This is all speculation. There are reports that GameStop may be purchased by a private equity firm, and private equity firms don’t have a great track record with retailers.
Its even more surprising that many people can't afford a $500 emergency, and half of people who earn $100-150k a year, don't even have $500 saved up.
*Edit, for the people who find this statement so hard to believe...
50% of the boomers have less than $100K saved for retirement. 76% have less than $300K. Lets not get excited about the impact of their retirement accounts.
Reminder that Donald Trump thinks Mike Pence is embarrassingly poor.
Mike Pence has a refreshingly low net worth for a federal politician--likely somewhere in the realm of $500k to $1m. But this still places him in the top 1%.
If Trump thinks someone is "embarrassingly poor" just because they don't belong to the 0.01% or however high it is, what does he think of homeless people?
I think it's reasonable to speculate that he probably doesn't give the slightest shit about them.
Trump will let our homeless veterans freeze before he'll let a few crumbs worth of tax dollars fall their way.
You can send Money Order. USPS has a limit of $1,000 max per money order, but it's only $1.65 for mailing $1,000. So it'll only cost ($8.25 for 5 - $1,000 money order). You can also track it and make sure you receive it because there's receipt number you can call and use the receipt number to locate it.
ETFs are very similiar to mutual funds and IMO you can treat them the same. https://www.fool.com/investing/etf/2018/01/15/etf-vs-mutual-funds-the-pros-and-cons.aspx
the topic is very well covered, and i definitely prefer ETFs, and have been buying them non-stop in my career for my IRA and non-401k accounts
>plus no telling how many times it may have split over the years
Yeah there is a way to tell, it's called google:
It actually reverse split back in 2003 so your 50 shares are more like 8 shares @2k today. Still great return though.
There was a class action lawsuit about this, and it went nowhere in 2012.
So basically... you're not getting the shares back.
Is it just me, or did the Reason.com piece logic just boil down to, "It's bad because it's a rule, and we didn't have one before, and it was just fine before"?
And "these websites support net neutrality, and they are big scary corporations"?
And then the argument comes out, and I quote "This has never actually happened"
So no throttling of Netflix, then?
No zero-rating by companies?
And these aren't the only examples.
That's including the fact that the metaphor doesn't even work for net neutrality. It's not a case of certain roads having fast lanes. It's a case of someone blocking or throttling the road in front of a company unless the company pays you.
Yeah, I'm sorry, the second video has no leg to stand on in my opinion.
Interesting. Although $1 to see a movie in 1939 seems like a lot to me.
According to this, it looks like it may have been closer to 25 cents...
I believe I saw that figure from WSJ. I mean profit margins are pretty tight-lipped info, but I would believe that it was about 1-3% if WSJ were reporting. I would wager it's probably stayed around that going forward since they keep investing. Here's the article in question
Trump supporters claiming that it's the tax cuts working, and it's true in THIS case, because non-greedy Costco actually is passing it on to employees while few companies actually are... And that's the thing, Costco is so successful because they have little mark-up, pay their employees well and to make more money they simply open more stores instead of gouging their customers that trust them! It's the perfect, simple business model!
Since 3/4's Costco's total profit is the amount charged in membership fees, you are paying them a whole $60 a year to buy things at only a 10-15% markup over gross cost, and they really push for volume deals so the value is incredible. Also, we get the "executive" (more like "intelligent" plan) and they end up paying US ~$60 a year to shop there, we simply buy as much as they offer for our family of 4 knowing it's a great deal! We end up getting about 80% of our entire household purchases there, maybe 15% Amazon/eBay and 5% other grocery stores. Sure gas doesn't get included in that 2% back, but we save far more than that over the equivalent Arco gas too.
Edit: Added sources and clarified since this blew up a bit...
Edited to add: A thoughtful blog take on the situation that I think Tesla bulls will probably find appealing in some regards/realistic in others (fairly lengthy discussion of Solar City's problems and how that situation may relate to Musk's current desire to take Tesla private): https://lt3000.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-elon-musks-attempted-tesla.html
It's generally a red flag when a CEO is absolutely obsessed with short sellers, as Elon is. You are not wrong: if the company can deliver results, then there shouldn't be anything ultimately to worry about.
Tesla is one of the most shorted (if not the most) shorted stock in the market. They're there for a reason and Elon has been unable to address the issues they have with the company, but also: his actions have fed their case on multiple occasions. I mean, look at what he just did: this "funding secured" tweet where it is now apparent that funding wasn't secured. If this whole tweet was all about creating a short squeeze, the short squeeze lasted a day and if this whole plan wasn't real, shorts are going to redouble their efforts (if they haven't already.)
And really, his attempt to take the company private because of "short seller propaganda" (which is one of the reasons he stated in the letter post "funding secured" tweet) - well, if you can deliver results and show shorts, then why flee the public market?
Elon has also used the short sellers to sell a story to his fanbase. Tesla short Jim Chanos said the other week: 'Musk vs The Shorts' is a far better narrative than 'Tesla vs Mercedes/Audi/Porsche,'" and I don't disagree with that.
As for a heavily shorted company that handled shorts, look the short squeeze that RH created. https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/07/17/whats-behind-rhs-450-run.aspx
A lot of power outages are caused by extreme heat overheating older transformers. That has nothing to do with bringing in energy from other places...
It literally says that in what you're quoting.
> One of the main causes of outages is the United States; aging equipment and the impact of severe weather.
Here’s the last line of this article “Thus, this maturity could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, forcing Sears Holdings to declare bankruptcy -- assuming it doesn't go bankrupt before then.”
I don’t you’ll get laid off next week, but it’s no where near rock solid.
Good on you.
As someone linked already: maternal mortality rate in the US is 26.4 per 100,000. (32 here in Texas)
For the second: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did push the number of combat-related deaths up significantly, to a rate of 27.7 servicemembers per 100,000 per year from 2001 through 2010. I have previously double-checked the Motley Fool numbers against government numbers, but am too lazy to do so now. ;-)
It's actually quite the opposite - 401K deferral rates actually go up as you get wealthier. On it's own, capping the 401K limit would be a progressive shift in the tax code.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea, and I have a sneaking suspicion this money wouldn't go to expand the EITC or anything. But it would actually be a tax increase on wealthy individuals.
IBM has annual revenue of $79 billion. link
For context, that's equivalent to the value of Etherium, XRP, and Bitcoin Cash. Combined. Every year.
While it's possible that IBM may do something with crypto, the idea that IBM is turning to crypto to 'survive' is laughable.
> It takes a village to raise a... coach's salary this much
>Defenders of high salaries for successful state school coaches will argue that coach compensation doesn't really come from taxpayers, of course.
> As even the author of the Deadspin article admits, a large portion of a coach's total compensation comes in the form of bonuses and fees tied to coaches making media appearances, derived from sports apparel contracts, and from fundraising. Still more of the overall athletics budget is paid for by television contracts, etc., etc., and so on and so on.
> And yet, where would all of this money come from -- what endorsement deals would there be, what television fees would be collected -- if there were no taxpayer-funded university for the coach's team to play at?
> It all starts with the taxpayers. And the taxpayers deserve a clearer picture of where their tax dollars are being spent -- and on whom.
It helps keep share prices reasonable as companies grow\shrink.
Berkshire hathaway is worth $300,000 per share. You can't buy a fraction of a share, so it locks people out of purchasing into that company (intentionally).
Apples stock would be worth around $11,000 per share if they hadn't split their stock 5 times in the past. They do this so that John and Jane can actually afford a share in their company.
Bit more than a year, but yeah.
Warren Buffett Is Right
I'm like APPL's second to smallest shareholder.
> And while some workers have seen gains, most of the increases have gone to those who were already the highest-paid.
This is the real key part - it is probably a lot of worse for most people.
Is auch von Harley gelogen. Die fahren schon seit ner Weile ihre Produktion in den USA runter. So um Trumps Steuergeschenk haben die eine Fabrik dicht gemacht und Aktienrückkäufe angefangen.
Here's 100% the reason why - https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/18/can-amazon-help-twitch-become-a-1-billion-business.aspx
Emmett set a $1B ad revenue goal for Twitch which is more than double their current state.
There's absolutely no way in shit they're hitting that goal without a major change.
Getting better at selling ads is hard, especially to Twitch's demographic. It's a tough one.
Combine a ridiculous c-level pipe dream goal with an impossible timeline, and you've got the perfect formula for marginalizing your most loyal customer base.
This is a HUGE slip on Twitch's part. They're effectively acknowledging they'll lose Prime revenue, and thereby diminish the value they offer to the developers paying to have their games on Prime, so that they can sell more ad units. Unequivocally the most annoying, frustrating, friction-filled experience they have to make money.
Step 2 will be partnership managers "training" and encouraging Partners on how they can and should run more ads in their streams, further frustrating their user-base. Mark my words.
These kinds of silly goals always result in horrible decisions staff are forced to make to stand even a remote chance of landing the goal. And they'll still miss.
This is sad.
There are only 4 states in America where they haven’t legalized marijuana in at least a medical capacity.
When 92% of the states have enacted laws saying almost the same thing you’d think the federal government might get the fucking hint.
At least it totally backfired and crashed their stock price
> Talking to a branch tomorrow.
When you do, you should use the words "I'm closing my account because you guys are worthless assholes and I'm going to bank somewhere that isn't regularly voted the worst-or-second-worst customer service in the whole USA"
It is, actually. One google search on "how to buy stocks" turned up these links:
http://guides.wsj.com/personal-finance/investing/how-to-buy-a-stock/ (not behind the paywall)
Edit: this is apparently too complicated:
"You can set up an account by depositing cash or stocks in a brokerage account. Firms like Charles Schwab and Citigroup’s Smith Barney unit offer brokerage accounts that can be managed online or with a broker in person. If you prefer buying and selling stocks online, you can use sites like E-Trade or Ameritrade. Those are just two of the most well-known electronic brokerages, but many large firms have online options as well.
Once you open an account you will tell your broker how many and what types of stocks you’d like to purchase. The broker executes the trade on the your behalf. In turn, he or she earns a commission, normally several cents per share. Online trading sites typically charge lower commission fees, because most of the trading is done "
He also owns 400,000,000 shares of Coca-Cola which is why he mentions Coke so frequently and it's one of his favorite stocks.
I wouldn't be focusing on the consumer side of 5G, rather the infrastructure side. That's where the big money is. I don't think consumers are really going to be clamoring over 5G all that much.. at least not enough to drive massive phone sales. It might be big among tech enthusiasts, but 4G is perfectly adequate for 99% of the general population and I don't think a lot of people will be able to justify spending $600+ on a new phone specifically for a speed boost they don't need.
American Tower (AMT), Crown Castle (CCI), and SBA Communications (SBAC) are the biggest 3 tower companies according to Forbes.
I would research those companies and see what they've said publicly about 5G plans.
EDIT: This spawned some more research by me. This article offered some great insight into how tower companies operate https://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-american-tower-even-bigger-130150159.html
Two main things I took away from that article:
This also begs the question.. if a tower company only owns the towers and the land, and tenants are responsible for transmitters.. how much can 5G actually create revenue growth for tower companies since 5G is in the transmitter, not the tower? Unless the nature of 5G just demands more towers, I'm not sure about that. I'd be curious to know who is actually manufacturing the transmitters, because cell companies are going to be buying/leasing millions of new 5G transmitters in relatively short order.
That's $3B box office, minus theatre cut, minus distribution costs, minus marketing costs, minus production cost is profit.
This site: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/18/how-a-2-billion-box-office-for-star-wars-the-force.aspx
says profit was probably $700M for TFA. So say $500M for R1. So Disney is probably profited about $1.5B all around for SW so far. Still $2.5B to go to recoup purchase cost.
>it's extraordinarily expensive.
One thing that gets lost in the discussion is that SpaceX privately funded a lot of the development itself. Meanwhile, ULA sat back on the their fat overhead collecting a billion dollar subsidy for basically doing nothing but producing expensive rockets.
As soon as the Air Force cuts off the EELV gravy train, ULA will start laying people off and complaining about the budget. Instead of using that money to innovate more cost effective rockets, they basically did nothing and complained about SpaceX the entire time.
ULA can rot.
IIRC, Picasso also recognized that the signature on art is what is valueable, not the art itself. ~~He also would draw little pictures on checks he'd write for different things~~ because the ~~drawing~~/signature was more valuable than the value of the check itself, people would often not cash them. They're called picasso's checks
Edit: Salvador Dhali would draw on checks because the drawing was more valuable than the checks value.
> they're far better off taking the standard deduction (which is about to nearly double).
In exchange for losing the personal exemption. For a head of household with one kid (that's what the original tweet said), her non-taxable income would be the $9,300 standard deduction plus two person exemptions (herself and her kid) at $4,050. So her first $17,400 isn't taxable.
Under the new plan, heads of household get a flat $18,000-ish standard deduction, regardless of family size.
Side note, the $700 is harder to verify. Cindy would probably benefit from a larger child tax credit, but her $12,000 of taxable income would be taxed at 12% instead of 10%, and so on back and forth.
> it's a brand new model with zero aftermarket or used parts available
Well this is pretty much guaranteed to not change because Tesla wants to lock their consumers in with proprietary bullshit like Apple does.
This is from 2017. 7 months for a minor repair, a car that has been on the market for 6 years. Tesla's customer service is, quite frankly, terrible.
Well, that's true in one sense, but deceptively so.
When using orders of magnitude, X orders larger is a lot more absolute change than X orders smaller.
For example, most American adults' net worth is closer to the net worth of Bill Gates (about 6 orders) than it is to a penny, the smallest unit of currency (about 7 orders).
But it doesn't really make sense, either subjectively or practically, to say that those people are more financially similar to Bill Gates than they are to a homeless person.
>Due to the membership fee, Costco's customers tend to be wealthier than the average American and have an average household income of $100,000.
Lol so how much do you make, again?
Disney is launching a streaming service in 2019 that will have original content as well as their classic Disney, Marvel, and Lucasfilm titles (no R rated material).
The Dow is a terrible measure of the economy.
According to actual measures of economic growth, the US had the the slowest quarter in three years.
Of course, Trump probably had nothing to do with these measurements as nothing he has done could have had a significant economic effect yet - it will be a long while before we see the effects of the few policies he has passed.
He also gets over $500M a year in dividends from his Coca Cola holdings... With the amount of money Berkshire Hathaway has invested in KO, there's just no better place to put it. He'd have to find something else to do with the $16B worth of KO shares and be able to make up the capital gains. He'd also trigger a huge sell-off and wouldn't get anywhere near the $16B it's currently worth.
So is it worth divesting his $16B worth of KO to get maybe $8B worth of cash to invest in something else? Hell no.
I think you're incorrectly assessing the value of Amazon's infrastructure. In 2015, Piper Jaffery estimated Amazon had fulfillment centers within 20 miles of 31% of the US population. In 2016, that estimate grew to 44%. So their fulfillment network is already vast and if this is the challenge you think they face, I'd say they're winning.
I also disagree with your judgement that Walmart is spending more wisely given their recent $3.3 billion acquisition that smacks of "We don't know how do win online! Please help us! Here, have truckloads of money!"
Walmart has a low PE because, right now, they deserve it. They're not going broke any time soon, but they do need to sort themselves out if they are going to fend off the death machine that is Amazon.
Edit there -> their.
It's a little bit of a mixed bag. It's true that food increases total sales volume, but food has lower profit margins than beverage. It's a pretty complex dynamic to get right, and Starbucks is still tinkering with it. https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/05/01/starbucks-food-strategy-has-some-drawbacks.aspx
Yep. Leaks today indicate Intel is on a hiring spree to move beyond their Core Architecture. It's already very long in the legs, they can't get anymore IPC out of it since Skylake.
Intel needs a revolutionary new architecture in the next few years, else Zen 2 and 3 may even eclipse them by a big margin on 7nm.
That plus everything else sure paints a picture. All recent articles:
It was a big story this month.
We do with a little bit more research! According to Motley fool, about 79% of American workers have access to a a 401K/403B type account, but less than half contribute anything. They parse the numbers and find just 32% of Americans contribute anything to a 401K.
Even if these are entirely separate groups, we're looking at just 40% of Americans taking advantage of any kind of retirement savings accounts. Since they're not entirely separate groups, less than 40% of Americans are contributing to standard, tax-sheltered retirement accounts.
>a good enough return to outweigh the gaming market.
Which is never going to happen. As much as professionals pay a premium, gaming is still the largest market segment, accounting for around 60% of NVIDIA's revenue^^source .
Guys, why are we acting surprised by this information? The savings rate in the US is currently 2.6%!
Americans are crazy bad savers in general. Not contributing to retirement accounts is par for the course for having a 2.6% savings rate. Only 32% of Americans contribute to 401Ks (less than half that are offered them) too, so this isn't a fluke statistic or meaningless factoid.
Americans are just bad at savings. This has been historically true for decades. That's why baby boomers are kinda in a bad place for their retirement.
I looked through the list of top advertisers on Fox News and each of the specific program sponsors and was actually surprised by how few of those companies I actually use.
A big help is I do all my banking, investing, and insurance business with a credit union. I don't own a car. I buy my suits from a local wholesaler. I rarely buy anything from Amazon and never had a Prime subscription.
I'll have to go through the lists of brands owned by Procter & Gamble and Berkshire Hathaway and see if there's any staples or household goods I buy that maybe I need to switch, although I tend to buy most of that type of stuff at Target and buy their store brand (paper towels and toilet paper) or like Method brand detergent.
> From time to time, bears will cite a figure of how many thousands of dollars Tesla loses per vehicle...
>The reason why those attention-grabbing figures are misleading is that they include operating expenses, which includes all of the investments that the company is making to fund future growth. That includes R&D, design, and engineering expenses, as well as massive amounts of capital expenditures to build product tooling and manufacturing infrastructure.
>Tesla's gross margin is actually quite impressive and higher than rivals Ford (NYSE:F) and General Motors (NYSE:GM), specifically because Tesla only plays in the niche luxury segment right now. On a gross profit basis, Tesla made over $18,000 per vehicle last year.
>That's the nasty part, not the <1% bit.
That really depends on where you live, but yeah, they fail to mention the very important part that the majority of the donations left over after expenses goes to Proselytizing secular Jews.
As for the real estate part, that was bad luck or a poor choice, losses can happen in real estate investments.
A non profit can invest money, why would they do that?
For a more steady income, for example, if they get a million dollar donation they can distribute it, or they can buy a building, lets say they make about 10% ROI(return on investment) per year, that means they are getting a steady stream of about $100,000 per year for the organization to distribute to their causes while still still having never lost the initial million dollars as they can sell the building at any time.
So if they sell after ten years, they turned a million dollar donation into a(roughly) two million dollar donation, that's a good thing for the non profits causes as they get more money, of course they also set themselves up to possibly lose the money if the investment goes bad.
Sorry guys I thought I did supply the link... could of sworn I copied it in before the title... well go figure.
The news is resounding through the street... There is a tectonic shift going on an their all starting to realize it. It's all coming together nicely... and with additional bad luck on Intels 10nm, lovely.. Couldn't of asked for more.
I wonder if we could go even higher as the non teche's start to really digest what exactly is going on.. oh yeah baby I'm relishing in this :)
That would have been great if it were true.
2007 Motley Fool rated NFLX and AAPL as two of the three worst stocks: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2006/12/21/the-worst-stock-for-2007-sirius.aspx
Saw an article a while back that said $10k in an index fund in 1980 would be worth $760k today. I’m sure there are ways to maximize tax deductions as well.
I hope someone who is an expert comments on this one.
Motley Fool $10k in an index fund
Today I just read Intel apparently is looking for engineers for a new "revolutionary" processor core called Ocean Cove.
One word - cashflow.
A value of $21 billion doesn't mean all that value is sitting in their bank account....because it isn't.
And their revenue? It's not "billion*s*" just yet.
According to reports (ie https://www.fool.com/amp/investing/2017/02/05/how-profitable-is-spacex-really.aspx), their revenue peaked at $1 billion in 2014, while net profit was 0.2%.... which is kinda 😳
In 2015 SpaceX "record(ed) a $260 million loss on $945 million in revenue".
So they need the funding to pay the short term bills, and hopefully they can start balancing their books better and turning a better profit.
Keep in mind Disney paid 4 billion dollars to buy Lucasfilm (star wars franchise). (that was back in 2012).
After making the last 2 movies (after expenses they have made about 1 billion profit) https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/01/04/did-disney-get-a-4-billion-bargain-buying-the-coma.aspx
They still have 3 billion to go and it's been 5 years. I have no doubt they eventually will, but the pressure for them to earn to back faster I am sure if extremely high. At this rate it will take 20 years total (15 more to go) for them to break even on their investment. This is very likely why they are trying to squeeze the hell out of the theaters. I am sure they figure no theater would dare not host a Star Wars movie so they assume they have carte blanche to demand whatever they want.
We shall see how it works out for them at the end of this holiday season. My guess is theaters will be pissed, but they will relent and submit to the dark side.
> Why would that all of a sudden change?
Because you're reading those income <em>summaries</em> wrong and making assumptions that you don't actually know?
Total Debt (mrq) 4.84B (Yahoo)
Long Term Debt 3.36 B (Motley Fool)
its long-term debt stood at $4.8 billion at the end of June. (Fortune)
8 hrs / 30 pts = a whopping 16 mins per pt. Our nursing home healthcare is horrendous, and it's not because our nursing home nurses are lazy or stupid, it's because like you they only get 16 mins with each pt. Imagine if there were 10 nurses for those 30 pts. What are the odds that complications like, UTI's, bedsores, and pneumonia would decrease then? We know they would decrease. But the higher ups will say "It costs too much to staff those nurses, we'd go out of business." But that's not the nurses' fault, nor is it the pts fault. It's the payment system that needs overhauling, not cutting staff. Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies have been making record-breaking profits in the last decade, in the meanwhile the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the US is for medical bills.
morgen housel says to save money you should focus on the big costs. he is in the US, the big ones there are housing, transport and education. luckily for most of us here is australia education is not a huge cost overall. on the other hand housing costs are out of control in some places if you want to own. renting and investing is a much better option for most australians right now.
>I heard something on the radio this morning that made me shake my head. It was a segment about tips on how to save more money. What came was a predictable list of "brew your own coffee," "buy generic products," and "bring your lunch to work!"
>I can't stand these lists. I think they're dangerous, because the average American's dismal financial state has little to do with coffee, name brands, or lunch. The people writing these articles mean well. But they're the equivalent of telling a drowning man how to dry his clothes -- advice that seems helpful but misses the bigger problem.
>Most workers reading this article earn enough money to be saving a lot of it. If you can't, it's likely because the gap between reality and your ego is larger than it should be. And if you dig into that gap, I think you'll find just three things:
>• your house
>• your car
>• your education
>If you want to actually save money, start there.
As if it couldn't get any worse, by Intel's own admission, its first- and second-generation 10nm technologies -- 10nm and 10nm+, respectively -- will offer worse performance than its upcoming 14nm++ technology . Intel says the company's 10nm technology won't open up a clear performance lead over its 14nm++ technology until its third iteration -- known as 10nm++ -- which should go into production sometime in 2020.
That's kind of a statistical lie, though, because your averaging in people who aren't supporting themselves on their own incomes -- children, stay-at-home parents, kids in college, etc.
If you look at it by tax filing status (which accounts for non-working spouses and ignores non-working children), you get:
^Source, ^which ^is ^using ^2014 ^Census ^data
So, obviously, the "average" American isn't living in poverty. As you can see, the married population (about 50% of American adults, according to Wikipedia has an average individual income of roughly $60k, and that number is similar for widows/widowers.
Like I said, young people are bringing the observable average down, both visibly on Reddit and mathematically, by virtue of Millennials being the largest population group now, and being in the early stages of their career.
It's just the translated version from the original Motley Fool article by the way: https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/13/your-guide-to-early-retirement.aspx
They didn't even invest the time to make it EU/Germany specific as they mention 401k, IRAs, etc. in the article as a way to invest...
I passed "concerned" a long time ago. Blew past panic and into acceptance. Because when it goes, the global economy is going with it. And there's literally nothing I or anyone else can do about it now.
No one can tell you when it's going to come, but we don't have anything like a steady hand at the wheel driving the global economy. The numerous indicators that we're due for a correction have been blaring for years now, and getting louder. The trade war couldn't have come at a worse time and I'm amazed that the whole thing hasn't gone down in flames yet.
Then again, over the last 18 months or so we've witnessed the power of delusion on massive scale first-hand, so none of this should be surprising. What happens, happens.
Yes, taxes are literally giving your money to highway robbers with an IRS badge. Christ, you are not living alone like a mountain hermit. You live in a society, contribution is the norm.
PUBG mobile is made by Tencent, a massive Chinese tech company with over 500 billion $ behind them. They own 10% of bluehole and 48% of epic gaming (fornite) and 100% of LOL.
"According to a 2013 report from Thompson Reuters GFMS, it was believed that 171,300 tons of gold had either been mined or was still in the ground. Since there are 32,000 ounces per ton, we're talking about 5.482 billion ounces of gold in the entire world, based on this report. If each ounce was worth about $1,290, the world's gold supply would have an implied market cap of $7.07 trillion dollars. "
Histories Largest Companies (pic)
You have your numbers a bit mixed up. GTA V has brought in 1 billion dollars. It cost them about $150 million to develop and $115 million to market (so $265 million total cost for a gross profit of $735 million dollars and still counting).
> And until the USPS gets off the hook on its absurd regulation of having to fund retirements for workers not even born yet, they're going to have to increase revenue.
What in the world is this about? (I looked it up - ARTICLE HERE - for those interested.)
So, is that just one of those insane regulations that was originally well-meaning, or was it pushed for by people who want to bankrupt the USPS and replace it with private ownership?
Look for a target retirement fund. This is not the only option obviously but one that adjusts it's volatility based on your target retirement date: https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/07/04/why-vanguard-target-date-funds-are-the-best-in-the.aspx
Another reason, not mentioned yet: they've been on a buyback binge for a while now, decreasing the number of public shares and driving the price up.
It's a lot lower of a percentage than a I thought: only 14% of American households have a negative net worth.
Had a read through the Chase earnings call; couple of thoughts, (i) they're very well aware of the churning game imo but they're content to let it play out for the moment (ii) if we take Reddit as a proxy; the biggest subscribed sub is AskReddit with 19.625m, here we've 130k - so that's 0.66% of the population actively engaged in the game. I'd think that number is probably not too far from the truth on a large scale level. Within that I'd imagine a large percentage are still just casuals and that the folks doing multiple business cards + MS are the 1% of the 1%.
So going forward I'd imagine they'll probably move to eradicate the serious gamers (which you're probably seeing with the more prevalent shut downs) whilst keeping an eye on that active engagement, the sooner it ticks towards 1-2% the sooner you'll see rewards nerfed/become more difficult. I happen to believe that'll come sooner rather than later based anecdotally on the increasing engagement of my peers in the game.
TL;DR - a churning recession is on the short to medium term horizon imo
$29.40 times 40 hours a week, times 52 weeks is $61,152. Subtract taxes of roughly $6,500, and you have $54,652. Food accounts for $10,178 based on average household spending, leaving one with $44,474. Average 1 bedrooms in King County that are NOT brand new construction range from $1189 up to $1565 (years 1945 up to 1999). Taking the midrange of that is $1377 (September 2017 Dupre & Scott report). Utilities average roughly $154.33 a month. Annually, that comes out to $18,375.96, which leaves us with a total of $26,098 after the major necessities have been covered.
I'm not sure what assumptions they're using, but I expect someone can live comfortably earning less than $29.40 an hour. Even if we took the average rent in Ballard ($1475 for a 1945-1964 1 bedroom unit), they would have no problem making it work.
It's structured as a partnership so it doesn't have to pay corporate taxes. The tradeoff is it has to pass all income directly through to shareholders, and they have to deal with the taxes. They are a large and reputable company though, the largest alternative investment firm in the world, with $434 billion AUM.
I believe in the United States, finding treasure laying around falls under "abandoned property" which does have tax laws regarding it. See this case
Depending how long this dragon or giant has been around, the items in its hoard could very well be stolen property, in which case the law says you don't get to keep it anyway.
net worth of 800 thousand is also factually true. also he's the 81st poorest senator after 16 years in that office.
the_retard try to make it look like bernie is a sellout who's filthy rich on the tax payer's dime. false.
Generally, the effect would be minimal if done as a general boycott and only for one day. I would need to know what day you are talking about to give a good estimate. A boycott in December is much different than one in January. Also, we would need a better definition of what anything means. Are you talking about electricity, natural gas, gas, diesel, food, water or just consumer goods? The one area where you can see a larger effect is with individual companies. If the day off happened to be at the last day of the year for say WalMart, you could cause them to miss earnings. Missing earnings can be a big deal and could cause a lot of wealth loss, but at one day, the impact is most likely minimal. For a boycott like this to really have an effect you would have to not buy anything for like a month. This would mess up forecasting, purchasing, supply chain and inventory. It would take a significant amount of time to recover from that because of the whipsaw effect.
All that said, the generic answer is $44B. There are 318.9 million people in the US and the average American spends $140 per day.
Google for US population.
20-35 year olds don't out-earn older people. Having a median age of 31 would suggest a lower income.
The age doesn't explain the earning difference. The earning difference is explained by the economic value created by cities.
No no no, that's a myth and a damn widely spread one. Social security will not go bankrupt.
If nothing changes, you're looking at 75% of current payouts, not 0%.
>Of course, it would unacceptable for the program not to pay promised benefits, but it is wrong to imply that people face a prospect of not collecting Social Security 16 years down the road. There is no scenario under current law where that is possible.
The only way SS would actually go completely bankrupt would be if some massive political or societal change happened. Something like an extremely dramatic drop in the birth rate could do it, but if things like that are happening we have bigger issues than SS running out.
>They are actually willing to bet on this trade war lasting enough to justify moving production to another continent?
Harley Davidson have been in trouble for a long time:
That was before all the talk about tariffs. They were laying off workers and planning this for a while and are probably relieved they have a bone fide excuse for it.
>The median age of the typical motorcycle owner is 47, up from 32 in 1990 and 40 in 2009.
Here's Harley's problem.
Eventually, you're going to run out of old men to sell $30,000 bikes to and pretty quickly. Now, you are going to get some younger customers, but because the bikes cost as much as fucking new cars now, most of which is brand mark-up, the new Harley customers you do get aren't going to be able to buy the same number of bikes over their lives as the last generation.
Not to mention they cannibalized their own brand and turned it from outlaw to rich asshole poser. When people think of Harleys they think of a dentist with too much money not a renegade.
Nice try, undercover H-D PR swindler, but they've been fucked for years now as the Boomers die off/trade them in for battleship SUVs, and no one else wants to spend $20k on a worthless status symbol.
I don't think that is a basic emergency fund for "most" people. Most Americans don't save. 20k might be an emergency fund for many people, but definitely not most people.
Your correct, but the simple logic is forcing people to pay upfront, which helps today, but shafts the budget down the road.
is this actually enough cash to buy Disney?
wow according to this it likely wouldn't even touch half of the stockpile after a buyout. unreal
edit- another user says it'd be closer to 2/3rds of the cash reserves. Buyout the entire Disney Corp., pay off their entire debt load, and still have cash left over for Facebook. Unreal
You gotta dig around but that's what most sources say. If you purchase a PPV outside the US, the price is close to 30 in most developed countries. Employees of cable providers (Comcast specifically) do not get charged the cable provider cut and pay $30 for the PPVs. Also it came out when the WWE came out with the WWE network and was fighting with the cable companies and trying to negotiate. The general consensus is that it is a range between 40-60%. Top boxers get paid a huge portion of the gate and they generally fight in areas where they get additional money (MGM pays Floyd to fight in Vegas as he brings a lot of gamblers all over the world to their hotels). Also boxing is a very popular international sport and there are separate deals for different countries. PPV is a US model.
Keep in mind that their guidance for this quarter was low, giving them the chance to beat their expectations if up a bit.
Now I am still new at all of this, but I think this fact is being overlooked... please let me know if I’m wrong in thinking this is a factor
If you think comparing burst demand due to preorders to vehicle well into its life cycle... I dunno what to tell you.
Oh hey an article that explains the drop in bolt sales instead of a knee jerk fanboy image post.
> It's easy to assume that Bolt sales are suffering because of competition. That might be true to some extent. But it's also true that supplies of the little electric Chevy have been tight, thanks to demand outside the United States.
> The takeaway: U.S. sales of the Bolt may be down, but from GM's global perspective, it is doing just fine.
Insolvency of social security is a myth. It has trillions in reserve: https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/07/24/5-social-security-myths-debunked.aspx
SS is projected to no longer be at a surplus and to have no more reserve by 2034. “Insolvent” means “unable to pay”. Even in the worst case scenario after 2034, it will pay 77% of current amounts, adjusted for inflation.
We could fix this shortfall by raising the income limit on SS contribution from $127,200 to ~~$165,195~~ *EDIT: more like $250,000, or get rid of the cap completely. Point remains, the shortfall goes away if you tax high earners. Of course, we’ll move even more of our income to capital gains and qualified dividends, which don’t pay social security taxes anyway...
Actually they confirmed it themselves.
>As if it couldn't get any worse, by Intel's own admission, its first- and second-generation 10nm technologies -- 10nm and 10nm+, respectively -- will offer worse performance than its upcoming 14nm++ technology . Intel says the company's 10nm technology won't open up a clear performance lead over its 14nm++ technology until its third iteration -- known as 10nm++ -- which should go into production sometime in 2020.
The straight number makes it easier to compare to the average american:
>Some quick division means that the average gross income per return was $67,564 while the average federal tax hit was $9,655. That gives the average American family a federal tax rate of 14.3%.
It's called a triple net lease and though it is very common, I didn't understand why the USPS would sell the building and take that on. https://www.fool.com/knowledge-center/what-is-a-triple-net-lease.aspx
He also suggests some really dumb things, like not contributing to your 401k. None of his good advice is novel, and he gives plenty of bad advice. Here are some articles from an old post of mine that expose him for what he is: https://www.forbes.com/sites/helaineolen/2012/10/10/rich-dad-poor-dad-bankrupt-dad/#38b8570d633a
I call Bullshit on this.
1) All your latest posts are copy/paste of this.
2) When the coins are changed out someone has to pay the tax. You or the “fund” that you supposedly created to give you the “loan”
3) What does this have to do with entrepreneurship. This is tax fraud...
Not sure what your end game is or if you are just trying to feel important online for some reason but I am 99% sure you did not make any money let alone $200k. I am also sure you did not do this as any normal person would know the details due to the fact it is $200k and their freedom on the line.
Or are you saying that you did a 1031 with a fake fund you created as you say you “control” the fund. Now you are in deeper than just tax fraud and into securities fraud.
Also you may want to read this..
Like it's already been said, to support 32 GB they'd have to use desktop RAM, big ass sockets and higher power draw. But they want to use LPDDR. Microsoft and Razer agree (yet I see no one being full of shit when the Surface Pro caps at 16 GB as well).
To support 32 GB they'd have to use LPDDR4. But Intel says no, there's no technical reason, Intel just wants it like that. Here are their reasons from three years ago: https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/12/31/why-doesnt-intel-corporations-skylake-processor-us.aspx
> PC vendors will cut corners elsewhere to accommodate the more expensive memory within a fixed price point, potentially hurting the user experience.
> PC vendors will raise prices, which could lead to lower sales and thus reduced processor sales for Intel.
> PC vendors' margins will contract.
It doesn't make sense but apparently they still apply, because Kaby Lake Refresh released in August this year still doesn't support LPDDR4.
> At least 20% down payment (including trade in value)
See, that's the problem. 20% of a $25,000 car is $5,000. More than half of Americans have less than $1,000 in savings at any given time.
No, it isn't.
You're confounding marginal rates with effective rates.
Since this is total income and total taxes paid, Trump had a ~25% effective tax rate. A single person making $40k in 2005 would have a 25% marginal rate, but their total effective rate would be something in the neighborhood of about 16% (before deductions).
Trump's income would have fallen into the 35% marginal tax bracket.
Edit: Worth noting from their returns for context: Bill and Hillary Clinton paid about a 36% effective tax rate. Bernie Sanders paid about a 13.5% effective rate. Source.
Jesus Christ. You can’t blame Trump for your healthcare costs. There is just no data to support it.
Just look at that god damned chart. There is the real “Thanks Obama”.
I am sure the former President meant well (indeed McCain’s plan was strikingly similar), but the reality is that the insurance industry premiums have been skyrocketing year after year with no end in sight. It began under Obama and it continues now.
This person probably didn’t see their taxes go up. Most Americans saw them go down. It’s honestly more likely that he failed to do them properly and using every deduction he was allowed.
Even if they did increase, it’s probably dwarfed by the premium increases.
His changing financial situation isn’t due to Trump’s malfeasance, but the shitty Obamacare and Probably Ops choices.