vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
This. I'd ask around a bit to find out if more people miss the bowling alley, see if there is interest for a 'reboot'. Also, at the very least you should talk to the current owners about how it is going, what's happening etc. to put some feelers out without expressing direct interest. Maybe they have racked up a hefty debt, who knows. Scope it out a bit.  Be wary of looking at it from a sentimental point of view. You had a great time there, you're not guaranteed to have that again, even with you running it. Running it and visiting it are way different.  You will probably have to do a lot of marketing/publicity stuff for it, so plan accordingly. And what 9ersaur said, you probably need capital, especially if the business has been stagnant. If they serve food, the kitchen may not be up to standards anymore, etc.  If after that you still want to do it, and have a plan, then definitely opt for buying them out directly or over time. You probably do not want the previous owners' emotional attachments getting in the way. (cue gordon ramsay's restaurant makeovers) That said, they may just like what you want to do and support you all the way, who knows.  Good luck!
Inspect the vehicle – This is critical to avoid a potential future headaches. A thorough inspection of each and every part of the RV, as well as the vehicle’s roadworthiness, is extremely vital. Components like propane, electrical, tires, and driving systems should all be in tip-top condition.
"**diversificering er om tilføjelse af indtjening og værdi til din eksisterende virksomhed - få mest muligt ud af dine aktiver, skriver Stephen Rudd. Hvad skal du overveje, når du opretter et nyt projekt?** **Projektvurdering** • [markedsundersøgelser](http://www.fwi.co.uk/articles/17/08/2014/146099/practical-and-tax-tips-for-farm-diversifications.htm) er væsentlige for at forstå projektet, konkurrence, rentabilitet og likviditet. • Pas på ikke at undervurdere den tid og ressource, der er nødvendig for at få tingene - det kan være et dræn på core business. **Indkomst betragtninger** • føjes til en eksisterende virksomhed med succes kan føre dig direkte til højere indkomstskat, så overvej om det nye joint venture skal være en del af den eksisterende virksomhed eller separat. • Selskaber betaler skat til lavere priser end enkeltpersoner og potentielt giver mere fleksibilitet, når overskuddet er der. De kan også beskytte den eksisterende forretning mod risikoen fra business fiasko, hvis det går galt. • Er alle familiemedlemmer med deres grundlæggende sats banderolerne - hvis ikke, kan de inddrages i det nye selskab?
Pm me. As a long time bar and restaurant owner who specializes in audits on projects like this I can tell that there are a number of variables at play in this scenario.   A typical MBA won't see the industry issues you need to address.    I can do a phone convo for 15 min and get you sorted fast. Happy to pro bono it.   Good luck.
I have purchased three properties. I will say the #1 rule is 20% things go wrong all the time. Seriously, renters are pretty terrible. If you aren't making 20% profit on the books. So add up mortgage, insurance,  all costs. Then multiply that by 1.25. Whatever number that is is what you must get for rent just to break even. I can't stress this enough. If rental rates don't support you getting that kinda price then don't get into it. This is the break even number.
You should read into the local and Federal laws that concern these kinds of sales. Potential pitfalls that I know of (there are probably much more): Auctions in general mean:
Whеn thе sоurсе оf fundіng tо іnсludе thе dіffеrеnt оrgаns, suсh аs bаnks, gоvеrnmеnt sоurсеs, vеnturе саріtаlіsts аnd “аngеl” іnvеstоrs whеn іt іs usеful tо sее whаt аll lеndеrs, rеgаrdlеss оf сlаss, уоu wаnt, whеn thеу аrе lеndіng mоnеу, оr аt еntеrрrіsе іnvеstmеnt. Whеn уоu аrе lооkіng fоr аlrеаdу ехіstіng sеrvісеs оf mоnеу, thе lеndеr wіll bе іntеrеstеd tо knоw аbоut уоur trаnsасtіоn hіstоrу; іt hаs gооd mаnаgеmеnt аnd gооd rеsults іn а rесоrd. Lеndеrs wіll bе kееn tо knоw іf уоu hаvе thе аbіlіtу tо rеturn lоаns, аnd sее thе аmоunt оf уоur сurrеnt іnсоmе іs tо sее thаt уоu mееt уоur сurrеnt оblіgаtіоns аnd tаkе оn аddіtіоnаl dеbt whеthеr іt іs аdеquаtе. https://allbiztalk.com/how-to-finance-your-small-business/
There's a company called IdealSpot (I haven't used them, just heard of them) that will do that kind of analysis for you and suggest locations. Also, Census data is free and a good resource for demographic data when it comes to neighborhoods. Also, if you have a local SBDC they may have those numbers handy and they also can really walk you through the loan part of the process as well.
In addition to the other answers, I think you would also need to account for the increased utility and maintenance costs on the more expensive house. Typically it is recommended to budget 1% to 4% the cost of the home per year for routine maintenance. While it likely won't cost that much every year, you will have those expensive items come up (e.g. roof, HVAC) that come up periodically. The larger house will also cost more to heat/cool. Depending on where you live could also have increased property taxes.
"Businesses need websites. Especially businesses in the labor field -- when we renovated our old home, the very first place we checked was Google. ""Colorado Springs plumbers""; ""Colorado Springs electrician"" -- I was shocked at how few actually had websites. It's worth the money for a simple, but informative site with contact info, prices, etc. Oh, and also, social media. Get on the Twitter! And everywhere else online that people are gathering."
Business are exempt if they are purchasing things to re-sell. Only the end customer pays sales tax. Depending on where you go, online purchases may not be subject to sales tax. Though they might. That, again, depends on city, county, and state laws. Normally, you will have to pay sales tax at the register. It will be calculated into your total, and show as a line item on your receipt. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yAvAm2BQ3xs/TudY-lfLDzI/AAAAAAAAAGs/gYG8wJeaohw/s1600/great%2Boutdoors%2Breceipt%2BQR-%2Bbefore%2Band%2Bafter.jpg Also some products have other non-refundable taxes. Rental car taxes, fuel taxes and road taxes are all likely taxes you will have to pay. Areas that have a lot of tourists, usually (but not always) have more of these kinds of taxes. Friendly note. DON'T BUY DVDs HERE! They won't work when you get home. I know you didn't ask but this catches a lot of people. Same for electronics (in many cases, specially optical drives and wireless)."
Don't forget to take into account the tax deductability of the interest and PMI into the equation. Of course, this would based on your current pay rate, and your rates after marriage.  Your mentioning the flexibility in future changes is also a key aspect to take into consideration.
If you don't have any voting rights then you don't have much say in the direction of the company.  Of course, if the majority of voting rights are held by 1 or 2 people/institutions then you probably don't have much say regardless. That said, 0.1% isn't a whole lot of a voice anyway.
In reality, shareholders have very few rights other than the right to profits and the right to vote on a board.  In general, a proxy fight to replace the board is complicated and expensive, so unless the interested parties buy close to 50% of the shares it's unlikely to be successful.  Furthermore, a lot of the shares are held by insiders and institutions.    I suppose if a large group of shareholders got together and demanded this, the existing directors may listen and give in to avoid unhappy shareholders being a general annoyance.  That seems pretty unlikely unless the stake gets large.  There's a great episode of NPR Planet Money [board games](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/07/19/538141248/episode-594-board-games) which talks about one man's struggle to get the company to take some action.
&gt; He has a special class of shares that grants him 37 percent voting power even though his equity stake is much lower, and public shareholders will have less than 2 percent of votes.  Fuck off with your phoney stock.
There are not necessarily large shareholders, maybe every other Joe Schmoe owns 3 or 5 shares; and many shares might be inside investment funds. If you are looking for voting rights, typically, the banks/investment companies that host the accounts of the individual shareholders/fund owners have the collective voting rights, so the Fidelity's and Vanguard's of the world will be the main and deciding voters. That is very common.
Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments.
"Share prices change (or not) when shares are bought and sold. Unless he's sitting on a large percentage of the total shares, the fact that he isn't selling or buying means he's having no effect ar all on the stock price, and unless there's a vote war going on in the annual meeting his few stockholder votes aren't likely to have much effect there either (though there's always the outside chance of his being a tiebreaker). On the other hand, there's nothing inherently wrong with holding shares for a very long time and just taking the dividends (""clipping coupons""). Buy-and-hold is a legitimate strategy. Basically: His reason is wrong, but his action may be right, and you should probably just not ask."
...ok, you understand that the board of directors don't collect all of the profit from a company, and that shareholders can sell stock, right?   It his honestly confusing to me that you have a problem with shareholders being given ownership in a company that is spun off from the company that they own.
Seems a little strange:   You exercised an option we were fully aware of and now we don't like you so vote our way or we sue.  F that - two investors wanting to control the company with an undersized holding is a no go.
So this was entirely voluntary, right? He technically is the highest authority as he has a majority of voting shares. So he could stack the board with whomever he likes and in the long run have any position he wants.   It's cool to see someone do that voluntarily.
It doesn't matter if the shares are owned by an institution like an asset manager or by a retail investor like you or me - it is all counted and treated the same way in terms of the corporate actions involved (cash/stock payouts).
I stock is only worth what someone will pay for it.  If you want to sell it you will get market price which is the bid.
Yes but this also goes against the idea that somehow, after injecting more of their money into the firm by exercising their rights, shareholder wealth still remains the same?  So if shareholders also injected cash, how come their total wealth didn't change?
However, if the bidder can secure 51% of the shares, they can simply vote to replace the current board, who can then replace the current management, such that the new board and management will put into place whatever provisions are amenable to the bidder. In the case of a short form merger or a vote to effect a merger, the shareholders who do not wish to sell have the right to sell at the tender price, or they can oppose the deal on legal grounds by arguing that the valuation of the tender offer is materially unfair. However, there are very few cases which I'm aware of where this type of challenge has been successful. However, they do not have the power to stop the merger, which has been agreed to by the majority of the shareholders. This is similar to how when the president is elected, the minority voters can't stop the new president from being inaugurated, or how you can be affected if you own a condo and the condo owners' association votes to change the rules in a way you don't like. Tough luck for you if you don't like it! If you want more detail, I'd recommend checking out a web guide from 2011 here as well as related articles from the Harvard Law blog here. I hope that helps!"
I don't know about the liquidation. The capital doesn't evaporate, its source just becomes the corporation itself. The corporation becomes the sole shareholder and acts at the behest of the board. The board then decides both board matters and shareholder matters.  Once I talked that through, I realized no one would do this. If the board is in complete control, why clump the ownership together. The directors would be better served by clearly delineating their ownership interests by purchasing shares directly.
There are lots of provisos, but in general you are correct. The provisos, off the top of my head: The only fees will be any brokerage fees when you purchase the stock. I haven't seen any handling fees when you get the dividend, but it may depend on how you hold the stock.
"Transactions cost is what kills you here. The price of determining who gets what, and then enforcing it.   For example; let's say you invested in my electrical engineering class. Then when I get out of school, I go to work. At Starbucks. Where I'm applying literally none of that knowledge or experience--and thus I signed a bad deal.  Or what if I change majors? You still have a stake on my lifetime income, but it won't be in the field you helped me into. So college-aged indecision would mean twice as much out of my take-home income for life?  Or what if I'd like to buy your percentage back from you? What would be a fair price? Would there be a market to establish it?  You should read ""The unincorporated man,"" which has a system very similar to what you're proposing.   In this futuristic story, education and subsistence investment have become astronomically expensive. So in order to send a kid through spaceship-piloting college, you're actually purchasing ""shares"" of an individual's future earnings like they're a corporation. Parents get 10% when you're born. Government gets 5% in lieu of taxes. These shares have a market value based on income, expenditures, health, etc--pricing individuals just like you'd price a company.  In the story, most individuals have sold over 50% of their shares; meaning that they effectively don't have controlling interest over their lives. Their jobs, their homes, all their major decisions are made by the shareholders. So you might take a high-risk job, just because one of your biggest shareholders wants a payday.  Of course, since it's on the open market you can buy your shares back. Once you're back over 50%, you're back in control of your life and the majority of your income. The way the author imagines it, it's a pretty comprehensive system. And the book stays delightfully ambiguous as to whether it's debt slavery or a new evolution of liberty.  But again; transactions costs. Think of six billion little corporations with all their vital stats and market data. Now imagine voting on the jobs and homes of the potentially hundreds of people in whom you have an interest. It would simply be impossible to keep track of.  Honestly, it'd probably be more modest to just pay your student loans."
Bullshit, I'm guessing you don't know many CEOs and what they provide for a company, do you?   Also, your idea about private management is meaningless. The shareholders manage the company. End of story. They are also the owners.
StackExchange points, obviously. =)
"That's all you feel comfortable addressing? You didn't see that that question was part of a whole question about ""what exactly do you want?"".  You just answering what is **is**, is completely useless, irrelevant, and missing the point. So you add nothing to this conversation."
Yeah. I don't really understand the value of bitcoin.  I know it's going up because people keep buying to for more and more.  But who the hell is buying it at $5600-$5700 to get it up to where it's at now.  Holy crap, it's as high as it's ever been.  Butter buy now!?!
There might just not be anything useful for you to do with that 'value'. As others mentioned, HELOCs have their risks and issues too. There is no risk-less way to take advantage of the value (outside of selling) It is similar to owning a rare stamp that is 'worth a million' - what good does it do you if you don't sell it? nothing. It is just a number on a sheet of paper, or even only on some people's minds.
It's all about the land value. The structure is only ever worth as much as it would cost to build a new one (minus demolition costs)
It has properties of both.  Tax authorities will eventually give their opinion on this.  Through its properties of finite quantity, fungibility, and resistance to forgery/duplication, it acts as a commodity.  It can be sent directly between any two parties anywhere on Earth, without regard for the quantity transacted or physical distance, to act as a currency. By the way, establishing trust in a trust-free environment through cryptographic proof-of-work is a remarkable invention.  Sending economic value, cheaply and securely, around the world in minutes, not days/weeks, is a remarkable invention.  This is where the value comes from.
Have you owned the stock for longer than 2015?  The stock appears to have grown in value since December 2014 from 72.85 to 73.5 which is about 0.89% growth in the year to date (2015).
So: What you do:
&gt; But, it seems like the pool is adding value out of nowhere!  Options don't simply exercise in the void. There are proceeds from the  exercise (option-holders must pay into the company). This amount is an additional investment in the company that hasn't precisely materialized yet, but is generally expected to (and is difficult to alter, as it's likely part of an employment contract).
Everything lies in In the end. How many days/weeks/months/years can you wait for your money back?
When discussing housing, food, education, healthcare, and personal safety why are you bringing the value of labor into it! We are all the same fallen apes trying to make it in this world. Try having some empathy and compassion.
"Their ""worth"" is whatever someone is willing to pay to have them.  The mint presumably thinks that some people (collectors) are willing to pay at least 55$ CAD for them. Their value as currency is only 3$ CAD. Their value as precious metal/crystal is irrelevant, as its illegal to melt (without explicit permission) coins that are legal tended in Canada."
Mainly because I have it and you don't, I can make you do stuff for it because more of us perceive its value than bother about the paper you are holding.   Picture if you will a moment in time, when the paper you are holding, represented the amount of gold you had at home, as time went by you spent all your gold and the amount the paper represented, became less and less and the amount of lunch you could buy with it became less and less.  Today the day has arrived, that you have no gold left and what your paper represents is an empty coffer . .  Move along . .people who can pay for their lunch are waiting and look, the paper they hold represents gold they have.
Exactly. I don't mind my personal information being used to make LinkedIn money -- they provide value back to me by letting me keep track of business relationships. That has a different dollar value for different people, but for me it's pretty high.
Pretty sure the null hypothesis here is that trading equities at a high frequency is a zero sum game.   The is no gain that isn't someone else's loss.  No goods are created, no knowledge is gained, no value is produced.  Note, I didn't say value is destroyed either.
If you read the article you'd actually see that it provides a ton of value. You think I would write 2,000+ words for no reason? I spend a lot of time on articles like this and to be honest find it annoying how the reddit community always jumps to conclusions. Do your homework and actually read. Not just speaking to you but often the community in general makes this mistake. If you want to see who I am, see here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nathanresnick/
Wow, why so defensive?  I'm a bit confused as to what you are arguing exactly. In the first part of your post it seems like you are saying ideas can't have intrinsic value, only physical things. I disagree.  Your second argument seems to be that Bitcoin isn't special. It's just one of many possible implementations of the blockchain idea. You do seem to believe that a blockchain can be valuable though, correct?
A couple of points.
Yes, that's what it means. Also, it tells you that the share price went up by $0.39 yesterday, which was an increase of 1.43% from the previous day's price, and that the total value of all of Microsoft's shares is $232.18 billion (from which we can deduce that there are a bit less than 10 billion Microsoft shares in total).
"I suspect that to ""make money"" it isn't enough to know the current value (""high currency""): to make money you'd need to know/guess/predict/bet on the future change in value: will the currency value go higher in the future? Or will it come down again? Or will it stay the same? Everybody knows the current value, so that by itself isn't enough knowledge to make money from. That said, if you know you're going to need American dollars in the future (if you have future expenses which need to be paid in American dollars), then now might be a good time to buy those dollars."
Are you trolling? It's been declining for 100 years. It's called inflation, and the guys in charge of the currency supply seem to think it's a good thing. Further the only way the government is ever going to pay this debt off is if we continue to see inflation for decades.
The usual lazy recommendation: See what similar objects, in similar condition, of similar age, have sold for recently on eBay. That establishes a fair market value by directly polling the market.
&gt;We collectively agree that a dollar has a certain value. That's it. We believe in money. Welcome to the collective delusion of fiat currency.  You mean 12 richest families in charge of FED make you think it has value? Once you realize this, you'll soon understand how is US's everlasting involvement in (provoking) wars across the globe financed, where from, and most importantly why. Once other nations exclude US dollar as a valid currency (India, Russia and China have already), US dollar is going to be less and less valuable until it's worth nothing (as it actually is all along as it has no leverage). Maybe we better rebel against an inevitable doom of US economy now when you can actually use it to buy other commodities than wait to use them as firestarters 10-20 years down the road.
We collectively agree that a dollar has a certain value. That's it. We believe in money. Welcome to the collective delusion of fiat currency.  We all could just as easily think they were all useless bits of paper and use them as firestarters. But the economy would have to tank in spectacular fashion for people to start doing that.
So the man spends hundreds, possibly thousands, of hours writing, and more importantly honing material.  Then spends a quarter of a million dollars out of his own pocket to put it in a special and he deserves zero compensation for this?
Maybe someone will have more details, but a couple of things come to mind immediately:
Two points.
Two possibilities:
Not the guy you asked, but I'll answer anyway. Each of us has to decide what is most important to us. If it's money, you wouldn't be asking. If it's being a respectable person with integrity, then you must accept that all things have a price. The good part about sacrificing quick money to maintain integrity is that your name and brand will grow in value as a result. Build your reputation for quality and honesty and reap the benefits over time. They will come. Do not compromise your integrity, because once it is damaged it is very hard to repair it.
Isn't Uber's insane valuation based on the promise that they will usher the autonomous vehicle era? Didn't Uber steal that tech (LADAR) from Google, which hopefully google will put Uber in the poor house if it goes to trial?  You can tell who I'm rooting for.