Sentences with phrase «much risk then»

If that is too much risk then an investor should probably add more fixed income.

Not exact matches

If they thought we were melting down as entrepreneurs then perhaps they wouldn't want to partner or share as much risk with us,» says another entrepreneur.

How then can businesses scale without risking too much upfront investment?

«Call your insurance company and ask how much it will lower your premiums by raising your deductible, and then determine whether you want to assume that much financial risk,» Fisher said.

Essentially our offer is that we handle the production & distribution and then share revenue with the people who help create the works for a period of time (12 months) in exchange for their work at half pay — As shoots only last a day or two max, there is very little risk for people to participate as it's a good deal and we already know everyone in the business so there is little downtime building any of the infrastructure or much less cold calling anyone

Once you're contributing the maximum annual amounts to your retirement accounts — and also have an emergency fund built up — then it's time to start looking at ways to invest more without incurring big tax headaches or too much risk, depending on your situation.

Then we want to give you a much higher credit limit because now you have a much better risk profile.

Venezuela, then, presents a much more likely — and more imminent — upside risk to oil prices.

Unless you have a big profit cushion in a position and can hold through a 20 % to 30 % price correction without feeling too much pressure, it may be wise to raise the stop prices on any open positions you are holding (then wait for lower risk re-entry points to emerge).

But, in the end, the U.S. experience included the major elements of most booms: Too much leverage, too little understanding of risk, too easy credit terms, and then a very sharp reversal.

Also, the yield on the 10 - year Treasury note was over 6 % 15 years ago versus roughly 2 % today, making the risk premium of stocks versus bonds much higher today than it was then.

Back then, there were junior gold and silver mining companies that were a fraction of the market cap of their much larger - cap mining peers that had much stronger management, had managed geopolitical risk in a superior manner, and had streamlined operations to a far greater degree than their larger - cap peers that were not huge risks.

If your business is being owed much, maybe by giving too much credit to customers, then your business is at risk.

It also can be used to compare the whole market against bond yields... In most cases the earnings yield of equities are much higher then in risk free treasury bonds Earnings yield is basically the amount of earnings you buy for every dollars worth of...

They are inexpensive to try and if you fail, then you didn't risk that much upfront to begin with.

It is great that you have confidence in the company you work for and want to buy more stock, but if you are holding too much stock and the company suffers financial problems, then the stock price inevitably falls thereby causing your retirement plan balance to be at risk.

If we can avoid capital losses in the near term and then buy investment - worthy assets after they have dropped in price and offer much less capital risk and much higher income yields again, then there is hope for higher compound returns for many years thereafter.

For instance if your retirement relies solely on a stock portfolio, then market volatility likely is much more of a risk than a situation where your retirement will be supported by income from several different vehicles with varying degrees of correlation to market ups and downs.

Goldman charged so much because it put its own balance sheet at risk to raise a large amount of money quickly for a fund that then lacked a credit rating.

More than that may reduce the diversification benefits, with too much of your portfolio's risk then coming from commodities alone.

But if it suggests a willingness to live with a certain pragmatism and provisionality, a suspicion of all - encompassing schemes, a readiness to risk a little more disorder instead of a little too much Ordnung, then I think the book qualifies.

we have no cover for CB at all then, Chambers needs to sit on the bench and be healthy for covering RB and CB as much as i want to see what hes like as a DM its too high of a risk to play him there atm, I'd def go for bellerin for RB though hes so fast and has tremendous technical ability, One person i think wenger should of taken to dortmund is diaby just incase hes needed would be nice for diaby to get a good 60 min game but i do nt think hes ready for CL just yet since he hasnt even featured in the PL yet but then again no harm in taking him since hes been linking up with bellerin pretty well in the U21's we must remember we have some really good youngsters in the squad than can fill in some of the spaces.

I can believe this because I can understand Real wanting to get some money for him rather than risking loosing him for free but then again there was so many rumours in the summer saying it was a done deal when it wasn't, I hope it's true he'd be a great solid DM I just hope he wouldn't get injured as much as he has in the past.

IF you believe Monreal / Miquel ARE capable to do that job then, we do not need another CB and, buying a DM that can drop back IS the answer, but, if you think that is too much of a risk, then we need both.

Regardless of what Juventus offer at the moment, I'm sure Arsenal are likely to show them the hand; however if it becomes clear that Alexis has no intention of signing a new deal, then much like the RVP case, it would probably be better to sell with a year left, rather than risk losing him for free next year.

Let's hope MBappe will look at Martial and Rashford and think it is too much risk of bench time then look at Giroud who was used as a sub and think «okay, looks a good start» then he will look at Welbeck and prob think «Fcuk me, can I play as much as they will need me too...» XD

But if Davis were to go pro after next year regardless of a redshirt season in 2011, then there really is not much risk in giving it a shot.

And there is an obvious fatal flaw to this in any event; if say 5 teams embark on this allegedly «risk - free» business model and spend, spend, spend then pretty much by definition 4 of them come unstuck every year because only one team can buy the PL.

While that would make it a much more straight - forward acquisition, provided that they are ready to activate the clause and then negotiate with the Serbian ace, it's still a bit of a risk from Liverpool's perspective.

For all of Romos faults the guy had the balls to take a lot of calculated risks, he got burned a lot by it but he created much more good than bad when he did it... It seems like the Cowboys got scarred by all the late game INTs Romo would throw when trying to come back then vastly overcorrected to a guy who takes damn near 0 risks.

More to the point, that's Moss's life, which reads like a case study of a child at risk: too little attention paid early, and then too much.

If RM are not offering that much upfront then we could get away with a smaller bid but just pay more upfront, less risk for Monaco then.

With one year remaining, the ball is very much in their court for the club to either sell up or risk losing them for free if we haven't already secured them on new terms by then.

Its only natural that if you spend 4 months staring at a bunch of people from Missisippi then your going to think the first person you see from Alabama is the bell of the ball so I cant fault Condoleeza Rice for trusting the evidence she was given a little too much - a lone blemish on a otherwise pristine record of determining which organizatons pose the biggest risk to others.

PUTTING BODY ON THE LINE???? I PERSONNALY THINK THAT THIS IS PART OF THE BUSINESS, This is the players» personnal problem based on the decision that they have made to be a Pro-Football player.This is what they are paid for (Millions and millions of wages), and they have to take the risk on their own sake.To give an angle of an undertanding perspective as Arsenal Fan and as WE all have been always doing, i think The players might have been frustrated from seeing what happened to Rosicky and Eduardo so that they do nt wan na risk so much for the sake of their future carriere as they are also still young.May be!!!??? We do nt know!!!! But for me: If they are appointed and have decided to engage themself into the PL game and the CL and agreed to take the wages then they have to do the task that they are suuposed to do, regardless of their ages and personnal condition.We pay the most expensive ticket with hope in mind to see our team fighting NOT FORCELY WINNING.Evrybody here understand all the PBM, and i repeat again, EVEN IF WE HAVE LOST THE GAME BUT WE DID GIVE OUR BEST AND FOUGHT TILL THE END, THEN ITS UNDERSTANDABLE.WE WILL ALL LEAVE THE EMIRATES AT THE END OF THE GAME WITH PRIDE IN OUR HEART.AND the worse thing yesterday is that it was Bthen they have to do the task that they are suuposed to do, regardless of their ages and personnal condition.We pay the most expensive ticket with hope in mind to see our team fighting NOT FORCELY WINNING.Evrybody here understand all the PBM, and i repeat again, EVEN IF WE HAVE LOST THE GAME BUT WE DID GIVE OUR BEST AND FOUGHT TILL THE END, THEN ITS UNDERSTANDABLE.WE WILL ALL LEAVE THE EMIRATES AT THE END OF THE GAME WITH PRIDE IN OUR HEART.AND the worse thing yesterday is that it was BTHEN ITS UNDERSTANDABLE.WE WILL ALL LEAVE THE EMIRATES AT THE END OF THE GAME WITH PRIDE IN OUR HEART.AND the worse thing yesterday is that it was BORO.

If properly trained midwives exclude higher risk patients in advance, then why is their death rate acceptable only in a study that has much stricter criteria for inclusion than real life?

And they were exposed to parents who were also narcicistic, or had character problems, and if we can get them in touch with their feelings about how they were raised, then sometimes the empathy can increase and that's a much more workable person to be intimate with, but without empathy, it's hard to really extend your trust to somebody because it's always the risk that even if they don't intend to hurt you, they will miss the signals that they are going to hurt you.

If breast - feeding reduces the risk of infection, it's not at all clear that going through the stages of pumping breast milk, then freezing or refrigerating it, then heating it will reduce the risk of infection, or reduce the risk of infection as much as breastfeeding.

I have been reading a lot about attachment parenting pros and cons.I think that the pros are obvious.the cons however are if the parents decide they can not continue with for example co sleepng it is very hard on the child to then have to learn to sleep alone before they are confident enough to do so.for working parents the seperation to a carer is very hard and also helping parents to read the signs properly that their child wants to explore freely when they are used to protecting their little one.these are all things parents need to be aware of when adapting this form of parenting.I like it very much but I am a professional childcarer with additional childcare knowledge too and though parents always know their own child best risk for example is always an immotive subject to get across to parents that their little one needs to experience risk within of course a safe environment.

Then they would have the time to really spend with their patients, address concerns, and take their time with «natural - ish cesareans» Reducing the overall number of women in the hospital giving birth (by having a system that supports low risk, healthy moms birthing their babies at home with trained professionals like CPM's and CNM's) would allow moms who birthed through surgery to stay in the hospital longer and receive the one - on - one medical care that they so very much deserve.

Tip: It is difficult to predict how much caffeine your baby will get through your breastmilk, but sticking to one cup a day, and feeding your baby before drinking caffeinated beverages, then waiting three hours before breastfeeding again, will reduce the risk.

If, for instance, your baby is lactose intolerant or has a milk allergy, then your baby has a much higher risk of contracting constipation.

Babies used to be introduced to solid foods when they were much younger — at three months and then four months, but in 2002 changes were made to recommend solids were not given until 6 months, due to research showing waiting can reduce the risk of babies having certain illnesses, such as gastroenteritis.

The first one is development, so two to four months of age, that's your first risk factor, the second risk factor is too much bedding, sleeping around the baby, not breastfeeding, overheating the baby, and then the third risk factor is a vulnerable infant.

This is understandable; if planned home birth is associated with a greatly elevated risk of serious negative infant outcomes, then most women and clinicians would be reluctant to attach as much importance to other benefits it might offer.

The increased risk is perceived because in general if you had a normal birth the first time round then the chances of your second baby dying is much less than your first.

Important points though — homebirth is completely integrated into their hospital system (unlike the US), their transfer and risk criteria are much more stringent then pretty much all CPMs / DEMs / LMs, their midwives are all properly trained (though, I think there are still some rogues out there?).

But then we have these other variants that are the GABA receptor, which is much more of kind of a general disinhibition, so it's a general type of predisposition that a person has, and individuals are at risk for a variety of different behaviors including alcoholism [and] other types of impulsive behavior.

This method may be more viable than edible vaccines for two reasons: The tobacco plants see no permanent genetic alteration, which means a much lower risk of an environmental impact, and the vaccines are extracted in a liquid and then administered as injections, meaning no rotten potatoes or unpredictable vaccine doses.

Babies used to be introduced to solid foods when they were much younger — at three months and then four months, but in 2002 changes were made to recommend solids were not given until 6 months, due to research showing waiting can reduce the risk of babies having certain illnesses, such as gastroenteritis.