The FDIC guarantee is up to $250,000 per depositor per insured bank. If your goal is primarily to protect your money, you may want to consider depositing your money in multiple insured banks. I'll leave it to someone else to accurately define money market accounts and how they function, and the (very low) risks you take with them. Don't forget that inflation will eat into your money. It's unlikely you'll make enough interest either in a savings account or in a money market account to cover the inflation. You should factor this in to your overall investment plan.


Repair TV in Los Angeles with minor problems and avoid the burden of buying new one. Mostly the cost of repair is only a fraction of new unit, so it is always advisable to fix those minor defects and enjoy watching TV without spending much.


I think this piece would be great with some direction and editing.  The idea of JOINING a start up can be considered a long con. You are not working for yourself nor a cause you created or developed. The pay is very low, the hours are long and the promise of equity might either never be there (Remember Zynga taking back equity?), be poorly constructed (Pay-in options are just like equity right? Right guys?) or worse, might be worthless through no fault of your own.  Where will you be if either happens? The idea that you stuck around with a company for 3-6 years in order to maximize your equity value is not only limiting, it can be career damaging. 20 year olds should be trying different careers and gaining a sea of experience. Go out and build up that all important network isn't going to happen in one place.


First, you are describing trickle down economics; which has been disproved.  Since, the wealth gap in America is the highest it has ever been; and continues to grow.  Second, please provide your data to backup your point of countries slipping into poverty; because, of progressive tax rates.   I will give you one example contrary to your statements:  [Sweden](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/09/sweden-startups/541413/)  Look it up, generous government spending (from high taxes) have the put the Swedes in a great position.


Renting an apartment here in Atlanta (where I live) is just as expensive (if not more) than paying own a home so it seems like a good ideas to just go for owning my own property. And I really want space for my dog. :-)


Banks in New Zealand tend to take a lien that is higher than the amount of the loan, so that your only option for a second mortgage is with them. ASB wanted 50% more than the value of the loan when I had my mortgage with them. Of course, with house price inflation the way it's been in NZ, the value of your house may have outstripped the lien anyway, and you can mortgage the rest of it with anyone you like. I suspect your lawyer will need to inform the other lienholder, but you don't need their permission.


Immediately move your Roth IRA out of Edward Jones and into a discount broker like Scottrade, Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or E-Trade.  Edward Jones will be charging you a large fraction of your money (probably at least 1% explicitly and maybe another 1% in hidden-ish fees like the 12b-1).  Don't give away several percent of your savings every year when you can have an account for free.  Places like Edward Jones are appropriate only for people who are unwilling to learn about personal finance and happy to pay dearly as a result.  Move your money by contacting the new broker, then requesting that they get your money out of Edward Jones.  They will be happy to do so the right way.  Don't try and get the money out yourself. Continue to contribute to your Roth as long as your tax bracket is low.  Saving on taxes is a critically important part of being financially wise.  You can spend your contributions (not gains) out of your Roth for any reason without penalty if you want/need to.  When your tax bracket is higher, look at traditional IRA's instead to minimize your current tax burden.  For more accessible ways of saving, open a regular (non-tax-advantaged) brokerage account. Invest in diversified and low-cost funds.  Look at the expense ratios and minimize your portfolio's total expense.  Higher fee funds generally do not earn the money they take from you. Avoid all funds that have a nonzero 12b-1 fee. Generally speaking your best bet is buying index funds from Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or their close competitors.  Or buying cheap ETF's.   Any discount brokerage will allow you to do this in both your Roth and regular accounts.  Remember, the reason you buy funds is to get instant diversification, not because you are willing to gamble that your mutual funds will outperform the market.  Head to the bogleheads forum for more specific advice about 3 fund portfolios and similar suggested investment strategies like the lazy portfolios.  The folks in the forums there like to give specific advice that's not appropriate here. If you use a non-tax-advantaged account for investing, buy and sell in a tax-smart way.  At the end of the year, sell your poor performing stocks or funds and use the loss as a tax write-off.  Then rebalance back to a good portfolio.  Or if your tax bracket is very low, sell the winners and lock in the gains at low tax rates.  Try to hold things more than a year so you are taxed at the long-term capital gains rate, rather than the short-term. Only when you have several million dollars, then look at making individual investments, rather than funds.  In a non-tax-advantaged account owning the assets directly will help you write off losses against your taxes.  But either way, it takes several million dollars to make the transactions costs of maintaining a portfolio lower than the fees a cheap mutual/index fund will charge.


That may be true but what will happen is that every carrier raises prices. In an oligopoly it will be an opportunity to act as an ensemble. So maybe after a while costs will be driven down but in the short it will probably only raise prices. And also it creates a situation where the a service that was previously accessible to all customers will now only be available to the ones willing to pay whatever the cost of an actual human behind the telephone is.  So in the short run it will only increase telecom costs. Also since having a phone or internet in something you can just opt out of everyone will be more or less forced to accept this practice. Again the oligopoly is where can find the cause.


Well, you can't really have it both ways. You said that they were both using the same method, but, in fact, they aren't. You can call the weighting biased, but in fact if appears that BPP is doing little or minimal weighting, and yet still is showing that prices, in general, are mapping similarly to the BLS published CPI.   Unless you're arguing an MIT 'academic conspiracy' (and even if you are), I think you've failed to make your case.  BPP is independant, it uses a different methodology, and yet the results confirm those of the BLS.


"The Forbes article IRS Announces 2014 Retirement Plan Contribution Limits For 401(k)s And More spells this out pretty clearly.  For your wife - ""an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan and is married to someone who is covered, the deduction is phased out if the couple’s income is between $181,000 and $191,000."" So, with your wife not covered by a 401(k), and your income below the stated limit, she can deduct the IRA contribution. When your income gets beyond that limit, she can make a non-deductible contribution and convert to Roth, if she wishes."


For some reason I really see people being more comfortable going the way of [harrison bergeron](http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html).  While I'm for the abilty to enhance people, sadly I feel it'd become a much more desisive way to divide the population of haves and have-nots. You can try to sugar coat it as much as you want saying it won't happen.  Company A patents Process A. Company B patents Process B and does something like Process A. Company A sues Company B and wins. Company B's product now raises in cost due to royalty payments. Both companies feel the need to keep massive war chests of money to fight over stupid shit while people suffer. Think Software Patents only in your body.  Yeah, I'd love to have some enhancements. But I don't think businesses are the ones that should develop them. WELL WHO SHOULD THEN! I don't know...


In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.


There is no issue - and no question - if you get married.  The question is only relevant in the event that you go separate ways.  Should that happen, you imply that you would want to refund whatever amount your girlfriend has paid toward the mortgage. The solution, then, would seem to be to exempt her from any payments, as you will either give that money back to her (if you break up) or make her a co-owner of the condo (if you get married).  If you actually need her contributions to the monthly nut, you could give her a written agreement whereby you would refund her money (plus interest) at her discretion.


"> AMERICA is growing, Western Europe is stagnant, China and most of East Asia is expanding relatively quickly  So staring into the face of evidence from his own intro context that generally the more active fiscal intervention since the GFC, the better economies have fared, the author proceeds to prognosticate about impending doom for the Chinese if they don't conclusively switch & stick to austerity and ignore growth to focus on hidden inflation monsters. For the US somehow everything comes down to fed monetary policy, despite the fact that 4 years of the fed's alphabet soup programs without any fiscal assistance from congress hasn't kicked the US back into preferred growth and GDP is seeming to slow back down toward recession/stagnation. And finally the eurozone is apparently most plagued by ""overblown public debt"" and government spending somehow ""crowding out"" investment that just wishes it had the chance to invest if those pesky profligate politicians would get out of the way, and maybe the countries should fork over their economic sovereignty to the ECB so they can be structurally reformed (bloodletting/grave robbing).  Just my opinion, this whole article seems like shitty oldschool/backward economic views coming out of academic economics, likely angling to be a ['very serious person' in ECB bureaucratic/advisory politics](http://www.geopolitical-info.com/en/expert/professor-enrico-colombatto). The lack of being able to comprehend & adjust to real world results is just sad."


The CFA will generally take 3-4 years to finish. They test level 2 and 3 once a year and level 1 twice. They recommend approx 300 hours of studying for each level, but you can get away with less. But for you, level 1 is going to be your undergrad in finance so it shouldn’t be anything outside of your normal course of study. You’ll be able to save time on studying if you take it while the material is still fresh


Also see who has the authority to delete bills or items on bills. This was a huge scam with some servers I've worked with. If you can delete an entire bill that was paid in cash then that's money in your pocket.


Are you searching out a digital advertising company in the Dubai, At search engine marketing-daddy, Digital Marketing With workplaces in Dubai and Saudi Arabia, we put in force fine practices for clients who are prepared to digital marketing startups elements into their business techniques. This takes place due to dishonorable virtual marketing dubai,search engine advertising administrations like making use of Black Hat search engine optimization control to decorate web page, pointless backing with the resource of the third birthday party referencing, using of shrouded messages and concealed connections and so on.


If flying business of first class allows your employee to be more productive, first class or business class is worth it. Small peas compared to the person losing a day’s work due to fatigue. The ticket is worth, what, an extra $1000? A day’s work for an executive is worth easily double that. And if you are flying multiple times a week on a regular basis, the extra comfort is well worth the cost.


>if the Millenials are still hard up for work), then employers will likely defer to candidates that they deem to be more mature.  Realistically, they would likely think the younger one is more mature.  Reason being, a Gen Y'er that has been unemployed for a while, companies make the assumption that there must be something wrong with them if noone hired them.  Not special to Gen Y though.  Anyone who is unemployed for a long period of time they make that assumption.  The longer you are unemployed, the less likely companies want to hire you, it's a vicious circle.


I believe you may be missing the point here. It appears(and they don't really verify this) that before BofA took over the loan, the homeowners were not using an escrow account. I know this is possible because i had the option of using one or not when i bought my house. So it seems that once BofA took over they automatically created an escrow account and when the normal payments the homeowners were making didn't cover the total monthly balance, they took it out of the payment specifically for the mortgage.   So, according to THIS story, its not sensational bullshit. This would be the bank creating an issue. That is, according to the facts that are presented in the article, which may not be the whole story....  Edit- spelling & grammar


Two companies I worked for in the DC area also did WageWorks. The commuting money could be used for the Subway, Bus, and commuter rail. A separate pot of money was used for parking.  We had to estimate the amount of money that would be used the next month. We had to decide by mid-June how much we would spend in July. The money was automatically added to the metro fare card on the first business day of the month. When I first started they put the money on a special debit/credit card that could only be used at commuter system. It would be rejected at the department store. If parking couldn't be paid using a special card, there was a way to claim the money with or without receipts. If the company, like the US Government does for their employees, paid the commuting expenses any excess funds at the end of the month were pulled back from the card. They were just starting to do this in 2012 for employee pre-tax funds. They were supposed to add it to your next paycheck any excess at the end of the month. There was also a way to use post tax funds from your paycheck so that all your commuting expenses could be on one card. Of course any post-tax funds would be left on the card. There was no real way for them to audit this because the system would never know if you were going to work or going to the dentist. I ended up using two cards, one for work and one for non-work usage.


While true, I don't have capital.  The VC does.  And while whatever my product is is in development, I'm haemorrhaging that capital on things like food and rent.  If I want to make more, my startup is put on hold while I find some paid work.    The dollar signs are an incentive for the VC to help make your business a success.


According to the New York Attorney General's Tenants' Rights Guide: Landlords, regardless of the number of units in the building,   must treat the deposits as trust funds belonging to their tenants and they may not co-mingle deposits with their own money. Landlords of buildings with six or more apartments must   put all security deposits in New York bank accounts earning   interest at the prevailing rate. Each tenant must be informed   in writing of the bank’s name and address and the amount of   the deposit. So you have to keep it separate, you can't spend it, and if you own more than six units, you have to put it in a bank account.  (The guide goes on to explain that the interest should be paid to the tenant.)


"The editorial highlights some reasonable reforms-- consistent and transparent pricing--- and then seemingly takes a left turn. This concept or ""cutting out the middle man"" is a fantasy born of a time when local doctors provided affordable but limited care to a limited population. It's been a hollow talking point perpetuated by industry lobby in response to single-payer proposals. Keeping health care between patient and doctor doesn't address the key reasons why health insurance exists in the first place.   The author suggests government-funded escrow accounts for those who can't afford the cost of healthcare. What about those just above the needs-tested cutoff? It seems that this approach disregards and therefore punishes the middle class. Must those with chronic illness become indigent before the government will assist in their care? The point of insurance is that when you get sick, you aren't left spending your life savings on medical care. Level and transparent pricing doesn't change the fact that certain treatments are still going to be expensive. The auto insurance comparison always frustrates me because people are not cars. If your car is breaking down every 30 miles, you can take out a loan and get a new car. A new body, not so much. Furthermore, every auto insurance claim raises your premium. All of this amounts to a tax on sick people.   Single payer or even Medicaid for all (who want it) means the government has enormous pool of patients (or consumers if you wish) with which to negotiate pricing. Do you really think St. XYZ Hospital is going to cut you, an individual, a deal for no reason? Where is the leverage? Particularly in the case of emergencies?  It isn't perfect, but politicizing and misconstruing the tragic case of a brain-dead infant does not strengthen your argument. Charlie Gard's case was not a matter of death panels; it was a matter of heartbroken parents in denial that their children was not going to get better. It's indeed an ethical quandary and no doubt a tragedy, but the hopelessness of the situation was not dictated by a heartless government but by health care professionals.   This is much more than I wished to say initially, but I am tired of seeing simplified fantasy being sold as panacea for what is an extremely complicated subject. Also, I'm not a public policy scholar, but I think I've done a better job than the author."


If you just make a capital contribution to the company it is not a taxable event.  If you're the owner, lending only makes sense if you want the company to pay you interest (if you have partners who aren't lending money, for example) and you want to be compensated for lending, a loan would allow that. But the interest is taxable as income to you (1099-int) and the company can expense it. But a capital contribution is much easier and you can take a distribution later to get paid back. Neither event is taxed, but you cannot take interest.


There are a number of ways you could do this. The first step is to work out what a fair price is. Either make an estimate that you both accept, possibly getting a real estate agent to give you a free evaluation, or get a professional evaluation from some you both accept. Once you have a valuation, the simplest of course is to pay your brother that value (in return for his transferring his ownership to you). Hopefully you have that much money in savings. If you don't have that money (but do have income) you may need to take a mortgage, which would put your home at risk. If the pollution you speak of hasn't been fixed a mortgage may be out of the question. An alternative, if you have income, and your brother doesn't need the money right now, is to make the money you owe him for the house a loan from him to you. He transfers his ownership of the house to you, you pay him its value, but he simultaneously loans you that exact same amount. No actual money needs to change hands. You would make him a regular payment, essentially the interest on that loan, and also make an agreement to pay off the principal of the loan (i.e. the value of the house) when the house is sold, or when you pass away. While you could do this informally if everyone agrees, it would be much better to make a legal agreement, so that everybody is exactly sure what they are expecting.


You are confusing manufacturing cost and listed price. They are being sold for less than listed price. There is no way they are being sold for 1/3rd of manufacturing cost. They could be sold for less than manufacturing cost but future support will be factored into that sale so they would still be a loss leader.


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


In my experience, Millennial's fundamentally distrust the the efficiency and efficacy of most of what is marketed in the modern economy.  By the time you take the investors, marketers, and executive cut out of a modern product sale, there is simply nothing left to actually deliver a quality product, thus cheap, intentionally faulty shit is sold instead as a planned obsolescent solution.  The generations raised under television as the pinnacle of marketing are _utterly oblivious_ to this form of silent inflation around them, but their kids notice how futile and wasteful their 'constantly repurchase the same substandard shit' consumer culture has become.  And they're doing everything they can not to participate, because being manipulated to buy bullshit resembling historic products that were actually functional sucks.


It depends on what you are looking for in the investment. Sharpe is generally used when you are choosing among portfolios(mutual funds, hedge funds, ETFs, etc.) to be the optimal risky portfolio. Treynor is typically used when deciding which security will be added to your portfolio. And the information ratio (alpha/residual standard deviation) is used when deciding which one you will add to a passive portfolio. Also don't forget, when analyzing a stock you need to look at the fundamentals. I hope this helps. And correct me if I'm wrong any you more experienced guys.


"No, getting a liberal arts degree at a non-prestigious university is worthless. You can graduate from an Ivy League school or LAC equivalent with a degree in history/philosophy/English/etc. and go work on Wall Street or in MBB consulting.   There very few fields where you have to be able to step in day 1 and have great technical knowledge. Mostly your degree and school are about signalling* that you can learn what's thrown at you.   EDIT: ""Signalling"" and typos I couldn't correct on my phone."


"Extrinsic value is not a factor with respect to gold.  Intrinsic value by definition is the natural value of a commodity set by the market -- extrinsic value is externally set. The ""extrinsic"" value of gold in the United States is $50/oz. If the market value of gold fell below $50/oz, a US American Eagle coin would be worth $50 in the US. If you take away the attributes that make a commodity valuable, the value drops. Substitutes of equal or better quality for most industrial or other uses of gold exist, so if if the popularity of gold declines, or if the hoarders of gold have to liquidate, it's value will diminish. I have no idea what that value would be, but it would set by the market demand for gold jewelry and other valuable industrial uses."


Your quote: There's about 10 trillion in gold  and about 2.8 trillion of US cash  in the world. Neither of these is anywhere large enough to be used for all the transactions in the world.  So how was it commercial banks could lend like crazy for home mortgages??  M1 remaind constant throughout the decade and years , if frac multiplier effect was the cause for m2, why wasn't it until the 2000s that m2 became exponential?   Commercial Banks able to create credit and lend out of thin air to customers thanks to deregulation that caused m2 to explode.  They didn't need no FED.  They didin't need no reserves.  They were able to act regardless of the FED.  The FED responded to them, instead of the other way around.    Before deregulation banks didn't bother creating too much credit loans coz it was too dangerous, they were mostly utilty banks.   After deregulation, creation of exotic derivatives, low interest rates, and high speed internet globalized digital trading,  they went crazy creating credit out of thin air coz it wasn't dangerous because they could sell the home loans.


"HFTs, that serve no purpose other than to make themselves money, pay a premium to the enthusiastically complicit exchanges for the privilege of scalping those that do not. Their profits are not the result  of any ""growth"" or ""service rendered"". Their profits are the result of a completely unnecessary tax on the system that amounts to theft out of the pockets of regular investors. Which part did I get wrong?  I'm just a guy with a considerable portion of my retirement in an employer 401k, who's not thrilled about losing *any* compounding interest to these parasites. I'm not shilling for anybody. On the other hand, one has to wonder what has guys like you so upset about IEX."


"For sure, the engineer was told to do that by someone in management who was told to do that by someone higher in management.   So, in the trial, the engineer did not say who told him/her to do that?  P/S: for a VERY LARGE sum of money, I will go for 3 years in white-collar ""prison"" and not say who told me to do that."


For the second part, no most NYSE trades are done electronically.


We offer a far reaching scope of services including review and affirmation, bookkeeping, duty and business admonitory to customers extending from little nearby customers to huge multinational organizations. Further, through our VALIS Group Inc participation, we can join nearby mastery with the information and experience of individual VALIS Group Inc individuals around the world. The procedure Same day company formation of organization fuse in Wilmington, DE doesn't take long if every one of the reports are legitimately submitted and it can last half a month. The outside business visionaries must pick the correct sort of organization to build up considering different perspectives, for example, the offer capital, the destinations and the aggregate number of shareholders.


These boxes are prepared in such a way that you cannot fold them like carton box. They are used mostly for packaging the high-quality and heavy products where perceived value is important. An example of rigid box is an Iphone.


"To answer your question point by point - I'd focus on the last point. The back of my business card -  Let's focus on Single. The standard deduction and exemption add to over $10K. I look at this as ""I can have $250K in my IRA, and my $10K (4%) annual withdrawal will be tax free. It takes another $36,900 to fill the 10 and 15% brackets. $922K saved pretax to have that withdrawn each year, or $1.17M total.  That said, I think that depositing to Roth in any year that one is in the 15% bracket or lower can make sense. I also like the Roth Roulette concept, if only for the fact that I am Google's first search result for that phrase.  Roth Roulette is systematically converting and recharacterizing each year the portion of the converted assets that have fallen or not risen as far in relative terms. A quick example. You own 3 volatile stocks, and convert them to 3 Roth accounts. A year later, they are (a) down 20%, (b) up 10%, (c) up 50%. You recharacterize the first two, but keep the 3rd in the Roth. You have a tax bill on say $10K, but have $15K in that Roth."


It's a trade off either way - spread our stuff around and more people see precisely what we're doing. China was going to invest in developing this anyhow.   Not clear at all to me which is better or worse for our security - though this outcome probably pisses off our defense contractors.


Don't ever, ever, ever let someone else handle your money, unless you want somebody else have your money. Nobody can guarantee a return on stocks. That's utter bullshit. Stock go up and down according to market emotions. How can your guru predict the market's future emotions? Keep your head cool with stocks. Only buy when you are 'sure' you are not going to need the money in the next 10 years. Buy obligations before stocks, invest in 'defensive' stocks before investing in 'aggressive' stocks. Keep more money in obligations and defensive stock than in aggressive stocks. See how you can do by yourself. Before buying (or selling) anything, think about the risks, the market, the expert's opinion about this investment, etc. Set a target for selling (and adjust the target according to the performance of the stock). Before investing, try to learn about investing, really. I've made my mistakes, you'll make yours, let's hope they're not the same :)


>In this trial, U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, over the government’s strenuous objection, allowed testimony meant to show that the lenders in the two transactions at issue – Aegis Wholesale Corp. and Greenpoint Mortgage Funding – didn’t care whether information on the applications was true or false.  >Under those circumstances, the defense argued, the information was not material because, either way, the loan would have been approved.  [...]  >William Black, who boasts long academic and regulatory careers, was a key expert witness for the defense, again over Coppola’s objection. Black is an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and the “distinguished scholar in residence for financial regulation” at the University of Minnesota’s School of Law.  >His testimony purportedly connected the fraud in the Sacramento case directly to the lenders, and he explained to the jury why the false information on the applications had no bearing on lending decisions.  >“This is the first time that the overwhelming fraud at the banks has been discussed in a criminal courtroom by the person with the greatest expertise on the issue, William Black,” said defense lawyer Toni White after the verdict.  >“Prosecutors have refused to criminally prosecute the elite bankers responsible for the mortgage crisis that decimated our economy. The jurors heard shocking testimony from ‘control fraud’ expert William Black that regular people who got loans they were unable to pay back did not (defraud) the banks. The elite bankers commit the fraud while prosecutors look the other way and prosecute the wrong people.”


There's a bit of working backwards that's required.   This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer. What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years. The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved. This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline. More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%. The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return. Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year. One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions. I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable. Not so sure today. What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate. Will $1M be enough for you? Only you can answer that. But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way. (note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought. I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k). Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers. The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary. Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.)


"Donbey since you mention your expenses are very low, I'm going to assume that social security will cover your expenses once you qualify for it.  Since you have no savings currently the first and most important job for this money is to make sure that you can live comfortably until social security kicks in.  Social security could start for you as early as 62 so you need to set aside at least two years worth of money plus another chunk as a safety measure. Also, if you don't have health insurance please look to get a plan through your local ACA exchange as not having health insurance is by far the most common way someone your age ends up bankrupt.  Insurance will eat up a good chunk of the money, but will be much cheaper after the first year if you continue to have no income. Now, if your expenses are low enough, you can look to use this money to delay when you start taking social security as long as possible as the longer you delay social security the more money you get.  The AARP has a calculator where you can see how much more per year you will get from social security if you delay taking it as long as you can.  This is a great way to insure you live as comfortably as possible even if you live to 120.  Assuming you are reasonably healthy, this is a very secure and very meaningful way to ""invest"" this windfall. Once you have set aside the money for your expenses, emergencies, health care and delaying social security in a combination of checking and high-yielding savings accounts, yhen it can be in your interest to invest any remaining amount.  Common, solid, low-risk investments for a 10+ year time frame would be either: While Glen is correct that it is possible for even the best bond fund to lose money it is rather unlikely that you will end up losing money over a period of 10 years.  The nice thing about the bond fund is that most funds (find the right one) don't charge a fee if you need to need to take your money out early.  CDs guarantee that you won't lose your money, but if you have to take the money out in an emergency the fees will eat up way more money than a bond fund would normally lose.  Also, a good bond fund will generally yield a bit more than a CD. Investing in stock is generally much too risky for this sort of time frame without large savings to back it up."


Yeah, pretty much. Most hotels will have a long-term rate that's much cheaper if you're staying weeks, or months at a time - however it's not something that they highly publicize because otherwise normal hotel guests can feel that they're being overcharged. The weekly rate usually applies to bookings longer than three weeks, and the monthly rate for those more than three months. The place I stayed at also had 6 monthly and 12 monthly rates which were even less again - and I knew some people who had been living there for 2-3 years.  Although I guess it depends on your budget, when you compare the rates of corporate/short-stay accommodation you can sometimes get a better deal from a hotel if you just call and negotiate something. There was an article I read about this a few years back on some dude who started doing this because it worked out cheaper than keeping a permanent place in London and a place in NY - but I can't for the life of me find it now!


"I just heard a lot of ""They should have known better"" lately. On an individual basis there are no excuses for borrowing more than you can pay. However if that many people do it all at the exact same time in dealings with the exact same person, I think it's safe to say the person the are all dealing with might be working against their customers best interests."


"Oh, how about something like ""I'd rather not. It exposes me to more   financial liability than I want. If   you were in the hospital, or some   emergency like that, it might be   different, but..."""


"keeps telling me that she'll be in a difficult position if I quit.  ""And she promised me that she will put me in contact with different people if I do well (she used to work in IBD)""  Let me translate.  Your boss doesn't care about you and will do or say anything necessary to keep you.  Sorry that's a bit blunt, but this is what management does.  If you leave and pursue IBD, they will respect that and help you whether you stay or not...unless they don't give a shit.  You need to do what's best for you.  You can very easily say ""I don't think this is the best place for me to learn X, I need to go to Y company to achieve this.  It took me Z weeks to learn this""   Of course this doesn't apply if you've known this person for years beforehand, but I'm 95% sure this is what you need to be aware of. Management sucks when you aren't in their ""club,"" (which it sounds like you're not) it's a part of life."


This isn't super specific to your question, but I'd recommend that you invest a ton of time in practice questions (then review the answers to the ones you got wrong). This is a good strategy for most exams, but it's particularly true for the Series 7, as the S7 is notorious for using questions on the actual exam that are almost identical to practice questions. I was amazed at how many questions I recognized almost word-for-word when I took it.   I recently took my CFP test, so I'm pretty brushed-up on testing concepts and that sort of thing right now. If you are running into anything in particular, feel free to PM me!


For some reason i always thought there were more women then men in this world. Turns out I was wrong so technically they are a minority : The value for the entire world population is 1.01 males/female, with 1.07 at birth, 1.06 for those under 15, 1.02 for those between 15 and 64, and 0.78 for those over 65.   Source : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio


Some companies allow you to make a post-tax contribution to the 401K. This is not a Roth contribution. This can be money beyond the 18,000 or 24,000 401k limit. The best news is that eventually that money can be rolled into 1 Roth-IRA. Not all companies allow this option. One company I worked for did this automatically when you hit the annual max. Of course that was made more complex if you had multiple employers that year.


An edge meaning the person would be smarter in the subject they enjoy so they can excel in a specific job for the detail that they excel in. Software Engineers are a good example. Someone with a normal intelligence level would fall on their face in the real world. A normal person can learn how to code, but being able to think outside the box in the right ways is what makes a software engineer special. Only people who are gifted+ can really excel and a high majority love it so much it borders autism.  And the thing most people don't understand about autism is for most it is only in children. After a certain age they appear normal. They are not the disabled or have a disability, just that they specialize in something far more than the average person does.


While in the interview stage you need one good outfit. Take care of them and they will see you through this stage of the process. Shoes, ties, shirt, and a suit can all be purchased on sale. The fact that you have months before graduation give you time to purchase them when there is a sale.  Off-the-rack is good enough for a suit for this stage of your life. There is no need to go custom made when you are just starting out. In fact you may find you never need more than one or two suits, and they never need to be custom made.


"http://www.interactivedata.com -> reference data  No, it's not free. Nor would I consider it ""high quality"".  For free data, try the Yahoo Finance API.  The data you want is there, though you may need to calculate some of the fields yourself.  Once you have your application working with free data you will be in a good position to evaluate whether it's worth it to shift to more detailed non-free data."


"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've ""lost"" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits.  Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to ""make money"". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can ""make"" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the ""worst"". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money."


The problem with predicting with accuracy what a stock price will do in any given situation is that there are two main factors that affect a stocks price. The first factor is based somewhat in math as it takes into account numbers such as supply and demand, earnings per share, expected earnings, book value, debt ratio and a wide variety of other numbers. You can compile all those numbers into a variety of formulas and come up with a rational estimate of what the stock should sell for. This is all well and good and if the market were entirely rational it would rarely make news because it would be predictable and boring. This is where our second factor throws a wrench in the works.  The second factor affecting stock price is emotional. There are many examples of people's emotions affecting stock price but if you would like a good example look up the price fluctuations of Apple  (AAPL) after their last couple earnings reports. Numerically their company looks good, their earnings were healthy, their EPS is below average yet their price fell following the report. Why is that?  There really isn't a rational reason for it, it is driven by the emotions behind unmet expectations. In a more general sense sometimes price goes down and people get scared and sell causing further decline, sometimes people get excited and see it as opportunity to buy in and the price stabilizes. It is much more difficult to anticipate the reaction the market will have to people's emotional whims which is why predicting stock price with accuracy is near impossible.  As a thought along the same line ask yourself this question; if the stock market were entirely rational and price could be predicted with accuracy why is there such a wide range of available strike prices available in the options market?  It seems that if stock price could be predicted with anything remotely reassembling accuracy the options market need a much smaller selection of available strike prices.


A computer is a special case because the IRS thinks that you might be using it for personal applications.    You may need to keep a log, or be able to state that you also have another computer for non-business use. That said, if your schedule C shows a small profit then you don't need to itemize expenses, just state the total.


">Mike Pence Sums up Trumpcare Perfectly: ""No Money, No Healthcare""  He never fucking said that.  Here's his actual tweet:  >Before summer’s out, we'll repeal/replace Obamacare w/ system based on personal responsibility, free-market competition & state-based reform  If you want to draw ""No Money, No Healthcare"" as a conclusion, fine, but you can't assign it as a quotation to Mike Pence if he never said it. I have no love for Mike Pence, but I do respect the laws of punctuation and basic journalistic integrity.  If someone is really that bad, which he likely is, then you should be able to damn him for what he actually says or does. You shouldn't have to resort to simply making shit up."


"Realize that some friends are a bad influence, and maybe aren't really ""friends"". Don't be afraid to say ""sorry, I can't make it tonight"".  Don't be afraid to go out shopping and not buy anything.  Make sure they know why (Too much Credit Card Debit, saving for a house, etc).  If your habits suddenly change with no explanation, they may think you are dissing them.  But if you explain your reasons, they will probably support you (if they are real friends).  In fact, they probably have the same money issues.   Suggest lower-cost alternatives to hanging out.  Instead of going out, suggest they come over to your place and watch a movie, play board games, Wii, etc.  You can have snacks at your place.  Alcohol is a lot cheaper when you pour it yourself!"


I think the key here is 'at any age'. Yes it's not surprising that for demographics who have been in the workforce for a while, $100k won't get you near the top (i.e. Ages 30+).   However, what can be surprising is that even at age 25, $100k isn't enough to get you in the top 1%. So what more of the masses that don't earn anywhere near that number?


Is it inevitably taxed by the government? Which government? Tax treatment of familial loans varies greatly be jurisdiction. What is proper documentation procedure? If you want to get paid back, definitely a lawyer ... each. Is it better to ask several family members to help contribute so each person loans less? Or is it taxed the same? If this is only a tax issue then see above. If it is a means of spreading risk then sure.


"In this scenario the date of income is the date on which the contract has been signed, even if you received the actual money (settlement) later. Regardless of the NY special law for residency termination - that is the standard rule for recognition of income during a cash (not installments) sale. The fact that you got the actual money later doesn't matter, which is similar to selling stocks on a public exchange. When you sell stocks through your broker on a public exchange - you still recognize the income on the day of the sale, not on the day of the settlement. This is called ""the Constructive Receipt doctrine"". The IRS publication 538 has this to say about the constructive receipt: Constructive receipt.   Income is constructively received when an   amount is credited to your account or made available to you without   restriction. You need not have possession of it. If you authorize   someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are   considered to have received it when your agent receives it. Income is   not constructively received if your control of its receipt is subject   to substantial restrictions or limitations. Once you signed the contract, the money has essentially been credited to your account with the counter-party, and unless they're bankrupt or otherwise insolvent - you have no restrictions over it. And also (more specifically for your case): You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar   property from one tax year to another to postpone paying tax on the   income. You must report the income in the year the property is   received or made available to you without restriction. Timing wire transfer is akin to holding and not depositing a check, from this perspective. So unless there was a restriction that was lifted after you moved out of New York, I doubt you can claim that you couldn't have received it before moving out, i.e.: you have, in fact, constructively received it."


TD now has crossborder banking so you can set up a no-fee no-interest USD account with Tdbank.com and transfer money and pay bills in the US. You just need a minimum balance of $100. I might try Paypal before going that route though.


"I used to manage a start-up fast-casual restaurant that was owned by the largest franchisers of a non-related coffee shop. None of the guys that owned the coffee shop or my restaurant had gone to school for business management. The most they'd done is advertising (and frankly they were shit at it).   &nbsp;  90% of what you need to run a successful business is going to be on the front end. Knowing how to manage employees, balance your labor hours with your revenue, knowing how and when to utilize different food products, knowing trends in the area, and being able to take all of that and apply it to a crowd of people who are predominantly going to be younger employees that don't has nearly as much vested in it as you. Good management is consistency and nit-picking. You have to drill the same thing, over and over, until it becomes muscle memory.   &nbsp;  Have you tried talking to the owners about franchising? I'm assuming this isn't a franchise and is just a private shop. Being able to franchise this café will not only give you the support you need from experienced professionals to run the same business but will also allow you to build on the customer base they've grown. You can come to the table with, ""I'll put XX in, pay you XX in royalties, and I want to have a say in the business operation as a primary franchisor."""


IBM have been irrelevant to most developers for many years. MS are realising OSS has won and they are flocking to it. They are contributing to linux, even making their own distro, docker, kubernetes and have open sourced a heap of software including .net  They realise they need to win over developers and customers


"You can do either a 1099 or a W-2.  There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes.  Problems occur, with the IRS, when one ""forgets"" to report income.  Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income.   However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations.  For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C.  Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill.  Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension.   This does come with some drawbacks, however.  First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses.  You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS.  Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them.  If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits.  Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits.  (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals.  If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2."


Short-term it will not help, it will actually hurt your credit score. Long-term, it will help for a couple of reasons: The mix that others refer to is mortgage and auto loans which do not count as revolving credit. A mortgage will help more than a credit card in this case, but may not make sense in your circumstances.


It's really not possible to know what your best investment strategy is without knowing more about you, which isn't the place of a site like this. However I'll make some general comments about insurance policies as savings. Insurance policies are extremely inflexible. They lay down specific payments, and specific returns that you will get back. However typically if you don't follow the shcedule of payments laid down, you will lose almost all the benefit of the investment. Since you say you are a beginner, I'll assume you are young too. Maybe in a few years you will want to buy a house, or a nice car, or get married, or put money into some other investment opportunity. If you are committed to making  insurance policy payments you will have less available for the other things you want to do. Related to this is the 'estimated returns'. You say the 'nonguaranteed bonus is around 3.75%-5.25%'. But because an insurance policy locks you in, if it turns out that it's the low end of that - or worse - you can't get out, even if other investments are outperforming it.


As you see these types of hacks escalate year after year with more and more consequences, at what point does the public realize that collecting immense volumes of personal data in a giant honeypot centralized repository is a bad idea?  There is a fundamental difference systemic risk and compartmentalized risk. Compare the technology of bitcoin/blockchains and it becomes obvious quickly that the future of digital security exists in decentralized wide open platforms. Bitcoin gains its security by *allowing* access to everyone, databases such as this Equifax one gain their security by *denying* access to everyone.   The traditional approach to IT security is the creation of a bubble boy, buried deep within the private intranet, nestled in tight within it's private VLAN. The swarming AIDS of the internet buzzing around the corporate firewall, just waiting for even a tiny micro-crack to open the flood gates of hell and implode the death star.   143 million Americans now at risk of identity theft even never had a choice.


Choosing between an emergency fund and investing aside, there is no reason to use a systematic investment plan when you have a lump sum ready to invest. Here are the three possible futures, and the effects on each strategy: Obviously if you are investing in the market you expect it to go up over time, so using an SIP will work against you in that case.  If the market does go down you'd be better off, but historically the market has gone up more than it's gone down, so there's no practical reason to keep money in your pockets  You can always rebalance, change investments, do whatever after you've invested, so at worst you may have some transaction fees, but that shouldn't be a huge issue.


Should I invest money in the pre-IPO stocks soon to be offered by the   company that I work for? Is it wise to do this? What should I be thinking about? What are the   risks? The last time I was offered pre-IPO friends and family stock, I purchased half of my allotment, and had my parents purchase the other half. Since I had a 6-month blackout period, I had to hold my portion. My parents sold their portion one day after the IPO. The price went up dramatically for about a day and a half, then dived continuously. My portion ended up being worthless. My parents made a few bucks. Good for them. Not a huge deal either way, since my cost was relatively low. If I had a chance to do it again, I'd give it all to friends or family instead of splitting it, and have them sell quickly if they realized a profit. You might be luckier than I was.


Michael Bach Atlanta, who began his finance career nearly sixteen years ago as the CEO of a small-cap private equity firm, founded Scirage just ahead of the nations financial crisis,that there were virtually no African American asset managers at all. “I’ve always know that there were limited numbers of African American’s in the finance industry


Sample Numbers: Owe $100k on house.  House (after 'crash') valued at: $50K.  Reason for consternation: What rational person pays $100k for property that is only worth half that amount? True Story: My neighbor paid almost $250K (a quarter-of-a-million dollars - think about that..) for a house that when he walked (ran!) away from it was sold by the bank for $88K.  Unless he declares bankruptcy (and forgoes all his other assets, including retirement savings) he still owes the bank the difference. And even with bankruptcy, he may still owe the bank - this should cause anyone to be a bit concerned about being up-side down in a mortgage loan.


Well - not true at all.  The border between Finland and Russia had until recently and probably still has one of the greatest differences in living standards of any border in the world, up there with USA/Mexico and Australia/Indonesia and Spain/Morocco.   There are a lot of Estonians migrant workers working in Finland.   Sweden takes per capita the most immigrants in the western world.   It's not about the availability of work force. I guess you have not heard about the influx of people from Africa, Near East and Afganistan to the EU. It has been one of the big stories if the decade. EU takes more immigrants both relatively and in absolute terms than the US.   I did not single out Scandinavia. I singled out the US. It's the only western country where the illegal unregulated largely immigrant service class does the dirty work for the whole economy.  There are small pockets of that in EU as well - the seasonal workers of Spain for instance, but the US is really unique as a developed country.


> A lot of contract positions have become less or equal pay than the permanent workers.      That many be true in many industries, but not in IT.   Technology contractors typically make far more than employees.   The example in the article was someone working for IBM.   IBM is a low paying IT contractor, and still pays more than $50 per hour for legally resident contractors (H1B's is a completely different story).


The 10 year comparison between your fund and the S&P 500 -   I'd say more, but not sure it's needed.


I would look for business broker websites and start searching there to get an idea what they cost.   If you're interested in running one I would strongly suggest finding someone who does that can mentor you or working as a manager for a couple of years.  Small business ownership is very hard.


You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing.


Been to both. No way will Vegas ever become like Amsterdam.  You have to fix the American culture first if you want to even get close.   Is Vegas at all like Paris or Copenhagen? Nope. Those places are more like Amsterdam and don't have pot shops.     It's not the weed, it's the culture.


Whenever you want to spend the weekend with your family, then you can come here to make the special evening in West Palm Beach Escape Rooms. It is a full secure place for the girl, we have good corporate team building escape rooms WPB. We are working together and using your time wisely will you find the clues. We serve you better service all of those escape room, our services are less than expected. The escape rooms are amazing design for those people who want to spend the time with fun and get participate in our activities.


Morgan Stanley was the lead investor and sold off their ownership before the casino had completed construction.  Took a billion dollar loss but it could have been much worse.  Thats a pretty telling sign that when Wall Street wants nothing to do with the project, no other investor should have stepped into the investment.


Yes, quite easily, in fact.  You left a lot of numbers out, so lets start with some assumptions. If you are at the median of middle income families in the US that might mean $70,000/year. 15% of that is an investment of $875 per month. If you invest that amount monthly and assume a 6% return, then you will have a million dollars at approximately 57 years old. 6% is a very conservative number, and as Ben Miller points out, the S&P 500 has historically returned closer to 11%. If you assumed an aggressive 9% return, and continued with that $875/month for 40 years until you turn 65, that becomes $4 million. Start with a much more conservative $9/hr for $18,720 per year (40 hours * 52 weeks, no overtime). If that person saved 14% of his/her income or about $219 per month from 25 to 65 years old with the same 9%, they would still achieve $1 million for retirement. Is it much harder for a poor person? Certainly, but hopefully these numbers illustrate that it is better to save and invest even a small amount if that's all that can be done. High income earners have the most to gain if they save and the most to lose if they don't. Let's just assume an even $100,000/year salary and modest 401(k) match of 3%. Even married filing jointly a good portion of that salary is going to be taxed at the 25% rate. If single you'll be hitting the 28% income tax rate.  If you can max out the $18,000 (2017) contribution limit and get an additional $3,000 from an employer match (for a total monthly contribution of $1750) 40 years of contributions would become $8.2 million with the 9% rate of return.  If you withdrew that money at 4% per year you would have a residual income of $300k throughout your retirement.


Walmart can afford to pay more, they just choose not to because it's legal to keep their workforce underemployed. The profits Walmart posts every quarter exceed the drain on public services their employees create. What really grinds my gears is that paying an employee a fair wage tends to attract much more talented and dedicated workers who will be much more productive than the warm bodies currently running the place.


Go to flightaware or flightradar24. You can track any airplane (a few exceptions) on an IFR flight plan, which a 747 will certainly be.   If they were going for sneaky, smaller planes that don't get tracked would be ideal.   Source: pilot


"I'm working from 6am-2pm today (from home, since it's Saturday) and I'm on call from 2pm-4am tomorrow.  If the phone rings at our company help desk at any time from 2pm-4am, I am expected to answer it or return the call promptly.  I'm not paid for the entire time of 2pm-4am, but only for the time I'm ""on a call"" essentially.  It was a shock when I found out that was the terms of the job (3 months in, there were dramatic changes in my schedule) and most of my friends seem to agree with me.  Am I off base?"


Frankly, I think all the higher maths in finance is mental masturbation.  EDIT: wht all the down votes?  I've made my money by trading against the PhDs in European investment banks who actually and innocently believe their models represent the real world. Their models work when they work.  I love trading against the combination of arrogance and faux intellectualism.   Folks, read Fooled by Randomness or Black Swan.


Indiabulls. Low brokerage (If you bargain) I'm user of it and I'm getting 25paisa for delivery and 5 paisa for intraday. All transactions can be done online. Also they provide an stand alone application PowerIndiabulls, which is too good and appraised by many users as best in the industry. Not sure about it, but I think Powerindiabulls application is the answer for this. Please have a look at their website for more details.


In short (pun intended), the shareholder lending the shares does not believe that the shares will fall, even though the potential investor does. The shareholder believes that the shares will rise. Because the two individuals believe that a different outcome will occur, they are able to make a trade. By using the available data in the market, they have arrived at a particular conclusion of the fair price for the trade, but each individual wants to be on the other side of it. Consider a simpler form of your question: Why would a shareholder agree to sell his/her shares? Why don't they just wait to sell, when the price is higher? After all, that is why the buyer wants to purchase the shares. On review, I realize I've only stated here why the original shareholder wouldn't simply sell and rebuy the share themselves (because they have a different view of the market). As to why they would actually allow the trade to occur - Zak (and other answers) point out that the shares being lent are compensated for by an initial fee on the transaction + the chance for interest during the period that the shares are owed for.


"Most personal loans in the US are for the purpose of purchasing some tangible object (usually a house or car) and that object is the collateral for the loan. Indeed, the loan proceeds are usually paid directly to the seller without passing through the bank account of the borrower, and the seller delivers the title of the car to the lender, or a mortgage lien is recorded on the real property. Except possibly in the case of a refinance of a home mortgage,  there is not much cash from such a loan to send to a friend to invest in his business, whether in the US or in India.  These types of loans are ""relatively easy"" to get. Much harder to get are unsecured personal loans. Unless your friend has a very friendly banker, getting an unsecured loan of, say, $20,000 ""just for the heck of it"" is not easy. Some reasonably well-off people do manage to get such loans and use the money to invest in the stock or bond markets, in which case, the interest paid on such loans can be deducted on  Schedule A (but only to the extent of the actual investment income; any extras can be carried over to the next year). So, will your friend be investing in your business or making a loan to your business? and do you anticipate that your business will generate any investment income or interest for your friend? If not, and your friend still wants to finance your business (while making payments on the loan in the US), then your friend must really like you a lot (or have faith that a few years down the road, you will be able to sell your business to GoAppTel for mucho big bucks and pay him off very handsomely)."


You are better off just placing a market order if you want to buy or sell straight away and avoid the queues. A market order will guarantee the purchase or sale of your shares, but it won't guarantee the price.


"Sigh.  A-duh.  Anything to do with media distribution is dead. Anything to do with transportation (driving) is dead. Anything to do with manufacturing is dead. Construction will be dead not long after.  Computer programmers and robotic engineers are in high demand though. How come politicians are never asked ""What will people do with so many industries going under?"""


The ex-dividend date, prevents this, but people are still able to do this and this is an investment strategy. There are some illiquid and immature markets where prices don't adjust.  In the options market people are able to find mispriced deep in the money calls to take advantage of the ex-dividend date. It is called dividend capture using covered calls.


It is. I stopped using Uber. I use Lyft exclusively now, even tho they cost a little more.  Obviously one customer is not going to have a huge impact on a billion dollar company, but a real businessman knows every dollar you lose is hurting your business. That is, a businessman interested in success, rather than mediocrity, knows that.


"Let's not trade insults. I understand defined benefit plans better than you think. Of course offering a lump-sum payout NOW is better for the company. If you think of the lifetime value of the pension, then yeah, it's ""worse"" for the recipient... but exactly like lottery winners, this is just a question of my personal discount rate. Maybe I want/need that money now, and value it more now than I would in 10/20/30 years. So it's a question for each individual to decide."


It definitely does.  Part of the misinformation the GMO PR puts out is that there's a difference without specifying they are both non-GMO.  Organic is non-GMO.  The difference is that organic goes a step further and removes synthetic pesticides, fertilizers, and growth hormones (which is a problem for meats and dairy) in addition to GMOs.


Humans are not innately evil and manipulative creatures that try to screw others over. We just happen to live in an economic system that disproportionately rewards those willing to do those behaviors with money and power. People using the human nature argument are just trying to make themselves feel better for supporting an exploitative economic system. A form of self validation.


"Any inward remittance received by your Parents cannot be treated as ""Income"" as per the definitaion. This can at best be treated as ""Gift"". However in India there is No Gift tax for certain relations and there is no ceiling on the amount. In your case gifting of money by son to father or viceversa is allowed without any limits and tax implication. However if you father were to invest this money in his name and make gains, the gains would be taxable.  However if the Money is being transfered with specific purpose such as to buy a property, etc make sure you have the Bank give your dad an certificate of Inward remittance. This is also advisable even otherwise, the Inwared Remittance certificate from Bank certifies that the credit entry in the account is because or funds comming into India and if the tax authorities were to question the large amount of credits, it would be proof that it is due to Inward remittance and not due to say a sale of property by your dad Helpful Links: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/tax/gift-tax-whatsa-gift_664238.html http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/bline/blnri/exp-tax.htm Edit 1: What you father does with the money is treated as EXPENSE, ie spends on day to day expense or pays off your Loans or Pay off his loans have no relevance from a Tax Prespective in India.  The only issue comes in say you have transfered the funds to buy a property and there was no purpose of remittance specified by Bank's letter and one want to reptriate this funds back to US, then its an issue. If you transfer the funds directly to your Loan account again there is no tax implication to you in India as you are NRI."


I don't intend to live in the UK again If you don't intend to live in the UK again, my advise would be to move this back to Germany in EUR in the near future. Generally taking Fx [Currency] risk is not advisable unless the portfolio is large. I don't need the money in the short term As you don't need the money immediately, you can afford to wait and watch a bit. Whether the rate will be more favourable or worse can't be predicated with certainty. So you can wait for few weeks / months and pick up a week when it is slightly favourable and convert them into EUR.


"You would, but we are talking retail not manufacturing. If one of the big production lines where I worked broke down for an hour, no problem. In any case we had mechanics on site who could handle a simple breakdown. We would have to rush, but we could make up the production quota. In retail, it is another issue. If you have to say ""no burgers"" at a fast-food joint for an hour or more, it is more of an issue."


He's one of the good guys. It feels like there has been little accountability with financial wrong doing. The sub prime mess should have put droves of Wall Street bankers in jail. Instead they got bailed out and bonuses still got paid.


I have read numerous accounts of this, and yes, it is criminal, but no, they can't figure out who did, though presumably the people handling the accounts were guilty of this. Mutant human [Angelo Mozilo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Mozilo)'s organization stands out as the worst offender in this regard with no trickery too extreme.  Ironically sourcing these particular accounts is difficult because of the sheer amount of material pertaining to subprime mortgages and fraud in general.


"The words ""good"" and ""bad"" are evaluations and are the conclusions which you reach after a chain of thought.  You look at the situation, you identify the problem, you think of a solution, and you offer an evaluation.  So, when you call a policy ""good"", you jump over any analysis tied to context and facts straight to a conclusion.  Absent the thinking which helped you reach the conclusion, the conclusion itself is worthless.  So, statements like ""Taxing the rich more is a good policy"" are equivalent to saying [""Fire bad!""](http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-segment---frankenstein/n10838?snl=1)  Ultimately, they just tell us how you feel about the policy.  We don't care how you feel about it, we care how you think."


The best way to get what you want is to deserve it.  I like the top commenter here in how they lead off- be honest about everything. Show them you know you're new to the group and don't expect to know everything off the bat.  Start getting really involved in learning the business- read some books, ask your family a million questions, and take it seriously. The more you do at the beginning, the better off your journey will be.


So you're saying the CEO's of those huge flagship state-owned enterprises and state-supported champions have no say in the way China's industry develops?   Either way, the Politburo and senior leadership are primarily comprised of engineers and scientists (although there are more lawyers in the next generation of leaders).


>  Google would be forced to actually compete with companies vs. Giving everything away free. That creates employment opportunities for other startups to compete in a fair environment vs. Trying to acquire millions of users on no revenue.  TL;DR Don't blame business, blame the politics that let bad business happen.  Business doesn't work like that, specially for a publicly traded company. 'Free' goods or services are used as a loss leader to drive their profits in other sectors of the company. Whether it's for PR, marketing, or sales, no company drives their business at a loss. Somewhere, somehow the free things they do are driving their business towards higher profitability. Money isn't being lost on the economy by providing these things as free, it's just being used in different ways. Sure it could be used to pay for the wages of an employee at a startup which provides the same service... but if Google is providing it at or below the most efficient market price then it would be *wasting* money to have less efficient companies providing essentially the same product or service. That money could instead be used in more profitable sectors of the economy, which could in turn generate a healthier and/or faster growing economy overall. Working smarter, not harder.  Secondly, startups aren't designed for profitability in the first few years of their operations. They're designed to capture users  and information (or as patent holders but that's largely unrelated to my main point) that can later be acquired by larger companies who are looking to target those users. Why else would any company pay for a startup while they're operating at a loss? The revenue for startups comes much later on as they're bought out by bigger companies or they find a way to monetize their user base/generate stable sources of revenue.   If your argument is that employment by start ups drives the economy at large, I have to ask, if the economy is operating less efficiently (by supporting start ups in replacing the market share currently held by much more efficiently operating large companies ~) by employing more people, how is this healthier for the economy as a whole?   Supporting start ups is good but it has to be done in such a way that it doesn't hurt existing business just for the sake of making jobs. The size of a company doesn't make them bad as long as they compete fairly with everyone else in the market.  ~ caveat being where large companies do not form an oligopoly (ie Comcast, TWC, etc...) which is obviously inefficient to begin with which is largely a product of bad politics rather than market forces


##Glass–Steagall legislation The Glass–Steagall legislation describes four provisions of the U.S. Banking Act of 1933 separating commercial and investment banking.  The article 1933 Banking Act describes the entire law, including the legislative history of the provisions covered here.  (The common name comes from the names of the Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass and Representative Henry B. Steagall. A separate 1932 law described in the article Glass–Steagall Act of 1932, had the same sponsors, and is also referred to as the Glass–Steagall Act.)  The separation of commercial and investment banking prevented securities firms and investment banks from taking deposits, and commercial Federal Reserve member banks from:  dealing in non-governmental securities for customers  investing in non-investment grade securities for themselves  underwriting or distributing non-governmental securities  affiliating (or sharing employees) with companies involved in such activities  Starting in the early 1960s, federal banking regulators interpretations of the Act permitted commercial banks, and especially commercial bank affiliates, to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.  ***  ^[ [^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/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove


"Find approximate housing-cost difference, which is likely to swamp the tax differences. Find a cost-of-living measurement you believe for each state and figure appropriate state's sales tax on the non-housing portion of it (numbers can be found on line). Figure out roughly what your state income tax would be (forms on line). Figure city sales tax for each city you'd live in (again, numbers on line). Determine transportation cost differences. Determine entertainment cost differences (""First prize: one week in Hackensack. Second prize: TWO weeks!"")  Mix and add seasonings to taste... Then remember that many people commute into the City, including from NJ, so run the numbers that way... and think about how much time you're willing to spend communting every day (and via which forms of transportation); the worse the commute, the less housing costs. Then remember that companies in NYC are aware of all the above, and are likely to adjust their salaries to partly offset it... because otherwise they couldn't recruit anyone who wasn't already a Noo Yawker... so the real question here is whether their adjustment, plus not living in Noo Joisey, is enough to make up the difference for you. To get more accuracy than that, you need to start nailing down specifics. Possible. Not trivial."


It's naive to believe that businesses accept climate change science on its face, it's more likely they know it's good PR, both with regards to consumers and politicians and would rather just keep their heads down and be good obedient (at least in the eyes of the public) brands.


I honestly don't understand this sense of entitlement to being able to use your own device.  By giving an employee access to sensitive data on their own device, you are taking a risk that the company cannot technologically or legally mitigate. In the UK it would be a de-facto breach of the Data Protection Act.  If there was a rootkit on an employee's phone or laptop, and they got access to any sensitive data then game over.   This is not about inconvenience, it is about not costing the companies in question billions in fines. It is simply not worth it - especially as most employees are perfectly capable of losing work computers on trains and so on, so trusting them to look after their own system security is asking a bit much.  What happens if they lose their own laptop? A work laptop can be set to self destruct, but few employees are going to let their companies have that level of control over their laptop. And, here in the UK, if sensitive data is lost in that way and can be recovered using forensic tools then - bam - fines. A company has a legal obligation to ensure that their employee's and customer's data is safe, and any data accessed on a phone or laptop is still stored somewhere on that phone or laptop.  Third party software like Dropbox is notoriously insecure, too, so that shouldn't ever be used on a machine containing sensitive data. It's hard enough getting employees to take security seriously before exponentially increasing these risks as you describe.


"Which option will save you the most money in the long run? That is tough. Assuming you stay healthy, don't lose your job, don't experience a pay cut or any major emergency that drains your savings, then applying the $6000 to the higher interest loan will save you more money in the long run. However, the difference in savings is a few hundred dollars. Not much really. So, in this case, I'd put the $6k towards the smaller loan. Why? Because then you'd pay it off faster. Once that's done, you open up your cash flow by the minimum monthly payment you would have had on that loan.  Assuming they both have the same or similar number of months left, by paying the smaller loan off sooner, you'd open up $X month, where $X is your minimum monthly payment. This could be useful to you if you want to take on some other debt (like buying a house) because it lowers your debt to income ratio. If you put that money towards the higher loan, your DTI won't change until the normal time you would have paid off the smaller loan. Even if you are not looking to purchase anything that requires you to have a lower DTI, paying the smaller loan off sooner increases your cash flow sooner (because your monthly payment on the higher loan doesn't change just because you lowered the balance by $6k). So you'd be more robust to emergencies if your current income doesn't allow for much savings. A major emergency could wipe out all savings from paying down the bigger balance. So, I'd suggest: Edit: TripeHound asked a question, pretty much requesting more details for why I was biased towards paying off the smaller loan first. What follows is my response, with a bit of reorganization: Typically, people asking these questions don't have so much wealth that ""which loan to pay first?"" is an academic question. They need to make smart financial decisions. While paying the highest interest loan saves the most money in interest - that only occurs under the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen to you until the loans are paid off. In reality, other things happen. Tires blow out, children get sick, you get laid off and so the ""best"" thing to do is the one that maximizes your long term financial health, even if it comes at the expense of a few $k more interest. Each loan has a minimum monthly payment. Let's assume, barring any windfalls of additional cash, you will just make the minimum payments each month towards a loan. If you pay off the smaller loan first, that increases your available monthly cash flow. At that point, you can put extra towards the other loan. However, if an emergency should come up, or you need to save for a vacation, you can do that, without negatively impacting the second loan, because you'd just drop back to its minimum payment. Putting the money towards the higher balance loan would mean it takes you longer to reach this point as the time to reach payoff on the first loan will not change ($6k only reduces the $25.6k loan to $19.6k) so you never gain the flexibility of additional cash flow until the time you would have paid off the $13.5k originally. I'd rather have a few hundred dollars each month that I can choose to use to make additional loan payments, eat out, pay for car repairs, pay for emergencies than be forced to dip into credit or worse, pay day loans, should an emergency happen."


Why would his prediction be doubted? The guy predicted the housing bubble because he saw middle managers in every place of business being replaced by software. They were unable to find a new similar paying job and thus lost their houses. Now he sees 500,000 full-time job loses and 800,000 part-time job gains in one financial quarter. He sees 200,000 jobs created last month in July with 140,000 of those jobs being low wage service jobs. The guy is not a prophet. He is a realist. You investors who see the economy with rose-colored glasses are riding high on maximized profits as a result of low-wage earning skeleton operation crews. You'll be in for a rude awakening to find fewer customers able to buy the products and services being offered.


It's not! With gambling, you're placing a bet on some team's performance but you don't own the team, or the field they play on, or the other team, or the ball!  Derivatives are just like that! Except with derivatives, the team can bet against themselves, and not tell you that they have!


First of all, my comment has nothing to do with Trump, yet you want to bash as if I am maligning Trump. Whether Trump is behind it or Obama is behind it or Bush is behind it, $12 billion is a minuscule fraction of the national debt. THAT is my point, which was clear from my original posting.  Secondly, unless we are running a positive balance, we are still increasing our national debt. It looks like we are [**still** running a deficit](http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate), which means national debt is continuing to increase, at a rate of $443 billion, or about 37 times this quoted $12 billion.


An emergency fund is about managing risk. What would you do if your furnace, water heater, and cars all broke down at the same time? Being in Michigan, I can imagine that you wouldn't want to take cold showers, heat the entire house by wood fire, and walk to work every day. So how do you manage this risk? What would happen if you lost your job and couldn't find one for a few months? By only having $5k in the bank in an emergency fund, you are putting your family at risk. If these sorts of things happened, you would be in trouble. You would have to borrow money either hurting equity in the home that you have worked hard to build up, or by some other means. You and your spouse should sit down and decide what a good emergency fund looks like for your family. A reserve of 3-6 months of expenses is a good emergency fund. This could cover your family in the event of a lost job while you look for a new one. It would also cover you when Murphy strikes and things break down all at the same time. Once you and your spouse have determined how much you want to set aside, you two must determine how you will get there. Maybe you put in some extra hours at work, maybe you lower the retirement contributions temporarily, maybe you try to pay off the car as quickly as possible then put what you were paying on the car into the emergency fund. It will likely take a mix of things to get you there. You don't have to get it done in a day, a month, or even a year. But once you have that emergency fund fully funded, you will feel better. What may be a catastrophe now will be a minor annoyance with a fully funded emergency fund. Finally, I'd recommend going to your bank and setting up a separate account for this emergency fund. A separate account specifically labeled as your emergency fund. This way you will think twice before spending it on a non-emergency.


THEY ARE NOT RUNNING AROUND KILLING PEOPLE. A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE OUT OF LITERALLY MILLIONS ARE. WHY DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND HOW NUMBERS WORK????  There is NO statistical evidence supporting any of the bullshit you're spouting. You are a racist, stupid fuck. Go away. I hope the evil Muslims get you first.


Yeah sure they would add up to trillions but a very small percentage of it would go towards the important issues. So even if they did force them to pay it up you would not notice a difference. So until something gets done about the way the government spends it's money the big corporations might as well keep it and partially use it to research new technology in the industry or to advance their company because giving that extra money to the government is like burning money.


the problem for millenials, is that even if the economy DOES return in a few years, they will largely looked over in favor of the fresher generation Z [or whatever it is called] graduates.  Why hire a 30 year old with no professional experience when you can hire a brand new graduate with no professional experience?


Everything lies in In the end. How many days/weeks/months/years can you wait for your money back?


Because it's barely reported and when it is most people don't understand some of the fundamental principles of finance to grasp the implications of it all.   It's not their fault really.   You can blame a man for a lack of wanting to be educated or no concern for intellectual curiosity but you can't for just being plainly uneducated.


Yes, it is possible, and many companies do it for legitimate reasons.  For example renewing subscriptions or one-click ordering. The only way to completely stop it would be to cancel the card.  More realistically, check your bill whenever it arrives, and report any unauthorized transactions to the card issuer.


Whether or not I trust them depends entirely on the personal finance application. In the cases of Mint and Quicken, I would trust both. Always make sure to do plenty of research before submitting any personal information to any source.


"I think that all else being equal, if more people have solar panels on our roof, we keep our military in FEWER countries, instead of planning on RAMPING up the number (see: Nigeria). Furthermore, the initial question wasn't whether installing solar panels is going to stop the action. **The conversation started by being about whether solar is actually cheaper when you factor in the amount used to subsidize both sources of energy. Not whether switching to solar would stop subsidies to oil.** What you did is called ""moving the goalposts"".  The word 2016 doesn't show up in the article or in the study it cites. That was a typo. I understand it was about 2013, I was trying to saying that it was about the same year as yours. That was my bad. I read the whole thing originally, and I even read the study. I accept responsibility for the typo though.  ANYWAYS, neither set of data is manipulated, my study just includes more things, like foreign tax credits, cleanup subsidies for both coal and oil, tar sands exemption from cleanup funds, Power Africa (a five year, 7 billion dollar program that was only ANNOUNCED in 2013). That overseas stuff that goes on is a HUGE part of the equation.   And okay, so they aren't equivalent. Then your point is moot. Yes, both sides have off the book subsidies, but one side's off the book subsidies are so unfathomably bigger that it's laughable to even put them in the same category. Not to mention the costs of war in the middle east stretch beyond money (think lives), and recycling programs actually come with benefits (think smaller landfills)."


Call centre solution providers will efficiently serve customers, while keeping overheads low. They can efficiently manage not just the regular inbound calls, but also make the outbound calls to promote your products and services which further lead your trade to the path of success.