State Of The Union Address - 1907 Theodore Roosvelt

I ask for authority to reform the agreement with China under which the indemnity of 1900 was fixed, by remitting and cancelling the obligation of China for the payment of all that part of the stipulated indemnity which is in excess of the sum of eleven million, six hundred and fifty-five thousand, four hundred and ninety-two dollars and sixty-nine cents, and interest at four per cent. After the rescue of the foreign legations in Peking during the Boxer troubles in 1900 the Powers required from China the payment of equitable indemnities to the several nations, and the final protocol under which the troops were withdrawn, signed at Peking, September 7, 1901, fixed the amount of this indemnity allotted to the United States at over $20,000,000, and China paid, up to and including the 1st day of June last, a little over $6,000,000. It was the first intention of this Government at the proper time, when all claims had been presented and all expenses ascertained as fully as possible, to revise the estimates and account, and as a proof of sincere friendship for China voluntarily to release that country from its legal liability for all payments in excess of the sum which should prove to be necessary for actual indemnity to the United States and its citizens.

This Nation should help in every practicable way in the education of the Chinese people, so that the vast and populous Empire of China may gradually adapt itself to modern conditions. One way of doing this is by promoting the coming of Chinese students to this country and making it attractive to them to take courses at our universities and higher educational institutions. Our educators should, so far as possible, take concerted action toward this end.


是时十二月二十八日,以国务卿鲁特(Elihu Root)之进言,总统罗期福下令曰:(上略)准此则美国政府除确实费用及一切损失赔偿一十一兆六十五万元零之外,所余十二兆余美金,实为浮数,受之有惭德,应以之退还中国,以全友谊。惟中国自一九零一年七月一日至一九零九年正月一日,共已付若千金,于此一十一兆六十五万元之数,尚不足九兆六十四万元有奇,其自一九零九年正月一日以后,于中国每年分付之赔款内,留其若干份以凑足此九兆余元之数,而分其若干份,以归还中国。


Each chromosome is made of 2 chromatids.
Each chromatid is 1 DNA molecule.
This gives 92 DNA molecules in the nucleus.

In addition -
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is present in mitochondria as a circular molecule and in most species codes for 13 or 14 proteins.
The number of mitochondria in a cell depends on the cell's function. Cells with particularly heavy energy demands, such as muscle cells, have more mitochondria than other cells. The answer is 92 + the number of mitochondria

if you consider each chromosome in a diploid cell as one big molecule, then 46 is the answer

but if you consider each of the heterocyclic amines that make up the base pairs of DNA as a separate molecule, then approximately 12 billion, since 3 billion base pairs in a haploid set of chromosomes, times two (2 amines per base pair), times two again (diploid if a somatic cell).

You will need to do additional research on your own if you also want to include the DNA molucules in the mitochondria as belonging to the body cell. Since there can be thousands of mitochondria per cell, if you count each chromosome as a "DNA molecule", and you count each much smaller DNA strand in each mitochondria as a "DNA molecule", the majority of the DNA molecules in most "normal body cells" are actually mitochondrial DNA.

There are 37.2 Trillion Cells in Your Body

How did these researchers come up with 37.2 trillion? They actually broke down the number of cells by organs and cell types, going through the literature available to come up with a detailed list of volumes and densities in everything from intestines to knees. So, for example, there are 50 billion fat cells in the average body, and 2 billion heart muscle cells. Adding all those up, they got 37.2 million. (This doesn’t include any of the millions of microbes living on you, by the way.)

Fed Ends Zero-Rate Era; Signals 4 Quarter-Point 2016 Hikes
The Federal Reserve raised interest rates for the first time in almost a decade in a widely telegraphed move while signaling that the pace of subsequent increases will be “gradual” and in line with previous projections.

The Federal Open Market Committee unanimously voted to set the new target range for the federal funds rate at 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent, up from zero to 0.25 percent. Policy makers separately forecast an appropriate rate of 1.375 percent at the end of 2016, the same as September, implying four quarter-point increases in the target range next year, based on the median number from 17 officials.

“The committee judges that there has been considerable improvement in labor market conditions this year, and it is reasonably confident that inflation will rise, over the medium term, to its 2 percent objective,” the FOMC said in a statement Wednesday following a two-day meeting in Washington. The Fed said it raised rates “given the economic outlook, and recognizing the time it takes for policy actions to affect future economic outcomes.”
The increase draws to a close an unprecedented period of record-low rates that were part of extraordinary and controversial Fed policies designed to stimulate the U.S. economy in the wake of the most devastating financial crisis since the Great Depression. The FOMC lowered its benchmark rate to near zero in December 2008, three months after the collapse of investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and 10 months before unemployment in the U.S. peaked at 10 percent.

Inflation Outlook

"The one phrase that I think is notable is that the committee is confident that inflation will rise, and that was the key criterion that changed," said Guy LeBas, managing director and chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott LLC in Philadelphia.

Stocks held earlier gains and the yield on two-year Treasury notes briefly topped 1 percent for the first time in five years. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index rose 0.6 percent to 2,056.32 at 2:14 p.m. in New York. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index was little changed from Tuesday.

While the vote was unanimous, the rate forecasts show that two officials among the full group of voters and non-voters saw no rate increases as appropriate in 2015, without identifying them.
“The committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual increases in the federal funds rate,” the FOMC said. “The actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data.”
Balance Sheet

The FOMC said it expects to maintain the size of its balance sheet “until normalization of the level of the federal funds rate is well under way.”

The quarter-point increase in the target fed funds rate, the overnight interbank lending rate that influences other borrowing costs in the economy, was forecast by 102 of 105 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News.

The Fed gave a largely positive assessment of the U.S. economy, saying that expansion continued at a “moderate pace” and that a “range” of job-market indicators “confirms that underutilization of labor resources has diminished appreciably since early this year.”

The central bank also said that the risks to the outlook for economic activity and the labor market are now “balanced,” changing from a previous reference to being “nearly balanced.”

Accomodative Policy

The Fed said monetary policy is still “accommodative after this increase, thereby supporting further improvement in labor market conditions and a return to 2 percent inflation.”

The central bank acknowledged the state of low inflation, saying that it plans to “carefully monitor actual and expected progress toward” its 2 percent target.

As part of the decision, the Fed increased the interest it pays on overnight reverse repos to 0.25 percent from 0.05 percent to put a floor at the lower end of the range. It also raised the interest it pays on excess reserves held at the Fed to 0.5 percent from 0.25 percent to mark the upper end of the range.

In a related move, the Fed’s Board of Governors unanimously voted to raise the discount rate, which covers direct loans to banks, by a quarter point to 1 percent.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen is scheduled to hold a press conference at 2:30 p.m. in Washington.

Quantitative Easing

In addition to setting rock-bottom short-term interest rates during the crisis, the Fed engaged in three rounds of bond purchases aimed at suppressing long-term rates to stimulate borrowing and spending. Officials also provided unusually explicit guidance, assuring investors for years they intended to keep rates low well into the future.

Prior to 2008, the effective fed funds rate had never dropped below 0.63 percent, according to data compiled by the St. Louis Fed dating back to 1954.

In Dec. 3 remarks Yellen drew attention to how much the economy had mended since the darkest days of the recession, noting that unemployment had fallen by half to 5 percent, close to Fed estimates for the long-run normal level.

Still, the recovery has been disappointing for many. Household incomes remain lower than they were a decade ago when adjusted for inflation, and wages have climbed only sluggishly even as firms hired back workers. Hourly earnings have risen by about an average 2.2 percent annual pace over the past seven years, compared with 3.3 percent in the 20 years through 2008.


Gross domestic product expansion hasn’t topped 3 percent since the third quarter of 2010, on a year-on-year basis. It’s projected to grow 2.2 percent in the three months through December.

Representing another symptom of weakness, inflation hasn’t reached the Fed’s 2 percent target since April 2012. The core version of the central bank’s preferred gauge of price pressures, which strips out volatile energy and food prices, was just 1.3 percent in the 12 months through October.

Yellen said Dec. 3 that continued labor-market improvement this year had bolstered her confidence that inflation would move back toward the Fed’s 2 percent goal.

Why did the Federal Reserve start paying interest on reserve balances held on deposit at the Fed?
March 2013

Four decades ago, Milton Friedman recommended that central banks like the Federal Reserve pay interest to depository institutions on the reserves they are required to hold against their deposit liabilities. This proposal was intended to improve monetary policy by making it easier to hit short-term interest rate targets. However, the Fed didn’t have the authority to pay this kind of interest until 2008.

This new policy is especially important now that the Fed has been holding more than $1 trillion dollars in total reserves from depository institutions for the past three years. Total reserve balances held at the Fed include required reserves and any excess reserves that depository institutions choose to hold on top of the required reserves.1

In the United States, paying interest on reserve balances was designed to broaden the scope of the Fed’s lending programs to address conditions in credit markets while maintaining the federal funds rate close to the target established by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the Fed’s monetary policy decisionmakers.

Globally, a number of central banks have the authority to pay interest on reserves held against deposits. For example, the Bank of England has paid interest on reserves since 2009, and the European Central Bank has had this authority from its inception in 1999.2 3

Interest on reserves adopted by the U.S. Congress in 2006

Before the crisis, Congress passed the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006 authorizing the Federal Reserve to begin paying interest on reserves held against certain types of deposit liabilities. The legislation was supposed to go into effect beginning October 1, 2011. However, during the financial crisis, the effective date was moved up by three years through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.4 This was important for monetary policy because the Federal Reserve’s various liquidity facilities5 initiated during the financial crisis caused upward pressure on excess reserves and placed downward pressure on the Federal funds rate. To counteract these pressures, on October 6, 2008, the Federal Reserve Board announced that it would begin paying interest on depository institutions’ reserve balances.6

In the rest of this response, I will focus on the details of these interest rate payments and discuss why they were implemented.

Required and excess reserves before and after the crisis

Under the 2006 Act, Federal Reserve Banks were directed to

…pay interest on required reserve balances (that is, balances held to satisfy depository institutions’ reserve requirements) and on excess balances (balances held in excess of required reserve balances and clearing balances).7

In 2007, required reserves averaged $43 billion, while excess reserves averaged only $1.9 billion. This relationship was typical for the past 50 years when the Fed did not pay interest on reserves with only two exceptions. Those occurred when the Fed provided unusual levels of reserves to depository institutions in September 2001 following the terrorist attacks and in August 2007 at the onset of the global financial crisis. Other than those two months, excess reserves were less than 10% of total reserve holdings, because depository institutions had an incentive to minimize noninterest-bearing excess reserves held at the Fed.

The failure of high profile U.S. financial institutions in September 2008 caused a great degree of instability in the financial system. Consistent with its role as a lender of last resort,8 the Fed provided unprecedented amounts of liquidity to the financial system. Once the Fed was authorized to pay interest on reserves, the relationship between the levels of required reserves and excess reserves changed dramatically. For example, required reserves averaged almost $100 billion during the first six months of 2012, while excess reserves averaged $1.5 trillion! As shown in Figure 1, since September 2008, the vast majority of total reserves (blue line) held at the Fed belong to the excess reserves category (black line), while required reserves for all depository institutions (red line) have remained relatively stable.9

Figure 1. The Close Historical Relationship between Total and
Required Reserves Ended during the Financial Crisis.

Paying interest on reserves gives policymakers more control over the federal funds rate

The Fed’s new authority gave policymakers another tool to use during the financial crisis. Paying interest on reserves allowed the Fed to increase the level of reserves and still maintain control of the federal funds rate. As the Board’s website states, “Paying interest on excess balances should help to establish a lower bound on the federal funds rate.”10 The Board’s October 6, 2008, Press Release described the new policy this way:

The payment of interest on excess reserves will permit the Federal Reserve to expand its balance sheet as necessary to provide the liquidity necessary to support financial stability while implementing the monetary policy that is appropriate in light of the System’s macroeconomic objectives of maximum employment and price stability.

This was compelling in the months after September 2008, as the financial crisis deepened, Fed lending from the discount window soared, lending from the newly created liquidity facilities spiked, and excess reserves climbed into the hundreds of billions of dollars range, far exceeding depositories’ required reserves.

In this situation, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said that the Open Market Desk

…encountered difficulty achieving the operating target for the federal funds rate set by the FOMC, because the expansion of the Federal Reserve’s various liquidity facilities has caused a large increase in excess balances. The expansion of excess reserves in turn has placed extraordinary downward pressure on the overnight federal funds rate. Paying interest on excess reserveswill better enable the Desk to achieve the target for the federal funds rate.11

Essentially, paying interest on reserves allows the Fed to place a floor on the federal funds rate, since depository institutions have little incentive to lend in the overnight interbank federal funds market at rates below the interest rate on excess reserves.12 This allows the Desk to keep the federal funds rate closer to the FOMC’s target rate than it would have been able to otherwise.

Interest on Reserves will play an import role in the Fed’s ‘exit strategy’ as well

Finally, the Fed can change the rate for interest on reserves to adjust the incentives for depository institutions to hold reserves to a level that is appropriate for monetary policy. This also provides an important “exit strategy” tool, which will allow the Fed to better control the level of excess reserves when it begins to remove monetary policy stimulus.13 14

What is the interest rate on reserve balances?

When interest on reserves was first implemented, the Federal Reserve Board used a formula that set the rate paid on required reserves above the rate on excess reserve balances. However, in late 2008 the Board released a series of press releases (See Related Press Releases) announcing adjustments to this formula. Since January 2009, the monthly average interest rate on both required reserve and excess reserve balances has been 25 basis points, or 0.25% at an annual rate, in keeping with the federal funds target range of 0 to 25 basis points during this period (see Figure 2).15

For more information on these rates please visit the Board’s website, Interest on Required Balances and Excess Reserves.

Figure 2. History of the Federal Funds Target Interest Rate and
Interest Rates on Required Reserves and Excess Reserves

Date of publication: First Quarter 2013

中国的外汇储备情况: 从某一角度来看,我国的外汇制度实际上沾满了中国人民的血汗,杀贫济富。我国实行的是强制结汇制度,只有央行才有权利拥有外汇,中国的购汇资金来自于印钞机。当政府规定美元人民币汇兑比例为1:6.8时,比如甲公司出口产品赚了1000亿美元,人民银行就会收走甲的1000亿美元,并打开印钞机加班印刷6800亿人民币给甲。这时,人民币的背书是美元纸币。人民币不能真实反映财富,中国大陆多出了6800亿人民币的纸钞的同时,实际上是少了价值6800亿人民币的货物,后果势必引起了通货膨胀,人民币大幅贬值。这种操作方式首当其冲受害的就是穷人,特别是那些没有加薪一说的农民;得利的是那些收入增长的比通货膨胀系数还快的人,比如公务员等,物价还没有开始涨,他们的工资就先加了,物价涨得多,他们的工资就加得更多。

high frequency trading

High-frequency trading (HFT) is a type of algorithmic trading characterized by high speeds, high turnover rates, and high order-to-trade ratios that leverages high-frequency financial data[1] and electronic trading tools.[2] While there is no single definition of HFT, among its key attributes are highly sophisticated algorithms, specialized order types, co-location, very short-term investment horizons, and high cancellation rates of orders.
In the United States in 2009, high-frequency trading firms represented 2% of the approximately 20,000 firms operating today, but accounted for 73% of all equity orders volume.[citation needed][31] The major U.S. high-frequency trading firms include Chicago Trading, Virtu Financial, Timber Hill, ATD, GETCO, Tradebot and Citadel LLC.[32] The Bank of England estimates similar percentages for the 2010 US market share, also suggesting that in Europe HFT accounts for about 40% of equity orders volume and for Asia about 5-10%, with potential for rapid growth.[25] By value, HFT was estimated in 2010 by consultancy Tabb Group to make up 56% of equity trades in the US and 38% in Europe.[33]

As HFT strategies become more widely used, it can be more difficult to deploy them profitably. According to an estimate from Frederi Viens of Purdue University, profits from HFT in the U.S. has been declining from an estimated peak of $5bn in 2009, to about $1.25bn in 2012.[34]

Though the percentage of volume attributed to HFT has fallen in the equity markets, it has remained prevalent in the futures markets. According to a study in 2010 by Aite Group, about a quarter of major global futures volume came from professional high-frequency traders.[31] In 2012, according to a study by the TABB Group, HFT accounted for more than 60 percent of all futures market volume in 2012 on U.S. exchanges.[35]

May 6, 2010 Flash Crash[edit]

Main article: 2010 Flash Crash

The brief but dramatic stock market crash of May 6, 2010 was initially thought to have been caused by high-frequency trading.[64] The Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged to its largest intraday point loss, but not percentage loss,[65] in history, only to recover much of those losses within minutes.[66]

Spoofing and layering[edit]

Main articles: Spoofing (finance) and Layering (finance)

In July 2013, it was reported that Panther Energy Trading LLC was ordered to pay $4.5 million to U.S. and U.K. regulators on charges that the firm's high-frequency trading activities manipulated commodity markets. Panther's computer algorithms placed and quickly canceled bids and offers in futures contracts including oil, metals, interest rates and foreign currencies, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission said.[103] In October 2014, Panther's sole owner Michael Coscia was charged with six counts of commodities fraud and six counts of "spoofing". The indictment stated that Coscia devised a high-frequency trading strategy to create a false impression of the available liquidity in the market, "and to fraudulently induce other market participants to react to the deceptive market information he created".[104]

No-Load Fund

DEFINITION of 'No-Load Fund'

A mutual fund in which shares are sold without a commission or sales charge. The reason for this is that the shares are distributed directly by the investment company, instead of going through a secondary party. This is the opposite of a load fund, which charges a commission at the time of the fund's purchase, at the time of its sale, or as a "level-load" for as long as the investor holds the fund.


Because there is no transaction cost to purchase a no-load fund, all of the money invested is working for the investor. For example, if you purchase $10,000 worth of a no-load mutual fund, all $10,000 will be invested into the fund. On the other hand, if you buy a load fund that charges a front-end load (sales commission) of 5%, the amount actually invested in the fund is only $9,500. If the load is back-ended, when shares of the fund are sold, the $500 sales commission comes out of the proceeds. If the level-load (12b-1 fee) is 1%, your fund balance will be charged $100 annually for as long as you own the fund.

The justification for a load fund is that investors are compensating a sales intermediary (broker, financial planner, investment advisor, etc.) for his or her time and expertise in selecting an appropriate fund.

It should be noted that research shows that load funds don't outperform no-load funds.

Read more:
Follow us: @Investopedia on Twitter

‘He or she’ versus ‘they’

It’s often important to use language which implicitly or explicitly includes both men and women, making no distinction between the genders. This can be tricky when it comes to pronouns. In English, a person's gender is explicit in the third person singular pronouns (i.e., he, she, his, hers, etc.). There are no personal pronouns that can refer to someone (as opposed to something) without identifying whether that person is male or female. So, what should you do in sentences such as these?

If your child is thinking about a gap year, ? can get good advice from this website.

A researcher has to be completely objective in ? findings.

In the past, people tended to use the pronouns he, his, him, or himself in situations like this:

If your child is thinking about a gap year, he can get good advice from this website.

A researcher has to be completely objective in his findings.

Today, this approach is seen as outdated and sexist. There are other options which allow you to arrive at a ‘gender-neutral’ solution, as follows:
•You can use the wording ‘he or she’, ‘his or her’, etc.:

If your child is thinking about a gap year, he or she can get good advice from this website.

A researcher has to be completely objective in his or her findings.

This can work well, as long as you don’t have to keep repeating ‘he or she’, ‘his or her’, etc. throughout a piece of writing.
•You can make the relevant noun plural, rewording the sentence as necessary:

If your children are thinking about a gap year, they can get good advice from this website.

Researchers have to be completely objective in their findings.

This approach can be a good solution, but it won’t always be possible.
•You can use the plural pronouns ‘they’, ‘them’, ‘their’ etc., despite the fact that, technically, they are referring back to a singular noun:

If your child is thinking about a gap year, they can get good advice from this website.

A researcher has to be completely objective in their findings.

Some people object to the use of plural pronouns in this type of situation on the grounds that it’s ungrammatical. In fact, the use of plural pronouns to refer back to a singular subject isn’t new: it represents a revival of a practice dating from the 16th century. It’s increasingly common in current English and is now widely accepted both in speech and in writing.


Notch Lapel & Peak Lapel