vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
"The root of the advice Bob is being given is from the premise that the market is temporarily down.    If the market is temporarily down, then the stocks in ""Fund #1"" are on-sale and likely to go up soon (soon is very subjective).     If the market is going to go up soon (again subjective) you are probably better in fictitious Fund #1.    This is the valid logic that is being used by the rep.   I don't think this is manipulative based on costs.    It's really up to Bob whether he agrees with that logic or if he disagrees with that logic and to make his own decision based on that. If this were my account, I would make the decision on where to withdraw based on my target asset allocation. Bob (for good or bad reasons) decided on 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. I'd make the withdraw that returns me to my target allocation of 2/3 Fund 1 and 1/3 Fund 2. Depending on performance and contributions, that might be selling Fund 1, selling Fund 2, or selling some of both."
"As far as I know any business can register for VAT regardless of the nature of the business.  If all the goods you sell (or services you provide) are VAT-exempt or zero-rated then you will get refunds from HMRC on VAT your business pays. Any business whose non-VAT exempt turnover (which would include zero-rated goods and services provided) exceeds the registration threshold must register, again even if that means they are ""forced"" to claim refunds. So the only question would be whether your rather nebulous activities were enough to qualify you as a business or organisation to which the VAT regime applies at all. The one-liner answer to that is  generally, if goods or services are provided in return for a charge, there’s a business activity for VAT purposes Inevitably there's a much bigger body of statute and case law and it won't always be obvious whether the one-liner answer applies or not to a particular activity so it may be necessary to seek specialist advice."
Chances are high your friend isn't in it for the money, but the community or some vague dream of having a future income-generating side business because he can't get a loan for a 7-11 franchise. I run a few successful online businesses and had an import/export so naturally I run into these guys looking for advice on selling their MLM wares easier. I always point out they can make a lot of money cutting out the middle man MLM distributor and buy the same products from eBay or the same local supplier the MLM uses for a fraction of costs...then collect all the profit sans kickbacks to their host MLM goon/sponsor/father. I've never had anyone that bailed on the MLM, but I could see their eyes gloss over after they realized their own middle man is holding them back from making a lot of money (assuming they could offload that stuff). People actually in it for the money tend to bail (better sales job exist, MLM dreams don't pay rent, etc.) so you'll probably just need to isolate your friend from these losers somehow. You could investigate his sponsor and find out how much money he's actually making....if he tells your friend he's rich, but you find out he lives in the slums with his mom, your friend might bail on friendship/association with the group out of sheer disgust. It's the friends, not the logic you need to attack. His MLM friends would consider it a betrayal if he left them so you need to show him it's the MLM group that's betrayed his friendship. Point out all the long-term members driving junky cars to events who brag about their $$$. Laugh at the piss poor finance credentials of the local group leaders....ask where the investor perks are and suggest the sponsor/leaders are just hording them. Point out that he's a success and the fellow team members are just milking him to prop up their failing investments/sales/recruitment numbers. Nobody wants to let a team down....but the team isn't good enough for him. Deep down he knows the logic is questionable or at least risky/improbable, but his faith in the good intentions of his MLM cohorts is high.....crush that faith and all he's left with is bad finance tips or cheap protein shakes.
If your parents' business isn't viable (regardless of what combination of the economy or their management of it caused it not to be viable) it would seem that you'd be throwing good money after bad to save it. If the whole thing gets paid off, then they get rid of the debt, but the economy will still be in the tank and they'll be going in the hole again. If they think they're five years away from retirement, then they're kidding themselves.  They won't be able to retire. They should get bankruptcy advice and should start looking for other sources of income.  Maybe sell their house and get something smaller.  Have their expenses match their income. Sorry if this sounds harsh but it will be difficult for them to recover from this mess if they're in their late fifties.
"Don't set mental anchor points. I am saying this as a total hypocrite, mind you, it isn't easy to follow that advice. My suggestion would be to look at each investment and ask yourself, ""Would I buy that at today's price?"", because if you wouldn't you need to sell regardless of whether you are cashing out. Effectively by staying in an investment you no longer believe in, you are giving up the opportunity cost of investing that money in something with a real chance to  give you a return, or in your case whatever purpose you have in mind for the cash."
Here's some advice: Never go into business with a friend. Thats a rule that's as old as time. It already seems to me that you're encountering some disparity issues financially. This is a bad idea, man. Stop now, while you still can!
If you are looking e-mail marketing services in USA, Saleglue provides e-mail marketing services in USA . E-mail marketing is perform of seanding business massgae classically to a group of people, using email. Every email send to a possible or present customer could be considered email marketing. http://www.saleglue.com/
You should seek professional advice from an accountant.
The Direct Selling Association (DSA) is an autonomous and self-regulatory body that deals with the direct selling business organizations.  The Association acts as a bridge between the direct selling industry as well as policy-making bodies of Indian Government. It works for the cause of Direct Selling Industry. The DSA also tries to create a favorable environment for the growth and expansion of direct selling industry.
and this is a sure sign that their advice is worthless..  if their research was worth the paper that it is written on, they would be using that research to make money trading, instead of trying to sell their research to their clients.  how many times have we said that traders that can trade will trade, but that traders that can not trade, they will teach.  and the fact that they are charging so much for their research should be a sign or an indication that there is perhaps a sense of desperation in this organization to quickly raise some money quickly and desperately.  people that dont really know where the treasure is buried at will sell treasure maps..  people that do know where the treasure is buried will dig for buried treasure.
"Ill give you two bits of advice...  1. Word of mouth is the best marketing tool for this particular business. That's because people dont get excited about plumbing, rather they only need it when they have a problem.  Providing the best customer service and following up months after your service was completed (letters, personalized e-mails, gifts, etc), will make your customers refer others.  3. Make sure your website is SEO friendly. When people need plumbing done, they will often do a google search as follows: ""Plumbing (Town, State)"", Let me know if you want to learn more about SEO and ill give you a few resources. Although it is an effective marketing technique it is also very easy to get scammed by so called ""SEO Professionals""."
Historically the advice was to buy the best policy possible (not cheapest), at the lowest price, with the highest benefit.  The cost relative to the benefit is very cheap, and your much more likely to use disability than life insurance (for instance).  It is usually cheaper to pay for it with after tax dollars than to buy more insurance. In theory, you want to buy enough disability to replace 100% of your after tax income -- or more since there is no inflation protection built into most policies.  Insurance companies often will not sell this due to moral hazard -- although you may be able to combine policies to reach 80% or so.   Keep in mind that you will need to continue to save / invest if you are on long term disability, since most policies cease payment at 65 or when your eligible for Social Security.  In addition, your expenses often rise due to the increased medical expenditures, possibly needing COBRA / private health insurance, etc.
"Leverage means you can make more investments with the same amount of money.  In the case of rental properties, it means you can own more properties and generate more rents.  You exchange a higher cost of doing business (higher interest fees) and a higher risk of total failure, for a larger number of rents and thus higher potential earnings. As with any investment advice, whenever someone tells you ""Do X and you are guaranteed to make more money"", unless you are a printer of money that is not entirely true. In this case, taking more leverage exposes you to more risk, while giving you more potential gain.  That risk is not only on the selling front; in fact, for most small property owners, the risk is primarily that you will have periods of time of higher expense or lower income.  These can come in several ways: If you weather these and similar problems, then you will stand to make more money using higher leverage, assuming you make more money from each property than your additional interest costs.  As long as you're making any money on your properties this is likely (as interest rates are very low right now), but making any money at all (above and beyond the sale value) may be challenging early on.   These sorts of risks are magnified for your first few years, until you've built up a significant reserve to keep your business afloat in downturns.  And of course, any money in a reserve is money you're not leveraging for new property acquisition - the very same trade-off.  And while you may be able to sell one or more properties if you did end up in a temporarily bad situation, you also may run into 2008 again and be unable to do so."
"If you have an S-Corp with several shareholders - you probably also have a tax adviser who suggested using S-Corp to begin with. You're probably best off asking that adviser about this issue. If you decided to use S-Corp for multiple shareholders without a professional guiding you, you should probably start looking for such a professional, or you may get yourself into trouble. That said, and reminding you that: 1. Free advice on the Internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, and 2. I'm not a tax professional or tax adviser, you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, here's this: Generally S-Corps are disregarded entities for tax purposes and their income flows to their shareholders individual tax returns through K-1 forms distributed by the S-Corp yearly. The shareholders don't have to actually withdraw the profits, but if not withdrawing - they're added to their cost bases in the shares. I'm guessing your corp doesn't distribute the net income, but keeps it on the corporate account, only distributing enough to cover the shareholders' taxes on their respective income portion. In this case - the amount not distributed is added to their basis, the amount distributed has already been taxed through K-1. If the corporation distributes more than the shareholder's portion of net income, then there can be several different choices, depending on the circumstances: The extra distribution will be treated as salary to the shareholder and a deduction to the corporation (i.e.: increasing the net income for the rest of the shareholders). The extra distribution will be treated as return of investment, reducing that shareholder's basis in the shares, but not affecting the other shareholders. If the basis is 0 then it is treated as income to the shareholder and taxed at ordinary rates. The extra distribution will be treated as ""buy-back"" - reducing that shareholder's ownership stake in the company and reallocating the ""bought-back"" portion among the rest of the shareholders. In this case it is treated as a sale of stock, and the gain is calculated as with any other stock sale, including short-term vs. long-term taxation (there's also Sec. 1244 that can come in handy here).
The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?'  - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.
"...the social media part of their business remains unprofitable - what are you on about mate?   Facebook is in the business of selling fine-tuned and targeted ads, based on a vast amount of big data they collect from their user base. If by ""the social media part"" you are referring to Facebook as a utility for online social interaction, then your argument is invalid due to the fact that Facebook is free of charge."
If you sell counterfeit goods by claiming that they are real, you're no better than people that just straight up steal money without the pretense of 'business'  If you sell counterfeit goods and acknowledge that they are counterfeit, you're in ethically better territory... but you're still taking an enormous legal risk that can't possibly be worth your middling profits.
My son is in a similar situation where he is 21 and in college. My wife and I claimed him as a dependant on our taxes last year. He had still been able to get some student loans as a dependant as well as scholarships. I have told him that we will not cosign on a loan for him. It isn't because we don't like our son, it is simply because too many unexpected things can happen.  He has been working multiple jobs which is one thing I would suggest as well as donating plasma for extra money to have a social life. As an electrical engineering major he doesn't have much time to be social. He cuts rent by having roommates and does most of his own cooking to help with food costs.  The main thing he does to keep his costs under control is attends a school that isn't outrageously expensive.  An expensive school does not offer as much benefit for an undergrad degree as it might for a graduate degree.  Another option is to look for a job that had some sort of tuition assistance.  Another option along that same line is look into military service either active duty or reserves as there is tuition help to be found there. There are options that don't involve debt. As a side note my son used a student loan last year however, this coming year he has his budget figured out and he will not be needing one at all.
"The simple answer might just be that the increased credit score you mentioned was enough to suddenly make you eligible for this lenders better rate, so maybe that's why you weren't able to get that low a rate before. Another option I can think of is that this particular bank offers these loans as a ""teaser rate"" to hopefully get more of your business later on. It's not exactly a loss leader I would think, given the non-existing deposit rates they're probably still able to make money on the spread but they might be able to undercut other banks enough to get their hooks into you. Figuratively speaking, of course. Of course in order to evaluate if it's worth switching to this deal, you'll also have to look at prepayment penalties and fees on your current loan. These extra costs might be enough to make the switch uneconomic."
Now, the *cash* you have on your *balance sheet* would be $80, but you'd have a loan outstanding as an asset at $20, which is a net 0 movement in equity on the other side. &gt; Sure I can put it on my books that Jimmy owes me 20$ but I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I? Well, yes and no. On one hand, you are certainly *worth* more than $80 in your scenario. However, banks have some stringent regulations preventing banks from being overly risky. &gt; Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? No. '08 happened from a culmination of many different events, including risky and predatory loan origination, conflicts of interest in credit rating agencies, and low Fed rates, among other issues, including several ""domino effect"" secondary issues. &gt; Is the risk of default accounted for? Theoretically, the risk of default is accounted for in two areas: 1. The interest rate extended to the debtor. 2. A provision for loan losses. &gt; "" because default risk is not transferred with the asset."" In what context was this seen? No one would willingly sell an asset but hold on to the risk (or they'd charge a high price, at least, for that). Student loans are a special case. In the U.S., they are generally *non-cancellable.* They survive everything, including bankruptcy. They don't have collateral. Basically, they're going to follow the person around, regardless of situation, INCLUDING simply not paying. This makes default risk (or rather loss risk) lower. A large portion of loans come from the federal government, which means to a pretty high degree, they are guaranteed by the government. This also makes loss risk lower. The government can garnish wages and all sorts of unpleasant things to get the money back. Even if losses are realized, taxes can (and will) make up the difference. Private loans have a bit less leeway in these regards, but they still are immune to bankruptcy currently.
I think in such situations a good rule of thumb may be - if you are asked to pay significant sums of money upfront before anything is done, stop and ask yourself, what would you do if they don't do what they promised? They know who you are, but usually most you know is a company name and phone number. Both can disappear in a minute and what are you left with?  If they said they'd pay off the debt and issue the new loan - fine, let them do it and then you pay them. If they insist on having money upfront without delivering anything - unless it's a very big and known and established company you probably better off not doing it. Either it's a scam or in the minuscule chance they are legit you still risking too much - you're giving money and not getting anything in return.
Many mortgages penalize early payment, and I assume it's possible to disallow it altogether. It makes sense why they don't want early payment. If you pay off the loan early, it is usually because you re-financed it to a loan with a lower rate. You would do this when the interest rate is low (lower than when you got your original loan). If you pay it off early, that means they will have to re-invest the money again, or they will lose money if they just have it sitting around. However, recall above that people pay it off early when the interest rate is low; that is the worst time for them to re-invest this into another mortgage, because the rate will not be as good for them as the one you were originally going to keep paying.
I can't believe people over 25% underwater even bother paying the mortgage anymore.  By no stretch of the imagination is this a reasonable thing to do, fiscally speaking.  To those of you who would make the moral argument that you made an agreement to pay...    1.  You also made an agreement for what the penalty is if you do not pay.  Either way you're still adhering to the agreement.      2.  It's a bank loan, not a suicide pact.
In regards to the legal recourse, no there is none.  Also, despite your frustrations with Citi, it may not be their fault.  Mortgage companies are now forced to select appraisers (essentially at random) through 3rd party Appraisal Resource Companies (ARCs).  This randomization mandate from the government was issued in order to combat fraud, but it is really causing more trouble for homeowners because it took away appraiser accountability.  Basically, there's nothing we can do to fire an appraiser anymore.  I've had appraiser do terrible jobs, just blatantly wrong, and have gone the distance with the dispute process only to find they won't change the value.  My favorite real-life example came from an appraiser who got the bedroom count wrong (4 instead of 5); yet he took pictures of 5 bedrooms.  The one he excluded he stated it shouldn't count because it didn't have a closet.  Problem is, it DID have a closet.  I had the homeowner take pictures of all of the closets in his house, and send them in.  He still refused to change the count.  After close to 2 months of the dispute process, the ARC came in and changed the count, but did not chagne the value, stating that the room count didn't increase the sqft, and there would be no adjustment in value.  I was floored.  The only solution we had was to wait for the appraisal to expire, then order it again; which we did.  The new appraiser got the count right, and surprisingly (not really), it came in at the right value... In regards to the value necessary to avoid MI, they are likely using 80%, but it's not based on your current balance vs the value, it's based on the new loan amount (which will include costs, prepaids, skipped mortgage payments, etc) vs the value. Here are your options: Get a new appraisal.  If you are confident the value is wrong, go somewhere else and get a new appraisal. Restructure the loan.  Any competent Loan Officer would have noticed that you are very close to 80%, and should have offer you the option of splitting the mortgage into a 1st and 2nd loan.  Keeping the first loan at 80%, and taking out a 2nd for the difference would avoid MI. Best Regards, Jared Newton
I'm surprised no one has picked up on this, but the student loan is an exception to the rule. It's inflation bound (for now), you only have to pay it back as a percentage of your salary if you earn over £15k (11% on any amount over that I believe), you don't have to pay it if you lose your job, and it doesn't affect your ability to get credit (except that your repayments will be taken into account).   My advice, which is slightly different to the above, is: if you have any shares that have lost more than 10% since you bought them and aren't currently recovering, sell them and pay off your debts with those. The rest is down to you - are they making more than 10% a year? If they are, don't sell them. If your dividends are covering your payments, carry on as you are. Otherwise it's down to you.
It used to be much more common, particularly for sub-prime loans. If you do run into someone offering a loan with a prepayment penalty, you should certainly consider other options.
"There will be many who will judge your proposal on the idea that subsidized loans should be available to those who need them, and should not be used by others who are simply trying to profit from them. Each school has a pool of money available to offer for subsidized and unsubsidized loans. If they are giving you a subsidized loan, they cannot allocate it to someone else who needs it. Once you weigh the investment risks, I agree that it is analogous to investing rather than repaying your mortgage quickly. If you understand the risks, there's no reason why you shouldn't consider other options about what to do with the money. I am more risk averse, so I happen to prefer paying down the mortgage quickly after all other investment/savings goals have been met. Where you fit on that continuum will answer the question of whether or not it is a ""bad idea""."
There is the underpayment penalty, and of course the general risk of any balloon-style loan. While you think that you have enough self-discipline, you never know what may happen that may prevent you from having enough cash at hands to pay the accumulated tax at the end of the year. If you try to do more risky investments (trying to maximize the opportunity) you may lose some of the money, or have some other kind of emergency that may preempt the tax payment.