Ashley Cowlls (pictured left) doesn’t look like an ordinary senior pupil. A 17-year-old girl manages a business bringing her $1 million a year. At the age of 14, she created WhateverLife.com, and with the profits from the website she has already bought her own house, the first floor of which now serves as an office.

Ashley’s interest in graphic design coincided in time with the rising popularity of social networks. Ashley was designing pages for her friends’ MySpace.com accounts. She made funny and colorful images and added quotations from popular songs. Over three years, WhateverLife.com has made three thousand web pages, most of which were designed by Ashley herself.

WhateverLife.com has millions of visitors every day. This fact attracts advertisers’ attention making Ashley a good profit.

“When I was fourteen and started WhateverLife.com; I never expected to go through everything I have gone through. I have endured a lot of pain and a lot of pleasure. I have developed the most amazing friendships (and just added on to the ones I have). I have laughed until I have peed my pants, and cried and let my friends hold me. I have laughed when it was inappropriate, and spoken to a huge room of adults. I have experienced photo shoots, and all day interviews. I have moved around quite a bit. My relationships have shifted. I have tried things and failed; I have tried things and succeeded. This has been three years. I have been introduced to beautiful music, and beautiful films. I have experienced new emotions and even more of the old. I have given up on judgment. I am happy with who I am.”

Movie theaters, which traditionally were deemed the most affordable of out-of-home entertainment (as compared with going to a sporting game or opera or concert hall) are now sensing the universal price increase. Just in time for the Memorial Day, AMC Entertainment has increased prices for popcorn by 25 cents in its 290 theaters nationwide. It is also planning on increasing ticket prices in some regions – for instance, in the Kansas City area, weekend shows after 4 p.m. will now cost $10 per adult up from $9.

Such increase is quite logical, according to Ricard Gil, an economics professor of University of California-Santa Cruz. Costs associated with the movie industry are increasing constantly, and it’s natural that companies wish to share the burden with consumers.

For instance, popcorn got more expensive due to corn price increase of about 58% in the recent 12 months, which in turn took place because of increased ethanol production. Higher oil prices made transportation of snacks to theaters more expensive. Besides, paper products like cups and popcorn boxes are more expensive due to higher paper pulp prices.

However, it’s not quite clear why tickets should go up as well. On one hand, it could be explained with electricity costs rise. But on the other, according to Larry Etter, chairman of the National Association of Concessionaires, simultaneous ticket price rise is illogical. “Why would I go up a dollar on the movie ticket when I have to give [the film distributor] 50 cents?”.

In this situation given overall price rise for food and gasoline, fewer people will be attracted to cinemas. Small theaters will probably go out of business, Gil believes. Other theaters would need to upgrade the sound and seats quality, and maybe even add sections offering food and alcohol in order to attract customers to more expensive entertainments.

To be a great CEO, one needs to make rightful decisions over years, and make no single mistake. In order to be kicked out of a company’s highest positions, it’s enough to take one unpopular step.

Fortune has published an interesting list of high-rank officials, who were fired or forced to leave their posts over the recent years. I bet you’d like to know where resigned sharks of U.S. corporate management are now.

No wonder that mortgage crisis has cut heads of several large companies’ officials. In January this year, the Bear Stearns’ CEO James Cayne resigned, who occupied this post for 15 years. Cayne’s resignation was provoked by his constant absence in the company in its hard times: in July 2007, when Bear Stearns’ hedge funds collapsed, Cayne left New York for a bridge tournament. And in March 2008, when the bank was on the edge on bankruptcy, Cayne was playing bridge in Detroit.
After resignation, Cayne remained chairman until Bear’s acquisition by J.P. Morgan. He reportedly refused several funds’ and boards’ offers and sold his stake in Bear Stearns after the bank’s crash for $61 million.

Another victim of mortgage crises is the Citigroup’s CEO Chuck Prince. He became CEO in 2003, and chairman of the board in 2006, and in November 2007 Chuck resigned both posts. The reason for that were $18-billion mortgage-related write-offs, as well as unexpectedly bad financial results in the third quarter of that year.
The son of a plasterer and a housewife, Chuck Prince, III still keeps and office, assistance, and car with driver in Citigroup. He also sits on the boards at Johnson & Johnson and several schools.

And this guy’s resignation was not that bad at all (at least for the world, if not for him). Tom Freston, former CEO of Viacom was axed after the company’s Chairman Sumner Redstone got disappointed with him. Formerly running business in India, Freston was one of the founders of MTV in the 1980s serving as marketing head.

Today Tom is helping to create a new cable operation named OWN (the Oprah Winfrey Network). Freston is also involved in ONE, antipowerty campaign launched by U2 frontman Bono, as well as reconstruction work in Afghanistan.

Here you will also learn who of ex-bankers is now playing golf, and who was kicked out by the Yahoo shareholders.

More and more crude oil traders across the globe think that present level of oil price is only speculation. They also believe that presently the bubble is in its final stage and one critical push will be enough for it to burst and for the sector to crash.

Significant volatility of oil price is one of the signs of bubble formation, according to traders. Last week, American crude oil cost over $135 per barrel, and then it dropped by almost $5.

The reason for such volatility is a large number of inexperienced players, experts say. They rushed to the market after oil price stabilized over $100. Many of them lack skills and most are assured that the market will develop in only one possible direction. It’s probable that soon additional payments will be needed, traders say, and then speculators will prefer to sell their obligations.

Another sign of the bubble is absence of suspicions about the rapid growth. No one is now talking of wrong prices; speculators take them for granted and even find fundamentals to support the rise.

On the other hand, there was no critical push for sector’s crash yet. The forecasted increase in price to $150 per barrel is still possible. Then, traders say, oil might as well slide to $100. Thus long positions are not recommended for opening at the moment.

Besides, according to experts, oil demand and supply are balanced at the moment. In negative forecasts of oil deficit in future, the potential of recently discovered oilfields is not included, as well as the fact that formerly unprofitable fields could become profitable at current prices.

Another scenario is possible involvement of OPEC countries, which in case of the United States’ pressure on them can announce of intentions to expand oil production. In that case, experts say, oil will very soon be under $100. Similar statements have been heard from the Venezuela’s president Hugo Chavez, who recently said that the oil barrel can easily stabilize on the $100 level.

In one of his recent interviews, Google’s founder Sergey Brin told journalists about prospective directions of modern science and technologies. According to Brin, the Next Big Things will be clean energy, nanotechnologies, and mobile Internet. If Brin is correct, then it’s worth starting to invest in those sectors today, picking the most promising companies. After all, in their time Internet companies (before dotcom bubble crashed) and telecom stocks brought nice profits to their investors.

Big Things are good because in a long run they change humans’ lives, and are good investment for years. That’s why it’s very important not to make mistakes when defining such directions. As for Brin’s forecasts, we should be more reasonable regarding mobile Internet (it’s not really a Big Thing), and nanotechnologies are now quite unclear. But clean energy is very relevant at the moment, and Google’s serious interest in such energy sources proves it as well.

I have written about alternative energy before, among other things that biofuel, for instance, is not an alternative at all. First, it pollutes environment as much as oil does, and costs are not lower. Then transforming food growing acreage into corn fields for biofuel production purposes is not a smart solution of the issue. This is true about nuclear power plants as well, which are neither clean nor cheap. But on regional and separate households’ level, sun, wind and water could be possible sources of really clean energy. Sun panels, wind turbines and geothermal stations can help solving the problem of energy deficit and environmental pollution if not on global level, then on local for sure.

Clean energy sector is interesting for investors for the following reasons. First, it has transformed from separate ideas and experiments into a separate sector with multibillion capitalization. Second, it’s still too small on global scale and thus has a lot of potential to grow. Third, the sector’s companies are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought by any investor.

For instance, see the chart of Maxwell Tech (NasdaqGM: MXWL) which is engaged in manufacturing of energy storage and power delivery products. Over the recent five years, the company has increased from $6 per share to $12 per share (its all time high was around $21) and continues to grow.

Not so long ago, Goldman Sachs was a mockery when its analyst Arjun N. Murti forecasted several years ago that oil would cost $100 per barrel. Today, when oil is steadily traded at around $130, Murti foresees a “super spike” at $200 per barrel. He can be trusted or not, but no one makes fun of him anymore.

Murti, 39, is titled “Oracle of Oil” – his sensational forecasts have been coming true one by one in the recent few years. The new super spike (which might as well drive gasoline price up to $6 per barrel) does not scare him – Murti believes the US will finally learn to be gas-efficient. He himself drives hybrid cars, owning two of them. “I’m actually fairly anti-oil,” Murti said the NY Times. “One of the biggest challenges our country faces is our addiction to oil.”

Murti explains his forecast with the world’s unquenchable thirst for oil and decline in oil production in non-OPEC countries like Britain, Norway and Mexico. He is supported by Boone Pickens who forecasts $150 per barrel by the end of the year. Other analysts say that if the price goes even higher, speculators will start exiting, which will bring the price down. Some even hope for $70 per barrel in 2008, according to Thomson Financial. Anyway, now it is simpler to talk about long-term trends for oil than short-term ones, which leave most experts in uncertainty.

Interestingly, this uncertainty was not always the case. In 1990s bank analysts, who were responsible for oil forecasts, believed the price $15-20 per barrel was there for ever. However earlier this century, oil companies started exceeding predicted levels, according to NY Times. Murti himself was quite conservative on oil by 2004. But that summer, after having studied data for 1970s’ spikes, he understood that what he now calls “super spike” awaited us in the near future.

The solution, as put by Murti, is nuclear power and governmental incentives to encourage people to buy hybrid cars. “The greatest thing in the world would be if in 15 years we no longer needed oil analysts,” he says.

The main current issue for ordinary Americans and high-rank politicians is expensive oil and gasoline. U.S. economist Irwin Stelzer offers an interesting solution to this issue: he believes that Americans must learn to love high petrol prices.

Mr. Stelzer’s argument is as follows: both consumers and politicians aim at a wrong goal by wishing to lower gasoline prices eventually. Cheap gas means consumption of more fuel, which will heat up the demand for crude oil. Who will benefit from this is countries hostile to the US, for instance, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Instead of this, the economist offers to increase oil tax (an unpopular political decision on the eve of elections) and get to U.S. consumers’ wallets before OPEC does.

Another wrong way to solve the crisis is a try to replace crude oil with renewable energy sources. It should be understood, Stelzer goes, that neither wind turbines, nor solar panels can decrease demand for crude oil significantly, plus they are not cheap. And nuclear energy needs huge costs, simplified procedure of licensing, and ways to dispose nuclear waste, all of which is now absent.

So that leaves corn, which has lately been viewed as “savior from oil dependence.” In this attempt to replace oil with corn there are many cons: biofuel has enormously negative environmental impact, it demands lots of fertilizers polluting rivers and streams; and farmers receiving subsidies for expanding areas for corn are not only cutting trees but also converting lands previously devoted to growing food to growing fuel. As a result, food prices increase as well.

Stelzer names several solutions. First, it’s necessary to find cost-effective ways of increasing crude oil supply. Researches that proved drilling in Alaska, Florida and California inefficient are now out of date, as oil prices are two times higher now then when they were conducted. Moreover, new ways of reducing negative environmental impact of drilling have been learnt. Second solution is much more aggressive: to remind the Saudi regime that it depends on the American military and that OPEC exists only because the State Department prevents the antitrust authorities to break it up. As a result, they should allow western companies to develop new reserves and wring more oil from existing fields in their countries, as well as to remove restrictions on current production.

For most of us the matter of money is very relevant at the moment. If earlier we were talking of saving for our retirement and kids’ college, now people are more often afraid that they won’t be able to pay their bills, not even mentioning retirement. What are the first signs of upcoming financial disaster and how to resist them – this is the theme of my post today. The list below is far from full, so feel free to add your own thoughts in comments.

If the following statements are true about you, then it’s time to think about what you’re doing wrong.

You have almost no savings. Considering the job cuts, you should think of what you’re going to do in case you lose your job. If your savings are not enough to live on for three months while searching for another post, it is a sign that the crisis is possible. Start putting some amount aside from each salary, just don’t title your savings “for a rainy day,” as then it will inevitably come. You’re simply securing yourself a financial support in future.

You wince at the word “budget.” This is an indicator that not only you don’t know how much you earn and spend, but also you don’t control your cash flows. In other words, they can run dry any time without prior notice. There is nothing wrong in “budgeting.” Just try to put down how much you earn and how much you spend every week. In such a way you’ll be able to not only to prevent surprises from your finances’ side, but also to see what cost items could be reduced and how to get more from the amount you’re receiving for your job.

Your debts are paid by your friends or relatives. No comments here, as this is the first sign of your financial insolvency. Probably, it is not uncommon in some family circles for parents not only to pay for their kids’ education, but also to support them financially in grown-up life. However, from the money point of view, this is the way to nowhere, thus if you can’t start paying your debts immediately, do so in steps. Try not to accumulate more debts and think how you could earn more than your current level.

And remember that financial problems are not poverty, and you are the one to be blamed for them. Try to write all your costs down – and you’ll be surprised how simpler it will be to manage your financials. After all, the most important thing nowadays is to remain financially afloat.

Few days ago, I found this research by Jeremy, the author of Generation X Finance blog, where he compared a lump sum market investment to the dollar-cost averaging scenario, i.e. the one where you invest certain amount regularly over a decent period of time. He drew interesting and useful conclusions for investors, which I would like to retell here.

The first chart shows data on the lump sum investment of $50,000 into Vanguard 500 Index (VFINX) on April 30, 1998. In 10 years, this amount would have turned into $71,819 with an average annualized return of 3.69%.

Second chart reflects increase in assets that are invested in the same index over same 10 years at $416.67 monthly (which makes $50,000 over 120 months). Annual return is higher here, although the final return is significantly lower than that in the first scenario. Still, this chart is much smoother: evidently, this investing method allows getting more swimmingly through unstable market periods, in which lump sum investment could have dropped by $10,000 (see first chart, 2002). There’s more to it: for inflation-adjusted returns, the gap between the two narrows down to about $1,000.

It’s obvious that most investors do not have extra $50,000 to put in stocks, so we usually invest in smaller sums periodically. Applying this method of investing equal amounts in equal time intervals can protect us from the market fluctuations. It can be used with any strategy of investment (this is why I call this method, as different from strategies) and then market dips will be less painful to ordinary investors.

When the times are tough, we normally try to save on anything from our expenses. But when it comes to gas and cars, there are very few options to choose from. It’s either giving up the car, or… And this is where our resourceful compatriots share tips how to save on gas. Let me make it clear at this point: this post is not about tips, it’s about myths which those tips actually are (based on the CNN Money materials).

The most ridiculous tip-myth, IMO, is to fill the tank in the morning. Supposedly, in the morning gasoline is colder and thus denser than in warmer condition, and one gallon of cold gas would have more molecules. In fact, the temperature of gas as it comes out of the nozzle varies little in the course of day, so there is little sense it getting up early in order to drive to a gas station.

Another myth is that premium fuel allows saving. Even if premium is recommended for your car, there is little harm to it from regular gas, while your purse will appreciate it. Modern engine technologies simply adjust your car when it gets regular instead of premium, but this will not reduce your fuel economy.

The third interesting tip is regarding air-conditioner. On one hand, air-conditioning makes the engine use more fuel. But modern A/C systems are more efficient today than they used to be. In around-town driving, using the A/C will decrease fuel economy by about a mile per gallon, according to CNN Money. Meanwhile, driving at higher speeds with the windows down is much more costly. This increases aerodynamic drag, which is more of an issue. So A/C is more efficient at high speeds, and in the town, you can drive with windows rolled up and A/C off.

You can find more tip myths here, and I would like to add that you should use your car with care. Then you would save not only on gas, but also on various repairs and on purchase of a new iron horse.