Mortgage Refinance Strategies And Points You Should Understand

Your request to visit website www.financialsamurai.com has been blocked. The website was denied because it has been placed on the banned sites list for the currently logged in user.

If you would still like to visit this website then please follow these steps.

Open Spyware DoctorSelect 'Settings'Select 'Global Actions List'Click the 'Add' buttonEnter the following details: Select 'Web site address/cookie' in the first boxEnter the website you wish to visit in the second boxSelect "Always Allow" in the last boxClick 'OK'

You have now informed Spyware Doctor to allow access to this website. Return to your Internet browser and proceed to the website.

View the original article here

Should Hedge Funds Receive Special Treatment?

The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) has advised the managers of super-secret hedge funds, investments of the most wealthy, that they will soon need to disclose more information to the regulators. Highly leveraged hedge funds contributed to the economic collapse, but the pressure to increase oversight has been mostly ignored by the industry. In response to heavy lobbying by the industry, the SEC has scaled back the requirements the commission intended to issue, leaving softer regulation likely to be ineffective.

Hedge fund managers like to keep their operations secret. If managers were required to report underlying investments, trades, and strategies, they might be at a disadvantage. Like a patented formula for creating pharmaceutical drugs, hedge fund managers rely on their proprietary operations to ensure no imitators and no rogue competitors using their strategies to cause them to fail. Most fund managers need to report their funds’ financial details publicly, with statements that outline the funds’ holdings, risk profile, expenses, and strategy. Hedge funds do not have this requirement.

The new SEC regulations allow hedge funds to file a minimum amount of data pertaining to the investments, and the filing will not be available to the public. Only a small committee within the SEC will be privileged enough to see the information. Additionally, only hedge funds with $1.5 billion in assets will be required to report the most detailed information to the SEC. Funds with over $500 million in assets need only report the extent that the investments are leveraged. Hedge funds with $150 million in assets or left will not be required to report anything.

The required reporting, which grows out of the financial crisis three years ago, is meant to allow financial regulators to monitor the risks that the funds may pose to the nation’s overall financial system, something that officials at the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the S.E.C. did not have during the crisis.

By focusing on the largest hedge funds, it may seem like the new reporting requirements will achieve this goal of monitoring and evaluating systemic risk. Considering that the largest hedge funds can still get away with reporting vague information about their underlying investments, the SEC may still miss big risks.

Should hedge funds be subject to the same scrutiny as publicly traded companies? Does the idea that very few investors take advantage of hedge funds release these managers from public accountability?

New York Times

Published or updated October 27, 2011. If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to the RSS feed or receive daily emails. Follow @flexo on Twitter and visit our Facebook page for more updates.

Points: ?84480
Rank: PlatinumAbout the AuthorFlexo, the owner and creator of Consumerism Commentary, has been blogging and writing for the internet since 1995 and has been building online communities since 1991. Find out more about him and follow him on Twitter. View all articles by Flexo.

Join the free Consumerism Commentary newsletter. Enter your email address here to receive occasional emails with behind-the-scenes information, exclusive giveaways, and money tips.

View the original article here

Why You Should Follow Google's 20% Rule

Google is consistently mentioned as one of the greatest companies to work for, and it's not hard to see why. They have sweet perks, super-smart people creating products that millions of people use, and a unique mentality about work.

It's that very mentality that drives their policy of 20% time. Google encourages their employees to devote 20% of their time to working on any project they want. The idea is to spur innovation by letting smart people do what they’re interested in.

Think about how awesome that is: No matter what your boss tells you to do or what tedious task you have on your plate, you could take some actual work time to focus on something you find interesting. Gmail, AdSense, and Google News were supposedly created thanks to this very policy. Can you imagine a world without those applications?

I'm a huge believer — Google's 20% rule made my job suck less. That's all well and good for me and Google, but why should you try to devote some of your time (be it at work or outside of work) to a pet project?

Working on something you find interesting is one sure way to be happy at work — no small feat. If nothing interesting is given to us, going out and picking something is a surefire way of finding a little happiness in the workplace. That can make a huge difference in how you approach the other 80% of your work.

Your company will keep producing the same stuff over and over at the same rate unless someone changes something. Anything. You might think that it's the boss's responsibility to enact change or take some risks, but if you have an idea that could potentially make the company better or more efficient, people will pay attention.

You can be creative no matter what kind of job you have. Even if you work in a field that isn't typically considered "creative," thinking up new ways to get things done within the context of your accounting job (for example) is one way to get the right side of your brain fired up.

Say your idea/project isn't feasible for any number of reasons — you'll still come off as someone who cares enough to devote serious time and energy to an idea. It shows that you're trying to make the whole company better and more innovative, and the brass will be impressed. And if your idea is executed successfully? You might wind up becoming the brass.

Think of it as starting your own business — you'll teach yourself about planning, managing your time, selling your concept to other people, and executing a game plan...all valuable skills to pick up. Remember: This is on top of all your current responsibilities.

If all the other reasons don't stir anything in you, maybe this one will. When it's time for your review or when you're asking for a raise, this is something you can point to and say, "I attempted to make the organization better with that project." If it was successful, it'll be hard for them to not see the value you've added (and could potentially keep adding).

Trust me on this: Potential employers love seeing something like this on a resume. A project you started on your own, without being told to work on it, especially if it succeeded...that shows you are a go-getter who cares. This is rare and makes people feel a lot better about hiring a new person.

It's more fun that filling out TPS reports all day, that's for sure.

Your company may not give you 20% of your time to devote to new projects, but if you can steal a few lunch hours away and maybe think about it on your commute, I bet you can find the time to come up with a compelling idea that will keep you motivated and make you stand out at work.

If anyone has examples of how they’ve used the 20% rule (or an equivalent) to get ahead at work, please share in the comments!

View the original article here

Should Walmart Pursue Shoplifting Charges Over $2 Bracelets?

Two teens in New Mexico are now reporting to juvenile probation after they were snagged allegedly attempting to swipe $2 worth of bracelets from a local Walmart. Does this mean that the retail giant has changed its policy of not pursuing charges against minors for thefts under $25?

In 2006, WakeUpWalmart.com and The New York Times reported that Walmart employees had been told that "the guidelines for prosecution of shoplifters have changed: the retail value of the merchandise recovered must exceed $25, and the suspected shoplifter must be at or between the ages of 18 and 65."

But on Sept. 10, when store staffers say they saw the teens, ages 15 and 17, open a pack of bracelets and put the pilfered items in their pockets, they contacted the police.

According to a local news report, the apprehension of these two girls occupied at least an hour of police time before the girls were ultimately released into their families' custody.

What do you think of the policy of not prosecuting shoplifters for petty thefts? Would a return to its former zero-tolerance policy do more to curb this kind of bad behavior?

Teens allegedly shoplifted $2 worth of bracelets from Walmart [Las Cruces Sun-News]

View the original article here