RedditFavorites
What is Reddit's opinion of
Yahoo! Finance?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
100 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
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.
$65 x 12 months = $780 annually
Comcast pays a $.65 dividend per share per year. [link]
$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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
Also the Toyota Camry is the <em>most</em> American of all cars - at least according to cars.com.
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".
just... wow.
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.
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
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AMR
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
for 2012.
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.
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. [link]
>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.
If it makes you feel any better, their share price is absolutely tanking: [link];
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.
EDIT:
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!
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".
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Plus, capital gains come from corporate profits, which have already been taxed (in theory at least).
>-which means that a lot of small business owners who file as S-corps are lumped in here if they're making good money (as are a lot of doctors who are, if in practice by themselves in the same sort of boat).
I just saw some stats on this the other day. Doctors are 16% of the 1%, lawyers are 8%. Finance sector types are only 14%.
Excessive by whose standards? Congress?
And why just oil? Why not all the other companies who actually have a larger profit margin? Exxon-Mobile has a profit margin of 8.89%.. Google has a profit margin of 28.43%. Microsoft has a profit margin of an astounding 30.84%.
Why do we constantly single out oil companies? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Let's just place a windfall tax on all excessive profits (as determined by Congress of course) for ALL companies and see what that does.
It's true. Percentages express fractions of total revenue:
Phizer: 13% on R&D vs 28% on sales & admin
Abbott: 10% on R&D vs 30% on sales & admin
Johnson&Johnson: 13% on R&D vs 32% on sales & andmin
You are 25 now, I guess you plan on retiring at 65ish. That is 40 years or about 2055. For now, put your money in VFFVX that is Vanguards 2055 Target retirement fund.
Once you learn more and got more money in feel free to buy different funds. You would probably want to be in the admiral fund one day.
Don't be afraid to pick a mutual fund and forget it. The beauty of mutual funds is they are manged by smart experts so you dont have to spend time managing your money.
No you didn't.
Anyone that owns Nokia stock knows that in the last six months their stock has been climbing and if you think that this sudden change of policy (hint, it's not a sudden change of policy) means that their stock is going to tank then you're an idiot. Nokia has time and time again said they're sticking with Windows Phone and for now there is no reason to predict a change in that plan.
If you're going to lie at least make it a good one.
>If they worked for their fortune honestly, then why shouldn't they be entitled to their wealth?
That's the thing; from what I understand, most of the richest people in the world were born into already super-rich families. They're born into multimillionaire families, sent to schools that could cost in a year more than most families could make, let alone afford, and given an elite education and the best of opportunities. And I have no problem with that; I would do the same for my children.
What I have a problem with are the rich people who earn most of their money by letting their parents money sit in a bank and earn interest, then turn around and talk about how the rough economic times are hurting them. I have a problem with people who use their family connections to get a job they probably didn't deserve, then talk about how they earned the job fair and square. I have a problem with people like the world's richest woman Gina Rinehart, who inherited the largest coal mine in Australia, telling people "If you want to get rich, spend less time drinking and more time working" when all she did to earn her wealth was be born.
Basically I have no problem with wealth, or even pride in your hard work. My only problem is a lack of humility or gratitude, and people who need a reality check.
I have a suggestion too.
Obama is actively trying to to pass legislation that bans the type of risky speculative proprietary trading on Wallstreet that cause financial collapse of 2008. Additionally, Obama is trying to get the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau up and running, who's sole purpose is to hold Wallstreet accountable and protect consumers but republicans are blocking a vote to allow it to operate.
If we showed this legislation some support, instead of yelling sensationalist headlines like "Obama lines the pockets of the rich!" maybe we could actually get some wallstreet accountability going
>Everyone?
Certainly not everyone, but it's easy to see that line trending upwards (we know it has since ~2003 ), and as it does the value of the degree goes down.
>And yes - it pays:
So looking at the graph, it seems pretty cut and dry - more education, more weekly median income. So obviously it pays off? But there are other factors.
No five-figure debt upon graduation that delays a college graduate the ability to invest (in something like house, stocks, or a small business). The graduate has to pay down that debt. All in all, missing out on all the time in college and several years afterward to make investments that accrue over time.
Non-college graduate has four -five years head start of income earning on a non-college graduate and they are gaining experience in their field of choice - something a college graduate starts out with at zero.
Obviously there are some fields where an advanced degree is necessary. But even then, if monetary gain is the only incentive, a degree might not pay off all that well: Link
From the article: >"(Kotlikoff) has found that more often than not, people can have a better lifetime standard of living by choosing NOT to get an advanced degree. And, he says that people can be better off financially by not obtaining an undergraduate degree at all."
This is just very clear cut though. Throw CXW or GEO into a stock ticker and compare their stock price with the # of incarcerated Americans, OpenSecrets shows how much they are spending in Congress, it's all there.
The fact that the media doesn't raise this issue at all is the troubling part.
Hmm, a quick Google search reveals that General Electric owns 3,358,278 shares of Corrections Corp of America, an investment valued at just over $84,158,446. Since General Electric owns NBC/CNBC/MSNBC, tha explains why they don't want to jeopardize an industry that they hold a stake in. But there's still other outlets out there. ಠ_ಠ
If you owned BOA stock in your 401k you would be happy they did this.
It's not only corporations and their employees who benefit, every person with any money in the stock market can benefit from this.
If you assume that:
A) Facebook will never die out, and will maintain a positive or stable acquisition rate
B) The global birth rate will exceed the global death rate
It turns out that facebook will never have more dead people than living people.
But that’s no fun. What if everyone just stopped using facebook right now?
Facebook currently has slightly over 1 billion active users. The current world population is 6,973,738,433, according to the world bank, as told by a widget on the top of a google search.
So, next up is deaths. According to the CIA factbook, the crude mortality rate is 8.37 per 1000 a year, and relatively stable year per year.
So, now we have numbers.
We currently have 1.01 billion active users. Facebook took off in 2004, so we can estimate the amount of dead users. 1.01 * 8.37 / 1000 * 9 * a billion. So, in other words, about 76 million people have already died after making their facebook page. Every year, another 8,453,700 would die. We’ll double that, because each person who dies also eliminates one who is living (we’re just looking for 'more dead than living, remember)?
1.01e9 − 152,166,600 = 857,833,400. 857,833,400 / 8,453,700 * 2 = 50.7371565113501.
So, if facebook shut down tomorrow due to spiders in the server room and a server staff made of redditors, It would take 50 years, 8 months, 25 days, 9 hours, 1 minute and 56 seconds for the number of dead people on facebook to surpass the number of living people.
Twitter is full of zombies, so it already meets your criteria.
I don't have any kids but when my wife's boss asked me if we were going to have kids soon (It's a small company), I said that I didn't think we could afford kids. He laughed because he has 3 kids and is from Panama where they were all very poor. He said "Bbdesigncof, in Panama I had all 3 of my kids and no money at all. All an extra kid means is an extra scoop of rice in the rice bowl."
He made me think about all the useless fucking consumer items that we are forced to believe we NEED in order to have a child. $1000 dollar strollers, high end diapers, baby food that is easily made by hand, formula...
The bulk of the cost comes from putting a child through college if you don't enroll them in private school.
I also found a good article that might help young families that are struggling link
Edit: I forgot a word
Something something something Ron Paul
January unemployment, just released today
The Fed's authority right now (and the reason why Ron Paul has gone from extremist to making a lot of sense) should be to control interest rates and maintain a stable and steady money supply growth. QE1/QE2, and the various LTRO operations by the ECB and all shady practices therein have demonstrated that Central Bank power is much more than just setting interest rates, and this is pretty dangerous.
So it's not so much "End the Fed" circlejerking as it is "The Fed has over-reached it's mandate and should go back to setting interest rates like it's supposed to".
And the comment on Ben "Ctrl+P" Bernanke was about 50% snarky.
Having been a non-religious follower of Paul "Nobel Prize" Krugman, professional blogger (lol, at least I'm not a religious follower amirite) I can say the best way to save the economy is to trick it into getting better.
> I don't understand why people are so okay with letting a whole bunch of people into the country illegally who take away jobs from Americans and waste tax payer money by using resources like emergency rooms and public schools.
Common misconception, illegal immigrants do pay taxes. They don't have an illegal immigrant card they show at the store that gets them out of sales tax. They don't have an illegal immigrant card they show the landlord that means their property doesn't get charged property tax.
(highlights from the article) Illegal immigrants pay about 15 billion into Social Security (via forged documents/whatever) and collect about 1 billion. Money that illegals contributed to SS make up about 8% of the reserve...
Not vocalizing an opinion here, just jumping in with that. The money thing isn't so cut and dry.
I don't think liberals are against having secure borders.
I enjoy your analogy and I agree completely, but there is a misconception. Walmart cannot afford to take 5, 4, 3, or 2 billion dollars off their bottom line. Salaries must be paid in cash and last year Walmart only made 1.2B in cash source.
NI is a goofy line item and in finance it's highly disregarded as there are a lot of hidden, non-cash items that go into it's calculation. When it comes down to things like this (paying people, distributing profits, executive compensation, etc) you always need to be thinking of cash not profits.
Cash. Cash. And more cash.
FWIW, here's one Yahoo news story which has a relevant quote:
> "Kim is being punished for her beliefs and for her comments to the press while she was in Canada," said James M. Branum, the attorney who represented Rivera during the court-martial proceedings. "Because she spoke out against the Iraq War, Kim's sentence is harsher than the punishment given to 94 percent of deserters who are not punished but administratively discharged. In the closing arguments, the prosecutor argued that the judge needed to give PFC Rivera a harsh sentence to send a message to the other war resisters in Canada and their supporters."
I'd also like to draw attention to this coverage of the story that reports one of her children was born without enamel on his or her teeth.
And yet pzza ( the stock ) is doing just fine.
Really .. 20 points over its year low ... and at an all time high. And constantly rising ...
So whats actually worse ??
You know you can do that just about anywhere, don't you? Caregivers are in high demand. see here You do have a very marketable skill. Figure out where you would like to move next and then make a plan to get there. You might want to start with first large metropolitan area near you since it would be the most feasible to get to.
Actually, if you take into account the progressive tax rates and the student loans required to become a doctor (I owe about $200,000 at 6.8% interest for example) many doctors actually make less money than plumbers. [link]
People basically forget that for many years while the doctor is in school racking up debt (i.e. making negative 50 grand a year) the plumber is making positive amounts of money. And the plumber pays a much lower tax rate since he doesn't make a lot of money in the same year, whereas the doctor ends up paying a very high tax rate when he finally does make money.
Doctors work for their money and they work damned hard and they pay horribly high taxes compared to the actual wealthy class where people like Mitt Romney pay 13.9% taxes. Worst of all their after tax income goes to paying off huge student loan tabs.
Anyways all this can basically be addressed by a more progressive or simply higher capital gains tax rate that's more in line with marginal tax rates on ordinary income. Right now it's nearly impossible to break from the upper class into the moneyed elite class since the marginal tax rates on regular income are super high while tax rates on capital gains are super low.
Are you suggesting that a CEO is not vital to a corporation's mechanics? This rock analogy is a terrible misuse of an analogy (as most are). The rock does not affect your health in any way whereas it can be argued very easily that the performance of a CEO affects the health of the company in many ways.
While I agree that measuring a CEO's performance is very subjective to the person doing the measuring and their existing bias, but that does not mean said CEO's performance is a fabrication in its entirety.
The bottom line is that the market for medical products is experiencing an increase in demand like magnumix said. The only way to evaluate the CEO's performance is holistically along with the company's because a CEO doesn't produce statistics that he can claim to be he is own. Does that mean he has no added value to the company? No. I suggest we evaluate the CEO's performance relative to the competitor's like real analysts.
I'd venture to say that he is doing a relatively "good" job. Does he deserve all of the money he made? Well, according to his contract, yes. Bit_inquisition stated that he was taking a risk by accepting this contract since he wind up making peanuts for a CEO's pay-grade. Is his pay excessive? Yes, we can all see he doesn't make what an average CEO does, or anywhere near it. But did he earn it? Absolutely. And people deserve what they are given if they truly earned it.
Rand despised conservatives and the intellectual conservatives of her time, like Buckley, despised her.
Greenspan is considered a sellout by every Objectivist I have ever known.
In a free economy, everything that is legal is allowed. I'm just saying they are proving to be greedy.
Let's meet again here on Wednesday: Activision Blizzard, Inc. will unveil its latest earnings on Wednesday, August 3, 2011. will talk about larger staff and maintaining servers.
Amusing, cue Michael Jackson popcorn .gif because we get a nice internet argument here.
Your points are valid, BP's stock is down roughly 25% of what it was pre-spill, but it was bull market at the time. About 2 months prior to oil spill, in April, it spent a few months right where it is now. I'd call it a recovery, when compared to long-run average and not just a recent peak. That data, is valid.
Now, wait! Let's move onto your point 2: the major indices are up ~15%? Really? Someone, please, look up the price of OIL on Yahoo! Finance, which is the industry index for major oil companies. Almost looks like it is down to roughly only 30% (rough estimate from reading chart) what it was when the oil spill happened.
And here's the kicker: SOURCE: [link]
Show me your source and I'll concede.
Don't tell me not to talk out of my ass, when my ass knows what it's saying.
> Commissions and fees do eat up a lot of the money you're putting into the policy on the front end, but that also comes without the standard 1% management fees that end up costing more over the long run
If you're paying 1%, you're investing in the wrong mutual funds. Here is a good one charging only 0.17%:
> The returns on whole life policies might be historically lower than bonds and equity but the insurance company is the one assuming all of the risk.
This isn't totally correct. Insurance companies can go bankrupt. Hartford and Genworth barely escaped 2008, and they've issued a lot of whole life policies.
THQ has been dissolved as a company, so there will likely never be a bundle of those particular games again -- their various franchises were bought by different publishers in an auction back in January (except Red Faction and Darksiders and some smaller stuff).
After the original Humble THQ Bundle we had a repeat "mini" THQ bundle on Humble Bundle Weekly with only games from the unsold franchises. After which the remainder of the THQ estate was auctioned off. This second and final auction actually was just a week ago.
So other than finding someone who still has an extra copy of that I think you're stuck getting the old THQ games individually from their new publishers now, or from Steam game trading.
Edit: Here are the details of the auction last week, for anyone curious:
- Nordic Games: Darksiders franchise, Red Faction franchise, and a bunch of other stuff
- Gearbox Software: Homeworld franchise
- 505 Games: Drawn to Life franchise
The Japanese equity market tends to move inline with the value of the yen, as Japanese corporate profits are highly export driven. In terms of explaining why the currency has been cheapening, it's because of the much more aggressive inflation targeting that was announced recently.
Yeah, because McConnell totally didn't philibuster his own bill like 2 weeks ago. And could you source Obama rescinding his offer? I can't seem to find an article on it.
EDIT:
It sounds like Obama is trying very hard to compromise.
Well, I think it's pretty easy to see the result of a declining quality of the workforce
You seriously linked to the hollywood gossip? Come on. Here is a much better article about the issue.
He even offers at the end a different way of possibly paying for Obamacare, which makes much more sense in my opinion.
Ehh I don't know what level of taxes would satiate your thirst but if you're curious.
It's all public info, they paid 7944/24398 = ~32.56% tax rates this last year.
From my understanding, JP Morgan has about $183 billion in total equity / $120 billion in net tangible assets also [2]. They've lost about $3 billion on these bad trades so far and by some estimates may lose up to $8 billion.
So to clarify, this loss was a bad investment, but is not putting them in serious risk of going under and having to have the FDIC come in and bail out depositers. Correct?
However, more regulation makes sense if sophisticated smart investors who are (partially) using government-guaranteed money can lose a ~3% of their tangible assets overnight in the absence of an unexpected financial crisis through derivative trading (that even if they called hedging more likely than not was purely speculative).
From the article "Wow. This is amazing, and although the article doesn't confirm it, the data must reflect market manipulation or Bernie wouldn't have leaked it" No one here has a problem with this?! Also just link to the actual article
> A buzzy article from The New York Post speculates that the holder of the account may be billionaire mogul David Tepper (Forbes lists him as the 208th richest person in the world). When contacted by The New York Post, Tepper denied ownership of the receipt and pointed out that he "would never do something as irresponsible as leaving $100 million in a savings account."
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/113059/100-million-atm-receipt
Wow, did the OP even read the article? They hired him during a dive and he turned a $29 billion loss into a $13 billion profit in two years. This article is praising the amazing job he did.
In fact, if you look at the Citigroup data, you'll see that their stock volume has increased twenty times over since he took charge. Source Citigroup did a series of splits, they didn't crash.
That is a tremendous amount of growth, a net value increase of almost two times since 2007.
I appreciate your passion, but I suggest that you temper it a bit until you have a more factual understanding of these matters.
> 3000 dollars to someone makeing 30000 a year is a hell lot more valuable (and essential) to that person than 30000 dollars is to someone making 3 million a year
First off, the vast majority of households making $30,000 a year don't pay a dime of income taxes. In fact, more than <em>half</em> of US households don't pay any income tax.
> but yet I think you would be hard pressed to find someone making 3 million who actually pays that much because of the lower rate (proportionally to income), the loopholes, and the fact that they might have made their money in some non-taxable way or a way where it is taxed at a much much lower rate through inheritance or certain investments or other forms of money laundering.
$30,000 / $3,000,000 = 0.01, or 1%. I assure you that every single individual who has an income of $3,000,000+ per year is certainly paying more than 1% in income taxes. For example:
> The CBO calculates that the top 1 percent paid 27.6 percent of all federal taxes, including 38.8 percent of federal individual income taxes.
I'm not claiming that the rich are unfairly burdened, but it's poppycock to presume that the lower income brackets are burdened by income tax (for the most part, they pay none) and that the rich pay less than 1% in income taxes (they don't).
Yeah, one more thing to point out: Apple has $27B cash in the bank.
That's just money they're sitting on, ready to go. They could buy this company 4 times over.
I had a teacher straight up tell us that we "Sucked at this topic". Some background on her, she was teaching a physics class for non-physics majors. She had a doctorate in physics with a specialization on "how to teach physics", I forgot the actual title. It was her first year teaching and she was trying a teaching method that was discarded in the 1980's. The method was to hand out worksheets and have the students work on the worksheets and never turn them in. She wouldn't give answers in class and would only answer questions with "What do you think it is?" thinking we would figure it out ourselves. Despite not turning worksheets in the attendance was mandatory. Homework was assigned weekly and we were expected to spend 8 hours on the HW, it was a 100 level class. It was so bad that during the 4th week of classes a petition went around the room to complain to the physics department that she should be fired. Hands down the worst teacher I have ever had.
edit: My school just made the list for worst teachers in the US. I guess it's not just me. [link]
Agreed. Old pension programs are a drain, look at the U.S Postal Service. It also doesn't help that the state dumped the whole Dig Dig debt in with the MBTA. [link]
I'm not seeing a date on it, so I don't know if this is current and in euros or if it's old and in francs.
2 bateau caviar is two containers of caviar. 6 beluga 125G is six orders of beluga caviar. 1 mathu Dom Perignon is a honkin' huge bottle -- a Methuselah, which is 6 liters. The Jero is a jeroboam, which is merely 3 liters. The Langoustes are lobsters. Loup is a European sea bass.
This is the Nikki Beach in St. Tropez, so high prices are expected. I've been to the Nikki Beach on St. Barts, but I've never spent anywhere near that in francs or euros.
The photo of the receipt is from here, so I'll assume the prices are in euros; that page links to a blog on tumblr, which I didn't bother paging through to find the photo.
That's bullshit
It made little to no impact and volume didn't spike outside it's usual range.
Indicating it's just natural churn.
And yet the $100M works out to like only $3 per subscriber. This model really does seem to work.
(They have approx 30M streaming customers globally, according to [link] )
Everyone should pay their fair share, but that's just it, it needs to be fair. The economic and political systems are becoming more and more disconnected with the realistic situations of most Americans. The fact that the top 1% owns like what... 1/3 third of the US's wealth reflects this. I am not totally against tax hikes, but it better be fairly distributed.
Edit: the top 1% own about 40% of the wealth [link]
They're a public company, you can just check the fucking statement:
What does it say? IT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT THE GUY ABOVE YOU SAID.
Look, if I wanted to know how much FIT affects the company, I'd go to the annual statement. Looks like they had no FIT in 2010 year but had large FIT in FY2011. Shit's audited, yo.
> While I appreciate their vision, I have a little trouble cheering for a company that lately has been trying very hard to avoid paying taxes.
According to their most recent annual filing, they paid a 23% income tax rate, which is higher than many other companies in the US.
Did you mean to say collecting sales tax? There's a really big difference between avoiding paying taxes and avoiding collecting taxes from other people.
This is a 5 year graph of News Corp's stock price. The current decline is just a blip. Also, News Corp has always traded at a discount to its rivals because of Murdoch's management style. Again, this is nothing new.
Moreover, do people really think a multinational corporation is going to be shut down over the actions of some tabloid reporters in England?
Some top Youtubers, like Shane Dawson and Philip DeFranco, are making 6 figures.
This is hilarious! Why are you posting this old article, on today of all days? Raj Rajaratnam, the man the article is about, was convicted today, thanks in large part to the wire taps that were allowed into evidence.
"Insider trading" in this context means trades made by the officers ("insiders") of the company, e.g. Bill Gates decides to buy/sell a bunch of MSFT. Such trades must follow pretty strict rules and get reported to the SEC, which then releases the data to the public:
Although these trades are not supposed to be based on any non-public info, it does give some information. For example, if the CEO is selling a bunch of shares, he's probably not in possesion of any non public information that would be good for the shares, and vice-versa.
Don't feel too comfortable.
About 10% of that money goes to working harder and making the product better.
20% goes to shareholders. 30% goes to sales and administration. The rest is passed down the line.
Source: here's the income statement for Phizer. Most companies have similar ratios.