Sentences with phrase «lose less money»

In some areas where the accident rate and claims costs have risen dramatically, many companies don't make any profit from premiums, and are raising rates to lose less money.

The objective of a bailout is to lose less money than you expected.

The most direct answer to your question in comments: if the stock goes down, you lose less money with the vertical spread than you do with a simple call.

But of course with them you can only «lose less money» in long - lasting bear markets.

Maybe it will help investors lose less money than they otherwise would have.

Banks lose less money on a short sale than on a foreclosure.

This means that you will lose less money in depreciation if you buy a 4 - 5 year old or older Bimmer.

The 2.0 TDI diesel versions are predicted to lose less money than more expensive models with larger engines thanks to their lower list prices and impressive economy.

Due to its lower list price, the standard version will lose you less money, but there really isn't much in it.

They'd probably lose less money in divorce court.

The only reason they'd lose less money in divorce court is because a woman like that would be too smart to marry them in the first place.

While «discipline» in Google's case means the moonshots are losing less money, the latest earnings call also brought a new form of good news: Google is now making real money from something besides search.

Good for you B *** h and now she says she would have sold to usmamov as she would have lost less money.

If I understood what it meant back then, I probably would have lost less money as a first time investor and beginning stock picker.

The financial institutions may lose money in the process, but they are losing less money than if they tried to store and protect the money, if that could even be done.

So when the 10,000 went down to $ 5,000 we lost less money at $ 5,000 than $ 10,000.

It would be in EVERYone's best interest to just ok the short sale because they will be losing less money.....

They're mistaking the lack of their mutual funds going up more than the markets, and down about the same, as having a superior investment strategy that will result in losing less money in bad markets.

As a result, banks have more breathing room to make new loans now that they're losing less money on bad ones.

Americans lost less money to scams in 2017 — 15.8 % were out cash compared to 18.8 % in 2016.

Not exact matches

Ludwin's thesis is that we'd be a whole lot less hot and bothered about the blockchain, a word he thinks has lost most of its meaning amidst the hoo - hah, if it didn't involve money.

Start - ups won't be less risky because money is more available — quite the contrary — and so more than a few mom - and - pop investors are going to lose their shirts in crowdfunded start - ups.

This is why deep - pocket investors, like DST and T. Rose Price, are less valuation sensitive: if you sell anywhere above the amount of money you raised from them they can't really lose.

And the risk of losing money also falls less on Mylan than it does on those at the end of the supply chain, with the pharmacy having to dispense EpiPens while accepting less in copay money upfront, then applying for a rebate and waiting to see what trickles back.

Entrepreneurs love babies as much as anyone (and are just as understanding of the stresses of new parenthood), but they're also more likely that corporate bosses to lack the money and manpower that makes losing a key employee for weeks or months anything less than terrifying.

That means investors are less concerned about losing their money on lower - quality corporate debt.

And speaking of inflation, shouldn't the risk for CDs be scored less than 10 because you may lose money to inflation that may not be compensated for with the interest you receive?

The lending standards on equipment financing can be less strict because your equipment will be used as collateral for the loan — in other words, if you default, the bank has the right to seize your equipment to cover the cost of their lost money.

However, when the real estate market declines 15 % / yr, the equity investments also decline 10 % / yr, and one realizes they are paying (in my case 5 % / yr) for the privilege of losing money while paying for a home eventually sold for 30 % less than one paid, I can feel pretty stupid!

On the other hand, if you'll need the money in just a few years — or if the prospect of losing money makes you too nervous — consider a higher allocation to generally less volatile investments such as bonds and short - term investments.

Since then, the arbitrage strategy has declined in a nearly linear fashion to the point where there were no years where the strategy yielded more than $ 200 between 1959 and 1974 and in 11 of these 16 years an investor either lost money or gained less than $ 100.

Given the volatility of bitcoin, he could gain or lose money within days, essentially getting more or less for his home than he intended.

Why leave money in equities, and risk another year of lost opportunity, when fixed income securities seem to be on the road to higher (and less risky) returns?

I've spent over 20 hours writing this post in hopes that every Financial Samurai reader can build a rock steady net worth portfolio to make money in good times and lose less in bad times.

Some less efficient drillers are increasing production but losing money on every barrel produced.

The less you can afford to lose or the fewer options you have or the sooner you'll need the money, the more you should ramp up your bond allocation.

I'm willing to walk you through all of the formal steps that you need to follow in order to choose the most reliable services, to be sure that you won't lose your money, and to get you the lowest fees (In order to make more many you need to spend less, right?).

The economists found that people who lost money on a pump - and - dump campaign traded less frequently three years later.

That means a someone could be following a successful trader and making less money than him (or even losing).

If you start trading signals with an expectancy of less than 60 % then of course you'll lose money.

Perhaps, investors would have been less interested in buying shares in a company that is not only losing money but also paying big premiums for other companies that are losing money.

Why would you only buy things that were 65 % or less of NCAV where net current assets are mostly inventory, where the company lost money in 4 of the last 10 years, etc..

There's a big difference between losing play money and losing real money — you tend to give up at exactly the wrong time with real money, while fake stock picking is way less emotional.

(If program eligibility were widened, it would have more simulative effect on the economy, but save the government less and potentially lose money in the long run.)

We would rather lose far less money during a big decline than to make 20 % when the market was ahead by 20 %.»

Capital Loss — The amount of money lost when selling an asset that is worth less than it was originally purchased for.

If food and gas prices were included in the CPI, the rate of inflation would be closer to 10 percent, and, at that rate, the net purchasing power of earnings in ten years would be less than the initial investment, meaning you would have lost money.

Because the Rangers are paying Cole Hamels something less than Ian Kennedy money, they can then take the savings and have themselves an international - signing blowout one of these years, replacing the prospects they lost in the trade, and still have several millions left over.

What I am saying is that we have athletes all over the country that lose far less time for drugs, weapons, assault, taking money, academic fraud, etc..

Collins spent a great deal more money ($ 5.4 million to $ 1.3 million), but Bunning, who had been behind in the polls by as much as 32 %, wound up losing by a less lopsided 9 %.