"I've had a MF Stock Advisor for 7 or 8 years now, and I've belong to Supernova for a couple of years. I also have money in one of their mutual funds. ""The Fool"" has a lot of very good educational information available, especially for people who are new to investing. Many people do not understand that Wall Street is in the business of making money for Wall Street, not making money for investors.  I have stayed with the Fool because their philosophy aligns with my personal investment philosophy. I look at the Stock Advisor picks; sometimes I buy them, sometimes I don't, but the analysis is very good. They also have been good at tracking their picks over time, and writing updates when specific stocks drop a certain amount. With their help, I've assembled a portfolio that I don't have to spend too much time managing, and have done pretty well from a return perspective. Stock Advisor also has a good set of forums where you can interact with other investors.  In summary, the view from the inside has been pretty good. From the outside, I think their marketing is a reflection of the fact that most people aren't very interested in a rational & conservative approach to investing in the stock market, so MF chooses to go for an approach that gets more traffic. I'm not particularly excited about it, but I'm sure they've done AB testing and have figured out what way works the best. I think that they have had money-back guarantees on some of their programs in the past, so you could try them out risk free. Not sure if those are still around."


I didn't even read the article. so lol you can fault me there.  I just based this on there being a platform like airbnb allowing businesses such as having residences or houses to put up. When you think about it though these aren't the only avenues or doors available when you consider everything that goes into something like this.


Simple: Do a stock split. Each 1 Ordinary share now = 100 Ordinary shares (or 100,000 or whatever you choose). Then sell 20 (or 20,000) of them to your third party. (Stock splits are fairly routine occurrence. Apple for example has done several, most recently in 2014 when 1 share = 7 shares). Alternatively you could go the route of creating a new share class with different rights, preferences etc. But this is more complicated.


I agree. I have physical cash hidden in my house, a trick I learned from an elderly neighbor whose husband demanded they do it and it paid off for them twice. I have that and then will rely on credit if needed. My only question is if the statistic they mention is ALL savings or just what is in liquid assets.


Not to overkill the theres a few more I can think of right now


Lmao thus truly is Reddit isn't it. You know who only works the bare minimum? Spain. They all close down for hours in the middle of the day to take a nap. Sure, it sounds nice, but guess what their economy is like? Absolute shit. They aren't creating next gen products that change the world. And they aren't global leaders in the business world like the US.


Keep eye contact throughout the interview and prepare answers to questions like: what is your greatest weakness, why are you interested in this company, how can you add value that other candidates can't. I'd suggest doing thorough research on the company's mission statement, vision, and product history. The more you can lace in info about their company during the interview, the better they'll like you.


"In addition to the good answers already provided, I want to point out that many (most?) providers will handle filing your health insurance claim for you even though it's really your responsibility. So here's how medical bills ""you don't have to pay"" might come about: * It's possible that your balance is $4, or $20, or $65, or even still $100 depending on your particular insurance plan. Whatever is left at this step is what you pay."


In the united states, they may request a check written by the bank to the other party. I have had to make large payments for home settlements, or buying a car. If the transaction was over a specified limit, they wanted a cashiers check. They wanted to make sure it wouldn't bounce.  I have had companies rebate me money, and say the maximum value of the check was some small value. I guess that was to prevent people from altering the check. One thing that has happened to me is that a large check I wanted to deposit was held for a few extra days to make sure it cleared. I wouldn't have access to the funds until the deadline passed.


That's a good point. I worry that it may look bad if I go on holiday or come in whenever I want. My dad suggested I swan in and check out different businesses whenever I want.  Maybe I should do full employee hours for a week at each place or something, as opposed to just going in for a couple of hours randomly.


> Board members that have fiduciary responsibilities to investors (this includes the potential for personal liability).  How often do lawsuits surrounding this even happen? How can shareholders prove in court that the CEO or whomever they are suing wasn't acting in the best interest of the company and actually have a meaningful case? There are countless badly run public companies out there and they don't get sued.


Matthew - what was the stock price and strike price of the option when you did this? I've never seen an at-the-money strike with only a month to run have a price 25% of the underlying stock. Jaydles covers the variables really well in his answer.


No.  Regular W2 employees cannot deduct housing or transportation costs related to their employment.   However, in the US, many employers offer Parking and/or Transit FSA programs which are usually collectively referred to a Commuter Benefits FSA programs, this is particularly common among larger employers with locations in major metropolitan cities.  Under Commuter benefits FSAs employees can defer up to $255 per month from their gross pay, tax-free, for parking and/or transit expenses.  Eligible expenses include things like bus and train passes or parking at a train or bus station.  These are money-in/money-out arrangements so expenses can only be claimed against contributions that have been made, unlike a Health FSA.  Though, like a health FSA, contributions are subject to use-it or lose-it provisions. These programs must be sponsored by the employer for an employee to take advantage of them though.  Some jurisdictions mandate that employers above a certain threshold must offer commuter benefits.


I think a big issue with Sears and Kmart is that they have no image. They have become so diluted nobody even knows why they would shop there. Ask anybody what they think about the image of Target, Meijer, Wal-mart, or other successful chains and you will likely get an accurate description across the board. Do the same with K-mart and Sears and you will get looks of confusion.


The only time borrowing instead of paying from cash would make sense is if you have (or think you might run into) opportunities to put that cash to work for you earning more than the interest you're paying. For instance, you might run into investment opportunities where having the cash to jump in would let you get into them.   Beyond something like this, it'd be foolish to pay interest just so you can have a bigger bank balance and feel like you're somehow better off! I hope this helps. Good luck!


I am voting you up because this is a legitimate question with a correct possible answer. Yes, you shouldn't buy penny stocks, yes you shouldn't speculate, yes people will be jealous that you have money to burn. Your question: how to maximize expected return. There are several definitions of return and the correct one will determine the correct answer. For your situation, $1,000 sounds like disposable income and that you have the human capital to make more income in the future with your productive years. So we will not assume you want to take this money and reinvest the remains until you are dead. This rules out #2. It sounds like you are the sole beneficiary of this fund and that your value proposition is regardless of asset class and competition to other investment opportunities. In other words, you are committed to blowing this $1,000 and would not consider instead putting the money towards paying down credit card debt or other valuable uses. This rules out #3. You are left with #1, expected value. Now there is already evidence that penny stocks are a losing proposition. In fact, some people have been successful in setting up honeypot email accounts and waiting for penny stock spam... then shorting those stocks. So to maximize expected return, invest 0% of your bankroll. But that's boring, let's ignore it. As you have correctly identified, the transaction costs are significant, $14 in tolls on crossing the bridge both ways on a $1,000 investment already exceeds the 5-year US bond rate. Diversification will affect the correlation and overall risk (Kelly Criterion) of your portfolio -- but it has no effect on your expected return.  In summary, diversification has zero effect on your expected return and is not justified by the cost.


"This is a stupid question.  Operating an elevator or train is very simple, and even a kid can do that. In elevator, just press the button for the floor you want. In a train, a ""gas pedal"" and a ""break pedal"".  If a ""mistake"" happens, at least in trains, it may kill few people on the train or something on the tracks.  An airplane is much more complicated, and if a ""mistake"" happens, a large section of town and buildings can suffer with many many deaths.  P/S: unmanned trains are only for slow-moving trains with small amount of people on them, e.g. in airports."


Because libertarian ideology dominates mainstream economics, and that is because many billionaire-backed 'think tanks' promote it. The same thing happened pre-Great Depression; lots of Harvard economists arguing in favour of whatever their rich sponsors wanted. Read The Great Depression by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith; the parallels are distressing.


It depends.  Very generally when yields go up stocks go down and when yields go down stocks go up (as has been happening lately). If we look at the yield of the 10 year bond it reflects future expectations for interest rates.  If the rate today is very low but expectations are that the short term rates will go up that would be reflected in a higher yield simply because no one would buy the longer term bond if they could simply wait out and get a better return on shoter term investments.  If expectations are that the rate is going down you get what's called an inverted yield curve.  The inverted yield curve is usually a sign of economic trouble ahead.  Yields are also influenced by inflation expectations as @rhaskett is alluding in his answer. So.  If the stock market crashes because the economy is doing poorly and if interest rates are relatively high then people would expect the rates to go down and therefore bonds will go up! However, if there's rampant inflation and the rates are going up we can expect stocks and bonds to move in opposite directions.  Another interpretation of that is that one would expect stock prices to track inflation pretty well because company revenue is going to go up with inflation.  If we're just talking about a bump in the road correction in a healthy economy I wouldn't expect that to have much of an immediate effect though bonds might go down a little bit in the short term but possibly even more in the long term as interest rates eventually head higher.  Another scenario is a very low interest rate environment (as today) with a stock market crash and not a lot of room for yields to go further down. Both stocks and bonds are influenced by current interest rates, interest rate expectations, current inflation, inflation expectations and stock price expectation.  Add noise and stir.


"I think the issues you have listed will definitely be some of the larger ones over the next few months even. In relation to interest rates though I think inflation/deflation will aslo start to become an increasinly debated topic, especially if they decide on more QE.  Over the next few months into the election I expect to see a flight to quality from the big money and then from retail investors (aren't we already seeing this?). This would bear negative for most stock averages and indexs and positive for ""safe"" assets such as gold, treasuries, what else? In my opinion the industry that stands to take the biggest losses are the  financials, particulary the TBTF banks. This will be a large issue in the election and there is really no way they can walk away from the Europe situation unharmed.  In the event of a war (Israel/Iran I assume you mean), I would imagine oil would come up from the relative low it is at now. This would then increase the appeal of Nat Gas which I don't think can stay at the price level it is at now.  tl;dr - bearish for the stock markets, bullish on safe assets as doubt in the system increases significantly"


No.  I believe members of congress are passing bills that enrich the rich in return for favors.  The type of favors change to avoid being seen as bribery, but it is still bribery.  But not every member of Congress is corrupt.  Some members are just selfish and irrational, some are clean.  We haven’t cracked down on this crap because they’ve done a great job dividing us against each other.  They have escalated fracturing to ensure lack of cooperation for those who wish to improve the nation over self-interests.


You have left out the most important piece of information: are you an American citizen? If you are, then PFIC rules mean you need to be very careful not to invest in any foreign index funds/ETFs. That means it will probably be easiest for you to just leave the money in the US and continue to invest it there. If you do not have US citizenship, and have never had a green card, then you will qualify for non-resident alien status after you've been gone for 3 years. Once that happens, you won't owe US capital gains tax (though you will owe it in AUS). You will owe 30% tax on dividends, though. Much more at Investopedia.


"It depends on whether your goal is to ""teach a man to fish"" or setup an ongoing system where his neighbor is required to keep giving him fish every day for the rest of his life.  From my point of view a true solution involves getting people standing on their own two feet, not relying on the government for handouts the rest of their life."


"There are other good answers to the general point that the essence of what you're describing exists already, but I'd like to point out a separate flaw in your logic: Why add more complications so that ""should I call this principal or interest"" actually makes a difference? Why's the point (incentive) for this? The incentive is that using excess payments to credit payments due in the future rather than applying it to outstanding principal is more lucrative for the lender. Since it's more lucrative and there's no law against it most (all) lenders use it as the default setting."


Yes, however you would have to wait for the $900 to actually be available in your credit card account if making the transaction from an account from another bank or provider, as it usually might take one to two business days for this to happen.  If both the chequing account and credit card account are with the same bank, then usually this will go through straight away, and you will be able to make your next purchase on the same day, but I would check your credit card balance first before making that purchase.


The debt is absolutely real. China loans money to US via buying the US treasury bonds. The bond is essentially a promise to pay back the money with interest, just like a loan. As you point out, the US can print money. If this were to happen, then the USD that the owner of a treasury bond receives when the bond matures are worth less that than the USD used to purchase the bonds. There are lots of reasons why the US doesn't want to print lots of money, so the purchaser of the bond is probably confident it won't happen. If for some reason they think it is possible, then they will want to cover that risk by only purchasing bonds that have a higher interest rate. The higher interest offsets the risk of the USD being worth less. Of course, there are lots more details, e.g., the bonds themselves are bought and sold before maturity, but this is the basic idea.


I would never consider such an offer. As has already been mentioned, there are likely to be hidden costs and the future is never certain. If you feel that you are missing out, then negociate a lower purchase price now. People often forget that something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. With any significant purchase it's always worth bargaining.


"Is there any practical reason... to hold off on making payments until I receive a billing statement? Yes, a few:   As for a zero balance, FICO consumer affairs manager Barry Paperno says, ""The idea here is the lower, the better, in terms of the utilization percentage, but something is better than nothing....The score wants to see some kind of activity.""  How low should you go? In a recent interview, FICO spokesman Craig Watts said, ""If your utilization is 10 percent or lower, you're in great shape as far as utilization goes."" That being said, there are downsides especially if you wind up forgetting to make a payment.  The easiest thing to do (also from a time management perspective) is to get your billing statement once a month, verify the purchases on it, and at that time you receive the statement schedule an online bill payment so that it will be paid in full before the due date.   As Aganju points out, you don't have to wait for a paper bill in hand or even an e-mail notification; you can go online after your statement date to get the statement.  This makes sure you won't have extra costs related to unreliability of mail (if you still receive paper statements)/e-mail, though it does require remembering to check (and/or setting a recurring calendar reminder).  Paying much in advance of that, as is your current practice, might be a good idea to free up available balance if you are planning a purchase that would take you over your credit limit, but this should be relatively rare (and some credit card companies will raise that limit if you have been paying well and ask nicely, though find out first if they do a ""hard pull"" of your credit report for that)."


Most private companies do not pay for their employees to travel business or first class.  You know why?  Most of the time it is three to four times the cost of coach.  And every dollar that is spent on frivolous things like first class tickets comes out of the bottom line.  Civil servants have no right to be in first class, zero excuse.  That's taxpayer money that can be better utilized elsewhere.


As a landlord for 14 years with 10 properties, I can give a few pointers: be able and skilled enough to perform the majority of maintenance because this is your biggest expense otherwise.  it will shock you how much maintenance rental units require. don't invest in real estate where the locality/state favors the tenant (e.g., New York City) in disputes.  A great state is Florida where you can have someone evicted very quickly. require a minimum credit score of 620 for all tenants over 21.  This seems to be the magic number that keeps most of the nightmare tenants out makes sure they have a job nearby that pays at least three times their annual rent every renewal, adjust your tenant's rent to be approximately 5% less than going rates in your area.  Use Zillow as a guide.  Keeping just below market rates keeps tenants from moving to cheaper options. do not rent to anyone under 30 and single.  Trust me trust me trust me.  you can't legally do this officially, but do it while offering another acceptable reason for rejection; there's always something you could say that's legitimate (bad credit, or chose another tenant, etc.) charge a 5% late fee starting 10 days after the rent is due.  20 days late, file for eviction to let the tenant know you mean business. Don't sink yourself too much in debt, put enough money down so that you start profitable.  I made the mistake of burying myself and I haven't barely been able to breathe for the entire 14 years.  It's just now finally coming into profitability. Don't get adjustable rate or balloon loans under any circumstances.  Fixed 30 only.  You can pay it down in 20 years and get the same benefits as if you got a fixed 20, but you will want the option of paying less some months so get the 30 and treat it like a 20. don't even try to find your own tenants.  Use a realtor and take the 10% cost hit.  They actually save you money because they can show your place to a lot more prospective tenants and it will be rented much sooner.  Empty place = empty wallet.  Also, block out the part of the realtor's agreement-to-lease where it states they keep getting the 10% every year thereafter.  Most realtors will go along with this just to get the first year, but if they don't, find another realtor. buy all in the same community if you can, then you can use the same vendor list, the same lease agreement, the same realtor, the same documentation, spreadsheets, etc.  Much much easier to have everything a clone.  They say don't put all your eggs in one basket, but the reality is, running a bunch of properties is a lot of work, and the more similar they are, the more you can duplicate your work for free.  That's worth a lot more day-to-day than the remote chance your entire community goes up in flames


Some more considerations: (1) Tax rates (both ordinary and capital gains) are likely to be different when you retire. (2) Your marginal tax rate may be different when you retire depending on how much income you have at the time. In retirement your income may be structured completely differently than when you are working. For example, you may also have a Roth IRA/401K to pull from.


Let's make a few assumptions: You have several ways of achieving (almost) that, in ascending complexity: Note that each alternative will have a cost which can be small (forwards, futures) or large (CFDs, debit) and the hedge will never be perfect, but you can get close. You will also need to decide whether you hedge the unrealised P&L on the position and at what frequency.


Trickle down generally hasn't been that bad. All of reaganomics was trickle down and it boosted growth like hell. I don't believe it will do so in this case. Not unless companies pay like 90% of their income to taxes or something. But that doesn't mean trickle down has been a total failure.


"Debts do not inherit to the children. You are absolutely not liable for your parent's debt, in any way whatsoever. **  Collection agents will lie about this; tricking you is their job, and your job is to tell them Heck no, do I look like an idiot? When a person dies, all their personal assets (and debts) go to a fictitious entity called the Estate.  This is a holder for the person's assets until they can be dispositioned finally.  The estate is managed by a living person, sometimes a company (law firm), called an Executor.  Similar to a corporation which is shutting down business, the Executor's job is to act on behalf of the Estate, and in the Estate's best interest (not his own).  For instance he can't decide, in his capacity as executor, to give all the estate's money to himself.  He has to loyally and selflessly follow state law and any living-trust or wills that may be in place. This role is not for everyone.  You can't just decide ""la la la, I'm going to live in their house now"", that is squatting.  The house is an asset and someone inherited that, as dictated by will, trust or state law.  That has to be worked out legally.  Once they inherit the house, you have to negotiate with them about living there. If you want to live there now, negotiate to rent the house from the estate. This is an efficient way to funnel money into the estate for what I discuss later.** The Estate has assets, and it has debts. Some debts extinguish on the death of the natural person, e.g. student loans, depending on the contract and state law. Did you know corporations are considered a ""person""?  (that's what Citizens United was all about.)  So are estates - both are fictitious persons. The executor can act like a person in that sense.   If you have unsecured debt, how can a creditor motivate you to pay?  They can annoy and harass you.  They can burn your credit rating.  Or they can sue you and try to take your assets - but suing is also expensive for them.  This is not widely understood, but anyone at any time can go to their creditors and say  ""Hey creditor, I'm not gonna pay you $10,000.  Tough buffaloes.  You can sue me, good luck with that.  Or, I'll make you a deal.  I'll offer you $2000 to settle this debt.  What say you?  And you'll get one of two answers.  Either ""OK"" or ""Nice try, let's try $7000.""  If the latter, you start into the cycle of haggling, ""3000."" ""6000."" ""4000."" ""5000. ""Split the difference, $4500."" ""OK.""  This is always a one-time, lump sum, one-shot payoff, never partial payments.  Creditors will try to convince you to make partial payments.  Don't do it.  Anyone can do that at any time.  Why don't living people do this every day?   How about an Estate?  Estates are fictitious persons, they don't have a ""morality"", they have a fiduciary duty. Do they plan on borrowing any more money? Nope. Their credit rating is already 0. They owe no loyalty to USBank. Actually, the executor's fiduciary duty is to get the most possible money for the assets, and settle the debts for the least.  So I argue it's unethical to fail to haggle down this debt.  If an executor is ""not a haggler"" or has a moral issue with shortchanging creditors, he is shortchanging the heirs, and he can be sued for that personally - because he has a fiduciary duty to the heirs, not Chase Bank.  Like I say, the job is not for everyone. The estate should also make sure to check the paperwork for any other way to escape the debt: does it extinguish on death?  Is the debt time-barred? Can they really prove it's valid?  Etc.  It's not personal, it's business.  The estate should not make monthly payments (no credit rating to protect) and should not pay one dime to a creditor except for a one-shot final settlement. Is it secured debt? Let them take the asset. (unless an heir really wants it).  When a person dies with a lot of unsecured debt, it's often the case that they don't have a lot of cash lying around.  The estate must sell off assets to raise the cash to settle with the creditors.  Now here's where things get ugly with the house.  ** The estate should try to raise money any other way, but it may have to sell the house to pay the creditors. For the people who would otherwise inherit the house, it may be in their best  interest to pay off that debt. Check with lawyers in your area, but it may also be possible for the estate to take a mortgage on the house, use the mortgage cash to pay off the estate's debts (still haggle!), and then bequeath the house-and-mortgage to the heirs.  The mortgage lender would have to be on-board with all of this.  Then, the heirs would owe the mortgage.   Good chance it would be a small mortgage on a big equity, e.g. a $20,000 mortgage on a $100,000 house.  Banks love those."


My thoughts are your retirement investing priorities should be as follows: So in your case I would not put any money into your 401k until you have maxed out your Roth IRA.


"Is option trading permitted in the account? Most 401(k) do not permit this. 1 - it means none traded today. 2 - there are 50 outstanding contracts. Each one has a guy who is long and a guy who is short.  3 - not really, it might depend on the stock.  4 - no. With commissions so low, and the inherent leverage of options, one contract reflecting 100 shares of the underlying stock, the minimum is what you can sleep soundly with.  5 - because GLD does not reflect precisely 1/10 oz of gold's price. If you look at the prospectus, it reads ""The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of gold bullion, less the Trust’s expenses."" Since there are no dividends to take expenses from, the GLD price will erode by .4% each year compared to the price of 1/10oz gold."


**Here's a sneak peek of /r/Suomi using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Suomi/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!**  \#1: [Minä_irl](https://i.redd.it/bbo6l6t30yky.png) | [182 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Suomi/comments/5yxvt0/minä_irl/)   \#2: [Jumalaiset mittasuhteet](https://i.redd.it/wsz1vc0nbodz.png) | [78 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Suomi/comments/6rizs0/jumalaiset_mittasuhteet/)   \#3: [Half naked women get thousands of upvotes, but how many for our flag in blue?](http://m.imgur.com/JjFI7Xu) | [181 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Suomi/comments/5gsevc/half_naked_women_get_thousands_of_upvotes_but_how/)  ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/6l7i0m/blacklist/)


What are you using the analysis for? If your analyzing your interest rate risk then you want to determine decay rates for your non-maturity deposits. Assuming your bank uses ALM software to produce your Earnings-at-Risk (EAR) and Economic Value of Equity (EVE) metrics, the decay rate assumptions make a big difference in those numbers. Most ALM models have default assumptions that may not be correct for your institution, and as a result are giving you EAR and EVE numbers that are not at all accurate.   Basically you want to have some analysis that proves how you are bucketing your NMDs (3,6,9, 12, 24 months?). Are your deposits sticky or are they affected by small changes in interest rates? You can look at historical numbers to determine how your deposits behave, but be sure to go back more than 3-4 years as deposit behavior has been pretty abnormal since 2008 with rates near zero. Similarly, you may want to try and identify 'surge' deposits that came into your bank due to the low rate environment and as soon as rates rise they will move into higher earning assets (stocks, bond, money markets).


First off, you should contact your health plan administrator as soon as possible.  Different plans may interact differently with Medicare; any advice we could provide here would be tentative at best.  Some of the issues you may face: A person with both Medicare and a QHP would potentially have primary coverage from 2 sources: Medicare and the QHP. No federal law addresses this situation. Under state insurance law an individual generally cannot collect full benefits from each of 2 policies that together pay more than an insured event costs. State law usually specifies how insurance companies will coordinate health benefits when a person has primary coverage from more than one source. In that situation, insurance companies determine which coverage is primary and which is secondary. It’s important to understand that a QHP is not structured to pay secondary benefits, nor are the premiums calculated or adjusted for secondary payment. In addition, a person with Medicare would no longer receive any premium assistance or subsidies under the federal law. While previous federal law makes it illegal for insurance companies to knowingly sell coverage that duplicates Medicare’s coverage when someone is entitled to or enrolled in Medicare Part A or Part B, there has been no guidance on the issue of someone who already has individual health insurance and then also enrolls in Medicare. We and other consumer organizations have asked state and federal officials for clarification on this complicated situation. As such, it likely is up to the plan how they choose to pay - and I wouldn't expect them to pay much if they think they can avoid it.  You may also want to talk to someone at your local Medicare branch office - they may know more about your state specifically; or someone in your state's department of health/human services, or whomever administers the Exchanges (if it's not federal) in your state. Secondly, as far as enrolling for Part B, you should be aware that if she opts not to enroll in Part B at this time, if your wife later chooses to enroll before she turns 65 she will be required to pay a penalty of 10% per 12 month period she was not enrolled.  This will revert to 0 when she turns 65 and is then eligible under normal rules, but it will apply every year until then.  If she's enrolling during the normal General Enrollment period (Jan-March) then if she fails to enroll then she'll be required to pay that penalty if she later enrolls; if this is a Special Enrollment Period and extends beyond March, she may have the choice of enrolling next year without penalty.


The fact you are asking this question, the number of up votes, uncovers the real cause of the banking crisis.    Answers which mention that shareholders will fire a public company board are on the bottom. It is obvious that a company owners are interested in company value. And should have direct and easy impact on a directors board if management doesn't increase shareholders wealth.  With large number of passive shareholders and current stock market system that impact is very limited. Hence your question.  So bank directors, upper management aren't that interested in company value. They are mostly interested in theirs bonuses, their wealth increase, not shareholders. And that's the real problem of capitalism. Public companies slowly drift to function like companies in former socialistic countries. These is no owner, everything is owned by a nation.


I'm not sure there is good data on Kiva, etc, but P2P microlending site Prosper has released their data. The default rates are evidently fairly high. For borrowers in the 'developed' world (the target audience of Prosper), other sources of credit are available (e.g. banks); one has to suspect, then, that borrowers on Prosper are considered too risky for bank loans.


"Well what he was trying to say is that support should be prioritized higher as an investment rather than cut to the bone as a necessary overhead evil. Yes, they all still need to be balanced, so technically it's a true statement, but the implication with which it was said was ""you shouldn't be pouring money into support. Ever."""


ROI and volatility should be calculated over a representative period of time, for example 3 or 5 years, depending on data availability.  The ROI is simple, for example, over 5 years:- For the 5 year annualised volatility you can refer to the ESMA SRRI methodology. Box 1 (page 3)  m is the annualisation factor. Stock volatility calculated from weekly data should not be compared with volatility calculated from monthly data. Also, for reference: How to Calculate your Portfolio's Rate of Return


"Krugman argues (and I agree with him on this one) that this is a telltale sign that the US is in a [liquidity trap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap). Basically interest rates are near 0 and the banks are very risk adverse right now, so they sit on reserves instead of lending them out. In this scenario, the government ""printing"" money has no effect on inflation (or much of anything) because it just sits in bank reserves.  A more right wing economist might spin a different story though."


One could use technical indicators in any number of ways...they aren't rigidly defined for use in any particular way.  If they were, only computers would use them. Having said that, moving averages are frequently used by people operating on the assumption that short-term price movements will soon be reverted back to a longer-term mean.  So if the price shoots up today, traders who use moving averages may believe it will come back down pretty soon.  If this is the belief (and it usually is for this type of trader), a price significantly above a moving average could indicate an overpriced stock.  A price below the moving average could indicate an underpriced stock. Similarly, a short-term moving average above the long-term moving average may indicate an overpriced stock.  When you are dealing with more than one frequency, though, there is more disagreement about how to use technical indicators.  Some traders would probably say the opposite: that a short term average above the long term average indicates an upward movement that will continue because they believe the stock has momentum. Note that I am not saying I believe in using these averages to predict mean reversion or momentum effects, just that traders who rely on moving averages frequently do.


I will teach you to be rich blog is all about psychological barriers and behavioural change.


The $3K includes property tax, right? It looks like the mortgage alone will be about $2150 or so. If your (cal) state tax is enough to put you into itemized deductions, your mortgage and property tax are a write off, and the $3k will actually be closer to the $2K you are considering for rent.  The wild card as I see it is that your budget is so tight that any unforeseen expenses will be charged. As a long time homeowner, I know these expenses sometime appear to be high, and regular, despite their random nature. The money earmarked for credit card payments will go a long way to cover the tight budget you seem to have. This and your decreasing support makes this look tight but not impossible. The condition of the house would make or break the deal, in my opinion.


If it had immediate purchase power of $525, can I use that to buy more $500 bonds over and over again?  Your idea is flawed. You can't just make money out of thin air, unless you are running a Ponzi scheme.


Stock B could be considered to be more risky because it seems to be more volatile - sharp rises on large volume increases can easily be followed by sharp drops or by further rises in the start of a new uptrend.  However, if both A and B are trading on low volume in general, they can both be more on the risky side due to having relatively low liquidity, especially if you buy a large order compared to the average daily volume. But just looking at the criteria you have included in your question is not enough to determine which stock is riskier than the other, and you should look at this criteria in combination with other indicators and information about each stock to obtain a more complete picture.


Rather than discuss whether you're thinking about things incorrectly, I'll just show you how to answer the question you asked: Now as to what wage to pay yourself to meet your expenses, do the same thing but only using personal components:


>So this is the noble savage take  I'm not up on white supremacist talking points so I have no idea what you're talking about.  >Superior weapons? Ok, so what allowed them to develop this superior technology? Was it education, superior engineering, and tactics? Was it luck? Seriously  Are these supposed to be gotcha questions? The weapons were borne out of necessity thanks to the comparatively harsh climate and lack of resources in Europe. Blacks are already born with the one thing needed to obliterate the white race. I find it funny that most of the ruins in Europe and former colonies are pointless forts. Even the legendary Colosseum is the literal circus part of bread and circuses to distract from the fact that there was always a war going on at the time.


"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities.  The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo.  The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a ""fair"" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands.  When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker.  As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support.  For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares.  Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares.  The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market.  (And similarly with buy orders.)  If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market."


When I was flying BA rather than Virgin Atlantic I occasionally ended up suffering on an American Airlines flight (stupid BA allied with them for whatever reason). Those flights were one of the biggest reasons I jumped to Virgin Atlantic. BA is great, but subjecting me to those AA planes was just too much after I had been in coach on a window seat and had my shoulder hit the side *in normal seated position* (I'm 187cm), something I've **never** had happen to me before. Absolutely wonderful on an Atlantic crosser let me tell you.  I also had to spend time in their miserable lounge at Logan once. Even that was a weak experience.  Anyway, any and all bad news to them are just what they deserve.


Profit margins. The difference goes to shareholders as new equity every quarter. You don’t need growth to see a return on equity. The consumer staple sector is a great example of this. They’ve had negative to 0 revenue growth, yet have posted respectable returns since the recession.


"See other replies about Denver. Denver has been over hyped and is almost as expensive as Boston. It's no longer ""cheap"" there. Perhaps cheaper than SF or NYC. But I don't think that's the point of the Amazon expansion - to just barely beat SF or NYC."


They always expire sometime, and they are a scam.  I recommend you unload any on ebay as soon as you get them.  For this one in articular, just ask to see a manager and explain your situation politely.  You'll usually get what you want.


There is a great Kyle bass video that came out recently with the guy he is with saying that China has built something like 3 times the office space required to give every man woman and child their own cubicle.  When looked at that way it seems like the enormous building to keep gdp growth high can't be sustainable.


In all probability, having lower coverage levels will result in higher premiums. As my insurance agent explained to me, the higher your coverages, the lower the insurance company believes your risk to be - because you think about insurance smartly, you're less likely to make spurious claims. I have my coverages run at various levels every 18-24 months, and it is almost always true that higher coverages result in lower premiums. Also, there is no guarantee you'll still be employed by the same company if an injury happens. Or that they'll continue to offer the same plans every year. Insurance is a calculated risk on the part of the insurer, and a means of sharing/deflecting risk (at a cost known as your premium) on the part of the insured. Even if your premiums are slightly higher (on the order of a couple dollars per month, for example), do you really want to save a couple dollars and then be surprised when your health insurance company doesn't want to cover something?


The 'unequal' treatment is to attempt to correct somewhat for the far-more-unequal treatment from the actual economic system.   Obviously you fight inequality by countering that inequality. I'm not sure how you think you fight inequality otherwise.   Edit: And the reason McDonalds doesn't do it is because they don't have an interest in equality or the good of the citizens as a whole, they're driven by a profit motive. The entire point of the government is that it doesn't have a profit motive so it can act on behalf of citizens.


Media is worthless. I used to sell old books and movies on Amazon.com, but the hassle is significant and the returns low. I have had better luck donating old media to charity, and deducting the value that you typically get on Amazon ($0.01 + 2.99 shipping - media mail cost)


I recommend that you just leave the 401K where it is - a S&P 500 is a nice simple fund with very low expenses, and over the long term, I think that's a good choice for a 401K. I don't think it makes sense to put money in bonds at your age.


"If you pay her rent, how do you differ from a tenant in the eyes of the law? I ask this to show that you are in a business relationship first and foremost. If you don't want to file jointly, there is nothing compelling about your situation to force it. (Grant you, in most countries, there is a benefit to filing jointly) but here, I would argue it would be difficult to make the case. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no laws barring opposite sex landlord-tenant rental situations.  Furthermore, there are no laws barring romantic relationships amongst landlords and tenants.  Indeed, you would need to prove your relationship in some fashion for it to even be considered. In establishing a date of separation from my soon-to-be-ex-wife, for example, I merely needed to prove that we were not ""presenting ourselves as husband and wife.""  Once I showed that we didn't sit together at church and that she was attending parties I wasn't, that was sufficient. Proving you are in a relationship is actually a lot harder than proving you're not."


The Mad Fientist has an article on this. He gives these following benefits: He also gives the caveat that your employer may not match things in their entirety. Like you mentioned, this mostly applies to 401(k)s and not to HSAs where the employer tends to contribute a fixed amount (in my experience). Anecdotally, my wife and I front-load our IRAs; but not our HSA and 401(k) because we don't have that option. In the comment section of the linked article, several big-name early retirees confess to front-loading before it was cool.


The assumption that house value appreciates 5% per year is unrealistic. Over the very long term, real house prices has stayed approximately constant. A house that is 10 years old today is 11 years old a year after, so this phenomenon of real house prices staying constant applies only to the market as a whole and not to an individual house, unless the individual house is maintained well. One house is an extremely poorly diversified investment. What if the house you buy turns out to have a mold problem? You can lose your investment almost overnight. In contrast to this, it is extremely unlikely that the same could happen on a well-diversified stock portfolio (although it can happen on an individual stock). Thus, if non-leveraged stock portfolio has a nominal return of 8% over the long term, I would demand higher return, say 10%, from a non-leveraged investment to an individual house because of the greater risks. If you have the ability to diversify your real estate investments, a portfolio of diversified real estate investments is safer than a diversified stock portfolio, so I would demand a nominal return of 6% over the long term from such a diversified portfolio. To decide if it's better to buy a house or to live in rental property, you need to gather all of the costs of both options (including the opportunity cost of the capital which you could otherwise invest elsewhere). The real return of buying a house instead of renting it comes from the fact that you do not need to pay rent, not from the fact that house prices tend to appreciate (which they won't do more than inflation over a very long term). For my case, I live in Finland in a special case of near-rental property where you pay 15% of the building cost when moving in (and get the 15% payment back when moving out) and then pay a monthly rent that is lower than the market rent. The property is subsidized by government-provided loans. I have calculated that for my case, living in this property makes more sense than purchasing a market-priced house, but your situation may be different.


">Show me a real case where as soon as the hive is destroyed and the bee dies immediately, or drop this silly example.  It is hardly ""silly"".  What IS silly is your contention of the opposite that somehow humans are ""bees"" needing a ""hive"".  >We all die eventually and your comments about the elderly are alarming.  Yes, but the life expectancy of someone who is already 95 is measured in days, weeks, and months, not years or decades.  And the comment about the contribution to society is simply FACT, whether you like it or not; there is nothing ""alarming"" about it (unless you are some *socialistic/stateist* who believes that resources should be allocated by some central authority for the benefit of the larger population in the aggregate -- IOW, it's only alarming because of YOUR mindset, not mine).  >Yeah, it's common to see a two year old in the wilderness, living off the land.  So when did ""several years"" suddenly become ""a two year old"".  Really, your pissant ""strawman"" arguments are getting tiring.  Bye Bye."


It is possible to consolidate mortgages with Nationwide, in some circumstances. Quote from their website: It is possible to consolidate different mortgages and other debts such as personal loans and credit cards. However it does depend on your individual circumstances, including the exact type of loans you want to consolidate and whether you are still in a special deal period I, personally, would be amazed if you couldn't get them all in one mortgage without changing provider. But... I wouldn't be at all surprised if they forced you to have this one mortgage as a new mortgage, rather than adding balances to an existing one. My reasoning is as follows: Coming at it from a different angle: whatever there was that required your further borrowing to be in new mortgages, rather than added to your existing mortgage, will also preclude your multiple mortgages being added to one of your existing mortgages.


"not a fan of Taylor swift, but this article is pretty silly. her beef is with her promotion style? that she says she is going to announce something on August 18th, and then proceeds to announce something on August 18th? like ""you were supposed to surprise me! the way you have promoted your record is so unoriginal""... never mind what the album sounds like... her go-to-market strategy is so cliche!"


For sure less staff, but they're probably removing the cashiers in the front to replace them with their cashier-less checkouts:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2016/12/5/13842592/amazon-go-new-cashier-less-convenience-store  Think it was coincidence Amazon piloted their cashier-less store in Seattle before purchasing WF? Just means more people in the back of the house to stock/answer questions. That is until Amazon figures out how to replace those employees with automated robots to stock the store shelves.


"Once you are done painting it register your ""TrustyTukTuk"" (great name by the way) on some popular local social media sites and stencil those names in on the side so they show up in pictures. Great advertising and gets your name further out there. Good luck!"


"A retraction privilege is a right extended to the shareholder that allows such shareholder to demand repayment of the principal. If one exercises the right to retract, the shares are exchanged for principal plus a sweetener and/or less a penalty. The requirement to provided matched shares means that the shares purchased plus those matched by the employer only have retraction privileges.  Unmatched shares do not. To be certain, it's always best to read all contracts, but in essence, this is a way to ""cash out"" of the preferred shares. The consent to resale is a power granted to the holder over the corporation to resell the retracted shares.  If it's granted, the corporation can sell to another party; if not, the corporation will have to retire the shares and issue new shares to maintain the previous number of shares outstanding.  It is likely that withholding consent has a penalty, and/or granting consent has a sweetener."


"If I were in your shoes I'd probably take the Vanguard Total Market fund with Admiral shares, then worry about further diversification when there is more in the account. Many times when you ""diversify"" in to multiple funds you end up with a lot of specific security overlap.  A lot of the big S&P 500 constituents will be in all of them, etc.  So while the 10 or so basis points difference in expense ratio doesn't seem like enough of a reason NOT to spread in to multiple funds, once you split up the money between Large, Mid, Small cap funds and Growth, Value, Dividend funds you'll probably have a collection of holdings that looks substantially similar to a total market fund anyway. Unless you're looking for international or some specific industry segment exposure and all of the money is going to equities anyway, an inexpensive total market fund makes a lot of sense."


I tried this a few months ago when I got one from Chase for 0%.  Thought it might be fun to play with, maybe make some money with the interest elsewhere over the 6 months.  Read the term and called Chase for more information on these and didn't see any issues at first.   The big thing that got me was that the rest of my account (not the money from the convenience check) was converted so that interests accrued on a daily basis even if you paid it all off at the end of the month.  So even though I was making the required payments that would normally not incur any interest, just by having the convince check balance on my account I was being charged the interest for my normal credit card charges over the month.   The amount of charges came out to only be around $10-$20, so wasn't much of a loss really.  But something to keep in mind when using these, (I tried it with 0% APR and still couldn't get away from the interest).  If I had needed the money this would still be an excellent way to go.  But if your trying to beat Chase with this game, it doesn't work...  Although if you don't use the card for anything other than the convenience check it's free money (or cheap @ 3.99% in your case) Everything in my account went back to normal after it was paid off, so no harm really, but some things to keep in mind at least.


> I didn't know the demand for trucks is that big, where do they all go?  Most of them go to businesses & tradespeople (who actually NEED to be driving trucks much of the time) -- and who tend to put a LOT of miles on the things (burning them out quicker than consumer vehicles).


It might be worth talking to a mortgage broker, even if you don't actually end up doing business with them. Upfront Mortgage Brokers explained Finding an upfront broker near you In a nutshell, upfront brokers disclose what they are paid for their services openly and transparently. Many brokers don't, and you can't be too careful. But a consultation should be free. An experienced broker can help you to navigate the pros and cons mentioned by the other responders. Personally, I would never do business with a broker who can't/won't show me a rate sheet on the day of the lock. That's my personal acid test. You might be surprised by what the broker has to say regarding your situation. That was my experience, anyway.


I think you are mixing up forward looking statements with the actual results. The funds objective   The fund invests primarily in stocks that tend to offer current dividends. It focuses on high-quality companies that have prospects for long-term total returns as a result of their ability to grow earnings and their willingness to increase dividends over time Obviously in 1993 quite a few companies paid the dividends and hence VDIGX was able to give dividends. Over the period of years in some years its given more and in some years less. For example the Year 2000 it gave $ 1.26, 1999 it gave $ 1.71 and in 1998 it gave $ 1.87 The current economic conditions are such that companies are not making huge profts and the one's that are making prefer not to distribute dividends and hold on to cash as it would help survive the current economic conditions. So just to clarify this particular funds objective is to invest in companies that would give dividends which is then passed on to fund holders. This fund does not sell appreciated stocks to convert it into dividends.


I don't think you know who you are talking to. I build houses for a living. I'm a guy that works with his hands. I hire hundreds of people who work with their hands for a living.  Do I assume the worst of the guys that work with me? Absolutely not. There are plenty that do great work and are a joy to work with. However, there are plenty who are not. One of my workers bought a giant truck while dodging child support for the 4 children he has with 3 different women. Should he own a house? Is he capable of consistently making the payments while maintaining it? If he didn't get paid on Friday he left the job because he couldn't afford his bills. When he was overpaid on a Friday he blew $400 partying over the weekend and was right back to broke by the next Friday.  It's a pretty silly argument to suggest that everyone is capable of owning a house. A house is a statement of value in society. It takes hundreds of people thousands of hours to build. That work culminates into a finished product that is paid off over a long period of time. If you are untrustworthy and cannot handle finances, you can't afford a house. If you do not provide the value to society that is comparable to the house you want, you can't afford a house.  That being said, the initial argument is as bogus as yours. I have a 2 bed 1 bath apartment for rent for $500 right now inside 610 loop in Houston TX. It's 10-15 minutes from downtown.


Offers EOT cranes, electric wire rope hoist, Goods Lift, double girder crane, twin girder crane, double bridge crane, single girder crane, monorail crane, bridge girders, end carriages, electric motors, brakes, gear boxes, wire ropes, track wheels, couplings, electricals, switch gears, electric cables by MG Cranes in Ahmedabad, India.


You buy a share of something for $100.  It goes up by 10% over a year, and you now have $110 in value.  It goes up by 10% next year and you now have $121.  That original $10 increase was compounded even though you're not earning interest because the gains are measured as a percentage.  If, instead, you'd only invested the second year you'd have less value.  Assuming the markets average a positive gain (above inflation) you see greater gains the earlier you're invested.


Yes, and Japan's population density of 336 people per square kilometer makes that feasible. New Zealand's population density is relatively low, at 17.9 per square kilometer. While Auckland housing prices have been steadily increasing for decades, New Zealand has only just been experiencing a population boom driven by immigration that would make it necessary to build upwards.


Another answer to this question occurred to me as I started learning more about historical uses for gold etc.  Perhaps it's a crackpot idea, but I'm going to float it anyway to see what you folks think. Investing in Gold is an indirect investment in the Economy and GDP of the nation of India.  To that extent is it only a hedge against inflation, so long as the indian economy grows at a more rapid rate than your local inflation rate.  Fact, India currently consumes more than 1/3 of gold production, predominantly in the form of Jewelry. And their demand has been growing rapidly, up 69% just between 2009 and 2010 alone. I can't find too many historial consumption numbers for India, but when you look at past articles on this subject, you see phrases like 'one forth' and '20%' being used only a few years go to describe India's consumption levels. Fact, India has virtually no domestic sources of gold.  India’s handful of gold mines produce about 2.5 tonnes of the metal each year, a fraction of the country’s annual consumption of about 800 tonnes. Fact. Indian Culture places high value on gold as a visible demonstration of wealth.  Particularly in situations such In Indian weddings where the bride brings in gold to show her family's status and wealth and it forms part of the dowry given to bride. It is believed that a bride wearing 24k gold on their wedding to bring luck and happiness throughout the married life. Fact, the recent trends in outsourcing, Indian citizens working abroad sending money home, etc have all lead to a influx of foreign cash to the Indian economy and explosive GDP growth. See the following chart and compare the period of 2000-current with a chart showing the price of gold in other answer here.  Notice how the curves parallel each other to a large degree  Potentially unfounded conclusion drawn from above numbers.  The rapid growth of the Indian economy, coupled with a rich cultural tradition that values gold as a symbol of wealth, along with a sudden rise in 'wealthy' people due to the economy and influx of foreign cash, has resulted in skyrocketing demand for gold from India, and this large 'consumption' demand is the most likely explanation for the sudden rise in the price of gold over the last several years.  Investors then jump on the 'rising price bandwagon' as especially does anyone that can make a profit from selling gold to those seeking to get on said bandwagon. As such, as long as indian cultural tradition remains unchanged, and their economy remains strong, the resulting increasing demand for gold will sustain current and perhaps increased prices.  Should there be any sudden collapse in the Indian GDP, gold will likely tumble in parallel. disclaimer: not an expert, just observations based off the data I've seen, there may be other parts to the picture of 'gold demand' that I've not considered.


Lottery tickets where I live are often for charity. The charity does good things with your money. So you can buy a ticket and feel good whether you win or not, so that makes it an investment in your own well-being. For some of us, who maybe buy a lottery ticket once a year, it's the fun you are paying for. You know you are not really going to win, but you spend a few hours being excited waiting for the draw. Cheaper than the cinema.  And you never know, you might win after all... The odds may be ridiculous, but somebody's going to get it...


Hey now, it works! Some of the time...against one missile...in ideal conditions.  What an absolute joke. You know what doesn't cost a single penny? To stop antagonizing 3rd world countries that aren't actually going to ever attack the US. That would reduce the threat of a nuclear attack infinitely more that this bullshit.


Like Mingy said, it probably won't hurt. Maybe don't stick it on every package but put it on your site and just get it out there. Those who want to read it will, and those who don't have the choice not to. Best of luck.


"If you can afford the time and are looking for more deep, and fun, investment tips, check out http://gurufocus.com. Great for more fundamental analysis of ""Intelligent Investor"" type Benjamin Graham-style businesses.  No use scatter-shooting the stock exchange hoping to find good value businesses. Even blue-chips have an increasingly uncertain future (except IMHO certain world dominators like KO, WMT, XO and MCD)."


The more educated the person, the less likely they were to vote for Trump. Undergraduates degrees were in Clinton's favor. And any professional or post graduate education was significantly against Trump, Clinton won that demographic by over 20 points. Links below.   But age and race were the main factors in voting for Trump, basically old white people. Because of the age gap, it makes sense that income would also be in that favor, as younger people are significantly poorer than their grandparents on average. However, the split is almost 50/50 in every income gap over 100k, so while accounting for the age difference and the education gap, logic tells us that the richer younger people were in Clinton's favor, not just poor people.   There are a lot of inferences you can make here, but it was essentially white elderly people and young white uneducated people that were the biggest predictor of one side, and young educated people on the other. With all minority groups also on that same side.   Education: http://college.usatoday.com/2016/11/09/how-we-voted-by-age-education-race-and-sexual-orientation/  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/


Austin did it while Uber was gone w/RideAustin. A portion of the fares could go to charity as well.  I used the app a few weeks ago (literally weekend before Uber came back)....the app straight up ripped off Uber. It felt like Uber just made this satellite company to still ride share.


"I live in Canada and have a BMO mastercard. I called them and asked them and their answer was ""of course!"". I have put thousands of dollars on my mastercard from my bank account to pay for rare, large purchases. The money I put on appears differently on my online mastercard account though.  EX:  account balance: $6,000.00 CR  available credit: $3,000.00  This confused me at first, but when I called and asked them, they said my available credit doesn't  change (ie: how much BMO lends me), but when I add my available credit + what I've put on my card (my account balance, which is CR (meaning my balance has a surplus of money)), then my spending limit is $9,000.00 So, I don't increase my ""credit"" limit, but I do increase my spending limit. It just comes down to terminology. I assume it is like this for other credit cards, but I would recommend calling and asking, just to be on the safe side. Heath"


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-jobs-exclusive/exclusive-10000-uk-finance-jobs-affected-in-brexits-first-wave-reuters-survey-idUSKCN1BT1EU) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** > LONDON - Around 10,000 finance jobs will be shifted out of Britain or created overseas in the next few years if the UK is denied access to Europe&#039;s single market, according to a Reuters survey of firms employing the bulk of workers in international finance.  > The 39 who gave information on their Brexit staffing plans included many of the companies most likely to be affected by losing the EU financial &quot;Passport&quot; mechanism because London is their base to sell services across the EU. The survey indicated 9,777 banking roles would be affected.  > Bank of America and Credit Suisse, two of the biggest investment banks in London, declined to say how many jobs would be affected.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70vv1n/10000_uk_finance_jobs_affected_in_brexits_first/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~212179 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Bank**^#1 **Brexit**^#2 **survey**^#3 **job**^#4 **LONDON**^#5"


My question is... how is this new value determined?  Does it go off of   the tax appraised value? The tax assessors values are based on broad averages and are not very useful in determining actual home value. The most defensible valuation outside of a sale is a professional appraisal, real-estate agents may or may not give you reasonable estimates, but their opinions are less valuable than that of a professional appraiser. Additionally, agents hoping to land you as a client (even if you tell them you're not trying to sell) could be motivated to over-estimate. In many instances a few opinions from agents will be good enough, but if there is any contention a professional appraisal will be better. Should you, prior to your death, get an independent appraiser to   appraise the value of the property and include that assessment of the   properties value with the will or something? The real-estate market fluctuates too much to make having an appraisal done prior to your death a practical approach in most circumstances. You could make arrangements so that an appraisal would be scheduled after your death. Here's a good resource on the topic: Estimating the Value of Inherited Real Estate


I am not going to go through my entire college college curriculum. I went to school for business,  so yes the focus of my diversity education was engaging diverse collegues and customers.   Going back to my original point that some diversity training is a valuable part of a college degree, my education has helped me thrive (yes economically) in a diverse world.


If this is the initial transaction, the rules of a short margin account say that if you shorted 1000 share of ABC at $5/share your credit balance would be $5000 from the short plus you would have to put up yourself $5000 cash or $10,000 of marginal securities. So this is not really leveraging using margin. You have to put in just as much as the short generates. Is that what this relates to? Once the initial purchase has been made the minimum maintenance for a stock trading under $5 per share is 100% of the short market value in the margin account or $2.50 per share whichever is greater. For stock trading at $5/share or greater the minimum maintenance requirement is $5/share or 30% of the short market value, whichever is greater. The minimum maintenance requirements can be tighter.


In a simple world yes, but not in the real world. Option pricing isn't that simplistic in real life. Generally option pricing uses a Monte Carlo simulation of the Black Scholes formula/binomial and then plot them nomally to decide the optimum price of the option. Primarily multiple scenarios are generated and under that specific scenario the option is priced and then a price is derived for the option in real life, using the prices which were predicted in the scenarios.  So you don't generate a single price for an option, because you have to look into the future to see how the price of the option would behave, under the real elements of the market. So what you price is an assumption that this is the most likely value under my scenarios, which I predicted into the future. Because of the market, if you price an option higher/lower than another competitor you introduce an option for arbitrage by others. So you try to be as close to the real value of the option, which your competitor also does. The more closer your option value is to the real price the better it is for all. Did you try the book from Hull ? EDIT: While pricing you generally take variables which would affect the price of your option. The more variables you take(more nearer you are to the real situation) the more realistic your price will be and you would converge on the real price faster. So simple formula is an option, but the deviations maybe large from the real value. And you would end up loosing money, most of the time. So the complicated formula is there for getting a more accurate price, not to confuse people. You can use your formula, but there will be odds stacked against you to loose money, from the onset, because you didn't consider the variables which might/would affect the price of your option.


That doesn't make sense. He needs the exposure to grow his business not a product iterations that are not even valuable to customers. With that being said, I think the top comment on this thread with having the Instagram and Trip advisor presence is spot on.  The only product iteration (that would result in broader exposure) I could think of, would be providing an extremely personalized experience to clients, offering them 1/2 day trips visiting interesting places, guiding them, making their experience of the trip remarkable. This would result in lot of exchanges numbers, reviews and recommendations.


I don't know about the Saudi part of your point, but generally these are estimations based on the ownership stake of X person's main enterprise (e.g. Amazon, Microsoft, Berkshire). Even if Bezos made millions one year investing in, whatever, McDonald's franchises, it's a rounding error compared to his ~$80bn stake in Amazon, so they don't need pour over tax returns to get exact info.


Unless a lot of people I know don't actually exist, yes there are a lot. First off putting UChig as tier 1 is questionable at best. Second, if you've never met anyone from UVA, UMich, BU, Georgetown etc. on the street than you must know only a handful of people.   Also, I was a front office hire out of a lower tier undergrad so there's that as well...


>PI’s attorney, Dan Webb, said in court Monday that ABC used the term “pink slime” 350 times over the course of its reporting, and that ABC willfully spread this preconceived, negative message. Webb also showed the jurors a picture of lean finely textured beef. “It physically doesn’t look like slime,” he said.  It physically doesn't look like slime, and presumably it isn't slime chemically.   What's their reason for calling it 'pink slime'?   >In fact, the term “pink slime” was coined by one of the segment’s whistleblowing USDA scientists in a 2002 email to colleagues, and a 2009 New York Times piece using the term to describe BPI’s meat product won a Pulitzer Prize.  So, they coined a word to describe something that was intentionally designed to sensationalize it, in a negative way.  If I were on the jury this is the point of fact that I'd base my vote on.  The media needs to be slapped pretty hard when they start actively damaging people and companies to sell stories.


Yes you can. Buy to let mortgages are typically lent on a combination of expected rental income, plus a part of the applicants other income. They also (at the moment) usually require a fairly hefty deposit.  The exact requirements are likely to have changed by the time you apply, but in basic, yes. There is another option. You can increase your mortgage on your currently property, and buy the BTL with cash. This gives some more flexibility, as you can move faster, so is great for an auction purchase. It is also often cheaper to mortgage your main property, and you will get a lower rate. Of course, to do this you will need sufficient equity in your main property, and income to cover the mortgage repayments, so the practicality of this depends on your main property value and the amount you need.


The crucial question not addressed by other answers is your ability to repay the debt.   Borrowing is always about leverage, and leverage is always about risk.  In the home improvement loan case, default comes with dire consequences-- to extinguish the debt you might have to sell your home. With a stable job, reliable income, and sufficient cash flow (and, of course, comfort that the project will yield benefits you're happy to pay for), then the clear answer is, go ahead and borrow. But if you work in a highly cyclical industry, have very little cash saved, or for whatever other reason are uncertain about your future ability to pay, then don't borrow.  Save until you are more comfortable you can handle the loan.  That doesn't necessarily mean save ALL the money; just save enough that you are highly confident in your ability to pay whatever you borrow.


He should look into the Voluntary Disclosures Program. He will have to keep up to date with his taxes thereafter, but the outcome will likely be better than if they discover he hasn't been filing before he discloses it.


As other people have said they should register with a broker in the country they reside in that can deal in US stocks, then fill out a W8-BEN form. I have personally done this as I am from the Uk, it's not a very complicated process. I would assume that most US brokers don't allow foreign customers due to the person having to pay tax where they reside and the US brokers don't want to have to keep approximately 200 different tax codes in track.


There are two levels to consider here: That said, before loaning/giving anyone money ask yourself if it is good for them.  If they have problems managing their money, or holding down a job, and you give them money, they are just going to come back for more later.  In this type of situation, you shouldn't give/loan them money.  But on the other hand, if a friend or family member has hit a rough patch and you know they are the kind of person that will be on their feet again soon, and you have nothing to lose, give them the money.


There are several assumptions you made, that don't match the current laws: Costs: COBRA:


I agree and I said that in my above post. Both generations have entitlement issues.  edit:the machievillian part I alluded to was not my own opinion by the way. I read it in my organizational behavior textbook when I was doing my MBA. If this is an analysis done by academics on generational attitudes and personalities, then I will pay attention to it.


"My ""bad advice detector"" gets tingled by the following:"


The simplest way is to invest in a few ETFs, depending on your tolerance for risk; assuming you're very short-term risk tolerant you can invest almost all in a stock ETF like VOO or VTI.  Stock market ETFs return close to 10% (unadjusted) over long periods of time, which will out-earn almost any other option and are very easy for a non-finance person to invest in (You don't trade actively - you leave the money there for years).  If you want to hedge some of your risk, you can also invest in Bond funds, which tend to move up in stock market downturns - but if you're looking for the long term, you don't need to put much there. Otherwise, try to make sure you take advantage of tax breaks when you can - IRAs, 401Ks, etc.; most of those will have ETFs (whether Vanguard or similar) available to invest in.  Look for funds that have low expense ratios and are fairly diversified (ie, don't just invest in one small sector of the economy); as long as the economy continues to grow, the ETFs will grow.


"> ""Taxation is theft"" is an empirically true statement. It is not an opinion.  Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt after that one. You do realize that  citizenship *implies* agreeing to abide by the countries laws - one of the biggest of which is taxation? This is true in the same way that receiving a driver's license implies a willingness to abide by road laws and regulations.   Pay them or not pay them. No soon off my back. Obviously I highly disagree with you. However, if you really think it is theft, then what does that make you that you stand by and allow it to happen *every* year..."


Anyone have any recommendations for a long term investment? I’m thinking like holding for 30 years, Iv got a bunch invested already but they are all only from my view. Lots are in the renewable energy sector such as solar wind and hydro. But I’m looking for 1 or two more maybe to put an extra 5k down on and just sit for 30 years and hopefully it grows


It is worth checking currency types you have authorised on your account, and that the payment that your client sent is in one of those currencies. Paypal will not always move or convert between currencies, and I have seen payments held for authorisation where simply enabling the paid currency at the receiving end would allow the transfer.


For anyone looking to move to a better webhost, you will find many, many webhosting companies that are offering better deals, better service, and more up to date servers than GoDaddy.   I can recommend a couple of companies for hosting.  For your basic, economy hosting on solid hardware - http://www.serenity-networks.com/ is quite awesome.  If you're hosting a site that demands serious performance and is PHP based, http://www.simplehelix.com/  SimpleHelix specializes in high performance PHP and e-commerce sites.  Both will walk you through transferring a domain from GoDaddy.  Both will migrate your site for free.  Both are backed by 24/7 tech support.  Happy trails.


The model itself is fairly common for serving particular niche markets. A few other organizations which operate in similar setups: prepaid card providers such as NetSpend, GreenDot, AccountNow, etc; startups such as SmartyPig, PerkStreet, WePay, and HigherOne. Still, nobody else seems to be providing full-service online banking to mainstream customers the way we plan to.  We plan to have much better security than most banks, which isn't hard given the current sorry state of online banking in the US. And having an intermediary who's looking out for your interests can be a good thing. David, my co-founder Josh lays out our launch plans and why we are invite-only in his latest post. In short, we made a decision to build our own call center rather than outsource it, and that limits how quickly we can bring people on.


We need things to expire.  That is the trade off in order to lock up the rights. Just look at all the 3d printer patents that expired in the last few months.  We are about to get a front row seat what happens when innovation isn't restricted.


Well, you still have to pay to ship & store paper, ink, binding materials, and book-binding printers & parts.   If only there was some kind of electronic “infinite page” device that would offer truly zero marginal distribution cost. Maybe they could give it a snazzy name like *Kimble* or something. :P  Of course I’m kidding, if someone wants a printed book that’s what they want.


I really don't know about will it help you, but here is what I do: It is not classic solution, but maybe it will work for you (works for me very well).


The Government sponsored website will give you one free report from each of the 3 bureaus every year. No subscription or anything of the sort and no ding (that I've seen). Most people check it 3 times, every 4 months. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre34.shtm


For insurance pricing, it seems as though it doesn't matter all that much which group it is in if they are adjusting it based on just the Tesla data.  I imagine Tesla is more concerned about the perception.  They want to market the car as a safer vehicle to drive.  So if AAA came out and said the increase was due to repair costs, I doubt you'd hear anything from Tesla.  But AAA said that it is also due to accident frequency, which goes against Tesla's marketing strategy.


If they wanted to surprise people, confirming it on the phone to a single LA Times reporter right after earnings, and right after saying a different number during earnings, isn't the way to do it.  It's just not going to be 100k cars delivered next year.  I'd love it to be 100k cars next year, because if that announcement came out, and the market responded appropriately, I'd make six figures in a day easily, probably several times over, since I'm heavily invested in stock and LEAPs.  But it's just not going to happen.  As for seeing Alpha Xs soon...yeah, that seems likely.  Keep your eyes open and let everyone know when you see one :-)


"Basically, you have purchased 25% of the condo for $40,000, and your parents bought 75% of the condo for another $115,000. We imagine for a moment that it wasn't you who lived in the condo, but some unrelated person paying rent.  You are paying $7,500 a year for tax and fees, plus $6,000 a year, so there is $13,500 leaving your wallet. If $15,500 a year was a reasonable rent, then the tax and fee would be paid out of that, there would be $8,000 left, of which you would get 25% = $2,000. If you were officially ""renting"" it, you would pay $15,500 a year, and get $2,000 back, again $13,500 leaving your wallet. So you are in exact the same situation financially as you would be if you paid $15,500 rent.   Question: Is $15,500 a year or $1,290 a month an appropriate rent for your condo? If a neighbour is renting his condo, is he or she paying $1,290 or more or less? Could you rent the same place for the same money? If $1,290 is the correct rent then you are fine. If the rent should be lower, then you are overpaying. If the rent should be higher, then you are making money.  Keep in mind that you will also be winning if rents go up in the future."


Unless you are a member of the federal reserve. Guaranteed 7% baby.  Stocks and real estate during inflation,  then liquidate and still get solid returns while everyone is grasping at 4%. Come back next cycle and do it again.


"I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance. Everyone knows that it will be paid, and everyone is extremely confidant that in fact the company really will pay it -- they won't run out of money or any such. Then in a pure market, we would expect that as the date of that dividend approaches, the price of the stock would rise until the day before the dividend is paid, it is $11. Then the day after the dividend is paid the price would fall back to $10. Why? Because the person who owns the stock on the ""dividend day"" will get that $1. So if you bought the stock the day before the dividend, the next day you would immediately receive $1. If without the dividend the stock is worth $10, then the day before the dividend the stock is worth $11 because you know that the next day you will get a $1 ""refund"". If you buy the stock the day after the dividend is paid, you will not get the $1 -- it will go to the person who had the stock yesterday -- so the value of the stock falls back to the ""normal"" $10. So if you look at the value of a stock immediately after a dividend is paid, yes, it will be less than it was the day before by an amount equal to the dividend. (Plus or minus all the other things that affect the value of a stock, which in many cases would totally mask this effect.) But this does not mean that the dividend is worthless. Just the opposite. The reason the stock price fell was precisely because the dividend has value. BUT IT ONLY HAS VALUE TO THE PERSON WHO GETS IT. It does me no good that YOU get a $1 dividend. I want ME to get the money. So if I buy the stock after the dividend was paid, I missed my chance. So sure, in the very short term, a stock loses value after paying a dividend. But this does not mean that dividends in general reduce the value of a stock. Just the opposite. The price fell because it had gone up in anticipation of the dividend and is now returning to the ""normal"" level. Without the dividend, the price would never have gone up in the first place. Imagine you had a company with negligible assets. For example, an accounting firm that rents office space so it doesn't own a building, its only tangible assets are some office supplies and the like. So if the company liquidates, it would be worth pretty much zero. Everybody knows that if liquidated, the company would be worth zero. Further suppose that everyone somehow knows that this company will never, ever again pay a dividend. (Maybe federal regulators are shutting the company down because it's products were declared unacceptably hazardous, or the company was built around one genius who just died, etc.) What is the stock worth? Zero. It is an investment that you KNOW has a zero return. Why would anyone be willing to pay anything for it? It's no answer to say that you might buy the stock in the hope that the price of the stock will go up and you can sell at a profit even with no dividends. Why would anyone else pay anything for this stock? Well, unless their stock certificates are pretty and people like to collect them or something like that. Otherwise you're supposing that people would knowingly buy into a pyramid scheme. (Of course in real life there are usually uncertainties. If a company is dying, some people may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is still hope of reviving it. Etc.) Don't confuse the value of the assets of a company with the value of its stock. They are related, of course -- all else being equal, a company with a billion dollars in assets will have a higher market capitalization than a company with ten dollars in assets. But you can't calculate the price of a company's stock by adding up the value of all its assets, subtracting liabilities, and dividing by the number of shares. That's just not how it works. Long term, the value of any stock is not the value of the assets but the net present value of the total future expected dividends. Subject to all sorts of complexities in real life."


You overgeneralize too much.  Investors have their place and use.  Picking a few examples and make broad statements about a whole industry is just tiresome.  Of course they have something to gain, they are putting their money on the line.  This is capitalism, not altruism.


I’ll start with what worked for me, to get me hooked. This list is by no means exhaustive.   *One Up On Wall Street* by Peter Lynch discusses competitive advantages and staying close to the story of a business. Explores the concept of ‘buy what you know’. He has also written *Beating the Street*.  *The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives* by Leonard Mlodinow is not dissimilar to *A Random Walk Down Wall Street*, but I preferred this book as it explores the concepts of randomness and survivors bias.   *Against the Gods* by Peter Bernstein is a dense book, but in my opinion is the definitive text on the development of numbers, probability theory, and risk management. I absolutely love this book.   *The Most Important Thing* by Howard Marks is immensely readable, enjoyable, and looks at value investing for the long run. Howard Marks has been a macro behavioural investor before behavioural investing was a thing.   Speaking of behavioural biases, *Thinking, Fast and Slow* by Daniel Kahneman is a spectacular look at how your brain’s quick-trigger responses can often be wrong.  On the subject of behaviour and biases, *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion* by Robert Cialdini is another topic-defining book  More books by long term veteran professional investment managers that should be enjoyed: - *The Little Book That (Still) Beats the Market* by Joel Greenblatt - *Beat the Crowd* by Ken Fisher - *Big Money Thinks Small* by Joel Tillinghast - *Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits* by Philip A. Fisher - *The Little Book of Behavioural Investing* by James Montier - *Margin of Safety* by Seth Klarman  And I’ll be banned from this forum without mentioning *The Intelligent Investor* by Benjamin Graham.    As per some other comments, my personal opinion is that books that describe events or periods of time like *Liars’ Poker* [80s Junk Bonds], *The Big Short* [Financial Crisis], *When Genius Failed* [the LTCM collapse, excellent read by Rogers Lowenstein], *All The Devils Are Here* [by McLean and Nocera, another Financial Crisis book, much better than Lewis’s, IMO] are all educational and quite entertaining, but don’t honestly have much to do with the actual nuts and bolts of the real financial industry.   Enjoy!


Dental Implants - At most dental practices, the implant team consists of a periodontist, an oral / maxillofacial surgeon, a prosthodontist and a general dentist for the placement of the implant and design of the restorative attachment – often at different dental offices. At Cambridge Dental Group, however, we perform the entire procedure in-house for your convenience and peace of minDental Implants Procedure Brick, NJd.


Generally speaking personal loans have higher rates than car loans.  During fairly recent times, the market for car loans has become very competitive.  A local credit union offers loans as low as 1.99% which is about half the prevailing mortgage rate.  In comparison personal loans are typically in the 10-14% range.   Even if it made mathematical sense to do so, I doubt any bank would give you a personal loan secured by a car rather than car loan.  Either the brain would not work that way; or, it would simply be against company policy. These questions always interest me, why the desire to maximize credit score?  There is no correlation between credit score and wealth.  There is no reward for anything beyond a sufficiently high score to obtain the lowest rates which is attained by simply paying one's bills on time.  One will always be limited by income when the amount able to borrow is calculated regardless of score.   I can understand wanting to maximize different aspects of personal finance such as income or investment return percentage, etc..  By why credit score?  This is further complicated by a evolving algorithm.  Attempts to game the score today, may not work in the future.


There's no way the greek government has the cash to defend a peg. Defending a peg takes a lot of cash. If your currency goes above the peg, you need to print more. If it goes below the peg, you need to buy it back, with euros for example. Greece has no euros, and so cannot defend a peg.


Yeah, that part is truly brutal.  Even if you really did the best things imaginable to lower tuition costs, like AP courses in high school, AA at junior college, then state school for your bachelor's, you're still easily looking at $20k in debt.  Amazon pay at a warehouse simply isn't going to cut it.


And pocketing a transaction fee every step of the way. The bigger the loan, the bigger the fee, so everyone in the chain of deceit had incentive to lie on the loan application. You had agents lying on behalf of clients to secure them a bigger loan, making up higher salaries, previous houses, all kinds of stuff.


"Were you thinking of an annuity? They guarantee regular payments, usually after retirement. In any case, every investment has counterparty risk. Bonds guarantee payout, but the issuer could always default. This is why Treasury bonds have the lowest yields, the Treasury is the world's most trusted borrower. It's also why ""junk"" bonds have higher yields than investment grade and partially why longer duration bonds have higher yields. As mentioned, there's bank accounts, which gain interest and are insured by FDIC up to $250,000. If the bank folds, they'll be acquired by another and your account balance will simply transfer. Similar to bank accounts are money market funds. These are funds that purchase very short term ""paper"" (basically <90 day bonds). They maintain a share price of $1 and pay interest in the form of additional shares. These have the risk of ""breaking the buck"" where they need to sell assets at a loss to meet investor withdrawal demands and NAV drops below $1.00. Fortunately, that's a super rare occurance, but still definitely possible. Finally, there's one guy I've seen on TV pitching a no risk high yield investment. I can't remember the firm, but I am waiting to see them shut down for running a ponzi scheme."