My own. Could be a pair trade or outright. I take positions that i believe i can sell later. Or short them then buy back from client.  I usually have a lot of small positions and several large ones that i watch like a hawk every day all day.  I mostly trade safer big cap stocks. Banks, insurance etc. nothing too risky. No penny stocks. I hedge with etfs.


"No you brought up aluminum as an issue. I simply pointed out there is nothing unique or unusual about aluminum body panels. Insurers have known Tesla has aluminum body panels since day 1. What they did not have was sufficient statistics to determine how unsafe Teslas and their drivers are until now.   Once they had data to prove that Teslas have a substantially higher accident rate they raised insurance rates. If the accident rate was low they would not have raised the rates. The new information is not ""aluminum body panels"" but that Teslas and their drivers have a mich higher accident rate."


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


Really? The guy should be tied to the giant ball on Broadway and publicly flogged with all the other bankers that still benefit from our government without doing shit to improve the economy by offering loans or dealing compassionately with underwater mortgages while reaping profits borrowing free money from the government and loaning it back to the government *with fucking interest!*


Well, if you did not vote for Hillary/Democrat, I applaud you!  I always voted for democrats: Obama twice, Al Gore (idiot), Kerry (much bigger idiot), and Bill Clinton twice.  Last election I voted for the first time for a Republican. I would not vote for the other 2 alternative from smaller parties - don't agree with them, they are idiots, and it's a waste of my vote.  Anyway, back to Trump, not my ideal for a president, he's doing very good job in many areas. Don't agree with everything he does, but the majority of what he did I agree.


The problem with that is that banks create the money they lend, thus they are able to lend far more.  Individuals can only lend money that has already been created, and are at a big disadvantage.  If it weren't for the federal reserve money printing machine, it would be a viable lending scheme.


maybe it would turn into an Oligopoly on it's own, but regulation as that pervasive is what I'm trying to avoid here.  I advocate Worker Co-ops as the best examples for these firms because they actually allow a sense of welfare taken up by the workers who can self provide with actual trades (and because their co-ownership allows a voluntary loophole in minimum wage laws, you get a real chance to vindicate/prove Adam Smith's theory of flexible prices and wages based on economic activity.).  With self-provided welfare, the Government can pull out of both transfer payments as well as financial regulations because these markets have become more differentiated to a diversity of opinions, so Government can step back and focus on its more important role of Researcher and Developer, which it tends to do better at than other roles.  Firms can't do this if they are breaking even, like they would in perfect competition.


"Generally, you pick the State which you're located at, because you'll have to register your LLC there in any case. In your case that would be either Colorado or Oklahoma - register as domestic in one, as foreign in the other. If your concern is anything other than mere convenience/costs - then you need to talk to a lawyer, however most State LLC laws are fairly alike (and modeled after the ""Uniform Limited Liability Company Act"". Keep in mind that most of the sites talking about ""forming LLC out of state"" are either sales sites or targeted to foreigners attempting to form a US company. All the cr@p you hear about forming in Delaware/Nevada/Wyoming - is useless and worthless for someone who's a resident of any of the US States. If you're a US resident - you will always have to register in the State you're located at and do the work at, so if you register elsewhere - you just need to register again in your home State. In your case you already span across States, so you'll have to register in two States as it is - why add the costs of registering in a third one?"


Most people don't see it that way and it may drive me to personally renounce my citizenship even though I would really prefer not to. But I also won't let the crazy over-reach of the US government threaten future financial stability and cost a crazy amount annually just to be compliant.  And yes I know about the FEIE and yes it's significantly more complicated than that for anything other than a simple employee-employer relation with minimal assets.


Most of the “recommendations” are just total market allocations.  Within domestic stocks, the performance rotates. Sometimes large cap outperform, sometimes small cap outperform. You can see the chart here (examine year by year):  https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1428692400000&chddm=99646&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSEARCA:VO;NYSEARCA:VB&cmptdms=0;0&q=NYSEARCA:VV&ntsp=0&ei=_sIqVbHYB4HDrgGA-oGoDA Conventional wisdom is to buy the entire market. If large cap currently make up 80% of the market, you would allocate 80% of domestic stocks to large cap.  Same case with International Stocks (Developed). If Japan and UK make up the largest market internationally, then so be it.  Similar case with domestic bonds, it is usually total bond market allocation in the beginning.  Then there is the question of when you want to withdraw the money. If you are withdrawing in a couple years, you do not want to expose too much to currency risks, thus you would allocate less to international markets. If you are investing for retirement, you will get the total world market.  Then there is the question of risk tolerance. Bonds are somewhat negatively correlated with Stocks. When stock dips by 5% in a month, bonds might go up by 2%. Under normal circumstances they both go upward. Bond/Stock allocation ratio is by age I’m sure you knew that already.  Then there is the case of Modern portfolio theory. There will be slight adjustments to the ETF weights if it is found that adjusting them would give a smaller portfolio variance, while sacrificing small gains. You can try it yourself using Excel solver.  There is a strategy called Sector Rotation. Google it and you will find examples of overweighting the winners periodically. It is difficult to time the rotation, but Healthcare has somehow consistently outperformed. Nonetheless, those “recommendations” you mentioned are likely to be market allocations again.  The “Robo-advisors” list out every asset allocation in detail to make you feel overwhelmed and resort to using their service. In extreme cases, they can even break down the holdings to 2/3/4 digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, or break down the bond duration etc.  Some “Robo-advisors” would suggest you as many ETF as possible to increase trade commissions (if it isn’t commission free). For example, suggesting you to buy VB, VO, VV instead a VTI.


from what I learnt in au and limited to au banking system ( very much like other western countries), banks settle their transfers ( inter banks) 4pm afternoon. Those transactions are like everyday between accounts, person to person, person to vendor(not credit cards), vendors  to vendors( small businesses) etc. as for large transactions banks use check accounts( yes banks themselves have check account for each other). Check accounts are settled in three business days( ex public holidays). When large business deal with large business, they use debentures and corporate bonds which is a business IOU and using banks as mediate to settle. IOUs have up to 60 days settle periods.  Some complications unique to au banking system.  There are only 4 large banks in au and they and their subsidiaries own 99% of the assets collectively. What gets more interesting is large 4 banks owns each other. Each banks holds significant amount shares of other banks. They are like 4 brothers with different surnames. All of it is to minimise risk and share profit.


Linksys smart Wi-Fi routers are very easy to setup and provide the best performance. We need smart routers as there is more and more need of fast internet access. If you need any help then you can contact the support team via live chat window.


Businesses have long used some form of a traditional hierarchy structure to operate. This system involves employees reporting to supervisors, who then have their own supervisors — and so on. Most employees are accustomed to this structure. Given the rapid pace and competitive nature of the business world, companies are highly interested in innovations that will set them apart. Is fostering creativity the answer? Managers have the opportunity to take the lead and explore ways to make their workplace ideal for creative thinking and sparking innovation.   The Benefits of a Creative


China owes the white people. The fact that China didn't want to bail out a bunch of lazy entitled cheese eating surrender monkies is outrageous. After all, why wouldn't China want to recreate post opium war/boxxer rebelllion era relations with Europe?


I was also going to mention people going through savings during unemployment.  And given the unemployment figures, 28% having no emergency savings even seems low.  Purely anecdotal but I cleared through my savings a few years ago during seven months of unemployment and have several friends who did the same and/or racked up thousands in debt.


Most financial guru's recommend between three and six months of savings, modified by how likely you think it is you'll lose your job.  Note that the months here are months of expenses not income. Dave Ramsey on the other hands recommends saving only $1000 until you've paid all debts (except your home).  This strategy only makes sense if you're paying off debt very aggressively. Since you have many relatively small debts, you would benefit greatly from the debt snowball (recent research shows it's more effective in practice than paying off high interest first).  As you quickly pay off the smaller loans you reduce the amount you must pay each month, reducing your risk (your emergency fund now goes that much farther), and enabling you to put more on the next debt.  In your particular case the debt snowball would be: etc.   Again, this is good because it quickly reduces your monthly required debt payments.


yea, well, did you also know that federal bucks for 8 years went to an Obama fund to feed his preferred agenda com-padres?  people (like you) think the money goes into some wonderful fund, like one that reduces taxes/expenses...no, it's [government rip off money](http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/bank-mortgage-fines-wall-street/) that feeds its own interests


"First off; I don't know of the nature of the interpersonal relationship between you and your roommate, and I don't really care, but I will say that your use of that term was a red flag to me, and it will be so to a bank; buying a home is a big deal that you normally do not undertake with just a ""friend"" or ""roommate"". ""Spouses"", ""business partners"", ""domestic partners"" etc are the types of people that go in together on a home purchase, not ""roommates"". Going ""halvsies"" on a house is not something that's easily contracted; you can't take out two primary mortgages for half the house's value each, because you can't split the house in half, so if one of you defaults that bank takes the house leaving both the other person and their bank in the lurch. Co-signing on one mortgage is possible but then you tie your credit histories together; if one of you can't make their half of the mortgage, both of you can be pursued for the full amount and both of you will see your credit tank. That's not as big a problem for two people joined in some other way (marriage/family ties) but for two ""friends"" there's just way too much risk involved. Second, I don't know what it's like in your market, but when I was buying my first house I learned very quickly that extended haggling is not really tolerated in the housing market. You're not bidding on some trade good the guy bought wholesale for fifty cents and is charging you $10 for; the seller MIGHT be breaking even on this thing. An offer that comes in low is more likely to be rejected outright as frivolous than to be countered. It's a fine line; if you offer a few hundred less than list the seller will think you're nitpicking and stay firm, while if you offer significantly less, the seller may be unable to accept that price because it means he no longer has the cash to close on his new home. REOs and bank-owned properties are often sold at a concrete asking price; the bank will not even respond to anything less, and usually will not even agree to eat closing costs. Even if it's for sale by owner, the owner may be in trouble on their own mortgage, and if they agree to a short sale and the bank gets wind (it's trivial to match a list of distressed mortgaged properties with the MLS listings), the bank can swoop in, foreclose the mortgage, take the property and kill the deal (they're the primary lienholder; you don't ""own"" your house until it's paid for), and then everybody loses. Third, housing prices in this economy, depending on market, are pretty depressed and have been for years; if you're selling right now, you are almost certainly losing thousands of dollars in cash and/or equity. Despite that, sellers, in listing their home, must offer an attractive price for the market, and so they are in the unenviable position of pricing based on what they can afford to lose. That again often means that even a seller who isn't a bank and isn't in mortgage trouble may still be losing thousands on the deal and is firm on the asking price to staunch the bleeding. Your agent can see the signs of a seller backed against a wall, and again in order for your offer to be considered in such a situation it has to be damn close to list. As far as your agent trying to talk you into offering the asking price, there's honestly not much in it for him to tell you to bid higher vs lower. A $10,000 change in price (which can easily make or break a deal) is only worth $300 to him either way. There is, on the other hand, a huge incentive for him to close the deal at any price that's in the ballpark: whether it's $365k or $375k, he's taking home around $11k in commission, so he's going to recommend an offer that will be seriously considered (from the previous points, that's going to be the asking price right now). The agent's exact motivations for advising you to offer list depend on the exact circumstances, typically centering around the time the house has been on the market and the offer history, which he has access to via his fellow agents and the MLS. The house may have just had a price drop that brings it below comparables, meaning the asking price is a great deal and will attract other offers, meaning you need to move fast. The house may have been offered on at a lower price which the seller is considering (not accepted not rejected), meaning an offer at list price will get you the house, again if you move fast. Or, the house may have been on the market for a while without a price drop, meaning the seller can go no lower but is desperate, again meaning an offer at list will get you the house. Here's a tip: virtually all offers include a ""buyer's option"". For a negotiated price (typically very small, like $100), from the moment the offer is accepted until a particular time thereafter (one week, two weeks, etc) you can say no at any time, for any reason. During this time period, you get a home inspection, and have a guy you trust look at the bones of the house, check the basic systems, and look for things that are wrong that will be expensive to fix. Never make an offer without this option written in. If your agent says to forego the option, fire him. If the seller wants you to strike the option clause, refuse, and that should be a HUGE red flag that you should rescind the offer entirely; the seller is likely trying to get rid of a house with serious issues and doesn't want a competent inspector telling you to lace up your running shoes. Another tip: depending on the pricepoint, the seller may be expecting to pay closing costs. Those are traditionally the buyer's responsibility along with the buyer's agent commission, but in the current economy, in the pricepoint for your market that attracts ""first-time homebuyers"", sellers are virtually expected to pay both of those buyer costs, because they're attracting buyers who can just barely scrape the down payment together. $375k in my home region (DFW) is a bit high to expect such a concession for that reason (usually those types of offers come in for homes at around the $100-$150k range here), but in the overall market conditions, you have a good chance of getting the seller to accept that concession if you pay list. But, that is usually an offer made up front, not a weapon kept in reserve, so I would have expected your agent to recommend that combined offer up front; list price and seller pays closing. If you offer at list you don't expect a counter, so you wouldn't keep closing costs as a card to play in that situation."


My feeling on this is that anything to do with a child and raising a family has to be a joint effort. It is very rare that both of you will have exactly the same income, or the same time to spend into caring for your family, so work out what you can do. For us, I work 70+ hour weeks, my wife works 18 hour weeks. Far more of my money goes on clothes, kids, food etc than her money, because that is where the bulk of our income is from. It's just part of sharing - she doesn't feel dependent, and when she was on maternity leave (3 times) the agreement was that we would just rely on my income. I have the same attitude as you - it is a shared pool that you each contribute to in your own way, and once the essentials are paid for (this includes post-pregnancy clothing) then you can worry about other bits and pieces. Having said that, while most of our finances are shared, we do each keep a separate account for buying gifts, things for ourselves etc - which gives some flexibility.


But sexual orientation is not a protected class in Mississippi as well as the majority of states...Again I do not agree with it but these people truly think it is a choice and is against their religion. I think it should hurt their business to make a choice to be bigoted, but why is it ok if reddit praises PayPal to do the same thing for something they believe in. It is the same case on opposite sides of the coin and should be treated the same. If you give them that kind of power because it aligns with your thoughts then you shouldn't be surprised when someone else uses the power against your alignments, ie, Bigoted ms businesses. You cannot have it both ways, either you can choose whom you do business with, or you can't.


"First, a note of my personal experience: up until a year ago, my credit lines were composed exclusively of credit cards with perfect payment histories, and my credit score is fine. If you mean that credit cards have no impact on a person's credit score until they miss a payment, that is certainly not correct. FICO's website identifies ""payment history"" as 35% of your FICO score: The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you’ve paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. ... Credit payment history on many types of accounts Account types considered for payment history include: ... Details on late or missed payments (""delinquencies"") and public record and collection items FICO® Scores consider: How many accounts show no late payment A good track record on most of your credit accounts will increase your FICO® Scores. Clearly, from the last item alone, we see that credit lines (a category which includes credit cards) with no late payments is a factor in computing your FICO score, and certainly other credit bureaus behave similarly. Possibly the banker was trying to explain some other point, like ""If you're careful not to spend more on your card than you have in the bank, you can functionally treat your credit card as a debit line,"" but did so in a confusing way."


Since I am having the same question so I made couple of phone calls based on some answers above. The 1st one was TD Amertrade: They don't directly accept money from China. The 2nd one was Charles Schwab: NO FEES to accept the money from China whatsoever! Open an account is free with ACH function and more. Hope it helps for anyone who needed.


>“They erect this fence,” he said, “only to go out there a few days later and discover that these guys have a catapult, and they’re flinging hundred-pound bales of marijuana over to the other side.” He paused and looked at me for a second. “A catapult,” he repeated. “We’ve got the best fence money can buy, and they counter us with a 2,500-year-old technology.”  This is your government at work; instead of funding treatment programs.


>The correct solution is to...  I dont think there is a correct solution.  However, Id like to see major reform with financial aid recipient selection.  Right now the programs pretty effectively select the **worst** students.  it should be treated as an investment instead.  If the goal is to produce productive members of society, they should aim to produce productive members of society.  Require an essay on long term goals, career path, etc.  Look at past performance strongly (some, but not too much emphasis on HS grades, more on outside interests/activities, etc) and, most importantly, how that past performance will serve them in the field they are trying to get into.  Obviously put extra subsidies on things like education. Somebody who may be incapable of graduating with an accounting degree could still get an education degree with close to a 4.0.  If we turn too many dummies away from education, we wont have enough teachers.  Have a 30 minute interview with all of the finalists to determine their chances of having a positive return on society (through taxes paid over their lives, value added to the community, etc) and decide from there.  Make sure to focus on people with a passion for their industry.  Parental income should have almost no impact except for the ultra rich whose parents bring home an income of half a mil or something like that.  Edit:  I forgot to make this post relevant to the OP.  The schools that people are applying to should be a major factor.  Dont waste money sending people to schools that are a bad match (for profit schools, schools without a strong program in their intended degree).  Also, put a lot of negative emphasis on things like art majors.  There is no reason for the gov't to send some idiot to art school if they arent an absolute star.  I go to a lib art school and I dont know a single art or theater major that has found more success through attending a 4 year program than they could have just using those 4 years to improve themselves and to hunt down their (pipe)dream job.


"First off, I highly recommend the book Get a Financial Life.  The basics of personal finance and money management are pretty straightforward, and this book does a great job with it.  It is very light reading, and it really geared for the young person starting their career.  It isn't the most current book (pre real-estate boom), but the recommendations in the book are still sound.  (update 8/28/2012: New edition of the book came out.) Now, with that out of the way, there's really two kinds of ""investing"" to think about: For most individuals, it is best to take care of #1 first.  Most people shouldn't even think about #2 until they have fully funded their retirement accounts, established an emergency fund, and gotten their debt under control. There are lots of financial incentives for retirement investing, both from your employer, and the government.  All the more reason to take care of #1 before #2! Your employer probably offers some kind of 401k (or equivalent, like a 403b) with a company-provided match.  This is a potential 100% return on your investment after the vesting period.  No investment you make on your own will ever match that.  Additionally, there are tax advantages to contributing to the 401k.  (The money you contribute doesn't count as taxable income.) The best way to start investing is to learn about your employer's retirement plan, and contribute enough to fully utilize the employer matching. Beyond this, there are also Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) you can open to contribute money to on your own.  You should open one of these and start contributing, but only after you have fully utilized the employer matching with the 401k.  The IRA won't give you that 100% ROI that the 401k will. Keep in mind that retirement investments are pretty much ""walled off"" from your day-to-day financial life.  Money that goes into a retirement account generally can't be touched until retirement age, unless you want to pay lots of taxes and penalties.  You generally don't want to put the money for your house down payment into a retirement account. One other thing to note:  Your 401K and your IRA is an account that you put money into.  Just because the money is sitting in the account doesn't necessarily mean it is invested.  You put the money into this account, and then you use this money for investments.  How you invest the retirement money is a topic unto itself.  Here is a good starting point.  If you want to ask questions about retirement portfolios, it is probably worth posting a new question."


Your question is actually quite broad, so will try to split it into it's key parts: Yes, standard bank ISAs pay very poor rates of interest at the moment. They are however basically risk free and should track inflation.  Any investment in the 6-7% return range at the moment will be linked to stock. Stock always carries large risks (~50% swings in capital are pretty standard in the short run. In the long run it generally beats every other asset class by miles). If you can’t handle those types of short terms swings, you shouldn’t get involved. If you do want to invest in stock, there is a hefty ignorance tax waiting at every corner in terms of how brokers construct their fees. In a nutshell, there is a different best value broker in the UK for virtually every band of capital, and they make their money through people signing up when they are in range x, and not moving their money when they reach band y; or just having a large marketing budget and screwing you from the start (Nutmeg at ~1% a year is def in this category). There isn't much of an obvious way around this if you are adamant you don't want to learn about it - the way the market is constructed is just a total predatory minefield for the complete novice. There are middle ground style investments between the two extremes you are looking at: bonds, bond funds and mixes of bonds and small amounts of stock (such as the Vanguard income or Conservative Growth funds outlined here), can return more than savings accounts with less risk than stocks, but again its a very diverse field that's hard to give specific advice about without knowing more about what your risk tolerance, timelines and aims are. If you do go down this (or the pure stock fund) route, it will need to be purchased via a broker in an ISA wrapper. The broker charges a platform fee, the fund charges a fund fee. In both cases you want these as low as possible. The Telegraph has a good heat map for the best value ISA platform providers by capital range here. Fund fees are always in the key investor document (KIID), under 'ongoing charges'.


I would say you should invest in the market that is more convenient for you, bearing in mind that if you buy ADRs you may have some things to keep an eye on depending on certain events as mentioned by duffbeer703. So, if you are investing with an account in the U.S., go with the ADRs as that will avoid some currency conversion hassles and possible exchange rate issues.  I am not certain, but I have a feeling that would also make it easier for you to keep the taxman happy.


Once baby boomers retire on larger and larger numbers there's not enough kids in 'z' to replace them. Millenials will still benefit from that. Gen X only a decade or so behind the last of the boomers towards retirement...not so much.


While the issuer of the security such as a stock or bond not the short is responsible for the credit risk, the issuer and the short of a derivative is one. In all cases, it is more than likely that a trader is owed securities by an agent such as a broker or exchange or clearinghouse. Legally, only the Options Clearing Corporation clears openly traded options.  With stocks and bonds, brokerages can clear with each other if approved. While a trader is expected to fund margin, the legal responsibility is shared by all in the agent chain.  Clearinghouses are liable to exchanges.  Exchanges are liable to members.  Traders are liable to brokerages.  Both ways and so on. Clearinghouses are usually ultimately liable for counterparty risk to the long counterparty, and the short counterparty is ultimately liable to the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are not responsible for the credit risk of stocks and bonds because the issuers are not short those securities on the exchange, thus no margin is required.  Credit risk for stocks and bonds is mitigated away from the clearing process.


[It's so well-known that the ACA will contain costs relative to doing nothing that it's almost not worth citing a source.](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006571)  Edited: That came off snarky. I don't want to ignore the importance of long-run cost containment in health expenditures. But instead of raising costs, the ACA is really just a small but important first step in cost containment.   More sources: [Affordable Care Act: Implementing Medicare Cost Savings](http://www.cms.gov/apps/docs/ACA-Update-Implementing-Medicare-Costs-Savings.pdf)  [The Affordable Care Act Will Bring Down Costs](http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2011/08/bringingdowncosts082911.html)  [Only the First Step in Containing Healthcare Costs](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/business/health-care-law-and-cost-containment-economic-view.html)


"The formula for standard deviation is fairly simple in both the discrete and continuous cases. It's mostly safe to use the discrete case when working with adjusted closing prices. Once you've calculated the standard deviation for a given time period, the next task (in the simplest case) is to calculate the mean of that same period. This allows you to roughly approximate the distribution, which can give you all sorts of testable hypotheses. Two standard deviations (σ) away from the mean (μ) is given by:  It doesn't make any sense to talk about ""two standard deviations away from the price"" unless that price is the mean or some other statistic for a given time period. Normally you would look at how far the price is from the mean, e.g. does the price fall two or three standard deviations away from the mean or some other technical indicator like the Average True Range (an exponential moving average of the True Range), some support level, another security, etc.  For most of this answer, I'll assume we're using the mean for the chosen time period as a base. However, the answer is still more complicated than many people realize. As I said before, to calculate the standard deviation, you need to decide on a time period. For example, you could use S&P 500 data from Yahoo Finance and calculate the standard deviation for all adjusted closing prices since January 3, 1950. Downloading the data into Stata and applying the summarize command gives me: As you can probably see, however, these numbers don't make much sense. Looking at the data, we can see that the S&P 500 hasn't traded close to 424.4896 since November 1992. Clearly, we can't assume that this mean and standard deviation as representative of current market conditions. Furthermore, these numbers would imply that the S&P 500 is currently trading at almost three standard deviations away from its mean, which for many distribution is a highly improbable event. The Great Recession, quantitative easing, etc. may have changed the market significantly, but not to such a great extent.  The problem arises from the fact that security prices are usually non-stationary.. This means that the underlying distribution from which security prices are ""drawn"" shifts through time and space. For example, prices could be normally distributed in the 50's, then gamma distributed in the 60's because of a shock, then normally distributed again in the 70's. This implies that calculating summary statistics, e.g. mean, standard deviation, etc. are essentially meaningless for time periods in which prices could follow multiple distributions.  For this and other reasons, it's standard practice to look at the standard deviation of returns or differences instead of prices. I covered in detail the reasons for this and various procedures to use in another answer. In short, you can calculate the first difference for each period, which is merely the difference between the closing price of that period and the closing price of the previous period. This will usually give you a stationary process, from which you can obtain more meaningful values of the standard deviation, mean, etc.  Let's use the S&P500 as an example again. This time, however, I'm only using data from 1990 onwards, for the sake of simplicity (and to make the graphs a bit more manageable). The summary statistics look like this: and the graph looks like this; the mean is the central horizontal red line, and the top and bottom lines indicate one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively.   As you can see, the graph seems to indicate that there were long periods in which the index was priced well outside this range. Although this could be the case, the graph definitely exhibits a trend, along with some seemingly exogenous shocks (see my linked answer).  Taking the first difference, however, yields these summary statistics: with a graph like this:  This looks a lot more reasonable. In periods of recession, the price appears much more volatile, and it breaches the +/- one standard deviation lines indicated on the graph.  This is only a simple summary, but using first differencing as part of the wider process of detrending/decomposing a time series is a good first step.  For some technical indicators, however, stationary isn't as relevant. This is the case for some types of moving averages and their associated indicators. Take Bollinger bands for instance. These are technical indicators that show a number of standard deviations above and below a moving average. Like any calculation of standard deviation, moving average, statistic, etc. they require data over a specified time period. The analyst chooses a certain number of historical periods, e.g. 20, and calculates the moving average for that many previous periods and the moving/rolling standard deviation for those same periods as well. The Bollinger bands represent the values a certain number of standard deviations away from the moving average at a given point in time. At this given point, you can calculate the value two standard deviations ""away from the value,"" but doing so still requires the historical stock price (or at least the historical moving average). If you're only given the price in isolation, you're out of luck.  Moving averages can indirectly sidestep some of the issues of stationarity I described above because it's straightforward to estimate a time series with a process built from a moving average (specifically, an auto-regressive moving average process) but the econometrics of time series is a topic for another day.  The Stata code I used to generate the graphs and summary statistics:"


It still has its moments. A couple of years ago I went to Lowe's to get pricing on two new vanities. They sent out someone to measure and that person called first so I had their phone number. I reverse searched it, found the name of the subcontractor, looked them up on the BBB and saw that they had an F.   I brought this up to Lowe's. The person I spoke with there was not aware of which century we were living in, had no idea how easy it was to reverse search. Lots of 'we take this situation very seriously' bs. It was an enlightening bit of info for me, learning how dependable Lowe's contractors are.  However, for the most part, I agree that the BBB is useless.


To anyone who has doubts about this type of service, or is curious about it, I've used it before using Spirit Airlines. I actually lucked out by using mine, because apparently this Airline likes to charge people carry-ons ($40!) and since I self checked myself, I didn't pay for my laptop bag, and my duffle bag.  However, my friends who were on the same flight didn't use the self check out (they arrived at a different time btw) did have to pay for their additional bag.  Also, it only took about 3 minutes, then I was in line to have my balls felt up.


"Options are generally viewed as having two types of value: ""Intrinsic value"" and ""time value.""  The intrinsic value is based on the difference between the strike price on the option and the spot price of the underlying.  The time value is based on the volatility of the underlying and the amount of time left until expiration.  As the days pass toward expiration, the time value generally decreases, and the intrinsic value may move up or down depending on the spot price of the underlying. (In theory, time value could increase at some points if the volatility is also rising.) In your case, it looks like the time value is decreasing faster than the intrinsic value is increasing. This may happen because the volatility is also going down (as suggested in the answer by CQM) or may just happen because the time to expiration is getting shorter at equal volatility. As noted by DumbCoder in a comment to the original question, the Black-Scholes formula will give you more analytical insight into this if you're interested."


Décor Enterprise is one such radiant concern whose presence in this circle is a bona fide blessing to the supporters. We offer the most amazing nature of false roof, enriching roof and gypsum board plans in Kolkata as indicated by the tastes and needs of our customers.


If they had told me that I owe them $10,000 from 3 years ago, I   wouldn't have anything to fight back. Why? First thing you have to do is ask for a proof. Have you received treatment? Have you signed the bill when you were done? This should include all the information about what you got and how much you agreed to pay. Do they have that to show to you, with your signature on it? If they don't - you owe nothing. If they do - you can match your bank/credit card/insurance records (those are kept for 7 years at least) and see what has been paid already. Can a doctor's office do that? They can do whatever they want. The right question is whether a doctor's office is allowed to do that. Check your local laws, States regulate the medical profession. Is there a statute of limitation (I'm just guessing) that forces them   to notify me in a certain time frame? Statute of limitations limits their ability to sue you successfully. They can always sue you, but if the statute of limitations has passed, the court will throw the suite away (provided you bring this defense up on time of course). Without a judgement they cannot force you to pay them, they can only ask. Nicely, as the law quoted by MrChrister mandates. They can trash your credit report and send the bill to collections though, but if the statute of limitations has passed I doubt they'd do that. Especially if its their fault. I'm not a lawyer, and you should consult with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction for definitive answers and legal advice.


70 isn't all that bad. And being a fund manager at a top fund is not the highest paying job per se. What's critical is to be a partner, or found your own fund, or have some ownership stake. There are sales people and lawyers who make more than PMs because they own/run the firm.   And I would say it's impossible to do anything in finance anymore without a degree.


I know an answer has been accepted, but you need an emergency fund, ideally enough to cover at least 3 months of after-tax basic living expenses. As a free-lancer, 6 months would be even better. This isn't a fun way to tie up your money, but it is a prudent way. What if you lose your job, or decide you want to change your line of work? What if you're told a close family member has only months to live and you want to take significant time off unpaid? What if your car breaks down and you need a new one? What if your freelance business hits a dry patch for a few months? What if you want to move but can't sell your next house quickly? I've known people who had these types of situations come up unexpectedly. Some were financially prepared and had the freedom to make the choices they wanted to make, others didn't and now have regrets. Once you have a basic emergency fund in place, then go for investing with the rest of the money. Best of luck!


"It is important to remember that the stock price in principle reflects the value of the company, so the market cap should drop upon issuance of the the dividend. However, the above reasoning neglects to consider taxes, which make the question a bit more interesting. The key fact is that different investors are going to get taxed on the dividend to varying degrees, ranging from 20% for qualified dividends in the USA for a high-income individual in a taxable account (and even worse for non-qualified dividends) to 0% for tax-exempt nonprofits, retirement accounts, and low-income individuals. The high-tax investors are going to be a bit averse to paying tax on that dividend, whereas the tax-free investors are not. Hence in a tax-rational market the tax-free investors are going to be the ones buying right before a dividend and the tax-paying investors will be buying right afterwards. Tax-exempt investors could in principle make some amount of money buying dividends to keep them off the tax-paying investors' books.  (Of course, the strategy could backfire if too many people did it all at once.) That said, the tax-payers have the tax disincentive to prevent them from fully exploiting the opposite strategy of selling just before a dividend.  In particular, they are subject to capital gains tax when they sell at a profit (unless they have enough compensating capital losses), and it is to their after-tax profit to defer taxation by not trading. That said, the stock market has well-known irrationality when it comes to considering tax consequences, so logic based on assumed rationality of the market does not always apply to the extent one would expect.   The foremost example of tax-irrationality is the so-called ""dividend paradox"", which basically states that corporations should favor stock buybacks (or perhaps loan repayment) to the complete exclusion of dividends because capital gains are taxed less harshly than dividends in a variety of ways, some of which are subtle: 1) Historically (although not currently in the USA for qualified dividends) the tax rate was higher for dividends.  (In Canada, for example, dividends are taxed at twice the rate of capital gains.) 2) If you die holding appreciated stock then you (meaning your heirs) completely escape US the capital gains tax on the accrual during your lifetime. 3) Capital gains tax can be deferred by simply not selling.  In comparison to dividends, this is roughly equivalent to getting a tax-free loan from the government which is invested for profit and paid at a later date after inflation has eaten away at the real value of the loan.  For example, if all your stock investments increase by 10%/year but you sell every year, in a high-tax bracket situation you're total after-tax return will be only 8% per year.  In contrast, if you hold the same investments for many many years and then sell, your total return will be nearly 10% per year, because you only pay 20% once (at the end). 4) A capital gain can often be neutralized by a capital loss in another stock, so that no tax results.  If you loose money on a stock that is paying dividends, you're still going to have to pay tax on that dividend.  There are companies that borrow money to pay out that taxable-dividend each quarter, which seems like gross tax malpractice on the part of the CFO. (If the dividend paradox doesn't make sense, first consider the case that you owned ALL the shares of a company.  It wouldn't matter to you at all on a pre-tax basis whether you got a $1000 company buyback or a $1000 dividend, because after the buyback/dividend you'd still own the entire company and $1000.  The number of shares would be reduced, but objecting that you owned fewer shares after the buyback would be like saying you have become shorter if your height is measured in inches rather than centimeters.) [Of course, in the case of many shareholders you can get burned by failing to sell into the buyback when the share price is too high, but that is another matter.]"


Or, because for the first time in forever, natural gas is truly competing with oil.  Auto producers are starting to make cars and trucks that will run on NG, not gasoline or diesel, because NG is so plentiful and cheap now.


Investment is very uncertain, so I believe that unless you have loads of money, you should not play around with houses for the sole purpose of investing. Here are the questions which I would consider to judge the situation. Note that this is based on the current situation in The Netherlands Income: Your income is 1800 a month nett, which means your gross annual income should be somewhere below 28500. Allowed mortgage amount: Your maximum morgage amount is then roughly 135000 Is it expensive?: Given your maximum morgage, buying a 200k appartment would consume pretty much all your cash. There is some cost of buying the appartment, so basically if you buy it, you will not have much cash to decorate or deal with unforseen maintenance. If you are conservative, I would say that buying a 175k appartment is financially much more relaxing in your situation. What will be the monthly expense?: Monthly mortgage payments will be about 450~500. So your cashflow will suffer a bit.  The amount you actually 'burn' on interest in the early months is about 180 nett (assuming an interest rate just below 2% and tax deductions). There will be additional costs (more heating, long term maintenance etc.) so overall the amount of money you burn will be close to the amount of money you burn on rent. Of course over time there will be less interest, so this should go down. Value change: The value may go up or down, in the very long term I would bet on it going up, but on the short or medium term it is quite uncertain. If you may live there for less than a decade, value change is more of a risk than a benefit. Break even point: As you mention that you will buy a house for 200k, I will assume it is not in the heart of a major city, and that renting it out may not be very attractive. However, I will also assume that it is not the middle of nowhere, and that it will only take a reasonable amount of time to sell the house. So if you want to move out, you will probably sell it at a reasonable price. In this case a rule of thumb is that living in an affordable house is usually a good idea when you live there for more than 5 years. (Is it likely that you will find a partner in this period of time, and will you live at your place then, or somewhere else?) Buying a 200k appartment would leave you completely cashless after you move in, something I would not recommend unless you can depend on your parents for instance to 'bridge the gap' when your cashflow dries up. From a monthly expense point of view you are probably going to be OK, as long as you survive the short run. And financially it only makes sense if you are going to live there for a while, and are fairly confident in your position in the labour market. I would personally recommend you to think hard on your family situation, and only buy a house if it leaves you with some cash in your pocket.


At the moment, you are paying about $1,300 interest each month (£431k @ 3.625% / 12) on your mortgage and repaying capital at about $1,500 per month. Paying $11,000 off your mortgage would save you about $9,000 as it is reduces your balance by about seven monthly capital repayments: but you will only see this benefit at the end of the mortgage because you will pay it off seven months earlier. There is only about $1,000 interest remaining on your car loans. Paying the $11,000 off your interest free loan then paying extra agianst the interest bearing loan brings that down to $500 and paying it off your interest bearing loan brings it down to $200. Either way, both car loans would be finished by early 2018. In summary, if you use the $11,000 against your car loans, you will save $8,500-$8,800 less than paying it off the mortage, but you will have no car loans in one year rather than three. Google spreadsheet for calculations here.


For a business like a coffee shop, hosting groups can be a good way to get people in the door. However that really takes a full on coffee shop, I'm not sure it would work for a grocery store that also sells some coffee.


Businesses are only required to keep receipts over $751. However for individuals, I would throw them all in a shoebox and not worry about organizing them.  There's a small chance you'll need to go through them during an audit, and you can worry about reconciling all of them and putting them in order at that point.  Just write 2010 on the box and keep it somewhere easy, and at the end of the year throw it in your basement (or get a scanner, and scan and trash the original).


Am I the only one who thinks that AC is NOT a dump? I haven't spent too much time there and I do know there is a huge part of the city that are made up of crime filled slums but in regards to the beaches, boardwalk, etc. I've lived in NJ my entire life and went to the boardwalk the other day (for the very first time) because I keep hearing about how AC is falling apart, etc. I was SHOCKED. The bars were jam packed, the boardwalk had thousands upon thousands of people on it and the casino's didn't have an empty seat at 11am. What am I missing here?


Technically, the answer is no, you can't put more money in to that ISA in that tax year once you've transferred it (unless you've transferred it to a Stocks and Shares ISA). FAQs 7 and 8 from http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/isa/faqs.htm cover these cases: Q. I have transferred current year payments to my cash ISA to a stocks   and shares ISA, can I make any further payments to a cash ISA in this   tax year? A. Yes - provided you haven't already used up your annual ISA   investment allowance (£11,520 in the tax year 2013-14). When you transfer current year payments to your cash ISA to a stocks   and shares ISA it is as if that cash ISA had never existed. Any money   you saved up to the date of transfer will be treated as if you had   invested that money directly in the stocks and shares ISA. For example, if you had put £2,000 in a cash ISA and then transferred   it to a stocks and shares ISA you would be able to make further   payments totalling £9,520 in that tax year. You could either put all   of the £9,520 in the stocks and shares ISA or you could put up to   £5,760 in a cash ISA (with the same or a different ISA manager) and   the remainder of the £9,520 in the stocks and shares ISA.  Q. How many ISAs can I have? A. There are limits on the number of ISA accounts you can subscribe to   each tax year. You can only put money into one cash ISA and one stocks   and shares ISA. But in different years, you could choose to save with different   managers. There are no limits on the number of different ISAs you can   hold over time. However, in practice, if you transfer mid-year from Provider A to Provider B, Provider B has no way of telling whether you have already put money in to the ISA with Provider A that year or not, so you will be able to put more money in.  I believe that ISA providers do report their subscriptions back to HMRC so they can check for multiple subscriptions (over the limit) in one tax year; but in the past, I have done exactly what you describe and it has never been picked up in any way or caused any problem at all. As long as you stick to total subscriptions within the limit, I'd guess you're unlikely to encounter a problem. (Of course I am not a financial advisor so you should take what I say with the same pinch of salt as you would take any other random advice from the internet).


The market bubbled, surging after Trump's immediate election, because traders anticipated regulatory reductions (allowing companies to externalize their operating expenses) and business giveaways. Now, they're adjusting their expectations and positions, since Trump is simply not as efficient as doing the anticipated things as they would like. He's mired in scandals instead.   Of course, this goes without saying, the significant growth you have referenced is not derived from Trump's actual policies. It's derived from market reactions to his take-over. It's fairly logical that an anticipated giveaway to the business sector would facilitate quick, unsustainable growth. I'm sorry you're having to reconcile that with your belief that Donald is some kind of economic wunderkind, but he's had less time to affect things than W. had before 911 and I bet you think that security failure was really attributable to Clinton.


>People don't think critically about what they're getting for the money- they just see a huge check written weekly.   In at least a few industries, the people have a point about the product. Huge amounts of that money disappears into a black hole of government and administration at exorbant costs.  Let's look at medical education for example. It's completely unnecessary for doctors to get a bachelor's, but they have to anyway because AAMC requires it. Then, they have to attend a four-year medical school, at least half of which could be done at home with $2,000 worth of E-books and computer programs. The end result is about $150,000 of utterly unnecessary loans and subsidies per doctor.  After medical education, there's medical practice, which is anything but efficient.  Let's look at taxis. For decades, supply was artifically restricted by the medallion system. You know what happened next.  Construction. I don't even want to talk about this one - it's *that* bad.   We *do* have an enormous problem of *extremely* inflated costs in many, many upstream industries. Daycare is absolutely one of them.


Regardless of how long the mortgage has left, the return you get on prepayments is identical to the mortgage rate. (What happens on your tax return is a different matter.) It's easier to get a decent financial calculator (The TI BA-35 is my favorite) than to construct spreadsheets which may or may not contain equation errors. When I duplicate John's numbers, $100K mortgage, 4% rate, I get a 60 mo remaining balance of 90,447.51 and with $50 extra, $87132.56, a diff of $3314.95. $314.95 return on the $3000. $315 over 5yrs is $63/yr, over an average $1500 put in, 63/1500 = 4.2%.  Of course the simple math of just averaging the payment creates that .2% error. A 60 payment $50 returning $314.95 produces 4.000%. @Peter K - with all due respect, there's nothing for me about time value of money calculations that can be counter-intuitive. While I like playing with spreadsheets, the first thing I do is run a few scenarios and double check using the calculator. Your updated sheet is now at 3.76%? A time vaule of money calculation should not have rounding errors that larger. It's larger than my back of envelope calculation.  @Kaushik - if you don't need the money, and would buy a CD at the rate of your mortgage, then pay early. Nothing wrong with that.


See the FX section of the quantitative finance SE data wiki.


So America puts its cost of emissions right into the tax on a gallon of gas instead waiting to tax until you buy a certain amount of gas.  My point is, This  is almost exactly like the Cap & Trade policy Obama wanted to pass about a year ago.  America is up in arms when they have to pay another Cap & Trade tax in another country when they are on their soil but when we want to Cap & Trade here its OK because its all for the environment.  Also I don't like Environmentalist at all so I don't support any emissions taxes.


So if it's a bridge loan they need a lot of money now to keep the trains running but expect to get the actual loan they need in the future at which point they pay off the bridge loan ideally after not having to make too many coupon payments. That's what it sounds like to me.  Scenario: I am building a large development, my main funding source is kaput for whatever reason, I need money now to make payroll, buy fuel, pay for that shipment of supplies etc, I don't have time to secure the huge loan I need in the future for the rest of the project so I get a loan to cover me until I secure that deal and put my building site as collateral against it, I get the full funding, pay off the bond in full and move on with the project.


What I really worry about, are some of the populist ideas of raising payroll taxes for the employer's only... Such as what was on the Sanders universal healthcare proposal one he was running... I don't want to say Warren has proposed similar


"Money is a commodity like any other, and loans are a way to ""buy"" money. Like any other financial decision, you need to weigh the costs against the benefits. To me, I'm happy to take advantage of a 0% for six months or a modest 5-6% rate to make ""capital"" purchases of stuff, especially for major purchases. For example, I took out a 5.5% loan to put a roof on my home a few years ago, although I had the money to make the purchase.  Why did I borrow? Selling assets to buy the roof would require me to sell investments, pay taxes and spend a bunch of time computing them. I don't believe in borrowing money to invest, as I don't have enough borrowing capacity for it to me worth the risk. Feels too much like gambling vs. investing from my point of view."


> There are plenty of reasons to vote against the GOP (as there are many to vote against Obama), but this surly is not one of those reasons.  I honestly don't see why not. People vote for/against presidents over dumber things. Laying off Americans is a good enough reason to dislike the guy, and ultimately not vote for him. That's how he made his fortune, there is a price to pay.


"Every investment comes with a risk. There is also a bit of speculation involved. In there is an anticipation that one expects the value to go up in normal course of events. By your definition ""If I buy this equipment, I could produce more widgets, or sell more widgets,"" as an investment. Here again there is an anticipation that the widgets you sell will give you more return. If you are investing in stock/share, you are essentially holding a small portion of value in company and to that extent you are owining some equipment that is producing some widget .... Hence when you are purchasing Stocks, it would be looked as investment if you have done your home work and have a good plan of how you want to invest along with weiging the risk involved. However if you are investing only for the purpose of making quick bucks following so called hot tips, then you are not investing but speculating."


The last two big ones actually were kind of gradual. For example, S&P was already at 18% drawdown beginning of September 2008 before it went down the cliff. (Not sure if you specifically meant the initial corrections only, rather than full-blown bear markets).


Or you know maybe the EU could have stayed out of the Ukraine in the first place.  Trying to draw the Ukraine into the EU is the equivalent of China getting Canada to agree to lease a few military bases on Canadian soil to them.  There is absolutely no chance in hell the U.S. will sit by and let that happen without serious consequences.  Perhaps Western Europe should take responsibility for the shit they started in the first place when they proposed that trade pact with the Ukraine.  Because now any free country in Eastern Europe that is anywhere close to Russia is worried about paying the consequences and running to the only major power that looks like it actually gives a shit about standing up to the Russians.    After 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan Americans really don't want to get into another shooting war.  We have enough on our hands keeping China at bay.  It's the EU that grossly under estimated the Russian response and can't get its shit together without U.S. help to form a coherent strategy to counteract Russian aggression.  There is a lot of injustice and conflict in this world that you can blame us Americans for.  But this shit in the Ukraine is not one of them.


Inflation data is a general barometer for inflation that a typical consumer would experience.  Generally when calculating inflation for yourself you would only include items that you use and in percentages of your budget.   Personal inflation is much more useful when attempting to calculate safe withdrawal rates or projections into the future.


The rebate amount is a non-qualified distribution: IRS Pub 969 describes how the HSA works: Reporting Distributions on Your Return How you report your distributions depends on whether or not you use the distribution for qualified medical expenses (defined earlier). If you use a distribution from your HSA for qualified medical expenses, you do not pay tax on the distribution but you have to report the distribution on Form 8889. However, the distribution of an excess contribution taken out after the due date, including extensions, of your return is subject to tax even if used for qualified medical expenses. Follow the instructions for the form and file it with your Form 1040 or Form 1040NR. If you do not use a distribution from your HSA for qualified medical expenses, you must pay tax on the distribution. Report the amount on Form 8889 and file it with your Form 1040 or Form 1040NR. If you have a taxable HSA distribution, include it in the total on Form 1040 or Form 1040NR, line 21, and enter “HSA” and the amount on the dotted line next to line 21. You may have to pay an additional 20% tax on your taxable distribution. I looked at several plans regarding how to handle mistaken distributions: example A What if I accidentally use my HSA Visa debit card for a non-qualified expense?   To fix this problem, just bring that same amount into any local branch and tell us it was a Mistaken Distribution. We can then put the funds back into your HSA and correct the problem.  example B  You’re allowed to correct mistaken   HSA withdrawals when there is clear and convincing   evidence that amounts were distributed from an HSA   because of a mistake of fact due to reasonable cause. You   can correct the mistake by repaying the withdrawal   no later than April 15 following the first year that you   knew or should have known that the withdrawal was   a mistake. When a correction is made, the mistaken   withdrawal does not have to be included in gross   income or be subject to the 6 percent additional tax, and   the repayment does not count as an excess contribution.   If an error is made by SelectAccount in its role as the   administrator, SelectAccount will be responsible for   taking appropriate corrective action. Check with your plan trustee on their procedure to fix the mistaken withdrawal.


to find out how, we encourage you to read this post right away. by doing so, you will surely know how you can finance the purchase of important office or business equipment. you will also learn from it an excellent alternative you can use to get the machines you need to support the profit-generating activities of your enterprise.


I understand capitalism, thanks. You think I am brand loyal though. Whomever gives the services for the least amount wins. As long as monopoly laws still exist consumers will be ok. I could use amazon or Hulu or other streaming. And if there is a merger so be it. It won't be the first and it won't be the last. Also, my free library offers most movies and can get over a million on inter library loan. Lastly there is redbox.


I'm a third-year PhD student in Finance at a state university in the Southeast.  Accordingly, I do not have time write a detailed answer for you, because I am studying for a test.  You can PM me sometime after Thursday, and I can give you my perspective.


I can't see how Dropbox will be a successful ipo given their flagship product is cloud storage. Virtually every major tech company offers their own integrated cloud storage and make enough from their other ventures to easily undercut them.


Not at all, I fully understand you. I am in this industry and understand how these products work. I dont do these type per say but our product has a high enough interest rate that my clients all are going to do this themselves. Hell, I am going to do it with mine and my wifes policies too. Its a very nice form of passive retirement income on top of 401k, ira's etc.


So I been trying to think what the last thing I bought becomes of and ad, it was food. I saw and ad for a chick and waffles place that was opening near me and went and got some. But besides Facebook adds for restaurants I can't think of anything.


Here's a good link that can answer your question: How to take delivery of a futures contract The relevant part states: Prior to delivery day, they inform customers who have open long positions that they must either close out the position or prepare to take delivery and pay the full value of the underlying contract. By the same token traders with short positions are informed that they must close out their trades or prepare to deliver the underlying commodity. In this case, they must have the required quantity and quality of the deliverable commodity on hand.   On the few occasions that a buyer accepts delivery against his futures contract, he is usually not given the underlying commodity itself (except in the case of financials), but rather a receipt entitling him to fetch the hogs, wheat, or corn from warehouses or distribution points. I hope this helps. Good luck!


She was there for 5 years.  Someone brought in to sell the company is going to do it in 12-18 months, 24 max.  She is probably a good #2 but not CEO material.  There are many people like that who need some direction from the person above them but aren't good actually being the top person.  I'd blame the board for not realizing this as much as I'd blame her.


"> How did you make the transition up the ""ladder"" thus far?  I applied online for jobs that were above and beyond what I was currently doing and did well enough in the interviews to get hired. For my current position, I found the hiring manager online and emailed him directly to tell him I was the person he was looking for. But I don't think that approach will get me any further.    >How is your LinkedIn connection with executive recruiters?  I don't have one. I know that's an important next step but I'm not sure how to do it. Do I just email a bunch and introduce myself? I expect to be in my current position for at least 2 more years (realistically 4) and I would like to start cultivating the relationships but I'm not sure what to do.   I think that getting on some boards would be a similar step but again I'm not sure how.   >Would you be willing to take a salary cut for a title change?  Within reason. Maybe 10%.   >Does your college have a program for networking with alumni?  Probably. I have a pair of Masters' Degrees in my field from a top-25 program. The issue is that the alumni I network with would need to be executives and they're harder to engage."


sorry, meant manufacturing..  > But stronger productivity growth has coincided with sharply declining manufacturing employment, leading some analysts to suggest that the rise in U.S. productivity growth may have destroyed jobs, as companies need fewer workers to produce the same amount of output.  http://www.nber.org/digest/nov05/w11354.html


http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=EDV+Historical+Prices shows this which matches Vanguard: Mar 24, 2014  0.769 Dividend Your download link doesn't specify dates which makes me wonder if it is a cumulative distribution or something else as one can wonder how did you ensure that the URL is specifying to list only the most recent distribution and not something else. For example, try this URL which specifies date information in the a,b,c,d,e,f parameters: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=EDV&a=00&b=29&c=2014&d=05&e=16&f=2014&g=v&ignore=.csv


In your other question about these funds you quoted two very different yields for them. That pretty clearly says they are NOT tracking the same index.


How would this trade behave IRL? I don't know how the simulation handles limit orders and bid/ask spreads to know it's feasible, but buying at 4.04 when the current ask is 8.00 seems unlikely.  That would mean that all other sell orders between 8.00 and 4.04 were fulfilled, which means that there were very few sellers or that sell pressure spiked, both of which seem unlikely. In reality, it seems more likely that your order would have sat there until the ask dropped to $4.04 (if it ever did), and then you'd have to wait until the bid rose to $7.89 in order to sell them at that price. However, that kind of swing in option prices in not unrealistic.  Options near at-the-money tend to move in price at about 50% of the change in the underlying, so if amazon suddenly dropped by $5, the option price could drop by $2.60 (from 6.66 to $4.04), and then rise back to $7.89 if the price rose $8 (which would be 1% swing and not unheard of intra-day). But it sounds like you got very lucky (or the simulation doesn't handle option trading realistically) - I've traded options in the past and have had some breaks similar to yours.  I've also had bad breaks where I lost my entire investment (the options expire out-of-the money). So it should be a very limited part of your portfolio, and probably only used for risk management (e.g. buying put options to lock in some gains but keeping some upside potential).


"you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. ... So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. So, if you just wander in and say ""oh, hey, look, a bunch of options, i'm going to play games and have excitement"" then that is, in fact, some sort of gambling. Indeed, most trading activities will be like that to you. On the other hand, you might be engaged in other business where those things matter. You might be doing a lot of trading elsewhere in the market, for instance, and suddenly everyone freaks out and the stock market goes crazy and you lose a ton of money. To protect yourself from losing a ton of money, you might buy a binary option based on VIX (the volatility index) going over a certain level. If you're not in a business where you're buying it to protect yourself, then you should probably only buy the options if you have reason to think it'll be profitable and worth the risk. If you don't understand the risks, skip it."


Buy a ticket to a special country/conference/symposium/exchange program, meet people related to your aspirations, get a mentor. I like the previous answer, but in my experience it is much more rewarding to grow career-wise to earn more than it is to save more money.


"A home is an investment, but the value it returns isn't primarily financial ($$) - they are consumption (a place to live). This gives it different characteristics than other investments (e.g. increasing the amount invested by buying a more expensive home doesn't do much to assist your financial well-being and future income, and isn't necessarily the ""responsible"" thing to do). You may get some capital gains, typically in line with inflation, sometimes less, sometimes more, but those aren't the most reliable, and it's difficult to realize them (it involves selling your house and moving). Its main value as a hedge is a hedge against rising rent. But if you're still working full-time and can expect cost-of-living increases, that hedge may not be as valuable to you as it would to, say, someone living on a fixed income. But as for treating it as a ""low-risk investment""? That's very problematic. Real low-risk investments are things like government bonds, where you can't lose principal. Unless you're going to live into your house until the day you die, the real estate crash should have disabused you of any notion that housing values never go down. Rather, your house is a single, indivisible, undiversified, illiquid investment. Imagine, if you will, going to your brokerage and borrowing a hundred thousand dollars or more on margin to invest in a single real estate investment trust... then take away whatever diversification the trust offered by holding multiple properties. Also, you can't sell any of it until you move away, and the transaction fee will take something like 3%. Still sound ""safe""? Moreover, it's exactly the wrong kind of risk. Your house's value is tied to what people are willing to pay for housing where your house is, which is usually subject to the whims of the local economy. This means that in a recession and housing bust in the local economy, you can lose your job and have your mortgage go underwater at the same time. It totally makes sense to treat your house as an investment to some extent, and it makes double sense for a financial adviser to consider it as part of your investment recommendations. ""Safety"" is not the way you should be thinking of it, though."


"It is not a ""better world"" when all we've done is trade one set of victims for another.   There is nothing ""Fair"" about FORCING one citizen to do what the mob thinks they should.  ""Life, liberty, and the pursute of happiness and all that"" does not include being able to force other people to do what YOU want with THEIR property.  This is theft by any reasonable definition.  The only civil rights that are ever morally justified are *before the law as a citizen*.  Your government should treat all its citizens equally.  There is no sense in which this ought to translate to the private sector except under voluntary conditions, not by the state shoving a gun in your ear and forcing you to do so."


This is nothing more than a great way to sell out plane and ensure that no more seats are available at any price, even a high price that would be willingly paid by someone who really, really needs it. The fact that this isn't the general reaction by the public is indicative of a gross lack of education in basic economics, just like the following:  Lack of understanding in evolution: If people came from apes, why are there still apes?  Lack of understanding in geometry: How can the Earth be round if the horizon always rises to eye level?  Lack of understanding in statistics: If global warming is real, how come we hit a record for coldest July in this one town I heard about?  Lack of understanding in economics: If a business dramatically underprices their extremely limited goods, it helps the people who really need those goods.


Where do you get your data feed from. I'm a software developer and I will be looking to do some light trading in the future. I just have no idea where I can get a streaming feed.  I think if I code something I will get a better feel of the markets. I like the idea of trading in stocks. Although, I will have to see at a later stage.


"See comment on how ""self made"" bill gates is, and he's probably legitimately one of the more self made people to make that list. ""Self"" made people come from very wealthy families. If I give you a loan of a million bucks to make a company and financially support you for two years while you wait for the business to make money you're still ""self made"". Just view how they calculate it. It's horse shit"


TL;DR: Only term is pure insurance and is the cheapest.  The rest are mixtures of insurance and savings/investment.  Typically the mixtures are not as efficient as doing it yourself, except that there can be tax advantages as well as the ability to borrow from your policy in some cases.


If you have little investing experience, you shouldn't involve yourself in leveraged investments or short-term speculation at all.  You will probably just lose money. If not, is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money? If you have little investing experience, you should not attempt to make a lot of money on a small investment at all.  You will probably just lose money. The best way to invest with a small amount of money is to put it in a low-cost, mainstream investment product (like an index fund), and wait and save money until you have more.  By that time, you may decide that leaving the money in a low-cost index fund is actually the best thing to do anyway.  (Incidentally, I don't know if fund minimums are different in the UK, but in the US, an amount equivalent to £100 might not even be enough to start, so you might have to just put it in a savings account until you save enough to even buy into a mutual fund.)


"Master Odor Removal™ is a national leader in providing odor removal and neutral interior solutions. MOR's ""white-glove"" and green certified business systems offer a 100% Guarantee! We solve auto, home and commercial odor issues such as tobacco, marijuana, food, cooking odors, pet, mildew and air conditioning problems through our corporate and licensee network across the world. Our unique service is non-toxic, non-staining, non-ionic, hypo-allergenic and we never use ozone or toxic cover-ups!"


Nice at man nu kan sælge guld online. Har altid synes Brevgulds reklame var lidt fjollet, men efter at have læst lidt om dem og set på deres hjemmeside, så tror jeg faktisk at jeg vil prøve sælge mit overskuds guld til dem siden de bare ligger rundt, og de lover at give de bedste priser.


Just saw the update: Here's some ETFs for Canada from Vanguard.


"Not to mention. Since I posted my comment, I've suffered from self shutdowns of my PC (started with instant shutdowns). Only restoring multiple times from multiple restore points as seemed to have solved the problem for now. I'm telling you, we are under foreign attack, and India is part of it.  Also, when I'm not using my PC I shut it down and turn off the power strip access to it. Used to unplug it too.  Also in the past year, my refrigerator, dryer, main TV in living room, and most recently my washer (mechanical recurring) and PC have suffered electrical failures.  BEWARE those who claim to be advancing/helping you.  Anyway I believe someone is sending me a message about evil in our midst.  Pop culture should obviously indicate to you, if you know history as a matter of fact, not conjecture, that things are deteriorating quickly, and various nefarious factions are jockeying for position.  And they are not, never have been, from the side of ""good"", though they ALL claimed to be.  They punish/torment/destroy whom they deem (their whims) to be ""evil"". Though they are NEVER the arbiter of such things.  Horrible things are coming to the US. Past sins. Don't complain. Find redemption, salvation as you can. Survival (personal) is not paramount. GOOD (as  you see it) is. Just make sure you're not actually evil.  I'm clobbered here. Though I try to reveal truth. I try to debate, initiate discourse. I am shut down, for various nebulous reasons that my accusers use commonly."


There are a number reasons to hedge a position.  Here are some of the more common:


Lets be real here about this economic stuff. The uber rich do no work, get all the money, through stock ownership and a tax system thats made for them, by them.   The working poor do all the work, get none of the reward. Either you need universal basic income or you need a 15 dollar min wage. UBI i think is better.   Edit: the middle and upper classes do hard work. But at least they get a piece of the pie


> They'd literally have to invade and plunder other nations on a regular basis.   Which is what they do. The plundering is done by the mining companies and oil companies and engineering firms that follow them in though. Not them directly.


fibonacci levels (retracements,expansions, arcs) are all arbitrary numbers with no statistical significance. that said thousands of traders world over use, view and depend on fib numbers in their trading ranging from forex, stock commodities etc the point is if it's traded a fibonacci number has been used on it, because of this unanimity on their significance & application the fibonacci's thus act as valid anchors since so many traders are looking at the same levels (self-fulfilling prophecy). the values of the fib numbers are all equally significant i.e the 23.6. 38.2, 50, or 61.8 are statistically all equally likely to occur. you just have to be vigilant as your trade approaches the fib levels.


**Solyndra**  Solyndra was a manufacturer of cylindrical panels of copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) thin film solar cells based in Fremont, California. Although the company was once touted for its unusual technology, plummeting silicon prices led to the company's being unable to compete with conventional solar panels made of crystalline silicon. The company filed for bankruptcy on September 1, 2011.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27


Ballmer didn't personally lose those.   Microsoft had a ridiculously talented team back in the 80s and 90s. They developed a shit ton of futuristic stuff. It was all shot down back then or executed or managed poorly.   It takes years to fuck up that royally.


Little pisses me off more than knowing I worked my ass off for shitty employers for decades to enrich lazy rich fuckers who have continuously turned the screws of oppression on me.  They need to pay.  Why would additional tax breaks inspire an uber rich person to make legitimate investments in the greater economy if they already have so much cash they don't do anything but inflate the stock market?  Stupid economics.  When a person with needs has money they spend it on needs until their needs are met and bolster the economy.  The majority with constant worry about money with no hope for relief in sight while richies get preferential treatment is mean and cowardly economics.  Does anyone really wonder why there is so much hatred, violence, suicide, addiction, disenfranchisement...?


"I'm sure it's an interesting TED talk, but I know many former Bridgewater people and they almost universally say the same thing: the culture there is a living nightmare.  &nbsp;  I've read Dalio's ""Principles,"" and they are interesting and thoughtful. But implementing that philosophy on a day-to-day basis in the context of a company creates its own unique set of problems (and the best ideas still lose to office politics)."


in my office the joke is more that they're wearing suits at all. Nobody here wears a suit. Slacks and a shirt, bonus points for a fleece vest (once you earn the right). If you find that your coworkers do wear suits though, my tip is this, no matter how much you spend, take it to a tailor. Always. A $200 Men's Wearhouse suit that's been nipped and tucked by a tailor will look better than $1000 off the rack one that hasn't been.


"Recruiters, maybe, but I'd be careful about using this technique directly with hiring managers though.  If someone said that to me, I'd pass on an offer.  To me it's a warning sign that the person has a bit of ego and has a ""my way or the highway"" attitude.  Effective communicators seek to build consensus."


"No, I think the US should be under a single payer system. Care in the US is is shitty as it is. ""It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy... Comparisons also reveal that the United States is falling farther behind each year"" [New England Journal of Medicine](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064). Also another point I didn't mention is that most US 'middle class' families are literally only one sickness away from having to choose between medical bills or mortgage payments. I personally have had friends who had to drop out of college after their dad got sick, and I wouldn't mind paying more taxes if it meant that never happened again, or happened to my children once I start a family."


"I don't think there's any federal law prohibiting them from allowing you to AutoPay more than your minimum.  Certainly there are federal laws telling them what to do with payments more than the minimum - they must apply the leftover to the principal by default - so the law doesn't assume you can't overpay. However, federal law does require them to advance your next payment date if you overpay by a multiple of your minimum payment; i.e., if your payment is $50 and you send them $100, you don't have to make your next payment [though interest still accrues of course].  It's possible Navient isn't interested in implementing this functionality in their AutoPay, who knows. In any event, assuming you have a bank that has AutoBillPay functionality, you may want to consider using that - either for the ""extra"" or for the whole amount (if Navient isn't giving you a discount for AutoPay - if so, use that at least).  Your bank is happy to cut a check in any amount and send it on, and Navient is required to apply it to the principal.  (Though if you do the autopay-and-billpay and are sending an extra amount less than a whole payment, verify that they're willing to accept amounts less than a full payment, first; not all lenders are.)"


> practically a venture bet   > Zuckerberg made a $20bn bet  I gotta agree, I mean Zuckerberg is so well known as a preeminent venture capitalist with a great track record - how can I pass up the opportunity?  Also as an institutional investor, its so incredibly difficult to find a venture fund for me to put my money into, I really do need someone like him to spend my money.  I mean why bother to get in at the ground floor when I can buy the company after its been hyped up right?  Buy high, sell low has always been my motto!


"So the Fed  “misspecified” its inflation model  “misjudged” the Labor market  And I suppose S&P, Fitch and Moodys is going to put our mind at ease  that you are unwinding on the most AAA of garbage, with out ""misjudgements"" and ""Misspecifed"" of true valuations.  Well lets just burn the Fed down and call it even"


Yeah I've been hearing that through a few posts on the front page today, I'm sure they'll be able to buy their domain back at whatever price since someone will eventually buy it & resell. I'm thinking we're likely to hear more about it tomorrow though.


Joyce Meyer ministries in St. Louis hires lots of developers. You need to be an active member of a Christian denomination. And they check. And prayer meetings are required. At least that's what the recruiter told me. I turned down the opportunity to interview.


In my opinion, We can't trust wholy on internet as well as social media. There are a lot of hackers that can ruin all of us based on destroying all the systems. We should be careful about our private information, don't show them on your facebook if you don't want anyone can see them, even though it is only for you. It is not safe for you. Just keep in your mind or your note book.


Companies theoretically have an infinite number of equity units at their disposal.  Issuance must be approved according to its founding contracts. If an equity is trading on an open market then the price of each unit issued in lieu of cash compensation is known.  Even if an equity doesn't trade openly, bidders can be solicited for a possible price or an appraisal.  This can be a risky route for the potentially compensated. Market capitalizations are frequently generally approximately equal to the sales of a company.  Salaries and wages are frequently generally two thirds of sales. It is indeed expensive for the average company to compensate with equity, thus so few do, usually restricting equity compensation to executives and exceptional laborers.  Besides, they frequently have enough cash to pay for compensation, avoiding transaction costs. For companies in growth industries such as technology or medicine, their situations are usually reversed: cash constrained yet equity abundant because of large investment and dearly priced equities.  For a company trading at a market capitalization multiplied by forty times the revenue, compensating with equity is inexpensive.


TIL the congressional ways and means committee is Trump propoganda.  And yes, when government arbitrarily stuffs an industry with money it increases the industry's short term value, but it does not necessarily mean that money will be spent in a way thats good for that industry in the longer term.


Ah, yes, I forgot about Oregon's and New Jersey's brilliant contributions to the laboratory of democracy. But you're right, that doesn't amount to 30¢ per gallon. Not even close. If an attendant's pay went up $3.00 an hour due to the new minimum, and they service 15 cars per hour, and each car takes 15 gallons, that comes to 1.3¢ per gallon.


Thank you Skyy8 for voting on PORTMANTEAU-BOT.    This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://goodbot-badbot.herokuapp.com/).     ***    ^^Even ^^if ^^I ^^don't ^^reply ^^to ^^your ^^comment, ^^I'm ^^still ^^listening ^^for ^^votes. ^^Check ^^the ^^webpage ^^to ^^see ^^if ^^your ^^vote ^^registered!


"The reason to put more money down or accept a shorter maximum term is because the bank sweetens the deal (or fails to sour it in some fashion).  For example, typically, if there is less than 20% down, you have to pay an premium called ""Private Mortgage Insurance"", which makes it bad deal. But I see banks offering the same rate for a 15%-year mortgage as for a 30-year one, and I think: fools and their money.  Take the 30-year and, if you feel like it pay more every month.  Although why you would feel like it, I don't know, since it's very difficult to get that money back if you need it."


When you buy shares, you are literally buying a share of the company.  You become a part-owner of it. Companies are not required to pay dividends in any given year.  It's up to them to decide each year how much to pay out. The value of the shares goes up and down depending on how much the markets consider the company is worth.  If the company is successful, the price of the shares goes up.  If it's unsuccessful, the price goes down.  You have no control over that.  If the company fails completely and goes bankrupt, then the shares are worthless. Dilution is where the company decides to sell more shares.  If they are being sold at market value, then you haven't really lost anything.  But if they are sold below cost (perhaps as an incentive to certain staff), then the value of the company per share is now less.  So your shares may be worth a bit less than they were.  You would get to vote at the AGM on such schemes.  But unless you own a significant proportion of the shares in the company, your vote will probably make no difference. In practice, you can't protect yourself.  Buying shares is a gamble.  All you can do is decide what to gamble on.


Why do you think they're HOARDING? Cus they can just pay less tax on it in a foreign fucking country you imbecile. I'm done waisting my time trying to explain this to someone that just has everything go right over their head.  Keep drinking the mainstream media's Kool-Aid, I'll keep praying that one day you wake up and see the truth


"We are exactly where we should be for pricing. We are not over valued.  The largest bull market in history is following the longest stagnation in history, we're merely playing catch up. Of course, it was spurred after Trump won because the business sector assumed he would curtail regulation - one thing we're pretty sure he'll accomplish because his business interests are alligned.  Recommended reading outlining why we are appropriately valued: Stocks for the Long Run by Jeremy Seigel, Prof of finance at Wharton.   I'm all for looking out for people's benefit. As an investment advisor, I have to abide by the fidicuary rule myself. I'm sure there's another side to the argument for them removing the rule. As Robert Shiller, Nobel laureate in economics, put it, ""We need the right regulation, not more or less."" Perhaps it's not correct in it's current state. But I'm not a legislative expert, maybe someone can elaborate.  We need to be wary about how quick we are to judge on these rulings. Many comments are not experts and our confirmation bias will drive people to misinformation. We judge ourselves on our intentions and others on their actions."


There is no tax to move your own money from one place to another.


According to this article: With an all-stock merger, the number of shares covered by a call option is changed to adjust for the value of the buyout. The options on the bought-out company will change to options on the buyer stock at the same strike price, but for a different number of shares. Normally, one option is for 100 shares of the underlying stock. For example, company A buys company B, exchanging 1/2 share of A for each share of B. Options purchased on company B stock would change to options on company A, with 50 shares of stock delivered if the option is exercised.  This outcome strongly suggests that, in general, holders of options should cash out once the takeover is announced, before the transactions takes place.  Since the acquiring company will typically offer a significant premium, this will offer an opportunity for instant profits for call option holders while at the same time being a big negative for put option holders.  However, it is possible in some cases where the nominal price of the two companies favours the SML company (ie. the share prices of SML is lower than that of BIG), the holder of a call option may wish to hold onto their options. (And, possibly, conversely for put option holders.)


You can set up a Self Managed Super Fund (SMSF) and use it to buy residential investment property, and as Justin has mentioned even borrow to acquire the investment property through the SMSF.  However, you cannot hold your home in the SMSF, as this would be classed as an in-house asset, and you are only allowed to hold a maximum of 5% of the total market value of SMSF as in-house assets. Furthermore, as you already own your house, you are not allowed to transfer residential property into a SMSF from a related party, even if done at current market value (you are allowed to transfer business real property from a related party at current market value). Regarding loans, you are not allowed to lend money from your SMSF to a related party as well.


Sure, just saying. It does exist.   Also I don't understand why people need to return stuff so much. Only thing I can see it being needed so much is people buying something solely to use it for a one time use then getting their money back. Or simply over shopping and not controlling their budget and need their money back after they realize they spent too much on shit they don't need.  I mean, if I need to buy something, I do some research, find the best product for the price and get the best offer the first time. Unless it's broken or defective I've never had to return anything. Then again I'm also not a compulsive shopper that blows my budget on shit I don't need.  I don't know. Doesn't seem like a make or break feature for me and won't sway which service I use either way.


Seen it on Netflix 3x already, pretty much catch all the diet documentaries.  I can agree that sugar is problematic... but it's ignoring a lot of stuff.  I'm a whole food plant based eater and help others transition.  The fat is a big part of it too.  A domesticated animal has 7 times the fat that a wild animals has.... I had deer before long ago, it's so lean that many people find it unenjoyable (cuts tend to be tough), need to stew it or have to ground it up and cut it with fatty cuts of beef or something to make it tolerable.  Same with rabbit and lots of other wild animal I used to have.  Vegetable oils, like sugar, is also a refined and unnatural to the diet and didn't become widespread until modern presses were developed in the 19th century.  It was just too wasteful for historical agriculture except for the wealthy... with modern presses it takes 1000-1400 olives to make a liter of olive oil.  Or 10-14 heads of corn to make a tablespoon of corn oil.  Up to medieval times when agriculture was ekeing out a 10% caloric surplus over calories spent, it just wasn't viable to the human species to have the amount of oils we do in the diet.  The fact is that all industries pay for scientific propraganda.  Dairy/Eggs/Meat is no different.  And since Marlboro (RJ Reynolds) [got into the food business](http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=88088) buying Kraft and Nabisco and what not... they had experience from decades earlier to know how to buy science and influence public policy.  If it comes in a package and is changed from how nature made it, chances are that it contributes to obesity because it's been altered to cater to our tastes and that almost always means more fat, more sugar, more salt (makes us eat more) and ultimately more weight.