vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
If you're living in a market where some houses are going for $150K over asking, then you MUST buy before you sell. In a seller's market, you will get multiple offers on your current house when you decide to sell, it will sell for (well) over asking, and you can dictate possession dates. You do not need to worry about selling your own home, if you have a competent realtor. But buying a home is an entirely different story. You may struggle to find something affordable, and there may be multiple buyers each time you decide to make an offer. You may go through this cycle several times over many months before your offer is accepted. You should do this while living in your own home, with the comfort of knowing that you can sell your own home easily at any time, instead of the stress of an imminent closing date on your own home. Or worse, move into rented space or Malvolio's mom's house for months or a year while the market increases by 15% and the houses in your old area are now selling for $100K more than you sold for. Ouch, now you really can't afford to buy what you want, and you may end up buying something equivalent to what you used to own, for more, plus legal, realtor, and land transfer costs. If the closing dates don't align, then bridge. This will only end up costing a few hundred dollars, less than $1K including legal fees (the lawyer will also charge to handle this). But by buying before you sell, you'll easily make up that difference. This advice only applies to hot property markets. I'm not a realtor, just a guy living in the GTA who went through this process last year. Lost out on three offers over 10 months, then bought for asking price on fourth offer (very fortunate), then sold for $90K over asking, then bridged for 2 months. My realtor is awesome and made the process as stress free as it can be. Get a good realtor, start house hunting while preparing your own house for sale, and enjoy the process. Also you should negotiate with your realtor, they may be willing to reduce their commission on your sale if they are also representing you on the purchase.
Buying assets doesn't affect your profit, because the money stays on your balance sheet as capital assets instead of cash in bank (unless your tax authorities let you report your accounts on a cashflow basis, which for example they do for very small businesses in the UK). You need to actually spend the money on something you can't turn back to cash later for it to reduce your profit.
you're not paying the buyer to be your client, but you are looking to select the prospective buyer that's going to generate cash flow. In a commissions based work force that is also your main source of income, you have to look at prospective clients as that.. simply prospects..but who are a vital component of your salary. So when allocating your time and resources, especially if you're dealing with several prospects, you literally have to turn away these cold leads who are just looking for design tips and paint color pattern suggestions and you as their escort. If I was in the shoe-making business, i wouldn't hire a walk-in, give him access to materials and work space with the assumption that if its to his liking, it'll generate profit towards my salary needs, if the only thing he's interested in doing is looking around at all the other shoes, a behavior that requires my presence, time, and resources. You almost can't even justify it as ""looking at it as possible income in the future"" if it's costing you revenue now, whether its in the form of having to neglect actual buyers or you could be investing your time in things that would impact salary needs, such as advance course work (attending optional trainings offered by your broker), or investing time finding more serious leads."
I also know someone who owns a house several 100 km away from where they live and they say they intentionally ask a rent somewhat below the market price for that (nice) kind of flat so that they have lots of applicants at the same time and tenants don't move out as finding a new tenant is lots of work and costly because of the distance. My personal conclusion from those points is that as an investment (i.e. not for immediate or future personal use) I'd say that the exact circumstances are very important: if you are (stably) based in a region where the buying-to-rental-price ratio is favorable, you have the necessary time and are able to do maintenance work yourself and there is a chance to buy a suitable house closeby then why not. If this is not the case, some other form of investing in real estate may be better. On the other hand, investing in further real estate closeby where you live in your own house means increased lump risk - you miss diversification into regions where the value of real estate may develop very differently. There is one important psychological point that may play a role with the observed relation between being rich and being landlord. First of all, remember that the median wealth (without pensions) for Germany is about 51 k€, and someone owning a morgage-free 150 k€ flat and nothing else is somewhere in the 7th decile of wealth. To put it the other way round: the question whether to invest 150 k€ into becoming a landlord is of practical relevance only for rich (in terms of wealth) people. Also, asking this question is typically only relevant for people who already own the home they live in as buying for personal use will typically have a better return than buying in order to rent. But already people who buy for personal use are on average wealthier (or at least on the track to become more wealthy in case of fresh home owners) than people who rent. This is attributed to personal characteristics and the fact that the downpayment of the mortgage enforces saving behaviour (which is typically kept up once the house is paid, and is anyways found to be more pronounced than for non-house-owners).
This is good advice.  People place a lot of value on appearances. A clean uniform, and not smelling like a sweat-rag or a sewer, will help clients feel like they're getting more value for their money.  If he's overweight, now is the time to fix that as well -- fit, attractive people have an easier time closing deals in all industries.
If cost was your only concern then yes, that is true.  But there is a tension between costs and keeping your customers happy.  This is especially true in a service based business like a restaurant where customer satisfaction can be directly correlated to employee satisfaction.
Doing business apart from commercial work also involves many legal issues such as compliance with laws, entering into contracts, responding to notices and other legal documents. Failure to look into these aspects can often snow ball into a major legal problem.
If it was me I would want to go with the state I am moving too. I'm not familiar with business law too much as I'm only a law student right now but I would guess it's a safer bet. There might be local state laws that could apply. If there are not any local regulations then they should still know all of the national regulations just the same.
Do you want a house?  Sounds like you do.  Did you think about what it will take to own a run a house?  I am betting you have.  Buying a home shouldn't be about an investment in anything other than you happiness and you sure seem conscientious and ready. Your worries are good ones, but don't forget about unemployment insurance, that as responsible people you can get another job.  Do you have a life insurance policy?  If you really really can't afford your payments, you can try to sell the house because you should have plenty of equity per your plans. Furthermore, chances are you will earn more in your paychecks over your lifetime.   Think about what features you want, shop the market hard, take time and buy a house on reason rather than love.  Don't you dare love the house until you buy it.
Its like anything else, you need to study and learn more about investing in general and the stocks you are looking at buying or selling. Magazines are a good start -- also check out the books recommended in another question. If you're looking at buying a stock for the mid/long term, look at things like this: Selling is more complicated and more frequently screwed up:
"1) Don't buy a house as an investment. Buy a house because you've reached the point in your life where you don't expect to move in the next five years and you'd prefer to own a house (with its advantages/disadvantages) than to rent (with its advantages/disadvantages). Thinking of houses primarily as investments is what caused the housing bubble, crash, and Great Recession. 2) Before buying a house for cash, look at the available mortgage interest rates versus market rate of return. Owning the house outright is slightly lower stress, but using the house as the basis for a ""leveraged investment"" may be financially wiser. (I compromised; I paid 50% down and took a mortgage for the other 50%.) 3) 1 year is short-term. Your money doesn't belong in the market if you're going to need it in the short term. If you really intend to pull it back out that soon, I'd stick with CD/money-market kinds of instruments. 4) Remember that while a house is illiquid, it is possible to take out home equity loans... so money you put into a house isn't completely inaccessible. You just can't move elsewhere as easily."
You can look at buying a house as being a long term investment in not paying rent.   In the short time there are costs to buying (legal, taxes, etc).   This depends on only buying house of the size/location you need e.g. no better then what you would have rented. House buying tent to work out best when there is high inflation, as the rent you would otherwise be paying goes up with  inflation – provided you can live with the short term pain of high interest rates.
Right now is the perfect time to sell a business. The ideal time to sell a business is when.... The stock market is hot/high (it is) Interest rates are low (they are) Inflation rate is low (it is) Financing is abundant (it is) Market is brisk (it is) When demand is higher than supply (it is) Buyers abound (they are) Pricing is favorable (it is) The company is performing well The owner is ready
There is a mathematical way to determine the answer, if you know all the variables. (And that's a big if.) For example, suppose you rent for 4 years and the price of rent never increases. The total amount you will have paid is: 600*48 = 28,800. If you currently have money sitting in the bank earning only a negligible amount of interest, and you can purchase the house for X, and then sell it for exactly what you paid 4 years from now, and you have 0 expenses otherwise, then purchasing it will save you 28,800 compared to renting. Obviously that makes some assumptions which are not possible. Now you need to calculate the variables: All of these variables can drastically effect the profit margin, and unfortunately they will vary greatly depending on your country, location, and the condition of the home. Once you estimate each of the variables, it's important to realize that if you purchase, your profit or loss can swing unexpectedly in either direction based on appreciation/depreciation which can be difficult to predict, in part because it is somewhat tied to the overall macro-economy of where you live (state or country). On the flip side, if you rent, it's pretty easy to calculate your cost as approximately 28,800 over 4 years. (Perhaps slightly more for modest rent increases.) Lastly, if you elect to purchase the house, realize that you're investing that money in real estate. You could just as easily rent and invest that money elsewhere, if you want to choose a more aggressive or conservative investment with your money.
"I like Muro questions! No, I don't think they do.  Because for me, as a personal finance investor type just trying to save for retirement, they mean nothing. If I cannot tell what the basic business model of a company is, and how that business model is profitable and makes money, then that is a ""no buy"" for me.  If I do understand it, they I can do some more looking into the stock and company and see if I want to purchase. I buy index funds that are indexes of industries and companies I can understand.  I let a fund manager worry about the details, but I get myself in the right ballpark and I use a simple logic test to get there, not the word of a rating agency. If belong in the system as a whole, I could not really say.  I could not possibly do the level of accounting research and other investigation that rating agencies do, so even if the business model is sound I might lose an investment because the company is not an ethical one.  Again, that is the job of my fund manager to determine.  Furthermore and I mitigate that risk by buying indexes instead of individual stock."
Having just gone through this process as a buyer via broker in Israel, here are my thoughts: Tl;dr: An incentive such as you are suggesting would not be particularly helpful. In this case, your best option is to spend your efforts shopping for a broker that you can trust. The rest: Your main concern is that the broker will find you a place at the top of your budget and will not negotiate aggressively. The main person responsible for negotiation is YOU. You are paying for the property, and you are putting in bids: not your agent. The agent should advise you, but in the end should pass along your bids directly. The real problem is that you, as the buyer, generally do not have as close a feel for the pulse of the market as the broker, who should be quite aware of recent closings in the neighborhood. Therefore, there are a few things that you can do to help arm yourself: At the end of the day, if you have decided to use a broker, you are making a large financial commitment to hire someone to find you the best place, and therefore it may be more important at this point to spend your efforts shopping around for the best broker, rather than trying to figure out how to outsmart her. You are correct: buyers' agents DO have incentives to sell you on places that may not be right or good for you. For example: Although your scheme may help a bit with the first concern, it will not help at all with the other two, which I assume to be much more likely problems in any event. Instead, find recommendations for brokers from others. Have the broker show you a few properties and put in some low bids to get a feel for how she handles them. Discuss the properties together and try to assess if they really have your interests in mind. You are paying a lot for their service, and you should make sure, as much as possible, that they really are working honestly and in your best interest. A good broker who knows his market and is trying to help you can be a great asset in the opaque, cutthroat real estate market. הבל הבלים, הכל הבל. סוף דבר הכל נשמע, את האלוהים יירא ואת מצוותיו שמור כי זה כל האדם. Good luck!
Here's my view, as a 38yr old NZer who grew up in Auckland: When you purchase a residential property, whether or not you intend to live in it, you're essentially counting on the possibility that one of the following will occur: This report by the NZ Royal Society (going by memory from a presentation I attended) predicts ongoing population growth in NZ, mainly driven by immigration, and mostly in Auckland. Building of new housing isn't keeping up with population growth, so my bet would be that the property values, especially in Auckland, are going to continue to climb.  Other factors that might influence your decision are things only you can know, such as where you might be likely to settle down, how much risk you're willing to take, how much capability you have to look after a rental property, and how much knowledge you have about the property market. Bear in mind that government schemes and world events may change the outlook for number of houses being built and immigration levels, both of which heavily affect property values. My personal view is that the government isn't doing nearly enough to provide affordable housing for our young adults in NZ. Not only that; the govt is essentially responsible for the problem in the first place, as zoning rules for local authorities artificially inflate land prices which prevent the building of affordable houses. Furthermore, foreign investment in rental properties is unregulated and unmeasured. Both these problems could be resolved with appropriate legislation, though central city prices are unlikely to be relieved as much as other areas simply because prices are also inflated due to the desirability to live centrally. The problem is a severe one, and high housing prices for even the smallest dwellings are going to make inequality, and the social problems that go with it, far worse. I'd like to see new cities or towns being planned and built from scratch, such as Pegasus and Canberra.
"In general economic theory, there are always two markets created based on a need for a good; a spot market (where people who need something now can go outbid other people who need the same thing), and a futures market (where people who know they will need something later can agree to buy it for a pre-approved price, even if the good in question doesn't exist yet, like a grain crop). Options exist as a natural extension of the futures market. In a traditional future, you're obligated, by buying the contract, to execute it, for good or ill. If it turns out that you could have gotten a lower price when buying, or a higher price when selling, that's tough; you gave up the ability to say no in return for knowing, a month or three months or even a year in advance, the price you'll get to buy or sell this good that you know you need. Futures thus give both sides the ability to plan based on a known price, but that's their only risk-reduction mechanism. Enter the option. You're the Coors Brewing Company, and you want to buy 50 tons of barley grain for delivery in December in order to brew up for the Super Bowl and other assorted sports parties. A co-op bellies up to close the deal. But, since you're Coors, you compete on price with Budweiser and Miller, and if you end up paying more than the grain's really worth, perhaps because of a mild wet fall and a bumper crop that the almanac predicts, then you're going to have a real bad time of it in January. You ask for the right to say ""no"" when the contract falls due, if the price you negotiate now is too high based on the spot price. The co-op now has a choice; for such a large shipment, if Coors decided to leave them holding the bag on the contract and instead bought it from them anyway on a depressed spot market, they could lose big if they were counting on getting the contract price and bought equipment or facilities on credit against it.
"Because I'll be investing time, effort, energy and take some initial risks I would like to receive more shares (more than just purely financial contribution would suggest) I don't see money in that list. How much money will you be contributing to your own project? Mutual understanding, focusing on big image, rather that covering each and every edge case. These kinds of one page agreements are an excellent ""idea"" and they work just fine when everyone is happy and everything is working well; they are an utter nightmare if anything goes sideways. Coincidently, the reason you write anything down at all is to have everyone agree on the same big picture at the same time. People's memory of the original big picture gets fuzzy when their money might not come back to them. You don't need to cover all edge cases, but you need to cover obvious negative outcomes. What if you can't find a renter? What if you're late paying someone back? What if your vendor ""repairs"" something incorrectly? What if you forget to get a permit and the vendor needs to come back to tear it all apart and redo the work? What if your project needs more money, who is required to contribute, who has the option to contribute, who gets diluted? Who is doing the work of managing the project, how much is that person getting paid, how is that person's pay determined, how can it be adjusted? Is any work expected from any other investor, on what terms, who decides the terms? What if you get an offer to buy the building, who decides to sell, etc and so forth and on and on and on... You write down an agreement so everyone's understanding of the agreement is recorded. You write down what will happen in XYZ event so you don't argue about what you all should do when that event does ultimately occur. You take as much equity as your other investors will allow you to have, and you give them as much as required to get their money. Understand that the more cooks there are in the kitchen the more difficult it is to act on a problem when one arises; when not if.
If you buy a townhouse, you often are in a condominium arrangement in the US (when you're really in a rowhouse in particular).  So that's a downside right away: you have to have a HOA, or at least some sort of common agreement, though it might not have formal meetings.  Everyone who owns an interest in the entire group of townhouses gets some say in landscaping and such. Beyond that though, townhouses (and similarly, condominiums) are often easier to own (as they don't have as much maintenance that you have to do), but more expensive because you pay someone to do it (the landscaping, the external repairs, etc.).  You likely don't have as much control over what the external looks like (because you have to be in agreement with the other owners), but you also don't have to do the work, unless your agreement is to collectively do the mowing/landscaping, which you should know in advance.   I wouldn't underestimate the value of easier, by the way; it's very valuable to not have to deal with as many repairs and to be able to go a week without thinking about mowing or watering.  In that sense it can be a nice transition into ownership, getting some-but-not-all of the obligations.  But if that's something you really value, doing the landscaping and mowing and whatnot, that's relevant too.  You can always tell your realtor to look for townhouses where the owners do some/all of the landscaping, though that opens up a different can of worms (where you rely on others to do work that they may not do, or do well). They're also somewhat noisier; you may be sharing a wall (but not necessarily, air-gap townhouses do exist) and either way will be closer to your neighbors.  Does noise bother you?  Conversely, are you noisy?  In a college town this is probably something to pay attention to. Price wise, of course stay well within your means; if being close to the city center is important, that may lead you to buy a townhouse in that area.  If being further out isn't a problem, you'll probably have similar choices in terms of price as long as you look in cheaper areas for single family homes.
Hey thank you so much for the reply!  So the interview is a late stage one - I've gotten past the concepts and honestly the role *shouldn't* be that heavy on the finance side   ...what I'm looking at now is actually having to mock up a financial forecast in a real estate development scenario.    I'm getting the case in advance and have to prepare a presentation.  So right now, I really need the ABCs of forecasting specifically.  But I'm definitely checking out your recommendations!
It is important to determine a constructing  and good inspector can suggest you on any precise troubles and feasible methods of repair. Get the coolest inspections group by means of Assured Building Inspections, we've got proper fantastic enjoy of the inspection the constructing. As a home consumer, you’re cautioned to have interaction an expert to undertake a pre-buy building inspection on a belongings earlier than you make a decision to buy. The motive of the property inspections is to understand any substantial structural damage, assets defects, or conditions likely to motive similarly damage. Pre-purchase assets  inspections will likely be in reality one in all the largest investments you may make in your existence.