From the article, about the letter he allegedly sent to his employees:   It said that if President Barack Obama wins re-election and raises Siegel's taxes, he will have to lay off workers and downsize his company - or even shut it down.


If John signs the lease he is entitled to stay there for the duration of the lease regardless of the foreclosure status.   http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/renters-foreclosure-what-are-their-30064.html I would suggest that signing a year lease (even by email), with the plan to leave as early as possible is a good thing.  The key will be to make sure the penalty for leaving early is nothing. John doesn't know the status of the foreclosure, how long it will take, who might own afterwards and a lot of other unknowns.  The worst case is to be unsure of where you are living. Sign the lease, and be secure for one whole year that you know where you will be living.  Spend that year finding a new place to live.   If the bank doesn't offer you clear and obvious ways to submit rent, open an account AT THE BANK and deposit the rent there, on time. You are establishing credibility that you deserve to stay.  You still owe the rent, so pay it. They don't want to be your landlord, but don't let a bank bully you around.


The technical skills (excel, matlab, econometrics) others posted are absolutely essential, but I have seen a ton of world class number crunchers who could not put anything in context.  My advice:  - Read any annual report for any company you find somewhat interesting, aim for reading 2 or 3 a week.  This is the best way to learn real world macro economics and get a very strong grasp on financial accounting  - Practice writing about what you learn.


I'm new to investing but let me present you with my logic. Let me first say I bought at 38.01, and while I don't regret buying in, I suppose i DO regret buying in at 38.01 when I could have gotten in when it was in the 20's.  There is sort of a counter-hype lured me in.  With so many establishments saying facebook was built on hype and was going to burn a lot of investors, I actually thought it might go up.    On top of that, I believe in the company.  With their customer base, they can literally choose segments of the market and dismantle them.  Paypal? Boom, gone with a facebook payment system, Craigslist? Boom, gone with a properly implemented facebook marketplace... (all hypothetical at this point ofc) there are so many different arena's facebook can delve into with the enormous customer base they have.  And that's why I jumped in.


"And Trump said he want to help the small business more than the big business. Didn't he?  Do you realize that all those big corporate guys who left the presidential business councils is because of one reason: they hoped that they can lobby and get just what they want, the hell with the American people, and Trump said ""No!""?"


"So the ""be responsible for your own life"" attitude *sucks*; but the ""my problems can be blamed on everything and everyone around me"" attitude is *good*.  Ok.  That, in a nutshell, is the problem with America today.   Enjoy your future virtue signaling, I hope it gets you far."


"> I think you would need to know the man pretty well before you could make that judgement.   I think his record speaks for itself.  >A lot of people that knew him better than you do seem to have reached a different conclusion.  And a lot of them are similar bullshitters -- they wash each others backs basically.  >That's someone else describing him  No, that's the description from [the front webpage of his own ""hire me as a *'technology visionary'* speaker"" operation.](http://www.sculleyspeaks.com/)  >Honestly, the first part (I'm trying to imagine how he could be the quintessential of any kind of entrepreneur) is more off than the last part (which you could even imagine applying to a historian/anthropologist who had studied innovation in business & tech).  The whole thing is demonstrative of the kind of bullshitter that he is... and yeah it's all ""crap"" that has nothing to do with reality.  The guy was good at marketing soda-water (or at least at taking the credit for a successful marketing campaign for soda-water, I rather highly doubt he was really responsible for any of the actual creative or critical decisions... he just got the credit for them)."


This is the sword of Damocles that's hanging over Twitter.  The Russia investigation has revealed/confirmed what Twitter's senior management has remained willfully ignorant of: that their traffic numbers are grossly inflated by bots.  I see a bunch of civil fraud litigation not too far down the line.


The fundamental issue with leverage (of any sort, really) is that the amplified downsides are extremely likely to more than cancel out amplified equivalent upsides. Example without using a major swing: 2x leverage on a 5% decline (so a 10% decline).  The 5% decline needs a 5.26% increase to get back level.  However, the 2x leverage needs an 5.55% increase to get back.  So a cycle for the unleveraged returns of -5%, +5.4% would see the unleveraged asset go up by a net +0.13% but 2x leverage would leave you at -0.28%.  Conversely, imagine 0.5x leverage (it's easy to do that: 50% cash allocation): after an underlying -5%, the 0.5x leverage needs only +5.13% to reach par.  This is basically the argument for low volatility funds. Of course, if you can leverage an asset that doesn't go down, then the leverage is great.  And for an asset with an overall positive compound return, a little leverage is probably not going to hurt, simply because there are likely to be enough upsides to cancel out downsides.


when investing in index funds Index fund as the name suggests invests in the same proportion of the stocks that make up the index. You can choose a Index Fund that tracks NYSE or S&P etc. You cannot select individual companies. Generally these are passively managed, i.e. just follow the index composition via automated algorithms resulting in lower Fund Manager costs. is it possible to establish an offshore company Yes it is possible and most large organization or High Net-worth individuals do this. Its expensive and complicated for ordinary individuals. One needs and army of International Tax Consultants / International Lawyers / etc but do I have to pay taxes from the capital gains at the end of the year? Yes Canada taxes on world wide income and you would have to pay taxes on gains in Canada. Note depending on your tax residency status in US, you may have to pay tax in US as well.


"Normally these are only generated upon an acquisition.  When you acquire a business, all the tangible and intangible assets are market to ""fair value"", with goodwill as the plug to total to the actual purchase price.    So the cash out the door is the purchase price.  Then the asset is amortized.  In the normal course you wouldn't create the intangible - the sales people salary would just be an expense."


The President can propose whatever he wants, but that has no binding power; Congress is where the authority to tax and spend lives.  The President communicates with Congress, sure.  The President's greatest authority here would be the veto, which would permit deadlocking a budget between a majority and two-thirds majority in Congress.


Ah.  See, this is where you have already misread me: > . . . you attempt to construct a government and a society around false economic morality.  Why does morality have to be part of the actual solution?  It doesn’t.  Yet it can take into account moral values and immoral values.  The solution SHOULD be utilitarian - use that which works.  But not the utilitarian that throws out things that don’t quite work.  No.  It need to be a utilitarian method with foresight to see promise, and to understand the weakness of intolerance.  Our current system is actually promoting separation, building its own downfall.  A new system needs to actually be built to create unity through diversity, not for moral reasons, but for simple survival and growth.  And no one said people weren’t paid.  That was all you, bud.  I was simply saying they were able to put aside differences and survive through major setbacks to accomplish great things.  Sticking around during tough times requires either fear of the alternative, or a belief in the company or the goal.  People are NOT always selfish.


Are you seeking someone who can really understand the culture in the Austraila? At AuDatingSites you can find single partners for fun, dating and long term relationships. Our dating website provides the singles Australian. If you want to Aussie sex, then you can visit our website and find the many of contact who want to sex and partnership.You can access data can immediately by collating profile information. Also, members' behavior and attitudes can be identified easily by the site management.


[This is laughable because boomers are the ones bankrupting it and half of boomers have zero retirement savings.](https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/baby-boomers-relying-too-much-on-social-security-041317.html)  Many of these don't even have a semblance of a pension plan and are completely reliant on Social Security at this point. But sure blame the millennials for something that they had no control or influence on and give the boomers yet another free pass from any semblance of responsibility for the current state of affairs.


Hey there good looking! If you’re new here & looking for legit work at home, please check out my free Work At Home Guide. You may also want to subscribe to my Email list orRSS feed for updates on topics like the one on this page. And if you can’t get enough me, you can also follow me on . Good luck!


"Welcome to Personal Finance and Money. This answer will depend a lot on what is most important to the buyer, for example, whether it is important to always be in a newer car, to save money, or strike a balance between the two. There are trade-offs and I don't think there is one right answer for all circumstances. Leasing Leasing does make financial sense for at least two types of people I'm aware of: The company I work for provides company cars to sales executives, which we lease. We lease because it wouldn't be appropriate for a salesperson to meet a client in a car that clearly appears used. Similarly, I know people who value being in a newer car all the time, and for them, leasing makes more financial sense then buying a new car every 2-3 years, and selling their old car which is now 2-3 years old and has depreciated significantly. They understand that they are paying more to always be able to be in a newer car. I used to work with a manager who, every time the new model of the car he owned came out, would see the car and buy it on the spot, even though he already owned last year's model, and he didn't need two cars. He just couldn't help himself; he felt he had to have the new model. It's no use sermonizing about how he ""should"" learn to save money by just being content with what he had. In reality, if he is going to buy the new model every year no matter what, he should lease rather than buy. From my experience, I would only recommend leasing if you would otherwise be buying a new car on a regular basis, and the lease would be less expensive. This is probably the most cost effective way to maintain the highest possible quality, but would cost much more than buying and holding a new car or buying a value used car. I don't see reliability as much of a factor here since the seller will have a very good idea of how much maintenance will cost, but you will pay a premium to be able to pay a fixed cost for maintenance instead of risking a worse-than-average experience. Buying New According to Edmunds and BIGResearch, only a relatively small number of people are ever in the market for a new car at a given point in time. While you do pay quite a bit more to own a brand new car instead of the same car that is 2-3 years old, there are several reasons I'm aware of why people buy new cars: Number 4 is probably the biggest reason, and many people are willing to pay for the certainty of knowing that the miles are correct, the parts are new, the car is in good working condition, etc. Additionally, some makes of cars have much higher resale values than others (such as Hondas), meaning that there isn't as large of a drop in price between a new car and a used car. Many people consider buying a new car the best way to ensure they get the best reliability since they know the initial condition of the car and can care for it meticulously from that point on. This can especially make sense when the buyer intends to keep the car for the like of the car as the buyer will then benefit from having no car payments once it is paid off. Buying Used Buying a used car is the most affordable option, but for a given quality of car the reliability can be a significant potential pitfall. It can be very difficult for a non-professional to tell whether they are getting a good value. Additionally, it is hard for an owner who wants to sell a used car in excellent condition to get the true value of the car, and much easier for an unscrupulous seller to to get the market price by selling to an unaware buyer (the ""lemons"" problem in economics). You could buy an inspected car with a limited warranty from a retail seller like CarMax or a dealership, but you often pay a significant premium that cancels out much of the biggest reason to buy used - saving money. However, there is an opportunity to save money when buying used if you're willing to compromise on the condition of the car (if you don't care whether a car has hail damage, for example), or if you are able to wait until you find a motivated/distressed seller who needs to sell quickly and is willing to sell at a discount. If cost is your primary priority, buying a used car is likely the best option, but I would recommend the following in all circumstances: If the seller isn't willing to offer both of these, I would walk away. When buying used, you will also need to consider maintenance, which will vary significantly based on the make and model of the car as well as the condition, which is another risk you need to be willing to take on if you choose to buy used."


You'd need millions of dollars to trade the number of shares it would take to profit from these penny variations.  What you bring up here is the way high frequency firms front-run trades and profit on these pennies. Say you have a trade commission of $5.  Every time you buy you pay $5, every time you sell you pay $5.  So you need a gain in excess of $10, a 10% gain on $100.  Now if you wanted to trade on a penny movement from $100 to $100.01, you need to have bought 1,000 shares totaling $100,000 for the $0.01 price movement to cover your commission costs.  If you had $1,000,000 to put at risk, that $0.01 price movement would net you $90 after commission, $10,000,000 would have made you $990.  You need much larger gains at the retail level because commissions will equate to a significant percentage of the money you're investing. Very large trading entities have much different arrangements and costs with the exchanges.  They might not pay a fee on each transaction but something that more closely resembles a subscription fee, and costs something that more closely resembles a house. Now to your point, catching these price movements and profiting.  The way high frequency trading firms purportedly make money relates to having a very low latency network connection to a particular exchange.  Their very low latency/very fast network connection lets them see orders and transact orders before other parties.   Say some stock has an ask at $101 x 1,000 shares.  The next depth is $101.10.  You see a market buy order come in for 1,000 shares and place a buy order for 1,000 shares at $101 which hits the exchange first, then immediately place a sell order at $101.09, changing the ask from $101.00 to $101.09 and selling in to the market order for a gain of $0.09 per share.


"Disclaimer: I'm not a tax professional, or an expert on S-Corps. However, I do have my own S-Corp, and my decision process for taking a distribution has nothing (directly) to do with K-1 past or present, or profit and loss.  If I have ""extra"" cash in my S-Corp, I take a distribution.  Assuming I do my taxes correctly, the money will be taxed whether I take a distribution or leave it in the business. So it really comes down to how much cash the business requires to continue operating and meeting its expenses."


"I agree. You've gotta figure that the next trilogy is worth about that much alone including worldwide box office and merchandising. And that doesn't even take into account any of the other properties or merch on existing films.  I even had to double check the story to make sure that he didn't pull another ""I keep the merch"" deal like he did with Fox in the original trilogy. I don't get it either."


I’m going to suggest something your parents may be reluctant to say: “Grow up and get out.” A man living in a van down by the river, making minimum wage, with $0 in savings has achieved something you have still failed to achieve: adulthood.  This, I believe, is more important than a man’s income or net worth. So please join us adults Bryan.  I think you’ll enjoy it.  Yes, your savings may take a hit but you will gain the respect that comes with being an adult.  I think it is worth it.


Internet happens to be the best option when it comes to finding plus size robes as most of the local stores only stock regular sized ones. There are several online stores, dealing in specialized robes and lingerie of branded companies, which are of non regular sizes. Also, the demand for plus size satin robes is on the rise, leading to business expansions by many companies.


I wonder what they would say if there was a clause preventing tax breaks from going to management? It doesn't seem like a terrible idea, but would screw over middle-management and the supervisory positions an incentive like this could create.


IMO this means one of two things: the bank thinks that 3 months from now, the interest rates it plans to offer will be lower than 1%; after 180 days, it will go up again. the bank needs more short-term cash than mid-term cash right now, so it offers you a better deal. In either case, it is unlikely that your 90 day intrest rate will be available 90 days from now, and most likely it will be below 1% unless the bank yet again needs short-term cash from its customers. With those proposed rates, I would go for half in 90 days and half in 270 days. Disclaimer: am no economist, just spent a lot of time the past year fretting over the same kind of questions.  Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong if you think I am.


Your question indicates you really don't have a good grasp on personal finance.  you might want to read a book or two.  I'd recommend attending Financial Peace University, but my buddy Joe Taxpayer would throw an egg at me for that.  Please take some sort of class. In the mean time, here is your plan:  Pay this off do not borrow more.


More leverage means more risk. There is more upside. There is also more downside. If property prices and/or rents fall then your losses are amplified. If you leverage at 90% then a 5% fall means you've lost half your money.


Basically, it will depend on the documents your employer gives you. If your employer gives you a 2015 W-2 then you would claim it as income on your 2015 taxes. If the first W-2 they give you is for 2016, then you claim it on your 2016 taxes.


"Hah, Canada has had Fox news available for years. Canada also has the Sun News Network, which although not financially connected to Fox News, is in line with them philosophically. In other words, they reject the pro-left tilt of the MSM and present an opposing point of view. The Left can't tolerate other viewpoints because they don't have arguments to refute them. Instead they shriek ""Lies"" and the intellectually lazy are drawn in.   You should try educating yourself, not to mention *think* for yourself. Quit embarrassing yourself by parroting left-wing talking points."


Alleviating and expediting the healing of injuries is just the beginning of how massage therapy can help athletes. Easing muscle pain is one reason for them to seek the help of a skilled massage therapist; after all, people who play sports often suffer from muscular pain on a regular basis.


A guy I used to work with would buy some shares in certain companies on a regular basis.  The guy in question chose Coke, Pepsi, GE, Disney and some other old stable stocks.  He just kept buying a few shared ($50 or so at a time) year after year after year.  He worked his entire life, but by the time he was ready to retire, he had a pretty sizable investment; he was worth a rather tidy sum. The moral of the story is, it is very much worth it to invest a bit at a time.  Don't bother with the idea of buying low and selling high; not right now.  Just go ahead and buy stable stocks (or shares of index funds) and wait them out.  This strategy (mixed with other retirement tactics like a 401K from work, and IRA of your own, Social Security in the US) is a good way to build wealth. Don't spend money you don't have, be ready for a long term investment and I think it makes great sense, regardless of what country you live in.


See the problem is it's very hard to see how they can leave or ask to leave. There's very little on this in the treaties. They can't be kicked out under any treaty to the best of my knowledge. The only way I can see them getting kicked out is that they are cut off from Target 2, forced to print money/introduce capital controls etc, that breaks the laws of loads of treaties and they then get kicked out of not just the Euro but also the EU.  It's all so incredibly messy.


I believe firmly that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.    Cash your gains out and be happy with your profit.


They'll do what the U.S. did -- dump a lot of freshly made numbers into the banking system and watch the banker/speculators have fun while their economies continue to die, then wring hands, shrung shoulders and take more money from banker/speculators for their re-election campaigns.


"I find the question interesting, but it's beyond an intelligent answer.  Say what you will about Jim Cramer, his advice to spend ""an hour per month on each stock"" you own appears good to me. But it also limits the number of stocks you can own. Given that most of us have day jobs in other fields, you need to decide how much time and education you can put in. That said, there's a certain pleasure in picking stocks, buying a company that's out of favor, but your instinct tells you otherwise. For us, individual stocks are about 10% of total portfolio. The rest is indexed. The amount that ""should be"" in individual stocks? None. One can invest in low cost funds, never own shares of individual stocks, and do quite well."


Credit card interest was deductible prior to 1986. Just because it's an expense doesn't mean it needs to be deductible.   We need to move toward elimination of the income tax, we're also $20T in debt, there's gonna be cuts that people aren't gonna like but we have to move forward.


It could be a couple of things besides extra principal: I seem to remember hearing that some (shady?) lenders would just pocket extra payments if you didn't specify where they were headed, but I've also been told that this just isn't true.


"I'm not going to recommend a specific card.  New card offers pop up all the time.  My answer would be out of date in a month! As a general rule, if you pay off your balance every month, you should be looking at a cash-back or a rewards card. Cash-back cards will give you some money (say 1%) of every dollar you spend.  Some will give you larger amounts of cash-back for certain types of spending (e.g. groceries). With a Rewards card, you usually get ""points"" or ""airline miles"", which can be redeemed for merchandise, flights around the wold, concert tickets, etc. With these types of cards, it makes sense to do as much of your spending as possible with the cards, so you can maximize the benefits. Which specific card is best will depend on your shopping habits, and which bank is offering the best deal that week.  I recommend you start at http://www.creditcards.com to compare card offerings.  For cash-back cards, you can also go to http://www.creditcardtuneup.com, enter some details of your spending, and see which one will give you the most cash back."


depends entirely on the scope and where your chokepoints are.   if its a question of ginormeous amounts of data being stored in your spreadsheet and then extracted/joined with a mess of index match functions, that can quickly run up in size, and can be deftly replaced with a powerquery setup.   If it's a computation that requires a few iterative steps or complex nested lookups, but with simple inputs, then a few simply scripted UDFs can lower the complexity (and workload and size) of the workbook.   OP also mentions that the workbook is used for the display. If there is a lot of repeated deletion and adding of formats, sometimes workbook size can be seriously affected by these things cluttering up the sheet, and it can be useful to just clear those outs.   I'd say it makes sense to move away from workbooks and into something more technical if you the organizational support to do so. If one person sits and codes models in python but none of his colleagues can work on it or fix it, and it's not documented correctly, and there's no support structure, then I'd be cautious of transferring something business critical to that structure, rather than optimizing the solution that people are familiar with and can modify themselves.   But if it's a tech-savvy organization that recruits accordingly and has the technical support structures to implement changes and modifications as required by the business, I don't see any problem in using other tools.


One thing I thought of when I heard this was first announced, is how theaters actually make money. Theaters don’t make much from the movies they show, since studios take a huge portion of ticket sales for themselves, especially at release - theaters make money with concessions and value add services, which would still be in full effect even on this “movie a day” subscription model. I’m no expert in the industry though, so I could be completely wrong here, but I’d imagine if theaters have a limitation on the pass in terms of how long a movie must be out before a pass can be used to see it (thereby avoiding the super high studio ticket cost) then they can still make good money from people dropping 30 bucks for popcorn, a drink and candy before they go in to see the movie.


"If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable.  Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. ""But wait,"" you say, ""that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!"" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, ""no we're not done, we're still building our business!"". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market."


You are the one lending yourself the shares to sell;you purchase the stock at market price and sell at the strike price of the option to the put seller when you exercise the option.


Is anything possible, and if so, how? Because of the circumstances, there is nothing you can do. You do not have the ISIN, nor are you a part-owner of the account.  The information you would need is:  As always, good luck.


I came to say the same thing. I've had the amazon app for years and have been doing this. If i see something I like while in a store, sometimes I'll scan it with the app and see if it's worth waiting and getting it from amazon.  *Shrug*


If you don't mind me asking, what is it that you do now?  How much, if at all, has the charter helped you get to where you are now?  I just wrote level 2 last week after passing level 1 in December.  I'm so tired now and I'm thinking hard about if it's worth it to sign up next June.


> Is this good? No. It's way too much information,  ...For now. Given that computer processing speed (per price unit) is still increasing exponentially each year, and that our collective knowledge of genetics has been increasing rapidly (if not exponentially) in recent decades, establishing something like this today could clearly lead to substantial clinical improvements a decade from now.  > and has real ethical-legal implications (what happens when we find other mutations?)  Presumably, you'd inform the patient so that they can watch out for any subsequent symptoms of disease related to that mutation, and - if possible - treat it before it becomes a problem. This is the entire promise of personalized medicine, gene therapies, and rapid gene sequencing.


See how you can only make the premium amount but your risk is the same as holding the stock when writing a put option.


Beware of keeping up with the Joneses. Many of your free-spending neighbors are broke. Basically, the prices of things like what you're noticing will rise as incomes in the area rise. A great example of this can be found in state capitals and college towns, where battalions of government workers or students all make just about the same amount of money and drive prices accordingly. For example, a college town tends to have a tight rental market.


It depends on what provider they are using to process your charge and if it's through a website, a phone application or a desktop application. For example, if they build a desktop application with Authorize.net, the desktop application will take your information in, and then make a webservice call with it to a secure authorize.net processing platform. Something similar is true for FirstData. However, if they are using PayPal to process your request, you are routed to a paypal site to make the charge, then the funds are sent to the merchant.  As for what is returned that also depends on the provider and the application. If you are using a website it's likely an XML response with all the information they provide upon a transaction attempt. If it's a desktop application they may just hand the cc info off to a library which processes the charge and then returns specific confirmed or denied flags. So to be totally honest without knowing the exact situation in which you are charging your card, it's impossible to know. For all you know they are putting your credit card information in a database unencrypted and then charging them all at the end of the week in one giant batch.    If you are able to find out whom they are using as a credit card processing provider then you can look for that companies developer documentation. It will provide you with all the information you are looking for including examples.


This is true Giant and Specialized do have their own stores, however, not all of them are self owned. They still sell some of their bikes to independent bike dealers.   What if we take this idea a step further for component manufacturers like FSA, ENVE, Reynolds, Ritchey, or 3T. If any of these brands were to go direct to consumer how could they do it without upsetting their distributors?


Oregon Ranches for Sale | Eastern Oregon Realtor --Visit www.jettblackburn.com to view Oregon Ranches for sale and Oregon Farms for sale. Curt Black is on of the best Burns Oregon Real Estate experts. Curt knows the inventory and has experience in selling and buying Oregon Ranches and Oregon Farms. JETT BLACKBURN REAL ESTATE INC. specializes in Burns and Eastern Oregon Land, Ranches and Acreage Call 800-573-7206 today or visit our website to view land, properties and homes for sale.


"People must simply be willing to match your orders if they know about it. You can sniff orders out if you can see them or predict them. For instance, you can look at an order book and decide who you want to get filled at, especially if you are looking at different quotes from different exchanges. So you can get a ""better"" fill just by looking at what someone is willing to pay to enter/exit their order as well as what exchange they placed their order through, and send an order to that specific exchange to match them. You (or a program) can just watch the level 2's and place an order as soon as you see one you like. The orders on the level2's do not reveal ALL interested market participants. Also many brokers have difficulty updating options quotes. Finally, options & market volatility can inflate or decrease the price of options by large percentages very quickly."


Yeshiva University & all the High Schools connected to them, my boys former Yeshiva - Yeshiva Derech Hatorah, Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim, Yeshiva Chaim Berlin, and plenty of girls schools. I mean there are many many many more Yeshivas/Jewish Orthadox schools that teach what you are calling 'modern concepts'.  You are right that there are many that have an 'elitist' attitude there are many who are absolutely not like that. I also find the elitist attitude is more about the fact that many Orthadox Jews dont have to have any interaction outside of the Jewish community. They can go to Jewish Universities, work at Jewish Companies, live in predominantly Jewish neighborhood, and mostly don't need to interact with anything outside of the Jewish community.  I do find it wrong because while you can live a life of Torah Values we are supposed to be a light upon other nations and that requires some form of interaction.  Also this is fucking America. We need to be a part of this nation. Doesn't mean we need to not be Orthadox, but Jews need to show that they are invested in the communities, in politics, and the like.  But then again you gets whats happening with that school board (which I'm on the side that the state is really screwing with that school district with funding from what I have read up on the case) so it is a catch 22.  As as for not embracing modern ways, there is much about political correctness and progressive attitudes that are going far over the top. I find that Orthodox Judaism viewpoint on men & women are actually pretty slanted towards women (and always have been), that Jewish religious law only applies to Jews and not non-Jews (so all that stuff that the Christians keep saying oh the old testament says this and blah blah blah) according to Jews it doesn't apply to non-Jews (only the 7 Laws of Noah apply to the Gentiles of the World according to Judaism).  Also by following the Torah, sorry but that doesn't mean we are a part of the modern civilization. If one doesn't like following Orthodox Judaism then don't do so - no one is forcing you with a gun to your head. Most Orthodox Jews I know are respectful of Conservative & Reform Jews. I know where we live it is very much like that. Two of my kids are best friends with kids whose parents belong to a Conservative Synagogue. Orthodox Jews are a part of every type of career that is out there, they don't force their ideology onto others, don't try to convince people to convert, don't tell you that you are going to hell if you don't follow their teachings, and the biggest things that set Jews apart are dietary laws, following the sabbath, and all of our holidays - and how does that hurt anyone or make us not 'modern'?  Yes there are many who are not like what I wrote above but the majority are not like what you wrote


"The short answer is ""it depends"", mainly on the type of record and how old it is. Most retained records should be organized by year first, then by type. Have a look at this: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/how-long-to-keep-financial-records.aspx Typically, you should do the following:"


"it hasn't changed at all, as shown in his book ""the big short"".   To be sure, there is a lot of real stuff going on, but a lot of malarkey too. Hence the book ""where are all the customers yachts?"""


You have to have 9% ROI for your investment to break even. That's pretty steep. I'd pay the loan, where you have 9% promised return. Just make sure that there are no pre-payment penalties, and that you're comfortable enough with not having that money available.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41779341) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The growth extended the robust activity reported in the previous quarter, when US GDP grew at an annual pace of 3.1%. Analysts had been expecting a sharp slowdown after back-to-back hurricanes battered several states in the quarter.  > Consumer spending, which increased at a hearty 3.3% rate in the second quarter, slowed to 2.4% growth - a deceleration probably caused by the hurricanes.  > The price index for consumer spending, a closely-watched measure of inflation, increased at 1.3% in the third quarter, excluding food and energy.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79b8a9/us_growth_faster_than_expected/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~236790 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **GDP**^#1 **quarter**^#2 **growth**^#3 **President**^#4 **Department**^#5"


And I assume that is raw numbers, not corrected dollars.  Even if it were  corrected for official inflation it'd understate the change.  Anyone paying attention can tell that inflation is pretty rampant, even if the official figures pretend it's low.  Just had to pay $14 for an ordinary decent burger in a bar here, where only a few years ago it would have been $7 or $8 (metro Boston MA).


I love how the prospect of timely task completion and a greater ROI for our taxes is scaring the hell out of the copy-paste monkeys in the media and those working in the diploma mills we call universities.  They are scared it might catch on ...


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


"If the balance on the low rate loan is very high (say, an IBR student loan at 6% that accumulates interest every year), and the balance on the high rate loan (say, a CC at 18%) is comparatively very small, then you'd want to make sure that you've at least ""stopped the bleeding"" on the high balance loan before starting to pay off the CC."


I've spent a lot of time in Sweden.  Hard-working and educated are among the top words I would use to describe my Swedish friends. Spent some time in Denmark and Finland too and it appears to be the same there. I don't think you can say that about many counties. Next country over, Russia, one of the top words is cynical. You won't find more cynical people about taking and giving to those who claim greater need after the horrendously failed experiment.  Also I don't think Sweden is as socialist as people make them out to be, although I have to admit I haven't researched it much. I've just spent a few months there.


I am selling in an idea.   We are running a concierge MVP to test the insight behind an idea before going into development.  Essentially what the meeting will involve is me offering the brand some free market research.  Wow, never posted on /r/business before... negative community?


That's not entirely true for Oregon. It's illegal to pump your own gas in Oregon so every gas station has to employ at least one attendant. Don't think it amounts to $0.30 per gallon but it definitely raises the price of gas being forced to pay an adult to complete a task simple enough for a child.


Thanks for that. After a while I was just writing for the enjoyment of writing (and because my wife is out of town) but it's cool that you followed it all the way and compliments are always appreciated! I long ago learned that the art of successful debate is at least 50% the ability to refrain from name calling.


You cannot roll over your 401k money in an employer's 401k plan into an IRA (of any kind) while you are still employed by that employer. The only way you can start on the conversion before you retire (as Craig W suggests) is to change employers and start rolling over money in the previous employer's 401k into your Roth IRA while possibly contributing to the 401k plan of your new employer. Since the amount rolled over is extra taxable income (that is, in addition to your wages from your  new job), you may end up paying more tax (or at higher rates) than you expect.


Total link bait title and rambling anecdotal story but they are not the same company they used to be. The CEO sold out to line his own pockets and B&D was bought out by Stanley a few years ago. Large scale layoffs followed soon after and they are basically a Stanley division now, or last I heard.


Heartworm in mammals, caused by a hazardous micro organism named Dirofilaria immitis, was once a southern United States disease but has now spread to different parts of the country. This endemic can affect cats, dogs, and ferrets. Since it is a bit different for each species, the heartworm medicines for each mammal differ as well.


"My original answer contained a fundamental error: it turns out that it is not true that any exchange can create its own product to track any underlying index.  If the underlying index is copyrighted (such as the S&P indices, Russell indices, Dow Jones indices, etc.) then the exchange must enter into a licensing agreement (usually exclusive) with the copyright holder in order to use the index's formula (and name).  Without such a license the exchange would only be able to approximate the underlying index, and I don't think that happens very much (because how would you market such a product?). The CME offers several futures (and other derivatives) whose face value is equivalent to some multiple of the S&P500's value on the date when the product expires.  When such a product is actively traded, it may serve as a reasonable indicator of the ""market""'s expectation of the S&P500's future value. So, you could pay attention to the front month of the CME's S&P 500 Mini future, which trades from 17:00-16:00 Chicago time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon.  But remember that the prices quoted there are As another example, if you care about the Russell 2000 index, until 2017 the ICE Exchange happened to hold the license for its derivatives.  They traded from 20:00-17:30 New York time, Sunday night through Friday afternoon.  But in mid-2017 CME bought that license as well, so now you'll want to track it here. Moral: There's almost always some ""after hours"" product out there tracking whatever index you care about, but you may have to do some digging to find it, and it might not be all that useful for your specific purpose."


Each of your prototype or iteration should have a specific goal. In a lot of cases, it becomes difficult for a prototype to do a lot of things at a time. It could be because of anything, cost, logistics, development of the product, pitching process etc. the necessity is for several iterations that are required. It is best to get hardcore granular in such situations.


What to do with your equity?  Leave it alone...


"YES.. Management fees cut directly into your profits. A fund which achieves 8% growth but costs 1% to maintain delivers only 7% to you. Compounded over years, even a relatively small difference can add up to a significant amount of money. This is one of the advantages index funds have. They may not be as ""sophisticated"" as human-managed funds, but their expense ratio is so much lower that the end result for the investor is often as good as or better than the more expensive products. In fact, at least one study found that, for each category they researched, low expense ratio was a better predictor of good return on investment than anything else they looked at. That doesn't mean cheapest is always best or most expensive is always worst .... but it does mean you should be very, very sure an expensive fund really is that much better before choosing it. And sticking with simple index funds may be a perfectly reasonable choice."


I can't find the source but I read an article yesterday where hes stated that they ran a poll of his 8,000 workers in Florida and asked party affiliation.  If they answered Republican he sent a representative to make sure they were registered to vote.  If answered otherwise the same courtesy was not extended.  I'll keep looking for that link.    Edit: Found the  [Article](http://gawker.com/5950189/the-ceo-who-built-himself-americas-largest-house-just-threatened-to-fire-his-employees-if-obamas-elected?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow)


You say  My work is steady; even if I lost my job it'd be easy to get another. Location has been static for a few years now, but I'm not sure that'll extrapolate to the future; I'm lazy, so I don't want to move, but for a significantly better job opportunity I wouldn't mind.   The general rule of thumb is that you'll come out ahead if you buy a house (with a mortgage) and live there for five years.  What you lose in interest, you make up in rent.  And living there for five years, you make back your closing costs in equity.  If you're there less than five years though, you don't make back the closing costs.  You'd have been better off renting.   Historically (up to about twenty years ago), your mortgage payment and rent payment for the same basic property would be about the same.  I.e. if your current landlord sold you what you are renting, your mortgage payment would be roughly the same as your rent.  Maybe a little lower or a little higher but about the same.  More recently, it hasn't been strange to see a divergence in those.  Now it is not uncommon for a mortgage payment to be 50% higher than rent on the same property.   This has some consequences.  First, your $1000 rent probably won't stretch as far as a $1000 mortgage payment.  So you'll be buying something that you'd only pay $650 or $700 rent.  Second, if you move and can't sell immediately, you'll get less in rent than you'd pay in mortgage.  Rather than contributing to your income, the property will require subsidy just to maintain the mortgage.  And in the early years of the mortgage, this means that you're paying all of the principal (equity) and some of the interest.   Buying a duplex makes this worse.  You have your side and their side.  You can substitute your $1000 rent for half of the mortgage payment.  Meanwhile, they are paying $700 in rent.  You have to subsidize the mortgage by $300.  Plus, you are talking about hiring a property management company to do things like lawn maintenance.  There goes another $100 a month.  So you are subsidizing the mortgage by $400.   I don't know real estate prices in Utah, but a quick search finds a median house price over $200,000.  So it seems unlikely that you are buying new construction with new appliances.  More likely you are buying an existing duplex with existing appliances.  What happens when they fail?  The renter doesn't pay for that.  The property management company doesn't pay for that (although they'll likely arrange for it to happen).  You pay for it.   Also, it often takes a bit of time to clean up the apartment after one tenant leaves before the new tenant starts paying rent.  That's a dead weight loss.  If this happens during a local recession, you could be carrying the mortgage on a property with no offsetting rental income for months.   There are some countervailing forces.  For example, if house prices in your area are increasing, the rent will increase with them (not necessarily at the same pace).  But your mortgage payment stays the same.  So eventually the rent may catch up with the mortgage payment.  If you wait long enough in a strong enough market, the rent on the other half of the duplex may cover the entire mortgage payment.   If you currently have an urban apartment within walking distance of work and switch to a suburban apartment with a commute, you have a better chance of finding a duplex where the entire mortgage payment is only the $1000 that you pay in rent.  Your half of the duplex won't be as nice as your apartment is, and you'll have a half hour or hour long commute every morning (and the same to get home in the evening).  But on strictly fiscal terms you'll be doing about as well.  Plus you have the income from the other half.  So even if your mortgage payment is more than your rent payment, you can still break even if the rent covers it.   Consider a $1400 mortgage and $400 in rent from the other half (after property management fees).  So long as nothing goes wrong, you break even.  Perhaps the agreement is that your parents take care of things going wrong (broken appliances, troublesome tenants, time between tenants).  Or perhaps you drain your emergency fund and adjust your 401(k) payment down to the minimum when that happens.  Once your emergency fund is replenished, restore the 401(k).   If you're willing to live in what's essentially a $500 apartment, you can do better this way.  Of course, you can also do better by living in a $500 apartment and banking the other $500 that you spend on rent.  Plus you now have the expenses of a commute and five hours less free time a week.   You describe yourself as essentially living paycheck to paycheck.  You have adequate savings but no building excess.  Whatever you get paid, you immediately turn around and spend.  Your parents may view you as profligate.  Your apartment is nicer than their early apartments were.  You go out more often.  You're not putting anything aside for later (except retirement).   It didn't use to be at all strange for people to move out of the city because they needed more space.  For the same rent they were paying in the city, they could buy a house in the suburbs.  Then they'd build up equity.  So long as they stayed in roughly the same work location, they didn't need to move until they were ready to upgrade their house.   The duplex plan leads to one of two things.  Either you sell the duplex and use the equity to buy a nicer regular house, or you move out of the duplex and rent your half.  Now you have a rental property providing income.  And if you saved enough for a down payment, you can still buy a regular house.   From your parents' perspective, encouraging you to buy a duplex may be the equivalent of asking you to cut back on spending.  Rather than reducing your 401(k) deposits, they may be envisioning you trading in your car for a cheaper one and trading in your nice but expensive apartment for something more reasonable in a cheaper neighborhood.  Rather than working with a property management company, you'll be out doing yardwork rather than cavorting with your friends.  And maybe the new place would have more space to share when you meet someone--you aren't going to provide many grandkids alone.   If you get a mortgage on a duplex, you are responsible for paying the mortgage.  You are responsible even if something happens to the house.  For example, if a fire burns it down or a tornado takes it away.  Or you just find that the house isn't solid enough to support that party where all of your friends are jumping up and down to the latest pop sensation.  So beyond losing whatever you invest in the property, you may also lose what you borrowed.   Now consider what happens if you invest the same amount of money in General Motors as in the house.  Let's call that $10,000 and give the house a value of $200,000.  With General Motors, even if they go bankrupt tomorrow, you're only out $10,000.  With the house, you're out $200,000.  Admittedly it's much hard to lose the entire $200,000 value of the house.  But even if the house loses $80,000 in value, you are still $70,000 in the hole.   You don't need a disaster for the house to lose $80,000 in value.  That's pretty much what happened in the 2006-2010 period.  People were losing all of what they invested in houses plus having to declare bankruptcy to get out of the excess debt.  Of course, if they had been able to hold on until 2015 markets mostly recovered.  But if you lost your job in 2008, they wouldn't let you not make mortgage payments until you got a new one in 2012.   When you declare bankruptcy, you don't just lose the house.  You also lose all your emergency savings and may lose some of your belongings.   There are some pretty prosaic disasters too.  For example, you and your tenant both go away for a weekend.  It rains heavily and your roof starts to leak due to weak maintenance (so not covered by insurance).  The house floods, destroying all the electronics and damaging various other things.  Bad enough if it's just you, but you're also responsible for the tenant's belongings.  They sue you for $20,000 and they move out.  So no rent and big expenses.  To get the house livable again is going to take $160,000.  Plus you have a $190,000 mortgage on a property that is only worth about $40,000.  That's at the extreme end.


"Their goals are not to maximize profits of the grocery store - but to maximize the profits of the grocery store *owners*.   If they were to show a substantial profit from the store, there would be many wanting to take their share - be it government tax-men or worker unions.    It is thus much better to operate stores that are ""barely breaking even"" and ""can't afford to pay increased wages"" while paying many times more for the goods from an overseas intermediate company that is willing to provide kickbacks to the right people in the tax heavens."


Disclaimer: it's hard to be definitive as there may be some law or tax rule I'm not aware of. From a UK perspective, this should be perfectly legal. If it's just a one-off or occasional thing for personal reasons, rather than being done in the course of a business, there probably aren't any tax implications. In theory if there's an identifiable profit from the transaction, e.g. because you originally obtained the INR at a lower exchange rate, then you might be liable to capital gains tax. However this is only payable above approximately £10K capital gains (see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/cgt.htm) so unless this is a very large transaction or you have other gains in the tax year, you don't need to worry about that. I would only recommend doing this if you trust each other. If one side transfers the money and the other doesn't, the international nature will make it quite hard in practice to enforce the agreement legally, even though I think that in theory it should be possible. If the sums involved are large, you may find that the transaction is automatically reported to the authorities by your bank under money laundering regulations, or they may want documentation of the source of the funds/reason for the transaction. This doesn't automatically mean you'll have a problem, but the transaction may receive some scrutiny. I think that reporting typically kicks in when several thousand pounds are involved.


They care more about the fact that Obama raised the debt more than bush by 1% then the fact the rich are getting a tax break. One side of me can’t wait til tax time so these morons can find out they got fucked.


This is a slightly different reason to any other answer I have seen here about irrationality and how being rationally aware of one's irrationality (in the future or in different circumstances) can lead you to make decisions which on the face of it seem wrong. First of all, why do people sometimes maintain balances on high-interest debt when they have savings? Standard advice on many money-management sites and forums is to withdraw the savings to pay down the debt. However, I think there is a problem with this. Suppose you have $5,000 in a savings account, and a $2,000 credit card balance. You are paying more interest on the credit card than you get from the savings account, and it seems that you should withdraw some money from the savings account, and pay off the cc. However, the difference between the two scenarios, other than the interest you lose by keeping the cc balance, is your motivation for saving. If you have a credit card balance of $2,000, you might be obliged to pay a minimum payment of $100 each month. If you have any extra money, you will be rewarded if you pay more in to the credit card, by seeing the balance go down and understanding that you will soon be free from receiving this awful bill each month. To maintain your savings goal, it's enough to agree with yourself that you won't do any new spending on the cc, or withdraw any savings.  Now suppose that you decide to pay off the cc with the savings. There is now nothing 'forcing' you to save $100 each month. When you get to the end of the month, you have to motivate yourself that you will be adding spare cash to your $3,000 savings balance, rather than that you 'have to' pay down your cc. Yes, if you spend the spare cash instead of saving it, you get something in return for it. But it is possible that spending $140 on small-scale discretionary spending (things you don't need) actually gets you less for your money than paying the credit card company $40 interest and saving $100? You might even be tempted to start spending on your credit card again, knowing that you have a 0 balance, and that you 'can always pay it off out of savings'. It's easy to analogize this to a situation with two types of debt. Suppose that you have a $2,000 debt to your parents with no interest and a $2,000 loan at high interest, and you get a $2,000 windfall. Let's assume that your parents don't need the money in a hurry and aren't hassling you to pay them (otherwise you could consider the guilt or the hassle as a form of emotional interest rate). Might it not be better to pay your parents off? If you do, you are likely to keep paying off your loan out of necessity of making the regular payments. In 20 paychecks (or whatever) you might be debt free. If you pay off your loan, you lose the incentive to save. After 20 months you still owe your parents $2,000. I am not saying that this is always what makes sense. Just that it could make sense. Note that this is an opposite to the 'Debt Snowball' method. That method says that it's better to pay off small debts, because that way you have more free cash flow to pay off the larger debts. The above argues that this is a bad idea, because you might spend the increased cash flow on junk. It would be better to keep around as many things as possible which have minimum payments, because it restricts you to paying things rather than gives you the choice of whether to save or spend.


I agree with you that you need to consolidate this debt using a loan. It may be hard to find a bank or credit organization that will give you an unsecured personal loan for that much money.  I know of one, called Lending Club (Disclaimer - I'm an investor on this platform. Not trying to advertise, it's just the only place I know of off the top of my head) that facilitates loans like this, but instead of a bank financing the loan, the loan is split up accross hundreds of investors who each contribute a small amount (such as $25). They have rates anywhere between 5-30%, based on your credit profile(s), and I believe they have some loan amounts that go up to the area that you're discussing.  Regarding buying the house - The best thing you can do when trying to buy a house is to save up a 20% downpayment, if at all possible. Below this amount, you may be asked to pay for 'PMI' - Private Mortgage Insurance. This is a charge that doesn't go away for quite a while (until you've paid them 20% of the appraised value of the home), where you pay a premium because you didn't have the 20% downpayment for the house.  I would suggest you try to eliminate your credit card debt as soon as possible, and would recommend the same for your father. Getting your utilization down and reconsolidating the large debts with a loan will help to reduce interest charges and get you a reasonable, fixed payment.  Whether you decide to pay off your own balances using your savings account is up to you; if it were me, personally, I'd do so immediately rather than trying to pay it off over time. But if you lose money to taxes by withdrawing the money from your 'tax free savings account', it may not be a beneficial situation.  Treat debt, especially credit card debt, like an emergency at all times, and you'll find yourself in a better place as a result.  Credit card debt and balances are and should be temporary, and their rates and fees are structured that way. If, for any reason, you expect that a credit card's balance will remain for an extended period of time, you may want to consider whether it would be advantageous for you to consolidate the debt into a loan, instead.


">Good, that gives their competition time to take market share.  Except TAM (total actual market) is decreasing, the pool of ""market share"" is going down. So what's happening is companies are slashing margins to even maintain market share, much less increase it. Look at what's happening in computers, DELL, HP, Acer, Asus, Lenovo. Apple's sales numbers dropped for notebooks as well, but because they didnt drop as much as HP or Lenovo their market share went up. This is the new normal. Less than stellar sales.  >As long as there is money on the table, someone is going to reach for it. Markets aren't known for their patience.  Problem is there is less and less money on the table. Big companies are squeezing little companies. Know what you just described? Wal-mart puts the little guy out of business--- they're efficent!   >Bullshit, tax burdens cause tax avoidance, they don't touch production as long as profits are still available.  Yes, some, but you can only avoid it if you are multi-national. Businesses with completely domestic operations cannot avoid liabilities in the same way. But as I said above the markets are shrinking, there is less money on the table and the players that are left are fighting over the last scraps. That is obviously a bit extreme, but I personally deal with a lot of retailers and OEMs and there is NOT the wiggle room you describe. I get beat up for a few dollars.   I am not talking about banks, or energy companies, or healthcare companies. I am talking about the thousands of small and medium businesses that are already squeezed. These entities are the lifeblood of the larger economy. One or two go out of business and nobody notices, but hundreds and thousands of these companies have closed now. A healthy company is not made up of only Wal-mart, Exxon and Apple."


The money NEVER becomes your money. It has been paid to you in error. Your best response is to write to the company who has paid you in error and tell them that for the responsibilty and subsequent stress caused to you by them putting you in a position of looking after their money you hereby give notice that you are charging them $50 per week until such time as they request the repayment of their money. Keep a dated copy of your letter and if they fail to respond then in 12 weeks they will have to pay you $600 to retrieve their $600. If they come back to you anytime after that they will OWE YOU money - but I wouldn't push for payment on that one. I have successfully used this approach with companies who send unsolicited goods and expect me to mess about returning them if I don't want them. I tell them the weekly fee I am charging them for storage and they quickly make arrangements to either take their goods back or (in one case) told me to keep them.


This is rubbish. Universities will be empty long before the price ever gets that high. As prices rise, you sell less product - it's that simple.   The US has decided that only a small percentage of its citizens should be able to afford to go to college, making it exclusive.  But a smart country makes tertiary education cheap, and encourages people to attend.  The fact that should disturb Americans more than any other, is that China has more Ph.D. students *than America has students*.


Invest heavily in the healthcare industry?  Unless you think that prices and profits will be disconnected.


This 'social contract' you speak of is rooted in theft. If you disagree with how taxes are spent, and do not participate in the tax system, then you will be stripped of your savings and property and will be sent to prison. It just seems like such a barbaric and archaic way to operate society to me.  And actually, many Americans *have* increasingly been renouncing their US citizenship and moving to other parts of the world. It's mostly because of increased business regulations and the endless War on Terror.


">A bee can live outside of the hive. If I destroy the hive, the bee survives.  No, it doesn't.  It dies within a day or so.  Go ask any beekeeper.  >Name me one accomplishment that man, on his own, can do that would surpass what man, together, have done.  You miss the points I am making entirely (you have to let go of your dogmatic mindset -- I mean do you WANT a conversation here? Or just another typical Reddit ""pissing"" match?)  The social interaction of humans is a ""middle of the road"" thing, with ditches on both sides.  To little interaction & interdependence (the ""ditch"" to one side of the road) and yes, humans lead only a bare minimal ""survival"" existence (but unlike bees, humans CAN survive).  Too much interdependence (the ditch on the opposite side) and human progress stagnates, and inevitably, invariably, the society implodes (Cf basically all of human history).  Libertarians are generally pulling towards the one ditch; Socialists want to pull everyone into the other ditch."


As you can imagine, this company did not survive very long...  The business model for this type of software is normally based on subscription revenue, which is typically 70% of turnover. The company had subscription revenue of just 30% of turnover due to piss poor customer support, and it soon collapsed as the market was saturated, when there were no more gullible customers left.  The product still survives, but with just a handful of customers...


There is absolutely no logical reason why each nation does not own and control banking and thus the supply of money.  Any system including the financial system works exactly the same way, regardless of ownership.  Banking depends solely on the confidence of the customers/investors. Therefore when a sovereign nation/state has ownership of the banks, the profits are kept in-house, within the nation, which is actually a bonus, and taxes can be off-set by profits, which is another benefit.  Any improvement or benefit by the private ownership of banking is a total myth.


The only way for a mutual fund to default is if it inflated the NAV. I.e.: it reports that its investments worth more than they really are. Then, in case of a run on the fund, it may end up defaulting since it won't have the money to redeem shares at the NAV it published. When does it happen? When the fund is mismanaged or is a scam. This happened, for example, to the fund Madoff was managing. This is generally a sign of a Ponzi scheme or embezzlement. How can you ensure the funds you invest in are not affected by this? You'll have to read the fund reports, check the independent auditors' reports and check for clues. Generally, this is the job of the SEC - that's what they do as regulators. But for smaller funds, and private (i.e.: not public) investment companies, SEC may not be posing too much regulations.


The notion of 'most common' is an interesting one. US citizens have gotten heavier and many have gotten taller. There is more of an emphasis on physical fitness in the military now than in previous generations. Needless to say, the addition of women to the force has been significant in this regard. All of which suggests that in addition to gruehunter's apt comment below, a regular updating of what 'most common' means may lead one to conclude that what used to fit that description no longer does.


Um, you're the one that said this:  >Talking about politics like this is not mature.   If a business has no incentive, and furthermore has a disincentive to do something else they will do it.  It is a political statement, but it is very much related to business.  You might see it as somebody who is a jerk, greedy, selfish, but the fact is he knows his business better than you do. Which he has built over 40 years. If you think spite comes into it to where he would damage the business he has built over the last 4 years you don't know what you're talking about.   He said if he does not have an incentive to continue he won't. Or if the government deincentivizes a number of employees above a certain amount, he will have to make cuts (such as forced higher % contributions to medical insurance above 5,000 employees would incentivize him to cut from 6,500 to 4,999 employees).


Typically you can not buy gift cards with gift cards but in most stores this is a function built into the cash register, I find it hard to believe that targets system would not restrict it if it was in fact against their policy.  I worked for Home Depot for 5 years, they have a strict gift card/store credit policy that prevents such things from happening.


"What part of finance does he want to get into? Investments, Equities and trading, derivatives, finance as a whole, corporate finance? Most academic textbooks are ridiculously priced so if he is looking to learn technical skills he might have to look at splashing out or looking elsewhere...  Fundamentals of Corporate Finance 7th is a good one. Covers a lot of the core parts of finance which then extend to all the other areas of finance, starting at the basics of Time Value of Money (though it does gloss over some of the more complex parts). However, it is pretty expensive. This is an academic textbook.  On the non-technical side, there are a number of books with which he could get started. Benjamin Graham's ""The Intelligent Investor"" is a popular and affordable one, but it won't teach much about the technical side of finance."


"This question is predicated on the assumption that investors prefer dividends, as this depends on who you're speaking to.  Some investors prefer growth stocks (some which don't pay dividends), so in this case, we're covering the percent of investors who like dividend paying stocks. It depends on who you ask and it also depends on how self-aware they are because some people may give reasons that make little financial sense.  The two major benefits that I hear are fundamentally psychological: Dividends are like mini-paychecks.  Since people get a dopamine jolt from receiving a paycheck, I would predict the same holds true for receiving dividends.  More than likely, the brain feels a reward when getting dividends; even if the dividend stock performs lower than a growth stock for a decade, the experience of receiving dividends may feel more rewarding (plus, depending on the institution, they may get a report or see the tax information for the year, and that also feels good). Some value investors don't reinvest dividends, as they believe the price of the stock matters (stocks are either cheap or expensive and automatic reinvestment to these investors implies that the price of a stock doesn't matter), so dividends allow them to rebuild their cash after a buy.  They can either buy more shares, if the stock is cheap, or keep the cash if the stock is expensive.  Think about Warren Buffett here: he purchased $3 billion worth of shares of Wells Fargo at approximately $8-12 a share in 2009 (from my memory, as people were shocked that be bought into a bank when no one liked banks).  Consider how much money he makes from dividends off that purchase alone and if he were to currently believe Wells Fargo was overpriced, he could keep the cash and buy something else he believes is cheaper.  In these cases, dividends automatically build cash cushions post buying and many value investors believe that one should always have cash on hand. This second point is a little tricky because it can involve risk assessment: some investors believe that high dividend paying stocks, like MO, won't experience the huge declines of indexes like the SPY.  MO routed the SPY in 2009 (29% vs. 19%) and these investors believe that's because it's yield was too desired (it feels safer to them - the index side would argue ""but what happens in the long run?"").  The problem I have with this argument (which is frequent) is that it doesn't hold true for every high yield stock, though some high yield stocks do show strong resistance levels during bear markets."


It's six of one a half dozen of another.   Investing the cash is a little more risky.  You know exactly what you'll get by paying down your mortgage.  If you have a solid emergency fund it's probably most advisable to pay down your mortgage.   If your mortgage is 3% and your investment makes 3.5% you're talking about a taxable gain of 0.5% on the additional cash.  Is that worth it to you? Sure, the S&P has been on a tear but remember, past results are not a guarantee of future performance.


"An answer from a psychological viewpoint: money does not have a linear value to people. If you have $10.000, losing one dollar doesn't really matter. Losing all $10.000 is more than 10.000 times as bad. As a simple example of a non-linear function, let's use the ""square root"" function. Let's say that having $100 is ten times as good as having $1, and having $10000 is ten times as good as having $100.  Now, this means that an insurance may have a negative expectation when expressed in dollars (since the insurance company is making a profit), but the expected value still can be positive. Let's assume the premium is $150 and there's a 1% chance it will pay $10.000. Clearly in dollars the expected loss is $50. But in the value to you (using that same square root function), the premium is just -0.75 (sqrt(9850)-sqrt(10000) and the expected payout is 1 (sqrt(10000)*1%).  Intuitive: you won't notice the premium, if you're rich enough that you don't need the insurance. But once you do need the insurance, you could now be so poor that you appreciate the payout. As a side effect - this also shows that you want an insurance with a fairly high deductible. If a $10.000 loss is a risk you can bear, then you don't need insurance for losses in the order of $100. And that's even ignoring the fact that such small payouts have relatively high administrative costs for insurance companies, which is why the premium discount for high deductibles can be disproportionally high."


A graphic designer, strong spreadsheet skills, and knowledge about the cost-structure of your idea/business will be key to making a presentation work.   You must be able to show (with extreme confidence) what you will expect to post for revenues and profits for at least the first 3-5 years in the current lending environment... unless you are raising capital without using a bank or traditional methods.


"In the first situation you describe, any intelligent routing algo will send a 1000 lot order to the lit exchange in step 1. Then you get filled 1000@$10. After the fill occurs, the matching engine tells everyone what happened.   If the order book consists of 100 orders of 1 lot @ $10, and you place a ""buy 100 lots"" order, here is what happens:  1. The matching engine receives your order. 2. The matching engine matches your order against the 100 individual orders on the book. 3. The matching engine broadcasts 100 trade notifications.   No one has any opportunity to cancel their orders since they only hear of the fill after it happened.   The only way someone would have the opportunity to cancel is if there was 500 lots on one exchange and 500 on another. Then someone might observe a trade on exchange #1 and cancel their sell order on exchange #2 in response."


"I'm not a tax professional, but as I understand it, you are not expected to commute from San Francisco to Boston.  :) If your employer has not provided you with an external office, then yes, you have very likely met the ""convenience of the employer"" test. However, to take the home office deduction, there are many requirements that have to be met. You can read more at the Nolo article Can You Deduct Your Home Office When You're an Employee? (Thanks, keshlam) The home office deduction has many nuances and is enough of an IRS red flag that you would be well-advised to talk to an accountant about it.  You need to be able to show that it is exclusively and necessarily used for your job. Another thing to remember: as an employee, the home office deduction, if you take it, will be deducted on Schedule A, line 21 (unreimbursed employee expenses), among other Miscellaneous Deductions.  Deductions in this section need to exceed 2% of your adjusted gross income before you can start to deduct.  So it will not be worth it to pursue the deduction if your income is too high, or your housing expenses are too low, or your office is too small compared to the rest of your house, or you don't itemize deductions."


Make sure that when you have the loan you still contribute enough to get the company match. For example:  An inability to maximize the match might need to be figured into the opportunity cost of the loan. Some companies will suspend your contributions for a specific number of months for a hardship withdraw.  Make sure you understand where the money comes from for the loan. Can you count the money that the company matched but you are not vested with, when determining the maximum amount of the loan?  If the money is in what is now a closed fund can you replenish the funds back into that fund if use it to fund the loan? Know what the repayment time period is of the loan.


I'm not sure I understand your question. If the stock price is at an all-time high, everyone who owns the stock is 'in the money'. Of course, they won't actually realise a capital gain until they sell the stock. Similarly, if the stock becomes worthless (the company shuts down after declaring bankruptcy, etc.), everyone who owns the stock is out whatever they paid for the stock.


To be honest, if you have to ask tips about taking over your family business, someone really dropped the ball on showing you the business in the first place.     Anyway, learn yourself some basic bookkeeping/accounting.  Money management/tax handling will be something you will need to know, even if you have staff to handle this for you.     Learn the specific product/service/whatever you offer.  Nothing can be worse than having no clue what your product/service does and you're running it.     Shadow the family member(s) that are running it now.  Find out what they do throughout their day involving the business.  Whoever your replacing is the one you should focus on most.     Also make sure you understand your branding, quality, and price measures.  Any basic business class will teach you that branding, quality, and price are the three factors of a business's success.  Where you fail in one, you take up in another.  For instance, Apple has horrible prices.  Extremely expensive.  How do they make it up?  Well, quality is about on par with other products (since they largely come from the same source as competitors), but the iPhone and iPod are well known brands (far more recognized than the smartphone and MP3 player that they are, instead called by the specific product name).  Same with Kleenex.  No one asks for a facial tissue.  They ask for a Kleenex.  That's strong branding that connects the consumer to the product.     Anyway, just make sure you know where your points fall on those three lines in your business.  Improve as you can, but understand where your main fall back is.  Best prices, quality, or most well known?          Lastly, don't doubt that you can do this.  Similarly, don't overcompensate.  Your friends will all ask for deals and discounts and you'd do best to deny them in most cases.  Family will always want a cut and will probably get nasty in some cases (mattering by how you're set up).  When dealing with employees, remember that they work for you:  You're not friends.  Nothing destroys a staff faster than the boss trying to be friends with everyone and ends up promoting the schmoozer.          Eh, not sure what else to toss out.  That covers a lot of bases, but I'm sure I can think of more later.


"My problem with this is that there's no ""one size fits all"" approach to eliminating poverty. These are very much middle-class values and I don't think imposing them on impoverished children is the right approach. And besides, poverty itself can be fluid. Most kids already in poverty are stuck in generational poverty, but there's also situational poverty that can affect anyone at any time. For kids in generational poverty, it's about survival. They don't plan ahead because they don't have the luxury to do that. It's day to day with them, with each day bringing a new challenge.   Do I know what we have to do to eliminate poverty? No, and I don't think anyone does. But I do think whatever approach we take should be multifaceted and take into account the environmental contexts that shape a person's life. This kind of lazy policymaking isn't gonna cut it"


Whether or not you use a real estate agent, at some stage most people use a lawyer to do the actual buying and selling and set up the agreements. If you've never dealt with a lawyer directly before it's probably because your agent has acted as a front-person for the lawyer. If you go to a lawyer and tell them what you want to do they will sort it out, and should tell you in advance how much it will cost. You and your friend will probably need one each.


"http://www.attaincapital.com/alternative-investment-education/managed-futures-newsletter/investment-research-analysis/423  http://www.cta-info.com/cta_stats.htm  I just googled ""managed futures stats"".    I'm not 100% sure what your goal is, but I wouldn't look to filter out trades.  You're better off grading returns and variance within the returns.  http://www.autumngold.com/  Poke around the ""top traders"" section and compare the returns with the drawdown of the traders.  You'll see the ""lucky"" traders, but you'll also see the high risk guys and low risk guys."


I agree, but if that's *all* a person wants to discuss out of that story thats missing the forest for the trees.  Also for the record,  the $800 billion in 2007-2008 vs the larger muni bond market isn't actually a lie.  You simply had a problem that it referred to more than just the 2007-2008 time frame.    That's all.  And either way it isn't material to the larger story here which was the fraud.    Nobody got 'caught lying'.


It takes about 4-5 workdays, maybe it depends on the day also when you start the transfer. I transferred an amount last Wednesday, and the same amount on Thursday too. Both transactions hit the destination account on the next Tuesday, with a difference of 2 minutes.


Hm, surprised nobody has mentioned tech gadgets yet. I'm surprised how many undergrads run around with the latest iPhone, iPad, MacBook, of course all with unlimited data etc.  There's just no reason to drop $1500 on a laptop and to pay $50 a month for a cell phone plan.


I use a bloomberg terminal daily, my biggest gripe is that 9 of 10 of the times you interact with the customer support they are utterly incompetent. I've heard them tell me their data team has gone home for the weekend far too many times at 12pm on a friday.


La inmobiliarias cdmx Vender el legado rentable que su casa habla no es algo básico, espera que el tiempo para avanzar, a pesar de un material impreso imprescindible, que debe ser terminado con alerta. Sin embargo, una oficina inmobiliarias cdmx puede ahorrarle tiempo, y le dará seguridad de que la oferta de su casa es un intercambio protegido en cada una de las metodologías que se requieren. Ofrecer una propiedad es un proceso moderado y complejo, así que tener la ayuda de un profesional es profundamente sugerido.


"I typed out a long-ish answer, but I'm just going to direct you to [this study](http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/irwin/archive/papers/Farmers%20use%20of%20forward%20contracts.pdf) instead, which seems to summarize the available contracts quite well.  The biggest problem I see is infrastructure and credit risk. Say you have somebody with arable land who wants to start up a farming operation, as the financial institution how do you know this person can actually deliver the goods to a distributor? How do you know they won't just default on their payments? The lack of creditworthiness is a big problem in developing countries, and morseso many countries lack the proper legal institutions to enforce the contracts, further complicating the problem.  I think your idea is good, but I think widespread retail financing operations in developing countries need a lot of ""boots on the ground"", as it were, to ensure you know who you're lending to. Other alternatives are to just require a huge amount of collateral, but impoverished farmers by their definition probably won't be able to meet this requirement."


Would that be the same retirement funding requirements that every business has to fulfill by law?  Oh right, they should be free to completely screw their retirement programs like CalPers and Illinois by under investing and assuming they will get 8% returns every year.


If you have $10000 and wish to buy 1000 shares of a $10 stock, you risk borrowing on margin if you go over a bit. For some people, that's a non-issue. Some folk with an account worth say, $250K don't mind going over now and then or even let the margin account run $100K on a regular basis.  But your question is about market orders. A limit order above the market price will fast-fill at the market anyway. When I buy a stock, it's longer term usually. A dime on a $30 share price won't affect my buy decision, so market is ok for me.


"I took @littleadv 's recommendation that online apps only ask for citizenship due to post-9/11 legislation.  I applied to 2 banks in person (one big, one small), and at the dealership. None of my in-person applications ever touched on the issue of citizenship.  I even applied in person at the same bank that insta-rejected me online, and told them up front, ""I applied online but you rejected me because I'm not a permanent resident.""  The banker nodded, said ""that shouldn't matter here"", and continued processing my application. I did find it very hard to get a loan.  I have a credit score in the ""excellent"" range, but have only 1 open credit card (for 5 years).  Apparently, most lenders want to see more open credit before writing an auto loan.  The big bank said outright ""We want to see 3-5 credit cards open"".  However, the dealership did find a bank willing to extend me a loan. So: The most reliable way for a non-permanent resident alien to get an auto loan in the US is to avoid online applications.  Also, if possible, establish a wide credit history before you try."


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://apnews.com/440dc0bb5b464b1dbd8aa7714f779c48) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > NEW YORK - Martin Shkreli, the eccentric former pharmaceutical CEO notorious for a price-gouging scandal and for his snide &quot;Pharma Bro&quot; persona on social media, was convicted Friday on federal charges he deceived investors in a pair of failed hedge funds.  > &quot;There is an image issue that Martin and I are going to be discussing in the next few days,&quot; he said, adding that while Shkreli was a brilliant mind, sometimes his &quot;People skills&quot; need work.  > Shkreli&#039;s lawyer agreed his client could be annoying but said his hedge fund investors knew what they were getting.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6rncn2/pharma_bro_shkreli_is_convicted_at_securities/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~183442 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Shkreli**^#1 **investors**^#2 **million**^#3 **case**^#4 **prosecutor**^#5"


I work in finance and have had a couple friends make the switch from engineering (or some other more technical field) to banking. People in finance like to glorify that what they do is special and takes a certain background/skill set, the truth is you learn things you need to on the job. Give yourself time and ask shitloads of questions. Your natural curiousity for markets and finance news is going to carry you forward - I've seen non finance people come into the sector and flail because they lack that.


"Even though the article doesn't actually use the word ""discount"", I think the corresponding word you are looking for is ""premium"". The words are used quite frequently even outside of the context of negative rates. In general, bonds are issued with coupons close to the prevailing level of interest rates, i.e. their price is close to par (100 dollar price). Suppose yields go up the next day, then the price moves inversely to yields, and that bond will now trade at a ""discount to par"" (less than 100 dollar price). And vice versa, if yields went down, prices go up, and the bond is now at a ""premium to par"" (greater than 100 dollar price)"


"I would write them a check or give them cash money. There are payment receipt forms available online, you can print one of have them fill it out and sign it. Just google ""private party receipt"".  Money transfer (via bank account or Paypal) is also an option, but in my opinion it's more convenient to meet up and handle it in person. If you want, you can have them meet you at a notary public's office (your local bank branch should have one) and have the receipt notarized. I don't think it's a scam, but make sure you are paying the right person."


Investing in the stock market early is a good thing.  However, it does have a learning curve, and that curve can, and eventually will, cost you. One basic rule in investing is that risk and reward are proportional.  The greater the reward, the higher the risk that you either (a) won't get the reward, or (b) lose your money instead.  Given that, don't invest money you can't afford to lose (you mentioned you're on a student budget). If you want to start with short but sercure investments, try finding a high-interest savings account or CD.  For example, the bank I use has an offer where the first $500 in your account gets ~6% interest - certainly not bad if you only put $500 in the account.  Unfortunately, most banks are offering a pittance for savings rates or CDs. If you're willing to take more risk, you could certainly put money into the stock market.  Before you do, I would recommend spending some time learning about how the stock market works, it's flows and ebbs, and how stock valuations work.  Don't buy a stock because you hear about it a lot; understand why that stock is being valued as such.  Also consider buying index funds (such as SPY) which is like a stock but tracks an entire index.  That way if a specific company suddenly drops, you won't be nearly as affected.  On the flip side, if only 1 company goes up, but the market goes down, you'll miss out.  But consider the odds of having picked that 1 company.


Very few people's credit is worth $100,000. The average homeowner's credit (family of four with good to very good credit) is worth about $30,000. This is a pure business decision. The bank knew the law when they extended the mortgage to you, and part of the amount they're charging you goes to cover the risk that you might opt to walk away. The mortgage was an agreement between you and the bank and it specified the penalty for you walking away. Taking the agreed upon penalty for an action specifically contemplated in the agreement is also keeping the agreement.


I live in an area where there are large distribution centers for a number of retailers fairly near each other. Wal-mart's hires a lot of young kids and completely inexperienced people. As soon as they get a little experience, they usually get to work trying to get on with one of the other DC's because they all pay more and offer better benefits. The thing is, there is always some young, inexperienced kid out there willing to work their tush off for a pitance and no benefits because the management is making sure they never get enough hours to 'earn' them. There's no impetus on Wal-Mart to make any effort to do better by their workers.


what kind of grades did he have after graduating? because a decent (3.0ish definitely 3.5ish) gpa and middle of the road school gave a lot of people I know their pick of the litter when it came to consulting or analyst roles.  That on top of the fact that accountants are always in demand and if all else fails a feeder role for a bigger company as a call center tech also allows a potential career path.  That being all said, direct MBA is certainly an option, although it is more expensive up front and may or may not pay off after all is said and done.  I still plan on getting one due to a non finance schooling background, but I will probably wait 8 or so more years to figure out exactly what mba would help me the most


"Take the case where a stock has just two owners, A and B, both at $10. One of them sells his shares to C, at $11.  Now B has made $1 in profit but is no longer an owner of the stock. A hasn't sold anything but his shares are worth 10% more due to the last traded price printed. C has bought shares at $11 and the price is $11, so technically he hasn't lost any money. In a larger market, there are winners and losers every day on a single stock, but they may not remain owners of a stock. There could be days in which those that remain owners are all winners - say when a stock goes up to an all time high and all those that are currently owners have an average buy price lower than the last traded price. And the reverse applies too.  It is of course more complicated. Say you own a stock and let someone else ""borrow"" it for a short-selling opportunity (he sells it in the market). For each uptick in price, you win, the short seller loses, and the guy he sold it to also wins. A person that has a covered call on a stock is not a winner beyond a point. And so on."


Also, from personal experience, most banks' internal IT systems are bare minimum to keep working. Outside of trading systems the back office are often on Lotus Notes 99 or similar just because back office is seen as a cost and it's easy to justify not upgrading IT systems.  For sure, if the ROI is right it might get approved but it's hard to overstate how much time of your average back office employee is already spent fighting shitty systems that could be improved with today's tech.


paar nu brandpunten bij De Haardhout Handelaar, hiermee krijgt u korting bij uw volgende aankoop. Er zijn vele manieren om brandpunten te sparen, hieronder volgt een overzicht van de werkwijze. Voor elke euro die u besteedt ontvangt u 2 brandpunten. 100 brandpunten zijn 1 euro waard. De gespaarde punten blijven 1 jaar geldig. Het enige wat u moet doen is een account aanmaken.


They probably lose a ton of money from people making innocent mistakes, too. A few weeks ago I was was at the self checkout register at Target and swiped a $20 roast. I swear I heard it ding in my head,  even though it didn't actually scan, but luckily the employee was paying attention and asked me if I was going to pay for it. I felt like an asshole, but I'm glad she was there to say something so I know to pay more attention next time.