"I was wondering how do we calculate the total capital of a company? Which items should I look for in the financial statements? Total capital usually refers to the sum of long-term debt and total shareholder equity; both of these items can be found on the company's balance sheet. This is one of the calculations that's traditionally used when determining a company's return on capital.  I'll use the balance sheet from Gilead Sciences' (GILD) 2012 10-K form as an example. Net long-term debt was $7,054,555,000 and total stockholder equity was $9,550,869,000 which should give a grand total of $16,605,424,000 for total capital. (I know you can do the math, but I always find an example helpful if it uses realistic numbers).  You may sometimes hear the term ""total capital"" referring to ""total capital stock"" or ""total capital assets,"" in which case it may be referring to physical capital, i.e. assets like inventory, PP&E, etc., instead of financial capital/leverage. And how do I calculate notes payable? Is the same as accounts payable? As the word ""payable"" suggests, both are liabilities. However, I've always been taught that accounts payable are debts a business owes to its suppliers, while notes payable are debts a business owes to banks and other institutions with which it has signed a formal agreement and which use formal debt instruments, e.g. a loan contract. This definition seems to match various articles I found online.  On a balance sheet, you can usually determine notes payable by combining the short-term debt of the company with the current portion of the long-term debt. These pieces comprise the debt that is due within the fiscal year. In the balance sheet for Gilead Sciences, I would only include the $1,169,490,000 categorized as ""Current portion of long-term debt and other obligations, net"" term, since the other current liabilities don't look like they would involve formal debt contracts.  Since the notes payable section of GILD's balance sheet doesn't seem that diverse and therefore might not make the best example, I'll include the most recent balance sheet Monsanto as well.1 Monsanto's balance sheet lists a term called ""Short-term debt, including current portion of long-term debt"" with a value of $36 million. This looks like almost the exact definition of notes payable. 1. Note that this financial statement is called a Statement of Consolidated Financial Position on Monsanto's 10-K."


People normally hold precious metals as a protection against the whole system going down: massive inflation, lawlessness, etc.  If our whole government and financial system broke completely and we returned to a barter economy, then holding silver would likely turn out to be a good thing. However, precious metals are not very good hedges against individual calamity, like losing your job.  They are costly and inconvenient to sell and the price of these metals fluctuates wildly, so you could end up wanting to sell just when the metal isn't worth much. I'd say having some precious metal isn't unreasonable, but it should not make up a major portion of one's total net worth.  If you want protection against normal problems, especially as a person of limited means, start with an emergency savings account and paying down debt.  That way fixed costs will be less likely to turn an unfortunate turn of events into a personal catastrophe.


"The technical term for it is ""timing the market"" and if you can pull it off correctly, you will do quite well. The problem is that it is almost impossible to consistently do well. If it were that easy there would be a lot of billionaires walking around. Even Wall street experts haven't been able to predict the market that well. This idea is almost universally considered a bad idea. Consider this: When has the stock dropped low enough that you are ""buying low"" and let's say you do buy low and it doubles in a month. When do you get out? What if you are wrong and it doubles again? Or if it drops 10% do you keep waiting? This strategy is rife with problems."


If you have a long enough time horizon, investing in the stock market while in a bad economy can turn out to be a very smart decision. If you need access to your capital in the short-term, 1-2 years, then it is probably a bad decision. If you have the ability to ride out the next few years, then you may be buying securities at an extremely low valuation. Take AAPL and MSFT for example. These are both technology stocks, which is by far the hottest sector in the economy now, and you can buy both of these companies for less than 13x earnings. Historically, you would have had to pay 20x or higher for high tech growth companies, but today you can buy these stocks at discounted valuations. Now AAPL may have a large market capitalization and a high stock price, but the simple fact is they are growing their earnings very quickly, they have best in class management, and they have $100 billion in cash and $50 billion in annual cash flow generation and you can buy the stock for a historically low multiple.


Considering that they are paying non-waitstaff 2.13/hr is a pretty good indication that they are looking at the (short term) bottom line, employee satisfaction (and service) be-damned.  While pushing people to part-time status might not have been 'in the parking lot', I'd be willing to bet that cutting costs in any legal manner possible is probably right in the decision maker's wheelhouse.  This approach can make a lot of sense...if you aren't in the service industry.


The benefit of paying into a pension is that the payment is effectively made from pre-tax money. Either you pay from your own pocket and then you get income tax relief on the payment, i.e. your gross salary is reduced by the gross pension contribution and income tax is recalculated with the excess either refunded to you or put in your pension (the details are a bit more complicated depending on your marginal tax rate, but the end result is the same). Or your company pays, and then you are never charged tax on the payment in the first place. From the company's point of view, the two are roughly the same. Either it pays you who then pays into your pension, or it pays straight into your pension. Either way the money going out from the company is treated as a cost that is offset against the company's revenue, reducing the amount of corporation tax the company has to pay. There are some National Insurance advantages to paying directly into the pension; neither you nor the company gets relief on NI if the payment goes via you, but no NI is paid in the first place if it goes direct from the company. [EDIT: your question is actually worded to suggest that you want to lend your company money from your own pocket, and then have that loan directly discharged by the company paying into your pension. That's no different to you just paying into your pension directly, and wouldn't have any better tax implications. For the rest of my answer, I assume that the idea is actually to lend your company money that it uses to make an immediate contribution to your pension (as part of your pay from that company), and then the company will repay the loan later by returning the money to you personally. Your pension and you are two separate entities legally.] However, in your case, what you're proposing is that the company should effectively make a loss paying into your pension: it's going to end up with more costs than revenue. So, there won't be any immediate tax saving because there wasn't revenue to pay corporation tax on in the first place. You also won't save tax because the loan will be made from previously taxed income or whatever.  However, there will be a tax loss that can be carried forward and offset against future profits, so if you expect the company to make money in future to repay the loan, you might end up saving some corporation tax. You can also sometimes carry a tax loss back one year, so if your company had profits last year you could get some corporation tax back immediately. The repayment of the loan itself won't be subject to income tax as it's not income. So unless you can carry the loss back, you won't get any immediate tax relief by doing this, but it might give you a way to carry forward your annual allowance to future years, i.e. use it now and get the tax advantage later. However, the annual allowance can already be carried forward by up to three years, so this is only worthwhile if you expect that future revenue to repay the loan to arrive more than three years later. Also, this is only worthwhile if you'll continue to max out the annual allowance for paying into your pension in future years, otherwise you might as well just make the pension payment using that same revenue in future years. However, even if this beneficial tax-wise, I'm not sure if it's actually allowed; this might be viewed as an artificial transaction to avoid tax, and that could lead to HMRC disallowing the future tax relief. You might need to ask HMRC or an accountant about that. If you do make the loan, make sure it's clearly documented so you can show in future why the repayment shouldn't be treated as income.


Set him up to take credit cards just as a convenience thing, and he can advertise that he accepts all major credit cards.    I've been helping my mother set up farmers to do this at the Farmer's  Market she manages.  [Squareup](https://squareup.com/) is ridiculously easy to set up.  You just need a smart phone (iphone or android based) and one of their little square reader thingies that fit into the audio jack, an email, and bank account routing info.  Set up time is ten minutes the first day, 3 minutes once the confirmation info is accounted for.  You can buy the readers at Walgreens...Best Buy...lots of random places, and Squareup reimburses you the $10 cost of the reader so it ends up being free.  I made a test account and I was able to receive funds directly into my bank account within about 4 days.


You will need to look at the 27.5 year depreciation table from the IRS. It tells you how you will be able to write off the first year. It depends on which month you had the unit ready to rent. Note that that it might be a different month from when you moved, or when the first tenant moved in. Your list is pretty good. You can also claim some travel expenses or mileage related to the unit. Also keep track of any other expenses such as switching the water bill to the new renter, or postage.  If you use Turbo tax, not the least expensive version, it can be a big help to get started and to remember how much to depreciate each year.


Since there was no sale, where does the money actually come from? From the refinancing bank. It's a new loan. How does a bank profit from this, i.e. why would they willingly help someone lower their mortgage payments? Because they sell a new loan. Big banks usually sell the mortgage loans to the institutional investors and only service them. So by creating a new loan - they create another product they can sell. The one they previously sold already brought them profits, and they don't care about it. The investors won't get the interest they could have gotten had the loan been held the whole term, but they spread the investments so that each refi doesn't affect them significantly. Credit unions usually don't sell their mortgages, but they actually do have the interest to help you reduce your payments - you're their shareholder. In any case, the bank that doesn't sell the mortgages can continue making profits, because with the money released (the paid-off loan) they can service another borrower.


"I don't know, 'death nail' sounds kind of cool.  Imagine it in a mobster movie - ""You have failed us for the last time, Luigi, and earned... *the death nail*.""  (Then the mobster hammers a black nail into Luigi's skull and leaves the corpse in front of the apartment building as a message to the others.)"


Text Book values drop rather rapidly and fluctuate quite a bit based on when you are selling (January and August-September when semesters generally start) them. I generally sell my old text books on Amazon for 10-15% less than the peak price over the last 6 months or a year if that much data is available (I use camelcamelcamel.com to get historical data). They generally sell pretty quick so I would say it is a fair price.


"As others have mentioned, it's important that there is a fair assessment of the market value of the items being donated.  Joel's point about the government not looking kindly upon overvalued donations also applies in Canada: the CRA doesn't look kindly upon donation schemes such as ""buy-low, donate-high arrangements."" Since nobody has offered up authoritative information for Canada yet, here's something to look at: Excerpts: 3) Gifts in kind of a taxpayer   include capital property, depreciable   property, personal-use property ... [...]   6) The fair market value of a gift in   kind as of the date of the donation   (the date on which beneficial   ownership is transferred from the   donor to the donee) must be determined   before an amount can be recorded on a   receipt for tax purposes. [...]  The   person who determines the fair market   value of the property must be   competent and qualified to evaluate   the particular property being   transferred by way of a gift. Property   of little or only nominal value to the   donor will not qualify as a gift in   kind. Used clothing of little value   would be an example of a   non-qualifying contribution. You will need to find a charity that would both value the books you would be donating and be willing to issue you a receipt for your charitable donation.  Whatever receipt they issue should be in line with fair market value of the goods donated.  Assume your donation receipt will be challenged, and keep both: Finally, reasonable comparables might be prices for similar used goods, not a percentage of new.  Though, if you can't find a price for a particular title in the used market, an estimate consistent with other valuations in the lot would be better than nothing, perhaps."


"There's a few layers to the Momentum Theory discussed in that book. But speaking in general terms I can answer the following: Kind of. Assuming you understand that historically the Nasdaq has seen a little more volatility than the S&P. And, more importantly, that it tends to track the tech sector more than the general economy.  Thus the pitfall is that it is heavily weighted towards (and often tracks) the performance of a few stocks including: Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Intel and Amgen.  It could be argued this is counter intuitive to the general strategy you are trying to employ. This could be tougher to justify.  The reason it is potentially not a great idea has less to do with the fact that gold has factors other than just risk on/off and inflation that affect its price (even though it does!); but more to do with the fact that it is harder to own gold and move in and out of positions efficiently than it is a bond index fund.   For example, consider buying physical gold.  To do so you have to spend some time evaluating the purchase, you are usually paying a slight premium above the spot price to purchase it, and you should usually also have some form of security or insurance for it.  So, it has additional costs.  Possibly worth it as part of a long-term investment strategy; if you believe gold will appreciate over a decade. But not so much if you are holding it for as little as a few weeks and constantly moving in and out of the position over the year. The same is true to some extent of investing in gold in the form of an ETF.  At least a portion of ""their gold"" comes from paper or futures contracts which must be rolled every month.  This creates a slight inefficiency.  While possibly not a deal breaker, it would not be as attractive to someone trading on momentum versus fundamentals in my opinion. In the end though, I think all strategies are adaptable.  And if you feel gold will be the big mover this year, and want to use it as your risk hedge, who am I or anyone else to tell you that you shouldn't."


The problem that his job depends on people liking him and either paying for tickets or subscribing to stations like ESPN.  Since his views angered most of his core audience, most teams won't touch him.  If I'm an engineer at Google, my personal views aren't going to stop Google from making any less money as a whole.


"Your use of the term ""loan"" is confusing, what you're proposing is to open a new card and take advantage of the 0% APR by carrying a balance.  The effects to your credit history / score will be the following:"


I'm not an expert but I would encourage her to stay focused on the skills necessary to be successful in her role, rather than focusing on just the video game industry. The skills and experiences she develops at Zynga can be used to solve a lot of companies' problems, in video games or other consumer electronic companies.   Edit: in other words, its all going to be OK.


This is great news. We all knew that LucasFilm was going to continue making Star Wars movies eventually. But now it will be Disney who will be in charge of making the films and they seem to have a better understanding of maintain their IP creatively and for mechandising purposes.


Of course you do.  You can sell it, wreck it, do whatever you want with it.  Of course, some things may void warranty, or whatever, but since you do in fact own the vehicle, it is technically yours to do with as you please.    Did you know that you can bore the engine of a car to increase performance?  Not saying you should, there are lots of pros and cons there, and it requires an individual with specialized knowledge to do it, who you will have to pay for his service, but it is doable.  Should you be upset that this wasn't already done by the manufacturer?    Did you know that lots of vehicles are equipped with gps functionality?  If your car can display a compass, there is a decent chance that you already have the basics of what you need to set up gps in the vehicle.  Should you be upset that your vehicle doesn't have gps?  But you can't boil it down that far.  Well, I suppose you can, but it makes everything cost more for everyone.  When you buy a Tesla, you aren't just buying a car.  You are buying into the company.  They make updates, fix programming issues, etc. and this requires access.  They chose to market their vehicles differently, and so they sell them differently.  Alternatively, they could have 2 separate assembly lines, one for the 60 (discontinued) and one for the 75.  Now this will equate to both cars costing significantly more than they currently do, but hey, at least you have the right battery, right?


In USA, if you take a personal loan, you will probably get rates between 8-19%. It is better that you take a loan in India, as home loan rates are about 10.25%(10.15% is the lowest offered by SBI).  This might not be part of the answer, but it is safer to hold USD than Indian rupees as India is inflating so much that the value of the rupee is always going lower(See 1970 when you could buy 1 dollar for 7 rupees). There might be price fluctuations where the rupee gains against the dollar, but in the long run, I think the dollar has much more value(Just a personal opinion). And since you are taking a home loan, I am assuming it will be somewhere between 10-20 years. So, you would actually save a lot more on the depreciating rupee, than you would pay interest. Yes, if you can get a home loan in USA at around 4%, it would definitely be worth considering, but I doubt they will do that since they would not know the actual value of the property. Coming to answer your question, getting a personal loan for 75k without keeping any security is highly unlikely. What you can do since you have a good credit score, is get a line of credit for 20-25k as a backup, and use that money to pay your EMI only when absolutely required. That way, you build your credit in the United States, and have a backup for around 2 years in India in case you fail to pay up. Moreover, Line of credits charge you interest only on the amount, you use. Cheers!


I suggest you to apply for a car loan in other banks like DCU or wells fargo, you might get the loan with not the best rate, but after a year you can refinance your loan with a better rate in a different bank since you are going to have a better credit as long as you make your payments in time. I bought a Jetta 2014 last year, my loan is from Wells Fargo. Like you, my credit was low before the loan because I didn't have too much credit history. They gave me the loan with a 8.9% of interest.


I'm not an economics expert or anything, but what seems strange to me is the randomising part. Everything else looks fine but why does it randomly select the next item for price increase, wouldn't this depend on supply/demand and the players in the game?


Hyperinflation doesn't mean armaggedon. There have been hundreds of fiat currencies that have ended in hyperinflation i.e. wiemar republic (which the germans fully recovered from in less than 10 years before trying to take over europe).   Most all pawn shops buy gold/silver, especially during hyperinflation will people be buying gold/silver. You can't have hyperinflation without demand of commodities going through the roof, that is the driver of inflation. When this happens you can be gauranteed people will buy your gold/silver.  In the Wiemar republic, some people bought gold/silver for 1/10,000,000 what they sold it for. But they still lost 99% of their value because the mark still devalued another 1,000,000 times. Because of this, many people aren't even looking to sell it, until they absolutely need it's value. I.e. it's a piggy bank.   The best way to deal with a gold/silver stash is to hide it, you can't steal what you can't find. There's a reason pirates are famous for burying their stuff, when they don't have the law on their side.


BHO extraction is a mixture of highly potent oils such as CBD, Terpenes, vitamins, and antioxidants. At BHO VAC, we provide equipment that enables you to produce the highest quality BHO extraction. Rest assured with us you can simply expect the finest solution.


For some reason post Reagan Republicans seem to be hell bent on destroying the United States of America. It seems to me they feel liberalism must be destroyed at any cost, even if it means burn the country to the ground and salt the earth.


"What you are looking for is a pretty terrible deal for you, so I'd say it doesn't exist because there isn't a market for it, or nobody has noticed there is a market for it. In principle I would happily take the deal you offer from as many people as would let me, put the money into treasury bills, and take half the profits while doing pretty much nothing.    If I had more risk tolerance I would be pretty happy to have half the value of my ""fund"" as zero cost investment capital for more aggressive investments.  My business would then be a lot like an insurance company without the hassle of selling insurance to get hold of float to invest.  Also, most insurance companies actually lose money on policies, but come out ahead by investing the float, so an insurance company with zero cost float is quite a good business. Another answer mentions Berkshire Hathaway.  If you read one of the famous Berkshire Hathaway annual letters to shareholders and read the section about insurance you'll see that very low cost float has a large role in that company's success. So, back to your end of the deal: if the deal is that good for me, how good is it for you?  I'd have to double market returns just for you to break even.  If you're smart enough to pick a financial adviser that can beat the market by that much, how come you aren't able to pick an investment strategy that ties the market?"


Based on the formula used by FICO which is pretty much what you want to focus on, the following is recommended for someone with no credit history: When you get all this, follow the following habits to make sure it does you some good: Follow these and you will do great, I started with a $500 Discover card and $500 Chase Visa at UCLA and a Union 76 gas card, I had 700+ credit in less than 2 years. Good luck and be vigilant.


You know, half the population has an IQ under 100...  I am fortunate enough to have a decent brain, and can get a high paying job, there are many people who don't have such luck...  should they be punished for this? Should they have to struggle just to survive?  Assuming they can 'just find another job', isn't in tune with reality.


> Some business missions have a moral intent - such as pharmaceuticals  Yeah right, the same industry that fakes studies to gets drugs passed through the FDA and pays doctors to prescribe drugs they don't need has some saintly, moral place in society...I don't think so


The Federal Reserve website notes that creditors must accept cash for debts on services already rendered, but that businesses may refuse cash for services not yet rendered unless prohibited by local law. The Treasury website includes examples of businesses limiting what cash they will accept:  For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or   dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas   stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually   notes above $20) as a matter of policy.


This is a facility called Home Banking, which banks in some locations offer. You do not necessarily have to be super-rich to use it though.  Kotak Mahindra Bank has been offering it here in India for about 10 years now. Other banks have followed suit with similar offerings.  I am not super-rich or anywhere close1, but I have used this facility occasionally when I couldn't visit an ATM or the branch, to either get cash delivered to me, or to deposit cash into my account. The banks do charge a convenience fee for this facility as you might expect, but they waive it off if your average monthly balance exceeds a certain amount. Not sure about how it works in other countries, but here in India, if you have an account with one of the top customer-friendly banks, this facility is as mundane as a cheque book or a debit card.  1 If I were, I probably wouldn't be posting here. ;-)


Listing on NYSE has more associated overhead costs than listing on NASDAQ.  In the case of young technology companies, this makes NASDAQ a more attractive option. Perhaps the most important factor is that NYSE requires that a company has an independent compensation committee and an independent nominating committee while NASDAQ requires only that executive compensation and nominating decisions are made by a majority of independent directors.  No self-respecting, would-be-instant-billionare tech entreprenuer is going to want some independent committee lording it over their pay packet.  Additionally, listing on NYSE requires a company have stated guidance for corporate governance while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement.  Similarly, NYSE requires a company have an internal audit team while NASDAQ imposes no such requirement.   Fees on NYSE are also a bit higher than NASDAQ, but the difference is not significant. A good rundown of the pros/cons: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062215/what-are-advantages-and-disadvantages-listing-nasdaq-versus-other-stock-exchanges.asp


> I hate to sound like Romney and say that regulation is of course needed but too much of it truly is doing more harm than good.   That doesn't sound like Romney, that sounds like most Democrats I know. In fact I bet a lot of Republicans were upset hearing that from Romney :)


"Spend your first 50 euros on research materials. Warren Buffett got started as a boy by reading every book in the Library of Congress on investing and stock market analysis. You can research the company filings for Canadian companies at http://www.sedar.com, U.S companies at http://www.edgar.com, and European companies at https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house. Find conflicting arguments and strategies and decide for yourself which ones are right. The Motley Fool http://www.fool.ca offers articles on good stocks to add to your portfolio and why, as well as why not. They provide a balanced judgement instead of just hype. They also sell advice through their newsletter. In Canada the Globe & Mail runs a daily column on screening stocks. Every day they present a different stock-picking strategy and the filters used to reach their end list. They then show how much that portfolio would have increased or decreased as well as talking about some of the good & bad points of the stocks in the list. It's interesting to see over time a very few stocks show up on multiple lists for different strategies. These ones in my opinion are the stocks to be investing in. While the Globe's stock picks focus on Canadian and US exchanges, you might find the strategies worthwhile. You can subscribe to the digital version at http://www.theglobeandmail.com  Once you have your analytical tools ready, pick any bank or stock house that offers a free practice account. Use that account and their screening tools to try out your strategies and see if you can make money picking stocks.  My personal stock-picking strategy is to look for companies with: - a long uninterrupted history of paying dividends, - that are regularly increased, - and do not exceed the net profit per share of the company - and whose share price has a long history of increasing These are called unicorn companies, because there are so very few of them.  Another great read is, ""Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?"" by Hendrik Bessembinder. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447 In this paper the author looks at the entire history of the U.S. stock universe and finds that less than 4% of stocks are responsible for 100% of the wealth creation in the U.S. stock market. He discusses his strategies for picking the winners, but it also suggests that if you don't want to do any research, you could pick pretty much any stock at random, short it, and wait. I avoid mutual funds because they are a winner only for the fellas selling them. A great description on why the mutual fund industry is skewed against the investor can be found in a book called ""The RRSP Secret"" by Greg Habstritt. ""Unshakeable"" by Tony Robbins also discusses why mutual funds are not the best way to invest in stocks. The investor puts up 100% of the money, takes 100% of the risk, and gets at best 30% of the return. Rich people don't invest like that."


No, there is no real advantage. The discrepancies in how they track the index will (generally) be so small that this provides very, very limited diversification, while increasing the complexity of your investments.


"If the government prints money recklessly and causes inflation, people will come to expect inflation, and the value of the currency will plummet, and you'll end up like Zimbabwe where a trillion dollars won't buy a loaf of bread.  If the government actually pays people for the money they borrow, they don't have this problem - and as it turns out, the US government can get pretty good rates on borrowing in general, in part because they're extraordinarily good about paying them back. (Also, inflation expectations are low, so people will accept 1-2% interest rates. If you expected inflation of 10%, you'd see people demanding something more like 12% interest rates.) (The downside of too much of this sort of borrowing is that it ""crowds out"" other borrowing, which may harm the economy. Who would lend money to / invest in a small business, if the government is paying good money and there's almost no risk at all?) Now, inflation can come into play afterward, if the Fed decides it needs to maintain ""easy money"" policies to stimulate the economy (because taxes are too high because we're paying off the debt, or because we've crowded out smaller borrowers, or something). -- In general, you can count on the the principle that if you, as the government, try to play too many games with people's money... well, people aren't stupid; they will eventually catch on, and adjust their behavior to compensate, and then you're right back where you started, but with less trust."


"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick.  The secret is: ""Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.""  The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification.  Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal."


"Not even sure what this is in reference to - I asked him what he specifically had questions about as ""pointers?"" is in and of itself as vague as it gets.  Regardless, if you had bothered to read the remainder of the chain, you would have noticed he replied (again, sans specific questions) and then I provided additional context.  What's it like being an internet tough guy? Kind of funny seeing someone make comments like this while also being so involved in something like reddit secret santa."


Who are these people?    App downloads & revenue are still growing quite a bit.    And I'm just curious because there's a lot of people complaining about Google, FB, etc. without really having an educated perspective to make any confident claims...    Why would Facebook and Google be the cause of that if it were even true?     https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/17/app-downloads-up-15-percent-in-2016-revenue-up-40-percent-thanks-to-china/


You can complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service in Australia.  I've never used them in particular but generally organizations will respond much faster once you get the ombudsman involved. However, since you say they've now kept their promises, the ombudsman is unlikely to do much more than listen sympathetically.


From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if—   (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.


The highest paid finance role is a hedge fund manager at a top fund - but that's like winning the lotto so here's the most pragmatic way to make a lot of money:  * First 2-3 years out of college: Investment Banking Analyst  * Next 2-3 years: Switch to the buyside (Private Equity)  You'll easily top $400k by the time you're 26-27.  If you're promoted to VP you are golden. Most get forced out after their associate stint and go to a top MBA program, after which you'd go back into PE or do the CFO route.  Not sure w/o a degree, to be honest.


Punish everyone because politics didn't go like we wanted.  I was working at a jewelry store when Obama was elected.  The day after we had rich assholes that drive Hummers and wear fur come in and cancel all their custom jewelry orders because they could no longer afford them with all of Obama's taxes.


Check out personal finance. But, my guess is no. Given you are married and you were prepared to contribute $x out of the entire family pot, why don't they just contribute $x from their portion of the entire family pot? Net effect should be similar or identical. (I'm not an accountant nor married, so enjoy the grain of salt).


"Are you talking long-term institutional or retail investors? Long-term *retail* investors look for *orderly markets*, the antithesis of HFT business models, which have a direct correlation between market volatility and profits. To a lesser extent, some ""dumb money""/""muppet"" institutionals do as well. HFT firms tout they supply liquidity into markets, when in fact the opposite is true.  Yes, HFTs supply liquidity, *but only when the liquidity's benefits runs in their direction*. That is, they are applying the part of the liquidity definition that mentions ""high trading activity"", and conveniently ignoring the part that simultaneously requires ""*easily* buying *or* selling an asset"".  If HFT's are the new exchange floor, then they need to be formalized as such, *and become bound to market maker responsibilities*. If they are actually supplying liquidity, like real Designated Market Makers in the NYSE for example, they become responsible to supply a specified liquidity for specified ticker symbols in exchange for their informational advantage on those tickers. The indisputable fact is that HFT cannot exist at their current profit levels without the information advantage they gain with preferential access to tick-by-tick data unavailable to investors who cannot afford the exchange fees ($1M per exchange 10 years ago, more now). Restrict the entire market, including HFTs, to only second-by-second price data without the tick-by-tick depth, and they won't do so well.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking HFTs *per se*; I think they are a marvelous development, so long as they really do ""supply liquidity"". Right now, they aren't doing so, and especially in an orderly manner. If you want retail investors to keep out of the water as they are doing now, by all means let HFT (and regulatory capture, and a whole host of other financial service industry ills) run as they are. There are arguments to be made about ""only let the professionals play the market"", where there is no role for retail and anyone who doesn't know how to play the long-term investment game needs to get out of the kitchen. But if you are making such an argument, come out and say so."


If you are comfortable with the risk etc, then the main thing to worry about is diversity.  For some folks, picking stocks is beyond them, or they have no interest in it.  But if it's working for you, and you want to keep doing it, more power to you. If you are comfortable with the risk, you could just as well have ALL your equity position in individual stocks.  I would offer only two pieces of advice in that respect. 1) no more than 4% of your total in any one stock.  That's a good way to force diversity (provided the stocks are not clustered in a very few sectors like say 'financials'), and make yourself take some of the 'winnings off the table' if a stock has done well for you. 2) Pay Strong attention to Taxes! You can't predict most things, but you CAN predict what you'll have to pay in taxes, it's one of the few known quantities.  Be smart and trade so you pay as little in taxes as possible  2A)If you live someplace where taxes on Long term gains are lower than short term (like the USA) then try really really hard to hold 'winners' till they are long term.  Even if the price falls a little, you might be up in the net compared to paying out an extra 10% or more in taxes on your gains.  Obviously there's a balancing act there between when you feel something is 'done' and the time till it's long term.. but if you've held something for 11 months, or 11 months and 2 weeks, odds are you'd be better off to hold till the one year point and then sell it.   2B) Capture Losses when you have them by selling and buying a similar stock for a month or something.  (beware the wash sale rule) to use to offset gains.


If I understand your question, you're misunderstanding the buy/sell spread, and at least in this instance seem to be in an unfortunate situation where the spread is quite large. The Polish Zloty - GBP ideal exchange rate is around 5.612:1.  Thus, when actually exchanging currency, you should expect to pay a bit more than 5.612 Zloty (Zloties?) to get one Pound sterling, and you should expect to get a bit less than 5.612 Zloty in exchange for one Pound sterling.  That's because you're giving the bank its cut, both for operations and so that it has a reason to hold onto some Zloty (that it can't lend out).  It sounds like Barclay's has a large spread - 5.211 Buy, 5.867 Sell.  I would guess British banks don't need all that many Zloty, so you have a higher spread than you would for USD or EUR. Other currency exchange companies or banks, particularly those who are in the primary business of converting money, may have a smaller spread and be more willing to do it inexpensively for you.  Also, it looks like the Polish banks are willing to do it at a better rate (certainly they're giving you more Zloty for one Pound sterling, so it seems likely the other way would be better as well, though since they're a Polish bank it's certainly easier for them to give you Zloty, so this may be less true).  Barclay's is certainly giving you a better deal on Pounds for a Zloty than they are Zloty for a Pound (in terms of how far off their spread is from the ideal).


You only got 75 shares, so your basis is the fair market value of the stock as of the grant date times the number of shares you got: $20*75.  Functionally, it's the same thing as if your employer did this: As such, the basis in that stock is $1,500 ($20*75). The other 25 shares aren't yours and weren't ever yours, so they aren't part of your basis (for net issuance; if they were sell to cover, then the end result would be pretty similar, but there'd be another transaction involved, but we won't go there).  To put it another way, suppose your employer paid you a $2000 bonus, leaving you with a $1500 check after tax withholding. Being a prudent person and not wishing to blow your bonus on luxury goods, you invest that $1500 in a well-researched investment. You wouldn't doubt that your cost basis in that investment at $1500.


The initial margin is $5940 and maintenance margin $5400.  A simple search of Comex Gold Margin gives the CME group site. You then need to specify CMX metals to see the margins.  Gold is currently about $1300. A gold future is 100 oz. So the full contract is worth $130K. You want to 'go long' so you enter into a contract for Dec '14. You put up $5940, and if gold rises, you gain $100 for each $1 it goes up. Likewise on the downside. If gold drops $5.40, you lost $540 and will get a call to end the position or to put up more money. It's similar to stock margin requirements, only the numbers are much lower, your leverage with futures is over 20 to 1.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit10.pdf) reduced by 98%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Correlations with Brexit Vote and Area Initial Conditions Brexit Vote Correlations One obvious question arising from the overall patterns discussed above is how predicted impacts relate to vote shares in the referendum.  > Figure 3: Brexit GVA Impact and Referendum Vote Share: Soft Brexit Hard Brexit Area Initial Conditions While the results so far imply a somewhat different narrative in terms of who is likely to lose most from Brexit, and how this relates to voting behaviour in the referendum, it is important to remember that the differences in expected impacts are swamped by existing disparities.  > 10 Figure 4: Correlation of Brexit GVA Impact with Pre-Referendum Median Wage: Soft Brexit Hard Brexit Finally, it is also important to note that the places experiencing the biggest initial shock are not necessarily those that will experience the most negative effects once the economy has adjusted.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6pshdw/new_lse_study_the_areas_that_were_most_likely_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~176491 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **Brexit**^#1 **trade**^#2 **impact**^#3 **Area**^#4 **under**^#5"


"In the US, and in most other countries, dividends are considered income when paid, and capital gains/losses are considered income/loss when realized. This is called, in accounting, ""recognition"". We recognize income when cash reaches our pocket, for tax purposes. So for dividends - it is when they're paid, and for gains - when you actually sell. Assuming the price of that fund never changes, you have this math do to when you sell: Of course, the capital loss/gain may change by the time you actually sell and realize it, but assuming the only price change is due to the dividends payout - it's a wash."


While I guess you can never tell for sure, I think it is a potential problem. Why buy from you, ship it from the US when probably a similar computer is available nearer to them?  I mean, this person is using a computer and the Internet somewhere, so it can't be that far to a new computer store.  Certainly somewhere in their province if not country or continent. I suspect they will offer to pay with a cashiers check or a money order or something.  Then you will ship the item and the funds will be found out to be bogus a couple of months after you try to cash it.  You have no computer and no money for it. It really makes no sense for this person to go so far out of their way for your standard laptop unless they are trying to steal it.


What do you base that on?   It does appear to be in a bubble, but what makes you think it will pop in a year or two? What if people keep getting more and more scared of the current instability and keep pumping their money into gold?


"Usually takes more than a year to build and design a yacht like this. Nobody makes ""a billion a year"", the value of their assets increases by a percentage. If you spend all your growth on stupid depreciating shit, you'll lose all your money *without* a market crash or other calamity.  Average equity value increase year over year? 7%  You're spending all your money on dumb depreciating shit and thinking like a poor person."


"@Joe's original answer and the  example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum  required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate  (including the 0% rate that ""results"" from acceptance of balance transfer  offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on.  Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years).  Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the ""convenience checks"" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no ""grace period"" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. "" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ...."", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password).  Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of  money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan.  (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month."


$10k isn't really enough to make enough money to offset the extremely high risks in investing in options in this area. Taking risks is great, but a sure losing proposition isn't a risk -- it's a gamble. You're likely to get wiped out with leveraged options, since you don't have enough money to hedge your bets. Timing is critical... look at the swings in valuation in the stock market between the Bear Sterns and Lehman collapses in 2009. If you were highly leveraged in QQQQ that you bought in June 2009, you would have $0 in November. With $10k, I'd diversify into a mixture of foreign cash (maybe ETFs like FXF, FXC, FXY), emerging markets equities and commodities. Your goal should be to preserve investment value until buying opportunities for depressed assets come around.  Higher interest rates that come with inflation will be devastating to the US economy, so if I'm betting on high inflation, I want to wait for a 2009-like buying opportunity. Then you buy depressed non-cyclical equities with easy to predict cash flows like utilities (ConEd), food manufacturers (General Mills), consumer non-durables (P&G) and alcohol/tobacco. If they look solvent, buying commodity ETFs like the new Copper ETFs or interests in physical commodities like copper, timber, oil or other raw materials with intrinsic value are good too.  I personally don't like gold for this purpose because it doesn't have alot of industrial utility. Silver is a little better, but copper and oil are things with high intrinsic value that are always needed. As far as leverage goes, proceed with caution. What happens when you get high inflation? High cost of capital.


"My experience is with Carnival Cruise lines. It may be different on other lines. The two biggest things that will run up your tab are drinks and shore excursions. Drinks: Expect to pay $2-$4 for a beer or coke, and $7-$12 for a mixed drink. You can often buy a ""Fountain card"" or something like that that is a fixed price for sodas throughout the cruise. Probably a good deal if you are a big soda drinker or are with kids. You get juice, iced tea and water at no charge.  Oh yeah, and they add an automatic tip on every drink. I'm sure you could ask them to take the tip off, but you'd look like a tool for doing it considering the (mostly) Phillipinos who serve you drinks are probably working 16 hour days for peanuts. Shore Excursions: These can really add up. You could easily double the price of your cruise if you do a lot of the higher end ones. You can usually save a ton of money by not booking them through the cruise ship and just pre-arranging them through the internet or booking them at the kiosks that are inevitably right next to the dock at each port. The cruise director will tell you all sorts of scary stories to dissuade you from doing this, but it is mostly bunk. Often the cruise ship goes through the exact same tour companies and they add as much as a 2-3x markup. The Fancy Dining option: There is usually a high-end restaurant that you need reservations for and charges a $25-$30/person. I never bother with them. The regular dining options are good enough for me. But if you are a surf & turf aficionado you might want to budget for that. Internet is super expensive, around 70 cents a minute if I recall. You can buy bulk minutes, but it isn't that much cheaper. You are better off just bringing a laptop or smartphone and using them in ports. I had no trouble finding free wifi at most ports.  Cell Phone: Danger Will Robinson! Your cell phone will work on-board, but be prepared for a huge bill when you get back. I STRONGLY suggest turning off your phone on board or at least disabling the ability to receive calls and text messages. You can passively run up a bill that way. Tips: This is one thing I like about cruises. They just add about $10/day/person to your bill for tips and there is an option at the end of the cruise to add to that tip for the room steward, maitre'd, etc.   There is absolutely no pressure at all to add to that tip, i.e. there is no one standing with their palm out.  I never minded tipping for service, I always just hated having to carry cash around to do it. They make this process very easy on board. You really don't need to have cash on board at all. Bottom Line: I tend to buy at least a few drinks/day and find my own shore excursions. With a few souvenirs thrown in here and there I typically spend about 50% of the cruise price in extras per person."


"Is there any way out from letting the money disappear into a black hole? But that is the whole point of insurance; the ""black hole"" = the insurance company.  That's how they stay in business.  You are giving up your money to them, but you get something in return:  a guarantee of financial rescue if something happens to you medically.  Considering how much health care costs can cost in the U.S., this is not insubstantial. To the degree that you might be able to divert some of that money out of the ""black hole"" and back into your pocket, or a charity, would be equivalent to reducing your premium costs.  There are few ways to do that, but none too significantly.  E.g., sometimes plans have health programs that customers can participate in and get a small discount, etc.  But for the most part, you are stuck.  Welcome to the U.S. Health Care System. One tiny tip:  see if your school offers a free flu shot this fall; many do, it seems, so there is $15 saved.  The school's human resources office would probably know about this."


There was an NPR (I think) story a couple of years ago about the cost of college. They found that while sticker prices were going up, the price most people paid wasn't actually rising that fast. This was at least true in top tier schools. I think some state schools have other issues, like the state cutting back on funding so raising tuitions and/or cutting back on scholarships and grants.  The weird thing I learned from the piece was that raising prices was a way to appear more attractive to top students. Apparently the psychological factors around getting a $10k scholarship to a $15k school or a $30k scholarship to a $35k school make the more expensive one look better.


From a macro standpoint - innovation and regulation have major benefits to an economy and society. In the case of greenwashing by understating the impact of electric cars; sure, that's a problem now, but as they innovate further to invent newer, cheaper, more efficient batteries, it will hopefully sort itself out. No matter what, it's a heck of a lot better then spewing crap into the air (and personally, they're a ton more fun to driver).


Rather large, incorrect assumption for someone who wants to chat about logic.   I think it's a clickbait article that doesn't articulate anything other than defending Damore, *which isn't the point of the article, based on the title.*  Please, if you're going to suggest the CEO of Google should resign over this manifesto in the NYT, you better have something more than some emotional digs and crying about leadership by someone who doesn't have the slightest clue of what it entails in total.   That's why I don't think he should write another piece, sure as hell not on this subject. But I appreciate your armchair analysis bub.


Of course, this calculation does not take into consideration the fact that once the rights are issues, the price of the shares will drop. Usually this drop corresponds to the discount. Therefore, if a rights issue is done correctly share price before issuance-discount=share price after issuance. In this result, noone's wealth changes because shareholders can then sell their stock and get back anything they had to put in.


In general, it makes sense to go for the 15 year fixed if you can afford it, as you'll pay down far more principal than if you go for a 30 year. Take a peek at the amortization tables for two loans, keeping in mind that the average American lives in a house for 7 years.


I will preface saying that I only have personal experience to go on (purchased home in KS earlier this year, and have purchased/sold a home in AR). You do not give the seller the document stating the amount you have been approved for. Your real estate agent (I recommend having one if you don't) will want to see it to make sure you will actually be able to purchase a house though. But the contract that is sent to the Seller states the total purchase price you are willing to pay and how much of that will be financed. Link to blank KS real estate contract shows what would be listed. Looks like it is from 2012 - it is similar to the one I had back in March, but not exactly the same format.


"Time Value of Money - The simple calculation for this is FV = PV * (1+r)^N which reads The Future Value is equal to the Present Value times 1 plus the interest rate multiplied by itself by the number of periods that will pass. A simple way to look at this is that if interest rates were 5%/yr a dollar would be worth (1.05)^N where N is the number of years passing.  The concept of compound interest cannot be separated from the above. Compounding is accounting for the interest on the interest that has accrued in prior periods. If I lend you a dollar at 6% simple interest for 30 years, you would pay me back $1 + $1.80 or $2.80. But - 1.06^30 = 5.74 so that dollar compounded at 6% annually for 30 years is $5.74. Quite a difference.  Often, the time value of money is discussed in light of inflation. A dollar today is not the same dollar as 30 years ago or 30 years hence. In fact, inflation has eroded the value of the dollar by a factor of 3 over the past 30 years. An average item costing $100 would now cost $300. So when one invests, at the very least they try to stay ahead of inflation and seek additional return for their risk.  One quirk of compounding is the ""rule of 72."" This rule states that if you divide the interest rate into the number 72 the result is the number of years to double. So 10% per year will take about 7.2 years to double, 8%, 9 years, etc. It's not 100% precise, but a good ""back of napkin"" calculation.  When people talk about the total payments over the thirty year life of a mortgage, they often ignore the time value of money. That payment even ten years from now has far less value than the same payment today."


"As discussed in the comments, the best approach is to make a loan to the company. Make sure you document the terms of the loan including when it is repayable and any interest due. If you want to be able to retrieve the money for personal purposes then just note that it's repayable on demand. In practice if you just transfer money to the company when needed it would probably be treated as an interest-free loan, but even if that's what you want, it's best to document this to avoid any ambiguity. The main alternative would be for the company to issue shares that you would own and ""pay up"" the capital on. This would get the same money into the company, but it'd be harder to get it out again later. You may want to charge interest on the loan. The rate would have to be a reasonable one but you still have a fair amount of latitude in deciding it. Any interest would reduce the profits of the company and be subject to income tax when you receive it. Those profits would otherwise be subject to corporation tax. and then if paid out as a dividend might be subject to some income tax. You'd need to compare the tax rates for the two routes to see which was better; note that you pay less income tax than normal on dividends to account for the fact that corporation tax was already charged."


>The reason medicine is expensive is because the system allow it to be expensive.   No.  The reason medicine is expensive is because of government intervention that limits supply.  Period.  Full stop.  The FDA is the cause.  People are paying $600 for a fucking $2 dose of epinephrine in a plastic autoinjector.  Why is it $600?  Because the FDA is actively preventing other companies from entering the market.


while not stated, if you have any debt at all, use the $3000 to pay it off. That's the best investment in the short term. No risk and guaranteed reward. College can invite all sorts of unexpected expenses and opportunities, so stay liquid, protect working capital.


Why don't you like unions? An IBEW electrician is guaranteed to have the skills and have gone through the apprenticeship and journeyman programs. Its a safety and skills thing.   Unions also fought for and got us a 40 hour work week and overtime pay. Benefits and disability insurance.    Perhaps there isn't much of a need currently for unions because of all the federal and local statues that mandate worker protection... but currently politicians are rolling back those protections. The way things are going there is going to be a major need to unions in another generation... And the work to get those benefits will be that much harder.   Police are pepper spraying old grandmas and people sitting down not doing anything. Imagine how many heads will be cracked when people fight for a 40 hour work week again?


There was a study last year -- it was all over the news -- that concluded that experiences, not stuff, is what makes people happy. The satisfaction from going on vacation lasts even after the holiday is long over. That new gadget only gives fleeting satisfaction. To that end, I recommend splurging on the affordable luxuries that give you a better experience. For example, I'm a big believer in paying the skycap a few dollars to check my bags at the curb rather than wait in line at the airport because I HATE airports. Valet parking is another affordable luxury when the alternative is circling a busy parking lot for 15 minutes. Pay for the better seats at the show. Get a room at the nicer hotel. Eat out a bit more often. I can't imagine willingly spending hours with customer support, though. They can have my $5.


Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx


You know how your cell phone battery gets shittier and shittier over time until you either get a new phone or buy a new battery? Well the same thing will happen to your car. And a new battery will cost $10k. And what will we do with the old one that's full of toxic chemicals?  There are still many challenges for electric cars.


Are you planning to move out of Punjab? Or you have found a better job within Punjab but in different areas. Well in that Packers and Movers Punjab is there to shift your belongings from one place to another with safety & care.


Think about how loans work for you personally.  When you charge a $50 dinner for two to your Visa card, you did not earn $50 in income.  You did not pay income tax on that $50.  The money you use to pay back that $50 at the end of the month is not tax deductible.    Interest on a loan is a business expense.    Repayment of principal is not a business expense, just as receiving the loan in the first place is not business income.   Effectively this means the LLC repays the loan with after-tax dollars.  Just like you do with your Visa card.  When I do corporate accounting, payment of loan interest shows up on the expense side of the Profit/Loss statement, and it makes the Balance Sheet net assets go down.   However payment of loan principal is effectively null.  It doesn't appear on the Profit/Loss at all -- and it's a wash on the Balance Sheet, as both Assets and Liabilities fall by the same amount.


Ha, I was actually making a joke reference to something that made its rounds on the internet last month. Some rich guy said millennials should stop buying avocado toast if they want to afford a house, and this blew up on social media because that's an obviously stupid thing to say. Here's a wash post article if you wanna read about it:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2017/05/15/dont-mess-with-millennials-avocado-toast-the-internet-fires-back-at-a-millionaire/


Well i used to intern at a WM company finding clients- its not easy. There are prospecting tools like Larkspur and WealthEngine, but they are ridiculously expensive, around $400 a month. Most advisers find clients through references, so you're going to have to network with CPAs, law firms, and other advisers and get them to send you people (what can you offer in return?). There is also the path of cold calling or setting up a website but those inevitably run into FINRA problems. Thus, it tends to be a slow process that is built up over time. The best thing you can do is create a niche for yourself and cater to it- so for example you can specialize in the retirement planning for certain occupations or under certain conditions. However, bear in mind wealth advisory is turning into a zero sum industry and software is going to make it even more compressed in the future. My firm spent thousands of dollars on marketing and even then 3-5 new clients a year is good progress, but these were also large accounts.   What is your background?


This probably is a question that belongs on History but here's the basic reason: the or Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 established that health benefits under approved plans were not taxable to the employee.  If the employer were to pay for an employees non ERISA approved individual plan, it would be a taxable benefit. The longer story is that many polticians (esp. President Richard Nixon) were concerned that public pressure was going to lead public sentiment toward nationalized health care.  This made health insurance more affordable to employees and effectively made it a cheaper way to compensate employees similar to how 401K contributions are worth more (in nominal terms) to the employee than an equivalent amount of cash.  While the law was not signed by Richard Nixon due to some other stuff that was going on, it was something proposed and pushed by his administration.


"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/24/15680254/republicans-border-adjustment-tax) reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Which would essentially add a 20 percent tax on imported goods while exempting US exports, was the key solution House Republicans had come up with to raise enough revenue to offset corporate tax cuts.  > In the document, House Republicans outlined their communications strategy, which included three steps to selling the BAT. Step 1: Link the broken tax code to job losses in manufacturing.  > The problem for the White House and congressional Republicans is that the administration hasn&#039;t offered a competing plan to pay for the trillions of dollars in tax cuts Trump wants.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ejbtb/nobody_likes_the_border_adjustment_tax_except_the/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~133521 tl;drs so far."") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **tax**^#1 **House**^#2 **Republican**^#3 **border**^#4 **provision**^#5"


I'm confused. Are you asking why or telling us that you're bullish? Yes the stock will go up for a merger at a premium, but buying in now only gives you ~0.5% gain if it closes at $21.50. They won't trade over 21.50 unless a competing bid comes in or the bid is increased.


Finance involves money.  Financiers and bankers keep money flowing around the market.  kinda like grease monkey's on a large crane.  Economics studies the inputs and outputs of the system, (think resource, labor and capital, not money).  Economists tend to produce work that is more relevant towards policy than a business plan.    And now for something completely different.  Marketing. It sells what comes out of the back end of the crane.  They ask the economists what looks good and the financiers if the machine is functioning properly.


I'm not an attorney, nor am I a licensed tax adviser. I suggest you talk to these two types of professionals. From my limited knowledge, without proper documentation/organization, I can't see how the IRS/State will not consider this as a rent payment. The mortgage responsibility is of the person signing the mortgage contract, and you're under no obligation to pay that person anything. Had you not lived at the property, you might argue that it was a gift (although I'm not sure if it would stand), but since you do live in the property - it is quite obviously a rent payment. Putting your name on the deed may mitigate this slightly but I'm not sure how much - since you're still not obligated to pay the mortgage. However this is probably moot since it is unlikely for a bank to give a mortgage on a property to person A when it is also owned by a person B, without that person B being side to the mortgage contract.


No, not a consultant. I'm a systems administrator and part of my job is doing due dilligence on purchases. The reliability of a company is always a factor in large purchases and CEO behavior is a factor in that. When it comes to minor or temporary purchases (bottled water) the CEO and company behavior is irrelevant.


I don't think size is the issue, it's quality. Most places have patties that taste like cardboard with absolutely no seasoning. There's a local burger place where I live that bakes their own buns seasons their patties perfectly and has toppings like balsamic onion gastrique.  The result is fantastic, filling and under 400 calories (under 300 for the Bison meat option).


Hey and Welcome to the 100% Commissions Portal! You probably clicked this tab because you’re new to the online marketing industry or you, or you saw the name “Empower Network” and that peaked your curiosity, OR you’ve probably already heard all the buzz about Empower Network and you’re not really sure what it is, how it works and if you should join.  read more...


This is really the heart of the issue. Third generation farmer from CA here, it's not a matter of there being no jobs. Americans are picky and simply don't want to work hard in the fields under the sun. It's ridiculous


I can too which is why i'm semi wary. They're just in it to sign as much people up as possible because if they find winners they can make money.  But at the same time if you can do well you can make good money as well. It's not like they're taking my money in fees or whatnot.


Your analysis is wrong for a few reasons. One, the consolidated margins of Nflx are being weighed on by international expansion. US EBIT margins were 24% in 2016, and even that is an underestimating of steady state margin profile because nflx runs a subscription model where CAC is paid up front. US marketing was 7% of US streaming revenue in 2016, so in a mature sub-replacement growth profile you could easily see that coming down to 4-5%, accretion that delta to the US EBIT margin, leaving you around 26-27% margins. Stead state international margins should be higher because in local markets Netflix only wants to have 20% of the content library be local, with the remainder leveraged from the US library.   Haven't read the Bernstein report, but I think you misunderstood it. The point was that the analyst calculated net customer LTV and valued the company based on that times his sub estimate... The value additive part of the note is the LTV Calc, which I haven't seen but I imagine is probably based on the above margin analysis and some churn assumptions.


On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc.  One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke.


"1. As I said, the above is not actually anything like a genuine history of how money emerged, it's an explain-it-to-a-five-year-old parable to answer ""where does the money go in an economic contraction?""  2. It's also not defense/endorsement/apology for any particular set of policies or historical theory of money. It's a picture-book describing the workings of an internal combustion engine using cartoon characters, not a treatise on the social and environmental implications of American car-culture.   That said, in the parable, the reasons why the simplified caricatures in the town chose to accept the fiat currency are pretty straightforward, and are actually explained:  - They were previously using a system of a whole bunch of separate, privately-issued currencies, each with complex and hard-to-evaluate credit risks (Bob's potato certificate versus Jane's Potato certificate versus your apple-certificate versus my deer certificate). This was causing problems and confusion about how much any given certificate was actually worth.   - The system proposed was proposed in a way that was *at least* as credible as the best existing system.   - Last but not least, they accepted the new currency for *exactly the same reason* that you accept dollar, euros, or whatever: because everyone else does.   There was no law preventing any of them from still trading apple IOUs (in fact, we still traded them, later in the example, except denominated in loddars). I could have asked you for the last note to denominated in apples, but that would probably have been harder to trade than the currency that everyone else is using.   I said I wouldn't get into the gold-standard debate, and I won't, and here's why: the debate hinges entirely and solely on whether you believe that a ""good"" fiat currency is possible and realistically sustainable. If you do, then fiat currency makes a lot more sense in every respect. If you don't, then fiat currency is always just a catastrophe waiting to happen.   My parable shows the mechanics of how money works. It doesn't say whether the system is good or bad, or whether they should have accepted the fiat system proposed, or held out for a better one, or rejected it altogether.   You can argue that internal combustion engines are bad, or that much better alternatives are available, or that nobody should use them, but that doesn't make a description of they work incorrect."


Welp, I've seen a dozen bands/artists I absolutely love go and change their act and style so severely that I couldn't stand what they were doing - I simply didn't like it.  I understand why they needed to, gotta stay true to yourself.  But oh man, what I'd give for another album of two from each of my favorite artists who no longer make stuff of the type I loved.  Taylor Swift's fans are very lucky.


I'm hearing that I should maybe wait and see how things go at first as it is only a very small operation.   But if I moved into a side of the trade where I require staff, vehicles, and the likes then I would need to registed as a limited company.


It is meant to be a Valuation Model. So the data I have collected are for the Addressable Markets in potential countries( i.e. population currently affected by the disease and potential growth of the disease in the future). Possible competition for the drug. And most importantly the expenses of the drug (how much it cost to create the drug and clinical trails etc.) I need to create a Revenue chart and the Pricing for the drug as well. What I am looking for is someone who is familiar with creating a valuation model or has a template and can give me advice on how to structure this. thanks.


There's no reason to keep the California LLC if you don't intend to do business in California.  If you'll have sales in California then you'll need to keep it and file taxes accordingly for those sales.  You can just as easily form a new LLC in Washington state and even keep the same name (if it's available in Washington, that is). Keeping the California LLC just creates paperwork for whatever regulatory filings California will require for no purpose at all.   As for your question about it looking suspicious that you just set up an LLC and then are shutting it down, nobody's going to care, to be honest.  As with your situation, plans change, so it isn't really all that unusual.  If you're concerned the government will say something, don't.


"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher.  The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss).  Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule ""Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog."" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense."


Never been in a work situation like this, but same fuckin' thing would happen in voice chat.  Someone eats a bag of chips, or burps in to their microphone?  I immediately leave the channel.  Can't stand that shit.


Okay, keep apologizing for the brutal and savage economic system we have. Guess things must be working out okay for you. Hope it keeps going that way for you but most have already been thrown to the wolves.  We aren't even making an effort to try the ideas of socialism any more. The attempts that have been made are the building blocks to a better economy. Learn from the mistakes and stop sabotaging any country trying.


"You're mixing up rhetoric (aka discussion and argument) with dialectic (the ""logical"" search for absolute truth).  No essay about business could possibly be dialectic. Mine isn't. Paul Graham's certainly aren't. Therefore they are rhetoric, discussion and argument.  And ""This person has much to gain if you do what he says"" is an absolutely valid argument.  BTW - I'm self-taught. If you want to learn more, I highly recommend ""Thank You For Arguing."""


">Just go back to the old rule of patents being good for one year after issuance.  That has never been the rule.  From the Patent Act of 1790:  ""...thereupon granting to such petitioner or petitioners , his, her or their heirs, administrators or assigns for any term not exceeding **fourteen years**, the sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used, the said invention or discovery..."""


"The short version of JB King's excellent answer is that the company will typically buy back shares from the open market at market price. Sometimes, it will specifically target larger stakeholders, even controlling interests, who are making noise that they want to divest; if such an investor were to just dump their stock on the open market, neither the investor nor the company would be very happy with the resulting price collapse. In those cases, the company may offer an incentive price above market rates. In recent times, the investor looking to divest has often been the U.S. Government, who received stock in return for bailouts, and (with notable exceptions) turned a modest profit on many of them. Not enough to break even on the entire bailout, but the Government didn't just throw $700 billion in taxpayer money down a hole as conservative pundits would have you believe. In the '80s, a specific type of buy-back was made famous, called the ""leveraged buyout"". Basically, the company took out a huge loan against itself, and used that money to buy up all the company's publicly-traded shares, essentially becoming a private company. This became a popular tool among private equity groups, for better and worse."


> And this is why I will never believe in efficient markets. Stock prices are controlled by humans. Humans are insane.  As /u/beatarmy99 mentioned, EMH is a theory base very much so in how economics every single individual is considered a rational being.  It doesn't (and wasn't ever) mean it's intended to be applied in practice as it will never cover generalizations of humans in the market (like using generalized round numbers for option lots).


Yes, but at the same time, if it wasn't something they thought they could gain some good will from consumers, I don't think they would be doing this.   Because of Trump's unpopularity, they can make themselves look objectively good, without actually changing much of anything.


Is it a gift or a loan? Either way, ask the same lawyer who will do the closing to record a mortgage on the property, your mother holds it.  You are required to pay her market interest, 4% or so should pass IRS scrutiny.  If it's truly a loan, decide on the payoff time and calculate the payments, she'll have a bit of interest income which will be taxable to her, and you might have a write-off if you itemize, which is unlikely.  If it's a gift, since you mentioned gift concerns, she can forgive the interest, and principal each year to total $13K, or file the popular Form 709 to declare the whole gift against her $1M unified lifetime gift exclusion (which negates the whole mortgage/lien thing)


It is recommended that you get this using Wire Transfer. The fees is slightly high, it should be in the range of USD 20 - 30. You would get the funds faster, about 3-5 days after the payment is initiated. The Fx conversion would be applied without your knowledge so you would have very little control over it. If you are getting by paper cheque, it would take around 7 - 10 days for the mail to arrive. You would have to deposit this in local Bank, complete a form giving out the details as to why you received the cheque, along with a letter to request the cheque to be cashed ... Generally it takes around 25 days for the funds to get credited. As you would be speaking to someone in Bank, you can try and negotiate a better Fx rate, however for such amounts Bank will not go out of the way, so you may not know what rate gets applied, it would be the standard rate some 20 days later when the actual cheque gets processed. The fees are relatively less in the range of Rs 500 to Rs 1000.


"What you are describing is a Chart of Accounts.  It's a structure used by accountants to categorise accounts into sub-categories below the standard Asset/Liability/Income/Expense structure. The actual categories used will vary widely between different people and different companies.  Every person and company is different, whilst you may be happy to have a single expense account called ""Lunch"", I may want lots of expense accounts to distinguish between all the different restaurants I eat at regularly.  Companies will often change their chart of accounts over time as they decide they want to capture more (or less) detail on where a particular type of Expense is really being spent. All of this makes any attempt to create a standard (in the strict sense) rather futile.  I have worked at a few places where discussions about how to structure the chart of accounts and what referencing scheme to use can be surprisingly heated!  You'll have to come up with your own system, but I can provide a few common recommendations: If you're looking for some simple examples to get started with, most personal finance software (e.g. GnuCash) will offer to create an example chart of accounts when you first start a session."


> Wait, so you can travel to see clients but can't travel to visit companies/do research? Don't clients respect alpha over face time?  Sounds like absolutely typical financial company behavior.  Especially with the research showing that active management (i.e., that alpha you mention) is only a product of luck anyways.


The debt is a problem but IF (and the key word is if) other nations are lending to us at rates we dictate, then that is not a problem.  But if our own banks, Central Bank, and the like are buying it then the problem is being kept on our shores.  The issue is with fractional reserve lending, one will always have this issue but if other nations give us items/services for paper/pixels we send them why not continue.


Coming from a libertarian, someone who believes in an ideology is demonstrably false with even a cursory understanding of economics or the political process?      Please, there has never been a libertarian government and there never will be and long after your dead the U.S. federal government will be involved in providing social welfare like roads, schools and bridges.  The reason you are beneath contempt when it comes to political discourse is that you are a true believer and nothing anyone says will ever change that.   You know what that makes you?  An idiot, in the classical Greek sense of the word.


> “If the [Black-Scholes] formula is applied to extended time periods….it can produce absurd results.”  > -Warren Buffett, 2008 Letter to Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders  I will give your question more thought, and come back with a quantitative solution. It may be most fruitful to apply a backward-induction options pricing model with detailed scenario-based discounted cash flow valuation models supported by pro forma financial statement and investment analysis.    Nonetheless, my initial reaction is inline with Warren Buffett's belief that in the long-run an assumption of the Black-Scholes options pricing model is invalid (see [here](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.613.1657&rep=rep1&type=pdf) and [here](http://www.elon.edu/docs/e-web/academics/business/economics/faculty/kurt/OptionValuationBuffetCritique_123113.pdf)). The perceived invalid assumption is that the distribution of expected future stock prices is *not* log-normal in the long-run. This non-log-normal view is especially true for a single company stock.   This invalid assumption results in over-valuation of options prices from Black-Scholes - which makes it much better to sell long-term options than to buy them if market participants are using Black-Scholes pricing models.  Again, without having done the math yet, my gut tells me if the option seller is using Black-Sholes pricing for long-dated options, you would be best to avoid buying them as the prices will be inflated compared to an economic reality fair price.


"Rational shareholders wouldn't accept such an offer. The company making the offer is simply trying to get a deal with questionable — though not illegal — tactics. Your answer is actually in the link you provided.  Quoting from the fourth paragraph [emphasis is mine]:  The SEC has cautioned investors about mini-tender offers, noting that   ""[s]ome bidders make mini-tender offers at below-market prices, hoping   that they will catch investors off guard if the investors do not   compare the offer price to the current market price."" The SEC's tips   for investors regarding mini-tender offers may be found on the SEC's   Web site at http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/minitend.htm. There's a lot more information at the SEC web page mentioned.  One part I'll highlight from the SEC web page mentions another reason for a mini-tender: Investors need to scrutinize mini-tender offers carefully. Some   bidders make mini-tender offers at below-market prices, hoping that   they will catch investors off guard if the investors do not compare   the offer price to the current market price. Others make mini-tender   offers at a premium – betting that the market price will rise before   the offer closes and then extending the offer until it does or   improperly canceling if it doesn't. You'll also find a lot more information at Wikipedia - Mini-tender offer."


Per the IRS instructions on filing as Head of Household as a Citizen Living Abroad, if you choose to file only your own taxes, and you qualify for Head of Household without them, the IRS does not consider you married: If you are a U.S. citizen married to a nonresident alien you may qualify to use the head of household tax rates. You are considered unmarried for head of household purposes if your spouse was a nonresident alien at any time during the year and you do not choose to treat your nonresident spouse as a resident alien. However, your spouse is not a qualifying person for head of household purposes. You must have another qualifying person and meet the other tests to be eligible to file as a head of household. As such, you could file as Married Filing Separately (if you have no children) or Head of Household (if you have one or more children, a parent, etc. for whom you paid more than half of their upkeep - see the document for more information).   You also may choose to file as Married Filing Jointly, if it benefits you to do so (it may, if she earns much less than you).  See the IRS document Nonresident Spouse Treated As Resident for more information.  If you choose to treat her as a resident, then you must declare her worldwide income.  In some circumstances this will be beneficial for you, if you earn substantially more than her and it lowers your tax rate overall to do so.  Married Filing Separately severely limits your ability to take some deductions and credits, so it's well worth seeing which is better.


Per IRS regulations, if your stipend is not paying you for qualified expenses (primarily, tuition and books; explicitly not room and board or travel), it is taxable.  It doesn't require self-employment taxes (which are Medicare and FICA, normally paid in part by an employer), but it is taxable income from an income tax perspective.  You can generally deduct your books and such if you have your receipts - expenses 'required' by the institution for the coursework.  Do verify that the amount on the 1099-MISC reflects what you actually received in cash above and beyond the tuition waiver - don't assume the college did this the way you expect, or even properly.  Your bank statements should match the amount on the form. You should definitely include it in your gross income and pay taxes on it.  If you received alternate instruction, you should clarify that with the people doing the filing, and follow up with a supervisor perhaps (it's possible the volunteers helping at an event like this aren't familiar with this part of tax preparation). (Source, in addition to IRS regulations - I was my wife's tax preparer many of the years she was in her Ph.D. program.)


We understand that BUYING OR SELLING can sometimes be a very stressful situation especially if you do not understand the language. We, here at RD Properties speak English & Spanish and here to assist, not only purchasing or selling your property, but with all legal documentation during the process.


>It's a marginal cost that is passed on to their customers.  No, it's not.  The bank can't just jack up prices when they've got competitors, after all.  >The costs of which will be passed on to customers.   Again, if the bank has even one competitor who didn't suffer as much or any damage, customers aren't just going to suck it up.  >Image is EVERYTHING - it's the only thing that supports the existing murderous regime.  I'm not remotely an anarchist, but this statement just sounds fucking foolish.  *Brute force* supports the existing regime.  That's basically it.  You had people marching peacefully in the streets, in their thousands, for an end to this regime, and the regime arrested and evicted the lot.  Oh, and spied on them too.


In November '14, I wrote TurboTax 2014 Marketing Mistake  Shortly after writing it, a TurboTax agent wrote (on Amazon) to counter the complaints by saying that Deluxe has these forms but did not offer Interview help for them.  As Ben notes in his comment on LittleAdv's answer. TurboTax issued an apology letter, which, in my opinion, didn't really set things straight, factually.  The forms are there, the interview and data import for stock transactions is gone.


"No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as ""mark to market"", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation."


Inflation can be held at whatever level the international fiat banking system desires up until it hits the tipping point. Commodities are still high over a 3 year tracking (my uncle and cousin run a family farm of 1000 acres and they are in heaven this year with prices of beef, corn, and soy so high), and luxury goods are deflating because no one is buying them.


I'd suggest taking all the money you have saved up and putting in a mutual fund and hold off on buying a rental property until you can buy it outright.  I know it seems like this will take forever, but it has a HUGE advantage: I know it seems like it will take forever to save up the money to buy a property for cash, but in the long run, its the best option by far.


Well according to US logic, an individual can be born outside the US to an American parent, never have even stepped foot in the US or even be aware of their American citizenship, but still owe taxes and reporting to the IRS. There are no true international corporations as each country has to have its own subsidiary in order to follow local laws. (well EU being common market can just have one EU) Those subsidiaries are owned by whatever percentage by the headquarters, but are distinct companies.