Question: Prices go up and salary doesn't: where goes delta?

"Where goes the Delta? To the sea, of course.  Your question is very valid and for once, I think most of the answers are too involved into mechanical details and are badly missing the big picture.  At the risk of over simplifying things, let me try to describe the situation in broad strokes: Inflation: the volume of money grows faster than production (including services).  Deflation: production increase faster than the volume of money.  Imagine an economy with 10 products and $10. 1 product = $1. In an inflationary scenario, money available increase: $20 for 10 products. 1 product = $2.  In a deflationary scenario, money available decrease: $5 for 10 products. 1 product = $0.5.  So far, it's pretty textbook. Now onto the stuff that you don't usually read in textbooks: Time.  Say 10 people are attending an auction, each with $10 bucks. 10 items are for sale. $100 and 10 items. Item price is $10. Now, if just before opening the bidding, you go around and give each person $40, every one has $50. Each product sells for $50. That's the picture people have of inflation. Prices have increased, but everybody has more money, so it comes down to the same thing.  Now, let's bring this example closer to reality: You have to distribute $400, so the total amount of money is $500, which means that the normal price of each item should be $50. Now, imagine that instead of giving money to everyone at the same time, you started by giving $40 to 1 guy who was hanging out in front. The auction starts. While you go around distributing the money, the first guy manages to buy 2 items at $10 each. Now, there is $480 in the market, and only 8 items, making each item $60 on average. The next guy to get money manages to snap 2 items at $15. 6 items left and $450 in play. Each item now costs $75....and keep increasing in price as things move along. People who get the money early buy items under their real value, and people who get paid at the end pick up the tab, because by then, there are only a few items left. Back to reality, while inflation means that wages eventually increase (and they do), actual purchasing decrease for most people due to this simple trick. Employees are pretty much at the end of the chain. Income tax Another major source of ""signal loss"" is income tax. It works by brackets, as you certainly know. Simplifying again because I am lazy: Take a guy who earns $100. Pays no taxes. Can buy 100 products at $1 each. Now, put in some inflation... He earns $500. He pays $50 in taxes and can buy 90 products at $5 each. By the time he earns $10,000, he can only buy 50 products on account of income tax. So this is another area where you are bleeding purchasing power, and why income tax, which was originally presented as a tax for the ultra-rich is now a fact of life for most people (except the ultra-rich, of course).  Money as debt Next stop: Money itself. Money is created as debt in our society. At the risk of over-simplifying things again, let's say Bank A has $1000 in assets. In the fractional reserve system (our current system), Bank A can lend out many times over that amount. Let's say $9,000, for a total of $10,000 (much more in reality). And of course, it lends that money at interest. When bank A has made $10,000 available through 10% interest loans, the total amount of money has increased by $10,000, but when the loans are paid back, $11,000 must be paid to the bank, so the net result of the operation is that $1,000 get taken out of the market.  This system explains why almost all companies and governments have huge debts, and why most of the world's large companies belong to financial institutions of some kind, and why most of the world's wealth rest in very very few hands.  To fully answer your question and provide details and references and names, one would have to write a book or 5. There is a lot more than can be said on the subject, and of course, all the examples given here are extremely simplified, but I think they illustrate the key issues pretty well.  Bottom-line is that our system is designed that way. Our economic system is rigged and the delta bleeds out on automatic."

"With regards to ""the stock market,"" there are actually two markets involved here: PRIMARY MARKET Value is created in the primary market where capital is exchanged for a residual interest in an opportunity.  As a theoretical example, if a person operating solo (or with a small team) were to discover or create a breakthrough product, such as an retro-aging pill, that person likely wouldn't have the financial means to fully capitalize on his new-found idea.  Others with more capital may also soon discover his idea or improve upon it and exploit it before he has a chance to. For a real life example, a person studying at a California university during the 1990s discovered a method to index internet webpages and was approached by some students after a talk on the subject.  He returned to his native southern Europe country seeking funds to develop the web-indexing business and failed to do so.  Two of the students that approached him found capital readily available from investors in their campus sphere; their business is today one of the biggest in the world.  They had exchanged part of their residual interest for capital to develop their business. The primary market of the stock market works mostly same in creating value.  It is also dependent upon the secondary market. SECONDARY MARKET The secondary market indicates the day-to-day value of an enterprise.  That market allows shareholders to manage their risk appetites and the enterprise's operators to execute their shareholders' interest for gains.  In most cases, a secondary market reference will be used for pricing a primary market issuance.  Without that reference, capital would be allocated less efficiently creating additional costs for all involved, issuers and investors. Consider what would happen if you sought to purchase a house and the mortgage lenders had no indication what the property was worth.  This would make capital very expensive or possibly deny you access to credit.  By having an indication, all involved are better off.  That is value creating. There are some large developed economies' equity markets, such as that in Germany, where many large enterprises stay privately held and credit financing, mostly from banks, is used.  The approach has proven successful as well. So why do some nations' financial markets still rely on capricious stock markets when private credit financing may do just fine in many cases?  It's largely a matter of national culture.  Countries such as the Netherlands, the UK and the US have long had active equity markets in continuous use that investors have trusted for centuries. CONCLUSION When leaders of an enterprise wish to grow the business to a large size with investment from the stock market, they aren't limited by the size of their banks' capital.  Those leaders and their prospective investors will rely on the secondary market to determine values.  In addition, if the leaders raise equity instead of debt capital, they are usually accorded more flexibility to take risks since shareholders usually have their own flexibility to transfer those risks to other investors if for any number of reasons they choose to do so. Stock markets create value in many other ways.  The above are the main ways."

One of the main criticisms made by product companies (especially publishers) of Amazon.com is that it violates the price floors on various products. When Amazon routinely sells products at a heavily discounted price, the product companies feel that the product gets devalued. Amazon has often been accused of anticompetitive behavior, because other retailers cannot compete with their discounts.  It's interesting that this article makes the exact opposite claim --- that the product companies are the ones who are anticompetitive.

"I know of one practical difference between business checks (8"" check) and personal checks (6"" check) dealing with the paper check conversion rule to electronic debit.   The National ACH Association, created a rule that allows receivers of checks without an ""Auxiliary On-Us"" field, to convert your check into an electronic debit via the ACH network.  By default, 6"" checks (personal checks) do NOT have the AUX ON-US field, and are eligible to be converted to ACH debit. If you do not want your paper checks converted to ACH debits, then start using business checks with the AUX ON-US field populated.  You can use business checks for business or personal checking accounts. More information can be found below: http://www.deluxe.com/miscfiles/pdf/AuxOnUsField.pdf http://www.achrulesonline.org/"

You're exactly right. If I can under the law hire someone only for their musical taste (whether that is a smart move or not is irrelevant) I should also be able to do so based on religious choice.

Well your caution is appreciated! I didn't even see it like that so thank you for pointing it out! I've been tying to read up on him and the company and things look legit but I'll still keep this info with me. Thank you again for watching out:)

I'm not sure that you're considering all the options.   So you may not subtract $X from B, but you do compare NPV(B) to $Y.   Also, remember that we're not trying to figure out the return on B.  We're trying to figure out what to do next.  In terms of planning, the sunk cost is irrelevant.  But in terms of calculating return, A was a turkey.  And to calculate the return, we would include $X in our costs for B.  And for the second option, we'd subtract $X from $Y (may be negative).   Sunk costs are irrelevant to planning, but they are very relevant to retrospective analysis.  Please don't confuse the two.  When looking back, part of the cost for B will be that $X.  But in the middle, after paying $X and before starting B, the $X is gone.  You only have the building and have to make your decision based on the options you have at that moment.   You will sometimes hear $Y called the opportunity cost of B.  You could sell out for $Y or you could do B.  You should only do B if it is worth more than $Y.   The sunk cost fallacy would be comparing B to $X.  Assuming $Y is less than $X, this would make you not do B when it is your best path forward from that moment.  I.e. $Y < NPV(B) < $X means that you should do the project.  You will lose money (apparently that's a foregone conclusion), but you will lose less money than if you just sold out.   You should also do B if $Y < $X < NPV(B) or $X < $Y < NPV(B).  In general, you should do B any time $Y < NPV(B).  The only time you should not do B is if NPV(B) < $Y.  If they are exactly equal, then it doesn't matter financially whether you do B or not.

One idea that I read among some of the many, many personal finance blogs out there is to create a niche website with good content and generate some ad revenue. The example the author gave was a website he'd made with some lessons to learn basic Spanish. Something as specific as that has a reasonable chance of becoming popular even if you never post new content (since you were looking for passive). The ad income won't be great, but it's likely to stay > 0 for a significant while.


Question: What does “/” and “^” mean in ticker symbols? How to translate these symbols into yahoo?

On NASDAQ the ^ is used to denote other securities and / to denote warrents for the underlying company. Yahoo maybe using some other designators for same.

Certainly. I'm afraid it was a bit of a rhetorical question. My point is that I personally don't care what a person is wearing so long as it covers the fleshy bits. I care more about the person's ideas when it comes to a leadership position.

If it was me I would want to go with the state I am moving too. I'm not familiar with business law too much as I'm only a law student right now but I would guess it's a safer bet. There might be local state laws that could apply. If there are not any local regulations then they should still know all of the national regulations just the same.

To stop worrying about the car engine, proper tuning of the car becomes essential. It makes sure timing and fuel consumption comes in line with the safety. Decide what type of use or performance is expected of the car. Select the platform and based on the budget get the car modification done.

"Why bother any more?  Max penalty if these guys are even paying their much publicized ""government "" penalties is pennies on the dollar to what they got from the illegal activity. And the governmental workers will all go back to their cush bank job afterwards with a bonus."

Do you eat out much or go to coffee shops?  I add portions of my excess spare change to the tips/tip jars.  I make it a bit over the usual percentage to make up for the fact that it's, well, spare change...

Previous to apply for a home loan, recognize the time of charges, punishment or fee charged by your lending company or bank for defaulting in monthly EMI. Know the dispensation accuse and in case a person decides to control their loan from current lender to a new lender, the present lender will charge consequence or fee for pre-closure of your loan.

"That wasn't really my point.  I was countering the attitudes that  1.  Landlords vs slumlords - somehow I doubt if the author lives in a real slum with a landlord that provides substandard housing.  Why call a landlord a derogatory name for providing you a place to live>?  2.  The idea that the ""slumlords"" somehow conspired to artificially inflate, then deflate the quiet and lovely neighborhood.  Pretty ridiculous notion in my opinion.  Not to mention that buying a home in an area with abysmal schools doesn't seem to be a good idea if you have a ""gifted daughter"", unless you can afford to send her to private schools."


Question: How is a Condominium / Apartment Building fiscally identified?

In such cases, it has a EIN, like any business would. Even absent the rent you suggest, the condo should have reserve funds, similar to an individual's emergency account, only more codified as to level and flows. These funds should be earning interest.

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

I've never taken my 8 year old there, (he has been with friends parent's though) he saw right through their marketing bullshit and didn't like the food anyway - the tide is turning McDonalds, what are you going to do?

The answer is very simple. Part of the luxury is having the cutting edge technology with the very latest features. The price premium is not just from increased build quality; it's simply a perception. Additionally, 10 years takes its toll on a car. The smooth suspension gets rougher over time, and all the little features start to break down. Part of the price of that car factors in the expense of expected repairs. That's true of every car, but the repairs are more expensive when there are lots of gadgets to break down, especially on imports.

If you have income in the US, you will owe US income tax on it, unless there is a treaty with your country that says otherwise.

Take The 20k and transfer it to the new employer 401k. You then can take a loan and accomplish the same thing. By the time you pay the tax and 10% penalty, that withdrawal will be worth just over half. The same half you can borrow out, pay yourself the interest and not lose out on 50 years of growth.

S&P 500 are a relatively small portion of the entire American economy. Any number of things could cause them to increase in value at a greater rate than total output.   For example, distribution of total spending could shift from the public sector to the private sector if government tax receipts and outlays were decreased. It's also possible the economy is becoming more centralized towards tech and industrial giants, with an increasing market share in the hands of fewer, larger companies.

"I'm sure that I can find enough people who would disagree with you on what you'd consider a decent movie to invalidate that argument.  edit: [2012](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_(film\)). "" It received generally mixed to negative reviews from critics and its wordwide theatrical revenue reached approximately $769 million."" There was no shortage of bad movies, nor was their any shortage of bad movies that made millions. Indeed, one of the true signs of the coming apocalypse isn’t contained in the Mayan calendar but in the fact that ""2012"" made a ziggurat of money."""


Question: When shorting a stock, do you pay current market price or the best (lowest) available ask price?

When you want to short a stock, you are trying to sell shares (that you are borrowing from your broker), therefore you need buyers for the shares you are selling.  The ask prices represent people who are trying to sell shares, and the bid prices represent people who are trying to buy shares. Using your example, you could put in a limit order to short (sell) 1000 shares at $3.01, meaning that your order would become the ask price at $3.01.  There is an ask price ahead of you for 500 shares at $3.00.  So people would have to buy those 500 shares at $3.00 before anyone could buy your 1000 shares at $3.01. But it's possible that your order to sell 1000 shares at $3.01 never gets filled, if the buyers don't buy all the shares ahead of you.  The price could drop to $1.00 without hitting $3.01 and you will have missed out on the trade. If you really wanted to short 1000 shares, you could use a market order.  Let's say there's a bid for 750 shares at $2.50, and another bid for 250 shares at $2.49.  If you entered a market order to sell 1000 shares, your order would get filled at the best bid prices, so first you would sell 750 shares at $2.50 and then you would sell 250 shares at $2.49. I was just using your example to explain things.  In reality there won't be such a wide spread between the bid and ask prices.  A stock might have a bid price of $10.50 and an ask price of $10.51, so there would only be a 1 cent difference between putting in a limit order to sell 1000 shares at $10.51 and just using a market order to sell 1000 shares and getting them filled at $10.50. Also, your example probably wouldn't work in real life, because brokers typically don't allow people to short stocks that are trading under $5 per share. As for your question about how often you are unable to make a short sale, it can sometimes happen with stocks that are heavily shorted and your broker may not be able to find any more shares to borrow. Also remember that you can only short stocks with a margin account, you cannot short stocks with a cash account.

If I were you, I would go to the bank right now, pay the $100 and close the account.  I would stop the bleeding first then consider the fallout later.   Do you own the account jointly with your partner(s) as a partner or does the partnership (a separate formal entity) own the bank account with you a named representative?  Those are two very different situations. If you're a joint owner, you're liable for the fees; along with your other partners in accordance with your partnership agreement.  You never closed yourself off the account and that's your problem. If the dissolved partnership owns the account, you're not personally liable for the fees.  You were never a personal owner of the account, now that the account is negative you don't magically become personally liable. The differences here are very nuanced and the details matter.  If this were a large amount of money I'd suggest you go see a lawyer.  Since this is about $100 I'd just pay it, make sure the account is closed, and move on.

Regulated vs unregulated crypto makes sense - it seems like it's easier for government officials to simply enforce a blanket restriction on cryptocurrency transactions of all kinds than bother to make the distinctions between different types. I expect China's shutdown will be the first of many in terms of national governments on cryptocurrency.

Big pharma lobbyists don't make final decisions on whether an Epipen generic gets approved.  The FDA does.  Keep your eye on the ball.  Unless you think the FDA is so useless that their decisions are entirely based on big pharma lobbyists?  That's an even bigger reason for abolishing the whole organization, isn't it?

It sucks but sometimes you just have to flat out be an asshole to people. Ive told people to post that drivel on r/Occupywallstreet and leave it out of the business related forums where people actually know whats going on. Sucks but gets the job done. I would encourage you to check out r/finance and see what you think about our stuff.

"Yes, they have done the same thing many times, and almost every time it dies. Read the history of Ron Paul sponsored legislation. Note the phrase ""passed the House Oversight Committee this morning on a voice vote, with no vocal opposition"". That likely means no one cared to argue about it since they likely wanted to get to other issues. The final bill, like most others, will likley die."

Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? A concern I see is the variable rate loans. Do you understand the maximum rate they can get to? At this time those rates are low, but if you are going to put funds against the highest rate loan, make sure the order doesn't change without you noticing it. What is a good mode of attack here?  The best mode of attack is to pay off the one with the highest rate first by paying more than the minimum. When that is done roll over the money you were paying for that loan to the next highest. Note if a loan balance get to be very low, you can put extra funds against this low balance loan to be done with it. Investigate loan forgiveness programs. The federal government has loan forgiveness programs for certain job positions, if you work for them for a number of years. Some employers also have these programs.  What are the payoff dates for the other loans? My inexact calculations put a bunch in about 2020 but some as late as 2030. You may need to talk to your lender. They might have a calculator on their website.  Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Some loans are subsidized by the federal government. This covers the interest while the student is still in school. Non-subsidized federal loans and private loans don't have this feature, so their balance can grow while the student is in school.

I'm not sure it's a great idea to help spread ideas about that way of thinking by putting that whole ideology in a Reddit title and then upvoting it.    I know the idea is presumable supposed to be to shame Marc Fabor, but if I was a racist who wanted to help spread this kind of vision of America, I would also upvote it because it's helping to promote a racist philosophy.


Question: What's the best way to manage all the 401K accounts I've accumulated from my past jobs?

I rolled mine over from the company I was at into my own brokerage house.  You can't roll them into a Roth IRA, so I needed to setup a traditional IRA. There is paperwork your old jobs can provide you.  I had to put in some mailing addresses, some account numbers and turn them in.  My broker received it, I chose what I wanted to invest it in and that was that.  No tax penalty or early withdrawal penalty.  The key to avoiding penalties is to have your past employers send the money directly to another retirement fund, not send a check to you.

You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money).  The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA.  This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years.  If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution?  (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).

It's so that your total mortgage payment stays the same every month. Obviously, the interest due each month decreases over time, as part of the principal is paid off each month, and so if the proportion of interest and principal repayments were to stay the same then your first payment would be very large and your last payment would be almost nothing.

As others said, there is no recovery from that being late. However, to fix your situation: You can do a Rollover of Funds from HSA 1 to HSA 2. Both my HSAs have that option right on their website; I log on to HSA 2 (the target), and request a rollover from HSA 1 (the source), for the desired amount (3000 for you); I guess most HSAs offer that; if not you can call them to start it. This has no tax or limit implications; it just moves money between equally qualified HSAs. You could also consider - while you do that - to roll over the complete content of HSA 1 and get rid of it (as it is 'hard to access'). There is no limit (so you can move a million if you have it there), and as said above, no tax implication, no limit violations, as long as the money goes from one HSA into another HSA with the same ownership.

Something doesn't smell right:  >The decline was driven largely by the plummeting stock market, which devastated Americans' portfolios and retirement accounts.  The stock market has been flat in real term since about 2000.  The only way you can say that people experienced lost wealth from the stock market is if you assume they all bought at the peak.

Fiscal Year 2011 was a record-setting year for the SBA in total small business loan volume. While the economy may still be in recovery from the Great Recession, you can read about some Good News in my article from the December issue of Scotsman Guide. Don’t forget that unless an extension is granted, the refinance provision of the SBA 504 loan will expire in September 2012.

We constantly hear that there are not enough trades-people to fill manufacturing roles. This is what happens when you offshore everything possible for the last 30 years. No one wants to go into a trade that will be offshored plus there are too few of those positions to apprentice in. Stop the boo-hooing big business, man-up and invest in some of your fellow citizens.

Osx interface is not intuitive. Closing stuff doesn't even close it... also installing applications makes no sense. Dual booting is pointless if he is going to use excel most of the time is he really going to reboot when he doesn't want to work. Also why pay the premium for Mac if you are not gonna make use of it already half the time.


Question: Can I deduct child's charitable deduction from my taxes?

No, you may not deduct the charitable contributions of your children. The Nest covers this in detail: The IRS only allows you to deduct charitable contributions that you personally funded, whether the contribution was made in your name or in someone else's. If your child or dependent makes a donation to a charity, you are not allowed to claim it as a tax deduction. This is true even if your dependent does not claim the contribution on his own tax return because he opts for the standard deduction rather than itemizing or claims exemption. Now, had you constructed the transaction differently, it's possible you could've made the contribution in your child's name and thus claimed the deduction.  Allowance is technically a gift, and if she agrees to forgo allowance in exchange for you making a contribution, well, the IRS can't really complain (though they might try if it were a large amount!). Contributions in the name of someone else, but funded by yourself, are deductible: [Y]ou can deduct contributions you make in someone else’s name. So if you donated a certain amount of money to XYZ charity in your child’s name, for example, you would be able to deduct this amount on your taxes, as long as the deduction requirements are met. You will need to keep accurate records of the payment along with the receipt from the organization to prove you financed the donation.

There are a number of ways and it all depends on your concentration and range of skills (or skills you're willing to develop). As for involving your wife ... things that can be done locally for neighbours is always a good idea. The most important thing is not to spend too much time or cash on anything that will take a long time to pay off.  That excludes writing your own iPhone apps, for example, which would take long hours of development and much marketing (and luck) to be successful. Good luck and congrats.

If you just need to fill out the basic forms. this post is really helpful and translates them to english as well as telling you which forms to fill out. http://www.toytowngermany.com/wiki/ELSTER . it really helped me out the last couple years. this year is of course tricky as i did some consulting back in the US and have to figure out the AUS form vs N AUS or what the deal is.  hope it helps

Just playing devil's advocate: A falling stock price impairs the firm's ability to raise equity capital efficiently. In these times, additional regulatory capital requirements continue to be levied on the banks, and they are faced with raising capital inefficiently, which may impair their ability to pay their debt, which may lead to a ratings downgrade.

This is the correct answer and is a concrete way to start to work on be legitimate problem of the income gap between the 1% and the rest of the population.  Ive tried, but never been able to justify the compensation earned by the fortune 100 CEOs.

Having someone else paying you rent is always going to be the better deal financially. The question is, what does $450k buy in the neighborhood in which you want to live, vs $800k? I'm going to assume you can afford either option (buying a $450k home and not selling, or an $800k home and selling your current one) whether someone's paying you rent or not. Let's make up some numbers here; a $450k home, financed 80/20 (360k principal) at 4% for 30 years will cost you about $1720 in P&I payments per year (plus escrows such as RE taxes, PMI, and homeowners insurance where applicable). An $800k home financed 80/20 (640k principal) at 4% for 30yr will give you payments of about $3,055/mo before taxes and insurance. So, the worst case overall is that you buy a 450k home in the new neighborhood and are not, at any given time, collecting rent on the old property. That would (assuming the mortgage terms on both home loans were comparable) cost you $3440/mo and you'd be living in a $450k home in a neighborhood where 450k may not buy a home as nice as the one you moved out of. The question as I stated above is this; assuming you had a reliable tenant in your home for the entire remaining life of the loan on your current home, which is more acceptable to you: buying $450k of home (which might be a downgrade in sqft or amenities) and paying $2020 in P&I, or paying about a grand more ($3055/mo) for a much nicer home in the new location? Strictly from a money perspective, the renter is going to be the best option, IF you get reliable tenancy for the entire life of the mortgage on that house; you'll be paying $2020/mo for 30 years, which is $727,200, to end up with $950k of total home value (plus adjustments for actual home value appreciation/depreciation). That's the only way you'll come out ahead on any mortgage; have someone else pay most of it for you. If you don't rent, the $800k home will cost you $1,099,800, while two $450k homes will cost you $1,454,400. The percentage of home value over total payments for the 800k home would be 72% (you will have paid 137% of the value of the home), while you will have paid 153% of the value of two 450k homes.

">Quality control. The second generation is not consistent  >Control on patent license to prevent theft.   Kind of sidesteps the ""no one replants seeds in agriculture"", doesn't it? And isn't the fact that the second generation's quality is not consistent the farmer's problem? Why need to enforce it contractually?   And what do you mean by patent theft? Is it theft if the farmer re-uses the seed to replant another harvest?  >I take it that you get your information from activist blogs, because if you actually read that case you would know that Schmeiser was guilt of patent theft. The fact that you cite this case marks you as deeply uniformed about the ag industry  No, mate, no activist blogs. Go re-read my comment. I do give it away that the farmer is not squeaky clean as he tried to use the the seeds to advance his own developments. Which is patent theft.  But it doesn't take away the fact that he had a bunch of GMO canola that he didn't purposefully plant on his property. If he would have used those seeds to use in his developments unwittingly of them being Monsanto seeds, there should have been no claim of patent theft as he was just using what happened on his land. That's a big if, but the point stands.  And you keep on claiming I am uninformed despite the fact that I've refuted your first chiding that no farmer replants seeds. Doesn't really make for a shining example that you actually know what you are talking about.  >Like I said, if your knowledge of the TPP is a high quality as your knowledge of agriculture....  I've read what I've read, and from a few sources. As I said, so far it's hearsay, but if you're so enlightened, please do let me know your sources."

They are mutually exclusive.  Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both.  Employer match do not count toward the 18K.   On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive.  So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.


Question: Why don't market indexes use aggregate market capitalization?

"They do but you're missing some calculations needed to gain an understanding. Intro To Stock Index Weighting Methods notes in part: Market cap is the most common weighting method used by an index.   Market cap or market capitalization is the standard way to measure the   size of the company. You might have heard of large, mid, or small cap   stocks? Large cap stocks carry a higher weighting in this index. And   most of the major indices, like the S&P 500, use the market cap   weighting method. Stocks are weighted by the proportion of their market cap to the total   market cap of all the stocks in the index. As a stock’s price and   market cap rises, it gains a bigger weighting in the index. In turn   the opposite, lower stock price and market cap, pushes its weighting   down in the index.  Pros Proponents argue that large companies have a bigger effect on the   economy and are more widely owned. So they should have a bigger   representation when measuring the performance of the market. Which is   true. Cons It doesn’t make sense as an investment strategy. According to a market   cap weighted index, investors would buy more of a stock as its price   rises and sell the stock as the price falls. This is the exact   opposite of the buy low, sell high mentality investors should use. Eventually, you would have more money in overpriced stocks and less in   underpriced stocks. Yet most index funds follow this weighting method. Thus, there was likely a point in time where the S & P 500's initial sum was equated to a specific value though this is the part you may be missing here. Also, how do you handle when constituents change over time? For example, suppose in the S & P 500 that a $100,000,000 company is taken out and replaced with a $10,000,000,000 company that shouldn't suddenly make the index jump by a bunch of points because the underlying security was swapped or would you be cool with there being jumps when companies change or shares outstanding are rebalanced? Consider carefully how you answer that question. In terms of histories, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S & P 500 Index would be covered on Wikipedia where from the latter link: The ""Composite Index"",[13] as the S&P 500 was first called when it   introduced its first stock index in 1923, began tracking a small   number of stocks. Three years later in 1926, the Composite Index   expanded to 90 stocks and then in 1957 it expanded to its current   500.[13] Standard & Poor's, a company that doles out financial information and analysis, was founded in 1860 by Henry Varnum Poor. In   1941 Poor's Publishing (Henry Varnum Poor's original company) merged   with Standard Statistics (founded in 1906 as the Standard Statistics   Bureau) and therein assumed the name Standard and Poor's Corporation.   The S&P 500 index in its present form began on March 4, 1957.   Technology has allowed the index to be calculated and disseminated in   real time. The S&P 500 is widely used as a measure of the general   level of stock prices, as it includes both growth stocks and value   stocks. In September 1962, Ultronic Systems Corp. entered into an agreement   with Standard and Poor's. Under the terms of this agreement, Ultronics   computed the S&P 500 Stock Composite Index, the 425 Stock Industrial   Index, the 50 Stock Utility Index, and the 25 Stock Rail Index.   Throughout the market day these statistics were furnished to Standard   & Poor's. In addition, Ultronics also computed and reported the 94 S&P   sub-indexes.[14] There are also articles like Business Insider that have this graphic that may be interesting: S & P changes over the years The makeup of the S&P 500 is constantly changing notes in part: ""In most years 25 to 30 stocks in the S&P 500 are replaced,"" said   David Blitzer, S&P's Chairman of the Index Committee. And while there   are strict guidelines for what companies are added, the final decision   and timing of that decision depends on what's going through the heads   of a handful of people employed by Dow Jones."

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

You are implicitly making that assumption. It doesn't matter if the rich are taking and increasingly large percentage of the pie, as long as the size of the pie is growing fast enough that the absolute wealth of the poor is rising at a reasonable rate over time.  The correct and reasonable measure is to compare the wealth of the poor, today with the wealth of the poor in the past in terms of real buying power.  I understand what you're saying and I disagree with your analysis. I disagree that relative proportions have any meaningful impact of human well being.

The initial and overnight margin requirements are set by the exchanges (who calculate them using the Standard Portfolio of Analysis of Risk, or 'SPAN' system), and positions are market to market according to these at the end of the trading session. To find these margin requirements you will need to consult the website of the exchange on which the contract you are trading is issued (i.e. if you're trading on the London Metal Exchange it's no good looking at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's margin requirements as a previous answer suggests!). However, for positions entered and exited within the same day, the daytrade margin rate will apply. This is set by your broker rather than the exchange, and can be as little as 10% of the exchange requirement. You can find a useful comparison of different margin types and requirements in the article I have published here: Understanding Margin for Futures Trading.

You are correct that you do not need to file under a certain circumstances primarily related to income, but other items are taken into account such as filing status, whether the amount was earned or unearned income (interest, dividends, etc.) and a few other special situations which probably don't apply to you.  If you go through table 2 on page 3 and 4 of IRS publication 501 (attached), there is a worksheet to fill out that will give you the definitive answer.   As far as the 1099 goes, that is to be filed by the person who paid you.  How you were paid (i.e., cash, check, etc., makes no difference).  You don't have a filing requirement for that form in this case. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p501.pdf

Uber should have crushed Lyft by being the first to market a long time ago. Instead they blew their lead by dumping all their money into   1. Warring with Google, which they will lose, and were always bound to lose, because nobody at Uber has ever heard of NDAs or sunk cost fallacies   2. Tolerating PR scandals until the point where customers actively sought out an alternative not because the product was bad, because Uber was in many ways a superior product, but because they saw Uber as a bad company. And it takes a lot to lose customers in that situation.   What a stupid company.

"It is possible and it depends on your strategy. As short selling interest rates are annual and levied monthly at a prorated rate. Interest rates are also low in general, with the exception of hard to borrow stocks. Therefore you can maintain a short position for weeks on end and notice nothing. Months even, if the position itself has already gained in your favor. There is no additional fee for opening the short position. Although some brokers have a ""locate"" fee, if it is hard to borrow the stock and they need to go find some shares to short. So you can do it as much as you like."

So your solution is take all three away. Take illegals, felons and potheads out if the jobs that 20 years ago the potheads and felons filled.  Who exactly do you plan to fill those jobs with? The homeless? Who are all felons and potheads.  Or ok automation.  Fine but don't cry when society goes down the tubes because so many people are on the streets with no where to turn but crime/drugs. Then eventually in prison that you pay for.  It was your idea though that you support.  Sorry bud but I think it's your idea shooting yourself in the foot, literally.


Question: Borrowing share with a covered call for short?

No, if your stock is called away, the stock is sold at the agreed upon price. You cannot get it back at your original price. If you don't want your stock to be called, make sure you have the short call position closed by expiration if it is ITM.  Also you could be at risk for early assignment if the option has little to no extrinsic value, although probably not. But when dividends are coming, make sure you close your short ITM options. If the dividend is worth more than the extrinsic value, you are pretty much guaranteed to be assigned. Been assigned that way too many times. Especially in ETFs where the dividends aren't dates are not always easy to find. It happens typically during triple witching. If you are assigned on your short option, you will be short stock and you will have to pay the dividend to the shareholder of your short stock. So if you have a covered call on, and you are assigned, your stock will be called away, and you will have to pay the dividend.

The first and most important thing to consider is that this is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION, and needs to be treated as such. Nail down Absolutely All The Details, specifically including what happens if either of you decides it's time to move and wants to sell off your share of the property. Get at least one lawyer involved in drawing up that contract, perhaps two so there's no risk of conflict of interest. What's your recourse, or his, if the other stops making their share of the payments? Who's responsible for repairs and upkeep? If you make renovations, how does that affect the ownership percentage, and what kind of approval do you need from him first, and how do you get it, and how quickly does he have to respond? If he wants to do something to maintain his investment, such as reroofing, how does he negotiate that with you -- especially if it's something that requires access to the inside of the house? Who is the insurance paid by, or will each of you be insuring it separately? What are the tax implications? Consider EVERY possible outcome; the fact that you're friends now doesn't matter, and in fact arguments over money are one of the classic things that kill friendships. I'd be careful making this deal with a relative (though in fact I did loan my brother a sizable chunk of change to help him bridge between his old house and new house, and that's registered as a mortgage to formalize it). I'd insist on formalizing who owns what even with a spouse, since marriages don't always last. With someone who's just a co-worker and casual friend, it's business and only business, and needs to be both evaluated and contracted as such to protect both of you. If you can't make an agreement that you'd be reasonably comfortable signing with a stranger, think long and hard about whether you want to sign it at all. I'll also point out that nobody is completely safe from long-term unemployment. The odds may be low, but people do get blindsided. The wave of foreclosures during and after the recent depression is direct evidence of that.

Your autograph analogy seems relevant to me. But it is not just speculation. In the long run, investing in stocks is like investing in the economy. In the long run, the economy is expected to grow , hence stock prices are expected to go up. Now in theory: the price of any financial instrument is equal to the net present value today of all the future cash flows from the instrument. So if company's earnings improve, shareholders hope that the earnings will trickle down to them either in form of dividends or in form of capital gain. So they buy the stock, creating demand for it. I can try to explain more if this did not make any sense. :)

I'm hearing that I should maybe wait and see how things go at first as it is only a very small operation.   But if I moved into a side of the trade where I require staff, vehicles, and the likes then I would need to registed as a limited company.

"When I read the article I was pretty shocked to see ""codecademy"" listed as an actual recommendation.  That's like saying CEO's need to understand Mandarin, so they should eat Chinese take out for a couple of weeks."

You're realizing the perils of using a DCF analysis.  At best, you can use them to get a range of possible values and use them as a heuristic, but you'll probably find it difficult to generate a realistic estimate that is significantly different than where the price is already.

The two really aren't easily comparable - you have to look at cost of living.  sdg's calculations account for provincial and federal taxes in Canada, but elide state taxes in the US.  There's also sales taxes, which are usually higher in Canada, and property taxes, which tend to be higher in the US (from my experience).  You also have to include health insurance into your calculations, since that expense is included in your taxes in Canada.

Welcome to eConCord Pro, the best graphic design company in Australia that offers a range of top quality graphic design, SEO, SMM and web development services at affordable pricing. Visit today and check out our plans, pricing and features!


Question: What is the effect of dividends on the futures price of an index

A futures contract is based upon a particular delivery date.  In the case of a stock index futures contract is a cash settled futures contract based upon the stock index value at a particular point in time (i.e. this is when the final settlement is determined). In your example, the S&P 500 (SPX) is a price return index - that is, it is not affected by dividends and therefore dividends are not incorporated into the index value.  Dividends will affect the price of the constituent stocks (not necessarily by the same amount as the dividend) so they do have influence on the stock index value.  Since the dividends are known ahead of time (or at least can be estimated), this has already been factored into the futures price by the market. In terms of the impact of a dividend by AAPL, AAPL is approximaetely 3.6% of the index.  Apple pays out dividends 4 times a year (currently paying out $0.52 dividends).  Assuming the market is otherwise steady and AAPL drops by $0.52 due to the dividend and Apple is priced at around $105, this would result in a drop in the index of 0.0178% or around 0.35 points. Interesting fact:  There are some futures contracts that are based upon Total Return indexes, such as the German DAX and the above logic would need to be reversed.

No, the expense ratio would be something you wouldn't be charged. If you bought shares of the ETF long, then the dividends are usually reduced by the expense ratio if you wanted to know where to find that charge in general. You would have to make up for any dividends the underlying stocks as part of general shorting since the idea is that once you buy to put back the shares, it has to appear as if they weren't missing in the first place. No, the authorized participant would handle changes to the underlying structure if needed.

Probably the biggest tax-deferment available to US workers is through employee-sponsored investment plans like the 401k.  If you meet the income limits, you could also use a Traditional IRA if you do not have a 401k at work.  But keep in mind that you are really just deferring taxes here.  The US Government will eventually get their due. :) One way which you may find interesting is by using 529 plans, or other college investment plans, to save for your child's (or your) college expenses.  Generally, contributions up to a certain amount are deductible on your state taxes, and are exempt from Federal and State taxes when used for qualifying education expenses.  The state deduction can lower your taxes and help you save for college for your children, if that is a desire of yours.

Weren't these fuckers just given 120 billion euros? At this point they should probably stop fueling this shit and just let them burn. European tax payers aren't the only ones dealing with this. The American Federal Reserve is lending money to the banks and the ECB to help with this. I don't want to pay for ailing banks in my own goddamn country, let alone those on the other side of the world in a country I may never visit.

This is exactly what it is, those rich suburanites live too far out of their current footprint for timely delivery service. Not anymore.   For example, in Georgia there are 5 Whole Foods in some of the most affluent neighborhoods in Metro Atlanta that Amazon Fresh currently does not service.

"there's a planet money podcast interview with him from a few years back that gives a good glimpse into the framework of his economic thoughts worth checking out.  he also wrote a book caller ""fault lines"" that is definitely worth the read."

As soccer is one of the most popular game which is played worldwide so there are many companies used to manufacture the soccer ball. But the Best cheap soccer balls manufacture are as like the Adidas they are the main sponsor for the FIFA and the other game and their ball is very much popular among all soccer lovers. Nike is also one of the big sponsors for big events and there is lots of other brand also who used to manufacture the soccer ball.

New Zealand Bank cannot directly ask Singapore Bank. They can approach courts in Singapore and request for funds. Given that amount is small, the cost for pursuing a court case in Singapore would be much higher and the Bank in New Zealand may have already written this off.  They may still have reported you as a defaulter, depending on various things, you may not get a Visa to travel back into New Zealand, or get one and get arrested once you land in New Zealand even during transit.


Question: How can I escalate a credit dispute when the bureau “confirms” the item?

"I was I a similar position as you, and sometimes credit bureaus might be difficult to deal with, especially when high amounts of money are involved. To make the long story short, someone opened a store credit card under my name and made a charge of around 3k. After reporting this to the bureaus, they did not want to remove the account from my credit report citing that the claim was ""frivolous"". After filing a police report, the police officer gave me the phone number for the fraud department of this store credit card, and after they investigated, they removed the account from my credit. I would suggest to do the following: Communicating with Creditors and Debt Collectors You have the right to:  Stop creditors and debt collectors from   reporting fraudulent accounts. After you give them a copy of a valid   identity theft report, they may not report fraudulent accounts to the   credit reporting companies. Get copies of documents related to the   theft of your identity, like transaction records or applications for   new accounts. Write to the company that has the documents, and include   a copy of your identity theft report. You also can tell the company to   give the documents to a specific law enforcement agency. Stop a debt   collector from contacting you. In most cases, debt collectors must   stop contacting you after you send them a letter telling them to stop.   Get written information from a debt collector about a debt, including   the name of the creditor and the amount you supposedly owe. If a debt   collector contacts you about a debt, request this information in   writing. I know that you said that the main problem was that your credit account was combined with another. But there might be a chance that identity theft was involved. If this is the case, and you can prove it, then you might have access to more tools to help you. For example, you can file a report with the FTC, and along with a police report, this can be a powerful tool in stopping these charges. Feel free to go to the identitytheft.gov website for more information."

Agreed. In his current situation, I'd expect OP would find the most personally fulfilling use of his freedom to be spending his time (and not his money) helping people that he is able to help.  He mentioned he was a cop.  Maybe he'd have the insight needed to help get kids out of gangs.  Or, help improve relationships between cops and rough neighborhoods. Doesn't have to be a cop thing. That's just all I've got to work with.

"Rebalancing has been studied empirically quite a bit, but not particularly carefully and actually turns out to be very hard to study well.  The main problem is that you don't know until afterward if your target weights were optimal so a bad rebalancing program might give better performance if it strayed closer to optimal weights even if it didn't do an efficient job of keeping near the target weights. In your particular case either method might be preferred depending on a number of things: You can see why there isn't a generally correct answer to your question and the results of empirical studies might very wildly depending on the mix of assets and risk tolerance.  Still if your portfolio is not too complicated you can estimate the costs of the two methods without too much trouble and figure out if it is worthwhile to you. EDIT In Response to Comment Below: Your example gets at what makes rebalancing so hard empirically but also generally pretty easy in practice.  If you were to target 75% Equity (25% bonds?) and look at returns only for 30 years the ""best"" rebalancing method would be to never rebalance and just let 75% equity go to near 100% as equity has better long term returns.  This happens when you look only at returns as the final number and don't take into account the change in risk in your portfolio. In practice, most people that are still adding (or subtracting in retirement) to a retirement portfolio are adding (removing) a significant amount compared to the total amount in their portfolio.  In the case you discribe, it is cheaper (massively cheaper in the presence of load fees) just to use new capital to trade toward your target, keeping your risk profile.  New money should be large enough to keep you near enough your target.  If you just estimate the trading costs/fees in both cases I think you'll see just how large the difference is between the two methods this will dwarf any small differences in return over the long run even if you can't trade back all the way to your target."

If your goal is to simply save money on shaving supplies, there are easier ways to do so.  If you are buying the latest Gillette multi-blade razor cartridge, then yes, you are spending a lot of money on razor blades. Consider switching to an old-fashioned double-edge safety razor.  Pick up a nice razor for $20 - $50 (I like my Merkur HD), then buy the blades for cheap.  I buy a 2 year supply of double-edge blades for less than $20. If you really want to turn in your man card and get your facial hair permanently removed, then it is really easy to calculate the payback time.  Just figure out what you are spending in razor blades, get a quote for lasering your face off, and compare.  If you are paying $10 a year for blades like I am, the payback time is going to be long. One more thought: remember, permanent means permanent.  This is comparable to a tattoo, except tattoos are easier to reverse.   Others have noted that the procedure isn't really permanent. What I understand from reading (I don't have firsthand experience) is that it is temporary in the sense that you will eventually need to start shaving again, but permanent in the sense that you will never be able to grow a proper beard again, if you wish. Basically, it is the worst of both worlds: it won't accomplish your goal of not having to shave anymore, but will make permanent changes to your face. The fact that you will need to shave again, even if only occasionally, affects your payback time calculation.

Many (if not all) of these companies have former I-bankers in their corp dev groups.  The author's platform is one of many that can connect buyers and sellers directly. At the end of the day, if you are a buyer, do you have the resources and competence to conduct proper due diligence? Quite possibly.  As a seller, do you have the ability to understand industry dynamics and the ability to maximize your valuation? Doubtful.  Buy side M&A has merit, but sell side M&A has proven to deliver value to the majority of clients.

I would like to open an art studio. Not necessarily a gallery, but a place where I can do animation, digital art, branding/logos, and freelance stuff. Also, do some filming there. So an art-production studio.  It's what I enjoy but I live in an area that is too rural for that kijnd of thing. But idk, it might work.

Shares used to be paper documents, but these days they are more commonly held electronically instead, although this partly depends on what country you're in. But it doesn't make any significant practical difference. Regardless of their physical form, a share simply signifies that you own a certain proportion of a company, and are thus entitled to receive any dividends that may be paid to the shareholders. To sell your shares, you need a broker -- there are scores of online ones who will sell them for a modest fee. Your tax forms are entirely dependent on the jurisdiction(s) that tax you, and since you've not told us where you are, no one can answer that.

"Nothing necessarily has to ""benefit."" Right now, what primarily drives demand for gold is its perceived use as a hedge against the inflation of fiat currency. I.e. when inflation strikes, the price of gold goes up rapidly. Thus, for a given currency, gold decreasing in price is almost always a signal that the currency is increasing in value. However, it may be that at some point in time people everywhere just decide that gold is no longer worth using as an inflation hedge, and thus the price collapses simply because demand collapsed. No corresponding ""benefit""."


Question: Value of tokens bought at an older price

"You will make a profit in nominal dollars (or nominal units of whatever currency you used to buy the token).  Whether you'll make a profit in real dollars depends on inflation, and in practice whether it would be possible to sell your existing tokens to someone else for the new price. Suppose when the price was 50 U (50 ""units"", since you didn't specify a currency), you bought one token.  Today you can either spend 52 U for a token, and get a liter of milk, or you can spend your existing token (for which you paid 50 U) and get a liter of milk.  It looks like you are making a profit of 2 U by spending your token. However, whether that profit is real or illusory depends on what else you could do with the token.  For instance, suppose that, since the price of a token is now 52 U, you will have no trouble finding someone who wants to buy your token from you for 52 U.  If you sell your token for 52 U, you'll still only be able to buy 1 L of milk.  So if you measure your wealth in milk, you have made no profit: in the past you had a token representing 1 L of milk, and today you still have a token representing 1 L of milk. Suppose now that in the past, when a token cost 50 U, a hamburger also cost 50 U.  Suppose further that a hamburger now costs 52 U.  So you can sell your token for 52 U, but that 52 U will still only buy you one hamburger.  So, again, if you measure your wealth in hamburgers, your have made no profit.  In the past, you could have sold your token and bought a hamburger; today, you can still sell your token and buy a hamburger, and you'll have nothing left over, so you have gained nothing. If, on the other hand, the price of a hamburger today is still 50 U, then you call sell your token for 52 U, buy a hamburger for 50 U, and still have 2 U left over.  You have made a profit. What this all goes to show is that, in practice, the idea of ""profit"" depends on the overall economy, and whether you could exchange the currency units you have in your possession for a greater quantity of goods than you could in the past.  Whether this is possible depends on the relative changes in price of various goods.  In other words, if you get your money by selling Product A, and later you buy Product B, you may or may not make a profit depending on how the prices of the two products moved relative to one another. Also, in your hypothetical setup, the ""currency"" (the token) is directly linked to the value of a single good, so you can always at least get 1 L of milk for your token.  Most real currency is not bound to specific goods like your milk token, so it is possible for your currency to lose value in an absolute sense.  For instance, suppose you sell a book for $5.  The $5 is not a ""book token"" and you cannot rely on being able to exchange it for a book in the future; in the future, all books may cost $10, and the prices of all goods may rise similarly, so your currency will actually be worth less no matter how you try to use it.  This could happen with the milk token if the milkman announces that henceforth 1 L of milk will cost 2 tokens; your existing token suddenly loses half its value. In sum, it is easy to calculate whether you made a profit in currency units.  What is harder is to calculate whether you made a profit in ""real terms"" (often referred to as ""real dollars"" or ""inflation-adjusted dollars"", or the equivalent in your favorite currency).  The reason this is hard is because the idea of ""real dollars"" is fundamentally linked to the possibility of exchanging currency for goods (and services), and so it depends what goods you're buying.  Inflation statistics published by governments and the like use a ""basket"" of goods to approximate the overall price movements in the economy as a whole."

I read it. It's fair. But just because Mr. Buffett says that's not true, doesn't mean he's right. As you can see, he still isn't backing up claims with numbers.  >Most of the evidence suggests they are semi-strong form efficient.  But that's not even the case. It doesn't say markets are 100% efficient, it says they reflect all *available* information. Which they almost always tend to do, especially ensured with HFT.  I think if you look into statistical analysis you'll find the trend 99.99% of traders lack access to any special information, making the markets effectively 100% efficient. Gains/losses are proportional to the amount of risk taken.  >Now you've made a promise you can't keep, because I'm not very wrong. :)  I was a dick, I apologize. I still believe it, however. Have an upvote for the welcomed conversation, though.

Why would I go to amazon at 9pm at night to buy 2-4 to fix a broken box spring? Or go to amazon to purchase a handful of the right size screw which I sit and measure with an extra screw I bring? (My last two trips)

"I'm not going to go guilting you about how I haven't had a vacation in 4 years, I've just had a completely different experience that makes me wonder how you've gotten screwed so many times.  Right after relocation, I was renting cars because mine hadn't been shipped yet. I show up at the DFW Avis counter, and trade my Camry in for my new ""standard sedan (Camry or Altima)."" Turns out, the Camry and the Altima have VASTLY different trims even though you pay the same for them. When I took the Altima back, I told the nice young lady behind the counter ""if I have to drive another Altima for a week, I'm going to blow my brains out, possibly IN the Altima.""  Instant upgrade to the Charger.   Ever since, I've never missed with a policy of simply being nice to the agent.  Agent: Alright sir, your car is in space G15.  Me: I just have to ask, is G15 an Altima?  Agent: It's in the Camry/Altima class.  Me: But is it an Altima? Because I want to save myself the time and effort of walking to the spot, seeing that it's an Altima, and then walking back here to pay the difference to get something else.  Agent: It's an Altima... *types furiously*... Ok sir, I put you in D2 at no charge, I think you'll find it's not an Altima. (Another Charger)  Same situation landing in Sacramento, ""hey do you guys have a convertible available? It's Cali after all... I'll pay the difference."" Free convertible upgrade.  Now, if you're driving an hour outside of DFW, it sounds like maybe you go to some out of the way places, and when you fly into Podunk Hollow they might only have one convertible in the whole place. But there's no way you book a sports car at DFW and wind up in a Kia.  Also, who flies in with 3 kids in tow and needs specifically a Tahoe? I just imagine that guy would probably catch a few more Tahoes if he would reserve something he's comfortable with (like the Santa Fe) and then asking the agent in person once he arrives. The kids look tired and miserable, his wife really doesn't want to ride around in a Santa Fe all week, and hey Mr. Agent, don't you have anything that rides a little better than a Santa Fe? My back is killing me after that flight..."

Sometimes I think it helps to think of the scenario in reverse. If you had a completely paid off car, would you take out a title loan (even at 0%) for a few months to put the cash in a low-interest savings account? For me, I think the risk of losing the car due to non-payment outweighs the tens of dollars I might earn.

Excellent question for a six year old! Actually, a good question for a 20 year old!  One explanation is a bit more complicated. Your son thinks that after the Christmas season the company is worth more. For example, they might have turned $10 million of goods into $20 million of cash, which increases their assets by $10 million and is surely a good thing. However, that's not the whole picture: Before the Christmas season, we have a company with $10 million of goods and the Christmas season just ahead, while afterwards we have a company with $20 million cash and nine months of slow sales ahead.  Let's say your son gets $10 pocket money every Sunday at 11am. Five minutes to 11 he has one dollar in his pocket. Five minutes past 11 he has 11 dollars in his pocket. Is he richer now? Not really, because every minute he gets a bit closer to his pocket money, and five past eleven he is again almost a week away from the next pocket money On the other hand... on Monday, he loses his wallet with $10 inside - he is now $10 poorer. Or his neighbour unexpectedly offers him to wash his car for $10 and he does it - he is now $10 richer.  So if the company got robbed in August with all stock gone, no insurance, but time to buy new stock for the season, they lose $10 million, the company is worth $10 million less, and the share price drops. If they get robbed just before Christmas sales start, they don't make the $20 million sales, so they are $10 million poorer, but they are $20 million behind where they should be - the company is worth $20 millions less, and the share price drops twice as much. On the other hand, if there is a totally unexpected craze for a new toy going on from April to June (and then it drops down), and they make $10 million unexpectedly, they are worth $10 million more. Expected $10 million profit = no increase in share price. Unexpected $10 million profit - increase in share price.  Now the second, totally different explanation. The share price is not based on the value of the company, but on what people are willing to pay. Say it's November and I own 100 shares worth $10. If everyone knew they are worth $20 in January, I would hold on to my shares and not sell them for $10! It would be very hard to convince me to sell them for $19!  If you could predict that the shares will be worth $20 in January, then they would be worth $20 now. The shareprice will not go up or down if something good or bad happens that everyone expects. It only goes up or down if something happens unexpectedly.

When your profits are increased from mass layoffs and reduced expenses (like r&d) to appease investors, and not based on innovation, new market entry, or competitive advantage.  It's a short term quick win but puts the long term in jeopardy.

"If you own 1% of a company, you are technically entitled to 1% of the current value and future profits of that company. However, you cannot, as you seem to imply, just decide at some point to take your ball and go home. You cannot call up the company and ask for 1% of their assets to be liquidated and given to you in cash. What the 1% stake in the company actually entitles you to is: 1% of total shareholder voting rights. Your ""aye"" or ""nay"" carries the weight of 1% of the total shareholder voting block. Doesn't sound like much, but when the average little guy has on the order of ten-millionths of a percentage point ownership of any big corporation, your one vote carries more weight than those of millions of single-share investors. 1% of future dividend payments made to shareholders. For every dollar the corporation makes in profits, and doesn't retain for future growth, you get a penny. Again, doesn't sound like much, but consider that the Simon property group, ranked #497 on the Fortune 500 list of the world's biggest companies by revenue, made $1.4 billion in profits last year. 1% of that, if the company divvied it all up, is $14 million. If you bought your 1% stake in March of 2009, you would have paid a paltry $83 million, and be earning roughly 16% on your initial investment annually just in dividends (to say nothing of the roughly 450% increase in stock price since that time, making the value of your holdings roughly $460 million; that does reduce your actual dividend yield to about 3% of holdings value). If this doesn't sound appealing, and you want out, you would sell your 1% stake. The price you would get for this total stake may or may not be 1% of the company's book value. This is for many reasons: Now, to answer your hypothetical: If Apple's stock, tomorrow, went from $420b market cap to zero, that would mean that the market unanimously thought, when they woke up tomorrow morning, that the company was all of a sudden absolutely worthless. In order to have this unanimous consent, the market must be thoroughly convinced, by looking at SEC filings of assets, liabilities and profits, listening to executive statements, etc that an investor wouldn't see even one penny returned of any cash investment made in this company's stock. That's impossible; the price of a share is based on what someone will pay to have it (or accept to be rid of it). Nobody ever just gives stock away for free on the trading floor, so even if they're selling 10 shares for a penny, they're selling it, and so the stock has a value ($0.001/share).  We can say, however, that a fall to ""effectively zero"" is possible, because they've happened. Enron, for instance, lost half its share value in just one week in mid-October as the scope of the accounting scandal started becoming evident. That was just the steepest part of an 18-month fall from $90/share in August '00, to just $0.12/share as of its bankruptcy filing in Dec '01; a 99.87% loss of value. Now, this is an extreme example, but it illustrates what would be necessary to get a stock to go all the way to zero (if indeed it ever really could). Enron's stock wasn't delisted until a month and a half after Enron's bankruptcy filing, it was done based on NYSE listing rules (the stock had been trading at less than a dollar for 30 days), and was still traded ""over the counter"" on the Pink Sheets after that point. Enron didn't divest all its assets until 2006, and the company still exists (though its mission is now to sue other companies that had a hand in the fraud, get the money and turn it around to Enron creditors). I don't know when it stopped becoming a publicly-traded company (if indeed it ever did), but as I said, there is always someone willing to buy a bunch of really cheap shares to try and game the market (buying shares reduces the number available for sale, reducing supply, increasing price, making the investor a lot of money assuming he can offload them quickly enough)."


Question: Homeowners: How can you protect yourself from a financial worst-case scenario?

Think about your priorities in life.  Everybody is a little different.  In my case I have a wife and child, so these are priorities for me, and you might have your own depending on your story. So if I lost my job, and I have no more money coming in (unemployment insurance runs out, savings depleted) then the bank can have the house.  I personally would probably drop the house long before it came to that point. The first thing you do is talk to your creditors and work out a deal.  At the same time I would stop paying for ALL unnecessary things (cable TV, extra cell phones, automobiles, leaving light bulbs on and turning the heat up over putting on a sweater).  If I can't get a good deal from the creditors, I would stop paying the mortgage, find a place to live (family, friends, cheap apartment) while the credit is still good. My advice is to get yourself setup while your credit is good and you have SOME money in the bank.  Waiting until the bank decides to foreclose is probably going to make your harder.

Why not yet phone up the old bank, or log onto the internet banking and do a transfer to the new account.    You may first need to transfer from the saving account to a current account with the same bank.  (I have never had a problem doing this, but I do live in the UK)

Your question has an interesting mix of issues. ASAP and 3-4 years doesn't feel like the same thing. ASAP results in bad decisions made in haste. Four years of living very frugally can create a nice down payment on a house.      A car is only an investment for Uber drivers and those who are directly financially benefitting from a car's use. For everyone else, it's a necessary expense.  What I'd focus on is the decision of buying a plot of land. Unless this is a very common way to do it in your country, I don't recommend that order. Having land and then trying to finance the building of a house has far more complexity than most people need in their lives. In my opinion, the better way is to save the 20% down, and buy a new or existing home you can afford.  In the end, spending is a matter of priority. If you truly want to get out in the least time, I'd save every dime I can and start looking for a house that your income can support.

Some credit unions also offer them and support Business banking as well. First Tech Credit Union is a great example. They also have the most security-oriented banking website I've seen to date. https://www.firsttechfed.com/ As a side note I've found that Credit Unions are a MUCH better deal for personal and business banking.

"+1 on all the answers above. You're in a great position and have the right attitude. A good book on the subject is A Random Walk Down Wall Street - well worth a read. Essentially, go for low tax paying in, low tax taking out approach (in the uk that's a SIPP or ISA), a low cost well diversified unit fund (like a Vanguard LifeStrategy 100), on a low cost platform (""Annual Management Charge"" in be UK). Keep paying a regular amount and let compound interest take care of things. I'd also add that you should think about what lifestyle you would want at specific ages and work out what you need to save to achieve these - even though they are probably a long time in the future, it makes your goals ""real"". Read Mr Money Moustache for some ideas http://www.mrmoneymustache.com"

"As somebody who works in the industry, this is the biggest fucking joke I've ever witnessed. The sad part is, if they have rich connections, they may actually get away with pulling in a few accounts.   ""We have good lawyers."" bahahaha"

Excelsior motorcycle is the best two wheeler in the world. We provide all the motorcycle spare parts repair and maintenance services.  Our organization provides the great offer the Excelsior motorcycle spare parts. Therefore, we sell the online motorcycle spare parts. Excelsior took advantage of the popularity of the racing clubs and put competitions riders on the payroll. If you need any information on this motorcycle, then please get in touch with him on the website.

Đó là cái nhìn đẹp của mái nhà trong phòng. Chúng tôi sử dụng vật liệu hiệu năng cao, hiệu quả về chi phí cho khách hàng.Trước hết bạn nên khảo sát các công ty phát triển sẽ mua từ bạn. Để đảm bảo rằng bạn đưa ra các giải pháp chất lượng, bạn phải lọc xuống một nhóm khách hàng cụ thể thach cao vinh tuong. Tập trung vào những cá nhân muốn cung cấp tài sản của họ, những người đang tìm kiếm nhà tuyệt vời để mua, và những người muốn một chuyên gia để cải tạo ngôi nhà của họ. Đây là những khách hàng tiềm năng có thể giúp bạn kiếm được nhiều hơn bạn mong đợi.


Question: Which shareholders cause news-driven whole market stock swings?

The people who cause this sort of sell-off immediately are mostly speculators, short-term day-traders and the like. They realize that, because of the lowered potential for earnings in the future, the companies in question won't be worth as much in the future. They will sell shares at the elevated price, including sometimes shares that they borrow for the explicit purpose of selling (short selling), until the share price is more reasonable. Now, the other question is why the companies in question won't sell for as much in the future: Even if every other company in the world looks less attractive all at once (global economic catastrophe etc) people have other options. They could just put the money in the bank, or in corporate bonds, or in mortgage bonds, or Treasury bonds, or some other low-risk instrument, or something crazy like gold. If the expected return on a stock doesn't justify the price, you're unlikely to find someone paying that price. So you don't actually need to have a huge sell-off to lower the price. You just need a sell-off that's big enough that you run out of people willing to pay elevated prices.

"> This is an idea that was actually put into place more than a 100 years ago, in 1896 and even before, when the first electric cars were introduced and they even built ""service stations"" for them so you can swap the batteries. [read it here]  > Even electric cars made by Tesla are nothing new.  > And recently, a company called ""Better Place"", in Israel, produced modern electric cars with automated and robotic service stations that will swap the batteries for them. Read about ""Better Place"".  > Bottom line: nothing new here for more than 100 years."

sorry, I didn't know how to do the thing about getting around a pay wall and I also couldn't find the article from a different source.  Me being me, I tend to look at it as spreading information either way, as unperfect as my own method is.

You should talk to your bank and explain what happened.  Your bank may contact vendor bank to discuss the account, but really that is up to them.   Then you should contact your police department and report the fraud. Realistically, your chances of recovering any money is negligible.  I think your best chance is convincing your bank to work with vendor bank on a reversal(if it was a domestic transfer), although it is more likely that the vendor bank account is already empty and closed.

Android has prime instant video since last month.   As a student I only pay $40/year so I can't complain about the price hike. I guess this will go up to $50 next year though... Still better than full price!

Hey,  I'm majoring in a worthless field and do not expect to make much money. I've learned to find solace in the simple luxuries such as, heating,car ownership, food, warm food, meat,being able to exercise, have freedom,etc...  I'm trying to figure out what the minimum annual salary I can live on is. For example right now I'm in college and it costs $30,000 a year but I'm living *very* comfortably.    Why and how will this change in the future? Renting an apartment and supporting only myself, why can't I live comfortably on $30,000 in the future?

"We don't have a free market.  Furthermore, without fail, every example in history that approaches a free market produces an environment entirely consumed by corruption and immorality.  Humans, at the most basic level, are fundamentally incapable of sustaining a free market system that results in a generally ""good"" outcome for people.  I heard a story in a documentary about the financial crisis (which was prior left void of any meaningful regulation), at it's worst, and in private, the banking CEO's told Henry Paulson that they needed to be regulated because they were incapable of keeping themselves in check. That only came out at the most critical moment of the worst financial shit in recent history. No banking CEO will ever come close to admit such a statement today now that ""things are OK again.""  That's how things work in real life, all people are just children. And you want our *health care* to be handled by those children?  In this analogy the government with their ""annoying"" regulations are like the adults... but Trump - so never mind, now even the adults are idiots, so we're basically just fucked.  Be careful what you ask for."

I don't even know where to begin with how terrible this article is.  Fundamental analysis is about analyzing the profitability of a company, technical analysis is very much the crystal ball strategy that he makes out fundamental to be. This is just an advertisement for his garbage trading program


Question: What is a good open source Windows finance software

Have you tried others on Wikipedia's list?

"A budget is a predetermined plan for spending allocated funds to a fixed set of categories according to a schedule. If by,  ""Keeping track of your money"" you mean you are only recording your spending to see on what it is being spent and when, then the answer is no.  A budget has constraints on three things: Schedule:  The mortgage has to be paid at the 1st of the month with a 2 day grace period. Amount: The mortgage payment is 1500.00 Category: The mortgage. Tracking your money would be as follows: 10/5/2016: $25 for a video game. 10/5/2016: $129.99 for two automobile tires. 10/6/2016: $35.25 for luncheon. I didn't like him! Why did I blow this money? 10/7/2016: nothing spent...yoohoo! 10/8/2016: Payday, heck yeah! I'm financially solvent YET AGAIN! How do I do it?! See the difference?"

According to this Q&A by a Houston law professor: The law, however, is not designed to interfere with an individual's right to stop payment on a valid check because of a dispute with someone. If he didn't deliver as promised, you do not owe the money and have the right to stop payment. Assuming that you had enough money in the bank to cover the check, stopping payment is not a crime. I found several other pages essentially saying the same thing.  All the usual disclaimers apply, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.  In particular, laws might vary by state. Basically, though, it doesn't seem there's any reason why you can't stop payment on the check just because you feel like it.  If you then provide a cashier's check for the payment, your ex-partner will not really have anything to complain about.  If you're worried about annoying him by doing this, that's a separate issue, but given the situation you describe, I don't see why you should be.  If you feel he is being a pain in the neck, feel free to be a pain in the neck right back and force him to accept the payment in the manner you decide, instead of allowing him to string you along. Note two things: obviously if you have reason to believe the guy will sue you, you should act with caution.  Also, I'm not suggesting withdrawing payment completely, only stopping the check and issuing a new payment that you don't have to wait on (e.g., cashier's check).

"The Fed didn't ""signal"" anything. They did not do any analysis. They merely took a pole of consumer opinion.   The article should have said ""Poll Shows Americans Believe they Are No Better Off than Five Years Ago."" But that would be less exciting."

This is obviously hearsay because I can't remember the sources at all, but I recall hearing that at that company's chains, they also would take the credit card fee out of the worker's tips. so if you used a card and there's a 2.5% fee, they'd take that amount out of your waiter's tips.  Isn't that nice?  Random citations that make it less hearsay:  http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2008/09/some_restaurant_owners_say_its.html   http://blogs.citypages.com/food/2011/10/parasole_restaurants_dipping_into_tip_jar_taking_2_of_wait_staffs_credit_card_tips.php   http://www.tip20.com/restaurant-chain-drops-plan-taking-credit-card-fees-out-of-tips/38  >The tip plan, first reported by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, called for passing along part of the debit and credit card fees — about 3 percent of tips on average. That would have meant a waiter would collect $19.40 out of a $20 tip.  http://www.care2.com/causes/restaurant-chain-takes-banking-fees.html   http://restaurants.about.com/b/2008/01/29/employer-takes-servers-tip-money-to-pay-for-credit-card-fees.htm

Debt is no fun. Getting out of debt to replace it with more debt is no fun. In both cases, you are making an investment in your child's future. That's laudable, but there might be other ways to economize on the education costs. I prefer HELOC debt because I can deduct the interest (as you pointed out) and it usually allows re-borrowing if other cash-flow problems crop up. The downside of borrowing against your house is that your house could be foreclosed if you become insolvent, and you will lose your buffer if you max out the equity now. The same problem exists with a 2nd mortgage. The fact that you would still have a mortgage either way does make the option more attractive though (or less unattractive anyway).

Probably the easiest way to invest in hotel rooms in the U.S. is to invest in a Real Estate Investment Trust, or REIT.  REITs are securities that invest in real estate and trade like a stock.  There are different REITs that invest in different things: some own office buildings, some residential rentals, some hold mortgages, and some are diversified in lots of different types of real estate.  There are also REITs that are exclusively invested in hotels. REITs are required to pay out at least 90% of their profits as dividends, and there are tax advantages to investing in REITs.   You can search for a REIT on REIT.com's Searchable Directory.  You can select a type (Lodging/Resorts), a stock exchange (NYSE), investment sector (equity), and a listing status (public), and you'll see lots of investments for you to consider.

Shred it all.  You might want to keep a record going back at most a year, just in case.  But just in case of what?  What is a good idea is to have an electronic record.  It's a good practice to know how your spending changes over time.  Beyond that, it's just a fire hazard. The thing is, I know I'm right in the above paragraph, but I'm a hypocrite:  I have years' worth of paper records of all kinds.  I need to get rid of it.  But I have grown attached.  I have trucked this stuff around in move after move.  I have a skill at taking good care of useless things.  I've even thought of hiring somebody to scan it all in for me, so that I can feel safe shredding all this paper without losing any of the data.  But that's insane!


Question: How will my stock purchase affect my taxes?

Assuming you are in the US, and are an average joe, the answer to your question is no. Investment costs do not reduce your taxable income for the year you make the investment. They do factor in to the cost basis of your investment and so will affect your taxes in the year you sell the investment. If you want to reduce your taxable income, you could contribute the $5000 to a traditional ira, or 401k, assuming you qualify. Depending on where the account is held, you may then be able to use that $5k to purchase stock in the company you are interested in. The stock would be held in your IRA or 401k account, and would be subject to more restrictions than a normal brokerage account.

Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.

If he is dropping leaflets off, consider dropping them off on a Sunday as they won't get caught up with normal post and most of the family will be at home.   See if he can make more links with interior designers, builders etc who can supply work to each other from the jobs they are working on.  Looks like a boss van, good luck.

"I recently received a wire of more than $150K into one of my accounts. (Both sender and receiver accounts are US banking institutions.) My bank never contacted me to ask any questions. However, on my statement I noticed a charge called ""Analysis Service Charge"". I called the bank to ask them about this charge and was informed it was due to internal analysis for the wire transfer. They did this behind the scenes without needing to contact me. I can only assume that their ""analysis"" did not turn up anything suspicious, and if it had, perhaps they would have contacted me. I wouldn't worry about it even if you do receive a phone call and they ask a few questions. I'd advise to be completely honest; if you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. Most likely they'd be calling you just to make sure you actually know about it and were expecting the money."

Dollar General has wanted this forever. They got scared and made a sudden move when they saw Dollar Tree slide in.  But regardless, all three are in trouble. Walmart is looking to set up smaller shops to compete with the dollar stores, and that spells danger for the whole industry. Expect even more downward pricing, somehow.

This is the thing - you will have to pretty much live it for the next ten plus years (far longer than you need for a PhD). You can become a heart surgeon in less. The question is if you don't make it all the way, would you still be happy?  If you have an interest in financial mathematics, then I would add that it isn't all Citigroup. There are plenty of other places in financial institutions (both large and small) that can be more interesting and possibly less demanding than actuarial work for less work.

I have no idea about India, but in many countries there are companies that specialize in property management. This means they will take on the business of maintaining the properties, finding tenants, doing paperwork and background checks, collecting rents and evicting tenants if necessary. Obviously for this they require a fee, but essentially the owner gets to sit back and do nothing except collect a cheque every month. In my country some real estate agents are in this business as well, though for 20 apartments I would be looking for a specialized firm.

I'm glad to hear that someone so senior in their organization has so much respect for the rest of the team. As a student, you often hear how finance is ultra competitive/aggressive. As someone that is very competitive and is also empathetic and mindful of how their words affect others, it's nice to see that preconception proven wrong.   Just had to share my thoughts. Best of luck!