You know what seems weird to me? That the writers of all these articles about teenagers leaving Facebook are acting so surprised. This one describes a "startling admission" and a "landmark statement" about teenage behavior or lack thereof on Facebook. It shouldn't be that big of a surprise when every previous social media site so far has been replaced. Livejournal fell out of favor and people flocked to Myspace. Then Myspace got annoying to use so they went to Facebook. Now Facebook is creepy and intrusive so people will go elsewhere. Look at Reddit - how many of us used to read Digg and Fark? I know one day I won't go to Reddit anymore, I'll go to some other site.
Another article on Yahoo interviewed teenagers. They're leaving Facebook because it's vapid, full of fake "friends" and overburdened by ads and pointless stuff like Farmville. They also don't want their parents effectively looking over their shoulders whenever they're saying something online to their real-life friends. The parents are just the icing on the cake - the other drawbacks of Facebook should be enough to make anyone leave the site, regardless of age.
Google was already the #1 search engine long before 2003. It's not like most people hadn't already heard of it.
Also, you'd make far more money investing in Apple over the same time range.
12.5 cents is the split-adjusted price. It was trading around $30/share at the time. I'm pretty sure you'd only have around ~$29,000.
> Yeah– now, when I first saw that, I assumed that the top line was for a part-time McDonald’s employee. Then I got out my calculator– that is actually what you would make if you were working full-time at McDonald’s. 1,105 dollars a month.
The author forgot to deduct payroll taxes.
A full time employee would make less than that.
Edit: I've replied elsewhere, but I thought I'd put this up here to avoid excessive repetition.
$1105 at $7.25/hr ~= 38 hrs/week, which is what I was generally paid for full time when I worked summers at minimum wage (40 hours scheduled minus ~half an hour break for lunch each shift whether you took the break or not). Given the variability in shifts week/week, it's also likely that one could average 38 hours, rarely going over 40 hours/week (can't pay overtime!) but sometimes falling below. This is where I made my assumption on the author omitting taxes.
Alternatively, according to this article, if you're paid above minimum wage, specifically $7.72, you would expect to receive $1105 in take-home pay after withholding.
So the author may have omitted taxes while accounting for scheduling, may have assumed a slightly-higher-than-minimum wage (is $7.72 the actual McDonald's minimum?) or may have rounded slightly leading to some confusion.
Kind of amazing that an ISP would do something so idiotic and completely against the TOC of referrals. Maybe they haven't heard about the ebay referral people who got jail time for a similar scheme.
Edit: Did not expect this thread to blow up. Anyways here is the story I was referring to: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ebay-worked-fbi-put-top-120500693.html
$65 x 12 months = $780 annually
Comcast pays a $.65 dividend per share per year. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=cmcsa&ql=1
$780/.65 = 1200 shares needed. Comcast is currently trading at ~$39/share so you're looking at about a $46,800 investment for Comcast to pay your annual internet bill.
edit: this is fun to do with other companies too. AT&T for instance... $85/mo for cell phone ($1,020/yr). AT&T pays $1.80 per year. 1020/1.8 = 566.67 shares x current share price of 34.50 = $19,550 investment for AT&T to pay your entire annual cell phone bill.
Yep. Here are the odds:
BROWN: Mediterranean Ave, odds 1 in 30 million
LIGHT BLUE: Vermont Ave, odds 1 in 40 million
PINK: Virginia Ave, odds 1 in 200 million
ORANGE: Tennessee Ave, odds 1 in 602 million
RED: Kentucky Ave, odds 1 in 15 million
YELLOW: Ventnor Ave, odds 1 in 300 million
GREEN: Pennsylvania Ave, odds 1 in 40 million
BLUE: Boardwalk, 1 in 602 million
RAILROADS: Short Line railroad, 1 in 150 million
As of this comment. Microsoft's market cap is $246 billion, Google's market cap is $225 billion. So yes, by market capitalization, Google is currently a smaller company than Microsoft
[checks European unemployment rate]
HOLY FUCKING SHIT guys. TIL that Europe is such a paradise that 10.7% of its people don't even have to go to work.
Fuck da corporashuns
Here is the ticker for oil futures, set for delivery in June. Here is the one for July.
For people who aren't familiar with financial instruments, this means that you can enter into a contract today to buy a barrel of crude oil on June 12 for $105, regardless of how much it actually costs on that day. If the actual price is higher, you can instantly sell, making a profit; if the actual price is lower, then you've bought high and sold low, taking a loss.
Basically, this means that traders - people who are actually putting their money where their mouths are - think that the price of crude oil will be around $105 in June (plus a few dollars because of the time value of money). It takes roughly a $30-$35 movement in crude oil prices per barrel to result in a $1 movement in prices at the pump.
So, traders expect oil to come in at between $110 and $115 a barrel in summer. That's about $3.80 a gallon. For $4.50 a gallon, we would need to see somewhere between $135 and $155 a barrel. (The record high was $147 a barrel, and at those prices, the record pump price was $4.25.)
What I'm saying is that this prediction is a crock load of shit. Because if it were at all credible, people would be buying up oil futures like crazy. After all, you can buy June oil for $105 today, and then be able to sell it at ~$145 four months from now.
Sorry to burst OP's bubble but they had a 500/1 reverse split in June. Read more here Link
For OP: if you had 10,000 shares - you now have 20 shares at the new price
It sounds simple, but it isn't. First of all, they pay approx. $554 million per year in dividends. If they don't do this, their stock price will plummet, and lots of investors (including fixed-income retirees, pension funds, etc) that rely on that dividend will suffer.
Next, they have to spend capital investments out of that profit. In the last couple of years that was just over $1 billion per year. This is how companies grow... and this is how they grow the GDP and create jobs.
So, in other words, in 2012, the entire $1.6 billion in profits was spent on dividends and capital investments. (source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=YUM+Cash+Flow&annual).
Remember, the CEO is chosen by the board who is chosen by the shareholders to maximize shareholder value. If he stops paying dividends and/or reduces growth in order to pay employees at higher than market wages, he wouldn't be doing his job, and he'd be fired and replaced.
You see, investors don't invest in a company for the fun of it, they invest to make more money, otherwise they'd just spend the money. Or, in my case, I invest for my retirement so I don't have to rely on SS when I get old.
If you walk into a car dealership and he offers you a car for $10k, do you offer to pay $12k instead? Or do you haggle him down to $9k? Does that make you greedy, or just fiscally responsible?
If an employee is willing to work for $7.25 per hour, and Yum insists on paying them $10/hr instead, is that fiscally responsible? They are overpaying.
Now, in general, there is a lot of expense around finding and training employees, so they should be paid more than the minimum, but each company determines this on their own, it isn't up to you to tell them.
Lets do some math:
Now assume their CEO decides to work for free and spread that money among his employees.
$10 million/ 440,000 employees = ~$23 extra per employee per year
Now assume a standard full-time employee works 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year. That's 2080 hours in a year.
So $23/ 2080 hours = a $0.01 hourly raise
Congratulations you just gave these employees a rounding error. Now don't misinterpret this as me saying they shouldn't give their employees a raise. All I'm saying is that cutting the CEO's compensation would accomplish nothing.
Apple shares were suspended from trade before the announcement
Edit: They changed the entire article and the line mentioning the suspension. =\ Cmon Yahoo/WSJ
Not to be a buzz-kill, but Jack Lew is likely to change his signature as Timothy Geitner did when he took the office.
Furthermore; you can clearly see in the company's quarterly financial statements, per page 18, that the nine month period ended 9/30/2012 resulted in $7.2 billion in operating income on $29.5 billion of revenue for their "cable communications" segment (24.4% margin). For all of comcast combined, it's $8.8 billion of operating income on $46.6 billion of revenue (18.9% margin). Far from the 97% margin stated above.
When all's said and done, after taxes, the company makes $1-2 billion of net income on $15-16 billion of revenue. That's maybe a 9.5% margin.
They must be doing something right:
This is total nonsense. The game scored over 80 on metacritic. The executives would have seen test reviews (they hire freelance reviewers to do internal reviews of the game as it's in progress). They would have thought it was a good game.
Battlefield alone does not likely move the needle one way or the other. Do you think they bought shares on the news that FIFA 14 was good? Or sold because NBA Live 14 was awful?
It's a pain in the ass for executives to buy and sell shares, with public disclosures surrounding the sale. In the last six months, Apple insiders have sold Nearly 30 million shares (that's billions of dollars in shares.) There's nothing wrong with it as long as they reported it correctly along the way, which I'm sure they did.
Here's a link to the Apple trades:
Here's a link to the EA trades:
This whole article is just as bad as Fox News. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. The Wall Street Journal article this is taken from does not mention it was put toward Executive Pay at all:
It was used for continuing business operations. Yes, this does include executive pay and bonus' but it also includes employee pay, product transportation, raw goods, etc. While CEO pay may be inflated these individuals would have never joined the company if their pay wasn't guaranteed and Hostess' Board of Directors felt that the best chance of saving the company, and the pensions with it, was hiring the most competent executives they could find.
This article from AlterNet is ridiculously cherry-picked.
The stock market (S&P500) has more than doubled since 2009. No comment on the happiness of the employees of the other 499 companies though.
What? I couldn't belive!
Here is a outside link for the news: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tom-clancy-dead-celebrated-thriller-141800682.html
So many games marked me. My favorites were the Splinter Cell ones (I still play Chaos Theory sometimes).
edit: better new link
According to Wikipedia, Netflix has 36.3 million subscribers. If you figure $96 a year x 36.3 million, that's $3.4 billion in annual revenue.
Sure enough, if we look at Netflix's income statement, they had annual revenue of $3.6 billion last year (there must have bit a bit of revenue that our simple calculation above missed).
According to the income statement, the cost of Netflix's revenue was $2.6 billion. I learned from this article that Netflix's cost of revenue includes things such as subscription and fulfillment costs, as well as the rights to the streaming media that it needs to purchase from content owners. After you subtract out cost of revenue, that leaves a gross profit of $983,416,000. After paying R&D and administrative expenses, as well as taxes, Netflix finally had a positive net income of $17.1 million.
The reason Netflix is profitable is because it is still taking in more money as revenue from subscriptions than it is paying out to content holders. What the above exercise shows, however, is that this is very precarious. Many on Wall Street have suggested that content providers will continue to raise Netflix's costs and will put the squeeze on their profitability in the future. This obviously remains to be seen. However, for now they are making enough from subscriptions to be profitable.
As much as I respect Warren Buffett for being one of the good guys. $31,000 in 1957 is about $256,126.19 now.
EDIT: I agree that ~$250,000 is exceedingly modest for a billionare, but it's not as modest as $31,000 makes it sound.
The review covers 4.3 million foreclosures that happened between 2009 and 2010. The San Francisco city assessor's office performed an audit of foreclosures and found that more than 80% of the foreclosures have "missing documents or signatures, or otherwise violate the law."
This fraud was systemic, and if everyone who was foreclosed upon submits an application for review, and the review are carried out faithfully, there will be huge repercussions for the largest banks.
All of this is accurate. However, because Gilead is a public company, their financials are public. Their financials show a different story than the one they painted. I'm all for a company recouping their sunk costs and making a healthy profit, but they are doing more than that. Their operating margin was 40.38% and their profit margin was 28.55% in 2012. Of their $2.783 billion in revenue for Q3, 2013, their R&D expense was $546 million (19.6%), their sales/admin was $406 million (14.5%), and their CoGS was $682 million (24.5%), leaving an EBIT of $1.08 billion (38.8%) - source. They were making an impressive profit during the last 2 years, while Sovaldi was in development, and will continue making a profit that any company outside the pharmas can only dream of recording, especially in a company that isn't releasing dividends. Their financials are more than stable, so their arguments ring hollow. That said, I have to give them credit for paying income taxes. So, there's that.
None taken. But the Fox News audience type doesn't like to read very much and will most likely not look into or accurately understand statistics.
But for those of you who like to go beyond anecdotal evidence, here are some good sources that show the poor are getting poorer and the rich, richer.
-Article with several sources
-A Study on Social Mobility
He answered this elsewhere a couple days ago:
>For transportation, Gore admits to “sometimes” chartering a private jet but he doesn’t own one, claims to be a “regular" on Southwest Airlines (LUV) and flew to NY last week on American Airlines to promote The Climate Reality Project’s 24-hour webcast, The Cost of Carbon. "Every once in a while I charter but I use public transit and commercial airlines,” he says.
Also the Toyota Camry is the <em>most</em> American of all cars - at least according to cars.com.
Their stock doesn't seem to have been affected by this in (roughly) the past 2 years.
the debate about income tax is a ruse to fool you Americans. Most of the wealthy did NOT get wealthy from earning wages. They got it from capital gains. And by pretending to be mad or outraged about rates on income taxes, Republicans have helped bury any real effort to raise capital gains taxes, which should be raised even if rates on wealthy's income rise slightly or not at all.
"According to the IRS, which recently released 2009 data from the 400 richest individual income tax returns, the real runaway growth in wealth has come from capital gains. In the last years of the bubble, the "Fortunate 400" made nearly half their income from capital gains (a.k.a.: profit from the rising value of an investment, such as stocks or property) and less than 10% of their income from old-fashioned wages.
The average income of a top-400 earner grew by 650% between 1992 and 2007 to a whopping $344 million. Over that time, the average salary didn't even double. But the average capital gains haul increased by 1,200%. So how do the richest get richer? Not from their wages. From their investments."
edit: I might also point out that a large percentage of rich people inherit their money, which is why they have spent so much time weakening the Inheritance Tax. by doing that, and preserving tax loopholes/havens along with low capital gains taxes, the rich are ensuring that they don't even get TOUCHED, all the while screaming for everyone else to "pay their fair share".
wow, literal penny stock
In fact, the GE Finance arm took a loss of 30 Billion, and is, in fact, writing that off over a period of years. This is primary reason GE does not owe taxes this year.
Will be interesting to see what effect this will have on ZNGA's stock price. It could be material!
VIDEO OF ZNGA BITCOIN TRANSACTION
Notice the transaction is for $5 and how fast it went with no personal information.
The credit card or Paypal fee would be $0.30+2.9% or $0.445 or 8.9%. Reddit's CEO, which sells a $4.99 digital good, said after 3 months the Bitcoin percentage was up to 2.5% of gross sales but because of lower transaction fees Bitcoin payments accounted for 3.4% of net of transaction fee income. In 2012 Zynga did $1.2B of gross revenue.
So Zynga they transition over 2.5% of gross sales like Reddit did then that would be $30m/year and a savings of about $222,500/month in transaction fees. Not bad for a few hours of their developer's time implementing Bitpay.
> How can stock still exist for a company that ceased existing in 2008?
Because the assets are probably still winding their way through bankruptcy court, leaving a (ridiculously small) chance that "common" stockholders will still see some return after all the secured creditors, bondholders, and any "preferred" classes of stockholder have been paid off.
As a relevant example, Washington Mutual's stock bounced around for years under the ticker symbol WAMUQ, and is a rare example of a "bankrupt" company for which shareholders actually saw a return, since WAMU had a lot of real estate holdings, and its assets actually exceeded the liabilities it was left with after the bulk of the assets were ~~given~~ sold to JPMorganChase. It's currently trading under the symbol WMIH after a change of name to WMI Holdings, Inc.
Remember that they are a public company who have to answer to shareholders. They had terrible numbers over the xmas season, detail, with some big titles released. Their stock price is pennies from a 6mo low- losing subscribers and customers will hurt them more now than ever before. Just my 2c
They filed bankruptcy last week. The last four quarters they have been bleeding more and more money.
(I have a feeling I'm going to get wooshed)
That is fucking crazy. I am from Rockford, IL.
Rockford is listed as one of the top 6 most violent/deadliest cities to live in the United States.
They have one of the highest unemployment rates (12%) in the US as well as one of the highest murder and violent crime rates.
Edit: spelling and also here is an article where Yahoo lists it as the 9th deadliest city in the US according to it's own rankings.
I'm seeing signs that they're targeting journalists and intellectuals too. Are we living in a big game of Tropico 4 or something?
"El Presidente! The people are calling for increased transparency!"
edit: Well then, apparently documents were leaked which show Moody's took bribes in exchange for ratings. Hmm, I wonder if this entity who is proven to take bribes could possibly do something corrupt on behalf of the US...
It's long been suspected that ratings agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poor's helped trigger the meltdown. A new trove of embarrassing documents shows how they did it.
I guess the folks up above this post are too busy arguing about the minutiae of HK's economy to notice this headline just popped up...
Delta recently posted somewhat disappointing Q1 2012 earnings.
I'm guessing this has more to do with cutting marketing spending than actual outrage over the show's content. They are probably using the skit as grounds to terminate their contract.
They practically state it:
>“We're always re-evaluating our advertising opportunities and updating our strategy in an effort to reach our desired audience.”
EDIT: I was wrong, this is about the upcoming Elections this year (note that the CEO is donating $416/month, keeping him at just under $5000 cap for the year), and the Delta Political Action Committee is leaning strongly Republican (Click on Party Split by Cycle).
Just... follow the money.
I can explain it faster and more simple: No major manufacturer made a similar car, because the majority of the people do not want it. Tesla, with all the publicity they are getting, has sold 15,000 cars.
The price point of the cars puts it out of reach of most, the infrastructure is not in place to make it widespread, and the recent trend has been toward more affordable cars. These are the real reasons no one has tried to make a similar car. Once the cars become cheap to produce, charging stations are in place, and people are actually willing to buy it, then you will see every major manufacturer make them.
Please do not mistake my post as an attack against TESLA or electric cars in general. The last line in my post is: "Once the cars become cheap to produce, charging stations are in place, and people are actually willing to buy it, then you will see every major manufacturer make them."
I believe EVENTUALLY all majors will make TESLA clones. Im simply answering the question as to why NOW no one else is.
Gates owns about 450 million shares of Microsoft. On any given day that MSFT loses a bit more than a dollar, he beats that record.
A similar "record" for Buffet could probably be found, but I don't care to bother.
Considering the fact that Snowden wasn't a system admin, this is just a case of Alexander taking advantage of a good opportunity to fire a bunch of people.
Also in my 20's and the advice to buy a house is far and away the most frequent piece of advice I get. It doesn't really aggravate me because it's done with good intentions, but I have to exasperatedly marvel at the effectiveness of whatever propaganda machine made home ownership synonymous with financial health; owning a house is actually a pretty bad investment comparatively, once all costs are factored in. I actually have three articles bookmarked to deprogram people who come at me with that (if I can show them without coming across as an ass)
Even for pure utility, it's just me and my girlfriend, and moreover I would hear this stuff when I was single! I was always confused at what they imagine a single, kidless dude who is always trying to pare down would do with an extra 2000 square feet to maintain. No thanks.
Since your comment contains no analysis, I can only assume your point is to say that Apple's cash reserve isn't that impressive. That's ridiculously misleading.
Yes, GE has a lot of cash on hand. They also have a tremendous amount of debt. About $472B, to be more precise. They need the cash on hand for liquidity requirements for their financial arm.
Banks are subject to the liquidity requirements. The law states that they need to keep a minimum of 10% of consumer deposits in cash. The rest of the money is leveraged (essentially loaned out in the form of mortgages, business loans, credit cards, etc... to earn better interest). The cash reserves you mentioned are entirely illiquid because banks are required by law to have them and they still carry huge amounts of debt as well. See: Bank of America.
The point is, Apple has $76B in cash (and long-term investments) and ZERO debt. Like them or not, there's no other company with numbers similar to that. Compare the other companies to Apple's balance sheet.*
edited for clarity and added a couple links for reference.
These are public corporations, the CEO pay is already public information.... want to know what the officers at Goldman get paid?
It's easily available on Yahoo finance already
In the US, fisherman actually have a higher on the job death rate than police officers and firefighters do. Actually, all of the most dangerous jobs in the US are male dominated.
About Half the households in the U.S. actually pay $0
> In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
TL;DR: - Yes.
Banks don't really 'control' the mortgage rates in the way you think. Those rates are all determined by supply and demand of 10 year and 30 year treasury notes.
The value of these notes is determined by what people believe the U.S. Federal Funds interest rate will be over the next 10 and 30 years. So, as this instant, people believe that the interest rate over the next 10 years will be 2.7% on average. Currently, the rate is something like 0-.25%.
When QE eventually ends, the next step would be to raise federal interest rates. This will be done to counter act possible inflation. Since QE is not being tapered (which people though it might), we are actually further away from interest rates rising. Thus, the low rates are staying for longer and the average 10 year note is lower in value.
The 10 year and 30 year notes are important, because this is the return an investor/company can get for their money, without having to go through the trouble of lending it out as a mortgage. So mortgage rates will always be slightly higher, because it is a slightly more risky investment.
Here is a good article that shows the relationship.
Yeah, this post is rather blatant sensationalism. A quick Yahoo Finance search shows that this company experiences fluctuations of this level fairly regularly. They got a small bump right before election day which evened out in the two days following. But they're still as well off or better than they have been any time in recent memory.
> Wal-Mart could easily, easily afford to pay their workers more.
But they're not. The better question is: Why aren't competitors? Why aren't they willing to lure WM's employees away? And why doesn't Google pay their programmers $10/h if WM gets away with it?
Incidentally, Costco does pay twice as much. Why don't Wal-Mart workers go there? Could it perhaps be that they're simply not worth it?
They also just added The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Apparently Disney and Netflix recently struck up a deal and they're going to start making all of the Disney movies available to stream.
It's more dangerous to be a farmer or a truck driver than it is to be a cop. 
In 2011 police had 18.6 fatal injuries annually per 100,000 full-time workers. In 2010 the military as a whole was around 88.1. Hostile action was 27.1.
> Net income (loss) (GAAP) $ (30,502 )
> Net income (loss) (Non-GAAP) $ 26,284
Their "non-GAAP" net income is due to "Stock-based compensation expense" of $19 million and "Early extinguishment of DoE loans" $16 million.
They are spending $50 to $55 million on R&D a quarter, which is discretionary and means their negative GAAP net income is not so much of a big deal. Sales have gone down from $555 million to $400 million but gross profit was largely unaffected as cost of sales relative to sales decreased.
Tesla expects 20000 sales of the Model S this year and 30000 next year, the Model X has been postponed, an optimistic estimate for their GAAP net income 2013 might be $50 million, maybe 50% higher for 2014, if we try to depreciate their R&D expenses this might rise to $80-$100 million, if we ignore them we might get an estimate as high as $200 million.
Their market cap is $15.5 billion so even at the unrealistically high estimate of $200 million their p/e would be 77.5, 4 times higher if you believe my optimistic estimate.
Don't get me wrong, Tesla is a growing company and electric cars are the next big thing. Nothing is going to stop you drawing your own conclusions.
I'm just leaving this here.
6 months ago more to 90% would have called it a scam. The major media no longer ridicules it.... give it time. The meme is spreading. Look at this: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/boom-not-bubble-howard-lindzon-163710298.html major TV mentions bitcoin as matter of fact along with Tesla....
Yeah, you still on average leave college with $20k in student loan debt, which is not much better than America's average of $25k.
This also includes other larger countries, as the US. I am not stereotyping, I am going off of statistics that I read two years ago, and I am sure I can find some for 2012 as well. There are larger studies as well. I will dig them up as well.
Not sure if you noticed, but I also said per capita as well...
On a per capita basis, though, the numbers get a little more interesting. The U.S. falls to sixth in the world on this basis, while China and India fall out of the top ten entirely. Colombia, Brazil, Italy, Greece and South Korea (ranked from fifth to first respectively) lead the world in per-capita plastic surgery procedures.
Here's a five year graph showing how many yen you get per dollar.
Spoiler: It's not super-cheap to visit Japan these days.
I didn't know either, but I found it here:
>Another grouped entry, the oil exporters form another international bloc with money to burn. The group includes 15 countries as diverse as the regions they represent: Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria.
Hey, does anyone remember what the big news was about Israel openly attacking Syria yesterday?
CONFIRMED: Israel Launched Strikes On Syrian Missile Sites, Damascus
Israel 'furious' with White House for leak on Syria strike
U.S. Congress committee endorses $488 million aid to Israel
The Men Who Built America, The History of US, Hatfields and McCoys, and Mankind all were about history and were, shockingly, on the History Channel. As much as I don't like shows like Pawn Stars and Ice Road Truckers, I feel as if the History Channel has realized that if it produces some half-ass shows to keep its channel running in between shows like Mankind, it can make a lot of money. Especially since the shows like Mankind bring in a lot of viewers to the History Channel. I think that Hatfields and McCoys brought in around 40 million views for all of the episodes combined(Here is an article that says they got around 14 million viewers for each night). That kind of viewership must bring in a crap-ton of ad revenue.
I think you're confused, it's not that Occupy Everydamnplace is offended by millionaires, they're offended by the fact that the top 1% owns 40% of the nation's wealth, takes home 24% of national income, own's half of the nation's stocks, only has 5% of the nation's national debt, and is taking home a larger percentage of the nation's income than at any time other than the 1920s.
Net Income Margins (post-tax): ~20.5%
Operating Margin (pre-tax, pre-interest): ~31%
Still pretty high, but this post is pretty meaningless
The financiers put in $17m--they probably want to do more than break even :) I wonder how much liquid wealth the founders got out of the deal.
What's more, QPSA's market cap is just $150M. I don't know much about M&A but this deal looks strange. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=QPSA
You're long-form agreeing with /u/adam_dorr. Private prisons are behaving exactly as anyone would expect them to, as awful as that is. Corrections Corp of America (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=CXW) is a publicly traded company. Their job is to increase their stock price. If they build a prison that's not full, they're not optimizing profits. If they build a prison that's mostly empty, they'll lose millions. So of course they lobby to have more people imprisoned, it's the rational thing for them to do. There is just no way for a private prison to optimally serve its shareholders or owners without doing some other pretty awful stuff. This leaves us with two major options:
1) Implore private prison companies to develop a conscience and act against their best interests, perhaps even risking going out of business to do so
2) Work to use laws to eliminate private prisons and make this a 100% public program again, where the joint goals of serving the public and humanely managing prisons aren't at odds with each other
Given that #1 simply ain't going to happen, no matter how much people complain or shame companies, #2 must happen.
What really makes me sick is that this happens because it's a publicly traded company. The CoE is working for the shareholder's short term gain rather than the long term interest of the company and it's employees.
The CeO himself, Kieth Wandell has made more than 50million just on the stock appreciation of his publicly declared shares since 2008.
> we generally stop CPR at ~30 minutes
We may be revisiting that. Statistically, yes, after 30 minutes, chances are rather grim--and a "clean save" is probably not likely. That said, we probably stop after 30 minutes to avert giving the healthcare providers a heart attack ;-)
That noted, we covered a case study during my EMT relicensure class where someone in a small rural town went into a cardiac arrest. IIRC, it was going to take a long time for transport to arrive (over an hour?); knowing that, the medics immediately marshalled what sounded like the entire town to line up and perform CPR. The person apparently survived with virtually normal brain function.
Another case, this time involving the use of a mechanical compression delivery system; compression time: a whopping 2 hours and 45 minutes
EDIT: grammar correction
>Rothchilds own part of it ?
Take a look at the largest shareholders of Chase
Nobody owns a large percentage of Chase. None of the largest holders is Rothschild or Rockefeller.
> No, overall they're in hot water, you can google their financial troubles.
Yeah their stock has <em>only</em> nearly doubled since this time last year, must be rough
This story is one year old.
Not that the sentiments expressed do not still apply, but this is last year's news.
More recently Royal Bank of Scotland was nabbed and fined.
The players responsible for the money laundering had been fired years before December 2012. Nevertheless, they should be subject to criminal charges in my opinion.
So basically it would invalidate the Grassley amendment that said that although members of Congress and their staff were already provided insurance plans that met or exceeded the minimum coverage set in the ACA that they had to give up those plans and instead go on the exchanges that were designed for people whose employers did NOT provide insurance or plans that met the minimum requirements? Basically treating them differently than all other Americans.
Elon Musk agrees in principle. /u/evolutionaryflow posted this yesterday:
Although Musk cannot explicitly come out and state as much, he beats around the bush pretty aggressively and does a great deal of stuttering and stalling while he carefully picks his words.
EDIT: Thanks for the overly-generous gift of gold. This is not a deserving post. I thought I would pass it on to /u/evolutionaryflow as penance and I see that he's also been gilded. Thanks Daddy Warbucks.
Actually, as a publically traded company, we the people can already own facebook! For $67 you can get a little over 1.5 shares. In fact for the proposed $67B price you would be getting ripped off. Really you only need about 700 million shares to become the majority owner of facebook, which would set you back a scant $29 billion or so.
For those of you who came straight to the comments because you couldn't be bothered clicking through, there is a read all button.
If it makes you feel any better, their share price is absolutely tanking: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=ESI+Interactive#symbol=esi;range=2y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;
I fucking hate predatory for-profit schools.
This is the best answer to all of these dumb /r/investing posts.
JUST FYI. The CBOE volatility index aka the VIX gives an actual, probabilistic measurement of what people think will happen 30 days from now. It tracks the s and p. Same same.
Ok, take a look at the may 130's for the DIA etf here. On friday they traded at around .50. That means some people are willing buy a 7% correction in the market. Not that crazy.
EDIT 2: sorry i keep thinking about this. If the price of the option is 50 cents and thats a 13 point move, for it to be an expected value of 1 the probability that the market thinks DOW will go to 13000 is 1/26 which is about 3.8% chance.
There you have it. There is a 3.8% the dow will close at 13000 in may.
Here is the solution:
Google's market cap is over 180 billion dollars.
Sprint's market cap is 15 billion dollars.
Google buys Sprint, removes all caps, and gets every wireless customer overnight.
The aristocrats and ta-da!
That's because the self-made wo/man is by and large a myth.
>The report says 22 percent of the [Forbes 400] were born on first base: they came from a comfortable but not rich background and might have received some start-up capital from a family member.
The other 78%, the vast majority, were born with significantly more than that, and that's already a lot. A full 40% of those inherited a significant portion of the money from their family or spouse. Most of the people in the world do not have access to any start-up capital or even the familial support a person needs just to be healthy and get an education during their formative years.
Find the expense ratio - that number should be available for any mutual fund and if not don't invest in that fund. The expense ratio is how much of the funds assets are taken by the company that runs it for "expenses" each year, including the cost of trading stocks and their salaries etc. Expense ratios can vary all over the map - for an actively managed mutual fund, it could be 1-2% or even higher. For an "index fund" it should be much lower, like 0.1%. Bogle (from the article) founded Vanguard Funds, which is famous for offering low cost (ie low expense ratio) index funds.
Go to Yahoo finance and look up a mutual fund and the expense ratio should be listed in the fine print on the "summary page" in the section labeled "fund basics".
Has anyone else noticed that AMD hasn't actually announced an end to the FX line?
First of all, this slide is not confirmed by AMD, although the path is completely believable. Look at the source and you'll see it isn't official, they haven't announced anything.
Second, Where does it say the FX processors end? The chart just goes to 2015 with no mention of what they're going to do after that. AMD is up 50% since last this time last year. It makes sense for them to concentrate on the APU market, it's working for them and they're by far and away the best choice in that area.
> I wonder how much of this popularity translates into money for Canonical
Probably very little.
As far as Redhat goes it's a publically traded company and you can see for yourself how it's affecting it:
Seems like they keep making more money the next year.
I find this survey is very suspect. I don't see how they do their surveys and I expect that like most surveys it's very unscientific and thus it's useless for drawing conclusions from.
I can't find a description on how they perform their surveys so it isn't safe to assume the quality of their reporting.
One of the big reasons for this, of the top of my head, can be that most large websites are not going to really have their application services exposed to public. Instead they are often going to be behind netscalers, reverse cach'ng proxies, and other things to for the purposes of load distribution and high availability between a cluster of different machines.
Even for my personal servers I'll quite often do things like do a reverse proxy on Nignx to a internal website running on Apache.
Oprah made $165,000,000 last year according to Forbes. That's $452,054 per day. Or $313.92 per minute.
It's quite outstanding how anti-Chinese this thread is. Most comments are about Chinese currency manipulation - it seems the Americans here can't see their own and greater level (the CNY has been <em>appreciating</em> against the USD for several years) of currency manipulation.
Guys, these are your biggest creditors (except for your own Fed, of course...) - don't you think they have a right to be a bit worried about the value of their >$1 trillion reserves, given recent monetary policy in the US?
For those who may not be familiar with them, ETFs are investments that trade like stocks. ETFs are set up in such a way to track the value of an underlying asset such as a stock index (list of stocks), or a commodity (such as gold or silver). When the underlying asset rises in value, the ETF price goes up. When the underlying asset falls in value, the EFT price goes down. There are other forms of ETF (short funds) that do the inverse. The EFT manager ensures the investment goal can be met by buying and selling the underlying asset.
ETFs can be traded both through small investors in retirement accounts and by larger investors. If you want to hold bitcoin in your IRA, this would be a very convenient way to do it.
For an example of the kind of effect that the introduction of an EFT can have on an underlying asset, consider Gold ETFs. Since their introduction about ten years ago these funds have become major holders of physical gold. It's thought that they played a key role in both the rise and fall of gold prices.
Should it be approved, this EFT could exercise a lot of influence over Bitcoin. There are two reasons:
Correlation vs. Lying.
Look at the data.
Australia didn't dodge the recession.
Name it HUMBLE and employ handful of people = GOOD
Name it ORIGIN and employ 8000 people and dole out $756164 / day more than taking in = HOW DARE YOU!?
I enjoy my Asian frying pans and movie merchandise but I don't want all Indian entertainment.
Credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009 (which is approximately 47% of households). In addition, the bottom 40 percent of American households, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes.
Your downvotes are quite unwarranted.
This is the most recent article i could find from a legit source: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/eat-more-kale-company-losing-against-chick-fil-212157027.html
Sounds like he's going to lose because he filed for trademark protection in 2011, well after Chick-Fil-A had trademarked "Eat Mor Chikin"
God, I hate that argument that because men go to more dangerous jobs they make more money.
First off, the statistic is usually stated as for people working the same job, women will make .75 to dollar of men.
Secondly, lets look at dangerous jobs, shall we.
The ten most dangerous jobs along with the median salary
Wow, that is not a lot.
Some of these jobs that are very dangerous still do not pay a lot of money. What probably has more of an effect on the pay of these jobs is what the resource they provide is worth on the market and skill sets required for these jobs. Yeah, ceteris paribus, more risky jobs get a higher salary to compensate for the risk of the job. The thing is, it isn't a lot.
For shitbags who try to argue omitted variable bias, they sure do like to omit variables.
And most importantly, Monster High is netting Mattel a ridiculous amount of money
Choice quotes from the article:
Mattel said Wednesday its first-quarter net income more than quadrupled helped by strong sales of dolls like Monster High
The fashion doll category has been one of the toy industry's strongest, helped by new entrants such as Monster High — a doll line based on the offspring of famous monsters — which has grown to the No. 2 doll category in just three years of existence, according to Mattel. [number 1 is Barbie, which is also Mattel owned]
BMO Capital Markets analyst Gerrick Johnson noted that "hotter" toy brands, like Monster High drove results rather than basics like Barbie, Hot Wheels or Fisher-Price, which all had slightly lower sales.
"That doesn't bode well for Hasbro, which has few 'hot' products," he said.
You can't really blame Hasbro for wanting a piece of that action, and I trust that the writers can make something <strong>much</strong> better than the videos Monster High puts out
only 3-9 months!? Sadly, the US has them beat in sentencing banksters.
Well that's very true. People forget that Bill didn't have like twenty billion sitting in some foreign bank account.
He had a lot of shares of Microsoft! Even today, he's the largest shareholder in the company. He has 12 billion 900 million dollars worth of Microsoft stock (like 4% of their shares?)
Although it looks like they've been making little $150 million dollar despoits from the MSFT bank account lately haha.
The head prosecutor withheld evidence just so they could prosecute him.
As far as I'm concerned instead of actually making a case of any sort, they let mobrule happen that's exactly what shouldn't happen.
If Zimmerman's guilty, they should be able to prove it without a reasonable doubt.
If he's not guilty, then all this media circus is a waste of time and a distraction from more important problems, like spying on american citizens.
The head prosecutor basically just made a case just so she could get reelected.
Straight up politics and not justice to anyone.
Forbes 400 Richest
35% - Started poor. (95% of Americans are here)
22% - Decent starting point, some help from family
11.5% - Inherited a medium sized company or over $1 Million
7% - Inherited over a $50 Million
21% - Inherited enough to make the list to begin with.
Seems unlikely that 80-90% of wealthy are self made but it's possible I guess, definitely not true that the very rich are though, only 35% are actually self made.
People should look at that chart with the scale set to logarithmic, otherwise the early period looks like a smoother ride than it was and the later period looks even more volatile in comparison.
> The second easiest one to address, is your claim that this would be done by police force. I make no claim that fast food chains should be forced to pay higher wages by the government.
I assume what he meant was that any government law or regulation is essentially backed by police force when you get down to it. And if government isn't going to impose it how else is it supposed to happen? The good will of McDonald's franchise owners?
> Essentially, what I am saying is that businesses should begin to accept that there is a higher cost to labor and that mass-minimum wage is harmful to the employees and harmful to the business because employees are not motivated.
You say there is a higher cost that fast food businesses should "accept". Why? Things seem to be working from their perspective already. If the cost were actually higher, people wouldn't work there, and they obviously do work there.
> Finally, regarding the idea that reasonably higher wages = higher unemployment, I have seen no evidence to show this beyond your claim that "basic economics" shows as much. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable of the field of economics (econ / business major, now involved in policy), and that simply doesn't fly as an argument. Let's see some more effort!
I think you can't just wish away his point because you don't like it. Obviously this extra money to pay the employees has to come from somewhere. Do you think fast food franchises are running at a high profit margin? They are not Admittedly, McDonald's actually does have a pretty good profit going, so you might have a point with them, but the other big fast food chains are pretty tight. Look at Wendy's with 0.3% profit margin! Any sort of mandated raise for their employees would probably kill them, and they'd have to fire a lot of employees.
Because Mattel is making more money selling Monster High dolls than Hasbro can selling ponies, and Hasbro wants some of that sweet humanoid-but-with-weird-skin-tones doll money.
Blackfish was released in July 2013 and SeaWorld stock was trading around $39 at the time. Since the release, SeaWorld's stock is now valued at around $29 dollars (25% decrease over 3 months).
I would like to think this Doc had something to do with that!
The fact that you think the salary of another person in the company has any relevance to a person in a completely different position is hilarious.
Steve Ballmer voluntarily took a huge cut to his potential bonuses, limiting himself to just 200% of his base salary, which is less than 1 million. Like most people in executive positions, the vast majority of their money comes from not salary, but performance bonuses and options. Because he voluntarily limited his own salary, his paygrade is far, far, FAR below what other execs at his level make.
"Steven Sinofsky, president of Windows, was the other executive who did not receive all of his target bonus. Sinofsky's bonus was $7.65 million, which was 90 percent of the target. His performance review also included mention of the oversight in Europe and the decline in Windows division revenue."
Here is and article saying what Mattrick was making nearly 10 years ago:
"$21.9 million in 2005, including salary, $13.7 million in 2004 and $23.7 million in 2003"
you think he decided to leave EA to take a huge paycut?
Yet I'm the one that's ignorant? Get a grip on reality, you senseless moron.
Alright, I'm curious now. Let's calculate their margins.
And just to refresh anyone's memory who doesn't remember their basic finance class, Profit Margin = Net Income/Revenue. So we get:
Wow, that actually came out to be perfect 1.3% growth each year for the past three years that I have data for. I'm not seeing these flattening margins. This is really steady growth.
Were you talking about their Operating margins perhaps? I'm not going to calculate those right now but from the little chart on the link you provided (I probably should have looked at this first before doing all the calculations) we can see that their operating margins flattened out at about 26% or so. But a steady operating margin at 26% is frankly phenomenal. Let's compare it to LULU's competitors:
You can see here that LULU's operating margins are much higher than their competitors who are hovering between 8%-13%. I think I really ought to do some more research on this company, their growth prospects, really gotta take a close look at their financials sometime soon.
PS: This has been a fun discussion, I gotta remember to swing by this subreddit more often.
While this is mostly true, what you should actually be doing is looking at the return on investment for a particular school's graduates. Despite the large amount of debt one might rack up at say, MIT (or whatever), studies have shown it has one of the highest returns. Sometimes cheap education isn't worth it.
EDIT: this also applies to majors - if you have an in demand major, it doesn't matter. But if you're studying something less "desirable" in the eyes of the job market, I would argue its best to invest in your program.