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.
> 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.
$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.
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
Lets do some math:
- The CEO of McDonald's is paid about $10 million a year.
- McDonald's has about 440,000 employees.
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.
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:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hostess-maneuver-deprived-pension-051400720.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/richest-400-people-america-got-201519751.html
"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.
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...
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.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/tesla-gets-cocky-171015449.html
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.
*EDIT**
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.
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?
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.
L;R:
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.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=%5ETNX
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. http://useconomy.about.com/od/economicindicators/f/Relationship_Between_Treasury_Notes_and_Mortgage_Rates.htm
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.
> 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.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=TSLA+Key+Statistics
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.
Yeah, you still on average leave college with $20k in student loan debt, which is not much better than America's average of $25k.
http://www.asianplasticsurgeryguide.com/news10-2/081003_south-korea-highest.html
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.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/plastic-surgery-worldwide-countries-nip-212414558.html
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.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MCD+Income+Statement&annual
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
>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.
Elon Musk agrees in principle. /u/evolutionaryflow posted this yesterday:
http://finance.yahoo.com/video/elon-musk-teslas-stock-price-200000954.html
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.
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!
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".
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.
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.
25k
35k
188k
35k
34k
44k
23k
60k
38k
54k
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.
Not really,
The head prosecutor withheld evidence just so they could prosecute him.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey-criminally-120000903.html
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.
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.
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.
Net Income:
2010-2011: 121,847
2011-2012: 184,063
2012-2013: 270,556
Revenue:
2010-2011: 711,704
2011-2012: 1,000,839
2012-2013: 1,370,358
And just to refresh anyone's memory who doesn't remember their basic finance class, Profit Margin = Net Income/Revenue. So we get:
Profit Margin:
2010-2011: 17.1%
2011-2012: 18.4%
2012-2013: 19.7%
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:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=LULU+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.
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.
From Yahoo Finance:
> More supply usually means lower prices so why, you may ask, have prices been rising when crude oil production in this country grew by more than one million barrels a day last year, the largest increase in the world and in U.S. history?
> Morse says the recent gush of oil coming through the U.S. system by virtue of new pipelines has brought oil prices to “world equilibrium.” Prior to that, U.S. oil had been losing value as it sat trapped in the middle of the country.
This is funny, because hardly anyone here seems to know anything about the stock market yet everyone thinks they know why this is happening. Also, Nintendo is actually down over 30% in the last two years...
The fact is, that there are a TON of stocks right now that are seeing rebounds. Nintendo has actually been performing relatively poorly when compared to other indicators (at least until this bump).
The chart below compares Nintendo's stock to the NASDAQ, SP500, and Activision. The volatility in Nintendo's stock is frightening... Would not go near that stock.
Edit: If you also check the 5 yr range you see how terrible Nintendo's performance has been on the market. A crucial tip for any inspiring investors: Do not invest in a company just because you like it or their products
Still couldn't come up with a single thing he did that was objectively good eh?
Just so you know, the housing bubble is reinflating as we speak... That's what the aim of QE1-QE3 is (there's not even anyone pretending it's for anything else). Hardly paradigm shifting, hardly support for Obama over Bush... they're basically the same person... mREIT and REITs are still big market players buying up mortgages with short term bonds, etc.
Even middle of the road media sources are calling it "the new housing bubble" as we speak, particularly with the 90 billion/mth asset buy program: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-housing-bubble-where-home-135814874.html
Ohmigosh! From this post you are the sweetest man alive. The ring is beautiful and HOLY SHIT WHOA $22,700?! Heads up, the average engagement ring in 2012 cost ~$5,000 so I think your fiancee ~~is going to~~ BETTER love yours.
edit: HOLY FUCKING SHIT, just finished reading your last three paragraphs. you saved for 18 months, you gave up your comic book collection, basic utilities (a cellphone is a necessity in this day and age), skipped lunch, didn't buy new clothes?! And your girlfriend noticed all this and was OKAY with all this?! I'm... speechless. I guess, um, I hope you two live very happily together, and that she understands what you went through to get this ring and properly appreciates you for it.
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
Those stores are considered "galleries" where you can see and learn about the car. They do not actually sell you the car though.
Auto dealer groups are lobbying state lawmakers to ban direct sales, if they don't ban it already.
Notably, Telsa recently lobbied the state of Texas for legislation allowing automakers to sell directly to customers without success.
Edit: Updated first link to non-paywall version.
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 really doubt that the majority of Reddit is 12-21 year old men. In fact, according to this the largest grouping, 15% of Redditors, are men between the ages of 18 and 29.
The next largest demographic is men between 30 and 49.
Edit: From Reddit's Wikipedia page - "According to Google Ad Planner's estimate, as of May 2013, the median Reddit user is male (59%), 25–34 years of age, and is connecting from the United States (68%).[60]"
A dude on here called /u/dont_stop_me_smee friend bought a former drug house in New Zealand. The house had a large safe in it The guy asked Reddit for advice on how to open it. He used some tips given by Reddit to open it to no avail.
He said he would get it open, and even stream himself trying to open it on. He has allegedly been trying to open it by hand for some time now. But it's been months and it still hasn't been open. When a few hundred dollars and a few hours of a locksmiths time could have had it opened months ago. It also being his friends house complicates matters as well.
Reddit is angry because they want to know what was in it, and feel that OP isn't really trying to open the safe. It also became such a big deal that some news agency's picked up the story like Yahoo
> 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.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=PZZA
Really .. 20 points over its year low ... and at an all time high. And constantly rising ...
So whats actually worse ??