I'm no expert in trading but I’ve made $36,000 within $5000 investment, with Mr Jeff Lerner guidance and trading skills. I've nothing but continued success… contact him via Wh**atsApp +1 (224) 372‑3619 with the trading skills and strategy given to me by Mr Jeff Lerner His methods are top notch and profitable and He also can be contacted easily on
te~le-gram~~~ @jeff_lerner
P
Always be careful when working on stock and cryptos always ask for help, as this is how you avoid losses
G
Cash on the balance sheet $605B. Total debt $355B. No wonder they want to buyback $20B in stock and raise the dividend 11%.
E
Went it come to investing, we want our money to grow with the highest rates of return, and the lowest risk possible. While there are no shortcuts to getting rich, but there are smart ways to go about it
I don't think that MS has another 10% in gains in it. Looks pretty bad here. I actually found (http://Achieverspot.tech) the other day and their stocks are way better...
p
Alright now ! The dividend is $0.025 more than I expected so that's GOOOOOD !
H
Can't find the right stocks to trade? I have the solution right here for free (http://market-engross.club)
r
Interest rates going up. MS should be printing money.
s
MS total debt ~$245 billion, net debt ~$150 billion. Borrowing more money in increasing interest rate to buy back shares and stock goes up - interesting.
p
Dont see Gorman goin out his way to prop up price. Maybe 2 weeks away from dividend declaration. Due for increase but not entirely optimistic about getting one. If anything they may use current environment for keeping the current payout steady, or go back to a nickel ×4 increase on regular dividend bringing it to annum $3, 0r $0.75 per Q.
K
I bought all I could on this last downturn, might have to sell my wife’s car and double down , just think , she can walk for a year then I would make enough of MS to buy her a new electric Cadillac for 2 to 3 hundred thousand bucks , no brainer
"Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" -- that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.
"Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else -- the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save.
"That's the law.
"Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life -- it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side.
"Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means."
His methods are top notch and profitable and He also can be contacted easily on
te~le-gram~~~ @jeff_lerner
The dividend is $0.025 more than I expected so that's GOOOOOD !
"Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" -- that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.
"Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else -- the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save.
"That's the law.
"Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life -- it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side.
"Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means."