Question: My Brokerage statement shows “Adjusted due to previous wash sale disallowed loss” what does this mean?

Well it would appear that you had a wash sale that canceled out a loss position.  Without seeing the entire report, I couldn't tell you exactly what was happening or how you triggered § 1091.  But just from the excerpted images, it appears as though your purchase of stock was layered into multiple tranches - perhaps you acquired more of the stock in the 61-day period than you sold (possibly because of a prior holding).   If in the 61-day period around the sale of stock (30 days before and 30 days after), you also acquire the same stock (including by contract or option), then it washes out your loss.  If you held your stock for a while, then in a 61-day period bought more, and sold some, then any loss would be washed out by the acquisition.  Of course it is also a wash sale if your purchase of the stock follows your sale, rather than precedes it.  Your disallowed loss goes into the basis of your stock holding, so will be meaningful when you do have a true economic sale of that stock. From IRS Pub 550: A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. If you sell stock and your spouse or a corporation you control buys substantially identical stock, you also have a wash sale. Looking at your excerpted account images, we can see a number of positions sold at a loss (sale proceeds less than basis) but each one is adjusted to a zero loss.  I suspect the fuller picture of your account history and portfolio will show a more complicated and longer history with this particular stock.  That is likely the source of the wash sale disallowed loss notations. You might be able to confirm that all the added numbers are appearing in your current basis in this stock (or were reflected upon your final exit from the stock).

This answer comes from my interpretation of Publication 590 (2011), Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs) and particularly What Are Qualified Distributions? section. Please consult the sources yourself or with the help of a qualified professional before doing anything. First, note that due to the rollover loophole, you can take out the money and repay it within 60 days. Missing the deadline would mean paying the taxes on the withdrawal in addition to a 10% penalty. As per JoeTaxpayer's notes below, this applies to the earnings on the account only. The contributions themselves can be withdrawn without penalties (thanks, Joe!).  Second, you might qualify to withdraw 10k for a qualified first-home house purchase. Qualified, in this case, would mean first-time home purchase by yourself, your spouse, your child, parent, or grandchild, made within 120 days of withdrawal (see first home in the above document). Finally, nothing is mentioned about the withdrawal affecting your yearly contribution cap. Any new money coming into the account is new money counted towards the contribution cap (except for the 60 day loophole).  To answer your question then: you can make up the money only under the first scenario (60 day loophole). Qualified withdrawals allow you to avoid the penalties, but as far as I can tell, do not affect the contribution cap. There are a few other details that may depend on your age, reservist status, health, etc. Read the document carefully to see if any of those apply to you.

Just read that citi is planning to return 132% of their expected earnings to shareholders over the next year in the WSJ. How does a bank return more to its shareholders than what it makes? Also banks requesting payouts in these stress tests of 100% of expected future earnings.   Am I missing something? Doesnt make much sense to me.   Hope someone sees this thanks.

"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-02/libya-s-oil-production-said-to-exceed-1-million-barrels-a-day) reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Libya&#039;s oil production has climbed to more than 1 million barrels a day for the first time in four years just as oil prices capped the longest run of gains in six months after U.S. shale explorers paused a record drilling expansion.  > Libya&#039;a oil output has rebounded from only 690,000 barrels a day at the start of the year, with Sharara, the country&#039;s largest oil field, resuming production last month.  > State National Oil Corp. Chairman Mustafa Sanalla said in April he wanted to boost national output to 1.1 million barrels a day by August.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6kwqac/libyas_crude_output_hits_a_new_high_just_as_oil/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~157830 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*: **day**^#1 **barrels**^#2 **oil**^#3 **million**^#4 **production**^#5"

Agreed. The 6 is so unappreciated, it's a fantastic car. Maybe the most beautiful US sedan available and way better than the new Camery  and Accord. I thought the 2 and 5 were also great and innovative in the US but never sold well. At least they are doing OK with their auto based SUV's.

Private Banker are Official Staff of the Bank. They are typically assigned to High Net Worth individuals. They are responsible for any and everything that a customer needs more like Personal Banker, so that for all your needs you just need to contact him/her and they would in turn get things done for you from different groups within the Bank.

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

lol? Yes, it can hurt European corporations but it'll affect the Russian people at least as much. Was this really the best area of business they could think of? It's kind of a big deal.  Edit: I think [this theory](http://www.reddit.com/r/business/comments/2d5iq2/russia_imposed_a_complete_embargo_on_food_imports/cjmafl7) is good. Frustration can help Putin point out scapegoats, because frustrated or angry people is, as history tells with  too much clarity, very easy to manipulate. Like scarily easy.


Question: Taxing GoFundMe Donations

"I'm going to post this as an answer because it's from the GoFundMe website, but ultimately even they say to speak with a tax professional about it.  Am I responsible for taxes? (US Only) While this is by no means a guarantee, donations on GoFundMe are   simply considered to be ""personal gifts"" which are not, for the most   part, taxed as income in the US. However, there may be particular,   case-specific instances where the income is taxable (dependent on   amounts received and use of the monies, etc.).     We're unable to   provide specific tax advice since everyone's situation is different   and tax rules can change on a yearly basis. We advise that you   maintain adequate records of donations received, and consult with your   personal tax adviser.     Additionally, WePay will not report the funds   you collect as earned income. It is up to you (and a tax professional)   to determine whether your proceeds represent taxable income. The   person who's listed on the WePay account and ultimately receives the   funds may be responsible for taxes.     Again, every situation is   different, so please consult with a tax professional in your area. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/204295498-Am-I-responsible-for-taxes-US-Only- And here's a blurb from LibertyTax.com which adds to the confusion, but enforces the ""speak with a professional"" idea: Crowdfunding services have to report to the IRS campaigns that total   at least $20,000 and 200 transactions. Money collected from   crowdfunding is considered either income or a gift. This is where things get a little tricky. If money donated is not a   gift or investment, it is considered taxable income. Even a gift could   be subject to the gift tax, but that tax applies only to the gift   giver. Non-Taxable Gifts These are donations made without the expectation of getting something   in return. Think of all those Patriots’ fans who gave money to   GoFundMe to help defray the cost of quarterback Tom Brady’s NFL fine   for Deflategate. Those fans aren’t expecting anything in return –   except maybe some satisfaction -- so their donations are considered   gifts. Under IRS rules, an individual can give another individual a   gift of up to $14,000 without tax implications. So, unless a Brady fan   is particularly generous, his or her GoFundMe gift won’t be taxed. Taxable Income Now consider that same Brady fan donating $300 to a Patriots’ business   venture. If the fan receives stock or equity in the company in return   for the donation, this is considered an investment and is not taxable   . However, if the business owner does not offer stock or equity in the   company, the money donated could be considered business income and the   recipient would need to report it on a tax return. https://www.libertytax.com/tax-lounge/two-tax-rules-to-know-before-you-try-kickstarter-or-gofundme/"

The thing is simply this, if it were not for Israeli control of America's economy, the Fed the Treasury . . .America would not be arming Israel and spending billions of dollars in Military Aid.   The Palestinians, can't even get water and medical supplies because Israel has been blockading them for the last decade.  As America's economy fails and Military power wanes and its opinion is no longer of any importance and the world comes to openly admit that Israel is the root cause of terrorism and the facilitator, financier and operator of Groups like ISIS, things will change. While you may not be disarmed, it will indeed be fun to watch brave Israeli forces fight an armed Palestinian force with the ability to hit back meaningfully.  I am sure Middle east peace will find you a lot quicker

Same - fields like accounting and law, where you have to track your hours and be productive in the time you actually bill clients for, are much more intense than people realize. I wish I had an office job where I could just twiddle my thumbs half the time and pretend to work.

http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/104/stupid.htm would have some data though a bit old about open-end funds vs an ETF that would be one point. Secondly, do you know that the Math on your ETF will always work out to whole numbers of shares or do you plan on using brokers that would allow fractional shares easily? This is a factor as $3,000 of an open-end fund will automatically go into fractional shares that isn't necessarily the case of an ETF where you have to specify a number of shares when you purchase as well as consider are you doing a market or limit order? These are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Lastly, what if the broker you use charges account maintenance fees for your account? In buying the mutual fund from the fund company directly, there may be a lower likelihood of having such fees. I don't know of any way to buy shares in the ETF directly without using a broker.

Yeah, but i know guys who started off in the field doing hardcore manual construction and worked their asses off for years and finally got in the office. There are two of them in their younger thirties with no degree to speak of. They are both project managers who make over 100k a year. I am not saying everyone can do this, but sure is fucking possible to succeed without having to wait until you are fifty.

For self-service type online customers, OptionsXpress gives me far better trading features(like technicals advanced conditions) and tools, ACH money management & scheduling, fullfillment too. $9 stock trades.  I don't know if they yet share Schwab's (their new parent company?) commission-free ETFs getting so trendy nowadays.

What you are doing is barter trade. Most countries [if not all] would tax this on assumed fair value. There are instances where countries may relax this norm in border areas for a small amount.   Barter is not just for gold – one can virtually do this for any goods, i.e. sell garments in exchange for oil, sell electronic chips in exchange for consumer goods, etc. Quite a few business would flourish doing this and not exchange currency at all, hence the need for government to tax on the [assumed / calculated / arrived/ derived] fair value. A word of caution: at times this may not be fair at all and may actually cost more than had one done a transaction using currency.


Question: Should I cash out my Roth IRA to pay my mother's property tax debt, to avoid foreclosure on her home?

@foreverBroke - Ok, here are the questions - Is mom's house paid for in full? If there's any mortgage, is it current? If not, what are the numbers? Is it underwater, i.e. owe more that it's worth?  Will the tax department talk to you and negotiate? Maybe let you make payments over time? If you have that kind of cash flow, the slower payment may keep you from killing your savings.  We don't know your age. I do know that the early years savings, often around the first 8-12 years, are the funds that turn into half your final retirement savings due to compounding.  Obviously, this a tough time emotionally, what I don't want is for you to make a financial move that is a temporary fix. Not knowing the rest of the story limits my answer. If my mom needed my help I'd want to understand the whole picture.  Not that I'm a fan, but have you considered a reverse mortgage? It may be a way to keep the house but give up the equity, or some of it, on her moving out or passing.

Daycare which provides adequate care for your kids while you are working or otherwise not able to cater and care for them has become a business like any other There are many popular daycare franchise opportunities are available in every state.  Examples of daycare franchise opportunities are TechJOYnT Foundation, The Growing Room and Discovery Express among others. While about STEM franchise, it is everywhere. No matter what career path your child might choose, STEM will be an important part of their day. Click here for more details: http://www.techjoyntfranchise.com/daycare-franchise-opportunities/

You can defer RRSP deductions like you've suggested. Here's an article from the CBC about it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxseason/story/2010/03/15/f-taxseason-delay.html

I always thought that it was really hard to get into a PhD program without at least a masters? Looking at most of my professors resumes, they seem to all have masters from schools other than where they received their PhDs. I would prefer to get a MFE then PhD if money wasn't an option(if I decided to go the academia route), but because money is an option a PhD without paying for a masters would be ideal.

Is there a point after which they legally unable to charge me? No. If you gave a check, then the bank may bounce it as stale after 6 months, but doesn't have to. With debit/credit transactions, they post as they're processed, and some merchants may not sync their terminals or deposit their manual slips often. As the world becomes more and more connected this becomes extremely rare, but still happens. Technically your promise to pay is a contract which never expires, and they can come after you years later to collect.

Exactly. that is paying double the money for no better coverage. It makes no sense. The paperwork when you file a claim will ask you if there is coverage from another policy. Making the same claim to two different policies, without telling them,  would be considered insurance fraud. For that kind of money the insurance company would be involved with paying the re-builder money periodically. Obviously only one re-builder is involved, and they would notice if they were getting paid more than was required. While you could decide to take the money and not rebuild, but that wouldn't work if you had a mortgage. The lender would want their money or force you to rebuild.

I agree that the surface explanation is that expenses used to generate income are deducted, however there clearly is a double standard in how is applied.  For example I cannot deduct my car even though I use it primarily for commuting to work (I would consider that income generation), yet companies are allowed to deduct corporate jets. I can't deduct meals when I ate out with professional acquainted where much of the conversations are related to my profession and so directly relevant to my income, yet businesses can claim sending their executives to a country club because business was discussed or it was a team building excise. Etc etc.

Write a virus, start spreading it via USB. That's how stuxnet got to Iran's nuclear program.  Someone could make a virus that does nothing on most computers, but if it happens to be on an ATM, it spits out cash if you type in the proper number on the key pad.


Question: Is there any reason not to put a 35% down payment on a car?

"If you are going to finance a used car, it is frequently best to arrange financing before you even pick out the car.    The easiest way I recommend is to talk to a local credit union or two.   They'll be able to tell you your interest rate and terms without having to talk to the dealer at all.  Most likely, they'll be significantly better than the dealer at getting a good interest rate. As far ""what is a good rate?"", check out bankrate for average loan rates: http://www.bankrate.com/auto.aspx Today's numbers look like 2.87% is the average for a 48-month used car loan.   That means if the bank comes back with something ridiculous like 9% or 10% you know they are way overcharging you.   I know someone who got a first-time-buyer rate from Ford and ended up with a 19.99% rate.   I could literally buy the car on my credit card and end up in a better spot. Honestly though, if you are 18 and have $5500 to put towards a car, I'd buy a $4500 car and save $1000 for repairs and maintenance.   After you have the car, put $250 every month for a ""car payment"" into a savings account for your next car."

When you pay cash for a car, you don't always necessarily need to pay cash. You just aren't using credit or a loan is all. A few options you have are: Obviously no dealer expects anyone to just have the cash laying around for a car worth a few thousand dollars, nor would you bother going to your bank or credit union for the cash. You can simply get a cashier's check made out for the amount. Note that dealers may not accept personal checks as they may bounce.  After negotiations at the dealer, you would explain you're paying cash, likely pay a deposit (depending on the price of the car, but $500 would probably be enough. Again, the deposit can be a check or bank deposit), and then come back later on with a cashier's check, or deposit into a bank account. You would be able to do this later that day or within a few days, but since you've purchased a new car you would probably want to return ASAP!

backups. fucking backups. from day one of our software project i was warning about backups. four years later, no vendor support, no tested backup and going live with the system. year after that (off the legacy system) the thing goes kaput. good thing I had left before then.   fucking amateurs.

Yes, I'm still kind of puzzled as to how they just seemed to have the world's money supply just given to them to dole out as they pleased.  I owe a Rothschild, though. They actually had one, a Lord, on noon TV here. He was in town from England for a Toronto tea convention and gave a 5 minute lesson on the news on how to make the perfect cup of tea.  The key point was to keep the interior of the POT clean. Worked, the tea was, and still is, great, thanks Lord Rothschild!

If you already have the money, put the 20% down but here is another option: You can put whatever you want down...Let's say 10%. For the other 10%, take out a 2nd mortgage. This enables you to avoid PMI. The rate you will get on the second mortgage will be higher than the first but the combination of 2 mortgages may be less than 1 plus PMI. When you get to 20% equity you can refinance and consolidate to one lower rate mortgage without PMI.

I agree that it was poorly implemented, but putting a deeper divide between their DVD business and their streaming business with the idea that the DVD business could be sold or killed when appropriate off was good.  It was poorly handled, yes - bad branding and *too much* divide between the products when even as separate businesses they should still be capable of *talking* to each other.

Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below.  Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below.  So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000:  If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below:  The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.

It's funny, I was complaining about this very same phenomenon in a different thread maybe a week ago. It seems like the RA is the only way to go if you have any sort of power over the I-Banks


Question: Can one use Google Finance to backtest (i.e. simulate trades in the past)?

I've used yahoo to perform the exercise you're asking about. It allows you to download price data, month end if you wish, and by manipulating via a spreadsheet to add a column for purchases, you can easily see how your £100/mo would end after so long a time period.

The company may have put a trading halt due to many reasons, most of the time it is because the company is about to release some news to the market. To stop speculation driving the price up or down, it puts a halt on trading until it can get all the information together and release it to the market. This could be news about an earnings update, a purchase of other businesses, a merger with another business, or a takeover bid, just to name a few.

"I look at price charts pretty much all day every day. You can analyze technical patterns and make guesses about the future but it's just not the way it works.  Not being able to point to ""chinese money"" in a candlestick chart is a ridiculous litmus test. When they eventually pass extremely draconian laws about using bitcoins we'll see."

This shows the impact of the inquiries. It's from Credit Karma, and reflects my inquiries over the past two years. In my case, I refinanced 2 properties and the hit is after this fact, so my score at 766 is lower than when approved. You can go to Credit Karma and see how your score was impacted. If in fact the first inquiry did this, you have cause for action. In court, you get more attention by having sufficient specific data to support your claim, including your exact damages.

Well it's a well-known fact, sonny-jim, that there's a secret society of the 5 wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually in a secret country mansion in Colorado known as The Meadows. (So who's in this Pentavirate?) The Queen, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, the Vatican...and Colonel Sanders before he went tits up! Ooh I hated the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face! Ohh you're gonna buy my chicken! Ooh! (Dad, how can you hate the Colonel?) Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes you crave it fortnightly, smart ass!

My job cut everyone's hours to 30 (it was 40-45) so they could avoid it. Luckily I'm still under 25 so I'm able to get under my dads health plan. I'll be over the age limit next December so I plan on picking up a side gig. Maybe she can consider her parents plan or a side gig?  Sorry to hear about her predicament. It's a funked up situation.

"That's because the one guy in Portland who knows Thai food has gone down the rabbit hole and knows what Thai food is on a very deep level. He's friends with biggest Thai foodies on the planet. He knows far more about Thai fold than the average Thai person in Thailand.  I haven't eaten at his restaurants, but I assume they're good...I also assume he has problems still due to ingredients and the palate of his customers.   Everywhere else in America, including the rest of Portland, the people have trouble securing good ingredients or have forgotten what Thai food even tastes like (Thai Town). I took Thai friends to multiple places in Thai town--all the best reviewed ones...by Americans--and they were basically disgusted.   Thai food is one of those types of food that can taste pretty good even when it's the lowest quality, most haphazardly formed dish on the market. In America, families tend to form restaurants where they serve a million different types of dishes, which becomes a logistical nightmare when there aren't good markets that have what you need.   In Thailand, many of the best places specialize in very few dishes on an expert level. In Thailand, for every one place that specializes in something like beef noodles that is utterly amazing, there are ten beef noodles places that taste okay and a tourist is likely to assume whatever beef noodles they have is as good as it gets....unless they're lucky enough to stumble upon the mind blowing beef noodles.   In America, most of the Thai restaurants serve a million different types of dishes. They all remind me of the restaurants you see in the more tourist heavy parts of Bangkok where there are a million pictures on the wall with the advertised prices and a ton of different dishes, none of which are exceptional.  In Thailand, if a place is serving a lot of different dishes, most of those restaurants will be marginal. Or! they'll have a lot of different dishes from a specific region (E-San, for example) or serving a particular style of food which they are experts in (duck restaurants in Thailand often have a lot of other Chinese dishes that accompany the duck). That's hard to do. For every one of those in Thailand, all will taste decent, 1/10 will be mind blowing.   In the US, you don't even have beef noodle places or duck rice places...you have ""Thai restaurants"" made by people who left Thailand long ago, only to return to eat at the same restaurants tourists walk into."

Unless you think it's likely that you'll move back soon, this is probably not the best way to get experience as a landlord. You might want to talk to a property management company and look at the fees they would charge to do your job as landlord. You should also consider that your mortgage may require you to occupy the house for a certain amount of time. Mortgages for non-owner-occupied properties usually have a higher interest rate and vetting criteria are more strict.


Question: S Corp with Straddles Income

If this activity were to generate let's say 100K of profit, and the   other corporate activities also generate 100K of revenue, are there   any issues tax-wise I need to be concerned about? Yes. Having 25% or more of passive income in 3 consecutive years will invalidate your S-Corp status and you'll revert to C-Corp. Can I deduct normal business expenses from the straddles (which are   taxed as short term capital gains) profit? I don't believe you can. You can deduct investment expenses from the investment income. On your individual tax return it will balance out, but you cannot mix types of income/expense on the corporate return or K-1.

Again, you assume that I am going to go on a killing spree because I could care less that a turkey, which we are going to eat, is not treated nicely.  Are you kidding me?  You have no idea about me as a person, nor my station in life, yet you make assumptions based on the fact that I would rather devote my time to something that actually matters.

"It depends on how long you stay and where you earn your income. You can be a US resident for tax purposes even if you are not for immigration purposes. The ""substantive presence test"" probably applies to you: You will be considered a United States resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States (U.S.) on at least: https://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Substantial-Presence-Test There are some exceptions to this test, and tax treaties may also apply.  See IRS Publication 519 for more information."

It always bumps right before the 1/4 report.  For some reason, after 80 quarters, people buy amazon stock just incase they under promised and over delivered.  That's happened like 1 or 2 times.  They are so consistent, that I assume the make heavy fiscal investments in the week leading up to quarter close just so they don't

The 20%+ returns you have observed in the mutual funds are not free money.  They are compensation for the risk associated with owning those funds.  Given the extraordinarily high returns you are seeing I would expect extremely high risk.  This means there is a good possibility of extreme losses at some point.  By putting a lot of money in those mutual funds you are taking a gamble that may or may not pay off. Assuming what your friend is paying you for rent is fair, you are not losing money on your house relative to the market.  You are earning less because you are invested in a less risky asset.  If you want a higher return, you should borrow some money (or sell your house) and invest in the market.  You may make more money that way. But if you do that, you will have a larger chance of losing a lot of money at some point.  That's the way risk works.  No one can promise a 20% return on a risky asset, they can only hint that it may do in the future what it did in the past. A reasonable approach to investment is to get invested in lots of different things: stocks, bonds, real estate.  If you are afraid of risk and willing to earn less, keep more money in safe assets.  If you are willing to take big risks in exchange for the possibility of high returns, move more assets into risky stuff.  If you want extreme returns and are willing to take extreme risk, borrow and use the money to invest in risky assets. As you look over investment options, remember that anything that pays high returns most likely has high risk as well.

I have a similar plan and a similar number of accounts.   I think seeking a target asset allocation mix across all investment accounts is an excellent idea. I use excel to track where I am and then use it to adjust to get closer (but not exactly) to my target percentages. Until you have some larger balances, it may be prudent to use less categories or realize that you can't come exactly to your percentages, but can get close.   I also simplify by primarily investing in various index funds.  That means that in my portfolio, each category has 1 or 2 funds, not 10 or 20.

This is why it bothers me when State Governors get up there and crow about how they balanced the States Budget.  Really? what are the negative consequences someone else is going to have to bear 10 years down the road?

The issue is that they aren't leaving, they're using a loophole to avoid paying corporate taxes even though their revenue, operation, manufacturing, and logistics base is still primarily within the United States.  Your argument is not based on any economic or financial principle but primarily out of some outrage at a non-existent statist strawman.  I'm sure you've really showed them and hurt their non-existent feelings.


Question: Converting bank statements to another currency?

If the account is not dollar-denominated, I would say it does not make sense at all to have dollar-denominated statements. Such a statement would not even be accurate for any reasonable amount of time (since FX rates constantly fluctuate). This would be a nightmare for accounting purposes. If you really need to know the statements in USD, I think the best practice would be to perform the conversion yourself using Excel or some similar software.

I believe there are electronic exchanges that run continuously,  but the older ones don't want to change their practices since some people may have strategies which  (claim they) are based on this behavior so there would be a lot of unhappy people if it was altered. The pause doesn't seem to do any harm. There are alternatives if you dislike it. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.

Quite a lot of reasons but mostly supply and demand.   Some areas of Africa are extremely remote and just don't have things there that some of the population now want.   I would guess it won't be like this for much longer but right now it is and i have met plenty of people taking advantage of that fact.

College= 12786 grand a quarter = 38358 grand a year. Got loans of 5640.00 and scholarships of 5976.00 so leaves me 26742.00. Family is expected to put in that amount. Family dose not make a lot. Does not live high on the hog. I want to live a dream that I know I can work for but how do I pay. BTW I got the first 2 years covered with scholarships and military benefits. Dad put in his time so I could do this. I need advice. I will apply for things. I work every summer in jobs where I do see the wealthy enjoy the sport and not the grunt work. I go to a school where the wealthy go and they get the scholarships but they honestly can afford to not. If you pay 40 plus grand for a horse you don't need the 25 grand scholarship. They are lucky I know I have to work and I will; just need more advice on how to cover the cost of the dream :):)

I found additional evidence on TDAmeritrade's website that helps confirm that the 3/17/11 prices Jason found are the ones to use since all three were traded on that day.  Although GM+A had prices and trading as early as 2/28/11, GM+B's price and trading shows up no earlier than 3/14/11, but there was no trading indicated for GM+A on 3/14 so 3/14 can't be used.  The two warrants were not traded every day after they came out. The next date that I found when all three, GM, GM+A and GM+B had trades was 4/11/11.  I found Google and Yahoo Finance unable to produce the historical prices for the warrants that far back.  Unfortunately, you need to be a TDA accountholder in order to access TDA's historical price information for stocks.

>I might have an answer! I imagine they're capitalizing on people's laziness. I live in the Bay Area where some people probably don't mind paying $35 to not have to walk 100 feet to the office and drop off a check.  Except that at their end they then have to deal with the cheques, have someone to receive them and so on, deal with the inevitable bounced cheques too.. Seems like a shitty plan, but yeah, I suppose if someone can gouge you they may well do so.

This answer assumes you're asking about how to handle this issue in the USA. I generally downvote questions that ask about a tax/legal issue and don't bother providing the jurisdiction. In my opinion it is extremely rude. Seeing that you applied for an LLC, I think that you somehow consider it as a relevant piece of information. You also attribute some importance to the EIN which has nothing to do with your question. I'm going to filter out that noise. As an individual/sole-proprietor (whether under LLC or not), you cannot use fiscal years, only calendar years. It doesn't matter if you decide to have your LLC taxed as S-Corp as well, still calendar year. Only C-Corp can have a fiscal year, and you probably don't want to become a C-Corp. So the year ends on December 31, and whether accrual or cash - you can only deduct expenses you incurred until then. Also, you must declare the income you got until then, which in your case will be the full amount of funding - again regardless of whether you decided to be cash-based or accrual based. So the main thing you need to do is to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and learn about the tax law relevant to your business and its implications on your actions. There may be some ways to make it work better, and there are some ways in which you can screw yourself up completely in your scenario, so do get a professional advice.

Maybe the prices aren't better always but there's a perceived higher quality. When you shop there, it feels like you're getting a better value. Who can forget two buck Chuck? And lots of their goods are repackaged. It's an open secret that some of the goods you buy there is name brand with a new box. TJ cultivates this image of being the place where they stuff expensive food into a new box and sell it half off. Shopping there feels like winning the lottery.  They could only do this by limiting their variety. A shame that the article points it out as if a failing, like they pay employees more despite this. It's just the opposite.


Question: How can I save on closing costs when buying a home?

For example: do I need a realtor, or can I do their job myself? In general in the United States the real estate agent fee is paid by the seller of the property. Their agent will be more than happy keep the entire fee if they don't have to split it with your agent.  If you don't have an agent you will be missing somebody who can help you find the property that meets your needs. They can also help explain what the different parts of the contract mean and give you advice regarding making an offer. Do I need to pay for an inspection, or am I likely to save enough   money from skipping it to cover potential problems that they would   have caught? Inspections are optional. Though the amount you are risking is the entire value of the purchase. If the property has a problem in the foundation, or the septic system, or the plumbing or electrical the cost to fix the issue could render the purchase not worth doing. If you discover the problem a year later and you have to repair the house and have to find temporary housing for a few months, you will regret skipping the inspection. What are some of the ways I can cut expenses on closing costs? Is   there any low-hanging fruit? You need to do your homework. When you are ready to purchase a property take good look at the good faith estimate and look at each item.  Ask them what the expense covers. Push back against those that seem optional or excessive. Keep in mind that moving the closing date from the end of a month to the start of the next month only changes the timing those charges, it doesn't really save you money. Rolling the costs into the loan sound easy but you have to think about. It means that you will be paying interest on those charges for the life of the loan. It is good that you are starting to think about all the costs.

Your question may have another clue. You are bullish regarding the real estate market. Is that for your city, your state, your nation or for the whole world?  Unless you can identify particular properties or neighborhoods that are expected to be better than the average return for your expected bull market in real estate, you will be taking a huge risk. It would be the same as believing that stocks are about to enter a bull market, but then wanting to put 50% of your wealth on one stock. The YTD for the DOW is ~+7%, yet 13 of the 30 have not reached the average increase including 4 that are down more than 7%. Being bullish about the real estate segment still gives you plenty of opportunities to invest. You can invest directly in the REIT or you can invest in the companies that will grow because of the bullish conditions.  If your opinion changes in a few years it is hard to short a single property.

I would definitely recommend contributing to an IRA. You don't know for sure you'll get hired full-time and be eligible for the 401(k) with match, so you should save for retirement on your own. I would recommend Roth over Traditional IRA in your situation, because let's say you do get hired full-time. Since the company offers a retirement plan, your 2015 Traditional IRA contribution would no longer be deductible at your income level (assuming you're single), and non-deductible Traditional IRAs aren't a very good deal (see here and here). If there's a decent chance you would get hired, this factor would override the pre-tax versus post-tax debate for me. At your income level you could go either way on that anyway. A Solo 401(k) would be worth looking into if you wanted to increase your contribution limit beyond what IRAs offer, but given that it sounds like you're just starting out saving for retirement, and you may be eligible for a 401(k) soon, it's probably overkill at this point.

>For each challenge, you'll earn up to $2, for a total maximum earning of $20.00.  Why? That amount is so absurdly tiny that anybody who can competently participate will be more dissuaded by the offer than if you hadn't offered any incentive, which you *should* have done.

You should try to take out other loans sufficient to pay off your 401(k) loan if you can.   Maybe you can take out a home equity loan?  You can also ask your bank about unsecured loans.  You should also check the rules for your new employer's 401(k), if you're rolling over your 401(k).  There's a small possibility that you could take out another loan right now and apply it to the previous loan balance. Or if you need to wait, you could use it to help pay off any temporary loans that were needed to avoid the distribution penalty.

There would be multiple competing courts looking for people's business based upon who could best interpret laws and contracts. On the contrary, courts exist because people *do* want to be there. They are people who cannot come to an agreement on their own. If a person is a hardened criminal, they aren't going to want the court system at all. Those people are in the vast minority.  The notion of a market monopoly is a myth. The market by and large does not monopolize, and examples of monopoly don't last long.  In terms of the court system and justice, no, states do not work. Police often get away with actions that would be considered criminal for the rest of us, and politicians get the same treatment. The examples of police brutality going unpunished or political action being widely opposed and still being pushed through are too numerous to list.  Again, those who would loot and destroy are in the minority. If a person has the mindset that they want to harm person and property then they don't care about whether or not there is a state. They can only be stopped by force, and force can come from any entity with the legitimacy of using it. In that arena, there is nothing special about the state.  They wouldn't have any right to restrict your freedom except to the extent of stopping you from violating the person and property of others. They don't need a constitution for that.  > Everything would just devolve into constant warfare between groups - until a single group outperformed the others of course and boom you've got a government again.  This is pure fiction. You have no evidence nor reason to actually support this. We're talking about reality, not conjecture. If you want to claim such nonsense then [you have to prove it.](https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over) You can't just throw out such propaganda and expect it to be taken as fact.

">Me: ""they pay it as regular income rather than LTCG"" >You: ""There's no LTCG tax on Roth accounts.""  Those two things aren't the same thing.  Among other problems, you were referring to tax-deferred accounts and I was referring to Roths.  >Me: ""they pay it as regular income rather than LTCG"" >You: ""You're only taxed once on the money""  Again, those are not the same thing.  There is no account out there where you would only pay LTCG tax.  So paying the tax as regular income RATHER than LTCG tax is not a concern.   >Me: ""they pay it as regular income rather than LTCG"" >You: ""The main advantage of 401ks is that you don't ever pay capital gains tax.""  Again, the word ""rather"" means there were two possible scenarios: paying regular income tax and paying LTCG tax.  This simply isn't true.   >I never mentioned Roth or taxable funds   Well, those are the only alternatives to a tax-deferred account, so...  >""Though what I said does also apply to Roth""  No it doesn't.    >""But please, keep digging...""  Nothing to dig for.  This isn't a difficult concept but for whatever reason you clearly don't understand it."

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


Question: Are REIT worth it and is it a good option to generate passive income for a while?

One way is to think of a REIT as a fully managed portfolio of real estate investments. Risks and returns are averaged across the real estate portfolio and managed by experts, possibly industry leading experts.  REITs have a well documented track record you can research - most individuals do not. Many individuals have learned a hard lesson or two while attempting to generate passive income with real estate. Conversely, some people derive a great deal of satisfaction from owning real estate and have a true passion to do so.  Plus, if you are expecting interest rates to raise and/or rate of inflation to increase in the next 30 years, you may benefit from the financing aspects of the investment as well.  There are some regions/ opportunities that seem to do better than the average REIT a majority of the time, but may not be desirable to you or fit into your budget for various reasons. I'm not sure what your level of experience, knowledge or financial situation , but for everyone considering, there are many additional things to know about investment property compared to a primary residence.  A good place to start with REITs is the prospectus of one that interests you.  Research their holdings, create a model, or otherwise make a connection with the REIT before clicking buy.

U.S. corporate tax rates are the [highest in the world](http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx), not the lowest. Politicians often rebut this fact by claiming that the U.S. has a much lower effective corporate tax rate, but they fail to account for all taxes. The marginal effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is still [much higher](http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-corporate-effective-tax-rate-myth-and-fact) than other developed countries.

Thank you hyper333active for voting on DuplicatesBot.    This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://goodbot-badbot.herokuapp.com/).     ***    ^^Even ^^if ^^I ^^don't ^^reply ^^to ^^your ^^comment, ^^I'm ^^still ^^listening ^^for ^^votes. ^^Check ^^the ^^webpage ^^to ^^see ^^if ^^your ^^vote ^^registered!

>I would be all for that as soon as every job in society pays people enough for a modest life including insurance. Before that happens, this approach is just setting the lower classes up for failure.  You mean, like how the lower classes all over the world - billions of people - have been lifted out of poverty by countries adopting economic liberalizations and rollback of government intervention?  >I know this is a fundamental ideal of the right but I do not share it. I think you need a lot of carrots to get people to change.  Not my problem.  If people want to be irresponsible, that's their right.  They DO NOT have the right to have the government steal some of my money because they didn't plan properly.  >Is it moral for a rich man who made all his money while using public infrastructure and services to claim all his profits are exclusively his?  100% absolutely.  That infrastructure is already paid for.  His success creates no additional burden or obligation.  >You do understand that if/when we get a terrific healthcare system that benefits the common man the healthcare stocks would tank?  No, they wouldn't.  In fact, the healthcare market would grow so rapidly it would be the investing opportunity of a lifetime.  Thousands of new companies formed.  A massive wave of innovation in products and services when the FDA is curtailed.  It would be absolutely crazy.

I  never observed people working hard at Sears or Kmart.    Both stores suck ass in my neck of the woods and all I saw was mediocre employees that did not give a shit about their job.

"http://blog.collegetuitioncompare.com/2015/05/sec-estimated-tuition-2015-2016.html  You keep speaking annually. No one gives a fuck about annual costs. You have to earn the entire degree, so the total cost is what I am concerned with, and what I was speaking to.  Also - grow up a little. Stop calling yourself a ""major""; maybe ""graduate"" would be more appropriate.   The fact that you work in consulting speaks volumes. Everyone else in finance laughs at you. If finance professionals are leeches on industry, you are the parasites on the cocks of leeches.   EDIT: Sorry, everyone in **investment** finance laughs at you. I am sure there are some of those aforementioned fund accountants who would love to suck some leech cock."

If speculators were in control of the US economy, the price would be very different. Ye they have no intention of possessing the actual commodity.  I know it's a left wing thought, but it is popular with THIS independent. People that trade in a commodity must be required to take possession of it. That alone will cut down on prices.

A bank is putting money on the line for you when they loan you money, which is not something they have to do. Not telling them what you intend to do with the money they are giving you, when asked, is fraud, which if you are caught will put you into very deep trouble.


Question: Are precious metals/collectibles a viable emergency fund?

"If it were me, I would convert it to cash and keep it in a liquid account. The assumption that silver will increase in value is misguided. From 1985 to 2002, it was flat. It's gone up and been far more volatile since then, and there has been significant declines which could eat at the stability of an emergency fund. Precious metals are speculation, not investing. They do not create wealth. Investing is typically considered too volatile for an emergency fund, more so keeping the money in metals. Making it more difficult to get to, like keeping it in a separate account might also fight against frivolous or accidental spending. Also there tends to be high transaction costs when liquidating metals. I found the best way is to use eBay. After some further comments and clarification here I suspect you are dealing with something else. Namely, the ""white picket fence"". Again, this is supposition, but perhaps she envisions the two of you married and hosting a dinner party using the passed down silver. This could be a strong emotional bond, and as such it could trump the logical arguments. Keeping it as an emergency fund: foolish. You helping her keep it because you are planning a life together: smart."

Something I wanted to posit: Do you have a life insurance policy, either taken out yourself or offered through your company? Many of these policies will pay out prior to the death of the covered individual, given statements by medical professionals that the person has a terminal illness or condition. The benefit, once disbursed, can be used for almost anything, including to pay down a mortgage, cover medical bills and other care expenses, etc. If you have such a policy, I urge you to look into it; that is the money that should be used for your end-of-life care and to ease the burden on your family, not your retirement savings. Your savings, if possible, should be left to continue to compound to provide your wife with a nest egg to retire with.

Saying that tighter gun laws is the same as taking away your guns is the same as saying that tighter drunk driving laws is taking away your right to drive. It's the kind of rhetoric that shows you are unwilling to be reasonable.  I like this speech [from Obama](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/obama-to-gun-owners-im-not-looking-to-disarm-you) on the topic.  >First of all, the notion that I or Hillary or Democrats or whoever you want to choose are hell-bent on taking away folks’ guns is just not true.  >And I don’t care how many times the NRA says it. I’m about to leave office. There have been more guns sold since I have been president than just about any time in U.S. history. There are enough guns for every man, woman and child in this country.  >And at no point have I ever, ever proposed confiscating guns from responsible gun owners. So it’s just not true.

I can't speak to Schweser as I've never heard of it but CFAL1 does exactly what you're looking for.  The study prep I recommended has a guy that does a video overview for each topic and he's quite good

I love you guys, you’re the most honest and hard working taxi drivers I’ve ever met.  People come to Siem reap two ways, by air and via the boarder from Thailand.  When I was there the busses would drop you off at Poipet and you would have to hire a car to take you the rest of the way.  Now the busses go direct.  People via land don’t plan out much.  I would have said years ago to get a contact in Poipet to hand out flyers.  Now it’s different.  I would work out deals with bus drivers and hotels.  Another idea would be to find maybe four other drivers and start a company.  I would advertise this company on trip advisor, and the other travel sites.  You will have better luck as a conglomerate of people rather than one guy.   The key is to get the client before anyone else snatches them up.  To keep the client you should learn as much about Angkor Wat as you can and double as a tour guide.  My driver just went to sleep after he dropped us off.  Know the best restaurants, don’t take them to places that give you kickbacks, really look out for the client.  You need to be more than just a driver.  You are their tour guide.  Make them feel safe and give them your knowledge.

I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:  - [/r/talkbusiness] [First, Amazon destroyed retail -- now, it's coming for Starbucks | ZDNet](https://www.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/79uaxa/first_amazon_destroyed_retail_now_its_coming_for/)  &nbsp;*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*

"Forbes is simply a well-distrubted content farm. Forbes doesn't write articles to ""inform the reader"" or ""make a coherent argument."" Forbes writes articles simply to get attention from crowds to increase readership to increase ad revenue.  Forbes' business model is quite simple: (1) hire a bunch of pseudo-intellectual ""executive writers"" and have them scribble whatever idiotic idea comes to mind. And since these ""executive writers"" are such genius, they don't even to do research. The end result is a magazine and website written in doublespeak. (2) have an outsourced bureau in India construct lists of the ""words richest"" and ""most expansive"" things/people^1.  This way the publication appeals to the not-so-bright-and-rather-gullible-mid-level-executive manager^2 who is looking at ways to get ahead in his job so he/she can afford to buy Rolex watches and Armani tuxes so they can appear to be rich, powerful, and successful. These mid-level-executives try to implement all the bad ideas they pick up reading in the work place.  Of course this nothing new. The majority of business/investing magazines operate in the same manner (e.g. Smart Money, Money, Entrepreneur, etc). Think of Forbes as Cosmopolitan of business periodicals^3. Think of Forbes as Paris Hilton in a crowd of other attention-hungry socialites in front of a bored paparazzi^4.  In general, magazines are full of pointless and misleading information--the business of magazines has been marginalized into the business of cheaply putting words (and pictures) between advertisements. Forbes isn't about providing its readers with smart analysis; Forbes is about making a cheap magazine and filling it up with ads. So writers are judged on sheer output, not quality^5.   Today an article made it to the front page of reddit titled *89 Business Cliches That Will Get Any MBA Promoted And Make Them Totally Useless*^6 --I found this article to be wonderfully meta, since it implies that people who follow what they preach are useless. This gives me hope. Of course if things continue to degrade magazines will likely be entirely picture based by about 2020^7.  Please make it a point to only read/watch/listen/buy media that at least attempts to produce quality and unbiased content. If companies stop getting paid to manufacture shit, they will hopefully stop making shit.  **tl;dr** Forbes is a very elaborate content farm  1. Bonus points are awarded for lists that also tie-in three or more cleavage pics  2. there are quite a few of these people  3. Cosmo: ""10 ways to bring your man to orgasm"", Forbes: ""10 buzzwords you need in your resume""  4. My point being things will naturally become quite obscene/ridiculous/dumb.   5. AMA Request: Forbes Editor/Writer  6. [link](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/06/19/89-business-cliches-that-will-get-any-mba-promoted-to-middle-management-and-make-them-totally-useless/)  7. In which case, we can only hope that either: magazines go bankrupt, 2012 Apocalypse predictions are correct.  edits* grammar elaboration being anal"

Yes, you can do this buy placing a conditional order to buy at market if the price moves to 106 or above. Once the price hits 106 your market order will hit the market and you will purchase the stock at 106 or above. You can also place a tack profit order at 107 linked to your initial conditional buy order, so that once you buy order is executed and you buy at 106, a take profit order will be executed only if the price reaches 107 or above.  If the price never reaches 106, neither your market buy order or take profit order will hit the market and you won't buy or sell anything.


Question: person on loan with cosigner

"This will probably require asking the SO to sign a quitclaim and/or to ""sell"" him her share of the vehicle's ownership and getting it re-titled in his own name alone, which is the question you actually asked. To cancel the cosigner arrangement, he has to pay off the loan. If he can't or doesn't want to do that in cash, he'd have to qualify for a new loan to refinasnce in his name only, or get someone else (such as yourself) to co-sign. Alternatively, he might sell the car (or something else) to pay what he still owes on it. As noted in other answers, this kind of mess is why you shouldn't get into either cosigning or joint ownership without a written agreement spelling out exactly what happens should one of the parties wish to end this arrangement.  Doing business with friends is still doing business."

"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-06-08/no-one-has-ever-made-a-corruption-machine-like-this-one) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Structured Operations, perhaps the farthest-reaching, most efficient corruption machine in modern business, was about to run out of road. By Odebrecht&#039;s admission in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn last December, Structured Operations doled out some $788 million in bribes in Brazil and 11 other countries, securing more than 100 contracts that generated $3.3 billion of profit for the company.  > It&#039;s the biggest corruption-related fine ever levied on a company, eclipsing a $3.16 billion fine in Brazil tied to corruption allegations against another target of the Car Wash probe, Brazilian beef giant JBS SA. For decades, Odebrecht has cultivated a certain corporate lore.  > In exchange, the company admitted in its settlement of corruption charges in U.S. federal court, the governments of those countries granted Odebrecht contracts that generated $1.4 billion in profit.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6gbhxq/no_one_has_ever_made_a_corruption_machine_like/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~140495 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*: **Odebrecht**^#1 **bank**^#2 **company**^#3 **Antigua**^#4 **Brazil**^#5"

"If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just ""bought a dividend:"" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend.  So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000.  What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier.  Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend.  What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased."

"Think about the implications if the world worked as your question implies that it ""should"":  A $15 share of stock would return you (at least) $15 after 3 months, plus another $15 after 6 months, plus another after 9 and 12 months.  This would have returned to you $60 over the year that you owned it (plus you still own the share).  Only then would the stock be worth buying?  Anything less than $60 would be too little to be worth bothering about for $15? Such a thing would indeed be worth buying, but you won't find golden-egg laying stocks like that on the stock market.  Why?  Because other people would outbid your measly $15 in order to get this $60-a-year producing stock (in fact, they would bid many hundreds of dollars).  Since other people bid more, you can't find such a deal available. (Of course, there are the points others have brought up: the earnings per share are yearly, not quarterly, unless otherwise noted.  The earnings may not be sent to you at all, or only a small part, but you would gain much of their value because the company should be worth about that much more by keeping the earnings.)"

Is it true that due the to the increase in interest rates that inflation is likely to increase as well? It is typically the reverse where inflation causes interest rates to rise. Interest rates fundamentally reflect the desire for people to purchase future goods over present day goods.  If I loan money to someone for 5 years I lose the ability to use that money.  In order to entice me to loan the money the borrower would have to offer me an incentive, that is, they would have to give me additional money at the end of that 5 years.  This additional money is the interest rate and it reflects the desire of people to spend money in the future versus the present day.  If offered the same amount of money today versus 5 years from now almost everyone would chose to take the money now.  Money in the present is more valuable than the same amount of money in the future. Interest rates would still exist even with a currency that could not be printed. I would still prefer to have the currency today than in the future. If the currency is continually devalued (i.e. the issuer is printing more of the currency) than borrowers may charge additional interest to compensate for the loss in purchasing power when they make a loan. Also, it is hard to compare interest rates and inflation.  Inflation is very difficult to calculate. New products and services, as well as ever changing consumer desires, continually change the mixture of goods in the market so it is nearly impossible to compare a basket of goods today to a basket of goods 5, 10, 20, or 30 years ago.

"The market will always be efficient. What they forgot in 1999 is that gold prices had been going down for several years and therefore stock prices were going up, but no trend lasts forever.  The ""dot com"" boom was not a result of magic new technologies, it was the result of the end of the Cold War when people started getting rid of their gold reserves."

I would not remove the current social programs . I wouldn't keep the current school system in the States or Canada if I was going to do this either . Public tax payed schools and apprenticeship programs only . So not qualified would not really be an issue , there would be something . Not wanting to is actually kind of the point , since apparently according to the article  most unemployed men really want to do just do drugs or it doesn't say so but I suspect stay home and play video games or both  .

There might just not be anything useful for you to do with that 'value'. As others mentioned, HELOCs have their risks and issues too. There is no risk-less way to take advantage of the value (outside of selling) It is similar to owning a rare stamp that is 'worth a million' - what good does it do you if you don't sell it? nothing. It is just a number on a sheet of paper, or even only on some people's minds.


Question: What are the differences between gold/siver “coin” vs. “round”?

"Coins are legal tender. They're authorized by governments and have a face value. Rounds are simply coined pieces of metal minted by private manufacturers. They do not have any face value and are not legal tender. Rounds are used to own metal, they have no value other than the value of the metal in them. Any premium you pay over the price of the metal is the mint's profit. Coins are also used as bulions (i.e.: to own metal and create profits for the government), but many times coins have limited issue and become valuable because of the rarity, specific issues with a specific coin (mistakes, impurities, exclusive designs), etc. So they also may have some numismatic value (depends on the specific coin). Coins also have the assurance of quality of the authorizing government (and fakes are dealt with by the law as forgery of coins is illegal and is a crime), rounds however do not enjoy such protection, and any one can mint them (only copyright/trademark protections apply, where the enforcement is by the owner and not the government). Re the advantages - coins (if you pick the right ones...) appreciate much more than the metal. However, this is mostly in hindsight, and most of the ""bulion"" coins do not appreciate significantly beyond the price of the metal unless there's something else significant about them (first year of issue, high quality certification, etc). Rounds on the other hand are cheaper (1 oz round will be significantly cheaper than 1 oz coin), and monitor more closely the price of the metal. It is unlikely for rounds to significantly deviate from the spot price (although this does happen occasionally, for specific designs or if a mint goes out of business)."

A childhood friend just had his sentencing hearing the other day after pleading to robbing 2 banks 5 times over the span of 11 months.  He only cleared $34k and now he's going away for 7.5 years, best case scenario.

When people voice or express racist discriminatory views for public consumption they are signifying to the world that they have lost all sense of the concept of socialization, and that they wish to be alone and isolated from civilized educated people.  Politics is knowing when to leave the world stage, and racism is not knowing you are just about to, Mr. Faber. Have fun counting your money you anal sadistic antisocial buffoon knuckledragger piece of sociopathic shit.  Bon Voyagee'....

Your local board of health will have all the guidelines in a neat package for you. Call the country health department for food related business requirements.   Be prepared to fill out a shitload of forms, pay a shitload of fees, and wait a shitload of days for processing.   Also, good luck!

"Here is one study http://rfs.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/4/711.short I quote from the abstract  ""In a variety of tests, marginal price drop is not significantly   different from the dividend amount. Thus, over the last several   decades, one-for-one marginal price drop has been an excellent   (average) rule of thumb."""

A family of three is dad, mom and kid, not dad, mom and three kids.  Also, a Mercedes isn't a need nor are people at the poverty level even considering it.  You can't compare a Mercedes on a lease to basic needs such as shelter, food and clothing.

This has been rehashed many times over, you should not have a family of three if you are on minimum wage.   You can't afford a Mercedes lease on the minimum wage does that mean you should increase it? No. You simply make decisions to support your lifestyle, don't bring three kids(or significant other and a kid, either way not relevant) into your life if you can't support yourself.    edit: Was expecting downvotes, I suggest you take a basic Economics class.

"Completely linear?  We don't do that. Our daughter has a fixed allowance, and we expect a certain amount of help around the house as being part of the family.  We don't make any explicit ties between the two, and we don't seem to have any problems. We bought an eBay lot of Polly Pockets and divided them up into $5 bags.  (This is a better deal that what we could get in the store new.)  Her allowance isn't enough that she can ""buy"" one every week. After sensing her frustration we gave her the opportunity to earn some more money by doing extra work.  It happened to be cleaning up after our dogs in the back yard, a chore we had neglected for quite a while.  She stuck with the job, and truly earned that money.  (She'll be six in January.)  What's more, it was a good deal for me.  It needed to be done, and I didn't really want to do it. :) So, for now this seems like a fair balance.  It prevents her from getting the idea that she won't work unless she gets paid, but she also knows that working harder does have its rewards. We still have time to teach her the idea of working smarter. (This isn't a formal study.  It's just my experience.)"


Question: What's the appeal of dividends in investing? [duplicate]

"A dividend is one method of returning value to shareholders, some companies pay richer dividends than others; some companies don't typically pay a dividend.  Understand that shareholders are owners of a company.  When you buy a stock you now own a portion (albeit an extremely small portion) of that company. It is up to you to determine whether holding stock in a company is worth the risk inherent to equity investing over simply holding treasury notes or some other comparable no risk investment like bank savings or CDs.   Investing isn't really intended to change your current life.  A common phrase is ""investing in tomorrow.""  It's about holding on to money so you'll have it for tomorrow.  It's about putting your money to work for you today, so you'll have it tomorrow.  It's all about the future, not your current life."

Necklaces are extra like a sign of class within the present iteration. Humans could have a lot of options and designs to prefer from jewelers and will have an opportunity to create their own design situated on the supply. It's certainly a excellent funding for folks to purchase any form of awesome name necklace, because it could aid you construct a fame and fetch extra money someday. Necklaces would on the whole be luxurious than any other pieces of jewelry, because the utilization of metallic would normally be high than other kinds.

"I'm not so sure, most of these ""savings"" from the report is from the construction industry, they're struggling as it is and the fact they are adding jobs is a good sign even if the wages are less than before. We just saw a bubble  burst in real estate, of course any company that is benefiting from a growing bubble is going to be able to pay their employee's a lot more than they could after the bubble burst, assuming the companies are even around still."

"On a longer time scale, the plot thickens:  It almost looks random.  A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates.  They steadily climbed and steadily fell:  All that's left is inflation:  First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not.  Economists call this type of phenomenon ""sticky pricing"", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation.  The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways.   This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s.  Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating.  Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing.   As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept ""low and stable"":  But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise?  Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible."

Propworld Realty offers luxurious Office Space for Rent in Noida at very economical rentals. As we all know good office space influence your business.  In today scenario office space is now being seen as a significant factor in recruiting, maintaining and maximising talent. Hence,if you are looking  supreme quality Office Space for Rent in Noida then call us 09810000375.

"Because people are willing to trade for it.  People are willing to trade for Gold because: The value of gold goes up because the demand for it goes up, while the supply has been basically static (or growing at a low static rate) for a long time.  The demand is going up because people see it as a safe place to put their money.   Another reason Gold's value in dollars goes up, is because the value of the item it's traded against (dollars, euros, yen, etc) goes down, while its own value stays roughly the same. You point out Gold is not as liquid as cash, but gold (both traded on an exchange, and held physically) is easily sold.  There is always someone willing to trade you cash for gold.  Compare this to some of the bank stocks during the first part of our current recession.  People were not willing to give much of anything for your shares.  As the (annoying, misleading) advertisements say, ""Gold has never been worth zero""."

There was an NPR (I think) story a couple of years ago about the cost of college. They found that while sticker prices were going up, the price most people paid wasn't actually rising that fast. This was at least true in top tier schools. I think some state schools have other issues, like the state cutting back on funding so raising tuitions and/or cutting back on scholarships and grants.  The weird thing I learned from the piece was that raising prices was a way to appear more attractive to top students. Apparently the psychological factors around getting a $10k scholarship to a $15k school or a $30k scholarship to a $35k school make the more expensive one look better.

It's not a peer reviewed article in nature. It's an opinion piece on their website.   Don't be so foolish.   >Nobody here is passing any judgment on Trump, the OP is showing that there's a bias for people with higher education to vote liberal. That's just a fact, nobody is saying that this statistic invalidates conservative beliefs.  Get fucking real. They both came our guns blazing.


Question: What is the difference between trading and non-trading stock?

Every company has Stocks.   For the stocks to be traded via some stock exchange, the companies must follow the eligibility criteria and guidelines. Once done, these are then listed on the stock exchange and can be traded. The advantage [amongst others] of listing is liquidity and stocks can easily be bought and sold.  Some small companies or closely held companies may not want to list on stock exchange and hence are not traded. This does not mean they can't be bought and sold, they can be outside of the market, however the deals are complex and every deal has to be worked out. During the course of time a stock that is traded on a stock exchange, would either fail to meet the criteria or voluntarily choose not to be traded and follow the delisting process [either by stock exchange or by company]. After this the stocks are no longer traded on the exchange.

The main question is, how much money you want to make?  With every transaction, you  should calculate the real price as the price plus costs. For example, if you but 10 GreatCorp stock of £100 each, and the transaction cost is £20 , then the real cost of buying a single share is in fact buying price of stock + broker costs / amount bought, or £104 in this case.  Now you want to make a profit so calculate your desired profit margin. You want to receive a sales price of buying price + profit margin + broker costs / amount bought. Suppose that you'd like 5%, then you'll need the price per stock of my example to increase to 100 + 5% + £40 / 10 = £109.  So you it only becomes worth while if you feel confident that GreatCorp's stock  will rise to that level. Read the yearly balance of that company to see if they don't have any debt, and are profitable. Look at their dividend earning history. Study the stock's candle graphs of the last ten years or so, to find out if there's no seasonal effects, and if the stock performs well overall. Get to know the company well. You should only buy GreatCorp shares after doing your homework.  But what about switching to another stock of LovelyInc? Actually it doesn't matter, since it's best to separate transactions. Sell your GreatCorp's stock when it has reached the desired profit margin or if it seems it is underperforming. Cut your losses! Make the calculations for LovelyCorp's shares without reference to GreatCorp's, and decide like that if it's worth while to buy.

Here's a sneak peek of /r/iamveryrich using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/iamveryrich/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!  \#1: [This guy just graduated highschool.](http://imgur.com/SD97y6T) | [27 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/iamveryrich/comments/6ndqxe/this_guy_just_graduated_highschool/)   \#2: [My kid will drive a Lamborghini to school](https://i.redd.it/4w4zsdtztkxy.jpg) | [13 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/iamveryrich/comments/6b7vus/my_kid_will_drive_a_lamborghini_to_school/)   \#3: [No jokes on my watch](https://i.redd.it/3p7xtoa5tbwy.jpg) | [3 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/iamveryrich/comments/6a08qg/no_jokes_on_my_watch/)  ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^Now ^^with ^^97% ^^less ^^bold ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/6l7i0m/blacklist/)

I realize you're probably looking for methods on the large scale.  However, I sell a lot of homes to wealth advisers and was always curious about how they consistently pull in business.  The obvious answer is networking, then word of mouth.  Do right by your clients and they'll brag to their equally high networth friends.  One buddy of mine spends a lot of time taking his clients (and their friends) out to dinners, golfing, and mini-vacations.  Surprise, surprise, those friends become clients too.  Rinse and repeat.  Other than that, hang out at high end bars and other places higher networth people in their 30's and 40's would hang out.  Then ABC.

According to the 401K information from the IRS' website, it seems that you could seemingly get away with a salary as low as $53,000. It's tough, and I'd suggest speaking with an Accounting professional to get the clear answers, because as Brick's answer suggests, the IRS isn't super clear about it.  An excerpt from a separate page regarding 401K contributions: The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the   lesser of: There are separate, smaller limits for SIMPLE 401(k) plans. Example 1: Greg, 46, is employed by an employer with a 401(k) plan and   he also works as an independent contractor for an unrelated business.   Greg sets up a solo 401(k) plan for his independent contracting   business. Greg contributes the maximum amount to his employer’s 401(k)   plan for 2015, $18,000. Greg would also like to contribute the maximum   amount to his solo 401(k) plan. He is not able to make further   elective deferrals to his solo 401(k) plan because he has already   contributed his personal maximum, $18,000. He has enough earned income   from his business to contribute the overall maximum for the year,   $53,000. Greg can make a nonelective contribution of $53,000 to his   solo 401(k) plan. This limit is not reduced by the elective deferrals   under his employer’s plan because the limit on annual additions   applies to each plan separately. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits

The ignorant and absolutely misleading or flat out lying done by these companies to sway politicians in favor of fracking is intellectually insulting to someone whose head is not firmly rammed up his own ass. Specifically, me. Fracking is no bueno because it is no safeo. Why not also store spent nuclear fuel rods close to an aquifer while we're doing stupid things?

"He will receive it just like any other non-spouse beneficiary you could have named.  The money can stay in your 401K account if he wants to keep it there. For simplicity, your nephew will want to roll the money over to another qualified account, such as an IRA. The account must be titled in your name, for the benefit of him as beneficiary (aka, ""beneficiary IRA"").  Regardless of where the money is kept, he will be required to start withdrawing the funds a little bit each year, known as the Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) and it will appear as taxable income to him each year. There is no early withdrawal penalty in this case. Optionally, he can stretch out his RMDs over his own life expectancy. He would do this to lower his potential tax obligation, and to keep the money in his account longer, hopefully growing over time. See Publication 590-B , Distributions from IRA."

At TAPE-RITE we are “The Specialists in Specialty Tapes”SM . We stock a wide range of tapes including: double-coated, electrical, Teflon (PTFE), Kapton (Polyimide), fiberglass, foam, aluminum, cloth, military & aerospace spec, high temperature and many. for details call us at: 516-406-8294 / 800-532-2309 Fax at: 516.328.0344 E-mail at: sales@taperite.com visit us: http://taperite.com/


Question: Is it financially advantageous and safe to rent out my personal car?

The moment that you start to rent your car to strangers you are talking about using your car as a business. Will it be financially advantageous? If you can convince somebody to rent your vehicle for more than your required monthly payments then it might be. Of course you have to determine what would be the true cost of ownership for you. It could include your auto loan, and insurance, but you would be saving on the garage costs. Of course if you don't have it rented 100% of the time you will still have some costs. Your insurance company will need to know about your plan. They charge based on the risk. If you aren't honest about the situation they won't cover you if something goes wrong. The local government may want to know. They charge different car registration fees for businesses. If there are business taxes they will want that.  Taxes. you are running a business so everybody from the federal governemnt to the local government may want a cut. Plus you will have to depreciate the value of the item. Turning the item from a personal use item to a business item can have tax issues. If you don't own it 100% the lender may also have concerns about making sure their collateral survives. Is it safe? and from the comments to the question :  Should I do a contract or something that would protect me? Nope. it isn't safe unless you do have a contract. Of course that contract will have to be drawn up by a lawyer to make sure it protects you from theft, negligence, breach of contract.... You will have to be able to not just charge rent, but be able to repossess the car if they don't return it on time. You will have to be able to evaluate if the renter is trustworthy, or you may find your car is in far worse shape if you can even get it back.

"The Euro is not the reason for the debt crisis. It is only preventing those countries affected from using the easy way out. The fault is entirely that of those countries.  They were given billions and billions in structural aid, to put the ""convergence criteria"" into reality. Instead they chose bubble economies. And no, this is not the same all around Europe. I don't see France or Germany having a giant property bubble."

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

Yeah, but based on his age I would guess he started really loading up on coins and gold stocks in the latter 1970s, as many goldbugs did. Those bets would have lagged inflation since, underperforming nearly any other investment.

"Inflation, like trade deficits or surpluses, have winners and losers in an economy. Clear losers are people who are on a fixed income, as they often have a fixed income and a prices keep on going up, meaning they can afford less.  Numerous articles on the internet discuss the inflation of the 1970s, here are Google's results.  I'm not so sure that governments want ""some inflation"" as much as they desperately want to avoid deflation. Deflation means that the price for today's product, like a car, will decrease in price tomorrow (or a month from now) which creates a powerful incentive for people to put off a purchase until later, which brings consumer demand down in a country's economy."

I hear what you are saying, but it doesn't seem to ring true.  The subsidies again may exacerbate the issue, but they aren't CAUSING the issue.  The real issue is the regulatory burden in your explanation here, not the subsidies.  But again, I think the large companies' abilities to sue forever, or buy out of existence, the smaller companies, or to gain regulation that does disproportionately favor the larger companies, is the real issue, then.  Subsidies are only a catalyst to help the process go faster.

"There is no equation. Only data that would help you come to the decision that's right for you.  Assuming the 401(k) is invested in a stock fund of one sort or another, the choice is nearly the same as if you had $5K cash to either invest or pay debt.  Since stock returns are not fixed, but are a random distribution that somewhat resembles a bell curve, median about 10%, standard deviation about 14%. It's the age old question of ""getting a guaranteed X% (paying the debt) or a shot at 8-10% or so in the market."" This come up frequently in the decision to pre-pay mortgages at 4-5% versus invest. Many people will take the guaranteed 4% return vs the risk that comes with the market. For your decision, the 401(k) loan, note that the loan is due if you separate from the company for whatever reason. This adds an additional layer of risk and another data point to the mix. For your exact numbers, the savings is barely $50. I'd probably not do it. If the cards were 18%, I'd lean toward the loan, but only if I knew I could raise the cash to pay it back to not default."

Here's an Irish government publication that should give you some background information to get you started. In a nutshell, you get tax benefits, but cannot withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age.