is investing in stock in large companies like Microsoft, apple etc etc a good way to have steady income?

File: 29 KB, 533x477, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 06:32:23 2015 No.852537 [Reply] [Original]

is investing in stock in large companies like Microsoft, apple etc etc a good way to have steady income?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 06:35:44 2015 No.852540 >>852537 No

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 06:38:22 2015 No.852541 >>852540 why

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 06:59:40 2015 No.852548 >>852537 Yes

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 07:04:46 2015 No.852550 >>852537 >buy $1,000 market value of MSFT shares >price goes up $1 >"heh, yes! INCOME, BITCH!" >prices goes up another $1 >"M-MOM!! COME QUICK!!"

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 07:11:36 2015 No.852556
File: 22 KB, 437x294, 2015-08-08_0022.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>852550
more like
>put a regular amount each month into a stockbroking account
>invest it in a high yielding massive company - see pic related (companies in the FTSE100 with a yield >5%)
>ignore tiny price changes- income is the objective here
>gradually build up diversified portfolio
>??????
>INCOME

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 07:31:21 2015 No.852569 >>852537 If it's the year 2003, sure.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 08:28:14 2015 No.852597 >>852537 Buy an ETF with those big name companies in it would be a better idea

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 11:59:21 2015 No.852769

You want a steady income? GET A FUCKING JOB.

Investing is for growing your assets, over time, to leverage the wealth you make from your job or career.

Eventually you will need to rely on your investments for your income because you'll be old and frail. You better hope to hell you worked hard and saved enough money to support yourself. Otherwise your going to be eating cat food and bagging groceries in your 80's instead of enjoying your condo in Florida like a normal old person.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 12:45:32 2015 No.852808 >>852769 Well, I wouldn't say that exactly. As long as you have enough investments going, you can pay your living expenses. And if you have a huge amount, you can live off of it for sure. But, it's a process that is usually decades long.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 12:53:33 2015 No.852815 >>852808 OP isn't ihaz. Giving false hope doesn't help anyone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 13:26:05 2015 No.852841 >>852815 But it's not false hope. Many people are able to retire and live off of their investments, e.g. MMM

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 13:32:28 2015 No.852844 >>852841 >many people >cites one guy, who actually still works selling investment advice to aspiring NEETs

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 13:33:01 2015 No.852845 >>852556 Own Shell here, but mining companies are very risky right now. Price may go up eventually but yields are high due to recent share price crash. Going to buy RIO and Nat Grid when it gets worse lad.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 13:43:38 2015 No.852851 >>852844 Well, if you want more examples, there are. Fisk also did it, as well as FIFighter, FinancialSamurai, etc. I'm sure I can dig up more examples. Personally, I'm about to retire early as well.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 15:27:31 2015 No.852959 >>852537 Yes, blue chip stocks are considered very reliable.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 01:25:03 2015 No.853559

>>852556
>market value increase counts as income
>wanting to put away more capital for a lower dividend rate than you would for a regular diversified preferred portfolio
>not getting easy, stress-free, implied returns along with a 6% dividend rate if not up to 15% like I got the other day

Stay pleb, britcuck.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 07:18:10 2015 No.853710 File: 32 KB, 400x457, 4af48dd1-2ae8-443b-927c-be4cda00c3c1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>853559 >market value increase counts as income wtf you're legitimately an idiot please read more about high yield strategies rest of post ignored

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 07:22:00 2015 No.853712 >>853710 >buying common stock >for dividends >when you're really just speculating on price

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 08:01:01 2015 No.853726 >>853712 have you heard of utilities??

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 08:08:37 2015 No.853728 >>852556 You know that over 50% of those companies will have cut their dividend by this time next year. Enjoy your yield while it lasts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 08:11:17 2015 No.853729 >>853726 utilities that have preferreds, yes.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 09:42:06 2015 No.853766

>>852537

No. Stock price fluctuations does not mean too much in annual income.

Unless you sell, changes in stock price doesn't affect your annual income much.

If you want alot of steady annual income from investments, you need a crapton of high risk bonds (at best $1mil to give you $70k/year).

The same investment (1mil) in MSFT or AAPL stock would only give you ~$20k in dividends per year.

There are utilities that pay about double the yield than MSFT or AAPL.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 10:11:26 2015 No.853782

>>852844
>who actually still works selling investment advice to aspiring NEETs
You know he's posted like twice in the last three months, right? His net worth is in the "millions of dollars" range. He doesn't have to do anything at all; he only does the blog because he wanted to help people and reap the meager benefits of referral links which, again, he doesn't have to do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 11:17:40 2015 No.853838 >>852845 Lol pleb commodities are in a down cycle right now. This is the time to buy and hold till commodity prices pick up again. Plebs here are probably long on tech stock lol man.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 12:01:54 2015 No.853886

Stock picking is a terrible idea. You shouldn't put your money in a few big American companies you think look good. That's limiting your options when you should be diversifying. Buy VOO instead. That way you get to be diversified in 500 big American companies, a.k.a the market. See if you bought a few of those companies yourself, there's no guarantee that you'd make money in the long term, but if you buy all 500 of them you will definitely be rolling in money in years to come.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 12:24:26 2015 No.853905
File: 36 KB, 500x333, download (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>853728
Well, they almost certainly won't, but don't let that stop you trying to eke out a tiny morsel of schadenfreude wherever you can.
Here are a couple of clues for you though
- although high-yield is basically a long-term strategy, that doesn't make it impossible to sell the shares, and the prospect of a dividend cut is a good enough reason to consider tinkering. Such cuts are usually flagged well in advance.
- in a high yield strategy, diversity is your friend. If some companies do falter, the effect is dissipated by having a diverse portfolio

High yielders are one of the bedrocks of my portfolio, including some of the companies from my earlier post, plus others- a couple from each sector plus a few ETFs of high yielders in other markets. As I reinvest the dividends, the income I get from them is growing.

>>853712
Nope

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 16:45:08 2015 No.854134 >>853905 What is the total value of your investments? And do you still need to work or are you currently retired?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 17:14:34 2015 No.854153 >>852537 No. You'd need to invest millions to have any return while also taking into account that they're all tanking in the current market. A good investment would be in a ML startup.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 17:26:19 2015 No.854164 What is better in the long run, investing every month into a medium/high risk mutual fund. Or slowly buying stocks and building a diverse portfolio.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 17:29:16 2015 No.854166 >>854153 >tanking Kek. Baby's first summer lull?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 18:06:19 2015 No.854199 >>854166 >summer Oh, baby! Enjoy going bankrupt by next year.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 18:32:00 2015 No.854226

>>854199
>Enjoy going bankrupt by next year.
You do know that most of the major markets are up year-to-date, right? If a small summer pullback causes you to start using words like "bankrupt" I don't think you have the temperament for investing.

Don't feel bad. You can still lead a modestly comfortable life, with a lot of luck and a lot of frugality.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 19:05:59 2015 No.854260

>>854134
>What is the total value of your investments?

A little over £1.5 million, with the majority in shares and ETFs in an ISA (tax free savings wrapper). Within that portfolio, I'd say probably about 70% is high-yielders- individual UK shares and yield-based ETFs from around the world (I use ETFs to buy diversity cheaply. I like to keep things simple, so I don't have multiple stockbroker accounts in different countries). The rest is a mix of growth/value strategy.

>And do you still need to work or are you currently retired?

I don't really "need" to work but I still do- I am a freelancer and I make enough money from that to live on, so I reinvest the dividends I receive from my shares. I enjoy what I do but the moment that ceases to be true, I will probably stop working for pay and do something voluntary.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 19:08:42 2015 No.854265

>>854260
>£
There's that strange symbol again...

Anyway, that's pretty sweet. I like high-yield dividend investments, but everybody on /biz/ seems to be hostile to *anything* that isn't a Vanguard S&P500 ETF.

The real question then, is how have your returns compared to returns of a broad market ETF (like VOO or SPY)? Are you better or worse off?

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 19:43:19 2015 No.854305

>>854265
>how have your returns compared to returns of a broad market ETF (like VOO or SPY)

A quick check on Vanguard's website shows that VOO has done very well since it started, with an average annual return of 16.5%. I don't own any, but I do have some CSPX (UK-listed iShares S&P500 ETF) which is comparable and that has also done quite well since I bought into it. It's one of the "world markets diversity" ETFs I mentioned before.

High yield investing is not about capital growth though, and VOO has a pretty mediocre yield, of about 2%. Also, VOO hasn't yet reached its 5th birthday (that's next month), so it barely qualifies as a "long term" investment. The last five years have been pretty good for growth investments but I think it's unlikely that the next 10 years or so will be quite so kind. For income investors, high yield strategies tend to weather storms better, as long as you grit your teeth and don't look too closely at capital values, and as long as you watch out for companies cutting dividends in hard times. But certainly for most people just buying a simple tracker like VOO is a good bet (although perhaps not as much now as it would have been in 2010)

> Are you better or worse off?

I'd say I probably haven't done as well as a total return in the past five years but if we came back here in say 2025 I bet a basic high-yield strategy (with dividends reinvested) would be ahead overall. It suits me as a strategy so I'm planning to stick with it for the foreseeable future, although it always pays to be adaptable.

Anonymous Sat Aug 15 21:02:14 2015 No.854402

>>854305
Your strategy is pretty sub-optimal. Your aggregate performance is less than a traditional diversified equity portfolio, as you concede. That would be understandable if you needed the income, but you're just re-investing it. Plus its in a tax-advantaged account, so its not even clear whether you could access the income if you wanted to (I'm not versant on ISAs).

If you're not using the income, you should be focused on an aggregate performance (growth + yield) because they both add to your capital equally in a tax-advantaged account. You're sacrificing performance and getting nothing in return. That's a poor decision.

>VOO has a pretty mediocre yield, of about 2%
Who cares what the yield is? You're just going to reinvest it anyway. All that matters is aggregate performance.

>For income investors
You're not an income investor. You're not relying on your investment income for ordinary expenses. You're still in your accumulation phase, but making poor asset allocation decisions.

>if we came back here in say 2025 I bet a basic high-yield strategy (with dividends reinvested) would be ahead overall
Wanna bet? There's a hundred years of market history that says you're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 21:06:22 2015 No.854405 File: 361 KB, 500x281, steven shows the money.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>852537 How much for that Rare Pepe you are offering?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 22:45:24 2015 No.854456 >>853905 kek, continue wasting capital utilization

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 00:47:02 2015 No.854531 >>852769 "normal old person" Kek Remember that next time you say hello to the Walmart greeter

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 08:20:58 2015 No.854742

>>854402
>Your strategy is pretty sub-optimal

It's interesting how you think you can make statements like that based on a few comments on an anonymous messageboard. Any other sweeping statements you'd like to make up?

> so its not even clear whether you could access the income if you wanted to (I'm not versant on ISAs).

Of course I could. Perhaps you should try to be a bit more "versant". Incidentally I think you should also look up what "versant" actually means before trying to use clever words.

> Who cares what the yield is? You're just going to reinvest it anyway.

You know, this kind of statement immediately reveals your own naivete about investment. You are basically saying that don't understand what compounding is.

Also, looking back through the thread I can see that you have made other enlightening comments such as
>You want a steady income? GET A FUCKING JOB.
and
>You can still lead a modestly comfortable life, with a lot of luck and a lot of frugality.

So I think the rest of your valuable insights can safely be ignored. I'm going to adopt your making-shit-up method and guess you see yourself as the kind of sharp wheeler-dealer, wolf of Wall Street, lunch is for wimps, Patrick Bateman type, whereas in reality you're probably very young, live with your parents, and have probably never left your home county.

>>854456
Oh it's you again, my little gloating friend. Why don't you head over to /b/ and wank over some videos of dogs being set on fire or something? I am sure you could have a good "kek".

I can see that in common with most threads on this shitty board, OP hasn't returned. Don't think I'll bother either.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 09:32:24 2015 No.854775 >>854742 LOL nice ad hom. way to refute you aren't utilizing your capital very well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 11:10:37 2015 No.854839 >>854742 Kek'd

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Sun Aug 16 13:18:40 2015 No.854916 [DELETED]

>>854742
>You are basically saying that don't understand what compounding is.
I think you're the one who is quite confused here, sport. You do realize that both price gains and distributions compound equally in a tax-advantaged account, right? Please tell me your not so stupid as the managed your own seven-figure portfolio and not grasp the basics of investment strategy. This is honestly a bit sad.

Look, you can be edgy and and insult me all you won't (yay 4chan) but the fact remains that you haven't responded at all to my legitimate criticisms of your investing strategy. To reiterate, you're accepting lower performance on your portfolio due to sub-optimal asset allocation, which impairs your compounding, and receiving no benefit from doing so. Its just stupid and I can't think of a single justification for doing so.
>you see yourself as the kind of sharp wheeler-dealer, wolf of Wall Street, lunch is for wimps, Patrick Bateman type
Actually I'm a conservative investor who puts most of his money into index funds.
>whereas in reality you're probably very young, live with your parents, and have probably never left your home county
Yeah, another big mistake, junior. I'm older than you, smarter than you, and far wealthier than you.

But as fun as it is to make you look foolish, let's not make this about our net worth. My observations are true regardless of how much money I have (which happens to be about 10x what you have, for the record).

>Incidentally I think you should also look up what "versant" actually means
"Versant" means "conversant," as in sufficiently knowledgeable about a topic to discuss it with authority. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/versant

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Sun Aug 16 13:26:05 2015 No.854917 [DELETED]

>>854742
>You are basically saying that don't understand what compounding is.
I think you're the one who is quite confused here, sport. You do realize that both price gains and distributions compound equally in a tax-advantaged account, right? Please tell me you're not so stupid as to manage your own seven-figure portfolio and not grasp the basics of investment strategy. This is honestly a bit sad.

Look, you can be edgy and and insult me all you won't (yay 4chan) but the fact remains that you haven't responded at all to my legitimate criticisms of your investing strategy. To reiterate, you're accepting lower performance on your portfolio due to sub-optimal asset allocation, which impairs your compounding, and receiving no benefit from doing so. Its just stupid and I can't think of a single justification for your approach.

>you see yourself as the kind of sharp wheeler-dealer, wolf of Wall Street, lunch is for wimps, Patrick Bateman type
Actually I'm a conservative investor who puts most of his money into index funds.
>whereas in reality you're probably very young, live with your parents, and have probably never left your home county
Yeah, another big mistake, junior. I'm older than you, smarter than you, and far wealthier than you.

But as fun as it is to make you look foolish, let's not make this about our net worth. My observations are true regardless of how much money I have (which happens to be about 10x what you have, for the record).

>Incidentally I think you should also look up what "versant" actually means
"Versant" means "conversant," as in sufficiently knowledgeable about a topic to discuss it with authority. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/versant

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 13:26:19 2015 No.854918 Great biz heere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrZOl3kAW4o

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Sun Aug 16 13:27:19 2015 No.854919

>>854742
>You are basically saying that don't understand what compounding is.
I think you're the one who is quite confused here, sport. You do realize that both price gains and distributions compound equally in a tax-advantaged account, right? Please tell me your not so stupid as the managed your own seven-figure portfolio and not grasp the basics of investment strategy. This is honestly a bit sad.

Look, you can be edgy and and insult me all you want (yay 4chan) but the fact remains that you haven't responded to my legitimate criticisms of your investing strategy. To reiterate, you're accepting lower performance on your portfolio due to sub-optimal asset allocation, which impairs your compounding, and receiving no benefit from doing so. Its just stupid and I can't think of a single justification for doing so.
>you see yourself as the kind of sharp wheeler-dealer, wolf of Wall Street, lunch is for wimps, Patrick Bateman type
Actually I'm a conservative investor who puts most of his money into index funds.
>whereas in reality you're probably very young, live with your parents, and have probably never left your home county
Yeah, another big mistake, junior. I'm older than you, smarter than you, and far wealthier than you.

But as fun as it is to make you look foolish, let's not make this about our net worth. My observations are true regardless of how much money I have (which happens to be about 10x what you have, for the record).

>Incidentally I think you should also look up what "versant" actually means
"Versant" means "conversant," as in sufficiently knowledgeable about a topic to discuss it with authority. I'm not surprised you didn't know that.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/versant

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 14:10:09 2015 No.854961

>>852537

I think tech is a great sector that will provide great long term gains. I would suggest picking up a Tech ETF and just play it safe. It's hard to tell which companies will "create" the future. They all have very ambitious ideas, some that will work and some that won't and all of these ideas require a lot of financing. I'd rather play it safe.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 14:22:10 2015 No.854976 >>854919 May you please make the sticky?

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 17:17:06 2015 No.855162 >>852556 Hello Mr. Value investor

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 17:42:19 2015 No.855180 >>854919 It's a little hard a noob to follow the dialogue up there on Mount Olympus. Are you saying "compounding dividend" appreciation loses out to "rising stock price" appreciation? Or are they similar, but taxed differently?

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Sun Aug 16 17:55:38 2015 No.855198

>>855180
>Are you saying "compounding dividend" appreciation loses out to "rising stock price" appreciation? Or are they similar, but taxed differently?

OUTSIDE a tax-advantaged account, a dividend stock will lose out to a growth stock over time because the dividends are taxable as long-term capital gains. This eats into your investment capital, and saps your compounding.

Consider two equivalent stocks -- a growth stock (Stock G) and a high-dividend stock (Stock D) -- both of which yield 10% per year. Stock G earns its 10% by price accumulation alone, and Stock D earns its 10% by paying a 10% cash dividend. You own 1 share of each, and they are both worth $100/share. At the start, therefore, both Stock G and Stock D are worth $100.

At the end of 1 year, Stock G is now worth $110 (10% growth), and Stock D is still worth $100 but has paid you a $10 dividend which you re-invest. Your return on both stocks is the same -- before taxes. After taxes, however, Stock G is still worth $110 (no tax consequences) but Stock D has only returned you $108 because you paid 20% in capital gains taxes on the dividends. (I'm using 20% to keep the math simple in this example, but the principle is the same for any tax rate.) So after one year, Stock G is ahead by $2.

After year two, Stock G is now worth $121 ($110 x 10%), and stock D is worth $108 ($100 original + $8 reinvested) but has paid you a $10.80 dividend, reduced by taxes to $8.64, for a total gain of $116.64. Stock G is now ahead by $4.36

Hopefully you can now see where this is going. Every year the spread between Stock G and Stock D is going to get wider and wider because taxes aren't depleting any of your Stock G capital.

(cont.)

iHaz !MILLiOnz/Q Sun Aug 16 17:59:53 2015 No.855203

>>855180
(cont.)

INSIDE a tax-advantaged account, you don't suffer the tax hit when dividends are declared. You get to reinvest the full amount. Therefore, inside a tax-advantaged account, growth and distributions both add EQUALLY to your growth and your compounding. So what you should be focused on is maximizing your overall return (growth PLUS dividends) instead of focusing on one or the other.

This is the mistake that >>854742 is making. He's focused on yield (dividends or interest) inside his tax-advantaged account even though he doesn't need the income. He admits that he's accepting a lower overall return, but he "likes" the cash. What he fails to recognize is that inside his tax-advantaged account, there's no benefit to that cash as compared to growth. They are equivalent. So he should be focused on maximizing his aggregate return, and not obsess over high yields

Hope that was clearer.

Anonymous Sun Aug 16 18:26:55 2015 No.855214

Avoid tech.

Consumer staples, healthcare, and sin stocks like tobacco tend to outperform the broader market over long periods of time. Why? In the long run, returns track inflation+economic growth+dividends, so the historical average of 10% comes from 4% inflation+3% GDP growth+3% dividends. These industries return more over time because they boast inherently superior business economics and (for sin stocks) are valued less efficiently due to moral aversion.

The tendency to outperform holds true if 1) your holding period is decades (plural), and 2) you don't pay a ridiculous price (like buying Coke in 1998 at 40+ P/E).

So if you really want to invest in "large companies" for steady income, go with businesses like Nestle, JNJ, and Altria.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 18:52:32 2015 No.855236 >>855203 Cool post, some stuff to chew on.

>>	Anonymous Sun Aug 16 22:26:00 2015 No.855414 >>852556 looked at Glaxosmithkline shares >$1200 each i am kill

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 07:58:42 2015 No.855778 >>855203 >Hope that was clearer. Definitely, thank you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 08:42:40 2015 No.855819 >>852556 Only half of those names will get blown out of the water any moment. Aberdeen hit is not a 'tiny price change'

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 08:47:33 2015 No.855823

>>854919

dude forget about it, the guy doesnt know shit, I work here in London in AM, if he showed his 'portfolio' to any professional asset manager he'd get laughed out of the room

Some of his companies have taken a 35% hit in value in the last 5 months only, he's a high yield speculator in denial

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 08:48:06 2015 No.855825

Surprised no one has mentioned REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts) yet. Own a % of a large property holding company that makes its money from rent, legally obligated to pay 90% of profit in dividends (in exchange for tax breaks), and normally pay quarterly. So you get all the benefits of a frequent and stable dividend payment, while the shares go up roughly in line with property prices.

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 10:23:47 2015 No.855912 >>855825 Can you name us a an example of a well-managed REIT? Either in North America or Europe?

>>	Anonymous Mon Aug 17 10:26:13 2015 No.855916 >>852769 I plan on killing myself at 60 anyway. Maybe even 55 if my health goes. Not trying to be edgy, just realistically cutting my losses

Anonymous Mon Aug 17 10:41:37 2015 No.855932

>>855825
Well I'm limited to stocks traded on the FTSE at the moment, so bear that in mind.

At the moment in the UK it looks like theres going to be a interest rate rise, so go for companies with a low current ration (or low debt ratio of your choice). So based on that my pick is the land securities group LAND.L. Low debt, many good and notable properties, and its in many european countries, so many eggs in many baskets. Dividend is a pretty stable 3% but bear in mind that the price rises with property prices, so if you buy and hold for a few years it starts to grow pretty quick.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/biz/ - Business & Finance