There are many good brokers available in the market and many spammers too. Personally I have been associated with FXCM since 2001 and have never faced any problem. But everyone has their own personal choice and I recommend you to make your own. But the question is how to find out which broker is a good broker and would provide you with a timely and reliable service? Online google check? Not really. There is so much competition between brokerage firms that they keep writing rubbish about each other on blogs and websites. Best thing is to is check with regulator's website. For US: NFA is a regulator for all forex firms. Information about any regulated forex firm could be found here. http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/welcome.aspx For UK: Its FSA. Information on all regulated Uk based firm could be found here. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmSearchForm.do Remember in many countries its not compulsory for a forex firm to be regulated but being regulated ensure that the govt. has a watch on the operations of the firm. Also most of the firms out there provide accounts for large as well as small traders so there is nothing much to look for even if you are a small trader. Do keep in mind that if you are a US Citizen you are restricted by the US Govt. to trade only with a broker within US. You are not allowed to trade with any brokerage firm that is based outside the country. Forex Trading involves a significant amount of risk make sure you study the markets well and get yourself educated properly before risking your money. While I have made a lot of money trading forex I have seen a lot of people loosing everything. Please understand the risk and please make sure you only trade with the money which you can afford to loose.


The simplest explanation is that a traditional IRA is a method of deferring taxes. That is, normally you pay taxes on money you earn at the ordinary rate then invest the rest and only pay the capital gains rate. However, with a traditional IRA you don't pay taxes on the money when you earn it, you defer the payment of those taxes until you retire. So in the end it ends up being treated the same. That said, if you are strategic about it you can wind up paying less taxes with this type of account.


"Google just spammed me on their own product. I got an email (in Gmail) to probe me about using their calendar application. Seemed very un-Google like. The pointless Youtube and Google Photos notifications have gotten out of control as well. I know they lost the ""do no evil"" thing ages ago but now their products and resorting to super cheap transparent gimmicks to try and drum up more usage."


"1) Don't leave anything off your CV, get a little job. 2) Upload it. It helps to know that you have done certain modules without fucking them up. 3) Turn any question (including this one) into a dialogue. ""I was always aware of JP as a company, but I really got more of an insight when I was studying them for my final project ..."" 4) LEVERAGE THE FUCK OUT OF YOUR DIVERSITY! The majority of the applicants are white males and these large companies have diversity initiatives which they have to meet. You are doing yourself a huge disservice if you do not mention your background on those forms. 5) Launguages are a great skill so make sure it is on your CV clearly near the start. You should keep your name AND include your full name on the CV. The bad press Muslims get is not going to affect you negatively. You will not be discriminated against in the way that you think. Everyone who I know who works at JP is Nigerian. When was the last time you read a nice news article about Nigeria?"


Did you ever think that maybe they only treated you like that because you are actually garbage? Like come on, if a dog comes up to me, I will pet it like a dog, and if you came up to me, I would treat you like garbage, because that's what you are. Garbage.


Someone on twitter (I'm forgetting who, but not just a random person) upon seeing Apple drop it said that we'd be 5 years away from self-driving cars for the next 50 years. Thought it was a ridiculous response considering Apple clearly hasn't been committed to this. Not to mention all the plans car manufacturers have and all the progress Google has made.


To play devil’s advocate to much of what has been written before, it's also worth noting that this is quite an important quote for a sort of reverse reason to what has been discussed before us, that of that fact that virtually every economic situation is different. As it's such a reflexive problem, each and every set of exact circumstances is always different from before. Technology radically changes, monetary policy and economic thinking shift, social needs and market expectations change and thus change the very fabric of markets as they do. It's only in its most basic miss projections of growth that economics repeats, and much like warfare, has constant shifts that radically change the core assumptions about it and do create completely new circumstances that we have to struggle to deal with predicting. People betting on the endless large scale mechanised warfare between western powers continuing post nuclear weapons would have been very, very wrong for example. That time it actually was different, and this actually happens with surprisingly often in finance in ways people quickly bury in the memories and adopt to the new norm. Remember when public ownership of stock wasn't a thing? When bonds didn't exist? No mortgages? Pre insurance? These are all inventions and changes that did change the world forever and were genuinely different and have been ever since, creating huge structural changes in economies, growth rates and societies interactions. As the endless aim of the game is predicting growth well, we often see people/groups over extend on one new thing, and/or under extend on another as they struggle to model these shifts and step changes. Talking as if the fact that people do this consistently as if it is some kind of obvious thing we can easily learn from (or easily take advantage of) in the context of such a vague and complex problem could be argued to be highly naïve and largely useless. This time it is different. Last time it was too.


"Is there anyway to salvage my investment for short-term? No. If by ""salvage"" you mean ""get back as much as you paid"", the only way to salvage it is to wait as long as you consider ""short-term"" and see if goes up again. If by ""salvage"" you mean ""get some money back"", the only thing you can do to guarantee that is sell it now. By doing so, you guarantee that you will get neither more nor less than it is worth right now. Either way, there is nothing you can do other than sell the stock or hold it. The stock price went down. You can't make it go back up. Would it be better if I sell my stocks now and buy from other company? Or should I just wait for it's price to go up again? This depends on why you bought the stock, and what you think it will do in the future. You said a family member persuaded you. Does that family member still think the stock will go up again? If so, do you still trust them? You didn't even say what stock it is in your question, so there's no way anyone here can tell you whether it's a good idea to sell it or not. Even if you do say what stock it is, all anyone can do is guess. If you want, you could look the stock up on Motley Fool or other sites to see if analysts believe it will rise. There are lots of sources of information. But all you can do with that information is decide to sell the stock or not. It may sound obvious, but you should sell if you think the stock will go lower, and hold it if you think it could still go back up. No one can tell you which of those things is going to happen."


"I thought the same thing when I was making $40k in 2010. I'm around 110k now. Mortgage (300k near Portland, OR which is really damn good) + taxes + insurance and two kids is expensive. I have a single 14k car, my phone was free, and I drink tea. We vacation once every 3 years and don't dine out much (2x per month max). Our grocery bill is ridiculously expensive though and every month I end up spending a fortune on some bullshit like new tires, dental/medical copays, plumbing issue, electrical issue, or whatever the fuck else decides to break and cause more grief. The electric bill in winter peaks at $400/month with our electric furnace ... we never set the thermostat above 68. Probably more stuff I'm forgetting buy basically on a good month, I can set aside $600 in savings. That's not bad at all, it's great compared to the average family, but it's not even close to ""wealthy"". I still consider myself middle class."


Hi..I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this post. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. In fact your creative writing abilities has inspired me to start my own blog now.


That information is the only way to get money wired directly into your account so you don't have a lot of options. You should be reasonably comfortable giving out that information as there checks and balances (as noted above) but more than this the banks tend to err on the side of avoiding a PR nightmare if someone uses routing/account to defraud their customer. For bank security you should be more concerned about a) your credit card, only use secure https sites and ones you can see are dealing with lots of customers b) your identity, someone with your social security number, a recent bank statement and some basic information about you (like family, birth location etc) can assume your identity c) your bank login, be sure to create a strong password, pref 10 characters or more with numbers, symbols and upper & lower case. A site like http://strongpasswordgenerator.com/ can help here.


Wearing different kind of shirts, especially T shirts has been in vogue from ages. These T shirts are made of super fine cotton and observe the heat and sweat and make the person feel comfortable in them. The T shirts have fan following across the globe and every day, we can see new kind of T shirts with different cuts, designs, slogans, styles as well as in shapes.


"I think you need to realize that regardless of whether they are ""shady"" or not, owners/founders are by and large in it for themselves. You as an employee as just a resource - why should they divulge their finances to you? You won't offend them if you pry and ask for it, but they simply are not going to give you the straight up. They will give you a bare minimum or some song and dance that beats around the bush without actually telling you what you need to know. In regards to whether you should buy the restricted shares: why not? Startups are a gamble anyway. So simply decide how much you're willing to gamble, and spend that much buying some shares. I mean, you're already taking the gamble by accepting a lower salary in exchange for equity which, in all likelihood, will never be worth anything anyway."


"I think your question is the reason why generics are cheaper. Part of what you're paying for in a ""brand"" is consistency. Depending on what you buy and where you shop, it may be a no-brainer to buy the generic brand of certain products. Buying generic OTC drugs is in that category. It's amazing to me that anyone purchases Tylenol, when the generics deliver superior quality at half the cost. But for other products, subtle differences can be significant. My wife would never purchase generic flour (which seems like it would be a commodity product) for baking, as she's a serious baker and there are qualitative differences and consistency issues between brands. If I were just making gravy, the those differences don't really matter."


"As far as I know, it's not barred by the primary anti-discrimination statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There are some state and local protections against being fired or discriminated against based on this, but the long and short of it is that it's pretty few and far between. If the CEO in question fired people who were all affiliated with the Democratic Party, and didn't fire people who weren't affiliated with said party, those who were terminated may have a case at that point. This is from a [linkedin discussion](http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/employment-labor-law/LAW_ELW/449714-9356514): > For private situations, there is also a Federal statute, 42 USC 1985(3), that prohibits conspiracies to deprive persons of equal rights and privileges that has been raised in various contexts. The statute, which is a Reconstruction era law, is broadly drafted to correct some of the abuses that arose after the Civil War for blacks trying to exercise their rights. However, it addresses ""any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws"" which could include party affiliation, or a particular political viewpoint. The ""class"" must be one that is sufficiently defined, so it is more likely to apply to party affiliation, such as Democrat, rather than an amorphous group, such as liberal. There are a number of nuances to this statute, so if you have a belief that it may apply to your situation, seek competent legal advice."


Years ago I hired someone part time (not virtual however) to help me with all sorts of things. Yes it helps free up some time. However particularly with finances, it does take a leap of faith. If you have high value accounts that this person will be dealing with you can always get them bonded. Getting an individual with a clean credit history and no criminal background bonded usually costs < $600 a year (depending on $ risk exposure). I would start out small with tasks that do not directly put that person in control of your money. In my case I didn't have an official business, I worked a normal 9-5 job, but I owned several rental units, and an interest in a bar. My assistant also had a normal 9-5 job and worked 5-10 hours a week for me on various things. Small stuff at first like managing my calendar, reminding me when bills were due, shipping packages, even calling to set up a hair cut. At some point she moved to contacting tenants, meeting with contractors, showing apartments, etc... I paid her a fixed about each week plus expenses. I would pay her extra if I needed her more (say showing an apartment on a Saturday, or meeting a plumber). She would handled all sorts of stuff for me, and I gave her the flexibility when needed to fit things in with her schedule. After about a month I did get her a credit card for expenses. Obviously a virtual assistant would not be able to do some of these things but I think you get the point. Eventually when the trust had been built up I put her on most of my accounts and gave her some fiduciary responsibilities as well. I'm not sure that this level of trust would be possible to get to with a virtual assistant. However, with a virtual assistant you might be able to avoid one really big danger of hiring an assistant.... You see, several years later when I sold off my apartment buildings I no longer needed an assistant, so I married her. Now one good thing about that is I don't have to pay her now. ;)


Wrong way round. Transitional arrangements are non-binding guidelines that the lenders can observe if they choose to. The borrower - like your friend - doesn't get to choose whether to use them or not. Your friend obviously can't afford the property, so if you do this, all I can say is congratulations on buying your new house, and I hope you got a deal on the mortgage.


The previous day's close on Thursday 10th October was 5,000.00 The close on Friday 11th October is 5,025.92 So the gain on Friday was 25.92 (5025.92 - 5000) or 0.52% (25.92/5000 x 100%). No mystery!


I think it depends where you live in the world, but I guess the most common would be: Major Equity Indices I would say major currency exchange rate: And have a look at the Libors for USD and EUR. I guess the intent of the question is more to see how implicated you are in the daily market analysis, not really to see if you managed to learn everything by heart in the morning.


"You can shop for a mortgage rate without actually submitting a mortgage application. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has made it illegal for the banks to give you a ""good faith estimate"" of the mortgage cost and terms without submitting a mortgage application. On the other hand, government regulations make the ""good faith estimates"" somewhat misleading. (For one thing, they rarely are good for estimating how much money you will need to ""bring to the closing table"".) My understanding is that in the United States, multiple credit checks within a two-week period while shopping for a mortgage are combined to ding your credit rating only once. You need the following information to shop for a mortgage: A realistic ""appraisal value"". Unless your market is going up quickly, a fair purchase price is usually close enough. Your expected loan amount (which you or a banker can estimate based on your down payment and likely closing costs). Your middle credit score, for purposes of mortgage applications. (If you have a co-borrower, such as a spouse, many banks use the lower of the two persons' middle credit score). The annual property tax cost for the property, taking into account the new purchase price. The annual cost of homeowners' insurance. The annual cost of homeowners' association dues. Your minimum monthly payments on all debt. Banks tend to round up the minimum payments. Also, banks care whether any of that debt is secured by real estate. Your monthly income. Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years. Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns. There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay. Many banks are willing to lower your ""note rate"" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front. The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called ""no-fee"" or ""no-closing cost"" loan. These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher ""note rate"". Unless you ask for a ""no-fee"" or ""no-closing cost"" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers. Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount. Divide that percentage by 4. Add that percentage to the ""note rate"" for a loan with ""no points"". Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers. (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay ""points"" to lower the ""note rate"".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application. Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day. You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:"


Firstly, I think you need to separate your question into two parts: If you are Chinese, live in China and intend to stay in China for most of your life then the default answer to question 1 should be Renminbi. Question 2 is not as important, you can hold USD in almost any country in the world. Any investment you hold has risk, which may include market risk, credit risk, liquidity risk, inflation risk etc. Holding USD will expose you to exchange rate fluctuations as well. If the Renminbi rises in value against the dollar your returns in USD will be reduced by the same amount (remember that for currency fluctuations you have to multiply the percentages, see here for a good explanation). The first thing you probably want to do is find out exactly what the assets are in the 理财 you have invested in. The fact that there is a 'risk level' (even if it is only 2) would suggest to me that the fund is investing in some combination of bonds and stocks which means that your returns are not guaranteed and could make a loss. Interest rates on deposit accounts are mandated by the government in China, and the current 12 month deposit rate on RMB is 3%. To earn over 3%, GEB must be investing your assets in something else (I'm guessing bonds). Bear in mind that 1.5 years is a very short amount of time in investments, so don't assume this return will continue! I'm afraid I've only been studying Chinese for a year, so I can't really help you much with the link you've sent through - you may want to check if there is any guaranteed minimum return, which can be the case in more complex structured products. Ultimately you will need to pick an investment which you feel gives you the best combination of risk and return for your situation, there are a huge amount of options to choose between. The 4-5% you are earning right now is not a huge risk premium on the 3% you could earn in China from a time deposit, but in the current environment you may struggle to beat it without taking on more risk. Before considering that though - understand how much risk you already have with GEB.


"For what it's worth, the distribution I'm currently using is roughly ... with about 2/3 of the money sitting in my 401(k). I should note that this is actually considered a moderately aggressive position. I need to phone my advisor (NOT a broker, so they aren't biased toward things which are more profitable for them) and check whether I've gotten close enough to retirement that I should readjust those numbers. Could I do better? Maybe, at higher risk and higher fees that would be likely to eat most of the improved returns. Or by spending far more time micromanaging my money than I have any interest in. I've validated this distribution using the various stochastic models and it seems to work well enough that I'm generally content with it. (As I noted in a comment elsewhere, many of us will want to get up into this range before we retire -- I figure that if I hit $1.8M I can probably sustain my lifestyle solely on the income, despite expected inflation, and thus be safely covered for life -- so this isn't all that huge a chunk of cash by today's standards. Cue Daffy Duck: ""I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm comfortably well off!"" -- $2M, these days, is ""comfortably well off."")"


I was part of a class action against First Tennessee Bank for this same shady shit. Got my check in the mail last week for my portion. $21.12 At one point, they hit me five times for overdraft charges, ($175). No risk for them, charge the fuck out of you on the front end, pay back pennies on the back. It's a win/win for them. I joined a credit union (SkyOne) and love them, will never look back.


How I understand it is: supply/demand affect price of stock negatively/positively, respectively. Correct. Volume is the amount of buying/selling activity in these stocks (more volume = more fluctuation, right?). Sort of. Higher volume means higher liquidity. That is, a stock that is traded more is easier to trade. It doesn't necessarily mean more fluctuation and in the real world, it often means that these are well-understood stocks with a high amount of analyst coverage. This tends towards these stocks not being as volatile as smaller stocks with less liquidity. Company revenue (and profit) will help an investor predict company growth. That is one factor in a stock price. There are certain stocks that you would buy without them making a profit because their future revenue looks potentially explosive. However, these stocks are very risky and are bubble-prone. If you're starting out in the share market, it's generally a good idea to invest in index funds (I am not a broker, my advice should not be taken as financial advice). These funds aggregate risk by holding a lot of different companies. Also, statistics have shown that over time, buying and holding index funds long term tends to dramatically outperform other investment strategies, particularly for people with low amounts of capital.


"I agree it's an agency problem. This why firms that are astute at making acquisitions properly align the incentives of managers and shareholders, and strive to make negotiating prowess a core competency (see [here](https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21708671-two-economists-win-nobel-prize-their-work-theory-contracts-hard) and [here](https://www.economist.com/news/economics-brief/21725542-if-markets-are-so-good-directing-resources-why-do-companies-exist-first-our)). This is easier said than done - there are many more Valeant Pharmaceuticals type companies (making acquisitions for financial engineering and ""growth"") than Gilead Sciences type companies (making acquisitions based on a keen understanding of the market's demands)."


I have been in a similar position for quite a while now and the only thing that seems to help is screening phone calls. I have a long list of collector numbers set to not ring on my phone. They can still leave a voice mail but they never do. As far as I know there aren't any laws that protect you from nuisance phone calls. FDCPA letters only apply to the debtor and the collector it is sent to it doesn't protect an unrelated third party from getting annoying phone calls. I have a feeling that sending FDCPA letters is just confirming that you probably are the debtor and prolong the collection calls.


One big advantage that the 529 plan has is that most operate like a target date fund. As the child approaches college age the investment becomes more conservative. While you can do this by changing the mix of investments, you can't do it without capital gains taxes. Many of the issues you are concerned about are addressed: they are usable by other family members, they don't hurt financial aid offers, they address scholarships, they can be used for books or room and board. Many states also give you a tax break in the year of the contribution.


Good point, but the idea I was getting at is that the money was already allocated for this purpose as it is regularly with every pay day. The idea that some people should not get unemployment insurance payments because they happen to live in households that retain high income is not trivial and at very least should be put before a vote of representatives.


When calculating the NPV, is there anything I need to do in between the project start date outlay (Nov 2017), and the first cash inflow (July 2019). Do I need to discount the cashflow to the present, and if so, how? Yes, you need to discount every cash flow to the present time, not just the first one. When discounting cash flows, the appropriate discount rate needs to represent the opportunity cost of the initial cash outlay. Meaning if you were to use that money for something else, what rate of return would you expect? You could be safe and assume only a risk-free return (like 2-3%) or use the average rate of return of other investments (e.g. 10-15%). Another common approach is to use your cost of capital if you're raising funds for the project, or would instead have use the funds to pay off existing debt. Once you find a relevant discount rate, then just discount each cash flow by dividing them by e^rt, where r is the annualized discount rate (e.g. 0.10 for 10%) and t is the decimal number of years between now and the cash flow (e.g. 1.5 for 18 months)


For the constant growth problem, I don't see why the answer would be anything other than the stock price grown for 3 years at the cost of equity determined from CAPM. Someone can correct me if the dividend is relevant. So: rs = rf + beta x (market premium) rs = 0.046 + 0.9 x (0.06) = 0.10 price now = $40.00 price after 3 years' growth = $40.00 x (1+0.10)^3 = $53.24 EDIT: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-dividend-yields-factored-into-beta two conflicting answers so you'll just have to figure it out


GBP is widely traded currency and it is definitely possible to send GBP internationally with out any conversion. Of late banks are trying to maximize the FX and if they see a Euro country the sending bank assumes the beneficiary account is in Euro and converts to get FX spread than letting the beneficiary bank decide. Keep complaining to your bank and then the sending bank will put your account in exception and not convert next payments


Aim pistol at own foot. Pull trigger. The job market is definitely tightening: people with experience are spending less time between jobs; recruiters are calling more frequently. Too bad this has not yet helped the young and inexperienced.


I think that author does a disservice by writing such seemingly sensible articles without actually knowing how things work. If I didn’t know better, I would think this guy was teaching me something. It’s a shame he did not do research before he started writing. Let’s say you buy a classic car. You take super good care of it, all original, mint condition. You paid cash for it out of your savings. This is a balance sheet transaction that has nothing to do with income. You traded your cash asset for a classic car asset. Now let’s say this car is so rare and you keep it in such good condition that it gains value every year. Maybe it was worth $15k when you bought it, but this year it’s already worth $17k. Great job on making a great purchase! But is that $2k gain counted as income to you? No, it is not. The value of that asset on your balance sheet went up, but you did not make anything off of that increase in value because you have not sold it. If you had to pay taxes on the increase in value every year, those taxes would essentially force you to sell that car to pay the taxes just because you took care of it. Additionally, in the long term, no one would want to own anything, so this would destroy the value of everyone’s stuff, but I digress. In this example, amazon stock is the car. The author is seeing the increase in stock value adding to the balance sheets of the investors who bought the stock and confusing that with income. Back to our example, let’s say your car increased in value $2k a year for two years and you decide to sell it for $19k - now we are about to realize some income! Since you bought it for $15k and sold for $19k, you earned an income of the difference, or $4k. Your income wasn’t $19k, because you originally put $15k in cash into the car. That cash was already saved from income you made in the past, and it is not counted again as income in this sale. Because you did not work for this new car sale income, but it was derived from asset growth, the income is called capital gains. You invested your capital ($15k) into the asset (car), and that asset appreciated. When you sold it, you received capital (money) back in exchange for that asset. The capital you received is more than what you invested, which is to say you gained $4k of capital by investing in and then selling your asset (car). Because you held the car for two years, you qualify for lower long term capital gains tax rate on that $4k. Had you sold it after year 1, you would’ve paid your regular normal income tax rate on those capital gains. Either way, you owe the tax when you sell the asset, not when it appreciates. I’m sure you realize this already, but if we change the car to amazon stock in my story, this is exactly how it works with investors. The author gets several things wrong 1 - amazon profits are not passed through to shareholders for income tax purposes. If amazon paid dividends, those dividends would be taxed at payout at the long term capital gains rate, and they would be paid out of cash amazon has left after it already paid corporate taxes on profits. Amazon has decided they can add more value to investors by using cash to grow instead of paying dividends. When the investors sell the stock, they will owe capital gains on the growth of that stock. If amazon is correct that using cash to grow, then investors will effectively pay more when they sell the stock than they would pay today if dividends were paid. 2 - asset appreciation is not income. Those investors will realize the income when they sell the stock, and they will pay the tax then. 3 - he is missing the point entirely on why amazon runs a low profit or how business strategy translates into financials. Low prices are not a function of low profitability. Low profitability could be an adverse result of low pricing, but being low profit in order to be low price is a ridiculous and failing strategy. Amazon’s low pricing is a function of their unparalleled buying power, unparalleled consumer and product data, amazing logistics prowess, clever loyalty programs like amazon prime, and many other brilliant things they’ve done. Their low profitability is a function of their investment in things like amazon fresh, amazon Alexa, drone delivery, automated convenience stores, building out cloud computing infrastructure, and many other R&D projects, $4 billion in original content spending for amazon prime video, and all kinds of expenditures years ahead of when they become profitable. By the time consumers want it, amazon already built it three years ago - this is the power of amazon. Sometimes multi billion dollar experiments fail, and all that money was for nothing. Sometimes they lose money for a few years and then become the infrastructure that runs a third of the internet. Amazon does not let fear of failure stop them, they invest in growth with their cash. This is how Bezos thinks - how do we build the future, not how can I avoid tax I do need to make a disclaimer here - there could be special tax treatment of classic cars that makes my example not work. Also classic cars may not appreciate in value. I don’t know anything about classic cars, I just picked a politically neutral thing to put in my story and made some assumptions to illustrate how capital gains work. My story is definitely how stocks work, and probably cars, but I just want to point out that I don’t know shit about car collecting.


Paying off debts will reduce your monthly obligation to creditors (less risk) and also remove the possibility of foreclosure / repossession / lawsuit if you ever lost access to income (less risk). Risk is an important part of the equation that can get overlooked. It sounds like pulling that money out of the market will reduce your yearly tax bill as well.


Marilyn Angelena is a Transformational Business Coach and Mentor known as Magic Makeover Genie!Marilyn works with Women Entrepreneurs and Small Business Owners who struggle to market their business effectively. What separates my service from other Business Coaches, Consultants and Mentors is that I only work with Women Entrepreneurs and Small Business Owners and I specialize in transforming your businesses using outrageous marketing strategies, both offline and online. Your business can literally be transformed in 26 weeks or less, regardless if you are just starting out with a new and fresh idea, you have been in business for a while and you aren’t making any money or you are making a profit and you are now ready to go to the “next level”.


I should mention I work as an analyst for our Wealth Management division and am also a CFA charterholder. I have done the basic research on WSO into IB and corporate banking roles. I was hoping to get into the weeds with very specific jobs and duties, if that makes sense.


This is something I love about only investing in tech. Every company I'd want to invest in has a great balance sheet anyway, that's just how their economics work, so I don't have to worry about this. I actually work in reverse. Like with AAPL, I'm deducting their cash from their market cap to get an even more attractive valuation*. As opposed to trying to work out all the complex debt and liabilities of a bank or something. *AAPL actually does have some debt now but it's dead simple to deduct and only a workaround to their offshore cash.


They are being propped up by their own debt most of the time. Just because someone does better or plans better than you, doesn't mean they took anything from you. There is no pie wealth is not finite. Its a myth. We not even coke vaguely close to the wealth creation potential of our species. Technologically we are still enfants but progressing pretty fast. Every day something that use to be hard becomes easy, not just for some but for everyone. Something that used to be impossible is just around the corner all the time. You are richer every day. Whether you want to admit it or not.


Almost every job I have had over the past thirty years required drug testing. ALL tested for pot, narcotics, cocaine specifically, heroin, alcohol and others. Saying the majority do not is wrong because the test is a standard panel.


With the W8-Ben filed, tax will be withheld at a lower rate. (I would expect 10%). Tax treaty treatment will mean that this witholding will reduce your UK tax even if this payment is not taxable there. This is only effective if you actually pay tax. This is how it works for lotteries and dividends as well.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://nirpumbrella.com/exec-at-fannie-mae-will-be-nominated-u-s-deputy-secretary/) reduced by 51%. (I'm a bot) ***** > President Donald Trump plans to nominate, general counsel for Fannie Mae, Brian Brooks as the deputy secretary of the treasury department according to Axios. > Brooks joined Fannie Mae seven years after the subprime fiasco. > Brooks does have a link to the White House as before joining Fannie Mae, he was vice-chairman of OneWest Bank and worked with Steven Mnuchin who wanted someone for the job that resembled loyalty, according to Axios&#039; unidentified sources. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6goafv/breaking_exec_at_fannie_mae_will_be_nominated_as/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~141894 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*: **Brooks**^#1 **Mae**^#2 **Fannie**^#3 **department**^#4 **Axios**^#5"


So real estate isn't a good investment? Yeah, it's went down at times. Still worth more now then say 15, 25 and 50 years ago right? Is nothing a good investment because it has bad years? Im not saying bitcoin is the best shit ever and it's perfect and everyone should buy it. But we've heard time and time again that it was in its death throws. Yet after every dip, it recovers and reaches new highs.


They US does not give Israel aid, they take what they want, They control the government and the economy. That is why the Head of the Fed is always a Jew and why every US politician spreads his butt cheeks for a complete anal check in front of AIPAC. The Jews make up less the 1% of the US voter base, yet every decision that America has to make has a Jew up its ass including Ivanka. It is simply the Truth


Half VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF) and half VEU (Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF), and stop futzing. The US is roughly half the world market cap so this is like a total world equity index. Very low costs. VTI Expense ratio is 0.04% as of 04/27/2017. I don't know what you mean by RSG, but it could be either a waste processor or a gold miner. Either way it seems kind of speculative to hold even 10% of your wealth.


I'd say that because you are young, even the 'riskier' asset classes are not as risky as you think, for example, assuming conservatively that you only have 30 years to retirement, investing in stocks index might be a good option. In short term share prices are volatile and prone to bull and bear cycles but given enough time they have pretty much always outperformed any other asset classes. The key is not to be desperate to withdraw when an index is at the bottom. Some cycles can be 20 years, so when you need get nearer retirement you will need to diversify so that you can survive without selling low. Just make sure to pick an index tracker with low fees and you should be good to go. A word of warning is of course past performance is no indication of a future one, but if a diversified index tracker goes belly up for 20+ years, we are talking global calamity, in which case buy a shotgun and some canned food ;)


That seems like a very high valuation. 2 years ago in the Ellen Pao lawsuit Pao's side claimed Reddit was worth $250mm, and the press had claimed it was $500mm. Either Reddit's valuation has more than tripled in 2 years, or this article is misleading.


I think the problem with AC is: It's junky - The entire city seems rundown and poor. The beach isn't very nice (compared to OC Md, Rehoboth, VA Beach, etc...). It's expensive - It seems like a room that would cost $200/night in Las Vegas always costs like $350 a night in Atlantic City. I live in Maryland. I vacation in Ocean City MD every year. AC is 30 minutes closer to me. If AC had Las Vegas hotel room prices and a nice beach I would go there every year.


"It's no where near that simple. Defined benefit plans for enterprises as large (and as old) as automakers or the legacy airlines are incredibly complicated. It's not simply a matter of plugging the money into some piggy bank account and ""doing the right thing."" I think the people in these companies do honestly want to do right by their employees and retirees - and offering buyout options is, in some cases, a better deal for both recipient and the company."


Any sort of applications you go through in class, including physics, the textbook and hopefully the professor will give you full context of the type of problems to focus on. My ODE class spent a lot of time on population models too, so it won't just be physics.


If they are voting in reaction to what cities/ city folk are doing rather than for the good of their area then they deserve to die, I don't mean die as human beings but die as towns and municipalities. And from where I'm sitting this seems to be exactly what they are doing.


"90% of what you need to know about diversity and racism was taught to my son in 2nd grade. > My college education included a class on diversity laws in the us and the state i live. So tell, me: what did that class teach you that you did not know? I am asking, because maybe I can learn something that you know, but my son or me may not know. > I evaluated how businesses predominantly focused on a market can effectively adjust their businesses plans to new markets. This is taught in marketing and business classes. Even before the 1960s everyone was taught or knew that you can make money off minorities and niche groups because of their needs. > I could go on but i think you get my point. No, I did not get your point. Please tell me about something you learned purely about ""diversity"". **Not about how to take advantage of diversity for economic and POLITICAL gains!** Do you understand what I mean with the last thing I said? Think about it first."


You are very young, you make a huge amount of money, and you have (from what information you provide) very little debt. If you simply want to buy a house for whatever reason, sure, but be honest with yourself about why you want to buy it. I see a lot of people who think they're doing it for smart financial reasons, but then when I ask them about their pension savings and credit card debts and so on, there is no evidence that they are actually the kind of person who makes decisions for smart financial reasons. If you want a house because that seems like the thing that people do, maybe you could think more about what you actually want. If your concern is putting your money to work for you (you seem to dislike that you pay rent each month and after that month you don't have anything to show for your money, except of course that you didn't spent the last month living on the streets), you can do a lot better than getting a mortgage. For example, living frugally you should be able to dump 50k a year into investments; if you did that for a few years, you could reasonably expect the return to cover your rent and bills in a surprisingly small number of years (a lot less than a 25 year mortgage). Your question seems to be starting from the position that you should buy a house. You're asking if you should buy it now, or wait. You are rich enough now (and if your earnings keep going up, will be even more rich in a few years) that you should perhaps question your need to buy a house. With your kind of money, at this stage of your life, you can do a lot better.


> Why is this always the top voted kind of comment whenever a blog post is submitted on Reddit? It isn't. Decent blog articles get submitted every day. > A blog is not an article so adjust your expectations or volunteer to be her pro-bono editor. I do expect it to be at least coherent and consise. >doesn't really contradict what the blogger was writing about: being sold a false dream. Caveat Emptor. It precisely contradicts what the OP was about. If the contract isn't to your liking, don't buy into the dream. Look - Freelancing is hard. You have to make decisions that regular employees don't have to. One of your tasks is vetting potential employees and negotiating contracts. If that sounds too hard or too difficult, go back to your fucking cubicle and fill out your TPS reports.


"> they want to lower the standards we have for goods and services Their avowed goal is ""regulatory coherence"" but its [not being done in a good way](http://www.ciel.org/Publications/ToxicPartnership_Mar2014.pdf), its an attempt to sneak through a [huge long long list](http://www.ttip2014.eu) of bad ideas that would not fly in any kind of light of day, and then make them permanent, with special [eternal entitlements](http://tpplegal.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/isds-domestic-legal-process-background-brief.pdf) for multinational corporations, so permanent that future elections can not change them, nor can states individually protect people, their laws would be preempted to the extent that unaccountable trade tribunals [can order huge fines against countries and states for merely doing their jobs](http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3206.pdf), because they impinge upon new suddenly materialized ""rights"" as perceived by the trade agreements. Almost nobody knows they are doing this. often countries dont realize that they have lost their rights to determine their policies, and then countries usually lose. There are SO many problems I don't know where to begin. > in part by opening up public services to private business? Privatization often goes badly. They are hiding that and portraying privatization as the only possible future. Well at the beginning, the prototypes FTAs, NAFTA and GATS mandated the privatization of most public services in countries that signed them, with services (everything you can't drop on your foot) especially some of the add on documents to GATS. That was in 1995. It contains a ""standstill"" (they all do) which said that countries could not change anything if it was a move back towards public ownership and control, in the case of services, they frame that as bad, as a theft from businesses.. So standstill typically says things like they can not create any new public services and [if there was any money involved in the market sector at all that it would have to be privatized](http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm) in tiny steps. No going back to public services allowed. But of course, people dont know that and often don't believe it when told. For example, do you believe me when i tell you thats the reason US health care is so bad-? Can you see how and why they might lie about what they,, politicians, can do, can do about things because they want to win elections by promising things - like affordable health care- But also hide the ugly act [that they gave away the store](http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/nafta.pdf) starting in 1995. The FTAs that we can read (the early ones) tried to do it by being undecipherable to non-experts- they are so complicated and ambiguous only a few people really know what they demanded, at least up until recently. Now they are top secret. Really secret. Only the 600 lobbyists have access. Now, a growing number of people, especially in Europe, seem to realize this is really scary and a red flag., but its not because the news was any help, its because of the net, the media - especially in the US, has been completely unhelpful. They dont cover this at all. TTIP is a huge controversy. But I have a feeling the worst one is TiSA, which has remained largely out of the news. Except for Wikileaks and the financial services chapter. Just one chapter is known. And its an old version. Now they want in TiSA to greatly [expand the scope of these FTAs to millions of service jobs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_pPqnbXpA4) in a huge number of countries. Countries want things, like the US wants to be able to charge more money for drugs and they want to force other countries to allow US companies into their markets, for example, insurance, or financial instruments, it seems that they are trying to deregulate banking when it should be re-regulated to avoid a repeat of the 2008 GFC. Another thing the US wants is to limit generic drugs and make it easier for companies to open factories, send contractors, etc. elsewhere. Its not always a good thing to open markets up to ""liberalisation"". In many cases, it could lead to substantial job losses, as it has in [Central America after CAFTA](http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2014/08/central-america-crisis-belies-caftas-empty-promises.html)."


"In general we're getting a more nuanced view of a proposition that might tend to influence policy. ""Amazon creates jobs"" is the implicit suggestion of the headline, and it's worthwhile to take a critical approach rather than simply accepting it as something that should influence our opinions. Letting the mayor open an urea refinery in the centre of town *also* creates jobs, after all, but people tend to have an intuitive grasp of the costs that it would impose on the townsfolk as a whole. You allude to what I think is a fear of asymmetrically developed information: having learnt of the disadvantage of a growing Amazon to potential employees, as compared to the preceding status quo, we proceed on the assumption that the growth of Amazon is a sufficient explanation for the disruption of that status quo, and naively assume that we need merely prevent Amazon's business model from succeeding in order to restore the world to rights, without examining any of the possible harms of our own intervention. That's certainly something I can sympathize with. However, while 'creative destruction' describes something that does indeed happen, it's a bad idea to observe destruction and assume that either the process or the outcome is necessarily creative. 'Destructive destruction' is *also* a thing, and it is inherently cheaper and easier than the creative variety. 'Disruptive' business models often succeed simply because they use technology to bypass regulatory traps, for good or for ill. At times, however, this involves the discovery of a way to offload the costs of the enterprise onto society. A wonderful example of this would be bike-sharing systems. Where I've seen them in North America, in their first generation, they tend to have physical parking stations to which the bikes must be returned. In China, by contrast, systems have developed where one needn't even return the bicycles to any particular location; one merely finds one wherever someone had parked it, and unlocks it by scanning the code on it. The bicycles themselves are not a huge capital cost, so convenience relies on a huge oversupply of bikes that have been parked, dumped, dropped, or hidden by their previous riders all over the public space. Effectively, these companies have managed to make the municipal services responsible for their inventory management."


>“Draw one line on a graph charting the decline in union membership, then superimpose a second line charting the decline in middle-class income share,” writes Noah, “and you will find that the two lines are nearly identical.” Richard Freeman, a Harvard economist, Thus demonstrating that Harvard economists apparently fail to comprehend the very simple point that *CORRELATION does* **NOT** *equal CAUSATION.* At best, it indicates the *possibility* of a link, but is proof of nothing. (And anyone who cites a mere correlation as if it was irrefutable proof, as is implied here... is either an idiot, or they are being extremely intellectually dishonest.)


The comparisons are disingenuous. The lowest paid, part time worker at one factory is making almost twice the Chinese national median wage, and one at another factory is making as much as the median wage in one of China's wealthiest cities. It's okay to just say the wages suck.


"I believe they manage a bit over 500 million. He is still the founder and probably has control of the company but he is not the ceo. He has probably gotten the company to a stable position and wants to move on to other things... big deal. If tradeworx is stable and making money it is not a big deal if narang doesn't want to micro manage people and run day to day shit, someone else can handle that while he can go explore other things. Just like De shaw did.... de shaw got his fund up and running, make a ton on money, left to do research and the fund still makes money. [you can read this to see why he left](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-markets-tradeworx-narangdeparture/exclusive-tradeworx-founder-narang-leaves-high-frequency-firm-idUSKBN0KM1Z720150113) ""Narang declined to spell out why he was leaving Red Bank, New Jersey-based Tradeworx, but said, “I had a few differences with the board about the direction of the company.” Narang said there were no losses or expected losses at closely held Tradeworx, which he said has a bright future and where he remains a shareholder. Tradeworx accounts for about 5 to 6 percent of daily U.S. equity market volume, sources say. There was no immediate response from Tradeworx management. Narang has not decided on a future venture, but he said he is likely to remain in the financial services industry, is talking to people and is looking closely at the options market. “I have a whole lot of ideas that I‘m excited about that I’ve been wanting to pursue, so now is the time to figure out which of those ideas I’d like to pursue,” Narang told Reuters. “I‘m particularly interested in options trading, I have been for some time, that’s something Tradeworx doesn’t do. Many of my ideas are in that space,” said Narang, 45, who has degrees in computer science and mathematics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology."" edit- This all really has nothing to do with the original post about actuallyserious65 comment regarding hft."


I don't know enough about taxes and real-state in the Netherlands to be super helpful in determining whether or not a rental property is a good investment. One thing for certain is that there's some risk in spending everything on a rental property. It's wise to have some buffer, an emergency fund of 3-6 months expenses. If things got dire, you'd still need to live somewhere until your tenant was gone, and you'd want to be able to handle any major repairs that crop up. So, even if it is a good idea to buy a rental property, you should probably wait until doing so doesn't leave you without a healthy buffer. As for owning a rental, you described a scenario where you'd get 6% income on your investment each year if there were zero expenses associated with owning the property. Are there property taxes? Is there a monthly cost to maintain the building the apartment is in? Are rental incomes taxed more heavily than other investment income? Just be aware of the full financial picture before deciding if it's a worthwhile investment.


You can split payments, and nobody judges you because most prepaid cards are actually gift cards. They just think you have generous friends. When you use Visa/MC at a vendor, they get dinged around 2-3% plus 35 cents flat-rate. So when you ask them to charge 77 cents to the card, you're essentially asking they give half of it to Visa/MC. Which is unfair. A charity won't turn it down, but it's wasted. So how do you solve this problem? If you see a small merchant using Square or PayPal Here, their merchant agreements charge a flat rate (2.75% and 2.70% respectively) with no flat rate per transaction. If you see they are on PayPal/Square, go for it. Obviously PayPal itself doesn't have that problem, because they have a really, really good deal with Visa and Mastercard. So feel free to buy yourself credit on your PayPal account with these residual values. Amazon probably has a similar deal. You are getting these small amounts because you aim to pay a $22.69 bill with a card that has $25 on it. Reasonable, but it causes this. Flip it around: pay a $22.69 bill with a card that has $20 on it, consume the $20 value, and pay the $2.69 in cash. You may need to tell the cashier exactly the amount to charge (e.g. $20.00) especially if it is a Visa/MC card. It will certainly go faster if you do. The cashier may be able to pull up the balance, but it's an extra procedure, and an inexperienced cashier may struggle with it / have to call the manager etc. - not worth it in my book.


Another factor to consider is that it encourages employees to contribute more into to the plan so that they'll be able to comfortably retire. Getting the full match encourages people to put at least 6% in to avoid leaving money on the table; 100% of the 1st 3% would see a lot of people only putting 3% in instead. While 9% of your income is still a rather marginal amount to be saving; it will leave you in a much better place in your 60's than if you had only put in 6%/year.


"Before we all argue about his pricing, blah blah - let me explain to you how he absolutely fleeced consumers under the guise of helping them. JCPenney had a handful of sales strategies: * 40% off * 50% off * Buy one, get one for $0.01 * Buy one, get one for $0.99 * 60% off * Green tag clearance (where things were up to 90% off discounted prices; items as low as $0.97) What he did was basically eliminate all of the different kind of sales and just discount a straight 40%. Meaning that before, when you were ""screwed"", the worst you would do is their ""everyday low pricing"" today. If you went in and bought at their worst 40% sale, you got exactly what he offers you right now. If you were lucky and went in at a better time, you actually saved more, generally around 50% with BOGO-type of stuff. Not only that, he killed coupons. This is where you could really rake. You would: * Save money with your JCP card * $10 off orders of $25 * $10 off orders of $30 * $10 off orders of $50 / $15 off $75 / $25 off $100 Again, these all varied, but you could stack coupons on top of savings. Shoppers (like me) stopped going there because the savings ceased to exist. We're not stupid, but he played us like we were and he counted on people's outrage of sales to dupe them. As you can see by the scheme I've shown, you not only saved more before, but way more. And the argument that it's better now is patently false because their prices are identical to their worst sale without any coupons. Why do you think the red stickers go over the price? Because they want to hide it. The same items at Kohls have the sticker from Union Bay or whoever on it. It's all the same MSRP. It's just that he tried to fool the shoppers he didn't have with false outrage, but alienated the rest of the shoppers who look at their receipt."


"Hurd did almost as much in his short time there to gut R&D, engineering, and every other ""cost centre"" within HP as he could, leading to a dearth of product and technology in the pipeline. Tough to innovate with nothing but sales and marketing."


The 'store card' that Amazon offers gives 5% back on Amazon purchases. Some time ago, when I realized how much of my spending was going through Amazon, I chose that card over this one. If you want the card, that's fine, but if you are going to play the reward game, there are far higher bonuses available for card signups. No, it's not a scam. Many stores will offer a discount at the register the day you sign up for there card. In general, the store cards should also give a discount when used at that store, or airline for that matter.


Finding a way to pay down credit debt is important, because you're probably paying in the high teens in APR. 401k should be last resort. Have you researched other options? E.g loan consolidation If you don't mind me asking, how did you get that far in debt?


At a risk of stating the obvious: a passive portfolio doesn't try to speculate on such matters.


There are three parties involved here: there's the store that issued you the card, then they have some bank that's actually handling the account, and there is some network (VISA, MasterCard, etc.) that the transactions go through. So one avenue to consider is seeing whether all three are aware of you canceling the card.


"> Ms is not one of them CO is, which is where the gay bakery incident that's going to the SCOTUS happened... >providing a service based on their bias is ok for some and not for others. No, I think that it's okay to not provide service for any reason *except based on status in a protected class."" This really isn't a difficult concept. And yes, I think that orientation should be a protected class anywhere that it isn't yet. Dude, this is the same as employment law and other discrimination areas like apartment rental. You can fire someone for any reason or no reason, but not for a reason of membership in a protected class. You can refuse to rent to someone for any reason except membership in a protected class. Do you see the pattern yet? >How can you not see the similar aspects of the two Because there are no similar aspects between non-choice biological factors and by-choice rhetoric. >You are agreeing with a company choosing to do business with whom they want to, but then you are doubling down on having another business doing the same thing Rephrased, this says, ""You're saying that sometimes X but then trying to say that sometimes Y!"" Yes. Exactly. There are different circumstances. ""You're agreeing that a company can do business with whomever they want except but another company can't because they're refusing based on protected classes."" Libertarian fantasy land logic doesn't work in the real world."


You wouldn't pay what the quote says, you would pay what the bill says. If the car is used as a taxi then either it's done illegally and not your problem, or they have proper insurance. One reason to go through your insurance is that they know how to handle all these things for you. If you have only their phone number: You owe them money, so they will contact you.


No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security.


There are several different participants in the transaction, and you may not be aware of all the issues: In some business (fast food) they are required to ask if you want to super size, they are expected to do this at every transaction, but aren't paid more if you buy more. The employee can also decide that too much pressure to up-sell may push you to purchase the item online. That will cost them a commission, the store location a sale, and maybe drive you to a different company. It is also possible they don't have the training to be able to explain the difference between the items.


National Document Shredding is a proud Australian owned and operated shredding company providing secure document destruction, security bins and paper shredding services. We have years of hands on experience in the industry, visit us now if you are looking for secure document shredding services.


I would go see a Lawyer no matter what. It's a form of a scam your parents are doing. Make sure it's YOUR name only on the title of the building if it is, then you have a MAJOR case against them. This is a form of Equity scam, in where you aren't really going to make hardly any money. Once you pay them that money towards the loan legally their stake needs to decrease according to what you said. ABSOLUTELY CONSULT A LAWYER!


"Putting them on line 10 is best suited for your situation. According to Quickbooks: Commissions and Fees (Line 10) Commissions/fees paid to nonemployees to generate revenue (e.g. agent fees). It seems like this website you are using falls under the term ""nonemployees""."


It sucks for them, but it sounds like they brought it on themselves. They didn't hire an attorney to correct their entirely misguided non-response to the problem, then proceeded to make every mistake in the noob book. I 'kinda' feel sorry for them, even though they seemed to run their business in a completely unprofessional manner. If there's any truth in that rambling story, it sounds like they've managed to work themselves into an 'impossible to win' position.


I agree that the cause of the crash can make a huge difference in the effect on the bond market. Here's a few other possibilities: All that to say that there's no definitive answer as to how the bond market will respond to an equity crash. Bonds are much more highly correlated to equities lately, but that could be due to much lower interest rates pushing more of the risk of bonds to the credit worthiness of the issuer, increasing correlation.


"Of the two, an option is a more reliable but more expensive means to get rid of a stock. As sdg said, a put option is basically an insurance policy on the stock; you pay a certain price for the contract itself, which locks in a sale price up to a particular future date. If the stock depreciates significantly, you exercise the option and get the contract price; otherwise you let the contract expire and keep the stock. Long-term, these are bad bets as each expired contract will offset earnings, but if you foresee a near-term steep drop in the stock price but aren't quite sure, a put option is good peace of mind. A sell stop order is generally cheaper, but less reliable. You set a trigger price, say a loss of 10% of the stock's current value. If that threshold is reached, the stop order becomes a sell order and the broker will sell the stock on the market, take his commission (or a fixed price depending on your broker) and you get the rest. However, there has to be a buyer willing to buy at that price at the moment the trigger fires; if a stock has lost 10% rapidly, it's probably on the way down hard, and the order might not complete until you realize a 12% loss, or a 15%, or even 20%. A sell stop limit (a combination stop order and limit order) allows you to say that you want to sell if the stock drops to $X, but not sell if it drops below $X-Y. This allows you to limit realized losses by determining a band within which it should be sold, and not to sell above or below that price. These are cheaper because you only pay for the order if it is executed successfully; if you never need it, it's free (or very cheap; some brokers will charge a token service fee to maintain a stop or stop limit). However, if the price drops very quickly or you specify too narrow a band, the stock can drop through that band too quickly to execute the sell order and you end up with a severely depreciated stock and an unexercised order. This can happen if the company whose stock you own buys another company; VERY quickly, both stocks will adjust, the buying company will often plummet inside a few seconds after news of the merger is announced, based on the steep drop in working capital and/or the infusion of a large amount of new stock in the buying company to cover the equity of the purchased company. You end up with devalued stock and a worthless option (but one company buying another is not usually reason to sell; if the purchase is a good idea, their stock will recover). Another option which may be useful to you is a swaption; this basically amounts to buying a put option on one financial instrument and a call on another, rolled into one option contract specifying a swap. This allows you to pick something you think would rise if your stock fell and exchange your stock for it at your option. For example, say the stock on which you buy this swaption is an airline stock, and you contract the option to swap for oil. If oil surges, the airline's stock will tank sharply, and you win both ways (avoiding loss and realizing a gain). You'd also win if either half of this option realized a gain over the option price; oil could surge or the airline could tank and you could win. You could even do this ""naked"" since its your option; if the airline's stock tanks, you buy it at the crashed price to exercise the option and then do so. The downside is a higher option cost; the seller will be no fool, so if your position appears to be likely, anyone who'd bet against you by selling you this option will want a pretty high return."


Have you tried your local panhandler? She/He will probably accept 50€ in small change.


>Yes. The lack of insight and superficial treatment of the subject... I am sure if you were a bit more specific in your first post it would have been more helpful. That remark left me wondering if you were attacking the author. Anyway I think he made a few points clear though I felt the article missed a vital insight: *Uber doesn't have a sustainable competitive advantage in the long run.* They have been competing on price to beat Lyft that's why they had to resort to this cheap tactic. The illegal business model is a mere symptom.


Its been years since I lived there, but I found Seattle to be pretty expensive. Housing costs seem out of line with expected salaries. Coming from Puerto Rico you might be shocked how expensive it is to live there, and also how infrequently you see the sun. Your question is highly subjective. One person would need 100K to cover those things you are talking about, while others would need less then 30K. Also where you live in the Seattle area makes a difference. Will you be in Redmond or Bothell? Housing costs vary considerably. One nice thing about that part of the country is can be very inexpensive to vacation. A fishing license, a packed lunch, and a bit of gas is all that is necessary to really enjoy that part of the country. Back in the day I used to ski Steven's Pass during the week, and the lift tickets were a 1/3 of the weekend rate. Having hiking/camping gear and or a bicycle is also a good way to enjoy life. Bottom line I would make a budget, and go from there. If you intend on retiring in PR, then you would need a lot less then if you choose to remain in Seattle so even that is subjective. Perfect Example, Marysville, which is way out of town so a commute would be a problem. However, unlike many parts south of Seattle, it is safe and nice. ~200K for a 1200 sq ft home. Holy cow. Here in Orlando, figure about 130K for the same home with less of a commute. And you will see the sun more than 5 days per year.


I think raising it is ok but not to 15 dollars thats ridiculous. I am a minimum wage worker i work 30 hours a week currently plus high school so from my point of view i think we should raise it by maybe 1× or 1.25. I only pay two bills a 125 dollar car payment and 240 insurance pluse my expenses for gas. Those are my only expenses that i can not cut and even after just that i have very little left to save. But with a dollar or so more an hour ot would increase my saving potential by alot and give me a little more breathing room. I am an untrained and inexperienced qorker i do not deserve 15 an hour but i feel like 8.25-8.50 is reasonable.


Yup, 2 million paying customers per month seems far-fetched, although from experience my Mother is big into geneologly and easily drops 10-20$ per request at some of the other online registries. Old people = loads of time = loads of money, not very tech saavy, so it could be possible.


With number of Banks increasing every country at some point in time adopted an Identification code. In US these are called ABA number because they are allocated by American Bankers Association, in UK Sort Codes ... like wise for other countries. See list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_code In some countries the numbers are given by Central Bank. To enable internationl payments, the SWIFT body apart from message formats, allocated a SWIFT BIC [Bank identification Code] so that Banks can be globally identified. Currently IBAN being adopted in Europe & Australia to identify an Account [at a Bank] Uniquely across globe. In essence these number help uniquely identify a Location/Bank/Branch. The clearing house route the payments or collection instruments to the correct Bank on the basis of this number.


It's even worse than that. When a whistleblower brought it up they were illegally fired and blacklisted from getting a job at any other bank as well. https://boingboing.net/2016/10/31/wells-fargo-blackballed-employ.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/21/news/wells-fargo-whistleblower-back-wages/index.html The fact that nobody in Wells Fargo management is in jail and their sole punishment was a slap on the wrist (A few hundred million for a bank this size is pretty minor. Their annual revenue is something like $15 Billion) is an absolute travesty.


"Sometimes an assumptions is so fundamentally flawed that it essentially destroys the relevance and validity of any modelling outputs. ""Obviously, we're assuming the company can pay it back"" Is one of those assumptions. The person gets a notes stating that they will get $525 'IN ONE YEAR' You need to divide $525/(1+Cost of Capital)^n n being the number of periods to find out what the note will be worth today. Google 'Present Value of an Annuity' to deal with debt that is more complex than you have $500 now and give me $525 in a year..."


fine because the application was declined anyway. No it isn't fine. Credit card applications generally need a hard pull, so get it rectified. Firstly check if an application was really made on your behalf. Some companies use this ploy to pull you into a scheme of making you apply for a credit card. Secondly call up the credit card company and ask them about the details of who had made the application as you haven't done so and inform them that it was a fraudulent application. It might be somebody is using your personal details to do a identity theft in your name. Thirdly get in touch with the credit rating firms and see if a check has been made on your credit report. Dispute it if you see a check in your record and have it removed from your report. If you subscribe to credit agency, get the identity theft protection, helps you in such cases. And finally keep a diligent eye on your credit records from now on. Once bitten, twice shy.


1) It wasn't an oil rig - it was pipelines in the Midwest 2)It was insanely easy work - it required no education (half the crew I worked with were high school dropouts). Most of it was mowing grass and weeds, digging, and using a metal detector like device.


Simply, you should put your money into whatever has the higher interest rate, savings or repayment of debt. Let's say at the beginning of month A you put $1000 into each account. In the case of the savings, at the end of month A you will have $1001.6 ($1000 + 1000 x 2% annual interest / 12) In the case of a loan, at the end of month A you will have $1005.7. ($17000 plus 6.8 interest for one month is 17096.3. On $16000, the new value is 16090.6. The difference between these is $1005.7. 5.7 / 1.6 = 3.56 Therefore, using your money to repay your loan nets you a return about 3.5 times greater.


While I agree, I’d also add some skills require foundational knowledge. In the development space, many companies made the switch to Agile/DevOps without understanding the nuanced cultural shift that comes with it. In this case, companies oftentimes invest heavily into training and learning to rise the cumulative understanding so that teams can go actually practice it day to day.


We don't have a good answer for how to start investing in poland. We do have good answers for the more general case, which should also work in Poland. E.g. Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? This answer provides a checklist of things to do. Let's see how you're doing: Match on work pension plan. You don't mention this. May not apply in Poland, but ask around in case it does. Given your income, you should be doing this if it's available. Emergency savings. You have plenty. Either six months of spending or six months of income. Make sure that you maintain this. Don't let us talk you into putting all your money in better long term investments. High interest debt. You don't have any. Keep up the good work. Avoid PMI on mortgage. As I understand it, you don't have a mortgage. If you did, you should probably pay it off. Not sure if PMI is an issue in Poland. Roth IRA. Not sure if this is an issue in Poland. A personal retirement account in the US. Additional 401k. A reminder to max out whatever your work pension plan allows. The name here is specific to the United States. You should be doing this in whatever form is available. After that, I disagree with the options. I also disagree with the order a bit, but the basic idea is sound: one time opportunities; emergency savings; eliminate debt; maximize retirement savings. Check with a tax accountant so as not to make easily avoidable tax mistakes. You can use some of the additional money for things like real estate or a business. Try to keep under 20% for each. But if you don't want to worry about that kind of stuff, it's not that important. There's a certain amount of effort to maintain either of those options. If you don't want to put in the effort to do that, it makes sense not to do this. If you have additional money split the bulk of it between stock and bond index funds. You want to maintain a mix between about 70/30 and 75/25 stocks to bonds. The index funds should be based on broad indexes. They probably should be European wide for the most part, although for stocks you might put 10% or so in a Polish fund and another 15% in a true international fund. Think over your retirement plans. Where do you want to live? In your current apartment? In a different apartment in the same city? In one of the places where you inherited property? Somewhere else entirely? Also, do you like to vacation in that same place? Consider buying a place in the appropriate location now (or keeping the one you have if it's one of the inherited properties). You can always rent it out until then. Many realtors are willing to handle the details for you. If the place that you want to retire also works for vacations, consider short term rentals of a place that you buy. Then you can reserve your vacation times while having rentals pay for maintenance the rest of the year. As to the stuff that you have now: Look that over and see if you want any of it. You also might check if there are any other family members that might be interested. E.g. cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. If not, you can probably sell it to a professional company that handles estate sales. Make sure that they clear out any junk along with the valuable stuff. Consider keeping furniture for now. Sometimes it can help sell a property. You might check if you want to drive either of them. If not, the same applies, check family first. Otherwise, someone will buy them, perhaps on consignment (they sell for a commission rather than buying and reselling). There's no hurry to sell these. Think over whether you might want them. Consider if they hold any sentimental value to you or someone else. If not, sell them. If there's any difficulty finding a buyer, consider renting them out. You can also rent them out if you want time to make a decision. Don't leave them empty too long. There's maintenance that may need done, e.g. heat to keep water from freezing in the pipes. That's easy, just invest that. I wouldn't get in too much of a hurry to donate to charity. You can always do that later. And try to donate anonymously if you can. Donating often leads to spam, where they try to get you to donate more.


really? American airlines accepted the rules because they couldn't be bothered nor did they want the risks inherent in implementing security themselves. This is the bargain they accepted so they wouldn't be sued out of existence post 9-11. They basically dumped their fiduciary responsibility on the American taxpayer.


To get a good estimate, go here or other similar sites and see. But basically, yes, you can save yourself a whole lot of money just by paying extra every month. One note though, do make sure you are specifying that you want the money to go towards principal, not escrow or toward prepaying interest.


"Yes. Your original fucking comment was that taxation and paying taxes is *moral*. Not that it is reality. If you had said ""We have to pay taxes as it stands now and if we don't we'll get thrown in jail."" I would have agreed. But you waxed poetic about how it's the good, wholesome, moral thing to do. That is what I took issue with. Do not make points if you refuse to defend them."


Insiders (those who are aware of non-public material information, not necessarily employees) are the ones who actually cannot sell once they learned about whatever, by law. Martha Stewart went to jail for that. Any such deviation from the norm triggers abnormal response and avalanche of rumors, so by default investors assume something bad and try to minimize the loss. When dealing with a tiny company (market cap of less than 15M) with a tiny market volume (6.2M), the swings can be very significant. For such a small company, it is safe to assume that something happened that lead them to delay the conference call, and since they didn't tell what happen, investors assume the worst. It might end up as the CEO and CFO having bad stomach after celebrating 100% growth in revenue they were going to announce, but you'll have to wait and see....


"amway brainwashes followers in to thinking that they are participating in the most sophisticated business in the world. Also they teach followers that people who either hate or question them is ""ignorant, narrow-minded haters who cannot adapt to advanced business"". My friend is also stuck in Amway and he keeps telling me about his friend and family being ""jerks"" for criticizing him. Also they are like a cult because they always have a Amway meeting discussing business plans and they try to label anyone who tries to leave as ""traitors"". Also the fact that many quit jobs and lose friends for MLM and they already spent bunch of time and money makes it impossible to turn back."


Not at all alarmed. I've cut out TV since 1999 and this antiquated business model deserves to collapse. The only people I know who watch TV traditionally are over 60. It is time for a new business model.


here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend.


"edit: it has been pointed out this is a false quote and that Lincoln actually said this: As early as 1847 (lincoln) had written, ""To secure to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government,"" which was remarkable for a prairie lawyer of that time. Speaking in New England in 1860, he praised the right to strike, as then being exercised by the shoemakers of Lynn. His clear assertion of the labor theory of value in the 1861 message ; ""Labor is prior to, and . . . superior to capital"" — and his answers to the addresses of workingmen abroad and at home gave a color of Marxism to his thinking. He was, surely, the best friend labor ever had in the White House.: source http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp"


Does it make sense for stocks to earn a premium indefinitely? Yes. There is good reason to think that the stock market will make money indefinitely: the stock market is the primary mechanism through which investors bear market risk, which requires compensation. If you think of all the owners of firms (stockholders and bondholders, generally) the risk premium that stocks earn stocks is the way bondholders pay equityholders to bear the risk that they do not wish to. Will stock prices always go up in the long run? As long as companies pay out less in dividends than their profit, prices will go up. That could change if we were to change our corporate culture and/or tax practices so that firms paid out more in dividends. However, for the purposes of your question, I think it doesn't matter much whether the investor makes money as dividends or capital gains. Does the 5-7% guess apply only to the US market? I didn't write (nor read) the books in question, but most likely that is a global number. The US dominates the global equity market, so it's often a good proxy. However, international returns taken together have no less risk and earn no less over long horizons in general. The particular examples you have pointed out are special cases that only apply to a part of the global economy and a particular time period. There are plenty of examples of stock markets and time periods that did much better than the US market to offset your examples. Is 5-7% a reasonable long-term estimate of equity returns? Equity will always earn more in expectation than risk-free securities will. How much more depends on major economic factors. 5-7% has been a good estimate for the market risk premium for many, many decades (stocks should earn this plus whatever the risk-free rate is). However, that is just an empirical observation, not a rule. It can change. Some day technological progress could slow down or stop, we could run out of important resources in a way that we can't compensate for, our population permanently could stop growing, aliens could invade, etc. Down the road it is certainly possible for expected equity returns to go down and never go back up again. This would result from a permanent, global, economic shift that I think would be pretty obvious. That is, you wouldn't have to look at stock prices to know it was happening.


"Free, huh? From their Commission and Fee Schedule: So if you literally bought two shares, then the SEC added one penny in fees and FINRA added one penny as a ""Trading Activity Fee"" Note that there are several other fees on their schedule that may not apply to you. If you had bought 100 shares instead, your total fees would have still been only 2 cents, but you would have lost $4 on the trade. So the fees are minuscule when you start doing larger orders. However, That should not discourage you from experimenting and learning. I'd rather pay 2 cents in fees on a 4 cent loss than 2 cents in fees on a $400 loss. Just chalk it up to the cost of experience."


All value given to products is subjective and is different from person to person. It can also vary for the same person from year to year, month to month, day to day, or even hour to hour as a person analyzes different products and prices to determine which imparts the most value to him or her at a given point in time. In regards to losing money in your investment accounts. This reminds of a book I read on Jesse Livermore. Jesse was a famous stock broker who made millions (in the 1920's so he would be a billionaire in today's money) in the stock market multiple times. Jesse felt like you - he felt like after a while the losses on paper did not seem to concern him as much as he thought it should. He thought it was due to the investment accounts being simply being numbers on papers and not cold, hard cash. So what did Jesse do to remove the abstract nature of investment accounts? From here: Livermore always sold out all his positions at the end of every year and had the cash deposited in his account at the Chase Manhattan Bank. Then he would arrange with the bank to have the money, in cash, in the bank’s vault in chests. “There was a desk, a chair, a cot and an easy chair in the middle of the cash.” On the occasion described in 1923, there was $50 million in cash. In the corner was a fridge with food, enough for a few days. There was lighting installed. Then, like Scrooge McDuck, Livermore would have himself locked in the vault with his cash. He would stay a couple of days and “review his year from every aspect.” After his stay was over, he would fill his pockets with cash and go on a shopping spree. He would also take a vacation and not re-enter the market until February. But unlike Scrooge McDuck, this was not the act of a miser, explains Smitten. Livermore lived a world of paper transactions all year long. He believed that “by the end of the year he had lost his perception of what the paper slips really represented, cash money and ultimately power.” He “needed to touch the money and feel the power of cash.” It made him re-appraise his stock and commodity positions. Imagine the $60,000 from your investment account sitting on your kitchen table. Imagine seeing $1,000 dumped into the trash can one day. I know I would appreciate the money much more seeing that happen.


The universal and common regulation of thumb for windsocks is as follows – sloping in the direction of the wind: 3 knots, half way extended: 7.5 knots and completely unmitigated: 15 knots or more. It is designed in bright and in colorful patterns. These are not predominantly efficient and more often than not for adornment, on the other hand they can be executed as a fundamental funnel to wind direction and speed.


"Work hard, be loyal, save your pennies and in the end? You get screwed. Employees not getting what they were promised is only part of the problem. The more important issue is the death of the average worker's faith in the Capitalist system. The ""American Dream"" is now a cruel joke. The bankers and right-wing wealthy are destroying America with their greed. And to anyone who would argue that it's the union that's to blame for being greedy, all I can do is point to the Pentagon budget and ask, ""Why is there plenty of money for useless war while Americans lose their homes? Criminals with degrees in economics and foolish politicians are stealing from us all. My hope is that ""we the people"" drive them all to Hell some day soon."


>The interesting thing for me - In Ireland's case they need to have a refurendum. I wonder if they will accept this? It's not clear cut whether we need a referendum. It's a common misconception that all Treaty changes require a referendum in Ireland. Not so. In Crotty v An Taoiseach it was accepted by the Supreme Court that joining the EEC (as it then was) involved getting on board a moving train and that even the assignment of new competences to Europe would not necessarily necessitate a referendum. Any change in the fundamental scope of the Union would however require a referendum. In that case the introduction of a Common Foreign and Security Policy and qualified majority voting was a change in scope and referendum was necessary. In this case, it's hard to tell. The EU already has some competence in this area - its possible to levy fines etc for breaches of the stability and growth pact already. I couldn't predict how the Supreme Court would characterise giving the Court of Justice oversight in this area. They will feel presssure from many corners in this case as well - holding in favour of a referendum might be seen as threatening economic disaster, while holding against would undermine democratic legitimacy. If there is a referendum, I predict it will go down like a lead balloon. Forcing the Lisbon Treaty on the electorate twice gave rise to enough resentment - botching the recovery and being seen to enforce austerity on the country made it worse. I imagine support for the EU is at an all time low in this country.


"**Tragedy of the commons** The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting or spoiling that resource through their collective action. The concept and name originate in an essay written in 1833 by the Victorian economist William Forster Lloyd, who used a hypothetical example of the effects of unregulated grazing on common land (then colloquially called ""the commons"") in the British Isles. The concept became widely known over a century later due to an article written by the ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968. In this context, commons is taken to mean any shared and unregulated resource such as atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, or even an office refrigerator. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24"


My experience with owning a home is that its like putting down roots and can be like an anchor holding you to an area. Before considering whether you can financially own a home consider some of the other implications. Once you own it you are stuck for awhile and cannot quickly move away like you can with renting. So if a better job opportunity comes up or your employer moves you to another office across town that doubles your commute time, you'll be regretting the home purchase as it will be a barrier to moving to a more convenient location. I, along with my fiancée and two children, are being forced to move out of my parents home ASAP. Do not rush buying a home. Take your time and find what you want. I made the mistake once of buying a home thinking I could take on some DIY remodeling to correct some features I wasn't fond of. Life intervenes and finding extra time for DIY house updates doesn't come easy, especially with children. Speaking of children, consider the school district when buying a home too. Often times homes in good school districts cost more. If you don't consider the school district now, then you may be faced with a difficult decision when the kids start school. IF you are confident you won't want to move anytime soon and can find a house you like and want to jump into home ownership there are some programs that can help first time buyers, but they can require some effort on your part. FHA has a first time buyer program with a 3.5% down payment. You will need to search for a lender that offers FHA loans and work with them. FHA covers this program by charging mortgage insurance every month that's part of your house payment. Fannie Mae has the HomeReady program where first time home buyers can purchase a foreclosed home from their inventory for as little as 3% down and possibly get up to 3% from the seller to apply toward closing costs. Private mortgage insurance (PMI) is required with this program too. Their inventory of homes can be found on the https://www.homepath.com/ website. There is also NACA, which requires attending workshops and creating a detailed plan to prove you're ready for homeownership. This might be a good option if they have workshops in your area and you want to talk with someone in person. https://www.naca.com/about/


The article addresses market wages. Also, as others have pointed out, under the regular pay scheme jumping companies every couple of years so that you can get a salary that reflects your current skill set and responsibilities is the norm.


In the end, I was not required to pay the fee. After some frustrating initial attempts, I ended up writing a letter and sending a copy to card services, customer support, complaints and the legal department. It basically said: 1 - I never signed anything. 2 - I spoke to a very aggressive person at the airport who told me that she was just taking down my information in order to send information about the card, and that I was under no obligation 3 - I never received a card, activated a card, or used a card. 4 - I want this charge canceled immediately 5 - If this ever shows up on my credit report, I will contact my lawyer regarding this unscrupulous business practice. After that I received a notice in the mail confirming that everything had been cancelled and all charges were reversed.


"> Most people are ""Will this job make me popular?"" is a pretty uncommon consideration when making career choices. There's no ""Jobs that Increase Your Popularity"" category on Monster.com! ""How much will this job pay me?"" is, and will always remain, the most important consideration for people looking for a job."


Lol. What on earth are you talking about? I was not saying waaa poor janitor. I was saying in NY $112k is solidly middle class salary because janitors and cops and nurses and firemen and construction laborers make that salary. 529 plans help these typically middle class occupations to put money aside for college.