#bonds market

[prophet-one]

SVB bank failure

I comprehend the reason why SVB failed: its a classic bank run where the bank does not have the liquid assets to fund withdrawals. This the “other shoe dropping” wrt the rapid increase in interest rates.

what stands out to me are two questions: why do companies have that much cash in the bank? How did the financial markets in general fail?

The SVB failed because the financial markets are NOT working. The markets are not providing suitable securities for companies to park their excess cash. SVB was probably seen as a “safe” place to store cash. That assumption is obviously false. 

Question: why did the corporate depositors have so much money in cash accounts versus other securities?

Two months ago I was discussing cash management with my financial advisor. The key point he made about Bonds and funds that invest in bonds, is to use rolling maturity. The bond values will lag the market (especially with rapid changes in interest rates), but you wont lose principle. (BTW the change in bond values has to do with the liquidity price not the book value... if you hold bonds to maturity, then you dont lose value). So, back to the question about the depositors... when you have a billion plus of cash to invest you should be able to do something better than stash it in a low interest chequeing account. Something doesnt seem right about that.

Question: why do corporate depositors have so much cash on hand in the first place?

The financial markets “should” provide companies with cash “when and as” they need it through equity and bonds and loans. When a company like Roku has over a billion dollars sitting around “just in case they need it”, this is a clear sign that the financial markets are not working. Different sectors have different requirements for liquidity; but having 2 to 5 years of excess cash on hand is well beyond any reasonable requirement.

I completely understand that companies like the security blanket of having 2 or 3 or 10 years of cash sitting around. However, that is a total waste of shareholder resources, given that shareholders can make better investments with that cash. There is supposed to be a tax on capital to disincentivize hoarding... I guess that tax is not high enough.

When the regulators have time to get around to sifting through remains; I would like them to investigate these two questions: why are corporations not investing their excess cash appropriates? why do corporations have so much excess cash, why cant corporations raise the cash they need in an efficient manner? 

[pallavirajput74]

Corporate Bonds in India

[bondsindia]

Best Bonds to Buy in India

When it comes to smart financial decisions, investing in bonds is a path worth considering. In India, a diverse range of bonds offer stability and attractive returns. In this guide, we'll explore the best bond options available for you to buy, helping you make informed decisions to secure your financial future.

Understanding Bonds:

Bonds are essentially loans that you provide to the government or a company. In return, they promise to pay you back with interest over a specified period. These investments are generally considered safer than stocks and can be an excellent way to diversify your portfolio.

Top Bond Options in India:

Government Bonds: These bonds are issued by the Indian government. They are considered highly safe, making them an ideal choice for risk-averse investors. Within this category, you can view:

Sovereign Gold Bonds (SGBs): These bonds allow you to invest in gold electronically, eliminating the need to physically store the metal. They offer interest and potential capital appreciation.

RBI Savings Bonds: Backed by the Reserve Bank of India, these bonds provide a fixed interest rate and come with various tenure options.

Corporate Bonds: These bonds are issued by companies to raise capital. They offer higher interest rates compared to government bonds, but they also involve slightly higher risk. Some prominent corporate bonds include:

AAA-rated Corporate Bonds: These bonds come from highly reputable companies with a strong credit history, reducing the risk significantly.

Tax-Free Bonds: Issued by government-backed institutions, these bonds offer tax benefits to investors.

Municipal Bonds: Issued by local governments or municipalities, these bonds fund public projects. They can offer tax advantages and contribute to local development.

Factors to Consider:

Credit Rating: Always check the credit rating of the bond issuer. Higher-rated bonds are generally safer investments.

Yield and Duration: Considproducte yield (interest rate) and the duration of the bond. Longer durations might offer higher yields but also carry higher interest rate risk.

Tax Implications: Different bonds have varying tax treatments. It's important to understand whether the interest is taxable or tax-free.

Diversification: Spread your investments across different types of bonds to minimize risk.

How to Buy Bonds:

You can buy bonds through various channels, including:

Banks and Financial Institutions Stock Exchanges Online Trading Platforms

Conclusion:

Investing in bonds can be a wise decision to balance your investment portfolio and generate consistent returns. The best bond to buy in India depends on your risk tolerance, financial goals, and investment horizon. Government bonds provide safety, corporate bonds offer higher yields, and municipal bonds contribute to local development. Remember to research thoroughly, diversify your investments, and stay updated with market trends. By doing so, you can secure your financial well-being and achieve your long-term aspirations.

Remember, while bonds are generally considered safer than stocks, no investment is entirely risk-free. Always consult with a financial advisor before making significant investment decisions.

[suntails]

🐙⚔️

this is a piece from my silver artbook, currently accepting preorders!! u can get a copy here!

non-UK: suntails.bigcartel.com

UK: etsy.com/shop/SuntailsArt

[imaginariumwanderer]

I'm so conflicted

On one hand, they gave us two cool Dark Choco designs to work with. We also have several cute moment like illusion!Dark Choco missing his father, the flashback, the final scene etc and I love those very much!

On the other, what do you mean he doesn't even physically appear and only gets mentioned in a couple of lines???

I not mad, just sad. They shouldn't have shown him in the trailer if he's not going to play a (bigger) role in the episode. They should've left him out completely sans his Magic Candy, letting us guessing/ thinking whether he'll appears or not. That way the back to back Dark Choco inclusion near the end will be stronger, we can finish the EP off with a final image of Dark Choco looking at the kingdom from afar, hinting at the eventual father-son reunion...

Anyways, I'm gonna go write a fanfic where Dark Cacao and Dark Choco traveled through EP 4 together now

[ruegarding]

like the whole point of the ball scene is to humanize cerberus and the underworld. percy literally says "i thought maybe annabeth and i had both had the right idea. even here in the underworld, everybody—even monsters—needed a little attention once in a while." and then almost immediately afterwards percy thinks "the dead aren't scary. they're just sad." the whole point is that the underworld, and hades by extension, isn't scary! that's why percy is so sure he can leave his mother w hades and come back, and that's why he mentions charon and cerberus ("it wouldn't hurt to play with cerberus once in a while. he likes red rubber balls" HELLO) bc he doesn't see hades as the scary, conniving god everyone else does.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Insurance companies are making climate risk worse

Tomorrow (November 29), I'm at NYC's Strand Books with my novel The Lost Cause, a solarpunk tale of hope and danger that Rebecca Solnit called "completely delightful."

Conservatives may deride the "reality-based community" as a drag on progress and commercial expansion, but even the most noxious pump-and-dump capitalism is supposed to remain tethered to reality by two unbreakable fetters: auditing and insurance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community

No matter how much you value profit over ethics or human thriving, you still need honest books – even if you never show those books to the taxman or the marks. Even an outright scammer needs to know what's coming in and what's going out so they don't get caught in a liquidity trap (that is, "broke"), or overleveraged ("broke," again) exposed to market changes (you guessed it: "broke").

Unfortunately for capitalism, auditing is on its deathbed. The market is sewn up by the wildly corrupt and conflicted Big Four accounting firms that are the very definition of too big to fail/too big to jail. They keep cooking books on behalf of management to the detriment of investors. These double-entry fabrications conceal rot in giant, structurally important firms until they implode spectacularly and suddenly, leaving workers, suppliers, customers and investors in a state of utter higgeldy-piggeldy:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/29/great-andersens-ghost/#mene-mene-bezzle

In helping corporations defraud institutional investors, auditors are facilitating mass scale millionaire-on-billionaire violence, and while that may seem like the kind of fight where you're happy to see either party lose, there are inevitably a lot of noncombatants in the blast radius. Since the Enron collapse, the entire accounting sector has turned to quicksand, which is a big deal, given that it's what industrial capitalism's foundations are anchored to. There's a reason my last novel was a thriller about forensic accounting and Big Tech:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865847/red-team-blues

But accounting isn't the only bedrock that's been reduced to slurry here in capitalism's end-times. The insurance sector is meant to be an unshakably rational enterprise, imposing discipline on the rest of the economy. Sure, your company can do something stupid and reckless, but the insurance bill will be stonking, sufficient to consume the expected additional profits.

But the crash of 2008 made it clear that the largest insurance companies in the world were capable of the same wishful thinking, motivated reasoning, and short-termism that they were supposed to prevent in every other business. Without AIG – one of the largest insurers in the world – there would have been no Great Financial Crisis. The company knowingly underwrote hundreds of billions of dollars in junk bonds dressed up as AAA debt, and required a $180b bailout.

Still, many of us have nursed an ember of hope that the insurance sector would spur Big Finance and its pocket governments into taking the climate emergency seriously. When rising seas and wildfires and zoonotic plagues and famines and rolling refugee crises make cities, businesses, and homes uninsurable risks, then insurers will stop writing policies and the doom will become undeniable. Money talks, bullshit walks.

But while insurers have begun to withdraw from the most climate-endangered places (or crank up premiums), the net effect is to decrease climate resilience and increase risk, creating a "climate risk doom loop" that Advait Arun lays out brilliantly for Phenomenal World:

https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/the-doom-loop/

Part of the problem is political: as people move into high-risk areas (flood-prone coastal cities, fire-threatened urban-wildlife interfaces), politicians are pulling out all the stops to keep insurers from disinvesting in these high-risk zones. They're loosening insurance regs, subsidizing policies, and imposing "disaster risk fees" on everyone in the region.

But the insurance companies themselves are simply not responding aggressively enough to the rising risk. Climate risk is correlated, after all: when everyone in a region is at flood risk, then everyone will be making a claim on the insurance company when the waters come. The insurance trick of spreading risk only works if the risks to everyone in that spread aren't correlated.

Perversely, insurance companies are heavily invested in fossil fuel companies, these being reliable money-spinners where an insurer can park and grow your premiums, on the assumption that most of the people in the risk pool won't file claims at the same time. But those same fossil-fuel assets produce the very correlated risk that could bring down the whole system.

The system is in trouble. US claims from "natural disasters" are topping $100b/year – up from $4.6b in 2000. Home insurance premiums are up (21%!), but it's not enough, especially in drowning Florida and Texas (which is also both roasting and freezing):

https://grist.org/economics/as-climate-risks-mount-the-insurance-safety-net-is-collapsing/

Insurers who put premiums up to cover this new risk run into a paradox: the higher premiums get, the more risk-tolerant customers get. When flood insurance is cheap, lots of homeowners will stump up for it and create a big, uncorrelated risk-pool. When premiums skyrocket, the only people who buy flood policies are homeowners who are dead certain their house is gonna get flooded out and soon. Now you have a risk pool consisting solely of highly correlated, high risk homes. The technical term for this in the insurance trade is: "bad."

But it gets worse: people who decide not to buy policies as prices go up may be doing their own "motivated reasoning" and "mispricing their risk." That is, they may decide, "If I can't afford to move, and I can't afford to sell my house because it's in a flood-zone, and I can't afford insurance, I guess that means I'm going to live here and be uninsured and hope for the best."

This is also bad. The amount of uninsured losses from US climate disaster "dwarfs" insured losses:

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/hurricanes-floods-bring-120-billion-insurance-losses-2022-2023-01-09/

Here's the doom-loop in a nutshell:

As carbon emissions continue to accumulate, more people are put at risk of climate disaster, while the damages from those disasters intensifies. Vulnerability will drive disinvestment, which in turn exacerbates vulnerability.

Also: the browner and poorer you are, the worse you have it: you are impacted "first and worst":

https://www.climaterealityproject.org/frontline-fenceline-communities

As Arun writes, "Tinkering with insurance markets will not solve their real issues—we must patch the gaping holes in the financial system itself." We have to end the loop that sees the poorest places least insured, and the loss of insurance leading to abandonment by people with money and agency, which zeroes out the budget for climate remediation and resiliency where it is most needed.

The insurance sector is part of the finance industry, and it is disinvesting in climate-endagered places and instead doubling down on its bets on fossil fuels. We can't rely on the insurance sector to discipline other industries by generating "price signals" about the true underlying climate risk. And insurance doesn't just invest in fossil fuels – they're also a major buyer of municipal and state bonds, which means they're part of the "bond vigilante" investors whose decisions constrain the ability of cities to raise and spend money for climate remediation.

When American cities, territories and regions can't float bonds, they historically get taken over and handed to an unelected "control board" who represents distant creditors, not citizens. This is especially true when the people who live in those places are Black or brown – think Puerto Rico or Detroit or Flint. These control board administrators make creditors whole by tearing the people apart.

This is the real doom loop: insurers pull out of poor places threatened by climate disasters. They invest in the fossil fuels that worsen those disasters. They join with bond vigilantes to force disinvestment from infrastructure maintenance and resiliency in those places. Then, the next climate disaster creates more uninsured losses. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Finance and insurance are betting heavily on climate risk modeling – not to avert this crisis, but to ensure that their finances remain intact though it. What's more, it won't work. As climate effects get bigger, they get less predictable – and harder to avoid. The point of insurance is spreading risk, not reducing it. We shouldn't and can't rely on insurance creating price-signals to reduce our climate risk.

But the climate doom-loop can be put in reverse – not by market spending, but by public spending. As Arun writes, we need to create "a global investment architecture that is safe for spending":

https://tanjasail.wordpress.com/2023/10/06/a-world-safe-for-spending/

Public investment in emissions reduction and resiliency can offset climate risk, by reducing future global warming and by making places better prepared to endure the weather and other events that are locked in by past emissions. A just transition will "loosen liquidity constraints on investment in communities made vulnerable by the financial system."

Austerity is a bad investment strategy. Failure to maintain and improve infrastructure doesn't just shift costs into the future, it increases those costs far in excess of any rational discount based on the time value of money. Public institutions should discipline markets, not the other way around. Don't give Wall Street a veto over our climate spending. A National Investment Authority could subordinate markets to human thriving:

https://democracyjournal.org/arguments/industrial-policy-requires-public-not-just-private-equity/

Insurance need not be pitted against human survival. Saving the cities and regions whose bonds are held by insurance companies is good for those companies: "Breaking the climate risk doom loop is the best disaster insurance policy money can buy."

I found Arun's work to be especially bracing because of the book I'm touring now, The Lost Cause, a solarpunk novel set in a world in which vast public investment is being made to address the climate emergency that is everywhere and all at once:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865939/the-lost-cause

There is something profoundly hopeful about the belief that we can do something about these foreseeable disasters – rather than remaining frozen in place until the disaster is upon us and it's too late. As Rebecca Solnit says, inhabiting this place in your imagination is "Completely delightful. Neither utopian nor dystopian, it portrays life in SoCal in a future woven from our successes (Green New Deal!), failures (climate chaos anyway), and unresolved conflicts (old MAGA dudes). I loved it."

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/28/re-re-reinsurance/#useless-price-signals

[bitchesgetriches]

Hi! I fully do not understand investing, but I’m going to follow the directions you and others give about IRA investments. The one thing that I totally do not grasp is the allocating the funs into an index. Isnt there a scenerio where the index loses money and by retirement age you check it out and it went completely under or something?

Hey kiddo! And welcome to the wide world of investing. You're on the right track by starting an IRA for your retirement.

Yes, there are people who lose money by investing their retirement fund. This happens when they retire at the same time a recession or stock market crash happens. And it's fucking unlucky timing.

If you invest $100, and the market falls to the point that it's worth $80, you will lose money if you pull your money out when it's worth $80. But after the fall, when the market recovers so your original investment is worth $120, and THEN you pull your money out... you will have made money!

In other words, timing matters. We explain exactly how this works here:

Wait... Did I Just Lose All My Money Investing in the Stock Market?

Now to address the second part of your question. You can avoid the risk of losing money by regularly adjusting your allocation. When you're young and many years from retirement, you can allocate your portfolio aggressively into higher-risk investments. Who cares if you lose money in the short term? As we explain in the link above, you don't actually LOSE the money until you take the money out of the stock market.

But as you get older and nearer to retirement, you want to lock in your gains by moving your money from high-risk investments like stocks to safer investments like bonds. That way when you get within a few years of retirement, you can kind of "protect" your investments from being overly affected by market fluctuations.

In other words: allocation is not a one-time activity. We explain this more here:

Investing Deathmatch: Stocks vs. Bonds 

This was a big oversimplification, but we go into detail about all of this here:

Do NOT Make This Disastrous Beginner Mistake With Your Retirement Funds 

If you liked this article, join our Patreon!

[phoenixyfriend]

Ko-Fi prompt from Isabelo:

Hi! I'm new to the workforce and now that I have some money I'm worried it's losing its value to inflation just sitting in my bank. I wanted to ask if you have ideas on how to counteract inflation, maybe through investing?

I've been putting this off for a long time because...

I am not a finance person. I am not an investments person. I actually kinda turned and ran from that whole sector of the business world, at first because I didn't understand it, and then once I did understand it, because I disagreed with much of it on a fundamental level.

But... I can describe some factors and options, and hope to get you started.

I AM NOT LEGALLY QUALIFIED TO GIVE FINANCIAL ADVICE. THIS IS NOT FINANCIAL ADVICE.

What is inflation, and what impacts it?

Inflation is the rate at which money loses value over time. It's the reason something that cost 50 cents in the 1840s costs $50 now.

A lot of things do impact inflation, like housing costs and wage increases and supply chains, but the big one that is relevant here is federal interest rates. The short version: if you borrow money from the government, you have to pay it back. The higher the interest rates on those loans, the lower inflation is. This is for... a lot of reasons that are complicated. The reason I bring it up is less so:

The government offers investments:

So yeah, the feds can impact inflation, but they also offer investment opportunities. There are three common types available to the average person: Bonds, Bills, and Notes. I'll link to an article on Investopedia again, but the summary is as follows: You buy a bill, bond, or note from the government. You have loaned them money, as if you are the bank. Then, they give it back, with interest.

Treasury Bills: shortest timeframe (four weeks to a year), and lowest return on investment. You buy it at a discount (let's say $475), and then the government returns the "full value" that the bond is, nominally (let's say $500). You don't earn twice-yearly interest, but you did earn $25 on the basis of Loaning The Government Some Cash.

Treasury Notes: 2-10 year timeframe. Very popular, very stable. Banks watch it to see how they should plan the interest rates for mortgages and other large loans. Also pretty high liquidity, which means you can sell it to someone else if you suddenly need the cash before your ten-year waiting period is up. You get interest payments twice a year.

Treasury Bonds: 20-30 years. This is like... the inverse of a house mortgage. It takes forever, but it does have the highest yield. You get interest payments twice a year.

Why invest money into the US Treasury department, whether through the above or a different government paper? (Savings bonds aren't on sold the set schedule that treasury bonds are, but they only come in 30-year terms.)

It is very, very low risk. It is pretty much the lowest risk investment a person can make, at least in the US. (I'm afraid I don't know if you're American, but if you're not, your country probably has something similar.)

Interest rates do change, often in reaction or in relation to inflation. If your primary concern is inflation, not getting a high return on investment, I would look into government papers as a way to ensure your money is not losing value on you.

This is the website that tells you the government's own data for current yield and sales, etc. You can find a schedule for upcoming auctions, as well.

High-yield bank accounts:

Savings accounts can come with a pretty unremarkable but steady return on investment; you just need to make sure you find one that suits you. Some of the higher-yield accounts require a minimum balance or a yearly fee... but if you've got a good enough chunk of cash to start with, that might be worth it for you.

They are almost as reliable as government bonds, and are insured by the government up to $250,000. Right now, they come with a lower ROI than most bonds/bills/notes (federal interest rates are pretty high at the moment, to combat inflation). Unlike government papers, though, you can deposit and withdraw money from a savings account pretty much any time.

Certificates of Deposit:

Okay, imagine you are loaning money to your bank, with the fixed term of "I will get this money back with interest, but only in ten years when the contract is up" like the Treasury Notes.

That's what this is.

Also, Investopedia updates near-daily with the highest rates of the moment, which is pretty cool.

Property:

Honestly, if you're coming to me for advice, you almost definitely cannot afford to treat real estate as an investment thing. You would be going to an actual financial professional. As such... IDK, people definitely do it, and it's a standby for a reason, but it's not... you don't want to be a victim of the housing bubble, you know? And me giving advice would probably make you one. So. Talk to a professional if this is the route you want to take.

Retirement accounts:

Pension accounts are a kind of savings account. You've heard of a 401(k)? It's that. Basically, you put your money in a savings account with a company that specializes in pensions, and they invest it in a variety of different fields and markets (you can generally choose some of this) in order to ensure that the money grows enough that you can hopefully retire on it in fifty years. The ROI is usually higher than inflation.

These kinds of accounts have a higher potential for returns than bonds or treasury notes, buuuuut they're less reliable and more sensitive to market fluctuations.

However, your employer may pay into it, matching your contribution. If they agree to match up to 4%, and you pay 4% of your paycheck into an pension fund, then they will pay that same amount and you are functionally getting 8% of your paycheck put into retirement while only paying for half of it yourself.

Mutual Funds:

I've definitely linked this article before, but the short version is:

An investment company buys 100 shares of stock: 10 shares each in 10 different "general" companies. You, who cannot afford a share of each of these companies, buy 1 singular share of that investment company. That share is then treated as one-tenth of a share of each of those 10 "general" companies. You are one of 100 people who has each bought "one stock" that is actually one tenth of ten different stocks.

Most retirement funds are actually a form of mutual fund that includes employer contributions.

Pros: It's more stable than investing directly in the stock market, because you can diversify without having to pay the full price of a share in each company you invest in.

Cons: The investment company does get a cut, and they are... often not great influences on the economy at large. Mutual funds are technically supposed to be more regulated than hedge funds (which are, you know, often venture capital/private equity), but a lot of mutual funds like insurance companies and pension funds will invest a portion of their own money into hedge funds, which is... technically their job. But, you know, capitalism.

Directly investing in the stock market:

Follow people who actually know what they're doing and are not Evil Finance Bros who only care about the bottom line. I haven't watched more than a few videos yet, but The Financial Diet has had good energy on this topic from what I've seen so far, and I enjoy the very general trends I hear about on Morning Brew.

That said, we are not talking about speculative capital gains. We are talking about making sure inflation doesn't screw with you.

DIVIDENDS are profit that the company shares to investors every quarter. Did the company make $2 billion after paying its mortgages, employees, energy bill, etc? Great, that $2 billion will be shared out among the hundreds of thousands of stocks. You'll probably only get a few cents back per stock (e.g. Walmart has been trading at $50-$60 for the past six months, and their dividends have been 57 cents and then 20.75 cents), but it adds up... sort of. The Walmart example is listed as having dividends that are lower than inflation, so you're actually losing money. It's part of why people rely on capital gains so much, rather than dividends, when it comes to building wealth.

Blue Chip Stocks: These are old, stable companies that you can expect to return on your investment at a steady rate. You probably aren't going to see your share jump from $5 to $50 in a year, but you also probably won't see it do the reverse. You will most likely get reliable, if not amazing, dividends.

Preferred Stocks: These are stock shares that have more reliable dividends, but no voting rights. Since you are, presumably, not a billionaire that can theoretically gain a controlling share, I can't imagine the voting rights in a given company are all that important anyway.

Anyway, hope this much-delayed Intro To Investing was, if not worth the wait, at least, a bit longer than you expected.

Hey! You got interest on the word count! It's topical! Ish.

[klanced]

I still have no idea how Veracxa actually played out in the show but I’m enamored by the idea that the team spends years fighting like the bitchiest most tenacious most androgynous lesbian ever. And then she becomes Lance’s sister-in-law.

[pallavirajput74]

Tax-Free Bonds: A Safe and Secure Way to Invest

Best 3 tax-free bonds in India

National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Tax-Free Bonds: These bonds are issued by the NHAI, which is a government agency responsible for the development and maintenance of national highways in India. The bonds have a maturity period of 7 to 15 years and offer an interest rate of 7.5% to 8.5%.

Power Finance Corporation (PFC) Tax-Free Bonds: These bonds are issued by the PFC, which is a government-owned, non-banking financial company that provides loans to the power sector. The bonds have a maturity period of 7 to 15 years and offer an interest rate of 7.5% to 8.5%.

India Infrastructure Finance Company Limited (IIFCL) Tax-Free Bonds: These bonds are issued by the IIFCL, which is a government-owned non-banking financial company that provides loans to infrastructure projects. The bonds have a maturity period of 7 to 15 years and offer an interest rate of 7.5% to 8.5%.

[bondsindia]

Primary And Secondary Bond Market: What To Know Before You Invest

Investing in the bond market can be a great way to make a return on your money. But before you dive into the world of bonds, it’s important to understand the difference between the primary and secondary bond markets, as well as how to properly research and evaluate potential investments. In this article, we explore what you need to know about these markets before you start investing.

Read More:- https://topmagzine.net/2023/02/27/exploring-the-primary-and-secondary-bond-market/

[night-market-if]

The NM’s sister always takes up a part in my mind for some reason LOL. and the last ask has just made me want to ask abt them. Like are they equally a part of the NM as the MC?

I’m pretty sure the MC’s bond with the Gatekeeper comes from the MC actually having the desire to reach out to life, so is it possible for their sister to have the same bond with the Gatekeeper if she tried? Does the bond just automatically exist since she is part of the NM? Is it just not as strong?

As well as if the ROs will ever meet the sister?

I’m not sure why but when I imagine her I always picture her as a tad condescending/patronizing since she is the more logical/pragmatic side of The Market, kind of looking down on MC for being so emotionally unstable and destructive. Idk!! I just think it would be so funny if MC were resentful towards their sister because they feel babied, and if they were particularly forgiving towards Milo, it would be funny for him to see what MC looks like when they are truly unhappy (maybe angry) to be around someone.

I can't actually comment too much on the sister relationship. Partially because its still in development and also because it would be spoilers. But, needless to say, the MC and the sister do not have a great relationship together. It's not a resentful one (MC is older) but it isn't a loving.

[ssreeder]

I'm picturing liab Sokka and/or Zuko somehow ending up in that one "Avatar's Day" prison with the "hey ur smart and cool :)" and "don't be afraid to tell her how you feel 😢" prisoners and they're. In a corner glaring at everyone and the other guys are like "wtf is up with these kids 🥺"

I’m wondering if this is the closest the boys would ever get to therapy haha?

It sounds like these prisoners have some good advice! alright you’ve convinced me anon, the boys gotta go back to prison.

[fistfuloflightning]

“That’s why they’re after you? Because you threatened someone?”

Maglor’s lips curled briefly at her words. “Of course it’s that, and not the simple fact that I’m a contract killer.”

The dingy kitchen was still. It wasn’t like she hadn’t known—they’d first met when she’d seen him try to kill a man in a back alley. But it was something else for him to say it so bluntly. “Who did you kill?” Luthien asked haltingly.

The look in his pale eyes was distant, like he wasn’t even seeing her. And that frightened her more than the expression he’d worn at the hospital, because that meant he wasn’t even…present. “Does it matter? They were still people.”

A horrible thought came to her and her fingers grew white-knuckled around her now cold mug. “…And the boys?” Eru, she prayed Elros and Elrond were separate from their father’s work. But her meager hope was shattered at Maglor’s next words.

“They know. They’ve seen worse.”

She stared at him. “…What?” she breathed.

[grandwretch]

I don't have enough room for this in oimw but it's important to me that you know that when Joyce finds out that Steve is a Grimm it's in the middle of a v stressful situation so in her head that becomes Part of the Problem and she's trying to figure everything out and rambling out loud to Hopper about how fucked they all are

and eventually it becomes how worried she is about steve not for steve but about steve because she's always seen him as this angry kid and now he's got this power and he doesn't even have his parents to keep him in check and maybe it would be better if they were here even though steve seems kinda afraid of that but maybe that would be a good thing in the long run...

and she doesn't mean anything by it. steve isn't a bad person. probably. he's just an angry kid. the kind she used to be afraid of jonathan becoming. the kind of kid lonnie was. the kind that she's sure she has no ability to handle.

and hopper just kinda looks up from his cup of customary "we're all so fucked" tea and is just like hey. don't talk about my kid like that.

and joyce blinks and well. hop was kind of an angry kid too wasn't he. and moves on to the next problem.