Licenses

In most states, and even in some counties and cities, you will need to make sure you have all the business licenses available to operate. In some states these cost as little as $50 total, while in many others it may run up to a couple hundred, but it shouldn’t run any more than that. The cost also varies if you have a lawyer draw up business papers for you, or if you choose to do it yourself and hand the application into the courthouse personally. These fees can usually be made up with one or two good days.

The Snow Cone Cart

Prices can vary greatly depending on what type of a cart you buy to get started with. In fact, this expense is the single biggest factor in determining start up costs. Snow carts range anywhere from $400 to $4,000 for brand new shaved ice carts. There is also a ton of variety between these two extremes, but many people decide to start out with snow cone carts that are well under $1,000 starting out, and many make their money back in short time with just a few really good cash days.

While many people will do very well starting out with a small cart, don’t rely on price alone. There’s nothing wrong with starting cheap and working your way up (especially with how often the shaved ice business doesn’t even feel like work), but what if the early demand for your snow cones is three or four times what you can provide? Not only do all those profits walk away, but you will end up having to buy a larger and more expensive snow cone stand anyway. Take the time to make sure you’re making the right decision on this one.

The Shaved Ice Machine

The next most expensive piece of equipment is the shaved ice machine itself. The machine, along with your stand, is one of the cornerstones of your business starting out, and entry level machines are most commonly found in the $400-$600 range. The best place to find a good shaved ice machine is from an actual vendor or online website that specializes in them. Many of these sites will actually have several machines for easy comparison, making it easier for you to look at the deals available and decide on the best one for you.

Buy Supplies Wholesale

While prices can vary for the supplies you need to run the snow cone business, most of these will at least be in the same price range. For materials like paper cups, plastic spoons, or Styrofoam cups, never be afraid to look around locally for a Sam’s Club, Costco, or other wholesale store that might give you the best deal. These types of overhead materials are cheap, and when bought wholesale they often cost only pennies per snow cone sold.

Snow Cone Syrup

Out of the actual overhead supplies, the concentrate syrup for mixing ingredients will cost the most, and a gallon of this can run anywhere from $30-50 depending on flavor and vendor. The good news is that one gallon of concentrate can make 8 gallons of syrup, or anywhere from 640-800 snow cones, leaving tons of room to make a boatload of profit. Look around for sales, especially when buying in bulk as some places offer steep discounts for bulk orders.

What’s This All Mean?

The up-front costs do add up, but a snow cone business has some really amazing profit margins, and it doesn’t take that many little league games, flea markets, or big days to make up a good chunk of that initial investment. It only takes a few good days to bring in enough cash to make up for all your investment, and after that it’s pure profit.

Source by Jason Brasfield

The post How Much Does It Cost To Start a Snow Cone Business? appeared first on Webscientistt.com.

“You know it’s very easy to manage the scale when you don’t have to make money,” said Ola CEO Bhavish Aggarwal recently, during a start-up conference. “But, when you have to build a real business, that’s when you have to really understand operational excellence. That’s when you have to understand what’s happening on the ground.”
According to the Ola co-founder, startups that have crossed into the consolidation or stabilization phase, where they start putting systems and structures in place, run the risk of getting into the same trap a large MNC would.

“What I think entrepreneurs and founders miss out on in that phase (stabilization), is feel for the ground,” he explained.

Go for ‘Gemba’

But, according to Aggarwal, the solution is simple. Meet the customers, visit our operations frequently and focus on ‘gemba’. A Japanese word, ‘gemba’ literally translates to ‘the actual place’ and refers to the site where value is generated.

“For me, this (gemba) is the biggest management tool,” said Aggarwal. “Focus on where the value is being created which is always on the ground.”

Aggarwal believes that focusing on where value is created helps companies strengthen operational excellence, operational efficiencies and driving growth in a profitable way.

“It helps the company also focus on the fundamentals. Otherwise, we end up trying to build for valuations and not for actually creating real value.”

Richest Indian CEOs: These Bosses Beat Google Head Pichai, Nadella; 2 Woman Among Top 10

Born Rich

10 Oct, 2019

Famous last names are a constant feature on rich lists. But in this age of the superstar CEO, even non-promoter names can be spotted on the list of the wealthiest. The IIFL Wealth Hurun India Rich List 2019 has compiled the names of the ‘richest non-promoter Indians.’In this top 10 list, only one name totes resident Indian tag. The other nine are CEOs of Indian-origin, heading companies in the US.

All The Money In The World

10 Oct, 2019

Thomas Kurian
Wealth = Rs 10,600 crore

Kurian joined Google in November 2018 as the CEO for Google Cloud. But the source of his wealth may well be the 22-year long stint at Oracle. His academic background is just as impressive with a bachelors from Princeton University and an MBA from Stanford University in his kitty.

Wonder Woman

10 Oct, 2019

Jayshree Ullal
Wealth = Rs 9,800 crore

Ullal is the president and CEO of US-based cloud-networking company Arista Networks, of which she owns about 5 per cent as per the wealth report. Before Arista, this tech CEO served various roles at Cisco Systems in a career spanning 15 years.

(Image: LinkedIn/Jayshree Ullal)

Richie Rich

10 Oct, 2019

Nikesh Arora
Wealth = Rs 6,000 crore

Arora may well be remembered as the former blue-eyed boy of Softbank founder Masayoshi Son. His high profile entry and exit into the Japanese company is a well documented one. In another high powered move, Arora joined Palo Alto Networks last year, and once again made headlines with his $128 million pay packet.

Crazy Rich Asian

10 Oct, 2019

Ajay Banga
Wealth = Rs 5,200 crore

This year Banga completes a decade at Mastercard, having joined the payments technology and financial services company back in 2009. Banga, a Delhi University and IIM-A graduate, worked at Citibank, Nestle, and PepsiCo before joining Mastercard.

                if(geolocation && geolocation != 5 && (typeof skip == 'undefined' || typeof skip.fbevents == 'undefined')) {
                    !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
                    {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
                    n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
                    if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';
                    n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
                    t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
                    s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script',
                    'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
                    fbq('init', '338698809636220');
                    fbq('track', 'PageView');
                }

Source link

The post The ‘Gemba’ way: Ola CEO talks about the Japanese word that can save start-ups from falling into a trap appeared first on Webscientistt.com.

Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual behaviour, which could be expected to make a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. It can be physical, verbal or written.

Sexual harassment is not consensual interaction, flirtation or friendship. Sexual harassment is not behaviour that is mutually agreed upon.

Sexual harassment is covered in the workplace when it happens:

• at work

• at work-related events or where people are carrying out work-related functions

• between people sharing the same workplace

A single incident is enough to constitute sexual harassment – it doesn’t have to be repeated.

The Law

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is a legislative act in India that seeks to protect women from sexual harassment at their place of work(Also knows as Vishaka guidelines).

It was reported by the International Labour Organization that very few Indian employers were compliant to this statute. Most Indian employers have not implemented the law despite the legal requirement that any workplace with more than 10 employees need to implement it. According to a FICCI-EY November 2015 report, 36% of Indian companies and 25% among MNCs are not compliant with the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013.The government has threatened to take stern action against employers who fail to comply with this law.

These statistics should tell us something very important; that women are not being equipped to defend themselves against an attacker.

Some reasons why women should learn self-defense:

1) Crime can happen to anyone at anytime.

2) Be the role model for the next generation.

3) Become Empowered.

4) This is true LIFE Insurance.

5) Do it for those who count on you.

How to learn self-defence:

There are many organizations available in the market which provides high quality self defense training and even you can train after getting your skills up in defense training.

As a reference, lets take the name of “The lady Bodygaurd: VeenaGupta “. Veena is a pre-eminent name in the security services domain. She is also famous for her groundbreaking work and initiatives undertaken for self-defense and empowerment of women. Her bold aura and skyrocketing confidence radiates wherever she goes and creates an impact on her colleagues and fellow members.

Presently, she is actively involved in providing risk management and protection services to her esteemed clients. She also imparts training sessions and organizes camps on varied topics, ranging from fire safety, to emergency procedures, road safety, women safety, soft skills, and many more. She is the founder member of various groups dedicated towards creating awareness for a safe and secure community.

So use your inner strength, know your rights and your job will be secure as always with the same respect. So Live with dignity and stand for your right!!

And we all know that: “A strong women stands up for herself. A stronger women stands up for everyone else.”

Source by Naveen Kadyan

The post Workplace Sexual Harassment of Women! appeared first on Webscientistt.com.

Source link

The post Ajit Pawar yielded to persuasion by his clan and NCP leaders? | India News appeared first on Webscientistt.com.

Why go this way? Why take bad credit small business loans? The answers are not far to seek.

• Poor credit means usual routes of financing such as banks are out of the question. Banks will not advance money for people in this predicament.

• If one has bad credit, it is also likely that the individual already is burdened with debt, an existing loan or mortgage. Even if a bank wished to advance money, there is no collateral the loanee can offer. Banks also look at previous 3 years' performance, which, naturally, would not be up to the mark.

• Business owners with poor credit may try approaching relatives and friends but even they shy off because they know the situation.

• People with bad credit prefer small business loans simply because of the soft terms such as no need to have a positive credit score, no need to furnish collateral and no need to furnish a guarantor. The downside to such loans is that borrowers end up paying higher processing fees and higher interest. In short, money is expensive for them but, as they say, a stitch in time saves nine.

• It is not that people with bad credit are always in a precarious situation and are not able to fulfill obligations. There are times when there is a shortage of cash such as when incoming payments are held up and one needs short-term capital to meet immediate needs. In such cases, even if the cost of money is high, a small business loan helps.

• There is immediacy to the requirement of funds. Small business funding may be the only way an individual with poor credit can get his hands on cash within a couple of days. All other processes may take weeks or even months.

• The process is easy. There are fewer questions asked and fewer documents required when one thinks of this type of loan.

• Repayments are tied to future sales by credit card, either as the percentage or fixed amount per month and tenure may range from one to two years.

These are succinct reasons why people take bad credit small business loans and when they are available from considerate lenders, these business owners can get back on their feet.

Source by Jordan James

The post Common Reasons Why People Take Bad Credit Small Business Loans appeared first on Webscientistt.com.

                if(geolocation && geolocation != 5 && (typeof skip == 'undefined' || typeof skip.fbevents == 'undefined')) {
                    !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
                    {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
                    n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
                    if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';
                    n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
                    t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
                    s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script',
                    'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
                    fbq('init', '338698809636220');
                    fbq('track', 'PageView');
                }

Source link

The post NIFTEM to conduct National Organic Festival of Women Entrepreneurs appeared first on Webscientistt.com.

In the United States a century later, John Pierpont Morgan again used rumor and innuendo to create a panic that would change the course of history. The panic of 1907 was triggered by rumors that two major banks were about to become insolvent. Later evidence pointed to the House of Morgan as the source of the rumors. The public, believing the rumors, proceeded to make them come true by staging a run on the banks. Morgan then nobly stepped in to avert the panic by importing $100 million in gold from his European sources. The public thus became convinced that the country needed a central banking system to stop future panics, overcoming strong congressional opposition to any bill allowing the nation’s money to be issued by a private central bank controlled by Wall Street; and the Federal Reserve Act was passed in 1913. Morgan created the conditions for the Act’s passage, but it was Paul Warburg who pulled it off. An immigrant from Germany, Warburg was a partner of Kuhn, Loeb, the Rothschilds’ main American banking operation since the Civil War. Elisha Garrison, an agent of Brown Brothers bankers, wrote in his 1931 book Roosevelt, Wilson and the Federal Reserve Law that “Paul Warburg is the man who got the Federal Reserve Act together after the Aldrich Plan aroused such nationwide resentment and opposition. The mastermind of both plans was Baron Alfred Rothschild of London.” Morgan, too, is now widely believed to have been Rothschild’s agent in the United States.

Robert Owens, a co-author of the Federal Reserve Act, later testified before Congress that the banking industry had conspired to create a series of financial panics in order to rouse the people to demand “reforms” that served the interests of the financiers. A century later, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (now one of the two largest banks in the United States) may have pulled this ruse off again, again changing the course of history. “Remember Friday March 14, 2008,” wrote Martin Wolf in The Financial Times; “it was the day the dream of global free-market capitalism died.”

THE RUMORS THAT SANK BEAR STEARNS

Mergers, buyouts and leveraged acquisitions have been the modus operandi of the Morgan empire ever since John Pierpont Morgan took over Carnegie’s steel mills to form U.S. Steel in 1901. The elder Morgan is said to have hated competition, the hallmark of “free-market capitalism.” He did not compete, he bought; and he bought with money created by his own bank, using the leveraged system perfected by the Rothschild bankers known as “fractional reserve” lending. On March 16, 2008, this long tradition of takeovers and acquisitions culminated in JPMorgan’s buyout of rival investment bank Bear Stearns with a $55 billion loan from the Federal Reserve. Although called “federal,” the U.S. central bank is privately owned by a consortium of banks, and it was set up to protect their interests. The secret weekend purchase of Bear Stearns with a Federal Reserve loan was precipitated by a run on Bear’s stock allegedly triggered by rumors of its insolvency. An article in The Wall Street Journal on March 15, 2008 cast JPMorgan as Bear’s “rescuer”:

“The role of rescuer has long been part of J.P. Morgan’s history. In what’s known as the Panic of 1907, a semi-retired J. Pierpont Morgan helped stave off a national financial crisis when he helped to shore up a number of banks that had seen a run on their deposits.”

That was one interpretation of events, but a later paragraph was probably closer to the facts:

“J.P. Morgan has been on the prowl for acquisitions. . . . Bear’s assets could be too good, and too cheap, to turn down.”

The “rescuer” was not actually JPMorgan but was the Federal Reserve, the “bankers’ bank” set up by J. Pierpont Morgan to backstop bank runs; and the party “rescued” was not Bear Stearns, which wound up being eaten alive. The Federal Reserve (or “Fed”) lent $25 billion to Bear Stearns and another $30 billion to JPMorgan, a total of $55 billion that all found its way into JPMorgan’s coffers. It was a very good deal for JPMorgan and a very bad deal for Bear’s shareholders, who saw their stock drop from a high of $156 to a low of $2 a share. Thirty percent of the company’s stock was held by the employees, and another big chunk was held by the pension funds of teachers and other public servants. The share price was later raised to $10 a share in response to shareholder outrage and threats of lawsuits, but it was still a very “hostile” takeover, one in which the shareholders had no vote.

The deal was also a very bad one for U.S. taxpayers, who are on the hook for the loan. Although the Fed is privately owned, the money it lends is taxpayer money, and it is the taxpayers who are taking the risk that the loan won’t be repaid. The loan for the buyout was backed by Bear Stearns assets valued at $55 billion; and of this sum, $29 billion was non-recourse to JPMorgan, meaning that if the assets weren’t worth their stated valuation, the Fed could not go after JPMorgan for the balance. The Fed could at best get its money back with interest; and at worst, it could lose between $25 billion and $40 billion. In other words, JPMorgan got the money ($55 billion) and the taxpayers got the risk (up to $40 billion), a ruse called the privatization of profit and socialization of risk. Why did the Fed not just make the $55 billion loan to Bear Stearns directly? The bank would have been saved, and the Fed and the taxpayers would have gotten a much better deal, since Bear Stearns could have been required to guaranty the full loan.

THE HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS OUT-OF-THE-MONEY PUTS

That was one of many questions raised by John Olagues, an authority on stock options, in a March 23 article boldly titled “Bear Stearns Buy-out . . . 100% Fraud.” Olagues maintains that the Bear Stearns collapse was artificially created to allow JPMorgan to be paid $55 billion of taxpayer money to cover its own insolvency and acquire its rival Bear Stearns, while at the same time allowing insiders to take large “short” positions in Bear Stearns stock and collect massive profits. For evidence, Olagues points to a very suspicious series of events, which will be detailed here after some definitions for anyone not familiar with stock options:

A put is an option to sell a stock at an agreed-upon price, called the strike price or exercise price, at any time up to an agreed-upon date. The option is priced and bought that day based upon the current stock price, on the presumption that the stock will decline in value. If the stock’s price falls below the strike price, the option is “in the money” and the trader has made a profit. Now here’s the evidence:

On March 10, 2008, Bear Stearns stock dropped to $70 a share — a recent low, but not the first time the stock had reached that level in 2008, having also traded there eight weeks earlier. On or before March 10, 2008, requests were made to the Options Exchanges to open a new April series of puts with exercise prices of 20 and 22.5 and a new March series with an exercise price of 25. The March series had only eight days left to expiration, meaning the stock would have to drop by an unlikely $45 a share in eight days for the put-buyers to score. It was a very risky bet, unless the traders knew something the market didn’t; and they evidently thought they did, because after the series opened on March 11, 2008, purchases were made of massive volumes of puts controlling millions of shares.

On or before March 13, 2008, another request was made of the Options Exchanges to open additional March and April put series with very low exercise prices, although the March put options would have just five days of trading to expiration. Again the exchanges accommodated the requests and massive amounts of puts were bought. Olagues contends that there is only one plausible explanation for “anyone in his right mind to buy puts with five days of life remaining with strike prices far below the market price”: the deal must have already been arranged by March 10 or before.

These facts were in sharp contrast to the story told by officials who testified at congressional hearings on April 4. All witnesses agreed that false rumors had undermined confidence in Bear Stearns, making the company crash despite adequate liquidity just days before. On March 10, 2008, Reuters was citing Bear Stearns sources saying there was no liquidity crisis and no truth to the speculation of liquidity problems. On March 11, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission himself expressed confidence in its “capital cushion.” Even “mad” TV investment guru Jim Cramer was proclaiming that all was well and the viewers should hold on. On March 12, official assurances continued. Olagues writes:

“The fact that the requests were made on March 10 or earlier that those new series be opened and those requests were accommodated together with the subsequent massive open positions in those newly opened series is conclusive proof that there were some who knew about the collapse in advance . . . . This was no case of a sudden development on the 13 or 14th, where things changed dramatically making it such that they needed a bail-out immediately. The collapse was anticipated and prepared for. . . .

“Apparently it is claimed that some people have the ability to start false rumors about Bear Stearns’ and other banks’ liquidity, which then starts a ‘run on the bank.’ These rumor mongers allegedly were able to influence companies like Goldman Sachs to terminate doing business with Bear Stearns, notwithstanding that Goldman et al. believed that Bear Stearns balance sheet was in good shape. . . . The idea that rumors caused a ‘run on the bank’ at Bear Stearns is 100% ridiculous. Perhaps that’s the reason why every witness was so guarded and hesitant and looked so mighty strained in answering questions . . . .

“To prove the case of illegal insider trading, all the Feds have to do is ask a few questions of the persons who bought puts on Bear Stearns or shorted stock during the week before March 17, 2008 and before. All the records are easily available. If they bought puts or shorted stock, just ask them why.”

SUSPICIONS MOUNT

Other commentators point to other issues that might be probed by investigators. Chris Cook, a British consultant and the former Compliance Director for the International Petroleum Exchange, wrote in an April 24 blog:

“As a former regulator myself, I would be crawling all over these trades. . . . One question that occurs to me is who actually sold these Put Options? And why aren’t they creating merry hell about the losses? Where is Spitzer when we need him?”

In an April 23 article in LeMetropoleCafe.com, Rob Kirby agreed with Olagues that it was not Bear Stearns but JPMorgan that was bankrupt and needed to be “recapitalized” with massive loans from the Federal Reserve. Kirby pointed to the huge losses from derivatives (bets on the future price of assets) carried on JPMorgan’s books:

“. . . J.P. Morgan’s derivatives book is 2-3 times bigger than Citibank’s – and it was derivatives that caused losses of more than 30 billion at Citibank . . . . So, it only made common sense that J.P. Morgan had to be a little more than ‘knee deep’ in the same stuff that Citibank was – but how do you tell the market that a bank – any bank – needs to be recapitalized to the tune of 50 – 80 billion?”

Kirby wrote in an April 30 article:

“According to the NYSE there are only 240 million shares of Bear outstanding . . . [Yet] 188 million traded on Mar. 14 alone? Doesn’t this strike you as being odd? . . . What percentage of the firm was owned by insiders that categorically did not sell their shares? . . . Bear Stearns employees held 30 % of the company’s stock . . . 30 % of 240 million is 72 million. If you subtract 72 from 240 you end up with approximately 170 million. Don’t you think it’s a stretch to believe that 186+ million real shares traded on Friday Mar. 14? Or do you believe that rank-and-file Bear employees, worried about their jobs, were pitching their stocks on the Friday before the company collapsed knowing their company was toast? But that would be insider trading – wouldn’t it? No bloody wonder the SEC does not want to probe J.P. Morgan’s ‘rescue’ of Bear Stearns . . .”

If real shares weren’t trading, someone must have been engaging in “naked” short selling – selling stock short without first borrowing the shares or ensuring that the shares could be borrowed. Short selling, a technique used by investors to try to profit from the falling price of a stock, involves borrowing a stock from a broker and selling it, with the understanding that the stock must later be bought back and returned to the broker. Naked short selling is normally illegal; but in the interest of “liquid markets,” a truck-sized loophole exists for “market makers” (those people who match buyers with sellers, set the price, and follow through with the trade). Even market makers, however, are supposed to cover within three days by actually coming up with the stock; and where would they have gotten enough Bear Stearns stock to cover 75% of the company’s outstanding shares? In any case, naked short selling is illegal if the intent is to drive down a stock’s share price; and that was certainly the result here.

On May 10, 2008, in weekly market commentary on FinancialSense.com, Jim Puplava observed that naked short selling has become so pervasive that the number of shares sold “short” far exceeds the shares actually issued by the underlying companies. Yet regulators are turning a blind eye, perhaps because the situation has now gotten so far out of hand that it can’t be corrected without major stock upheaval. He noted that naked short selling is basically the counterfeiting of stock, and that it has reached epidemic proportions since the “uptick” rule was revoked last summer to help the floundering hedge funds. The uptick rule allowed short selling only if the stock price were going up, preventing a cascade of short sales that would take the stock price much lower. But that brake on manipulation has been eliminated by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), leaving the market in unregulated chaos.

Eliot Spitzer has also been eliminated from the scene, and it may be for similar reasons. Greg Palast suggested in a March 14 article that the “sin” of the former New York governor may have been something more serious than prostitution. Spitzer made the mistake of getting in the way of a $200 billion windfall from the Federal Reserve to the banks, guaranteeing the mortgage-backed junk bonds of the same banking predators responsible for the subprime debacle. While the Federal Reserve was trying to bail the banks out, Spitzer was trying to regulate them, bringing suit on behalf of consumers. But he was swiftly exposed and deposed; and the Treasury has now broached a new plan that would prevent such disruptions in the future. Like the Panic of 1907 that justified a “bankers’ bank” to prevent future runs, the collapse of Bear Stearns has been used to justify a proposal giving vast new powers to the Federal Reserve to promote “financial market stability.” The plan was unveiled by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former head of Goldman Sachs, two weeks after Bear Stearns fell. It would “consolidate” the state regulators (who work for the fifty states) and the SEC (which works for the U.S. government) under the Federal Reserve (which works for the banks). Paulson conceded that the result would not be to increase regulation but to actually take away authority from state regulators and the SEC. All regulation would be subsumed under the Federal Reserve, the bank-owned entity set up by J. Pierpont Morgan in 1913 specifically to preserve the banks’ own interests.

On April 29, a former top Federal Reserve official told The Wall Street Journal that by offering $30 billion in financing to JPMorgan for Bear’s assets, the Fed had “eliminated forever the possibility [that it] could serve as an honest broker.” Vincent Reinhart, formerly the Fed’s director of monetary affairs and the secretary of its policy-making panel, said the Fed’s bailout of Bear Stearns would come to be viewed as the “worst policy mistake in a generation.” He noted that there were other viable options, such as looking for other suitors or removing some assets from Bear’s portfolio, which had not been pursued by the Federal Reserve.

Jim Puplava maintains that naked short selling has now become so pervasive that if the hedge funds were pressed to come in and cover their naked short positions, “they would actually trigger another financial crisis.” The Fed and the SEC may be looking the other way on this widespread stock counterfeiting scheme because “if they did unravel it, everything really would unravel.” Evidently “promoting market stability” means that whistle-blowers and the SEC must be silenced so that a grossly illegal situation can continue, since the crime is so pervasive that to expose it and prosecute the criminals would unravel the whole financial system. As Nathan Rothschild observed in 1838, when the issuance and control of a nation’s money are in private hands, the laws and the people who make them become irrelevant.

Source by Ellen Brown

The post Did Bear Stearns Fall Or Was It Pushed? How Insider Trading Looted Shareholders And Taxpayers appeared first on Webscientistt.com.

https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbadnw60-tag.js



Source link

The post US says it is ‘affront’ that planners of Mumbai terror attacks have not been convicted, while glossing over Pakistan’s role appeared first on Webscientistt.com.

What are some of the common mistakes entrepreneurs make when starting out? Here is a list of ten of the most common mistakes new entrepreneurs make when starting their business. Although mistakes made can be our greatest teacher, they can be time-consuming and costly. So here I want to share with you my hard-earned experiences and the insight I gained from my own lapses in business judgment.

Mistake #1. Starting Without A Business Plan

If you are serious about making your new business a success, you must have a written plan. It can be as simple as one page to get started. Writing it will force yourself to think about how you plan on making your business come to life and also become profitable. Force yourself to honestly answer such questions as “Who will my customers be”; “Why will they buy from me?”; “How much will I charge for my products and services?”; “How will I get the word out about my new business?”. Be realistic about the costs of running your business. Your business plan will act as an ever-changing and ever-improving guide for you to follow.

Mistake #2. Having No Management Experience

As the founder of a small business, you will be directly responsible for all aspects of management – finance, marketing, sales, employee relations, dealing with sub-contractors, and bathroom cleaning, etc. But if you are starting your business because you are great at your particular skill or service, and want to devote all of your time and energy to doing this, maybe a family member or partner can handle most of the management of the company. This person must share your vision and goals for the business.

Mistake #3. Hiring Help Too Soon

Do not hire employees until it is absolutely necessary. The expense of hiring help can financially drown your small business very quickly. When you do hire someone, make sure that they are hard-working and honest. Only hire people you really need, that will have a positive impact on your business. At our home-based small-business, we try to use sub-contractors as much as possible.

Mistake #4. Not Hiring Professional Help

Do not skimp on hiring professional advisers like an accountant and attorney. Interview several and find advisers that you are comfortable talking with. Do they understand what you are trying to accomplish? Are they quick to share their experiences and knowledge with you? These professionals can save you many headaches and lots of money.

Mistake #5. Not Using the Cash-Method Of Accounting

Under the “cash method”, you record business income when it’s received into your bank account. And you record an expense when it is paid out of your bank account. Most of us use this cash method for our personal finances because it is much simpler and less time-consuming. This is also the ideal method for the small and home-based business. Under the “accrual method”, you would record business income when it is earned, without regard to when you may get paid for the product or service you sold. And you record an expense when it is incurred, without regard to when you will get around to writing a check to pay for it. This accrual method is too difficult to keep up with for a small and home-based business.

Mistake #6. Not Keeping Track Of Your Money

You must track your income and expenses every month so that you know where your money is going. You can do this yourself with inexpensive accounting software, or simply download your monthly statement from your bank and credit card. Cash-flow is the life-blood of a small fledgling business.

Mistake #7. Not Doing Enough Market Research

This is a very common problem with start-up businesses. Market research can take many months and lots of research to do correctly. You must know who your competition is, and who your customers will be. You must understand all aspects of your industry – inside and out. Read all the books and articles you can find about your particular type of business. Talk to others that are in that industry.

Mistake #8. Not Doing The Correct Marketing

Every business must have an online presence. It does not matter what business you are in, you must be online. It is now possible to do extensive and sophisticated marketing for no cost – free. Whether is it a simple website, Facebook, LinkedIn, Tumblr, or an online telephone-book listing, you must be online.

Mistake #9. Spending Too Much Too Soon

If you are on a tight budget, do not start out by spending thousands on business cards and letterheads. Do not spend thousands on paying a company to build your website when you can very quickly build a great website on your own. Keep using that older computer until you have the cash-flow and the actual need for a new computer. Before very big purchases, like a new truck or machine, get advice from your accountant.

Mistake #10. Giving-Up Too Soon

A major part of being an entrepreneur is having stamina, drive, and determination. Not giving up your dream because of a few bumps in the road is an essential part of entrepreneurship. Developing the intestinal fortitude to weather the tough times is essential if you ever want to achieve any kind of success. Don’t believe anyone that tells you that starting and managing a business is easy or simple. It also takes time, effort, faith, and a vision.

Conclusion

Please feel free to completely ignore this advice, or listen to it and keep in the back of your mind while you are starting your new business. But just don’t let the fear of making mistakes, costly or not, to deter you from starting your new business. Making mistakes, and understanding why you made them, and learning how to fix them or avoid them in the future, truly will be your greatest teacher. And it wouldn’t hurt if you start a relationship with an experienced accountant and lawyer that you can turn to for help.

Source by Joseph C Kunz, Jr

The post 10 Small-Business Start-Up Mistakes To Avoid appeared first on Webscientistt.com.

                if(geolocation && geolocation != 5 && (typeof skip == 'undefined' || typeof skip.fbevents == 'undefined')) {
                    !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
                    {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
                    n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
                    if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';
                    n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
                    t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
                    s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script',
                    'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
                    fbq('init', '338698809636220');
                    fbq('track', 'PageView');
                }

Source link

The post Freshworks opens development centre in Hyderabad appeared first on Webscientistt.com.