If you're anything like me you hate the way your credit score is calculated. It's set up so that everybody can put a dent in your score but only a select few can do anything to improve it. Turns out that thanks to a new agreement between FICO and CoreLogic, a company that handles information about your property, not taking care of your lawn can lower your score.

Under the way your new score would be calculated, citations from town ordinances that go unpaid could lower your credit without you realizing it's even happening. That includes citations for not mowing your lawn or leaving your garbage out for too long. Things you probably should do anyway but didn't care because it never affected your credit score before.

I guess it's time to go back to not giving a damn about your credit and buying everything in cash. I could understand why your neighbors would be pissed off that you're not mowing your lawn and making the entire neighborhood look bad, but why should that lower your credit? Pretty soon my credit will be lowered if I don't tip strippers properly. I never even know how I'm supposed to tip strippers anyway, I'm not going to just sit at the stage and throw money at everybody, you have to earn it. It's like watching dogs fight over their dinner, only the strong survive.

TL;DR Thanks to a new agreement between FICO and CoreLogic, not maintaining your lawn may lower your credit score.

How Mowing Your Lawn Could Affect Your New FICO Score [U.S. News]

Posted by Atkins under Finance

If you were to tell me that AOL would be the best internet stock this past year I would have called you a liar, laughed in your face, then pushed you down a flight of stairs. Unfortunately for everybody who was like me, simply waiting for AOL to die off, you missed out on a golden opportunity as the stock tripled this year. That's right, a stock that started the year out in an abysmal position has rocketed to $34 a share. To make that clear, AOL is doing better in the market than Facebook is right now.

How in the hell is AOL even making money anymore, can anybody tell me that? What exactly do they do now? I know they have a news site as well as owning The Huffington Post, but other than that I'm not really sure what would push them up to $34 a share. If I didn't know any better I would say it was Knight Capital Group's atrocious $440 million glitch that somehow pumped money into the company but that wouldn't explain how they've been gaining traction the entire year. The stock market never ceases to amaze me.

TL;DR AOL outpaced companies such as Facebook, Zynga and Groupon, tripling their stock this past year.

And The Most Amazing Internet Stock In The Past Year Is... [Business Insider]

Posted by Atkins under Finance

Being a software engineer I can understand the frustrations when a program doesn't work quite the way it's supposed to. Small glitches can create big problems and give you a headache. For Knight Capital Group a software glitch during 30 minutes of trading created a headache to the tune of $440 million, more than their second quarter revenue. These are the kinds of mistakes that cause huge stock swings and volume spikes in the market, but Knight Capital Group has seen the effects of its mistake. The company lost 30 percent of its valuation on Wednesday and 50 percent on Thursday, struggling now to stay alive.

I've made mistakes at my job before but never anything that costed anywhere near $10 million a minute. If I caused something that cost us $10 I probably wouldn't be able to eat that day. These are the kinds of mistakes that cause people  to jump from tall buildings, but everybody in the U.S. will feel this once they see it in the news. A company lost $440 million in 30 minutes, money that simply disappeared but could have helped out countless number of poor people? The only consolation for people who think like that is everybody in that company is most likely now on the verge of being homeless, so that could be viewed as an upside.

TL;DR A software glitch costed Knight Capital Group $10 million and caused huge price swings and high volume in the stock market.

Knight Capital’s Software Glitch Costs it $440 Million [Yahoo!]

Posted by Atkins under Finance

If you have any stock in Facebook (which you shouldn't unless you don't know what you're doing with your money) start unloading your stock and start unloading it fast. Facebook's shares are in their third day of a straight slide due to slowing user growth and its inability to sustain its valuation. Even with losing 40 percent of its value after its opening Facebook's shares are still trading at 40 times forward earnings compared to say, Google, who trades at 15 times forward earnings. After Facebook shares fell 11 percent when they reported a $157 million loss for the quarter investors were disappointed no outlook or forecast was provided to reassure them of growth.

It seems odd to me that after losing 40 percent of its valuation and trading at $20.93 a share, shares are still trading at 40 times forward earnings. A super high valuation is what dragged Facebook into the situation it's in now, nobody really asked the question that should have been asked in the first place: how is Facebook going to make money? I can understand Facebook being the premiere social network of our time but they should have been treated the same way I would in investor meetings. A 60-second elevator pitch detailing what you're creating, who it's for, why they should invest in you, and most importantly how they'll be paid. If investors aren't asking that final question they're not investing money right. Otherwise it's just a circle jerk with people throwing money around while talking about their money.

TL;DR Facebook's shares slide for a third straight day amidst speculation of inability to hold its valuation.

Facebook sinks to record low as doubts grow [Reuters]

Posted by Atkins under Finance

The Facebook IPO was big business before it happened but the opening was abysmal and shareholders were wondering how and if the company was going to recuperate. Not well it seems as the company has taken a downturn over the last three months, reporting a $157 million loss in their first quarter as a public company causing an 11 percent drop in shares. The loss happened because of payments to early investors, but the loss still left shareholders uneasy. The biggest concern seems to be how Facebook will monetize the site on mobile platforms.

I'm not going to burst anybody's bubble here but I could have seen this coming from a mile away. Most internet sites make all their revenue through advertising while Facebook is still having trouble finding the best way to do so. You can't just keep dumping money into something and hope that eventually glory will come out of it. I tried that once with my "Hookers for Kids" scheme, a charity where hookers would help out families who don't have time for their kids because of high-paying jobs and luxurious vacations. I didn't know that the husbands would keep sleeping with the hookers, how could anybody have predicted that? Now newly-divorced women are furious with me, saying I broke up happy homes with harlots. Newsflash ladies, it isn't a happy home if your husband is paying for sex.

TL;DR Facebook's first quarter as a public company goes poorly as they reported a $157 million loss.

Facebook reports $157-M loss after IPO [Rappler]

Posted by Atkins under Finance

I always assumed that it would be difficult to avoid taxes in the U.S. simply because there are so many, but some companies find a way around it. One company is Corning, Inc., who hasn't paid any taxes between 2008-2011 while earning $3 billion in the same time period. That's some serious manipulation of paperwork right there, kudos to them. Susan Ford, a senior executive in the company, argued to Congress that they are being put at a serious disadvantage though because of taxes on profits earned overseas. I guess being taxed at all is offensive to some corporations.

The audacity of some corporations efforts in trying to avoid taxes is baffling to me sometimes. It may come as a surprise to others the lengths companies go to avoid taxes but it doesn't to me, it's something that has been happening for a very long time. I don't care about that though, dodge as many taxes and rake in as much money as possible, it's the American dream. When you start complaining about taxes when your company paid an estimated negative two-tenths of a percent though, that's when I stop defending you. Now you're just being an asshole to everybody else.

TL;DR Corning, Inc. paid an estimated two-tenths of a percent in U.S. taxes and now they don't want to pay overseas taxes either.

Corporation That Paid Nothing In Taxes For Four Years Tells Congress It Pays Too Much In Taxes [Alter Net]

Posted by Atkins under Finance

With the economy still not in the best position and people consistently pointing fingers at the wealthy, a new study finds that there may be a reason for that. A study conducted by the Associated Press found that the average CEO made $9.6 million, up six percent from last year. The biggest difference now compared to earlier years is that a CEO's pay is more closely tied to company performance than before. CEOs aren't able to cash in their stocks right away and have to meet goals, but I doubt that most people will care about that after they see $9.6 million.

I don't think that CEOs should have to answer to anybody when it comes to their salary, but doesn't $9.6 million seem like a bit much? That's the average, which means that there are plenty who made well over that. At some point wouldn't your normal reaction be "I should probably help out somebody less fortunate, like all of the poor people, or Atkins." I've never even seen that much money before so I'm not really sure, maybe enough is never enough.

TL;DR The average CEO made $9.6 million last year which will probably seem extremely high to pretty much everybody.

Typical CEO made $9.6M last year, AP study finds [Associated Press]

Posted by Atkins under Finance

After all of the anticipation and excitement of Facebook finally going public, Facebook's first day of trading took an unexpected turn for the worse. Facebook's stock went down four and a half percent in pre-market trading and continued to drop in early morning trading by dropping eight percent. Nobody is really sure why the opening did as poorly as it did, although some are speculating that a glitch on Nasdaq's part, delaying trading in the stock by 30 minutes, may have had something to do with it.

Everybody can speculate all they want about why Facebook opened so poorly, attributing it to things like a glitch from Nasdaq, but it doesn't change my viewpoint on this. A company that has no verifiable way of making enough money to even approach its valuation is going to make everybody skeptical about purchasing stock. This wasn't like when Apple started becoming a dominant power and everybody wanted a piece of the company, there wasn't nearly as much interest in Facebook. Couple that with growing concerns over privacy, the inevitable increase in ads and concern over the immaturity of a young CEO and you have a recipe for a mediocre opening.

TL;DR Facebook has a disappointing opening after a great deal of anticipation.

Facebook Down 8% in Early Morning Trading [Mashable]

Posted by Atkins under Finance

Mark Zuckerberg has become a man who everybody knows, but that hasn't stopped potential investors from being upset with his actions as a CEO of a company on the cusp of going public. For one, it seems that he can't be bothered to wear anything but a hoodie to business meetings, with people who wear suits everyday. It could also be because he either shows up late or doesn't show up at all, leaving other executives in charge of handling affairs in his absence. While investors are looking for more face time with Zuckerberg, he's nowhere to be found.

I can understand where stuffy businessmen who have all the money in the world are coming from, but Zuckerberg has to be doing something right. Do you really need him to be in meetings answering questions when people who are qualified to do so are there? It's like they've never seen him give a presentation before. He's about as socially awkward as they come, just let him do his thing and rake in money while you laugh from your giant office. If you don't like his style then don't buy any shares in his company, it doesn't get much simpler than that.

TL;DR Investors aren't happy with Mark Zuckerberg's professional candor and are complaining that he's immature.

Mark Zuckerberg Isn't CEO Enough for Facebook's IPO [The Atlantic Wire]

Posted by Atkins under Finance

If you had the option to fight a man or a child who would you pick? If you were honorable you would choose the man, if you're anything like me you would choose the child and you'd hit him when he wasn't looking, just in case. Identity thieves are turning their attention to the deceased because well, they don't fight back. Almost 800,000 deceased Americans have their identities stolen every year because it's something that's hard to catch. By the time somebody realizes what's happening relatives have to try to fix what's going on.

Weird world we live in when dead people can somehow cause you financial grief. Imagine sitting at home and you're getting letters about bills past due from mean old grandma Ruth, and she's been dead for five years. Not only was she a bitch during her miserable ending years but somehow she's haunting you from beyond the grave. You can even hear her cackling while falling and breaking her hip while you go insane trying to figure out what's going on. After all you went through all the hassle of putting her out of your misery and she just won't go away. It would be like something out of a nightmare.

TL;DR Identity thieves are targeting dead people because hell, they're not going to fight back.

ID thieves discovering defenseless target - the dead [ZDNet]

Posted by Atkins under Finance