"But what if I am getting paid salary from a source in India? In other words, it may be that in India a research assistant at a college on average earns a third of what a research assistant like me earns here in US. In that case, even if my cost of living there is much less, so is my salary. There are sites that provide a good guidance for what the average salary for an profession with x years of experience would be. Of course some would get paid more than average. So you can try and make a logic, if in US say you are being paid more than average, you would be paid more than average elsewhere. Plus If moving from Developed to Developing country, one has the Advantage of positive pedigree bias.  There are also websites that would give the Purchasing Power Parity for quite a few currency pairs. The Real difficulty to find is whether the Lifestyle you have in a specific country would be similar in other country. If you compare like for like it becomes slightly skewed. If you compare equivalence, then can you adjust.  A relevant example my friend in US had a Independent Bungalow in US. It was with Basement and attic, 2 levels of living space with 4 bedroom. He shifted to India and got a great salary compared to normal Indian salary. However this kind of house in India in Bangalore would be affordable only to CEO's of top companies. So is living in a 3 room apartment fine? There are multiple such aspects. Drinking a Starbucks coffee couple of times a day is routine for quite a few in US. In India this would be considered luxury. A like for equivalent comparison is ""One drinks 3-4 mugs of Coffee"" in US, and average Indian drinks ""Tea/Coffee 3-4 mugs"". In India the local Tea / Coffee would be Rs 10 - Rs 20. A Starbucks would come with starting price of Rs 150. The same applies to food. A McBurger in India would be around Rs 100. The Indian equivalent Wada Pav is for Rs 10. A Sub Way would be Rs 150. A Equivalent Mumbai Sandwich around Rs 25. I personally am picky about food, so it doesn't matter where I go, I can only eat specific things, which means I spend a huge amount of money if I am outside of India. When I was in US, I couldn't afford a maid, driver or any help. In India I have 2 maids, a cooking maid and a driver. Plus I get plumber, electrician, window cleaner, and all the help without costing me much. Things that I absolutely can't dream in US. My colleague in UK preferred to stay in a specific locality as it has a very good Church. So if its important, one may find few good ones in India if one is Roman Catholic, if one follows Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, tough luck.  Citizenship: Does it matter ... A foreign national may never get an Indian citizenship. Children don't qualify either unless both parents are Indian. Health Care: Again is quite different. One may feel Health care in US is not good or very expensive ... but there are multiple aspects of this. So in essence its very broad there is traffic, cleanliness, climate, culture, etc ... PS: A research assistant in India is poorly paid, because colleges don't have funds. Research in fundamental science is quite low. Industry to university linkages are primitive and now where close to what we have in US."


I would not take any action with the check (neither return it nor cash it), but instead contact the bank.  We live in the modern era where you can call someone on the phone or email them, and get nearly instant feedback.  Use this to your advantage.  Find out why they refunded you the money twice: was it an error on their part (in which case you just tear up the check or return it to them and be done with it)?  Is it possible you're wrong about it being twice refunded (maybe the first check didn't go through properly or was only for half the amount, and you're just wrong)?  Maybe they had some sort of guarantee that they failed to live up to and are correctly refunding you double your money. Probably the first, of course.  But you should call them and ask, and verify what they want you to do, before you take any action - particularly one that costs you money.  And certainly don't just cash the check; if it is a mistake, they'll be asking for that money back later, with interest, and be within their rights to do so.


Find out why it's doing the way it is before getting yourself into it. Two brothers I worked for a few years ago got talked by family into buying an alley in a similar situation. They took out around a million dollars in collateralized loans to try and rehabilitate the place, but it just never took off and the brothers almost lost everything they owned. They were in legal battles for years, and their main business suffered as a result.


Can you tell I'm having fun with this question?  Here's another great list, from Finally Frugal, which includes the above items, but also these gems: Avoid idling. Now, this just annoys me. Walking past a line of idling cars at the transit center waiting for their human 'pickup', makes me crazy! It makes me want to knock on the window, shake my finger, and give 'em a piece of my mind. I don't do it, because I don't have a death wish. Turn the car off when you're not driving it. Combine trips. I used to be one of those people who would run to Target, go home, remember something I needed at the grocery store and go out for that, come home again, then run out to the library. All of these places are within a two mile radius of my house. Making lists before leaving the house has helped me to group my errands within one trip, meaning fewer back and forth trips. Slow down. Your parents were right. Slow is better. Not only is it safer to drive the speed limit, you'll be increasing your car's efficiency and reducing the amount of fuel your vehicle uses.


Slightly better attempt this time around.   However, the linked studies are essentially irrelevant to your bombastic claims; they still fail to backup your idea that literally everybody who consumes cannabis is a degenerate who lives with his/her parents and works a minimum wage job and is a danger to society. That remains an unproven (and unprovable) assertion  And you misunderstood all of previous posts. At no point did I attempt to argue that marijuana is good, bad or indifferent. My point was simply that your generalizations of marijuana consumers are spurious, close-minded and not based on any *real* research. You've yet to provide any counterfactual to that.


"Thousands of others making >100k with no need to have buckets of student debt to learn the trade.   Pop open linkedin, search in the bay area for ""front end."" Filter by ""posted last 24 hours."" Should see about a thousand jobs. Do this daily, the number doesn't drop, and linkedin doesn't let companies spam post, so that's nearly 1000 unique jobs, daily."


It's not the legitimate checks or bounced checks that are the problem, it's phony checks issued against real accounts with actual money in them.  All the security measures on the check don't amount to crap if someone can print up some legitimate looking checks with bogus amounts on them, or even just steal some printed checks and sign something resembling the authorized signature.


"If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time.    So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in ""betting on the outcome of an horse race"" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process."


"The worth of a credit score (CS) is variable.  If you buy your stuff outright with 100% down then your CS is worthless. If you take a loan to buy stuff then it is worth exactly what you save in interest versus a poor score. But there is also the ""access"" benefit of CS where loans will no longer be available to you, forcing you to rent. If you consider rent as money down teh tiolet then this could factor in. The formula for CS worth is different for everyone. Bill Gates CS is worth zero to him. Walking away from a mortage is not the same as walking away from a loan.  A mortage has collateral. There are 2 objects: the money, and the house. If you walk away the bank gets the house as a fair trade. They keep all money you put against the house to boot! Sometimes the bank PROFITS when you walk away.  So in a good market you could consider walking away to be the Moral Michael thing to do. :)"


I posted this here because I thought it would get well thought out and intellectual responses, save this for r/politics. Responding to your replies to CuilRunnings, the truth can be simple, sure. But more often than not it is a shade of gray, not a pure, simple black or white, especially in a field as complex as economics. Also, CuilRunnings idea that you should be loyal to objective truth is not diminished if he/she does not follow it; it is still just as valid a point if he follows his own advice or not.


"Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices.  From an investors point of view, this is not important.  What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage.  In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%.  Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the ""compare"" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500.  You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds.  Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing."


Repair your car and vehicles and fix your all vehicles problems. Auto Sleuths provides best motor vehicle maintenance facility at affordable cost. Get help for all your automotive needs from the convenience of your mobile device. Auto Sleuths maintenance facility provides a high quality of repair services such as car repair, vehicle troubleshooting, brakes, exhaust systems, transmissions and more things.


I'd be surprised to hear that any of my colleagues have a difficult time explaining the basics... I'd guess likely they didn't want to start down a long explanation, as explaining exactly what you do, for example, as an options trader, is very complicated. Sometimes I think explaining what you do in a concise amount of time is more difficult than the job itself. Trying to explain the specifics opens up a Pandora's box of questions to those who aren't familiar.


It's not Bitcoin itself, which is theoretically and practically very interesting, so much as the low quality and number of articles submitted.  Edit: And people, like OP, who just spam links to every sub and aren't looking for any discussion whatsoever.


Is my math correct? The Math is correct, however Dividends don't work this way. The Yield is Post Facto. i.e. Given the dividend that is declared every quarter, once calculates the yield. The dividends are not fixed or guaranteed. These change from Quarter to Quarter or at times they are not given at all. The yield is 3.29% and the value is $114 per share. Assuming that the price remains exactly the same for an entire year, and that I purchase only one share, then this should be the math for calculating the yield: 114 x 0.0329 = 3.7506 What the Link is showing is that last dividend of MCD was 0.94 for Q3; that means total for a year will be 0.94*4 [3.76], this means yield will be 3.29%. Note this year there were only 3 Dividend was 0.89 on 26-Feb, 0.89 on 2-Jun and 0.94 on 29-Nov. It is unlikely that there will be one more dividend this year. So for this year the correct post facto calculation would be 0.89+0.89+.94 = 2.72 and hence an yield of 2.38%  Also, are there any fees/deductions, or would I receive the amount in full, which should be $3.75? There are no fee deducted. Not sure about US tax treatment on Dividends.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-forex-idUSKBN19R02B?il=0) reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot) ***** > NEW YORK The dollar fell on Thursday after a round of weaker-than-expected U.S. employment data, affirming a gradual pace of interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve as the labor market cools.  > Ahead of Friday&#039;s U.S. non-farm payrolls data, the ADP National Employment Report showed private-sector payrolls increased by 158,000 jobs last month, less than the 230,000 positions created in May and below economists&#039; expectations for a gain of 185,000.  > The employment index fell to 55.8, compared with 57.8 in May, suggesting a cooling labor market.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6lodrz/the_dollar_fell_on_thursday_after_a_round_of/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~160900 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **U.S.**^#1 **Fed**^#2 **employment**^#3 **minutes**^#4 **dollar**^#5"


"Joe does is ""cost"" the state money with tax incentives? Providing incentives to encourage job goeth by allowing businesses to keep more of their money doesn't cost the government anything because it's not this government money in the first place. Secondly, would you prefer no business growth so those aren't any job or any new tax revenue?"


Should go up because of a company is doing better than the market previously expected it to do, the implication is that it's undervalued at the current price and you buy now you're getting it for less than what it's worth.   If Trump was wrong, then the stock would trade up for a bit before ultimately finishing up where it started when the market realises there's nothing in what he said.


"I don't know. Chinese purchasing power has been steadily advancing. I think that it's a ""total cost of goods"" thing. The total cost to manufacture, package, ship, warehouse, pay import/export taxes, etc... all of that must be at a tipping point such that US is now the cheaper option.  Just because we can spend more wouldn't by itself force the relocation of a factory, the input costs would have to be reduced to make the economics work. It's the exact opposite wage-driven circumstance that resulted in factories being off-shored in the first place.   To repatriate manufacturing jobs, the only thing that would have changed in any dramatic way would be the direct manufacturing wages."


"Would the net effect *really* be worse, though?  If everyone stopped paying back loans, and banks stopped lending, people would have to live within their means.  Prices would fall, and nobody would be in debt slavery for the rest of their lives.  As for allocating capital to new businesses, there would still be the option of a Kickstarter-like model, plus both private and public equity (and the rules could be changed so there could be more than 500 investors without being forced public).  A lot of options currently on the table would disappear, sure, but on balance, would it actually be worse?  As both government and Wall Street say it's bad, that seems to automatically suggest the opposite.  There has been a push to make it a crime to walk away from a mortgage, even though banks get the house back!  The fact that they desperately tried to paint it as ""morally wrong"" to walk away from a mortgage is a big red flag.  In any case, this is all going to be reshuffled in the near future, because of automation.  There won't be a need to borrow when your material needs are automatically met; and there won't be much of a point to promising your labor when machines are doing the jobs already.  The transition to a post-scarcity economy over the next 20 years is going to be interesting."


To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.


Excess capital is the primary means of navigating around a trade which is moving against you. In a very basic case, consider a long position moving against you. With additional capital you could average in as the price drops or you could write options against your position. If you don't have the capital to handle when (not if) a trade move against you then you're at a significant disadvantage as your only option may be a liquidation.


"How about doing a Lease Option with a very long term and a very early ""option"" for the guy buying.  Essentially he will be making your mortgage payments for the next couple few years.  Much less paperwork for the both of you that way. See a lawyer for the paperwork, from my limited experience with a real estate lawyer is a standard document and shouldn't cost that much."


Typically you can only claim as business deductions those expenses which strictly relate to your business. In some cases, if you have a dedicated home office in your house, you can specify that expenses related to this space (furniture, etc.) are business expenses because it is a dedicated space. For example, I know of someone in sports broadcasting who claimed several TVs as a business expense, but these are for a room in his house that he uses only for watching games related to his work responsibilities, and never for entertaining, having friends over, etc. I think it will be difficult for you to count any portion of this type of installation as a business expense as it would relate to both your business as well as your residence. If you intend to try to get this deducted, I would strongly recommend consulting a CPA or tax attorney first. I think it will be difficult to prove that the only benefit is to your LLC if your electricity bills/credits are co-mingled with those for your residence. Best of luck!


Yeah, the VAT adds more fairness between who gets the taxes, but is only offset by it being more complicated and needing more bureaucracy. I think it's an interesting idea. If I were a policy analyst I'd like to see what costs are vs. benefit.


> ING is the fourth major bank to settle with New York and U.S. authorities over “stripping” information from wire transfers that would have identified sanctioned parties’ involvement. In 2009, Credit Suisse AG agreed to pay a $536 million fine and Lloyds TSB Bank Plc agreed to forfeit $350 million. Barclays settled in 2010 for $298 million.  > Later that year, another Dutch bank, ABN AMRO, settled a case with the Justice Department, agreeing to pay $500 million.  lol that's not even half a quarter of profits.


All I need to clear the CC debt I’m in is 6k.  I couldn’t work when my baby was post-op and I can’t catch up no matter how I try and I swear to God I’m gonna steal it if I can’t figure out wtf to do soon. I work 50+ hours a week and pick up OT on sundays, and I want to be with my son otherwise but I know if I have to get a second job I could pay this off quicker but I will never see him. I know I failed using the CCs when I had to be home w him but there was no money, that was it. The cards were all zero balance and hadn’t been used in over two years but I didn’t know what else to do when he was sick. It kept us afloat. I’m back at work, we live modestly - are there people in the world who just meet people and realize they’re decent human beings and just give them money to be nice and help them out? No strings attached?


MYO Clinix is a Delhi based advanced institute of learning and training offering certification courses and workshops in the field of hair transplant and body contouring. Doctors of hair transplant in Noida have a caveat. The patients coming for hair transplant must be healthy; otherwise, risks are less likely to be successful.


"I was prepared to read this article and agree based on the headline (because politics of all stripes are generally not awesome for business) but then the article was just idiotic.   At least it's convenient shorthand. I know I can basically dismiss anything that rants about ""leftists.""  >Perhaps someone should have warned ESPN executives that the Left’s destructive ideology of “social justice” is incompatible with profit  Or maybe they should tell them that the pay-for-cable method is incompatible with profit in the age of cord-cutting and streaming sports for free."


I never said it didn't have a visible effect on local economies, but the total from your posts barely clicks over 100k jobs. Advances in engineering have devastated the manual labor industry much more than any outsourcing could accomplish.


> I agreed to eat the food with an implied contract that I will pay for it.   You stay in the state's territory voluntarily, you agree to benefit from the services they fund with an implied contract that you contribute to their funding one per year.  Trying to insist you never did consent, at this point, isn't an argument. You could say the same thing after you're done eating and your given a bill.


All VaR is is simply a confidence interval on losses.  The problem with VaR models is they usually don't fare well against events that break the normal operating criteria...  So the model validation process usually throws out the outliers when in reality it's what happens in the extremes that makes or breaks your company.


I can think of a several reasons:


I don't think this is always true, it really depends on the quantities you're looking for and the markets you're in. Sounds like this guy is dabbling in many markets trying to find out the good niches, therefore he's not going all in on anything. In the article he addresses the fact that some of these shops will sometimes have more orders/connections and therefore more leverage than you might if going directly to the manufacturer. I also wouldn't be surprised at all if many manufacturers, especially the uber-cheap ones, don't feel comfortable talking directly to westerners... their expertise is making stuff cheap, not in communications.


The customer service is great but the network is bad and getting worse.  They are concentrating on their slow rollout of LTE and the Wimax network is dying.  My 3G coverage is even worse. To add insult to injury, I'm in a top 25 market that isn't even getting LTE.


"...Tell this to a professional or let's say a consultant in the real world, and they'll shake their head and walk away, realizing your knowledge is akin to a child in this context.    Equifax does not represent corporate America.  It's in a heavily regulated industry and credit bureaus essentially have immunity.    People scream bloody murder about enterprises like Amazon & Google taking over the world, but what they've accomplished has continually added more value to the end customer.  Why?    Because they have to continue to server their customers better as there's plenty of competitive forces to continue motivating them to do better.    There's quite a few reasons why CEOs ""step down"" or ""retire"" when the intention is not much different than firing.  For one, CEOs are under contracts generally, and those contracts present a lot of legal risk that can backfire.    If the CEO isn't too happy and feels a grudge, he can bring a lawsuit that brings more public embarrassment, gets messy, and even if the company has the stronger case, it doesn't just get resolved easily.  So study why they're labeled as ""retirements"" to understand what needs to be fixed instead of whining corporate America is evil and doesn't give a shit.  Everyone gives a shit about surviving."


My personal opinion is that labor unions inevitably arrive at the corruption destination because, at the end of the day, they are political entities.  It is nice to see one that has a true endogenous origin.  ...and it is telling that the press is being used to portray this one as a political entity.


$3,679,163.80  I made these assumptions that you did not state:  Then using Excel, we find that with a starting point of $3,679,163.80, we can achieve your goal. The formula for Yearly Budget is =G$1*((1.035)^(A3-2012)) and the formula for Money left at year end is =(D4/1.05)+C4  For 2067, enter $0 leftover, and for 2066, enter $397,988.47 leftover. G$1 is $60,000 G$2 is 0.05


So how would you regulate the financial sector to keep one ridiculous horde or powerhouse of cash from ruling it, and keep money flowing through the whole system rather than stagnating or spiraling to a small sector?  These questions also bring to mind rivers versus blood vessels.  In rivers, you get eddies and pools.  In the circulatory system, eddies and pools lead to health issues, much like hording and enclosed loops create stagnation or poor financial health.  Just an observation.


I live in a suburb of Los Angeles so maybe that sort of warps my view a bit. We have 99 Ranch, Vallarta, Jons, and Seafood City all in a 10 mile radius. The range of food I can get is crazy.


Don't forget Morgan Stanley also walked away after a $1bn investment during construction so this will technically be the third set of investors.  This casino should have never been finished.  They weren't in touch with what people who actually go to AC wanted and it just made things worse.


He said base salary. Most executive compensation is bonuses, awards, and long term incentives that vastly outweigh the actual cash they receive. Just check out a large company's proxy statement. Walmart's CEO received less than $3 million in cash last year.


You've got two main options, in my opinion:  1. Don't take the job and hustle to get into the front office off the bat.  2. Take the job, but after a little bit work your ass off to re-brand and get into the front office (of another employer). This could mean going back to school, for example.


How are shareholders sure to receive a fair percentage of each company?  At the time the split occurs, each investor owns the same proportion of each new company that they owned in the first.  What the investor does with it after that (selling one, for example) is irrelevant from a fairness perspective. Suppose company A splits into companies B and C.  You own enough stock to have 1% of A.  It splits.  Now you have a bunch of shares of B and C.  How much?  Well, you have 1% of B and 1% of C.  What if all the profitable projects are in B?  Then shares of B will be worth more than those of C.  But it should be the case that the value of your shares of B plus the value of your shares of C are equal to the original value of your shares of A.  Completely fair.  In fact, if the split was economically justified, then B + C > A.  And the gains are realized proportionally by all equityholders. Remember, when a stock splits, every share splits so that everyone owns both companies in the same proportion as everyone else.  Executives don't determine what the prices of the resulting companies are...that is determined by the market.  A fair market will value the child companies such that together they are worth what the original was.


I would suggest to buy your own printer, and calculate the cost for a page including the wear to the printer. Then either deduce these printing expenses, or ask the charity to reimburse you. This is not much different than when you would go to a copyshop, those easily charge 10-30c per page, with your own printer you can probably get it around 5-10c per page, including paper, toner, drum, and amortization. The advantage is that when you do use the printer for other purposes, you wont get into any problems with who owns the printer or deductions.


Which of Lewis' facts are you taking issue with exactly? I guarantee that if there was a single untruth in the book, the HFT firms would have an army of lawyers suing Lewis, Katsuyama, the publisher, and anybody else they thought was unjustly accusing them of wrongdoing.


so what do you think of this article? we hope you can take the time to post your comments and reactions below. that way, we can help all those who are planning to sign up for credit repair services or are interested to take matters into their own hands in terms of paying off their credit obligations, once and for all.


As other uses have pointed out, your example is unusual in that is does not include any time value or volatility value in the quoted premiums, the premiums you quote are only intrinsic values.  For well in-the-money options, the intrinsic value will certainly be the vast majority of the premium, but not the sole component. Having said that, the answer would clearly be that the buyer should buy the $40 call at a premium of $10.  The reason is that the buyer will pay less for the option and therefore risk less money, or buy more options for the same amount of money.  Since the buyer is assuming that the price will rise, the return that will be realised will be the same in gross terms, but higher in relative terms for the buyer of the $40 call.   For example, if the underlying price goes to $60, then the buyer of the $40 call would (potentially) double their money when the premium goes from $10 to $20, while the buyer of the $30 call would realise a (potential) 50% profit when the premium goes from $20 to $30. Considering the situation beyond your scenario, things are more difficult if the bet goes wrong.  If the underlying prices expires at under $40, then the buyer of the $40 call will be better off in gross terms but may be worse off in relative terms (if it expires above $30).  If the underlying price expires between $40 and $50, then the buy of the $30 will be better off in relative term, having lost a smaller percentage of their money.


Seems the journalistic DDOS attack worked on you. When we're flooded with crap it makes it very hard to filter out the noise. The goal isn't to change our minds, but to have us grow to think it's all garbage. There's still great journalism out there, it's just more drowned out by a huge volume of idiocracy.


"Wow, that's expensive.  Here's a list of the channels you get for the 30€ plan:  http://media.abonnez-vous.orange.fr/medias/pdf/divers/chaines-TV.pdf  ( You have to pay extra for the ones in gray and the first 19 channels are free even without a subscription )  There are probably much less channels than in the US but you probably only watch 1% of the available channels.  Since I just checked, extra channels (like Canal+ which you could say is the french equivalent of HBO) are pretty expensive (40€/month). But I only watch American shows ""on the internet"" so I wouldn't know ;)"


This post has a great discussion on the topic. Basically, there is no single interest rate above which you should pay off and below which you should keep. You have to keep in mind factors such as


I would go with option B. That is safer, as it would leave you with more options, in case of an unexpected job loss or an emergency.


Well, with TiSA, even the smallest government procurements, down even to the municipal level, those contracts will have to [be liberalised](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_pPqnbXpA4), opening them to bidding from companies from all around the world.  This will end those programs that steer jobs to a country's own companies or farms, often by means of means tested subsidies or carve outs for certain favored groups, stealing money from corporations.   Conservatives will be happy because all those New Deal style programs will be a thing of the past. The FTAs should also result in a vast expansion of the educational marketplace. [Like GATS](http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm), the TiSA mandates massive irreversible privatization, but it [goes much further](http://www.world-psi.org/en/psi-special-report-tisa-versus-public-services).


Listen Bernie Bro, if you think any centralized government will ever be fully accountable to we the people, you need to put down the hash pipe. Bernie wasn't even accountable to his own donors, that's why they're suing him ;)   The only solution is for the government to stop inserting itself between people and Healthcare. Only then with direct pricing, lower barriers to entry, private charity and consumer choice can we lower costs. Cartels only exist because of state mandated regulation, patent law and government mandated Healthcare.


Oh come on. I'm sure that's helped to gain momentum quicker but it's not like the guy doesn't have a passion, business knowledge, and the entrepreneurial spirit.   Ever heard about that amazing company that a trust fund baby started? Yeah, me neither.


"You're right to seek passive income and since you're already looking for it, you probably already know some of the reasons to why it is important.   Do you live in the United States? If so I'd strongly recommend purchasing your primary residence and then maybe investment properties if you like owning your own home.  The US tax and banking structure is set up to favor this move in more ways than I can count. So, SAVE, SAVE, SAVE then beg, borrow and steal to get the down payment, rent rooms to friends or random people to afford the payments, buy a fixer upper in an up and coming neighborhood.  The US is rife with these in all price ranges. If you're working 56 hrs a week, you've got the work ethic. So if you can't afford it it's probably because you're spending all your money on other stuff. If you want to do this, it will take some effort, smarts, and savings. You will have to trim back the mochas, vacations, dinners out, etc, etc etc.  Let your friends do that stuff and rent from you.  Your life will get continually easier. If you have already trimmed back all the discretionary spending and still can't make it then you need to earn more money. Doing either and both of these things will absolutely change your whole economic life and future. So in summary I'd offer these  Ranked Priorities: 1) Learn to Save (unless you always want to have to work for someone else) 2) Increase your income capability (since your most valuable asset is YOU) 3) Buy and hold real estate (because the game is rigged to favor passive income) I'm 38, never earned a six figure salary, made some good purchases when I was 25-30 and work is ""optional"" for me now."


There are several concerns with this plan: The bank will look at the remaining student loans when determining how much you can afford in payments each month. If they do approve the loan they will want to have the check written to the student loan accounts as part of the closing process, otherwie you could have both sets of loans.


I know a guy who retired with a full pension from Sears after 20 years employment. It was in 1996 and he had worked there since 1976..... when he was 15 years old.  Not sure how that would be sustainable anyway.


>World war 2 was what carried america out of the great depression.  Not really. The end *results* of world war II did (basically the destruction of ALL economic competition), along with the (fortunate) improvements in productivity (the advent of gasoline tractors in agriculture, etc) -- but the war years were ones of a combined voluntary/forced austerity & centralized planned production (the vast majority of what was produced being destroyed or squandered).  >Anything's possible, people do desperate things when they're hungry, most people will resort to cannibalism within 2 weeks without food.   No. Most people will resort to a lot of other things first. And then, those failing they die of starvation.  Cannibalism is (and always has been) a relatively rare thing.  >It's too unpredictable, but my bet is that the coming collapse will be multiple times worse than the great depression.  Yes and no.  Probably longer in duration (20 to 30 years rather than ~10) -- and no doubt some significant parts of the infrastructure will deteriorate to the point of collapse.  What (in political & economic terms) comes out the other side of that is what is REALLY unpredictable. There will almost undoubtedly be some type of dictatorship police-state in there (most likely DURING the depression, making it longer & worse, before it implodes & gets better), but whether it would survive & remain (or be replaced by yet another) in the aftermath is the big question.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/06/16/seeking-economic-justice-all-hawaii-first-state-consider-basic-income) reduced by 67%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Hawaii has become the first state to officially begin exploring the possibility of a universal basic income after a bill requesting the creation of a &quot;Basic economic security working group&quot; recently passed both houses of the state legislature.  > The Hawaii bill was put forth by State Rep. Chris Lee, who in a Reddit post on Thursday explained the motivations behind the measure and the ambitions driving the movement demanding economic justice for all.  > HCR 89 also establishes a Basic Economic Security Working Group co-chaired by the Department of Labor and Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism to analyze our state&#039;s economy, and find ways to ensure all families have basic financial security, including an evaluation of different forms of a full or partial universal basic income.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6hztmm/seeking_economic_justice_for_all_hawaii_first/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~147206 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*: **state**^#1 **basic**^#2 **Hawaii**^#3 **security**^#4 **economic**^#5"


She’s near the Coronado neighborhood in Phoenix so it’s not the best place but it’s definitely rising. Property values are starting to go up and the hospital is right now the street. Her location isn’t the most perfect, but when she did a survey of the neighborhood there were a ton of people saying the only thing that’s missing is a health food market. The closest Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s and sprouts are all pretty far away especially with traffic and she doesn’t mark up her prices that high at all.


I did read the article. I'm very surprised that such a simple and alternative idea was poorly received, but I have a feeling it's because you didn't read my response carefully enough. The 3-5 years which you took to mean the training time, was presented as the commitment in return for free training, which I expected would take around 6-12 months. The candidates suggested would already have Master's Degrees in other fields, and so it's to be expected they'll need around 30-60 hours to train them to an academic level. Full time this should only take a year.   An H1-B visa takes around 6 months to process, and when you factor in the amount of time it takes someone to actually move from a foreign country, it can easily be faster to train than transport. In any case, you could do both while you transition to a training process.  Here's an article on the processes that I am discussing where Peter Capelli is interviewed by the Wharton Business School. The gist of it is that because companies control every aspect of the hiring and job creation process, it is a large part of the fault on their shoulders when they 'can't find the right person.'   http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3027  Thanks for playing.


QE was started by Ben Bernanke's FED who was appointed by GWB. The FED is a separate entity from politics regardless of all the attempts to gain control. No politician came up with QE and most didn't support it.   Why would Dems or the GOP run on a program that an independent and privately run central bank created? Do you even understand what the FED is or how monetary policy is set?


Get a credit card is NOT the answer. The reason people have a bad (or no) credit score is often because they're new to the country, have just turned 18, have previously fallen into arrears or are just bad with money. Getting a credit card is risky because, if you don't stay on top of your payments, it'll just damage your score even more.  Now, it sounds like I hate credit cards - but I don't, and they do have their benefits. But avoid them if possible because they can be more hassle than they're worth (ie, paying the credit back on-time, cancelling accounts when the interest comes in, moving money in and out of accounts). It's risky borrowing money from anywhere whether it's a payday lender, a bank, a credit card, etc., so use them as a last resort. If you've got your own income then that's amazing!, try not to live outside of your means and your credit score will look after (and increase) itself. It takes time to build a good credit score, but always make sure you pay the people you owe on time and the full amount. I'd stick with paying your phone provider (and any other direct debits you have setup) and avoid getting a credit card. I'd recommend Noddle to keep track of your credit score and read their FAQ on how to help build it. Unlike Experian, it's free forever so not quite as detailed... but Noddle are owned by CallCredit - one of the biggest Credit Reference Agencies in the UK so they should have the latest information on yourself. In conclusion, if you already have financial commitments like a mobile phone bill, gym membership, store cards, anything that gets paid monthly by direct debit... your credit score will increase (provided you pay the full-amount on time).   I hope this helps. PS. I don't work for any of the companies here, but I've been working in the finance sector (more specifically, short-term loans) for 3+ years now.


This has nothing to due with class warfare and you'd have to be a complete fucking moron to infer that what works for a family has any correlation as to how a country can operate financially.  It's about making long-term financial decisions to try and increase your quality of life.  If you take your blinders off, you'll realize that multi-generational households are a common phenomenon worldwide.  It has gone through waves of popularity throughout U.S. history as well, usually with immigrants.  The Italian side of my family did it back when they immigrated and it's becoming a trend yet again.  **Families that are experienced with poverty know it's the best way to survive - that's the only statement I made.**   I stayed with my parents until this year (age 28) and left against their advice.  They wanted me to stay longer and save as much as I could before leaving, but I felt it was time to leave. I have a stable job (self-employed), I downsized my car for financial purposes, and have paid off all of my debt before purchasing my apartment.  It would have taken me much longer to save enough money to be a homeowner if I didn't depend on my family.  I'm glad you hate people for making smart financial decisions.  It really shows the type of person you are.


Yes, wait.  While the bank promises to process the deposit quickly, there is still a window of a number of days. Many people have found themselves with high overdraft fees when the withdraws came before the deposits.


> In the modern age it's much more profitable to be a copier than an innovator   In all ages it is more profitable to be a copier. History of full of examples of the same thing being invented over and over again, only to discarded or ignored after the creators death. It doesn't matter if you are talking about fur pelts in stone age or modern super-computers, the benefits of a innovation only happen when it becomes widely available.


If they all own common stock, no, everyone has to be treated equally.  There are also lots of protections against, say, A and B finding one shareholder to vote with them and using their 50.1% to grant themselves special rights.  there are a million ways you could do that - issue preferred stock to A, issue options to B, buy a service from A for $10mm, rent a basement from B for $10mm, etc. etc.  This stuff has to be prevented otherwise nobody would be willing to be a minority investor.


"Absolutely this study should be taken into account. As the study suggests, there should be further study into the possible link between glyphosate and myeloma. I would go as far as to say the science of just about anything moderately complex is never settled, and continued research and study is always warranted and encouraged especially when it impacts our wellbeing.  However, I would point out that this study spends a great deal of time explaining that while an association is ""possible"", there are also many other factors that may be falsely leading them to that interpretation.  In the end this paper stops far short of making a concrete link between glyphosate and any form of cancer. The State of California on the other hand is making a very definitive statement that they ""know"" glyphosate causes cancer. I don't think we ""know"" this at all, and the data in support of such a conclusion is extremely limited and weak at this point."


Với nhiều thông tin bổ ích, trang Vàng Vật Chất đang được nhiều đọc giả thường xuyên theo dõi hàng ngày và trong tương lai sẽ càng có thêm nhiều đọc giả quan tâm tới thông tin trên trang Vàng Vật Chất.  Nhằm hỗ trợ quý khách trong việc quảng bá Thương Hiệu của doanh nghiệp trên một trang thông tin Tài Chính sạch như trang Vàng Vật Chất, chúng tôi hoan nghênh quý khách tham gia tài trợ trang theo các loại hình như sau: - Đăng link giới thiệu website của doanh nghiệp: 500,000 – 1,000,000 đồng/tháng - Đưa banner giới thiệu về doanh nghiệp: 1,000,000 – 3,000,000 đồng/tháng - Đưa bài viết giới thiệu về doanh nghiệp: 1,000,000 – 2,000,000 đồng/bài  Chúng tôi phát triển cùng với sự phát triển của doanh nghiệp của bạn !


"I think the problem is that you've made a math error. This child would not be costing you 300 per month, it will be costing you 1400 per month.  1100 of this is in a donation of salable hours rather than cash, but helpfully you have a number right there as to how much someone is willing to pay for these hours so the math is still doable. So, if you are indeed splitting your expenses fifty-fifty, you should chip 1100 into the pot to match your wife's contribution.  It would make the most sense, I think, to have your part of this contribution cover some of your mutual expenses, and if any is left over, save it up for the day that your child would cost more than that 300 in a month - when you need extra clothes, or have to replace something they destroyed, or want to pay for extra opportunities (camps, educational games, lessons), or a a savings that can be used for major future expenses (higher education, first car, milestone celebrations, safety net when starting out). Of course, if your family is indeed a priority, you might consider making an equal investment in your family - say, half your income (1800) to match half her time going into the building of the family.  After all, the decision to start a family should be an investment of time and value, not just a minimum bid for expenses.  And again, any extra can be spent on mutual expenses, saved up for future costs, or left as your child's ""savings"" for major expenses or safety net. I suppose I should mention that you perhaps could get away with covering half her contribution (550 per month, on the face of it), as that should also ""balance"" out the monthly expenses.  Even this much would be enough to put her back into the green on her covering her own costs.  Of course, in this case you might want to take into account that while she's working 38,5 hours per week now, running a household is, I've heard, more closely equivalent to a 60-hour week, plus or minus being ""on call"" for a further 100 hours a week.  Trying to calculate the absolute minimum payment on your part to match the investment of hours on hers is likely to be a bit more tricky than just matching the salable hours not worked, if you're set on income ratios and splitting costs ""as they are"". Also, you might want to rethink your criteria for sharing income completely or what makes certain divisions of costs ""unfair"". You mention one reason it would be unfair is that you have a ""more stressful job"" - well, your job may well be more stressful than her job now, but it is likely to be less so than raising a child (her new job).  As for investment of time and energy for your education entitling you to a larger amount of pay, again, raising a child is likely to be a larger investment of time, money, and anxiety than your education, but her pay (or even share of the costs) doesn't seem to be balanced in response.  I'm not gonna tell you what is fair, that's for you to work out, just suggesting you really think it through before deciding what would be fair or not."


">It seems that the corporation was ordered to pay, no? The man does not claim he can't pay it, he claims the corporate entity that is supposed to pay it can't pay it.  Exactly.  Robert K (Rich Dad) established a company called Rich Global LLC.  Which was sued by his partners in that company for failure to pay their agreed upon percentage of income.  [From this article](http://abcnews.go.com/Business/rich-dad-poor-dad-author-files-bankruptcy/story?id=17463158#.UHhXSG_A_6M): The company had been weighed down by a lawsuit filed by Learning Annex, one of Kiyosaki's earliest backers who had helped arrange his public speaking events earlier on, Forbes reported.  Bill Zanker, the founder and president of Learning Annex, sued Kiyosaki after he allegedly failed to pay a percentage of profits from his speaking engagements. A district judge in New York awarded Learning Annex $23.7 million.  ""I took Kiyosaki's brand and made it bigger,"" Zanker told the New York Post. ""The deal was I would get a percentage, and he reneged. We had a signed letter of intent. The Learning Annex is his greatest promoter. We put his 'Rich Dad' brand on a stage. We truly prepared him for great fame and riches. But when it was time for him to pay up, he said 'no.' ""   Robert Kiyosaki, author of the book, ""Rich Dad, Poor Dad"" filed for corporate bankruptcy through one of his companies, Rich Global LLC.  A few years ago Robert K started another company called Rich Dad Co.  He shifted all sales from books, seminars videos etc from his first company to the new company.  It seems this was a fantastic stroke of lucky timing - or he purposefully did this while talks were souring between him and his former business partners.  The former company is a shell with very little assets.   That's pretty convenient.  >This man probably runs several businesses.  Yes he does - I have provided examples of this in my previous posts.  >there is a chance some may go under.  Go under?  His book sales are not diminishing, he still does sell out seminars, he is paid for public speaking.  This isn't about a company that failed to become successful.    >If you don't want to invest with someone who doesn't have skin in the game, all you have to do is don't invest.  Are you even aware of who is partners are / did you even read any of the information I have provided to you?  His partners were the people who made him famous.  They backed him and propelled him to the level he is currently at.  They are asking for their fair share of what they created - and a court of law agrees with them.  Robert K screwed them.  Example:  I am a low level motivational speaker.  You are a promoter and believe in my message.  You and I go into business.  My job is to continue to write books, speak and create videos - you back me financially and create a PR and marketing campaign to propel me to a higher level of public awareness.  You do your job and make me famous.  When it comes time to pay you - I reorganize the company and screw you.    I really can't continue this conversation.  I have provided plenty of information, supporting links and examples.  It is clear that you are unwilling or just unable to concede (at ANY LEVEL) that it is even possible that someone would/could manipulate BK laws to avoid liability.  This discussion is turning into the equivalent of someone trying to describe the color red to a blind person.  No matter what I present to you - you just can't see red.  You are obviously entitled to your opinion and just for the record I have not downvoted a single one of your posts - however, due to your instance and firmly held belief that this type of business practice is ""smart business"" I restate that (in my opinion) you are part of the problem.   *edit: Yet more fat fingered spelling mistakes... my typing skills need improvement"


We do need to reduce the influence of private money in politics, but we do not need the government to get involved in income redistribution.    This is not just.  A just society embraces proportionality. It is, in other words, a meritocracy. Not only, is it morally right, it's also sensible.   If everyone receives the same regardless of effort and contribution, that creates an incentive to work as little as possible. If you punish legitimate success, you harm everyone and perpetuate poverty.  Inequality doesn't matter; poverty matters, and these are not interchangeable issues.


I would start by talking to a Fee-Only Financial Planner to make sure the portfolio fits with your goals.  You can find a list here: http://www.napfa.org/


Not to mention, people only shop at Walmart because they have to.   Whether it's small budgets or quite literally no other choices in town, most people don't like Walmart but shop there anyway. It has a bad reputation for many things. They often have lower quality versions of the same products available elsewhere because they bully suppliers into lowering prices. They also steal products to be marketed under their Great Value brand. They bleed local economies by underpaying employees and offering no benefits. And, they are seen as the low class option compared to other stores like Target.  If there was another option, people would take it. As soon as Amazon perfects the shipping system, Walmart will be a thing of the past. Sam's Club might still have a shot, though Costco seems to be edging them out too.


Short answer: NO, there is no financial benefits for you to expect in a local currency even if some might give tiny discounts on local sales. Local currencies are attractive for small business or communities, they are perfectly legal and starting to be popular in a lot of places. Local currencies encourage individuals and businesses to exchange goods and services locally.  Using them is like investing in your community. It could give you the feeling of doing something good for your community. Check this article for a discussion on the subject.  They should not be considered investments. Local currencies do not offer the same financial security and some could be like monopoly money, but that would be another subject or question to debate.  So, to summarize: no money to be made for your personal use, but some real social and financial benefits for your community. Would'nt that be a kind of personal benefit for you ?


"There are two umbrellas in investing: active management and passive management. Passive management is based on the idea ""you can't beat the market."" Passive investors believe in the efficient markets hypothesis: ""the market interprets all information about an asset, so price is equal to underlying value"". Another idea in this field is that there's a minimum risk associated with any given return. You can't increase your expected return without assuming more risk. To see it graphically:   As expected return goes up, so does risk. If we stat with a portfolio of 100 bonds, then remove 30 bonds and add 30 stocks, we'll have a portfolio that's 70% bonds/30% stocks. Turns out that this makes expected return increase and lower risk because of diversification. Markowitz showed that you could reduce the overall portfolio risk by adding a riskier, but uncorrelated, asset! Basically, if your entire portfolio is US stocks, then you'll lose money whenever US stocks fall. But, if you have half US stocks, quarter US bonds, and quarter European stocks, then even if the US market tanks, half your portfolio will be unaffected (theoretically). Adding different types of uncorrelated assets can reduce risk and increase returns.  Let's tie this all together. We should get a variety of stocks to reduce our risk, and we can't beat the market by security selection. Ideally, we ought to buy nearly every stock in the market so that  So what's our solution? Why, the exchange traded fund (ETF) of course! An ETF is basically a bunch of stocks that trade as a single ticker symbol. For example, consider the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY). You can purchase a unit of ""SPY"" and it will move up/down proportional to the S&P 500. This gives us diversification among stocks, to prevent any significant downside while limiting our upside. How do we diversify across asset classes? Luckily, we can purchase ETF's for almost anything: Gold ETF's (commodities), US bond ETF's (domestic bonds), International stock ETFs, Intl. bonds ETFs, etc. So, we can buy ETF's to give us exposure to various asset classes, thus diversifying among asset classes and within each asset class. Determining what % of our portfolio to put in any given asset class is known as asset allocation and some people say up to 90% of portfolio returns can be determined by asset allocation.  That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. You can readjust your portfolio holdings periodically, but otherwise there is no rapid trading. Now the other umbrella is active management. The unifying idea is that you can generate superior returns by stock selection. Active investors reject the idea of efficient markets.  A classic and time proven strategy is value investing. After the collapse of 07/08, bank stocks greatly fell, but all the other stocks fell with them. Some stocks worth $100 were selling for $50. Value investors quickly snapped up these stocks because they had a margin of safety. Even if the stock didn't go back to 100, it could go up to $80 or $90 eventually, and investors profit. The main ideas in value investing are: have a big margin of safety, look at a company's fundamentals (earnings, book value, etc), and see if it promises adequate return. Coke has tremendous earnings and it's a great company, but it's so large that you're never going to make 20% profits on it annually, because it just can't grow that fast. Another field of active investing is technical analysis. As opposed to the ""fundamental analysis"" of value investing, technical analysis involves looking at charts for patterns, and looking at stock history to determine future paths. Things like resistance points and trend lines also play a role. Technical analysts believe that stocks are just ticker symbols and that you can use guidelines to predict where they're headed.  Another type of active investing is day trading. This basically involves buying and selling stocks every hour or every minute or just at a rapid pace. Day traders don't hold onto investments for very long, and are always trying to predict the market in the short term and take advantage of it. Many individual investors are also day traders.  The other question is, how do you choose a strategy? The short answer is: pick whatever works for you. The long answer is: Day trading and technical analysis is a lot of luck. If there are consistent systems for trading , then people are keeping them secret, because there is no book that you can read and become a consistent trader. High frequency trading (HFT) is an area where people basically mint money, but it s more technology and less actual investing, and would not be categorized as day trading.  Benjamin Graham once said: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Value investing will work because there's evidence for it throughout history, but you need a certain temperament for it and most people don't have that. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time to adequately study stocks, and people with day jobs can't devote that kind of time. So there you have it. This is my opinion and by no means definitive, but I hope you have a starting point to continue your study. I included the theory in the beginning because there are too many monkeys on CNBC and the news who just don't understand fundamental economics and finance, and there's no sense in applying a theory until you can understand why it works and when it doesn't."


It's because we have refineries, (to make oil into gas) while other countries have the oil, but not as many refineries, if any.  This sounds crazy at first blush, but actually there is nothing weird about it.    Analogy: the US could import a lot of wool and export a lot of sweaters, but also import some sweaters too, for reasons outlined elsewhere ITT.  This would not imply either way whether we were wool-independent, it only necessarily means we have more sweater factories.


Because its working so well right now?  Companies will still higher new employees if there is a demand.  Some people might lose their jobs but it will not be something that cripples the economy.  This sky is falling mentality is what keeps us stuck in this pseudo slavery enviornment we live in right now.


There are many great performers who will make your children’s  party a great way.  A DJ entertainer is one that is certainly a good idea to consider. Children DJ  Entertainment may just be what you need to ensure a successful kids party.  Our experienced DJ performers will keep the party moving and keep the kids busy with fun and excitement for the duration of the celebration. No matter how many party supply catalogs you look.


"Theres nothing wrong with CDOs or Synthetic ones. What is important is that they are labelled correctly in terms of their risk. You cant be selling risky CDOs as ""safe"" bets.   If the rating agencies and financial institutions rate them correctly then I dont see a problem with it."


Given Saab's track record of throwing out 90% of the parts GM told them to use and designing their own I can see there being a couple of excellent cars that are way overbudget at the start of this new run :)


The real problem now, which we don't realize, but will come to in the years to come is:  #It is impossible to remove a corrupt democracy by democratic means  If you lets these parasites entrench and solidify, you will never get them out


"The reason for selling a stock ""short"", is for when you believe the stock value will decrease in the near future. Here is an example: Today Exxon-Mobile stock is selling for $100 / share. You are expecting the price to decrease, so you want to short the stock, which means your broker (i.e. eTrade, etc) allows you to borrow shares without paying money, and those shares are transferred into your account, and then you sell them and receive money for the sale. But you didn't actually own those shares, you only borrowed them, so you need to return the shares to your broker sometime in the future.  Let's say you borrow 10 shares @ $100, and you sell them at the market price of $100, you receive $1,000 in your account. But you owe your broker 10 shares, which you need to return sometime in the future. A few days later, the share price has decreased to $80. Now you can buy 10 shares from the market at a total cost of $800. You get 10 shares, and return those shares to your broker. Since you originally took in $1,000, and you just paid out $800, you keep a resulting profit of $200"


So, you agree that the government is actively colluding with klepto-capitalists to restructure the US into a series of all-dominating monopolies crushing consumer value and worker interests, but you don't think the gov officials doing that are in it for their own gain and not yours?  Bro, do me a favor, look up Hillary Clinton's net worth, and tell me how the fuck she did that on a gov salary. Look up Susan Rice's net worth. Look up just about any congressmans net worth and tell me how the fuck they did that.


"What bothers be is that Juicero received so much funding to begin with. I'll water most people here people here know the nuances particulars but I'll list a few points.  1. The juicer was an over engineered press.  2. It had WiFi which made it better, some how.  3. It had over priced juice packets.  4. And lets not forget that you could simply squeeze the hand packets yourself.  I like to think I'm a smart guy. VC's, I would imagine, are very smart people. How is it that a juicing company convinced so many allegedly very smart people to give them money? What happened to due diligence, investigation, or just asking basic questions like ""couldn't I just squeeze the packets myself""?   It's one thing if some guy makes a stupid invention. That happens. It quite another when he successfully convinces other people to give him a literal fortune to make more. This story leaves me genuinely angry."


Chances of success are very good, actually.  They are not a religious organization, they're a business.  You simply can't do this.  Note that the EEOC is representing the guy directly.  That doesn't happen unless after an investigation of a complaint, the EEOC decides there's a clear problem.  That happens RARELY.  The EEOC will only pursue their best cases.


"I agree.  It was a nice summary for the most part but anybody who seriously wishes to understand money should read ""wealth of nations"".  This sort of oversimplification can actually be more misleading than clear.  Theres a reason why ""wealth"" is such a huge fucking book..."


"EPS is often earnings/diluted shares. That is counting shares as if all convertible securities (employee stock options for example) were converted. Looking at page 3 of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release we find both basic ($1.13) and diluted EPS ($1.11). Dividends are not paid on diluted shares, but only actual shares. If we pull put this chart @ Yahoo finance, and hovering our mouse over the blue diamond with a ""D"", we find that Pfizer paid dividends of $0.28, $0.28, $0.28, $0.30 in 2015. Or $1.14 per share. Very close to the $1.13, non-diluted EPS. A wrinkle is that one can think of the dividend payment as being from last quarter, so the first one in 2015 is from 2014. Leaving us with $0.28, $0.28, $0.30, and unknown. Returning to page three of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release, Pfizer last $0.03 per share. So they paid more in dividends that quarter than they made. And from the other view, the $0.30 cents they paid came from the prior quarter, then if they pay Q1 2016 from Q4 2015, then they are paying more in that view also."


Thing is, it's not exceptions we're talking about, it's the rule. This 1 million average is skewed due to top 4-5% students who go on and become top executives and earn hundreds of billions of dollars in their lifetimes, while 90% of the rest do not justify the investment in their overpriced education. 90% are not the exception, *they* are the rule.   Plus, the examples I gave are based on rough calculations, and anyone can play with their specific numbers. Even then, it's already hard to see how huge differentials you must reach to pay for your investment. You can look at university sites for hard data - for MBA average starting salary goes from 140K before to 149K after, at one university I looked to apply for. These 9K are nice,  esp. for a 1 year of income forgone, but then again, 80K tuition is also not something you come across easy, most likely you need to calculate interest as well on those. + living expenses, books.   The mind-boggling thing for me is that people going into universities do it just automatically, just because that's what they think they should do. They don't even do a back of the envelope calculation if it's worth it. That's what more surprising and worrying for me, to be honest.


Is all data in the company equally sensitive? Does everyone in the company have equal access to this type of sensitive information that would cost a company 'billions of dollars in fines' or is your argument that any work product of any employee in the company could result in such fines? Can you provide an example of any company ever paying a fine of such magnitude? If not what is the basis for your estimation of that number?  Ok I'll take the stealth edit to mean you pulled it out of your ass which I already knew.


I think this is more like Uber's Stalingrad than Uber's downfall. Uber is fighting a war of attrition in every market at once. Early last year when they secured $3.5 billion in capital from the Saudi Sovereign Fund their victory appeared certain.  Since the #DeleteUber campaign began, Uber's competition has raised over $10 billion (Didi $5.5b, Grab $2.0b, Lyft $1.6b, Ola $1.1b, etc.) while Uber has raised $0. Even if Uber closes that high profile $10 billion deal with SoftBank, it only gives Uber $1b in new capital. Uber is over-extended, and now is a good time for smaller companies to grab market share that Uber cannot defend.


Before you save too much, have a look at this: http://www.lowestcostcolleges.com The writer of this is working with a guy who has a bachelor's degree at age 18.  Not an associate's, a bachelor's. The cost was something like $15,000, total, and the kid paid for it himself.  No debt.


First of all, this is a situation when a consultation with a EA working with S-Corporations in California, CA-licensed CPA or tax preparer (California licenses tax preparers as well) is in order. I'm neither of those, and my answer is not a tax advice of any kind. You're looking at schedule CA line 17 (see page 42 in the 540NR booklet). The instructions refer you to form 3885A. You need to read the instructions carefully. California is notorious for not conforming to the Federal tax law. Specifically, to the issue of the interest attributable to investment in S-Corp, I do not know if CA conforms. I couldn't find any sources saying that it doesn't, but then again - I'm not a professional. It may be that there's an obscure provision invalidating this deduction, living in California myself - I wouldn't be surprised. So I suggest hiring a CA-licensed tax preparer to do this tax return for you, at least for the first year.


Time is money. If those hours spent researching to save $3 made you a better profit than you would have otherwise had buying the more expensive product and using the rest of the time to make more than $3, then you came out on top. If you consider this general premise in every spending decision you make, you should always feel that you made the right choice.


"Actually sounds like an interesting concept for a business, potentially! (grin) You know, depending on where you live and how big the market is, you might see if there's a local ""concierge"" service.  These are companies that will act like personal shoppers/assistants for you in all kinds of ways.  I can't speak to the quality of their services or the pricing they use, but it would be a great place to start. I'm sure you can find listings of them on the web."


The liars need to be called out how can this go on..  Prices are going up and wages flat is not deflation,  it's some horrible stagflation... And this is not semantics this is important because these doublethinkers use these words to set policy..   And yes it is caused by banks this economic situation,  QE for 9 years, massive debt bubble..   On top of this the banking conglomerates Now control even amazon.. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/amzn/ownership-summary  What an awesole that man is.


Uno de los mayores quebraderos de cabeza a los que se enfrentan muchos españoles es el hecho de arrastrar deudas impagadas con su banco habitual o no lograr refinanciar dicha deuda con otra entidad bancaria ¡Infórmate sobre cómo solicitar créditos con Asnef y liquida tus deudas!


Hey-  I'm sorry about this comment:    >A dash of humility on your part may be in order, given the fact that you've already admitted to the reality that you aren't sure of any of this yourself.  I actually thought I responding to somebody else in the thread...I didn't catch that it was a totally different poster.    My apologies.


IELTS British Council,  provides local and international documentation services and solutions from to more than 10 years in the world. IELTS stands for International English Language Testing System. If you want to Buy Canada ielts certificates online, then you can visit our website. We will provide you 100% original ielts certificate. It is jointly owned by the British Council. This ielts certificate used Canada and Commonwealth countries for students originating from non-English-speaking countries.


"To my knowledge, there's no universal equation, so this could vary by individual/company.   The equation I use (outside of sentiment measurement) is the below - which carries its own risks: This equations assumes two key points: Anything over 1.2 is considered oversold if those two conditions apply.  The reason for the bear market is that that's the time stocks generally go on ""sale"" and if a company has a solid balance sheet, even in a downturn, while their profit may decrease some, a value over 1.2 could indicate the company is oversold. An example of this is Warren Buffett's investment in Wells Fargo in 2009 (around March) when WFC hit approximately 7-9 a share.  Although the banking world was experiencing a crisis, Buffett saw that WFC still had a solid balance sheet, even with a decrease in profit.  The missing logic with many investors was a decrease in profits - if you look at the per capita income figures, Americans lost some income, but not near enough to justify the stock falling 50%+ from its high when evaluating its business and balance sheet.  The market quickly caught this too - within two months, WFC was almost at $30 a share. As an interesting side note on this, WFC now pays $1.20 dividend a year.  A person who bought it at $7 a share is receiving a yield of 17%+ on their $7 a share investment. Still, this equation is not without its risks.  A company may have a solid balance sheet, but end up borrowing more money while losing a ton of profit, which the investor finds out about ad-hoc (seen this happen several times).  Suddenly, what ""appeared"" to be a good sale, turns into a person buying a penny with a dollar.  This is why, to my knowledge, no universal equation applies, as if one did exist, every hedge fund, mutual fund, etc would be using it. One final note: with robotraders becoming more common, I'm not sure we'll see this type of opportunity again.  2009 offered some great deals, but a robotrader could easily be built with the above equation (or a similar one), meaning that as soon as we had that type of environment, all stocks fitting that scenario would be bought, pushing up their PEs.  Some companies might be willing to take an ""all risk"" if they assess that this equation works for more than n% of companies (especially if that n% returns an m% that outweighs the loss).  The only advantage that a small investor might have is that these large companies with robotraders are over-leveraged in bad investments and with a decline, they can't make the good investments until its too late.  Remember, the equation ultimately assumes a person/company has free cash to use it (this was also a problem for many large investment firms in 2009 - they were over-leveraged in bad debt)."


Dividends yield and yield history are often neglected, but are very important factors that you should consider when looking at a stock for long-term investment. The more conservative portion of my portfolio is loaded up with dividend paying stocks/MLPs like that are yielding 6-11% income. In an environment when deposit and bond yields are so poor, they are a great way to earn reasonably safe income.


Sounds like you need to contact your ex and sort it out. If you have co-signed the loan, changes are you are equally responsible even if on party chooses not to pay, then the bank will come after the other one. If you no longer wish to be part of the arrangement and your ex still wants the car, she will have to buy you out of the car and become fully responsible for the liability.


Any time there is a share adjustment from spin-off, merger, stock split, or reverse slit; there is zero chance for the stockholders to hang on to fractional shares. They are turned into cash.   For the employees in the 401K program or investors via a mutual fund or ETF this isn't a problem. Because the fraction of a share left over is compared to the thousands or millions of shares owned by the fund as a collective. For the individual investor in the company this can be a problem that they aren't happy about.  In some cases the fractional share is a byproduct that will result from any of these events. In the case of a corporate merger or spin-off most investors will not have an integer number of shares, so that fraction leftover that gets converted to cash isn't a big deal. When they want to boost the price to a specific range to meet a regulatory requirement, they are getting desperate and don't care that some will be forced out. In other cases it is by design to force many shareholders out. They want to go private. They to 1-for-1000 split. If you had less than 1000 shares pre-split then you will end up with zero shares plus cash. They know exactly what number to use. The result after the split is that the number of investors is small enough they they can now fall under a different set of regulations. They have gone dark, they don't have to file as many reports, and they can keep control of the company.  Once the Board of Directors or the majority stockholders votes on this, the small investors have no choice.


It will be most interesting to see what happens as Oil starts to get traded more in more in other currencies.  In the controlled demolition that was the WTC, you could see the disbelief in peoples faces as the top started to topple and the first few floors pancaked, then the fear as they realized the whole thing was coming down and they started to run.  Feels the same, a controlled demolition, 9.8 m/s^2 all the way down. Free fall


My credentials: I used to work on mortgages, about 5 years ago. I wasn't a loan officer (the salesman) or mortgage processor (the grunt who does the real work), but I reviewed their work fairly closely. So I'm not an absolute authority, but I have first-hand knowledge. Contrary to the accepted answer, yes the bank is obligated to offer you a loan - if you meet their qualifications. This may sound odd, and as though it's forcing a bank to give money when it doesn't want to, but there is good reason. Back in the 1950's through 1980's, banks tended to deny loans to African Americans who were able to buy nicer homes because the loan officer didn't quite 'feel' like they were capable of paying off an expensive house, even if they had the exact same history and income as a white person who did get approved. After several rounds of trying to fix this problem, the government finally decreed that the bank must have a set, written criteria by which it will approve or decline loans, and the interest rates provided. It can change that criteria, but those changes must apply to all new customers. Banks are allowed a bit of discretion to approve loans that they may normally decline, but must have a written reason (usually it's due to some relationship with the customer's business (this condition adds a lot of extra rules), or that customer has a massive family and all 11 other siblings have gotten loans from the same loan officer - random rare stuff that can be easily documented if/when the government asks). The bank has no discretion to decline a loan at will - I've seen 98-year-olds sign a 30-year mortgage, and the bank was overjoyed because it showed that they didn't discriminate against the elderly. The customer could be a crackhead, and the bank can't turn them down if their paperwork, credit, and income is good. The most the loan officer could do is process the loan slowly and hope the crackhead gets arrested before the bank spends any more money. The regulations for employees new to the workforce are a bit less wonderful, but the bank will want 30+ days of income history (30 days, NOT 4 weeks) if you have it. BUT, if you are a fresh new employee, they can do the loan using your written and signed job offer as proof of income. However, I discourage you from using this method to buy a house. You are much, much better off renting for a while and learning the local area before you shop for a house. It's too easy to buy a house without knowing the city, then discover that you have a hideously slow drive to work and are in the worst part of town. And, you may not like the company as much, or you may not be a good fit. It's not uncommon to leave a company within a year or two. You don't want a house that anchors you to one place while you need the freedom to explore career options. And consider this: banks love selling mortgages, but they hate holding them. They want to collect that $10,000 closing fee, they couldn't care less about the 4% interest trickling in over 30 years. Once they sign the mortgage, they try to sell it to investors who want to buy high-grade debt within a month. That sale gives them all the money back, so they can use it to sell another mortgage and collect another $10,000. If the bank has its way, it has offloaded your mortgage before you send the first payment to them. As a result, it's a horrible idea to buy a house unless you expect to live there at least 5 or 10 years, because the closing costs are so high.


IMO ebooks really only seem to work in the simplest of cases.  I have made several attempts to read several non-fiction e-books and in each case have failed miserably. I think the problem is design related more than anything. An ebook try to copy the form of a book w/o adequately copying the form of the book. So either (1) design ebooks in terms of what they will be read with or (2) design eReaders to be more like books.  For example, foot notes that appear on the bottom of the page are always a mess on any eReader. Solution (1) means making a footnote be more like a pop-up. Method (2) means making a format the can accurately (and logically) display footnotes.


"There are some loan types where your minimum payment may be less than the interest due in the current period; this is not true of credit cards in the US.  Separately, if you have a minimum payment amount due of less than the interest due in the period, the net interest amount would just become principal anyway so differentiating it isn't meaningful. With credit cards in the US, the general minimum calculation is 1% of the principal outstanding plus all interest accrued in the period plus any fees.  Any overpayment is applied to the principal outstanding, because this is a revolving line of credit and unpaid interest or fees appear as a charge just like your coffee and also begin to accrue interest.  The issue arises if you have multiple interest rates.  Maybe you did a balance transfer at a discounted interest rate; does that balance get credited before the balance carried at the standard rate?  You'll have to call your lender.  While there is a regulation in place requiring payment to credit the highest rate balance first the banks still have latitude on how the payment is literally applied; explained below.   When there IS an amortization schedule, the issue is not ""principal or interest"" the issue is principle, or the next payment on the amortization schedule.  If the monthly payment on your car loan is $200, but you send $250, the bank will use the additional $50 to credit the next payment due.  When you get your statement next month (it's usually monthly) it will indicate an amount due of $150.  When you've prepaid more than an entire payment, the next payment is just farther in to the future.  You need to talk to your lender about ""unscheduled"" principal payments because the process will vary by lender and by specific loan. Call your lender.  You are a customer, you have a contract, they will explain this stuff to you.  There is no harm that can possibly come from learning the nuances of your agreement with them. Regarding the nuance to the payment regulation: A federal credit card reform law enacted in May 2009 requires that credit card companies must apply your entire payment, minus the required minimum payment amount, to the highest interest rate balance on your card.  Some credit card issuers are aggressive here and apply the non-interest portion of the minimum payment to the lowest interest rate first.  You'll need to call your bank and ask them."


Thank you for your service.  My first suggestion since your car is a planned for the near future is keep that amount in savings and just pay cash. There are plenty of attractive offers to entice you to finance your vehicle but there really is no compelling reason to do it considering the savings you have.  Second I would keep an additional portion of savings as a rainy day emergency fund. How much is based mostly on what you feel comfortable with. The number of possible emergencies that can come up is limited and your expenses are limited which is normal given your age. This fund might be for something such as emergency travel for a sick family member, cover a deductible for an auto accident, whatever unforseen event might occur (hence the name emergency fund). What investments you are comfortable with will be determined by risk tolerance. While in the military individual stocks that are aggressive risky investments may not be a good idea because of the extra attention they require and you can't really babysit a portfolio while deployed but there are many good low or no cost mutual funds or ETFs that you could get into.  I would look into setting up a recurring purchase with a set dollar amount monthly so you will continue to accumulate whatever option you are investing in regularly even if you are deployed. Which fund or ETF you pick will depend on your goals and risk tolerance but you could very easily pick several for diversity. Good luck and thank you again for your service.


ITT: People who didn't read the article.  This has nothing to do with battery longevity, it removes a software lock that intentionally reduces the amount of battery the car will use despite shipping with the same battery pack in the longer range model.


If you selected a mortgage that allows additional payments to be credited against the principal rather than as early payment of normal installments, them yes, doing so will reduce the actual cost of the loan. You may have to explicitly instruct the bank to use the money this way each time, if prepay is their default assumption. Check with your lender, and/or read the terms of your mortgage, to find out if this is allowed and how to do it. If your mortgage doesn't allow additional payments against the principal, you may want to consider refinancing into a mortgage which does, or into a mortgage with shorter term and higher monthly payments, to obtain the same lower cost (modulo closing costs on the new mortgage; run the numbers.)


You missed the catch, there is always a catch, and in this case it is not well publicized.   First, some background. Congress (both parties) in 98 passed Graham-Leach-Bliley. It allowed commercial banks to invest, securitize, and insure securities. It also had privacy provisions, which prevented a securitizer of a mortgage from providing ANY personal information about the mortgage. That means that as Chase wrote these mortgage backed securities, they were forbidden, BY LAW, from telling the potential purchasers the addresses of the houses or SS#'s of the purchasers.   OF COURSE Chase did not choose to insure these MBS's themselves. Instead, they chose a third party like AIG because AIG could not know personal information about the mortgages, and was thus blinded to risk. AIG chose a middle of the road risk rating (something like 2% risk of default).   Chase FRAUDULENTLY represented the quality of the mortgages to the people writing the credit default swaps to insure them, and to the potential buyers. Chase KNEW the mortgages were crap.   Fraud is fraud and is illegal in security sales even after Graham-Leach-Bliley. However, to be clear, in this case there does not need to be any faking of paperwork. The loans can be passed along BLINDLY with insurance, as they were. If it could be documented that Chase misrepresented the quality of these AAA MBS's, they would be on the hook. But the catch is that Graham-Leach-Bliley offered them a cop-out.  AIG were the real dummies in all this. Who writes insurance without having a good idea of the risk....


Productivity *can* increase, but it doesn't have to. Productivity can remain the same but if you've got two people competing for one job they bid wages lower since even a lower wage is better (up to a point in welfare state) to no wage at all. It's why so many jobs went to southeast Asia, they bid a wage lower than their competitors on the international market and the jobs migrated to them. Now that they're bidding their wages up that no longer applies to the same extent it once did (and it's why, for example, [Google built their new manufacturing plant in the US](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/technology/google-and-others-give-manufacturing-in-the-us-a-try.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)).


Heh... that's true. I may have terrible luck, but there's nothing I can do on that one, other than acknowledge and curse it, or perhaps even using it as motivation. I think that pressing onward in defiance of fate until fate relents (or perhaps until I die) makes for a pretty cool story.


Quite a few mores thing you do but you will discover less factor which offer you to publish your services or item in free of price is is on the internet labeled [advertising australia](http://come2ourdeals.com.au/) which can be using additional and much more marketing in the world-wide-web marketing. You can find several labeled ads website that are offering totally free services to post the solutions and a few are consider cash for post there solutions.


Thanks for the huge insight. I am still a student doing an intern and this was given as my first task, more of trying to give the IA another perspective looking at these funds rather than picking. I was not given the investors preference in terms of return and risk tolerances so it was really open-ended.   However, thanks so much for the quick response. At least now I have a better idea of what I am going to deliver or at least try to show to the IA.


If you are absolutely sure you will need the money in the next year or so I wouldn't do it just because of the hassle.  If you think you might not need to use the money then I would go ahead and fund a Roth IRA for the simple reason that you can get your contributions (NOT earnings on those contributions.) back without paying any penalties if you do end up needing them.  A good summary of the rationale can be found at My Money Blog's Roth IRA Contribution vs. Emergency Fund Savings


"He sounds like a very bad salesman and I should know, because I was a sales manager at a bike shop which sold bikes from $200 to $10k. Now I had a clear goal, which is to sell as many bikes at the highest price possible, but I didn't do that by making customers uncomfortable. Each customer received different treatment depending on what they were looking for.  For example, the $200 beach cruiser buyer was going to be told ""You look great on that bike... can I ring you up?"", whereas the racer interested in saving grams will receive a detailed discussion about his bike options.  The $200 bike customer won't have very sophisticated questions (although I could give a lecture on cruisers), so giving out too much info complicates a likely quick impulse buy.  On the other hand, we are building a relationship with the racer which will include detailed fitting sessions and time-consuming mechanical service.  While I also want to close a high priced sale, it will take several visits to prove both I have the right bike and this is the best shop. But no matter what you were buying, I was always pleasant and unhurried, and my customers left happy.   Specifically with this situation of high pressure tactics, the problem is the competition with internet sales.  Often customers will have only 2 criteria, the model and the price, and if a shop does not meet both, the customer walks right out.   Possibly this sales guy is a bit cynical with his tactics, but the reality is that if you have no relationship with that shop, you fall into the category of internet buyer.  One thing the sales guy could have done was not tell you we wasn't going to honor this price if you came back.  Occasionally there would be an internet buyer, and I showed no unpleasantness even though internet sellers could crush our brick and mortar shop.  I would mention a competitive price and if he bought it, great, and if not, that's just business.   As for the buyer, I would treat these tactics with a certain detachment.  I would personally chuckle at his treatment and ask if I could kick the tires, an user car saying.   I suppose the bottom line is if you are ready to buy this specific model, and if the price is right (and the shop is ethical so you won't get ripped off with garbage), then you have to be ready to buy on the spot. I will point out one horrible experience I had at a car dealership.  I came in 15 minutes before closing and a sales person gave me a price almost a third cheaper than list.  I wasn't ready to buy on my first visit ever to a dealership and of course, buying a car has all kinds of hidden fees.  I asked will this be the price tomorrow, and he said absolutely not.  I told him, ""so if I come in tomorrow morning, your dealer clock has only gone 15 minutes"" but that logic did not register with him.   Maybe he thought I was going to spend 15k on the spot and pressure tactics would work on me.  I never came back, but I did go another dealership and bought a car after a reasonable negotiation."


They are not supposed to force any tax or escrow payments in addition to your normal principal and interest payment, unless you are delinquent on your taxes and insurance. If you are late or delinquent at all  they can force you into escrows depending on how your Deed of Trust (mortgage) is worded. That being said, I've had to deal with BoA on behalf of clients over the same issues you just mentioned. Their whole system is made to cause chaos and confusion, especially for poor souls trying to complete a short sale, or a loan restructuring program. They are forever losing vital paperwork, or saying they didn't get documents in time, even though you spoke with someone to confirm receipt. They aren't really set up to help anyone, they just give the illusion of it before they foreclose.   I owned a Title and Escrow company for many years, and most all mortgages with most all lenders (in our state) read they had the right to force escrow in the case of delinquency or even accelerate to foreclosure. If you've never been late on either or let your insurance lapse, or taxes fall delinquent, they shouldn't be able to require escrows, unless there is specific language in your original mortgage that says they can.  Also, most people aren't aware that non payment isn't the only reason a  lender can foreclose. Most mortgages read a lender can foreclose for the following reasons:  -Non payment  -Failure to keep homeowners insurance  -Failure to pay taxes  -Condemnation  -Storing toxic waste, or hazardous materials  -Illegal operations and usage (meth labs, etc...)


In the US, auditors are selected and fees are set by the Audit Committee of the BoD.  The Audit Committee is made up of independent directors, at least one of which is a financial expert.  Also, finding something fishy leads to extra billings much more often than it causes an auditor to lose a client.