One significant reason it makes sense for filing to be the default is home ownership rates. I think far more so than investment income, Americans own homes: as there is a significant mortgage interest deduction, between that and investments a large number of Americans would have to file (about a third of Americans get the mortgage interest tax deduction, and a large chunk of the richest don't qualify but would have to file for investments anyway). We also have a very complicated tax code, with nearly everyone getting some kind of deduction. Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor (folks making, say, $30k for a family of 4 with a full-time job get several thousand dollars in refundable credits, for example), the Student Loan interest deduction, the above mortgage deduction, almost everyone gets something. Finally, your employer may not know about your family situation. As we have tax credits and deductions for families based on number of children, for example, it's possible your employer doesn't know about those (if you don't get health insurance on their behalf, they may well not know). Start reporting things like that separately... and you end up with about as much work as filing is now.


Pull another Cabrini-Green. Except for the second most populated city, with the poorest people, in Lake county. I live in the county and my taxes are 50% higher fore property when compared to the neighboring counties. The problem is real. It has the largest rail line in the world. Lake Michigan lake front is for Steel. You cannot take away more of it to give to another corporation. 80/94 is constantly under construction. Amazon doesn't want Gary. That laughable. The would rather go to Indianapolis. Land, highway, airport, rail. All these things could support it. Until the riff-raff is moved out don't consider Gary for anything.


"> Obamcare better. If you've spent 8 years telling people the ACA was [""the worst thing since slavery""](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/10/11/ben-carson-obamacare-worst-thing-since-slavery/?utm_term=.ec9803ccef47), you can't *now* turn around and say ""yeah we can work with this"". Painted themselves in a corner."


"Check the transactions costs, ""Desk fees"" and the whole structure, sit down with them and list everything. Then make a spreadsheet and calculate all the stuff they hit you with and figure out how good you have to be in trading to make money, (in terms of accuracy and p/l)."


I mean, yeah, that is true. Your point is a valid concern and I do think it could potentially reduce the number of EU students studying in the U.K. It is something the British need to keep an eye on over the next decade. But think about it ... to go to the US to study as a European, you need a student visa as well and our influx of foreign students coming to study in America continues to grow. You need a student visa to go pretty much anywhere in the world besides the 28 EU countries. I think the main factor is having a strong university network as a nation and the U.K. definitely has that. They had it before the EU was even created. As long as the U.K. has that strong education foundation, people will continue to study there. Not to mention, students go for the added benefit of improving their English skills. https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/12/record-number-of-international-students-studying-in-u-s/%3famp=1


"Depending on what your other deductions are and the amount you are wanting to donate, you can save some money by ""batching"" deductions into every other year. For example, if you are single in 2015, the standard deduction is $6,300. This means the first $6,300 in deductions you have basically don't ""matter"" because the standard deduction is larger. You only ""count"" itemized deductions greater than $6,300. Let's imagine you are donating $10k in 2015 and 2016 and have no other itemized deductions. If you donate in both years, you basically get a net deduction of ($10,000 - $6,300) * 2 = $7,400 over the standard deduction. However, if you donate $10k in 2015 and the next $10k on Dec31, 2015, then you now have donated $20k in 2015 and $0k in 2016. This affects your taxes because you now get ($20,000 - $6,300) = $13,700 in ""bonus"" deductions. You still get the full $6,300 standard deduction in 2016 as well. This can be a significant impact on your taxes (especially if you are married as the married deduction is double the single or have minimal other itemizable deductions).."


">Source: I'm a state tax auditor, and my job is to make sure corporations pay what they are supposed to. Most of the American public believes that the bulk of taxes are federal income taxes. That's what they fixate on when evaluating the ""fairness"" of taxation. The fact remains that the very wealthy and very large corporations are structured so that they don't pay that particular type of tax. That's why Mitt Romney's tax returns are being squinted at. Mitt pays capital gains tax, not income tax and tripling the tax rate on the upper-most tax bracket wouldn't really affect him. You know this. I know this. But most people don't and few people are interested in learning how it works. If you want to ""tax the rich"" just create a progressive scale for capital gains instead of a flat 15%."


Odd, I've been Platinum Exec for a year and regular Platinum for 2 and I have not had any of these delays everyone is talking about. I usually fly Denver to DFW to where ever (south america or europe). I fly at least 8 legs per month if not more. Maybe I'm just lucky and I jinxed myself.


"They most likely decided that you weren't worth the time to respond to, so don't expect a response. Also, remember that receiving no response is the same as them answering you and saying ""No."" Anyone with any amount of influence tends to have a lot of people vying for said influence. They don't have time to respond to every Jane, Dick, and Harry who contacts them. If the offer doesn't sound good on the first pass, the deal is lost. Your best bet is to go with a Plan B that doesn't involve them."


The story says this property ranked near the bottom among NJ casinos for money won from gamblers. It's not just poor financial planning that caused this place's failure. Operationally, it was poorly managed as well considering it's excellent location.


You can open an account at Scotiabank and use a Bank of America atm (and vice versa). No ATM or bank imposed foreign transaction fee (outside the 1% network imposed fee)


">But there's no proof that it's a distinguishing factor or dispositive. Correlation doesn't equal causation, etc. Where absolute proof is not possible, rational people make determinations on the basis of where the preponderant weight of evidence falls. In this case, while there is no ""proof,"" the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that given similar intelligence and drive, two otherwise virtually identical people will almost always end up in entirely different circumstances based on a set of random variables that can best be described as luck. Was one born the son of a factory worker while the other was born the son of a corporate CEO? If so, that's a matter of luck, and you cannot deny for an instant that one's father has a huge influence on what one becomes later in life. Your entire premise is based on a flawed understanding of the matters under consideration."


Th corruption was when they created it then wHen they maintained and managed it ever since. It was a scam from the start and by allowing it to continue served the corrupt incestuous elements of governmental activities. There are so many other such activities in municipal corruption administration.


You act like these corporations don't have thousands lawyers and tax experts that are attorneys working for them finding every loophole and exploiting them and writing the laws that congress passes. Who do you think does the dirty work and finds the legal ways for these companies to operate with only the goal of profits in mind?


"Answering a more general question: are financial services firms worth the money? It really depends on the person. Some can contribute regularly to index funds, and do the asset allocation on their own. They are comfortable buying and selling various funds and there is really not that much management to do a Bogle like ""3 fund portfolio"". All that is needed is an occasional re-balance. This person probably does not need a firm like UBS or many of the others out there. Some do some active picking of funds and stocks, and also some indexing. Again they are comfortable in doing the right thing and probably don't need a manager. There are others, however, that need a manager. A friend of mine pulled all of his money out of the market when Trump was elected. He missed out on some nice growth. The extra percentage point that he paid to have an adviser would have been well worth it. For people who get spooked easily by the market and need things explained over and over, an advisory service is great. My mom falls in that category. I thank God every day for her service as she would otherwise call me with the same investment questions every other quarter."


"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the ""save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%"" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars."


"> I think people should prevent themselves from being homeless by developing skills to work. You are right, of course. Let me try to rephrase my question. If someone's problem is that they don't have the skills to work and you put pressure on them, is it not more likely that they will try to resolve the pressure quickly with the skills they have rather than endure the pressure while learning a new skill? For example, if someone is too unreliable to get a job and you tie his next meal to getting and keeping a job, isn't that person much more likely to start stealing food rather than learning to be reliable while being hungry? > Do you think it's moral to steal from someone who worked hard/smart and give it to someone who didn't and is now homeless? I object to the word ""steal"". The bottom line is that some of the hard/smart worker's money is going to go handling the homeless person whether it be feeding him or hiring police to handle the crimes he commits."


I understand that. How about this then: charity begins at home. His warehouses have many faults, including lack of drinking water and people being penalised when they are ill. It's good that he'll give some of his fortune away to charity, absolutely. At the same time it's also bad that this money was earned at the expense of his employees welfare at a business that he runs and he has the power to improve. People are being a bit too literal in this thread.


In places like the midwest city where I live, this is false, the cost of living is low. I pay 340 a month, have a yard, kitchen, own bathroom, jam room, bedroom, own shower, great neighborhood downtown etc. When I started out, I made minimum wage and lived with roommates in the same nice neighborhood. This is just false.


Apple's specialty is UX. It's an incredibly talented UX company, both software and hardware wise. It's also talented at convincing it's fanbase that anything they release is required to live. Apple fanboys would buy a car just to get the Apple logo somewhere on it.


You are implicitly making that assumption. It doesn't matter if the rich are taking and increasingly large percentage of the pie, as long as the size of the pie is growing fast enough that the absolute wealth of the poor is rising at a reasonable rate over time. The correct and reasonable measure is to compare the wealth of the poor, today with the wealth of the poor in the past in terms of real buying power. I understand what you're saying and I disagree with your analysis. I disagree that relative proportions have any meaningful impact of human well being.


"Many people who do transfer a balance from one credit card to another have no clue as to what is going on and how credit cards work. If you transfer a balance from one credit card to another, you are charged a fee of anywhere from 3% upwards (subject to a minimum of $10 or so) up front. If Credit Card A has balance $1000 and you transfer it to Credit Card B which is offering no interest for a year on the transferred balance, you owe Credit Card B $1050 (say). In most cases, that $50 has to be paid off as part of the following month's bill. If you are carrying a revolving balance on Credit Card B, that $50 will typically be charged interest from the day of the transfer. Your monthly bill will not (necessarily) include that $1000 you owe for one year or six months or whatever the transfer agreement you accepted says. If you tend to pay anything less (even a penny) than full payment of each month's bill on Credit Card B, your partial payment will be applied to that $1000 first, and anything left over will be applied to the monthly balance. In short, if you don't pay in full each month, that $1000 will not be ""yours"" for a year; you may end up paying $50 interest for borrowing $1000 for just one or two months, and the rest of your balance is the gift that keeps on giving as the credit card company likes to say. UPDATE: This has changed slightly in the United States. Any amount paid over the minimum amount due is charged to the higher-interest balances. So in this case, if you had $1000 at a 0% promotional rate and a regular balance of $500, and the minimum payment was $100, and you paid $150, $100 would pay down the promotional balance, and the extra $50 would pay down the regular balance. About the only way to make the deal work in your favor is to Transfer money only if you have paid the full amount due on the last two statements before the date of the transfer and are not carrying a revolving balance. Check your monthly statements to make sure they show Finance Charge of 0.00. Many people have never seen such a sight and are unaware that this can be observed in nature. Make sure that you pay each month's bill in full (not the minimum monthly payment due) each month for a whole year after that. Make sure that the bill containing that $1000 (coming out a year after the transfer date) is also paid in full. Very many credit-card users do not have the financial discipline to go through with this program. That is why credit card companies love to push transfer balances on consumers: the whole thing is a cash cow for them where they in effect get to charge usurious rates of interest without running afoul of the law. $50 interest for a one-year loan of $1000 is pretty high at current rates; $50 interest for a two or three month loan where the customer does not even notice the screwing he is getting is called laughing all the way to the bank. See also the answers to this question"


Term insurance is definitely expensive at 60 but so is permanent insurance. Let's think about why people buy each one: Term -- makes sense if you are worried about death during a certain period of time but not afterward. Often this is young people trying to get out of debt, have young dependents, etc., who expect to have more money later in life and less need for insurance. Permanent -- makes sense if you want to ensure that your dependents get paid (tax free) at your death even if you die at an age when you are basically uninsurable. These plans make sense if you hold them forever but if you get out of them early, there are often large fees that will make it a pretty bad deal. The fact that your uncle is already in a permanent plan makes me think it might make sense to continue. Check the details to see how large the fees on getting your money out early would be. Given that he has a disabled wife, having a permanent plan may make sense, especially if her disability is not one associated with dying younger. Having said that, I can see an argument for term insurance if your uncle is primarily concerned with providing for his daughter and won't be concerned about it after she's out of school. The answer really depends on:


Equity options, at least those traded in the American exchanges, actually expire the Saturday after the 3rd Friday of the month. However, the choice to trade or exercise the options must be specified by the 3rd Friday. This is outlined by the CBOE, who oversees the exchange of equity options. Their FAQ regarding option expiration can be found at http://www.cboe.com/LearnCenter/Concepts/Beyond/expiration.aspx.


mẫu biệt thự đẹp 3 tầng, mẫu biệt thự đẹp nhất việt nam, biệt thự hiện đại đẹp, biet thu dep 2 tang, mẫu nhà biệt thự đẹp, một số mẫu biệt thự đẹp, biet thu dep 1 tang, biet thu vuon dep, thiet ke nha dep cap 4, thiet ke nha dep 2 tang, thiet ke nha dep 1 tang, thiết kế nhà ống đẹp, thiết kế nhà đẹp giá rẻ, mau nha dep 2 tang, mau nha dep 1 tang, thiet ke nha dep 3 tang, nhà ống đẹp 2 tầng, mẫu nhà ống 1 tầng đẹp, mẫu nhà ống đẹp 3 tầng, nhà ống 2 tầng mái thái, mẫu nhà ống đẹp giá rẻ, mau nha ong dep 2 tang 1 tum, nội thất nhà ống, mau nha ong dep 2017, nhà phố mặt tiền 5m, mẫu mặt tiền nhà phố đẹp, nhà phố 2 tầng đẹp, nhà phố đẹp 3 tầng, nhà phố 1 trệt 1 lầu, nội thất nhà phố đẹp, mẫu nhà phố đẹp 2 tầng, nhà phố hiện đại 5m, biệt thự nhà vườn 2 tầng, biệt thự vườn 1 tầng, biệt thự nhà vườn cấp 4, những mẫu biệt thự nhà vườn đẹp, nhà vườn 1 tầng 4 phòng ngủ, biệt thự 1 tầng 3 phòng ngủ, biệt thự 1 tầng mái thái, biệt thự 1 tầng phong cách châu âu


Really all you need to know is that American style can be exercised at any point, European options cannot be exercised early. Read on if you want more detail. The American style Call is worth more because it can be exercised at any point. And when the company pays a dividend, and your option is in the money, if the extrinsic value is worth less than the dividend you can be exercised early. This is not the case for a European call. You cannot be exercised until expiration. I trade a lot of options, you wont be exercised early unless the dividend scenario I mentioned happens. Or unless the extrinsic value is nothing, but even then, unless the investor really wants that position, he is more likely to just sell the call for an equivalent gain on 100 shares of stock.


This forex training video illustrates the proper use of the stop run reversal forex trading strategy. The stop run strategy effectively spots banking manipulation in the forex market, thus allowing us as retail traders to take the same trades as the mega banks. Learn how to trade forex with the banks using this forex training video.


The only thing the book advises to do is to start an LLC that invests in real estate, then deduct everything you do as a business expense related to investing in real estate. Going on a vacation to Hawaii? Deduct it, you were checking out real estate. And so on and so forth.


"I saw that an answer hasn't been accepted for this yet: Being bearish is a good hedging strategy. But being hedged is a better hedging strategy. The point being that not everything in investments is so binary (up, and down). A lot of effective hedges can have many more variables than simply ""stock go up, stock go down"" As such, there are many ways to be bearish and profit from a decline in market values without subjecting yourself to the unlimited risk of short selling. Buying puts against your long equity position is one example. Being long an ETF that is based on short positions is another example."


>By 2037, the debt would be almost twice the size of the economy, the agency said. That would mean **higher interest rates**, slower economic growth and far more painful choices for lawmakers than they face today. Japan is at 230% right now! > Japan 208.2 2011 est. **229.77%** 2011 Asia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt >Bank of Japan Keeps Monetary Policy Unchanged Published on 5/23/2012 12:57:08 PM | By TradingEconomics.com, Bank of Japan >At the Monetary Policy Meeting held on May 23rd, the Policy Board of the Bank of Japan decided, by a unanimous vote, to keep the uncollateralized overnight call rate at around 0 to 0.1 percent. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/interest-rate


The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy. So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000. You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss. You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500, and sell it for $9,000. Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500, then sell it for $9,500. Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis, and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.


"> How is putting a gun to a persons head and saying give me your money or else I will cuff you and put you in jail not stealing? I've had [other discussions about why taxes are not theft](https://www.reddit.com/r/economy/comments/6leb2o/missouri_republicans_lower_st_louis_minimum_wage/dju1jjp/). > If...they aren't disabled then they are just lazy. I think there are a whole lot of people who struggle to work but are neither. How about a single mother with young kids and no help? Someone raised on the street with no idea what it takes to get a job? Someone with general pain or fibromayalgia? Someone addicted to drugs or alcohol? Maybe just someone who just can't take control of his or her life because a lowered IQ caused by lead poisoning or poor nutrition as a child? I totally agree that a ""tough love"" approach is a great solution for lazy but if the person has a real problem or lacks the tools to succeed, then the approach is not only cruel but will push the person into what looks like from the outside as more irresponsible behavior."


Ok, you fly down to the Nike factory in Indonesia and tell those kids that they have to stop being so bitter and do something to change their lives. Tell them that they should be satisfied with the agreement that they chose to enter. I think you should realize that change is a privilege that very few of us have. Not everyone has the will and the skill. Most times, it just comes down to luck.


"I'm not concerned with ""teaching"" Puerto Rico anything. It is in Puerto Rico's interest to repay their debt for the simple fact that they won't be able to operate without access to credit. Who is gonna lend to Puerto Rico in the future if these bonds go to zero. If everyone is paid back at a reasonable figure, Puerto Rico will be able to borrow again one day and not at a predatory rate.This is what I believe is Klarman's thesis for investing in Puerto Rico's debt. I have no sympathy for the lenders who relaxed their standards, nor for the investors that overlooked the risks for the extra yield. My point is Klarman did nothing to create this situation, he just saw value in the bonds when no one else did. The article is trying to paint him as a villain for simply owning the bonds after the fact."


"My bad. I meant to say within my circle of immediate social influence; as in people I know face to face. I'll have to buy some more before they go away again. I've always wanted to try ""deep fried"" style--though, I may regret it."


I'm a business law student, so medical stuff isn't really my specialty. I'll share with you what I know though. First, as to the legality, I'm not aware of anything making it illegal for them to consider their business with you concluded. Absent any contract between you and the doctor, it seems to me that you agreed to pay them in cash. If I was the business, I'd assume our business had been concluded as well. As for any contracts between the insurance company and the doctor's office, as far as I know, that's between them. That wouldn't give you standing to sue the doctor. I'm unfamiliar with a patient submitting insurance claims, but if that's something you are allowed to do with your insurance company and all you need is more information, submit a request for your medical records to the doctor. Under United States law, your medical records are yours. You have a right to receive a copy of them. Keep in mind though that the doctor's office may charge you a small copying fee to cover expenses they incur while making a copy for you. As far as complaining, I would suggest your local Better Business Bureau. Each state generally has a medical board which oversees doctors. You might lodge a complaint with them as well. I hope this helps. Keep in mind that I'm not an attorney. This is not legal advice. This is only what I personally would do if I were in your situation. You can and should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction.


"Should I just create a new account code, i.e. Lawyer's Trust Account? Yes, you should. I have a generic ""escrow"" account just for that."


Great comment; came here to write something very similar, even point out the recent BA fiasco, but you covered it! To further your point, I'd argue that it ends up costing more in the long run and in other ways, just look at BA!


How hard would it be to work in either wealth management or investment banking with a master's in accounting and a CPA? My program allows for a double major in finance but at the moment the finance major is full so I won't be able to do it. I already have internship experience in both Wealth Management at Morgan Stanley and FP&A at a major corporation if that's relevant at all.


"Different states have different laws, check your local laws concerning credit. Some states even guarantee you to get one free credit report per year. If you recently apply for an apartment, a mortgage or denied a credit card or loan, you can usually get a free copy from whomever you authorized to pull your credit report. Sign up credit monitoring service, there are quite a few of these. Most credit card companies offer such service, Amex, Chase, Citibank, etc. It' costs around $10-$20 per month. If you sign up a service and pull your own credit report, it's considered a ""soft"" pull which won't affect your score negatively."


There are some uniquely American issues in this question (and answer), but some general principles as well. Regarding the comment that you quoted, the context (some of which you excluded) needs some clarification.


>The majority of what we pay our cable company is wasted. We get broadband Internet from our cable company, and we use that constantly. But we also get 500 channels that we almost never watch, along with a couple (HBO, Tennis Channel) that we pay extra for and do watch occasionally. This is fallacious thinking to assume that less channels would lower your cable bill. The cost of providing you with cable TV is in the fixed costs of running lines to your house and the ongoing cost of fulfilling the SLA, which is a function of how much bandwidth they need to provide you with, not the amount of channels that you watch. Whether 500 people each just pick one channel each to subscribe to, or each of the 500 people splits their time equally between all 500 channels, it costs the cable company the same amount and your bill will stay the same.


> The problem that I have with testing for pot is that it shows up if you've consumed THC within the past month. Not the piss test. > . I prefer pot to alcohol, do it on my own time, and I never ever ever show up high or even fuzzy from the night before. You're an exception. Many pot smokers do it daily and think it doesn't impair them. you're responsible, they are not. > No everyone that smokes pot is a loser. I agree, but most are if they are daily smokers


"Look, as my final comment. You're overthinking this. Companies routinely have waaaay more cash on their books than they ""need"" because they keep a rainy day fund. Yes, there are extreme examples like Apple that has about 60 billion more than they need but practically all companies are going to maintain excess cash for emergencies, acquisitions, etc. As I said in another comment, the common theme between a DCF and an EV multiple is that they are both capital structure independent. Even here there are going to be differences, companies with a really shitty capital structure (read: too much debt) will trade publicly at a lower enterprise value multiple because of the risk that they go bankrupt. In an acquisition, this (probably) would not be the case. In the case of a DCF, you would probably raise your discount rate to account for the risk of bankruptcy."


"With no numbers offered, it's not like we can tell you if it's a wise purchase. -- JoeTaxpayer We can, however, talk about the qualitative tradeoffs of renting vs owning. The major drawback which you won't hear enough about is risk. You will be putting a very large portion of your net worth in what is effectively a single asset. This is somewhat risky. What happens if the regional economy takes a hit, and you get laid off? Chances are you won't be the only one, and the value of your house will take a hit at the same time, a double-whammy. If you need to sell and move away for a job in another town, you will be taking a financial hit - that is, if you can sell and still cover your mortgage. You will definitely not be able to walk away and find a new cheap apartment to scrimp on expenses for a little while. Buying a house is putting down roots. On the other hand, you will be free from the opposite risk: rising rents. Once you've purchased the house, and as long as you're living in it, you don't ever need to worry about a local economic boom and a bunch of people moving into town and making more money than you, pushing up rents. (The San Francisco Bay Area is an example of where that has happened. Gentrification has its malcontents.) Most of the rest is a numbers game. Don't get fooled into thinking that you're ""throwing away"" money on renting - if you really want to, you can save money yourself, and invest a sum approximately equal to your down payment in the stock market, in some diversified mutual funds, and you will earn returns on that at a rate similar to what you would get by building equity in your home. (You won't earn outsized housing-bubble-of-2007 returns, but you shouldn't expect those in the housing market of today anyway.) Also, if you own, you have broad discretion over what you can do with the property. But you have to take care of the maintenance and stuff too."


If you have a reason to celebrate, then there is the reason for Paella party. Any Occasion! Birthday, christening, graduation, engagement, rehearsals, retirement, reunion, and wedding – our paella is sure to whet your appetite. We bring the restaurant to you in form of paella parties! Discuss prices and availability and let’s get your Paella party started: https://friedmagazineheart.tumblr.com/post/165610514968/the-perfect-paella-catering-to-spice-up-your-event


Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion. Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform. However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.) There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term. By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index. This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position. Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have? But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees. They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does. And fees can be a big drag on total return.


The US honey lobby has gone out of their way to arrange for protectionist barriers against Chinese honey. I'm sure that a thousand commodity industries do this. There are less-than-clean hands on both sides of the Pacific.


Many mortgages have a clause saying the bank will not sell the loan. You are acting like this is unheard of, but it is a standard checkbox on most bank's mortgages, where they either mark that they can sell it or they mark that they won't. So, it is common enough for it to be on their standard forms. (There are many sources of funding for banks for mortgages that explicitly prevent them from selling loans)


Companies with existing borrowings (where borrowings are on variable interest rates) or in the case with fixed interest rates - companies that get new borrowings - would pay less interest on these borrowings, so their cost will go down and profits up, making them more attractive to investors. So, in general lower interest rates will make the share market a more attractive investment (than some alternatives) as investors are willing to take on more risk for potentially higher returns. This will usually result in the stock market rising as it is currently in the US. EDIT: The case for rising interest rates A central bank's purpose when raising interest rates is to slow down an economy that is booming. As interest rates rise consumers will tighten up their spending and companies will thus have less revenue on top of higher costs for maintaining existing borrowing (with variable rates) or new borrowing (with fixed rates). If rates are higher companies may also defer new borrowings to expand their business. This will eventually lead to lower profits and lower valuation for these companies. Another thing that happens is that as banks start increasing interest for saving accounts investors will look for safety where they can get a higher return (than before) without the risk of the stock market. With lowering profits and valuations, and investor's money flowing out of shares and into the money market, so will company share prices drop (although this may lag a bit with the share market still booming due to greed. But once the boom stops watchout for the crash).


Remote Deposit usually means a scanner and some software and has a monthly fee associated with it (so it only makes sense for businesses, and even then only some businesses). Chase and USAA allow you to make deposits via your iPhone which is aimed at consumers and has some deposit limits associated with it (checks have to be less than some $$). I've used both. Remote Deposit is super easy, the software usually sucks, but it's too expensive for personal users ($60/month at citibank). Chase deposits have worked on my iPhone usually after 2 or 3 tries but that did save me from walking to the bank.


I'm glad you have a sense of humor! However, back to the people described in the OP. They don't have the opportunity to get a few day labor jobs in order to raise funds. In fact, for an unfortunate number of them, their solution is to migrate to Europe in order to do exactly that. This has caused massive problems in the European countries surrounding the Mediterranean. I'm sure you've heard about it in the media, but if not, here is an article by the BBC: [Mediterranean migrants crisis: Why is Africa silent?](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32480410).


The issue is, universal healthcare is not perfect. No system is, since healthcare costs are economically infinite, so every system draws the line somewhere. In universal healthcare, coverage lines are determined by central authorities on what is most economically beneficial to ALL of society. In the US, coverage lines are drawn up by for profit insurers. It's a complete clusterf*ck. Why any American would prefer a barely regulated for profit insurer to make decisions on whether their critical healthcare is covered, knowing that they personally profit should they decline coverage is incredible. I personally lean libertarian, but not for areas like schools and healthcare. They are far better served universally supported by government taxes.


"My thoughts on loaning money to friends or family are outlined pretty extensively here, but cosigning on a loan is a different matter. It is almost never a good idea to do this (I say ""almost"" only because I dislike absolutes). Here are the reasons why: Now, all that said, if my sister or parents were dying of cancer and cosigning a loan was the only way to cure them, I might consider cosigning on a loan with them, if that was the only option. But, I would bet that 99.9% of such cases are not so dire, and your would-be co-borrower will survive with out the co-signing."


> Okay, why? Because the only modern justification for the existence of a nation is the social contract. > We have seen that corporations will push limits regularly which shows little respect for the law or other people's property. Without the concept of corporate person-hood, a impartial judicial system to settle disagreements, and enforcement significantly more powerful than all actors, corporations would have little reason to heed claims of property. Ownership would become a question of what you can control, not what you made/traded for. Exactly. That's why we have the social contract and thus services like police and civil courts that ensure the mutual respect for each other's property. But for the vast majority of interactions enforcement won't be required since you want your property respected as well. It's the golden rule > Tell me why. Because - once again - mandatory public healthcare is based on forced redistribution of wealth, which is a violation of the social contract. I'm quite sure I explained this already multiple times. > It doesn't solve the problem of how the money sucks money to the top. Please elaborate as to why that is a problem in the first place.


I have used TradeKing for a couple of years now and love it. It really is a great site. They hold an IRA trading account for me and have been helpful in rolling money into that account, and with answering the occasional question. Previously I have used Scottrade and found that TradeKing is a much better value.


If you are just starting out, my tactic would be to go way high and then consider any different play money. So guess $90 and when it comes in at $60, buy a new shirt or go on a date.


"The loan-to-value ratio (LTV Ratio) is a lending risk assessment ratio that financial institutions and others lenders examine before approving a mortgage. It sounds like your lender has a 60% requirement. Remember the home is the collateral for the loan. If you stop making payments, they can take the house back from you. That number is less than 100% to accommodate changing market prices, the cost of foreclosure, repairing and reselling the home. They may be a safety factor built in depending on the home's location. If you want to buy a $1.8 million dollar home you will have to come up with 40% down payment. That down payment is what reduces the risk for the lender. So no, there is no way to cheat that. Think about the transaction from the view of the lender. Note: in some areas, you can still get a loan if you don't have the required down payment. You just have to pay a monthly mortgage insurance. It's expensive but that works for many home buyers. A separate insurance company offers a policy that helps protect the lender when there isn't enough deposit paid. Update: Er, no. Keep it simple. The bank will only loan you money if it has collateral for the loan. They've built in a hefty safety margin to protect them in case you quit paying them your monthly payments. If you want to spend the money on something else, that would work as long as you provide collateral to protect the lender. You mention borrowing money for some other purpose then buying a home. That would be fine, but you will have to come up with some collateral that protect the lender. If you wanted to buy a new business, the bank would first ask for an appraisal of the value of the assets of the business. That could be applied to the collateral safety net for the lender. If you wanted to buy a business that had little appraisal value, then the bank would require more collateral from you in other forms. Say you wanted to borrow the money for an expensive operation or cosmetic surgery. In that case there is no collateral value in the operation. You can't sell anything from the surgery to anybody to recover costs. The money is spent and gone. Before the bank would loan you any money for such a surgery, they would require you to provide upfront collateral. (in this case if you were to borrow $60,000 for surgery, the bank would require $100,000 worth of collateral to protect their interest in the loan.) You borrow money, then you pay it back at a regular interval at an agreed upon rate and schedule. Same thing for borrowing money for the stock market or a winning horse at the horse race. A lender will require a hard asset as collateral before making you a loan... Yes I know you have a good tip on a winning horse,and you are bound to double your money, but that's not the way it works from a lender's point of view. It sounds like you are trying to game the system by playing on words. I will say quit using the ""40% to 60%"" phrase. That is just confusing. The bank's loan to value is reported as a single number (in this case 60%) For every $6000 you want to borrow, you have to provide an asset worth $10,000 as a safety guarantee for the loan. If you want to borrow money for the purchase of a home, you will need to meet that 60% safety requirement. If you want to borrow $1,000,000 cash for something besides a home, then you will have to provide something with a retail value of $1,666,667 as equity. I think the best way for you to answer your own question is for you to pretend to be the banker, then examine the proposal from the banker's viewpoint. Will the banker alway have enough collateral for whatever it is you are asking to borrow? If you don't yet have that equity, and you need a loan for something besides a home, you can always save your money until you do have enough equity. Comment One. I thought that most lenders had a 75% or 80% loan to value ratio. The 60% number seems pretty low. That could indicate you may be a high risk borrower, or possibly that lender is not the best for you. Have you tried other lenders? It's definitely worth shopping around for different lenders. Comment Two. I will say, it almost sounds like you aren't being entirely honest with us here. No way someone with a monthly income who can afford a $1.8 Million home would be asking questions like this. I get that English probably isn't your first language, but still. The other thing is: If you are truly buying a $1.8 Million dollar home your real estate agent would be helping you find a lender that will work with you. They would be HIGHLY motivated to see this sale happen. All of your questions could be answered in ten minutes with a visit to your local bank (or any bank for that matter.) When you add up the costs and taxes and insurance on a 30 fixed loan, you'd have a monthly mortgage payment of nearly $10,500 a month or more. Can you really afford that on your monthly income?"


>The Russell 3000 measure of US stock prices was up by 16.93% in 2010, but CEO pay went up by 27.19% overall. this is telling since generally stocks follow earnings(not always but generally). This shows the skewing of ceo compensation with productivity increases. You know the median worker at these corps didnt see a 36% increase, probably not more than a 8% increase if that. And thats not counting the really low level people., who still havent seen their jobs come back despite corps breaking records on earnings and giving ceos raises after having their markets and banks bailed out by the us tax payer. Corps need to ask not what the country can do for them, but what they can do for the country, To borrow a quote.


"again, you feel compelled to add terminology that you don't seem to understand. There is no chicanery necessary to ""bet"" against a company. It's called shorting. Our you buy a sell option (a ""put""). These have been around for ever. Individuals can do it if they desire. Market manipulation is another matter and certainly does happen. Thus far, there does not appear to be any evidence that FB's stock price was manipulated downward, it was just over-priced to begin with."


Every bank and credit union in the US has a Deposit Agreement and Disclosures document, Bank of America is no different. Our general policy is to make funds from your cash and check deposits available to you no later than the first business day after the day of your deposit. However, in some cases we place a hold on funds that you deposit by check. A hold results in a delay in the availability of these funds. that sounds great but ... For determining the availability of your deposits, every day is a business day, except Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays. If you make a deposit on a business day that we are open at one of our financial centers before 2:00 p.m. local time, or at one of our ATMs before 5:00 p.m. local time in the state where we maintain your account, we consider that day to be the day of your deposit. However, if you make a deposit after such times, or on a day when we are not open or that is not a business day, we consider that the deposit was made on the next business day we are open. Some locations have different cutoff times. so if you deposit a check on Friday afternoon, the funds are generally available on Tuesday. but not always... In some cases, we will not make all of the funds that you deposit by check available to you by the first business day after the day of your deposit. Depending on the type of check that you deposit, funds may not be available until the second business day after the day of your deposit. The first $200 of your deposits, however, may be available no later than the first business day after the day of your deposit. If we are not going to make all of the funds from your deposit available by the first business day after the day of your deposit, we generally notify you at the time you make your deposit. We also tell you when the funds will be available. Ok what happens when the funds are available... In many cases, we make funds from your deposited checks available to you sooner than we are able to collect the checks. This means that, from time to time, a deposited check may be returned unpaid after we made the funds available to you. Please keep in mind that even though we make funds from a deposited check available to you and you withdraw the funds, you are still responsible for problems with the deposit. If a check you deposited is returned to us unpaid for any reason, you will have to repay us and we may charge your account for the amount of the check, even if doing so overdraws your account. Fidelity has a similar document: Each check deposited is promptly credited to your account. However, the money may not be available until up to six business days later, and we may decline to honor any debit that is applied against the money before the deposited check has cleared. If a deposited check does not clear, the deposit will be removed from your account, and you are responsible for returning any interest you received on it. I would think that the longer holding period for Fidelity is due to the fact that they want to wait long enough to make sure that the number of times they have to undo investments due to the funds not clearing is nearly zero.


The only sensible reason to invest in individual stocks is if you have reason to think that they will perform better than the market as a whole. How are you to come to that conclusion other than by doing in-depth research into the stock and the company behind it? If you can't, or don't want to, reach that conclusion about particular stocks then you're better off putting your money into cheap index trackers.


Not wholly accurate. Most fully electric cars (Leaf, Focus) have published ranges of 100 miles but real-world of about 70. Chevy Volts average 35, but have a backup generator to provide unlimited total range. Regardless, plenty far for about 3/4 of people's commutes. Also if you can charge at work, you can increase (up to doubling) the above figures.


Oh Yay!!! . what a recovery, was not AIG the insurance company that was left holding its own dick when the whole world defaulted in 2008. If memory serves, it was unable to pay out on all those credit default claims and had to get a massive bail out just to keep the banking system from imploding. The Fed must have bought a shit load of crap from them. Ah . .October cometh and the Great Unwind . . we cannot very well rate a Systemic Risk AAA now can me. Smart move gramma . .nice try . . . didn't fly


Sivani DTH is one the best Airtel Dealers and Service providers in Chennai. We offer a range of Set Top Box at affordable prices. Get same day service! Call us at 9884024446, 9176602325, 8939844422 for more details!


"Eh, in some ways yes, some ways no. Electric motors tend to run out of steam at high RPM's which limits their performance above 100mph or so. Before you say ""no one goes (or needs to go) above 100mph"", yes, yes people do and more often than you might think."


If this goes through and the company is punished sufficiently this breach with ultimately be good news. Security as been too easily neglected because fixing it provides no obvious immediate benefit to the customer as opposed to other features. So the only way this gets addressed is when CEO's and stockholders feel significant pain.


"(1) I think the phrase ""Variable Annuity"" is a glowing red flag. A corollary to that is that any strategy that uses insurance for a purpose (e.g. tax avoidance) other than protecting against loss rates at least a yellow flag. (2) The other really obvious indicator is a return that is completely out of whack with the level of risk they are saying the investment has. For example, if someone promises a 10% annual return that is ""Completely Safe"" or ""Very low risk"", Run. (3) If it is advertised on tv/radio, or all your friends are talking about it at parties. Stay away. Example: Investing in Gold Coins or the hot Tech IPO. (4) The whole sales pitch relies on past returns as proof that the investment will do well without any real discussion of other reasons it will continue to to well. Beware the gambler's fallacy. (5) Finally, be very wary of anyone who has some sort of great investment plan that they will teach you if you just pay $X or go to their seminar. Fee based advice is fine, but people selling a get rich quick vehicle typically know the real way to get rich is to get suckers to pay for their seminars."


I think you missed this comment from /u/SEA-Sysadmin: >Ultimately all these will pale in comparison to the cost of choosing a place where Amazon cannot get talent to move. Detroit has very serious problems in this regard. U of M grads can get more money and opportunity elsewhere and local companies have difficulty getting people to move to metro Detroit from other parts of the U.S. It's a perfect storm in terms of brain-drain.


You would think so wouldn't you, after all, it's your money! In practise though, it's not as easy as you might think because anti money laundering and anti fraud laws mean you generally have to withdraw money to the same account you funded your trading from. Some forex trading account providers will allow you to fund from multiple sources, but then insist on putting money back to those sources in some proportion or some order or other. Some forex trading account providers at least claim that they may, AT THEIR DISCRETION, let you do it, IF the destination account is in the same name, but I wouldn't be surprised if they charged you for it, and actually the charges might be somewhat justified if they have to invoke identification procedures to make sure the other account is indeed actually you. You would have to talk to a specific service provider and see if they agree to do what you want, they all have FAQs about funding and withdrawal so you can scan around online for the slightly more flexible ones and then give them a call. You might find it difficult to get any guarantees out of them though.


"It's a certified accountant who has passed the CPA exam in order to hold the designation. If you don't pay taxes on your income, you'll be completely fucked down the line. If you're self reporting and it's not automatically deducted, definitely speak to a CPA. They may even recommend filing taxes quarterly. The sub you're using is more for high finance and capital markets, I'd suggest /r/personalfinance for your situation. Also, far be it from me to say, because $2k/mo is great for an 18 year old who is presumably in college, but you won't get in trouble as long as you pay taxes. If you mean in a long-term sense of financial stability, yeah that could be bad. $24k is absolutely amazing now and if being hot on instagram can pay for your college, then 100000% do it, that's fucking awesome. Just make sure to get a degree because if you're still only making $24k in your mid 20's, yes you could be in ""trouble"" as in dire financial straits. That's not much to live off of when you finally have lots of bills to pay."


Heh, not surprised. Stock investing is very much like gambling to most people I've known, whether they admit it or not. They invest by hunches on what will go up or down, or tips from their gardener, etc.


What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.


If your debit card has no fraud protection then you need to find a different bank, many debit cards include it. Even with fraud protection, I don't like to keep excess money in the checking account, so I have checking and savings accounts with an online bank. I can transfer money from savings to checking instantly, 6 times per month, which allows me to keep only what is needed in the checking account. Many online banks have a better overdraft policy as well, where you simply pay a small amount of interest on the over-drawn amount, rather than a set ~$35 overdraft fee, or a $20 fee for them to automatically transfer money from your savings account. I've heard of, but not made use of threshold-based fraud alerts or two-factor approval, which you can set up so that any purchase in excess of $N triggers the need for additional approval via your phone.


> Healthcare prices went through the roof... That is a Republican talking point myth. [Health care premiums went up by a higher percentage in the first-half of Bush's presidency than they did under the worst Obamacare year](https://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/insights/private-exchanges-healthcare-costs-and-employee-affordability). > So are you an idiot or just ignorant? I'm sure anyone who thinks the world is complicated appears that way to you.


Many factors really. No loans but my HOA is $240 per month. Car is $292. I keep having my bikes stolen (mine twice and girlfriend's once within the past 4 months). I hit a pothole and tore a hole in my oil pan last week, AC broke a few months ago in my condo. I just can't get ahead but I'm hopeful.


Whether you need integrated data services, telephony services, network cabling, IT infrastructure, new wiring systems, grid solar panelling or just general repair work. We provide a full range of electrical services at competitive rates, with excellent quality and our trademark professional customer service.


In a perfect world scenario you would get a car 2-5 years old that has very little mileage. One of the long standing archaic rules of the car world is that age trumps mileage. This was a good rule when any idiot could roll back an odometer. Chances are now that if you rolled your odometer back the car was serviced somewhere, had inspection or whatever and it is on a report. If seller was found to do this they could face jail time and obviously now their car is almost worthless. Why do I mention this? Because you can take a look at 2011 cars. Those with 20K miles go for just a little more than those with 100K miles. As an owner you will start incurring heavy maintenance costs around 100K on most newer cars. By buying cars with lower mileage, keeping them for a year or two, and reselling them before they get up in miles, you can stay in that magic area where you can drive a pretty good car for $200-300 a month. Note that this takes work on both the buying and selling side and you often need cash to get these cars (dealers are good about siphoning really good used cars to employees/friends). This is a great strategy for keeping costs down and car value up but obviously a lot of people try to do this and it takes work and you have to be willing to settle sometimes on a car that is fine, but not exactly what you want. As for leasing this really gets into three main components: If you are going to do EVERYTHING at a dealership and you want something new or newish you might as well lease. At least then you can shop around for apples to apples. The problem with buying a new/used car from the dealers in perpetuity isn't the buying process. It is the fact that they will screw you on the trade-in. A car that books for 20K may trade-in for 17K. Even if the dealer says they are giving you 20K, then they make you pay list price for the car. I have many many times negotiated a price of a car and then wife brought in our car separately and I can count on ZERO fingers how many times that the dealership honored both sides of the negotiations. Not only did they not honor them but most refused to talk with us after they found out. With a lease you don't have to worry about losing this money in the negotiations. You might pay a little extra (or not since you can shop around) but after the lease you wash your hands of the car. The one caveat to this is the high-end market. When you are talking your Acura, Mercedes, Lexus... It is probably better to buy and trade in every couple years. You lose too much equity by leasing, where it won't cover the trade-in gap and cost of your money being elsewhere. I have a friend that does this and gets a slightly better car every 2-3 years with same monthly payment. Another factor to consider is the price of a car. If your car will be worth over $15K at time of sale you are going to have a hard time selling it by owner. When amounts get this high people often need financing. Yes they can get personal financing but most people are too lazy to do this. So the number of used car buyers on let's say craigslist are way way fewer as you start getting over $10-12K and I have found $15K to be kind of that magic amount. The pro-buy-used side is easy. Aim for those cars around $12-18K that are out there (and many still under warranty). These owners will have issues finding cash buyers. They will drop prices somewhere between book price and dealer trade-in. In lucky cases where they need cash maybe below dealer trade-in. And remember these sellers aren't dealing with 100s let alone 10 buyers. You drive the car for 3-4 years. Maybe it is $7-10K. But now you will get much much closer to book price because there will be far more buyers in this range.


Adopting the appreciative inquiry note, advocates suggest that instead of focussing on what causes employees to leave, companies should focus on what causes them to stay. Research conducted in this area has uncovered many variables that help people stay on board. These three major variables are fit, connection and sacrifice.


If a company is dumb enough to use activesync instead of a better alternative (for example an encrypted sanboxed application you can kill remotely like Good) then turn around and tell people they 'own' their iPhone because they didn't do enough to find a right solution for BYOD I don't know what to say.


Heres what you need to know: This can be prevented by what a previous renter did to us. This is a smart, kind of a jerky way to do it but its VERY SMART, as long as your property is worth it, raise the rent higher. You must have a very nice, clean, everything working, house. You must be willing to have anything fixed. this is all to make up the high rent. You don't want the rent way out of proportion but just a bit higher. This is because, more than likely, people who are going to pay for a higher rent don't usually leave a mess, (higher class families vs lower class people living alone..) What might also help from the risk of damage is create a fee (also what my renter did) of any painting needed done like finger prints on the wall, nails in the wall, carpet stains, etc when the tenant is ready to move out. I would suggest a required professional carpet cleaning as well when lease is up. My renter was very nice, but very strict and did all these things. He has a few properties that are very nice middle class houses. Your home sounds like it could easily pass for this kind of business depending on where you live. If the tenant leaves before his lease is up you could charge a 1-2 month's rent to be able to find a new tenant. Be proactive on finding a tenant before the lease is up. This would be a bit of work to first set up and usually maintain, but its a good thing to think about.


I would say it's a bit more complicated than that. Do you understand what a market maker does? An ECN (electronic communication network) is a virtual exchange that works with market makers. Using a rebate structure that works by paying for orders adding liquidity and charges a fee for removing liquidity. So liquidity is created by encouraging what are essentially limit orders, orders that are outside of the current market price and therefore not immediately executable. These orders stay in the book and are filled when the price of the security moves and triggers them. So direct answer is NYSE ARCA is where market makers do their jobs. These market makers can be floor traders or algorithmic. When you send an order through your brokerage, your broker has a number of options. Your order can be sent directly to an ECN/exchange like NYSE ARCA, sent to a market making firm like KCG Americas (formerly Knight Capital), or internalized. Internalization is when the broker uses an in house service to execute your trade. Brokerages must disclose what they do with orders. For example etrade's. https://content.etrade.com/etrade/powerpage/pdf/OrderRouting11AC6.pdf This is a good graphic showing what happens in general along with the names of some common liquidity providers. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-20/how-your-buy-order-gets-filled


"First, it's an exaggeration to say ""every"" dollar. Traditional mutual funds, including money-market funds, keep a small fraction of their assets in cash for day-to-day transactions, maybe 1%. If you invest $1, they put that in the cash bucket and issue you a share. If you and 999 other people invest $100 each, not offset by people redeeming, they take the aggregated $100,000 and buy a bond or two. Conversely, if you redeem one share it comes out of cash, but if lots of people redeem they sell some bond(s) to cover those redemptions -- which works as long as the bond(s) can in fact be sold for close enough to their recorded value. And this doesn't mean they ""can't fail"". Even though they are (almost totally) invested in securities that are thought to be among the safest and most liquid available, in sufficiently extreme circumstances those investments can fall in market value, or they can become illiquid and unavailable to cover ""withdrawals"" (redemptions). ETFs are also fully invested, but the process is less direct. You don't just send money to the fund company. Instead: Thus as long as the underlyings for your ETF hold their value, which for a money market they are designed to, and the markets are open and the market maker firms are operating, your ETF shares are well backed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund for more."


As a corollary to this; the average investor will never know more than the market. Buffett can buy mispriced securities because he runs a multi-billion dollar company dedicated to finding these mispricings. My advice for the common man: 1. Invest in both Stocks (for growth) & Bonds (for wealth preservation) 2. Stocks should be almost exclusively Index Funds That's it. The stock market has a 'random walk with a positive drift' which means that in general, the market will increase in value. Index funds capture this value and will protect you against the inevitable BoA, AIG, Enron, etc. It's fine to invest in index funds with a strategy as well, for instance emerging market ETFs could capture the growth of a particular region. Bear ETFs are attractive if you think the market is going to hit a downturn in the future.


"Boy do they repeat, over and over and over their obsessive baseless anti-Trump ""news"". The fact of the matter is that dolts like you believe them and also believe that stock market is at a record and unemployment is going down and yet ""the economy is not doing well under Trump""."


"*eyeroll* The context of my comment was education, which can be determined by the fact that you were discussing college, I brought up trade schools and I more generally referenced an ""educated populace. Try not reading into what isn't there. >Also you never did answer my question about high school/GEDs being good enough in your world are we dodging or are you just that fired up that I want to apply context to your statements? Yes, I did. I said ""there are many ways to achieve an educated populace."" That would include high school/GED, sure. It could include homeschooling, it could include traveling to another country, it could include studying with monks."


Blockchain, the shared database technology that powers cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, has over the past three years developed an almost unchallenged reputation as the next big thing in finance and technology. Many prominent financiers, technologists and entrepreneurs have staked their reputations and fortunes on it. Take Blythe Masters, the former JPMorgan executive who is attributed with creating the credit default swap. After she joined Digital Asset Holdings, a blockchain start-up, in March 2015, she said that the technology should be treated as seriously as the development of the internet in the early 1990s. And investors did exactly that. Up to $1.74bn has been invested in blockchain ventures to date, $796m of that since the beginning of 2016, according to data tracked by industry media company Coindesk. But as investment increased, so did the hype. Almost everything, from tracking tuna to managing medical records, has been touted as in line to benefit from the technology. Claims about blockchain’s potential range from the outrageous (the end of poverty) to the more mundane and operational (cost reduction in repo clearing and real-time settlement). Yet executives at blockchain-investing companies have rarely been able to explain what it was that blockchain would be enhancing in their businesses or why. “You’ll have to ask my tech associate,” has been the invariable answer. When asked what makes blockchain so exceptionally useful, the answers ranged in nature from “it’s a compression algorithm, and makes data storage cheaper” to “it enhances security and can’t be hacked”. Neither assertion is strictly accurate. But the confidence demonstrates the scale of mythmaking in the industry. By 2016 the unchallenged claims were so out of whack with reality that even Gartner, the information technology adviser that created the hype cycle curve, had put blockchain near the top of its “peak of inflated expectations” section. Has blockchain hype stood the test of time? Or does the next phase in the Gartner hype cycle — “the trough of disillusionment” — beckon? We are either there already or about to arrive. Exhibit A: the suddenly diminished use of the term “blockchain” in the marketing of many of these ventures. The latest vogue is for distributed ledger technology (DLT) or shared permissioned databases. The linguistic pivot reflects an industry-wide realisation that blockchain has to be adapted for the real world. For the most part, blockchain as used in the crypto currency field cannot square with the demands of regulated industries that value privacy, cost-control, scale, competition, autonomy, legal recourse and compliance. By now almost all blockchain ventures have absolutely nothing to do with blockchain as it was originally described or used in bitcoin. Exhibit B: the realisation that getting competing companies to co-operate on data sharing and storage is hard. Collaboration comes with oligopoly risk, lack of autonomy and loss of privacy. Small surprise some of the biggest co-operative ventures such as R3 have been losing members this past year. The Bank of Canada, meanwhile, officially abandoned its DLT experiment in May, stating that “at its heart, there exists a fundamental inconsistency or tension between a centralised wholesale interbank payment system, as we have now, and the decentralisation inherent in the DLT”. Nothing is more indicative of a change in sentiment, however, than a sudden rise in scrutiny. Simon Scorer, from the Bank of England’s digital currencies team, noted in a blog post last week that there is scope to make DLT systems more compatible with centralised environments. The problem is “by adapting DLT in this way, you move further away from the principles for which it was originally designed”. And if that is the case, why bother?


Hey guys, I found this website, it seems to do it for free, and they have many options. If let me know if you find something better than this. http://members.zignals.com/main/


A lender lends money to a person or institution. A creditor is owed money by the person or institution. Many times they are equal. But if you owe money to somebody they are a creditor. You could have paid with a check, but it bounced. Or you contracted them for a service, and then never paid for that service. Yes technically a creditor did offer a short term that was supposed to be paid within X days of being billed. Sometimes a creditor works the other way also. You gave a deposit to company X for them to remodel your kitchen. They never start the job. They now owe you a refund of your deposit. You are now a creditor.


AMD is doing more than just laying off staff. Their earnings report also includes sales of real estate and other turn around strategies that could be reflected in the stock coming up on hope from investors. At the same time, consider how much of an up is a definite sign of positive news and how much may just be random noise as even a broken clock will be right twice a day. Often there will be more than just an announcement of x% of staff being laid off. There will be plans to improve future profits and this is what shareholders would want to know. What is the management doing to move the company forward to better profits down the road.


I'm not sure of another other forums, maybe WSO? For subreddits, perhaps r/Economics can at least guide you better. Thanks for sharing the papers! I wish I had some I could share with you but I don't know any. Maybe you can ask your profs, or even profs at other institutions? I'm sure they will appreciate the initiative and help you out. I really don't know much about any of that yet unfortunately. Wish I could be of more help!


The nature of this question (finding a financial adviser) can make it a conundrum. Those who have little financial experience are often in the greatest need of a financial adviser and at the same time are the least qualified to select one. I'm not putting you or anyone in particular in this category. And of course it's a sliding scale: In general the more capable you are of running your own finances the more prepared you are to answer this question. With that said, I would recommend backing up half a step. Consider advisers other than strictly fee-only advisers. Perhaps you have already considered this decision. But perhaps others reading this have not. My (Ameriprise) adviser charges a monthly (~$50) fee, but also gets percentage-based portions of certain investments. Based on a $150/hr rate that amounts to four hours per year. Does he spend four hours per year on my account? Well so far he does (~2 yrs). But that is determined primarily by how much interaction I choose to have with him. (I suppose I could spend more time asking him questions and less time on this forum. :P) I have never fully understood the gravitation towards fee-based advisers on principle. I guess the theory is they are not making biased decisions about your investments because they don't have as much of a stake in how well your investments to do. I don't necessarily see that as an advantage. It seems they would have less of an incentive to ensure the growth of your investments. Although if you're nearing retirement then growth isn't your biggest concern. Perhaps a fee-based adviser makes more sense in that scenario. Whatever pay structure your adviser uses, it would seem to make sense to consider a successful adviser with a good client base. This implies that the adviser knows what he/she is doing. (But it could also just be a sign that they are good at marketing themselves.) If your adviser has a good base of wealthy clients then choosing a strictly-fee based adviser would mitigate the risk of your adviser having less incentive to consider your portfolio vs that of more wealthy clients. To more directly answer your question I suggest asking several of your adviser candidates for advice on choosing an adviser. I suspect you will get some good advice as well as good insight on the integrity and honesty of the adviser.


Ah, I actually have heard this idea once before from one of my professors back in university (a greenish economist). He was skeptical about slapping more dollar signs on everything as a solution to all our problems, because monetizing things usually has odd side-effects (due to quirks in human psychology). It's certainly an interesting concept though, and I'd love to see some trials done.


"As a lefty, mixed emotions I guess. On the one hand, I think the criminal-justice system is far more harsh on ""minor"" crime, like some poor guy stealing $500, than crime that really impacts a lot of people and involves much larger sums, for a variety of reasons. So it's sort of interesting to see a white-collar criminal actually being taken seriously for once. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of the United States's ridiculous obsession with jailing people for long periods of time. In some other countries, 110-year sentences don't even *exist*. In most of Scandinavia, 15-year sentences are the maximum for any crime, with a very rarely invoked exception that allows the police to petition for someone's release to be delayed if they would pose an imminent threat of violence upon release. So in general I'm against locking lots of people up just as revenge, as opposed to because they would pose a real threat if they were not locked up. I would also prefer to look first for alternative arrangements, such as house arrest and monitoring, and reserve prison only for *really* dangerous people where there is absolutely no possible alternative. I'm not sure Stanford really counts in that category. So it basically boils down to, by the standards of American criminal justice, white-collar crime is greatly under-prosecuted relative to other crime. But the standards of American criminal justice are uncivilized bullshit, and I'm not sure locking up a bunch of white-collar criminals is a good way to make up for the fact that we lock up too many petty criminals, or even people doing things that shouldn't be crimes at all. The other, somewhat different, issue is that I think we need to go after systemic problems more than random individuals. The system of finance is the real problem."


The rates seem a little higher that those available at my credit union, but you seem to be able to borrow larger sums of money than many banks/credit unions will allow. Overall, it's a viable way to go.


Does anyone know if it is possible to find Lehman Brothers last two conference calls before they went defunct in September (audio version)? Really interested in hearing it vs. reading it. I would appreciate it! Note, I did try the 'way back machine'.


"> USPS is a private company entirely. That's a bit of a myth as I understand it. It's an ""independent establishment"" unlike any other part of the of the government, but it still operates under the federal umbrella. Congress controls what products and services it can offer, postal workers are federal employees, and it's not subjected to antitrust laws ([per SCOTUS decision](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/736/) that's based on it still being a government organization)."


"> why else move there? I understand your point, and not arguing buut..imo NW AR seems near close to perfect. Depending on your lifestyle, wants, needs etc personally it would be top 5 places I'd move if I had a well paying job lined up. Unlimited hiking, hunting, boating, mild winters, lush green, laid back, out of the packed crowds of other cities, clean, natural, very affordable property and good soil for a garden, chickens, few heads of cattle etc etc. the Ozarks are magical. I know a lot of people that haven't been to that part of the country who would absolutely love it. It's just sort of unknown/off the beaten path and lumped in with ""the south""..plus it's close the lovely Branson! ;)"


Haha -- you are wrong about that. Companies that outsource keep the high paying good jobs in the USA because 1. They know the business 2. They speak perfect English 3. They know American culture well, which sorta helps a lot in America


> Hence all businesses in the US, no matter what currency they make money in, have to buy USD to pay their taxes. So that means that means other currencies are valueless since X government doesn't see Y currency as a means of payment? Also, you don't buy so much as trade but potatoes potatos.


"In the first years of a loan, most of what you're paying is interest, so my guess is that this is a bad idea. But there are lots of mortgage calculators offered for free on the web (your bank's website may have one) so I'd suggest that you spend some time running actual numbers before deciding. Reminder: Most renovations do NOT pay for themselves in increased sales price, not least because you'll lose the buyers who don't like what you've done but would have been happy to renovate it themselves to their own tastes. Unless there is something which will actively impair your ability to sell the house, you should usually renovate when you plan to stay there for a while and take your returns in enjoying the house more, NOT on the way out. (There's been some recent discussion of this over in Home Improvement, pointing out that the changes which return more than they cost are usually simple things like refreshing the paint, ""staging"" the house so it looks lived in but not cluttered, replacing damaged blinds, washing windows, putting out a few more flowers, and so on.)"


I don't think he did. I think he was saying lazy implies that people are not doing work or thought. He stated that, in fact, he believes people are fatigued because of overwork rather than lazing about. I would agree. I would like to go to the corner store and buy it, but there's a chance they won't have it. So why am I going to do that if I can eliminate a decision and instead buy it from something like Amazon?


"Well, it's not even just about dealing with a half day. There is literally a message on every single data feed that states ""this is it for this trading session"". Why the hell would you consider any data after that as something you'd process?"


"> Sherlock Holmes?!? Shit has to go public domain sometime. Disney disagrees... and has been able to (so far) purchase regular extensions from Congress. Moreover, Disney has a history of doing the opposite as well: they take shit that WAS public domain and turn it into ""copyrighted/trademarked"" territory."


Website:https://www.hosesfittings.com Our clients are provided with best China Supplier Hydraulic Hose Fitting and Ferrule in bulk amount. We try to meet the specific requirements of our clients and source only the best and sustainable China Supplier Hydraulic Hose Fitting and Ferrule. They are easy to install, long sustainable, perfect in fitting and are highly stainless. Our vendors apply superior metals to make them advanced and durable. We ensure advanced range of China Supplier Hydraulic Hose Fitting and Ferrule at nominal price range.


Why not both? An entrepreneur spirit doesn't simply start once you graduate high school. I still remember building my first website when I was ten to sell my Pokémon cards. It was a great experience that helped me become who I was today.


As others have said, it depends entirely on what benefits are provided, and how much of the cost of those benefits is paid by the employer and how much is paid by the employee, and compare that to what it would cost to obtain the necessary/equivalent coverage without employer assistance. In my case, my employer pays more than $10,000 per year toward the cost of medical, dental, vision, disability, and life insurance for myself and my family. That's almost 20% of the average total household income in my state, so it is not an insignificant amount at all.


Yes, and EY was complacent to opine on those financials and provide a bullshit comfort letter to the book runners... More likely Zuckerberg kept saying to price it higher and MS wanted to be part of some history and didn't make a wise decision and gave in.


Good number of reviews (>10,000) compared to a study of 100 though it isnt normalized or in an actual study format. The thing to note is that if you compare the types of employees to another tech company like lets say Google/Alphabet or Facebook you have a different distribution in the type of people recruited and that might effect their experience as well as severely skew the sample. Amazon does a lot of retail, support and call centers as compared to a lot of engineers with a more educated background. Both are people but theres definitely a difference in the type of person as well as their temperament you get if you go to lets say an urban wal-mart as compared to an Alphabet or Facebook engineer.


"Hanging up is easy, whether it be charities or telemarketers: ""Sorry. I'm giving to other charities and am not interested in donating at this time. Bye. No, seriously, I know there are starving puppies, bye."" *hang up* You're probably trying to be polite and inoffensive by not interrupting and listening to the pitch, but you're not doing them a favor by listening for longer if you're not interested in paying up. Assuaging your guilt is another matter I can't address here."


"Congrats on saving the money but unfortunately, you're looking for a 24% annual rate of return and that's not ""reasonable"" to expect. $200 per month, is $2,400 per year. $2,400/$10,000 is 24%. In a 1% savings account with spending of $200 per month spending you'll have about $7,882 at the end of the year. You'll earn about $90 of interest over the course of the year. I'm sure other people will have more specific opinions about the best way to deploy that money. I'd open a brokerage account (not an IRA, just a regular plain vanilla brokerage account), break off $5,000 and put it in to a low fee no commission S&P index fund; which CAN lose value. Put the rest in a savings account/checking account and just spend wisely."


A 401-K is something you get through an employer. I recommend getting a self-directed IRA. You can open an IRA with Scottrade with $500 The money you put into an IRA is tax deferred, meaning that you do not have to pay taxes on profits. It may also lower your tax liability. Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends from the securities you own. This feature allows you to avoid commissions on those automatic purchases. Don't try to time the market. Pick a good ETF (exchange traded fund) that pays dividends. It will give you diversification. Avoid the urge to buy and sell constantly. This only gives commissions to the broker.


>I believe that decisions should not be based on ideology but on their merits and results This is the exact opposite of your argument. Good luck with your future endeavors. I hope it's never a law firm.


I think this has been clearly explained to you already. I agree with others that you are hating on Tesla because you need to hate someone and it's been all of five minutes since you last raged. BUT... In case that's not the case and you really just don't understand let me try and explain it. The batteries are exactly the same, yes. The difference between them is one is limited by software and the other is not. There are trade offs to each choice. Limiting the battery to 20% of it's capaciy means you can recharge to full every day and do little to no harm to your battery. You will of course have a limited range. With the unlocked you 75kwh battery, you get more range. Now Tesla warns you not to charge beyond 90% of the battery capacity or you begin to damage the battery. However you get more range. Let's also be clear here. The battery packs limited to 60kwh have a REDUCED price of 8500 for the vehicle. If you want to upgrade you pay the 8500 difference, but you are also woke for tax rebates and incentives which make the upgrade cheaper. The short: the 60kwh version is cheaper, you'll get a longer life out of your battery, and if you decide to unlock the full battery capacity, there are tax incentives making it cheaper in the long run. Finally, your reference to this being a pay to win business model couldn't be more wrong. From just what I've said here you're wrong. This gets more cars into people's garage's and driveways as well as simplifies production reducing production costs. It also provides more options to the consumer at a reasonable price. Source: https://electrek.co/2016/06/09/tesla-60kwh-pricing-option-software-revolution-exclusive-details/


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/17/slash-your-student-debt-by-earning-your-degree-abroad.html) reduced by 39%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Annual earnings in Ireland are about the same as in the U.S. - $55,000 - but schools are tuition-free. > &quot;We walk around thinking that America is the best place to earn an education, but when you take a look at the facts, you start to see that earning a degree abroad is actually a smarter move to make,&quot; said Rick Neil, CEO of RN Public Relations and a spokesperson for studentloanreport.org. > In the United Kingdom, for example, students pay tuition that&#039;s on par with the U.S. Even so, Britain is by far the most popular destination for American students seeking to get their degree abroad. Of those attending school outside the U.S., 36 percent of them are in the U.K.. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/777wzh/slash_your_student_debt_by_earning_your_degree/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~230713 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*: **U.S.**^#1 **earn**^#2 **degree**^#3 **tuition**^#4 **American**^#5"


Wow the collateral totally eliminates the purpose of the swap for B, to have a consistent steady cash flow and stable expenses. It probably wouldn't be worth a broker's time unless it was in the millions. They should invent interest rate swaps for the mass market. I'm patenting that!


I am not going to argue the merits of investing in real estate (I am a fan I think it is a great idea when done right). I will assume you have done your due diligence and your numbers are correct, so let's go through your questions point by point. What would be the type of taxes I should expect? NONE. You are a real estate investor and the US government loves you. Everything is tax deductible and odds are your investment properties will actually manage to shelter some of your W2(day job) income and you will pay less taxes on that too. Obviously I am exaggerating slightly find a CPA (certified public accountant) that is familiar with real estate, but here are a few examples. I am not a tax professional but hopefully this gives you an idea of what sort of tax benifits you can expect. How is Insurance cost calculated? Best advice I have call a few insurance firms and ask them. You will need landlord insurance make sure you are covered if a tenant gets hurt or burns down your property. You can expect to pay 15%-20% more for landlord insurance than regular insurance (100$/month is not a bad number to just plug in when running numbers its probably high). Also your lease should require tenants to have renters insurance to help protect you. Have a liability conversation with a lawyer and think about LLCs. How is the house price increase going to act as another source of income? Appreciation can be another source of income but it is not really that useful in your scenario. It is not liquid you will not realize it until you sell the property and then you have to pay capital gains and depreciation recapture on it. There are methods to get access to the gains on the property without paying taxes. This is done by leveraging the property, you get the equity but it is not counted as capital gains since you have to pay it back a mortgage or home equity lines of credit (HELOC) are examples of this. I am not recommending these just making sure you are aware of your options. Please let me know if I am calculating anything wrong but my projection for one year is about $8.4k per house (assuming no maintenance is needed) I would say you estimated profit is on the high side. Not being involved in your market it will be a wild guess but I would expect you to realize cash-flow per house per year of closer to $7,000. Maybe even lower given your inexperience. Some Costs you need to remember to account for: Taxes, Insurance, Vacancy, Repairs, CapEx, Property Management, Utilities, Lawn Care, Snow Removal, HOA Fees. All-in-all expect 50% or your rental income to be spent on the property. If you do well you can be pleasantly surprised.


The short answer is yes, it is possible to do what these classes claim, however, it is highly unlikely. For every person they can show you that got rich using whatever so called method they are teaching, there are hundreds of people that didn't that they aren't telling you about. What I would recommend is invest in a well diversified portfolio. If you have a higher tolerance for risk then you can make some of that portfolio out of higher risk/reward investments. Maybe you pick the next Apple or Google or Netflix or whatever but that portion of your portfolio should be money that you can afford to lose in case you pick duds.


Several things may be the cause. The person who clicked with you may be side lined in the hierarchy. You missed something basic in the entire presentation, maybe you should have picked up or said something about this being similar to X industry or what not. (Not saying you didn't, but pointing out that there is a lot of different reasons as to why it could have happened) The interviewer could have been a tool There was another better candidate. The usual admonitions apply, this is the same advice I give close family members when they get dinged - 1) You are doing the right thing in analyzing it 2) If you can't figure out something to improve on soonish, stop chewing on it. Its quite possibly that the answer will pop into your head once you've had time to distance yourself. Or the answer could be pointless to obtain. 3) Getting in is usually a numbers game - keep at it. The fact that you are focusing is a good thing. You could always try the good old: - Thank you for taking the time out to interview me. I respect the decision taken and regret not being able to join a firm that I greatly respect and admire. If possible, would I be able to talk/meet with you at your convenience. I usually frame these things better, but right now, personally not feeling that confident about sending such a mail so its reflecting in the language. The reason I am suspicious that such a mail won't work is because it sounds you came through the generic recruitment barrage for undergrads - and lee way there is few and far between. All the same, you said you managed to connect positively witht he first interviewer, so adapt and target this at that conversation, put it into your voice and send it to him/her. Thank them for their time, appreciate the effort, and ask politely and with confidence if you could have some time to understand their thought process. You wont get into that firm , but you will make a contact if all goes well. And thats worth a lot.


Oh it slowed the increase? Do you mean since it was enacted compared to previous years, or since it was enacted compared to a crystal ball of what would have happened if it wasn't? I can only assume you mean crystal ball, because the graph in this article makes it look like it was leveling off until ACA was passed. https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/09/27/health-insurance-premiums-have-continued-to-rise-faster-than-worker-wages-under-obamacare/#4bea42b6afe7


">""retail investors did not sufficiently research and think about the company, invested poorly"" A million times this. I wish I had sufficient funds to open a brokerage account at FB's IPO. I wanted to shortsell the stock with every fiber of my being once I saw that imaginary $38 price valuation. Facebook, IMO, has minimal growth prospects and is tapering off in popularity. Within 3 years I figure they'll be on the downswing, with the only new users being companies who foolishly use it as their website for a movie or product launch. (and 8 year olds)."