They do have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, but my understanding is that there is a low bar to meet. Fraud / fleecing shareholders is out, but as long as they have a reasonable case that what they're doing is in shareholders' best interests, they'll be fine.
As an example, it would be easy to make the case that reducing the dividend to build a new factory is in shareholders' best interest. It would also be easy to make the case that they shouldn't open a new factory, and instead increase the dividend. Which option they choose is a bit subjective, and a judgement call, but neither would breach their fiduciary duty.
Choosing a much higher cost supplier, that is owned by their husband or wife, probably would breach fiduciary duty.
This site has been completely revamped, the graphs look a lot clearer.
I guess this is down to the inclusion of solar power which was cursory a few years back. Do they now aggregate all of the roof top solar and add that in?
Snooping around Glastonbury and my great Aunt's old town I've noticed a number of Solar farms in the countryside:
But then, say you come a long with a new company going public... you're not large enough to be in the S&P 500, so if everyone only invests in S&P 500 index funds, no one will buy your stock.
Similarly, if you're Apple (the largest company), and you have a really bad quarter, say you lose $100B, no one would sell your shares, because they're passive investors.
Obviously, these are edge cases (we'll never be 100% passive), but there is some concern that there will be a lock-in effect for companies currently in the S&P... It will be harder to grow if you're not in it, and it'll be harder to fail if you are.
It's a perfectly valid question. In my very cautious humble opinion, I think what it means is that the style/size matrix[0] will get squeezed more into a single spectrum: large companies will be pressured into stabilizing and delivering dividends and small ones will compete to grow large enough to get a piece of the passive investment gravy train. Apple can have a bad quarter, but it's just one company. It can't keep having a bad quarter. And if they start to and have to downsize to stay alive, they would by doing that hasten themselves out of a market cap that would qualify them for the index.
There's also no reason why passive indices have to reflect the total market weighted for market cap.
As per the article, Vanguard's biggest fund is the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index which tries to track the CRSP U.S. Total Market Index. That index is "Nearly 4,000 constituents across mega, large, small and micro capitalizations, representing nearly 100% of the U.S. investable equity market." I don't think you have to worry much about a bifurcation between large and small companies. My worry would be that the "investable equity market" is shrinking and that most the growth in the future will come from companies pre-IPO where non-accredited investors cannot invest.
The number of total publicly traded companies isn't projected to get anywhere close to historical levels in the near future. There are steps being considered to change the current definition of accredited investors and/or to permit non-accredited investors to participate in private investments. See helpful reading/viewing:
I see, thanks. In that case the customer sees the gratuity on the bill and then presumably doesn't feel the need to tip? So if I understand correctly this is kind of a way to run a no-tipping restaurant located in a place where tipping is part of the culture.
I just got the Jaybird X3s, and paired with an iPhone 7+, haven't had an issue yet. Quite pleasantly surprised, considering all the bluetooth problems I've heard about online. Bluetooth works fine from back pocket, front pocket, coat, inside the house, outside, in the car.
That's not really a fair assessment. He doesn't advertise it as some scammy "Make money on a startup!" like those work from home pyramid schemes. The book is largely designed for people already invested in the idea of starting a startup or possibly already progressing on one, and he advertises it as such. It's a guide of good ideas and bad ideas, not how to make as much money as possible as easily as possible.
And no, I've literally never met Mike and have zero connection to him other than I bought his book and sent him an email asking a question about it once.
Yes. In addition, the tax rate varies by state, by county, by city, and also by sub-city zones (1 mall in the city I went to college has an additional city tax that only applies to that mall).
Every single person I worked with in Rocky Mount had spoken with Black people and worked with Black people. They lived on the same streets and their kids went to the same schools. And many of those white people who interacted with Black people every day were stunningly racist (and I should say many weren't). Maybe they categorized "different types" of black people. But they could hold a civil conversation, then turn around and stereotype, or drop the n-word repeatedly.
Your vision of what people have been exposed to is a cartoon.
"In fact, PRRI's data show that a full 75 percent of whites have "entirely white social networks without any minority presence." The same holds true for slightly less than two-thirds of black Americans." Now isolate the 14% black population from all minorities, take into account how minorities cluster and the 75% number is for black friendship is probably even higher than 90%
I think those are not updated, but using a more restrictive methodology. And while it's not invalid, I think the statistic I cite is more relevant. For your initial question, who have you talked to, the acquaintances at work are more important than confidants.
Like I said in my original post, you're asking a good question. As far as I understand it, most people's stereotypes are not based on significant interaction with other people. They're picked up from other people who held those stereotypes.
It's just that I think you made a major exaggeration going along with it.
The sad truth I've heard people who were racist as hell say "they're just blaming that boy because he's black." They were capable of seeing someone as human in a particular instant, then turning around and uttering the most hateful things imaginable. They could talk to a black man civilly then turn around and talk about what "the brothers" do. Not having talked to black people wasn't their problem.
At a guess, 80% of the white people I know. I live in Washington, DC, where you would have to go out of your way not to have black co-workers. Yet I had black teachers and classmates in high school in Denver long ago.
All the white people I know (since knowing people takes "actual interaction") have spoken to a black (or, at least, a multiracial person with black enough features to be generally considered "black" by observers) person enough to meet that standard, pretty much by definition.
But, while I think your 90% number is a substantial exaggeration, you do make a good point that this is probably far less common than most people think it is.
