Positive/Negative rating of:\n\n-Safety\n-Growth Rate\n-Inflation Protection\n-Liquidity\n-Tax Avoidance
138102
Safety - safe, FDIC insured up to $10K. Unless someone bombs your bank, the money is safe.\n\nGrowth rate - this SUCKS for savingts accts. They give less tthan 1% return. If youre interested in savings accts, use Orange (ingdirect.com) who is offering 3.95% currently - way better, but still not as good as a CD. \n\nInflation Protection - none. Inflation grows faster than the measly 1% return youre getting...\n\nLiquidity - excellent! You can get at it whenever you need to witth an ATM card! \n\nTax avoidance - none. Get sent a 1099 at the end of the year. However, in order to get dinged on your taxes, you need to make more than $600...at 1% interest, that means that you have $600,000 in a savings acct...doubtful at this point.\n\nWhat really irks me is that they take your money and lend it to people, charging 15 - 19%, pocket 14-18% and give you 1%. BS!!!
32875
My company did this last year.  We asked each department to identify the top risks to our business from their perspective.  We also asked them to get out of the box and look at everything from market changes to having a key employee leave.   \n\nOnce we had a list of risks, we used a scale of 1-10 for three areas:  1) Chance of this happening, 2) Cost to Cure  3) Revenue Risk.  This wasn't a perfect science, but it gave us something to work with and a common language.  \n\nWe found there was a list of about 100 and we tackled them based upon budget and bandwidth of the key employees.  \n\nI am certain there are MBA's out there who will have better answers.  Good luck.
119229
Nice review on this site\n\nhttp://explodingstocks.com/blog/?p=68
92000
As far as I know if one of your credit rating is good, then it wont matter if the other's is bad - I think its like some loans.  Co-signer w/ good credit = :D
320477
Hi Dave,\n\nI saved an article a while back that addressed this same question. Basically it has to do with the required reserves that banks must have because they take your deposits (and due to the nature of the business).  The article is below but is missing the related tables that it references.  Email me at bimmayute1@yahoo.com and I'll send you the article (word doc).\n\nNicholas\nnsmconsulting.net\n\n\n\nBy Vitaliy Katsenelson, CFA\n02/10/2006 \nInvesting in the stock market is a never-ending learning experience. That's what makes it so appealing and intellectually stimulating. And I inadvertently had one of those live-and-learn experiences just the other day. \nIn my piece on Lloyds TSB(NYSE: LYG), I wrote that banks usually trade at lower price-to-earnings ratios to the market because they are considered riskier investments as a result of their high use of debt. That line caught the eye of Foolish financial editor Joey Khattab, who asked writers Stephen Simpson and Nate Parmelee whether they agreed with my logic. Both disagreed. They argued that larger banks have lower P/Es generally because they are perceived to have a slower or more limited growth potential. \nAt first, I thought there might be a conspiracy of Fools at work against me! So I asked several investment professionals for their opinion. And to my amazement, they all agreed with the Fools. \nSo I looked at some larger banks to see whether they had been slow growers in the past, and I couldn't reach that conclusion. Many of these banks, in fact, had achieved very respectable earnings growth and paid above-average dividends in the process. I then looked at expectations for future earnings growth, and they appeared not to be below average, either. With the exception of Fifth Third(Nasdaq: FITB), which Wall Street once loved to love and now loves to hate, the rest of the pack was trading at a substantial discount to the market and still are. \nInstitution 10-Year Avg. EPS Growth Rate Median 10-Year P/E Current Dividend Proj. EPS Growth \nCitigroup18.6% 15.3 3.8% 10% \nU.S.Bancorp(NYSE: USB)\n17.5% 14.3 4.5% 10% \nFifth Third15.8% 22.7 4.1% 10% \nWells Fargo(NYSE: WFC)\n12.8% 15.6 3.4% 11% \nBank of America(NYSE: BAC)\n9.3% 13.4 4.5% 9% \nAmsouth8.7% 12.8 3.7% 8% \nRegions Financial(NYSE: RF)\n4.6% 13.7 4.0% 8% \nWachovia(1.6%) 13.6 3.9% 10% \nJPMorgan Chase(NYSE: JPM)\n(2.7%) 15.0 3.6% 10% \n\nThe answer must be more complex than just the growth rates. I believe the answer to banks' lower P/Es lies in the following four factors. \n1. Cyclicality \nThe banking business is closely tied to the health of the economy. As the economy expands, demand for loans increases and bad debt declines -- a combination that improves banks' profitability. In a contracting economy, of course, the reverse takes place. \nBecause investors pay up for predictability, they rarely pay a full market multiple for the volatility that comes with cyclical companies. Cyclical heavy-industrial companies like Caterpillar and Ingersoll Rand, for example, usually trade below the market P/E just as a many banks do. \n2. Financial leverage \nWe have not had a bank crisis in the U.S. for a while, so most investors have forgotten just how risky banks can be. But as Warren Buffett has said, by the time you find out a bank has a problem, it will be too late. The equity at most banks stands at meager 6%-10% of total assets, so when a bank does make a mistake, its high leverage amplifies the problem. \n3. Interest rate volatility \nBanks are subject to the risks that come with changing interest rates. They prosper when the difference between long-term and short-term rates -- in other words, the interest rate spread -- is high. However, when that spread narrows, it becomes increasingly difficult for banks to make any money. Many banks have addressed the problem by boosting their fee businesses. For example, fees account for a full 46% of U.S. Bancorp's income, thereby making the com
35656
check this webisite for more understanding\nhttp://www.investopedia.com/articles/trading/04/031704.asp
423651
Use this formula:\n\nWACC = We*Re + Wp*Rp +Wd*Rd*(1-t)\n\nwhere We is the weight of equity (8MM/16MM = 0.5)\nwhere Wp is the weight of preferred (1MM/16MM)\nwhere Wd is the weight of debt (7MM/16MM)\n\nRe is the return on equity\nRp is the return on preferred stock\nRd is the return on debt\n\nt is the tax rate = 0.4
64538
positive:\n1)  boost economy\n2) increase technology\n3)  creates a foundation for the future\n\nnegative:\n1) increase chance in corruption/ scandal\n2)  increase chance to lose their roots and values\n3)  the transition from agriculture to markets will cause problems since is difficult, but can be accomplished through time
27476
If you want to play it really safe invest in Series I Savings bonds which should do well, even under the the conditions described. If you are willing to take a little more risk in exchange for the possibility of higher returns, also consider International bonds, gold, silver, and timber REITS, which should also do well under these conditions. (For example, buy shares of American Century International bond fund, Central fund of Canada, and Rayonier, and Plum Creek.
402214
I subscribe to one of their investment letters.  I just started about 4 months ago.  I did buy one of their recommendations.  Netflix.  It has done well. Up about 8 points. Not all of their recommendatios have done so well however.  For example they are very hot on Yahoo.  Maybe given enough time.  It is a good source of information on companies that are hopefully up and comers so to speak.  They have a ream of different investment letters so I somewhat wonder how much research actually goes into one.
503475
Performance Summary as on 30th June '06 \nScheme Performance\n(1 year) Annualised\nReturns \n(Since\nInception) Inception\nDate  \n(The first percentage is this years return.  The second % is the annual return since it started.  The date that follows is the inception date.)\nPreserver *                   6.03%     5.51%      17/May/04 \nProtector #                   3.41%      8.14%      16/Nov/01 \nBalancer ##                15.90%    17.50%      16/Nov/01 \nMaximiser ^                  42.08%   32.81%      16/Nov/01 \nPension Preserver *       5.99%     5.28%    17/May/04 \nPension Protector #       3.41%      6.39%     31/May/02 \nPension Balancer ##     16.63%   18.17%    31/May/02 \nPension Maximiser ^      42.07%   37.51%    31/May/02 \nInvestShield Cash #        4.40%     4.40%     04/Jan/05 \nInvestShield Life **         14.42%   11.41%    04/Jan/05 \nInvestShield Pension ** 13.19%    10.96%    04/Jan/05 \n \nThese funds have not been in effect long enough to give an accurate opinion.  I like to look at 3 year, 5 year & 10 year results.  You may want to look into other top ranked companies.  Get quotes from other top ranked companies here:\n\nhttp://www.insureme.com/landing.aspx?Refby=614505&Type=life \n\nTake care,\nRon @ InsureMe
206719
ONE DAY WONDER and here's why:\nGenerally a one shot news item that is of no direct consequence to the market itself is quickly forgotten.  However, yesterdays news gave hope to the theory that the Fed was done raising interest rates for the time being.  Today however, 4/19/06, the morning news told of March CPI (inflation) being up .4%.  Multiply that by 12 months and it is an annualized inflation rate of 4.8%...much higher than Jan and Feb, which together averaged an annualized 3.8% The stock market HATES inflation because it a precursor to higher interest rates and that hurts the market by making bonds more attractive and also because higher interest rates hurt business profitability and slow down the economy. Today's bad news neutralized yesterday's good news.
573206
This is the only info I could find.\n\nhttp://gradeinflation.com/
650519
Legal risks as well as the tax consequences are very big.  HR and cultural issues becomes another concern.  Marketing as well as filing requirements in the countries affected, etc...just to name a few.\n\nThere's really too little information here to give any meaningful advice.
413619
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/cp?s=%5EFTSE
280399
very little. \n\nboth are highly regarded in the business world. \n\ngood luck.
651823
market forces do play a part in the rates set by the fed.  the main concern of the fed is to balance inflation and growth of the economy.  If growth is too high and inflation rates spike, then higher rates cool things down.  It's a fine balancing act.