Sentences with phrase «than your debts then»

If you have any sources of funds or investments with lower returns than your debts then you can cash in to pay off your debt.

Not exact matches

Of a $ 5 - million loan consolidation to refinance his firm, Matrix Asset Management, he told me more than a year ago, «Once we get the transaction out of the way, then all of our debt falls away.»

If we came to learn that excessive household debt posed a bigger threat to economic growth than does a certain level of government debt, then policy makers would want to take that into account when setting interest rates.

Pioneer has also pledged to retain more of its free cash flow, rather than spending it all and then some on capital expenditures and incurring debt that could sap future profits, as has been common in the industry.

If the sum of the expected cash flow (on a discounted basis) you'd be giving up for an equity investment are greater than the costs of the debt, then you are better off getting debt.

Those proposals speak less to debt settlement companies themselves, in most cases, than they do to so - called «lead generators» — companies that advertise debt settlement, sign - up potential clients and then sell their information to back - end service providers.

Beyond then, we expect the company to sustain credit measures that are consistent with its intermediate financial risk profile, characterized by fully adjusted debt to EBITDA of 2.5x - 3.0 x, funds from operations to debt of more than 25 %, and EBITDA interest coverage of more than 5.0 x.

Heck, you could drive a $ 40,000 BMW and live in a $ 500,000 home, but if you're $ 600,000 in debt, then you're actually worth less than a 7 - year - old child!

Rather than duplicating it himself by opening and operating a second location, then a third, then a fourth, probably incurring substantial debt in doing so, he instead has other independent operators invest their money in replicate outlets and takes a royalty, typically 5 percent to 7 percent of the gross revenues of every such location.

Then we acknowledge that they are high, but we point out that the sovereign has more assets than debt.

Unless the federal government believes that it is more important to steadily reduce the debt ratio (to 20, 15, 10, or zero per cent), rather than dealing with other critical policy issues, then the federal government will soon have to start running deficits.

I know that if you take my mortgage out of the equation then I have more savings than debt, but if you add in the mortgage then I am $ 200k in the hole.

If you're bankruptcy - free, an on - time payer (or no more than 60 days late), with more than $ 5,000 in debt for at least three years, then you should be good.

But if investment is being misallocated, if investment levels are higher than China's ability to absorb and exploit capital stock, then it should not be surprising at all that debt capacity is becoming a problem.

Nothing is worse than getting into huge debt and then finding out your main source of income disappears.

For instance, suppose you have $ 5000 of debt and $ 10000 in available credit then your credit utilization rate will be 50 % which is higher than the recommended rate of below 30 %.

If you are earning the revenue of more than $ 75,000 per year then it's a great way to finance your business without going into a lot of debt.

Whether or not they do, if domestic savings rise faster than domestic investment, which is the only way to increase the domestic savings pool available to fund Japanese debt, then by definition the current account surplus must rise.

At the time the former seemed a more dangerous risk than the latter — although even then massive overinvestment was China's true vulnerability — but I think by now there is a rapidly developing consensus that investment, and the unsustainable concomitant increase in debt, is China's biggest problem.

Since then, outstanding debt has ballooned 4,411 percent to $ 18 trillion — more than twice the amount of all the gold in the world.

then here comes more debt than is even remotely serviceable, which they are able to get away with because of the bankers covering the «brand name» firms.

If investors come to feel that the central bank is prepared to raise rates more aggressively than expected, then that could be a big headwind for equities, especially as all of Trump's policy proposals will add to US national debt.

For example, if you make a yearly salary of $ 50,000, then you do not want to have debt repayments totaling more than $ 18,000.

Once you start growing your debt, in the case of the United States, when you consume more than you produce and you become a debtor nation and then all of a sudden you balance your trades out there is a lack of savings going on.

When you are in debt, and especially when it comes at a high rate of interest — say, anything greater than 5 % — then compound interest is your enemy.

If we actuall had a Congress who cared about the People they swore to serve and did not take vacations 1 week for every 2 they work (new Boehner rule when he became Speaker), actually did work and created bills that were other than ending abortion rights or killing Medicare, stopped opposing ending the fraud Bush wars that raise our debt by more than a trillion a month (and Republicans then blame Obama for the rising debt from their wars), and acted like humans we would already be well into recovery.

If he can just get those of the weak and thoughtless minds to concentrate on gay people and not on his distorted unemployment statistics, pay - offs to his union buddies, economy collapsing debt, bullying of the American businessman / woman, ever - lavish spending wife (our money, not theirs), and a debacle of a healthcare plan, then maybe, maybe he might just get elected again so that he can do even more damage than he has already wrought.

But to the extent that it ignores the finger Lincoln points at the Civil War — to the extent that it forgets the decimation of a generation of young Americans at the beginnings of manhood; to the extent that it forgets the windrows of corpses at Shiloh, the odor of death in the Wilderness, the walking skeletons of Andersonville, 623,000 dead all told, not to mention the interminable list of those crippled, orphaned, and widowed whose pensions became the single largest bill paid by the federal government for the following half - century; to the extent that it ignores how the war cost the United States $ 6.6 billion, rocketed the national debt from $ 65 million to $ 2.7 billion, retarded commodity growth for the next thirty years, and devalued its currency — then the call for reparations opens itself up to a charge of willful forgetfulness so massive that resentment, anger, and bitterness, rather than justice, will (I fear) be its real legacy.

I consider simplicity as a spiritual way of life — if you stop working around the clock or worrying about being in debt or shopping compulsively, then you have time to try to be a better person rather than just an accumulator.

you can google and see it for yourself more than 10 clubs that build a stadium and at the same time winning major trophies at home and in europe... its not like we finished our debt or we couldn't have afforded to keep our players, we could have but then our bank balance wouldn't be 300m euros....

but it wont be to long before we are over the # 200 million mark in cash reserves net wise (not gross) with the new t.v deal coming in and our gross debt is around the # 220 million mark so not far off at all in fact, so maybe two more years then we will defo have more cash than debt for certain.

Well to a point they are right, maybe we are luckier than your average PL club, but then we are NOT your average PL club, we are charged the highest ticket prices of any club in the EPL for starter's and we are now apparently debt free and according to certain sources inside the clubs Hierarchy can buy any player we want, in short we are financially as big as any of our competition with regards to the ability to buy in top quality talent, and while we don't have the money to burn that Man city or Chelsea have we are in a position to spend more and spend it more often as long as there is a degree of prudence.

just reading around and all if not most rags are saying our net spend is # 46 million how can they tell that when they do nt even know what our real budget is if it was # 100 million then we are in profit by quite a bit i do nt really know what they base there assumptions on this is where you could do with swiss ramble to dissect what really was spent from what i could see most of our 5 transfers were covered by out goings and c / l monies earned debuchy - vela deal, chambers - vermalen deal, ospina - cesc and miquel deals sanchez c / l monies and other monies recovered from wages and old installment based deals this is the same with welbeck i would imagine if not then poldolski will be sold in jan to cover this as i think he was going to be sold and this would have covered welbecks transfer more or less also and people do nt always realize that arsenal have money coming in from more than one source to cover transfers not just puma and emirates deals we have property arm of the club which makes money for transfers also outstanding debts we are owed of old transfers we receive each year on song cesc maybe van persie and all other structured deals in installment payments sales we just flogged miquel as an example and all the monies from released wages and youths sold its a bit to complex to just say we have a net spend of xyz when arsenal do nt even make the budget public so they have no starting point from which to go from i bet you we have broke even or even made a slight profit as we are self sustaining it would make sense that we can break even or at least make the net spend under # 10 million each year at least screw then all we are the arsenal we do thing our way

Then that so Called Pep keep 300 million aside... Pep has spend more money than Emirates debt we had at the time building new stadium..

If Stan injecting his own monmey but in reality that means saddling Arsenal with debt then no thanks and like you, I infinitely prefer Stan's approach than what we expect Usamove to bring.

Then the US is has a higher debt / gdp ratio than most european countries so it's safe to say that this can't be the sole cause.

The coalition's messaging on this immediately before and after the 2010 election was powerful and effective (basically, «Brace yourself»), but since then it has been more focussed on trumpeting «how clever we are for reducing the deficit», rather than explaining sufficiently that it was simply slowing the rate of overall debt increase.

Many countries that have suffered from the debt crisis since then — Portugal, Spain, Italy — had smaller budget deficits than us.

More meaningfully, as a percentage of GDP, debt is by then forecast to be falling very slightly, but still considerably higher than now.

It is curious, then, that last week David Cameron told the CBI that controlling Britain's debt was «proving harder than anyone envisaged».

(CRI has since re-paid the debt, and then some, awarding more than $ 25 million to Rockefeller and Memorial Sloan - Kettering over the years.)

Estimates show school voucher programs alone have saved more than $ 1.7 billion, or $ 3,400 per voucher per student on average, which could then be used to boost per - pupil funding in public schools, pay off debt or bolster other public programs.

[22] If the total amount of debt in the project is less than $ 75 million, then the applicant must obtain only one investment - grade rating on the senior obligations and one rating on the TIFIA credit instrument from a Credit Rating Agency.

[191] If the TIFIA credit instrument is proposed as the senior debt, then it must receive two investment grade ratings, unless the total amount of the debt is less than $ 75 million, in which case only one investment grade rating is required.

If they are getting the value they expect and want out of the service, then it may be worth it for them to pay a subscription fee that is cheaper than say, working with a professional debt counselor or debt settlement provider.

The same principle applies in reverse, however, making these leveraged buyouts potentially very risky; if the acquired company's ROA is lower than the cost of the debt used to buy it, then the private equity fund's ROE is less than if hadn't used debt.

If you owe more than $ 10,000 in unsecured debt (credit cards and personal loans) then a settlement program could be a more suitable approach.

At any rate, such a card would come in handy for consolidating debt, although if you've got more than one balance to transfer, then would the NO balance transfer fee (from that no fee card) still apply to all those card balances?

If by other Asset classes you mean other than equity, i.e. debt funds, liquid funds, arbitrage funds, FD's etc then yes majority of our lump - sum corpus has been invested in these asset classes only.

No, but seriously, consider debt relief programs if you can't afford to pay more than minimum payments so that you can become debt free fast and then rebuild your credit score and save money for retirement.