"**Credit rating agencies and the subprime crisis**  Credit rating agencies (CRAs) — firms which rate debt instruments/securities according to the debtor's ability to pay lenders back — played a significant role at various stages in the American subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008 that led to the Great Recession of 2008-2009. The new, complex securities of ""structured finance"" used to finance subprime mortgages could not have been sold without ratings by the ""Big Three"" rating agencies — Moody's Investors Service, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch Ratings. A large section of the debt securities market — many money markets and pension funds — were restricted in their bylaws to holding only the safest securities — i.e securities the rating agencies designated ""triple-A"". The pools of debt the agencies gave their highest ratings to  included over three trillion dollars of loans to homebuyers with bad credit and undocumented incomes through 2007.  ***  ^[ [^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/economy/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27"


Without knowing your credit situation or your full budget it's a little difficult, but i'd go with the snowball method for now: It may seem like not a big deal to have this kind of debt but you really should be looking at it as if your walking around with your hair on fire.  It's a HUGE emergency. Debt, especially looming CC debt with high rates, can make things worse (think water on grease fire) really quickly so the faster you get rid of it the better.  Good luck!


The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling.  Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down.  The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them.  After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1.  He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2.  He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit.  Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400.  He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt.


To be fair, making a twitter-esque website so people can talk, and actively hacking an election are two very different, and incomparable situations.   I'm not saying what we did is okay, because it isn't. But there's orders of magnitude of difference there that you're ignoring.


We face the same issue here in Switzerland. My background: Institutional investment management, currency risk management. My thoughs are: Home Bias is the core concept of your quesiton. You will find many research papers on this topic. The main problems with a high home bias is that the investment universe in your small local investment market is usually geared toward your coutries large corporations. Lack of diversification: In your case: the ASX top 4 are all financials, actually banks, making up almost 25% of the index. I would expect the bond market to be similarly concentrated but I dont know. In a portfolio context, this is certainly a negative. Liquidity: A smaller economy obviously has less large corporations when compared globally (check wikipedia / List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization) thereby offering lower liquidity and a smaller investment universe. Currency Risk: I like your point on not taking a stance on FX. This simplifies the task to find a hedge ratio that minimises portfolio volatility when investing internationally and dealing with currencies. For equities, you would usually find that a hedge ratio anywhere from 0-30% is effective and for bonds one that ranges from 80-100%. The reason is that in an equity portfolio, currency risk contributes less to overall volatility than in a bond portfolio. Therefore you will need to hedge less to achieve the lowest possible risk. Interestingly, from a global perspective, we find, that the AUD is a special case whereby, if you hedge the AUD you actually increase total portfolio risk. Maybe it has to do with the AUD being used in carry trades a lot, but that is a wild guess. Hedged share classes: You could buy the currency hedged shared classes of investment funds to invest globally without taking currency risks. Be careful to read exactly what and how the share class implements its currency hedging though.


I said Yahoo because it was hot for a while and now it's not. Tons of people who bought at the top when their P/E was stupid, lost their ass. That was entirely the point. Websites, like Hot Pockets, may exist forever but they don't stay hot forever.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/style/what-is-cryptocurrency.html?referer=) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Most readers have probably heard of Bitcoin, the digital coin that dominates the cryptocurrency market.  > As traditional paths to upper-middle-class stability are being blocked by debt, exorbitant housing costs and a shaky job market, these investors view cryptocurrency not only as a hedge against another Dow Jones crash, but also as the most rational - and even utopian - means of investing their money.  > Assuming one&#039;s money is protected, there are, of course, the standard risks of investing, amplified by the volatility of cryptocurrency.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6sdv1b/ethereum_in_nytimes/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~186120 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **cryptocurrency**^#1 **market**^#2 **money**^#3 **coin**^#4 **invest**^#5"


"I have a slightly different take on this, compared to the other answers. In general, I think your emergency fund should always be at least 3K, especially if you own a used car that is out of warranty. Any number of unlucky auto repairs could easily cost over 2K. So, if you have 7K in savings, I would personally buy a car that is 4K or less or finance any amount of the car over 4K (if you can get a relatively low interest rate). Then I would pay down the financed portion of the car as quickly as possible while maintaining at least a 3K emergency fund. That being said, notice I mentioned ""In general"". Your situation may actually be quite different. If you don't have much debt, with your income you might be able to build up a couple of thousand in savings in a single month, and if so the above doesn't really apply. Even if you spent the entire 7K on a car, you'd likely have at least 3K in your emergency fund within 60-90 days. As for what's responsible, there are too many factors to dictate that. If you don't have many other expenses, you could possibly afford a $40K car, and I don't think anyone here could fairly call that ""irresponsible"" if you spent that much, though surely no one would call it ""responsible"" either. Perhaps the best advice is to buy the least expensive car you will be happy with. Many people regret overspending on a vehicle, but few regret underspending (unless they got a lemon that requires lots of repairs). Finally, you could also consider another option. You could get a very cheap car for 1K or less and drive it for a year. By then you may have closer to 20K saved up for a much nicer car than you can afford today."


As a previous employee at Target the cashier's were all doing things wrong...you cannot buy AMEX or Visa prepaid cards with target giftcards or you get in big shit.    You are also not supposed to sell giftcards for giftcards.    This should all pop up automatically when the cashier rings it up...so i'm confused.


It may clarify your thinking if you look at this as two transactions: I am an Australian so I cannot comment on US tax laws but this is how the Australian Tax Office would view the transaction. By thinking this way you can allocate the risks correctly, Partnership Tenancy Two things should be clear - you will need a good accountant and a good lawyer. I do not agree that there is a conflict of interest in the lawyer acting for both parties - his role should only be for advice and to document what the two of you agree to. If you end up in dispute, then you need two lawyers.


Yes. But once you chose the method (on your first tax return), you cannot change it without the IRS approval. Similarly the fiscal year. For individuals, I can't think of any reason why would accrual basis be better than cash, or why would an individual use a fiscal year other than the calendar year.


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


"To dispute your first point. It can be racist if it's the truth. The accuracy of a statement doesn't impact it's cruelty.   If you were over weight and I called you a fat fuck, it may well be true, though it's still mean.  In the same way if your mother was dying of cancer and I was to say "" she is a cancerous weight on our social structures, and she's not likely to live long anyway "" all of those things may be factually correct, however it is still malicious for me to say those things in that way.   Similarly even if what he says is factually correct(which is an issue I'll get to) does not change whether what he said and the way he said it was malicious (or hurtful) to a particular race. Now whether what he said is socially acceptable is a matter of culture, you seem to think it's perfectly acceptable, as another said, many of his business connections might also. I happen to think it's not acceptable , clearly in line with op. I'm not looking to argue about whether it is acceptable to ever be racist because that is a nuanced line (though fairly simple to keep away from) that has been covered over and over in many other discussions arguments and protests.   To the matter of whether or not what he has said is factually correct.   I agree with you on this: Zimbabwe is incredibly rich in resource and is a largely untapped land in the modern world(though seemingly not for long).   However I would make the distinction in my argument in the causality. Is it the fault of the Zimbabwe people that they have not fully taken advantage of their resource. And if so is that fault in anyway linked to their skin colour.   For me even if you conceed the first, the 2nd is untenable. clearly seen in the rise of Asia and of India through the 20th &21st century, education medicine ,social support and infrastructure play a much larger role in the ability of a society to effectively allocate resource , than the vain colour of ones skin or the line of ones heritage.  Not to say the first is entirely true either, as the mistakes of yours forbearers weigh on your ability as much as their success accelerates you .  There are key resources, and educations the places such as Zimbabwe lacked, the made them unable to use  resource historically in the same way as the modern western world (water hygiene, tool making resource, most notably land able to support intensive farming, and food storage.  )  .  Instead the cultures would have developed to use the land resources as is most efficient, though may not nessisarily be the centralised cities and farming of Europe.    Further I would argue education and infrastructure, as was seen originally with the foundation of the us the America's resource was untapped without the machinery or knowledge to take advantage of it, which debatably comes best from the close quarters of Europe.   Writing also, improving the transfer of information by orders of magnitude , first created in the middle East, taken up by the Greeks, then the Romans . Therefore much of Europe's success (amount other thing s) can be credited to to Romans, and theirs to the Greeks, and theirs to the Persians .   Clearly the Persians , nor even the Romans were ""white "" by any pure standard. (Especially noting England's boom occurred after introduction of Roman infrastructure, and more recently Asia with western international corporation's)    I would argue that the size of a society and it's economic success (which may not nessisarily be the aim of the society) has more to do with the tools available, the location and access to trade, infrastructure and social support (including medicine).   These are things that are not inextricably linked to the colour of ones skin. Therefore to say that ""blacks"" by virtue of being black, lacking any other qualifying information, are inherently less able to bring America into economic success than ""whites"" by virtue of them being white, lacking any qualifying information, is not entirely factually correct and is naturally open to criticism.   By changing you argument to be less directed at the colour of ones skin, and more toward the nature of the society and the capabilities of their technology your argument is made more tolerable (though still entirely open to critisism).  But as soon as you change your argument to ""I'm glad that people capiable of colonising America and bringing to to success did, instead of people weren't able to colonise America and bring technology with them "" the argument becomes somewhat null. Of course a society, whether black white or any other, with advanced technology and access to trade (such as Brittan who had control of many trade lines and much of Indian production) would be able to colonise and take advantage of resources better than a society which did not have those things (control of large trade routes , ships ect). And these things have less to do with the colour on ones skin, and more to do with infrastructure, trade and social support.   The fact is when the racism is taken out, the argument isn't worth mentioning, because the ability to colonise speaks to a society that takes effective advantage of trade infrastructure and technology.  This fact is distasteful and makes any attempt to justify the argument seem a thinly veiled justification for rasicim.  as, if not to be racist what is the argument actually a arguing; what does his statement actually say without specifying the colour of ones skin?  So to recap, I'm not entirely against the line of thought , nor that the guy said it(if he gets in the good books of his friends / shug). What I am against is a society that supports racism, the society he is supporting in making that type of statement. What I am against is the idea that if something is *True* it doesn't matter *How* it's said. (Remember your fat ass mom) I'm what I am against is the use of null arguments to justify a controversial opinion. (If the controversial aspect of the sentence is able to be taken away and it was, would it have any meaning?)  Sorry if I was overly aggressive in this response, and for any grammatical mistakes, and if you have a response I would appreciate a similar amount of effort , and will do my best to subdue my bias.  Thank you .  Edit: grammar"


First off... If you provide good service than you shouldn't worry... Since you are providing a service and your customers send payment to your PayPal, if there is no dispute made within 90 days, the customer cannot dispute further.  However if it is disputed within 90 days than you may run into some trouble. But it may be in your favor if PayPal finds no signs of fraud and since it's a service payment, PayPal cannot really track it compared to if your customers paid you for a product which can be disputed up to 180 Days?? I may be wrong on that one.  However if it does get disputed and PayPal favors your clients than you have to pay it back one way or another. You may want to ask your customers or put yourself a description of the service and terms in the invoice. It may help resolve future disputes. I know this because I have called PayPal customer service and ask which I suggest you do too.


I have a Citi card that gives me checks all of the time.  Most of the time it requires the 3%/minimum $10 or whatever, but occasionally when they're trying to sucker you into borrowing money from them they will let you take $1,500 w/ no fee for 6 months.  Outside of that I've never seen it exist in modern credit cards.


As a personal advice, its best avoided to take a loan for a vacation. Having said that it would also depend on the amount of loan that one is planning to take and the duration for repaying the loan and the rate of interest.   One has to also consider if you borrow; when you are paying the loan back, is that money comming out of something else that was budgeted. Say paying this loan means that you can't save enough for the downpayment for your house you plan to buy next year or will mean less contributions to retirement savings. If so then its definately advisable to forego the vacation travel. You can still take the holiday and enjoy at home doing something else that of meaning.


Location is really what's going for me I believe.  The neighboring city doesn't have any hotels or motel but the town I live in have about 6 motels and hotels combined but all family owned. The location that I feel would be perfect for a chain hotel because it'd bring comfort to people who have never been to the area before and it's located downtown on a snowmobile trail and atv access.


"As of right now it looks like you can't issue an ETF at least because the underlying ""commodity"" isn't regulated. (See Winkelvoss ETF). I suspect you would run into this problem with any 1940 act fund (mutual fund), but it's more a situation of ""not approved"" rather than illegal, so an MLP hedge fund structure would probably be fine.  And some googling finds Iterative Instinct Management's Storj SPV."


Liquidity on dual listed equities is rarely the same on both exchanges. More liquidity means you would typically get a better price assuming you execute the trades using the same order types. It's recommended to trade where the liquidity is greater unless your trading method benefits somehow from it being lower. It's important to remember that some ADRs (some European companies listed in US) have ADR fees which vary. USD/EUR transaction fees are low when using a decent broker but you're obviously participating in the currency risk.


> ...but don't point a gun at someone and just take it.  You ordered government services through elections which included an agreement to pay taxes for them.  Do you also equate paying the check at a restaurant as larceny?


What is up with Cracked magazine lately?  It used to be a crappy imitator of MAD magazine when I was a kid, and now it has surpassed it.  Every article they write is comedy gold!  :)  MAD should wake up and do an online edition, otherwise they'll be out of business and Cracked will be all that's left!


"This is more of a long comment but may answer user's situation too. I have dealt with joint mortgages before in 3 states in the US.  Basically in all three states if one party wants to sell, the home goes up for sale.  This can be voluntary or it can go up via auction (not a great choice). In 2 of the 3 states the first person to respond to the court about the property, the other party pays all legal fees.  Yes you read this right.  In one case I had an ex who was on my mortgage, she had no money invested in the house ($0 down and still in college with no job).  [If she wasn't on the mortgage I wouldn't have gotten loan - old days of dumb rules] When we split her lawyer was using the house as a way to extort other money from me.  Knowing the state's laws I already filed a petition for the property but put it on hold with the clerk.  Meaning that no one else could file but if someone tried mine would no longer be on hold.  My ex literally spent thousands of dollars on this attorney and they wanted to sell the house and get half the money from the house.  So sale price minus loan amount divided between us.  This is the law in almost every state if there is no formal contract.  I was laughing because she wanted what would be maybe 50-75K for paying no rent, no money down, and me paying for her college. Finally I broke her attorney down (I didn't lawyer up but had many friends who were lawyers advising).  After I told her lawyer she wasn't getting anything - might have said it in not a nice way - her lawyer gave me her break down.  To paraphrase she said, ""We are going to file now.  My assistant is in the court clerk's office.  You can tell the court whatever you want.  Maybe they will give you a greater percentage since you put the money down and paid for everything but you are taking that chance.  But you will pay for your lawyer and you will need one.  And you will pay for me the entire time.  And this will be a lengthy process.  You would be better served to pay my client half now."" Her office was about 2 blocks from court.  I laughed at her and simply told her to have her assistant do whatever she wanted.  I then left to go to clerk's office to take the hold off.  She had beat me to the office (I moved my car out of her garage).  By the time I got there she was outside yelling at her assistant, throwing a hissy fit, and papers were flying everywhere.  We ""settled"" the next day.  She got nothing other than the things she had already stolen from me.  If I wouldn't have known about this loophole my ex would have gotten or cost me through attorney's fees around 40-50K for basically hiring a lawyer.  My ex didn't really have any money so I am pretty sure lawyer was getting a percent. Moral of the story: In any contract like this you always want to be the one bringing in the least amount of money.  There are no laws that I know of in any country where the person with the least amount on a contract will come out worse (%-wise).  Like I said in the US the best case scenario that I know of for joint property is that the court pays out the stakeholder all of their contributions then it splits things 50/50.  This is given no formal contract that the court upholds.  Don't even get me started with hiring attorneys because I have seen the courts throw out so many property contracts it isn't even funny.  One piece of advice on a contract if you do one.  Make it open and about percentages.  Party A contributes 50K, Party B 10K, Party A will pay this % of mortgage and maintenance and will get this % when home is sold.  I have found the more specific things are the more loopholes for getting out of them. There are goofy ass laws everywhere that make no sense.  Why would the person first filing get their lawyers paid for???  The court systems in almost all countries can have their comical corners.   You will never be able to write a contract that covers everything.  If the shower handle breaks, who pays for it?  There is just too many one-off things with a house. You are in essence getting in a relationship with this person.  I hear others say it is a business transaction.   NO.  You are living with this person.  There is no way to make it purely business.  For you to be happy with this outcome both of you must remain somewhat friends and at the very least civil with each other.   To add on to the previous point, the biggest risk is this other person's character and state of mind.  They are putting in the most money so you don't exactly have a huge money risk.  You do have a time and a time-cost risk.  Your time or the money you do have in this may be tied up in trying to get your money out or house sold.  A jerk could basically say that you get nothing, and make you traverse the court system for a couple years to get a few thousand back. And that isn't the worst case scenario.  Always know your worst case scenario.  Yours is this dude is in love with you.  When he figures out 2-3 years later after making you feel uncomfortable the entire time that you are not in love with him, he starts going nuts.  So he systematically destroys your house.  Your house worth plummets, you want out, you can't sell the house for price of loan, lenders foreclose or look to sue you, you pay ""double rent"" because you can't live with the guy, and you have to push a scooter to get to work. That is just the worst case scenario.  Would I do this if I were 25 and had no family?  Yea, why not if I trusted the other person and was friends with them?  If it were just a co-worker?  That is really iffy with me.    Edit: Author said he will not be living with the person.  So wording can be changed to say ""potentially"" in front of living with him in my examples."


DO NOT GIVE ME GODDAMN FUCKING SLOGANS. DO NOT GIVE ME TIRED ANALOGIES.  I asked for a plan, what do you do with a known disadvantaged minority.   As an aside, a shitload, in fact most of the people on fucking assistance do work asshole. I've been one of them. So, give me a solid start to a plan, you have a disadvantaged minority, already existing in poverty, sometimes with unemployment levels as high as 24% for the male population. How do you assist these people?  Edit: I in fact agree just handing people free shit won't work, but since the political options appear to be free shit or fuck off and die, I'll gladly vote for free shit for myself and my neighbors until somebody presents a decent plan.


Quick, move to the state where the ticket was bought.  Set up a resident and then claim the prize.  Then, move back home, if you want. IMO But both states will still try to make a claim for the tax money, if you give them a reason to try.   They have nothing else to do, but look for revenue.


I'd not do business under these terms. A bill of sale needs a signature, right? Your signature is your word, and your word is your bond. I wouldn't participate in such a fraud, nor would I accept this sum of cash, who knows its origins?


Broaden your job search. It's a lot easier to find a horse than a white stallion, and android jobs, while not are rare as unicorns, are a tiny percentage of the job market.


For information about the UK situation, check the government website at  http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/tax-arrive-uk.htm It all depends on the time. If I read it right (but you should check yourself) you can stay almost six months at a time, but at most 3 months on average over 4 years. Above this limit, you should either avoid the situation, or get professional advice, because things will be complicated.


Thanks, I will try post more in the future.  I actually said you can make money if you know what your doing the refurbished products not counterfeit.   I don't deal in counterfeit goods at all. As an owner of several (extremely small) trademarks i think trademark infringement of goods is just not on and i wouldn't support it.  Thanks


"We spent a few months on Gail's ""jar system"".  It does a really good job of removing impulse buying. The other thing I've found works is to find a way to occupy your time with an inexpensive pastime.  In my case programming, building something out of materials I already have in the garage, reading, and even cleaning, etc., are all low cost ways of passing the time without spending a lot of money.  If you think about it, shopping is just a form of procrastination."


Yodlee will also work. I asked a similar question (and provided answers) here. Thrive, so far, is the best in my opinion. Their tech support is top notch and their UI is far superior to Yodlee's (which provides the backend for Mint).


"Amazon sellers have themselves to blame for this.  Every single time I've had an issue with shipping (2 weeks for a ""2-day delivery), getting the wrong item, getting a broken item, etc. it is from a seller that isn't amazon.  Additionally, their ""Prime"" items are often from third-party sellers that don't give a shit.  Amazon could do this, or reign in the third party sellers.  This seems easier."


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


The Cayman Islands has an income tax enacted, it is just currently 0%.  It raises revenues from its tourism, import duties, and business registration.  It is part of the UK commonwealth and therefore enjoys the military protection of that federation, but doesn't have to spend on it. But unlike the US, the UK does not have an umbrella federal income tax on its overseas territories, so the Cayman Islands doesn't have to pass that down to its citizens nor do its citizens/residents have to be encumbered by one. It was not taxed by the King when it was first incorporated (hm, might need to fact check that). They also didn't go to war with the king over some small tax, so they got treated differently than some other North American colonies you might think of. The Cayman Islands is not the only government that raises revenues this way. Delaware also has a 0% income tax and raises the majority of its revenues on business registration (and perpetual franchise taxes on those businesses), allowing it to spare its citizens from passive income taxes. But unlike a US state, a citizen or business in a UK overseas territory does not have federal regulatory overhead, making it more attractive as a worldwide financial center.


The best way to end the gaming of patents is to simplify the system. Just go back to the old rule of patents being good for one year after issuance. There are other issues like what should or shouldn't be patented, but just having the rule of patents being good for one year makes other issues relative minor ones when it comes to the monopolistic effect of patents. The more complex we make the system just increases the permutations for abuse.


There is no such animal. If you are looking to give up FDIC protection, investing in a short-term, high quality bond fund or a tax-free bond fund with short durations is a good way to balance safety vs. return. Make sure you buy funds -- buying individual bonds isn't appropriate for folks without a high net worth. Another option is savings bonds, but the yields on these is awful today.


With the formula you are using you assume that the issued bond (bond A) is a perpetual. Given the provided information, you can't really do more than this, it's only an approximation.  The difference could be explained by the repayment of the principal (which is not the case with a perpetual). I guess the author has calculated the bond value with principal repayment.  You can get more insight in the calculation from the excel provided at this website: http://breakingdownfinance.com/finance-topics/bond-valuation/fixed-rate-bond-valuation/


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


Post-86 After tax contributions to a 401k are after tax.   The earnings on that money is taxable, but not the contributions. This means: You'll have $15,000 in the 401k and $10,000 is considered after-tax and $5,000 is considered pre-tax. The after-tax portion can be converted to a Roth IRA without paying taxes or penalties. New in September 2014 The IRS has made substantial changes that now enable this to happen.   You can request a distribution from your 401k provider where they divide the money into pre-tax and after-tax funds.  In my example, you'd get a check for $10,000 that you could send to a Roth IRA and a check for $5,000 you could add to a traditional Roll-over IRA. Neither of those would be taxable events and you'd end with a Roth IRA with $10K and a Traditional, Rollover IRA with $5K in it. Notes:


The good thing is that as luck would have it, the Jews don't control the military, because the Jews don't like an enemy that can fight back and like to kill unarmed civilians in Palestine.  So, it seems that while the Government and the economy have all fallen into the hands of Israeli agents, we can still look to our military to save us.


It's literally been a Fox News talking point since the march that 4chan started. You can pretend you aren't just parroting their talking points but pointing to some Wikipedia article in your head is beyond stupid.   I ignore people who clearly are uneducated and have no idea what they're talking about. Like you. Right now.


This is so fucking stupid. If Megabus had an issue with the joint venture, they should have filed their complaint back in 2008 when the board approved the creation of Boltbus. It's obvious that Megabus did not expect Boltbus to succeed in the first place; now that it has, it's throwing a bitch fit to shut down it's biggest competitor.   I'm never taking Megabus again. I'm going to tell everyone I know to neither support Megabus nor use their services. Even if they do manage to shut down Boltbus, I wouldn't take Megabus; I'd rather take a chinese bus or pay extra and take Amtrak.   tl;dr: Boycott Megabus.


All great questions, thank you. We are one of a several piano stores in south eastern MA, but many people will travel a fair distance to find the right piano. Our largest group of customers are middle to high income families. We've played our ad on the local abc family channel and on local pop radio stations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSr-LRiP1s0 ... The corniness was intended and did create a lot of response.    We offer a full value trade up policy for any past customers. Our record is a customer who purchased a piano from us 14 prior to trading up.   Thanks for your help, I'll work on finding more ways to further identify and reach our target market.


I think it looks like a mixed bag and I can't tell which way it's going to go.  I can't see company implants universally taking off.  As messy as the world is today, and I must say personally it's the most concerned I've been, there's a lot of good stuff going on too.  Cancer break throughs, life & health extension, the growth of renewable energy are all pretty positive.  Things like AI are definitely a mixed bag but I'm looking forward to when a human doctor is working alongside AI to diagnose any issues I may have in the future.  On the other hand, skynet could happen and that would suck.  So I work hard to try and make things not so bleak.


blockchain.info has all the most recent stats.  264,360 bitcoins traded in the last 24 hours.  About [16.5 Million](http://moderninvestor.io/how-many-bitcoins-have-been-mined/) exist right now.    Here is how they make more bitcoins   >12.5 [bitcoins per block](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin) (approximately every ten minutes) until mid 2020,[7] and then afterwards 6.25 bitcoins per block for 4 years until next halving. This halving continues until 2110–40, when 21 million bitcoins will have been issued.  None of that is really making the price going up.  There is not a shortage of bitcoins.  There are just more people wanting to buy bitcoin right now then there are people who want to sale.  So on the exchanges people keep offering to buy at a higher and higher price.  Competing with each other causing the price to go up.    It'll probably hit a peak and drop back down to 4k or so.  That seems to be the trend with bitcoin.  Climb real high, dip down to about halfway up that climb, level off, time goes by, peak again.  Repeat.


Yes, this is fine: You can save up to £20,000 in one type of account or split the   allowance across some or all of the other types. You can only pay £4,000 into your Lifetime ISA in a tax year ... Example   You could save £11,000 in a cash ISA, £2,000 in a stocks and shares ISA, £3,000 in an innovative finance ISA and £4,000 in a   Lifetime ISA in one tax year. https://www.gov.uk/individual-savings-accounts/how-isas-work You might want to consider whether it is wise to be fully invested in shares. If you're going to have to dip into them for things like holidays and a car, you're taking a risk that you might have to sell when the market is low. As a basic rate taxpayer, you have a £1 000 personal savings allowance. You don't need to chase the tax break with a cash ISA, which often have poor rates. However, you should consider keeping some of your savings in cash, for example in a current account that pays decent interest on the balance.


You think that, but she's pretty much unemployable now.  That's the point of golden parachutes.  23 million is nothing to what she could have made if she was successful.  So she could have either been mega rich if she was successful, or have a decimated reputation if she failed.  It turned out to be the latter.  She's peaked and will never have a chance like that again.


There are lots of credit unions that are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) through the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) instead of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Both cover individual accounts up to $250,000. If you are looking for non-trivial returns on your money, you should consider a brokerage account which is insured by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SPIC). In the case of SPIC insured accounts, what you are insured against is the failure of the broker (not against loss on your investments if you choose to invest poorly). SPIC insurance covers up to $500,000 in losses from an insolvent broker. You have already indicated your lack of interest in using other investments, but I am not aware of any non-insured accounts that offer higher interest than insured accounts. You have also indicated your lack of interest in investment advice, but it sounds like what you are looking for is offered by a stable value fund.


Sure you can say there are some successful ones from millions. But if you look at most of Reddit for example, they are weed smoking losers living at home and getting paid minimum wage, that is if they even have a job.    While you and your friends smoke once a month, many smoke daily and brag about it like it's a good thing. They all have the fake medical cannabis card and visit the shop weekly.   Daily weed smokers are not fit for the job and are at a higher risk because they are impaired. They also often or almost always lack motivation.


"Not to mention. Since I posted my comment, I've suffered from self shutdowns of my PC (started with instant shutdowns). Only restoring multiple times from multiple restore points as seemed to have solved the problem for now. I'm telling you, we are under foreign attack, and India is part of it.  Also, when I'm not using my PC I shut it down and turn off the power strip access to it. Used to unplug it too.  Also in the past year, my refrigerator, dryer, main TV in living room, and most recently my washer (mechanical recurring) and PC have suffered electrical failures.  BEWARE those who claim to be advancing/helping you.  Anyway I believe someone is sending me a message about evil in our midst.  Pop culture should obviously indicate to you, if you know history as a matter of fact, not conjecture, that things are deteriorating quickly, and various nefarious factions are jockeying for position.  And they are not, never have been, from the side of ""good"", though they ALL claimed to be.  They punish/torment/destroy whom they deem (their whims) to be ""evil"". Though they are NEVER the arbiter of such things.  Horrible things are coming to the US. Past sins. Don't complain. Find redemption, salvation as you can. Survival (personal) is not paramount. GOOD (as  you see it) is. Just make sure you're not actually evil.  I'm clobbered here. Though I try to reveal truth. I try to debate, initiate discourse. I am shut down, for various nebulous reasons that my accusers use commonly."


Congratulations on seeing your situation clearly! That's half the battle. To prevent yourself from going back into debt, you should get rid of any credit cards you have and close the accounts. Just use your debit card. Your post indicates you're not the type to splurge and get stuff just because you want it, so saving for a larger purchase and paying cash for it is probably something you're willing to do. Contrary to popular belief, you can live just fine without a credit card and without a credit score. If you're never going back into debt, you don't need a credit score. Buying a house is possible without one, but is admittedly more work for you and for the underwriters because they can't just ask the FICO god to bless you -- they have to actually see your finances, and you have to actually have some. (I realize many folks will hate this advice, but I am actually living it, and life is pretty good.) If you're in school, look at how much you spend on food while on campus. $5-$10/day for lunch adds up to $100-$200 over a month (M-F, four weeks). Buy groceries and pack a lunch if you can. If your expenses cannot be reduced anymore, you're going to have to get a job. There is nothing wrong with slowing down your studies and working a job to get your income up above your expenses. It stinks being a poor student, but it stinks even more to be a poor student with a mountain of debt. You'll find that working a job doesn't slow you down all that much. Tons of students work their way through school and graduate in plenty of time to get a good job.  Good luck to you! You can do it.


I appreciate it. I didn't operate under selling the asset year five but other than that I followed this example. I appreciate the help. These assignments are just poorly laid out. Financial management also plays on different calculation interactions  so it is difficult for me to easily identify the intent at times. Thanks again.


"I'd love to see how he thinks he can ""measure"" the financial world. You can only measure what you are allowed to see and Wall Street is only going to give you a certain percentage. The rest will throw your predictions way off, thus making this a fruitless endeavor. Welcome to the real world."


Sears is great for tools, but kind of useless for other stuff, and their cashiers are always giving you a sales pitch (Sears Card, etc.) and several miles of receipt paper. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, I JUST WANT TO BUY A WRENCH! It kind of reminds me of Best Buy, who is actually even worse with this, but just happens to have more products that I'm interested in.


According to the link below, it does appear that you must take an RMD, or Required Minimum Distribution, from your IRA at age 70½, or face a 50% penalty of the RMD AMOUNT that has NOT been taken, which is going to be much less than 50% of your entire account balance.  Why specifically this happens would be opinion based on my interpretation of the reasoning behind those that enacted the law. I can tell you penalties like this are used to encourage behavior - you can't just leave your money in a tax-free account forever. The IRA is meant to help you build your savings for retirement, and at age 70½ you should be ready for retirement.  This means you must begin withdrawing the money - but that doesn't mean you have to spend it.  In the link below, there are outlines on what you can do to satisfy the required minimum distribution. As it specifies, you can take one lump sum, or spread it out over multiple payments, and there's a calculator to identify what your RMD will be. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/retirement_and_planning/understanding_iras/withdrawals_and_distributions/age_70_and_a_half_and_over As noted in the linked page, you DO NOT have to take an RMD on a Roth IRA. If this is important to you, you may want to consider Rolling Over your current IRA to a Roth.


lol information overload  how about we share some of our frequent reads?  i personally read Mike Shedlock's blog for global macro trends, albeit his content is leaning a bit to perma-bear  and mercenary traders for trading related contents. I absolutely love their articles on trading systems,mentality etc etc. It played a critical role in building my very own profitable trading system, and forging the trader mindset i have today. I would not have gone far without these guys.


> When you learn to write English, write again and I will answer.  This personal attack on another poster is hilarious, considering that you tried to lecture me about not making personal attacks when I pointed out flaws in your English earlier.     lol


"Every legitimate claim I've filed regarding fraudulent charges on my card includes signing a legal document. If your ""friend"" completes such a document and you can verify that it is untrue, he's in deeper trouble than you. Unfortunately, if he's successful in filing a claim that is later proven to be fraudulent, it puts your account in a poor status until it's fully cleared. Even then, corporate inertia may result in longer duration inaccurate information.  Once you've cleared the fraudulent claim, you'll want to contact your credit agency to ensure they are provided with correct and proper documentation."


There is no federal inheritance tax.  The federal estate tax, currently, exempts the first 5.49 million (US citizen spouses even avoid this).  Current law also does a stepped up basis on inherited assets which were bought with after tax money.  Example: Dad bought a house years ago for 100k.  He dies and leaves it to JJ along with other assets worth $100k (well below the federal estate tax level).  JJ sells the house for $400k which was its market value on the day dad died.  He gets to keep the entire $400k. Note: Current government wants to eliminate the estate tax AND the stepped up basis.  In above case, JJ will now have $300k gains on the house sale and will pay income tax on that!  He will end up with much less that $400k.


I was business and then did a 5th year undergrad to be eligible to sit for the CPA exams. There is no way I, or anyone, could start working on an audit on day one. Even if I had done internships, they wouldn't mean anything with a change in career path.


"Another way to look at budgeting: give yourself an explicit ""allowance"" -- possibly in a separate account -- and if something isn't a clear necessity it must be paid for out of your allowance, saving up first if necessary. You can get those concert tickets, but only if you cut down on expensive meals and toys and other entertainment for a while. You can have anything you want, but not everything and not immediately unless you learn to maintain an adequate balance in this account."


Are there any frameworks to deal with the following situation: assume you're invested in an asset which has gained 10x, there is a chance for the asset to gain another 10x (100x in total) and go to zero. The probabilities of the various outcomes are unknown.


MKC is non-voting stock, MKC/V is voting stock. Ofter times you'll see two or more stock symbols for a company.  These usually reflect different classes of stocks.  For example, voting vs. non-voting (as in this case) or preferred vs non-preferred stock.


If they know what his investments are in, then they could have said what the returns are estimated to be.  Otherwise, it's just more propaganda like most stories on Ron Paul: make him seem like a kook, or better yet a racist.  You're right, the guy knows nothing about finance or economics, what a nut: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INvKPYdTs3E&feature=related


Do your own research There are hundreds of places where people will give you all sorts of recommendations. There is as much noise in the recommendations as there is in the stock market itself. Become your own filter. You need to work on your own instinct. Pick a couple of sectors and a few stocks in each and study them. It is useful to know where the main indexes are going, but - unless you are trading the indexes - it is the individual sectors that you should focus on more.


I fucking hate airbnb because they make the rent in In NYC fucking expensive  even with a 100k a year salary.  It's a good thing that NYC  is sending a fine of $1000 to whoever lists their whole apartment for rent on airbnb.


"Yes, it applies to control groups.  If I remember correctly common ownership rules are used to determine ""Applicable Large Employer"" status but if the time comes to owe a penalty, only the actual entity missing the mark will owe a penalty, not the entire control group. This is an excerpt from Section 4980H (the section that lays out employer requirements and penalties) (16) Employer. The term employer means the person that is the employer of an employee under the common-law standard. See § 31.3121(d)-1(c). For purposes of determining whether an employer is an applicable large employer, all persons treated as a single employer under section 414(b), (c), (m), or (o) are treated as a single employer. Thus, all employees of a controlled group of entities under section 414(b) or (c), an affiliated service group under section 414(m), or an entity in an arrangement described under section 414(o), are taken into account in determining whether the members of the controlled group or affiliated service group together are an applicable large employer. For purposes of determining applicable large employer status, the term employer also includes a predecessor employer (see paragraph (a)(36) of this section) and a successor employer. Link to the Federal Register"


As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).


I learned most of this stuff from 3 textbooks in school probably totaling $900 between the 3. I imagine you don't want to spend the cash on that. I would suggest finding a source online. A lot of the surface level stuff you are looking for can be found online on websites like Investopedia. They are a great resource and are free usually.


Do you mean commercial real estate lending or corporate lending?  Sadly private equity is really difficult to get into without an investment banking background.  You will be competing with people who have investment banking backgrounds and also MBAs from top 5 schools.  I have friends at HBS, Wharton, etc and they all told me how difficult it is even for them.  It's not even guaranteed at that level.  Obviously, nothing is impossible but a huge challenge.


You have to wait for three (business) days. That's the time it takes for the settlement to complete and for the money to get to your account. If you don't wait - brokers will still allow you to buy a new stock, but may limit your ability to sell it until the previous sale is settled. Here's a FAQ from Schwab on the issue.


Okay, using your example, you sat around and waited for the robber. You knew he was coming, matter of fact the robber told you the exact day he was going to come knocking on your door... April 15th. And he was going to take thousands from you... and yet you sat, did absolutely nothing, except bend over and give it to him. What does that make you?


"Charitable donations can be deducted from your income, and in that way make your taxable income lower, hence lower taxes. That's the meaning of ""tax deductible"". As to ""if I donate it then the money will be given right to the charity instead of spread out to many other places"" - taxes are being used by the government based on its own decisions (presumably made by elected officials thus representing the will of the voters). Charities use the money based on their defined goals. Giving money to a charity will ensure it is used for the specific goal the charity declared, and that's the way for you to funnel money to the goals of your preference/choice. For example, you can donate money to your temple, orphanage around the corner, or the gay rights organization. Or anti gay, for that matters. Your money will be spent on the goals of your choosing. Re advantages - charitable donations are used by the rich folks to avoid paying taxes on their income (because they're deductible), so someone might donate money to places they use themselves (like the temple/church for example, or the school where the kids go, or politician which will ""objectively"" choose someone's business for a big government contract, etc etc). For ""ordinary"" people it's a way to reduce the taxable income and divert the money to the specific goals of their choice. For example, donating $100 to Red Cross Japan Tsunami relief fund, will reduce your taxable income by $100, and total taxes by $28 (assuming you're in the 28% bracket), thus the $28 will go to the specific goal your choose instead of the general taxes."


During the hyperinflation of the Wiermer republic, corporate stocks and convertible bonds were thought second only to the species (gold, silver etc) as the only secure currencies.  As Milton Friedman proved, inflation is caused solely by the monetary token supply increasing faster than productivity.  In the past, days of species of currency, it was caused by governments debasing the currency e.g. streatching the same amount of silver in 50 coins to 100 coins. Sudden increases in the supply of precious metals can also trigger it. The various gold rushes in 19th century and later, improvements in extraction methods caused bouts of inflation. Most famously, the huge amounts of silver the Spanish extracted from the New World mines, devastated the European economy with high inflation. Governments use inflation as a form of stealth flat tax. Money functions as an Abstract Universal Trade Good and it obeys all the rules of supply and demand. If the supply of money goes up suddenly, then its value drops in relation to real goods and service. But that drop in value doesn't occur instantly, the increased quality of tokens has to percolate through the market before the value changes.  So, the first institution to spend the infalted/debased currency can get the full current value from trade. The second gets slightly less, the third even less and so on. In 2008, the Federal reserve began printing money and loaning at 0% to insolvent backs who then used that money to buy T-Bill. This had the duel effect of giving the banks an (arbitrary) A1 rated asset for their fractional reserve while the Federal government got full pre-inflation value of the money paid for the T-bills. As the government spent that money, the number of tokens increased fast than the economy.  In times of inflation, the value of money per unit drops as its supply increases and increases The best hedges against inflation are real assets e.g. land, equipment, stocks (ownership of real assets) and convertible bonds which are convertible to stock.  It's important to remember that money is, of itself, worthless. It's just a technology that abstracts and smilies trading which at the base, is still a barter system. During inflation the barter value of money plunges owing to increased supply. But the direct barter value between any two real assets remain the same because their supplies have not changed.  The value of stocks and convertible bonds is maintained by the economic activity of the company whose ownership they represent. Dividends, stock prices and bond equity, as measured in the inflated currency continue to rise in sync with inflation. Thus they preserve the original value of the money paid for them. Not sure why you expect more inflation. The only institution that can create inflation in the US is the Federal Reserve which Trump has no direct control off. Deregulation of banks won't cause inflation in and of itself as the private banks cannot alter the money supply. If banks fail, owing to deregulation, unlikely I think given the dismal nearly century long record of regulation to date, then the Federal Reserve might fix the problem with another inflation tax, but otherwise not.


There are several reasons why this may happen and I will update as I get more information from you. Volumes on that stock look low (supposing that they are either in a factor between 1s and 1000s) so it could well be that there was no volume on that day. If no trades occur then open, high and low are meaningless as they are statistics based on trades that occur that day and no trades occur. Remember that there has to be volume to get a price. The stock may have been frozen by either the exchange or the company for the day. This could be for various reasons including to prevent some illegal activity. In that case no trades were made because the market for that stock was closed. Another possibility is that all trades that day were cancelled by the exchange. The exchange may cancel all trades if there is unusual, potentially fraudulent or other illegal activity on the stock. In this case the last price for that day existed but was rolled back by the exchange and never occurred. This is a rare situation. Although I can't find any holidays on that date it is possible that this is how your data provider marks market holidays. It would be valid to ignore the data in that case as being from a non-market day. I cannot tell if this is possible without knowing exchange information. There is a possibility that some data providers don't receive data for a day or that it gets corrupted. It may be worth checking another source to ensure the integrity of the data that you are receiving. Whichever reason is true, the data provider has made the close equal to the previous day's close as no price movements occurred. Strictly the closing price is the price of the last trade made for that day and so should be null (and open, high and low should be null too and not 0 otherwise the price change on day is very large!). Therefore, to keep integrity, you have a few choices:


"I agree with the answer by @Michael that this number doesn't exist.  It's hard to see what use it would have and it would be difficult to track. I'm writing a separate answer because I also disagree with the premise of your question:  Individual shares of stock have never to my knowledge had such a number.  Your comment about numbers on stock certificates identifies the certificate document, which will generally represent multiple shares of stock.  That number no more identifies a single share of stock than the serial number on a $10 bill identifies any one of the ten dollars it represents.  Even at the ""collective"" unit of $10, when the bill is eventually replaced with a new one, the new bill has a new number.  No continuity."


A CD is guaranteed to pay its return on maturation.  So if you need a certain amount of money at a specific time in the future, the CD is a more reliable way of getting it.  The stock market might give you more money or less.  More is obviously OK.  Less is not if you're planning to pay basic expenses with it, e.g. food, rent, etc.   Most retirement portfolios will have a mix of investments.  Some securities (stocks and bonds), some guaranteed returns (CDs, treasuries), and some cash equivalents (money market, savings, and checking accounts).  Cash equivalents are good for short term expenses and an emergency fund.  Guaranteed returns are good for medium term expenses.  Securities are good for the long term.   Once retired, the general system is to maintain enough cash equivalents for the next few months of expenses and emergencies.  Then schedule CDs for the next few years so that you have a predictable amount.  Finally, keep the bulk of your wealth in securities.  As you get older, your potential emergencies increase and your need for savings decreases, so the mix shifts more and more to the cash equivalents and guaranteed returns and away from securities.   CDs have limited use prior to retirement (and the couple years right before retirement), mainly saving up for a large purchase like a house, car, or major appliance.  Even there if you have the option of delaying the purchase, that might allow you to use securities instead.  Perhaps some of your emergency fund in a short term CD that you keep rolling over.   Note that the problem isn't so much that securities will fall.  It's that they'll fall right when you need the money.  So rather than sell 1% of your securities to meet your needs, you have to sell 2%.  That's a dead weight loss of 1% that you have to deduct from your returns.  That roughly matches the drop from the height of 2007 to the trough of 2009 of the S&P 500.  And it was 2012 before it recovered.  If in 2007, you had put the 1% of your portfolio in a two-year CD, you'd be ahead even at zero interest in 2009.


I'm not saying your not a hard worker but you sound like a whiner that thinks they have all the answers. It sounds like your parents want you to just do your job. I disagree with your parents 'selling' you the business. I think you should start your own business before trying to run someone else's. Your workplace is a business not a training camp, i entirely agree that you should not be training customers or employees how to use excel or google sheets. maybe a friendly YouTube link, but that's it.


"Its not a double major.  That is two separate degrees and they should be identified as such.  It is not called anything.  That is unless you are mistaken about the finance part being a ""master"". You are listed as undergrad student so I am slightly confused."


You should've been job searching/networking instead of studying for that dumbass CFA. If you find out you failed, you COMPLETELY wasted your time. If you pass, you now have a CFA L1 or whatever with no experience.  If you went to a well known school and can't find ANYTHING you clearly aren't trying hard enough. Make a LinkedIn and lurk the hell out of the alumni groups. Offer to intern for free. You need SOMETHING to cover the white space on your resume


If you are too overwhelmed by all the work, don’t worry, you can always call a close friend or family to save you from the situation and get you some help. And if you don’t want that, then there are cleaning services that can help by lending you a hand.


"How is this anticompetitive? You're welcome to buy goods from someone other than Amazon, Amazon isnt colluding with other vendors to do the same, or sell at the same price...   If Amazon decided tomorrow ""I dont want to carry this Disney shit"" I dont see how thats anti-competitive. Amazon has a strong negotiating position however."


Wir sind seit über 30 Jahren im Kundendienst für Kälte- und Klimatechnik tätig und können auf eine Vielzahl erfolgreicher Projekte in der Zusammenarbeit mit unseren Partnern zurückblicken.  Um unser Angebot zu erweitern haben wir einen Onlineshop für Kältetechnik, Gastrotechnik und Schanktechnik ins Leben gerufen.  Service ist für uns kein Fremdwort - probieren Sie es aus !


It's a matter of opinion. As a general rule, my advice is to take charge of your own investments. Sending money to someone else to have them invest it, though it is a common practice, seems unwise to me. This particular fund seems especially risky to me, because there is no known portfolio. Normally, real estate investment trusts (REITs) have a specific portfolio of known properties, or at least a property strategy that you know going in. Simply handing money over to someone else with no known properties, or specific strategy is buying a pig in a poke.


TIL, thanks for the pricing ballpark.  Yeah, auto-freeze would piss of their customers, but the alternative is entire cohorts of consumers *learning* to ramp down credit utilization *and teaching their children* because the consumer credit industry can't get its data management act together and the PITA factor rises so high consumers start to get taught by the breaches and their expenses and time to repair it on their end is not worth the credit: that's a secular long term trend that would piss off shareholders.


I would just do a loan for a different number of years on your new mortgage. For example, if you just spent 10 years paying off your first house, then for your second, close the first mortgage upon selling, and then open a 20 or 25 year mortgage and the loan end date as well as the payment should remain similar. This would be more do-able if you paid ahead a little to compensate all the early on interest you have to eat. So if you want to finish around the same time, you could look into doing that since you'll have more equity to make a stronger down payment.


You can use google docs to create a spreadsheet. In field A2, I put Google will load the prices into the sheet. At that point, I add the following into C12, then copy that line all the way down to the botton of column C. You can find my spreadsheet here. It calculates the moving 10 day standard deviation as a percentage of average price for that time period.


75k is short of the 'highly compensated' category.  Most US citizens in that pay range would consider paying someone to do their taxes as an unnecessary expense.  Tax shelters usually don't come into play for this level of income.  However, there are certain things which provide deductions. Some things that make it better to pay someone:   Use the free online tax forms to sandbox your returns.  If all you're concerned about is ensuring you pay your taxes correctly, this is the most cost efficient route. If you want to minimize your tax burden, consult with a CPA.  Be sure to get one who is familiar with resident aliens from your country and the relevant tax treaties. The estimate you're looking at may be the withholding, of which you may be eligible for a refund for some part of that withholding.   Tax treaties likely make sure that you get credit on each side for the money paid in the other.  For example, as a US citizen, if I go to Europe and work and pay taxes there, I can deduct the taxes paid in Europe from my tax burden in the US.  If I've already paid more to the EU than I would have paid on the same amount earned in the US, then my tax burden in the US is zero.  By the same token, if I have not paid up to my US burden, then I owe the balance to the US.  But this is way better than paying taxes to your home country and to the host country where you earned the money.


Small price for the government to pay when you are competing to attack a company that will create tens of thousands of jobs and billion in economic activity.  Are you suggesting we let them go to Michigan or Alabama or Texas. If they did go, not only would we miss out on those tens of thousands of jobs and billions in investments but we wouldn't realize any of that sales tax revenue anyways!


"From April 2017 the plan is that there is now also going to be a ""Lifetime ISA"" (in addition to the Help to Buy ISA). Assuming those plans do not change, they government will give 25% after each year until you are 50, and the maximum you can put in per year will be £4000. Catches:  You can only take the money out for certain ""life events"", currently: Buying a house below £450000 anywhere in the country (not just London).  Passing 60 years of age. If you take it out before or for another reason, you lose the government bonus plus 5%, ie. it currently looks like you will be left with 95% of the total of the money you paid in. You cannot use the bonus payments from this one together with bonus payments from a Help to Buy ISA to buy a home. However you can transfer an existing Help to Buy ISA into this one come 2017. While you are not asking about pensions, it is worth mentioning for other readers that while 25% interest per year sounds great, if you use it for pension purposes, consider that this is after tax, so if you pay mostly 20% tax on your income the difference is not that big (and if your employer matches your contributions up to a point, then it may not be worth it). If you pay a significant amount of tax at 40% or higher, then it may not make sense for pension purposes. Tax bands and the ""rates"" on this ISA may change, of course. On the other hand, if you intend to use the money for a house/flat purchase in 2 or more years' time, then it would seem like a good option. For you specifically: This ""only"" covers £4000 per year, ie. not the full amount you talked about, but it is likely a good idea for you to spread things out anyway. That way, if one thing turns out to be not as good as other alternatives it has less impact - it is less likely that all your schemes will turn out to be bad luck. Within the M25 the £450000 limit may restrict you to a small house or flat in 5-10 years time. Again, prices may stall as they seem barely sustainable now. But it is hard to predict (measures like this may help push them upwards :) ).  On the plus side, you could then still use the money for pension although I have a hard time seeing governments not adjusting this sort of account between now and your 60th birthday. Like pension funds, there is an element of luck/gambling involved and I think a good strategy is to spread things if you can."


Secret Service agents are paid according to their worth. It's a difficult job to get, and a difficult job to do. They're basically in charge of protecting a large group of VIP's who are *constantly* under threat of attack. It's not unreasonable that they be paid overtime for working 12+ hour shifts all the time.


Part of this is the flipper economy that grew out of the last housing downturn. People try to buy a house they can afford that needs some work, but flippers come swooping in, buy it in cash, do some slipshod renovations, and suddenly the house becomes out of reach for a lot of people. Builders are just as bad. Instead of making sensibly sized affordable houses, they all build 20 room McMansions.  Upper-middle class people are buying a lot of these houses, and are putting themselves in deep financial straits doing so. They are mortgaged up to the eyeballs where all it takes is a medical issue, a  job loss, or some other hiccup in their finances to cause it all to come tumbling down.  If you have money (not just a good paycheck, actual free cash on hand) all of the above works for you. But even if you have a good paycheck, if you do not have significant cash reserves you really don't have any hope of competing in this market.


Many developing countries have restrictions on foreigners buying land.  For example, Thailand.  If you ever move there, you will never be able to own any land.  Period.  But countries like India go even further.  If you want to buy some land in J&K province, you can't even if you are Indian.  What if you marry a woman from J&K?  Nope... then you are both screwed and both of you can't buy land in J&K.  Similar restrictions are in place for other provinces (HP, AP, etc)  Imagine living in New Jersey and never being able to buy land in Pennsylvania... that's India.    Building and hoping no one notices worked 15 years ago, but not anymore. (unless you're rich and connected, of course.)


Your broker should make you whole by adjusting the quantity of the underlying (see: http://www.schaeffersresearch.com/education/options-basics/key-option-concepts/dividends-stock-splits-and-other-option-contract-adjustments) but I would check with them that this will happen. You will then have an option on 4 times the underlying for each option. Unless the price has risen in the interim or you bought them after the split was announced you should not make a loss.


In the theory: *Somewhere between the most you think you can get, and the minimum you think you deserve * In your case: If they want you to actually invest, they aren't purely interested in your technical expertise. which means that you need to actually believe in the idea and be involved in the decision making process. That really depends on what technology entrepreneurship exactly you are talking about.


Yeah, the federal gas tax has been 18.4 cents per gallon since I think 1920's and states add another 20 to 55 cents per gallon, but it is nowhere near enough to cover costs.  And I grew up in Illinois, nothing has changed much (I don't remember when we didn't have a former governor in jail).


The line you are referring to says 5 U.S. taxpayer identification number (SSN or ITIN), if required (see   instructions) It does not appear to be required in your case.


Brokers will have transaction fees in addition to the find management fees, but they should be very transparent. Brokering is a very competitive business.  Any broker that added hidden fees to their transactions would lose customers very quickly to other brokers than can offer the same services. Hedge funds are a very different animal, with less regulation, less transparency,  and less competition. Their fees are tolerated because the leveraged returns are usually much higher. When times are bad, though,  those fees might drive investors elsewhere.


"That is technically the ""rule of law"" but goes against the spirit of the ""rule of law"", which is the principle that people's rights should be protected by the law regardless of the demands of the many.   >And really, who do you consider to be the ""mighty"" on this issue?   The mighty is those who use the force of government or the threat of violence (e.g. violent strikes) to prevent another party from exercising their contract liberty and firing them."


But were they bad mortgages? At the time, real estate prices were going up. The thinking was if someone defaulted, they could just foreclose on the property and recoup their money. Is that deceptive? They bundled poorer mortgages with better rated mortgages to eliminate risk. The risk was all the debtors defaulting in a short period - which happened.  Again, no financial model forecasted the worst recession since the Great Depression. Not the top financial firms, not the Federal Reserve, not the Treasury. They were all wrong.


Its pretty simple why BMW and other German companies have thrived and its that they've delivered cars that consumers want.  GM failed at this and Ford is at least producing high quality cars, but not necessarily conveying the kind of brand value that the Germans have been so successful at.  Keeping a cap on costs is just one element of business.  Augmenting revenues is another.  If you're exceptional at selling the product and have great brand value (Apple, Coca-Cola, BMW) you don't have to pay attention to the costs as much.


"I have personally known a family in the hills of Southern Oregon, US who lived off the electricity grid. As far as being ""possible"" yes, but easy is a certain no.  This family was very dedicated to the point of living without grid electricity.  A special built home of native field stones, careful alignment with the sun, location within the valley.  I would assume that making a normal home be off the electric grid is much more difficult.  Not impossible, but pretty darn hard."


>“That is the weather,” he said of changes in the markets. “It goes up and down, this and that, and that’s 80% of what you guys focus on.”  >Dimon said financial journalists would be better off concentrating on the “bad policies” that are hurting average Americans.  He's right, it is embarassing, however he's mistaken about what would be best for financial journalists. They aren't really interested in what's best for America. Their jobs demand that they publish content, and they believe that the easiest and best way to publish lots of content in a consistent manner is to focus on short sighted topics.   Anywhere you see people trying to feed the 24 hour media cycle you see this problem emerge. It's difficult to blame them, they gotta feed their families afterall.  We don't need this 24/7 flood of news. If every media outlet published on a weekly basis or less, they could focus on more important stories and they could take more time to investigate them. Their audience could focus on their own lives and bettering themselves. It would be a win:win. But that's not what we have.  Because Americans are fools?  Does anyone remember what sort of role JP Morgan had during the housing collapse however? Was this guy their CEO back then? I'm not forgiving any of them for that faux pas, and neither should anyone else. It's difficult to take seriously criticism coming from the most crooked industry in the world. At the end of the day money doesn't really matter. What matters is that people's needs are met, both needs for survival and recreation. In their greedy thirst for the second, the employees at all the major banks destroyed the lives of many people who were simply struggling to meet the first. Not cool.


Reddit don't hate with any of business but reddit hate if some using reddit as a platform to make advertise & promotion active for own business. Reddit is the platform where people coming to make genuine discussion, don't be prefers to just create backlinks for the website. Accounting to the nature of business select subreddit - /r/business ,  /r/Entrepreneur , /r/investing etc.


Most of the time when a stock splits to create more shares, it is done to bring the price per share down to a level that makes potential investors more comfortable. There are psychological reasons why some companies keep the price in the $30 to $60 range. Others like to have the price keep rising into the hundreds or thousands a share.  The split doesn't help current investors, with the possible exception that the news spurs interest in the stock which leads to a short term rise in prices; but it also doesn't hurt current investors. When a reverse stock split is done, the purpose is for one of several reasons:


Do you want to give your table new look? Get customize round vinyl tablecloths and bring new life to your table. We deals in all kind of tablecloths including Special sizes to meet customer need. Ring us at 800 477-5638! For any query!


With rich industry experience and understanding of the client requirements,we VFIRST have successfully built ourselves as producer,exporter and supplier of mosquito nets in Coimbatore. Our product plays a major role in the market owing to their flawless quality, beautiful designs and patterns.we work with dedication and motivated team of designers,quality inspector and other technical experts.


You sound like a whiny socialist idiot. Wahhh, that guy has more money and buys things I can't afford. Then hangs out with people who can afford them too. They are the reason for global warming. I need the government to make everyone be equal. Cheese and rice, move to Venezuela you idiot.


> It will have minimal effects on buy & hold traders since they typically research for a long time, then buy & hold stock for many months.  This is the part I never understand. If a short term tax doesn't affect buy & hold traders, when why would HFT affect buy & hold traders?


Actually it is because of trade tariffs/import tax which the US charges on automobiles. The big auto manufacturers in the US have lobbied extensively to help increase the cost of vehicles manufactured overseas and imported into the US. So as a work around, international auto manufacturers set up plants within the US so as to avoid paying some of the import tariffs.


"This is a funny article.  This kid is riding around talking to people who don't want to sell.  If they wanted to sell, they'd call a realtor.  Sounds like he can't afford what's already on the market. 23-year-olds typically don't own.  This is the flip side of the ""wealth effect.""  The middle class housing has appreciated so much, millennials can't afford to buy them.  I think there's quite an overhang, and prices should fall as the boomers need to sell, and millennials have more resources."


The JPM note is more market related content anyway. The WF product is really solid. I get a ton of paid for macro research that's on par with the WF stuff. I like it because the WF work covers pretty much everything.  The other thing I would suggest is getting on the distribution list for ISM. Its easy, just send them an email. The contact info is on the bottom of their releases. There's probably a few more distribution lists you can get on. It is good to build up a good macro stream to your personal email address.


Also hilarious will be the exacerbation of wealth inequality and social strife due to the idea that high marginal tax rates are detrimental to overall prosperity. Because, you know, jobs only come from the super rich due to their outsized intelligence and virtue. Leadership and money are one.  I love this country for how easy it is to manipulate people! Boundless opportunities to take your money, created every minute.


"If he didn't lie, I don't see the issue. He did not force anyone to buy anything. His opinion was stock X is good, he publicized it and it turned out to be true (at least temporary) - what's wrong with it?  It is customary for people who have either fiduciary duty towards the clients or are perceived as independent analysts to disclose their interest and potential conflict of interest, lest they lose the respect of the public as independent and trustworthy sources of financial information. Jackson never had that, express or implied, and never had the duty to provide anybody with impartial financial analysis, so he can say anything he wants. He can invest into the company and promote it and make money from it - isn't it what was called ""business"" once? Why is it even being questioned?"


This is the path Africans Americans had traveled in the US *in the land* where all men are created equal. If you are a white American was your ancestors journey in America just as arduous?    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ * Two hundred fifty years of slavery.  * Ninety years of Jim Crow.  * Sixty years of separate but equal.  * Thirty-five years of racist housing policy.


"I've hired a lawyer to make sure all the T's are crossed.   - I am not charging my employer for the service. I created a ""Free tier"" that fits the scale of my employer, and implemented it that way for them. Larger government bodies are paying for the higher tiers. On multiple levels, i've been sure that nothing conflicts with either our purchasing policy, or any written employee policies.    - I did 100% of the work on my own time and using my own resources. I was extremely careful to ensure this was the case. There is no clause anywhere in my employment agreement that says the company owns anything I do outside of company time. Believe it or not, this is actually less of an issue for a government body because the government doesn't exist to make a profit from services, and because they are getting an expensive service for free, it's actually a significant net benefit for them.  I certainly would be at a significantly higher risk if I was working for a for-profit corporation as they certainly would try to go after me.    - I was also careful in how the software was presented. While I agree there is a level of a obfuscation without a doubt, I've confirmed it certainly not a legal issue for the company, nor is it grounds for a lawsuit, and likely not even grounds for termination (although at this point, I don't really care as I have bigger fish to fry)"


Background: Graduated Highschool last June and am currently working a construction job making $19.50/hr working 45-50 hr weeks. I'm working the full year to save up money for university. Currently paying off $10000 loan for my car.  Question: So I roughly need $40000 for school and figure I'll still be short of that amount saved even if i work the full year. Do you guys think it's smart for me to take a 2nd gap year and make another $35000-$40000 that would not only finish paying off my school but would also sit in a blue chip stock account making me some income while attending school. Should I take the 2nd gap year or enroll in university next September? Thanks!


Trends in the upstream and the downstream areas of monoclonal antibody production are encouraging, and should provide help in holding down the costs of these very expensive biological molecules. As indicated in this report, the large expansion in the use of disposables in upstream and downstream unit operations of the production chain is underway.


I agree, and admit that I probably assumed a bit too much context.  >hate group exists for a specific hateful purpose, whereas a country does not  I agree, but PayPal *is* into taking highly-publicized regional action based on social and political issues. For example, consider the transgender bathroom rights issue taking place in North Carolina last year. Not even close to every resident of the State supported it, yet PayPal made State-level decisions based on it—such as their choice  to pull out of plans for a new global headquarters in Charlotte, NC. See here:  http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/05/technology/paypal-north-carolina-lgbt/index.html  If all residents in Saudia Arabia don't believe in discrimination, and therefore PayPal doesn't exclude business with the country as a whole :: Then all residents of NC not agreeing with another form of discrimination shouldn't exclude business from NC as a whole—yet it did.  The difference? PayPal isn't going to lose a recurring amount of money by moving their operations to a different State, especially when they haven't really laid down too much sunk cost. Cessation of payment processing, on the other hand, would have had an impact on their bottom line.   They like to flex their Political and Social Opinion, but seem to be very cost-effective in how they choose to do so. I respect them for taking initiative to use their influence to impact the world in a way they see most-fit, but I also believe that many people over-applaud or over-blame them. PayPal isn't risking business for causes in the same way that a soldier might risk their life for a cause—they're only risking their reputation like a Politician might in openly supporting or opposing a war.


And the kind folk at Yahoo Finance came to the same conclusion.  Keep in mind, book value for a company is like looking at my book value, all assets and liabilities, which is certainly important, but it ignores my earnings.  BAC (Bank of America) has a book value of $20, but trades at $8. Some High Tech companies have negative book values, but are turning an ongoing profit, and trade for real money.


- it devistates you're credit record (good luck getting even a car loan)  - rents are artificially high due to the foreclosure backlog and those who haven't let go yet, so there might not be any relief by defaulting  - they will be prohibited from buying another house for at least 7 years  - it is very possible that they will be pursued by the banks in court for years to come and may end up having tax refunds and pay checks garnished for decades to come (again impacting their ability to obtain loans or get credit), effectively turning them into renters for the remainder of their working life.


"Financial statements provide a large amount of specialized, complex, information about the company. If you know how to process the statements, and can place the info they provide in context with other significant information you have about the market, then you will likely be able to make better decisions about the company. If you don't know how to process them, you're much more likely to obtain incomplete or misleading information, and end up making worse decisions than you would have before you started reading. You might, for example, figure out that the company is gaining significant debt, but might be missing significant information about new regulations which caused a one time larger than normal tax payment for all companies in the industry you're investing in, matching the debt increase. Or you might see a large litigation related spending, without knowing that it's lower than usual for the industry. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - if you know how to process them, and how to use the information, then you already have the answer to your question. I'd say, the more important question to ask is: ""Do I have the time and resources necessary to learn enough about how businesses run, and about the market I'm investing in, so that financial statements become useful to me?"" If you do have the time, and resources, do it, it's worth the trouble. I'd advise in starting at the industry/business end of things, though, and only switching to obtaining information from the financial statements once you already have a good idea what you'll be using it for."


"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, ""It depends."" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth."


>Of course there will be a net loss in jobs.  If you draw your box around the fast food industry only, then yes.  However, if you draw your box around the entire US economy, it's not so clear cut.  We have absolutely no idea what jobs will come in the future.  Every single time an industry has been wiped out, from polar ice delivery to horse carriage manufacturing, new industries have risen to take their place.


These services are immensely popular in big cities where grocery shopping time is scarce and a lot of younger people are foregoing car ownership. The price is a little high (base package is $60/week for 3 meals for 2 people) but provides good value if you're willing to cook the food.  I think their biggest hurdle though is retention. These services are fun for the first few months until they start to feel like a chore. And if you don't end up cooking the food you throw out a ton compared getting takeout on your way home from work.


"I feel like you could talk this one down diplomatically, but only if you find a way to not be dismissive of the female employee. This will be difficult since your tone makes it sound like you don't seem to believe women when they tell you it's not always fair to be female in the tech industry.   For instance, most women would never want to be hired for a quota or because they are attractive . That belief also undercuts women when they do get hired because they are good at their jobs. The pay gap is complicated and in part do to care giver responsibilities but that doesn't make anyone feel less salty.   Anyways I suspect that if you told this female employee, ""X had their opinion but we as a company hear your point of view in this."" And affirm her experience, the issue will be withdrawn. She is afraid she is in a chauvinist culture and lashing out.   I do agree that calling a disagreement sexual harassment trivializes the issue, and this personally irritates me. But you're going to get a lot of salty women if the culture of your company is to tell them you don't believe their experiences. As for firing, don't even think about it. It only ends in shelling out a lot of money to her or lawyers."


Perhaps, however, I'd have liked to have had more time to hear the guest with the yellow bowtie speak more than he was allotted. His final comment, that present low interest rates are going to cause as much mischief now as they have provided stimulus since their implementation was interesting and it would have been interesting to hear his reasoning around that.