What are the differences among all these different versions of Vivendi?
"VIV.PA - is Vivendi listed on a stock exchange in Paris VIVEF - is Vivendi listed on the OTC Other Exchange. VIVHY - is Listed on the OTC:Pink Sheets.  A company can be listed on multiple exchanges, they are known as a dual-listed company. It's a corporate structure in which two corporations function as a single operating business through a legal equalization agreement, but retain separate legal identities and stock exchange listings. Pretty much all DLCs are cross-border, and have tax advantages for the corporations and their stockholders. When a DLC is created, in essence two companies are created and have two separate bodies of shareholders, but they agree to share all the risks and rewards of the ownership of all their operating businesses in a fixed proportion, laid out in a contract called an ""equalization agreement"". The shares of a DLC parents have claim to the exact same underlying cash flows. So in theory the stock prices of these companies should move exactly the same. However in practice there can be differences between these prices. More info on OTC exchanges can be found here - keep in mind this info is from the company that runs these listings. Over the counter stocks are held to a FAR lesser regulation standard. I would recommend doing further interdependent research before pursuing any action."
If you're truly ready to pay an extra $1000 every month, and are confident you'll likely always be able to, you should refinance to a 15 year mortgage. 15 year mortgages are typically sold at around a half a point lower interest rates, meaning that instead of your 4.375% APR, you'll get something like 3.875% APR.  That's a lot of money over the course of the mortgage.  You'll end up paying around a thousand a month more - so, exactly what you're thinking of doing - and not only save money from that earlier payment, but also have a lower interest rate.  That 0.5% means something like $25k less over the life of the mortgage.  It's also the difference in about $130 or so a month in your required payment. Now of course you'll be locked into making that larger payment - so the difference between what you're suggesting and this is that you're paying an extra $25k in exchange for the ability to pay it off more slowly (in which case you'd also pay more interest, obviously, but in the best case scenario).  In the 15 year scenario you must make those ~$4000 payments.  In the 30 year scenario you can pay ~$2900 for a while if you lose your job or want to go on vacation or ... whatever. Of course, the reverse is also true: you'll have to make the payments, so you will.  Many people find enforced savings to be a good strategy (myself among them); I have a 15 year mortgage and am happy that I have to make the higher payment, because it means I can't spend that extra money frivolously. So what I'd do if I were you is shop around for a 15 year refi.  It'll cost a few grand, so don't take one unless you can save at least half a point, but if you can, do. "I went to Morningstar's ""Performance"" page for FUSEX (Fideltiy's S&P 500 index fund) and used the ""compare"" tool to compare it with FOSFX and FWWFX, as well as FEMKX (Fidelity Emerging Markets fund).  According to the data there, FOSFX outperformed FUSEX in 2012, FEMKX outperformed FUSED in 2010, and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX in both 2010 and 2012.  When looking at 10- and 15-year trailing returns, both FEMKX and FWWFX outperformed FUSEX. What does this mean?  It means it matters what time period you're looking at.  US stocks have been on an almost unbroken increase since early 2009.  It's not surprising that if you look at recent returns, international markets will not stack up well.  If you go back further, though, you can find periods where international funds outperformed the US; and even within recent years, there have been individual years where international funds won. As for correlation, I guess it depends what you mean by ""low"".  According to this calculator, for instance, FOSFX and FUSEX had a correlation of about 0.84 over the last 15 years.  That may seem high, but it's still lower than, say, the 0.91 correlation between FUSEX and FSLCX (Fideltiy Small Cap).  It's difficult to find truly low correlations among equity funds, since the interconnectedness of the global economy means that bull and bear markets tend to spread from one country to another.  To get lower correlations you need to look at different asset classes (e.g., bonds). So the answer is basically that some of the funds you were already looking at may be the ones you were looking for.  The trick is that no category will outperform any other over all periods.  That's exactly what volatility means --- it means the same category that overperforms in some periods will underperform in others.  If international funds always outperformed, no one would ever buy US funds.  Ultimately, if you're trying to decide on investments for yourself, you need to take all this information into account and combine it with your own personal preferences, risk tolerance, etc. Anecdotally, I recently did some simulation-based analyses of Vanguard funds using data from the past 15 years.  Over this period, Vanguard's emerging markets fund (VEIEX) comes out far ahead of US funds, and is also the least-correlated with the S&P 500.  But, again, this analysis is based only on a particular slice of time." I've spoken with a number of expatriates in Canada and Canadian bankers over the past few days.  Here's what I've been able to piece together. This was surprising to me.  As I understand it, the only sure-fire way to wire transfer funds from an arbitrary bank to another arbitrary bank on a different continent on the first try  is by using the IBAN number of the destination account.  IBAN seems to be the only account number format that is anywhere close to a worldwide standard.  If the destination account does not have an IBAN number (like those in Canada and USA), then you rely on a degree of wisdom on the part of the sending bank(er) to format your numbers (account/institution/transit/etc) in such a way that the transfer successfully reaches the destination account. If any given sending bank has not sent funds to another given non-IBAN bank recently, then there is an element of uncertainty as to how the destination account's numbers have to be entered into the sending bank's system.  The de facto practice seems to be to develop the wisdom of what works and what doesn't by attempting to transfer small sums until they succeed.  Then the sending bank uses the exact same method to transfer the large sum as they used for the small sum that succeeded. It seems like there are some things you can do pro-actively increase your odds that a wire transfer to a non-IBAN account will succeed.  Ultimately you want to provide four different pieces of information that are especially important for non-IBAN wire transfers: All of your numbers in all applicable compositions - Wire transfer number formats are often actually multiple fundamental numbers that are concatenated, prefixed, and suffixed.  I suspect that some wire transfer senders actually need to enter the fundamental numbers separately or in different compositions.  Suppose the sending bank needs, for example, the institution identifer.  The ABA routing number does contain, among other things, the institution identifier.  However, you should provide the institution number separately in your wire transfer instructions because the sending bank might need the institution number and will probably have no idea how to extract it from the ABA routing number. For Canada, I think the number you should provide are as follows: What I think was being asked (and so this is how I interpreted it) is not the transition from public to private, but a corporation itself buying all its shares back, and as a result having no shareholders.  In this case we could envision that all outstanding shares would be become treasury stock.  My argument was that this would never happen in a practical setting.  Obviously, if you interpret the question differently, for instance to be about all the shares of firm being purchased by someone else (as in a private equity buyout), you get very different answers about practicality.  So I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I just read the question differently. Office 365 has all of the sharing/editing/browser access that you would want as a consumer - plus it is FAR more useful in an enterprise setting because of better permissions settings.  What people don't seem to realize is that Microsoft doesn't make their nut on consumer software.  They ultimately are failing at porting REALLY GOOD enterprise packages to the consumer - which is a totally different issue. "Since these indices only try to follow VIX and don't have the underlying constituents (as the constituents don't really exist in most meaningful senses) they will always deviate from the exact numbers but should follow the general pattern. You're right, however, in stating that the graphs that you have presented are substantially different and look like the indices other than VIX are always decreasing. The problem with this analysis is that the basis of your graphs is different; they all start at different dates... We can fix this by putting them all on the same graph:  this shows that the funds did broadly follow VIX over the period (5 years) and this also encompasses a time when some of the funds started. The funds do decline faster than VIX from the beginning of 2012 onward and I had a theory for why so I grabbed a graph for that period. My theory was that, since volatility had fallen massively after the throes of the financial crisis there was less money to be made from betting on (investing in?) volatility and so the assets invested in the funds had fallen making them smaller in comparison to their 2011-2012 basis.  Here we see that the funds are again closely following VIX until the beginning of 2016 where they again diverged lower as volatility fell, probably again as a result of withdrawals of capital as VIX returns fell. A tighter graph may show this again as the gap seems to be narrowing as people look to bet on volatility due to recent events. So... if the funds are basically following VIX, why has VIX been falling consistently over this time? Increased certainty in the markets and a return to growth (or at least lower negative growth) in most economies, particularly western economies where the majority of market investment occurs, and a reduction in the risk of European countries defaulting, particularly Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain; the ""PIGS"" countries has resulted in lower volatility and a return to normal(ish) market conditions. In summary the funds are basically following VIX but their values are based on their underlying capital. This underlying capital has been falling as returns on volatility have been falling resulting in their diverging from VIX whilst broadly following it on the new basis." Envudu (envudu.com) looks very promising, and I think what they are planning to put out will do essentially everything you want. It's a single prepaid card, but with a connected app. On the app you choose which budget category you're going to spend on next, and then swipe your card. Your purchase gets deducted from that category. There aren't a ton of details yet on their website (e.g., what happens if you try to swipe on a category that doesn't have the funds available?) and there is going to be a $20/year fee, but I think it meets all of your criteria, even though it's a single card--you'll just need to use a smartphone with it. I'm not exactly sure, but it may be due to liquidity preference.  SPY has a much higher volume (30d average of roughly 70m vs. 3.3m, 1.9m for IVV, VOO respectively), and similarly has a narrow bid ask spread of about 0.01 compared to 0.02 for the other two.  I could be wrong, but I'm going to leave this post up and look in to it later, I'm curious too. The difference is very consistent though, so it may be something in their methodology.