Sentences with phrase «financial sense if»

Obviously this solution makes the most financial sense if you already own a PC, NAS box, or Shield, or you were planning to get one for other reasons.

For some drivers, comprehensive and collision coverage may not make financial sense if the value of your car isn't very much.

While it may seem counterproductive to go into debt in order to pay off debt, it can make financial sense if the interest rate on the loan is lower than what you were paying on the credit card.

One thing with Whole Life Insurance policies is absolutely certain, they rarely make good financial sense if it prevents you from maxing out qualified investment vehicles.

Large beach house rentals often make more financial sense if you are vacationing with a large group of people.

I agree with the logic laid out in the article, but it's worth pointing out that owning a home can quickly make much more financial sense if you plan to rent out one or more rooms.

He said that more people would be successful in financial sense if they managed their home expenses differently.

Investing before you pay off debt may not make financial sense if you look at the numbers but it's one of the best financial decisions you can make.

Not exact matches

We plan to track the value, as well as other pieces in their collection, to determine if donating any of them in the future makes financial sense.

And with each change made, calculate at least a rough return on investment (ROI) to determine if it was worth the effort — and whether similar changes in future make financial sense.

As with any undertaking, do your research and consult a trusted financial advisor to see if franchising makes sense for you.

While it doesn't always make strictly rational financial sense — if you have a 3.5 percent mortgage but can earn 7 or 8 percent from investing, putting extra money towards your mortgage does result in opportunity cost — the emotional impact could more than offset that «loss.»

If you're on a solid career trajectory, live within your means, have a little common sense, and make financial independence a priority, I'm sure you'll do fine.

Miller also wanted to «keep our financing costs at some kind of fixed interest rate, because then I'd be able to factor that into potential acquisitions to see if they made financial sense for us.»

Furthermore, the savings in the 401 (k) are bulletproof in the sense that if MDY ever runs into financial trouble, your savings there will not be considered an asset of the company.

Second, financial logic embodied in the celebrated Modigliani Miller theorem and suggested by common sense holds that substantial reductions in leverage, if achieved, should be associated with reduced volatility, reduced sensitivity to shocks and lower risk premiums.

However, if you have high interest rates and could benefit most from refinancing and saving money, a private loan might make more financial sense.

If you have low - interest debt and keep up with loan payments, investing in the stock market could make financial sense in the long run.

If Uber is indeed to go public next year, it would need to sort out its financials and boost profitability wherever it can, so getting rid of peripheral businesses such as Xchange Leasing makes sense.

If you have a diversified portfolio that makes sense for your investment goals, time horizon, and financial circumstances, you can probably ignore the short - term concerns about a rate rise and stick with your plan.

«If the financial crisis taught nothing else, it showed how elegant financial models that calculate risk to decimal point precision act like a sedative towards critical thinking and even common sense» Allan Mecham

But I think if we were going to try to simplify this so that it makes a little bit of sense for people I think one of the main reasons that we can talk about why this might be happening comes down to central banks around the globe are playing a major role in the buying and selling of financial assets and an extreme degree.

If you can earn 5 % or more from stocks, an IRA, or 401 (k), it doesn't make financial sense to pay off your mortgage early.

But if the main reason you're investing in gold is for protection of your financial assets during an economic downturn or «Black Swan» type event, it hardly makes sense to place your trust in the banking system.

You'll need to take a look at your budget to see if it makes financial sense.

In a world that is normalizing, it would make sense that company behavior would normalize back toward a more balanced use of cash — especially if the days of super easy money and financial arbitrage are over.

In addition, ask these questions as well to see if the loan you're planning to take will make financial sense in your situation:

If the non financial corporate debt drove the market up during their great bull market, it only makes sense that their stock market (Nikkei 225) would decline as the deleveraging process was taking place.

Still, Walther, who has been in the financial services industry for more than 25 years, senses a fundamental underlying change even if the current generation of guaranteed income products will need more refining before RIAs bite down hard.

If you are going to take this opportunity to roll other debts into your mortgage, then be sure that it makes good financial sense.

For example, if you are behind in retirement savings, or do not have a cash emergency reserve, it may make more sense to put your newfound funds towards those financial goals while you continue to pay off a mortgage with attractive terms.

And if that's the case it makes little economic or ecological sense to spend billions of dollars building new fossil fuel infrastructure and increasing capacity, particularly when that infrastructure has a working life span and expected financial return that well exceeds thirty years.

On the other hand, if you plan to stay put for a while, buying a home in California might make more sense from both a financial and a lifestyle perspective.

But beyond all debates about what caused the 2008 financial crisis, even during the prosperous years of the aughties a sense of unease was growing, a feeling that if this society was what triumph of global capitalism entailed, in which the small towns shriveled and most manufacturing went overseas, then maybe it wasn't a good thing.

I don't think it's so much about the levites being paid for their service it's about us doing what's right toward Pastors that must feed and tend to the flock of GOD if GOD has called them.JESUS even said in luke 10:7 that the laborers are worthy of their wages.In luke 8 1 - 4 it's says even JESUS HIMSELF recieved financial support from the women who ministered to him with their possessions.Now most people today would say he should have been ashamed of taking money from those poor women but JESUS accepted their support and they was blessed for sowing onto the LORD»S work.1 Corinthains 9:1 - 15 says dint muzzle the ox while it tread out the grain was GOD talking about oxes no he was talking about those who labor in the ministry.Who goes to war at their own expense.Or who goes to war but pay for their clothes, guns, etc.No one because the goverment if that country provide these things because of the soilders service.Who plants a vineyard and don't eat from it.Who tends a flock and don't drink the milk of it.I think it's just spiritual sense to support a pastor that's teaching you the word, casting out devils, laying hands and healing is manifesting in people lived, going to hospitails, prisons, and house calls to pray for the sick and shut in, going to graduations and funnerals, praying and fasting for himself and the flock.I think a person who think a pastor shouldn't be paid for their service either don't know they need to be paid and need to be taught or they are demonic in their thinking and either hate GOD, PASTORS, AND GOD»S PEOPLE.Why do nt you hear people saying anything against the dope dealers, strip clubs, dope houses, liquor stores, etc.It's only when people give into the LORD»S work that evil minded or misinformed people have a problem with it.No sir we don't have to use the old testament to show that we should support out pastors.You don't use the law, love tells me to support the pastor.Under the new testament LOVE is the greatest of all.Love for GOD and man.If GOD asked for 10 percent under the law to support the levites who didn't have all the responsibilities of Pastor today.Church rent, gas for vans of thd church, insurance fir the church and church vehicles, feeding and clothing the poor, light, gas, and water bill, mantience on the church or vehicles, not to mention the Pastor own house, cars, children, insurance, etc.If would be foolish for one to think that a pastor should take care if his house and GODS HOUSE without people supporting the work of the KINGDOM OF GOD.If we love GOD we are going to support HIS KINGDOM and HIS PASTOR.If under the law GOD asked for 10 percent how much should we give under the LOVE COVENANT?Example I love my wife and if I had 300 dollars I would surley give her more that 10 percent which would be 30 dollars because I love her.The law says you must give LOVE says I chose to give because I love GOD and man.Again we don't have to use the law just love and spiritual sense because hate and a carnal senses will not understand.Now I have given you scriptures please do the same when you respond not your opinion.Please respond right away I await your answer.GOD BLESS.

The club does nt need trophies, they only need the stability and financial results wenger brings year in year out, if they do they wont in their right sense keep Wenger.

which is certainly not a slight on the young french national player; like him or not, Sanchez has provided some real world - class performances for club and country in recent years... if you do this move, you need to really clean house or face some serious consequences for the foreseeable future... half measures are rarely rewarded, that's how we got here... tear down the wall... we need to get rid of Giroud, not because he isn't a talented player, his skill - set simply doesn't make sense if we hope to maximize the offensive potential of a quick passing, one - touch scheme... we need to evolve, like Barcelona, who realized you needed to have clinical finishers or face a mind - numbing future of horizontal passes and largely ineffective crosses... Barca went and got Suarez, even though they had Messi and Neymar on the roster (just imagine the possibilities — another in the litany of Wenger «what ifs»)... we need to be as clinical in the boardroom as on the pitch... accept nothing less or move on... personally I would move on from Welbeck, Giroud and Walcott, even Ox if he isn't all in... I think the most intriguing player might be Perez, which runs counter to the thoughts in my head when he arrived late last summer... we need a deep lying DM with quick feet and long ball potential, midfielders who can counter quickly even when they are spread out and 4 or 5 players who know how to attack the lanes (kind of a cross between Barca, Dortmund and Monaco)... this is seriously an achievable goal, one that logically should have been achieved quite a few years ago... did no one in the Arsenal organization see the financial restructuring of the football universe... think of the players we could have had but we weren't willing to cough up the dough only for those individuals to have their value double or triple within a 12 to 24 month period... even if just from an investment perspective these «no deals» represent a failure of monumental proportions... only if you cared, of course

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

In addition, if you're traveling to a destination you're going to visit often (like grandma's house), it may make even more financial sense to buy a cheap pack - n - play just for your destination, as Leslie Neeland Harvey of Trips With Tykes has pointed out.

My sense is that we've hit upon a perfect storm of sorts: the financial interests of Big Agriculture and Big Food are part if it, surely, but we also have a society in which, as Marion Nestle noted, [j] unk food and obesity are key indicators of political divisions in our society.

I also want to get a better sense of the financial impact of a la carte and what would happen if you removed it entirely.

I wonder if it frustrates her, that for all her common sense, she has never had the chances, both in terms of education and financial support, that those like Kwarteng, Cameron, Osborne or so many others at the top of public life were born into.

Denkenberger and residents opposed to the ash for trash proposal have repeatedly urged the county to study finances at the landfill to determine if the proposed ash swap makes financial sense.

If property rebates don't make financial sense, aren't progressive and won't affect most voters, why push them?

Jim Austin, 25 June Yes, a new study says, going to college does make financial sense — especially if you major in a STEM field (or business).

But if you do go enough times a week, it makes sound financial sense.

Work with a financial professional who can help you understand if balance transfers make sense for you.

If you are still not aware of the fact that older women most generally have a well settled life in the sense that their financial condition is worth mentioning, they know how to get what they want and also they know how to live life alone.

And while the cost may not be «financial» in terms of actual dollars and cents; it is indeed financial if it affects the reputation of the site — and creates a sense of lost confidence in the safety of the site.

Unlike the other sugar daddy dating sites out there, many features may be set for girls to purchase and as we know the reason why girls come to a luxury dating site is that they need financial support, it doesn't make much sense if girls have to spend too much, for dating a real sugar daddy.