Marginal cost – 6 Toros 6 Fri, 11 Jun 2021 17:59:50 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Marginal cost – 6 Toros 6 32 32 What the best male players are wearing at major tournaments this summer Fri, 11 Jun 2021 17:40:45 +0000

There is no better opportunity for boot manufacturers to show off their products than the big tournaments that dominate the summer. A year later than expected, the best of the Old World are gathering to play Euro 2020 this summer, while the best talents from South America compete in the Copa America.

Euro 2020 on ESPN: Stream live matches and reruns (US only)
European Soccer Pick ‘Em: Compete to Win $ 10,000

As such, Adidas, New Balance, Nike and Puma have new shoes to grab your attention. So, using our annual FC 100 list of football’s top male players, we detail what football greats will wear to the Euro and Copa, and what sets them apart.

– Calendar and schedule of matches of Euro 2020
– Calendar of matches and fixtures of the Copa America


Twenty-three of this year’s FC 100 will compete in the Euro or Copa wearing Adidas, whose Showpiece pack will adorn the brand’s X Ghosted and Predator Freak boots. Metallic silver serves as the base color – much like the Three Stripes merchandise at Euro 2016 and Copa America Centenario – and is accented by Team Royal Blue and Scarlet, resulting in a clean, classic design. As for the Nemeziz and Copa Sense, neither will get the Showpiece treatment, both continuing with the colorways launched in the spring: White, Core Black and Screaming Orange for the former and white with Inner neon bursts. Life pack for the latter.

X ghost

Who wears them: Karim Benzema, N’Golo Kanté, Angel Di Maria, Jordi alba, Thomas muller, Roberto Firmino, Timo werner, Matthijs de Ligt, Benjamin Pavard.

What Adidas says: “X Ghosted is designed to be a lightweight speed boot that feels fast when placed on the foot thanks to the information from the running track, where marginal gains on the clock define the game.”

How much do they cost? $ 275 without laces, $ 225 with laces

predatory monster

Who wears them: Paul pogba, David Alaba, Gianluigi Donnarumma, Fabinho, Leon Goretzka, Aymeric Laporte.

What Adidas says: “Predator freak [was] created to transform the game of athletes and allow better control of the ball. “

How much do they cost? $ 275 without laces, $ 250 with laces


Who wears them: Lionel messi, Serge Gnabry, Bernardo Silva, Kieran Trippier, Ciro Immobile.

What Adidas says: “Nemeziz is designed for the most agile, multi-directional players. Created specifically for those who play unpredictably and beat any opposition with spectacular flair, footwork and movement …”

How much do they cost? $ 275 without laces, $ 225 with laces

Cut direction

Who wears them: Neuer manual, Thiago Alcantara, David de Gea.

What Adidas says: “Designed from the inside out using anatomical information about the human foot, Copa Sense introduces new Adidas design innovations … to deliver improved feel and optimal touch for the wearer.”

How much do they cost? $ 275 without laces, $ 225 with laces

New balance

There is only one FC 100 athlete at Euro or Copa who does not wear Adidas, Nike or Puma, and that is Rahim sterling after New Balance announced in May that the England international has joined their ranks.

Furon V6 +

Who wears them: Rahim Sterling.

What New Balance says: “Our Furon V6 + Pro … offers the streamlined feel that experienced players are looking for. This minimalist cleat gives you the feel of direct contact with the ground and the ball for an unparalleled feel.”

How much do they cost? $ 220


Each shoe in the Nike Impulse pack features the unique and fresh trio of Dynamic Turquoise, Lime Glow and Aquamarine, gliding perfectly along the color spectrum between blue and yellow. Twenty-four of our FC 100 players performing at Euro and Copa will be wearing water-inspired shoes, giving fans plenty of opportunities to soak up the depth of these colors.

Ghost GT

Who wears them: Kevin De Bruyne, Harry kane, Joshua Kimmich, Marco Verratti, Casemiro, Romelu Lukaku, Andy robertson, Kai Havertz, Marquinhos, Jack Grealish.

What Nike says: “The design of the Phantom GT used … digital data sets to create a shoe designed to help a perfect feel on the ball and unleash a player’s creative skills.”

How much do they cost? $ 275 with Dynamic Fit collar, $ 225 without


Who wears them: Cristiano Ronaldo, Kylian Mbappé, Luka Modric, Bruno Fernandes, Edenic danger, Jadon Sancho, Marcus Rashford, Frenkie de Jong, Ben chilwell, Vinicius Junior, Alex Sandro.

What Nike says: The design of the new Mercurial uses the natural geometry of a dragonfly’s wing as a guide to drive maximum efficiency with minimum weight. This results in a lightweight and efficient boot stripped of seven key components, each made visible for a striking aesthetic that relays the essence of speed. “

How much do they cost? $ 275


Who wears them: Thibaut Courtois, Jordan henderson, Alisson.

What Nike says: “Premium leather has always been the signature of Nike’s iconic Tiempo franchise. For the Tiempo Legend 8, the timeless leather exterior is combined with a highly modernized interior to deliver a technical boot.”

How much do they cost? $ 230


Seven of our FC 100s will don Puma’s Spectra boots at the European Championship and Copa America. Refracted color beam bands when placed against the brilliant white of the Ultra and Future Z, setting up what promises to be compelling visuals when Neymar begins its summer of stages.


Who wears them: Sergio Aguero, Raphael Varane, Kyle walker, Kingsley coman.

What Puma says: “After years of testing and player feedback from some of the best offensive players in the world, including Antoine Griezmann, Sergio Aguero and Nikita Parris, the Puma Ultra is designed to deliver the fastest football boot in the game. “

How much do they cost? $ 200

Future Z

Who wears them: Neymar, Ederson, Jules Koundé.

What Puma says: “The Future Z was designed to enhance the playstyle of the world’s most exciting and entertaining players. Built around an adaptive compression band, the boot provides optimal lockdown and support for explosive movements.”

How much do they cost? $ 200

]]> 0
Migration states – WSJ Thu, 10 Jun 2021 21:57:00 +0000 New IRS data compiled by research agency Wirepoints illustrates the flight from high-tax states to low-tax states. The chart above shows the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) that states lost or earned due to population migration in 2019 as a share of their total AGI. The Sun Belt and Mountain West states have generally gained income while those in the Northeast and Midwest have lost income.

Retirees from the Midwest and Northeast are flocking to sunnier climates. But notably, the states without income tax (Florida, Nevada, Tennessee and Wyoming) accounted for four of the 10 states with the largest income gains. On the other hand, five of the 10 states with the largest income losses (NY, Connecticut, New Jersey, Minnesota, California) ranked among the top 10 states with the highest marginal income tax rates. high.

The graph above shows how much the AGI states have gained and lost in billions of dollars. Florida earned $ 17.7 billion in AGI, including $ 3.4 billion from New York, $ 1.2 billion from California, $ 1.9 billion from Illinois, $ 1.7 billion from New Jersey and $ 1 billion from Connecticut. California, meanwhile, lost $ 8.8 billion, including $ 1.6 billion in Texas, $ 1.5 billion in Nevada, $ 1.2 billion in Arizona and $ 700 million in Washington.

Taxpayers who moved from high-tax states to Florida had significantly higher AGIs. For example, migrants from Illinois to Florida had an average AGI of $ 182,000, about double that of those who left Illinois for other states. The average taxpayer who moved to Florida from the other 49 states had an AGI of $ 110,000, about double the average household income. In contrast, the average taxpayer who left Florida had an AGI of only $ 66,000.

In short, high tax states are not only losing more taxpayers, they are losing those with higher incomes. Likewise, low-income and no-income states typically earn more from taxpayers who also earn more.

The graph above shows local and national tax collections per capita, according to the Tax Foundation. States like New York and California collect more in part because they impose very progressive income taxes that absorb the rich. When blue states lose high incomes, their tax base shrinks, but their cost base continues to grow due to rich government employee salaries, pensions, and other benefits.

The result is that middle-class taxpayers in the blue states also end up paying significantly higher taxes than those in other states. Middle-income households in California pay the highest income taxes (its 9.3% marginal rate reaches $ 58,365) in the country. In 2019, Connecticut extended its sales tax to various services, including digital streaming, as tax revenues fell short of expectations.

On the other hand, Florida, Nevada, and Tennessee have been able to maintain their zero-income taxes in part thanks to high population migration. People from other states buy houses and other things, which generates tax revenue, and high-income migrants consume more.

The result is that low-tax states get richer while those that impose higher taxes get poorer.

Copyright © 2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

]]> 0
Opinion: Five disturbing habits of the Oregon legislature Wed, 09 Jun 2021 13:00:42 +0000

Doug Olson

Olson, who retired from the accommodation industry in 2016, previously worked for the Washington County government and was elected to local boards. He lives in Pacific City.

The Oregon legislature will reach constitutional closure at the end of June. For some, it takes longer to move a program forward. For others, the end cannot come soon enough.

But these are not partisan tendencies. These are five things our legislature does in every session that should be very disturbing to Oregonians, even if you have no interest in politics.

First, while most bills list the names of their legislative sponsors, some bills only show a legislative committee as the sponsor. Often this is because the bill is too controversial and the real author is reluctant to include their name. It is political cowardice. Bills without a named sponsor should be given extra diligence or perhaps rejected in full.

Second, many bills are passed with an emergency clause attached. This means that the law comes into force immediately after the governor signs it. The emergency clause limits the ability of citizens to use the referendum process to send a controversial law to the people for a vote, thereby removing powerful control over bad public policy. Beware of bills and laws with an emergency clause attached when there is no real emergency – such as a forest fire, flood, or similar event requiring immediate attention.

Third, some invoices for the last days of a session become “Christmas tree” invoices. It is the term used to describe a bill loaded with extras to gain the support of more lawmakers in order to pass. For example, a legislator undecided on a particular bill may be persuaded to vote in favor if there is an added benefit to his constituency. Very quickly the proposed bill becomes a Christmas tree with something for everyone. What was likely a marginal improvement in Oregon public policy is becoming law at additional cost to taxpayers.

Fourth, lawmakers will revive certain bills through a process called “gut and stuff”. This is where a bill goes through the process and stays alive towards the end of the session, but is either drastically changed or replaced entirely by the wording of another bill, that it is almost unrecognizable. of its original writing. So bills that appeared to be dead earlier in the session can still be revived at the end. This happens in almost all legislative sessions.

Finally, another ugly feature of the closing days of a legislative session is the limited time given to lawmakers to consider and vote on a bill. In recent weeks, lawmakers may only get an hour’s notice that a bill will be put to a vote in the House or Senate. It is simply not enough time for lawmakers and certainly not the public to respond to the call for a vote.

Oregon has been a national leader in many areas over the years, pioneering forward-thinking legislation such as the Bottle Bill, the Beach Bill, and our land use laws. These resulted from a transparent process that hosted a bipartisan partnership, after vigorous debate and public input. The legislation we see today undermines this tradition. We can and must do better.

share your opinion

Submit your 500-600 word essay on a topical issue or topic of particular relevance to the Pacific Northwest, Oregon, and the Portland area to Please include your email and phone number for verification.

]]> 0
Be careful with a Roth conversion Tue, 08 Jun 2021 20:33:03 +0000

Are you considering converting some or all of your traditional IRA or 401k accounts to a Roth account because you are concerned that future tax rates will increase? If so, you will need to perform careful analysis to determine whether it is realistic to expect to pay taxes at a higher rate in the future.

MORE FORBESWhy would you convert your IRA or 401k account to a Roth account?

This analysis will depend on several factors, including the level of your current taxable income, the level of your current income taxes, and the amount and composition of income you expect to receive when you retire.

The question of “tax hikes”

One of the reasons for converting funds from a traditional account to a Roth account is that you expect to pay higher federal tax rates in the future, compared to the tax rates you pay or plan to pay now. To estimate if you might have to pay higher income taxes in the future, it helps to understand the federal tax rate brackets that will apply in 2021 and beyond. The table below shows the 2021 federal tax brackets for married couples filing jointly.

Please keep in mind that the taxable the income used in the table above is not your total Income. Your taxable income reflects any deductions you might take, whether you use the standard deduction or itemize your deductions. In addition, the tax amounts indicated do not reflect the tax credits that you could benefit from.

Large tax rate increases for higher income levels create planning opportunities and traps for the unwary if you don’t understand how tax rates might apply to your pre and post retirement situation. Let’s take a closer look.

Most retirees will have lower taxable income in retirement compared to their working years, since they will have lower total income in retirement and will be able to use a higher standard deduction once they turn 65. For example, in 2021, a married couple with one or both spouses still working and earning a combined annual taxable income between $ 80,251 and $ 171,050 would pay federal income taxes at the marginal tax rate of 22%. However, in retirement, this couple’s taxable income would most likely fall below $ 80,250, and they would pay a marginal income tax rate of just 12%, a rate 10% lower than when they did. was working. This typical situation is the usual justification for investing in a Traditional or 401k IRA, not a Roth version.

If such a couple were concerned that their income tax rate would increase in the future, their marginal tax rate in retirement would have to increase significantly – from 12% to over 22% – in order for them to pay more taxes. raised after retirement. It may be highly unlikely that future tax rates will go up that much, and in this case, a Roth conversion could now cause this couple to pay more income taxes compared to leaving their money in one. Traditional or 401k IRA.

The situation could be quite different if your taxable income in 2021 while you were working were between $ 171,051 and $ 326,600; at this level, you pay income taxes at a marginal rate of 24%. If you expect your retirement income to be more than $ 80,251, you will continue to pay taxes in retirement at a marginal income tax rate of 22% or 24%. In that case, it wouldn’t take much of a tax increase to pay at a higher rate in retirement, and a Roth conversion might make sense.

Tax planning considerations are similar if you pay taxes at even higher marginal rates. The considerations are also similar for single filers, but they have different tax brackets as shown below.

It is important to note that the IRS increases the income tax brackets each year for the cost of living.

A conversion means paying income taxes on any amount you convert

If you decide to convert some or all of the funds from a Traditional IRA or 401k to a Roth, you will have to pay income taxes on any amount you convert. You’ll want to make sure that no conversions push you into a much higher income tax bracket, as the previous charts show. For example, suppose a married couple has taxable income just under $ 326,600 before a Roth conversion. In this case, they would pay taxes at a marginal rate of 24%. However, a significant Roth conversion, when added to their existing taxable income, would be taxed at a rate of 32% or more.

Because of these potentially higher tax rates, you’ll want to estimate your current taxable income and make sure any conversions keep you in your current tax brackets. It’s easier to check if your taxable income is near the bottom of a tax bracket. For example, if a married couple has taxable income of $ 80,251, they could convert up to $ 90,000 of taxable income in a Roth account and remain in the 22% marginal tax bracket.

You have some control over your taxable income in retirement

Keep in mind that you will have some control over the amount of your taxable retirement income at retirement. This is because the exact amount of your retirement income will depend on your strategy for deploying your IRA and 401k accounts in retirement. Important considerations include the rate you withdraw each year from your traditional IRA and 401k accounts, whether you are using savings to purchase an annuity, and whether you are using a Social Security gateway strategy to optimize your Social Security benefits. Therefore, you will want to develop your retirement income strategy before preparing an analysis on a Roth conversion.

MORE FORBESIncrease your risk-protected retirement income with a Social Security bridging payment

You will also need to make a big estimate of the level of future income tax rates and keep in mind that you could be wrong!

As you can see, there are several key mobile elements that you will need to consider when deciding to convert some of your traditional accounts to a Roth account. It is worth taking the time to prepare the appropriate analyzes or to ask your tax accountant to help you.

]]> 0
Decent fundamentals but difficult operating conditions Mon, 07 Jun 2021 09:02:26 +0000

Monday, June 7, 2021 / 9:05 am / by FBNQuest Research / Header image credit: Premium Times

2% upgrade from our estimates of EPS over 21-23 f; Neutral rating maintained

Nestlé Q1 ’21 profits grew 11% year-on-year to NGN 12.4 billion, supported by 26% year-on-year and 24% year-on-year increases in food and beverage sales respectively . Based on our market research, an increase in average prices across Nestlé’s entire portfolio resulted in double-digit year-on-year revenue growth in the first quarter 21 (+ 24.1% year-on-year ). We expect the impact of the price increase to subside by the end of the second quarter of ’21. This implies that stronger volume growth may be needed to generate higher profitability in FY ’21.

In our view, another round of price increases (to pass on costs) could prove difficult, due to the contraction of real income amid rising food inflation and currency devaluation. Nonetheless, we have slightly revised our sales and profit estimates for fiscal year ’21f by 5.7% and 3.0% respectively, to reflect the impressive trend in Q1 ’21. The changes to our estimates imply that revenue is now expected to be N312.6bn in FY’21f (versus a previous forecast of NGN295.6bn). This follows an increase in sales for the business segments: food (9.1% yoy to 187.4 billion NGN) and beverages (8.6% yoy to 125.2 billion from NGN).

As a result, the gross margin is up + 50bps to 41.5%. Elsewhere, we raised our estimate of operating expenses to NGN 58.5 billion (from 4.1% year-on-year), with operating profit up 9.6% to NGN 71.3 billion (from compared to the previous estimate of NGN 65.0 billion). However, a surprise 243.4% yoy increase in interest expense in the first quarter of 21 forced a revision of net interest expense of NGN 4.6 billion (from an earlier forecast of NGN 298 million. ). The increase in interest charges is attributable to a 27.0% year-on-year increase in long-term loans to NGN43.0 billion. We are making a marginal change of + 3.0% to our fiscal forecast to NGN 21.3 billion (vs. NGN 20.7 billion previously), resulting in a PAT forecast of NGN 45.3 billion in 21f (vs. earlier estimate of NGN 44.3 billion).

For our valuation estimates, we raised the risk-free rate in our DCF model to 12.5% ​​(from 11%) and our adjusted beta estimate is increased to 0.8 (from 0.7 previously). Our new price target of NGN 1494.2 is 4.9% lower. At current levels, our price target implies an upside potential of 6.7%. Therefore, we maintain our Neutral rating. Since the start of the year, Nestlé shares have lost -3.4% against a -4.3% drop in ASI.

The gross margin weakened in the first quarter of ’21; interest charges surprised negatively

On average, Nestlé’s results in Q1 ’21 were better than expected. Sales grew 24.1% yoy (and 17.4% yoy) to NGN 87.3 billion while profits grew 10.8% yoy, reflecting strong demand for products against a background of higher prices across its portfolio. However, the gross margin fell by -520 bps yoy to 39.8% (vs. 45.0% in Q1’20). We link this to the impact of supply chain disruptions, local inflation, and cost-based currency devaluation.

In addition, the company recorded a year-on-year increase in net interest expense of + 1,486.5% year-on-year to NGN 1.3 billion in the first quarter 21 thanks to the increase in loans (+27.0 % year-on-year to NGN 43.0 billion).

Proshare Nigeria Pvt.  Ltd.

Related news

  1. Nestlé Nigeria Q4 2020 Results Review: Consumers’ Pockets Squeezed Amidst hectic macros
  2. Nestlé will hold the 52nd AGM on June 22, 2021; Lists proxies
  3. NESTLE declares N39.2bn PAT in 2020 audited results, proposes N35.50K final dividend (SP: 1450.0k)
  4. NESTLE Reports N31.9 Billion PAT in Q3 2020; Proposes an interim dividend of N25.00k, (SP: N1292.50k)
  5. NESTLE notifies the date of the board meeting and the start of the closing period
  6. Nestlé Nigeria Q2 2020 Results Review: Outperformance Rating Maintained
  7. NESTLE Q2’20 Unaudited Results – Profits Slip On Production Cost Pressures
  8. NESTLE Reports N21.82bn PAT in Second Quarter 2020 Results, (SP: 1175.0k)
  9. Nestlé Nigeria maintained its outperformance rating in Q1 2020 despite reducing PT
  10. NESTLE Notifies 51st AGM; Modifies the date, place and date of payment of dividends

Proshare Nigeria Pvt.  Ltd.

Proshare Nigeria Pvt.  Ltd.

]]> 0
Bitcoin’s energy consumption explained | Midi hacker Sun, 06 Jun 2021 14:19:33 +0000
Profile picture of Tiaan Wolmarans Hacker Noon

In 1999, on the verge of the dot-com bubble burst, anyone involved in technology was awakening to the almost endless opportunities that the internet and home computing could offer.

At the same time, we have seen activists and journalists (and all those who are incited to create panic) talking about the terrible energy-consuming world we are creating by using computers. Statistics suggest that a pound of coal would need to be burned to store 2MB of data and that by 2025, 20% of all electricity produced would be used by the internet.

Looking back, it’s clear that these numbers were incredibly distant, so should we take a little more consideration to say that Bitcoin’s energy consumption is excessive, unsustainable, or that the results of Bitcoin mining are bad for the environment?

These concerns are not new to Bitcoiners. Even Satoshi himself has had to address these power consumption issues, so let’s take a deep dive into why Bitcoin uses energy and how it is used.

The value of Bitcoin using energy

Bitcoin was not the first digital currency (centralized or decentralized) that we tried to create. In fact, it has more than 40 years of prehistory. David Chaum created DigiCash in 1989, but the company faced technological problems that forced it to centralize. In retrospect, perhaps the biggest problem with centralized private money is that if the company goes bankrupt, digital money becomes worthless because all of its databases and ledgers are no longer accessible to the public or even in the dark. line.

The second major problem we have faced when creating a digital currency is that digital data can be quite easily copied with enough time or money (and sometimes with little effort).

So in 2008 Satoshi took the ideas behind DigiCash and a few other sources and implemented what we now call a blockchain and Bitcoin!

Let’s see what he used and how he did it.

Securing the network (it’s money, after all)

How do we secure the network and how do all the participants in the network verify the transactions and know that all the participants are honest and are not creating fake transactions?

The simplest proposition might be that you allow a group of computers to form a network. If the majority of computers agree that a transaction has taken place, or agree on general network rules, then all is well.

There is a small flaw with this approach. If every computer on the network had the same vote, it would be relatively cheap and easy to buy enough computers to control the network by buying thousands of cheap computers like Raspberry Pis.

Once the person or people controlling the new majority are connected to the network, they can strike new coins, double expenses, or do a number of other things that could harm the integrity of the network. This type of attack is called a Sybil attack.

Satoshi realized that blockchains could be resistant to this type of Sybil attack if there was a cost to run a node on the network, so inspired by the Hashcash proof-of-work algorithm proposed by Dr Adam Back, he implemented proof of work on Bitcoin.

By implementing proof of work, the nodes in the network that mine transactions are created to try to solve a difficult (calculated) mathematical puzzle. The difficulty of the puzzle becomes less and less difficult every two weeks based on the total computing power of the network, which is measured in hashes per second (h / s). This feature is known as Bitcoin Difficulty Adjustment.

Satoshi then chose to reward these nodes for their work by offering them a block reward of 50 bitcoins for each puzzle they successfully solve before another mining node does.

So we have a cost to validate transactions on the network and a reward to validate these transactions.

Finally, we must consider that the higher the computing power introduced into the network, the higher the cost of the transactions to be mined. Computing power and energy are positively correlated, so the more computing power is needed, the more power is consumed.

Now, it can feel like a never-ending cycle of increasing computing power and power consumption. Yet mining nodes are businesses that have an economic incentive to operate efficiently. So increasing their computing (or hash) power and increasing their electricity costs without having to do so wouldn’t make economic sense.

The Bitcoin network therefore does not use more energy than it needs.

This pattern of increasing difficulty as the hash power of the network increases is what makes Bitcoin secure and resistant to anyone attempting to take control of the network, as they must purchase enough computing power to equal at least 51% of the network. network computing power.

If we consider the Bitcoin network to be the future of money or the greatest store of value – whatever you think it is that makes Bitcoin important – it is made important because of the energy consumption of the network. which is directly correlated to the computing power (and Sybil resistance) of the network.

The Bitcoin network does not “waste” energy; he consumes it. We all recognize the value of burning thousands of tons of fuel to test rockets that might one day make it to Mars, so why do we have a problem using energy to secure a truly decentralized global financial system?

In 2010, Satoshi already understood this when he wrote:

“It’s the same situation as gold and gold mines. The marginal cost of gold mining tends to stay close to the price of gold. Gold mining is wasteful, but that waste is far less than the usefulness of having gold available as a medium of exchange.

I think the case will be the same for Bitcoin. The usefulness of the exchanges made possible by Bitcoin will far exceed the cost of the electricity used. Therefore, not having Bitcoin would be a net waste.

Already published here.

Profile picture of Tiaan Wolmarans Hacker Noon


Join Hacker Midi