query: How much is inflation?

positive: There is a thing called the consumer price index (CPI) There is a basket of goods that the people who keep the index basically shop for.  It is much more detailed for the sake of accuracy, but bottom line is they shop for the same stuff each year.  They measure the difference from year to year and that gives you a pretty good idea of inflation from a regular person point of view. http://www.inflationdata.com/Inflation/Consumer_Price_Index/HistoricalCPI.aspx But it isn't without its faults, people bicker about the methodology and what constitutes the index. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/consumerpriceindex.asp?viewed=1

positive: "To add to MrChrister's answer:  Canada also has a Consumer Price Index (CPI) used to measure inflation that is distinct and separate from that maintained by the United States. There are differences in inflation between the U.S. and Canada because our currencies are different, and there may be different items in the ""basket"" of goods that constitutes the index. You can find current information on the Canadian CPI at Statistics Canada, here: Latest release from the Consumer Price Index. Also, the Bank of Canada – our central bank – maintains a free online Inflation Calculator.  The BoC's inflation calculator is handy because you can enter a dollar amount for a past date and it will figure out what that would be in today's dollars.  For instance, $100 in 1970 dollars had the same purchasing power (under the CPI) as $561.76 in 2009 dollars! And you're right – if you get a salary increase that is less than the rate of inflation, then in theory you have lost purchasing power.  So, anybody really looking for a raise ought to make an effort to get more than the increase in CPI.  Of course, some employers are counting on you not knowing that, because any increase that's less than CPI is effectively a salary decrease; which could mean more profit for them, if they are able to increase their prices / revenues at inflation or better. Finally, consider that salary & wage increases also contribute to inflation!  Perhaps you've heard of the wage/price inflation spiral.  If you haven't, there's more on that here and here."

positive: FYI...prices don't always go up.  Inflation is a monetary phenomenon.  I'm simplifying greatly here: if more money is printed (or the money supply increases through fractional reserve banking) and it is chasing the same amount of goods then prices will go up.  Conversely, if money is held constant and the economy becomes more productive, producing more goods, then a constant amount of money is chasing an increasing amount of goods and prices go down. After the Civil War the greenback went back to being on a gold standard in 1879.  After 1879 greenbacks could be redeemed for gold.  Gold restricts money growth since it is difficult to obtain. Here are the price and wage indexes from 1869 - 1889 (from here):  Notice from 1879 to 1889 that wholesale and consumer prices fall but wages start to increase.  Imagine your salary staying the same (or even increasing) but the prices of items falling. Still don't think inflation is a monetary phenomenon?  Here is a CPI chart from 1800 to 2007:  Notice how the curve starts to go drastically up around 1970.  What happen then?  The US dollar went off the gold-exchange standard and the US dollar became a purely fiat currency backed by nothing but government decree which allows the Federal Reserve to print money ad nauseum.

positive: "Nobel laureate economist, Paul Krugman, wrote a piece many moons ago about economic expansion and money supply.  As an illustration of how money supply affects the economy, he used the example of a baby-sitting co-op.  While simplistic, it provides an easy to grasp notion of how printing money and restricting it (e.g. by pegging the currency to gold reserves) can affect the economy. Here is an excerpt from his webpage ( http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/howfast.html ): ""With the decline of the traditional extended family, in which relatives were available to take care of children at need, many parents in the United States have sought alternative arrangements. A popular scheme is the baby-sitting coop, in which a group of parents agree to help each other out on a reciprocal basis, with each parent serving both as baby-sitter and baby-sittee. Any such coop requires rules that ensure that all members do their fair share. One natural answer, at least to people accustomed to a market economy, is to use some kind of token or marker system: parents ""earn"" tokens by babysitting, then in turn hand over these tokens when their own children are minded by others. For example, a recently formed coop in Western Massachusetts uses Popsicle sticks, each representing one hour of babysitting. When a new parent enters the coop, he or she receives an initial allocation of ten sticks.  This system is self-regulating, in the sense that it automatically ensures that over any length of time a parent will put in more or less the same amount of time that he or she receives. It turns out, however, that establishing such a token system is not enough to make a coop work properly. It is also necessary to get the number of tokens per member more or less right. To see why, suppose that there were very few tokens in circulation. Parents will want on average to hold some reserve of tokens - enough to deal with the possibility that they may want to go out a few times before they have a chance to babysit themselves and earn more tokens. Any individual parent can, of course, try to accumulate more tokens by babysitting more and going out less. But what happens if almost everyone is trying to accumulate tokens - as they will be if there are very few in circulation? One parent's decision to go out is another's opportunity to babysit. So if everyone in the coop is trying to add to his or her reserve of tokens, there will be very few opportunities to babysit. This in turn will make people even more reluctant to go out, and use up their precious token reserves; and the level of activity in the coop may decline to a disappointingly low level.  The solution to this problem is, of course, simply to issue more Popsicle sticks. But not too many - because an excess of popsicle sticks can pose an equally severe problem. Suppose that almost everyone in the coop has more sticks than they need; then they will be eager to go out, but reluctant to babysit. It will therefore become hard to find babysitters - and since opportunities to use popsicle sticks will become rare, people will become even less willing to spend time and effort earning them. Too many tokens in circulation, then, can be just as destructive as too few."" -- Paul Krugman, 1997 (accessed webpage 2010)."

negative: and who knows how many more people would have died without this, and other, bond trades because inflation skyrocketed even faster. The logic the opposition is using is basically that they need as much pain as possible, as quickly as possible, to sway support to their side. I don't know how anybody justifies that as not morally reprehensible.

negative: "Inflation is an attempt to measure how much less money is worth. It is a weighted average of some bundle of goods and services price's increase.  Money's value is in what you can exchange it for, so higher prices means money is worth less. Monthly inflation is quoted either as ""a year, ending on that month"" or ""since the previous month"".  As the values differ by more than a factor of 10, you can usually tell which one is being referred to when they say ""inflation in August was 0.4%, a record high"" or ""inflation in August was 3.6%"".  You do need some context of the state of the economy, and how surprised the people talking about the numbers are.  Sometimes they refer to inflation since the last month, and then annualize it, which adds to the confusion. ""Consumer Inflation""'s value depends on what the basket of goods is, and what you define as the same ""good"".  Is a computer this year the same as the last?  If the computer is 10x faster, do you ignore that, or factor it in? What basket do you use?  The typical monthly consumables purchased by a middle class citizen?  By a poor citizen?  By a rich citizen?  A mixture, and if so which mixture? More detailed inflation figures can focus on inflation facing each quntile of the population by household income, split durable goods from non-durable goods from services, split wage from non-wage inflation, ignore volatile things like food and energy, etc. Inflation doesn't directly cause prices to raise; instead it is a measure of how much raise in prices happened.  It can easily be a self-fullfilling prophesy, as inflation expectations can lead to everyone automatically increasing the price they charge for everything (wages, goods, etc). Inflation can be viewed as a measurement of the ""cost of holding cash"".  At 10% inflation per year, holding a million dollars in cash for a year costs you 100,000$ in buying power.  At 1% inflation it costs 10,000$.  At 0.1% inflation, 1000$. Inflation of 10% in one year, followed by 10% the next, adds up to 1.1*1.1-1 = 21% inflation over the two years.  For low inflation numbers this acts a lot like adding; the further from 0% you get the more the lower-order terms make the result larger.  1% inflation for two years adds up to 2.01%, 10% over two years 21%, 100% over two years 300%, 1000% over two years 12000%, etc.  (and yes, some places suffer 1000% inflation)"

negative: It has got to do with inflation. So as prices of goods and services rise over the years you can work out what the inflation rate is over time. So by applying the inflation rate between 1990 to 2016 you can work out the equivalent value of $30B in 1990 would be in 2016. So in other words in 1990 you bought $30B worth of a box of goods and services, then in 2016 it would have cost you $55B to buy the same box of goods and services. You can play around with this US Inflation Calculator here, to see how much an amount of money back in history would be worth today if invested at the rate of inflation over those years.  So obviously, the aim in investing is to get a return higher than the rate of inflation, so that your investment funds grow in real terms and in the future you can buy more with your funds than you can buy with them today.

negative: It's based on potential. Things like market share, market size, competitive analysis and growth opportunity.    Ex: being as big as reddit is + the fact they are a large player = how they could leverage this to drive even more value than they currently have in the future  Also everything is inflated right now and the value factors in how much someone might (over) pay to acquire them.

negative: I would use neither method.  Taking a short example first, with just three compounding periods, with interest rate 10%.  The start value y0 is 1. So after three years the value is 1.331, the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3. Depreciating (like inflation) by 10% (to demonstrate) gets us back to y0 = 1 Appreciating and depreciating by 10% cancels out: Appreciating by 10% interest and depreciating by 3% inflation: This is the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3 (1 + 0.03)^-3 = 1.21805 So for 50 years the result is y0 (1 + 0.1)^50 (1 + 0.03)^-50 = 26.7777 Note You can of course use subtraction but the not using the inflation figure directly.  E.g. (edit: This appears to be the Fisher equation.) 2nd Note Further to comments, here is a chart to illustrate how much the relative performance improves when inflation is accounted for.  The first fund's return is 6% and the second fund's return varies from 3% to 6%.  Inflation is 3%.

negative: "Liberals scream from the mountaintops how college should be ""free"" but never talk about why a college degree has outpaced inflation and costs so much to begin with... hmmm who runs the academic industry...oh ya, liberals.. why would they want to end the honeymoon they've been on for the last 20+ years."

negative: Last century?  Try staying a little more relevant, [how about over the last 25-30 years](http://www.businessinsider.com/food-inflation-chart-2015-7)  Food prices have been continually outpacing inflation for the last few decades.  [Heres another source](http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/08/food-prices-are-soaring-and-washington-doesnt-care/)  My last comment was basically saying that if the rising tide was, in fact, lifting all boats, then people wouldn't care much about inequality.  But the fact of the matter is, the quality of life for many is declining in the face of ever increasing inequality.

negative: "Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value.  So each year, another .02N is removed.  Assume the property value rises with inflation.  Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N.   After inflation return.   Let's assume a 20% rate.  And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation.  Inflation is still taxable.   Result  Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase.   Return after inflation.   After-inflation return minus property taxes.   Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry).   Amount left.   If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes.  But with the property, that drops to .008N.  Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k.   So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year?  If so, then no problem.  If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house.   On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N.  You still need housing out of the .036N without the house.   These formulas should be considered examples.  I don't know how much your property taxes might be.  Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes.  Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation.  You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return.  But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is.   If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly.  The ""no house"" number becomes .024N.  The ""with house"" number becomes  So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed).  There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the ""with house"" option.  Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year.   This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually.  Lower property taxes would of course make this better.  Higher property taxes would be even less feasible.   When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home.  If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested.  You'll also have less tied up with property taxes.  It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k.   Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes.  You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually.   There are options with a house that you don't have without one."

negative: "You should also examine gross costs. The US per capita is paying twice what Canada does, and is getting worse results (lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality). Not exactly a bargain.  A significant part of the rate of increase in costs is likely due to the shifting demographics bulge of baby boomers aging. If you look at (these charts)[http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/money_politics_law/boom_moves_along.htm] you'll see that there's a a lot more folks in their 50's than before. And [""Nearly one-third of lifetime expenditures is incurred during middle age, and nearly half during the senior years""](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361028/).  In the report you linked ""The medical trend reported includes the increases in both price inflation and utilization for 2009""... so it's impossible to say how much medical inflation there actual was (i.e. is the cost of a flu shot rising faster/slower than inflation). Which makes the report a bit slimy in that it compares directly against the rate of inflation."

negative: "Will the proportion of my payments towards interest eventually go down?  Yes. Today would be a good day to do a web search for ""amortization schedule"". You will quickly learn how to compute precisely how much of each payment goes to interest and how much goes to principal given different payment choices. Would it be wiser to spend more each month on loan payments? That depends on your goals and resources, which we know nothing about. If you have extra money you could spend it on debt reduction, or you could spend it on an investment that pays more money in growth or dividends than the interest you'd save. Or you could decide that the longer you have that loan, sure, the more interest you'll pay, but inflation will make future money less valuable. Basically, by taking out a loan you have chosen to gamble that the thing you bought with the loaned money will be worth the cost of the interest payments in the future, adjusted for inflation. The bank on the other hand is gambling that you're good for the debt and that they can make a reasonable profit off it. If you have more money to gamble with, which bet is the wisest one is really up to you. would it be smarter to try to pay off one loan before the other? If you want to pay off a loan early then always choose the loan with the higher interest rate. should I start making bi-weekly payments instead of monthly? That's roughly equivalent to paying off the principal by one additional payment a year. There are two reasons to do so.  The first is that the total interest will be lower and the loan will be paid off faster. You can work out exactly how much with your new found skill at amortization computation.   The second is the simple convenience of knowing that your budget for each pay period is the same.  That convenience is worth something; is it worth the amount extra you'll be paying every year? Again, this is for you to decide. Work out how much extra you're paying per year and how much you're saving in the long run, and compare that against the benefit."

negative: If you are looking to begin living off the money now, then Dheer's answer is correct - it is not possible. However, if you are looking to grow that money (and potentially additional money added at later dates), then you could make this work. 250 a month corresponds to 3000 per year. A first approximation is that you will need a diversified portfolio of 20-25x that amount (60k-75k) to get the required return. This approximation is based on the rule of thumb for how much life insurance to buy. Therefore you need to determine how to grow the 4k you currently have into 60-75k. These numbers, however, are not adjusted for inflation. In the US I would like put the long term inflation adjust diversified market return at 4% per year (your money doubles about every 18 years). So your best approach if you have time is a diversified portfolio with rebalancing and adding additional money each year.

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

negative: "Having lived in a couple of coutries my perspective on this is ""Do apartments gain value or lose value in your area over time?"" I've lived in areas where the age of the building vs the inflation of home values has meant apartments steadily lose value and in other areas where they keep up with or beat inflation for most of the life of the building.  Have your real estate agent take a look at the market and see how much a similar apartment in an older building goes for.  If it seems like apartments rapidly depreciate then it may be a good time to take a win.  If age isn't a huge factor in price then it probably doesn't make sense to get rid of a cash generator to put the money into other investments."

negative: There are two ways to measure the value of money in the past. 1) As Victor mentioned there are inflation statistics covering the last 100 or so years that value the currency against an ever-changing basket of goods. This is sufficient when measuring general inflation over the period of the hundred years where there is data. This is how it was measured in your example. 2) For older time periods or where a value comparison is required between specific items (particularly where these were not in the basket of goods used for the inflation calculation) Historical records of the price of comparable goods can be used. This is in effect the same as mark to market valuations for illiquid financial instruments and requires poring through records to find the price of either a comparable basket of goods to one that would be used for inflation calculations today or a comparable set of items. An example of this is finding the value of a particular type of house (say a terraced house in London) in the 19th Century compared to the same house today by finding records of how much comparable houses would sell for, on average, then and now. This second measure is also used where the country in question didn't or doesn't keep reliable inflation statistics which may well be true of Colombia in the 90s. This means that there is a chance that this way of estimating Escobar's wealth in today's terms may have also been used. Another notable reason to use this methodology is that (unless you are using exchange rates in purchasing power parity terms) the value of money held in different currencies is different. This is even true today as the value of $1 in INR in India is likely to be higher than the value of a dollar in the US in terms of what you can buy. Using this methodology allows for a more accurate comparison in values where different countries and currencies are involved.

negative: That's just means you don't realize the underlying principles behind the crazy gains. 1000% based mostly on 40% inflation since 2000. Imagine how much more it will go up.   I realize you don't have a concept of gold as money but it has really been an experiment since Nixon of dollars not backed by gold. That's 30 someodd years to say something is obsolete that has been used for thousands of years. Gold is not the horse and buggy.

negative: Damn. I just looked to confirm. Without reinvestment (but just holding dividends), looks like the return through 2013 is 0 and then there have been decent returns since 2013, but holy shit, it does not look good at all. All of that not adjusted for inflation.  I wonder how much of that shitty performance can be reasonably classified as 'necessary' due to the spin-off of GE Capital, which generated a lot of the profit for GE but really was a huge problem for them when liquidity became scarce in 2008.

negative: "I don't know Canada very well, but can offer some general points when considering where to park your emergency fund. Savings rates are currently low, but then so is inflation. Always bear in mind that inflation decreases the value of your money, so if you're getting 4% interest and inflation is 2%, you're making 2% gross in real terms. If you're getting 2% and inflation is close to zero, you're actually earning a similar amount, it's just the numbers are going up more slowly. Obviously when and how much tax you pay affects the actual return, it's just worth bearing in mind that low interest and low inflation are actually not that bad a savings environment as they first appear. For an emergency fund the key thing is ease of access, consider keeping some portion of your savings in an instant access account for those emergencies that happen when the banks are closed. In the UK there are various tax-free savings options, I'm guessing Canada has a few too, if so you should explore those options. While these may not have attractive headline rates, you don't pay tax on the interest, this can make them much more competitive (4% tax free is the same as 5% gross if you would have to pay tax at 20%). Normally tax free investments have caps so once you've invested a set amount you can't add anymore. This may be a consideration if you regularly dip into your emergency fund as you might not easily be able to build it up again. My approach is to have about 90% of my ""rainy day"" fund in easily accessible but tax free savings. This discourages me from spending it unless I really need to. I then keep a slush fund sufficient to cover every day disasters (boiler packing up, needing a hire car for a week etc) in instant access accounts ."

negative: how do these margins vary over time Depends on a lot of factors. The bank's financial health, bank's ongoing business activities, profits generated from it's other businesses. If it is new to mortgages, it mightn't take a bigger margin to grow its business. If it is in the business for long, it might not be ready to tweak it down. If the housing market is down, they might lower their margin's to make lending attractive. If their competitors are lowering their margins, the bank in question might also. Do they rise when the base rate rises, or fall, or are they uncorrelated? When rates rise(money is being sucked out to curb spending), large amount of spending decreases. So you can imagine margins will need to decrease to keep the mortgage lending at previous levels. Would economic growth drive them up or down? Economic growth might make them go up. Like in case 1, base rates are low -> people are spending(chances are inflation will be high) -> margins will be higher(but real value of money will be dependent on inflation)  Is there any kind of empirical or theoretical basis to guess at their movement? Get a basic text book on macroeconomics, the rates and inflation portion will be there. How the rates influence the money supply and all. It will much more sense. But the answer will encompass a mixture of all conditions and not a single one in isolation. So there isn't a definitive answer.  This might give you an idea of how it works. It is for variable mortgage but should be more or less near to what you desire.

negative: Exactly. Newer sets are both better and cheaper than in the past. The basic airport + airlplane set has doubled in pieces and slightly reduced in price, (when adjusted for inflation) since the 80'ies.  The reason people think it's more expensive now is because now we are adults and paying for it ourselves. When we were kids our parents bought our LEGO and we had no concept of exactly how much money they were pouring into our toy collections.

negative: "I realize that ""a million dollars"" is   a completely arbitrary figure, but   it's one people fixate on. Perhaps   folks just meant it's getting easier   because inflation has made it a far   less lofty sum than when the word   ""millionaire"" was coined. Your point is correct - it' relatively easier as the 1 million dollar nowadays is no where as valuable as compared in the old days after the inflation adjustment. However the way to achieve that is easier said than done: The most possible way is to run your own business (assuming you will make profit). For most of the people running a job to earn a living - the job income is the biggest factor. Being extremely frugal wouldn't help much if you don't maximize your income potential. Earning a million dollar through investment? How much capitals are you able to invest in? 5k? 50k? 500k? I see no way to earn 1 million with 5k from investment, I wouldn't call it easy. This again depends on your income. With better income of course you could dedicate a larger portion to investment, without exposing too much risk and having to affect your way of life. (3) Invest some part of your income   over a long period of time and let the   stock market do the work I'd say this is more geared towards beating the inflation and earn a few extra bucks instead of getting very rich (this is being very relative).  Just a word of cautions, the mindset of investment being the shortcut to wealth is very dangerous and often leads to speculative behavior."

negative: "For allocation, there's rules of thumb. 120-age is the percentage some folks recommend for stock market (high risk) allocation.  With the balance in bonds, and a bit of international fund to add some more diversity.  However, everyone needs to determine how much risk they're willing to take, and what their horizon is. Once you figure out your allocation, determine how much of your surplus goes into investing, and how much goes into short term savings for your short term financial goals such as purchasing a home. I would highly recommend reading about ""Financial Independence, Retire Early"" (FIRE).  Most of the articles I've seen on it were folks in the US, with the odd Canadian and Brit, but the principles should be able to work in the Netherlands with adjustment.   The idea behind FIRE is that you adjust your lifestyle to minimize expenses and save as much of your income as possible.  When the growth of your savings is > the amount you spend on a yearly basis, you've reached financial independence and can retire any time you wish. CD ladder is a good idea for your emergency fund, but CDs (at least in the US) usually pay around the same rate as inflation, give or take.  A ladder would help you preserve your emergency fund."

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

negative: "First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars.  If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer.  I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by ""failing."" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies."

negative: You're ignoring inflation. Even if we assume the ECB sticks to its 2% inflation  target, and your salary only rises in line with inflation, you will be saving considerably more in forty years' time than you are today. In fact, an interest rate of 2% and an inflation rate of 2% make the sums exceptionally easy. You need to save €25,000 per year in 2057 euros to be a millionaire by 2057, which is €11,322 in 2017 euros. Challenging, but achievable. Of course, you'll only be a millionaire in 2057 euros, which will be worth less than half as much as a euro is worth right now.

negative: Well one of the main problems is the unsteady purchasing power of the money, and the unwillingness of the federal reserve to allow anything less than 2-3% inflation, when deleveraging requires deflation. A lot of problem is also regime uncertainty. Companies will keep large cash reserves on the sidelines if they are uncertain about the regulatory environment. A business man can't accurately plan his business if he does not know how much his productive output will be taxed 5 or 10 years down the road. For larger companies it may be the safer move to hold onto the cash and not put it to productive use.

negative: Here's my view, as a 38yr old NZer who grew up in Auckland: When you purchase a residential property, whether or not you intend to live in it, you're essentially counting on the possibility that one of the following will occur: This report by the NZ Royal Society (going by memory from a presentation I attended) predicts ongoing population growth in NZ, mainly driven by immigration, and mostly in Auckland. Building of new housing isn't keeping up with population growth, so my bet would be that the property values, especially in Auckland, are going to continue to climb.  Other factors that might influence your decision are things only you can know, such as where you might be likely to settle down, how much risk you're willing to take, how much capability you have to look after a rental property, and how much knowledge you have about the property market. Bear in mind that government schemes and world events may change the outlook for number of houses being built and immigration levels, both of which heavily affect property values. My personal view is that the government isn't doing nearly enough to provide affordable housing for our young adults in NZ. Not only that; the govt is essentially responsible for the problem in the first place, as zoning rules for local authorities artificially inflate land prices which prevent the building of affordable houses. Furthermore, foreign investment in rental properties is unregulated and unmeasured. Both these problems could be resolved with appropriate legislation, though central city prices are unlikely to be relieved as much as other areas simply because prices are also inflated due to the desirability to live centrally. The problem is a severe one, and high housing prices for even the smallest dwellings are going to make inequality, and the social problems that go with it, far worse. I'd like to see new cities or towns being planned and built from scratch, such as Pegasus and Canberra.

negative: "i dont see what's the big deal, all the banks got bailed out.  Govt printed over 7 trillion bucks, not much inflation.  govt has to help private sector.  gave plenty of freebies to the rich mother fukers in the banking sector.    or even better, govt should tax the shit out of wall street and super rich corporations and use that money to give to the students.     how do you suppose the govt ""FIX"" the economy??  wtf do u think govt is trying to do?  but they gave the money to the wrong people."

negative: You are not missing something basic.  Putting money in the bank will cost you in terms of purchasing power.  The same thing has been true in the US and other places for a long time now.  The real interest rate is negative--there is too much aggregate wealth being saved compared to the number of profitable lending opportunities.  That means any truly risk-free investment will not make as much money as you will lose to inflation.   If the real interest rate appears to be positive in your home country it means one of the following is happening: Capital controls or other barriers are preventing foreigners from investing in your home country, keeping the interest rate there artificially high Expected inflation is not being measured very accurately in your home country Inflation is variable and unpredictable in your home country, so investors are demanding high interest rates to compensate for inflation risk.  In other words, bank accounts are not risk-free in your home country. If you find any securities that are beating inflation, you can bet they are taking on risk.  Investing in risky securities is fine, but just understand that it's not a substitute for a risk-free bank account.  Part of every interest rate is compensation for the time-value-of-money and the rest is compensation for risk.  At present, the global time-value-of-money is negative.

negative: "Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general ""date"" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement."

negative: "No, it can really not. Look at Detroit, which has lost a million residents over the past few decades. There is plenty of real estate which will not go for anything like it was sold. Other markets are very risky, like Florida, where speculators drive too much of the price for it to be stable. You have to be sure to buy on the downturn. A lot of price drops in real estate are masked because sellers just don't sell, so you don't really know how low the price is if you absolutely had to sell. In general, in most of America, anyway, you can expect Real Estate to keep up with inflation, but not do much better than that. It is the rental income or the leverage (if you buy with a mortgage) that makes most of the returns. In urban markets that are getting an influx of people and industry, however, Real Estate can indeed outpace inflation, but the number of markets that do this are rare. Also, if you look at it strictly as an investment (as opposed to the question of ""Is it worth it to own my own home?"") there are a lot of additional costs that you have to recoup, from property taxes to bills, rental headaches etc. It's an investment like any other, and should be approached with the same due diligence."

negative: "Disregarding the particular example and focusing on the actual questions: YES, definitely, the whole concept of ""pump and dump scheme"" refers to the many cases when this was intentionally done; Everything has a limit, but the limit can be quite high, especially if starting from a low value (a penny stock) and if the stock is low volume, then inflating ten or hundred times over a real value may be possible; and any value might be infinitely times overvalued for a company that turns out to have a value of zero. Yes, unless it's done very blatantly, you should expect that the ""inflator"" has much more experience in hiding the signs of inflation than the skill of average investor to notice them."

negative: "TARP was ~$475 billion of loans to institutions.  Loans that are to be paid back, with interest (albeit very low interest).  A significant percentage of the TARP loans have been (or will be) paid back.  So, the final price tag of the TARP was only a few $billion (pretty low considering the scale of the program). There is ~$10 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding.  That's a much higher price tag than TARP.  Secondly, paying off the mortgages = no repayment to the government as there was with TARP.  The initial price tag of your plan would be ~$10 trillion, instead of a few $billion. Furthermore how does a government with >$15 trillion in debt already come up with an extra ~$10 trillion to pay off people's mortgages?  Should the government go deeper into debt?  Print more money and trigger inflation? (Note:  Some people like to talk about a ""secret bailout"" by the Fed, implying that the true cost of TARP was much higher than claimed by the government.  The ""secret bailout"" was a series of short-term low/no interest loans to banks.  Because they were loans, which were paid back, my point still stands.)  Some other issues to consider: Remember that the principal balance of your mortgage is only a small portion of your payments to the bank.  Over 30 years, you pay a lot of $$$ in interest to the bank (that's how banks make a profit).  Banks are expecting that revenue, and it is factored into their financial projections.  If those revenue streams suddenly disappeared, I expect it would majorly screw the up the financial industry. Many people bought houses during the real estate boom, when housing prices were inflated far beyond the ""real"" value of the house.  Is it right to overpay for these houses?  This rewards the banks for accepting the inflated value during the appraisal process.  (Loan modification forces banks to accept the ""real"" value of the house.) The financial crisis was triggered by people buying houses they could not afford.  Should they be rewarded with a free house for making poor financial decisions?"


query: Short term parking of a large inheritance?

positive: "Safe short term and ""pay almost nothing"" go hand in hand.  Anything that is safe for the short term will not pay much in interest/appreciation. If you don't know what to do, putting it in a savings account is the safest thing.  The purpose of that isn't to earn money, it's just to store the money while you figure out where to move it to earn money."

positive: I am sorry for your loss, this person blessed you greatly.   For now I would put it in a savings account.  I'd use a high yield account like EverBank or Personal Savings from Amex.  There are others it is pretty easy to do your own research.  Expect to earn around 2200 if you keep it there a year.   As you grieve, I'd ask myself what this person would want me to do with the money.  I'd arrive at a plan that involved me investing some, giving some, and spending some.  I have a feeling, knowing that you have done pretty well for yourself financially, that this person would want you to spend some money on yourself.  It is important to honor their memory. Giving is an important part of building wealth, and so is investing.  Perhaps you can give/purchase a bench or part of a walkway at one of your favorite locations like a zoo.  This will help you remember this person fondly.  For the investing part, I would recommend contacting a company like Fidelity or Vanguard.  The can guide you into mutual funds that suit your needs and will help you understand the workings of them.  As far as Fidelity, they will tend to guide you toward their company funds, but they are no load.  Once you learn how to use the website, it is pretty easy to pick your own funds.   And always, you can come back here with more questions.

positive: "Here's what I suggest... A few years ago, I got a chunk of change.  Not from an inheritance, but stock options in a company that was taken private.  We'd already been investing by that point.  But what I did: 1.  I took my time. 2.  I set aside a chunk of it (maybe a quarter) for taxes.  you shouldn't have this problem. 3.  I set aside a chunk for home renovations. 4.  I set aside a chunk for kids college fund 5.  I set aside a chunk for paying off the house 6.  I set aside a chunk to spend later 7.  I invested a chunk.  A small chunk directly in single stocks, a small chunk in muni bonds, but most just in Mutual Funds. I'm still spending that ""spend later"" chunk.  It's about 10 years later, and this summer it's home maintenance and a new car...  all, I figure it, coming out of some of that money I'd set aside for ""future spending."""

positive: "What are the options available for safe, short-term parking of funds? Savings accounts are the go-to option for safely depositing funds in a way that they remain accessible in the short-term. There are many options available, and any recommendations on a specific account from a specific institution depend greatly on the current state of banks. As you're in the US, If you choose to save funds in a savings account, it's important that you verify that the account (or accounts) you use are FDIC insured. Also be aware that the insurance limit is $250,000, so for larger volumes of money you may need to either break up your savings into multiple accounts, or consult a Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF) rather than random strangers on the internet. I received an inheritance check... Money is a token we exchange for favors from other people. As their last act, someone decided to give you a portion of their unused favors. You should feel honored that they held you in such esteem. I have no debt at all and aside from a few deferred expenses You're wise to bring up debt. As a general answer not geared toward your specific circumstances: Paying down debt is a good choice, if you have any. Investment accounts have an unknown interest rate, whereas reducing debt is guaranteed to earn you the interest rate that you would have otherwise paid. Creating new debt is a bad choice. It's common for people who receive large windfalls to spend so much that they put themselves in financial trouble. Lottery winners tend to go bankrupt. The best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. I am not at all savvy about finances... The vast majority of people are not savvy about finances. It's a good sign that you acknowledge your inability and are willing to defer to others. ...and have had a few bad experiences when trying to hire someone to help me Find an AIF, preferably one from a largish investment firm. You don't want to be their most important client. You just want them to treat you with courtesy and give you simple, and sound investment advice. Don't be afraid to shop around a bit. I am interested in options for safe, short ""parking"" of these funds until I figure out what I want to do.  Apart from savings accounts, some money market accounts and mutual funds may be appropriate for parking funds before investing elsewhere. They come with their own tradeoffs and are quite likely higher risk than you're willing to take while you're just deciding what to do with the funds. My personal recommendation* for your specific circumstances at this specific time is to put your money in an Aspiration Summit Account purely because it has 1% APY (which is the highest interest rate I'm currently aware of) and is FDIC insured. I am not affiliated with Aspiration. I would then suggest talking to someone at Vanguard or Fidelity about your investment options. Be clear about your expectations and don't be afraid to simply walk away if you don't like the advice you receive. I am not affiliated with Vanguard or Fidelity. * I am not a lawyer, fiduciary, or even a person with a degree in finances. For all you know I'm a dog on the internet."

positive: "The person who told you ""no-load funds"" had the right idea.  Since you are risk-averse, you tend to want a ""value"" fund; that is, it's not likely to grow in value (that would be a ""growth"" fund), but it isn't like to fall either. To pick an example more-or-less at random, Fidelity Blue Chip Value Fund ""usually"" returns around 8% a year, which in your case would have meant about $20,000 every year -- but it's lost 4.35% in the last year. I like Fidelity, as a brokerage as well as a fund-manager.  Their brokers are salaried, so they have no incentive to push load funds or other things that make them, but not you, money.  For intermediate investors like you and me, they seem like a good choice. Be careful of ""short term"".  Most funds have some small penalty if you sell within 90 days.  Carve off whatever amount you think you might need and keep that in your cash account. And a piece of personal advice: don't be too risk-averse.  You don't need this money.  For you, the cost of losing it completely is exactly equal as the benefit of doubling it.  You can afford to be aggressive. Think of it this way: the expected return of a no-load fund is around 5%-7%.  For a savings account, the return is within rounding error of zero.  Do you spend that much, $15,000, on anything in your life right now?  Any recreation or hobby or activity.  Maybe your rent or your tuition.  Why spend it for a vague sense of ""safety"", when you are in no danger of losing anything that you need?"

negative: Both have merits, Korea can plan long term for their families inheritance, the west needs to make massive gains every year short term and if the choice is screw the consumer or build loyalty. They are legally required to do the former.  I wish there were no corporations, limited  companies only.  The corporation is nothing like it was legally allowed to be.

negative: ParkAir Meet and Greet collects your vehicle at the London Heathrow Terminal 2 Short Stay Car Park Level 2 Zone A and B (Off airport parking bays are marked in black and white board). After handing in your vehicle to our Valet all you have to do is to make the less than 2 mins walk straight into the Depature Terminal to Check In.

negative: Consider the price history to be the sum of short term movements and long term movements. If you hold a stock for a long time you will benefit (or lose) from its long term movement.  If a sufficiently large and very good short term trader existed he would tend to reduce short term volatility, eventually to nearly zero. At that point, the price would rise gently over the course of the day in line with the long term variation in price. Presumably robot traders will increase the time horizon of their trades when they have exhausted the gains they can make from short term trades.

negative: theoretically this concept makes sense.  However as recent numbers have shown ( I do not have the source handy but one can simply obtain this information via the ECB's website) banks have tapped this LTRO, something in the likes of 500 billion or so, and instead of buying Sovereign debt, they instead prefer to park this money with the ECB, paying something like 25 bps on deposits.  so instead of using this LTRO money to buy Sovereigns or perhaps lend to other banks, easing the strain on LIBOR, banks have just parked this money back with the ECB, as the ECB has seen its deposits once again reach record amounts (again, see the ECB website for proof).  Just this speaks volumes about the LTRO carry trade and how it is evidently not going to achieve its long term goal of bringing spreads down in Europe.  Perhaps in the short run yes, but if you look at the fundamentals (EURUSD, the EUR Basis Swap and the OIS-LIBOR Spread) they show how the situation in Europe is far from over, and the LTRO is nothing close to a long term and stable solution

negative: This comes back to the money deal. You have to pay people and pay for supplies (jet fuel is expensive, quite literally each airlines highest expense is fuel). Government paying for flights would be met with stiff resistance. Carrying it out would be difficult. People have to go to airports, park cars somewhere, how many planes are we diverting to help with evac? How many people are we diverting? How many flight plans have to change? Other routes may experience issues. There is so much planning that goes into this. It would be a nightmare to do in the short term.

negative: Went there a year or so ago.  It's a nice place to go because of cheap tickets and short lines, but the park is so much smaller than its competitors.  There's nothing to keep you coming back, especially if you're over 14.

negative: "You can't short a stock unless there is someone willing and able to ""lend"" shares to you. And there are several reasons why that might not be the case. First, BSFT is a ""new"" stock, which means that NO ONE has held it very long. It's much easier to short IBM or Exxon Mobil, where there are some long-term holders who would like to earn a little extra money lending you THEIR shares. But if ""everyone"" involved is busy buying or selling the stock, there won't be many people to lend it. That's not manipulation, that's just the market. Another reason may be a large ""short"" interest. That is many OTHERS have shorted it before you. That's dangerous for you, because if some lenders want to pull their shares off the market, they can cause a ""short squeeze"" that will drive the price much higher.  And stock shortages can be orchestrated by the company or large investors to artificially drive the price higher. Unless you have a lot of experience, don't try shorting small cap stocks. Try to gain some experience with large caps like IBM or Exxon Mobil first. Those are stocks that people at least can't ""play games"" with. YOu will win or lose based on the market itself."

negative: In the short term the market is a popularity contest In the short run which in value investing time can extend even to many years, an equity is subject to the vicissitudes of the whims by every scale of panic and elation. This can be seen by examining the daily chart of any large cap equity in the US.  Even such large holdings can be affected by any set of fear and greed in the market and in the subset of traders trading the equity. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience high variance in the short rurn. in the long term [the stock market] is a weighing machine In the long run which in value investing time can extend to even multiple decades, an equity is more or less subject only to the variance of the underlying value. This can be seen by examining the annual chart of even the smallest cap equities over decades.  An equity over such time periods is almost exclusively affected by its changes in value. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience low variance in the long run.

negative: ">Goods that are exchanged for financial value, which you can use to increase your own standard of living at the expense of the people importing your goods.  If you're doing that, you're running balanced trade, not a surplus. To run a surplus, you have to accumulate the financial claims. That's why you see Japan and China for example holding large balances of US dollars which they just park in treasuries. If you pursue trade surpluses as a policy, you're stuck holding the money.  >I've been ""emphasizing"" a bottom line this entire time!  It's the wrong line though. A *voluntary* financial constraint that forces real output capacity into idleness leaving a country poorer in real terms."

negative: For safety. If something catastrophic happens to your bank and your money is in there you will lose any not covered by FDIC. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. I also literally just posted this in another thread: Certain rules and regulations penalize companies or institutions for holding cash, so they are shifting to bonds and bills. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813

negative: Shorting is the term used when someone borrows a stock and sells it at the current price to then buy it back later at hopefully a lower price. There are rules about this as noted in the link that begins this answer as there are risks to selling a stock you don't own of course. If you look up various large companies you may find that there are millions of shares sold short throughout the market as someone does have the shares and they will need to be put back eventually.

negative: You admire people who inherited large sums of money, hasn't even beaten inflation with it, and has a record of starting projects with investor money then declaring bankruptcy? You should probably realign your priorities. Anyone could be worth as much as Donald Trump with the same headstart.

negative: Here in Denver, which is clearly in the midst of an economic boom, the city's premiere shopping center (Cherry Creek Mall) is struggling despite the presence of high-end shops like Nieman Marcus and Restoration Hardware, among many others. The adjacent business district (Cherry Creek North) is awash in new high-rises, office buildings and stand-alone retail stores, but the city council is in the pocket of developers so they've approved all this growth while eliminating the need to provide adequate parking. Since so many non-shoppers were leaving their cars in mall garages all day long, mall officials instituted paid parking. Now, you can park for free if you're staying for less than an hour, but beginning with the 61st minute you're being charged. This has had a detrimental effect on many of the smaller stores in the mall, most of which relied on strolling visitors for a large share of their business. With the limited free parking, people are running their planned errands and then getting the hell out of there before the hour is up. It seems like a pretty stupid way to run a business, especially since several suburban malls have the same stores and unlimited parking.

negative: I lived and worked in my college town for 7 years before I found out we had a Sears.  It was a huge store on a main road with a parking lot so large that the store was too far back to be noticed...and they didnt have a sign.

negative: "Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book ""The small stock trader"":  Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher.  I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of ""The small stock trader"")"

negative: It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want.  Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe.   Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD.  The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates.

negative: "Yeah the credit union near me sucks too. Short hours, long lines and impossible parking to go with the subpar online banking and lack of ATMs. Just because the sign reads ""credit union"" doesn't mean it's a good business. Not all credit unions are created equally."

negative: If you want to invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds I would suggest you take a portion of your inheritance and use it to learn how to invest in this asset class wisely. Take courses on investing and trading (two different things) in paper assets and start trading on a fantasy exchange to test and hone your investment skills before risking any of your money. Personally I don't find bonds to have a meaningful rate of return and I prefer stocks that have a dividend over those that don't. Parking some of your money in an IRA is a good strategy for when you do not see opportunities to purchase cashflow-positive assets right away; this allows you to wait and deploy your capital when the opportunity presents itself and to educate yourself on what a good opportunity looks like.

negative: Laser hair removal isn't permanent, you have to have several sessions to get all of the hair, each session costing hundreds. And then it may only last a few years before you have hair growing back again. It's not worth the money unless you have such a large amount that you can throw away several thousand. As others have said, either buy blades in bulk or get a straight razor. They will be much more economical in both the short term and long term.

negative: "If you live and work in the euro-zone, then even after a ""crash"" all of your income and most of your expenses will still be in euros.  The only portion of your worth you need to worry about protecting is the portion you intend to spend on goods from outside the euro-zone (i.e. imports).  In that case, you may want to consider parking some of your money in short-term government bonds issued by other countries, such as the UK, Switzerland, and USA (or wherever else your favorite goods tend to come from).  If the euro actually ""massively devalues"" (an extremely unlikely scenario), then you can expect foreign goods to cost a lot more than they do now.  Inflation might also pick up, so you might also want to purchase some OATis."

negative: Right now interest rates are pretty low and as such you won't see blockbuster interest rates in anything highly liquid. That being said you're motivation is liquidity over rate of return anyway so I don't think that is a concern. Money Market funds should give you a similar return to AMEX Personal Savings. Due to their lack of a rate guarantee I wouldn't be surprised if that is simply a branded Money Market account. Your best bet is to look at what rates you can get on any short term security and park your money in the one that best suites your needs and offers the greatest return. Money Markets are simply a great way for you to keep your cash liquid while investing you in a broad range of liquid assets (diversification is key).

negative: A gift between spouses has no tax implications.  If one spouse dies the inheritance tax is always zero no matter how much of the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Gift taxes are actually related to estate taxes, so a gift no matter how large never requires filing any tax forms or paying any taxes.

negative: Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or   short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If   the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is   short-term. Net Capital Gain.  If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their   long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term   capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net   short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss.  Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock.  So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability.  At best it defers it.

negative: "It is difficult to become a millionaire in the short term (a few years) working at a 9-to-5 job, unless you get lucky (win the lottery, inheritance, gambling at a casino, etc). However, if you max out your employer's Retirement Plan (401k, 403b) for the next 30 years, and you average a 5% rate of return on your investment, you will reach millionaire status.  Many people would consider this ""easy"" and ""automatic"". Of course, this assumes you are able to max our your retirement savings at the start of your career, and keep it going.  The idea is that if you get in the habit of saving early in your career and live modestly, it becomes an automatic thing. Unfortunately, the value of $1 million after 30 years of inflation will be eroded somewhat.  (Sorry.) If you don't want to wait 30 years, then you need to look at a different strategy.  Work harder or take risks.  Some options:"

negative: "Finally some good examples!   So clearly this is an issue, and many large companies do similar shenanigans. But the divisions being cut are massively unprofitable anyhow, even with these crappy tricks.   I agree that a company like GE should be looking long term, but I'm not sure what % they do in technology R&D so I'm not prepared to be too harsh on that front.  I absolutely agree that having non software engineers write software is a long term failure. Even smart engineers who can pump out software often do so without having learned the lessons that software companies learn. Resulting in short term results followed by long term pain.   Anyhow. Thanks for a real response. I wonder if the divisions being cut need to be cut or sold off regardless. But I think every large org should look at examples like this and not try to play the ""this quarter is good"" game."

negative: "They always use the term ""spike"" - making the assumption they will go down.  An large eruption in Iceland, if one occurs,  (less likely than not) would cause major increases in food prices globally, just like a limited nuclear war would.   In even a small nuclear war the food cost increase subsequent to a short ""nuclear winter"" is projected to kill two billion people, mostly children, worldwide."

negative: Not charging taxes on a money losing investment or business is much more than humanitarian it is common sense. In general money that is used to invest has already been taxed as income or inheritance to the person making the investment so taxing that money again not just the profit would provide a disincentive for people to invest. Which would be bad for economic growth over the medium and long term. As far as taxing a money losing businesses goes, most businesses don't make money in their couple of years and adding further tax burdens would be counter productive because it would provide a major hurdle for people wanting to start a business. Other have already mentioned that the money losing operation likely paid indirect taxes as well. Small businesses provide a majority of the economic growth and innovation. So in short additional taxes on money losing investments and businesses would be both foolish and shortsighted.

negative: Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss)   Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.

negative: The main advantage of commodities to a largely stock and bond portfolio is diversification and the main disadvantages are investment complexity and low long-term returns. Let's start with the advantage.  Major commodities indices and the single commodities tend to be uncorrelated to stocks and bonds and will in general be diversifying especially over short periods.  This relationship can be complex though as Supply can be even more complicated (think weather) so diversification may or may not work in your favor over long periods. However, trading in commodities can be very complex and expensive.  Futures need to be rolled forward to keep an investment going.  You really, really don't want to accidentally take delivery of 40000 pounds of cattle.  Also, you need to properly take into account roll premiums (carry) when choosing the closing date for a future.  This can be made easier by using commodities index ETFs but they can also have issues with rolling and generally have higher fees than stock index ETFs. Most importantly, it is worth understanding that the long-term return from commodities should be by definition (roughly) the inflation rate.  With stocks and bonds you expect to make more than inflation over the long term.  This is why many large institutions talk about commodities in their portfolio they often actually mean either short term tactical/algorithmic trading or long term investments in stocks closely tied to commodities production or processing. The two disadvantages above are why commodities are not recommended for most individual investors.

negative: Holding Companies:  Bank of America Corporation Long-term senior unsecured debt to Baa2 from Baa1, outlook negative; Short-term P-2 affirmed  Barclays plc Long-term issuer rating to A3 from A1, outlook negative; Short-term to P-2 from P-1  Citigroup Inc. Long-term senior debt to Baa2 from A3, outlook negative; short-term P-2 affirmed  Credit Suisse Group AG Provisional senior debt to (P)A2 from (P)Aa2, outlook stable; Provisional Short-term (P)P-1 affirmed  The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Long-term senior unsecured debt to A3 from A1, outlook negative; Short-term to P-2 from P-1  HSBC Holdings plc Long-term senior debt to Aa3 from Aa2, outlook negative; Provisional Short-term (P)P-1 affirmed  JPMorgan Chase & Co. Long-term senior debt to A2 from Aa3, outlook negative; Short-term P-1 affirmed  Morgan Stanley Long-term senior unsecured debt to Baa1 from A2; outlook negative; Short-term to P-2 from P-1  Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc Long-term senior debt to Baa1 from A3, outlook negative; Short-term P-2 affirmed  -------------  Operating Companies:  Bank of America, N.A. Long-term deposit rating to A3 from A2, outlook stable; Short-term to P-2 from P-1  Barclays Bank plc Long-term issuer rating to A2 from Aa3, outlook negative; Short-term P-1 affirmed  BNP Paribas Long-term debt and deposit rating to A2 from Aa3; outlook stable; Short-term P-1 affirmed  Citibank, N.A. Long-term deposit rating to A3 from A1, outlook stable; Short-term to P-2 from P-1  Credit Agricole S.A. Long-term debt and deposit rating to A2 from Aa3, outlook negative; Short-term P-1 affirmed  Credit Suisse AG Long-term deposit and senior debt rating to A1 from Aa1, outlook stable; Short-term P-1 affirmed  Deutsche Bank AG Long-term deposit rating to A2 from Aa3, outlook stable; Short-term P-1 affirmed  Goldman Sachs Bank USA Long-term deposit rating to A2 from Aa3, outlook stable; Short-term P-1 affirmed  HSBC Bank plc Long-term deposit rating to Aa3 from Aa2, outlook negative; Short-term P-1 affirmed  JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Long-term deposit rating to Aa3 from Aa1, outlook stable; Short-term P-1 affirmed  Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A. Long-term deposit rating to A3 from A1, outlook stable; Short-term to P-2 from P-1  Royal Bank of Canada Long-term deposit rating to Aa3 from Aa1, outlook stable; Short-term P-1 affirmed  Royal Bank of Scotland plc Long-term deposit rating to A3 from A2; outlook negative; Short-term to P-2 from P-1  Societe Generale Long-term debt and deposit to A2 from A1; outlook stable; Short-term P-1 affirmed  UBS AG Long-term debt and deposit to A2 from Aa3, outlook stable; Short-term P-1 confirmed.

negative: As far as Driving Schools in Roxburgh Park are concerned, we at HOGGS Driving School are one of the best out there, not to mention the fact that we have a very large list of varied services in store for you. Do give us a call at the very earliest.                    Address: 112 Royal Terrace, Craigieburn, Victoria 3064,   Ph.no: 0416 243 024

negative: DH payroll is a payroll provider in Kingston to meet your payroll services needs. We are a specialist payroll bureau who have dealt with a large number of small and medium sized companies for the past 25 years and have served them well. Address:- Ground Floor 1 Park Road, Hampton Wick, Kingston-Upon-Thames KT1 4AS  Phone: 020 8977 3559