Basically a company who provides health insurance for their employees provides it as part of the employee's salary package. This is an expense by the company in its pursuit of making income. In general, tax deductions are available on any expense incurred in deriving income (the exception is when social policy allows deductions for other types of expenses). If you pay for your own health insurance individually, then this expense is not an expense for you to derive your income, and as such is not tax deductible.


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=464cbcd2c010c427c9369a688a92e5fe&rgn=div8&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.3.354.12&idno=7  > (c) The producer of an organic livestock operation must not:  > (1) Sell, label, or represent as organic any animal or edible product derived from any animal treated with antibiotics, any substance that contains a synthetic substance not allowed under §205.603, or any substance that contains a nonsynthetic substance prohibited in §205.604.  > ...  > (7) Withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to preserve its organic status. All appropriate medications must be used to restore an animal to health when methods acceptable to organic production fail. Livestock treated with a prohibited substance must be clearly identified and shall not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced.


Merchants are only supposed to verify the presence of a signature, which signifies that the card owner has accepted the terms and conditions of the card / account. It was never really intended to be used to authenticate the card holder, nor is it used as such in practice.


'We were encouraged en masse to apply to university, told a degree would guarantee us a good job, as long as we worked hard and did well.'     This is what is really aggravating me, I worked hard and did very well, and am about to graduate my masters with a pile of job rejections. I mean I know no one 'owes me anything', but when I was in secondary school, a lot was promised, and I hardly think having a large portion of well educated young people jobless, or in unskilled labour is anywhere near an efficient use of human resource, let alone the misery that goes along side it. (I really needed a little bit of venting)


Prefab steel structures are built offsite in factories in parts and them they are delivered to the site to be assembled into a complete building. This method of building comes with a lot of benefits. Today hotels, resorts, offices and other commercial building are opting for the prefab buildings due the huge advantages.


Does not a reloadable card purchased from a store meet your requirements? Note, however, that my memory is that if you buy such a card in the US it can't be used outside the US--to keep it from being used to take money out of the country.


"First, bear in mind that you're talking about having an average of ~£2000 saved up at any given time (if you spend all your stipend every quarter at a steady rate you'll start out with all of it and have none left at the end of the quarter), along with any long-term savings you manage to build up over time. In today's low-interest rate environment of ~1% interest rates, we're talking about approximately £20/year interest. So it's not worth a huge amount of effort to optimise this. You mentioned a ""bonus"", but looking at the Charter Savings website I don't actually see one listed for either the Cash ISA or the savings accounts you mention. In general, banks in the UK actually use bonus rates as a short-term measure to suck in new customers, and the bonuses typically expire after a while leaving you with a worse rate. Also, I don't think either of the rates you mention is guaranteed - they are both listed as ""variable"". In reality, I doubt they will go down too much more, given that the likely next move in UK interest rates is upwards. The typical main advantage of an ISA is its tax free nature. But from your question I assume you don't have any other income, so you won't need to pay tax on any interest you earn outside an ISA either. Also, given that your budget is quite tight and you expect to spend most or all of your stipend, there's no advantage to using an account where you can build up long-term tax-free savings. Even if you do have a few thousand pounds left over by the end of your PhD, you'll easily be able to put those into an ISA at that point given the annual limit of £20K. You're right not to want to take any risks with the money, and there aren't really any risk-free investments other than savings accounts available, at least on the timescales you're talking about. So overall I'd just go for the 1.26% return. Edit: as @marktristan's answer points out, you will probably be able to find a ""loss leader"" current account that actually offers more interest than a savings account. You'll need to either use a single current account and manage your budgeting carefully, or use a second current account as your ""savings"" account and make sure to set things up to satisfy the requirements of the account you choose, such as incoming payments or outgoing direct debits."


Yeah, but is licensing a logo *from yourself* a legitimate expense?   I know this is /r/business, and if my accountant told me to do that, then I'd probably do that. But as a citizen and a taxpayer, I don't want global corporates to get away with tax evasion.


Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns.


No, in fact you didn't really say anything, your initial comment just niggled on the fact he used the total bond market number instead of the muni bond market number from 2007-2008.  And were dead stilent on anything else about the article which would lead one to believe that that was all you saw fit to comment on.      Which is the equivalent to reading a story of a bank robbery and getting hung up on the article reporting the total dollar amount in the bank instead of the total dollar amount in the cash drawers that were robbed from and not talking about anything else.       Also your initial complaint about what numbers he uses for the bond market isn't a lie.  You personally feel that he should only mention the 2007-2008 bond market but if you actually read how he used it he wasn't saying anything other than that is the size of the bond market. IN the context it's used in the story there's nothing wrong with the number.  He didn't say they were scamming everything in the market it was a one off sentence about the size of the total bond market (that, in fact, is vulnerable to the exact same type of illegal activity he talked about).


If you're simply trading with your own money and have not incorporated, then you are not eligible for a solo 401(k).  Nerdwallet has an excellent Q&A on the topic here for example.  Solo 401(k) is only allowed to be funded with earned income, and capital gains are not earned income. From the IRS page on One Participant 401(k) plans: Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit Earned income is defined by the IRS here: But not including: Even more clearly, that page notes: There are two ways to get earned income: You work for someone who pays you or You own or run a business or farm Capital gains are certainly neither of these. Now, I have read several articles suggesting one way to go about using the Solo 401k.  All of them suggest that you would need to incorporate in some fashion that would require a Schedule C tax return, though, and be trading with the company's money rather than your own, and then pay yourself a wage from that.  In that case you would be eligible for a Solo 401(k), and you might even be better off as a result of all that maneuvering (even though you'll be taxed at a higher rate for any income you do keep, likely, and have to pay self-employment tax).


Most of your arguments are actually bullshit assumptions that can be easily refuted.  You know what Hedge funds do to pensions? They fleece the pensions with fees and performance bonuses, but take no downside. Even that commie [Warren Buffet bets against them](http://www.forbes.com/sites/mitchelltuchman/2013/07/18/hedge-fund-vs-index-fund-a-comparison/). A simple indexed fund will outperform almost any hedge-fund just left on its own. And they won't be exposed to those great AAA rated CDS's that screwed over so many pension funds during the GFC. Oh, and who put those together? Investment Bankers...  As for the company in distress, it really seems like you have no idea how these things work. If a private equity jumps into a company, it is because of one of two things: Either they can realise a quick buck by dismanteling the company and selling off it's assets, or it's a company that has good revenue, but too many costs, in which they just trim down by fireing everyone they can get away with. They help no one buthemselves and the very few that get to keep their job.  To say that due to their long hours, investment banking analysts make sweatshop salaries is just a horrible misguided joke. even assuming they log in 100h a week for 52 weeks in a year, an [average intern salary](http://www.careers-in-finance.com/ibsal.htm) is of $24/hour, which as you see from the article, is well above any salary of any of the social workers (not just first years). And these go up by around 20% a year. Then, of course, you should add into the equation the fact that anybody working a consisten 100h a week is going to be very prone to making mistakes.  As for that fantastic skill-set you say you learn on the job, I would really love to see a study of some sort in which they compare the value added of an ivy league genius against that of a good student from a public university. Maybe then all of these bold assertions of how fantastic they are will fall to the ground.   The article does not have a lot of quality to it, but it does speak of an important matter. The amount of skilled workers that go into finance and investment banking is disastrous for the economy. If those minds could be applied to actually building things, inventing life-improving services, or generally organising society better, the whole world would be much better off than using those minds to try and outsmart eachother in ways to get investors money into the pockets of the hedge-fund managers and private bankers.


"That was a thought provoking read simply because it explains the guts needed to conquer a diverse market. Never has the term ""change or die"" been more important in business, and hospitality. The more important realization here is that McDonald's started out as a simple American business platform where brute numbers were what drove its business forward. To be profitable in France, it needed to flex its muscle a little bit and show that it could also be a diverse company as well. The same goes for McDonald's in Asia etc."


Only average down super blue chips with a long history or better still, ETFs or index type funds. I do it with income producing funds as I'm a retiree. Other people may have much shorter horizins.


Mazda is, hands down, the best manufacturer of affordable fun cars. While I mostly drive Audis, I've had the opportunity to put a substantial number of miles on a couple Mazdas lately (the Miata and the 3), both on the street and on the track, and they are both fantastic cars. It makes me wonder why anybody would ever buy a Toyota or Honda.


This is because short term debt needs to be rolled over to finance the long term project and so, when interest rates rise they will be refinanced at a higher interest rate. This means that it will end up costing more than if the company had taken out a long term loan at the lower rate. A long term project implies that the beneficial (incoming) cashflows will be long term but with short term financing the debt will come payable sooner which is why it needs rolling over; any beneficial cashflows are not  enough to cover the debt.


It can be argued that it is easier for people to get good paying jobs or get a better education is they can expect a minimum income from the government.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income  The main argument being that almost all of the money given out will be spent instead of saved and will quickly make it's way back into the supply side of the economy.  Also students can devote their college time to studying instead of working a job and going to school.


Two different questions: Is it better to be in debt or to pay off the debt? And: Is it better to have student debt than other debt?  Any debt needs to be paid off eventually, and any debt makes you less flexible. So if you have the choice between spending/wasting your money and paying off debt, I would recommend paying off the debt.  The other question is whether having student debt is better than having other debt. You need to look at the terms of your student debt. Pay off the debt with the worst conditions first. Loan sharks (in Britain: pay-day loans) must be paid first. Credit cards debt must go next. Then general loans. Depending on your situation, you may want some savings as well. In case you lose your job, for example. So if you have $8,000 saved and an $8,000 student loan, you might consider waiting a bit before you pay back the loan. No job + $8,000 student loan + $8,000 in the bank is better than no job + no debt + no money in the bank.


> In many cases we are actually wasting energy by first burning coal to generate electricity, only to convert it back to heat again.  Yes and no.  Thermodynamically, you are correct in some cases.  What we gain, nowadays, with electricity generation is lower distribution costs and flexibility.  The value of that far exceeds the cost of any thermodynamic losses.  If it didn't, we wouldn't be using it quite as extensively.


None of the 'solutions' to lowered enrollment included closing for-profit schools to increase enrollment in schools that are accredited and cost a lot less. Many for -profit schools are only money pits for the student loans and grants and don't graduate students or provide real skills for the workplace. Then, students are left with huge loans and no way to pay.


> They follow the coldly rational, impersonally merciless path of greatest profit in the most immediate term, without the slightest concern for your humanity or needs.  Watch out, your heart is bleeding on the floor.  Banks are a business, not a charity. They lend you money to make a profit. If you're not comfortable with that, don't take their money *and falsely promise to pay it back.*


Again, you have completely failed to grasp willingness to pay as an Economic concept, viewing it instead through the lense of your personal feelings.  A wealthy man has more money to spend on protecting his life, therefore in purely concrete terms an Economist would say he has a higher willingness to pay.  An idiot would make a value assessment based on the moral equivalency of a wealthy mans life to a poor mans life, fundamentally ignoring the important observation that a wealthy man will pay more than a poor man.  We're modeling behavior here, we're not sorting souls. Thats far above our paygrade as mortals.


You need to prove to the IRS that it's you, so if you're calling you'll need to know the details of the tax return that only you would know (ss#, address, refund amount and more); alternatively you can go visit the IRS office closest to you with a proper form of ID.


Why does it matter that 400 people were put out of work? Why does business have to be about giving people jobs? This frustrates me to no end.  Our quest to put people in jobs is not how we should see things. Trying to justify jobs is backwards thinking honestly. Look at government systems like NASA. The space shuttle turned out to be a disaster in terms of costs, and same thing seems to be happening with the new SLS program.  Why? Because congress was more concerned about keeping jobs than actually doing the job at hand. I really want to believe that the world of business is not going to devolve to that level.  I realize this is a rant, so feel free to report/downvote me.


"Going by the information from Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the Australian Government website, there seem to be a number of possibilities. Note: First I am neither a tax expert nor a lawyer; this is simply my interpretation of the rules on the page linked above. Second, this interpretation is based on the assumption that ""resells a service"" means you (at least technically) buy the service from another company and sell it on to the users of your app. Depending on the nature of the service, and possibly factors such as whether you are deemed to ""take possession"" during the transaction, it might be that different rules apply. Your Turnover is Under A$75,000 (Providing you're not reselling taxi services!) You won't need to register for GST, should not charge it, and your invoices should show that GST was not included in the price. However, if the turnover of the company whose services you are reselling is registered for GST, they will be charging you GST that you will not be able to claim back, so you would need to factor this into the price you charge your users (before any promotional discount). For example: Your Turnover is Over A$75,000 If your turnover is above the limit, you would need to charge GST on the final sale amount and pay this amount (one eleventh of the price your customer paid) to the Australian Government. You also have to send out properly-formatted tax invoices. However, it's probably safe to say the company you are buying the original service from will also be over the GST threshold, so you should be able to reclaim the GST that was charged to you by them.  For example: Here, your overall profit/loss is helped by the fact that you can reclaim the GST you were charged, and can under some circumstances result in an overall rebate. These figures assume you add 10% to your selling price to cover the GST you have to pay the Government. However, this may make your offering uncompetitive, so you may have to absorb some/all of the GST yourself."


Our painters have years of experience in the industry, so you know that you’re getting the best of the best when it comes to getting what you need for your next paint job. Give us a call today to make an appointment and to figure out what you want to do for your project. http://barwickpainting.com/contact-us/


Jk Web Solution Plus is a fastest growing compony .We at Jk Web , offers web development , web design services , language , language translation, content writing ,search engine optimization (SEO) , interpretation , traduzione ,and all Services,web application Services and Software Development . provide a varied array of services which ranges from Linguistic solutions to IT solutions. We realize the importance of communication in every business process along with the cross-cultural synergies that play a significant role. Hence, our linguistic solutions include document translations and interpretation services in foreign languages as well as Regional languages. Information Technology has proved itself as an essential component behind big success stories in today's world. To help achieve such business goals,we strive for excellence through IT solutions. Apart from these two principle activities, we also venture in Consultancy and Recruitment services .Jk Web is bleaming to offers you to reflect your ideas in your web site and meets your accusative meant by capturing biz world.


Wow Abigail, could you be more vague about your assertion? >It's tough to know what the exact catalyst will be Ok... >When we take the long-term chart of the Dow  Ok so your assumption is based off of looking at the Dow? Really? We could perhaps be facing a correction, but the reasoning, and therefore this article, are really shit.


Yes. You may be subjected to the US gift tax (if you transfer to anyone other than your legally married spouse or yourself). The receivers will have to deal with the Indian tax laws, which I'm not familiar with.


A payment of $224 at 7.2% interest will pay off a $33000 mortgage in 30 years. Unfortunately, I'm on cold medicine so guessing was the only way I got to the answer, but I guessed right on the first try :). However, if you like algebra: The following formula is used to   calculate the fixed monthly payment   (P) required to fully amortize a loan   of L dollars over a term of n months   at a monthly interest rate of c. [If   the quoted rate is 6%, for example, c   is .06/12 or .005]. P = L[c(1 + c)n]/[(1 + c)n - 1]


There aren't only two factors at play here. There is more to success than hours worked and lucky circumstances. I don't claim to know the other factors, but I would like to give you an example.  Currently, I'm listening to Bach's Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor. It is truly an inspiring piece. Bach was, and still is, a great success. His genius has been rivaled very few times over the past 250+ years. Still, there are many composers who put in just as much work as Bach, yet are not as good. Both Bach and such nameless composers put conscious effort into the placements of their notes, so luck is not a factor. Both Bach and nameless composers also put in a comparable number of hours, yet Bach is just better. Clearly there must be some other factor deciding who is successful and who is not.


Culture is always the first thing to go when the profits decline. Netflix has the bank to perk the shit out of the staff and the market attractiveness to promote a meritocracy during this growth phase... But when the margins disappear you can expect this attitude to change.


PayPal. Or even Western Union or MoneyGram.  Despite their fees, there is a reason those companies are still in business.


I see no humor at all, only disgust.  People are being burned, just not at the stake.  I see it more like decades of financiers leveraging his daddy's assets for him through multiple failures with con jobs, mob money, money laundering and government welfare.  95% of the population are more qualified to be president just because they are not a nut job.  Playboy Chump is a nut job, an idiot, a fraud, a snake oil salesman and a garden variety asshole.  Proof that democracy has failed at the hands of the powers that be.


According to Wikipedia as well as this stock market trading-hours website, the Tehran Stock Exchange is open Saturday through Wednesday.


One of the best money related trades people acquired is obtaining a property. Notwithstanding whether you are looking for a home buy or a pivotal event home strikingly, finding the right property at the right cost is basic for advance. Blue Ridge Royalty is a secretly had and worked for the association, and we are centered around our property clients.


"10 to 20% return on investment annually. ""When I hear that an investment has a 10%+ return on it I avoid it because..."". In my opinion, and based on my experience, 10% annually is not an exageration. I start to ask questions only if one talks about return of 30% annually or more. These kind of returns are possible, but very rare.  What sort of things do we need to look out for with alternative investment? First the quality of the website and the documentation provided. Then the resume of the founders. Who are those guys? I check their LinkedIn profile. If they have none, I am out. A LinkedIn profile is a minimum if you manage an investment company. I also look for diversification and this is the case with Yieldstreet. How do we assess the risks associated with alternative investments? I would never put more than 10% of my capital in any investment, alternative ones included. I also try to find financial information on the promoter itself. In Yieldstreet case check the legal advisor. I remember an international fraud case I analyse. The promoter I investigated had seven small trust involved: in British Virgin Islands, in Panama, in Holland, in Portugal, in the United States and Canada plus a banking account in Switzerland and the biggest shareholding company in the Isle of Man. No need to talk about what happened after. The investors were all non residents in the juridictions involved and no legal recourse were possible. They lost everything. These promoters regularly change juridictions to avoid detection. As far as Yieldstreet is concerned, what I read and checked seems interesting. Thanks for your question. I will check it out myself more. I am also a very cautious investor. To evaluate alternative investments is difficult , but no need to be afraid or to avoid them. We are accredited investors after all."


I don't think there exists a guaranteed 5% investment vehicle. You have to decide how much risk you're willing to take. Splitting your $200k between CD's and stocks (or whatever higher yield investment vehicle you've found) is a way to get a higher rate without risking it all. For example if you've got a CD at 3%, and let's say best case is 10% average annual return on stocks, after 10 years here are potential results using various splits from 100% CD to 100% stock:   The best case based on 10% average stock return and 3% CD return is the Total line for each split, the worst-case would be the CD amount only. Reality could be almost anywhere, but not below the CD amount.


They are a complete waste of money, see my answer here for more details.


"I think the answer to your question is no, in theory. By screening out funds, you must actively manage the investments. To then try to ensure you track the index closely enough, you have to do further management. Either you spend your own time to do this or you pay someone else.  This is ok, but it seems contrary to the primary reasons most people choose an index fund and why the product exists. You want a specific type of ethical investment(s) that has lower fees and performs well. I think you can get close, it just won't be like an ""index fund"". Don't expect equal results."


I'm not here to call anyone fake news...but I have a question for you:   What leads you believe Mediabiasfactcheck.com is a reliable source on this topic, enough to use it as a source to justify your claims?  > **Disclaimer**: The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own.  It is not a tested scientific method.  It is meant as a simple guide for people to get an idea of a source’s bias.    It's not an organization or a research group: it's a website run by a single person who is the sole judge of all criteria necessary in determining how biased a media source is.


First off--congrats on expanding.  Just the fact that you're doing that makes one of his points for him.  I learned this lesson at 18, watching the owner of the very popular shop sandwich shop where I worked.  Line around the block from open until close.  He easily made $200,000 a year, but he insisted on micromanaging.  If you're making $200K, why the hell are you making sandwiches next to my minimum wage college ass?  Run the business, not the minutia. He could have expanded to 5 shops (the way you're planning to expand your dad's business) and been making a million a year to work the same hours.  But he had a sick obsession with being involved in every last bit of the work being done.  Unfortunately, when people insist on running a one-man show, then that's all they'll ever be.


"Interestingly enough, ""strategic default"" seems to be more common than one might think in California and there is actually a lot of information available on it, to include a calculator that breaks down the numbers for you (although affiliated with a law office). Speaking from a purely financial standpoint, walking away only makes sense if it puts you in a better financial position than you were before while you had the mortgage. If you look at the downsides of walking away: The issues with the credit rating are will known but you need to take into account any open lines of credit you currently have as well as any need you might have to open a line of credit in the future. If you currently have credit cards, will the rates go up after the hit? On the housing side of things, you mortgage payment is currently a known quantity that will not change for the duration of the mortgage unless you do something to change it. However, it is fairly rare for rents to not change between years and if you want an apartment or house similar to what you currently have, you might find that the rent will fluctuate quite a bit between years and in the long run the rent might run higher than your current mortgage payment. Likewise, in the shorter term, if the landlord runs a credit check they might adjust what the rent is (or deny you the apartment) on the basis of the black mark on your history for reasons that other have mentioned. Another item to take into account is if you need to get a job in the future. Depending upon what you do for a living this might be a non-issue; however, if you are in a position of trust, walking away from a mortgage payment will reflect negatively upon your character unless you have a very good reason for it. This can lead to a loss of employment opportunities. Next, if you walk away from the mortgage you are walking away from the current value of the home and any future value that the home might have. If you like where you are living and aren't planning on moving to another part of the country, you are gambling that the market will not recover or that you would reach parity with what you owe by the time you need to sell the house. If you do plan on staying where you are and the house is in good repair, then in the long run you might be giving up quite a bit of money by walking away. These are a lot of factors to take into account though so its really hard to say one way or another if a strategic default is a good idea. In the long run you might come out ahead but knowing when that date is can be difficult to calculate. Likewise, in the long run it might adversely affect you and you might come to regret the decision.  If the payments themselves are a bit too high, perhaps you can refinance or negotiate with the bank for a lower payment? If you get a better rate but keep your monthly payments the same then you might reach parity with the mortgage much faster which would also be to your advantage."


"Can I rent a mailbox at UPS Store and use it as a physical business address? Depending on the type of business, this may not be allowed. However, there's no blanket restriction, so you need to check if for business of the type that you have this is not forbidden. In any case, there's ""business address"" and there's ""address of records"". The former can, for most part, be a PO box. The latter usually cannot. Check if Virginia requires ""address of records"" to be provided. Can I use my home address as a registered agent address? If yes, would my house be considered as a business property? or registered address is just an address that gonna receive mails from the government state? Yes, you can be your LLCs registered agent. The registered agent must be able to accept official deliveries during the regular business hours. PO box cannot be used for that purpose, it must be a physical address where there's someone present to sign for you when you're served with lawsuits and notices. If you are not at home during the regular business hours - you cannot provide your home address for that purpose. You will be using your home for business purposes, whether you're serving as your own registered agent or not. So depending on your county/city laws - it is likely that your home will be considered place of business either way. Can I use UPS mailbox store for both business address and registered agent? See above. What other options should I consider? You can hire a register agent in your State, it is usually $50-$100/year. They will scan whatever they receive and forward to you, usually within hours. Some also provide mail forwarding service (i.e.: they'll forward any mail for you, not only official correspondence), but that usually costs extra."


Your best bet is to refinance the car in your own name only. Hopefully a year of making the payments has improved your credit score enough. If not, you can approach a loan officer at a credit union and make your case (that you haven't missed any payments, etc.). A new title should be sent to the new lien holder, and  in that process, if your ex needs to sign any paperwork, it can be done while refinancing.


Sure.. its possible, its exactly what activist investors do (with institutional money - e.g. pension funds, family foundations).  Crowdsourcing probably implies an average <$100 donation per contributor in your mind however, so you'd need a lot of contributors (as opposed to an institution writing a $1B check out of the box)  As a benchmark, you can start agitating even without owning shares, but it probably lends credibility to have a few percentage points.  As of today, GS's market cap is $46B, JPM's market cap is $122B, BAML's market cap is $77B... so you'd need at least $1B of capital to buy a percentage point or two.  At $100 per ticket. that's 10M individual donors.


"I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question.  I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising.  You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place.  Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of ""cancelling"" an option you purchased: No, you cannot ""cancel"" an option contract, per se.  But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market.  When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value.  Once you sell, you're back to ""no position"".  That's not the same as ""cancelled"", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who ""sold to open"" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote.  However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market.  Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time.  This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a ""buy to close"", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position.  (The other kind of buy is the ""buy to open"".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who ""sold to open"" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract.  For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation.  Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities   options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the   National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the   entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately   cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the   opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes   the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows   options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having   to find the original opposite party.   [...]   [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment.  (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: ""I know my counter party cannot sell his shares"" ... that's not strictly true.  You are thinking of a covered call.  But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares.  Look up Naked call (Wikipedia).  Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call ""is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk"".  The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC)."


Basically you'd take all the companies in a given universe (like the S&P 500 or the Russell 3000) and instead of weighting them by market cap as they are currently done, you would weight by an alternative measure.  Right now, if you're invested in an index that is market cap weighted, you're effectively momentum chasing. If a stock runs up, you're going to have a higher weight in your portfolio because of it (but only after the increase).  An alternative that OppenheimerFunds has come up with is using revenue-weighting. That way you're using company fundamentals and only when the fundamentals are improving do you increase the weight in your portfolio.  I haven't yet seen any research that explores weighting by other fundamentals. I would think that revenues aren't perfect either and that you might want to weight by Net Income. Or to go several steps further, by year over year Free Cash Flow growth.   It could be a seminal paper if you are the one who empirically identifies a better weighting methodology and then have everyone else fight over the theoretical underpinnings.  This is effectively what goes into Smart Beta investing: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smart-beta.asp


Most businesses have some sort of software to manage their client data.  Most of these various software and/or services are industry specific.  Black Diamond seems to be a client management tool targeting investment advisers. From the black diamond site Reach an unparalleled level of productivity and transform your client conversations. You don't need one of these unless you're a professional investment adviser with so many clients you can't track them yourself or need more robust reporting or statement generation tools. For your purposes most regular brokers, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, TD, etc, have more than enough tools for the retail level investor.  They have news feeds, security analysis papers, historical data, stock screeners, etc.  You, a regular retail investor doesn't need to buy special software, your broker will generally provide these things as part of the service.


Thanks for that, it did help.   I think my issue is I don't work in finance itself, I'm a lawyer, and 'capital' generally has a very specific meaning in English company law, where it refers exclusively to shareholder capital.   I realise capital in finance terms includes both debt and equity investment.


"Nothing stops you doing that, but there's no gain to be had by doing it. ""Removing it from being a tax liability"" isn't a single event that happens when you put money in an ISA. The money that actually goes into the ISA is post-tax income, not pre-tax income.  The benefit you get is that as long as you leave your money in the ISA, you don't pay tax on interest or capital gains within the ISA. If you liquidate an ISA immediately after creation, you won't get any such interest and therefore no tax benefit."


You will normally have somewhere to designate which tax year you are contributing for when you make your contribution (either online or at the bank).  This designation is only required from Jan 1 - Apr 15 of each year, as any contributions before / after those dates will necessarily be for the calendar year that you contribute. You must make sure that your tax forms (1040 and anything else) show your total contribution for the tax year.  If you've put $1000 into your Roth IRA during the calendar year for 2010, and then you put in $2000 in March 2011 (but designated for 2010), you need to show the IRS that you put $3000 into your Roth IRA. As stated in another answer, the advantage is increasing the overall contribution limit in your lifetime.  If you open a brand new Roth IRA in March 2011, you can contribute $5000 for 2010 and another $5000 for 2011.  If you open the same account in May 2011, you are limited to only $5000 for 2011.


I cringe every time I see Trump bragging about the stock market - the momentum is irrational and it's going to bite him in the ass before the end of his first term.  If he's taking credit it for it going up, then the blame is on him for it going down, right?  I just don't see any reality where we go another 3+ years without a normal correction without massive PPT intervention when they didn't even let it fully correct a year or two ago.


Tax cuts do lead to economic growth, and why not?  More money circulating in the private economy is good for everybody.  It’s why the stock market is up big on the prospect for tax cuts.  The problem is the rosy growth projections that accompany these plans.  The growth will occur, but the pace of growth is a big question and very hard to model.  So a prudent policy proposal would be to cut spending as well while the growth materializes.  Then (hopefully) that spending cut becomes permanent as the economy grows so the private economy grows at the expense of the state.


PSB taxed at higher rates. PSB is taxed at 39.5% in Ontario, as the article mentioned. But if you pay all the net income to yourself as salary, you expense it and zero it out on the corporate level. So who cares what tax rate it is if the taxable income is zero? No-one. Same goes for the US, by the way. Personal Service Corporations are taxed at flat 35% Federal tax rate. But if you pour all the income into your salary - its moot, because there's no net income to pay tax of. If it's too complicated to figure out, maybe it would be wise to hire a tax accountant to provide counsel to you before you make decisions about your business.


Think about it. IF you save $15K by buying a Honda or a Mazda, you can invest those money at modest 5% average, you'll have over 60K before you retire, which allows you to retire at least a year earlier.... So it is worth working an extra year in your life to have a fancier car? And that's a conservative investment.


"There's a bit of confusion here.  Michael's article you linked is focused on the issue of post-tax 401(k) deposits. For those new to this, it sounds like we are talking about Roth 401(k) money. Not so. The Roth IRA was introduced in 1998, and the Roth 401(k) in 2006. Before '06, people had the ability to deposit more to their 401(k) than the pretax limit of $15,000 into the account as ""after tax"" deposits. My understanding is that these funds were analogous to the non-deducted IRA deposits for those outside the income limits.  Michael goes on the point out that now, with the addition of Roth 401(k) and Roth IRAs, there are folk with pre and post Tax 401(k) funds and trying to crack them for transfer to Traditional IRA and Roth IRA may be problematic.  Aside from a recent thread here, there are separate accounts for the Roth 401(k) and Traditional 401(k), and it's possible for the traditional to contain post tax money, which, given the recent introduction of the Roth 401(k) conversion, should be easily addressable."


> — December 2008: Citi agrees to repurchase $7 billion in auction-rate securities it sold with the SEC for telling investors they were safe when it knew they were deteriorating. The SEC makes **Citi promise not to break the law it made Citi promise not to break again back in 2001, 2005, and 2006**  *slaps citi*  that's a BAD CITI !  you promise not to do it again, m'kay ?  citi : evil grin ''yes master''


Yep, but it you didn't answer my question (edit: I know it was phrased as a question, but I do know youre supposed to model changes in cash). When bankers calculate all three approaches, how do they compare them? From what I see, the conclusion of each approach gives us:  * Public Company Approach: Enterprise Value * Transaction Approach: Enterprise Value * Discounted Cash Flow Approach: Enterprise Value + Minimum Level of Operating Cash  Does an investment banker subtract out that minimum level of operating cash at the end of the calculation to get to a value that he can then compare?


This is the correct answer and is a concrete way to start to work on be legitimate problem of the income gap between the 1% and the rest of the population.  Ive tried, but never been able to justify the compensation earned by the fortune 100 CEOs.


"As best as I can understand, your payout is based on your AIME, which   is also capped at that same $118,500, so Trump's payout should also be   equivalently small, exactly proportional to this cap Not sure what you want from Bernie here, but that is correct. Is it accurate to say that Trump will be paid by social security as   though his actual income was $118,500, rather than his full income? Assuming Trump does pay that much (depends on how much of his income is actually subject to the FICA/SE tax), yes, it is accurate. However I believe what confuses you is the point Bernie Sanders made about people getting the same benefit while being rich. Bernie's point was that Trump and the likes don't need the social security income, while they're still getting it. Social Security is designed (at least theoretically) to be the safety net for people of age who cannot provide for themselves, thus it is not supposed to be ""you get what you paid"" system. This is a political discussion though. Social Security system, by definition, is based on a major principle of any socialist society: we as a group should support those who cannot support themselves. Thus, Bernie's point is that we shouldn't support Trump (and the likes) at all since they don't need that money. But they should still pay the tax to allow supporting those who do need, but cannot pay in."


I'm an Australian who just got back from a trip to Malaysia for two weeks over the New Year, so this feels a bit like dejavu! I set up a 28 Degrees credit card (my first ever!) because of their low exchange rate and lack of fees on credit card transactions. People say it's the best card for travel and I was ready for it. However, since Malaysia is largely a cash economy (especially in the non-city areas), I found myself mostly just withdrawing money from my credit card and thus getting hit with a cash advance fee ($4) and instant application of the high interest rate (22%) on the money. Since I was there already and had no other alternatives, I made five withdrawals over the two weeks and ended up paying about $21 in fees. Not great! But last time I travelled I had a Commonwealth Bank Travel Money Card (not a great idea), and if I'd used that instead on this trip and given up fees for a higher exchange rate, I would have been charged an extra $60! Presumably my Commonwealth debit card would have been the same. This isn't even including mandatory ATM fees. If I've learned anything from this experience and these envelope calculations I'm doing now, it's these:


"Should be titled, ""Facebook IPO: Could Mark Zuckerberg _Be Worth_ $24 Billion?""  They are reportedly looking to float only 10% of shares, at $10 billion, valuing the company at $100 billion. That doesn't mean Zuckerberg gets a paycheck of $24B on that day.   While I think it's crazy that all these companies are getting such high valuations, I really want to see Facebook's financials. I also wonder how much worse Facebook will get with unnecessary shit when their goal is to meet their next quarter earnings."


"You don't seem to understand wealth. It's not money, really.  Wealth is more good stuff to people. It really doesn't matter how it's distributed for it to be wealth.  If you just give poor people money, you might actually improve things, like lobotomia might improve brains. Mix it, and it might settle in better order.  The economy ""grows"" because people get more good stuff done than they consume. If you pay people for doing nothing in massive scale, you're just making them consume, but not to make any good stuff. They probably spend the money on something that will make more good stuff to people, that's true. And that's the reason why you might get a way with one time lobotomia, but it's terrible if you are competing with countries who don't do missteps, and every expense they do increases the economy in itself + the effect above.  How you should give money away? As an investment to a company that is making a new conquer. Jobs, goods and more competition, all good."


Credit products and securitized debt.  Credit/debt is the flip side of equity but has less volatility. In today's investing environment people are not looking for a big return as much as less risk with a modest return. Another trend I think you will see is the disappearance of the wall between interest rate products/fixed income and credit products.


Nothing will happen. It will not affect your credit score. You are not in trouble.  :) Assuming that you didn't already agree to a purchase contract, you are not obligated to purchase simply because you had a pre-approval credit check done. However, even if you did, since they aren't shipping yet, you could probably cancel. If you are in doubt, talk to customer service to ensure that they aren't planning on shipping one to you.  They did check your credit report (known as a hard pull), and this does temporarily affect your credit score. However, it affects it the same whether you complete the purchase or not. If you have another credit check done with another seller, it will result in another hard pull, affecting your credit score a little more. But I wouldn't worry about a few hard pulls if you need to do some shopping. Just don't go overboard, and you'll be fine.


"Yes, you can make the election to file your LLC as an S-Corp, and Turbo Tax Business can help you with the S-Corp business return. You need to make sure you're set up correctly and there are a lot of things to be aware of. For example, the whole ""reasonable salary"" thing is a can of worms. So while the answer to your question is ""yes, it's manageable, you can do it on your own,"" it might be worthwhile to have a professional help you the first year, make sure it's set up right, and then you can do it on your own in subsequent years."


"They're not necessarily *assigning the risk* outright, because it's just an option. If a company makes a certain product there's often some forethought put in to spare parts from the outset. It's not exactly a huge risk for a company to order knobs in a lot of 15,000 and keep 500 as spares.   What *is* way cooler is the possibility of a company not having to make a physical product at *all*, but simply providing designs to the customers once a certain limit of buyers has been reached, somewhat like a kickstarter campaign. The article talked about this briefly, but I think that's where the real revolution will happen.  Neal Stephenson touches on this in ""The Diamond Age"", I believe, in which 3D printers are vending-machine-type boxes in every street-corner 7-11. You purchase a product that's made on the spot, no matter what it is."


I wish it were easy to do in person.  My targets are produce buyers at mostly large supermarket chains. They're not anywhere near me. Gatekeepers are rarely the problem. Getting their attention for a few minutes is.


Unlike conventional retail stores, malls offer experiences, as /u/grant622 said. In a world dominated by social media, this not only provides businesses with free publicity if they execute well and people talk about what they did online, but it also provides an incredible amount of value to the consumer, and people are more likely to come in and buy even if they weren't necessarily planning on getting anything in the first place.  Movie theaters, bowling alleys, hell, even restaurants are basically becoming the foundation for retail businesses. I work in one of these , and the amount of customers we bring in from the area far exceeds that of any of the other businesses.


So you'd prefer someone else to do your work for you? Someone figure out who's the bad guy, and figure out how to punish them? You are too busy filling your Jeep and drinking your latte to actually be a responsible member of society? It is attitudes like that which lead to tyranny. How can you trust those in power, if you have no idea whats right or wrong?


Theoretically, it's a question of rate of return. If a desired or acceptable rate of return for market makers' capital is X, and X is determined by the product of margin & turnover then higher turnover means lower margin for a constant X.  Margin, in the case of trading, is the bid/ask spread, and turnover, in the case of trading, is volume. Empirically, it has been noted in the last markets still offering such wide-varying evidence, equity options: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/lwu/890/mayhew_jf2002.pdf


"Remember the 1st Law of Technical Analysis: ""For every analysis there exists an equal and opposite analysis.""  And the 2nd Law of Technical Analysis: ""They're both wrong."" Technical analysis in the absence of hard data is just a lot of hand-waving meant to dazzle CNBC viewers and rope would-be day traders into paying for colored-plot-filled trading platforms. How, mathematically, do you define a bull trap?  Does the lead in trendline have to have a certain minimum/maximum slope?  Does the trough have to be below/above a certain percentage of the peaks?  Does the entire period have to encompass less/more than a certain number of trading days?  Etc. Before you attempt to use such an analysis to predict the future direction of a stock price you need to be able to answer the above questions (and more) rigorously.  Only then can you test your definition against historical stock movements to see whether it has predictive power.  If it doesn't have predictive power, then you start over or tweak your definition until it does. Notice that once you're done with all of the above work you are no longer doing technical analysis and are now doing statistics!"


Here's a different take:  Look through the lists of companies  that offer shareholder perks. Here's one from Hargreaves Lansdown.  See if you can find one that you already spend money with with a low required shareholding where the perks would actually be usable.  Note that in your case, being curious about the whole thing and based in London, you don't have to rule out the AGM-based perks, unlike me. My reason for this is simple: with 3 out of 4 of the companies we bought shares in directly (all for the perks), we've made several times the dividend in savings on money we would have spent anyway (either with the company in which we bought shares or a direct competitor).  This means that you can actually make back the purchase price plus dealing fee quite quickly (probably in 2/4 in our case), and you still have the shares. We've found that pub/restaurant/hotel brands work well if you use them or their equivalents anyway. Caveats: It's more enjoyable than holding a handful of shares in a company you don't care about, and if you want to read the annual reports you can relate this to your own experience, which might interest you given your obvious curiosity.


The other issue you could run into is that each deferred account is going to be subject to its own RMD's (Required Minimum Distributions) when you've retired or hit 70.5 years of age.  Roth's don't generally care about RMD's at first, but are still subject to them once the person that created the Roth has passed.  Having fewer accounts will simplify the RMD stuff, but that's really only a factor in terms of being forced to sell 'something' in each account in order to make the RMD.   Other than that, it's just a matter of remembering to check each account if you come to a decision that it's time to liquidate holdings in a given security, lest you sell some but forget about the rest of it in another account.  (and perhaps as Chris pointed out, maybe having to pay fee's on each account for the sale)  Where this really can come into play is if you choose to load up each individual account with a given kind of investment, instead of spreading them across the accounts.  In that case RMD's could force you into selling something that is currently 'down' when you want to hold onto it, because that is your only choice in order to meet RMD's for account X.  So if you have multiple accounts, it's a good idea to not 'silo' particular vehicles into a single account, but spread similar ivestments across multiple accounts, so you always have the choice in each account of what to sell in order to meet an RMD. If you have fewer accounts, it's thus a lot easier to avoid the siloing effect


The reality is that for labor is cheap for software startups. A couple of founders can usually take a prototype to the point where they can get the seed capital to hire labor at market rates, so why would they give up significant equity to employees? Plus, if they need cheap employees, there are always contractors and naive new grads who will gladly take below-market salary for 0.1% of the company. (in options, vested over four years, of course)


"File a John Doe lawsuit, ""plaintiff to be determined"", and then subpoena the relevant information from Mastercard.  John Doe doesn't countersue, so you're pretty safe doing this.  But it probably won't work.  Mastercard would quash your subpoena.  They will claim that you lack standing to sue anyone because you did not take a loss (which is a fair point).    They are after the people doing the hacking, and the security gaps which make the hacking possible.  And how those gaps arise among businesses just trying to do their best.  It's a hard problem.  And I've done the abuse wars professionally.  OpSec is a big deal.  You simply cannot reveal your methods or even much of your findings, because that will expose too much of your detection method.  The ugly fact is, the bad guys are not that far from winning, and catching them depends on them unwisely using the same known techniques over and over.  When you get a truly novel technique, it costs a fortune in engineering time to unravel what they did and build defenses against it.  If maybe 1% of attacks are this, it is manageable, but if it were 10%, you simply cannot staff an enforcement arm big enough - the trained staff don't exist to hire (unless you steal them from Visa, Amex, etc.)  So as much as you'd like to tell the public, believe me, I'd like to get some credit for what I've done -- they just can't say much or they educate the bad guys, and then have a much tougher problem later.  Sorry!  I know how frustrating it is! The credit card companies hammered out PCI-DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards).  This is a basic set of security rules and practices which should make hacking unlikely.  Compliance is achievable (not easy), and if you do it, you're off the hook.  That is one way Amy can be entirely not at fault.  Example deleted for length, but as a small business, you just can't be a PCI security expert.  You rely on the commitments of others to do a good job, like your bank and merchant account salesman.  There are so many ways this can go wrong that just aren't your fault.   As to the notion of saying ""it affected Amy's customers but it was Doofus the contractor's fault"", that doesn't work, the Internet lynch mob won't hear the details and will kill Amy's business. Then she's suing Mastercard for false light, a type of defamtion there the facts are true but are framed falsely.   And defamation has much more serious consequences in Europe.  Anyway, even a business not at fault has to pay for a PCI-DSS audit.  A business at fault has lots more problems, at the very least paying $50-90 per customer to replace their cards.  The simple fact is 80% of businesses in this situation go bankrupt at this point.   Usually fraudsters make automated attacks using scripts they got from others.  Only a few dozen attacks (on sites) succeed, and then they use other scripts to intercept payment data, which is all they want. They are cookie cutter scripts, and aren't customized for each site, and can't go after whatever personal data is particular to that site. So in most cases all they get is payment data. It's also likely that primary data, like a cloud drive, photo collection or medical records, are kept in completely separate systems with separate security, unlikely to hack both at once even if the hacker is willing to put lots and lots of engineering effort into it.  Most hackers are script kiddies, able to run scripts others provided but unable to hack on their own.   So it's likely that ""none was leaked"" is the reason they didn't give notification of private information leakage.  Lastly, they can't get what you didn't upload.  Site hacking is a well known phenomenon.  A person who is concerned with privacy is cautious to not put things online that are too risky.  It's also possible that this is blind guesswork on the part of Visa/MC, and they haven't positively identified any particular merchant, but are replacing your cards out of an abundance of caution."


I like how it takes China to figure out that Bitcoin is just as silly as Dogecoin.  Meanwhile the West continues forging ahead re-discovering all the reasons why we use regulated, reputable institutions for banking.    But who cares?  It isn't Wallstreet that's going to lose their ass on this one.


"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This ""tax deferral"" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term ""carrot"").  However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a ""post-tax deduction"") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place."


"While I'm sure there's some truth to the argument that unsophisticated retail investors index against the S&P 500 thinking that they're tracking ""the market,"" I don't think it makes sense to steer the S&P 500 in that direction to cater to that lowest common denominator. The *ad absurdum* conclusion of that course of action, of course, would be to abolish the S&P 500 entirely and move those assets into the S&P Total Market Index. But clearly there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps with single share classes, just as there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps in general.  As for whether it will be a loss for passive investors...it will be interesting to see how that pans out. Maybe good corporate governance and direct accountability by managers really do contribute positively to returns in the long run and investors will benefit from this change as a result. Or maybe this will result in companies with multiple share classes being undervalued and create an opportunity to earn outsized returns by investing in them, and indexes that omit those companies will underperform. Only time will tell."


I am a worker in a (salaried) skilled position, and I get compensation time off or over time for my hours. Hell I even get paid more if I have to work at none standard hours of the day. Why shouldn't they?


"I think they're going beyond using religion to sell light bulbs. I think they are trying to use light bulbs to sell religion. That's what's crazy about it.  ""Great light bulbs, don't you think? We have a savior too if you want that. Quality is comparable, comes with a lifetime warranty."""


"> people these days believe income is a human right or something.  I believe a full day's work for a living wage is a right, yes.  Do you think a full day's work for a non-living wage is moral?  > if you are not happy with the amount of income you currently make, stop using the internet to bitch about it and use it to better and add value to yourself.  Your argument ignores the possibility that the game is rigged.  People can do things to get a better life in the Hunger Games but that doesn't mean they are fair/moral or part of a society I want to live in.  > The idea of ""a fair share of income"" teeters on communism, if you ask me.  In our society we need farm workers, ditch diggers, security guards, and dishwashers.  It seems fair to me that if society needs these positions filled then they should pay a wage that allows these workers to be part of the society they enable. I think doing anything else is barbaric."


And they also benefit the most for all the infrastructure that makes both their business and their customer base possible. You don't earn money if nobody can afford your products, you can't make and ship products without reliable logistics, energy sources, and communications.


Out of curiosity, why do you believe people will be all gung-ho for $35/hr. but not getting out of bed for $30?  The bus idea is interesting, but it would be difficult to coordinate. Any given farm probably needs no more than one person, so you would have to find all the businesses in the general region needing workers (which may or may not be farms), and hope they too find suitable people in the same city.  If you had a send a car for the person, you'd be paying more like $55/hr. when you factor in the perk offered.


"Let's do some simple math: you front 1500, they leverage you 10:1.  You now have 15K. 3$/15000. Basically you are going to be paying to say buy 100 SPY's @ 133 ($13300 total) 3$. I pay 1$ for the same trade.  How many trades a day are you going to have to make on that to make money? as 10 points on SPY = 1$ per share (and this is if you're good).  Your average win on trades might be 0.2c * 100 = 20$ If you can make ""5"" good trades that would set you back 3*2*5=30$  From your potential 100$ take in this case you would walk home with 70$ but wait theres more!, you only get 80% of this and they get 20%. So you get 56$ and they get 14.  They have made a total of 44$ in this case,you've made 56$.  How far are they gonna leverage you and what kinda sizes can you trade up to on 3$ transaction cost?"


Because most people aren't willing to sacrifice their ability to live in the US for 100k. Remember that you can't pull this off multiple times easily.   So as a one and done kind of deal, 100k isn't a great trade for the right to live in tthe US or whatever country you have roots in, particularly once you factor in:


If you are a small business, you're likely not doing said business at razor thin margins and making your profits on volume like walmart does.  Even minor increases in wages have a sweeping affect on their margins because they are a a huge company.  It's the same principle of why McDonalds started limiting and/or charging for ketchup packets.  At scale, there are massive costs.


I think it has more to do with Amazon Go than grocery delivery. Companies have been trying to make online grocery delivery services popular for decades now.  However, it still only represents about 1-2% of the grocery sales.  I am sure Amazon will do what they can to make delivery more popular, but Amazon Go and the Whole food purchase looks like Amazon has figured-out most people prefer to go to the grocery store.


"A slower approach: keep any discussion of income out of it to begin with. Remaining within discretionary income Z, just go back to the charities your SO has proposed, and say that you would like to set up monthly donations. You would also like to donate a similar amount to charities of your choice. Say what bills your proposed contribution is less than. Once your SO has got used to the idea of charitable giving as a regular expenditure, and has got back the grateful charity newsletters and whatnot, then address the issue of how much you ""should"" give by comparison with income. Whenever you do consider income, your SO doesn't really seem to want anything to do with this. So I'd approach it as seeking agreement. Eric Lippert has a more long-term approach for seeking involvement. So, present the following information however seems best, probably with a pre-amble establishing that you both want to support charities, so the question is how much and how to get it done. ""We earn U. This means we are fortunate enough to be in the top V% of households. Our income breaks down as: This being the case, we can afford to be generous. I would like us to give to the charities that we each care about, to the extent of N. Charitable giving is important to me because ... The amount I suggest we give is less than what we spend annually on ..., and I chose that amount because ... "" Depending on the tax situation, you may then have to explain how N from gross income translates to an actual amount available to give to charity. Or charitable giving might be tax free. If the N you want is greater than Z-A then it might be wise to suggest a smaller amount, but ask that you both make a plan in increase it in a year or whatever. Similarly if N strikes your SO as a scarily large number then I would think the best thing to do is just reduce it so that at least you start somewhere. If Y is low or zero, and your SO suffers from anxiety about financial security, then increasing Y at the same time might be a good way to offset the fear of N. When stating income you might want to exclude any income from savings/investments. Although legally it's income your SO might see it psychologically as capital gains and hence touching it would endanger your savings/investment/pension returns. Even though it's all fungible."


One of the biggest laws in economics is that if an opportunity is very profitable and is very easily exploitable even by complete beginners, then it will very soon stop being profitable. That's how the market works. If you buy stock when it is at the lowest, then you are making money, but most of the time someone else is losing money. And if there was a magic hour of the day when buying would be the most profitable, then soon everybody would want to buy at that time and no one would want to sell anything, so the scheme would collapse.


I recently lent some money to my sister.  While I generally agree with Phillip that lending to family and friends should be avoided, I felt I needed to make an exception.  She really needed the cash, and my husband and I agreed that we would be ok without it.  Here are some guidelines I used that may be helpful to others: In the end, I think lending to family and friends should be avoided, and certainly should not be done lightly, but by communicating clearly and directly, and keeping careful records, I think you can help someone out and still avoid the lingering awkwardness at future Thanksgivings when one person is convinced that the other owes one more payment, and the other swears it was paid in full.


Outside of software that can calculate the returns:  You could calculate your possible returns on that leap spread as you ordinarily would, then place the return results of that and the return results for the covered call position side by side for any given price level of the stock you calculate, and net them out. (Netting out the dollar amounts, not percentage returns.)  Not a great answer, but there ya go. Software like OptionVue is expensive


It will be ones that provide actual service. It's going to be a return to the past IMO where the only brick and mortar stores that really survive are the ones who give a shit about you. For everything else... people will just buy their toilet paper, Fraggle Rock collector sets and god knows what else from Amazon or whoever else will give them the best price.


"Possibly the best answer to why America became globally dominant after WW2 was written by a FRENCHMAN, Jean-Jacque Sergen-Schreiber, Le Defi American (The American Challenge). Probably the only legendary investor of the proper age to benefit from WW2 was John Templeton, who borrowed $10,000 before the war, and ended up with $40,000 afterward (both worth about ten times more in today's money). His story, and that of others, can be found in John Train's, ""The Money Masters."""


That whole sexual harassment thing isn't really enforced. Most married couples meet at work and it has to start somewhere. If you see a nice piece of ass and there isn't a ring on the finger, go for it. If there is a ring, well, that's makes it a bit more fun.   Besides, nobody stays at companies for 30 years anything, the tail you're nailing will most likely move up and out or something.


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.


I know your question is about your credit score, but practically speaking, you should pay of the debt with the highest interest rate first. Doing do will save you money, which is the same net effect as making more money. Your time frame to pay it all off is short (you said 6 month), but just in case it takes longer, take care of the expensive debt first.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://80000hours.org/articles/effective-social-program/) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The vast majority of social programs and services have not yet been rigorously evaluated, andof those that have been rigorously evaluated, most, including those backed by expert opinion and less-rigorous studies, turn out to produce small or no effects, and, in some cases negative effects.  > In terms of the effects themselves, I was basing my estimate to Give Well on the general rule we used at the Coalition to determine if something &quot;Worked&quot; - i.e., whether it was found in a well-conducted RCT to produce sizable, sustained effects on important outcomes.  > The replication crisis is thought to be happening because existing statistical techniques provide lots of opportunities to increase the apparent significance of the effects, and positive effects are far more likely to be published than negative effects.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6sx05m/is_it_fair_to_say_that_most_social_programmes/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~188164 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*: **effect**^#1 **work**^#2 **intervention**^#3 **study**^#4 **more**^#5"


From the employer side there are A LOT of legal duties attached to sponsoring a 401(k).  If you are asking this question I would not suggest attempting to meet all of the regulations related to handling employee money internally. There are certain annual filings, periodic notices, accounting etc related to these kinds of plans, and the fines for non-compliance are extraordinary.  You would be far better off seeking a separate vendor, in my opinion.


"Realtor.com gives the following list of ""best renovations for the money"" and they include ROI numbers: You can see that people generally get ~80-85% of their money back on home improvement projects.  If the housing market is just red hot in your area, and you bought a house with some severe issues that caused the sale price to be significantly undervalued per square foot, then you're more likely to get more than average returns on your investment.  If you manage to save a lot of money on the renovations (ie, inexpensive materials or you DIY and save on labor) then your costs will be lower and your ROI higher.   You can see from the list above that the most profitable improvements tend to be kitchen, bath, windows, and adding additional living space. However, it only takes a few hours of watching HGTV to conclude that renovations often cost more than homeowners expect.  This is often due to unexpected issues or costs that were not apparent before the work started."


">Could that be that you have been SOLD the notion that antitrust laws are a failed and discredited policy.... by those intent on protecting private cartels? (Republicans).  Republicans commonly use free market economic truths when it suits their agendas, so I can see how you might be sensitive to that possibility, but no.   >Could it be that the enforcement arm of the government (like the SEC) have been weakened and captured by lobbyists in a revolving door between the private sector and the the government (facilitated by Democrats too)?  yes, by design, by those who make careers of screwing the rest of us through designing arguments that set us against one another.   > In capitalism, unchecked greed leads to the destructive behavior of endless accumulation of resources at the expense of others...  No, ""greed"" is never unchecked in the free market, excess profits ultimately prevent it, unless the government enables it, of course. Monopolies are a government creation, they are the monopolists of violence after all, so I suppose it comes naturally.   > How does this environment protect the small business or how does it benefit consumers?  More competition and smaller firms that result from said competition, as well as best utilization of resources is best for consumers and society as a whole. It's dynamic, that's important, much more responsive to new factors than government could ever hope to be. Politicians are really bad at adapting to voter preferences in a timely fashion apparently."


You guys seem to have forgotten the most important part of this equation ... i work for a bank and I can tell u this as a painful fact ... every business is governed by its paperwork ... articles bylaws operating agreements amendments and minutes .. if a companys paperwork says that the 51% owner can fire everyone and move to Alaska and that paperwork is proper (signed and binding) it is with minimal excavation law... case in point every company is different .. and it is formed and governed by its paperwork.


Call the CBOE, the Chicago Board of Options Exchange I've requested options on several IPOs in the past. You mainly have to convince them that there is a market for them (or they won't be inclined to provide liquidity). The CBOE could talk to the company in question to help convince them, or the CBOE will just tell you when the options will begin trading. Oh yeah, sometimes they'll ask you who you work for, just try to avoid that question, they don't like to talk to individual/retail investors.


This is perfect for the ELI5 posts that always come up on this topic.  Great article.  I'd be interested in seeing a little more on the regulatory aspects of derivative contracts.  Derivatives are complex because the associated risks are complex.  When banks, insurers, and other entities large enough to have a Chief Risk Officer enter into these contracts, the assumption is that they know what they're doing, so to my knowledge, they're generally lightly regulated.  Additionally, those that understand derivatives enough to regulate them are unlikely to work for the comparatively low wages that they'd get in government. That said, I'd be interested in seeing something discussing the challenges in regulating something like this.  Even before 2008, there were some pretty big failures involving derivatives where risk was not adequately managed that probably wouldn't have been avoided with stronger regulation.


Aims Golf Avenue 2 Noida apartments are ready to move in option. These apartments are planned over 5.5 acres of greenery land to develop 2BHK & 3BHK flats. The project having 6 towers to develop residences from 930 to 1765 Sqft. It is developing at Sector 75 Noida to build unique residences so that homebuyers will have great opportunity to invest in. http://www.smcrealty.com/golf-avenue2-noida/


If you hadn't done it already cut up the cards. Don't close the accounts because it could hurt your credit score even more. Switching some or all of the CC debt onto low rate cards, or a debt consolidation loan is a way that some people use to reduce their credit card payments.  The biggest risk is that you become less aggressive with the loan payback. If you were planning on paying $800 in minimum payments,plus $200 extra each month; then still pay $1000 with the new loan and remaining credit cards.  Another risk is that you start overusing the credit card again, because you have available credit on the card that was paid off with the loan. The third risk, which you haven't proposed, occurs when people switch unsecured credit card dept, to a secured 2nd mortgage debt. This then puts the family home at risk.


John's answer is great, the question, however, is complex enough that one can write a book on the topic.  So, I'll take the liberty to add two observations. The matched 401(k) should be the priority, even before paying off one's credit cards if any. A dollar for dollar match combined with the extra years of compounding is worth a bit longer on the debt pay off. To a younger person, the Roth (either Roth 401(k) or IRA) is a good choice while you are in a lower tax bracket. I recommend you look at the page at Fairmark to understand the tax brackets. It's easy to see how many people straddle that 15% line (at $68K taxable) and with a bit of planning, using Roth while in the 15% bracket and deductible accounts as you go above, you can tax-manage your affairs to avoid the higher rates.


"Diversification is extremely important and the one true ""Free Lunch"" of investing, meaning it can provide both greater returns and less risk than a portfolio that is not diversified. The reason people say otherwise is because they are talking about ""true"" portfolio diversification, which cannot be achieved by simply spreading money across stocks. To truly diversify a portfolio it must be diversified across multiple, unrelated ""Return Drivers."" I describe this throughout my best-selling book and am pleased to provide complimentary links to the following two chapters, where I discuss the lack of diversification from spreading money solely across stocks (including correlation tables), as well as the benefits of true portfolio diversification: Jackass Investing - Myth #8: Trading is Gambling – Investing is Safer Jackass Investing - Myth #20: There is No Free Lunch"


"You got anything else? And you're right... There are more than 3. But that doesn't mean shit when you can't access them. Who owns the lines that allow other providers to work by allowing them to rent/buy space? Oh that's right att, Comcast, time warner and charter. So even then if its ""allowed"" competition is it really competition?"


Acupuncture provides cost effective and without side effect solution to various chronic diseases in the shortest possible time. It is also a means by which a healthy person can maintain the health and keep disease away. Know which are the diseases and how they are cured through acupuncture.


That's because a libertarian is trying to run the company using libertarian principles and it turns out that it is a terrible *terrible* way to run a business.         EDIT:     You can downvote reality, but that dosen't change it.      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously/       http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys_his_empire_partner/       >[As Mina Kimes explained in a fascinating profile in Bloomberg Businessweek](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-eddie-lamperts-warring-divisions-model-adds-to-the-troubles), Lampert took the myth that humans perform best when acting selfishly as gospel, pitting Sears company managers against each other in a kind of Lord of the Flies death match. This, he believed, would cause them to act rationally and boost performance.  >If you think that sounds batshit crazy, congratulations. You understand more than most of America’s business school graduates.  >Instead of enhancing Sears’ bottom line, the heads of various divisions began to undermine each other and fight tooth and claw for the profits of their individual fiefdoms at the expense of the overall brand. By this time Crazy Eddie was completely in thrall to his own bloated ego, and fancied he could bend underlings to his will by putting them through humiliating rituals, like annual conference calls in which unit managers were forced to bow and scrape for money and resources. But the chaos only grew.      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-eddie-lamperts-warring-divisions-model-adds-to-the-troubles     Deal. With. It.


"Unless you are investing an insignificant amount of money for the home and renovations, you need title insurance.  Without it multiple other parties can claim ownership in this property you are purchasing and investing in.  Also you can know if there are any liens against the property which can cost you a significant amount in addition to the costs you are budgeting.   For example liens against a property I bought a while back amounted to 26% of the price I paid.  In my case the seller (a bank) paid those, while in your case you may need to pay any liens as I suspect the seller has little money. That ""bone"" in your body that has you worried about this transaction is really good.  Pay attention to it."


That price is the post-tender price, which already reflects arbitrage.  It's less than $65 on the market because that's the highest offer out there and the market price reflects the risk that the $65 will not be paid.  It also reflects the time value of money until the cash is disbursed (including blows to liquidity). In other words, you are buying the stock burdened with the risk that it might rapidly deflate if the deal falls through (or gets revived at a lower price) or that your money might be better spent somewhere other than waiting for the i-bank to release the tender offer amount to you. Two months ago JOSB traded around $55, and four months ago it traded around $50.  If the deal fails, then you could be stuck either taking a big loss to get out of the stock or waiting months (or longer) in the hope that another deal will come along and pay $65 (which may leave you with NPV loss from today).  The market seems to think that risk is pretty small, but it's still there. If the payout is $65, then you get a discount for time value and a discount for failed-merger risk.  That means the price is less than $65.  You can still make money on it, if the merger goes through.  Some investors believe they have a better way to make money, and no doubt the tender offer of the incipient merger of two publicly traded companies is already heavily arbitraged.  But that said, it may still pay off. Tender offer arbitrage is discussed in this article.


"Except one aspect of their business model involves lots of repeat business. The volume of early adopters who are even willing to take a chance on something like this is pretty thin, so client retention equals survival. All it takes is one stalk of wilted celery or a single bruised apple for someone to say, ""Nope. I'll pick out my own stuff from now on."" If anything, I could see stores holding back the *best* produce for online shoppers."


It's not a false dichotomy. the amount of radiation from the scanner is completely insignificant compared to that absorbed during the flight. The scan gives the same radiation as **2 minutes** at 30,000 feet.  If you actually care about the amount of radiation that you get from the scanner, you would take the train.  http://www.tampabay.com/news/politifact-radiation-of-airport-scans-less-than-the-dose-in-flight/1135857


I'm in a remarkably similar situation as yourself.  I keep roughly 80% of my portfolio in low-cost ETFs (16% bond, 16% commodities, 48% stock), with about 20% in 6-8 individual stocks.  Individual stocks are often overlooked by investors.  The benefits of individual stock ownership are that you can avoid paying any holding or management fee (unlike ETFs and mutual funds). As long as you assess the fundamentals (P/B, P/E, PEG etc.) of the company you are buying, and don't over-trade, you can do quite well. I recommend semi-annual re-balancing among asset classes, and an individual stock check up.  I've found over the years that my individual stocks outperform the S&P500 the vast majority of the time, although it often accompanied by an increase in volatility.  Since you're limiting your stake to only 20%, the volatility is not really an issue.


I honestly can't believe two million people care enough to pay 12.95 per month and is that a recurring charge? Wouldn't you just get your family tree and then never visit the site again? I'll be honest and say I don't know their business model well and I can't see myself ever being interested enough in investing in it to bother to figure it out.


Luck doesn't exist, any more than God or faeries.     A full time class load at my university was 7-10 credit hours per semester. I averaged 25 credit hours and finished a 4 year program in 2. All while working 40+ hours a week at four part time jobs. My days began at 5:00 a.m. and ended well after 10:00 p.m., six days a week.    I wouldn't have got the interview without *networking*, which for me involved joining a service club and serving as communications officer for a local professional association related to my industry. The president of the service club ended up being the stock broker of my future boss. The president of the professional association was in touch with the industry and was able to give me a lead on an internship weeks before it opened. Neither reference would have done me a damn bit of good if I hadn't *proven* to them that I was an outstanding candidate, something that's become obvious to me as I am now in the position to provide people with references myself. That's not luck, my intention at joining both organizations was to network and it's exactly what I did.    If you're looking for a job and you aren't networking you're doing it wrong.         EDIT: Oh man the butthurt on this thread is *sooooo* strong.     **EDIT: SCUMBAG REDDIT. HATES RELIGION ALL DAY EVERY DAY, STILL BELIEVES IN LUCK**


Some of the deductions that are only available as payroll deductions are: There are other deductions you can take if you qualify such as HSA or IRA contributions without any employer help.


International wires using SWIFT are reliable way of getting funds. The issue could be because you are not giving the right details to your counterparty. Any incorrect details on wires would get it rejected. The timelines typically would be around 2-4 days depending on various things. There are alternatives like getting a paper check mailed to you and you cash it [this takes more time] or depending on which countries you operate in, there could be special remittance services.


Here is a quick quote from an article on Netflix, Uber, and Telsa the biggest cash burners in the business today. >Investing today for profits tomorrow is what capitalism is all about. Amazon lost $4bn in 2012-14 while building an empire that now makes money. Nonetheless, it is rare for big companies to sustain heavy losses just to expand fast. If you examine the members of the Russell 1000 index [a stock market index] of large American firms, only 25 of them, or 3.3%, lost over $1bn of free cashflow in 2016 (all figures exclude financial firms and are based on Bloomberg data). In 2007 the share was 1.4% and in 1997, under 1%. Most billion-dollar losers today are energy firms temporarily in the doldrums as they adjust to a recent plunge in oil prices. Their losses are an accident.


There is very little effect whatsoever of having a joint bank account--positive or negative. Positive effects: It would be very easy to send your mother money...she can just take it out of the account.  If you passed away she could get the money without having to use the legal system (or vice versa). This latter effect is why I have a bunch of joint accounts with my wife...if either of us died I wouldn't want getting access to our money to be an additional hassle. Negative effects: She is able to access money in that account without your consen, which you have pointed out is not going to happen.  The case I'm thinking of would be something like a tax lien against her.  A government agency might choose to pull money out of that joint account.  That would be a downside for you. If we were discussing credit cards, a loan, or a line of credit, there would be a number of legal and credit-rating effects from joint ownership.  Not so much with checking accounts.


> If everyone on average gets say...a ~3% boost on their score, why wouldn't banks just adjust their standards by 3%?  Because the score change only affects those who have had delinquent payments (but are current now) on medical debt in the past 7 years.  That's not everybody... by a long shot.  Also, no lender (except possibly automated consumer debt applications) gives a shit about what your actual score is.  Mortgage lenders review each application based on things like debt:income, existing installment payments, and actual credit history (meaning account details and repayment history).


"This doesn't answer your question, but as an aside, it's important to understand that your second and third bullet points are completely incorrect; while it used to be true that Swiss bank accounts often came with ""guarantees"" of neutrality and privacy, in recent years even the Swiss banks have been caving to political pressure from many sides (especially US/Obama), with regards to the most extreme cases of criminals. That is to say, if you're a terrorist or a child molester or in possession of Nazi warcrime assets, Swiss banks won't provide the protection you're interested in. You might say ""But I'm not a terrorist or a pervert or profiteering of war crimes!"" but if you're trying so hard to hide your personal assets, it's worth wondering how much longer until Swiss banks make further concessions to start providing information on PEOPLE_DOING_WHAT_YOU_ARE_DOING. Not to discourage you, this is just food for thought. The ""bulletproof"" protection these accounts used to provide has been compromised. I work with online advertising companies, and a number of people I know in the industry get sued on a regular basis for copyright or trademark infringement or spamming; most of these people still trust Swiss bank accounts, because it's still the best protection available for their assets, and because Swiss banks haven't given up details on someone for spamming... yet."