising the price of your call option. And eventually remove your large buy order. Again, you exit into liquidity. This is called spoofing. There have been some regulatory actions against people in doing this in the last few years. As for consequences, you need to put things into perspective. US capital market regulators have the most nuanced regulations and enforcement actions of worldwide capital market regulators, and even then they get criticized for being unable or unwilling to curb these practices. With that perspective American laws are basically a blueprint on what to do in 100 other country's stock exchanges, where the legislature has never gotten around to defining the same laws, the securities regulator is even more underfunded and toothless, and the markets more inefficient. Not advice, just reality.


">Corporations should be able to ""oppress"" as much as they want This is incredibly short sighted, and even if I kept the rest of your quote, it wouldn't change that. You are tacitly handing over control over our civil rights to anonymous people in a boardroom. We won't let the government oppress us, but Wal Marts fine? The rights we have are only effective if we are able to use them in real life. If our lives are dominated by corporations who take away our rights at every turn, we don't have access to those rights anymore. The Bill of Rights is a document designed to protect people from Tyranny. Corporations don't get a pass on having to treat people fairly because they weren't elected. How can we sit an decry Donald Trump and let thousands of people who are just like him oppress from the boardroom? Your position is born out of fear and a desire for retribution, and you ignore the consequences of setting precedent that allows corporations shut down speech they don't like."


You get to drink water? Where I grew up it got to 140 in the winter, and we had to drink our own sweat, or our coworkers, if we were lucky! And that was only during our one break per week! :)


>The heat from the data center cannot be harnessed aside of providing some of this heating, or to help with the heating of domestic water. Overall, exceptionally little of it is useful. I'm admittedly dense, I'm still not clear on why this is.


Deduction for Health Checkup is allowed under Section 80D and is allowed to everyone whether Salaried or Business/Professional. However, Exemption for Medical Reimbursement of Rs. 15000 is allowed under a different section. A salaried employee can take benefit of both Medical Reimbursement of Rs. 15,000 as well as Preventive Health Check-up of Rs. 5,000. Source: Tax Deduction for Health Check-up


Invest in growth stocks which do not pay any dividends (Note that some part of the dividends issued by a corporation might be from interest received by the company and passed on to you as a dividend); Buy a house from a bank that practices Islamic Banking. See this question which you yourself answered a few weeks ago to understand how this works.


If you seek a company that will understand and build a Custom Home Building Naples that offers solutions to the lifestyle and needs your family has, then look no further than Palmer Homes. We are a call away on 239-898-2460.


You will have to rebalance every time your Boolean Buy flag is true. You buy 20% of each fund then next week you have to sell down to 10% of your first 5 funds and buy 10% of the second 5.


So for each thousand dollars saved you will earn $1.50 more each year. It is up to you to decide whether it is worth the hassle.


Google Finance portfolios take into account splits and cash deposits/withdrawals.


"I'd agree that this can seem a little unfair, but it's an unavoidable consequence of the necessary practicality of paying out dividends periodically (rather than continuously), and differential taxation of income and capital gains. To see more clearly what's going on here, consider buying stock in a company with extremely simple economics: it generates a certain, constant earnings stream equivalent to $10 per share per annum, and redistributes all of that profit as periodic dividends (let's say once annually). Assume there's no intrinsic growth, and that the firm's instrinsic value (which we'll say is $90 per share) is completely neutral to any other market factors. Under these economics, this stock price will show a ""sawtooth"" evolution, accruing from $90 to $100 over the course of a year, and resetting back down to $90 after each dividend payment. Now, if I am invested in this stock for some period of time, the fair outcome would be that I receive an appropriately time-weighted share of the $10 annual earnings per share, less my tax. If I am invested for an exact calendar year, this works as I'd expect: the stock price on any given day in the year will be the same as it was exactly one year earlier, so I'll realise zero capital gain, but I'll have collected a $10 taxed dividend along the way. On the other hand, what if I am invested for exactly half a year, spanning a dividend payment? I receive a dividend payment of $10 less tax, but I make a capital loss of -$5. Overall, pre-tax, I'm up $5 per share as expected. However, the respective tax treatment of the dividend payment (which is classed as income) and the capital gains is likely to be different. In particular, to benefit from the ""negative"" taxation of the capital loss I need to have some positive capital gain elsewhere to offset it - if I can't do that, I'm much worse off compared to half the full-year return. Further, even if I can offset against a gain elsewhere the effective taxation rates are likely to be different - but note that this could work for or against me (if my capital gains rate is greater than my income tax rate I'd actually benefit). And if I'm invested for half a year, but not spanning a dividend, I make $5 of pure capital gains, and realise a different effective taxation rate again. In an ideal world I'd agree that the effective taxation rate wouldn't depend on the exact timing of my transactions like this, but in reality it's unavoidable in the interests of practicality. And so long as the rules are clear, I wouldn't say it's unfair per se, it just adds a bit of complexity."


I don't see how that would be an issue in any way. Referral bonuses are very common. I'm a little confused as to why you think this might be an issue (or why there would be advice to get a lawyer)... this is called networking. Growing a business requires contacts you can rely on. Make sure you're confident in his work, as your clients will likely not be happy with you if he doesn't perform well.


"Listen guys. The TPP only benefits multi nationals. Don't let this propaganda make you think that somehow ""small farmers"" would benefit from a deal that no one has seen, can't read, can't edit, cannot debate, can't change, doesn't sunset and you can't get out of it. Also, pro TPP ""opinion influencers"" don't speak to me or you will be flagged as spam. Edit: spelling"


"Stock price is set to the price with the highest transaction volume at any given time. The stock price you cited was only valid in the last transaction on a specific stock exchange. As such it is more of an ""historic"" value. Next trade will be done with the next biggest volume. Depending on the incoming bids and asks this could be higher or lower, but you can assume it will not be too far off if there is no crash underway. Simple example stock exchange:"


If you expect to pay tax on dividends move dividend producing assets into your ISA. If have a lot of investments you can Look at Zeros (zero dividend preference share) issued by splits (split capital trusts), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_capital_investment_trust


"People act like lawsuits are the end of the world, her suing shouldn't be considered a threat, it should be considered the accurate course of action to resolve contractual obligations. Of course, it would be convenient if she did nothing at all! If you believe her real goal is to ""get it off her credit"", then have her come refinance with you. This will give you the opportunity to not have her on it and you to get different terms. Of course, if your credit still is poor then this option also exacerbates the inconvenience. None of the options sounds like they will ruin your credit (unless you are scrounging for cash through credit facilities to pay her off). You have several completely benign options available."


Yeah, that's what I hear. I was mostly just screwing around today. I'm an options trader which allows me to make a bit higher returns. I really don't like the setup interface this thing uses, and I ended up just trading market orders for the hell of it all day. I made about 3% today. Still learning the interface and how to maximize use.


I assume having real estate in a good popular city is much more secure way of keeping money than having it in a bank account Not at all! Many things can go wrong with rental property. Renters can be late on rent, they can cause damage to property, you can have unexpected repairs. I'm not saying that you should just let it sit, but rental property is not risk-free my any means. Are you prepared to be a landlord as a part time job (for 500/mo?). Rental property is not passive income - it takes work to maintain. You can outsource this to a property manager, but that eats into the 500/mo that you are estimating). I want to stay flexible and have a possibility to change my location whenever I want. That's a perfectly reasonable reason not to buy a home, but what will you do with the rental when you move? It will still need maintenance, you'll still need to interact with renters, etc. I'm not saying you shouldn't do this, but I get the feeling that you are not fully aware of the risks involved in rental properties.


You can also use ICS<GO> on Bloomberg and choose the right category (many subcategories, probably you'll start on home builders or something like that). If that doesn't work, press F1 twice and ask it to an analyst. I'm sure they have this info.


There is a funny story about that. If you were visiting Apple and Jobs was taking you to lunch in the cafe - he would insist on paying. Employees, get to checkout and have their badge scanned and the cost of the food is deducted from their paycheck. So why did Steve always insist on treating for lunch? He was enjoying all he (and guests) could eat for $1 a year.


My statement doesn't need a source. CEOs are literally people that are in charge of entire companies. Not everyone can do that. You, on the other hand, provided a statement with out any information to back it up. When you try to refute an argument with facts you need to give a source. I'm not going to try to prove you're right. If you're going to contradict someone, give them sources.


You are grossly wrong. COL differences are nowhere that big. Especially for a younger person, for which buying a house is not on the table. I've done the math - I had to, as I received a bay area offer. The cost of most of the things you spend money on (travel, household items, material goods) will hardly change. It's only housing, which is not a big enough of a expense to come even close to your outlandish claim. I'm tired of people who have no cold hard facts and simply parrot what they've heard elsewhere regarding this situation. If you don't know what your talking about, it's best you keep your mouth closed.


Mainly because I have it and you don't, I can make you do stuff for it because more of us perceive its value than bother about the paper you are holding. Picture if you will a moment in time, when the paper you are holding, represented the amount of gold you had at home, as time went by you spent all your gold and the amount the paper represented, became less and less and the amount of lunch you could buy with it became less and less. Today the day has arrived, that you have no gold left and what your paper represents is an empty coffer . . Move along . .people who can pay for their lunch are waiting and look, the paper they hold represents gold they have.


hell even the gulf arab states are doing...well they are somewhat functional. Canada doesn't suffer from a curse. Australia produces nothing but commodities yet still does well. Japan has no resources. korea doesn't either, were colonized and still have done decently. look at the difference between Haiti and DR. same land. but the Dominicans aren't really black.


When I moved banks. I had my old bank cut a cashier's check. It isn't a check you write. They write it and give it to you. I then took the cashier's check to my new bank to deposit it.


Our seasonal worker program is broken. Only 5% of foreign farm workers use it and the rest come illegally because it's impossible to clear the system. If we had something in place to easily get people in and out of the country to work the fields I would agree but that system for us doesn't exist.


"1. Transcript: http://www.henrygeorgeschool.org/uploads/Smart_Talk_Transcript_Interview_Roberts_v02.pdf Source: http://www.henrygeorgeschool.org/Smart_Talk_TV.html 2. (a) ""[The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits](http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html)"" by Milton Friedman, published on 13 September 1970: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html Mirror: http://web.archive.org/web/20030130073709/www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html (b) ""[Maximizing shareholder value: The goal that changed corporate America](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_singlePage.html)"" by Jia Lynn Yang, published on 26 August 2013: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/maximizing-shareholder-value-the-goal-that-changed-corporate-america/2013/08/26/26e9ca8e-ed74-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_singlePage.html 3. http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1kpbd6/oligarchic_tendencies_study_finds_only_the/cbrhf0y 4. http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/28yio0/tech_industry_job_ads_older_workers_need_not_apply/cifoej1 5. ""[The West on the wrong path: In view of the events in Ukraine, the government and many media have switched from level-headed to agitated. The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the width of a sniper scope. The politics of escalation does not have a realistic goal -- and harms German interests.](http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kommentare/essay-in-englisch-the-west-on-the-wrong-path/v_detail_tab_print/10308406.html)"" by Gabor Steingart, published on 8 August 2014: http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kommentare/essay-in-englisch-the-west-on-the-wrong-path/v_detail_tab_print/10308406.html Source: http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kommentare/essay-in-englisch-the-west-on-the-wrong-path/10308406.html Via: http://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kommentare/politik-der-eskalation-der-irrweg-des-westens-/10308844.html"


Ya BK is definitely not the enemy here. It was a smart business decision and if the US doesn't want to lost key businesses and industries to overseas they need to work with companies to come up with a tax structure that's realistic rather than charging damn near half for the top tier marginal rate and calling companies unAmerican for wanting to leave.


"Plenty! Following are just a few: For things like RESP and RRSP which have an ""end"" date; as you or your children age, you should be migrating to less speculative investments and more secure ones. When children are young, for example, you might be in a ""growth"" type fund. Later on, you would likely want to switch that to an ""income"" fund, which is also more conservative and less likely to lose principal. Are you getting the best benefit from your credit cards? Is there another card with benefits that you would get more ""back"" from using? Is that fee-based Air miles card worth it? Is cash-back better for you? If you have regular investment withdrawals, can you increase them? Do you like the plan they are going in to? Similarly look over any other long-term debt repayment. Student loans, car loans, mortgage. What is coming up this year, what is ""ending"". If, for example, car payment will end, how will you earmark that money, so it just does not disappear into general funds. While you could go over things like these more often, once a year should be plenty often to keep tabs and not obsess. Good Luck!"


I am in the same boat as this guy. Laugh all you want, but I am not racist either. I love what African-Americans have done for our country. Their culture has made a HUGE impact on our country. But to suggest there aren't MAJOR issues facing their community and to suggest America would be same if Anglo-Saxons had not been running the show for the last 200 years, is naive. While we try to figure out how to solve the problems that plague our African-American community, we need to be careful. Let's encourage the efforts of people who made our country great over the actions of people who make our country not so great


Lotto Playing To Win is the top source for Lottery strategy in the USA. We have turned thousands of lottery losers into winners and made hundreds of people rich. We are the only lottery systems that have been credited with winning dozens of first prize lottery lotto jackpots. If you want to many strategies for winning the lottery then you should read the Lotto Playing to Win E-Book. You can get this book on our website lottoplayingtowin and you can order online.


You need to keep in mind that there's an exemption amount of more than $5M (five million) dollars for estate tax. Unless you used all of it for gifts during your life time, it will more than cover all of your $70K estate, so there's no need in any additional planning. As to Roth vs Traditional IRA - if you want to leave something to your siblings, leave them the Roth. Why would you give the taxable income to your siblings when you can give them the nontaxable one? Charities are tax exempt anyway.


"Daniel covered the correct way to file on the returns, I'm chiming in specifically to discuss the question of whether it could be a gift. The IRS will classify it as a tip even if the person giving it says it's a gift if a service was rendered before the gift was given. The only way that you could make a case to the IRS that it was a gift is if you have a personal relationship outside of the working environment, and the person giving the gift provides an explanation for the motivation behind the gift. Such explanations as ""Happy Birthday"" or ""Congratulations on graduating"" or other special occasions could be gifts. But ""you did a good job, and I just want to reward you for your effort"" is not a reason someone gives a gift, and the IRS will penalize you if you do not have evidence that it was a gift rather than a tip."


[Evidence?](http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=17) What you are asking for is evidence based on theoreticals. You can’t have that evidence unless it has actually been tried. So what you get instead is the same thing we see in Congress: a discussion of theoreticals. The biggest problem is the way we react to taxes changed based on the current circumstances we are in. Our circumstances have yet to repeat themselves. We are s relatively young country. Good luck finding evidence to support either side. Instead, look for and debate good arguments from each side.


"> Thank you for the wealth of information! Sure, I hope my opinions are food for thought. > 1) Does that basically translate to ""less tax on poor/wealthy...to promote entrepreneurship? No, your typical entrepreneur is a smart, disgruntled employee who thinks they have a better way to do a job. If you want more entrepreneurs, you should do things to help them succeed in a new company and minimize the risk. Some ways to do this: * Create a government agency that offers programs that help new companies. Guidance and funding are obvious candidates. Advertising for small local business would help too. One of the most important would be getting complementing talent together because a start-up needs the talents of at least four different people to have a good chance of succeeding. * Establish guaranteed health care. A 40-something with a wife and kids may have a great idea but can't risk to leave his family with no health insurance for the two years it would take to get his idea off the ground. * Better enforce anti-trust law. I believe small companies are stifled by big companies because the latter control too much of the market. If you want competitive markets you need to either break-up or handcuff and monitor the big players. * Create a better safety net. It is a lot easier to go on your own if you know at least you won't starve. > 2) Rich using money to grow their own wealth. But wouldn't that mean as a byproduct, jobs will be made? In theory, yes, but I believe in practice the opposite happens. Big companies can make significantly more money hoarding their market share rather than branching into new markets. Here's a true story of my last company with names changed: Company A makes widgets. Company B makes bookkeeping software for tracking widgets and is very successful, controlling a majority of the market. Company A buys Company B at an inflated price. The government allows the sale on the condition that Company A does not use Company B's information on the widget market to gain an unfair advantage. Company A agrees and the buyout takes place. Company A then approaches all of Company B's customers and says, ""Let us look at the data on your bookkeeping software and we will give you a 5% discount."" Most customers agree so Company A now has all the data controlled by Company B but this is not illegal because they got it from Company B's customers, not company B. Company A proceeds to undercut the market because it now knows exactly how much their competitors widgets sell for. Company A now controls a majority of the widget market and their market share continues to grow rapidly. By the way [here is that Bloomberg article I described earlier about repatriation being about buyouts](https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-05-08/theory-of-tax-repatriation-is-better-than-the-reality). >> Take home money is used for investment. It isn't. > 3) I don't think I understand this one at all. Will you rephrase it for me? The argument is that we need to tax corporations less so they can invest more. Here's the problem -- investments are not taxed. A corporation's tax is a percentage of their gross income minus their expenses. Investment is an expense. Therefore the more they invest, the lower their tax bill. If you want companies to invest more, raise their tax rate. > 4) I did hear from my professor and the educational videos he had shown us that the capital tax is one of the highest among the other OECD nations. I need to walk back what I said earlier. The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest. Does that mean US corporations pay the most tax? Well, [it's complicated](http://www.npr.org/2017/08/07/541797699/fact-check-does-the-u-s-have-the-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-the-world). > ...why can't we just close loop-holes instead of choosing to slash capital tax? Note that those go in opposite directions. Closing loopholes would make companies pay more. Slashing capital tax would have them pay less. Perhaps doing both would be revenue neutral. I would be in support of that because I suspect loopholes benefit big companies a lot more than small ones because they have the resources to find and exploit those loopholes. That said, people in power have been talking for 20 years about ""closing the loopholes"". They never do. [CGP Gray has an excellent video explaining why these loopholes are not going anywhere anytime soon](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs). > 5) I think it's in each company's best interest to further their own agenda, and that agenda usually means bad for the majority. Yes, that's a much better way of saying what I meant. > Thank you in advance for your time. Sure, thanks for thinking, asking questions, and making up your own mind."


The spot curve (or yield curve) demonstrates the different yields at which bonds of differing maturities are being purchased. When the yield curve is upward sloping, longer maturity bonds are being purchased at higher yields. When it's downward sloping, longer maturity bonds are purchased at lower yields. Keep in mind that yield is inversely related to price, so that a high-yield bond will be at a lower price and vice versa. The spot curve can also be used to determine the forward curve. This is based on the concept that an investor, given two options with identical cash flows, will be indifferent in what to purchase (i.e. their prices should be equal). To learn more about this, stay here in /r/finance. To learn anything about your actual question, try /r/personalfinance.


This professionally accredited course is designed to help you the confidence and business acumen necessary to develop, position and build businesses in the most strategically effective way. We aim to provide a Business marketing understanding of business analysis, planning, and management, alongside specialist marketing skills, such as understanding customer behavior, developing creative solutions and how to promote competitive advantage.


"Question: Why is ""negative equity"" on a home such a huge deal? Whether or not your home equity/mortgage balance is positive or negative, it's not like your monthly payments are changing at all, right? Regardless of if you have a mortgage or were renting an apartment, you'd still have to pay to live there, right? If every month you're still going to be out $1000 one or another, some equity is better than no equity right?"