"All very good answers for the most part, but I have a definition for Good and Bad debt which is a little bit different from those mentioned here so far. The definitions come from Robert Kiyosaki in his book ""Rich Dad Poor Dad"", which I have applied to all my debts. Good Debt - Good Debt is debt used to fund a money making asset, an asset which puts money into your pockets (or bank account) each month. In other words the income produced by that asset is more than all the expenses (including the interest repayments on the debt) associated with the asset. Bad Debt - Bad Debt is debt used to fund both money losing assets and non-assets, where the interest repayments on the debt are more than any income (if any at all) produced by the goods or services the debt was used to purchase, so that you need to take money out of your pockets (or bank account) each month to sustain the debt. Based on this definition a mortgage used to purchase the house you live in would be classed as bad debt. Why? Because you are making interest repayments on the mortgage and you have other expenses related to the house like rates and maintenance, but you have no income being produced by the house. Even a mortgage on an investment (or rental) property where the rent is not enough to cover all the expenses is considered to be bad debt. For the debt on an investment property to be considered as good debt, the rent would have to cover the full interest payments and all other expenses. In other words it would need to be a positively geared (or a cashflow positive) asset. Why is this definition important in distinguishing between good and bad debt? Because it looks at the cashflow associated with the debt and not the profit. The main reason why most investors and businesses end up selling up or closing down is due to insufficient cashflow. It may be a profitable business, or the value of the property may have increased since you bought it, but if you don't have enough cash every month to pay the bills associated with the asset you will need to sell it. If the asset produces enough cashflow to pay for all the expenses associated with the asset, then you don't have to fund the asset through other sources of income or savings. This is important in two ways. Firstly, if you are working and suddenly lose your job you don't have to worry about paying for the asset as it is more than paying for itself. Secondly, if you don't have to dig into your other source/s of income or savings to sustain the asset, then theoretically you can buy an unlimited number of similar type assets. Just a note regarding the mortgage to buy a house you live in being classed as bad debt. Even though in this definition it is considered as bad debt, there are usually other factors which still can make this kind of debt worthwhile. Firstly, you have to live somehere, and the fact that you have to live somwhere means that if you did not buy the house you would probably be renting instead, and still be stuck with a similar monthly payment. Secondly, the house will still appreciate over the long term so in the end you will end up with an asset compared to nothing if you were renting. Just another note to mention the definition provided by John Stern ""...debt is a technology that allows borrower to bring forward their spending; it's a financial time machine..."", that's a clever way to think of it, especially when it comes to good debt."


Look outside those specific fields in finance to get exp. Custodial banking, back office stuff. Gov't jobs take a while sometimes because of the bureaucracy, and are sometimes much easier with networking connections and exp. rather than fresh out of college. Look at temp jobs that transition to full time roles as well.


"During market hours, there are a lot of dealers offering to buy and sell all exchange traded stocks. Dealers don't actually care about the company's fundamentals and they set their prices purely based on order flow. If more people start to buy than sell, the dealer notices his inventory going down and starts upping the price (both his bid and ask). There are also traders who may not be ""dealers"", but are willing to sell if the price goes high enough or buy if the price goes low enough. This keeps the prices humming along smoothly. During normal trading hours, if you buy something and turn around and sell it two minutes later, you'll probably be losing a couple cents per share. Outside normal market hours, the dealers who continue to have a bid and ask listed know that they don't have access to good price information --  there isn't a liquid market of continuous buying and selling for the dealer to set prices he considers safe. So what does he do? He widens the spread. He doesn't know what the market will open tomorrow at and doesn't know if he'll be able to react quickly to news. So instead of bidding $34.48 and offering at $34.52, he'll move that out to $33 and $36. The dealer still makes money sometimes off this because maybe some trader realized that he has options expiring tomorrow, or a short position that he's going to get a margin call on, or some kind of event that pretty much forces him to trade. Or maybe he's just panicking and overreacting to some news. So why not trade after hours? Because there's no liquidity, and trading when there's no liquidity costs you a lot."


For iPhone: iExpenseIt


Is this true?  Damn, I was just thinking how I need to go get a set of craftsman wrenches because the made in China junk I bought from Home Depot _bent_ the first time I used them.  What is good now?


"Excellent question.  I'm not aware of one. I was going to say ""go visit some personal finance blogs"" but then I remembered that I write on one, and that I often get a commission if I talk about online accounts, so unless something is really bad I'm not going to post on it because I want to make money, not chase it away. This isn't to say that I'm biased by commissions, but among a bunch of online banks paying pretty much the same (crappy) interest rate and giving pretty much the same (often not crappy) service, I'm going to give air time to the ones that pay the best commissions.  That, and some of the affiliate programs would kick me out if I trashed them on my blog. This also would taint any site, blog or not, that does not explicitly say that they do not have affiliate relationships with the banks they review. I suppose if you read enough blogs you can figure out the bad ones by their absence, but that takes a lot of time.  Seems like you'd do all right by doing a ""--bank name-- sucks"" Google search to dig up the dirt. That, or call up / e-mail / post on their forum any questions you have about their services before sending them your money.  If they're up front, they'll answer you."


"Yes, I apologize. When I say ""nobody wants that"" I mean ""no body with any power or hope of power wants that except for a ridiculous fringe minority; and the reason you hear about them is to get their voice amplified by the NRA and gun manufacturer's, who need that fear to sell guns to rubes"".   PS, you're the rube."


/u/BexsM, I think your theory is spot on and you're right about how public and private debt could be correlated.  I just believe that I am older and quite a bit more cynical/jaded so I think how things should work and how they actually do are miles apart.


Can someone please explain how traders and investors use this price difference to trade? People use the price difference for small arbitrage between the futures and spot markets, where the larger spreads are reflected in the options markets. The spread in the options market dictates the VIX which many investors also use in their decision making process.  And most importantly how the futures market affects subsequent moves in the stock market? The futures market effects the stock market where large contract holders move the entire futures price. This causes reactionary moves amongst all of the aforementioned arbitragers, who are hedged between the futures and spot markets. With the /ES this is reflected down to actual individual stocks based on their weightings in the S&P 500 index. Many of those stocks have smaller companies that are also linked to them, such as a widget manufacturer for a gigantic ACME corporation listed in the S&P 500.


If you have a software company, that can produce a box of software for $5, but the box sells for $100. (You have to make a profit and cover development costs) But then you give these boxes to charity, that is a cost of $5 each and a tax rebate of $100 x 40% = $40. A profit of $35 per donation of $5.  Note: You can only do this if you have taxable profit to offset it against.


Is there a reason you are focusing on stocks? A portfolio of $4,000 in stocks alone will not give you much diversification, and buying $40 of 100 stocks will not have enough impact to grow your portfolio in the way it sounds like you would like it to.  Have you considered using ETFs?


10% seems to be a little bit too optimistic, but 5%-8% annually on average is doable. 1% is way too little, you're doing something wrong, unless you mean real return (i.e.: after adjustment for inflation), and even then it's not too high. At any given year it may be easy or difficult, but the point is that we're talking about long term averages. For example, if you look at the DJI for the last 30 years, you'll see a rise of 1300% (give or take), which annually is ~40%. In the last 3 years the rise is even steeper, but in the last week - it is negative. So it depends on your time line and the way you manage your investments. You've got to balance between stocks and bonds and cash, but even if you park your money in cash you can get more than 1% right now (Capitol One on-line savings is 1.15%), and that's with the lowest rates ever, so getting 1% over time does mean that you're doing something wrong IMHO.


Yeah, that's no typo. I could've spelled that name when I was 13, and anybody who's ever laid their hands on a finance book should be able to spell it, let alone somebody who claims to actually work there and to have traded millions on their behalf.


Wait, your dream internship is to do it an an insurance company? Seriously? Were all the internships with with debt collection agencies and waste management companies taken? Yes, I'm fucking with you.  Anyhoo, to answer your question, and although it's been a really, really long time since I had to bother with an interview, my advice is this: get a good night's sleep the night before and don't sweat it. Appear interested in the company without kissing ass and stay relaxed (not feet on the interviewer's desk relaxed) and focused.  One last thing: since this is your first time wearing a suit, wear it on and off during the days before the interview so it doesn't look like you just stepped out of the store without having ever worn one. It will also help you relax by not focusing on how you dress.  In the end, if you fuck it up, it's not the end of the world, it's just an interview.


>Killing the hive does not kill the bee. Ask any bee keeper.  Yes, it does.  >My 95 year old mother could not survive alone.   Your 95 year old mother will not survive for long regardless. And it is highly doubtful that she really contributes much of anything to society anymore.  >My two sons were several years old before they could survive for short periods on their own.  Oh, they probably could. Very young children have been known to survive (and even thrive) throughout history.


JohnFx is right: banks hate visits and attention from the regulator (both positive and negative). I would not threaten to file, just file away and let them get in contact with you. The local branch is stalling you. Do not play their game. Since you already went through the first level of support (local branch, phone support), get the bank ombudsman contact and file a complain. It is a major bank, most of the time getting a high level complain will be routed from the upside down through their structure, and hit them. Remember I said they are stalling you? Probably something went wrong, and they are buying time to try and fix it. Also it is worth noting that the ombudsman is usually a line of support above the phone customer support. If going through the ombudsman does not work and/or if you are not willing to wait anymore, file a complain with the government central bank, or similiar institution (trying to be broad here, even if you tagged USA - JohnFx has the link in his answer for the USA's regulator). You can even file a small claims lawsuit, though I do not know the cost of doing it in the USA (in my country small claims court is free for private citizens). Do not report your money as stolen; banks are bureaucratic institutions by nature, and they can silver tongue out of this claim.


(12 * 100) * 1.01 = 1212 Assuming the $12 ask can absorb your whole 100 share order.


FYI...prices don't always go up.  Inflation is a monetary phenomenon.  I'm simplifying greatly here: if more money is printed (or the money supply increases through fractional reserve banking) and it is chasing the same amount of goods then prices will go up.  Conversely, if money is held constant and the economy becomes more productive, producing more goods, then a constant amount of money is chasing an increasing amount of goods and prices go down. After the Civil War the greenback went back to being on a gold standard in 1879.  After 1879 greenbacks could be redeemed for gold.  Gold restricts money growth since it is difficult to obtain. Here are the price and wage indexes from 1869 - 1889 (from here):  Notice from 1879 to 1889 that wholesale and consumer prices fall but wages start to increase.  Imagine your salary staying the same (or even increasing) but the prices of items falling. Still don't think inflation is a monetary phenomenon?  Here is a CPI chart from 1800 to 2007:  Notice how the curve starts to go drastically up around 1970.  What happen then?  The US dollar went off the gold-exchange standard and the US dollar became a purely fiat currency backed by nothing but government decree which allows the Federal Reserve to print money ad nauseum.


Obviously, these numbers can never be absolute simply because not all the information is public. Any statistic will most likely be biased. I can tell you the following from my own experience that might get you closer in your answer: Hence, even though I cannot give you exact numbers, I fully agree that traders cannot beat the index long term. If you add the invested time and effort that is necessary to follow an active strategy, then the equation looks even worse.  Mind you, active trading and active asset allocation (AAA) are two very different things. AAA can have a significant impact on your portfolio performance.


I like how in the US you have the biggest houses, the biggest cars, the biggest incomes (yes you still do compared to europe..), , the lowest unemployment, the lowest cost consumer goods in pretty much every category ofconsumer goods, yet you still find a reason to complain about collusion and monopolies


"Dictionary clarifies http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/be-in-credit Definition of be in credit:   (Of an account) have money in it:   ""your statement shows your account to be in credit"" And http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/be-in-debit?q=in+debit Definition of be in debit:   (Of an account) show a net balance of money owed to others: ""the account is only 120 francs in debit""  The word 'debit' contains the letters 'debt' if it helps remember. I agree the website is confusing."


"they said the expected returns from the stock market are around 7-9%(ish).  (emphasis added) The key word in your quote is expected.  On average ""the market"" gains in the 7-9% range (more if you reinvest dividends), but there's a great deal of risk too, meaning that in any given year the market could be down 20% or be  up 30%. Your student loan, on the other hand, is risk free.  You are guaranteed to pay (lose) 4% a year in interest.  You can't directly compare the expected return of a risk-free asset with the expected return of a risky asset.  You can compare the risks of two assets with equal expected returns, and the expected returns of assets with equal risks, but you can't directly compare returns of assets with different risks.  So in two years, you might be better off if you had invested the money versus paying the loan, or you might be much worse off.  In ten years, your chances of coming out ahead are better, but still not guaranteed. What's confusing is I've heard that if you're investing, you should be investing in both stocks and bonds (since I'm young I wouldn't want to put much in bonds, though). So how would that factor in?  Bonds have lower risk (uncertainty) than stocks, but lower expected returns.  If you invest in both, your overall risk is lower, since sometimes (not always) the gain in stocks are offset by losses in bonds).  So there is value in diversifying, since you can get better expected returns from a diversified portfolio than from a single asset with a comparable amount of risk.  However, there it no risk-free asset that will have a better return than what you're paying in student loan interest."


I have a lot of tools from Sears, some of which I've had for 40 years and they still give good service. Sears tools and home appliances are reliably excellent quality at a good price.  I buy a lot from Amazon, but the tools are of erratic quality. Walmart tools are not much better than toys.


"From the Times A Reader Q.&A. on G.M.’s Bankruptcy Q. I own G.M. preferred shares. Should I be looking to sell them, or   hold on? I bought them at $25 a share when they were issued in late   2001. — Karen, Manhattan A. When a company files for bankruptcy, its various stock and   bondholders essentially get in line. The first investors to be repaid   are secured debt holders, then senior bond investors, followed by   subordinated debt holders. Preferred shareholders are next, and   lastly, holders of common stock. In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like   shares of common stock. But in the case of G.M., there may be some   good — or at least somewhat better — news. Most of G.M.’s preferred   shares are actually senior notes or “quarterly interest bonds,” which   means you will be treated as a bondholder, according to Marilyn Cohen,   president of Envision Capital Management. So you will be able to   exchange your preferreds for G.M. stock (bondholders will receive 10   percent of the new company’s stock). It’s not the best deal, but it   beats the empty bag true preferred shareholders would have been left   holding. Of course this is just one example, and you were hoping to get some larger picture. The article stated ""In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock"" which at least is a bit closer to that, if you accept usually as a statistic."


There are a few ideas:  1. Basic income allows consumers to keep spending.   2. Consumers spend money saved through new tech, at things that require lots of human labor.  3. The government pays business to take care of people.    4. Maybe businesses will be a new kind of entity , one that doesn't seek to make money, something new we'll think about. Maybe something like today's non-profits.   5. If consumers got $1B in salaries from businesses, and spent $1B in salaries at businesses, did businesses get anything from consumers ? maybe the money is just a fiction ,and we'll find some other fiction ?


Just because I'd like to see an answer too, consider posting in /r/financialcareers as you're more likely to get a response.  I think the general advice is that you should complete at least your undergrad degree, skipping out on it (especially in a quant position) could really limit your options later. Don't take my word for it though.


> Back in 1957, these high school students were asked to list three people they considered their closest friends. Those who had their names written down the most were deemed the most popular: They’re the ones that many people consider close friends.  Seems to me that those considered popular by the study might not match with the people perceived as popular. What the study really says is that people who make good friends are more likely to succeed than people who don't connect well with others.


If you're willing to use OFX or QIF files, most Canadian banks can spit output more data than 90 days. The files are typically used to import into Quicken-like local programs, but can be easily parsed for your webapp, I imagine.


Nothing has changed. I work with many 20 somethings and over the past five years none of them opted into the company health care and when I have talked with 30 somethings they stated that they took the same approach 10 years ago.  It wasn't until they started to experience physical issues (due to growing older) and starting a family did they buy into health care.  This is just another PR in the never ending pieces floating around the media these days.  No fact checking.


Interesting, that makes some sense.  With Planet Fitness, my understanding is that their cost structure is slanted towards fixed costs. Whether their members come to the gym or not doesn't matter; they still have to pay rent, labor, utilities, buy equipment, etc. Those costs don't change much if people subscribe and don't show up vs. subscribe and do show up.  Moviepass seems to be almost entirely variable; their costs are buying movie tickets when people order. They would love it if people signed up and never used it, but unlike PF if people DID use it they'd be completely screwed.  It's a risky plan, but it just might work as long as people don't figure out a way to game the system (or, you know, turn out to be movie buffs).


"In general, following the W-4 instructions should result in withholdings that are fairly close to the amount of taxes that you will owe for the year, particularly if your situation is relatively uncomplicated. Claiming less withholdings than the form suggests can help ensure that you end up saving money in your ""interest-free IRS savings account"" and get a refund at the end of the year, which some people prefer so they don't need to budget separately for a tax payment. I'm guessing that the HR employee either prefers doing so himself or has on occasion received complaints from other employees that they ""didn't take enough out"". Personally, I'd prefer to claim as many withholdings as I can, and be sure to have some money aside in case it turns out that I have to owe a little bit, since it means I get more take-home pay throughout the year. It's good to keep in mind that a W-4 isn't written in stone. If it turns out that too much or too little is being taken out, you can always change it. You can also try playing around with the IRS withholding calculator to try some scenarios."


Congratulations for achieving an important step in the road to financial freedom. Some view extending loan payment of loans that allow the deduction of interest as a good thing. Some view the hit on the credit score by prematurely paying off an installment loan as a bad thing.  Determining the order of paying off multiple loans in conjunction with the reality of income, required monthly living expense, and the need to save for emergencies is highly individualized.  Keeping an artificial debt seems to make little sense, it is an expensive insurance policy to chase a diminishing tax benefit and boost to a credit score. Keep in mind it is a deduction, not a credit, so how much you save depends on your tax bracket.  It might make sense for somebody to extend the loan out for an extra year or two, but you can't just assume that that advice applies in your situation. Personally I paid off my student loan early, as soon as it made sense based on my income, and my situation. I am glad I did, but for others the opposite made more sense.


I won't add to the timelines, as I agree or don't care but my two cents are


"> There are more types of ads than banner ads you see in the margins of websites, and they can't be blocked by ad blockers. Its a huge industry, saying it's going to die is pretty naive.  It's difficult to formulate a polite response, my message inbox is flooded with people who obviously have no idea what they're talking about, telling me about how my ad blockers aren't blocking the ads which I know they are blocking. And this account is new which means I can't respond to everyone without waiting unreasonable numbers of minutes.. so I want to make one response that's really good instead.  I am willing to bet that I have more knowledge and experience with the internet, technology, and computers than everyone in this thread combined. So you go on thinking I'm naive or whatever, but really you are the naive one for underestimating my expertise on the subject.  I am absolutely aware of what sort of ads are blocked by my ad blockers and what sorts arent. I belong to the class of people who taught you all how to use this stuff. All of the advertising that Google and Facebook use for their revenue is blocked. When you pay for ads on reddit, I don't see those. When you pay for adwords links on search engines, I don't see those. When you pay for video ads on youtube content, I don't see those. The only things that get through are things which cannot be detected such as spam posts posing as real content. But because I am a smart person I am capable of recognizing when an article is trying to sell me something. That is what you are getting at, unless you're completely wrong and just being stupid, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. And while that tangent is true, it's irrelevant to the meat of the conversation, which is that the traditional methods of advertising, things like pay per click and number of impressions, things like adwords and facebook's ""boosted posts"", all of that is going away. If you rely on those things for your revenue stream you better start looking for other sources of income today because in a few years those streams will be completely dried up.  You can listen to me, because I am an expert on this technology and this culture which I have been using for 26 years, or you can convince yourself that you know better even tho we both know you do not. I don't know why it hurts your pride to get advice from someone who knows better than you, but that's my guess at why you and others are so defensive about this particular subject, that and because it's your bread and butter. I'm warning you, NOW is the time to look for other income generators, not 5 years from now when the entire advertising model is dead. (5 years is a guess, it could be sooner, it could be later, it will be.)  I suspect you're also afraid that you won't be able to find a new revenue model, but I think that fear is unfounded. People are creative, and have been inventing new ways to make money since money was invented. I'm telling you now is the time to do that, you should be thanking me."


You can average the betas across the different cross listings.  EX:   Exchange 1 - Beta .8  Exchange 2 - Beta .6  Exchange 3 - Beta .7  (.8 + .6 + .7) / 3 =  avg Beta .7  You can do simple average as based above or you can do a weighted average and take into account other factors.


A few months ago, I met with the founder of Wealthsimple. As someone with higher than average about both trading and investing, I asked him whether his funds would be able to add more value to my Couch Potato portfolio not in terms of returns but rather in terms of management fees. I also asked him this: if I wish to have a portfolio that has a specific % allocation towards emerging markets, would I be able to do so with Wealthsimple. The answer to both of the above questions was that I'd be better off investing by myself. I'd venture a guess and say that most people on SE Money wouldn't require a service such as Wealthsimple.


Uhh, why would amazon raise prices? Their divisions Already make a profit. They are using divisional profit to launch other divisions. There will be areas where it fluctuates, but this isn’t a loss-leader strategy nor are they burning through VC money trying to get a good strategy off the ground.   This is the strategy. This is the business. And it’s working.


My corner of the plant looks like a run down slum of cube spaces.  Our stairs aren't even remotely close to up to code.  We call the bathroom the shit hole.  It honestly looks like someone abandoned this part of the building and high school kids have been trashing it for years.  We keep getting assured that we're on the schedule to have things renovated in 2014.  Or was it 2015...  The management areas (they don't entertain customers any more than we do) have pristine and new and very nice.


Financial Literacy is about learning about finance and money and how to use and manage them to give you better outcomes in life. Just like the more books you read and the more writing you do will improve your literacy, the more financial books you read, the more questions you ask and the more you participate in this forum and others like it, the more you will improve your financial literacy.  The more financial literate you are the more you will be able to make informed decisions regarding your finances and the more you will be able to avoid financial scams.


I work on the robots too. I'm who you call when they stop working. Unless they can fix themselves, at which point they will be able to learn and adapt and then they can design the next generation, at which point you will be obsolete as well!   j/k of course, I hope.


No, they won't cancel it because you pay your card on time.  When a company offers a promotion like that they are banking on making money on average, not in every case.  On average including all the benefits including transaction fees, deals for partnering with best buy, etc.  Of course some people pay their credit card in full each month and never incur interest charges.  However, credit card companies more than cover that with other people who aren't responsible.  If it wasn't worth while they would end the card program or change it.


There are two different tax returns you'll be doing: one is for her, until the day of her death. The other is for the estate. The personal one you could probably do on your own, it's nothing different from the one for a living person, except for the cut-off date in the middle of the year. The estate tax return may be a bit more nuanced, since it is a trust return and not an individual return, and is done under a different set of rules. I'd suggest talking to a tax professional who'd help you. Your estate executioner should be doing the estate tax return (or hiring someone to do it). Sorry for your loss.


"Most people are aware of the existence of merchant processing fees. If this really bothers anyone:  * Get a rewards credit card * Pay the bill off in full every month * Redeem your points for cash back   You've now recovered a good portion of the fees back and have still had the convenience of not carrying cash and all of the other random ""benefits"" (extended warranty, travel protection, etc) cards carry these days.   Some of the programs with 5% cash back will put more back in your pocket than what the fees are since they generally run around 2-4%."


even in today's society, there are many who want to work, but cannot. as automation continues, this trend will grow. the reason we need universal basic income is to protect those not in the inner circles of workers. It will let the economy continue to sell them food, shelter, ect..  the most recent professional estimate I read showed full automation was 125 years away. that means 125 years until no employment whatsoever. it may be some decades until we have to seriously look at this, but it is on the horizon. we, as a society, are transitioning away from the industrial model where we needed everyone to work.


We are providing lab testing equipment and special purpose machine equipments, specialized in auto parts, textile equipments testing, Lab equipments, leak testing machine, visibility due to smoke, oxygen index tester, Lab oven, rain test Chamber,  deep Freezer,  tensile testing machine,  textile testing equipments, muffle furnace,  specific gravity, crush tester, flex tester, celebrity management agency, artists management, events company, events management, events agency, events management company, ad films productions houses in india, advertising films productions


"Uniform Transfer to Minors Act (UTMA) and Uniform Gift to Minors Act (UGMA) accounts in the United States are accounts that belong to your child, but you can deposit money into.  When the child attains his/her majority, the money becomes theirs to spend however they wish.  Prior to attaining their majority, a custodian must sign off on withdrawals.  Now, they are not foolproof; legally, you can withdraw money if it is spent on the child's behalf, so that can be gamed.  What you can do to protect against that is to make another person the custodian (or, perhaps make them joint custodians with yourself, requiring both signatures for withdrawals). UTMA/UGMA accounts do not have to be bank savings accounts; for example, both of my children have accounts at Vanguard which are effectively their college savings accounts.  They're invested in various ETFs and similar kinds of investments; you're welcome to choose from a wide variety of options depending on risk tolerance.  Typically these accounts have relatively small fees, particularly if you have a reasonable minimum balance (I think USD$10k is a common minimum for avoiding larger fees). If you are looking for something even more secure than a UGMA or UTMA account, you can set up a trust.  These have several major differences over the UGMA/UTMA accounts: Some of course consider the second point an advantage, some a disadvantage - we (and Grandma) prefer to let our children make their own choices re: college, while others may not prefer that. Also worth noting as a difference - and concern to think about - in these two.  A UGMA or UTMA account that generates income may have taxable events - interest or dividend income.  If that's over a relatively low threshhold, about $1050 this year, those earnings will be taxed (on the child's own tax return).  If it's over $2100 (this year), those earnings will be taxed at the parents' tax rate (""kiddie tax""). Trusts are slightly different; trusts themselves are taxed, and have their own tax returns.  If you do set one of those up, the lawyer who helps you do so should inform you of the tax implications and either hook you up with an accountant or point you to resources to handle the taxes yourself."


Great read. Good points. My only complaint is that our North American union model could learn much from the German model where the union plays an important role IN the company. There are corrupt unions like anything else, which ruin it for the grassroots unions that operate as intended. I really don't think it's too much to ask for CEOs and companies to operate more like, for example, Costco; where the CEO sees his employees as his most important asset, and as such pays top wages in the industry, and provides benefits for families of employees. Somehow they still seem to reap a positive return for investors, while spreading the wealth by providing a living wage for their employees.   Thanks for your well thought out, we'll organized reply! Cheers.


One reason a lot of bond ETFs like Financials are because of how financial companies work.  They usually have amazing cash flows due to deposits and fees and therefore have little risk associated with paying their debts in the short term. The rest of VCSH contains companies with low default risk and good cash flow generation as well: This is of course the objective of VCSH: Banks themselves issue a lot of bonds to raise cash to lend for other purposes.  Banks are intermediary and help make funds liquid for investors and spenders.  Hope that helped answer your question.  If not comment below and I'll try to adjust the answer to be more complete.


First, in the money options are scarcely created because most options trade at the money with the rest evenly distributed between in and out, so they are at best half the market when created. They are also closed before expiration. The reason is still unknown, but one theory is: Barely in the money options carry enormous exercise risk because the chance that could be turned into a potentially solvency threatening unhedged liability is great; therefore, option sellers prefer to close barely in the money options so not to take on unhedged liability risk. Statistically, option sellers are risk avoiders.


"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - ""Consult a professional."""


Siema, chciałbym zapytać Was o opinię i prosić o przetestowanie serwisu, którego jestem współautorem. Po 3 miesiącach testów wewnętrznych czas wyjść do szerszej publiki. Not8.Me - Comment every website ma odpowiadać na aktualne zapotrzebowanie w Social Mediach. Na Facebooku czy innych serwisach, opinie o danych artykułach, produktach itp. są rozsiane po różnych profilach prywatnych czy firmowych. Dzięki Not8.Me komentujesz po prostu stronę internetową - jednym przyciskiem myszy możesz odczytać lub dodać komentarze. Istnieje wiele możliwych scenariuszy, gdzie nasze rozwiązanie jest przydatne - na stronach firm, które nie mają systemu komentarzy czy profili w mediach społecznościowych przez co nikt nie wie czy warto prowadzić interesy z daną firmą. Można komentować również artykuły, czy są prawdziwe czy tzw. Fake news :). Ogłoszenia na portalach aukcyjnych (samochód z cofanym licznikiem?) czy sklepy internetowe (zbyt długa wysyłka?) Zapraszam do testów i używania tej wtyczki do Google Chrome :) W razie pytań pozostaje oczywiście do dyspozycji.


I hate to point to Wikipedia as an answer, but it does describe exactly what you are looking for... The S&P 500 is a free-float   capitalization-weighted index   published since 1957 of the prices of   500 large-cap common stocks actively   traded in the United States. The   stocks included in the S&P 500 are   those of large publicly held companies   that trade on either of the two   largest American stock market   exchanges; the New York Stock Exchange   and the NASDAQ. The components of the S&P 500 are   selected by committee... The committee   selects the companies in the S&P 500   so they are representative of the   industries in the United States   economy. In addition, companies that   do not trade publicly (such as those   that are privately or mutually held)   and stocks that do not have sufficient   liquidity are not in the index. The S&P is a capitalization weighted index.  If a stock price goes up, then it comprises more of the total index.  If a stock goes down, it comprises less, and if it goes down too much, the committee will likely replace it. So to answer your question, if one stock were to suddenly skyrocket, nothing would happen beyond the fact that the index was now worth more and that particular stock would now make up a larger percentage of the S&P 500 index.


I know this feeling all too well. I just laid off two employees yesterday. They were hired in our early days before we had more hiring experience and have been dragging down morale for quite awhile now. But no more!


This is the result of market competition as well.  * Cheese Company A pays its employees $10/hour. (20k/year) * Cheese Company B pays its employees $20/hour. (40k/year)  This increase in wages results in a 50cent increase/kg in production cost to company B.  Since the grocery chain has a policy to set their sales-price to 100% of purchase price, (in order to break even on a sale-price), this 50cent increase/kg, results in $1/kg when it hits the consumer.  Assume both cheeses are equal, most consumers will purchase the product at a lower price, leading to lost sales for company B.   **Capitalism, is a race to the bottom.**


Ally bank has a free billpay service where you have the option of paying bills via eBills. Though I use Ally's billPay service (and I write about my experience with Ally in my blog), I haven't used eBills, but from reading your question, looks like this is what you are looking for. From Ally's site: What are eBills? An eBill is an online version of a bill or statement that can replace a traditional paper copy. Many large companies, like your electric, phone, cable and major credit card companies have the ability to send you eBills. To receive eBills at Ally, you must already receive your bill online at the biller's website. Ally will ask for the biller's website credentials to set up an eBill. Hope this helps.


"The key difference I've found between a stock split and a stock dividend – of the exact same stock and class, as opposed to a spin-off – seems to be from the company's own accounting perspective.  There doesn't appear to be any actual transfer of value to the shareholder with either kind of transaction; i.e. in theory, each transaction would be immaterial to the value of your holdings. With respect to the company's accounting, a stock split affects the par value of the shares, whereas a stock dividend reduces the retained earnings account in order to increase paid-in or contributed capital. I found a good online source which explains the history behind this accounting difference: McGraw-Hill - Intermediate Accounting eBook, 6/e - Chapter 18 - Stock Dividends and Splits. Small quote: [...]   Besides being based on fallacious reasoning, accounting for stock   dividends by artificially reclassifying “earned” capital as “invested”   capital conflicts with the reporting objective of reporting   shareholders' equity by source. Despite these limitations, this   outdated accounting standard still applies. Since neither the corporation nor its shareholders apparently benefits   from stock dividends, why do companies declare them?23 Occasionally, a   company tries to give shareholders the illusion that they are   receiving a real dividend. Another reason is merely to enable the corporation to take advantage   of the accepted accounting practice of capitalizing retained earnings.   Specifically, a company might wish to reduce an existing balance in   retained earnings—otherwise available for cash dividends—so it can   reinvest the earned assets represented by that balance without   carrying a large balance in retained earnings. [...] There's a lot more on that page, before and after, worth reading. From another book: Google Books - Comparative Income Taxation, a Structural Analysis - page 314 - Stock Dividends. Small quote: The distribution of dividends in the form of stock or ""bonus"" shares   to existing shareholders typically involves a transfer for corporate   law purposes of retained earnings into stated capital.   It can been [sic] viewed as a deemed distribution of a cash   dividend to the shareholders followed by a corresponding contribution   to capital or as solely as an event at the corporate level which has   no effect on the shareholders whose economic interest in the   corporation is unchanged by the receipt of additional shares. The   systems have taken varied approaches to the stock dividend problem.    The treatment is in part a function of the rules dealing with   distributions of stated capital. [emphases above are mine] [... continues w/descriptions of different countries' tax treatments of the kinds of stock dividends. Includes U.S., Sweden, Japan,   Netherlands, Canada, Australia, U.K., France, Germany. ...] As far as why a corporation might want to capitalize earnings and reduce the equity otherwise available for dividends, I can only imagine that, ignoring taxes for a moment, that it may have something to do with capital ratios that need to be maintained for financing or regulatory purposes?  Yet, I remain curious. If I discover more on this then I'll update my answer. Additional resources:"


Plus a lot of retailers use completely different size standards and don't bother putting the scales they use on the product page. So a large at one store can quite literally be a small at another and unless you knew that beforehand or they happened to tell you the sizing scales, *have fun*.


"The whole purpose of IT is save costs, automate things and make the company more competitive in the digital age.  IT is not ""cost center""!   If you really want to see costs rising, and profits going down, then stop any new IT development.  The fact is that there's constantly more and more new IT development work for only one reason: ROI."


I litigated several of these cases to settlement back in 2011-2013 (the cases that followed on the Wells Fargo settlement out in NDCA).  Many many banks were using the same few consultants who were pitching the same few computer programs to re-order transactions in order to maximize fee revenue.  It was becoming standard industry practice until Judge Alsup entered the $200mm+ judgment against Wells Fargo for their California customers.  After that, lawyers did what we do and descended on any other bank doing the same thing.  As part of the settlements, the banks agreed to stop reordering transactions to maximize fee revenue (typically agreeing to order deposits first, then debits as they were presented to the bank).   Class action attorneys get a bad rap (sometimes justifiably so), but there are many more instances like this where we catch bad actors actually hurting people.


Like all other loan-vs-savings questions, it depends on the terms of the loan. If you have a choice, the usual answer is to pay off the loan with the worst terms (which usually means the highest interest rate) first, and only start with savings when you've paid off all the high-interest loans entirely. If your student loan is on US terms, then pay it off as soon as you can, unless you have commercial debt (credit-card or unsecured personal loan), which you should pay off first, or unless you have or are realistically likely to get eligibility for a forgiveness program. But it does depends on the terms of the debt, which in turn depend on the country you studied in; on UK terms it's a very bad idea to pay off a student loan any faster than you have to.  Interest is restricted to the rate of inflation, so good investments probably beat the interest rate of the student loan; the required repayments vary with your income, so savings are more useful than debt repayment if you encounter income difficulties (e.g unemployment) in the future, and finally the debt is automatically forgiven after 30 years, so you may never have to pay it all back anyway - so why pay it off voluntarily if it would get forgiven eventually anyway?


One thing that you need to know about this variant is that oil free doesn’t mean that it is totally oil free and has nothing like elements and additives found in the oil. To be very honest, there is no change in the quality of the air whether you use oil free version or the lubricated one and the major difference between this one and its counterparts is that the oil is only for the process of compression.


> Public employees should fly what is cheapest and pay for an upgrade out-of-pocket if so desired because we the taxpayers pay their tickets/salaries  Eh, that still comes down to what the purpose of the flight is.  If you need someone to come off a flight in a functional state, flying coach isn't going to do that.  Flying at a higher level isn't just about being luxurious - it's about being able to be operational at a high level post-flight.


Unfortunately, yes.      You will build an unnecessary 'slippery slope' argument. Can we confine our conversation to healthcare?    Everyone I've ever met would like to never get medical bills.  We also feel that one should earn one's own shoes, we just put a * on everything as a matter of course.  Where are you coming from?


Ignoring that liability car insurance is usually a state mandated requirement and that all banks require full coverage, there are quite a few reasons to buy it. No matter how much money you have, you can't really guarantee that you can recover financially from an accident.  Yes, you can buy a new car.  But what happens if you are sued because the other driver died or is now in a long term coma?  The legal costs alone would financially bury most people. It's even worse if you are rich.  Let's say someone rear ended you.  If you had no insurance (again ignoring the legality here), you can bet their attorney would take a look at your considerable financial assets and do whatever it took to get as much of that as possible.  The legal fees alone of defending yourself at trial would likely far outstrip everything else. And that's just one little situation.


"Why does this seem so hard for brick and mortar electronics retailers?  Their only edge is the store and staff and precisely where they *repeatedly* gut themselves.  It is baffling.    Sometimes you wonder if anyone beyond a certain level of management lives in the ""real world"" as a consumer versus some disconnected budget-less world of executives.  How do they visualize a bunch of untrained low paid abused employees running their stores?  How do they visualize the customers' response?  It is like they can't understand fundamental human interaction/behavior."


"The dot.com companies were purveyors of the Internet, then a ""new"" technology around 2000. Everyone ""knows"" that such a new technology will change the economy and society. What people didn't know at the time was WHICH companies would be the leaders/beneficiaries of such change. So investors pushed up the stock prices of ALMOST ALL companies in the ""space."" Any ONE (or two or three) companies can benefit from such a new technology. But not ALL of them can: It's something called the ""fallacy of composition."" That is, there can be one or two Googles (or Microsoft of a previous era), but not 100 of them. Most of the other 98 will go bust. Those were victims of the bubble that affected all, including the successful ones. It's a bit like the California gold rush. Maybe one of 10 miners got ""rich"" (or at least moderately wealthy). The other 90% died heartbroken, trying."


I agree with what you said regarding not wanting to put the work in to get it.  When I was coming out of school and deciding whether or not to pursue my CPA (I went into industry (Private Accounting), not Public Accounting) my manager told me this.  What would you think of someone who went to law school and didn't take the bar? Seems ridiculous doesn't it?  Well the same, kind of, can be applied to the CPA/CA - if you have a degree in accounting... why not take the CPA exam?


Short-term it will not help, it will actually hurt your credit score. Long-term, it will help for a couple of reasons: The mix that others refer to is mortgage and auto loans which do not count as revolving credit. A mortgage will help more than a credit card in this case, but may not make sense in your circumstances.


In the US you specify explicitly what stocks you're selling. Brokers now are required to keep track of cost basis and report it to the IRS on the 1099-B, so you have to tell the broker which position it is that you're closing. Usually, the default is FIFO (i.e.: when you sell, you're assumed to be closing the oldest position), but you can change it if you want. In the US you cannot average costs basis of stocks (you can for mutual funds), so you either do FIFO, LIFO (last position closed first), or specify the specific positions when you submit the sale order.


You need to distinguish a company's guidance from analysts' estimates. A company will give a revenue/earnings guidance which is generally based on internal budgets. The guidance  may be aggressive or conservative - some managements are known to be conservative and the market will take that into account to form actual estimates. When you see a headline saying that a company missed, it is generally by reference to the analysts' estimates. Analysts use a company's guidance as one data point among many others to form a forecast of revenue/earnings. The idea behind those headlines is that the average sales/earnings estimates of analysts is a good approximation of what the market expects (which is debatable).


Excellent article.  >it is almost impossible to make sense of the big picture without a large fall in aggregate demand.<  The rich can only eat so much. This entire issue can only be explained by obscene wealth disparity.


Pay it all off now before you change your mind.   Having an emergency  fund is important but that assumes you'll have the discipline to leave it alone.  Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't have amassed $36k in cc debt. Regardless of the rates, your icome or any other factor, that's just way too much and a pretty good indication that you've got problems managing money.  Pay them off now while you still can!


Until deposited to a store account or spent, the gift card is no more or less at risk than cash. (Well, that's the theory anyway.)


meets-ecommerce.de ist eine junge Internet Agentur welche sich voll und ganz auf das Shopsystem Magento   ausgerichtet hat. http://meets-ecommerce.de erstellt neben kleinen Projekten aber auch Portfolioseiten und codet   Magento Extensions. Auf dem Blog koennen Sie noch mehr ueber die Firma erfahren.


I’m not an expert on the VISA/US tax or insurance, but you're making enough mistakes in terms of all the associated costs involved in owning and renting houses/apartments that this already looks potentially unwise at this stage of your investment career. Renting cheap properties/to students involves the property constantly being trashed, often being empty and requiring extremely close management (which you either have to pay someone a lot to do, or do yourself and lose other potential earning time. If doing yourself you will also make lots of mistakes in the vetting/managing/marketing process etc at first as this is a complex art in itself).  Costs on this type of rental can often get as high as 25% a year depending exactly how lucky you get even if you do it all yourself, and will typically be in the 5-15% range every year once everything you have to constantly maintain, replace and redecorate is totalled up. That's all pre what you could be earning in a job etc, so if you could earn a decent clip elsewhere in the same time also have to deduct that lost potential. Send it all to third parties (so all upkeep by hired contractors, all renting by an agency) you will be lucky to even break even off ~15k a year per property rents to students. You’re not seeming to price in any transaction costs, which usually run at ~5% a time for both entrance and exit. Thats between half and one years rent gone from the ten per property on these numbers. Sell before ten is up its even more. On point three, rounding projections in house price rises to one decimal place is total gibberish – no one who actually has experience investing their own money well ever makes or relies on claims like this. No idea on Pittsburgh market but sound projections of likely asset changes is always a ranged and imprecise figure that cannot (and shouldn’t) be counted on for much. Even if it was, it’s also completely unattainable in property because you have to spend so much money on upkeep: post costs and changes in size/standard, house values generally roughly track inflation. Have a look at this chart and play around with some reasonable yearly upkeep numbers and you will see what I mean. Renting property is an absolute graveyard for inexperienced investors and if you don't know the stuff above already (and it's less than 10% of what you need to know to do this profitably vs other uses of your time), you will nearly always be better off investing the money in more passive investments like diversified bonds, REITs and Stock.


"They borrowed it from the people, and typically to finance wars and military spending. For example, Wikipedia suggests that the Bank of England ""was set up to supply money to the King. £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the Navy."" It's a game that everyone has to play once started; if Napoleon buys an army on credit, you'll have to raise an equal amount or face quite a problem. As for why they've grown so large, it's because governments are quite skilled at owing large sums of money. Only a small portion of the debt comes due in full at a given moment, and they constantly reissue new debt via auction to keep it rolling. So as long as they can make coupon (interest) and the lump sum at maturity, it's not difficult to keep up. Imagine how much credit card debt you could rack up if you only ever had to pay interest. This game will continue for as long as people lend. And there are plenty of lenders. There's pensions, mutual funds and endowments, which find public debt typically safer than stocks. And money market funds, which target 1 dollar NAV and only invest in the ""safest"" AAA-rated bonds to protect it. There's central banks, which can buy and sell public debt to manipulate inflation and exchange rates.  Absent some kind of UN resolution to ban lending, or perhaps a EU mandated balanced budget, these debts will likely continue to grow. You think they ""collectively owe more money than can exist"", but there's a lot of wealth in the world. Most nations owe less than a year's GDP. For example, the US's total wealth is in the neighborhood of 50 trillion."


$125 bucks says that if the legislation were worded that way, these employers would switch their pay structure from hourly to salary, and then make everyone work 50-60 hours a week. Probably even fire a few people since they could make one worker do one and half times the work for free now. :/


> radio may find itself in dire straights as well. Although i agree for the time being it is better protected than TV.  What are you talking about? Radio is mostly dead at this point. Most stations are owned by very few companies because most stations failed already. These big conglomerates bought them up and run mostly robo-DJs and syndicated content where there's no real local radio station, just a retransmitter that sends out programming created in a what is effectively a radio content factory.  Radio has been in dire straits for the better part of decade and far worse off than TV.


Moving to a new home? The need of a self-storage is undeniably important while moving in and out of a residence. In case you are looking for personal storage in Sutton Coldfield, Cookes Storage with expert professionals will help in decluttering and keeping your belongings safe.


Most of them still pay partial taxes, albeit not all of those are federal.  Boeing and GE might be the worst offenders ethically as they are federal contractors who also benefit from US agreements with other countries that grant additional sales for the two firms' military hardware.


"You do not need to inform your employer of your additional activity, but it is your responsibility not to work for more than 48 hours per week as long as you are an employee. So if you are working 38 hours for your employer, you may not work for yourself for more than 10 hours. It is, however, not so easy in practice to draw the line between work and a hobby, as long as you are not being paid by the hour. The main reason to present your employer with an addition to your work contract is to make it legally very clear that he holds no intentions to claim copyright to your work. He may attempt to do something funky like claim your home computer is, in fact, a work computer because you used it once a month to work from home, and your work contract may contain a paragraph that all work performed on a work computer results in copyright ownership for your employer. I have no idea how likely this is in practice, but this is the reason I know is commonly given as legal advice to have a contract. So the normal contract you present your employer with says: In order to earn user contribution money from a website, you need to register as a sole proprietor (Gewerbeanmeldung) and pay trade tax (Gewerbesteuer) and sales tax (Umsatzsteuer, alternatively you claim small trade exception, Kleingewerbe), which also makes a tax return mandatory. I would guess, however, (and this is not legal advice in any way, just my guess), that a couple of contributions towards server cost in a strictly non-profit endeavor is not commercial (""gewerblich"") at all but private, in the same way that you may write an invoice to someone you sold your old bike to, or a kid may get paid to mow someone's lawn. Based on that guess, my non-legal-advice recommendation is to take the contributions and do nothing else, as long as the amount is nowhere near breaking even if you count your work input."


Not that easy!. There’s millions of lines of code and so much logic added over the years. Programmers would add a comment line and insert the code. No one had time to cleanup or rewrite of remodularize functionality. They just piled on it !. Y2K happened and it corrected and renamed whole bunch of date fields and code to work for rollover year.


Ya, I moved into the role so I was just as surprised as you are. We regularly compete with 4 or 5 other companies to win an account. When we lose it really sucks because a high investment goes into the process with flights, hotels, and time.


"The economy is going to stagnate into permanent recession a la Japanese model or it will collapse unless government spending is reduced to equal government revenue.   That means a 40% cut in the Federal budget. That means that we need to ""CUT EVERYTHING!"". To not do so is the decision to avoid substantial pain today and refuse to see the crushing pain that will come later. It is the decision of children"


Buyer A didn't send money to the US government, Buyer A sent money to Seller B, a US resident.  I think the most common way to facilitate a transaction like this is a regular old international wire transfer. Buyer A in India goes to their bank to exchange X INR to $1mm USD.  $1mm USD is then wire transferred to Seller B's bank account.  The USD was sold to Buyer A, either by funds held by Buyer A's bank, or foreign exchange markets, or possibly the US government.     Seller B may owe taxes on the gain derived from the sale of this thing to Buyer A, but that taxation would arise regardless of who the buyer was.  Buyer A may owe an import tax in India upon importing whatever they bought.  I don't think it's common to tax imported money in this sort of transactional setting though.


How fucking retarded are you?  >Maybe if fuckers like him could manage their house then government wouldn't have to bail them out and there wouldn't be a need for as much regulation. But no, he's going to keep gambling and expect tax payers to cover his losses, and then has the audacity to bitch about it. Fuck him.  Literally look at what you posted, and how none of it is even true. What does Citibank have anything to do with what you posted you dumbass? And you ask me a question that you can google? Fucking lol


A cashier's check costs money to get and is not connected to an account.  You have cash.  You should be able to get a bank to sell you one, even without an account.  Find a bank where you would like to open an account and explain the situation.  I can't guarantee that that will work, but I would expect it to do so.  If not, the bank can probably suggest an alternative.   You might also ask the landlord if you can do it with postal money orders.  I am positive that you can buy those with cash.  You might have to buy a bunch to reach your desired amount.  Or perhaps a Western Union money order might be better.   You also might be able to open an account with your passport and Social Security Number (SSN).


What really gets me is that the whores at the credit rating agencies aren't penalising this. These high grades are ridiculous, especially as they are used as anchors for political risk premium calculations. The European debt crisis gave everyone a step by step playbook on risk transfer channels, and yet [here](https://i.imgur.com/c4jt321.png) we are...


"I appreciate your taking the time to shoot some holes in this oft repeated statistic.  However, I do disagree on some points.  > Nor is there anything wrong with the person then ENDING that ""business"" and moving on... to another (different name, different field) business... or taking a job with some company  There may not be anything shameful about doing that, but that scenario is, indeed, a business failure.  People do not shutter a profitable (successful) business and then go to work for someone else.  I believe a key contributor to the confusion is talking about the self-employed and business owners in the same breath.  Someone who's self-employed basically owns a job.  His income will always be directly proportional to the amount of time spent working and the company does not exist apart from himself.    A business owner, on the other hand, has processes/equipment/staff/IP in place that generates income whether or not she gets out of bed in the morning.  These are different people with different goals and cannot be lumped into the same demographic block."


Order NFL Football Team Checks   Choose from the groups below to urge you started: Green Bay Packers Checks Miami Dolphins Checks Chicago Bears Checks Baltimore Ravens Checks Pittsburgh Steelers Checks Arizona Cardinals Checks Detroit Lions Checks Atlanta Falcons Checks St Louis Rams Checks Jacksonville Jaguars Checks Many more...


Go through a few of the public domain reports on the costs of risk management for banks. Convert qualitative results into some kind of quantitative data and try to answer the most basic questions. It's your job to decide what the hypothesis would be, but it is a hot topic in the industry and breaking new ground could open a lot of doors.


When you live in the midwest it's really hard to see food production being such an issue. I drove for 6 hours seeing only fields full of corn on Sunday - we clearly have the means to mass produce agriculture - it just isn't all that profitable without govt. subsidies right now.


It is an interesting place in Florida to spend the time with your family and more activity in our escapes rooms which is designed at the wonderful location. Here, you can make unforgettable events, it is one of the most full secure  place for the ladies and also known as family reunion west palm beach. You can come here without any hesitation and if you have more query, then you can also contact us. It  is one of the largest escape room game company that create  new ideas for your party west palm beach and other special occasions more memorable and adventurous.


"We were on the ""gold standard"" in name only since about 1910. There was not enough gold to remotely back the US currency, which is why during the great depression when people started wanting to turn their cash back in to gold there was no enough, and gold possession had to be outlawed (well, partially). So no, we were not on a gold standard.  Secondly, when you're on a (any fixed item) standard, your economy only can grow at roughly the rate you fond more of the (fixed item). There are many reasons for this, and it is partially why for thousands of years of various gold standard there was so little economic growth. Once countries stopped limiting the amount of total economic growth to the amount of gold they could dig up, that economies were able to grow at the sustained rate they have for the past 200ish years.  So, besides the fact that the US has not in modern history been backed by gold, despite the name, there is ample evidence from hundreds of economies and thousands of years that being on a gold standard = little or no economic growth."


You're definitely looking in the wrong place. I work at Starbucks in Dallas and I make $9.00 an hour. Federal work study programs pay $9.88 an hour. Job opportunities are countless in Texas, especially for technology which is what I'm going to study in the fall (MIS). A job for $8.25? Give me a break. You could find a technical support position that pays $12 an hour with just an A+ certification.


I make yearly trips to outlets in Italy. You wouldn't believe the deals you get. In particular, Il Lanificio, owned by the Cerruti group using their fabric, has great suits on sale all the time. I don't pay more than 250€ for suits there.  The fabric alone is worth more.


"Do you want to split expenses of the new apartment, or split your income/assets equally too (as for instance with a marriage where no sort of ""yours, mine, and ours"" are split out)? I'm going to assume you have beliefs similar to me in my answer, in that you desire to split expenses of the new place but don't suddenly want to split all of your assets and income 50/50 too. So here's how I'd approach this. I am somewhat unsure of what you mean by ""living expenses"" for your flat. Does this mean the cost of ownership per month - what it takes to not get rid of the place - and no portion of this is interest/mortgage? To make the calculations a little simpler, I'll assume that all the money you pay out as expenses is just gone - none of it remains as equity or is dis-proportionally accumulating value in some other such way. So, you move in with your girlfriend. The cost for her place - the place itself, taxes, utilities, whatever - is 7892 per month. So since you are both getting equal use of the place, you would split this into 3946 per month for each of you. That's it. Well, I don't see how that really matters at all, anymore than if you owned a company or stocks and bonds. If you rent it out for less per month than it costs you, I don't see why your girlfriend should take any part of the loss. Conversely if you make more money per month than it costs you, that is your investment profit - the payment you get for owning the apartment and dealing with renting it out. Now if your girlfriend is going to partner with you in handling renting out the apartment you own and you want to look at this as an investment partnership, then you should pay all expenses out of the income first and then you can split the profit if you really want. One question to ask would be, what if you just sold your apartment completely? Would you give your girlfriend have the money from the sale? If not then I don't see why you would split the investment profit from holding on to the place. While this is what I recommend and would feel comfortable with personally and if the situation was reversed (and it was my girlfriend that owned a place and was moving in with me), ultimately this is about your personal values, beliefs, and relationship. You are very wise to seek something that both of you will find fair, and so you should discuss a proposed arrangement with your girlfriend and see if you are on the same page. If you are both fine with the agreement and feel OK with it, then great - none of us have to like or agree with it, because we aren't a part of your relationship. Psychologically and financially this situation seems the most reasonable to me, but YMMV. After some more thought and from comments, I realize that it's probably best to explore a few possibilities numerically. So I'll run a few sets of numbers which may help pick which one is right for your relationship. This is approximately the same as paying her ""rent"" for getting to live with her. You pay her for sharing her place, splitting the expense: 3946 paid to you. She pays the other 3946 for her place. Financially it's like being room-mates. You can do whatever you want with your place - rent or sell, hold on to it for security, etc. This deal makes your girlfriend financially better off by 3946. The financial advantage to you is wholly dependent on what you do with your place.  This option would give you each the most financial independence, which is why I like it - but you might be keen on being more interdependent.  Which leads us to the next option. Here you behave as before in splitting her expenses, but you include renting out your place as part of the deal. Let's say you get 10k a month for it. You pay the expenses on that place from the rent, then you have 2108 left as 'profit'. You split the profits monthly 1054 to each of you.  There's a bit of problem here, though - what happens when the place is vacant? Do you share the full expense of the rent, so she'd actually be paying you each month while it sits open? What about repairs, taxes (costs and credits), etc?  I would recommend instead what you do, if you go this way, to account for the apartment as an investment and don't pay out ANY of the profits right away. All rents stay in their own account, and you pay expenses from that same account. For you both it's like it doesn't exist, accept it is a nice earning asset. When you decide it has accumulated more than enough to pay for itself and has enough money to cover vacancy, repairs, etc, then when you pull out money for the duration you are together you just pay it out to both of you equally. You might also pull this ""equity"" out and spend it on something for both of you, like a nice vacation, etc - something you both enjoy, so you are still sharing the profits. I don't object to this, and it could be a nice arrangement. I would only note that this makes you have a personal relationship, you live together as roommates, and now you are co-landlords/business partners. That's a lot of types of relationships, and I can tell you from personal experience each type has it's own stresses - and this sort of stress can stack (or if you don't handle it well, multiply). So just make sure you are both clear what sort of responsibility you are really both signing up for up front, and what you'd do if you part.  Combine your apartment expenses, which would equal 14753, so that's 7376 cost to each of you a month. If you rent your place then whatever money you get you split, and whatever costs come up (repairs, cleaning, etc) you would also split. So if you get an average of 10000 a month for the apartment you each are paying living expenses of 2376 total.  But notice that this isn't exactly equal, either. You will pay 5516 less per month than you are now, and she will pay 4485 less than she was before.  There's nothing morally wrong with this or anything - it's a 100% partnership across the board. Yet advantage is still not equal - you actually will see a larger benefit to your budget than she will. But if you seek equal benefit, you will have to pay 515 a month more than she does.  This sort of thing is basically the model marriage uses, a pure 50/50 partnership, or ""communal property"". And note that one of you will either be paying more than the other, will be benefiting more than the other - no matter what you do! It's impossible to balance both costs and benefits, because your income and expenses are not the same going in. If you go this way you'll need to choose what is most important - splitting the expenses/income equally, or benefiting financially equally. So I say again, ultimately you have to choose based upon your individual and shared values, and also on just what sort of relationship and layers of commitment you want to have together. You could start slow with option 1, then progress to sharing more - that's what I'd recommend, because I like the idea of developing things one layer at a time rather than jumping in head-first (like I have personally done in the past, haha!). Once bitten twice shy, I might just be more risk-averse or careful than you desire to be, but that's a personal choice.  I personally believe the relationship can be far more valuable than any investment, but at the same time I'll take $1 over a relationship that has turned sour any day of the week. This is why I suggest the more gradual, careful approach - to let your love bloom and grow deeper one layer at a time, without the complexities of fully shared finances or investment partnership. Relationships are hard enough, so this is why I favor trying to protect them aggressively from unnecessary complexity. Some favor the ""sink or swim"" model of seeking out trials and challenges, while I favor the ""relationship as tender, growing sapling"" model. I hope seeing these options laid out more is helpful to you, and good luck to you, your relationship, and - lastly - to your investments!"


Amazon Go! was the beta and it was really cool (I work for Amazon and got to Beta test). Whole Foods is about to become the most technologically advanced supermarket and will be trimming serious staff overhead when it comes to checkouts. I can't wait to see what comes of this.


Fixed  You are confirming the amount you are going t pay over the term of the loan. Variable: 3.79% over 82mo. The total difference over the life of the loan comes to around $1200 That is the wrong way to calculate the variable portion. The variable is primarily set with a margin over a certain benchmark i.e. Fed rate. Assuming the Fed rate doesn't change over or only goes lower the variable rate is the one to go. If it rises then your payment will increase. And the margin they take over the benchmark rate may increase, so the total amount you pay might increase too.  I would assume a read through the T&Cs should clarify that for you. Is it ever a good idea to choose a variable rate loan? Only if you think we are in a low interest rate environment i.e. the economy is in doldrums and the Feds are trying to simulate the economy by decreasing the benchmark rates. And you are sure that the lender isn't going to increase his margins if the rate remains low for quite a substantial amount of time. And I might assume there will be penalties for paying off a loan quicker.


">Govt. already is quite out of the way.  You are subject to more laws and regulations than you could ever be *aware of*, much less compliant to, if you had your entire life to read them. No one on *earth* is fully cognizant of all applicable laws, so don't try that line with me.   >All it is doing is setting new rules when needed.  That's an extremely naive view. Needed, according to who? To what end?   >the govt. is now trying to say - Hang on a min, we need to ensure fairness  Your naivete is amazing. The government doesn't give half a shit about fairness, only about protecting its own.  >It never prevented HFT's from starting up and operating.   No shit? Maybe that's because we don't need the government's permission to try something.  >Govt. supports free market  In no way is this true. Government itself is an inhibition to free markets.  >it wants a refereed and regulated free market  Contradiction of terms. There's no such thing as a ""refereed and regulated free market"".   >Re. the consumer electronics, last I checked FCC stickers are on most of them.  FCC has fuck-all to do with safety, FCC is about non-interference with other devices. Before making statements, please ensure you know what the fuck you're talking about.   >Not sure who/what the u/w labs does  Now that you've admitted you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, are you willing to take input from someone who *does* know what he's talking about? Somehow I doubt it."


As other answers and comments suggest you are trying to do something... odd to say the least. No one wants to use a credit card to finance a checking/current account because you are creating a debt on that credit card (unless you are in the odd situation where the card is in credit) that will immediately start accruing interest at a rate probably in excess of 10% per annum. That is not a clever thing to do. What you really need to do is find an account that one of you owns that has a positive balance and use an internet banking service to transfer part of that positive balance onto the debit card. The other solution is not to use the debit card at all but use the credit card to complete the purchases you are trying to manage with the debit card. The reason that BofA and AmEx customer support can't help you is that no one would ever do what you want to do; they would either move existing money from another account or ask for a bank loan.


"Unfortunately, it's difficult to convince a potential employer that reading in the library is sufficient qualification for anything. Also, good public libraries are few and far between these days (thanks to budget cuts for ""non-essential"" services). Additionally, even halfway decent education involves discussion with peers and mentorship.  Furthermore, you're a dick."


NAV is  how much is the stuff of the company worth divided by the number of shares. This total is also called book value. The market cap is share price times number of shares. For Amazon  today people are willing to pay 290 a share for a company with a NAV of 22 a share. If of nav and price were equal the P/B (price to book ratio) would be 1, but for Amazon it is 13.  Why? Because investors believe Amazon is worth a lot more than a money losing company with a NAV of 22.


I'm on chapter 6. I can just tell by skimming through the rest of the book that the first 4 chapters were the most difficult and will take up the most time. The rest of the book in picking up quickly since I've worked at a BRoker dealer for two years.


It goes both ways. You can work hard, take pride in your work, but if you are not simultaneously participating in the organization of your co-workers, taking your employer to task to provide a living wage, and are unwilling to show up on the picket lines when your employer locks their employees in the building overnight or threatens your fellow working man with INS investigations of him and his whole family for speaking up, then you might want to consider that your position is less about self derived principles and more about you being well trained.


The tablet is great as well. It's the right size/weight, doesn't need a separate SIM card for Internet while away from wifi, and generally feels solid and polished. It's hard to believe from using it, that it was made by a company on the brink.  I have an ipad3 to compare with, and while I really like the screen and Skype, it feels buggy and slow, and generally unfinished. I think the PlayBook is the better overall tablet (games, music, ssh, and email)


> To me, it's crazy that even Indians can't buy land in their own country.  What? How does that work? If you want to build a building you... just take a piece of land and hope nobody stops you?


"Well, everyone knows that a lot of funds have a strict policy to own a market-cap based part of shares from all listed companies above a certain threshold.    Now, if I would go and inflate my share price and market cap, they would be forced to buy in; you can argue that this is ""just exploiting a weakness of the market"", but for me that's simply fraud."


"> Bernie:  I could probably live with a percent increase also. Right now, it falls under capital gains, which is 15% for most people, and I think slides up to 20% at the highest brackets. I could live with a couple more percent points added onto it. I am a civilian now, and left the military with no retirement pension. As an owner of a company, I have to build my own retirement just like most civilians nowadays. I am counting on some portion of that retirement to be funded by stock/mutual fund/dividends interest growth. While I would alter my plans slightly if it went from 15% to 20%, I wouldn't have to change my plans.   > You are right, there does need to be an enforcement agency, however, I do not believe it has to be government.  You are right, it doesn't *have* to be government... Call it whatever you want, but guess what those people who have to *deal* with that enforcement agency are going to call it.... *government*... (or ""big brother"" or the ""cops"" or whatever). The point being, at the end of a day doesn't it equate to the same thing? How will this enforcement agency get paid? Are they going to sell tickets? Are they going to make a product or service *outside of enforcement*? Probably not, otherwise they are going to gain a reputation for having a conflict of interest and always have the suspicion of corruption hanging over them. So, then we are back to some form of ""tax"" on the market in order to pay for enforcement.... (And what do we call that ladies and gentlemen?.... A *government*!)  > Kansas  You dug down into the specifics, which I appreciate. Most people just go: he didn't reduce taxes and spending *enough* and *that* is why it failed. And that is why they are now raising taxes to pay for gaping deficits.   Okay, so lets say you are correct about Kansas. Lets do some apples to apples comparisons. Most people say - okay, lets compare Texas and California - our two biggest GDP states. I am fine with that, even though their GDP comes from *very* different sources. CA is a technology state, while TX is an oil state. They both have a little bit of farming on top of that. CA has one of the highest and strictest tax policies of any state in the union. TX is known for being a *business friendly* state and a *tax rebel* (although they surely don't have a zero tax policy, not having an income tax is nice while they have one of the highest real estate taxes of any state).   CA currently has a [GDP growth rate of 3%](http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/dec/19/jerry-brown/are-jobs-california-growing-hell-lot-faster-texas/), and has a job growth rate that exceeds the national average. TX is has fallen below the national average on both aspects, mostly because of the oversupply of oil on the global market. And of course TX was one of the top states while oil was up, but still was CA. The point being is that their *very* different tax policies did not make or break their positions. And many would argue that tax policy can help GDP when it builds stability and infrastructure (while states like KS seem to show the opposite to be true).   Lets do another comparison, and see if we can get even more apples to apples. Lets find a couple of states the sit right next to each other, have very similar economies and demographics, but very different views on taxes and infrastructure. How about: WI and MN, KS and MI, NH, and ME, and OR and ID.   Conservative with very lenient tax policy, an emphasis on freedom and reduced government: WI, KS, ME, and ID. Liberal states with emphasis on infrastructure, and social services: MN, NH, OR, MI.   In all of the above examples, the liberal states exceeded the conservative states in job growth, and GDP growth. This doesn't mean the liberal state exceeded the national average - in the KS/MI and MN/WI examples, both states lagged the national average. However, in both examples the liberal state faired better.   People could argue it is in-spite of the increased taxes, or they could try to find minute differences in the economies. Those states are pretty close, and yet the liberal states exceeded the conservative states.   This can be seen on a global scale as well. It is almost as if people need a safety network, and stability before they are able to produce. It is hard to concentrate on innovation and invention while you are worried about being able to buy groceries, pay for that big surgery, or make sure your kids go to a good school.   They have even seen this play out in commercial markets. [Linux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux) is one of the most successful freeware programs in the world - despite the fact that it pays its ""employees"" absolutely nothing. When they interviewed the participants, they found that the one common thread was basic needs. As long as their basic needs were being met, the most important thing to them was that they were part of something bigger and were contributing to society.   > My high school spent tens of thousands of dollars on Macbook Pros and iPads the same year they started having these ""big"" paper shortages.   I agree - straight dollars do not equate to good education. After all, we pay more per student that most countries, yet [lag many western nations](https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/sei/edTool/data/highschool-08.html). I want you to notice something - every one of those nations at the top of the list has a strong *nationalized* school system. Not one of them has a privatized school system as the basis of their education program.   Matter of fact, if you look at many of today's most prominent inventions - they have their foundation in government led R&D. Commercial does a great job expanding on government built foundations. Like Elon Musk has done with the space program. It is almost as if people want government, and want it to provide the foundation so that they feel safe building onto that foundation."


After the turn of the century, financial accounting requirements grew as a result of new pressures placed on companies by capital creditors, markets, regulatory bodies, and federal taxation of income. Johnson and Kaplan states that many firms needed to raise funds from widespread and outside suppliers of capital. To tap these outside capital firms’ managers were to supply audited financial reports.


This post has been wrote in 2014, so if you read this text be aware. At the time, and since France does tax a lot investment, I'd suggest you start a PEA and filling in using the lazy investment portfolio. That means buying European and/or French ETFs & index, and hold them as long as you can. You can fill your PEA (Plan d'Epargne en Action) up to 150.000€ for a period of at least 8 years as long as you fill it with European and French stocks. After the period of 8 years your profit is taxed at only mere 15%, instead of the 33% you see in a raw broker account. Since you are young, I think a 100% stocks is something you can hold on. If you can't sleep at night with 100% stocks, take some bonds up to 25%, even more. Anyway, the younger you start investing, the more ahead you may eventually go.


Is it a safety thing?  If the heat pump goes out you replace it immediately, if your floor looks bad but you aren't tripping, I would suggest saving.  Use the extra time to find a great deal and educate yourself on your options.  Maybe even take a class and learn to do it yourself. In these rough times, anything I can save for and pay cash I would.  The exception is if you can finance with 0% interest for a period of time and you have enough money to pay that off. The last consideration I can think of is if you plan to sell the home soon?  For that you might be getting more value than the loan and a real estate agent would be probably know best.


He doesn't have to follow through on this, but he could tell this sister that he will stop making mortgage payments, which will result in foreclosure and sale at lower price than might be realized by a voluntary sale. Translation: the house will sold, sis. Do you want to maximize your share of the proceeds?  And, as I said in a comment above: I hope that he is keeping careful records of mortgage an utility payments, as he might (should) be entitled to a refund from the proceeds of an eventual sale (possibly adjusted by the fair rent value of the time which he spent living there)


> Risk tolerance is a psychological trait that is genetically based, but positively influenced by education, income, and wealth…  > There is an old adage: It is not a stock market, but a market of stocks.  Phrase-based search results from Google for [these two quotes appearing together](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Risk+tolerance+is+a+psychological+trait+that+is+genetically+based,+but+positively+influenced+by+education%22++%22There+is+an+old+adage:+It+is+not+a+stock+market,+but+a+market+of+stocks.%22&num=50&tbas=0&tbs=li:1&filter=0&biw=1568&bih=1031).


">Staggering levels of national debt that is only growing due to continued budget deficits. As it stands now, the national debt stands at over 100% of annual GDP, and that figure is only growing as the deficit remains huge.  Debt as a percentage of GDP is a useless metric. Debt can be paid off over decades while GDP is at one point in time. Japan isn't too worried about their debt.   >Governments from municipal to states in financial disarray.  It's been like this for centuries. It's a short term problem that eventually gets resolved with a stronger economy.   >Crumbling infrastructure after decades of insufficient funding and maintenance throughout the country.  ""Crumbling"" gets thrown out a lot. Just because we don't build high speed trains that we cannot afford doesn't mean our infrastructure is crumbling. We have the best freight railroad network in the world, the best highway system in the world, and cities all over the country are heavily investing in mass transit.   >A population grown completely accustomed to a resource-intensive, globalized lifestyle relative to that enjoyed by almost any other country on Earth.  So?   >And finally, the combination of the game of economic dominoes unfolding in Europe and a slowing Chinese economy.  Again, Europe is a temporary problem. Greece, Spain, Italy, etc are all in hell right now but they are offset but the gains made by Germany and the Netherlands."


"I'm looking to leave my corporate finance position in the next several months. Looking at positions externally with more responsibilities in the same realm or to move to a financial services type role in consulting or similar. A lot of job postings call out ""financial modeling"" as a desired skill. What specifically is meant by this? Modeling cash flows? Estimating P&Ls given some assumptions? Valuation? I'm in Excel all day in my role but still can't seem to make sense of what I should be doing to prepare for a next step in my early career. The ""models"" I typically work with involve calculating accruals or analyzing sales/ margin data in my corporate environment which has become very stale as of late. Thanks!"


"The question seems to be from a Libertarian position. That's a religious perspective imo.  There isn't a Reverence for Greed even in so called ""capitalist"" countries. Capitalism perhaps is a religion to some but to most people ""gouging"" is a descriptive word for unethical behavior."


As was once famously said, Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. — Benjamin Franklin, 1789 It's very likely that either the company or you personally is going to have to pay taxes on that money. Really the only way to avoid it would be if the company spent that money on next year's expenses, and paid the bill before the end of this year. Of course you can only do that if the recipient is willing to receive their money so far in advance, which isn't necessarily the case since they would pay more taxes this year as a result. As for whether it's better to have the company pay the tax or for you to do as your accountant suggests, there are a lot of factors that go into that equation, and my gut feeling is that your accountant already ran it both ways and is suggesting the better choice.


The abbreviation of USI is Unique Superannuation Identifier. An USI Number is nothing but a number utilized by the huge superannuation funds for an electronic communication about the rollovers and contributions. It actually forms the parts of SuperStream System, other than for SMSF’s that utilize their Australian Business Number rather.


Taxes were much higher in the period immediately following the Second World War which is widely considered one of the most productive and stable periods of US economic history.  This guy is saying that he is able to run a company only when fiscal policy is dramatically bent to favor corporations and the rich.  More competitive companies will pick up the slack, or the goods and services he offers will go away.


You mean that new $800 Millennium Falcon didn't get you excited.  The basic price points keep creeping higher and higher.    Also, Lego's designers fell in love with complex and expensive models.  Unless you buy block buckets, there are very few sets with a large number of the bigger blocks I grew up with.  It is horrible for teaching younger kids to build free style.


Actually regulation was really helpful here: some investors tried to invest into facebook privately, having very limited information. IPO just made things visible.  Perhaps a shitty analogy would help you to understand:  > When John was beating his wife privately that was OK because nobody saw her face. I'm sure she was asking for it. But now due to stupid federal regulations there is an open investigation and everybody knows she was beaten. This sucks. Start at the root: fight with those stupid federal regulations which break into private homes.  This makes as much sense as your comment.


You're exactly right, I wish more people understood this.   That being said, there is definitely progress in this area. The house actually passed a reasonable bill in the past few days and now the senate has taken it up.   [Source](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/12/idUS125555802420111212)


Rent doesn't give you any ownership in a property, so is largely irrelevant here. If you were paying rent after the death of your parents, that money would go to the owners of the house (which may include you). Similarly, whether or not someone was evicted is completely irrelevant. If the will specifies how the estate should be divided, that's what's relevant here. You seem to imply that the house was left to 10 people. Barring specific other arrangements, the most likely case is that the house will be sold by the executrices and the proceeds divided evenly between all ten people. Again, though, it's going to depend on the specifics of the will. There are many possible cases where you may end up with nothing. For example, if there are a lot of debts, these must be paid off before dividing up the money from the sale of the house. If you are not getting the answers you need from the executrices, you need to consult a lawyer.


I agree that high volatility just means the underlying stock price fluctuates more, and it does not imply if the stock is going up or down. But a high volatility in the price of an underlying also means that there is a higher chance that the underlying price could reach extreme prices (albeit in either direction). However, if you purchased a call option then if the underlying price reached an extremely high value, then you will be richly rewarded. But if the underlying price reached an extremely low value, you won't lose any more than the initial premium that you paid. There is no additional risk on your side, it's capped to the premium that you paid for the call option. It's this asymmetric outcome (Heads - I win, Tails - I don't lose) combined with high volatility that means that call options will increase in value when the underlying price becomes more volatile. If the optionality wasn't there then the price wouldn't be related to the volatility of the underlying. But that would be called a Future or a Forward :-)