That's what happens when you artificially juice equity markets and pretend it's good for everyone. And create credit bubbles that reward owners and gut renters.   How is it even a surprise that the fortunes of rich and poor would sharply diverge?


It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here.  A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments.  My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities.  Government bonds earn way too little.  The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity.  I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it.  My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people.  If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap.  If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc.


Your question boils down to saving for a house or saving for retirement. Why not do both? If you invest in a Roth 401k or Roth IRA you can withdraw any contributions that are at least 5 years old without penalty (assuming you're willing to put off purchasing a little longer than your original 2-3 years). If you qualify as a first time home buyer (i.e. you haven't owned a home in at least 2 years) you can withdraw investment earnings as well if your distribution is earmarked towards the down payment and is no more than $10000. Although you won't be penalized for using investment earnings for a down payment you will still have to pay taxes on them. So this may be more appealing to someone that has enough contributions to avoid dipping into the investment earnings. The only other downside is that contributions to a Roth investment are not tax deductible like Traditional IRA and 401k contributions are. Instead, they grow tax free and distributions are tax free when you reach retirement age.


"If Best Buy gets wiped out, that would suck.  Sometimes I like the options of:  * Being able to take-home today * Being able to look at products in the store  I've made 2 recent electronics purchases.  1.  I bought a notebook computer from Amazon.  I have been shopping for a few months, looking at Amazon, and looking at computers in the stores.  I was looking for a few specific things (where the power cord plugs in, if the Function keys were primary or secondary, etc.)  that the Amazon ad didn't specify, so I went to various stores to see how they worked out.  But, Amazon had the best price by about $40 (I have Prime), so I had to order through Amazon.  I feel a tiny bit bad about that, because I theoretically ""used"" the merchandising of other stores to buy at Amazon. 2.  I bought a sound bar for my TV at Best Buy.  One day I decided I wanted to get a sound bar.  It was something I had been thinking about for a long time, but bought on an impulse that day.  It was nice to go into Best Buy and get to look at a whole bunch of options, and then just buy one and take it home.  I never even checked to see if Amazon had the same item available.  I like to think that if Best Buy *did* go out of business, that some other business idea would come along that would make it easy for me to see products in person and have the option for ""buy today""."


A bank needs to make sure they won't lose money by cashing a check. When you have an account with a bank and you cash a check, if the check ends up not getting paid, the bank will take the money back out of your account. This could happen for a number of reasons: the check could bounce (not enough money in the check writer's account), it could be a fraudulent (fake) check, or the payment could have been stopped on that check.  Treasury checks are more problematic for banks than private checks; the government has given themselves more power to refuse to pay a check than the average person has. As a result, banks are already overly cautious about cashing treasury checks. The fact that you have a big check increases the risk for the bank.  You'll have to ask around at different banks to see what they will do for you and what type of fee (if any) they will charge. Some banks might cash it for a fee; others might require that you open a savings account and wait a certain number of days after depositing the check before withdrawing your money.


This amazing site will answer all your data questions. You will need some patience and willingness to spend to get the data that you want. A lot of data is available for free too` https://www.quandl.com/


I'm on the border of Gen X & Millennial, and it seems to me that the overall market is what's impacting a lot of these companies rather than a particular generation of people. I don't buy napkins because I have paper towels. I'd rather spend money on Netflix than Cable TV.  I mean I'm sure age has something to do with it as culture changes over time. But just as in important, with a quick google search I can find the DiY guide to redoing my floors or anything else for that matter. It's easier to save money with more information and the internet has provided a bunch. Now the trick is just getting accurate information. ugh.


I agree with the other answers, but I want to give a slightly different perspective. I believe that a lot of people are smart enough to beat the market, but that it takes a lot more dedication, patience, and self-control than they think. Before Warren Buffett buys a stock, he has read the quarterly reports for years, has personally met with management, has visited facilities, etc. If you aren't willing to do that kind of analysis for every stock you buy, then I think that you are doing little more than gambling. If you are just using the information that everyone else has, then you'll get the returns that everyone else gets (if you're lucky).


[Monetary Policy Inflexibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Monetary_Union_of_the_European_Union#Monetary_policy_inflexibility) >Since membership of the eurozone establishes a single monetary policy for the respective states...  without the possibility to print money as an easy way out.  Italy's options are privatization, austerity, and shifting the burden on to the taxpayer.


I would expect so--the block from spending funds probably does not put a block in place for receiving funds.  But ask your bank.   Expect a 50% chance that they give you the wrong answer.  (Some banks are better than others, but on average this is how often I have found bank employees to be incorrect about anything nonstandard). It may help to ask the bank how often it happens and who actually sorts out problems with blocked cards--and then talk to that person.  Then you should only expect a 25% chance that they are wrong.


Not to my knowledge. Often the specific location is diversified out of the fund because each major building company or real estate company attempts to diversify  risk by spreading it over multiple geographical locations. Also, buyers of these smaller portfolios will again diversify by creating a larger fund to sell to the general public. That being said, you can sometimes drill down to the specific assets held by a real estate fund. That takes a lot of work: You can also look for the issuer of the bond that the construction or real estate company issued to find out if it is region specific. Hope that helps.


"You have actually asked several questions, so I think what I'll do is give you an intuition about risk-neutral pricing to get you started.  Then I think the answer to many of your questions will become clear. Physical Probability There is some probability of every event out there actually occurring, including the price of a stock going up.  That's what we call the physical probability.  It's very intuitive, but not directly useful for finding the price of something because price is not the weighted average of future outcomes.   For example, if you have a stock that is highly correlated with the market and has 50% chance of being worth $20 dollars tomorrow and a 50% chance of being worth $10, it's value today is not $15.  It will be worth less, because it's a risky stock and must earn a premium.  When you are dealing with physical probabilities, if you want to compute value you have to take the probability-weighted average of all the prices it could have tomorrow and then add in some kind of compensation for risk, which may be hard to compute. Risk-Neutral Probability Finance theory has shown that instead of computing values this way, we can embed risk-compensation into our probabilities.  That is, we can create a new set up ""probabilities"" by adjusting the probability of good market outcomes downward and increasing the probability of bad market outcomes.  This may sound crazy because these probabilities are no longer physical, but it has the desirable property that we then use this set of probabilities to price of every asset out there: all of them (equity, options, bonds, savings accounts, etc.).  We call these adjusted probabilities that risk-neutral probabilities.  When I say price I mean that you can multiply every outcome by its risk-neutral probability and discount at the risk-free rate to find its correct price.    To be clear, we have changed the probability of the market going up and down, not our probability of a particular stock moving independent of the market.  Because moves that are independent of the market do not affect prices, we don't have to adjust the probabilities of them happening in order to get risk-neutral probabilities. Anyway, the best way to think of risk-neutral probabilities is as a set of bogus probabilities that consistently give the correct price of every asset in the economy without having to add a risk premium. If we just take the risk-neutral probability-weighted average of all outcomes and discount at the risk-free rate, we get the price.  Very handy if you have them. Risk-Neutral Pricing We can't get risk-neutral probabilities from research about how likely a stock is to actually go up or down.  That would be the physical probability.  Instead, we can figure out the risk-neutral probabilities from prices. If a stock has only two possible prices tomorrow, U and D, and the risk-neutral probability of U is q, then Price = [ Uq + D(1-q) ] / e^(rt) The exponential there is just discounting by the risk-free rate.  This is the beginning of the equations you have mentioned.  The main thing to remember is that q is not the physical probability, it's the risk-neutral one.  I can't emphasize that enough.  If you have prespecified what U and D can be, then there is only one unknown in that equation: q. That means you can look at the stock price and solve for the risk neutral probability of the stock going up.   The reason this is useful is that you can same risk-neutral probability to price the associated option.  In the case of the option you don't know its price today (yet) but you do know how much money it will be worth if the stock moves up or down.  Use those values and the risk-neutral probability you computed from the stock to compute the option's price.  That's what's going on here.  To remember: the same risk-neutral probability measure prices everything out there.  That is, if you choose an asset, multiply each possibly outcome by its risk-neutral probability, and discount at the risk-free rate, you get its price.  In general we use prices of things we know to infer things about the risk-neutral probability measure in order to get prices we do not know."


The CFA Curriculum is very comprehensive while Schweser focuses on the main major areas.  It's essentially reading thousand of detailed pages vs hundreds of condensed pages.  If you have 6-9+ months to study and you're trying to save money, go with the CFA materials. If you have less time, I would recommend going for Schweser. Many people I know go with Schweser anyways due to the sheer efficiency.  Edit: I forgot that you mentioned you didn't take a finance related degree. My opinion is to study Schweser and if you get stuck on a topic, read it from the CFA materials. The only drawback is Schweser costs money (but it does save you time).


Stick with stocks, if you are not well versed in forex you will get fleeced or in over your head quickly.  The leverage can be too much for the uninitiated.  That said, do what you want, you can make money in forex, it's just more common for people to not do so well.  In a related story, My friend (let's call him Mike Tyson) can knock people out pretty easy.  In fact it's so easy he says all you have to do is punch people in the face and they'll give you millions of dollars.  Since we are such good friends and he cares so much about my financial well-being, he's gotten me a boxing match with Evander Holyfield, (who I've been reading about for years).  I guess all I have to do is throw the right punches and then I'll have millions to invest in the stock market.  Seems pretty easy, right ?


I think the right question you should ask yourself is: Can i work at home? is it possible? do I have a calm, private place at home to work from? what will be the motivation while working from? If you got answers to these questions, you will find if you can get money from home or not, because any place you can do work from will give you money, just work!


Alright, but why does it take so damn many of them. Unless we really just have that many skeletons in the closet that it takes 6 to keep them contained! I wonder if there is a magic formular for how many HR staff per employees you need.


A hedge fund is such a broad term as to not mean anything in practice. What do you find interesting in finance? Research that, understand that. Then go find the guys who are doing that and ask for a job and take it regardless of how much money it offers. The money is the yardstick, not the goal


"BlackJack's answer is technically correct: government credit ratings are independent of corporate credit ratings.  The rating should reflect the borrower's ability to repay its obligations. One reason the book you read may have stated that corporate credit ratings cannot be better than the government's credit rating is that the government, unlike the corporation, can steal (or in government parlance ""tax"") from anywhere or anyone.  So if a government finds itself in financial difficulty it could simply take the cash from corporations or people with high credit ratings by a variety of methods: implement windfall profit taxes, take over industries, take peoples gold, tax pension savings, or simply take peoples pensions or retirement savings.  This increases the risk of doing business in a country with an over-extended government. Over extended governments do not die gracefully.  They only die when there is nothing left to steal."


This is only one study via a UC Davis agricultural labor economist, but they conclude in their study that a raise to $15/hr for produce pickers would boil down to an additional cost to American shoppers of $20/year.  http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/31/can-we-afford-to-pay-u-s-farmworkers-more/  Whole Foods (obv that Whole Foods operates at margins and a market segment that is not the norm compared to bigger grocery chains like Safeway and Krogers) but they report that the increase in labor costs of affects them nominally and the prices do not go up in the stores.  It will be interesting to see what happens because if the trend continues given the policies/rhetoric of Trump we won't need projections and models to see what happens we can see with our own eyes as farmers raise the price they're willing to pay for labor and see where that number ends up being before they can't go any higher and see how much food goes ungathered.


For each class A share (GOOGL) there's a class C share (GOOG), hence the missing half in your calculation. The almost comes from the slightly higher market price of the class A shares (due to them having voting powers) over class C (which have no voting powers). There's also class B share which is owned by the founders (Larry, Sergei, Eric and perhaps some to Stanford University and others) and differs from class A by the voting power. These are not publicly traded.


>During it's PEAK employment years, GM largely owned and manufactured the vast majority of it's own components.  Not one of the components I listed did GM manufacture in the 1970s.  Sure, if you were to look today, that list would be even greater including things like entire door assemblies, entire instrument clusters, even entire engines, but even in 1970 a huge amount of components were purchased rather than made.  > eventually the dollar will either become so watered down  I'm not sure that this won't happen.  If it does it'll create a much different society as we suddenly can't afford all the crap that we've become accustomed to.  I think it's equally likely that the equities market and the huge profits created in the financial industry and tech industries, along with the dollar being the world's only reserve currency will prop up the dollar and give rise to the bipolar society of which I describe.


I did not vote for Trump but I can admit that he is getting the worse coverage. I have watched some of his press conferences and I have been astonished at how the media portrays and takes snippets to create an entirely different story. Yes, it is communication 101 but it is disturbing.


Cash flow is needed for expansion, either to increase manufacturing capacity or to expand the workforce. Other times companies use it to purchase other companies. Microsoft and Google have both used their cash or stocks to purchase companies. Examples by Google include YouTube, Keyhole (Google Earth), and now part of Motorola to expand into Phones. If you are investing for the future, you don't want a lot of dividends. They do bring tax issues. That is not a big problem if you are investing in an IRA or 401K. It is an issue if the non-tax-defered mutual fund distributes those dividends via the 1099, forcing you to address it on your taxes each year. Some investors do like dividends, but they are looking for their investments to generate cash. Who would require it? Would it be an SEC requirement? Even more government paperwork for companies.


"Well i am rocking 7"" on a warm day if i cheat the measurements just right sooooo blam!! And honestly Wait till snap drops back below/around 13 and buy what you can afford from there worst case you get extra beer money down the road. Also, i bet my balls are bigger FACED!"


No danger. You can get in a car accident, break your leg skateboarding, or otherwise wind up in the hospital like anyone else.  You can also get the money back, with a tax penalty, but you probably will never need to if you are responsible and live within your means. Do you need a wake up call about what things can cost?  I knew a college student who broke his leg skateboarding and didn't buy the ~$100/semester health insurance.   He had to have a rod put in his leg and it was ~$30,000.  Obviously he didn't have the money and the hospital agreed to put him on some kind of payment plan.  I suppose bankruptcy was an alternative.... but either way, not a great way to start out in life.   Any time you can defer payment of tax for decades or buy something with pre-income tax money, it is like instantly earning 20% (or more) on your money.  I believe you can pay for eyeglasses and dental out of an HSA as well.  So I wouldn't go overboard on an HSA or IRA if you have big credit card debts, if you do have room for savings it is dumb not to be putting money in the HSA and IRA/401k. Take a look at HSA bank for a low fee home for your money. They pay interest on over $3,000 (but like most banks, not much).  The fees for being under $3k are currently around $2 a month.  Don't worry about investing the HSA money until you have like $10,000 in there, which will be a while.


Vaccines do not confer a 100% immunity to anything. They simply bolster your immune system, and different ones are effective to different extents. If your immune system has been recently compromised, there are some things that you can catch despite being vaccinated.  Herd immunity is a valid concept. If a large enough portion of the population is vaccinated, there won't be enough infections active at any given time to pose a real risk of catching people who might be unlucky enough to have otherwise contracted it.


The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in.  That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040.  That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer.  Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax.  the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes.  If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours.  meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes.  Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined.  If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it.  It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago.  For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in.


I especially hate this whole distribute tips and pay the hard workers pretty much nada. Explains so many things about our most recent visits to Olive Garden. No wonder the waiter couldn't hold on to our request for a refill, which we'd never even had to request before, long enough to bring it back to our table until the second request. He was probably worrying how he's going to eat that day, poor thing. Also explains the table nearby sitting waiting to be bussed while people line up outside waiting to eat. I wouldn't hurry either for $2 an hour and a crap share in the tips. I guess we'll just have to buckle down and try harder not to eat out for a while. Except at the two family-run local places that don't hire any outside workers. At least I can hope the family isn't screwing any of their members.


All the comments seem to accept the slap on the wrist and move along. The law obviously exists for a reason. If we are allowing it, then why the law? What makes them exempt?   First few times, get fined. Anything after,  LARGE fines (6+ figures). If you do it again, obviously you don't know how to follow the rules. Lose your license.    Honestly, why condone this and other behavior?


"I hope this image is clear. A spreadsheet is how I look at these things. Unfortunately, you didn't offer the starting balance so I use $100K which makes it easy to scale. You build a simple spreadsheet and enter the ""what if"" scenario, this tells me that worse case, an increase of 1% on the rate each year results in a near 60% increase in payments over the 10 years.  Of course, this isn't the end of the story, I'd first change the payments to reflect the 5% rate, and see how much that drives the balance down. This would reduce the principal enough that the increase would be much less. On $100K, you'd pay $536.82 based on a 5% rate, regardless of the required payment. At 7.75% the payment is $563.11, not even 5% higher.  If you'd like a spreadsheet started for you, I'll put it someplace for you to grab it."


I'm a landlord who tried to do section 8 once and vowed never again.  The inspection and paperwork turned me off...no way I'm gonna do all that when I can just get a market tenant to accept my property as is.  They wanted me to put electrical plugs in all the sockets before the inspection...ridiculous!


I don't disagree that he was using EPO. But that statistic really doesn't indicate he was doping more than anybody else. They only tested people who won stages or were winning points jerseys. Lance won 4 stages and was wearing yellow for 15 stages. So they just had more of his samples.


Congratulations on the new arrival! Technically, a gift by check to the baby should be deposited into a newly established custodial account in the baby's name. To open one, you will need to have a SSN for the baby, so don't wait till tax time to request one (you will need the SSN if you wish to claim the baby as a dependent on your 2017 income tax returns). On the other hand, people are often cavalier about this and at least one bank (JoeTaxpayer's!) seems not to care about the legal niceties; I expect my bank wouldn't have either, in the good old days. Note that @JoeTaxpayer and I are of similar age, and perhaps he too is recounting experiences from some time ago.


Personal finances are not intuitive for everyone, and it can be a challenge to know what to do when you haven't been taught.  Congratulations on recognizing that you need to make a change. The first step that I would recommend is what you've already done: Assemble your bank statements so you can get an accurate picture of what money you currently have.  Keep organized folders so you can find your bank statements when you need them. In addition to the bank statements for your checking and savings accounts, you also need to assess any debt that you have.  Have you taken out any loans that need to be paid back?  Do you have any credit card debt?  Make a list of all your debts, and make sure that you have folders for these statements as well. Hopefully, you don't have any debts.  But if you are like most people, you owe money to someone, and you may even owe more money than you currently have in your bank accounts.  If you have debts, fixing this problem will be one of your goals. No matter what your debt is, you need to make sure that from now on, you don't spend more money than you take in as income.  To do this, you need to make a budget. A budget is a plan for spending your money.  To get started with a budget, make a list of all the income you will receive this month.  Add it up, and write that amount at the top of a page.  Next, you want to make a list of all the expenses you will have this month.  Some of these expenses are more or less fixed: rent, utility bills, etc.  Write those down first.  Some of the expenses you have more control over, such as food and entertainment.  Give yourself some money to spend on each of these.  You may also have some larger expenses that will happen in the future, such as a tuition or insurance payment.  Allocate some money to those, so that by the time that payment comes around, you will have saved enough to pay for those expenses. If you find that you don't have enough income to cover all of your expenses in a month, you need to either reduce your expenses somewhere or increase your income until your budget is at a point where you have money left over at the end of each month. After you've gotten to this point, the next step is figuring out what to do with that extra money left over.  This is where your goals come into play.  If you have debt, I recommend that one of your first goals is to eliminate that debt as fast as possible.  If you have no money saved, you should make one of your goals saving some money as an emergency fund.  See the question Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing for some ideas on what order you should place your goals. Doing the budget and tracking all of your spending on paper is possible, but many people find that using the right software to help you do this is much easier.  I have written before on choosing budgeting software.  All of the budgeting software packages I mentioned in that post are from the U.S., but many of them can successfully be used in Europe.  YNAB, the program I use, even has an unofficial German users community that you might find useful. One of the things that budgeting software will help you with is the process of reconciling your bank statements.  This is where you go through the bank statement each month and compare it to your own record of spending transactions in your budget.  If there are any transactions that appear in the statement that you don't have recorded, you need to figure out why.  Either it is an expense that you forgot to record, or it is a charge that you did not make.  Record it if it is legitimate, or dispute the expense if it is fraudulent. For more information, look around at some of the questions tagged budget.  I also recommend the book The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey, which will provide more help in making a budget and getting out of debt.


If this is OPs outlook on starting something new, I'd say it's failed before it started. You'll never survive the toughness of selling people on new ideas if this is the mindset before the first pilot was tested. You have to lead people through it, you don't just create and walk away with success.   OP - not to be a prick - but you don't have it. You might later at some point or maybe this will motivate you to prove me wrong. But you quit before you even started. This particular idea is DOA


Yes you can transfer the balance in the old EPF to your new account. When joining the new company ask them to give you a form that will help you transfer your old EPF to new one.  Note its not the company's responsibility to get it transferred, generally they try and help out the employees.


"the education bubble is similar to the mortgage bubble...you have people with no stake in the game, making huge financial decisions  the customers aren't the ones paying, so it makes perfect sense for them to charge through the ass for an ""education"".   What needs to happen is that college loans should be suspended for subpar colleges...we as tax payers, shouldn't be on the hook for $100,000 for a worthless degree.(and it does add up to $25K/yr for most of these shitty schools)   Simply create grading tiers. Something like Harvard gets an A, something like Rutgers gets a B, something like a county community college gets a C, and University of Phoenix etc get an F.  Then simply withdraw public loans from any school graded an F. If someone wants to go to a shitty school, make them make the decision where it's their money that's at stake.  When you do that, you'll suddenly notice people skipping the degree mills and just going to small local schools that actually give a degree worth something"


Your current web-site is fairly quickly growing to be certainly one of my top feature. So, I just stumbled on creative weblog and I just need to state that this amazing is a nice blog post. Bless you pertaining to this kind of knowledge.


Assuming that the NRE (NonResident External) account is in good standing, that is, you are still eligible to have an NRE account because your status as a NonResident of India has not changed in the interim, you can transfer money  back from your NRE account to your US accounts without any problems. But be aware that you bear the risk of getting back a much smaller amount than you invested in the NRE account because of devaluation of the Indian Rupee (INR).  NRE accounts are held in INR, and whatever amounts (in INR) that you choose to withdraw will be converted to US$ at the exchange rate then applicable. Depending on whether it is the Indian bank that is doing the conversion and sending money by wire to your US bank, or you are depositing a cheque in INR in your US bank, you may be charged miscellaneous service fees also. To answer a question that you have not asked as yet, there is no US tax on the transfer of the money. The interest paid on your deposits into the NRE account are not taxable income to you in India, but are taxable income to you in the US, and so I hope that you have been declaring this income each year on Schedule B of your income tax return, and also reporting that you have accounts held abroad, as required by US law.  See for example, this question and its answer and also this question and its answer.


it is not a creative career. you don't make anything, you serve your purpose in the economy ofcourse, and it is interesting to be surrounded and in the middle of business like this...but at the end of the day, you sell a service that anyone else can do, and your clients, the businesses, are the actual smart ones. they are the ones that make something and make real decisions. in finance you just trade, or research, or sell your investment banking services...its pretty bs, you leach of what actual creative people are doing. unless you are at a buy side shop, and high up, but then you would be incredibly intelligent and lucky.   that all being said, i have no regrets choosing finance, it is still a great career, and any job gets boring after a bit. i wish i worked in a different area of finance yes, but every area you need to start as someones bitch for a few years, and I'm not sure if I can do that again. More math education always helps in finance


"While a lot of the answers focus on cost to replace and how much money you should have for tangible goods. There are a few more issues to consider.  However before we get started, these issues are not related to ones net worth. They are related to other factors. Having money certainly helps, but someone worth only $10 may not need to insure their stuff under some circumstances. Insurance is a risk avoidance strategy.  As such, it should be used to avoid risks that would otherwise cause issues for you. The normal example is a house. If you lost your house due to fire, would you be able to ""make it"" while you paid the mortgage off, and got a new mortgage to pay for a new house? This is a relatively simple view, but a good one.  These days people tend to look at insurance as a savings account. I payed in X so I am entitled to Y. Heath insurance (a bit more on this later) is exacerbating the issue by selling it's self that way, but it simply isn't true. What your paying the premium for to avoid the risk of loss. Not so you can have a pool of money to draw from in time of need, but so that a time of need should never arise. Which brings us back to, should you get insurance?  Tangible Assets Let's assume you have no legal or contractual obligation to have insurance. If you put the money you were spending aside would you have enough money to secure a new asset should your current one just vanish? This is the normal argument. But it has a second side. Do you need the asset at all, or can you just accept the loss. Lets pick on a red neck for a second. While certainly not millionaires, or ""well off"" by conventional means, the guy with 6 cars on bricks in his lawn does not need to insure 6 cars. If one were to vanish, it may make a hardship but hey, he's got 5 more. So with tangible goods it's more of a question of can you afford to replace the item, do you need to replace the item, and how big a risk is it to you to loose the item? What would you rather loose, the item, or the cost of the insurance? Non-tangible Assets I am going to try to keep this as un-rant like as I can manage, but be aware that I am biased. There are two big examples of non-tangible assets that are commonly insured. Life Insurance, and Health insurance. There are others, but it's very hard to get people to pay money to insure something that they don't actually have. Ideas can be insured, for example, but in order to insure an idea you have to spell it out, at that point why not just file for the patent etc. etc. Keep in mind that a lot of people and companies will insure against losses due to IP theft or other such intangible things. Largely these follow the same rules as tangible assets. This section is meant to focus on those insurances that do not. Life Insurance Life insurance is a bit odd. Were all going to die, so it seems like a ""good bet"" but what your insuring against with life insurance is an early death. For term life insurance it's a gamble. Will you die before your term runs out. For full life insurance (with no term) it's a different gamble. Will you die before you have paid in what they agreed to pay out. In many cases it's also a gamble that you will miss a payment or two and cancel the policy before you die. If the risk of your death worth the insurance. Usually while young the answer is yes. Do you leave your Family short one earner? Will they make it without the insurance? But as you get older, as life insurance becomes more of a sure thing it also becomes less needed. Your kids move out, there not dependent on you any more. You have retirement accounts setup so your partner need not worry should something happen. What risk exactly are your trying to avoid at this point. You will die. You have planned for that eventuality, it's not a risk anymore, it's a fact.  Heath Insurance Is another beast all together. Historically you insured against some catastrophic event, that you couldn't really plan for. Say a heart attack. Surgery and treatment would run in the tens of thousands, so it would ruin you if you didn't have insurance to cover that. That was the risk that you were avoiding. A big, expensive event, causing financial ruin. However, over time it has shifted into something else. The general concept is still there, insure to avoid a risk. But the ""risk"" has been widened to include all manor of things that are not actually risks.  For example a flu. You would go to your doctor, pay your co-pay, and your insurance would pay the rest of the visit. Then you would go to the drug store and get the drugs, pay your co-pay and the insurance pays the rest. But what risk, in this instance are you insuring against? That you can't cover the cost of a doctors visit? That you can't cover the cost of the medication? In this example, a common one, historically the ""mother of the house"" would go you have a flu, have some chicken noodle soup and go to bed. That would be the end of it. Cost of care is a day's lost wages (or maybe a weeks) and a few cans of soup.  However today, because we choose to, the cost of care is much higher. We go to the doctor, pay our co-pays, the insurance has to pay it's part. The doctors office has to carry the cost of the staff it takes to see you, and the staff it takes to handle the claims with the insurance company. And now your flu, cost $1,500. But again that's not exactly true either. With heath insurance and ""normal"" medical care (like sprained ankles, and colds, etc.) the insurance only really covers the cost of having insurance. In that same flu example, if you went to the doctor as a ""self pay"" (no insurance) you would often time get a much lower, and reasonable rate. Frequently, under the cost of your standard co-pay. This seems like the doctors being ""bad"" but it's not. They don't have to file a claim, they don't have to keep track of it. They get immediate payment, not payment 6 months down the line that they need to share with other businesses. With ""critical"" or ""catastrophic"" care, heath insurance is still a good thing. If you have a big, unforeseen event, then heath insurance is great at helping you avoid that risk.  With chronic (long term) care, your back in the same boat as the flu. Often times you can get better, and cheaper, care as a self pay patent, then as a insured patent. That is not always the case however. So you have to measure your own circumstance, and decide if insurance is right for you. But remember insurance is about risk avoidance, and not about paying less. You will ALWAYS pay more for insurance. It's designed that way. Even if the cost is hidden in many ways. (Taxes, spread out over visits, or prescriptions, etc.)"


"I don't have a lot of time to keep going back and forth. It seems like we differ on a bunch of things. But I do want to respect your final question when you ask me what I thought was wrong in that post.  You mention things like the government regulating things like water and air. Those are common goods. These cannot be in the hands of a corporation. Man did not put those things there. So, man cannot take ownership of these things. Bottled water, running water, oxygen tanks, etc, those things are man-made products or services for a market. I can go to a public body of water and swim in it because no one owns it. I can go to the shore in my favorite bathing suit and swim in the beautiful ocean water if I so please without needing to pay or trade with anyone for access to the ocean. But I cannot start pumping water out of the ocean and into a big tank for me to haul away. The government needs to step in and put an end to anyone that does that sort of thing. Same goes for anyone trying to tamper with the water or doing something that is harmful to people or the life living in the water. Government needs to stop all of that. Also, yes the ""municipality then cleans and purifies the water and pumps it to your house in public facilities and treats the resultant sewage"". But are you also claiming that it was the government that created the solution to clean and purify our water supplies? Because they sure didn't.  As for electricity, the way it is delivered and made available to our homes is a commodity. Electricity is natural, but just like how water when bottled becomes a consumer product, the generation and delivery of electricity to our homes is a product and service. If a company delivering electricity to customers in a city is using public infrastructure, then of course they have to share it. That makes sense as the electric company does not own the utility poles, streets, etc. The government should regulate that.  The government handling trade agreements is a job of the government. We need them to do that. I believe in an open, free, and consumer-driven market. I don't want a lot of regulation on this - such as tariffs that Trump has talked about - because history shows that could lead to the costs inflating with quality not following suit. His rants on jobs fleeing offshores followed by his talks of tariffs on foreign imports would be a terrible idea. I want the government to negotiate trade deals as long as it is in the best interest for this country. This is what grows an economy. Imagine if Apple couldn't import iPhones unless they paid a 30% tax since it was assembled in China. That would kill sales of iPhones because Apple would have to pass most - if not all - of that cost on to the consumer. Samsung phones (for argument's sake, let's say these aren't made in China. I don't think they are anyway, but just saying) would begin to take a larger share of the consumer market because prices would be lower since Samsung didn't have to pay a 30% tax.  As for the coffee pot from china starting a fire in my house. No one would by a coffee pot if there was a known fire-starting issue with those coffee pots. The government telling china that coffee pots need to be a certain specification is really irrelevant. The issue would resolve itself because no one would by the coffee pots. Once this became a known problem, stores would take it off the shelves and no longer sell it. We have cars that are recalled left and right. Car seats for infants and toddlers that are recalled every year. So on and so forth. I know the federal government has a recall process, but usually its the manufacturer that will announce the recall first. If there is a bad product out there, it will die out and no longer be made available for purchase. I don't see the the federal government slapping regulations on car manufacturers that mandate ""all tires must not fall off of the car while in motion"". No. Instead, the manufacturer, who is in the business of making money, which they need to sell cars to make money, would create a car where the tires are not likely to ever fall off while a car is in motion (or even when idle).  The last thing I want to touch on is the Obamacare mandate. If I don't want something, why am I being forced to pay for it? Why do you agree with this? I am already paying into social security and I wish I wasn't. I will make my own investments with my income to prepare for retirement. Why should I pay for health insurance if I don't want it. The government should not be making my life choices for me. I have one responsibility on this earth as it pertains to my behavior. That is to respect others inalienable rights such as the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as I do not harm someone in an immoral way (e.g. steal, kill, physical harm, property damage, disclose personally identifiable information, etc), I should be free to live my life without government interference. I am fine with paying into a system for true welfare cases. Some people fall into bad situations that they could not help. Some people are born into a terrible situation. Those people need help. But I don't want to pay for stupid ass things like Chuck Schumer's idiotic idea of Medicare for people over 55. He wants to lower the medicare age by 10 years. This is the insane progressive ideas that literally just worsen societies. [""In 2016, Medicare benefit payments totaled $675 billion, up from $375 billion in 2006.](http://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/) A $300 billion increase in just 10 years and that schmuck wants to lower eligibility by 10 years. If this were ever signed into law, I am (plus other American workers) going to be forced to pay into this. That means less money for me to save and invest for retire or an emergency. Less for my daughter. Less for my mortgage. Less for me to continue my education. Less on whatever I choose to do with my money that I spend 40 hours/week in an office for. My time is spent doing something asked of me by a corporation. That corporation pays me for my time. It's a mutual agreement resulting in a trade of money for my services. I do it because I want to do things and provide for my family. I don't do it because someone decided to spend 4 years for a degree in graphic design and can't get a job. I also don't do it for people that have a cash only income (both illegal immigrants and legal citizens do this) and don't declare all of their income making them eligible for Obamacare. And, lastly, I do not do it for people that decide to live off of the system and are physically and mentally fit to work in some capacity. I should not be forced to pay a mandate just because I'm here breathing.  Obama - just like all progressives - normalized this ""breathing"" tax. It isn't right. Of course, Obamacare falls apart if there aren't enough healthy people to subsidize the sick people. That's why the mandate was obviously put in place. But just because the mandate is needed to make it work, doesn't make it right to force on people. My mortgage needs to get paid. If all my neighbors chipped in $75/month, I could make it work. Well, is it right to force my neighbors to pay my mortgage? Nope. I made the decision to buy my house. They did not. Not to mention, with socialized health care, services are rationed and that is just sickening. Big Gov: ""Oh, you're 80 years old and you need a knew knee? Well, you did live for 80 years, so we're going to deny that request."" In a system where I pay for my own health care and insurance, I can get a new hip and a new knew if I needed it and it would all be done within a week or 2 most likely. You have 51 week-old Charlie Gard who Britain and the wonderful EU (sarcasm) ordered to die. He did so just last week even though his parents had the money to fly him here and have a doctor perform a potentially life-saving surgery. Yep. When the government owns healthcare, they own your health. That's my other big reason for hating Obamacare. It truly is a bad thing. We have world history that can easily show anyone what it looks like if we keep going down this path.  I am done for now. I am not trying to convince you of anything. That usually doesn't happen as people are set in their ways. If anything, this exchange of messages is for the person(s) out there that want to learn what is right and what is wrong. What liberty is and what it isn't. Taxing people as a way to redistribute wealth is wrong. Imposing mandates so people buy a product/service is just straight up wrong. Our income is a representation of our time spent fulfilling the responsibilities of an agreement that we voluntarily made with an employer. Our money is our time. Our time is our liberty. And if we aren't infringing on the rights of others during our time, then the government needs to stay out.  Catch you later."


Can anyone suggest all type of investments in India which are recession proof? There are no such investments. Quite a few think bullions like Gold tend to go up during recession, which is true to an extent; however there are enough articles that show it is not necessarily true. There are no fool proof investments. The only fool proof way is to mitigate risks. Have a diversified portfolio that has Debt [Fixed Deposits, Bonds] and equity [Stocks], Bullion [Gold], etc. And stay invested for long as the effects tend to cancel out in the long run.


Yes, it depends on the fund it's trying to mirror.  The ETF for the S&P that's best known (in my opinion) is SPY and you see the breakdown of its holdings.  Clearly, it's not an equal weighted index.


I definitely get that it's bigger than him. I probably shouldn't try explaining things anymore...I feel kinda bad that I may have given someone the wrong idea. I based what I heard on the news, which I now see was a bad choice without the whole picture.


"You want to be an analyst? Do you mean.. Equity research analyst? Investment banking analyst? Financial analyst? Etc...  The CFA alone isn't going to help you. I don't know why people on this board are obsessed with it. It's something you do while you are in school or once you get a job and looking to move to VP/MD level, not while you're job searching. Relevant experience > CFA, all day every day  There's always some guy who says ""*BECAUSE* of my CFA candidacy...."", well you're in the minority."


Nope.  Credit Unions are for the customers.  Since the customers own them, the credit union does what is best for the members.  They aren't giving you money, they are loaning it to you for for interest.  Furthermore then judged you like any other bank would. High horse moment: I believe the only reason you have to open an account, is because the banking industry didn't want to compete and got legislation to limit the size and reach of a credit union.   The credit union wants your business, and they want to work for you, but they are required to have these membership requirements because their lobby isn't as powerful as regular banks.


You tagged with S-Corp, so I assume that you have that tax status.  Under that situation, you don't get taxed on distributions regardless of what you call them.  You get taxed on the portion of the net income that is attributable to you through the Schedule K that the S-Corp should distribute to you when the S-Corp files its tax return.  You get taxed on that income whether or not it's distributed. If you also work for the small business, then you need to pay yourself a reasonable wage.  The amount that you distribute can be one factor in determining reasonableness.  That doesn't seem to be what you asked, but it is something to consider.


"Yes, long calls, and that's a good point. Let's see... if I bought one contract at the Bid price above...          $97.13 at expiry of $96.43 option = out of the money =- option price(x100)          = $113 loss.     $97.13 at expiry of $97.00 option = out of the money =- option price(x100)          = $77 loss.     $97.13 at expiry of $97.14 option = in the money by 1-cent=$1/contract profit - option price(x100) = $1-$58          = $57 loss   The higher strike prices have much lower losses if they expire with the  underlying stock at- or near-the-money. So, they carry ""gentler"" downside potential, and are priced much higher to reflect that ""controlled"" risk potential.  That makes sense. Thanks."


Also, is seems the wife that's doing the taxes is very reluctant on giving me access to the statements. As an owner, I do have the legal right to those statements do I not? What power would a majority owner of a bar (40%) hold over the other two minority owners (each with 30%)? According to her, she's broken even on her investment, whereas I've collected not even half of my initial investment. The fact that you feel this is fishy reconfirms my belief that she not being truthful to some degree.


"When I receive a check from a customer whom I previously sent an invoice, I go to the customer report for that customer, click on the link ""Invoice"" for that invoice, then click on the Pay Invoice button (very far right side). I then do a customer report and see that there is no balance (meaning all the invoices have been paid). I don't process invoices using the same method you do.  Instead I go to Business -> Customer -> Process Payment.  From there I can select the applicable customer, and a list of unpaid invoices will come up.  I've never experienced the issue you've described. On a related topic: are you posting your invoices?  From experience that has caused issues for me; when you post the invoice it should show up in your Accounts Receivable (or whichever account you've designated), and after you process the payment the A/R should go down accordingly.  When posting your invoice, you specify which account it gets posted to:  So that account should show a balance once you have posted it:  Then, when a client pays you, your cash will go up, and A/R will go down."


If you’re looking for an affordable landscaping Liverpool service, we at Liverpool Fencing are ready to help you out. We are a team of skilled experts who provide a wide range of landscaping solutions for the right price. Also, we ensure that you receive the value for your money with our excellent services. Visit our website at https://liverpoolfencing.co for more details.


">> Check the ""maybe""(s): they are all yours!  > Here is where you first used ""maybe""   My one(!) ""maybe"" is with confidence that Trump is trying to reduce drug prices.   Your many ""maybe""(s) are about why Trump is not going to reduce drug prices, despite him saying he would and him trying very hard to fix the mess with the expensive ObamaCare.   Do you understand the difference between me and you here?  >> How ""instability"" will happen because it's tiny bit hotter?  > I gave you a link when I said global warming is a serious risk to the country. It gives possible scenarios.  LOL!!!!!! You just said it! I can't believe it! You just said ""possible scenarios""... for how global warming may(be) cause ""instability"".  **Your ""maybe""(s) together with your ""possibilities"" are to desperately convince yourself (and me) about baseless things you want to believe in.**   >> I asked you, again, and again, and again, and again, to give me one ACTION by Trump that you oppose.  > Here is your first request for an example: ... Here is the second request to which I responded: ... Neither one asked for an ""action"".  Oh c'mon! Are you seriously saying you can't/won't give me actions by Trump you oppose to, because I did not ask for them initially?   Really? Or is it because you have no examples?  >> He's a liar, so you won't believe anything he said, anything he does or anything I say about him.  >No, it only means I won't accept what he says as true.  LOL!!!! I said ""you won't believe anything he said"" and you reply ""No"" and immediately adding ""it only means I won't accept what he says as true.""  You are very funny. That's why I enjoy to debate people like you.  In your attempt to get our of the mud you dug yourself into, you are getting more and more funny.  So, let's cut the crap, as it's simple, just as I said from the beginning: no matter what, even a ""scientific"" person like, facts, logic, proofs, scientific proofs, no matter what, you won't believe Trump.  Probably you don't believe Trump that he against Neo Nazis? Don't disappoint me here! I expect you to say, ""no, I don't believe Trump! He's not against neo Nazis"".  >> Hillary and the DNC are not liars. So you voted for them... etc  > once again, your defense for President Trump is complaining about the Democrats.  Absolutely not! I said again and again that I supported Trump over his stance against immigration, ObamaCare, TPP, NAFTA, insane liberals, anti-patriotic acts by Democrats, etc. Also I support him for his integrity, his fight to make America Great Again, his plans to rebuild the infrastructure, bring jobs again, support veterans, build the defense, against wars, etc.  It's beyond me that even if you do not like Trump's agenda, that YOU VOTED FOR DEMOCRATS despite having 2 additional choices, and despite them being so corrupt, cheaters, killers, scandals, no integrity, no plans, etc.   How could a person like you, who seek truth, vote for democrats?   **The list of ""lies by Trump"" you gave me is mostly not true!!! They are lies about lies!** For example:  > “I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.)  I was for the war in Iraq in the beginning too!!!!! Yes! I was sure, based on what Bush said that Iraq has WMD. Then, as time went on, as no proofs or examples came up, I was against.  **The bottom line: I and Trump were against the war in Iraq BEFORE(!) it started. Hillary was for the war. WORST: Hillary is clearly for war with Russia which is very stupid idea, especially because WE HAVE YET TO SEE a single proof how Russia interfering with the USA elections. Got it?**  Common sense: Trump won the debate against 13 other Republicans in July 2016, and you are trying to convince me that Russia new he would win and colluded with him between July until the elections November to make him win? Would you seriously believe that?"


"A 30-yr mortgage IS a committment. So, you are willing to commit to a place, but not your long-term girlfriend??? Either you don't do this ""cheap"" scheme idea, or you set up as a business arrangement, or you get married. This is quite a laissez-faire statement you make... ""Maybe we will eventually get married, maybe we will eventually break up, who knows."" Anything or anyone that is a ""who knows"" is not what you make a 30-yr committment on. I mean, unless you just want to risk throwing your money away. Now, man up, hire the lawyer to do official paperwork or else get a legal certificate of civil union or marriage or whatever you want to call it. If you try to do your cockamamie scheme ""on the cheap"" now, it will most surely cost you dearly in the future! Mixing money (particulary huge sums of 200,000 $!) when there is no legal obligation like marriage or a business contract, is a fool's errand! Now, grow up and do it the right way if you want to help her - and yourself too."


There many car loans at zero percent interest.   Finance the car at zero percent, then take your money and invest it. If you want to be super safe buy a CD the same length as the car loan. 5 years you will get 2%.  If you still want safety and a better return take up a asset allocation strategy that moves your cash to risky assets when the market is performing well, then to cash, bonds, or cds when the market under-performs. Now you have your car with a zero percent loan and you are making the return on the money instead of the car company.


"This is not a full answer and I have no personal finance experience. But I have a personal story as I did this. As Vicky stated Another point: there are various schemes available to help first time   buyers. By signing up for this, you would exclude yourself from any of   those schemes in the future. I did this for my dad when I was 16 or so. I am in Canada and lost $5,000 first time buyers tax rebate. As long as many other bonuses like using your rsps for your first home. I also am having a fair amount of trouble getting a credit card, because even though I am only a part member of the mortgage they expect you to be able to cover the whole thing. So when the banks look at my income of say $3000 a month they say ""3000 - rent(500) - mortgage(3000)"" You make $-500 a month. I then explain that I do not actually pay the mortage so it is not coming out of my paycheck. They do not care. I am responsible for full payments and they consider it used."


The steel structures make it impervious to many threats which traditionally constructed buildings are quite vulnerable, such as weathering and termites. However, a little bit of care is mandatory to maintain the metal panels of the building that complete the outer structure of the building, which maximizes the lifespan and keep the steel structure in healthy condition.


"Alas, yes many did fall for that trap.  They either bough during the bubble, or attempted to ""catch the falling knife"" as the housing market crashed. (Many people who bought *after* the bubble burst ended up buying houses that were *still* overvalued, and have little or no equity as a result, even if they had saved and put ""good money"" into it as a down-payment.)"


Here is a list of threads in other subreddits about the same content:   * [Puerto Rico’s utility cancels controversial $300 million contract with Montana firm hired to repair electrical grid](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/79itd5/puerto_ricos_utility_cancels_controversial_300/) on /r/politics with 8466 karma (created at 2017-10-30 04:13:20 by /u/rafaelloaa)  ----   ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot  ^^[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index)-[Code](https://github.com/PokestarFan/DuplicateBot)-[Bugs](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypgmx/bugs_and_problems/)-[Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypg85/suggestion_for_duplicatesbot/)-[Block](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index#wiki_block_bot_from_tagging_on_your_posts)  ^^Now ^^you ^^can ^^remove ^^the ^^comment ^^by ^^replying ^^delete!


It's a great town, worth a visit for sure. I'm glad you've visited other places in the USA, since NYC is not representative of the nation as a whole, in my opinion, and many foreign visitors to the USA only visit NYC (just as many foreign visitors to France only visit Paris.)


I'll summarize here our discussion in the comments. First thing to remember is that you can only deposit up to $6K/year into the Roth IRA, you cannot seed it with some large amount (unless its a rollover). Second thing to remember is that you can only qualify 10K distribution for the home purchase. With that in mind, it seems that you'll have to have extremly high returns to make use of the maximum tax benefit (15-20% of the 10K). Non-qualified distributions will be taxed at ordinary income rates + 10% penalty, so if you can't qualify the distribution, instead of saving money on taxes, you'll end up paying twice as much as you would have without the IRA. Also, keep in mind that reporting of the distributions and justifying the qualifications might require assistance of a tax preparer, which will also reduce your savings. Bottom line, IMHO, you'll end up with a wash or very insignificant savings (compared to the magnitude of the home purchase costs) at best, which renders the whole thing kindof wastefull.


That is horrible. I would contact your local news stations, local authorities, and demand to talk to the owner of the dealership. Get the story out on social media and do everything you can to put bad publicly on the dealership. Maybe they will see how big of a fuck up they made and make things right. Fuck those guys.


"If you have a business web site, using firstname.lastname@businessdomain.*x* would be the best choice. Using an @gmail address should be a second choice.  If gmail is your only option, though, I would strongly recommend avoiding the aka.username portion. If firstname.lastname@gmail.com isn't available (and, for most people, it no longer is), using something such as FirstinitialLastname.businessname@gmail.com would be a much better option (for example, John Smith with Example Enterprises would be JSmith.ExampleEnterprises@gmail.com).  If you're looking for an email address to use for purposes such as a resume / CV or similar documents, then I would suggest to try to find a variation that includes your first name and last name on gmail. You can use your middle initial, as well, if necessary.  John Curtis Smith could have any combination such as jcsmith, john.c.smith, johnathan.smith, johnathan.c.smith, j.curtis.smith (though that last one will imply that John prefers to be called Curtis), and similar.  Also, and I say this as honest advice from someone who has been in charge of hiring people in the past, if you're concerned about professionalism, you'll want to ensure your grammar and spelling are impeccable. A quick glance at your posting history makes me think you're a Brit, or are currently living in England, so working on your English skills will be important. People will find it difficult to take someone seriously, otherwise, and a poor first impression via text or email can easily cost you whatever it is you're trying to establish, *especially* if you aren't the only person attempting to establish yourself for that position.  You have several errors in your post (""I just a question,"" ""approriate,"" ""buisness,"" and a lack of sentence structure and punctuation in general).  It may seem silly to concern yourself with typing properly in a post on Reddit, but think of it as practice in a medium (text and typing) where repetition is key. If you're used to typing poorly, it'll take a lot more effort to type well when it counts, and you're more likely to miss an error that could cost you a job or client.  Good luck to you!  ^^^In ^^^before ^^^mentioning ^^^spelling ^^^/ ^^^grammar ^^^and ^^^missing ^^^something ^^^in ^^^my ^^^own ^^^text."


"In 1517, if I was a free person (i.e. was member of royalty), and no religious fanatics and insane anti-any-change fanatics around, I would invent products and services that did not exist.  So, what I said had a lot of ""IF""s in it, so, the truth is that most likely, if I was not rich in 1517, I was an uneducated ignorant destitute slave/servant with almost zero chances to become rich.  **Change the question to 200 years ago, and you will get better and very interesting answers.**"


According to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, if you have clearly more than one-half of the current bill remaining, you should be able to take it to your bank and exchange it. But if for some reason your bank will not take it, you can submit it to Bureau of Engraving and Printing Office of Currency Standards. Question asked on http://www.moneyfactory.gov/faqlibrary.html I have some currency that was damaged. My bank will not exchange it for undamaged currency. What can I do? The Bureau of Engraving and   Printing's Office of Currency Standards processes all requests for   reimbursement for damaged United States currency. They decide the   redemption value of torn or otherwise unfit currency by measuring the   portions of the notes submitted. Generally, they reimburse the full   face value if clearly more than one-half of the original note remains.   Currency fragments measuring less than one-half are not redeemable. Go   to the Damaged Money section of our website for additional information   and the procedures to redeem mutilated currency. However take notice of this: Any badly soiled, dirty, defaced, disintegrated, limp, torn, worn, out   currency note that is CLEARLY MORE than one-half of the original note,   and does not require special examination to determine its value. These   notes should be exchanged through your local bank.


"Yes there are huge number of parts in the chain. Entire careers can be made out of handling clearing and settlement (back office) work for banks, exchanges, and trading houses. Even more so in the old days when this had to be done by hand, but obviously now everything is electronic. I can provide some insight into your questions, at least on the trading side.  Brokers in many cases have their own brokers or their own trading operations. They will have their own order entry and risk control systems, so that is all proprietary, but it usually doesn't involve more than send buy/sell Y shares of name X to venue Z at price P with extra instructions A,B,C,D,E. Eventually an order will make its way to a direct market participant who sends an electronic order directly to an exchange.  Note that when you say market, you should be referring to such ""exchanges"". In the US these are the NYSE, NASDAQ, and so on. When you are talking about futures there is the CME, CBOT, and so on. In Europe there is the EUREX and so on. The ""market"" refers to all these exchanges together which all have their own order mechanisms and matching engines. In many cases exchanges will route orders to other exchanges depending on the specific country's trading rules. Exchanges compete with each other by fee and liquidity offerings, which are shouldered directly by market participants.  Another detail is that each market participant has its own clearing firm, which has prior credit lines established with the market participant and a central clearing house. Like you said as soon as an order is matched, the exchange where the order takes place hands the trade over to the clearing house where the trade is then settled between the clearing firms representing either side of the trade. Clearing disputes happen at this step."


We are offering men’s linen clothing from most stylish to that sophisticated look which no can ignore for a long time. The best thing about our collection is that it available at very reasonable prices & in many color options to choose from. We also arranged some limited edition for these summers that will kill summers like never before.


"The article keeps quoting ""this study"" without linking it, but actively links to other studies which it labels ""left-leaning"" that argue different results.   I could just be blind though if anyone can spot it for me."


I'd suggest buying a used car for cash, car loans are a bad idea. I bought my last car a few years ago for $8k off of craigslist, and it is still running great. Make sure you get a car checked out by a mechanic before buying (usually they'll drop it off at a mechanic you want to have take a look, or perhaps just go with you). My general rule is to not take out loans for anything which decreases in value. So a home mortgage would be fine, a car loan is not a great plan. Buy cash, and save for the next purchase. If you buy a decent used Corolla (or other small import car), you can get it for $8k, it will likely last a few years at least. That could end up costing you less than $200 per month total, or less. Much better deal in the long run.


"As the other answers stated: Yes PayPal will transfer money from your bankaccount automatically if your PayPal balance isn't sufficient. Let's add some proof to the story: (Note, I am in the EU, specifically the Netherlands, situation might be different in other parts of the world) If I login to PayPal and go to my wallet, I have a section that looks like this:  If I click on it, I am presented with a screen with details about the connection.  Note the ""Direct debit instruction"". If I click on the ""view"" link I am presented with the following text (emphasis mine): [snip some arbitrary personal details] This authorisation allows (A) PayPal to send instructions to your bank account and (B) your bank to debit your account in accordance with the instructions from PayPal. As part of your rights, you are entitled to a refund from your bank under the Terms and Conditions of your agreement with your bank. A refund must be claimed within 8 weeks starting from the date on which your account was debited. Your rights are explained in a statement that you can obtain from your bank. Below this text is a button to delete the authorization."


How is this different from Ford offering a performance tune on a V8 though? It's the same thing, just a software upgrade allows you to access more power. The alternative to not having that model is not having access to a car that cheap. Plenty of companies do this all the time, I don't understand how this angers you besides the fact that it's Tesla doing it.


"The decision whether this test is or is not met seems to be highly dependent on the specific situation of the employer and the employee.  I think that you won't find a lot of general references meeting your needs. There is such a thing as a ""private ruling letter,"" where individuals provide specific information about their situation and request the IRS to rule in advance on how the situation falls with respect to the tax law.  I don't know a lot about that process or what you need to do to qualify to get a private ruling.  I do know that anonymized versions of at least some of the rulings are published.  You might look for such rulings that are close to your situation. I did a quick search and found two that are somewhat related: As regards your situation, my (non-expert) understanding is that you will not pass in this case unless either (a) the employer specifies that you must live on the West Coast or you'll be fired, (b) the employer would refuse to provide space for you if you moved to Boston (or another company location), or (c) you can show that you could not possibly do your job out of Boston.  For (c), that might mean, for example, you need to make visits to client locations in SF on short-notice to meet business requirements.  If you are only physically needed in SF occasionally and with ""reasonable"" notice, I don't think you could make it under (c), although if the employer doesn't want to pay travel costs, then you might still make it under (a) in this case."


> Verify the signature against what?  How old are you I wonder? I am guessing that you're so young you don't know how it used to be done.  Every credit card has a space on the back for a signature. And for decades, retailers would check the signature on your ID if the signature on your card is not valid (blank, or says 'SEE I.D.').  This worked for a long time, until retailers started hiring incompetent children who were too lazy to do their jobs properly. I once worked for a retailer who would fire you if they caught you not verifying signatures.


> My point of view is that monopolies happen because politics (whether that's politicians, trade boards, or oversight committies) allows them to occur.  Google's monopoly came about completely organically. So, if you're arguing the government creates monopolies, you're wrong. If you're arguing the government should be trust-busting in general, then continue


"To add to MrChrister's answer:  Canada also has a Consumer Price Index (CPI) used to measure inflation that is distinct and separate from that maintained by the United States. There are differences in inflation between the U.S. and Canada because our currencies are different, and there may be different items in the ""basket"" of goods that constitutes the index. You can find current information on the Canadian CPI at Statistics Canada, here: Latest release from the Consumer Price Index. Also, the Bank of Canada – our central bank – maintains a free online Inflation Calculator.  The BoC's inflation calculator is handy because you can enter a dollar amount for a past date and it will figure out what that would be in today's dollars.  For instance, $100 in 1970 dollars had the same purchasing power (under the CPI) as $561.76 in 2009 dollars! And you're right – if you get a salary increase that is less than the rate of inflation, then in theory you have lost purchasing power.  So, anybody really looking for a raise ought to make an effort to get more than the increase in CPI.  Of course, some employers are counting on you not knowing that, because any increase that's less than CPI is effectively a salary decrease; which could mean more profit for them, if they are able to increase their prices / revenues at inflation or better. Finally, consider that salary & wage increases also contribute to inflation!  Perhaps you've heard of the wage/price inflation spiral.  If you haven't, there's more on that here and here."


You can't say I'm wrong and then go on to explain why exactly what I said is correct.  :)  You (and I) are in complete agreement that there's no LTCG on either Roth *or* Traditional 401ks, because you pay both as straight income - The former up front, the latter when you withdraw it.  My point was that, for virtually everyone, their regular income tax rate is **higher** than their LTCG rate.


"Why is that? It doesn't hurt anyone else nor diminish a finite supply for ""real"" patients. I think it's ridiculous that something so innocuous is illegal in so many places.  People getting medical cards without a serious illness are shifting their business to a regulated market where they're paying taxes instead of supporting a black market, where's the harm?  Genuinely curious as I've never met anyone whose held your opinion."


"Huh.  I don't like the idea of being ""starved"" into compliance either, but the fact is we're in a global economy.  Either this opinion will have to change, or we're ""going to get hurt real bad"".  I guess we can always switch back to extreme nationalism and xenophobia, and close off foreign trade.  Though I think that would technically work (by forcing the US to become independent of foreign manufactures) I don't think it will happen anytime soon."


"You're right to be a bit ""afraid"" (for lack of a better term).  It's a guarantee that some crooked people will try to screw you, and running a business in virtually any industry is getting more and more competitive everyday.  But, if you're savvy enough to call people out on their B.S. and willing to compete, you can succeed with a solid business model.      The two main reasons people don't try and start a small business of their own all the time are 1) because they're too lazy or don't have the drive and 2) don't have the start up capital.  Believe me, I've met some fellow successful business owners that couldn't pass a freshman undergrad level business law course.    Don't get me wrong, there is always risk involved with a new venture.  But, if you're committed to learning how to streamline your service and operations, then market it effectively, you'd probably be okay.  The legal side of things will really play an extremely (likely negligible) small part in your day-to-day life once you've gotten them ironed out initially."


I like option 3.  Your passion lies elsewhere, and your company deserves a strong, dedicated leader.  You should not have to look far to find someone with the energy and drive to carry on, so you can get on to your dream to help others!


"Typically in on campus recruiting, at, as you said, a limited number of schools. It seemed safe to assume this wasn't OP's situation. ""Breaking in to banking"" is effectively impossible for a random profile post-graduation from a non-target.   As it turns out, the job OP is talking about isn't in this area so it's irrelevant."


Pension in this instance seems to mean pension income (as opposed to pension pot). This money would be determined by whatever assets are being invested in. It may be fixed, it may be variable. Completely dependant on the underlying investments. An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hnd over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a hige mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. The downside of annuities is that the level of income may be too low for your liking. For instance, £400/£10,000 would mean £400 for every £10,000 given to the provider. That's 4% and would take 25 years to break even (ignoring inflation, opportunity cost of investing yourself). Therefore, the gamble is whether you 'outlive' the deal. You could hand over £50,000 to a provider and drop dead a year later. Your £50k got you, say, £2k and then you popped your clogs. Provider wins. Or you could like 40 years after retiring and then you end up costing the provider £80k. You win. Best way to think of an annuity is a route to guaranteed, agreed income. To secure that guarantee, there's a price to pay - and that is, a lower income rate than you might like. Hope that was the kind of reply you were hoping for. If not, edit your OP and ask again. Chris. PS. The explanation on the link you provided is pretty dire. Very confusing use of the term 'pension' and even if that were better, the explanation is still bad due to vagueness. THis is much better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26186361


First pay yourself. When you get salary, send some parts of that (for example 10%) to your saving account.  Step by step you'll save nice money ;)


thank you for your reply. I agree that many of the 'smart drugs' that are out there are dangerous and well overused. But i feel nootropics, like lion's mane, l-theanine, and huperzine A are all pretty safe and able to help with some of the problems we face in modern work life.


There actually are legitimate reasons, but they don't apply to most people.  Here are a few that I know of: You're self-employed and have to pay quarterly estimated taxes.  Rather than wait for the refund when you already have to pay 1/4 of next year's taxes at the same time, you just have the IRS apply to refund forward.  (so you're not out the money you owe while waiting for your refund). You're filing an amended or late return, and so you're already into the next year, and have a similar situation as #1, where your next year's taxes have already come due. You're planning on declaring bankruptcy, and you're under the Tenth Circuit, those credits might be safe from creditors For almost any other situation, you're better off taking the money, and using it to pay down debt, or put it somewhere to make interest (although, at the current rates, that might not be very much).


Twitter is planning to go public on NYSE. You'll be able to start trading once the stock is listed for trading, which would be the day of the IPO.  Note that since you're trading on the secondary market, you won't be able to buy at the IPO prices, whatever the time is. You're buying from someone who bought at IPO price.


I'm worried that it's, as so many observers or commentators seem to be doing with these crises, pre-empting events. I do wish news reporters would stick to reporting the news, rather than panicking people by putting forward their view that something is going to happen, such as Greece exiting the euro and adopting a new currency.  As with these things, expectations are key, and this is by no means helping.


Often buyouts are paid for by the buyer issuing a load of new shares and giving those to the seller to pay them. Sometimes it could be all shares, sometimes all cash, or any mix in-between. If you believe in the future of the buyers' business model, you'll often get a load of shares at a discounted rate this way. If you do not believe in the buyers' future then you're getting shares that you think may be worth little or nothing some day, so cash would be better.


"This model would work fine under a couple of assumptions: that market interest rates never change, and that the borrower will surely make all the payments as agreed.  But neither of those assumptions are realistic. Suppose Alice loans $1,000,000 to Bob at 4% under the terms you describe.  Bob chooses to make interest-only payments of $40,000 per year. Some time later, prevailing interest rates go up to 10%.  Now Alice would really like Bob to repay the entire principal as quickly as possible, because that money could be earning her $100,000 per year instead of only $40,000, but under the contract she has no way to force Bob to do so.  And Bob has no incentive to repay any of the principal, because he can earn more interest on it than he has to pay to Alice.  So Alice is not going to be very happy about this. You might say, but at least Alice is only losing ""potential"" money; she's still turning a profit of $10,000 per year, since her bank only charges her 3% interest.  Ah, but you're assuming that Alice can get a bank loan with a rate of 3% fixed forever.  The bank doesn't want to make such a loan either, for exactly the same reasons. So in practice, any loan like this would be expected to have a variable interest rate. There's a flip side, too.  Suppose instead that market rates drop to 1%.  Now Alice would like Bob to repay the principal as slowly as possible, because she's earning 4% on that money, which is better than any other options available to her.  But Bob now has every incentive to repay it as fast as he can - or even to refinance by taking out another loan at, say, 2%, and using the proceeds to repay the entire principal to Alice.  (This risk still applies with most traditional loans, since the borrower usually always has the right to pay early, but some loans include a ""prepayment penalty"" in such cases to help compensate the lender.) Thus, when Bob has all the power to decide when to pay, Alice is sure to lose no matter which way interest rates move.  A loan with a fixed term helps insulate Alice against this risk.  She may be able to make a guess about the likelihood of interest rates going up to 10% in the next 15 or 30 years, and increase Bob's fixed rate to account for this; that's much easier than trying to account for the possibility of interest rates going up to 10% ever.  (And if she does have to try to account for this, she's probably going to have to set the interest rate extremely high; so Bob might accept a fixed term of repayment in exchange for a more reasonable rate.) Even if we suppose that Alice has done the best possible credit check and that Bob is a perfectly trustworthy fellow who would never dream of defaulting on his loan, catastrophes do happen.  Maybe Bob is robbed of all his money by an evil accountant, or has a mid-life crisis and spends it all on opera tickets.  Whatever, Bob is now bankrupt and Alice is never going to get her principal back, nor any further interest payments either.  Even if the loan is secured by some collateral, there's still a risk since the collateral might lose value.  Alice has some chance of estimating the risk of this happening in the next 15 or 30 years, and can set the interest rate to compensate for it.  But it is harder for her to estimate the risk of this happening ever, and if she tries, she'll have to set the rate so high that Bob might prefer a fixed term and a lower rate. (There's a side issue as to what happens if Bob dies with the loan still outstanding.  If it's an unsecured loan, typically Alice can try to collect the principal from Bob's estate, but if there isn't enough, too bad for Alice; she can't force Bob's heirs to continue making payments.  If it's a secured loan, Alice may be able to have Bob's heirs continue paying or else she seizes the collateral; but she still has the risk of the collateral losing value.)"


"I was a Primerica representative, left to be on my own, and then returned. Insurance is one matter that depends on the individual. Some do not need it.  For example, when I was an independent agent with an independent marketing organization (IMO) (oh yes! multi-level is everywhere, dont kid yourself) I had an upline as well. We were pushed to sell final expense [burial insurance].  As an ethical agent, I believe this is a bad business practice.  Primerica does not sell unneeded insurance to old people. How can you justify selling the elderly, insurance to cover them for $10,000, at almost 100 to 150 a month? I told my elderly potential clients, after seeing they live on a tight budget,  that they were better off purchasing a cremation policy or funeral package than burial insurances as it would save them money in the long run. Primerica is right in saying they are the only ones out there catering to the Working Class and Middle-America. Where else can you start an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) with $25 a month?  Nowhere! All the other insurance producers want more money. They don't want to spend their time with what they call ""losers"".  I love showing Poor people how the Rich get richer.  Poor people should know the truth."


"One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (""premium"") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit*. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. *Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though."


People love the thrill regarding running after; you might have to entice these folks towards you. Pestering, pestering as well as on an emotional level blackmailing can never learn how to get your ex boyfriend back in your life; 'playing hard to get' will certainly.


"It seems that counting your father as your dependent shouldn't, in itself, cause him to be ineligible for SNAP. Eligibility requirements for SNAP can be found on this FNS page. There are upper limits on the ""countable resources, such as a bank account"" that the beneficiary's household may have, and on that household's income. (There are some other requirements, too.) From what I can tell from your question, your father shouldn't be part of your household for SNAP purposes, because: Everyone who lives together and purchases and prepares meals together is grouped together as one household. If you're transferring him money, I assume he's living and eating somewhere else, so it seems you are not part of his household. According to the IRS's Publication 501, your father is not required to be part of your household for IRS purposes to be your dependent. The test to qualify is that a non-child dependent must either: Live with you all year as a member of your household, or Be related to you in one of the ways listed under Relatives who do not have to live with you. However, by the ""Special rule for parent"", you may be able to use your father as your qualifying person (dependent) to be able to file as ""head of household"", so long as you pay more than half their support, and ""more than half the cost of keeping up a home that was the main home for the entire year for your father"". I don't know if in this case the IRS would consider your father ""part of your household"" or not. Even if the IRS considered your father part of your household based on the way you filed your taxes, I think it's possible, as the IRS and FNS are two different entities, that the definition of your father's household for SNAP purposes could be different from the IRS's."


>Why would any customer (we aren't customers, credit providers are), use Equifax moving forwards  This incident doesn't seem to have had any impact on Equifax' ability to provide the service for which credit providers pay. I could have missed it, but I also haven't read/heard anywhere that customer (i.e., credit providers) data was compromised or that there's any push to limit Equifax' ability to gather data needed to provide their service.


With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt.  Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain.  Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost.  My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can.  (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)


So I am trying to puzzle out this claim about tax cuts paying for themselves through growth.  This means that for every $1 in revenue they forsake in cuts, they expect to get $1 back in revenue elsewhere (like other taxes). So with a high tax burden on something, say 25%, that $1 cut in revenue would need to generate $4 in additional value to pay for itself.  I can't think of *anything* where the federal tax burden is actually 25% of the total value. This looks like a pretty clear case of diminishing returns, because the *lower* the tax burden the *higher* the growth needs to be in order to get the money back. If we look at something on the order of sales tax, say 5%, that $1 cut needs to generate $20 in growth.  If we flip this around and look at it as an investment, these are the kinds of returns that are reserved for miraculous right-time right-place bets. They are not the kind of returns you can expect to get from groceries and mortgages.  Can somebody sanity check me on this?


LOST SG is a high-tech, top-rated 60 minutes escape room where players have to put together thought-provoking clues, solve seemingly abstract puzzles and race against time to escape from a locked room. Pay attention to every little detail in the rooms, because even the slightest object could be the key to your escape. Using the latest technology, LOST SG brings your advanced gameplay with the next generation immersion and realism. Spanning over 2500 sqft with 5 different rooms that can accommodate up to 12 players each, our outlet at Peace Centre can take up to 56 players at any one time.


There is some convergence, but the chart seems to indicate that 5 star funds end up on the upper end of average (3 stars) whereas 1 star funds end up on the lower end of average (1.9 stars) over the long term. I would have thought that the stars would be completely useless as forward looking indicators, but they seem to have been slightly useful?


My best advice is to avoid shopping as much as possible.  Minimize the amount of time you are in situations where you will be tempted to purchase random things (i.e. the checkout line! they put that crap there for a reason!). Don't go to the mall. Make your trips to the grocery store as fast as possible. Put your head down and run past it all to grab the thing you need and get out of there.


the financial information is generally filed via SEDAR (Canada) or SEC (US) before the conference call with the investment community.  This can take before either before the market opens or after the market closes.  The information is generally distribute to the various newswire service and company website at the same time the filing is made with SEDAR/SEC.


"Back in the day, I frequented the [now defunct](http://fuckedcompany.com/) 'Fucked Company' blog.  There were all kinds of horror stories posted on that site.  Leaked company internal e-mails, lavish money wasting parties and even tales of employees arriving to their office only to find they can't even get in the building because the leadership simply locked the doors and walked away.  (Ex)Employees took matters into their own hands and smashed the windows claiming ""we needed to collect personal items from our cubes"" but it quickly devolved into stealing computers, laptops, monitors, phones, etc. or anything that wasn't chained down.  It was a crazy time."


I don't see any Chicago comments, which seems weird as it has access to both Atlantic Ocean/east coast shipping via St lawrence seaway and the Gulf/south via the Mississippi. One of the largest airports in the world in O'hare (not to mention Midway). It's the economic hub of the midwest, Google already has a large operation here along with many other tech/industrial companies.


The old school way would have been to identify some wealthy zip codes and cold call like a mofo.  At present I would prefer to find some retiring advisor and buy his book (that may mean leaving your current firm).


To answer the last question first: there are no tax consequences to you. If your family member is married (or has a joint owner of the funds), and so are you, each of them can give each of you the $14K annual gift, which would be $56K. The remainder of the $70K would be subject to either (1) Gift Tax for the tax year in which it was given, or (2) applied to the lifetime exclusion. Either way would require filing a form with the IRS.